Cross Sections for Low-Energy (10 – 50 eV) Electron Damage to DNA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report direct measurements of the formation of single-, double- and multiple strand breaks in pure plasmid DNA as a function of exposure to 10-50 eV electrons. The effective cross sections to produce these different types of DNA strand breaks were determined and were found to range from approximately 10(-17) to 3 x 10(-15) cm(2). The total effective cross section and the effective range for destruction of supercoiled DNA extend from 3.4 to 4.4 x 10(-15) cm(2) and 12 to 14 nm, respectively, over the range 10-50 eV. The variation of the effective cross sections with electron energy is discussed in terms of the electron's inelastic mean free path, penetration depth, and dissociation mechanisms, including resonant electron capture; the latter is found to dominate the effective cross sections for single- and double-strand breaks at 10 eV. The most striking observations are that (1) supercoiled DNA is approximately one order of magnitude more sensitive to the formation of double-strand breaks by low-energy electrons than is relaxed circular DNA, and (2) the dependence of the effective cross sections on the incident electron energy is unrelated to the corresponding ionization cross sections. This finding suggests that the traditional notion that radiobiological damage is related to the number of ionization events would not apply at very low energies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".