DNA Interaction with Antitumor Polyamine Analogues: A Comparison with Biogenic Polyamines
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biogenic polyamines, putrescine, spermidine, and spermine, are ubiquitous cellular cations and exert multiple biological functions. Polyamine analogues mimic biogenic polyamines at macromolecular level but are unable to substitute for natural polyamines and maintain cell proliferation, indicating biomedical applications. The mechanistic differences in DNA binding mode between natural and synthetic polyamines have not been explored. The aim of this study was to examine the interaction of calf thymus DNA with three polyamine analogues, 1,11-diamino-4,8-diazaundecane (333), 3,7,11,15-tetrazaheptadecane x 4 HCl (BE-333), and 3,7,11,15,19-pentazahenicosane x 5 HCl (BE-3333), using FTIR, UV-visible, and CD spectroscopy. Polyamine analogues bind with guanine and backbone PO2 group as major targets in DNA, whereas biogenic polyamines bind to major and minor grooves as well as to phosphate groups. Weaker interaction with DNA was observed for analogues with respect to biogenic polyamines, with K(333) = 1.90 (+/-0.5) x 10(4) M(-1), K(BE-333) = 6.4 (+/-1.7) x 10(4) M(-1), K(BE-3333) = 4.7 (+/-1.4) x 10(4) M(-1) compared to K(Spm) = 2.3 (+/-1.1) x 10(5) M(-1), K(Spd) = 1.4 (+/-0.6) x 10(5) M(-1), and K(Put) = 1.02 (+/-0.5) x 10(5) M(-1). A partial B- to A-DNA transition was also provoked by analogues. These data suggest distinct differences in the binding of natural and synthetic polyamines with DNA.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it