MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334585898 · doi:10.1021/jp507783d

Computational Investigation of Glycosylase and β-Lyase Activity Facilitated by Proline: Applications to FPG and Comparisons to hOgg1

2014· article· en· W2334585898 on OpenAlexafffund
Shahin Sowlati‐Hashjin, Stacey D. Wetmore

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry B · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsCanada Foundation for InnovationCompute Canada
KeywordsDNA glycosylaseNucleophileChemistryBifunctionalPhosphofructokinase 2LyaseStereochemistryDeoxyriboseRiboseNucleosideUracilUracil-DNA glycosylaseBase excision repairNucleobaseDNABiochemistryEnzymeDNA repairCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantum mechanical methods are used to investigate the chemical steps during the bifunctional (glycosylase and β-lyase) activity of bacterial FPG DNA glycosylase, which removes the major oxidation product (8-oxoguanine) from DNA as part of the base excision repair process. To facilitate investigation of all potential pathways, the smallest chemically relevant model is implemented, namely a modified OG nucleoside-3'-monophosphate and a truncated proline nucleophile. Potential energy surfaces are characterized with SMD-M06-2X/6-311+G(2df,2p)//PCM-B3LYP/6-31G(d) and compared to a previous study on the analogues human enzyme (hOgg1), which uses a lysine nucleophile (Kellie, J. L.; Wetmore, S. D. J. Phys. Chem. B 2012, 116, 10786-10797). Our large calculated barriers indicate that FPG must actively catalyze the three main phases of the overall reaction, namely, deglycosylation, (deoxyribose) ring-opening, and β-elimination, and provide clues about how this is achieved through comparison to accurate crystal structures. The main conclusions about key mechanistic steps hold true regardless of the nucleophile, suggesting that most major differences in the relative activity of FPG and hOgg1 are primarily due to other active site residues. Nevertheless, support for possible monofunctional (deglycosylation only) activity is only evident when lysine is the nucleophile. This finding agrees with experimental observations of monofunctional activity of hOgg1 and further supports the broadly accepted bifunctional activity of FPG.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry BSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207