Sulfur‐Aromatic Interactions: Modeling Cysteine and Methionine Binding to Tyrosinate and Histidinium Ions to Assess Their Influence on Protein Electron Transfer
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
Abstract Cys and Met interactions with aromatic residues stabilize proteins and also may alter their redox properties. We establish here how ionization of the aromatic groups may influence such interactions. Specifically, ab initio quantum mechanical calculations at the MP2(full)/6‐311++G(d,p) level of theory are performed on the gas‐phase complexes of hydrogen sulfide, methanethiol (MeSH), and dimethyl sulfide (Me 2 S), with the imidazolium and phenolate ions and their 4‐methylated forms. The S‐ligands bind the aromatic ions more tightly than the neutral species, preferentially edge‐on to imidazolium and en‐face to phenolate. Charge transfer occurs within the complexes, which will impact the redox properties of the interacting moieties. The CHARMM36 force field, calibrated using potential energy curves generated at the same level of theory, yields affinities (kcal mol −1 ) in water of −4.3 and −3.1 for MeSH‐ and Me 2 S‐imidazolium, and −2.9 and −2.1 for the phenolate complexes. En‐face binding is preferred in water, with an equilibrium S‐ring‐centroid separation of ∼4 Å, which increases to > 5 Å in Me 2 S‐phenolate. Their high gas‐phase and aqueous stability suggests that S‐aromatic‐ion complexes are an important determinant of protein behavior. Since the uncalibrated CHARMM36 force field predicts very weak S‐aromatic‐ion binding in water (−0.3 to −0.6 kcal mol −1 ) and in the gas phase, the optimized parameters should be used to obtain a reliable description of these interactions in proteins.
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