MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2541549701 · doi:10.1139/cjc-2016-0296

Base sequence specificity of counterion binding to DNA: what can MD simulations tell us?

2016· article· en· W2541549701 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alessio Atzori, Sonia Liggi, Aatto Laaksonen, Alexander P. Lyubartsev, Giuseppe Saba, Francesca Mocci

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRegione Autonoma della SardegnaVetenskapsrådet
KeywordsCounterionChemistryThymineMolecular dynamicsDNASequence (biology)MoleculeBase pairIonNucleic acidCrystallographyNucleotideMacromoleculeChemical physicsComputational chemistryBiochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nucleic acids are highly charged biopolymers whose secondary structure is strongly dependent on electrostatic interactions. Solvent molecules and ions are also believed to play an important role in mediating and directing both sequence recognition and interactions with other molecules, such as proteins and a variety of ligands. Therefore, to fully understand the biological functions of DNA, it is necessary to understand the interactions with the surrounding counterions. It is well known that monovalent counterions can bind to the minor groove of DNA with consecutive sequences of four, or more, adenine and thymine (A-tracts) with relatively long residence times. However, much less is known about their binding to the backbone and to the major groove. In this work, we used molecular dynamics simulations to both investigate the interactions between the backbone and major groove of DNA and one of its physiological counterions (Na + ) and evaluate the relationship between these interactions and the nucleotide sequence. Three dodecamers, namely CGAAAATTTTCG, CGCTCTAGAGCG, and CGCGAATTCGCG, were simulated using the Toukan–Rahman flexible SPC water model and Smith and Dang parameters for Na + , revealing a significant sequence dependence on the ion binding to both backbone and major groove. In the absence of experimental data on the atomistic details of the studied interactions, the reliability of the results was evaluated performing the simulations with additional sets of potential parameters for ions and solvent, namely the Ȧqvist or the Joung and Cheatham ion parameters and the TIP3P water model. This allowed us to evaluate the results by verifying which features are preserved independently from the parameters adopted.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicDNA and Nucleic Acid ChemistryFrench-language works237,207