Base Release and Modification in Solid-Phase DNA Exposed to Low-Energy Electrons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ionization generates a large number of secondary low-energy electrons (LEEs) with a most probable energy of approximately 10 eV, which can break DNA bonds by dissociative electron attachment (DEA) and lead to DNA damage. In this study, we investigated radiation damage to dry DNA induced by X rays (1.5 keV) alone on a glass substrate or X rays combined with extra LEEs (average energy of 5.8 eV) emitted from a tantalum (Ta) substrate under an atmosphere of N2 and standard ambient conditions of temperature and pressure. The targets included calf-thymus DNA and double-stranded synthetic oligonucleotides. We developed analytical methods to measure the release of non-modified DNA bases from DNA and the formation of several base modifications by LC-MS/MS with isotopic dilution for precise quantification. The results show that the yield of non-modified bases as well as base modifications increase by 20–30% when DNA is deposited on a Ta substrate compared to that on a glass substrate. The order of base release (Gua > Ade > Thy ∼ Cyt) agrees well with several theoretical studies indicating that Gua is the most susceptible site toward sugar-phosphate cleavage. The formation of DNA damage by LEEs is explained by DEA leading to the release of non-modified bases involving the initial cleavage of N1-C1′, C3′-O3′ or C5′-O5′ bonds. The yield of base modifications was lower than the release of non-modified bases. The main LEE-induced base modifications include 5,6-dihydrothymine (5,6-dHT), 5,6-dihydrouracil (5-dHU), 5-hydroxymethyluracil (5-HmU) and 5-formyluracil (5-ForU). The formation of base modifications by LEEs can be explained by DEA and cleavage of the C-H bond of the methyl group of Thy (giving 5-HmU and 5-ForU) and by secondary reactions of H atoms and hydride anions that are generated by primary LEE reactions followed by subsequent reaction with Cyt and Thy (giving 5,6-dHU and 5,6-dHT).
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".