Electronic properties of carbon nanotubes complexed with a DNA nucleotide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electronic properties of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) play an important role in their interactions with nano-structured materials. In this work, interactions of adenosine monophosphate (AMP), a DNA nucleotide, with metallic and semi-conducting CNTs are studied using the density functional tight binding (DFTB) method. The electronic structure of semi-conducting CNTs was found to be changed as they turned to metallic CNTs in a vacuum upon interaction with the nucleotide while metallic CNTs remain metallic. Specifically, the band gap of semi-conducting CNTs was decreased by 0.79 eV on average while nearly no change was found in the metallic tubes. However, our investigations showed that the presence of explicit water molecules prevents the metallicity change and only small changes in the CNT band gap occur. According to our charge analysis, the average negative charge accumulated on CNTs upon interaction with the AMP was determined to be 0.77 e in a vacuum while it was 0.03 e in solution. Therefore, it is essential to include explicit water molecules in simulating complexes formed by DNA nucleotides and CNTs which were ignored in several past studies performed using quantum mechanical approaches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".