MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2624146956 · doi:10.1039/c7cp02576a

How do hydrophobic nucleobases differ from natural DNA nucleobases? Comparison of structural features and duplex properties from QM calculations and MD simulations

2017· article· en· W2624146956 on OpenAlexafffund
Indu Negi, Preetleen Kathuria, Purshotam Sharma, Stacey D. Wetmore

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Chemistry Chemical Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Canadian institutionsLethbridge CollegeUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsCanada Foundation for InnovationUniversity Grants Commission
KeywordsNucleobaseStackingChemistryBase pairHydrophobic effectDNAHydrogen bondCrystallographyMolecular dynamicsStereochemistryComputational chemistryMoleculeOrganic chemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computational (DFT and MD simulation) methods are employed to systematically characterize the structural and energetic properties of five hydrophobic nucleobases (FEMO, MMO2, NaM, 5SICS and TPT3) that constitute four unnatural base pairs (FEMO:5SICS, MMO2:5SICS, NaM:5SICS and TPT3:NaM). These hydrophobic bases have been recently shown to be replicated when present between natural bases in DNA duplexes, with the highest replication fidelity and efficiency occuring for the TPT3:NaM pair. Our QM calculations suggest that the preferred (anti) glycosidic orientations of nucleosides containing hydrophobic bases are similar to the natural DNA nucleosides despite differences in their chemical structures. However, due to the inability to form interbase hydrogen bonds, hydrophobic base pairs intrinsically prefer nonplanar, distorted geometries, many of which are stabilized through π-π stacking interactions. Furthermore, the intrinsic stacking potential between a hydrophobic and a natural base is similar to that between two natural bases, indicating that the strength of stacking interactions in DNA duplexes containing hydrophobic bases is likely comparable to natural DNA. However, in contrast to the isolated base-pair geometries, our MD simulations suggest that the hydrophobic base pairs adopt variable geometries within DNA, which range from stacked (5SICS:FEMO) to nearly planar (5SICS:NaM and SICS:MMO2) to planar (TPT3:NaM). As a result, the duplex structural features at the site of modification depend on the identity of the hydrophobic base pair, where the TPT3:NaM pair causes the least structural changes compared to natural DNA. Overall, the structural insight obtained from our calculations on DNA containing hydrophobic base pairs explains the experimentally-observed higher fidelity and efficiency during replication of TPT3:NaM compared to other hydrophobic nucleobase pairs. By providing valuable structural information that explains the intrinsic and duplex properties of this class of unnatural nucleobases, the present work may aid the future design of improved hydrophobic analogues.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.261
Teacher spread0.247 · 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.

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

Citations30
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Chemistry Chemical PhysicsSame topicDNA and Nucleic Acid ChemistryFrench-language works237,207