Mechanism Underlying the Nucleobase-Distinguishing Ability of Benzopyridopyrimidine (BPP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Benzopyridopyrimidine (BPP) is a fluorescent nucleobase analogue capable of forming base pairs with adenine (A) and guanine (G) at different sites. When incorporated into oligodeoxynucleotides, it is capable of differentiating between the two purine nucleobases by virtue of the fact that its fluorescence is largely quenched when it is base-paired to guanine, whereas base-pairing to adenine causes only a slight reduction of the fluorescence quantum yield. In the present article, the photophysics of BPP is investigated through computer simulations. BPP is found to be a good charge acceptor, as demonstrated by its positive and appreciably large electron affinity. The selective quenching process is attributed to charge transfer (CT) from the purine nucleobase, which is predicted to be efficient in the BPP-G base pair, but essentially inoperative in the BPP-A base pair. The CT process owes its high selectivity to a combination of two factors: the ionization potential of guanine is lower than that of adenine, and less obviously, the site occupied by guanine enables a greater stabilization of the CT state through electrostatic interactions than the one occupied by adenine. The case of BPP illustrates that molecular recognition via hydrogen bonding can enhance the selectivity of photoinduced CT processes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".