DNA base sequence effects on bulky lesion-induced conformational heterogeneity during DNA replication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4-Aminobiphenyl (ABP) and its structure analog 2-aminofluorene (AF) are well-known carcinogens. In the present work, an unusual sequence effect in the 5'-CTTCTG1G2TCCTCATTC-3' DNA duplex is reported for ABP- and AF-modified G. Specifically, the ABP modification at G1 resulted in a mixture of 67% major groove B-type (B) and 33% stacked (S) conformers, while at the ABP modification at G2 exclusively resulted in the B-conformer. The AF modification at G1 and G2 lead to 25%:75% and 83%:17% B:S population ratios, respectively. These differences in preferred conformation are due to an interplay between stabilizing (hydrogen bonding and stacking that is enhanced by lesion planarity) and destabilizing (solvent exposure) forces at the lesion site. Furthermore, while the B-conformer is a thermodynamic stabilizer and the S-conformer is a destabilizer in duplex settings, the situation is reversed at the single strands/double strands (ss/ds) junction. Specifically, the twisted biphenyl is a better stacker at the ss/ds junction than the coplanar AF. Therefore, the ABP modification leads to a stronger strand binding affinity of the ss/ds junction than the AF modification. Overall, the current work provides conformational insights into the role of sequence and lesion effects in modulating DNA replication.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".