MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986376110 · doi:10.1002/qua.26059

Hydrolytic deamination reactions of amidine and nucleobase derivatives

2019· article· en· W2986376110 on OpenAlexaff
Kabir M. Uddin, Ahmad I. Alrawashdeh, David J. Henry, Peter L. Warburton, Raymond A. Poirier

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Quantum Chemistry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmidineDeaminationNucleobaseChemistryPolarizable continuum modelComputational chemistryStereochemistryOrganic chemistryMoleculeDNAEnzymeSolvationBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Amidines share the same NC─N building framework with many essential biochemical substances. In this work, we present a comparative mechanistic study on the deamination reactions of 19 amidine and nucleobase derivatives by the use of density functional theory. All the computations are performed at the B3LYP/6‐31G(d,p) level in the gas phase and with the polarizable continuum model (PCM). Mechanisms of 2‐ and 3‐step pathways including six‐ or eight‐membered ring transition states were explored. Our results show that the overall activation energies for the deamination of amidine derivatives are close to those of nucleobase derivatives of the saturated C5─C6 bond, and lower than those of nucleobase derivatives of the unsaturated C5─C6 bond, while purine derivatives have the highest activation energies among all the derivatives studied. The 3‐step mechanism gives results that are more consistent with the available experimental data than the 2‐step mechanism. Based on the results of our current and previous work, we believe that the 3‐step mechanism is the most likely mechanism for the hydrolytic deamination reactions of amidine and nucleobase derivatives.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.254 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Quantum ChemistrySame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207