Theoretical Study of the Wavelength Selection for the Photocleavage of Coumarin‐caged D‐luciferin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The equilibrium structures and optical properties of the photolabile caged luciferin, (7-diethylaminocoumarin-4-yl)methyl caged D-luciferin (DEACM-caged D-luciferin), in aqueous solution were investigated via quantum chemical calculations. The probable conformers of DEACM-caged D-luciferin were determined by potential energy curve scans and structural optimizations. We identified 40 possible conformers of DEACM-caged D-luciferin in water by comparing the Gibbs free energy of the optimized structures. Despite the difference in their structures, the conformers were similar in terms of assignments, oscillator strengths and energies of the three low-lying excited states. From the concentrations of the conformers and their oscillator strengths, we obtained a theoretical UV/Vis spectrum of DEACM-caged D-luciferin that has two main bands of shape nearly identical to the experimental UV/Vis spectrum. The absorption bands with maxima ~ 384 and 339 nm were attributed to the electronic excitations of the caged group and the luciferin moiety, respectively, by analysis of the theoretical UV/Vis spectrum. Furthermore, the analysis showed that DEACM-caged D-luciferin is excited in the caged group only by light of wavelength ranging within 400-430 nm, which is in the long-wavelength tail of the 384 nm band. This should be tested to lower damage upon photocleavage.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".