MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193085630 · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00401

Assessment of the Accuracy of DFT-Predicted Li<sup>+</sup>–Nucleic Acid Binding Energies

2021· article· en· W3193085630 on OpenAlexafffund
Briana T. A. Boychuk, Ye Eun Rebecca Jeong, Stacey D. Wetmore

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Theory and Computation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicChemical Synthesis and Characterization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCounterpoiseNucleic acidBinding energyNucleobaseChemistryBasis setComputational chemistryRange (aeronautics)Dispersion (optics)Density functional theoryPhysicsMaterials scienceDNAQuantum mechanicsBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding how lithium interacts with complex biosystems is crucial for uncovering the roles of this alkali metal in biology and designing extraction techniques for battery production and environmental remediation. In this light, fundamental information about Li + binding to nucleic acids is required. Herein, a new database of Li + –nucleic acid interactions is presented that contains CCSD(T)/CBS benchmark energies for all nucleobase and phosphate binding locations. Furthermore, the performance of 54 DFT functionals in combination with three triple-zeta (TZ) basis sets (6-311+G(3df,2p), aug-cc-pVTZ, and def2-TZVPP) is tested. The results identify a range of functionals across different families (B2-PLYP, PBE-QIDH, ωB97, ωB97X-D, MN15, B3PW91, B97-2, TPSS, BP86-D3(BJ), and PBE) that can accurately describe coordinated Li + –nucleic acid interactions, with the average mean percent error (AMPE) across binding positions and basis sets being below 2%. Nevertheless, only three functionals tested (B2-PLYP, PBE-QIDH, and ωB97X-D) preserve this accuracy for metal cation−π interactions, suggesting that caution is warranted when choosing a functional to describe a diverse range of Li + –nucleic acid complexes. Removal of counterpoise corrections has very little impact on the reliability of most functionals, while the effect of empirical dispersion corrections varies depending on the functional choice and interaction type. While increasing the basis set to quadruple-zeta quality had little impact on the AMPE, the accuracy of double-zeta basis sets varies with family. Importantly, DFT methods reproduce the CCSD(T)/CBS trend in the preferred binding position for a given nucleic acid component and the global trend across components (phosphate ≫ G > C ≫ A ∼ T = U), as well as the geometries of the metal–nucleic acid complexes. The overall top performing functional is PBE-QIDH, which results in deviations from CCSD(T)/CBS values as small as ∼0.1 kcal/mol for nucleobase contacts and ∼1 kcal/mol for phosphate interactions. The most accurate DFT methods identified in the present work are recommended for future investigations of lithium interactions in larger nucleic acid systems to provide insights into the biological roles of this metal and the design of novel biosensing strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical Theory and ComputationSame topicChemical Synthesis and CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207