MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380576802 · doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.3c01041

DNA Protection against Damages Induced by Low-Energy Electrons: Absolute Cross Sections for Arginine–DNA Complexes

2023· article· en· W4380576802 on OpenAlexafffund
Xuran Wang, Hong Liao, Wenhui Liu, Yu Shao, Yi Zheng, Léon Sanche

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDNA damageHistoneDNAIrradiationElectronBiophysicsChemistryRadiation damageArginineRadiationMolecular biologyBiologyBiochemistryPhysicsOpticsAmino acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Histone proteins protect cellular DNA from radiation damage. We find that arginine, a major component of histone proteins, protects DNA from lesions induced by low-energy secondary electrons generated by radiation. Thin films of 7 ± 2, 12 ± 4, and 17 ± 4 nm thicknesses containing arginine–plasmid–DNA complexes in molar ratio of [Arg 2+ ]/[PO 4 – ] = 16 are irradiated in vacuum with 5 and 10 eV electrons. Damage yields are measured for base damages, cross-links, single-strand breaks (SSBs), double-strand breaks, and other clustered lesions. Most damage results from dissociative electron attachment. Absolute cross sections (ACSs) for all damage types are extracted from yields at different film thicknesses. Compared with bare DNA, these ACSs are reduced by factors of up to 4.4 in Arg–DNA complexes. SSB protection is the highest. Potentially lethal cluster lesions decrease by factors of up to 2.2. ACSs are critical input parameters in modeling radiation-induced damage and assessing protection factors under simulated cellular conditions.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry LettersSame topicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207