Thermodynamic Overview of Bioconjugation Reactions Pertinent to Lysine and Cysteine Peptide and Protein Residues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bioconjugation reactions are critical to the modification of peptides and proteins, permitting the introduction of biophysical probes onto proteins as well as drugs for use in antibody-targeted medicines. A diverse set of chemical reagents can be employed in these circumstances to covalently label protein side chains, such as the amine moiety in the side chain of lysine and the thiol functionality in cysteine residues, two of the more frequently employed sites for modification. To provide researchers with a thermodynamic survey of the reaction of these residues with frequently employed chemical modification reagents as well as reactive cellular intermediates also known to modify proteins non-enzymatically, a theoretical investigation of the overall thermodynamics of models of these reactions was undertaken at the T1 and G3(MP2) thermochemical recipe levels (gas phase), the M06-2X/6-311+G(2df,2p)/B3LYP/6-31G(d) (gas and water phase), and the M06-2X/cc-PVTZ(-f)++ density functional levels of theory (water phase). Discussions of the relationship between the reagent structure and the overall thermodynamics of amine or thiol modification are presented. Of additional interest are the observations that routine cellular intermediates such as certain thioesters, acyl phosphates, and acetyl-L-carnitine can contribute to non-enzymatic protein modifications. These reactions and representative click chemistry reactions were also investigated. The computational survey presented herein (>320 reaction computations were undertaken) should serve as a valuable resource for researchers undertaking protein bioconjugation. A concluding section addresses the ability of computation to provide predictions as to the potential for protein modification by new chemical entities, with a cautionary note on protein modification side reactions that may occur when employing synthetic substrates to measure enzyme kinetic activities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".