MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416292891 · doi:10.1002/anie.202519809

Are i‐Motif Structures in DNA Compatible with Cytosine–Ag(I)–Cytosine Base Pairs?

2025· article· en· W4416292891 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Victoria Seiffert, Carmen López‐Chamorro, Catharina Erbacher, Uwe Kärst, Marian Hebenbrock, Heinz‐Bernhard Kraatz, Miguel A. Galindo, Jens Müller

Bibliographic record

VenueAngewandte Chemie International Edition · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónDeutscher Akademischer AustauschdienstDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftFonds der Chemischen Industrie
KeywordsIsothermal titration calorimetryBase pairDNABase (topology)LuminescenceSpectroscopyTitrationNuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To evaluate whether the protons of hemi‐protonated C:CH + base pairs in DNA i‐motif structures can be replaced by silver ions, an i‐motif/duplex junction (IDJ) known to be stable at pH 7 was investigated. Interestingly, only the most accessible out of five C:CH + pairs in the structure can be converted into a C–Ag I –C base pair, as was derived by 1 H NMR spectroscopy, luminescence spectroscopy, temperature‐dependent UV spectroscopy, and isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC). When more than one silver ion is present per IDJ, dynamic light scattering (DLS) and CD spectroscopy indicate that the IDJ rearranges into a larger aggregated structure, likely to contain non‐canonical silver‐mediated base pairs. The study suggests that—in contrast to earlier reports—the DNA i‐motif in general is not compatible with the formation of contiguous C–Ag I –C pairs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAngewandte Chemie International EditionSame topicDNA and Nucleic Acid ChemistryFrench-language works237,207