COMPUTATIONAL MODEL OF THE CATALYTIC CYCLE OF ORGANOSELENIUM ANTIOXIDANTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chemistry of the enzyme glutathione peroxidase and synthetic organoselenium enzyme mimics has been a significant research interest for more than three decades. In this work, the results of a computational study employing modern electronic structure methods to model the reactions of a synthetic glutathione peroxidase mimic are presented. \n\nThe ability of nine density-functional theory methods and thirteen basis sets to predict both molecular geometries and bond dissociation energies in organoselenium compounds is examined. This is used to determine the best methodology to employ for the study of glutathione peroxidase mimics.\n\nThe key reactions in the catalytic mechanism of the organoselenium antioxidant N,N-dimethyl-benzylamine-2-selenol are the focus of the remainder of the document. This is a three-step mechanism which includes many of the organic forms adopted by selenium compounds, including selenol, oxoacids, and selenylsulfides. In the first step of the cycle, the well-studied reduction of hydrogen peroxide by a selenol and a diselenide is modelled. The second step modelled is a substitution reaction at the selenium centre of a selenenic acid with a thiol. The final step discussed is the reduction of the selenium centre in a selenylsulfide, regenerating the selenol and forming a disulfide species. Each mechanism is evaluated by discussing both molecular geometries and reaction energetics. \n\nTo close the document, the peroxide reduction reaction is revisited to determine the effects of substitution on the phenyl ring of the synthetic antioxidant. This serves as a preliminary attempt to improve the antioxidant efficiency of this compound. In addition to a discussion of the changes in reaction energetics predicted, the topology of the electron density is studied using the quantum theory of atoms in molecules to better understand how the distribution of electron density is affected by substituents.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".