ArticleJournal of molecular modeling2012
Molecular electrostatic potentials of DNA base-base pairing and mispairing.
Article in Journal of molecular modeling, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A quantum crystallographic approach to short hydrogen bonds.CrystEngComm · 2021Article
- Sigma-holes from iso-molecular electrostatic potential surfaces.Journal of molecular modeling · 2019Article
- How Does MgBiophysical journal · 2017Article
- Self-assembly of DNA on a gapped carbon nanotube.Journal of molecular modeling · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An understanding of why adenine (A) pairs with thymine (T) and cytosine (C) with guanine (G) in DNA is very useful in the design of sensors and other related devices. We report the use of dissociation energies, geometries and molecular electrostatic potentials (MEPs) to justify the canonical (AT and CG) Watson-Crick pairs. We also analyze all mismatches in both configurations-cis and trans-with respect to their glycoside bonds. As expected, we found that the most stable pair configuration corresponds to CG, providing an energy criterion for that preferred configuration. The reason why A gets together with T is much more difficult to explain as the energy of this pair is smaller than the energy of some other mismatched pairs. We tested MEPs to see if they could shed light on this problem. Interestingly, MEPs yield a unique pattern (shape) for the two canonical cases but different shapes for the mismatches. A tunnel of positive potential surrounded by a negative one is found interconnecting the three H-bonds of CG and the two of AT. This MEP tunnel, assisted partially by energetics and geometrical criteria, unambiguously determine a distinctive feature of the affinity between A and T as well as that between G and C.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21625905What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.