ArticleJournal of molecular graphics & modelling2014
Insight into the interaction between DNA bases and defective graphenes: covalent or non-covalent.
Article in Journal of molecular graphics & modelling, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interaction in Li@Fullerenes and LiNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although some metal clusters and molecules were found to more significantly bind to defective graphenes than to pristine graphenes, exhibiting chemisorptions on defective graphenes, the present investigation shows that the adsorption of DNA bases on mono- and di-vacant defective graphenes does not show much difference from that on pristine graphene, and is still dominantly driven by noncovalent interactions. In the present study the adsorptions of the nucleobases, adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine, (G), and thymine (T) on pristine and defective graphenes, are fully optimized using a hybrid-meta GGA density functional theory (DFT), M06-2X/6-31G*, and the adsorption energies are then refined with both M06-2X and B97-D/6-311++G**. Graphene is modeled as nano-clusters of C₇₂H₂₄, C₇₁H₂₄, and C₇₀H₂₄ for pristine, mono- and di-vacant defective graphenes, respectively, supplemented by a few larger ones. The result shows that guanine has the maximum adsorption energy in all of the three adsorption systems; and the sequence of the adsorption strength is G>A>T>C on the pristine and di-vacant graphene and G>T>A>C on the mono-vacant graphene. In addition, the binding energies of the DNA bases with the pristine graphene are less than the corresponding ones with di-vacant defective graphene; however, they are greater than those of mono-vacant graphene with guanine and adenine, while it is dramatic that the binding energies of mono-vacant graphene with thymine and cytosine appear larger than those of pristine graphene.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.