Table 2.
Comparison of thermodynamic impacts for: (A) single abasic damaged relative to the Watson‐Crick parent duplex; (B) bistrand abasic damaged relative to the Watson‐Crick parent duplex; (C) bistrand abasic relative to bottom strand‐damaged duplex; (D) bistrand abasic relative to top strand‐damaged duplex
| Acronym | ΔT m (°C) | ΔΔH° (kcal mol−1) | ΔTΔS° (kcal mol−1) | ΔΔG° (kcal mol−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single Abasic Relative to Parent Duplex | ||||
| FCC/GGG | −16.5 | −11.5 | −5.7 | −5.8 |
| CFC/GGG | −17.0 | −18.3 | −11.8 | −6.5 |
| CCF/GGG | −16.9 | −16.4 | −10.2 | −6.2 |
| CCC/GFG | −16.9 | −19.9 | −13.4 | −6.5 |
| Bistrand Abasic Relative to Parent Duplex | ||||
| FCC/GFG | −16.3 | −31.3 | −24.2 | −7.1 |
| CFC/GFG | −18.8 | −19.7 | −12.6 | −7.1 |
| CCF/GFG | −20.3 | −36.5 | −28.3 | −8.2 |
| Bistrand Abasic Relative to Bottom Strand Damaged Abasic Site | ||||
| FCC/GFG | +0.6 | −11.4 | −10.8 | −0.6 |
| CFC/GFG | −1.9 | +0.2 | +0.8 | −0.6 |
| CCF/GFG | −3.4 | −16.6 | −14.9 | −1.7 |
| Bistrand Abasic Relative to Top Strand Damaged Abasic Site | ||||
| FCC/GFG | +0.2 | −19.8 | −18.5 | −1.3 |
| CFC/GFG | −1.8 | −1.4 | −0.8 | −0.6 |
| CCF/GFG | −3.4 | −20.1 | −18.1 | −2.0 |