MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1136500353 · doi:10.1021/acs.joc.5b01449

Accelerated Submonomer Solid-Phase Synthesis of Peptoids Incorporating Multiple Substituted <i>N</i>-Aryl Glycine Monomers

2015· article· en· W1136500353 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Caroline Proulx, Stan Yoo, Michael D. Connolly, Ronald N. Zuckermann

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Organic Chemistry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChemical Synthesis and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBasic Energy SciencesDefense Threat Reduction AgencyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDefense Advanced Research Projects Agency
KeywordsPeptoidChemistryNucleophileAnilineArylMonomerSolid-phase synthesisLeaving groupCombinatorial chemistryNucleophilic aromatic substitutionNucleophilic substitutionPolymer chemistryOrganic chemistryAlkyl

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

N-Aryl glycines are a chemically diverse class of peptoid monomers that have strong structure-inducing propensities. Yet their use has been limited due to the sluggish reactivity of the weakly nucleophilic aniline submonomers. Here, we report up to a 76-fold rate acceleration of the displacement reaction using aniline submonomers in solid-phase peptoid synthesis. This is achieved by adding halophilic silver salts to the displacement reaction, facilitating bromide abstraction and AgBr precipitation. Mechanistic insight derived from analysis of a series of 15 substituted anilines reveals that the silver-mediated reaction proceeds through a transition state that has considerably less positive charge buildup on the incoming nucleophile and an enhanced leaving group. This straightforward enhancement to the submonomer method enables the rapid room temperature synthesis of a wide variety of N-aryl glycine-rich peptoid oligomers, possessing both electron-withdrawing and -donating substituents, in good yields.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.607

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations37
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Organic ChemistrySame topicChemical Synthesis and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207