Stimuli‐responsive cationic terpolymers by RAFT polymerization: Synthesis, characterization, and protein interaction studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The controlled synthesis and characterization of a range of stimuli responsive cationic terpolymers containing varying amounts of N‐isopropylacrylamide (NIPAM), 3‐(methylacryloylamino)propyl trimethylammonium chloride (MAPTAC), and poly(ethylene glycol)monomethyl methacrylate (PEGMA) is presented. The terpolymers were synthesized using reversible addition‐fragmentation chain transfer (RAFT) polymerization. Compositions of the terpolymers determined using 1H NMR were in close agreement to the theoretical values determined from the monomer feed ratios. GPC‐MALLS was used to analyze the molecular weight characteristics of the polymers, which were found to have low polydispersities (Mw/Mn 1.1–1.4). The phase transitions were studied as a function of PEGMA and NIPAM content using temperature controlled 1H NMR and turbidity measurements (UV‐Vis). The relationship between thermal stability and the comonomer ratio of the polymers was measured using thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). Protein interaction studies were performed to determine the suitability of the polymers for biological applications. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part A: Polym Chem 46: 4021–4029, 2008
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".