Arborescent polypeptides from γ-benzyl <scp>l</scp>-glutamic acid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The synthesis of arborescent polymers with poly(γ-benzyl L-glutamate) (PBG) side chains was achieved through successive grafting reactions. The linear PBG building blocks were produced by the ring-opening polymerization of γ-benzyl L-glutamic acid N-carboxyanhydride initiated with n-hexylamine. The polymerization conditions were optimized to minimize the loss of amino chain termini in the reaction. Acidolysis of a fraction of the benzyl groups on a linear PBG substrate and coupling with linear PBG using a carbodiimide/hydroxybenzotriazole promoter system yielded a comb-branched or generation zero (G0) arborescent PBG. Further partial deprotection and grafting cycles led to arborescent PBG of generations G1 to G3. The solvent used in the coupling reaction had a dramatic influence on the yield of graft polymers of generations G1 and above, dimethylsulfoxide being preferable to N,N-dimethylformamide. This grafting onto scheme yielded well-defined (Mw/Mn ≤ 1.06), high molecular weight arborescent PBG in a few reaction cycles, with number-average molecular weights and branching functionalities reaching over 106 and 290, respectively, for the G3 polymer. α-Helix to coiled conformation transitions were observed from N,N-dimethylformamide to dimethyl sulfoxide solutions, even for the highly branched polymers. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2013, 51, 5270–5279
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".