Investigation of the reactivity difference between thioglycoside donors with variant aglycon parts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reactivity of perbenzoylated thioglycosides with various thiol aglycons has been compared and quantified using competitive glycosylation experiments. Methyl 2,3,4-tri-O-benzyl-α-D-glucopyranoside was employed as acceptor and DMTST as a promoter. The reactivity was found, as expected, to depend on the electron donating properties of the aglycon. Hence, the most reactive donor, the cyclohexyl thioglycoside, was found to be about three times as reactive as the thioethyl glycoside, which in turn was twice as reactive as the thiomethyl donor. The thiophenyl donor was even less reactive, whereas p-halophenyl donors were inert under the glycosylation conditions used but could be activated using NISTfOH as promoter. Furthermore, it was found that galactosyl donors were three to four times more reactive than the corresponding glucosyl derivative. These results allowed the design of an orthogonal coupling between thioglycosides with the same protecting groups (benzoyls) but with different thiol aglycons. Key words: thioglycosides, orthogonal glycosylations, competititive glycosylations.
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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".