Revealing Unexpected Mechanisms for Nucleophilic Attack on SS and SeSe Bridges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reactivity of disulfide and diselenide derivatives towards F(-) and CN(-) nucleophiles has been investigated by means of B3PW91/6-311+G(2df,p) calculations. This theoretical survey shows that these processes, in contrast with the generally accepted view of disulfide and diselenide linkages, do not always lead to SS or SeSe bond cleavage. In fact, SS or SeSe bond fission is the most favorable process only when the substituents attached to the S or the Se atoms are not very electronegative. Highly electronegative substituents (X) strongly favor SX bond fission. This significant difference in the observed reactivity patterns is directly related to the change in the nature of the LUMO orbital of the disulfide or diselenide derivative as the electronegativity of the substituents increases. For weakly electronegative substituents, the LUMO is a σ-type SS (or SeSe) antibonding orbital, but as the electronegativity of the substituents increases the π-type SX antibonding orbital stabilizes and becomes the LUMO. The observed reactivity also changes with the nature of the nucleophile and with the S or Se atom that undergoes the nucleophilic attack in asymmetric disulfides and diselenides. The activation strain model provides interesting insights into these processes. There are significant similarities between the reactivity of disulfides and diselenides, although some dissimilarities are also observed, usually related to the different interaction energies between the fragments produced in the fragmentation process.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".