Synthesis of Functional Polymer Brushes Containing Carbohydrate Residues in the Pyranose Form and Their Specific and Nonspecific Interactions with Proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three novel N-substituted acrylamide monomers containing different carbohydrate residues, 2'-acrylamidoethyl-α-d-mannopyranoside, 2'-acrylamidoethyl-β-d-glucopyranoside, and 2'-acrylamidoethyl-β-d-galactopyranoside, in the pyranose form were synthesized. The corresponding glycopolymer brushes were prepared on silicon substrates by surface-initiated atom transfer radical polymerization (SI-ATRP) using unprotected glycomonomers. The formation of glycopolymer brushes was well-characterized using ellipsometry, ATR-FTIR, water contact angle analysis, atomic force microscopy analysis, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. The effects of halogen, ligand, and solvent on the polymerization were thoroughly investigated. It was shown that CuCl/CuCl2/tris(2-dimethylaminoethyl)amine (Me6TREN) catalytic system with an optimized ratio of Cu(I)/Cu(II) produced glycopolymer with high molecular weight (Mn = 44-140 kDa) and relatively narrow molecular weight distribution (PDI = 1.4). The dry thickness of resulting glycopolymer brushes (10-36 nm) showed a proportional relationship with the molecular weight of free polymer generated in the solution. The grafting densities of obtained glycopolymer brushes were between 0.12 and 0.17 chains/nm(2). The grafting of glycopolymer resulted in highly hydrophilic surface layer with very low water contact angles (<10°). The glycopolymer brushes showed ultralow protein adsorption from bovine serum albumin (BSA) and fibrinogen (Fb) solutions. Glycopolymer brushes containing glucose units showed relatively better protection against BSA and Fb adsorption than those brushes containing mannose and galactose units. Synthesized glycopolymer brushes retained specific protein interactions, as evident from the interaction with Concanavalin A (Con A). The interaction of surface-grafted glycopolymer brushes with Con A depended on both the stereochemistry of carbohydrate units and the chemical structures present. In addition, the newly synthesized glycopolymer brushes performed significantly better in comparison with currently available structures in terms of specific protein interactions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".