Molecular Dynamics Study of Chiral Recognition for the Whelk-O1 Chiral Stationary Phase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we examine the docking of 10 analytes on the Whelk-O1 stationary phase. A proper representation of analyte flexibility is essential in the docking analysis, and analyte force fields have been developed from a series of B3LYP calculations. Molecular dynamics simulations of a representative Whelk-O1 interface, in the presence of racemic analyte and solvent, form the basis of the analysis of chiral selectivity. The most probable docking arrangements are identified, the energy changes upon docking are evaluated, and separation factors are predicted. From comparisons between the analytes, the mechanism of chiral selectivity is divided into contributions from hydrogen bonding, ring-ring interactions, steric hindrance, and molecular flexibility. We find that both hydrogen bonding and ring-ring interactions are necessary to localize the analyte within the Whelk-O1 cleft region. We also identify one docking mechanism that is often dominant and analyze the conditions that lead to alternate docking modes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".