Chiral recognition for the complexation dynamics of β-cyclodextrin with the enantiomers of 2-naphthyl-1-ethanol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The focus of this study is to understand the origin of the chiral recognition for a host-guest system containing complexes with different stoichiometries. Each enantiomer of 2-naphthyl-1-ethanol forms two different 1 : 1 complexes with β-cyclodextrin, leading to the formation of three different 2 : 2 complexes. One of these 2 : 2 complexes leads to excimer emission of the guest. Fluorescence studies were employed to determine the binding isotherms for the 1 : 1 and 2 : 2 complexes. No chiral discrimination was directly observed for the formation of the 1 : 1 complexes, while higher equilibrium constants (29% from binding isotherms and 40% from kinetic studies) were observed for the formation of the 2 : 2 complexes with (R)-2-naphthyl-1-ethanol when compared to the formation of the 2 : 2 complexes formed from (S)-2-naphthyl-1-ethanol. The relaxation kinetics was studied using stopped-flow experiments. The formation of the 2 : 2 complexes was followed by detecting the excimer emission from one of the 2 : 2 complexes. The relaxation kinetics was faster for (S)-2-naphthyl-1-ethanol, where a higher dissociation rate constant, by 47%, was observed, suggesting that the chiral discrimination occurs because the interaction between two cyclodextrins is more favorable for the complexes containing (R)-2-naphthyl-1-ethanol when compared to (S)-2-naphthyl-1-ethanol. The same overall equilibrium constants were observed for the 1 : 1 complexes with both enantiomers showing that at a given cyclodextrin concentration the sum of the two types of 1 : 1 complexes is the same for both enantiomers. However, analysis of the binding isotherms indicates that the ratio between the two different 1 : 1 complexes for each enantiomer was different for (R)- and (S)-2-naphthyl-1-ethanol.
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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".