MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078993571 · doi:10.1063/1.4828437

Favorable adsorption of capped amino acids on graphene substrate driven by desolvation effect

2013· article· en· W2078993571 on OpenAlexaff
Nadiya Dragneva, Wely B. Floriano, Douglas Stauffer, Robert C. Mawhinney, Giovanni Fanchini, Oleg Rubel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGraphene and Nanomaterials Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLakehead UniversityThunder Bay Regional Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrapheneAdsorptionAmino acidContext (archaeology)Molecular dynamicsNanomaterialsMaterials scienceSubstrate (aquarium)Ab initioNanotechnologyChemistryChemical engineeringChemical physicsComputational chemistryOrganic chemistryBiochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of graphene-based nanomaterials is being explored in the context of various biomedical applications. Here, we performed a molecular dynamics simulation of individual amino acids on graphene utilizing an empirical force field potential (Amber03). The accuracy of our force field method was verified by modeling the adsorption of amino acids on graphene in vacuum. These results are in excellent agreement with those calculated using ab initio methods. Our study shows that graphene exhibits bioactive properties in spite of the fact that the interaction between graphene and amino acids in a water environment is significantly weaker as compared to that in vacuum. Furthermore, the adsorption characteristics of capped and uncapped amino acids are significantly different from each other due to the desolvation effect. Finally, we conclude that when assessing protein-surface interactions based on adsorption of single amino acids, the minimum requirement is to use capped amino acids as they mimic residues as part of a peptide chain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicGraphene and Nanomaterials ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207