Bis- and trisporphyrin bio-inspired models for bacterial antennas and photosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review presents the synthetic aspects and photophysical properties of trimeric systems constructed with a first unit consisting of a cofacial porphyrin and then of another porphyrin attached as a side arm. Two scenarios are dealt with. The first one is the case where the three chromophores are different, called donor 1–donor 2–acceptor, specifically where the cofacial fragment is composed of donor 1 and donor 2, and the side arm is the acceptor. They are considered as models for the apo-proteins used in the LH II (light harvesting device) in the purple photosynthetic bacteria. The second one is the case where the chromophores of the cofacial bisporphyrin residue are identical and are closely placed to each other for inter-ring π-interactions. The side arm is simply a mono-porphyrin, and therefore it is different. The cofacial bisporphyrin unit exhibits then similar characteristics to the special pairs located within the reaction center protein, and are designated as artificial special pairs. On the synthetic standpoint, the various pathways to access such models are presented fully exploiting the Suzuki methodology. On the photophysical side, a large emphasis will be placed on the singlet energy transfers. Cascade processes in the trimers donor 1–donor 2–acceptor are presented and each individual contributions donor 1 → donor 2; donor 2 → acceptor; donor → acceptor are addressed qualitatively and quantitatively. For the artificial special pairs flanked with an antenna, the effect of the spacer between the artificial special pair and the antenna will be discussed as well as the choice of substituents and metal demonstrating that one can reverse the orientation of the singlet energy transfer: artificial special pair → side arm or side arm → artificial special pair. Finally, the antenna effect are presented for one example of artificial special pair equipped with 6 semi-flexible dendritic antennas.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".