136 Dendritic Alkyl Chains on DNA Cages: A Geometry-Dependent<i>Inter</i>- or<i>Intra</i>molecular “Handshake”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The selective association of hydrophobic sidechains is a strong determinant of protein organization. We have observed a parallel mode of assembly in DNA nanotechnology. Firstly, dendritic DNA amphiphiles (D-DNA) were synthesized (Carneiro, Aldaye, & Sleiman, 2009) comprising an addressable oligonucleotide portion and a hydrophobic alkyl dendron at the 5’ terminus. DNA amphiphiles have gathered interest recently as they can self-assemble in aqueous media to form well defined micelles while also retaining the ability to hybridize to their complement (Kwak & Herrmann, 2011; Patwa, et al. 2011) Two variations of alkyl D-DNA were hybridized to the single-stranded edges of a DNA cube (McLaughlin, et al., 2012). It was found that anisotropic organization of these hydrophobic domains on the 3D scaffold results in a new set of assembly rules, dependent on spatial orientation, number, and chemical identity of the D-DNA on the cubic structure (Edwardson. et al. 2012). When four amphiphiles are organized on one cube face, the hydrophobic residues engage in an intermolecular “handshake” between two cubes, resulting in a dimer. When eight amphiphiles are organized on the top and bottom faces of the cube, they engage in a “handshake” inside the cube. Combining the highly specific recognition of the oligonucleotide sequence with the orthogonal association of hydrophobic moieties can lead to a variety of structures with such diverse applications as membrane anchoring, cell uptake, directed hydrophobic assembly, and encapsulation and release of small molecules.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".