MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131445487 · doi:10.1021/jp400873t

Surface Plasmon Resonance Determination of the Binding Mechanisms of <scp>l</scp>-Cysteine and Mercaptoundecanoic Acid on Gold

2013· article· en· W2131445487 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy Tawil, Ali Hatef, E. Sacher, Mathieu Maisonneuve, Thomas Gervais, Rosemonde Mandeville, Michel Meunier

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry C · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMolecular Junctions and Nanostructures
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalBioPhage Pharma (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonolayerCysteinePhysisorptionSurface plasmon resonanceChemistryAdsorptionThiolResonance (particle physics)Langmuir adsorption modelLangmuirKineticsAmino acidMoleculeSelf-assembled monolayerCrystallographyInorganic chemistryStereochemistryOrganic chemistryNanotechnologyMaterials scienceBiochemistryNanoparticle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surface plasmon resonance was used for the real-time monitoring of the formation of self-assembled monolayers of l -cysteine and 11-mercaptoundecanoic acid (MUA) on gold surfaces. We provide comparative details on the kinetics of the assembly of short thiols with multiple functional groups, as opposed to longer alkanethiols with fewer functional groups. Our results indicate that the adsorption of l -cysteine is a rapid process, involving both amino- and thiol-Au interactions, followed by the exchange of amino-Au to thiol-Au species and the physisorption of a second cysteine layer. The formation of MUA is also rapid, followed by a slower structural rearrangement of the monolayer. We find that monolayer formation, for both l -cysteine and MUA, is described by the Langmuir isotherm at low concentrations only. Numerical models are introduced to describe the assembly of both higher and lower concentrations of thiolated molecules on gold.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry CSame topicMolecular Junctions and NanostructuresFrench-language works237,207