Helical Gold Nanorods as Chiral Recognition Nanostructures: A Relativistic Density Functional Theory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We establish helical gold nanorods as the first examples of chiral recognition nanostructures by examining the simple chiral molecule CClHDT adsorbed on the helical Au40 nanorod. We calculate the vibrational circular dichroism (VCD) spectra of the R and S enantiomers of CClHDT adsorbed on the R (or S) enantiomer of Au40 using relativistic density functional theory. The highest adsorption energy is found when the Cl atom of CClHDT binds to a low-coordinated Au atom at the edge of Au40. There are three adsorption modes (essentially identical in energy) corresponding to three orientations of the HDT moiety. We show that, for each adsorption mode, the VCD spectra are distinctly different for the Au40(R)-ClHDT(R) and Au40(R)-CClHDT(S) complexes, and we give a qualitative explanation for this based on the principle of chirality transfer. For comparison with the results for Au40, we calculate the VCD spectra of the R and S enantiomers of CClHDT adsorbed on the achiral Au20 tetrahedral cluster. Again, there are three adsorption modes (essentially identical in energy) corresponding to three orientations of the HDT moiety. However, we show that, for each adsorption mode, the VCD spectra are mirror symmetric but otherwise essentially identical for the Au20-CClHDT(R) and Au20-CClHDT(S) complexes. Thus, the inherent chirality of the helical Au40 nanorod is essential for its chiral recognition functionality.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".