MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2619588509 · doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.7b00917

Tuning the Binding Dynamics of a Guest–Octaacid Capsule through Noncovalent Anchoring

2017· article· en· W2619588509 on OpenAlexafffund
Suma S. Thomas, Hao Tang, Adam Gaudes, Signe B. Baggesen, Corinne L. D. Gibb, Bruce C. Gibb, Cornelia Bohne

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSupramolecular Chemistry and Complexes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCavitandChemistryPyreneDissociation (chemistry)SubstituentCapsuleMolecular dynamicsNon-covalent interactionsHydroxymethylDissociation constantStereochemistryComputational chemistryCrystallographyMoleculeOrganic chemistryHydrogen bondCrystal structureSupramolecular chemistryReceptorBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydrophobic or hydrophilic substituents have different effects on the binding dynamics of pyrene derivatives with a 2:1 capsule formed from two octaacid cavitands, showing a subtle interplay of different kinetic factors. Anchoring of the methyl group of 1-methylpyrene within one cavitand slowed the association and dissociation dynamics of the 1:1 complex by at least 1000 times when compared to the 1:1 complex for pyrene. This slow down for the transient formation of the 1:1 complex is responsible for the overall increase in stability of the 2:1 complex without affecting the overall capsule dissociation. For 1-pyrenemethanol, its residence time in the 2:1 capsule is shorter compared to that of pyrene despite both guests having similar equilibrium constants for the binding of the second cavitand, suggesting that the hydroxymethyl substituent close to the equatorial region of the capsule can interact with water during the partial opening of the capsule.

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 score0.621

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry LettersSame topicSupramolecular Chemistry and ComplexesFrench-language works237,207