A molecular dynamics study of conformations of beta-cyclodextrin and its eight derivatives in four different solvents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the atomic level interactions and the resulting structural characteristics is required for developing beta-cyclodextrin (βCD) derivatives for pharmaceutical and other applications. The effect of four different solvents on the structures of the native βCD and its hydrophilic (methylated βCD; MEβCD and hydroxypropyl βCD; HPβCD) and hydrophobic derivatives (ethylated βCD; ETβCD) was explored using molecular dynamics (MD) simulations and solvation free energy calculations. The native βCD, 2-MEβCD, 6-MEβCD, 2,6-DMβCD, 2,3,6-TMβCD, 6-HPβCD, 2,6-HPβCD and 2,6-ETβCD in non-polar solvents (cyclohexane; CHX and octane; OCT) were stably formed in a symmetric cyclic cavity shape through their intramolecular hydrogen bonds. In contrast, βCDs in polar solvents (methanol; MeOH and water; WAT) exhibited large structural changes and fluctuations leading to significant deformations of their cavities. Hydrogen bonding with polar solvents was found to be one of the major contributors to this behavior: solvent-βCD hydrogen bonding strongly competes with intramolecular bonding leading to significant changes in the structural stability of βCDs. An exception to this is the hydrophobic 2,6-ETβCD which retained its spherical cavity in all solvents. Based on this, it is proposed that the 2,6-ETβCD can act as a sustained release drug carrier.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".