Dopamine delivery systems based on C<sub>60</sub> and C<sub>24</sub> with B and N as substituents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two different options as potential dopamine delivery systems were investigated in this study: fullerene C 60 - and C 24 -like structures. The systems being investigated include C 60 , C 59 X, C 58 X 2 , C 24 , C 23 X, and C 22 X 2 (X represents B or N). Electron donor acceptor capacity and interaction energies were reported. Systems with one B are better electron acceptors than those with one N. The interaction of compounds containing B with dopamine is more favorable than the interaction of systems containing N. For a dopamine delivery system, at least two conditions are necessary. The first is the stability of the carrier-dopamine compound. This condition is fulfilled because C 60 -based heterofullerenes with B and dopamine form stable structures. Also, dopamine with C 24 -based structures containing B or N form stable structures. The second is that the interaction energy should be lower than the energy that binds dopamine to the receptor. Systems that fulfill the second condition include C 60 and C 58 B 2 . The other systems present interaction energies that exceed 40 kcal/mol. Dopamine will bond to these systems and will most probably not be delivered at the receptor site, but these systems that interact strongly with dopamine may serve as agonists because they are good electron donors like dopamine. Systems with B could be antagonists of dopamine since they are good electron acceptors. This idea might be interesting to explore through experiments because heterofullerenes with B and dopamine might serve as antipsychotics rather than dopamine delivery systems.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".