Synthetic Polymers as Antibacterial and Antiviral Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synthetic polymers have unique properties as antibacterial and antiviral agents due to their buffering effect for endosomal escape, high molecular weight, function, and tunable architecture. Synthetic polymers are also being used as a carrier for antiviral agents in order to reduce their minimum dose, bioavailability, and therapeutic effectiveness. One approach is to design polymers that can bind to and inhibit viral proteins, preventing viral replication and spread. Polyamidoamine dendrimers have been shown to inhibit the entry of HIV into cells by binding to the viral envelope protein. Another approach is to modify the surface of the polymer to create a physical barrier that prevents viral attachment and entry into host cells. Synthetic polymers are used to inhibit viral infections directly or indirectly as multifunctional nanomaterials. The multifunctional polymers are capable of interacting directly with the envelope glycoproteins that are on the viral surface, thereby preventing fusion and entry of the virus into the host cell. Also, synthetic polymers can indirectly mobilize the immune system against the invading virus through the activation of macrophages and natural killer cells within the cells. Finally, in this chapter, synthetic polymers, advantages and disadvantages, a comparison of synthetic polymers with natural polymers, and the communication mechanism between synthetic polymers and biomolecules were discussed. Also, the mechanism of antibacterial and antiviral agents, and synthetic polymers as antibacterial and antiviral agents were evaluated. Thus, the development of synthetic polymers as antibacterial and antiviral agents is still in its early stages, but it offers a promising avenue for combating viral infections and reducing the burden of antibacterial and viral diseases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".