Ask any question about EPFL courses, lectures, exercises, research, news, etc. or try the example questions below.
DISCLAIMER: The Graph Chatbot is not programmed to provide explicit or categorical answers to your questions. Rather, it transforms your questions into API requests that are distributed across the various IT services officially administered by EPFL. Its purpose is solely to collect and recommend relevant references to content that you can explore to help you answer your questions.
Supramolecular networks are abundantly present in nature and, like crystalline materials, often develop from an initial nucleation site, followed by growth based on directional interactions between components. Traditionally, the binding strength and directionality of interactions is thought to dictate nucleation and crystal growth, whereas structural flexibility favours defects. Usually, macromonomers present multiple binding sites with relative intramolecular flexibility, but the effects of such flexibility on regulating network formation have been given little attention. Here we introduce the concept of ‘interface flexibility’ and demonstrate its critical importance in the nucleation and growth of supramolecular networks. As a model system, we use trisymmetric DNA-based macromonomers, which organize into hexagonal networks through weak π–π interactions at their tips. The directional nature and low spatial tolerance of π–π interactions mean that small shifts in orientation have a large effect on effective valency. We show that too much interface flexibility disrupts network formation, regardless of affinity. Tuning the interface flexibility greatly expands the available design space for synthetic supramolecular materials. (Figure presented.)
Henrik Moodysson Rønnow, Ivica Zivkovic, Thomas La Grange, Davor Tolj, Rongrong Cai
Sylvie Roke, David Mark Wilkins, Mischa Samuel Flór
John Martin Kolinski, Ramin Kaviani