By Valeria Burgos Caldero
The main purpose of this article was to synthesize multi-responsive polymers that could be reversibly modified to adjust their LCST. Indeed, these researchers were able to develop a system in which multiple thiol exchanges were made, and in turn, they could determine how the thiols affected the transition temperature of the polymer. They used a copolymer containing P(TEGA) and DMMA. By performing transmission measurements at various temperatures, they concluded that as the thiol changed, the transition temperature of polymer varied depending on the resulting hydrophobicity. More polar functionalities increased the transition temperature and less polar ones decreased it. They were able to demonstrate the reversibility of the modifications since they managed to return to their original functionality after various thiol exchanges. Finally, they implemented a fluorescence signal to monitor the reaction progress. They found that thioglucose quenches the polymer’s fluorescence while making the compound soluble throughout the range of temperatures. With these findings, a wide range of possibilities were opened, since now, if you want a polymer for a specific type of function where a specific temperature response is needed, it is easily accessible by adding the corresponding thiol to the polymer solution. The mechanism of turning off the fluorescence may give access to reversible systems in aqueous conditions.
In general, I found it much simpler to prepare for this article than for the first one I presented. I feel that by doing these exercises of presenting scientific articles I have been acquiring maturity in the analysis process since it was difficult for me to understand articles in the beginning. Something that I found missing in the article is that they never explained the experimental procedure on how they achieved reversibility after adding different thiols to the same sample. I liked that they used common thiols, some of which we use in our research and others that maybe we could apply. In general, the article relates a lot to the research I’m doing with Diana. It could be useful to try to see the stimuli-responsive variations in the compounds that we are synthesizing. Maybe because it is related to variations in functionalities with thiols, similar to my own research, I found it more enjoyable to prepare the discussion and understand the material in the article.
Rivera Lab at UPR 
Rating (synopsis): 5/5
Rating (figure): 4/5
Valeria discussed a simple and straightforward paper, which makes it easy for her to write a clear and straightforward synopsis. Having helped proofread this, I find little I’d change, especially considering that it is an undergrad who’s writing. I might have expanded a little more on the fluorescence aspect. It’s not a major theme in the paper, but being a simple paper, it’s easy to discuss all the details.
The figure isn’t particularly creative, but it does summarize the results very well.
Rating (synopsis): 5/5
Rating (figure): 4/5
Valeria’s comment was somewhat easy to read and in general, has all the points made in the article. I would of like to see the thiols mentioned when she addresses their polarity. For example, when she writes “more polar functionalities” she could have mentioned the specific thiols.
The image made by Valeria contains a useful summary of the thiols used and how the LCST changes by their addition. I believe that instead of “fluoresce” she should have written fluorescence and no fluorescence, but overall the figure is good.
Rating (Synopsis) 5/5
Rating (Figure) 4/5
Valeria’s comment was short and to the point explaining every aspect of the article. Valeria’s presentation was one of the first ones meaning that I didn’t remember some things but the figure and the synopsis refreshed my mind. I liked that she was able relate her article with her current research work.
The figure maybe is to simple but I liked the colors used in the figure for every thiol and it does summary the main point of the article and goes well with what she wrote in the synopsis.
Rating Synopsis 5/5
Rating Figure 4/5
I like this paper because the understanding was quite easy, however I think that Valeria’s narrative summarize really good what they performed in the article. I like that she includes the hydrophobicity tendencies. A part that I am not completely clear in the article,although I do not know if it is entirely relevant to highlight, is when the impact of molecular weight on the ensuing properties (LCST behavior) of the polymer is mentioned, although in this case they considered it negligible, how it could affect? Also I think this paper is really useful for Valeria’s team because they work a lot with those compounds, so they can try the quantities that they use in the paper as a guide for their experiments.
I think the figure is good, I think that it includes the most relevant part of the article, and it helps to know really quickly of what this article is about.
Rating (synopsis): 5/5
Rating (figure): 4/5
Valeria’s comment presents all the aspects of the article that are clearly important without drowning the reader without details. Also it moves smoothly into her take on the paper using proper language. Although I wish I would be getting more detail in the narrative, I am getting it from the image, which by itself it is not self-explanatory but, if you read the paper, it makes sense.
Rating (synopsis): 5/5
Rating (figure): 4/5
I enjoyed the simplicity of the synopsis and how she says that a wide range of possibilities are accessible by adding the corresponding thiol to the polymer solution for specific functions. She did a great job at mentioning the similarities of the paper with her ongoing research in the laboratory. In the figure, I like how she presented the different thiols and their transmissions. However, I found that by adding the boxes of fluorescence or no fluorescence confused me a little about the ”ON-to-OFF switch for fluorescence of the copolymers” but after seeing the thioglucose which is an OFF switch I see better what she is trying to say.
Rating (Synopsis): 5/5
Rating (Figure): 3/5
I liked Valeria’s synopsis and how she summarized the main points of the article in the first paragraph and included more of a “perspective” on the article in the second paragraph. Valeria makes a great point when she says that she’s acquired more maturity in interpreting scientific data with every paper that she reads, as I’ve also felt that way during my time in the lab.
Valeria’s TOC figure includes more of the results of the article that the published TOC figure does, but I don’t think it portrays an overview of what the paper’s about since it mostly just presents results and not an idea.