Differences in human phospholipid transfer protein activity following incubation of Fungizone® compared to lipid-based Amphotericin-B formulations in normolipidemic and hyperlipidemic plasma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate how different formulations of Amphotericin-B (Amp-B) affect the activity of phospholipid transfer protein (PLTP) when incubated with hyperlipidemic and normolipidemic plasma at physiological temperature (37 degrees C). METHODS: Six hyperlipidemic and six normolipidemic plasma samples were collected and tested for protein concentration. Equivalent protein levels (25 microg) were then tested for PLTP activity using an in vitro established kit at physiological temperature (37 degrees C). Increasing concentrations of different Amp-B formulations (1, 2, and 5 microg/mL) in the pharmacological range were then added to the plasma and tested for activity from 5 to 90 minutes. The Amp-B formulations used in the study were Fungizone, Abelcet, and AmBisome. RESULTS: In normolipidemic plasma, PLTP activity was found to be increased by Abelcet and AmBisome but inhibited by Fungizone. In hyperlipidemic plasma, PLTP activity was found to be increased by Abelcet and AmBisome but not changed by Fungizone. The Vm value for Abelcet and AmBisome was higher than Fungizone(; although, no difference was observed in the Km values between formulations. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that lipid-based formulations of Amp-B promote the transfer of Amp-B into high-density lipoprotein fractions at a degree of increase inversely proportional to the lipid levels in the plasma.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".