Additive Action of Two or More Solutes on Lipid Membranes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A wide variety of biological processes, pharmaceutical applications, and technical procedures is based on the combined action of two or more soluble compounds to perturb, permeabilize, or lyse biological membranes. Here we present a general model describing the additive action of solutes on the properties of membranes or micelles. The onset and completion of membrane solubilization induced by two surfactants (lauryl maltoside, with nonyl maltoside, octyl glucoside, or CHAPS, respectively) are very well described by our model on the basis of their individual partition coefficients, cmc's, and critical mole ratios R e sat and R e sol as detected by isothermal titration calorimetry. This suggests that the thermodynamic phase transition is governed by a single parameter (e.g., spontaneous curvature) in spite of the complexity of structural changes. Such surfactant mixtures show unique features such as nonlinear solubilization boundaries and concentration-dependent effective partition coefficients. Other phenomena such as membrane leakage are predicted to obey additive action if the solutes act via the same mechanism (e.g., toroidal pore formation) but deviate from the model in the case of independent, synergistic, or antagonistic action.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".