Effect of liposomal confinement on photothermal and photo-oximetric fluorescence lifetimes of photosensitizers with varying hydrophilicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The time-resolved fluorescence of photosensitizers (PSs) of varying hydrophobicities, di-and tetrasulfonated Al phthalocyanines (Al-2 and Al-4), and Photochlor (HPPH), was investigated in liposomes used as cell-mimetic models. Using frequency-and time-domain apparatus, the fluorescence lifetime, tau(fluo), was compared for PSs free in aqueous solution and in a liposome-associated state at varied temperatures (25 to 78 degrees C) and oxygen concentrations (0-190 microM). The analysis of tau(fluo) revealed different decay behaviors for the free-solution and liposome-confined PSs, most significantly for the lipophilic HPPH. Hydrophilic PS drugs (Al-4, Al-2) were less affected by the liposomal confinement, depending on the relative hydrophilicity of the compound and the consequent localization in liposomes. Changes in the emission decay due to confinement were detected as differences in the lifetime between the bulk solution and the liposome-localized PS in response to heating and deoxygenation. Specifically, hydrophilic Al-4 produced an identical lifetime trend as a function of temperature both in solu and in a liposome-confined state. Hydrophobic HPPH exhibited a fundamental transformation in its fluorescence decay kinetics, transitioning from a multiexponential (in free solution) to single-exponential (in liposome) decay. Deoxygenation resulted in a ubiquitous tau(fluo) increase for all PSs in free solution, while the opposite, a tau(fluo) decrease, occurred in all liposomal PSs.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".