Evidence of energy transfer in nanoparticle-porphyrins conjugates for radiation therapy enhancement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report progress towards combining radiation therapy (RT) and photodynamic therapy (PDT) using scintillating nanoparticle (NP)-photosensitizer conjugates. In this approach, scintillating NPs are excited by clinically relevant ionizing radiation sources and subsequently transfer energy to conjugated photosensitizers via FRET, acting as an energy mediator between ionizing radiation and photosensitizer molecules. The excited photosensitizers generate reactive oxygen species that can induce local damage and immune response. Advantages of the scheme include: 1) Compared with traditional radiation therapy, a possible decrease of the total radiation dose needed to eliminate the lesion; 2) Compared with traditional PDT, the ability to target deeper and more highly pigmented lesions; 3) The possibility of additional photosensitizing effects due to the scintillation of the nanoparticles. In this work, the photosensitizer molecule chlorin e6 was covalently bound to the surface of LaF3:Ce NPs. After conjugation, the photoluminescence intensity of NPs decreased, and fluorescence lifetime of conjugated chlorin e6 became sensitive to excitation wavelength, suggesting rapid FRET. In addition, scintillation spectra of nanoparticles were measured. Preliminary calculations suggest that the observed scintillation efficiencies are sufficient to enhance RT. In vitro cancer cell studies suggest conjugates are taken up by cells. Survival curves with radiation exposure suggest that the particles alone cause radiosensitization comparable to that seen with gold nanoparticles.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".