Nanoparticle Size and Surface Chemistry Determine Serum Protein Adsorption and Macrophage Uptake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Delivery and toxicity are critical issues facing nanomedicine research. Currently, there is limited understanding and connection between the physicochemical properties of a nanomaterial and its interactions with a physiological system. As a result, it remains unclear how to optimally synthesize and chemically modify nanomaterials for in vivo applications. It has been suggested that the physicochemical properties of a nanomaterial after synthesis, known as its "synthetic identity", are not what a cell encounters in vivo. Adsorption of blood components and interactions with phagocytes can modify the size, aggregation state, and interfacial composition of a nanomaterial, giving it a distinct "biological identity". Here, we investigate the role of size and surface chemistry in mediating serum protein adsorption to gold nanoparticles and their subsequent uptake by macrophages. Using label-free liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry, we find that over 70 different serum proteins are heterogeneously adsorbed to the surface of gold nanoparticles. The relative density of each of these adsorbed proteins depends on nanoparticle size and poly(ethylene glycol) grafting density. Variations in serum protein adsorption correlate with differences in the mechanism and efficiency of nanoparticle uptake by a macrophage cell line. Macrophages contribute to the poor efficiency of nanomaterial delivery into diseased tissues, redistribution of nanomaterials within the body, and potential toxicity. This study establishes principles for the rational design of clinically useful nanomaterials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".