Characterization of the interaction between liposomal formulations and<i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interactions between three liposomal formulations and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells were evaluated by a lipid mixing assay and electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy. The effect of the bacteria on the liposomal phase characteristics, the release of the liposomes' content, and the uptake rate of gentamicin by bacteria were monitored as a function of time, using EPR spectroscopy. The [16-DSA uptake](Total) from DPPC (1,2-dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine) liposomes reached 93 +/- 12% over a 3-hour assay period, of which 9% crossed the bacterial inner membrane. A small amount of 16-DSA uptake from DPPC/Chol (cholesterol) vesicles was found throughout the 3-hour period of time. Although DPPC/DMPG (dimyristoylphosphatidylglycerol) vesicles showed a smaller value of [16-DSA uptake](Total) with respect to that of DPPC vesicles, they appeared to be effective in disrupting the bacterial membrane, resulting in a greater accumulation of 16-DSA inside the inner membrane. Exposure to bacteria caused the DPPC/Chol, DPPC, and DPPC/DMPG formulations to release 4.6 +/- 1.5, 17.6 +/- 1.2, and 34 +/- 3.7% of their content, respectively. Time-dependent fluid regions were developed within the vesicles when mixed with bacteria, and their growth over time depended on liposomal formulations. Incubation of gentamicin with bacteria for 3 hours resulted in 87 +/- 3% of the drug crossing the bacterial inner membrane. In conclusion, interaction between the liposome drug carriers and the bacterial cells result in vesicle fusion, disruption of the bacterial membrane, release of the liposomal content in the close vicinity of the bacteria cells, and the subsequent intracellular uptake of the released liposomal content.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it