Interaction of Fine Particles and Nanoparticles with Red Blood Cells Visualized with Advanced Microscopic Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
So far, little is known about the interaction of nanoparticles with lung cells, the entering of nanoparticles, and their transport through the blood stream to other organs. The entering and localization of different nanoparticles consisting of differing materials and of different charges were studied in human red blood cells. As these cells do not have any phagocytic receptors on their surface, and no actinmyosin system, we chose them as a model for nonphagocytic cells to study how nanoparticles penetrate cell membranes. We combined different microscopic techniques to visualize fine and nanoparticles in red blood cells: (I) fluorescent particles were analyzed by laser scanning microscopy combined with digital image restoration, (II) gold particles were analyzed by conventional transmission electron microscopy and energy filtering transmission electron microscopy, and (III) titanium dioxide particles were analyzed by energy filtering transmission electron microscopy. By using these differing microscopic techniques we were able to visualize and detect particles < or = 0.2 microm and nanoparticles in red blood cells. We found that the surface charge and the material of the particles did not influence their entering. These results suggest that particles may penetrate the red blood cell membrane by a still unknown mechanism different from phagocytosis and endocytosis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".