Comparative cytotoxicity of gold–doxorubicin and InP–doxorubicin conjugates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Direct comparisons of different types of nanoparticles for drug delivery have seldom been performed. In this study we compare the physical properties and cellular activity of doxorubicin (Dox) conjugates to gold nanoparticles (Au) and InP quantum dots of comparable diameter. Although the Au particles alone are non-toxic and InP is moderately toxic, Au-Dox is more effective than InP-Dox against the Dox-resistant B16 melanoma cell line. Light exposure does not augment the efficacy of InP-Dox, suggesting that conjugates are breaking down. Electron and confocal microscopy and atomic absorption spectroscopy reveal that over 60% of the Au-Dox conjugates reach the cell nucleus. In contrast, InP-Dox enters cell nuclei to a very limited extent, although liberated Dox from the conjugates does eventually reach the nucleus. These observations are attributed to faster Dox release from Au conjugates under endosomal conditions, greater aggregation of InP-Dox with cytoplasmic proteins, and adherence of InP to membranes. These findings have important implications for design of active drug-nanoparticle conjugates.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".