Evaluation of Biocompatibility of the AC8 Peptide and Its Potential Use as a Drug Carrier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peptide-based nanoparticles have emerged as promising drug delivery systems for targeted cancer therapy. Yet, the biocompatibility of these nanoparticles has not been elucidated. Here, the in vitro biocompatibility and toxicity and in vivo immunocompatibility and bioactivity of the self/coassembling peptide AC8 in its nanoparticle form are evaluated. AC8 showed minimal hemolytic activity (5%) and did not cause aggregation of red blood cells. The in vitro assay revealed that AC8 did not activate the complement system via the classical or alternative pathway but did activate the lectin pathway to a small extent. However, AC8 showed no C3a and C5a anaphylotoxin activation suggesting that complement activation did not proceed to the later, inflammatory, stages. The in vivo immune response assay showed that administration of AC8 to BALB/c mice had no effect on the weight of immune organs or body weight of mice at doses less than 0.1 mg/kg. This peptide also did not have any effect on the expression of CD3+ T-cells and natural killer (NK) cells, the ratio of CD4+/CD8+ T-cell, and the proliferation of B-cells. These results suggest that AC8 can be a potential carrier candidate for drug delivery.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".