MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Immunoadjuvant activity of the nanoparticles’ surface modified with mannan

2014· article· en· W2086250217 on OpenAlexaff
Azita Haddadi, Samar Hamdy, Zahra Ghotbi, John Samuel, Afsaneh Lavasanifar

Bibliographic record

VenueNanotechnology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunotherapy and Immune Responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunoadjuvantPLGAImmunogenicityMannanMaterials scienceMannose receptorNanoparticleDendritic cellConjugated systemBiophysicsImmune systemIn vitroNanotechnologyChemistryBiochemistryPolysaccharideBiologyImmunologyPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mannan (MN) is the natural ligand for mannose receptors, which are widely expressed on dendritic cells (DCs). The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of formulation parameters on the immunogenicity of MN-decorated poly (D, L-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) nanoparticles (NPs) in terms of their ability to stimulate DC phenotypic as well as functional maturation. For this purpose, NPs were formulated from either ester-terminated or COOH-terminated PLGA. Incorporation of MN in NPs was achieved through encapsulation, physical adsorption or chemical conjugation. Murine bone marrow derived DCs (BMDCs) were treated with various NP formulations and assessed for their ability to up-regulate DC cell surface markers, secrete immunostimulatory cytokines and to activate allogenic T cell responses. DCs treated with COOH-terminated PLGA-NPs containing chemically conjugated MN (MN-Cov-COOH) have shown superior performance in improving DC biological functions, compared to the rest of the formulations tested. This may be attributed to the higher level of MN incorporation in the former formulation. Incorporation of MN in PLGA NPs through chemical conjugation can lead to enhanced DC maturation and stimulatory function. This strategy may be used to develop more effective PLGA-based vaccine formulations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanotechnologySame topicImmunotherapy and Immune ResponsesFrench-language works237,207