Effect of sonication and serum proteins on copper release from copper nanoparticles and the toxicity towards lung epithelial cells
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
Abstract Different methodological settings can influence particle characteristics and toxicity in nanotoxicology. The aim of this study was to investigate how serum proteins and sonication of Cu nanoparticle suspensions influence the properties of the nanoparticles and toxicological responses on human lung epithelial cells. This was investigated by using methods for particle characterization (photon correlation spectroscopy and TEM) and Cu release (atomic absorption spectroscopy) in combination with assays for analyzing cell toxicity (MTT-, trypan blue- and Comet assay). The results showed that sonication of Cu nanoparticles caused decreased cell viability and increased Cu release compared to non-sonicated particles. Furthermore, serum in the cell medium resulted in less particle agglomeration and increased Cu release compared with medium without serum, but no clear difference in toxicity was detected. Few cells showed intracellular Cu nanoparticles due to fast release/dissolution processes of Cu. In conclusion; sonication can affect the toxicity of nanoparticles.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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