Improved transfection efficiency of chitosan‐DNA complexes employing reverse transfection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The present study was designed to systematically compare the conventional and reverse transfection methodologies for chitosan/DNA complexes using a low molecular weight (MW) chitosan. The hydrodynamic diameter of the complexes, measured by Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS) was found to be ∼ 216 nm and TEM investigations showed spherical and compact complexes with an average size of 200 nm. The transfection efficiency of chitosan using the two methodologies was assessed by employing reporter gene coding for green fluorescent protein (GFP) and luciferase. More than 50% of HEK 293 cells were transfected when transfection done using reverse transfection strategy at pH 6.5 with 10% serum for 24 h followed by media replenishment with pH 7.4 with 10% serum for an additional 24 h period. Also, the cytotoxicity of chitosan/DNA complexes was also considerably lower than the commercially available transfection reagent lipofectamine. Our investigation concludes that maximal transgene expression levels could be achieved using reverse transfection where the chitosan/DNA complexes are pre‐incubated on the plate surface followed by plating of cells at pH 6.5 with 10% serum for 24h and media resupplemented with pH 7.4 with 10% serum for an additional 24 h period. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2012
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".