MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2178788061 · doi:10.2147/ijn.s95245

Development of polymeric–cationic peptide composite nanoparticles, a nanoparticle-in-nanoparticle system for controlled gene delivery

2015· article· en· W2178788061 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Arvind Jain, Ashley S. Massey, Helmy Yusuf, Victoria Kett, Denise McDonald, Helen O. McCarthy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Nanomedicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Interference and Gene Delivery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgri-Food and Biosciences InstituteQueen's University
KeywordsNanoparticleMaterials scienceBiocompatibilityPolyethylene glycolPEG ratioPolylactic acidGene deliveryCationic polymerizationEthylene glycolNanotechnologyChemical engineeringComposite numberTransfectionPolymerChemistryPolymer chemistryBiochemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report the formulation of novel composite nanoparticles that combine the high transfection efficiency of cationic peptide-DNA nanoparticles with the biocompatibility and prolonged delivery of polylactic acid-polyethylene glycol (PLA-PEG). The cationic cell-penetrating peptide RALA was used to condense DNA into nanoparticles that were encapsulated within a range of PLA-PEG copolymers. The composite nanoparticles produced exhibited excellent physicochemical properties including size <200 nm and encapsulation efficiency >80%. Images of the composite nanoparticles obtained with a new transmission electron microscopy staining method revealed the peptide-DNA nanoparticles within the PLA-PEG matrix. Varying the copolymers modulated the DNA release rate >6 weeks in vitro. The best formulation was selected and was able to transfect cells while maintaining viability. The effect of transferrin-appended composite nanoparticles was also studied. Thus, we have demonstrated the manufacture of composite nanoparticles for the controlled delivery of DNA.

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)0.001
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of NanomedicineSame topicRNA Interference and Gene DeliveryFrench-language works237,207