Assessment of Different Transfection Parameters in Efficiency Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Achieving optimal transfection efficiency is the most critical step in overcoming the primary obstacle to success in nonviral-mediated gene therapy. Several transfection parameters were being examined including the effects of different types of transfection media, glucose concentration, reporter DNA concentration, and incubation time in lipotransfectant. Efficiency of transfection obtained was highest for Opti-MEM I (29 +/- 2.28%; p = 0.001) followed by M199 (24 +/- 1.54%; p = 0.009), both of which performed significantly better than DMEM (14 +/- 0.28%) as a transfection medium. The rate of transfection was affected by glucose levels in only DMEM with higher efficiency achieved using low glucose containing DMEM (17 +/- 0.38%) than its counterpart. Furthermore, transfection rate and cell viability were severely hampered by lengthened exposure to transfection complexes, leading to an overall mean efficiency of 5 +/- 0.87%. However, doubling the DNA content in the transfection mixture did not significantly change the mean rate of transfection in M199 medium (24 +/- 1.54% to 27 +/- 1.54%; p = 0.273). The overall range of mean efficiency acquired with our protocol under different transfection conditions was between 14% and 29%. Hopefully results from this study will further potential success in nonviral-mediated gene transfer.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".