MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331246277 · doi:10.1166/jbn.2013.1578

Conformation-Dependent DNA Damage Induced by Gold Nanoparticles

2013· article· en· W2331246277 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chuanna Huang, Qianhong Bao, Darel J. Hunting, Yi Zheng, Léon Sanche

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Nanotechnology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Interference and Gene Delivery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDNAColloidal goldChemistryConjugated systemBiophysicsDNA damagePopulationPlasmidRNANanoparticleNanotechnologyBiochemistryBiologyOrganic chemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sensitivity of two conformations of plasmid DNA, the A and B forms, to strand break formation induced by gold nanoparticles (GNPs) is investigated by varying the GNP to DNA ratio in solution and the degree of DNA hydration. Decreasing DNA hydration via lyophilisation or by replacement of water with ethanol in solution modifies its conformation from the B to the A form. The yields of single strand breaks (SSB) are found to be highly dependent on the amount of DNA in the A configuration. The damage also increases with the amount of GNPs bound to DNA. At a ratio of two GNPs for one plasmid in an 80%-ethanol, 20%-water solution, 50% of the initial supercoiled population is converted to SSB. Thus, close contact with GNPs causes extensive damage to DNA in the A form. Since during transcription the DNA-RNA duplexes adopt an A form, GNPs could be genotoxic. Our results suggest that GNPs may have potential as chemotherapeutic agents if conjugated to nuclear targeting ligands. Considering their additional radiotherapeutic properties, targeted GNPs could also become highly effective in the treatment of cancer with concomitant chemoradiation therapy.

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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical NanotechnologySame topicRNA Interference and Gene DeliveryFrench-language works237,207