Artificial Cells for Bioencapsulation of Cells and Genetically Engineered E. coli: For Cell Therapy, Gene Therapy, and Removal of Urea and Ammonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enzymes, proteins, cells, microorganisms, adsorbents, magnetic materials and other biologically active materials can be encapsulated within artificial cells with artificial polymer membranes (1–9). This type of artificial cells are not liposomes. The artificial cells protect the encapsulated biological materials from immunological reactions. At the same time, the enclosed materials continue to act in the immunologically isolated environment. The use of artificial cells containing adsorbent for hemoperfusion is a routine procedure used in patients for the removal of toxic substances or unwanted metabolites. Clinical studies are ongoing in patients using artificial cells as red blood cell substitutes, for enzyme therapy, and for delivery of biotechnological agents. Chang first developed a drop method for the bioencapsulation of cells and proposed its use in cell therapy (4,5). “Micro encapsulation of intact cells … the enclosed material might be protected from destruction and from participation in immunological processes, whereas the enclosing membrane would be permeable to small molecules of specific cellular product which could then enter the general extracellular compartment of the recipient. … The situation is comparable to that of a graft placed in an immunologically favorable site” (4). This was not explored by others for sometime. However, with increasing interests in biotechnology, many groups are now actively studying this for bioencapsulation of cells or genetically engineered microorganisms in cell and gene therapy. This chapter describes only two examples: bioencapsulation of hepatocytes or genetically engineered microorganisms. These examples are used to demonstrate the methods of preparations and their potential applications in cell and gene 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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".