Characterization of a cyclodextrinoligonucleotide complex by capillary electrophoresis using laser-induced fluorescence.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cyclodextrins (CDs) have been identified as a viable alternative to viral vectors for use in therapeutic applications. Here, the stability of the complex formed between the a multiply charged, cationic, fully substituted heptakis-(6-amino-2-galactosyl)cyclodextrin (BCDX12) with a multiply charged 12-mer hexachlorofluorescein tagged arabinopolynucleotide (Hex-PAH) have been evaluated. METHODS: The stability of complexes of Hex-PAH and BCD-X12 was studied with respect to mole ratio (1:1, 1:2, and 1:5 Hex-PAH:BCD-X12), pH, buffer concentration, temperature, and agitation using capillary electrophoresis with laser induced fluorescence detection (CE/LIF). Two neutral CDs and an additional cationic CD were also tested under the same analytical conditions to determine their ability to form complexes. RESULTS: Hex-PAH:BCDX12 complexes at mole ratios of 1:2 were stable in 10 mM (160 mM total borate concentration) sodium tetraborate buffer at pH 7.5 and at temperatures of 4 degrees C and 25 degrees C over 48 hours. However, the Hex-PAH:BCD-X12 complex was less stable at 37 degrees C and at higher buffer concentrations and pH values. Strong vortex mixing prior to analysis was found to disrupt the complex. Of the four CDs tested for their ability to complex with Hex-PAH, only BCDX12 formed stable complexes with Hex-PAH under the test conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Capillary electrophoresis was found to be well suited to test the stability of cyclodextrin-nucleotide complexes. CE/LIF indicated that only a single Hex- PAH:BCD-X12 complex was formed at all formulation ratios, and that the complexes were electrophoretically identical to each other, and increasing the molar ratio beyond 1:2 did not contribute measurably to complex stability. Storage temperature and agitation conditions were found to influence complex stability. Since no stable complexes were formed with neutral cyclodextrins, the results support the hypothesis of a 'charge associated' complex rather than an inclusion complex, although inclusion complexes cannot be excluded on the basis of these studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".