MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599718686 · doi:10.1039/c7nr01111c

Detection of stiff nanoparticles within cellular structures by contact resonance atomic force microscopy subsurface nanomechanical imaging

2017· article· en· W2599718686 on OpenAlexaff
Melania Reggente, Daniele Passeri, Livia Angeloni, Francesca A. Scaramuzzo, Mario Barteri, Francesca De Angelis, Irene Persiconi, Maria Egle De Stefano, Marco Rossi

Bibliographic record

VenueNanoscale · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceCharacterization (materials science)MicroscopyCantileverAtomic force microscopyNanoparticleNanotechnologyMagnetic force microscopeNanomaterialsMagnetic fieldComposite materialOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detecting stiff nanoparticles buried in soft biological matrices by atomic force microscopy (AFM) based techniques represents a new frontier in the field of scanning probe microscopies, originally developed as surface characterization methods. Here we report the detection of stiff (magnetic) nanoparticles (NPs) internalized in cells by using contact resonance AFM (CR-AFM) employed as a potentially non-destructive subsurface characterization tool. Magnetite (Fe3O4) NPs were internalized in microglial cells from cerebral cortices of mouse embryos of 18 days by phagocytosis. Nanomechanical imaging of cells was performed by detecting the contact resonance frequencies (CRFs) of an AFM cantilever held in contact with the sample. Agglomerates of NPs internalized in cells were visualized on the basis of the local increase in the contact stiffness with respect to the surrounding biological matrix. A second AFM-based technique for nanomechanical imaging, i.e., HarmoniX™, as well as magnetic force microscopy and light microscopy were used to confirm the CR-AFM results. Thus, CR-AFM was demonstrated as a promising technique for subsurface imaging of nanomaterials in biological samples.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.750

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations30
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanoscaleSame topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207