MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2738726767

RELATING QUANTUM DOT ASSOCIATION WITH HUMAN ENDOTHELIAL CELLS WITH THEIR CYTOTOXIC EFFECTS

2015· article· en· W2738726767 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kenrick Villar, Hyungbok Lee, Jacob Kennard, Christopher D. Sarsons, Hagar I. Labouta, David T. Cramb, Kristina D. Rinker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of undergraduate research in Alberta · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiological Research and Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum dotCytotoxicityBiophysicsUmbilical veinViability assayCytotoxic T cellChemistryNanotechnologyMaterials scienceApoptosisBiologyIn vitroBiochemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION Advances in the field of nanotechnology have enabled researchers to pursue biomedical applications of nanoparticles. Quantum dots are commonly used fluorescent probes because they are brighter and less prone to photobleaching than other fluorophores [1]. However, despite the advantages, potential for toxicity must be acknowledged. Quantum dots are commonly made with toxic metal elements, which can cause oxidative stress [2]. Cadmium ions have been shown to disrupt mitochondria activity, leading to cell death [2]. Quantum dots have been shown to attach to the cell membrane as well as be internalized through endocytic mechanisms [3]. In this study, we aim to quantify quantum dot association and compare results from cytotoxicity assays for identical conditions, relating cellular association with cytotoxicity. METHODS Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs) and Human Micro-vascular Endothelial Cells (HMVECs) were cultured in static conditions in 8-well chamber slides then exposed to amino-PEG quantum dots at a concentration of 0.2nM to 200nM. After exposure for 24 hours, the cells were washed, fixed, and stained. Z-stacks were obtained using an Olympus Fluoview FV1000 confocal microscope. Images were analyzed using ImageJ software to quantify mean fluorescence intensity within the defined region of interest, selected from the boundaries of stained cell membranes. Statistical analysis using one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc Tukey HSD test was performed. Finally, Vialight assay was used to test cell viability after exposure to quantum dots under the same experimental conditions used for association experiments. RESULTS Exposure to different concentrations of quantum dots results in significant changes in the observed fluorescence intensity per area. Non-linear dependence of cellular association of quantum dots on exposure concentration was observed. A representative example of mean fluorescence intensity of quantum dots associated with HUVECs is shown in Figure 1. A significant decrease in the viability of HUVECs was observed on exposure to quantum dots (30-50% cell viability relative to 100% for non-exposed cells). However, no significant difference in cell viability was observed between 0.2nM to 200nM concentrations. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Nanoparticle association studies play a vital role in predicting cell viability in nanoparticle cytotoxicity studies. The non-linear trend observed suggests that for the range of concentrations examined, cellular association does not increase linearly with exposure concentration, and that cytotoxicity can be related to association, rather than just to exposure concentration. This experiment provides an approach to advance future studies relating cellular association to cytotoxicity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of undergraduate research in AlbertaSame topicBiological Research and Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207