Protective barrier properties of Rhinosectan® spray (containing xyloglucan) on an organotypic 3D airway tissue model (MucilAir): results of an in vitro study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate barrier protective properties of Rhinosectan® spray, a medical device containing xyloglucan, on nasal epithelial cells (MucilAir). MucilAir-Nasal, a three-dimensional organotypic (with different cell types) airway tissue model, was treated with the medical device Rhinosectan® (30 µL) or with controls (Rhinocort—budesonide—or saline solution). The protective barrier effects of Rhinosectan® were evaluated by: TEER (trans-epithelial electrical resistance) (preservation of tight junctions), Lucifer Yellow assay (preservation of paracellular flux) and confocal immunofluorescence microscopy (localization of tight junction proteins). Exposure of MucilAir with Rhinosectan® protected cell tight junctions (increases in TEER of 13.1% vs −6.3% with saline solution after 1 h of exposure), and preserved the paracellular flux, even after exposure with pro-inflammatory compounds (TNF-α and LPS from Pseudomonas aeruginosa 10). Results of confocal immunofluorescence microscopy demonstrated that, after treatment with the pro-inflammatory mixture, Rhinosectan® produced a slight relocation of zona occludens-1 in the cytosol compartment (while Rhinocort induced expression of zona-occludens-1), maintaining the localization of occludin (similarly to negative control). Results of our study indicates that Rhinosectan® creates a protective physical barrier on nasal epithelial cells in vitro, allowing the avoidance of allergens and triggering factors, thus confirming the utility of this medical device in the management of nasal respiratory diseases, as rhinitis or rhinosinusitis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".