Using Flash Nanoprecipitation To Produce Highly Potent and Stable Cellax Nanoparticles from Amphiphilic Polymers Derived from Carboxymethyl Cellulose, Polyethylene Glycol, and Cabazitaxel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report the use of flash nanoprecipitation (FNP) as an efficient and scalable means of producing Cellax nanoparticles. Cellax polymeric conjugates consisting of carboxymethyl cellulose functionalized with PEG and hydrophobic anticancer drugs, such as cabazitaxel (coined Cellax-CBZ), have been shown to have high potency against several oncology targets, including prostate cancer. FNP, a robust method used to create nanoparticles through rapid mixing, has been used to encapsulate several hydrophobic drugs with block copolymer stabilizers, but has never been used to form nanoparticles from random copolymers, such as Cellax-CBZ. To assess the potential of using FNP to produce Cellax nanoparticles, parameters such as concentration, mixing rate, solvent ratios, and subsequent dilution were tested with a target nanoparticle size range of 60 nm. Under optimized solvent conditions, particles were formed that underwent a subsequent rearrangement to form nanoparticles of 60 nm diameter, independent of Cellax-CBZ polymer concentration. This intraparticle relaxation, without interparticle association, points to a delicate balance of hydrophobic/hydrophilic domains on the polymer backbone. These particles were stable over time, and the random amphiphilicity did not lead to interparticle attractions, which would compromise the stability and corresponding narrow size distribution required for parenteral injection. The amphiphilic nature of these conjugates allows them to be processed into nanoparticles for sustained drug release and improved tumor selectivity. Preferred candidates were evaluated for plasma stability and cytotoxicity against the PC3 prostate cancer cell line in vitro. These parameters are important when assessing nanoparticle safety and for estimating potential efficacy, respectively. The optimal formulations showed plasma stability profiles consistent with long circulating nanoparticles, and cytotoxicity comparable to that of free CBZ. This study demonstrates that FNP is a promising technology for development of Cellax nanoparticles.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".