Biomembrane Permeabilization: Statistics of Individual Leakage Events Harmonize the Interpretation of Vesicle Leakage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mode of action of membrane-active molecules, such as antimicrobial, anticancer, cell penetrating, and fusion peptides and their synthetic mimics, transfection agents, drug permeation enhancers, and biological signaling molecules (e.g., quorum sensing), involves either the general or local destabilization of the target membrane or the formation of defined, rather stable pores. Some effects aim at killing the cell, while others need to be limited in space and time to avoid serious damage. Biological tests reveal translocation of compounds and cell death but do not provide a detailed, mechanistic, and quantitative understanding of the modes of action and their molecular basis. Model membrane studies of membrane leakage have been used for decades to tackle this issue, but their interpretation in terms of biology has remained challenging and often quite limited. Here we compare two recent, powerful protocols to study model membrane leakage: the microscopic detection of dye influx into giant liposomes and time-correlated single photon counting experiments to characterize dye efflux from large unilamellar vesicles. A statistical treatment of both data sets does not only harmonize apparent discrepancies but also makes us aware of principal issues that have been confusing the interpretation of model membrane leakage data so far. Moreover, our study reveals a fundamental difference between nano- and microscale systems that needs to be taken into account when conclusions about microscale objects, such as cells, are drawn from nanoscale models.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".