MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792727010 · doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b04968

Quantification of Au Nanoparticle Biouptake and Distribution to Freshwater Algae Using Single Cell – ICP-MS

2018· article· en· W2792727010 on OpenAlexaff
Ruth C. Merrifield, Chady Stephan, J.R. Lead

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanoparticles: synthesis and applications
Canadian institutionsPerkinElmer Biosignal
FundersPerkinElmerUniversity of South Carolina
KeywordsAlgaeNanoparticleEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental scienceChemistryNanotechnologyMaterials scienceEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantifying metal and nanoparticle (NP) biouptake and distribution on an individual cellular basis has previously been impossible, given available techniques which provide qualitative data that are laborious to acquire and prone to artifacts. Quantifying metal and metal NP uptake and loss processes in environmental organisms will lead to mechanistic understanding of biouptake and improved understanding of potential hazards and risks of metals and NPs. In this work, we present a new technique, single cell inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (SC-ICP-MS), which allows quantification of metal concentrations on an individual cell basis down to the attogram (ag) per cell level. We present data validating the novel method, along with the mass of metal per cell. Finally, we use SC-ICP-MS, with ancillary cell counting methods, to quantify the biouptake and strong sorption and distribution of both dissolved Au and Au NPs in a freshwater alga (Cyptomonas ovate). The data suggests differences between dissolved and NP uptake and loss. In the case of NPs, there was a dose and time dependent uptake, but individual cellular variations; at the highest realistic exposure conditions used in this study up to 40-50% of cells contained NPs, while 50-60% of cells did not.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.840

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations112
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & TechnologySame topicNanoparticles: synthesis and applicationsFrench-language works237,207