MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889985520 · doi:10.1007/s12274-018-2191-9

The influence of physiological environment on the targeting effect of aptamer-guided gold nanoparticles

2018· article· en· W2889985520 on OpenAlexaff
Ding Ding, Yinling Zhang, Edward A. Sykes, Long Chen, Zhuo Chen, Weihong Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueNano Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersLanzhou University
KeywordsAptamerNanomedicineChemistryIn vivoColloidal goldBiophysicsNanoparticleFlow cytometryDynamic light scatteringNanotechnologyMolecular biologyMaterials scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aptamer guided nanomedicine shows great promise in targeted cancer therapies. However the loss of targeting capacity during in vivo or clinical trials has largely hindered its popularity and there are no systematic studies to elucidate the causes. Herein, we investigated such loss of targeting capacity by examining how the physiological milieu affected targeting effect. Aptamer functionalized gold nanoparticle (AuNP) was chosen as the model and exposed to human blood serum that is used to mimic physiological milieu. Dynamic light scattering (DLS), flow cytometry and label-free liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) were employed to determine variations of NPs’ surface chemistry and biological identities changes after serum exposure. Results showed that the targeting ability loss was caused by protein corona blocking, replacement and enzymatic cleavage of surface aptamer targeting ligands. Noteworthy, the aggregation issue is critical for the smaller NPs. Analysis of the protein corona profile indicated the accumulation of immune-related proteins on the surface of aptamer-conjugated NPs, which could induce immune response, resulting in rapid clearance of NPs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.467

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNano ResearchSame topicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniquesFrench-language works237,207