Promotion and Inhibition of the Oxidase‐Mimicking Activity of Nanoceria by Phosphate, Polyphosphate, and DNA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nanoceria (CeO2 nanoparticles) is an extensively studied nanozyme with interesting oxidase‐mimicking activity. As they can work in the absence of toxic and unstable H2O2, CeO2 nanoparticles have been widely used in biosensing. CeO2 nanoparticles often encounter phosphate‐containing molecules that can affect their catalytic activity, and various reports exist in the literature showing both promoted and inhibited activity. In this work, we systematically studied five types of phosphate: orthophosphate, pyrophosphate, triphosphate, trimetaphosphate, and a polyphosphate with 25 phosphate units (Pi25). In addition, DNA oligonucleotides of various length and sequence. DNA was included as they contain a phosphate backbone that can strongly adsorb on nanoceria. We observed that a high concentration of DNA in acetate buffer inhibited activity, whereas a low concentration of DNA in phosphate buffer increased activity. The change of activity was also related to the type of substrate and related to the aggregation of CeO2. These discoveries provide an important understanding for the further use of CeO2 nanoparticles in biosensor development, materials science, and nanotechnology.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".