Optimizing Exogenous Surfactant as a Pulmonary Delivery Vehicle for Chicken Cathelicidin-2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rising incidence of antibiotic-resistant lung infections has instigated a much-needed search for new therapeutic strategies. One proposed strategy is the use of exogenous surfactants to deliver antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), like CATH-2, to infected regions of the lung. CATH-2 can kill bacteria through a diverse range of antibacterial pathways and exogenous surfactant can improve pulmonary drug distribution. Unfortunately, mixing AMPs with commercially available exogenous surfactants has been shown to negatively impact their antimicrobial function. It was hypothesized that the phosphatidylglycerol component of surfactant was inhibiting AMP function and that an exogenous surfactant, with a reduced phosphatidylglycerol composition would increase peptide mediated killing at a distal site. To better understand how surfactant lipids interacted with CATH-2 and affected its function, isothermal titration calorimetry and solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy as well as bacterial killing curves against Pseudomonas aeruginosa were utilized. Additionally, the wet bridge transfer system was used to evaluate surfactant spreading and peptide transport. Phosphatidylglycerol was the only surfactant lipid to significantly inhibit CATH-2 function, showing a stronger electrostatic interaction with the peptide than other lipids. Although diluting the phosphatidylglycerol content in an existing surfactant, through the addition of other lipids, significantly improved peptide function and distal killing, it also reduced surfactant spreading. A synthetic phosphatidylglycerol-free surfactant however, was shown to further improve CATH-2 delivery and function at a remote site. Based on these in vitro experiments synthetic phosphatidylglycerol-free surfactants seem optimal for delivering AMPs to the lung.
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 | 0.001 | 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".