Influence of Steric Shield on Biocompatibility and Antithrombotic Activity of Dendritic Polyphosphate Inhibitor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The polyanion, inorganic polyphosphate (polyP), is a procoagulant molecule which has become a promising therapeutic target in the development of antithrombotics. Neutralizing polyP’s prothrombotic activity using polycationic inhibitors is one of the viable strategies to design new polyP inhibitors. However, in this approach, a fine balance between the electrostatic interaction of polyP and the inhibitor is needed. Any unprotected polycations are known to interact with negatively charged blood components, potentially resulting in platelet activation, cellular toxicity, and bleeding. Thus, designing potent polycationic polyP inhibitors with good biocompatibility is a major challenge. Building on our previous research on universal heparin reversal agent (UHRA), we report polyP inhibitors with a modified steric shield design. The molecular weight, number of cationic binding groups, and the length of the polyethylene glycol (PEG) chains were varied to arrive at the desired inhibitor. We studied two different PEG lengths ( m PEG-750 versus m PEG-350) on the polyglycerol scaffold and investigated their influence on biocompatibility and polyP neutralization activity. The polyP inhibitor with m PEG-750 brush layer, m PEG 750 UHRA-10, showed superior biocompatibility compared to its m PEG-350 analogs by a number of measured parameters without losing its neutralization activity. An increase in cationic binding groups (25 groups in m PEG 750 UHRA-8 and 32 in m PEG 750 UHRA-10 [HC]) did not alter the neutralization activity, which suggested that the m PEG-750 shield layer provides significant protection of cationic binding groups and thus helps to minimize unwanted nonspecific interactions. Furthermore, these modified polyP inhibitors are highly biocompatible compared to conventional polycations that have been previously used as polyP inhibitors (e.g., PAMAM dendrimers and polyethylenimine). Through this study, we demonstrated the importance of the design of steric shield toward highly biocompatible polyP inhibitors. This approach can be exploited in the design of highly biocompatible macromolecular inhibitors.
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".