MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281666421 · doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.2c01018

Nanoparticle Amplification Labeling for High-Performance Magnetic Cell Sorting

2022· article· en· W4281666421 on OpenAlexafffund
Zongjie Wang, Hansen Wang, Sichun Lin, Sharif Ahmed, Stéphane Angers, Edward H. Sargent, Shana O. Kelley

Bibliographic record

VenueNano Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsMagnetic nanoparticlesCell sortingImmunomagnetic separationMagnetic separationCellSortingNanoparticleIntracellularNanotechnologyChemistryBiophysicsMaterials scienceCell biologyComputer scienceBiologyBiochemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic cell sorting is an enabling tool for the isolation of specific cellular subpopulations for downstream applications and requires the cells to be labeled by a sufficient number of magnetic nanoparticles to leverage magnetophoresis for efficient separation. This requirement makes it challenging to target weakly expressed biomarkers. Here, we developed a new approach that selectively and efficiently amplifies the magnetic labeling on cells through sequentially connected antibodies and nanoparticles delivered to the surface or interior of the cell. Using this approach, we achieved amplification up to 100-fold for surface and intracellular markers. We also demonstrated the utility of this assay for enabling high-performance magnetic cell sorting when it is applied to the analysis of rare tumor cells for cancer diagnosis and the purification of transfected CAR T cells for immunotherapy. The data presented demonstrate a useful tool for the stratification of rare cell subpopulations.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations37
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNano LettersSame topicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207