Nanoparticle Effects on Stress Response Pathways and Nanoparticle–Protein Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nanoparticles (NPs) are increasingly used in a wide variety of applications and products; however, NPs may affect stress response pathways and interact with proteins in biological systems. This review article will provide an overview of the beneficial and detrimental effects of NPs on stress response pathways with a focus on NP-protein interactions. Depending upon the particular NP, experimental model system, and dose and exposure conditions, the introduction of NPs may have either positive or negative effects. Cellular processes such as the development of oxidative stress, the initiation of the inflammatory response, mitochondrial function, detoxification, and alterations to signaling pathways are all affected by the introduction of NPs. In terms of tissue-specific effects, the local microenvironment can have a profound effect on whether an NP is beneficial or harmful to cells. Interactions of NPs with metal-binding proteins (zinc, copper, iron and calcium) affect both their structure and function. This review will provide insights into the current knowledge of protein-based nanotoxicology and closely examines the targets of specific 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".