MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307366337 · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-23013-2

Development of lipid nanoparticles and liposomes reference materials (II): cytotoxic profiles

2022· article· en· W4307366337 on OpenAlexafffund
Zygmunt J. Jakubek, Sam Chen, Josh Zaifman, Yuen Yi C. Tam, Shan Zou

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Interference and Gene Delivery
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Research Council CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsLiposomeCytotoxic T cellNanoparticleChemistryNanotechnologyMaterials scienceBiochemistryIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lipid based nanocarriers are one of the most effective drug delivery systems that is evident from the recent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. The main objective of this study was to evaluate toxicity of six lipid based formulations with three surface charges-anionic, neutral or cationic, to establish certified reference materials (CRMs) for liposomes and siRNA loaded lipid nanoparticles (LNP-siRNA). Cytotoxicity was assessed by a proliferation assay in adherent and non-adherent cell lines. High concentration of three LNP-siRNAs did not affect viability of suspension cells and LNP-siRNAs were non-toxic to adherent cells at conventionally used concentration. Systematic evaluation using multiple vials and repeated test runs of three liposomes and three LNP-siRNA formulations showed no toxicity in HL60 and A549 cells up to 128 and 16 µg/mL, respectively. Extended treatment and low concentration of LNPs did not affect the viability of suspension cells and adherent cells at 96 h. Interestingly, 80% of A549 and HL60 cells in 3D conditions were viable when treated with cationic LNP-siRNA for 48 h. Taken together, anionic, cationic and neutral lipid formulations were non-toxic to cells and may be explored further in order to develop them as drug carriers.

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)0.001
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations57
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicRNA Interference and Gene DeliveryFrench-language works237,207