MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323920815 · doi:10.1002/advs.202300311

Synthetic Ionizable Colloidal Drug Aggregates Enable Endosomal Disruption

2023· article· en· W4323920815 on OpenAlexafffund
Eric N. Donders, Kai V. Slaughter, Christian Dank, Ahil N. Ganesh, Brian K. Shoichet, Mark Lautens, Molly S. Shoichet

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLipid Membrane Structure and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMedical Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of TorontoAustrian Science Fund
KeywordsPhospholipidosisEndosomeChemistryDrugLysosomeFulvestrantEndocytosisBiophysicsColloidPharmacologyBiochemistryPhospholipidCancerMembraneEnzymeBiologyOrganic chemistryReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Colloidal drug aggregates enable the design of drug‐rich nanoparticles; however, the efficacy of stabilized colloidal drug aggregates is limited by entrapment in the endo‐lysosomal pathway. Although ionizable drugs are used to elicit lysosomal escape, this approach is hindered by toxicity associated with phospholipidosis. It is hypothesized that tuning the p K a of the drug would enable endosomal disruption while avoiding phospholipidosis and minimizing toxicity. To test this idea, 12 analogs of the nonionizable colloidal drug fulvestrant are synthesized with ionizable groups to enable pH‐dependent endosomal disruption while maintaining bioactivity. Lipid‐stabilized fulvestrant analog colloids are endocytosed by cancer cells, and the p K a of these ionizable colloids influenced the mechanism of endosomal and lysosomal disruption. Four fulvestrant analogs—those with p K a values between 5.1 and 5.7—disrupted endo‐lysosomes without measurable phospholipidosis. Thus, by manipulating the p K a of colloid‐forming drugs, a tunable and generalizable strategy for endosomal disruption is established.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced ScienceSame topicLipid Membrane Structure and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207