Polymeric Nanoparticles and Nanogels: How Do They Interact with Proteins?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polymeric nanomaterials, nanogels, and solid nanoparticles can be fabricated using single or double emulsion methods. These materials hold great promise for various biomedical applications due to their biocompatibility, biodegradability, and their ability to control interactions with body fluids and cells. Despite the increasing use of nanoparticles in biomedicine and the plethora of publications on the topic, the biological behavior and efficacy of polymeric nanoparticles (PNPs) have not been as extensively studied as those of other nanoparticles. The gap between the potential of PNPs and their applications can mainly be attributed to the incomplete understanding of their biological identity. Under physiological conditions, such as specific temperatures and adequate protein concentrations, PNPs become coated with a "protein corona" (PC), rendering them potent tools for proteomics studies. In this review, we initially investigate the synthesis routes and chemical composition of conventional PNPs to better comprehend how they interact with proteins. Subsequently, we comprehensively explore the effects of material and biological parameters on the interactions between nanoparticles and proteins, encompassing reactions such as hydrophobic bonding and electrostatic interactions. Moreover, we delve into recent advances in PNP-based models that can be applied to nanoproteomics, discussing the new opportunities they offer for the clinical translation of nanoparticles and early prediction of diseases. By addressing these essential aspects, we aim to shed light on the potential of polymeric nanoparticles for biomedical applications and foster further research in this critical area.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it