Exploring Mechanisms of Lipid Nanoparticle‐Mucus Interactions in Healthy and Cystic Fibrosis Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mucus forms the first defense line of human lungs, and as such hampers the efficient delivery of therapeutics to the underlying epithelium. This holds particularly true for genetic cargo such as CRISPR-based gene editing tools which cannot readily surmount the mucosal barrier. While lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) emerge as versatile non-viral gene delivery systems that can help overcome the delivery challenge, many knowledge gaps remain, especially for diseased states such as cystic fibrosis (CF). This study provides fundamental insights into Cas9 mRNA or ribonucleoprotein-loaded LNP-mucus interactions in healthy and diseased states by assessing the impact of the genetic cargo, mucin sialylation, mucin concentration, ionic strength, pH, and polyethylene glycol (PEG) concentration and nature on LNP diffusivity leveraging experimental approaches and Brownian dynamics (BD) simulations. Taken together, this study identifies key mucus and LNP characteristics that are critical to enabling a rational LNP design for transmucosal delivery.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".