MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405874791 · doi:10.1021/acsnano.4c12116

Best Practices and Pitfalls in Developing Nanomaterial Delivery Tools for Plants

2024· review· en· W4405874791 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Henry Squire, Sophia Tomatz, J. Wang, Eduardo González‐Grandío, Markita P. Landry

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Nano · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Interference and Gene Delivery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship ProgramMcKnight FoundationNational Defense Science and Engineering GraduatePhilomathia FoundationGordon and Betty Moore FoundationSimons FoundationAlfred P. Sloan FoundationBRAIN FoundationCamille and Henry Dreyfus FoundationBurroughs Wellcome FundNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNanotechnologyBest practiceNanomaterialsRisk analysis (engineering)Biocompatible materialComputer scienceEngineeringBusinessMaterials sciencePolitical scienceBiomedical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous reports of nanomaterial-assisted delivery of DNA, RNA, and protein to plants for biotechnology applications emerged over the past decade. While the field has experienced rapid growth, best practices for developing and validating nanomaterial delivery tools for plants have not yet been established. Best practices are well-established for clinical/animal cell delivery experiments, yet plants pose a distinct challenge requiring separate considerations due to their unique tissue structures and cellular morphology. In this Perspective, we provide recommendations and highlight pitfalls in developing nanomaterial tools for delivery of "Central Dogma" cargos to plants. Given the ongoing interest in the field, this discussion will aid in improving the rigor of this nascent field toward practical applications of nanomaterial delivery tools.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS NanoSame topicRNA Interference and Gene DeliveryFrench-language works237,207