MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411961304 · doi:10.3390/ph18070980

Biodegradable Polylactide Nanocapsules Containing Quercetin for In Vitro Suppression of Mouse B16F10 and Human Sk-Mel-28 Melanoma Cell Lines

2025· article· en· W4411961304 on OpenAlexaff
Chenhui Zhao, Thomas Ming Swi Chang

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmaceuticals · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuercetinIn vivoBioavailabilityMelanomaViability assayPharmacologyChemistryIn vitroFlavonoidMyricetinTyrosinaseMolecular biologyBiochemistryCancer researchBiologyAntioxidantBiotechnologyEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Quercetin is a flavonoid found in various dietary sources. It is a prodrug converted by overexpressed tyrosinase in melanoma into an active o-quinone that suppresses tumour growth. However, injected quercetin is rapidly cleared from the tumour site. Method: Our study aimed to enhance quercetin’s efficacy through nanoencapsulation using biodegradable nanocapsules, which were tested in both mouse and human melanoma cell lines in 2D and 3D models. Results: Nanoencapsulation achieved sustained release and improved bioavailability. In mouse 2D cultures, quercetin nanocapsules (Q-nanos) reduced cell viability to 28%, compared with 46% for free quercetin (Q-only) (p < 0.05). In 3D cultures simulating in vivo conditions, Q-nanos reduced viability to 43%, showing significant anti-melanoma activity, while Q-only resulted in 72% viability (p > 0.05 vs. control). A similar trend was observed in human melanotic melanoma, where both Q-nanos and Q-only were effective compared with the controls, with Q-nanos demonstrating superior tumour inhibition (p < 0.05). Conclusions: These findings show the superior efficacy of nanoencapsulated quercetin over free quercetin. Nanoencapsulation prolonged quercetin’s bioavailability, enhanced tumour regression, and addressed limitations associated with the rapid clearance of free quercetin.

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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmaceuticalsSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207