Combined Analysis of Polycation/ODN Polyplexes by\nAnalytical Ultracentrifugation and Dynamic Light Scattering Reveals\ntheir Size, Refractive Index Increment, Stoichiometry, Porosity, and\nMolecular Weight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analytical ultracentrifugation (AUC)\nand dynamic light scattering\n(DLS) were combined to characterize polyplexes formed with 10 kDa\nchitosan or 10 kDa PEI and oligodeoxynucleotides (ODN). Combined analysis\nrevealed that both polyplexes were highly porous (over 80%) and that\ntheir weight average hydrodynamic diameters were of 46 and 55 nm for\nchitosan/ODN and PEI/ODN complexes, respectively. Transformation of\nthe sedimentation coefficient distribution to a size and molecular\nweight distribution gave an average molecular weight of 19 and 29\nMDa for chitosan and PEI polyplexes, respectively. Data from AUC also\nallowed for the calculation of the actual d<i>n</i>/d<i>c</i> and N/P ratios of each polyplex. Additional data from\nscanning electron microscopy and static light scattering confirmed\nthe conclusions that were initially derived from AUC and DLS, thus\nvalidating that the combination of AUC and DLS is a powerful approach\nto characterize polyplexes in terms of refractive index increment,\nsize, and molecular weight distributions, as well as porosity.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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 teacher head, 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".