MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7005184677

Polydopamine nanoparticles in the treatment of autosomal recessive spastic ataxia of Charlevoix-Saguenay

2020· article· en· W7005184677 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Theses and Dissertations Repository (University of Pisa) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtaxiaReactive oxygen speciesIn vitroViability assayCellAntioxidantCell cultureDegenerative Disorder
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this work was to evaluate the therapeutic effect of antioxidant polydopamine nanoparticles (PDNPs) for the treatment of autosomal recessive spastic ataxia of Charlevoix-Saguenay (ARSACS), a neurodegenerative disorder attributed to a mutation of the gene responsible for the production of sacsin, a protein involved in mitochondrial network organization. The first part of the thesis was focused on the fabrication of PDNPs and their characterization in terms of morphology, hydrodynamic diameter, z-potential, and antioxidant activity. We tested PDNPs on different in vitro models like SH-SY5Y, hCMEC/D3, primary human astrocytes, and primary human fibroblasts, evaluating their effects on cell viability and internalization. We also assessed the ability of the nanoparticles to stimulate neurite outgrowth and neuronal differentiation. The ability of PDNPs to counteract reactive oxygen species (ROS) production upon pro-oxidative stimuli in different in vitro models was assessed through flow cytometry. Finally, PDNPs ability to prevent ROS induced damage upon mitochondria was evaluated in neuronal-like cells derived from differentiated SH-SY5Y, primary human fibroblasts from a healthy donor, and primary human fibroblasts from a patient affected by ARSACS.

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 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 score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronic Theses and Dissertations Repository (University of Pisa)Same topicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic speciesFrench-language works237,207