ArticleEuropean biophysics journal : EBJ2023
A comparative characterisation of commercially available lipid-polymer nanoparticles formed from model membranes.
Article in European biophysics journal : EBJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- SiMPull-POP: Quantification of Membrane Protein Assembly via Single Molecule Photobleaching.Bio-protocol · 2026Article
- Selection of nanobodies against liponanoparticle-embedded membrane proteins by yeast-surface display.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2025Article
- Polymeric Nanoparticles in Targeted Drug Delivery: Unveiling the Impact of Polymer Characterization and Fabrication.Polymers · 2025Review
- Transformative Impact of Nanocarrier-Mediated Drug Delivery: Overcoming Biological Barriers and Expanding Therapeutic Horizons.Small science · 2024Article
- Lipid-polymer nanoparticles to probe the native-like environment of intramembrane rhomboid protease GlpG and its activity.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Sulfonated polystyrenes: pH and MgEuropean polymer journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
From the discovery of the first membrane-interacting polymer, styrene maleic-acid (SMA), there has been a rapid development of membrane solubilising polymers. These new polymers can solubilise membranes under a wide range of conditions and produce varied sizes of nanoparticles, yet there has been a lack of broad comparison between the common polymer types and solubilising conditions. Here, we present a comparative study on the three most common commercial polymers: SMA 3:1, SMA 2:1, and DIBMA. Additionally, this work presents, for the first time, a comparative characterisation of polymethacrylate copolymer (PMA). Absorbance and dynamic light scattering measurements were used to evaluate solubilisation across key buffer conditions in a simple, adaptable assay format that looked at pH, salinity, and divalent cation concentration. Lipid-polymer nanoparticles formed from SMA variants were found to be the most susceptible to buffer effects, with nanoparticles from either zwitterionic DMPC or POPC:POPG (3:1) bilayers only forming in low to moderate salinity (< 600 mM NaCl) and above pH 6. DIBMA-lipid nanoparticles could be formed above a pH of 5 and were stable in up to 4 M NaCl. Similarly, PMA-lipid nanoparticles were stable in all NaCl concentrations tested (up to 4 M) and a broad pH range (3-10). However, for both DIBMA and PMA nanoparticles there is a severe penalty observed for bilayer solubilisation in non-optimal conditions or when using a charged membrane. Additionally, lipid fluidity of the DMPC-polymer nanoparticles was analysed through cw-EPR, showing no cooperative gel-fluid transition as would be expected for native-like lipid membranes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.