Apparent Km of mitochondria for oxygen computed from Vmax measured in permeabilized muscle fibers is lower in water enriched in oxygen by electrolysis than injection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that oxygen (O2) diffusion could be favored in water enriched in O2 by a new electrolytic process because of O2 trapping in water superstructures (clathrates), which could reduce the local pressure/content relationships for O2 and facilitate O2 diffusion along PO2 gradients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mitochondrial respiration was compared in situ in saponin-skinned fibers isolated from the soleus muscles of Wistar rats, in solution enriched in O2 by injection or the electrolytic process 1) at an O2 concentration decreasing from 240 µmol/L to 10 µmol/L (132 mmHg to 5 mmHg), with glutamate-malate or N, N, N', N'-tetramethyl-p-phenylenediamine dihydrochloride (TMPD)-ascorbate (with antimycin A) as substrates; and 2) at increasing adenosine diphosphate (ADP) concentration with glutamate-malate as substrate. RESULTS: As expected, maximal respiration decreased with O2 concentration and, when compared to glutamate-malate, the apparent Km O2 of mitochondria for O2 was significantly lower with TMPD-ascorbate with both waters. However, when compared to the water enriched in O2 by injection, the Km O2 was significantly lower with both electron donors in water enriched in O2 by electrolysis. This was not associated with any increase in the sensitivity of mitochondria to ADP; no significant difference was observed for the Km ADP between the two waters. CONCLUSION: In this experiment, a higher affinity of the mitochondria for O2 was observed in water enriched in O2 by electrolysis than by injection. This observation is consistent with the hypothesis that O2 diffusion can be facilitated in water enriched in O2 by the electrolytic process.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".