Hydrogen sulfide donors – Differential effects of different donors in paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several hydrogen sulfide (H2S) donors have been produced for commercial use, all of which have been assumed to have similar if not identical effects in their ability to deliver H2S. The identification of H2S‐catalyzing enzymes in the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus (PVN) led us to examine the effects of sodium hydrogen sulfide (NaHS) on the excitability of PVN neurons. Bath application of 50 and 10mM caused 75% of responsive neurons to hyperpolarize (n=28, −13.58±1.51mV), while at 1 and 0.1mM 75% neurons depolarized (n=8, 9.627±2.82mV ). The lack of commercial availability of this donor led us to continue our experiments using sodium hydrosulfide hydrate (NaHS•XH20). Administration of NaHS•XH20 across all concentrations (50, 10, 1, and .1mM) caused 95% of responsive neurons to depolarize (n=37, 10.21±1.33mV). These data show that the administration of NaHS and NaHS•XH20, especially at high concentrations produces different effects in the PVN. While we do not yet know the reason for this difference, these observations may provide some explanation for the different physiological effects of various H2S donors reported in the literature.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".