Mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (ROS) in animal cells: relevance to aging and normal physiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In animal mitochondria, the four electron reduction of molecular oxygen to produce water at respiratory complex IV is the terminal step in substrate oxidation. However, respiratory complexes I, II, and III can participate in the single electron reduction of oxygen to produce the radical species superoxide. This progenitor reactive oxygen species (ROS) participates in a number of reactions that generate other ROS. These molecules may react with, and damage, intracellular macromolecules, leading to cellular dysfunction. Mitochondrial ROS production is often considered from this perspective of macromolecular damage and is central to the “oxidative damage theory of aging”, which suggests the accumulation of oxidative damage in animal cells underlies the aging phenotype and limits lifespan. In this review, we discuss some experimental results accumulated over the past decade that are inconsistent with this theory. A limitation of the theory is that it presupposes mitochondrial ROS are inherently harmful. However, it is increasingly apparent that some basic cellular functions are physiologically regulated by normal levels of mitochondrial ROS. For example, cell growth and division, the apoptotic pathway, and mitochondrial fusion–fission dynamics all appear to be redox-regulated by mitochondrial ROS and perhaps the matrix manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD). Therefore, it is less clear how the balance between ROS regulation of normal cellular activities and ROS-mediated macromolecular damage is maintained and how this relates to aging and longevity in animals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".