Reduction of [VO<sub>2</sub>(ma)<sub>2</sub>]<sup>-</sup> and [VO<sub>2</sub>(ema)<sub>2</sub>]<sup>-</sup> by Ascorbic Acid and Glutathione: Kinetic Studies of Pro-Drugs for the Enhancement of Insulin Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To shed light on the role of V(V) complexes as pro-drugs for their V(IV) analogues, the kinetics of the reduction reactions of [VO2(ma)2]- or [VO2(ema)2]- (Hma = maltol, Hema = ethylmaltol), with ascorbic acid or glutathione, have been studied in aqueous solution by spectrophotometric and magnetic resonance methods. EPR and 51V NMR studies suggested that the vanadium(V) in each complex was reduced to vanadium(IV) during the reactions. All the reactions studied showed first-order kinetics when the concentration of ascorbic acid or glutathione was in large excess and the observed first-order rate constants have a linear relationship with the concentrations of reductant (ascorbic acid or glutathione). Potentiometric results revealed that the most important species in the neutral pH range is [VO2(L)2]- for the V(V) system where L is either ma- or ema-. An acid dependence mechanism was proposed from kinetic studies with varying pH and varying maltol concentration. The good fits of the second order rate constant versus pH or the total concentration of maltol, and the good agreement of the constants obtained between fittings, strongly supported the mechanism. Under the same conditions, the reaction rate of [VO2(ma)2]- with glutathione is about 2000 times slower than that of [VO2(ma)2]- with ascorbic acid, but an acid dependence mechanism can also be used to explain the results for the reduction with glutathione. Replacing the methyl group in maltol with an ethyl group has little influence on the reduction rate with ascorbic acid, and the kinetics are the same no matter whether [VO2(ma)2]- or [VO2(ema)2]- is reduced.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".