Molecular mechanism of recombinant liver fatty acid binding protein's antioxidant activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hepatocytes expressing liver fatty acid binding protein (L-FABP) are known to be more resistant to oxidative stress than those devoid of this protein. The mechanism for the observed antioxidant activity is not known. We examined the antioxidant mechanism of a recombinant rat L-FABP in the presence of a hydrophilic (AAPH) or lipophilic (AMVN) free radical generator. Recombinant L-FABP amino acid sequence and its amino acid oxidative products following oxidation were identified by MALDI quadrupole time-of-flight MS after being digested by endoproteinase Glu-C. L-FABP was observed to have better antioxidative activity when free radicals were generated by the hydrophilic generator than by the lipophilic generator. Oxidative modification of L-FABP included up to five methionine oxidative peptide products with a total of approximately 80 Da mass shift compared with native L-FABP. Protection against lipid peroxidation of L-FABP after binding with palmitate or alpha-bromo-palmitate by the AAPH or AMVN free radical generators indicated that ligand binding can partially block antioxidant activity. We conclude that the mechanism of L-FABP's antioxidant activity is through inactivation of the free radicals by L-FABP's methionine and cysteine amino acids. Moreover, exposure of the L-FABP binding site further promotes its antioxidant activity. In this manner, L-FABP serves as a hepatocellular antioxidant.
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".