Reactive Oxygen Species and Aging in <i>Caenorhabditis elegans</i> : Causal or Casual Relationship?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The free radical theory of aging proposes a causal relationship between reactive oxygen species (ROS) and aging. While it is clear that oxidative damage increases with age, its role in the aging process is uncertain. Testing the free radical theory of aging requires experimentally manipulating ROS production or detoxification and examining the resulting effects on lifespan. In this review, we examine the relationship between ROS and aging in the genetic model organism Caenorhabditis elegans, summarizing experiments using long-lived mutants, mutants with altered mitochondrial function, mutants with decreased antioxidant defenses, worms treated with antioxidant compounds, and worms exposed to different environmental conditions. While there is frequently a negative correlation between oxidative damage and lifespan, there are many examples in which they are uncoupled. Neither is resistance to oxidative stress sufficient for a long life nor are all long-lived mutants more resistant to oxidative stress. Similarly, sensitivity to oxidative stress does not necessarily shorten lifespan and is in fact compatible with long life. Overall, the data in C. elegans indicate that oxidative damage can be dissociated from aging in experimental situations.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".