Probucol promotes endogenous antioxidant reserve and confers protection against reperfusion injuryThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in this Special Issue, entitled The Cellular and Molecular Basis of Cardiovascular Dysfunction, Dhalla 70th Birthday Tribute.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examines whether a subchronic probucol treatment of rats offers protection against ischemia-reperfusion (IR) injury in isolated perfused hearts. Sprague-Dawley rats were treated every second day per week with probucol (cumulative dose 120 mg/kg body mass, i.p.) for 4 weeks. In the probucol group, baseline myocardial antioxidant enzyme, glutathione peroxidase (GSHPx), activity was increased (p<0.05), whereas superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT) activities were not changed. Baseline oxidative stress, as indicated by the myocardial lipid peroxidation, was less (p<0.05) in the probucol group. Isolated hearts were subjected to 60 min global I and 20 min R. Recovery of the contractile function in globally ischemic hearts upon reperfusion was 36% in untreated group and 74% in the probucol group. After IR, GSHPx and CAT activities were significantly (p<0.05) higher in the probucol group compared with the control group, whereas SOD did not change. Lipid peroxidation owing to IR was significantly less in the probocol group. These data suggest that probucol treatment improves endogenous antioxidant reserve and protects against increased oxidative stress following IR injury.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".