Parenteral Multivitamin Supplementation Induces Both Oxidant and Antioxidant Responses in the Liver of Newborn Guinea Pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The multivitamin solution is a major component of photo-induced generation of peroxides in parenteral nutrition. The aim of this study was to determine whether the parenteral multivitamin preparation induces in the liver a peroxide-induced oxidant challenge or an antioxidant protection associated with the antiradical components of the solution. METHODS: Newborn guinea pigs were infused with dextrose supplemented with peroxides (250 micromol/L H2O2 or 350 micromol/L tert-butylhydroperoxide) or with a multivitamin preparation (MVP, 1% vol/vol). After 4 days, total glutathione and a free radical-sensitive eicosanoid marker (prostaglandin I2 [PGI2]/total prostaglandins) were measured in livers. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in the PGI2/total prostaglandin ratio (mean +/- SEM) [dextrose: 0.068 +/- 0.007 vs. (dextrose + H2O2: 0.048 +/- 0.001, dextrose + TBH: 0.043 +/- 0.001)] and glutathione concentrations decreased [dextrose: 55 +/- 7 vs. (dextrose + H2O2: 37 +/- 7, dextrose + TBH: 18 +/- 7 nmol/mg protein)] after infusion of peroxides. Despite the peroxide load in the multivitamin solution, it did not alter the measured variables as prostanoid ratio remained at control concentrations (dextrose: 0.066 +/- 0.008 vs. dextrose + MVP: 0.065 +/- 0.006), as did glutathione levels (dextrose: 52 +/- 6 vs. dextrose + MVP: 45 +/- 7 nmol/mg prot). CONCLUSION: In the liver of guinea pig pups, infused peroxides cause oxidation of membrane-derived prostanoids. The decrease in glutathione in response to administration of peroxides suggests consumption rather than a response to a free radical attack. Despite the oxidant load associated with peroxides generated in MVP, the multivitamin preparation protected membranes as the prostanoid ratio, and glutathione levels remained at control levels.
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) | 0.001 | 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".