Free radicals upregulate complement expression in rabbit isolated heart
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both free radicals and complement activation can injure tissue. Our study determined whether free radicals alter complement production by the myocardium. Isolated hearts from New Zealand White rabbits were perfused on a Langendorff apparatus and exposed to xanthine (X; 100 microM) plus xanthine oxidase (XO; 8 mU/ml) (X/XO). The free radical-generating system significantly (P < 0.05) increased C1q and also increased C1r, C3, C8, and C9 transcription compared with controls. Immunohistological examination revealed augmented membrane attack complex deposition on X/XO-treated tissue. X/XO-treated hearts also exhibited significant (P < 0.05) increases in coronary perfusion pressure and left ventricular end-diastolic pressure and a decrease in left-ventricular developed pressure. N-(2-mercaptopropionyl)-glycine (3 mM), in conjunction with the superoxide dismutase mimetic SC-52608 (100 microM), significantly (P < 0.05) reduced the upregulation of C1q, C1r, C3, C8, and C9 mRNA expression elicited by X/XO. The antioxidants also ameliorated the deterioration in function caused by X/XO. Local complement activation may represent a mechanism by which free radicals mediate tissue 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".