MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408840396 · doi:10.1007/978-1-61779-867-2_15

Assessment of Xenobiotic Biotransformation Including Reactive Oxygen Species Generation in the Embryo Using Benzene as an Example

2012· article· en· W2408840396 on OpenAlexaff
Helen J. Renaud, Allison Rutter, Louise M. Winn

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiotransformationXenobioticReactive oxygen speciesBenzeneChemistryEnvironmental chemistryEmbryoOxygenBiologyBiochemistryOrganic chemistryCell biologyEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantification of embryonic metabolic capacity is an important tool in developmental toxicology research. Bioactivation of xenobiotics into reactive intermediates often contributes to embryo toxicity; thus, identification and quantification of these toxic metabolites is essential to gain further understanding of developmental toxicity. This chapter uses the environmental chemical benzene as a model xenobiotic to describe the detection of both metabolites and reactive oxygen species (ROS) in fetal liver. Briefly, mice are bred and the presence of a vaginal plug in a female mouse indicates gestational day 1. On the desired gestational day, pregnant dams are exposed to benzene followed by sacrifice at the desired time-point after exposure. Using gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry, the detection of benzene metabolites can be achieved. Additionally, we describe the measurement of ROS by flow cytometry using the fluorescent probe 5-(and-6)-chloromethyl-2',7'-dichlorofluorescein diacetate, which readily diffuses into cells and, upon oxidation by any ROS, is converted to the highly fluorescent, negatively charged carboxydichlorofluorescein, which remains trapped within the cells.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207