A novel synthetic chemical entity (<scp>UPEI</scp>‐800) is neuroprotective in vitro and in an in vivo rat model of oxidative stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary In this study, we tested a novel synthetic pyrazole‐containing compound, 5‐amino‐1‐phenyl‐1H‐pyrazole‐4‐carbonitrile (APPC), as an antioxidant in both in vitro and in vivo models of oxidative stress. In addition, the utility of covalently combining APPC with another well‐established antioxidant, lipoic acid (LA), was also tested in both models. The in vitro results demonstrated that pretreatment with APPC in a mixed neuronal‐glial culture exposed to oxygen‐glucose deprivation (OGD) followed by reoxygenation‐refeeding, resulted in significant neuroprotection at concentrations between 2.5 to 25 μmol/L. In contrast, LA was not neuroprotective following OGD alone or following reoxygenation‐refeeding. However, the synthetic covalent combination of APPC with LA, named “UPEI‐800”, resulted in significant neuroprotection at concentrations between 0.027 and 2.7 μmol/L (100‐fold more potent than APPC alone), an effect shown to be correlated with increased cellular antioxidant capacity. Further, in an in vivo model of ischaemia‐reperfusion injury following transient occlusion of the middle cerebral artery (tMCAO), both APPC (0.1 and 1.0 mg/kg) and UPEI‐800 (1×10−3 mg/kg) provided significant neuroprotection. Consistent with the in vitro findings, the in vivo results following tMCAO also demonstrated a 100‐fold increase in the potency of the covalently linked compound UPEI‐800 compared to APPC alone.
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) | 0.002 | 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".