Comparing Electron Leak in Vertebrate Muscle Mitochondria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mitochondrial electron transfer for oxidative ATP regeneration is linked to reactive oxygen species (ROS) production in aerobic eukaryotic cells. Because they can contribute to signaling as well as oxidative damage in cells, these ROS have profound impact for the physiology and survival of the organism. Although mitochondria have been recognized as a potential source for ROS for about 50 years, the mechanistic understanding on molecular sites and processes has advanced recently. Most experimental approaches neglect thermal variability among species although temperature impacts mitochondrial processes significantly. Here we delineate the importance of temperature by comparing muscle mitochondrial ROS formation across species. Measuring the thermal sensitivity of respiration, electron leak rate (ROS formation), and the antioxidant capacity (measured as H2O2 consumption) in intact mitochondria of representative ectothermic and endothermic vertebrate species, our results suggest that using a common assay temperature is inappropriate for comparisons of organisms with differing body temperatures. Moreover, we propose that measuring electron leak relative to the mitochondrial antioxidant capacity (the oxidant ratio) may be superior to normalizing relative to respiration rates or mitochondrial protein for comparisons of mitochondrial metabolism of ROS across species of varying mitochondrial respiratory capacities.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".