Oxidative stress and DNA damage in the mechanism of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review covers molecular mechanisms involving oxidative stress and DNA damage that may contribute to morphological and functional developmental disorders in animal models resulting from exposure to alcohol (ethanol, EtOH) in utero or in embryo culture. Components covered include: (a) a brief overview of EtOH metabolism and embryopathic mechanisms other than oxidative stress; (b) mechanisms within the embryo and fetal brain by which EtOH increases the formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS); (c) critical embryonic/fetal antioxidative enzymes and substrates that detoxify ROS; (d) mechanisms by which ROS can alter development, including ROS-mediated signal transduction and oxidative DNA damage, the latter of which leads to pathogenic genetic (mutations) and epigenetic changes; (e) pathways of DNA repair that mitigate the pathogenic effects of DNA damage; (f) related indirect mechanisms by which EtOH enhances risk, for example by enhancing the degradation of some DNA repair proteins; and, (g) embryonic/fetal pathways like NRF2 that regulate the levels of many of the above components. Particular attention is paid to studies in which chemical and/or genetic manipulation of the above mechanisms has been shown to alter the ability of EtOH to adversely affect development. Alterations in the above components are also discussed in terms of: (a) individual embryonic and fetal determinants of risk and (b) potential risk biomarkers and mitigating strategies. FASD risk is likely increased in progeny which/who are biochemically predisposed via genetic and/or environmental mechanisms, including enhanced pathways for ROS formation and/or deficient pathways for ROS detoxification or DNA repair.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".