Comparison of hypoxic effects induced by chemical and physical hypoxia on cardiomyocytes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The degree and duration of chemical hypoxia induced by sodium dithionite (Na2S2O4) have not been reported. It is not yet clear how much reduction in the O2 concentration (physical hypoxia) can lead to hypoxia in cultured cardiomyocytes. In this study, oxygen microelectrodes were used to measure changes in the O2 concentration in media containing different concentrations of Na2S2O4. Then, hypoxic effects of 0.8, 1.0, and 2.0 mM Na2S2O4 or 1%, 3%, and 5% O2 in cultured cardiomyocytes from neonatal rats were observed and compared. The results showed that the O2 concentration failed to remain constant by Na2S2O4 treatment during the 180-minute observation period. Only the 2.0 mM Na2S2O4 group significantly increased the expression of hypoxia-inducible factor 1α (HIF-1α) and hypoxic responses. Notably, 3% O2 only significantly increased the expression of HIF-1α in cardiomyocytes, while 1% O2 not only increased the expression of HIF-1α but also increased the apoptotic rate in cardiomyocytes. These results suggest that Na2S2O4 is not suitable for establishing a hypoxic model in cultured neonatal rat cardiomyocytes, and neonatal rat cardiomyocytes cultured at or below 1% O2 induced significant hypoxic effects, which can be used as a starting O2 concentration for establishing a hypoxic cell model.
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".