Redox and apoptotic potential of novel ruthenium complexes in rat blood and heart
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ruthenium(II) complexes offer the potential for lower toxicity compared with platinum(II) complexes. Our study aimed to compare cardiotoxicity of [Ru(Cl-tpy)(en)Cl][Cl], [Ru(Cl-tpy)(dach)Cl][Cl], [Ru(Cl-tpy)(bpy)Cl][Cl], cisplatin, and saline through assessment of redox status and relative expression of apoptosis-related genes. A total of 40 Wistar albino rats were divided into five groups. Ruthenium groups received a single dose of complexes intraperitoneally (4 mg/kg/week) for a 4-week period; cisplatin group received cisplatin (4 mg/kg/week) and control group received saline (4 mL/kg/week) in the same manner as ruthenium groups. In collected blood and heart tissue samples, spectrophotometric determination of oxidative stress biomarkers was performed. The relative expression of apoptosis-related genes (Bcl-2, Bax, and caspase-3) in hearts was examined by real-time polymerase chain reaction. Our results showed that systemic and cardiac pro-oxidative markers (thiobarbituric acid reactive substances and nitrite) were significantly lower in ruthenium groups compared with cisplatin group, while concentrations of antioxidative parameters (catalase, superoxide dismutase, and oxidized glutathione) were significantly higher. Ruthenium administration led to significantly lower gene expression of Bax and caspase-3 compared with cisplatin-treated rats, while Bcl-2 remained unchanged. Applied ruthenium complexes have less pronounced potential for induction of oxidative stress-mediated cardiotoxicity compared with cisplatin. These findings may help for future studies that should clarify the mechanisms of cardiotoxicity of ruthenium-based metallodrugs.
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) | 0.000 | 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".