Sca‐1 positive cells are more sensitive than adult rat cardiomyocytes to doxorubicin‐induced changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac progenitor cells in the adult heart have recently been implicated in Doxorubicin (Dox)‐induced cardiomyopathy. This study compared the Dox‐induced changes, mediated by oxidative stress, in cardiac stem cells expressing antigen‐1 (Sca‐1 pos) and in cardiomyocytes isolated from adult Sprague‐Dawley rat hearts. Sca‐1 pos cells as well as cardiomyocytes were incubated for 24h with different concentrations of Dox (0.01–10 μM), with and without Vitamin C (25 μM) ‐ a potent antioxidant. Using the same number of cells, an analysis of cell viability (MTT assay), cell injury (AK release), oxidative stress (DCFDA), and ATP levels was performed. Sca‐1 pos cells showed significant decrease in viability and ATP levels and increase in oxidative stress and cell injury at all doses of Dox. Cardiomyocytes were affected only at doses higher than 0.1 μM and significantly less change in these parameters were seen as compared to the Sca‐1 pos cells. Vitamin C was able to mitigate Dox‐induced changes in both cell types. It is suggested that cardiac progenitor cells are more susceptible to Dox‐induced damage in comparison to cardiomyocytes which appear to be mediated by oxidative stress. These findings contribute to a better understanding of the delayed vulnerability of the heart after a prolonged Dox administration. (Supported by Manitoba Health Research Council).
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) | 0.003 | 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".