Radical pairs can explain magnetic field and lithium effects on the circadian clock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drosophila's circadian clock can be perturbed by magnetic fields, as well as by lithium administration. Cryptochromes are critical for the circadian clock. Further, the radical pairs in cryptochrome also can explain magnetoreception in animals. Based on a simple radical pair mechanism model of the animal magnetic compass, we show that both magnetic fields and lithium can influence the spin dynamics of the naturally occurring radical pairs and hence modulate the circadian clock's rhythms. Using a simple chemical oscillator model for the circadian clock, we show that the spin dynamics influence a rate in the chemical oscillator model, which translates into a change in the circadian period. Our model can reproduce the results of two independent experiments, magnetic field and lithium effects on the circadian clock. Our model predicts that stronger magnetic fields would shorten the clock's period. We also predict that lithium influences the clock in an isotope-dependent manner. Furthermore, our model also predicts that magnetic fields and hyperfine interactions modulate oxidative stress. The findings of this work suggest that the quantum nature of radical pairs might play roles in the brain, as another piece of evidence in addition to recent results on xenon anesthesia and lithium effects on hyperactivity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".