Radical pairs may explain reactive oxygen species-mediated effects of hypomagnetic field on neurogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exposures to a hypomagnetic field can affect biological processes. Recently, it has been observed that hypomagnetic field exposure can adversely affect adult hippocampal neurogenesis and hippocampus-dependent cognition in mice. In the same study, the role of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in hypomagnetic field effects has been demonstrated. However, the mechanistic reasons behind this effect are not clear. This study proposes a radical pair mechanism based on a flavin-superoxide radical pair to explain the modulation of ROS production and the attenuation of adult hippocampal neurogenesis in a hypomagnetic field. The results of our calculations favor a singlet-born radical pair over a triplet-born radical pair. Our model predicts hypomagnetic field effects on the triplet/singlet yield of comparable strength as the effects observed in experimental studies on adult hippocampal neurogenesis. Our predictions are in qualitative agreement with experimental results on superoxide concentration and other observed ROS effects. We also predict the effects of applied magnetic fields and oxygen isotopic substitution on adult hippocampal neurogenesis.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".