MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313414598 · doi:10.3390/cells12010107

Regulation of Mitochondrial Hydrogen Peroxide Availability by Protein S-glutathionylation

2022· review· en· W4313414598 on OpenAlexafffund
Ryan J. Mailloux, Cathryn Grayson, Olivia Koufos

Bibliographic record

VenueCells · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRedox biology and oxidative stress
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCell biologyMitochondrionOxidative stressOxidative phosphorylationRegulatorReactive oxygen speciesRedoxHydrogen peroxideBiologyChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: It has been four decades since protein S-glutathionylation was proposed to serve as a regulator of cell metabolism. Since then, this redox-sensitive covalent modification has been identified as a cell-wide signaling platform required for embryonic development and regulation of many physiological functions. Scope of the Review: Mitochondria use hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) as a second messenger, but its availability must be controlled to prevent oxidative distress and promote changes in cell behavior in response to stimuli. Experimental data favor the function of protein S-glutathionylation as a feedback loop for the inhibition of mitochondrial H2O2 production. Major conclusions: The glutathione pool redox state is linked to the availability of H2O2, making glutathionylation an ideal mechanism for preventing oxidative distress whilst playing a part in desensitizing mitochondrial redox signals. General Significance: The biological significance of glutathionylation is rooted in redox status communication. The present review critically evaluates the experimental evidence supporting its role in negating mitochondrial H2O2 production for cell signaling and prevention of electrophilic stress.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCellsSame topicRedox biology and oxidative stressFrench-language works237,207