MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399878107 · doi:10.1016/j.cbpa.2024.102478

Reactions of lipid hydroperoxides and how they may contribute to ferroptosis sensitivity

2024· review· en· W4399878107 on OpenAlexafffund
Dmitry D. Saraev, Derek A. Pratt

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Chemical Biology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFerroptosis and cancer prognosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for InnovationGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsSensitivity (control systems)ChemistryComputational biologyBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accumulation of lipid hydroperoxides (LOOHs) has long been associated with numerous pathologies and has more recently been shown to drive a specific type of cell death known as ferroptosis. In competition with their detoxification by glutathione peroxidases, LOOHs can react with both one-electron reductants and one-electron oxidants to afford radicals that initiate lipid peroxidation (LPO) chain reactions leading to more LOOH. These radicals can alternatively undergo a variety of (primarily unimolecular) reactions leading to electrophilic species that destabilize the membrane and/or react with cellular nucleophiles. While some reaction mechanisms leading to lipid-derived electrophiles have been known for some time, others have only recently been elucidated. Since LOOH (and related peroxides, LOOL) undergo these various reactions at different rates to afford distinct product distributions specific to their structures, not all LOOHs (and LOOLs) should be equivalently problematic for the cell - be it in their propensity to initiate further LPO or fragment to electrophiles, drive membrane permeabilization and eventual cell death. Herein we briefly review the fates of LOOH and discuss how they may contribute to the modulation of cell sensitivity to ferroptosis by different lipids.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.300 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations29
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Chemical BiologySame topicFerroptosis and cancer prognosisFrench-language works237,207