Verification of radical pair mechanism predictions for weak magnetic field effects on superoxide in planarians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Superoxide concentration and tissue regeneration in planarians exhibit a complex non-monotonic dependence on the strength of an applied weak magnetic field. While this is difficult to understand based on classical physics, a recently proposed quantum model based on a flavin-superoxide radical pair mechanism could replicate the previously observed superoxide concentrations. However, this model also predicts increased superoxide concentrations for both lower and higher fields. This seemed to conflict with earlier experimental observations on blastema sizes, which were correlated with superoxide in the previously observed regime but were known not to follow the predicted trends for lower and higher fields. Motivated by this apparent contradiction, we here directly experimentally tested the predictions of the quantum model for superoxide for lower and higher fields. To our own surprise, our experiments confirmed the predictions of the radical pair model for superoxide, and incorporating interactions with multiple nuclei further improved the model's agreement with the experimental data. While open questions remain regarding the exact relationship between blastema sizes and superoxide, which is revealed to be more complex than previously observed, and the detailed properties of the underlying radical pair, our results significantly support a quantum biological explanation for the observed magnetic field effects.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".