Electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy for analysis of free radicals inzebrafish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) is an excellent choice for detecting free radicals in biological samples. Biologically relevant radicals are extremely short-lived and cannot be detected directly, emphasizing the need for an appropriate compound to generate stable adducts that can be measured by EPR. Spin trapping with nitrone compounds like 5,5-dimethyl-1-pyrroline N-oxide (DMPO) is a method commonly employed for detecting free radicals. However, due to the instability of nitrone radical adducts, using the cell-permeable 1-hydroxy-3-methoxycarbonyl-2,2,5,5-tetramethyl pyrrolidine (CMH) appears to be a more effective approach within biological tissues. Here, we compare the use of DMPO and CMH to detect the most abundant reactive oxygen species radical, superoxide ([Formula: see text]), in zebrafish and present an optimized protocol for performing EPR with a CMH spin probe in both zebrafish hearts and larvae. Together, our data suggest that EPR using the CMH probe is a reliable method to detect [Formula: see text] in zebrafish pathologies linked to oxidative stress, such as cardiovascular diseases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".