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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".