Differentiating between apparent and actual rates of H2O2 metabolism by isolated rat muscle mitochondria to test a simple model of mitochondria as regulators of H2O2 concentration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mitochondria are often regarded as a major source of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in animal cells, with H2O2 being the predominant ROS released from mitochondria; however, it has been recently demonstrated that energized brain mitochondria may act as stabilizers of H2O2 concentration (Starkov et al. [1]) based on the balance between production and the consumption of H2O2, the later of which is a function of [H2O2] and follows first order kinetics. Here we test the hypothesis that isolated skeletal muscle mitochondria, from the rat, are able to modulate [H2O2] based upon the interaction between the production of ROS, as superoxide/H2O2, and the H2O2 decomposition capacity. The compartmentalization of detection systems for H2O2 and the intramitochondrial metabolism of H2O2 leads to spacial separation between these two components of the assay system. This results in an underestimation of rates when relying solely on extramitochondrial H2O2 detection. We find that differentiating between these apparent rates found when using extramitochondrial H2O2 detection and the actual rates of metabolism is important to determining the rate constant for H2O2 consumption by mitochondria in kinetic experiments. Using the high rate of ROS production by mitochondria respiring on succinate, we demonstrate that net H2O2 metabolism by mitochondria can approach a stable steady-state of extramitochondrial [H2O2]. Importantly, the rate constant determined by extrapolation of kinetic experiments is similar to the rate constant determined as the [H2O2] approaches a steady state.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".