Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30362382›Full record

ArticleFree radical research2018

Comparison of different methods for measuring the superoxide radical by EPR spectroscopy in buffer, cell lysates and cells.

Samantha Scheinok, Philippe Leveque, Pierre Sonveaux, Benoit Driesschaert, Bernard Gallez

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Free radical research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Samantha Scheinoka Biomedical Magnetic Resonance , Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain Drug Research Institute (LDRI) , Brussels , Belgium.
Philippe Levequea Biomedical Magnetic Resonance , Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain Drug Research Institute (LDRI) , Brussels , Belgium.
Pierre Sonveauxb Institut de Recherches Expérimentales et Cliniques (IREC) Pole of Pharmacology and Therapeutics , Université Catholique de Louvain , Brussels , Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6484-8834
Benoit Driesschaertc Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences School of Pharmacy & In Vivo Multifunctional Magnetic Resonance Center , West Virginia University , Morgantown , WV , USA.
Bernard Galleza Biomedical Magnetic Resonance , Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain Drug Research Institute (LDRI) , Brussels , Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5708-1302
UCLouvain · BEWest Virginia University · US

Funding

Biocompatible Magnetic Resonance Probes for in vivo Concurrent Profiling R00EB023990 · NIBIB · WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY · PI DRIESSCHAERT, BENOIT · 2019 to 2021
$730k
Biocompatible Magnetic Resonance Probes for in vivo Concurrent Profiling of Interstitial Oxygenation, Acidosis and Inorganic Phosphate: Preclinical Application to CancerK99EB023990 · NIBIB · WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY · PI DRIESSCHAERT, BENOIT · 2017 to 2018
$153k
NIBIB NIH HHS K99 EB023990NIBIB NIH HHS R00 EB023990
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As superoxide anion is of keen interest in biomedical research, it is highly desirable to have a technique allowing its detection sensitively and specifically in biological media. If electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) techniques and probes have been individually described in the literature, there is actually no comparison of these techniques in the same conditions that may help guiding researchers for selecting the most appropriate approach. The aim of the present study was to compare different EPR strategies in terms of sensitivity and specificity to detect superoxide (vs. hydroxyl radical). Three main classes of EPR probes were used, including paramagnetic superoxide scavengers (such as nitroxides TEMPOL and mitoTEMPO as well as trityl CT-03), a spin trap (DIPPMPO), and diamagnetic superoxide scavengers (such as cyclic hydroxylamines CMH and mitoTEMPO-H). We analysed the reactivity of the different probes in the presence of a constant production of superoxide or hydroxyl radical in buffers and in cell lysates. We also assessed the performances of the different probes to detect superoxide produced by RAW264.7 macrophages stimulated by phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate. In our conditions and models, we found that nitroxides were not specific for superoxide. CT-03 was specific, but the sensitivity of detection was low. Comparatively, we found that nitrone DIPPMPO and cyclic hydroxylamine CMH were good candidates to sensitively and specifically detect superoxide in complex biological media, CMH offering the best sensitivity.

Indexed as

Electron Spin Resonance SpectroscopyAnimalsBuffersCell ExtractsMiceMolecular ProbesMolecular StructureRAW 264.7 CellsSuperoxidesBuffersCell ExtractsMolecular ProbesSuperoxidesEPRESRhydroxylaminesnitronesnitroxidesspin-trappingsuperoxidetrityls

Identifiers

PMID30362382
PMCPMC6602867
OpenAlexW2898110990

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.