ArticleFree radical research2018
Comparison of different methods for measuring the superoxide radical by EPR spectroscopy in buffer, cell lysates and cells.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy for analysis of free radicals in zebrafish.PloS one · 2025Article
- Mitochondrial dysfunction induced in human hepatic HepG2 cells exposed to the fungicide kresoxim-methyl and to a mixture kresoxim-methyl/boscalid.Redox report : communications in free radical research · 2024Article
- Chemobiosis reveals tardigrade tun formation is dependent on reversible cysteine oxidation.PloS one · 2024Article
- Impact of Exposure to Pyraclostrobin and to a Pyraclostrobin/Boscalid Mixture on the Mitochondrial Function of Human Hepatocytes.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Short-Term Exposure to SDHI Fungicides Boscalid and Bixafen Induces a Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Selective Human Cell Lines.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Quantitation of spin probe-detectable oxidants in cells using electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy: To probe or to trap?Free radical biology & medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.