Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,909

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Uric acid provides an antioxidant defense in humans against oxidant- and radical-caused aging and cancer: a hypothesis.

Open access
Ames, B N, Cathcart, R, Schwiers, E, Hochstein, P·1981·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

During primate evolution, a major factor in lengthening life-span and decreasing age-specific cancer rates may have been improved protective mechanisms against oxygen radicals. We propose that one of these protective systems is plasma uric acid, the level of which increased markedly during primate evolution as a consequence of a series of mutations. Uric acid is a powerful antioxidant and is a scavenger of singlet oxygen and radicals. We show that, at physiological concentrations, urate reduces the oxo-heme oxidant formed by peroxide reaction with hemoglobin, protects erythrocyte ghosts against lipid peroxidation, and protects erythrocytes from peroxidative damage leading to lysis. Urate is about as effective an antioxidant as ascorbate in these experiments. Urate is much more easily oxidized than deoxynucleosides by singlet oxygen and is destroyed by hydroxyl radicals at a comparable rate. The plasma urate levels in humans (about 300 microM) is considerably higher than the ascorbate level, making it one of the major antioxidants in humans. Previous work on urate reported in the literature supports our experiments and interpretations, although the findings were not discussed in a physiological context.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.78.11.6858

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 2,909

Metadata

Authors
Ames, B. N., Cathcart, R., Schwiers, E., & Hochstein, P.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
1981-11
Volume
78
Issue
11
Pages
6858-6862
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2025372788
Cited by
2,909
References
1
FWCI
19.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.