4.6 Article

Simulation study of methemoglobin reduction in erythrocytes - Differential contributions of two pathways to tolerance to oxidative stress

Journal

FEBS JOURNAL
Volume 274, Issue 6, Pages 1449-1458

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2007.05685.x

Keywords

erythrocyte; mathematical modeling; metabolism; methemoglobin; oxidative stress

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Methemoglobin (metHb), an oxidized form of hemoglobin, is unable to bind and carry oxygen. Erythrocytes are continuously subjected to oxidative stress and nitrite exposure, which results in the spontaneous formation of metHb. To avoid the accumulation of metHb, reductive pathways mediated by cytochrome b5 or flavin, coupled with NADH-dependent or NADPH-dependent metHb reductases, respectively, keep the level of metHb in erythrocytes at less than 1% of the total hemoglobin under normal conditions. In this work, a mathematical model has been developed to quantitatively assess the relative contributions of the two major metHb-reducing pathways, taking into consideration the supply of NADH and NADPH from central energy metabolism. The results of the simulation experiments suggest that these pathways have different roles in the reduction of metHb; one has a high response rate to hemoglobin oxidation with a limited reducing flux, and the other has a low response rate with a high capacity flux. On the basis of the results of our model, under normal oxidative conditions, the NADPH-dependent system, the physiological role of which to date has been unclear, is predicted to be responsible for most of the reduction of metHb. In contrast, the cytochrome b5-NADH pathway becomes dominant under conditions of excess metHb accumulation, only after the capacity of the flavin-NADPH pathway has reached its limit. We discuss the potential implications of a system designed with two metHb-reducing pathways in human erythrocytes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available