4.6 Article

Covalent binding of hydroxy-alkenals 4-HDDE, 4-HHE, and 4-HNE to ethanolamine phospholipid subclasses

Journal

JOURNAL OF LIPID RESEARCH
Volume 44, Issue 5, Pages 917-926

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1194/jlr.M200450-JLR200

Keywords

4-hydroxydodeca-(2E,6Z)-dienal; 4-hydroxy-2E-hexenal; 4-hydroxy-2E-nonenal

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Lipid oxidation is implicated in a wide range of pathophysiogical disorders, and leads to reactive compounds such as fatty aldehydes, of which the most well known is 4-hydroxy-2E-nonenal (4-HNE) issued from 15-hydroperoxyeicosatetraenoic acid (15-HpETE), an arachidonic acid (AA) product. In addition to 15-HpETE, 12(S)-HpETE is synthesized by 12-lipoxygenation of platelet AA. We first show that 12-HpETE can be degraded in vitro into 4-hydroxydodeca-(2E,6Z)-dienal (4-HDDE), a specific aldehyde homologous to 4-HNE. Moreover, 4-HDDE can be detected in human plasma. Second, we compare the ability of 4-HNE, 4-HDDE, and 4-hydroxy-2E-hexenal (4-HHE) from n-3 fatty acids to covalently modify different ethanolamine phospholipids (PEs) chosen for their biological relevance, namely AA- (20: 4n-6) or docosahexaenoic acid- (22:6n-3) containing diacyl-glycerophosphoethanolamine (diacyl-GPE) and alkenylacyl-glycerophosphoethanolamine (alkenylacyl-GPE) molecular species. The most hydrophobic aldehyde used, 4-HDDE, generates more adducts with the PE subclasses than does 4-HNE, which itself appears more reactive than 4-HHE. Moreover, the aldehydes show higher reactivity toward alkenylacyl-GPE compared with diacyl-GPE, because the docosahexaenoyl-containing species are more reactive than those containing arachidonoyl. We conclude that the different PE species are differently targeted by fatty aldehydes: the higher their hydrophobicity, the higher the amount of adducts made. In addition to their antioxidant potential, alkenylacyl-GPEs may efficiently scavenge fatty aldehydes.

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