4.8 Article

Blood glutathione synthesis rates in healthy adults receiving a sulfur amino acid-free diet

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.090083297

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR88] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01 DK015856, DK15856] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM 02700] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The availability of cysteine is thought to be the rate limiting factor for synthesis of the tripeptide glutathione (GSH), based on studies in rodents. GSH status is compromised in various disease states and by certain medications leading to increased morbidity and poor survival. To determine the possible importance of dietary cyst(e)ine availability for whole blood glutathione synthesis in humans, we developed a convenient mass spectrometric method for measurement of the isotopic enrichment of intact GSH and then applied it in a controlled metabolic study, Seven healthy male subjects received during two separate 10-day periods an L-amino acid based diet supplying an adequate amino acid intake or a sulfur amino acid (SAA) (methionine and cysteine) free mixture (SAA-free). On day 10, L-[1-C-13]cysteine was given as a primed, constant i.v. infusion (3 mu mol.kg(-1).h(-1)) for 6 h, and incorporation of label into whole blood GSH determined by GC/MS selected ion monitoring. The fractional synthesis rate (mean +/- SD; day(-1)) of whole blood GSH was 0.65 +/- 0.13 for the adequate diet and 0.49 +/- 0.13 for the SAA-free diet (P < 0.01). Whole blood GSH was 1,142 +/- 243 and 1,216 +/- 162 mu M for the adequate and SAA-free periods (P > 0.05), and the absolute rate of GSH synthesis was 747 +/- 216 and 579 +/- 135 mu mol.liter(-1).day(-1), respectively (P < 0.05). Thus, a restricted dietary supply of SAA slows the rate of whole blood GSH synthesis and diminishes turnover, with maintenance of the GSH concentration in healthy subjects.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available