4.7 Review

Measurement of NO in biological samples

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 172, Issue 6, Pages 1620-1632

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bph.12832

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Hungarian National Science Fund [OTKA K101633, OTKA ANN 107803, OKTA K109737, PD106001, TAMOP-4.2.2.A-11/1/KONV-2012-0035]
  2. National Excellence Program of Hungary [TAMOP 4.2.4.A/2-11-1-2012-0001]
  3. Janos Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although the physiological regulatory function of the gasotransmitter NO (a diatomic free radical) was discovered decades ago, NO is still in the frontline research in biomedicine. NO has been implicated in a variety of physiological and pathological processes; therefore, pharmacological modulation of NO levels in various tissues may have significant therapeutic value. NO is generated by NOS in most of cell types and by non-enzymatic reactions. Measurement of NO is technically difficult due to its rapid chemical reactions with a wide range of molecules, such as, for example, free radicals, metals, thiols, etc. Therefore, there are still several contradictory findings on the role of NO in different biological processes. In this review, we briefly discuss the major techniques suitable for measurement of NO (electron paramagnetic resonance, electrochemistry, fluorometry) and its derivatives in biological samples (nitrite/nitrate, NOS, cGMP, nitrosothiols) and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each method. We conclude that to obtain a meaningful insight into the role of NO and NO modulator compounds in physiological or pathological processes, concomitant assessment of NO synthesis, NO content, as well as molecular targets and reaction products of NO is recommended. Linked ArticlesThis article is part of a themed section on Pharmacology of the Gasotransmitters. To view the other articles in this section visit

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available