4.7 Article

Thiyl radicals react with nitric oxide to form S-nitrosothiols with rate constants near the diffusion-controlled limit

Journal

FREE RADICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
Volume 44, Issue 12, Pages 2013-2018

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2008.02.015

Keywords

thiols; nitric oxide; S-nitrosothiols; thiyl radicals; glutathione; cysteine; penicillamine; pulse radiolysis; kinetics; free radicals

Funding

  1. Cancer Research UK Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A possible route to S-nitrosothiols in biology is the reaction between thiyl radicals and nitric oxide. D. Hofstetter et al. (Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 360:146-148; 2007) claimed an upper limit of (2.8 +/- 0.6)x 10(7) M(-1)s(-1) for the rate constant between thiyl radicals derived from glutathione and nitric oxide, and it was suggested that under physiological conditions S-nitrosation via this route is negligible. In the present study, thiyl radicals were generated by pulse radiolysis, and the rate constants of their reactions with nitric oxide were determined by kinetic competition with the oxidizable dyes 2,2'-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonate) and a phenothiazine. The rate constants for the reaction of nitric oxide with thiyl radicals derived from glutathione, cysteine, and penicillamine were all in the range (2-3) x 10(9) M(-1)s(-1), two orders of magnitude higher than the previously reported estimate in the case of glutathione. Absorbance changes on reaction of thiyl radicals with nitric oxide were consistent with such high reactivity and showed the formation of S-nitrosothiols, which was also confirmed in the case of glutathione by HPLC/MS.These rate constants imply that formation of S-nitrosothiols in biological systems from the combination of thiyl radicals with nitric oxide is much more likely than claimed by Hofstetter et al. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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