4.4 Review

H2S during circulatory shock: Some unresolved questions

期刊

NITRIC OXIDE-BIOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
卷 41, 期 -, 页码 48-61

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.niox.2014.03.163

关键词

H2S; NaSH; Na2S; GYY4137; Cystathionine-gamma-lyase; Cystathione-beta-synthase

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [KFO 200, DFG RA 396/9-2]
  2. Land Baden-Wurttemberg (Innovationsfond Medizin)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Numerous papers have been published on the role of H2S during circulatory shock. Consequently, knowledge about vascular sulfide concentrations may assume major importance, in particular in the context of acute on chronic disease, i.e., during circulatory shock in animals with pre-existing chronic disease. This review addresses the questions (i) of the real sulfide levels during circulatory shock, and (ii) to which extent injury and pre-existing co-morbidity may affect the expression of H2S producing enzymes under these conditions. In the literature there is a huge range on sulfide blood levels during circulatory shock, in part as a result of the different analytical methods used, but also due to the variable of the models and species studied. Clearly, some of the very high levels reported should be questioned in the context of the well-known H2S toxicity. As long as real sulfide levels during circulatory shock are unknown and/or undetectable on line due to the lack of appropriate techniques, it appears to be premature to correlate the measured blood levels of hydrogen sulfide with the severity of shock or the H2S therapy-related biological outcomes. The available data on the tissue expression of the H2S-releasing enzymes during circulatory shock suggest that a constitutive CSE expression may play a crucial role of for the maintenance of organ function, at least in the kidney. The data also indicate that increased CBS and CSE expression, in particular in the lung and the liver, represents an adaptive response to stress states. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据