4.7 Review

Protein Glutathionylation and Glutaredoxin: Role in Neurodegenerative Diseases

期刊

ANTIOXIDANTS
卷 11, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/antiox11122334

关键词

oxidative stress; glutathione; glutaredoxin; protein thiol; ischemia; Parkinson's disease; Alzheimer's disease

资金

  1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
  2. Centre for Brain Research
  3. [SPM-07/1233(0285)/2018-EMR-I]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oxidative stress plays a significant role in the development and progression of neurodegenerative disorders. The glutathione and glutaredoxin system in the brain is important for defense against reactive oxygen species. Enhancing this system could help protect the brain during aging.
Oxidative stress has been implicated in the pathogenesis and progression of many neurodegenerative disorders including Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. One of the major enzyme systems involved in the defense against reactive oxygen species are the tripeptide glutathione and oxidoreductase glutaredoxin. Glutathione and glutaredoxin system are very important in the brain because of the oxidative modification of protein thiols to protein glutathione mixed disulfides with the concomitant formation of oxidized glutathione during oxidative stress. Formation of Pr-SSG acts as a sink in the brain and is reduced back to protein thiols during recovery, thus restoring protein functions. This is unlike in the liver, which has a high turnover of glutathione, and formation of Pr-SSG is very minimal as liver is able to quickly quench the prooxidant species. Given the important role glutathione and glutaredoxin play in the brain, both in normal and pathologic states, it is necessary to study ways to augment the system to help maintain the protein thiol status. This review details the importance of glutathione and glutaredoxin systems in several neurodegenerative disorders and emphasizes the potential augmentation of this system as a target to effectively protect the brain during aging.

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

4.7
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