4.7 Review

How widespread is stable protein S-nitrosylation as an end-effector of protein regulation?

期刊

FREE RADICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 109, 期 -, 页码 156-166

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2017.02.013

关键词

S-nitrosylation; S-nitrosation; Thiol; Nitric oxide; Cysteine; Redox

资金

  1. British Heart Foundation
  2. European Research Council (ERC)
  3. Medical Research Council
  4. Department of Health via the NIHR cBRC
  5. MRC [G1000458, G0600785, G0700320, MR/L009684/1, MR/K003232/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/C503646/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. British Heart Foundation [FS/11/45/28859, PG/13/13/30018, PG/15/26/31373, RG/12/12/29872, PG/10/98/28655] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Medical Research Council [MR/L009684/1, MR/K003232/1, G0700320, G0600785, 998501, G1000458] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the last 25 years protein S-nitrosylation, also known more correctly as S-nitrosation, has been progressively implicated in virtually every nitric oxide-regulated process within the cardiovascular system. The current, widely-held paradigm is that S-nitrosylation plays an equivalent role as phosphorylation, providing a stable and controllable post-translational modification that directly regulates end-effector target proteins to elicit biological responses. However, this concept largely ignores the intrinsic instability of the nitrosothiol bond, which rapidly reacts with typically abundant thiol-containing molecules to generate more stable disulfide bonds. These protein disulfides, formed via a nitrosothiol intermediate redox state, are rationally anticipated to be the predominant end-effector modification that mediates functional alterations when cells encounter nitrosative stimuli. In this review we present evidence and explain our reasoning for arriving at this conclusion that may be controversial to some researchers in the field.

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