4.7 Article

Low complex I content explains the low hydrogen peroxide production rate of heart mitochondria from the long-lived pigeon, Columba livia

期刊

AGING CELL
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 78-91

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1474-9726.2009.00538.x

关键词

comparative biology of aging; complex I; free radical theory of aging; mitochondria; reactive oxygen species; superoxide

资金

  1. Research into Aging fellowship
  2. Medical Research Council
  3. Wellcome Trust [066750/B/01/Z]
  4. Medical Research Council [MC_U105663137] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. MRC [MC_U105663137] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Across a range of vertebrate species, it is known that there is a negative association between maximum lifespan and mitochondrial hydrogen peroxide production. In this report, we investigate the underlying biochemical basis of the low hydrogen peroxide production rate of heart mitochondria from a long-lived species (pigeon) compared with a short-lived species with similar body mass (rat). The difference in hydrogen peroxide efflux rate was not explained by differences in either superoxide dismutase activity or hydrogen peroxide removal capacity. During succinate oxidation, the difference in hydrogen peroxide production rate between the species was localized to the Delta pH-sensitive superoxide producing site within complex I. Mitochondrial Delta pH was significantly lower in pigeon mitochondria compared with rat, but this difference in Delta pH was not great enough to explain the lower hydrogen peroxide production rate. As judged by mitochondrial flavin mononucleotide content and blue native polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, pigeon mitochondria contained less complex I than rat mitochondria. Recalculation revealed that the rates of hydrogen peroxide production per molecule of complex I were the same in rat and pigeon. We conclude that mitochondria from the long-lived pigeon display low rates of hydrogen peroxide production because they have low levels of complex I.

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