4.6 Article

Interaction of electrophilic lipid oxidation products with mitochondria in endothelial cells and formation of reactive oxygen species

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.01087.2005

关键词

15-deoxy-Delta(12,14)-prostaglandin J(2); isoprostane; cyclopentenone; 4-hydroxynonenal; atherosclerosis; rho0

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA-77839] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL-58013] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK-48831] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIEHS NIH HHS [ES-00267, ES-10167] Funding Source: Medline
  5. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM-15431] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electrophilic lipids, such as 4-hydroxynonenal (HNE), and the cyclopentenones 15-deoxy-Delta(12,14)-prostaglandin J(2) (15d-PGJ(2)) and 15-J(2)-isoprostane induce both reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation and cellular antioxidant defenses, such as heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) and glutathione (GSH). When we compared the ability of these distinct electrophiles to stimulate GSH and HO-1 production, the cyclopentenone electrophiles were somewhat more potent than HNE. Over the concentration range required to observe equivalent induction of GSH, dichlorofluorescein fluorescence was used to determine both the location and amounts of electrophilic lipid-dependent ROS formation in endothelial cells. The origin of the ROS on exposure to these compounds was largely mitochondrial. To investigate the possibility that the increased ROS formation was due to mitochondrial localization of the lipids, we prepared a novel fluorescently labeled form of the electrophilic lipid 15d-PGJ(2). The lipid demonstrated strong colocalization with the mitochondria, an effect which was not observed by using a fluorescently labeled nonelectrophilic lipid. The role of mitochondria was confirmed by using cells deficient in functional mitochondria. On the basis of these data, we propose that ROS formation in endothelial cells is due to the direct interaction of these lipids with the organelle.

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

4.6
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