4.6 Article

Age-related decrease in high-density lipoproteins antioxidant activity is due to an alteration in the PON1's free sulfhydyl groups

期刊

ATHEROSCLEROSIS
卷 185, 期 1, 页码 191-200

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2005.06.012

关键词

paraoxonase; aging; HDL; oxygen free radicals; lipid peroxidation; antioxidant; sulfhydryl groups

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to evaluate the antioxidant activity of HDL with aging and to investigate the implication of PON1 in this process. The study involved 54 healthy subjects distributed in two age groups, young (20-25 years) and elderly (65-85 years). Lipid peroxidation was induced by OH and O-2(center dot-) oxygen free radicals produced by gamma-radiolysis of water. LDL oxidation was followed by the measurement of conjugated diene (CD), lipid peroxide (LP) and malondialdehyde (MDA) formation. PON1 was purified separately from young (Y-PON1) and elderly subjects (E-PON1). PON1 activity and structure was followed by measurement of PON1 paraoxonase (p.ase) activity, titration of the SH groups, and electrophoretic mobility by SDS-PAGE. Our results show a significant decrease in the HDL antioxidant activity: percentage of protection against CD formation = 27.70% (p < 0.01) for E-HDL versus 73.08% (p < 0.001) for Y-HDL. Moreover, E-PON1 showed a lower antioxidant activity when compared to Y-PON1 47.08% versus 78.14%, respectively (p < 0.0001). Exposition of PON1 to (OH)-O-center dot and O(2)(center dot-)oxygen free radicals induced a significant decrease in PONI p.ase activity as well as a reduction in the number of PON1's free sulfhydryl groups. Moreover. our results show a close association between PON1's free sulfhydryl groups and its capacity to protect LDL against lipid peroxidation. There was a significant decrease in the number of free sulfhydryls between Y-PON1 and E-PON1 with respect to cysteine-284 amino acid residues (p < 0.0092). (c) 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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

4.6
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