4.7 Article

Trans lipid formation induced by thiols in human monocytic leukemia cells

期刊

FREE RADICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 38, 期 9, 页码 1180-1187

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2004.12.026

关键词

trans lipid; isomerization; thiyl radical; thiol; leukemic cell; trans fatty acid; free radicals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Trans lipids in humans originate exogenously from the ingestion of isomerized fats. An endogenous path comprising a thiyl radicalcatalyzed cis-trans isomerization of cis-unsaturated phospholipids was proposed. However, whether an isomerization process might be feasible in eukaryotic cells remained to be established. Here we report the presence of trans lipids in human monocytic leukemia cell membranes (THP-1) before and after treatment with a 10 mM series of thiols. Oleic, linoleic, and arachidonic acid residues of membrane phospholipids were analyzed and, unexpectedly, an initial trans lipid content was found in control cells. Then, incubation for 24 h with thiols under physiological conditions slightly increased trans lipid content. Formation of trans isomers was also evaluated in the presence of thiol and under free radical stress induced by gamma-irradiation or by thermal decomposition of azo-compounds. The similarity of isomer trends formed under incubation and stress conditions, together with the reactivity order of fatty acid residues (arachidonic > linoleic approximate to oleic), indicated a common radical path and some mechanistic considerations are advanced. These results offer the first evidence that trans lipids are formed in eukaryotic cells and confirm that thiyl radicals are harmful to the integrity of cis lipid geometry. This work motivates further studies into the relationship between lipid isomerization outcome and thiyl radicals in cellular systems, as well as the formation of trans lipids and the metabolic response to such a perturbation introduced into biological membranes. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.7
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