4.7 Review

No scavenging and the hypertensive effect of hemoglobin-based blood substitutes

期刊

FREE RADICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 36, 期 6, 页码 685-697

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2003.11.030

关键词

free radicals

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL47020] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK61929] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM44911, GM56818, GM35649, GM08362] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The major pathway for nitric oxide scavenging in red cells involves the direct reaction of the gas with HbO(2) to form nitrate and the ferric form of the protein, metHb. Because both atoms of O-2 are incorporated into nitrate, this process is called NO dioxygenation (NOD). The NOD reaction involves an initial, very rapid bimolecular addition of NO to bound O-2 to form a transient Fe(III)-peroxynitrite complex, which can be observed spectrally at alkaline pH. This intermediate rapidly isomerizes at pH 7 (t(1/2) less than or equal to 1 ms) to metHb and NO3-, which is nontoxic and readily transported out of red cells and excreted. The rate of NO consumption by intracellular HbO(2) during normal blood flow is limited by diffusion up to and into the red cells and is too slow to interfere significantly with vasoregulation. In contrast, extracellular HbO(2) is highly vasoconstrictive, and the resultant hypertension is a significant side effect of most hemoglobin-based blood substitutes. The major cause of this blood pressure effect seems to be the high rate of NO dioxygenation by cell-free HbO(2), which can extravasate into the vessel walls and interfere directly with NO signaling between endothelial and smooth muscle cells. This interpretation is supported by a strong linear correlation between the magnitude of the blood pressure effect caused by infusion of cross-linked recombinant hemoglobin tetramers in vivo and the rate of NO dioxygenation by these proteins measured in vitro. (C) 2004 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