4.6 Article

Geldanamycin leads to superoxide formation by enzymatic and non-enzymatic redox cycling - Implications for studies of hsp90 and endothelial cell nitric-oxide synthase

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 277, 期 28, 页码 25480-25485

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M203271200

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ansamycin antibiotic geldanamycin has frequently been used as an inhibitor of heat shock protein 90 (Hsp90), and this agent has been widely employed as a probe to examine the interactions of Hsp90 with endothelial nitric-oxide synthase. Geldanamycin contains a quinone group, which may participate in redox cycling. When geldanamycin was exposed to the flavin-containing enzyme cytochrome P-450 reductase, both semiquinone and superoxide (O-2(.-)) radicals were detected using electron spin resonance. The treatment of endothelial cells with geldanamycin resulted in a dramatic increase in 07 generation, which was independent of endothelial nitric oxide synthase, because it was not inhibited by N-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester and also occurred in vascular smooth muscle cells. Diphenylene iodinium inhibited this increase in O-2(.-) by 50%, suggesting that flavin-containing enzymes are involved in geldanamycin-induced O-2(.-) generation. In the absence of cells, geldanamycin directly oxidized ascorbate, consumed oxygen, and produced O-2(.-). Geldanamycin decreased the bioavailable nitric oxide generated by 3,4-dihydrodiazete 1,2-dioxide in smooth muscle cells by 50%, whereas pretreatment with superoxide dismutase inhibited the effect of geldanamycin. These findings demonstrate that geldanamycin generates O-2(.-) which scavenges nitric oxide, leading to loss of its bioavailability. This effect is independent of the inhibition of Hsp90 and indicates that geldanamycin cannot be used as a specific inhibitor of Hsp90. In light of these findings, the studies using geldanamycin as an inhibitor of Hsp90 should be interpreted with caution.

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