4.5 Article

The cystathionine γ-lyase/hydrogen sulfide system maintains cellular glutathione status

期刊

BIOCHEMICAL JOURNAL
卷 460, 期 -, 页码 425-435

出版社

PORTLAND PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1042/BJ20131434

关键词

antioxidative; cystathionine gamma-lyase; glutathione; hydrogen sulfide; oxidative stress

资金

  1. A*STAR Nutrition and Food Science grant [R-183-000-313-305]
  2. National University Health System Bench-to-Bedside grant [R183-000-312-515]
  3. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) has been implicated to exhibit antioxidative properties in many models. CSE (cystathionine gamma-lyase) is an important enzyme responsible for endogenous H2S production in mammalian systems, but little is known about the modulation of endogenous H2S production and its antioxidative activity. We found that inhibiting CSE activity with PAG (propargylglycine) or silencing CSE expression using an siRNA approach resulted in a greater reduction in cell viability under exposure to the oxidizing agent hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). Cellular oxidative stress also increased significantly upon PAG inhibition or CSE knockdown. Further experiments using an activity-null Y60A mutant, a hyperactive E339A mutant and a control E349A mutant demonstrated that modulation of CSE catalytic activity altered its antioxidative activity. The increased sensitivity towards H2O2-induced cytotoxicity in CSE-siRNA-transfected cells was associated with a decreased glutathione concentration (GSH) and glutathione ratio (GSH/GSSG). Incubation of cells with exogenous H2S increased the GSH concentration and GSH/GSSG ratio. Moreover, exogenous H2S preserved the cellular glutathione status under BSO (buthionine sulfoximine)-induced glutathione depletion. Taken together, the results of the present study provide molecular insights into the antioxidative activity of CSE and highlights the importance of the CSE/H2S system in maintaining cellular glutathione status.

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

4.5
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