4.5 Article

Selenoprotein W serves as an antioxidant in chicken myoblasts

期刊

BIOCHIMICA ET BIOPHYSICA ACTA-GENERAL SUBJECTS
卷 1830, 期 4, 页码 3112-3120

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbagen.2013.01.007

关键词

SelW; Chicken embryonic myoblasts; Antioxidation; ROS; Apoptosis

资金

  1. Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education [20122325110018]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31272626, 30871902]
  3. Science Foundation of the Education Department of Heilongjiang Province [11551030]
  4. Study Abroad Foundation of Heilongjiang Province [LC201031]
  5. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [LRB06-262]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Selenoprotein W (SelW) was thought to play an antioxidant role in mammals. Because chicken SelW has no cysteine (Cys) at the residue 37 (Cys37) that is required for the presumed antioxidant function in mammals, this study was conducted to determine whether chicken SelW possessed the same function. Methods: Small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) technology was applied to suppress the SelW expression in chicken embryonic myoblasts. Thereafter, these myoblasts were treated with different concentrations of H2O2 and assayed for cell viability, apoptosis rate, reactive oxygen species (ROS) status, and expression levels of apoptosis-related genes and proteins (Box, Bcl-2, and caspase-3). Results: Silencing of the myoblast SelW gene decreased their cell viability, and increased their apoptosis rate and susceptibility to H2O2. While the knockout down of SelW up-regulated Box and caspase-3 and down-regulated Bcl-2, the induced oxidative injuries were alleviated by treatment with a ROS scavenger, N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC). Conclusion: Chicken SelW protected embryonic myoblasts against cell apoptosis mediated by endogenous and exogenous H2O2. General significance: Chicken SelW possesses antioxidant function similar to the mammalian homologues despite the lack of Cys37 in the peptide. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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