4.4 Article

Structure-reactivity studies of the Cu2+-catalyzed decomposition of four S-nitrosothiols based around the S-nitrosocysteine/S-nitrosoglutathione structures

期刊

NITRIC OXIDE-BIOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
卷 4, 期 4, 页码 392-398

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1006/niox.2000.0291

关键词

nitric oxide; copper(I); nitrosothiols; disulfides; copper complexes; glutamate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

S-Nitrosoglutathione (GSNO) and the dipeptide derivative S-nitrosoglutamylcysteine (SNO-GluCys) both at 1 X 10(-3) M in pH 7.4 buffer containing added Cu2+ (1 X 10(-5) M) are very unreactive toward decomposition (measured spectrophotometrically), and in both cases reaction stops at very low conversion. S-Nitrosocysteine (SNC) and the dipeptide derivative S-nitrosocysteinylglycine (SNO-CysGly), on the other hand, are orders of magnitude more reactive under the same conditions, and reaction proceeds to completion. Initially, me interpreted these results in terms of the requirement of a suitably positioned free NH2 group (which is available in both SNC and SNO-CysGly, but not in GSNO and SNO-GluCys) for efficient complexation of Cu+, the effective reagent. However, later results measured at much lower substrate concentration (1 X 10(-6) M) using the NO electrode system showed that at this concentration, all four S-nitrosothiols react at approximately the same rate and yield NO quantitatively. For GSNO the rate and percentage conversion were shown to drop progressively as the substrate concentration increases. All reactions are effectively halted in the presence of the metal ion chelator EDTA. The results can readily be explained in terms of complexation of Cu2+ by the product disulfides from GSNO (i.e., GSSG) and SNO-GluCys, involving the glutamate residue, which is not present in SNC and SNO-CysGly. This is confirmed by the observed progressive reduction in yield and percentage conversion of GSNO decomposition as GSSG is added, at micromolar substrate concentrations. (C) 2000 Academic Press.

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

4.4
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