4.8 Article

The scavenging of reactive oxygen species and the potential for cell protection by functionalized fullerene materials

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 611-621

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.09.061

关键词

Gadolinium endohedral metallofullerenol; Fullerenol; Carboxyfullerene; Scavenging activity; Cytoprotection; Reactive oxygen species

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [5U 54CA091431] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCRR NIH HHS [G12 RR003048-20S15548, 2G12RR003048, G12 RR003048] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We demonstrated that three different types of water-soluble fullerenes materials can intercept all of the major physiologically relevant ROS. C-60(C(COOH)(2))(2), C-60(OH)(22), and Gd@C-82(OH)(22) can protect cells against H2O2-induced oxidative damage, stabilize the mitochondrial membrane potential and reduce intracellular ROS production with the following relative potencies: Gd@C-82(OH)(22)>= C-60(OH)(22)> C-60(C(COOH)(2))(2). Consistent with their cytoprotective abilities, these derivatives can scavenge the stable 2,2-diplienyl-1-picryhydrazl radical (DPPH), and the reactive oxygen species (ROS) superoxide radical anion (O-2(center dot-)). singlet oxygen, and hydroxyl radical (HO center dot), and can also efficiently inhibit lipid peroxidation in vitro. The observed differences in free radical-scavenging capabilities Support the hypothesis that both chemical Properties, such as Surface chemistry induced differences in electron affinity, and physical properties, such as degree of aggregation, influence the biological and biomedical activities of functionalized fullerenes. This represents the first report that different types of fullerene derivatives can scavenge all physiologically relevant ROS. The role of oxidative stress and damage in the etiology and Progression of many diseases suggests that these fullerene derivatives may be valuable in vivo cytoprotective and therapeutic agents. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
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