4.5 Article

Relevance of the capacity of phosphorylated fructose to scavenge the hydroxyl radical

期刊

CARBOHYDRATE RESEARCH
卷 344, 期 1, 页码 80-84

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.carres.2008.09.025

关键词

Fructose; Glucose; Hydroxyl radical; Mannitol; EPR spectroscopy; Haber-Weiss reaction

资金

  1. Ministry of Science, Technology and Development of the Republic of Serbia [143034B, 143016B]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hydroxyl radical ((OH)-O-center dot) has detrimental biological activity due to its very high reactivity. Our experiments were designed to determine the effects of equimolar concentrations of glucose, fructose and mannitol and three phosphorylated forms of fructose (fructose-1-phosphate (F1P): fructose-6-phosphate (F6P): and fructose-1,6-bis(phosphate) (F16BP)) on (OH)-O-center dot radical production via the Fenton reaction. EPR spectroscopy using spin-trap DEPMPO was applied to detect radical production. We found that the percentage inhibition of (OH)-O-center dot radical formation decreased in the order F16BP > F1P > F6P > fructose > mannitol = glucose. As ketoses can sequester redox-active iron thus preventing the Fenton reaction, the Haber-Weiss-like system was also employed to generate (OH)-O-center dot, so that the effect of iron sequestration could be distinguished from direct (OH)-O-center dot radical scavenging. In the latter system, the rank order of (OH)-O-center dot scavenging activity was F16BP > F1P > F6P > fructose = mannitol = glucose. Our results clearly demonstrate that intracellular phosphorylated forms of fructose have more scavenging properties than fructose or glucose, leading us to conclude that the acute administration of fructose could overcome the body's reaction to exogenous antioxidants during appropriate therapy in certain pathophysiological conditions related to oxidative stress, Such as sepsis, neurodegenerative diseases, atherosclerosis, malignancy, and some complications of pregnancy. (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

4.5
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