4.7 Article

Reactive oxygen species regulation by AIF- and complex I-depleted brain mitochondria

期刊

FREE RADICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 46, 期 7, 页码 939-947

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2009.01.010

关键词

Apoptosis-inducing factor; Electron transport chain; Neurodegeneration; Oxidative stress; Protein carbonyl; Synaprosome

资金

  1. American Parkinson Disease
  2. NIH [AG025901, NS054764, ES012077]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Apoptosis-inducing factor (AIF)-deficient harlequin (Hq) mice undergo neurodegeneration associated with a 40-50% reduction in complex I level and activity. We tested the hypothesis that AIF and complex I regulate reactive oxygen species (ROS) production by brain mitochondria, Isolated Hq brain mitochondria oxidizing complex I Substrates displayed no difference compared to wild type (WT) in basal ROS production, H(2)O(2) removal, or ROS production stimulated by complex I inhibitors rotenone or 1-methyl-4-phenylpyridinium. In contrast, ROS production caused by reverse electron transfer to complex I was attenuated by similar to 50% in Hq mitochondria oxidizing the complex II substrate succinate. Basal and rotenone-stimulated rates of H(2)O(2) release from in situ mitochondria did not differ between Hq and WT synaptosomes metabolizing glucose, nor did the level of in vivo oxidative protein carbonyl modifications detected in synaptosomes, brain mitochondria, or homogenates. Our results Suggest that AIF does not directly modulate ROS release from brain mitochondria. In addition, they demonstrate that in contrast to ROS produced by mitochondria oxidizing succinate, ROS release from in situ synaptosomal mitochondria or from isolated brain mitochondria oxidizing complex I Substrates is not proportional to the amount of complex I. These findings raise the important possibility that complex I contributes less to physiological ROS production by brain mitochondria than previously suggested. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.7
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