4.7 Article

Native rates of superoxide production from multiple sites in isolated mitochondria measured using endogenous reporters

期刊

FREE RADICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 53, 期 9, 页码 1807-1817

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2012.08.015

关键词

Mitochondria; ROS; Superoxide; Complex I; Complex III; NADH autofluorescence; Cytochrome b; Free radicals

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [P01 AG025901, PL1 AG032118, R01 AG033542]
  2. Ellison Medical Foundation [AG-SS-2288-09]
  3. Canada Research Chairs Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Individual sites of superoxide production in the mitochondrial respiratory chain have previously been defined and partially characterized using specific inhibitors, but the native contribution of each site to total Superoxide production in the absence of inhibitors is unknown. We estimated rates of superoxide production (measured as H2O2) at various sites in rat muscle mitochondria using specific endogenous reporters. The rate of superoxide production by the complex I Flavin (site I-F) was calibrated to the reduction state of endogenous NAD(P)H. Similarly, the rate of superoxide production by the complex III site of quinol oxidation (site IIIQo) was calibrated to the reduction state of endogenous cytochrome b(566). We then measured the endogenous reporters in mitochondria oxidizing NADH-generating substrates, without added respiratory inhibitors, with and without ATP synthesis. We used the calibrated reporters to calculate the rates of superoxide production from sites I-F and IIIQ(o). The calculated rates of superoxide production accounted for much of the measured overall rates. During ATP synthesis, site I-F was the dominant superoxide producer. Under nonphosphorylating conditions, overall rates were higher, and sites I-F and IIIQo and unidentified sites (perhaps the complex I site of quinone reduction, site I-Q) all made substantial contributions to measured H2O2 production. (C) 2012 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