| Literature DB >> 22962529 |
Shigeru Oowada1, Nobuyuki Endo, Hiromi Kameya, Masashi Shimmei, Yashige Kotake.
Abstract
We have developed a method to determine serum scavenging-capacity profile against multiple free radical species, namely hydroxyl radical, superoxide radical, alkoxyl radical, alkylperoxyl radical, alkyl radical, and singlet oxygen. This method was applied to a cohort of chronic kidney disease patients. Each free radical species was produced with a common experimental procedure; i.e., uv/visible-light photolysis of free-radical precursor/sensitizer. The decrease in free-radical concentration by the presence of serum was quantified with electron spin resonance spin trapping method, from which the scavenging capacity was calculated. There was a significant capacity change in the disease group (n = 45) as compared with the healthy control group (n = 30). The percent values of disease's scavenging capacity with respect to control group indicated statistically significant differences in all free-radical species except alkylperoxyl radical, i.e., hydroxyl radical, 73 ± 12% (p = 0.001); superoxide radical, 158 ± 50% (p = 0.001); alkoxyl radical, 121 ± 30% (p = 0.005); alkylperoxyl radical, 123 ± 32% (p>0.1); alkyl radical, 26 ± 14% (p = 0.001); and singlet oxygen, 57 ± 18% (p = 0.001). The scavenging capacity profile was illustrated using a radar chart, clearly demonstrating the characteristic change in the disease group. Although the cause of the scavenging capacity change by the disease state is not completely understood, the profile of multiple radical scavenging capacities may become a useful diagnostic tool.Entities:
Keywords: ESR spin trapping; MULTIS; chronic kidney disease; multiple free radical; serum
Year: 2012 PMID: 22962529 PMCID: PMC3432821 DOI: 10.3164/jcbn.11-113
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Biochem Nutr ISSN: 0912-0009 Impact factor: 3.114
Photolytic production methods of multiple free radical species
| Free Radical | Precursor/Sensitizer | Light sourcea | Filter | Wavelength range | Illumination period | Spin trap | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| •OH | hydrogen peroxide (10 mM) | RUVF-203SR | none | 300–400 nm | 5 s | CYPMPO | [15] |
| O2•− | riboflavin (20 µM) | RUVF-203SR | band-path | 500–600 nm | 60 s | CYPMPO | [16, 17] |
| AAPH (1 mM) | RUVF-203SR | none | 300–400 nm | 5 s | CYPMPO | [7] | |
| RUVF-203SR | none | 300–400 nm | 5 s | CYPMPO | [18] | ||
| CH3• | H2O2 (100 mM) + DMSO (10 mM) | RUVF-203SR | none | 300–400 nm | 5 s | CYPMPO | [19] |
| 1ΔO2 | rosebengalb (200 µM) | RUVF-203SR | band-path | 500–600 nm | 60 s | 4-OH-TEMP | [20] |
a RUVF-203SR illuminator delivers UV-visible light from a 200 W medium pressure Hg/Xe arc to the ESR cavity via the quartz optical-guide. Light intensity was approximately b. 4000 mW/cm2 for UV range and 1800 mW/cm2 for visible range. b Pterin derivatives, such as 6-formylpterin or 6-carboxylpterin can be used instead of rosebengal.(
Fig. 1ESR spectra of various spin adducts produced after photolysis of precursors/sensitizers (Table 1): A) hydroxyl radical adduct of CYPMPO; B) superoxide radical adduct of CYPMPO; C) t-butoxyl radical adduct of CYPMPO; D) t-butyl peroxyl radical adduct of CYPMPO; E) methyl radical adduct of CYPMPO; and F) TEMPOL radical formed after the reaction of singlet oxygen with 4-OH-TEMP.
Hyperfine coupling constants of spin adducts.
| Free Radical | HFCC/mT | Assignment | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AH | AN | AP | ||
| Hydroxyl, •OH | 1.37 | 1.37 | 4.88 | CYPMPO-OHa |
| 1.23 | 1.35 | 4.70 | CYPMPO-OHa | |
| Superoxide, O2•− | 1.11 | 1.26 | 5.25 | CYPMPO-O2−b |
| 1.04 | 1.27 | 5.10 | CYPMPO-O2−b | |
| 1.24 | 1.36 | 4.80 | CYPMPO-OBuc | |
| 1.35 | 1.45 | 5.05 | CYPMPO-OOBud | |
| Methyl, CH3• (Alkyl) | 2.05 | 1.51 | 4.90 | CYPMPO-CH3 |
| Singlet Oxygen, 1ΔO2 | 1.50 | TEMPOL radicale | ||
a Diastereomers.( b Diastereomers.( c Actual structure of BuO• is H2N(HN)C-C(CH3)2-O•.( d Actual structure of BuOO• is (CH3)3C-OO•. e TEMPOL radical = 4-hydroxy-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine-1-oxyl radical.
Relative scavenging capacity of the serum as measured for multiple free radical species
| Free Radical | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| •OH | O2•− | RO• | ROO• | R• | 1ΔO2 | |
| CKD ( | 0.31 ± 0.05 | 0.38 ± 0.21 | 1.25 ± 0.31 | 0.16 ± 0.05 | 0.09 ± 0.05 | 6.94 ± 2.25 |
| percent vs control | 73 ± 12% | 158 ± 50% | 121 ± 30% | 123 ± 32% | 26 ± 14% | 57 ± 18% |
| healthy control ( | 0.42 ± 0.12 | 0.24 ± 0.07 | 1.03 ± 0.07 | 0.13 ± 0.04 | 0.35 ± 0.14 | 12.20 ± 2.07 |
| CKD ( | 6.8 ± 1.1 | 16.0 ± 6.0 | 1.13 ± 0.28 | 1.52 ± 0.52 | 0.09 ± 0.05 | 24.8 ± 7.9 |
| healthy control ( | 9.4 ± 2.8 | 10.1 ± 1.9 | 0.93 ± 0.06 | 1.24 ± 0.47 | 0.35 ± 0.14 | 43.6 ± 7.3 |
Top panel: Scavenging capacities of the serum are calculated relative to that of CYPMPO (kserum/kCYPMPO in mM-CYPMPO eq unit). For singlet oxygen, its quencher 4-OH-TEMP was used as a detection reagent and the capacity is listed as kserum/kTEMP. Bottom panel: Scavenging capacities are converted into the equivalent units to pure scavengers. a α-lipoic acid. b There is no known scavengers for alkyl radical (R).
Fig. 2A radar chart illustration of the relative scavenging capacity data listed in Table 3. Percent changes in the capacity of the CKD group (thick lines) are shown with respect to the control group. Error bars are shown in each free radical species and the numbers marked with asterisk showed statistically significant difference from the control group.