William M Nauseef1. 1. Inflammation Program and Department of Internal Medicine, Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, and Veterans Administration Medical Center, Iowa City, IA 52240, USA. Electronic address: william-nauseef@uiowa.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recent recognition that isoforms of the cellular NADPH-dependent oxidases, collectively known as the NOX protein family, participate in a wide range of physiologic and pathophysiologic processes in both the animal and plant kingdoms has stimulated interest in the identification, localization, and quantitation of their products in biological settings. Although several tools for measuring oxidants released extracellularly are available, the specificity and selectivity of the methods for reliable analysis of intracellular oxidants have not matched the enthusiasm for studying NOX proteins. SCOPE OF REVIEW: Focusing exclusively on superoxide anion and hydrogen peroxide produced by NOX proteins, this review describes the ideal probe for analysis of O2(-) and H2O2 generated extracellularly and intracellularly by NOX proteins. An overview of the components, organization, and topology of NOX proteins provides a rationale for applying specific probes for use and a context in which to interpret results and thereby construct plausible models linking NOX-derived oxidants to biological responses. The merits and shortcomings of methods currently in use to assess NOX activity are highlighted, and those assays that provide quantitation of superoxide or H2O2 are contrasted with those intended to examine spatial and temporal aspects of NOX activity. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS: Although interest in measuring the extracellular and intracellular products of the NOX protein family is great, robust analytical probes are limited. GENERAL SIGNIFICANCE: The widespread involvement of NOX proteins in many biological processes requires rigorous approaches to the detection, localization, and quantitation of the oxidants produced. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled Current methods to study reactive oxygen species - pros and cons and biophysics of membrane proteins. Guest Editor: Christine Winterbourn.
BACKGROUND: The recent recognition that isoforms of the cellular NADPH-dependent oxidases, collectively known as the NOX protein family, participate in a wide range of physiologic and pathophysiologic processes in both the animal and plant kingdoms has stimulated interest in the identification, localization, and quantitation of their products in biological settings. Although several tools for measuring oxidants released extracellularly are available, the specificity and selectivity of the methods for reliable analysis of intracellular oxidants have not matched the enthusiasm for studying NOX proteins. SCOPE OF REVIEW: Focusing exclusively on superoxide anion and hydrogen peroxide produced by NOX proteins, this review describes the ideal probe for analysis of O2(-) and H2O2 generated extracellularly and intracellularly by NOX proteins. An overview of the components, organization, and topology of NOX proteins provides a rationale for applying specific probes for use and a context in which to interpret results and thereby construct plausible models linking NOX-derived oxidants to biological responses. The merits and shortcomings of methods currently in use to assess NOX activity are highlighted, and those assays that provide quantitation of superoxide or H2O2 are contrasted with those intended to examine spatial and temporal aspects of NOX activity. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS: Although interest in measuring the extracellular and intracellular products of the NOX protein family is great, robust analytical probes are limited. GENERAL SIGNIFICANCE: The widespread involvement of NOX proteins in many biological processes requires rigorous approaches to the detection, localization, and quantitation of the oxidants produced. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled Current methods to study reactive oxygen species - pros and cons and biophysics of membrane proteins. Guest Editor: Christine Winterbourn.
Authors: Colette T Dooley; Timothy M Dore; George T Hanson; W Coyt Jackson; S James Remington; Roger Y Tsien Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2004-02-25 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Howard E Boudreau; Benjamin W Casterline; Balazs Rada; Agnieszka Korzeniowska; Thomas L Leto Journal: Free Radic Biol Med Date: 2012-06-19 Impact factor: 7.376
Authors: Rita M Maalouf; Assaad A Eid; Yves C Gorin; Karen Block; Gladys Patricia Escobar; Steven Bailey; Hanna E Abboud Journal: Am J Physiol Cell Physiol Date: 2011-10-26 Impact factor: 4.249
Authors: Y A Suh; R S Arnold; B Lassegue; J Shi; X Xu; D Sorescu; A B Chung; K K Griendling; J D Lambeth Journal: Nature Date: 1999-09-02 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Seymour J Klebanoff; Anthony J Kettle; Henry Rosen; Christine C Winterbourn; William M Nauseef Journal: J Leukoc Biol Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 4.962
Authors: Katharina von Löhneysen; Deborah Noack; Algirdas J Jesaitis; Mary C Dinauer; Ulla G Knaus Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2008-10-10 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Richard E Davis; Smriti Sharma; Jacilara Conceição; Pedro Carneiro; Fernanda Novais; Phillip Scott; Shyam Sundar; Olivia Bacellar; Edgar M Carvalho; Mary E Wilson Journal: J Leukoc Biol Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 4.962
Authors: Xiang Wen; Xiaoshen Zhang; Grzegorz Szewczyk; Ahmed El-Hussein; Ying-Ying Huang; Tadeusz Sarna; Michael R Hamblin Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 5.191