| Literature DB >> 35760871 |
Michael P Murphy1, Hülya Bayir2,3, Vsevolod Belousov4, Christopher J Chang5, Kelvin J A Davies6, Michael J Davies7, Tobias P Dick8, Toren Finkel9, Henry J Forman6,10, Yvonne Janssen-Heininger11, David Gems12, Valerian E Kagan3, Balaraman Kalyanaraman13, Nils-Göran Larsson14, Ginger L Milne15, Thomas Nyström16, Henrik E Poulsen17, Rafael Radi18, Holly Van Remmen19, Paul T Schumacker20, Paul J Thornalley21, Shinya Toyokuni22, Christine C Winterbourn23, Huiyong Yin24, Barry Halliwell25.
Abstract
Multiple roles of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and their consequences for health and disease are emerging throughout biological sciences. This development has led researchers unfamiliar with the complexities of ROS and their reactions to employ commercial kits and probes to measure ROS and oxidative damage inappropriately, treating ROS (a generic abbreviation) as if it were a discrete molecular entity. Unfortunately, the application and interpretation of these measurements are fraught with challenges and limitations. This can lead to misleading claims entering the literature and impeding progress, despite a well-established body of knowledge on how best to assess individual ROS, their reactions, role as signalling molecules and the oxidative damage that they can cause. In this consensus statement we illuminate problems that can arise with many commonly used approaches for measurement of ROS and oxidative damage, and propose guidelines for best practice. We hope that these strategies will be useful to those who find their research requiring assessment of ROS, oxidative damage and redox signalling in cells and in vivo.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35760871 DOI: 10.1038/s42255-022-00591-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Metab ISSN: 2522-5812