Are you Sayaka Nakano?

Claim your profile

Publications (1)2.25 Total impact

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We previously reported that the all-cis isomer of arachidonic acid, the most naturally occurring isoform of this fatty acid, reduced cuprous copper ion-induced conversion of xanthine dehydrogenase into its reactive oxygen species generating form, xanthine oxidase. In the present study, the effects of all-trans isomer of arachidonic acid, in comparison with cis isomer of arachidonic acid, on the xanthine dehydrogenase/xanthine oxidase interconversion were explored. cis isomer of arachidonic acid alone did not have any significant effect on the activities of xanthine dehydrogenase and xanthine oxidase, but it inhibited the cuprous copper ion-induced conversion of xanthine dehydrogenase to xanthine oxidase in rat liver cytosol in vitro. In contrast, trans isomer of arachidonic acid elicited an increase in xanthine oxidase activity concomitant with a decrease in xanthine dehydrogenase activity, and further potentiated the cuprous copper ion-induced xanthine dehydrogenase/xanthine oxidase interconversion. In primary rat hepatocyte cultures, trans isomer of arachidonic acid increased 2',7'-dichlorofluorescein-fluorescence intensity in the cytosolic fraction from 2',7'-dichlorodihydrofluorescein, an indicator of reactive oxygen species generation. The pretreatment of allopurinol, an xanthine oxidase inhibitor, diminished the trans isomer of arachidonic acid-induced increase in the 2',7'-dichlorofluorescein-fluorescence intensity, indicating the role of xanthine dehydrogenase/xanthine oxidase in mediating trans isomer of arachidonic acid-induced reactive oxygen species generation. These observations suggest that, in contrast to all-cis arachidonic acid, all-trans arachidonic acid has the potential to enhance reactive oxygen species generation via xanthine dehydrogenase/xanthine oxidase interconversion in the liver cytosol in vitro.
    Journal of Clinical Biochemistry and Nutrition 07/2012; 51(1):55-60. · 2.25 Impact Factor