Significance of the intramolecular transformation of glutathione thiyl radicals to α-aminoalkyl radicals. Thermochemical and biological implications

Abstract

Product studies have been undertaken on the OH˙ radical-induced oxidation of glutathione in N₂O- saturated aqueous solutions. Ammonia has been found to be a prominent product with G values around 2.5–2.9 × 10^-7 J mol^-1 from pH 6 to 10.5. The ammonia is considered to be a product of the disproportionation reaction of the α-amino carbon-centred radicals, formed via the intramolecular transformation of glutathione thiyl radicals. At pH ca. 4–6, the ammonia yield decreases due to the fact that the transformation reaction slows down with decreasing pH and eventually comes into competition with bimolecular recombination. From the pH dependence of the ammonia yield curve, the equilibrium constant between the glutathione thiyl radical and the α-amino carbon-centred radical is deduced to be >10⁴. The strength of the C–H bond α to the NH₂ and CO₂^- groups is thus <343 kJ mol^-1. The corresponding bond energy of the C–H bond α to the NH₂ and CO₂H groups is estimated to be <329 kJ mol^-1. Based on the ammonia formation, consumption of free SH groups and the HPLC chromatograms obtained at different pH values after γ-irradiation of N₂O-saturated glutathione solutions, the overall reaction mechanism concerning the fate of glutathione thiyl radicals is proposed. This mechanism and its kinetics indicate that the intramolecular transformation is one of the principal pathways of self-removal of glutathione thiyl radicals, which is formed in various repair processes, in both anaerobic and aerobic conditions.

References

1. G. T. Sáez, W. H. Bannister and J. V. Bannister, in Glutathione: Metabolism and Physiological Functions, ed. J. Vina, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1990, p. 237.
2. C. Von Sonntag, in The Chemical Basis of Radiation Biology, Taylor & Francis, 1987, pp. 396–400.
3. P. Wardman, in Glutathione Conjugation: Mechanism and Biological Significance, eds. H. Sies and B. Ketterer, Academic Press, London, 1988, pp. 43–72.
4. P. C. Jocelyn, in Biochemistry of SH Groups, Academic Press, New York, 1972, pp. 261–323.
5. T. N. Huckerby and A. J. Tudor, J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2, 1985, 795.
6. M. Z. Hoffman and E. Hayon, J. Phys. Chem., 1973, 77, 990.
7. W. A. Prütz, J. Butler and E. J. Land, Biophys. Chem., 1994, 49, 101.
8. R. Zhao, J. Lind, G. Merényi and T. E. Eriksen, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1994, 116, 12 010.
9. L. Grierson, K. Hildenbrand and E. Bothe, Int. J. Radiat. Biol., 1992, 62, 265.
10. H. Paul and H. Fischer, Helv. Chim. Acta, 1971, 54, 485.
11. D. A. Armstrong, A. Rauk and D. Yu, J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2, 1995, 553.
12. W. L. McLaughlin, A. W. Boyd, K. H. Chadwick, J. C. McDonald and A. Miller, in Dosimetry for Radiation Processing, Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, 1989, p. 144.
13. G. L. Ellman, Arch. Biochem. Biophys., 1959, 82, 70.
14. M. Z. Hoffman and E. Hayon, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1972, 94, 7950.
15. Z. Abedinzadeh, M. Gardès-Albert and C. Ferradini, Radiat. Phys. Chem., 1992, 40, 551.
16. J. L. Redpath, Radiat. Res., 1973, 54, 364.
17. Z. Abedinzadeh, A. M. Gardes and C. Ferradini, Can. J. Chem., 1989, 67, 1247.
18. J. M. Nicovich, K. D. Kreutter, C. A. Van Dijk and P. H. Wine, J. Phys. Chem., 1992, 96, 2518.
19. D. F. McMillen and D. M. Golden, Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem., 1982, 33, 493.
20. D. Yu, A. Rauk and D. A. Armstrong, J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2, 1994, 2207.
21. G. Leroy, M. Sana and C. Wilante, J. Mol. Struct. (Theochem), 1991, 228, 37.
22. P. Wardman and C. Von Sonntag, Methods Enzymol., 1995, 251, 31.
23. J. P. Barton and J. E. Packer, Int. J. Radiat. Phys. Chem., 1970, 2, 159.
24. A. A. Al-Thannon, J. P. Barton, J. E. Packer, R. J. Sims, C. N. Trumbore and R. V. Winchester, Int. J. Radiat. Phys. Chem., 1974, 6, 233.
25. B. Halliwell and J. M. C. Gutteridge, Free Radicals in Biology and Medicine, Oxford University Press, New York, 2nd edn., 1989, p. 1.