Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

Are Protein Cavities and Pockets Commonly Used by Redox Active Signalling Molecules?

Altmetrics

Downloads

116

Views

52

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

This version is not peer-reviewed

Submitted:

22 May 2023

Posted:

23 May 2023

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
It has been well known for a long time that inert gases, such as xenon (Xe), have significant biological effects. As these atoms are extremely unlikely to partake in direct chemical reactions with bio-molecules, such as proteins, lipids and nucleic acids, there must be some other mode of action to account for the effects reported. It has been shown that the topology of proteins allows for cavities and hydrophobic pockets, and it is through an interaction with such protein structures that inert gases are thought to have their action. Recently, it has been mooted that the relatively inert gas molecular hydrogen (H2), also may have its effects through such a mechanism, and so influencing protein structures and actions. H2 is thought to also act through interaction with redox active compounds, particularly the hydroxyl radical (·OH) and peroxynitrite (ONOO-), but not nitric oxide (NO·), superoxide anions (O2·-) or hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). However, instead of having a direct interaction with H2, is there any evidence that these redox compounds can also interact with Xe pockets and cavities in proteins, so either having an independent effect on proteins or interfering with the action of inert gases. This suggestion with be explored here.
Keywords: 
Subject: Biology and Life Sciences  -   Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

1. Introduction

It is well recognized that under stress conditions cells produce a range of small signalling molecules [1,2]. Many of these are relatively reactive and have redox activity. Compounds which accumulate in cells include the reactive oxygen species (ROS [3]), such as hydroxyl radical (·OH), superoxide anions (O2·-) or hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), as well as reactive nitrogen species (RNS), such as nitric oxide (NO· [4]) and peroxynitrite (ONOO-). These compounds are produced by dedicated enzymes. This includes the NADPH oxide [5] for ROS (producing superoxide which can cascade in reactions to generate H2O2, for example), xanthine oxidoreductase (producing H2O2 or NO depending on oxygen (O2) concentrations [6]), peroxidases metabolising H2O2 [7]. RNS are produced by nitric oxide synthase (NOS [8]), of which there are three isoforms in humans, and nitrate reductase (NR), which is important for plant NO generation and metabolism [9]. Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is also used in stress responses, and this produced by a range of enzymes in mammals: cystathionine γ-lyase (CSE), cystathionine β-synthase (CBS) and 3-mercaptopyruvate sulfurtransferase (3-MST) [10].
Many of these signalling-active compounds are relatively toxic, so at high concentrations have a detrimental effect in cells. For example, H2S has effects on mitochondrial function, and which partly accounts for its toxicity [11]. However, at low concentrations, these molecules have significant signalling roles, allow for stress tolerance, including during drought [12], pathogen challenge [13], salt stress [14], heavy metal stress [15], and extreme temperature tolerance [16].
The reactivity of ROS, RNS and H2S partly accounts for the cellular responses seen. Many proteins contain one or more relatively reactive thiol groups, as side chains of cysteine residues. Such -SH groups can be deprotonated to the thiolate. If two cysteines are in the correct three-dimensional orientation they can react and combine to create a disulfide, cystine. This can add to the structural rigidity of a protein. On the other hand, thiols can be modified by a reaction with a range of reactive signalling molecules. H2O2 can lead to oxidation of thiol to create the sulphenic acid group [17], a modification which is reversible, so in a manner akin to phosphorylation, this oxidation can create a new protein topology, and hence activity, which can be readily reversed. Higher H2O2 concentrations can lead to higher oxidation states of the thiol, i.e., suphinic acid and sulphonic acid, and this leads to irreversible modification. NO leads to the modification of thiols to produce the -SNO group (S-nitrosylation [18]), again which can be reversed, in a similar manner to phosphorylation. H2S leads to the persulfidation [19] of thiols to produce -SSH, again reversible. Such thiol modifications of proteins can account for the range of effects seen on ROS/RNS/H2S accumulation. These reactive molecules can also react together, and create new reactive signalling molecules. Superoxide and NO can react, for example to create peroxynitrite, again a signalling molecule in its own right [20]. NO and H2S will react to generate nitrosothiols [21], which can also act in a signalling role. Therefore, the reactivity of these molecules are important for their action in signalling.
Into this mix of reactive compounds the small relatively insert molecule H2 needs to be added. H2 has been shown to have effects in a range of disease conditions in humans, such as diabetes [22], degenerative disease [23] and even COVID-19 [24]. H2 has been mooted as being reactive with hydroxyl radicals (·OH) and peroxynitrite [25]. It is thought to be unreactive with O2·-, H2O2, or NO. It seems unlikely that H2 has all its effects by interactions with ·OH or ONOO- and therefore some other mechanisms of action are probably pertinent to consider. H2 may act through its redox action, for example, as argued previously [26]. However, it has been recently suggested that H2 may mimic the action of other gases, i.e., it may interact with cavities and pockets in the structures of proteins [27]. By looking at how inert gases act may give an indication of how other molecules may have bio-activity. However, a question which could be posed here is: does this only apply to inert gases? Can other small signalling molecules, whether inert or not, have a similar mode of action? Here, some of the ideas and evidence are discussed.

2. Other inert gases

The classical insert gas which is known to have bio-activity is xenon (Xe). This has been known for a long time, at least since the 1940s [28]. Some of the actions of Xe include as an anaesthetic and it has cytoprotective effects [29]. There seems no doubt that Xe has physiological effects and acts on cellular function. However, if Xe is inert, how does it interact with bio-molecules?
Proteins are known to have complex, dynamic and often quite loose structures and this includes cavities and pockets in their topology. Into these cavities and pockets some small molecules may migrate. It is interesting to note that such cavities are often dubbed as “Xenon binding pockets”, for example in an article by Duff and colleagues [30]. However, this does not mean that these cavities are exclusively occupied by Xe, or that the interaction of the small atom/molecule is a static event. Recent work by Turan et al. [31] shows that the Xe can migrate through channels in the protein, in this case myoglobin, and therefore there is a dynamic interaction taking place. Indeed, this work shows that myoglobin is in fact an allosteric protein.
The globin family has been used as a model system for studying Xe binding. This interaction has been known for a long time. For example, Schoenborn et al. [32] explored Xe binding to sperm whale myoglobin in the 1960s. Work continued to understand the interactions more, for example the work in the 1980s by Herman and Shankar [33] and Tilton et al. [34], and has continued to today, as exemplified by the work by Turan and colleagues [31]. Work with haemoglobin has a similar history, with reports spanning back to at least the 1960s [35], work taking place in the 1980s [36], and more recent work being reported [37].
However, Xe interacts with a range of proteins. Prangé et al. [38] list a range of proteins which were studied for the binding of Xe and Krypton (Kr). These include elastase, subtilisin, cutinase, collagenase, lysozyme, lipoamide dehydrogenase domain from the outer membrane protein P64k, urate-oxidase and the human nuclear retinoid-X receptor RXR-α. Rubin et al. studied maltose binding protein [39], whilst others have focused on copper amine oxidases [30,40], urate oxidase [41]. It has also been found that in humans Xe leads to an increase in erythropoietin by triggering an increased production of hypoxia-inducible factor 1α (HIF-1α) [42]. Clearly, there is a range of proteins which are able to bind inert gases with the potential for changes in their structures and therefore functions. In this vain Winkler et al. have reported an in silico screening to identify xenon protein targets [43].
However, Xe is not the only inert gas which is known to have an influence on a cell’s activity. Kr was mentioned above [38]. As with other gases this work spans back to at least the 1960s, when the solubility of Kr in biological materials was reported [44], whilst more recent work has shown that Kr nanobubbles inhibit the activity of pepsin [45]. Argon (Ar) is known to have neuroprotective [46] and organoprotective effects [47]. For example, it was shown to be neuroprotective in cerebral ischemia and brain injury in in vitro models [48]. Ar appears to have neuroprotection by inhibiting toll-like receptors, and it also has anti-apoptotic action [49]. Some of Ar’s effects may also be through altering kinase signalling in neurons and glial cells [50]. Ar is also known to have narcotic effects. A review of argon’s biological effects was published by Ye et al. [51], but seems certain is that Ar has effects on proteins, despite being inert.
Other inert gases worth considering here are Neon (Ne) and helium (He). Both have reported effects [52]. However, just because one gas has an effect does not mean they all do. Interestingly, in Neurospora crassa it was reported that the growth rate in the presence of inert gases was correlated to the molecular weight of those gases, and there was even a formula given: R = 3.88 - 0.1785 (MW)½: where R is growth rate (in millimeters per hour at 30°C) [53]. In a neuronal injury model Xe was found to be protective, Ar and Kr had no effect, and He was detrimental effect [54], a trend also reported by Rivzi et al. [55]. Therefore, what is found with one gas cannot be automatically translated to the other gases. This needs to be borne in mind if we are going to extend this idea of small molecules binding to proteins across to a range of other compounds, such as ROS, RNS or H2S.
As already mentioned, into this mix could be thrown H2 [27]. There is no evidence that H2 has an influence of the activity of proteins using such a mechanism. There are issues to be considered here. H2 is extremely small, and perhaps it could be argued is too small to have such an effect. On the other hand, there is no reason to suspect that single H2 molecules act alone, and until a thorough investigation of this possible mechanism of H2 is carried out, there is no reason to rule this out, or indeed in, as a mode of action of H2.

3. Do other small signalling molecule use Xe pockets?

It is clear that Xe is not the only gas which takes advantage of the cavities and channels in proteins. It is likely that other inert gases, eg Ar, Kr and He may have the same mode of action. However, the question being asked here is: can this mechanism of direct interaction with protein structures be extended to the action of small molecules which are known to have profound effects on cell signalling? Some of these candidate molecules are themselves gases, for example NO and H2S, so perhaps this is not such as stretch to consider.
There are certainly some examples in the literature which would support small molecules interacting with Xe-binding pockets. For example, in haemoglobin, oxygen has been shown to migrate through Xe docking sites, whilst the protein is in the R-state [37]. Previously, using mutation in the protein, Scott and Gibson [56] had looked at the effects of Xe on O2 binding to myoglobin. Furthermore, the migration and escape of both O2 and carbon monoxide (CO) from myoglobin seems to take advantage of Xe-binding regions, and is influenced by the presence of Xe [57].
Nitrous oxide has effects on proteins and in many cases Xe is used as a model, or a method of investigation [41,58,59]. Using urate oxidase as a model Marassio et al. [41] report that “Xe and N2O bind to, compete for, and expand the volume of a hydrophobic cavity” in the protein, and so this leads to inhibition of activity. Later the same group [58] argue that although both gases bind to proteins the mechanisms are not the same. With a focus on P450 monooxygenase LeBella et al. [59], it as shown that both Xe and nitrous oxide occupy a haem-pocket in the enzyme, and hence lead to inhibition. Therefore, here we have a gas which does not sit in the noble gas group, but does have biological activity and furthermore, seems to have a mechanism akin to that of the noble gases.
If such a mechanism can mediate the effects of nitrous oxide, is there scope to consider such a mechanism for other small signalling molecules?
In what are described as “gas pockets”, Winter et al. explore how nitric oxide and other gases have their binding facilitated by the presence of hydrophobic cavity regions [60]. It has been suggested that NO can bind momentarily to alternate cavities in myoglobin. These cavities are some distance from the haem binding site and therefore not near the O2 binding site [56,61,62]. Brunori [61] go on to say that the sites where NO bind are those which have been identified in myoglobin as binding Xe [63]. In haemoglobin it appears that NO has movement through tunnels in the protein structures. The paper discusses the presence of short and long tunnels, and emphasizes that hydrophobic residues at the entrances to such tunnels are important: Phe for the long tunnel and Ile for the short tunnel. The authors also point out that NO can “diffuse from Xe cavity to Xe cavity” [64]. NO has been shown to bind to the haem-pocket in horse radish peroxidase [65]. In a bacterial system it is thought that there is an interaction between nitrite reductase (NiR) and NO reductase (NOR), but of pertinence to the argument here, NO generated by the first enzyme (NiR) migrates to NOR, with that movement being facilitated by the NO translocating through a cavity in NiR and then a hydrophobic channel in NOR [66].
For other gases, such as carbon monoxide (CO), a similar situation has been reported. Chu et al. [67] asked if the binding of gases such as NO, O2, CO or H2 is a random event on proteins, but concluded that the migration of such ligands involved a limited number of pathways and are facilitated by the presence of specific docking sites on the protein [67]. Elber and Karplus [68] suggested that in myoglobin CO used Xe binding regions, a notion that more recently has been revisited and reported on [69]. In sperm whale myoglobin, Bossa et al. [70] also suggested that CO takes advantage of Xe pockets for binding and migration through the proteins, along what they describe as “additional packing defects”. Others too have added to the weight of evidence that CO migrates through proteins such as myoglobin, facilitated by Xe-binding regions [71]. Using nitrogenase it was suggested that CO might migrate through the protein through a gas channel which is composed of a series of cavities [72]. Using CO as a probe in hydrogenases (DdHydAB from Desulfovibrio desulfuricans; CaHydA Clostridium acetobutylicum; CrHydA1 from Chlamydomonas reinhardtii), it was shown that inhibition was dependant on the redox state of the H cluster but also the migration of the gas through the protein [73].
With the view to understanding how proteins may be useful for carbon capture – with the background of climate change – Cundari et al. [74] suggested that CO2 binding to proteins is facilitated by acid/base interactions, and that β-sheet structures are better than α-helices.
But what of ROS, which are thought to have many of their effects through thiol modification? Using 4-hydroxybenzoate hydroxylase (PHBH) and phenol hydroxylase (PHHY), Hiromoto et al. [75] suggested that their data implied that hydrophobic pockets served as binding sites for H2O2. In cholesterol oxidase it was found that both O2 and H2O2 are able to interact with a hydrophobic tunnel in the protein [76]. Zhao et al. [77] have taken this idea further and have engineered tunnels in cytochrome P450 monooxygenases which are able to accommodate H2O2. Superoxide anion migration was seen in, a process which was reliant on the presence of a tyrosine residue [78]. Therefore, examples of how ROS can, and need to, interact with proteins through direct physical mechanisms have been reported.

4. Conclusion and future

Many gases, such as Xe, have anaesthetic effects, and this has been known for a long time. As pointed out by Eckenhoff [79], Claude Bernard suggested in 1875 that such effects involved proteins. Eckenhoff also cite papers pointing out that the presence of hydrophobic domains in proteins where inert molecules could interact has also been known for a long time [80,81]. Such work is still continuing, as exemplified by the work of Colloc’h et al. [82] and Turan et al. [31].
There seems little doubt that inert gases such as Xe have an influence of protein activity [38], and therefore the activity of the cell, via direct interact of the gas molecules with proteins by taking advantage of the pockets and cavities which exist in protein structures. Other inert gases have similar biological effects and action, including Ar, He and Ne, whilst it has been suggested H2 also acts in this way [27]. Certainly, for H2 much more work focused on this potential mechanism needs to be carried out, either to confirm that this is one of the modes of action of H2 or to rule it out. Recently work has concentrated on the interaction of H2 with haem with the subsequent effects mediated by the removal of hydroxyl radicals [83,84,85]. However, such mechanisms probably do not account for all the actions of H2, and several modes of action probably need to be considered for get a full understanding of what H2 is doing in cells [Hancock], including H2 interactions with protein cavities.
Other gases such as nitrous oxide appear to use Xe binding sites for their action [41,58,59]. However, what about other small signalling molecules, which fall under the umbrella terms ROS and RNS? Although many such small reactive molecules such as H2O2 and NO have other mechanisms by which they interact with proteins, such as oxidation [17] and S-nitrosylation [18], respectively, little is known about how such molecules may interact with proteins by the exploiting physical interactions, such with hydrophobic regions, cavities and pockets, in the manner in which Xe acts. However, there is some evidence for NO, H2O2 and O2·- interacting with proteins by exploiting Xe-pockets and similar structures [75,76,77,78].
A series of questions can be mooted here. Should such interactions be more investigated? Is there competition between small signalling molecules at such interaction sites in proteins? Afterall, many of these molecules will be present, or even accumulating – such during stress responses – together in cells. Is the binding of one signalling molecule more likely than others, i.e., is there a hierarchy of binding? This seems to be the case for the noble gases [53]. Can all such molecules partake in this sort of protein interaction? Afterall, perhaps H2 is too small? Or do these molecules manage to pack into these cavities and tunnels in some way, perhaps preventing others from interacting?
Here, there is an attempt to bring some of the relevant literature about small molecules, some of which are inert and/or gases, interacting with proteins using polypeptide cavities and tunnels. It is hoped that this inspires researchers to look outside of the normal paradigms of how ROS, RNS and H2S may interact with proteins. The future may show that this is a fruitless exploit, but with insert gases such as Xe having profound effects on protein activity it is suggested here that such protein biochemistry is at least considered.

Author Contributions

This article was solely conceived and authored by JTH.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data was generated for this article.

Acknowledgments

JTH would like to acknowledge the University of the West of England, Bristol, for time and literature resources.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Huang, H.; Ullah, F.; Zhou, D.X.; Yi, M.; Zhao, Y. Mechanisms of ROS regulation of plant development and stress responses. Frontiers in Plant Science 2019 10, 800. [CrossRef]
  2. Begara-Morales, J.C.; Chaki, M.; Valderrama, R.; Sánchez-Calvo, B.; Mata-Pérez, C.; Padilla, M.N.; Corpas, F.J.; Barroso, J.B. Nitric oxide buffering and conditional nitric oxide release in stress response. Journal of Experimental Botany 2018 69, 3425-3438. [CrossRef]
  3. Bruckdorfer, R. The basics about nitric oxide. Molecular Aspects of Medicine 2005 26, 3-31. [CrossRef]
  4. Bayr, H. Reactive oxygen species. Critical Care Medicine 2005 33, S498-S501.
  5. Kleniewska, P.; Piechota, A.; Skibska, B.; Gorąca, A. The NADPH oxidase family and its inhibitors. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis 2012 60, 277-294. [CrossRef]
  6. Millar, T.M.; Stevens, C.R.; Benjamin, N.; Eisenthal, R.; Harrison, R.; Blake, D.R. Xanthine oxidoreductase catalyses the reduction of nitrates and nitrite to nitric oxide under hypoxic conditions. FEBS Letters 1998 427, 225-228. [CrossRef]
  7. Smirnoff, N. and Arnaud, D. Hydrogen peroxide metabolism and functions in plants. New Phytologist 2019 221, 1197-1214. [CrossRef]
  8. Geller, D.A.; Billiar, T.R. Molecular biology of nitric oxide synthases. Cancer and Metastasis Reviews 1998 17, 7-23. [CrossRef]
  9. Chamizo-Ampudia, A.; Sanz-Luque, E.; Llamas, A.; Galvan, A.; Fernandez, E. Nitrate reductase regulates plant nitric oxide homeostasis. Trends in Plant Science 2017 22, 163-174. [CrossRef]
  10. Paul, B.D.; Snyder, S.H. Gasotransmitter hydrogen sulfide signaling in neuronal health and disease. Biochemical Pharmacology 2018 149, 101-109. [CrossRef]
  11. Jiang, J.; Chan, A.; Ali, S.; Saha, A.; Haushalter, K.J.; Lam, W.L.M.; Glasheen, M.; Parker, J.; Brenner, M.; Mahon, S.B.; Patel, H.H. Hydrogen sulfide—mechanisms of toxicity and development of an antidote. Scientific Reports 2016 6, 20831. [CrossRef]
  12. Miller, G.A.D.; Suzuki, N.; Ciftci-Yilmaz, S.U.L.T.A.N.; Mittler, R.O.N. Reactive oxygen species homeostasis and signalling during drought and salinity stresses. Plant, Cell & Environment 2010 33, 453-467. [CrossRef]
  13. Hancock, J.T.; Desikan, R.; Clarke, A.; Hurst, R.D.; Neill, S.J. Cell signalling following plant/pathogen interactions involves the generation of reactive oxygen and reactive nitrogen species. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 2002 40, 611-617. [CrossRef]
  14. Hasanuzzaman, M.; Raihan, M.R.H.; Masud, A.A.C.; Rahman, K.; Nowroz, F.; Rahman, M.; Nahar, K.; Fujita, M. Regulation of reactive oxygen species and antioxidant defense in plants under salinity. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2021 22, 9326. [CrossRef]
  15. Berni, R.; Luyckx, M.; Xu, X.; Legay, S.; Sergeant, K.; Hausman, J.F.; Lutts, S.; Cai, G.; Guerriero, G. Reactive oxygen species and heavy metal stress in plants: Impact on the cell wall and secondary metabolism. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 2019 161, 98-106. [CrossRef]
  16. Suzuki, N.; Mittler, R. Reactive oxygen species and temperature stresses: a delicate balance between signaling and destruction. Physiologia Plantarum 2006 126, 45-51. [CrossRef]
  17. Schilter, D. Thiol oxidation: a slippery slope. Nature Reviews Chemistry 2017 1, 0013. [CrossRef]
  18. Astier, J.; Kulik, A.; Koen, E.; Besson-Bard, A.; Bourque, S.; Jeandroz, S.; Lamotte, O.; Wendehenne, D. Protein S-nitrosylation: what's going on in plants? Free Radical Biology and Medicine 2012 53, 1101-1110. [CrossRef]
  19. Filipovic, M.R.; Zivanovic, J.; Alvarez, B.; Banerjee, R. Chemical biology of H2S signaling through persulfidation. Chemical Reviews 2018 118, 1253-1337. [CrossRef]
  20. Miles, J.A.; Egan, J.L.; Fowler, J.A.; Machattou, P.; Millard, A.D.; Perry, C.J.; Scanlan, D.J.; Taylor, P.C. The evolutionary origins of peroxynitrite signalling. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 2021 580, 107-112. [CrossRef]
  21. Whiteman, M.; Li, L.; Kostetski, I.; Chu, S.H.; Siau, J.L.; Bhatia, M.; Moore, P.K. Evidence for the formation of a novel nitrosothiol from the gaseous mediators nitric oxide and hydrogen sulphide. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 2006 343, 303-310. [CrossRef]
  22. Ming, Y.; Ma, Q.H.; Han, X.L.; Li, H.Y. Molecular hydrogen improves type 2 diabetes through inhibiting oxidative stress. Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 2020 20, 359-366. [CrossRef]
  23. Ohno, K.; Ito, M.; Ichihara, M.; Ito, M. Molecular hydrogen as an emerging therapeutic medical gas for neurodegenerative and other diseases. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 2012 2012. [CrossRef]
  24. Alwazeer, D.; Liu, F.F.C.; Wu, X.Y.; LeBaron, T.W. Combating oxidative stress and inflammation in COVID-19 by molecular hydrogen therapy: Mechanisms and perspectives. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 2021 2021. [CrossRef]
  25. Ohsawa, I.; Ishikawa, M.; Takahashi, K.; Watanabe, M.; Nishimaki, K.; Yamagata, K.; Katsura, K.; Katayama. Y.; Asoh, S.; Ohta, S. Hydrogen acts as a therapeutic antioxidant by selectively reducing cytotoxic oxygen radicals. Nature Medicine 2007 13, 688. [CrossRef]
  26. Hancock, J.T.; LeBaron, T.W.; Russell, G. Molecular hydrogen: Redox reactions and possible biological interactions. Reactive Oxygen Species (Apex) 2021 11. [CrossRef]
  27. Hancock, J.T.; Russell, G.; Craig, T.J.; May, J.; Morse, H.R.; Stamler, J.S. Understanding hydrogen: Lessons to be learned from physical interactions between the inert gases and the globin superfamily. Oxygen 2022 2, 578-590. [CrossRef]
  28. Lawrence, J.H.; Loomis, W.F.; Tobias, C.A.; Turpin, F.H. Preliminary observations on the narcotic effect of xenon with a review of values for solubilities of gases in water and oils. The Journal of Physiology 1946 105, 197.
  29. Jin, Z.; Piazza, O.; Ma, D.; Scarpati, G.; De Robertis, E. Xenon anesthesia and beyond: pros and cons. Minerva Anestesiologica 2018, 85, 83-89. [CrossRef]
  30. Duff, A.P.; Trambaiolo, D.M.; Cohen, A.E.; Ellis, P.J.; Juda, G.A.; Shepard, E.M.; Langley, D.B.; Dooley, D.M.; Freeman, H.C.; Guss, J.M. Using xenon as a probe for dioxygen-binding sites in copper amine oxidases. Journal of Molecular Biology 2004 344, 599-607. [CrossRef]
  31. Turan, H.T., Boittier, E. and Meuwly, M. Interaction at a distance: Xenon migration in Mb. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2023 158, 125103. [CrossRef]
  32. Schoenborn, B.P.; Watson, H.C.; Kendrew, J.C. Binding of xenon to sperm whale myoglobin. Nature 1965 207, 28-30. [CrossRef]
  33. Hermans, J.; Shankar, S. The free energy of xenon binding to myoglobin from molecular dynamics simulation. Israel Journal of Chemistry 1986, 27, 225-227. [CrossRef]
  34. Tilton Jr, R.F.; Singh, U.C.; Weiner, S.J.; Connolly, M.L.; Kuntz Jr, I.D.; Kollman, P.A.; Max, N.; Case, D.A., 1986. Computational studies of the interaction of myoglobin and xenon. Journal of Molecular Biology 1986, 192, 443-456. [CrossRef]
  35. Conn JR, H.L. Equilibrium distribution of radioxenon in tissue: Xenon-hemoglobin association curve. Journal of Applied Physiology 1961 16, 1065-1070. [CrossRef]
  36. Tilton Jr, R.F. and Kuntz Jr, I.D. Nuclear magnetic resonance studies of xenon-129 with myoglobin and hemoglobin. Biochemistry 1982 21, 6850-6857. [CrossRef]
  37. Lepeshkevich, S.V.; Gilevich, S.N.; Parkhats, M.V.; Dzhagarov, B.M. Molecular oxygen migration through the xenon docking sites of human hemoglobin in the R-state. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Proteins and Proteomics 2016 1864, 1110-1121. [CrossRef]
  38. Prangé, T.; Schiltz, M.; Pernot, L.; Colloc'h, N.; Longhi, S.; Bourguet, W.; Fourme, R. Exploring hydrophobic sites in proteins with xenon or krypton. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 1998 30, 61-73.
  39. Rubin, S.M.; Lee, S.Y.; Ruiz, E.J.; Pines, A.; Wemmer, D.E. Detection and characterization of xenon-binding sites in proteins by 129Xe NMR spectroscopy. Journal of Molecular Biology 2002 322, 425-440. [CrossRef]
  40. Pirrat, P.; Smith, M.A.; Pearson, A.R.; McPherson, M.J.; Phillips, S.E. Structure of a xenon derivative of Escherichia coli copper amine oxidase: confirmation of the proposed oxygen-entry pathway. Acta Crystallographica Section F: Structural Biology and Crystallization Communications 2008 64, 1105-1109. [CrossRef]
  41. Marassio, G.; Prangé, T.; David, H.N.; Santos, J.S.D.O.; Gabison, L.; Delcroix, N.; Abraini, J.H.; Colloc'h, N. Pressure-response analysis of anesthetic gases xenon and nitrous oxide on urate oxidase: a crystallographic study. The FASEB Journal 2011 25, 2266-2275. [CrossRef]
  42. Stoppe, C.; Ney, J.; Brenke, M.; Goetzenich, A.; Emontzpohl, C.; Schälte, G.; Grottke, O.; Moeller, M.; Rossaint, R.; Coburn, M. Sub-anesthetic xenon increases erythropoietin levels in humans: a randomized controlled trial. Sports Medicine 2016 46, 1753-1766. [CrossRef]
  43. Winkler, D.A.; Katz, I.; Warden, A.; Thornton, A.W.; Farjot, G. Identifying medically relevant xenon protein targets by in silico screening of the structural proteome. Medical Gas Research 2023 13, 33-38. [CrossRef]
  44. Yeh, S.Y.; Peterson, R.E. Solubility of krypton and xenon in blood, protein solutions, and tissue homogenates. Journal of Applied Physiology 1965 20, 1041-1047. [CrossRef]
  45. Wang, J.; Yuan, K.; Wang, X.; Zhang, L.; Hu, J. Influence of krypton gas nanobubbles on the activity of pepsin. Langmuir 2020 36, 14070-14075. [CrossRef]
  46. Sanders, R.D.; Ma, D.; Maze, M. Argon neuroprotection. Critical Care 2010 14:1-2.
  47. Höllig, A.; Schug, A.; Fahlenkamp, A.V.; Rossaint, R.; Coburn, M. and the Argon Organo-Protective Network (AON). Argon: systematic review on neuro-and organoprotective properties of an “inert” gas. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2014 15, 18175-18196. [CrossRef]
  48. Grottke, O.; Coburn M. Argon: neuroprotection in in vitro models of cerebral ischemia and traumatic brain injury. Critical Care 2009 13,1-9. [CrossRef]
  49. Ulbrich, F.; Kaufmann, K.; Roesslein, M.; Wellner, F.; Auwärter, V.; Kempf, J.; Loop, T.; Buerkle, H.; Goebel U. Argon mediates anti-apoptotic signaling and neuroprotection via inhibition of toll-like receptor 2 and 4. PloS one 2015 10, e0143887. [CrossRef]
  50. Fahlenkamp, A.V.; Rossaint, R.; Haase, H.; Al Kassam, H.; Ryang, Y.M.; Beyer, C.; Coburn, M. The noble gas argon modifies extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 signaling in neurons and glial cells. European Journal of Pharmacology 2012 674, 104-111. [CrossRef]
  51. Ye, Z.; Zhang, R.; Sun, X. Bustling argon: biological effect. Medical Gas Research 2013 3, 1-4. [CrossRef]
  52. Martusevich, A.; Surovegina, A.; Popovicheva, A.; Didenko, N.; Artamonov, M.; Nazarov, V. Some beneficial effects of inert gases on blood oxidative metabolism: In vivo study. BioMed Research International 2022 2022. [CrossRef]
  53. Schreiner, H.R.; Gregoire, R.C.; Lawrie, J.A. New biological effect of the gases of the helium group. Science 1962 136, 653-654. [CrossRef]
  54. Jawad, N.; Rizvi, M.; Gu, J.; Adeyi, O.; Tao, G.; Maze, M.; Ma, D. Neuroprotection (and lack of neuroprotection) afforded by a series of noble gases in an in vitro model of neuronal injury. Neuroscience Letters 2009 460, 232-236. [CrossRef]
  55. Rizvi, M.; Jawad, N.; Li, Y.; Vizcaychipi, M.P.; Maze, M.; Ma, D., 2010. Effect of noble gases on oxygen and glucose deprived injury in human tubular kidney cells. Experimental Biology and Medicine, 2010 235, 886-891. [CrossRef]
  56. Scott, E.E.; Gibson, Q.H. Ligand migration in sperm whale myoglobin. Biochemistry, 1997 36, 11909-11917. [CrossRef]
  57. Tetreau, C.; Blouquit, Y.; Novikov, E.; Quiniou, E.; Lavalette, D. Competition with xenon elicits ligand migration and escape pathways in myoglobin. Biophysical Journal 2004 86, 435-447. [CrossRef]
  58. Abraini, J.H.; Marassio, G.; David, H.N.; Vallone, B.; Prangé, T.; Colloc’h, N. Crystallographic studies with xenon and nitrous oxide provide evidence for protein-dependent processes in the mechanisms of general anesthesia. Anesthesiology 2014 121, 1018-27. [CrossRef]
  59. LaBella, F.S.; Stein, D.; Queen G. The site of general anesthesia and cytochrome P450 monooxygenases: occupation of the enzyme heme pocket by xenon and nitrous oxide. European Journal of Pharmacology 1999 381, R1-3. [CrossRef]
  60. Winter, M.B.; Herzik Jr, M.A.; Kuriyan, J.; Marletta, M.A. Tunnels modulate ligand flux in a heme nitric oxide/oxygen binding (H-NOX) domain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2011 108, E881-E889. [CrossRef]
  61. Brunori, M. Nitric oxide moves myoglobin centre stage. Trends in Biochemical Sciences 2001 26, 209-210. [CrossRef]
  62. Brunori, M. Structural dynamics of myoglobin. Biophys. Chem. 2000 86, 221-230.
  63. Tilton Jr, R.F., Kuntz Jr, I.D. and Petsko, G.A. Cavities in proteins: structure of a metmyoglobin xenon complex solved to 1.9. ANG. Biochemistry 1984 23, 2849-2857.
  64. Daigle, R.; Rousseau, J.A.; Guertin, M.; Lagüe, P. Theoretical investigations of nitric oxide channeling in Mycobacterium tuberculosis truncated hemoglobin N. Biophysical Journal 2009 97, 2967-2977. [CrossRef]
  65. Ye, X.; Yu, A.; Champion, P.M. Dynamics of nitric oxide rebinding and escape in horseradish peroxidase. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2006 128, 1444-1445. [CrossRef]
  66. Terasaka, E.; Yamada, K.; Wang, P.H.; Hosokawa, K.; Yamagiwa, R.; Matsumoto, K.; Ishii, S.; Mori, T.; Yagi, K.; Sawai, H., Arai H. Dynamics of nitric oxide controlled by protein complex in bacterial system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2017 114, 9888-9893. [CrossRef]
  67. Chu, K.; Vojtchovský, J.; McMahon, B.H.; Sweet, R.M.; Berendzen, J.; Schlichting, I. Structure of a ligand-binding intermediate in wild-type carbonmonoxy myoglobin. Nature 2000 403, 921-923. [CrossRef]
  68. Elber, R.; Karplus, M. Enhanced sampling in molecular dynamics: use of the time-dependent Hartree approximation for a simulation of carbon monoxide diffusion through myoglobin. Journal of the American Chemical Society 1990 112, 9161-9175. [CrossRef]
  69. Nishihara, Y., Sakakura, M., Kimura, Y. and Terazima, M. The escape process of carbon monoxide from myoglobin to solution at physiological temperature. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2004 126, 11877-11888. [CrossRef]
  70. Bossa, C.; Anselmi, M.; Roccatano, D.; Amadei, A.; Vallone, B.; Brunori, M.; Di Nola, A. Extended molecular dynamics simulation of the carbon monoxide migration in sperm whale myoglobin. Biophysical Journal 2004 86, 3855-3862. [CrossRef]
  71. Anselmi, M.; Di Nola, A.; Amadei, A. The kinetics of ligand migration in crystallized myoglobin as revealed by molecular dynamics simulations. Biophysical Journal 2008 94, 4277-4281. [CrossRef]
  72. Gee, L.B.; Leontyev, I.; Stuchebrukhov, A.; Scott, A.D.; Pelmenschikov, V.; Cramer, S.P. Docking and migration of carbon monoxide in nitrogenase: the case for gated pockets from infrared spectroscopy and molecular dynamics. Biochemistry 2015 54, 3314-3319. [CrossRef]
  73. Goldet, G.; Brandmayr, C.; Stripp, S.T.; Happe, T.; Cavazza, C.; Fontecilla-Camps, J.C.; Armstrong, F.A. Electrochemical kinetic investigations of the reactions of [FeFe]-hydrogenases with carbon monoxide and oxygen: comparing the importance of gas tunnels and active-site electronic/redox effects. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2009 131, 14979-14989. [CrossRef]
  74. Cundari, T.R.; Wilson, A.K.; Drummond, M.L.; Gonzalez, H.E.; Jorgensen, K.R.; Payne, S.; Braunfeld, J.; De Jesus, M.; Johnson, V.M. CO2-formatics: how do proteins bind carbon dioxide? Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 2009 49, 2111-2115. [CrossRef]
  75. Hiromoto, T.; Fujiwara, S.; Hosokawa, K.; Yamaguchi, H. Crystal structure of 3-hydroxybenzoate hydroxylase from Comamonas testosteroni has a large tunnel for substrate and oxygen access to the active site. Journal of Molecular Biology 2006 364, 878-896. [CrossRef]
  76. Chen, L.; Lyubimov, A.Y.; Brammer, L.; Vrielink, A.; Sampson, N.S. The binding and release of oxygen and hydrogen peroxide are directed by a hydrophobic tunnel in cholesterol oxidase. Biochemistry 2008 47, 5368-5377. [CrossRef]
  77. Zhao, P.; Kong, F.; Jiang, Y.; Qin, X.; Tian, X.; Cong, Z. Enabling peroxygenase activity in by engineering hydrogen peroxide tunnels. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2023 145, 5506-5511. [CrossRef]
  78. Moreno, D.M.; Martí, M.A.; De Biase, P.M.; Estrin, D.A.; Demicheli, V.; Radi, R.; Boechi, L. Exploring the molecular basis of human manganese superoxide dismutase inactivation mediated by tyrosine 34 nitration. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 2011 507, 304-309. [CrossRef]
  79. Eckenhoff, R.G. Promiscuous ligands and attractive cavities. Molecular Interventions 2001 1, 258.
  80. Otting, G.; Liepinsh, E.; Halle, B.; Frey, U. NMR identification of hydrophobic cavities with low water occupancies in protein structures using small gas molecules. Nature Structural Biology 1997 4, 396–404. [CrossRef]
  81. Carugo, O.; Argos, P. Accessibility to internal cavities and ligand binding sites monitored by protein crystallographic thermal factors. Proteins 1998, 31, 201–213.
  82. Colloc’h, N.; Carpentier, P.; Montemiglio, L.C.; Vallone, B.; Prangé, T. Mapping hydrophobic tunnels and cavities in neuroglobin with noble gas under pressure. Biophysical Journal 2017 113, 2199-206. [CrossRef]
  83. Jin, Z.; Zhao, P.; Gong, W.; Ding, W.; He, Q. Fe-porphyrin: A redox-related biosensor of hydrogen molecule. Nano Research 2022 13, 1-6. [CrossRef]
  84. Kim, S.A.; Jong, Y.C.; Kang, M.S.; Yu, C.J. Antioxidation activity of molecular hydrogen via protoheme catalysis in vivo; an insight from ab initio calculations. Research Square 2022 (pre-print). [CrossRef]
  85. Ohta, S. Molecular hydrogen may activate the transcription factor Nrf2 to alleviate oxidative stress through the hydrogen-targeted porphyrin. Aging Pathobiology and Therapeutics 2023 13, 25-32. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Dual Aquaporin and Sigma1 Receptor (DAS) Modulators: New Tools for Counteracting Oxidative Stress

Giorgia Pellavio

et al.

,

2020

Redox Systems Biology: Harnessing the Sentinels of the Cysteine Redoxome

Jason M. Held

,

2019

Modelling the Decamerisation Cycle of PRDX1 and the Inhibition-Like Effect on Its Peroxidase Activity

Christopher J. Barry

et al.

,

2023

Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated