2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.biochi.2007.07.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cellular knock-down of quinone reductase 2: A laborious road to successful inhibition by RNA interference

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
12
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
4
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is likely attributable to two independent factors, namely the induction of the protein and the availability of NRH. QR2 activity leads to hydroquinone and semi-quinone, the latter being a deleterious species for the cell (Chomarat et al, 2007). Its activity is also accompanied by increased production of ROS deleterious for the cell (Gong et al, 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is likely attributable to two independent factors, namely the induction of the protein and the availability of NRH. QR2 activity leads to hydroquinone and semi-quinone, the latter being a deleterious species for the cell (Chomarat et al, 2007). Its activity is also accompanied by increased production of ROS deleterious for the cell (Gong et al, 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast to QR1, QR2 was originally discovered in the 1960s but has not been as widely studied as QR1 due to its obscured identification as NQO2, the current name of another, mitochondrial membrane‐bound enzyme also known as complex I 2. However, interest in QR2 underwent a resurgence in the 1990's and has gained attention in a myriad of biological fields for its proposed roles in malaria, cancer, neurological degenerative diseases, memory and, more generally, oxidative stress 3–10. Initially, renewed interest in QR2 was strongly linked to its ability to utilize a rather rare form of hydride donors ( N ‐methyl or N ‐ribosyl nicotinamide) instead of the classical NAD(P)H donors, a situation contrary to that of QR1 10.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Initially, renewed interest in QR2 was strongly linked to its ability to utilize a rather rare form of hydride donors ( N ‐methyl or N ‐ribosyl nicotinamide) instead of the classical NAD(P)H donors, a situation contrary to that of QR1 10. QR2 has also been proposed to generate free radical quinones since the QR2 genetic knock‐outs in some living systems are less sensitive to quinone toxicity in contrast to QR1, which deactivates quinones through a two electron reduction 4, 11, 12. Beyond QR2 activation of quinones, it has also been implicated in the so‐called French paradox due to its nanomolar affinity for resveratrol, a well known cancer preventive agent 11.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mice that have been fed resveratrol have been shown to be less sensitive to menadione-induced toxicity compared with control mice, and this observation parallels the observation that QR2 −/− mice are also less sensitive to menadione-induced toxicity compared with their wild-type littermates. The toxicity of menadione in the wild-type animals has been shown to increase upon co-administration of a QR2 co-substrate [13], and cells derived from QR2 −/− animals or QR2-RNAi (RNA interference) knockdown cells have been shown to be less sensitive to menadione toxicity [12,14]. …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%