1996
DOI: 10.1021/tx9501896
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Formation Constants of Mercury(II)−Glutathione Complexes

Abstract: The formation constants of the 1:1 and 1:2 complexes of Hg(II) with glutathione and their protonated species have been determined by using a competitive potentiometric titration with the competing ligand diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA). The formation constants of the 1:1 complex and its protonated species have not been reported previously. The formation constant of the 1:2 complex of Hg(II) and glutathione is substantially smaller than the accepted values that has been reported in the literature. The… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
55
2

Year Published

2003
2003
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 95 publications
(61 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
4
55
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The complex binding constants rely heavily on the pH and the buffer composition. Robust numbers are 10 42 for the Hg 2ϩ -bis-glutathionato complex (54) and 10 39 for the Cu ϩ -monoglutathionato complex (55), which easily explains the sensitivity of the copper resistance regulator CueR to zeptomolar levels of copper (6). The values for other transition metals should be below the copper and mercury values due to the lower affinity of these metals for sulfur.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The complex binding constants rely heavily on the pH and the buffer composition. Robust numbers are 10 42 for the Hg 2ϩ -bis-glutathionato complex (54) and 10 39 for the Cu ϩ -monoglutathionato complex (55), which easily explains the sensitivity of the copper resistance regulator CueR to zeptomolar levels of copper (6). The values for other transition metals should be below the copper and mercury values due to the lower affinity of these metals for sulfur.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Slight differences in reported protonation constants for GSH (Table 1) did not affect the outcome of the speciation calculation at the pH of the experimental solutions so only the calculations from one set of GSH constants are shown. [15,30] …”
Section: Speciation Calculationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Speciation calculations with previously determined binding constants for the Hg-DOM and Hg-GSH complexes can provide insight into the GSH titration results. Equilibrium constants for GSH protonation and for complexation of Hg with GSH have been previously reported [15,30,32] and are used here (Table 1). Complexation constants for Hg and DOM binding range by many orders of magnitude [17] and have been determined for the formation of Hg with one and two thiol functional groups in the DOM (Reactions 2, 3).…”
Section: Gsh -Reducible Hg Titrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the mercuric-albumin complex seems to be labile because the in vivo concentration of mercuric species in plasma decreases rapidly over time (Zalups, 1998b), suggesting that ligand exchange occurs between a mercuric-albumin complex and low-molecular-weight thiols (Zalups and Koropatnick, 2000). The low-molecular-weight thiol conjugates seem to be much less labile in an aqueous environment (Rabenstein, 1989;Farrell et al, 1990;Oram et al, 1996). In fact, administration of such thiols alters both the toxicity and disposition of Hg 2ϩ in the kidney Barfuss, 1996, 1998a;Zalups, 1998b).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%