Determining a critical threshold for G6PD activity below which red blood cell response to oxidative stress is poor.
Diagnostic
G6PD deficiency
Glutathione
Heterozygous women
Malondialdehyde
Oxidative stress
Journal
Malaria journal
ISSN: 1475-2875
Titre abrégé: Malar J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101139802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Jun 2020
17 Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
19
12
2019
accepted:
29
05
2020
entrez:
20
6
2020
pubmed:
20
6
2020
medline:
30
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency is the most common enzyme disorder in the world. Its main function is to generate NADPH that is required for anti-oxidative pathway in the cells especially in red blood cells (RBC). G6PD deficiency is X-linked and thus subject to random X-chromosome inactivation in women giving them mosaic expression of G6PD activities in their individual cells. This phenomenon makes it difficult for diagnosis with the currently available G6PD qualitative diagnostic tests. With the rolling out of newly marketed anti-malarial drug tafenoquine, which has a long half-life, screening for G6PD deficiency becomes a necessity where those with < 70% G6PD activity cannot receive this drug. Thus, evidence for a quantitative cut-off for G6PD activity is needed to ensure safe drug administration. RBC models were developed to analyse the effect of oxidant on RBC oxidative markers namely total glutathione (GSH)and malondialdehyde (MDA). G6PD activity was measured using quantitative assay from Trinity Biotech and was correlated with cytofluorometric assay. RBC from two G6PD heterozygous women with different G6PD activities were also analysed for comparison. There was a negative correlation between G6PD activity and CuCl concentration and a strong association between G6PD activities and proportion of G6PD normal RBC in CuCl-treated models and in ex vivo RBC. However, in terms of oxidative stress markers analyses, unlike the hypothesis where the lower G6PD activity, the higher MDA and the lower GSH level, the CuCl RBC model showed that in low G6PD activities (10-30%) cells, the MDA level is lower compared to the rest of the models (p < 0.05). The ex vivo models however were in line with the hypothesis, although the result was not significant (p = 0.5). There was a significant difference between RBC with < 60% and those with > 80% G6PD activities in CuCl RBC model, but not in ex vivo RBC (p = 0.5). Genotyping heterozygous subjects showed G6PDViangchan variant with 2.97 U/gHb (33% activity) and 6.58 U/gHb (74% activity). The GSH analysis has pointed to the 60% G6PD activity cut-off and this data is supportive of the old World Health Organization threshold for intermediate upper limit of 60% G6PD activity. However, there are significant limitations in using MDA assay with CuCl RBC model because the RBC was already stressed due to the copper treatment and thus present a different result when compared to the ex vivo model.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency is the most common enzyme disorder in the world. Its main function is to generate NADPH that is required for anti-oxidative pathway in the cells especially in red blood cells (RBC). G6PD deficiency is X-linked and thus subject to random X-chromosome inactivation in women giving them mosaic expression of G6PD activities in their individual cells. This phenomenon makes it difficult for diagnosis with the currently available G6PD qualitative diagnostic tests. With the rolling out of newly marketed anti-malarial drug tafenoquine, which has a long half-life, screening for G6PD deficiency becomes a necessity where those with < 70% G6PD activity cannot receive this drug. Thus, evidence for a quantitative cut-off for G6PD activity is needed to ensure safe drug administration.
METHODS
METHODS
RBC models were developed to analyse the effect of oxidant on RBC oxidative markers namely total glutathione (GSH)and malondialdehyde (MDA). G6PD activity was measured using quantitative assay from Trinity Biotech and was correlated with cytofluorometric assay. RBC from two G6PD heterozygous women with different G6PD activities were also analysed for comparison.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There was a negative correlation between G6PD activity and CuCl concentration and a strong association between G6PD activities and proportion of G6PD normal RBC in CuCl-treated models and in ex vivo RBC. However, in terms of oxidative stress markers analyses, unlike the hypothesis where the lower G6PD activity, the higher MDA and the lower GSH level, the CuCl RBC model showed that in low G6PD activities (10-30%) cells, the MDA level is lower compared to the rest of the models (p < 0.05). The ex vivo models however were in line with the hypothesis, although the result was not significant (p = 0.5). There was a significant difference between RBC with < 60% and those with > 80% G6PD activities in CuCl RBC model, but not in ex vivo RBC (p = 0.5). Genotyping heterozygous subjects showed G6PDViangchan variant with 2.97 U/gHb (33% activity) and 6.58 U/gHb (74% activity).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The GSH analysis has pointed to the 60% G6PD activity cut-off and this data is supportive of the old World Health Organization threshold for intermediate upper limit of 60% G6PD activity. However, there are significant limitations in using MDA assay with CuCl RBC model because the RBC was already stressed due to the copper treatment and thus present a different result when compared to the ex vivo model.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32552815
doi: 10.1186/s12936-020-03272-y
pii: 10.1186/s12936-020-03272-y
pmc: PMC7302344
doi:
Substances chimiques
G6PD protein, human
EC 1.1.1.49
Glucosephosphate Dehydrogenase
EC 1.1.1.49
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
208Références
Am J Hematol. 1996 Jan;51(1):19-25
pubmed: 8571933
Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1998 Jun;62(2):362-78
pubmed: 9618446
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017 Sep;97(3):702-711
pubmed: 28749773
Hum Mutat. 2002 Feb;19(2):185
pubmed: 11793482
Antioxid Redox Signal. 2013 Jun 10;18(17):2274-83
pubmed: 23025272
Free Radic Res. 1999 Jul;31(1):23-34
pubmed: 10489117
Braz J Med Biol Res. 2005 Jul;38(7):995-1014
pubmed: 16007271
Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 2009;46(5-6):241-81
pubmed: 19958214
Biochem Pharmacol. 1982 Sep 1;31(17):2801-5
pubmed: 6291545
Mol Cell Biol. 2006 Oct;26(19):7167-77
pubmed: 16980619
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1962 Jan 15;48:9-16
pubmed: 13868717
Haematologica. 2006 Oct;91(10):1303-6
pubmed: 17018377
Biochem Pharmacol. 2002 Sep;64(5-6):1019-26
pubmed: 12213601
Free Radic Res Commun. 1988;4(5):291-8
pubmed: 3234858
Antioxid Redox Signal. 2015 Mar 20;22(9):744-59
pubmed: 25556665
J Clin Invest. 1972 Feb;51(2):459-61
pubmed: 4257805
Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2000;23(1):13-21
pubmed: 11214709
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Feb 19;10(2):e0004457
pubmed: 26894297
Transl Res. 2015 Jun;165(6):677-88
pubmed: 25312015
BMC Pediatr. 2017 Jul 20;17(1):172
pubmed: 28728551
Arch Biochem Biophys. 1997 Jan 15;337(2):332-7
pubmed: 9016830
Front Pharmacol. 2014 Aug 26;5:196
pubmed: 25206336
Lancet. 1961 Jan 14;1(7168):78-9
pubmed: 13730522
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014 Oct;91(4):854-861
pubmed: 25071003
Biol Trace Elem Res. 1982 Jun;4(2-3):191-7
pubmed: 24271990
J Clin Invest. 1985 Nov;76(5):1971-7
pubmed: 4056060
Sci Rep. 2012;2:299
pubmed: 22393475
J Nutr. 2000 May;130(5S Suppl):1447S-54S
pubmed: 10801958
Am Fam Physician. 2005 Oct 1;72(7):1277-82
pubmed: 16225031
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2013 May;17(9):1211-7
pubmed: 23690191
J Biol Chem. 1951 Nov;193(1):265-75
pubmed: 14907713
Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Oct 30;67(10):1543-1549
pubmed: 29889239