NADPH with Cytosol Stimulates Deiodination by Detergent-Solubilized Hepatic Microsomes: Evidence for NADPH-Dependent Cytosolic Non-Glutathione Reductase System

  • K. Sawada
  • B. C. W. Hummel
  • P. G. Walfish


Based upon reconstitution experiments in which very low 5’-deiodinase (5’-DI) activity of isolated rat liver microsomes was restored to various degrees by the addition of cytosol, the existence of an endogenous cytosolicstimulating cofactor has been previously demonstrated (1). From similar reconstitution experiments using starved rats, it has been proposed that NADPH and/or GSH were cofactors for 5’-DI, the augmenting action of NADPH, being attributed to the generation of GSH through glutathione reductase (2). However, supporting evidence indicating that glutathione, as well as NADPH are essential endogenous cofactors in mediating 5’-DI stimulation has been controversial (3,4). We previously observed an important role of NADPH in stimulating microsomal 5’-DI in the presence of cytosol (5). Furthermore, using a microsome preparation, we have recently demonstrated a new non-glutathione NADPH-dependent cytosolic reductase system, which operates in the presence of intermediate (fraction B) and high molecular weight (MW) components (fraction A), without very low M.W. components including glutathione (GSH) (5). On the other hand, our laboratory has recently achieved solubilization of 5’-DI by detergents (6) and partial purification of the enzyme by DEAE-Sephacel column chromatography. Accordingly, it was the purpose of the present investigation to examine the effect of NADH, NADPH, and GSH on the stimulation of 5’-DI in a reconstitution assay system utilizing a detergent solubilized 5’-DI preparation with cytosol or fractionated cytosolic components (i.e., fraction A and B).


Glutathione Reductase Mount Sinai Hospital Cytosolic Component Iodothyronine Deiodinase Reconstitution Experiment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Visser TJ, van der Does-Tobe I, Docter R, et al. Biochem J 157: 479, 1976PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balsam A and Ingbar SH. J Clin Invest 63: 1145, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gavan LA, McMahon FA, and Moeller M. J Clin Invest 65: 943, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sato K and Robbins J. In V Loos and L Wartofsky (eds), Peripheral Metabolism of Thyroxine, Thieme-Stratton, New York, 1984, p 30.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sawada K, Hummel BCW, and Walfish PG. 67th Annual Meeting of the Endocrine Society, Baltimore, MD (Abstract #1110), 1985, p 278.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hummel BCW and Walfish PG. Biochim Biophys Acta (in press).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sawada K, Hummel BCW, and Walfish PG. Endocrinology 117: 1259, 1985.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    West SB, Huang M-T, Miwa GT, et al. Arch Biochem Biophys 193: 42, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sato T, Murayam S, and Nomura K. Endocrinol Japon 28: 451, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holmgren A. In J Jeffery (ed), Dehydrogenases, Experientia, Supplementum, Vol. 36, Birkhausen, Verlag, Boston, pp 149–280.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goswami A and Rosenberg IN. J Biol Chem 260: 6012, 1985.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Sawada
    • 1
    • 2
  • B. C. W. Hummel
    • 1
    • 2
  • P. G. Walfish
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of MedicineUniversity of TorontoCanada
  2. 2.Thyroid Research Laboratory and Endocrine DivisionMount Sinai HospitalTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations