Next Article in Journal
Environmental Factors-Induced Oxidative Stress: Hormonal and Molecular Pathway Disruptions in Hypogonadism and Erectile Dysfunction
Previous Article in Journal
Central Administration of Ampelopsin A Isolated from Vitis vinifera Ameliorates Cognitive and Memory Function in a Scopolamine-Induced Dementia Model
 
 
Reply published on 28 May 2021, see Antioxidants 2021, 10(6), 865.
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Comment

Comment on Menzel et al. Common and Novel Markers for Measuring Inflammation and Oxidative Stress Ex Vivo in Research and Clinical Practice—Which to Use Regarding Disease Outcomes? Antioxidants 2021, 10, 414

by
Simona Mrakic-Sposta
1,*,
Maristella Gussoni
2,
Michela Montorsi
3 and
Alessandra Vezzoli
1
1
National Research Council—Institute of Clinical Physiology (CNR-IFC), 20162 Milan, Italy
2
National Research Council—Institute of Chemical Sciences and Technologies “G. Natta”-SCITEC (CNR-SCITEC), 20133 Milan, Italy
3
Department of Human Sciences and Promotion of the Quality of Life, San Raffaele Roma Open University, 20122 Milan, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antioxidants 2021, 10(6), 836; https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox10060836
Submission received: 29 March 2021 / Revised: 23 April 2021 / Accepted: 11 May 2021 / Published: 24 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Section ROS, RNS and RSS)
Recently, Menzel A et al. published a review titled “Origin and Physiological Aspects of Oxidative Stress (OS), inflammation and markers of OS, relation to disease and practical aspects” [1].
We greatly appreciated this review, which aimed not only at promoting, but also at advancing scientific knowledge in the field of OS and inflammation research. Indeed, the authors addressed many topics, shedding light on markers of primary inflammation agents, direct markers of ROS, as well as indirect markers of oxidative damage, antioxidant enzymes and endothelial markers, and transcription factors. At the same time, emphasis was given to the role played by advanced techniques, such as mass spectrometry, Nuclear Magnetic and Paramagnetic Resonance (NMR, EPR), suitable for performing these measurements.
However, in regard to the last technique, EPR, the authors claim as follows: “Regarding OS, ROS may be measured directly, […] but this is usually not realized in clinical practice or even research due to equipment restrictions and sample instability”. Again, a few pages later: “However, due to the difficulties regarding the need to measure fresh samples and the marginal availability of EPR instruments, this method has not found many clinical or even research applications. […] In an interesting but small-scale study with 100 middle-aged subjects, capillary blood was measured by EPR, following the addition of a spin probe. […] EPR measures correlated well with PCs and TBARS.”
Following these claims, we would like to add some remarks with the purpose of shedding further light on this matter.
Widely reported and recognized, EPR is a non-invasive technique, suitable for a direct and quantitative measure of ROS. It finds many fields of application, among which is medicine [2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. Here, it can be used both for paramagnetic species and free radical studies in so-called biologically active materials (e.g., blood, tissues) [2,9].
Indeed, EPR is capable of returning ‘intrinsic’ quantitative information of free radical levels. The recorded absorption spectra can provide a direct detection of the “instantaneous” presence of free radical species in the sample [2,9]. Moreover, the technique usually plays a major role in the assessment of most of the oxidants characterized by a very short half-life (ns, μs) by adopting spin-traps/probes [10]. Finally, EPR allows us to obtain kinetical data and to follow a clinical treatment. Indeed, fresh samples are not necessarily required for data collection; frozen samples can be adopted to study entire blood or its components, such as urine, saliva, etc. [11]. Dedicated EPR instruments are also available for particular clinical applications.
We are grateful to the authors for having cited our publication in their review [12], which, as they report, was really a small-scale study. Since then, however, more than 1000 samples have been the object of publication by our research group, in collaboration with others, in healthy and pathological conditions, such as neurodegenerative, metabolic, immune diseases; supplementation diet and therapy monitoring, state/events, such as hypoxia e hyperoxia, and exercise [4,5,6,13].
At the same time, it was, and up to now still is, encouraging the good correlation found between EPR data ‘directly’ detected and indirect markers (i.e., protein carbonyl). Indeed, EPR technique was also found to be suitable for other measurements, such as antioxidant capacity (TAC), and nitric oxide (NO).
Finally, we want to emphasize the potentialities of this technique, which we are confident will be designed to achieve growing development in the field of research and clinical medicine. Additionally, correlations between EPR measurements and those obtained adopting different methods (immune/histochemical assay, HPLC, NMR) could help to elucidate the kinetic and molecular mechanisms of OS in different physiological, paraphysiological, and pathological conditions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Menzel, A.; Samouda, H.; Dohet, F.; Loap, S.; Ellulu, M.S.; Bohn, T. Common and Novel Markers for Measuring Inflammation and Oxidative Stress Ex Vivo in Research and Clinical Practice—Which to Use Regarding Disease Outcomes? Antioxidants 2021, 10, 414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Abdel-Rahman, E.A.; Mahmoud, A.M.; Khalifa, A.M.; Ali, S.S. Physiological and pathophysiological reactive oxygen species as probed by EPR spectroscopy: The underutilized research window on muscle ageing. J. Physiol. 2016, 594, 4591–4613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Burlaka, A.P.; Ganusevich, I.I.; Vovk, A.V.; Burlaka, A.A.; Gafurov, M.R.; Lukin, S.N. Colorectal Cancer and Mitochondrial Dysfunctions of the Adjunct Adipose Tissues: A Case Study. BioMed Res. Int. 2018, 2169036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Moretti, S.; Mrakic-Sposta, S.; Roncoroni, L.; Vezzoli, A.; Dellanoce, C.; Monguzzi, E.; Branchi, F.; Ferretti, F.; Lombardo, V.; Doneda, L.; et al. Oxidative stress as a biomarker for monitoring treated celiac disease. Clin. Transl. Gastroenterol. 2018, 9, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Mrakic-Sposta, S.; Vezzoli, A.; Maderna, L.; Gregorini, F.; Montoris, M.; Moretti, S.; Greco, F.; Cova, E.; Gussoni, M. R(+)-thioctic acid effects on oxidative stress and peripheral neuropathy in type II diabetic patients: Preliminary results by electron paramagnetic resonance and electroneurography. Oxid. Med. Cell. Longev. 2018, 2018, 1767265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. La Sala, L.; Mrakic-Sposta, S.; Tagliabue, E.; Praticchizzo, F.; Micheloni, S.; Sangalli, E.; Specchia, C.; Uccellatore, A.C.; Lupini, S.; Spinetti, G.; et al. Circulating microRNA-21 is an early predictor of ROS-mediated damage in subjects with high risk of developing diabetes and in drug-naïve T2D. Cardiovasc. Diabetol. 2019, 18, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. De Jacobis, I.T.; Vona, R.; Straface, E.; Gambardella, L.; Ceglie, G.; de Gennaro, F.; Pontini, I.; Vittucci, A.C.; Carè, A.; Cittadini, C.; et al. Sex differences in blood pro-oxidant status and platelet activation in children admitted with respiratory syncytial virus bronchiolitis: A pilot study. Ital. J. Pediatr. 2020, 46, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Metere, A.; Graves, C.E.; Pietraforte, D.; Casella, G. The Effect of Sleeve Gastrectomy on Oxidative Stress in Obesity. Biomedicines 2020, 8, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Cova, E.; Inghilleri, S.; Pandolfi, L.; Morosini, M.; Magni, S.; Colombo, M.; Piloni, D.; Finetti, C.; Ceccarelli, G.; Benedetti, L.; et al. Bioengineered gold nanoparticles targeted to mesenchymal cells from patients with bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome does not rise the inflammatory response and can be safely inhaled by rodents. Nanotoxicology 2017, 11, 534–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Dikalov, S.I.; Polienko, Y.F.; Kirilyuk, I. Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Measurements of Reactive Oxygen Species by Cyclic Hydroxylamine Spin Probes. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 2018, 28, 1433–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Bailey, D.M.; Rasmussen, P.; Evans, K.A.; Bohm, A.M.; Zaar, M.; Nielsen, H.B.; Brassard, P.; Nordsborg, N.B.; Homann, P.H.; Raven, P.B.; et al. Hypoxia compounds exercise-induced free radical formation in humans; partitioning contributions from the cerebral and femoral circulation. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2018, 124, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Mrakic-Sposta, S.; Gussoni, M.; Montorsi, M.; Porcelli, S.; Vezzoli, A. A quantitative method to monitor Reactive Oxygen Species production by Electron Paramagnetic Resonance in physiological and pathological conditions. Oxid. Med. Cell. Longev. 2014, 2014, 306179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Mrakic-Sposta, S.; Vezzoli, A.; D’Alessandro, F.; Paganini, M.; Dellanoce, C.; Cialoni, D.; Bosco, G. Change in Oxidative Stress Biomarkers During 30 Days in Saturation Dive: A Pilot Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mrakic-Sposta, S.; Gussoni, M.; Montorsi, M.; Vezzoli, A. Comment on Menzel et al. Common and Novel Markers for Measuring Inflammation and Oxidative Stress Ex Vivo in Research and Clinical Practice—Which to Use Regarding Disease Outcomes? Antioxidants 2021, 10, 414. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 836. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox10060836

AMA Style

Mrakic-Sposta S, Gussoni M, Montorsi M, Vezzoli A. Comment on Menzel et al. Common and Novel Markers for Measuring Inflammation and Oxidative Stress Ex Vivo in Research and Clinical Practice—Which to Use Regarding Disease Outcomes? Antioxidants 2021, 10, 414. Antioxidants. 2021; 10(6):836. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox10060836

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mrakic-Sposta, Simona, Maristella Gussoni, Michela Montorsi, and Alessandra Vezzoli. 2021. "Comment on Menzel et al. Common and Novel Markers for Measuring Inflammation and Oxidative Stress Ex Vivo in Research and Clinical Practice—Which to Use Regarding Disease Outcomes? Antioxidants 2021, 10, 414" Antioxidants 10, no. 6: 836. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox10060836

APA Style

Mrakic-Sposta, S., Gussoni, M., Montorsi, M., & Vezzoli, A. (2021). Comment on Menzel et al. Common and Novel Markers for Measuring Inflammation and Oxidative Stress Ex Vivo in Research and Clinical Practice—Which to Use Regarding Disease Outcomes? Antioxidants 2021, 10, 414. Antioxidants, 10(6), 836. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox10060836

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop