Nitric oxide (NO) produced by the endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) is an essential
signaling molecule in the cardiovascular system. Reduced eNOS activity is associated
with the development of atherosclerosis [1]. Maillard reaction products (MRP), formed
by the ubiquitious reaction between sugars and amins, possess antioxidant activity
and other pharmacological effects [2]. We investigated a MRP, which is formed by the
reaction between starch and a primary amine, and examined its effects on eNOS in the
human endothelial cell line EA.hy926 [3]. We used EA.hy926 cells stably transfected
with a plasmid containing 3600bp of the human eNOS promotor driving a luciferase reporter
gene for measuring human eNOS promotor activity and western blot to quantify protein
levels. ENOS enyzyme activity was investigated by an [14C]L-arginine/L-citrulline conversion assay. NO was quantified by the reaction with
the fluorescent probe DAF-2 [4]. After 18 hours of incubation (30µM –300µM) we observed
a significant and concentration-dependent increase of eNOS activity. NO production
peaked at a concentration of 100µM. Surprisingly we found a tendency towards a slight
decrease of human eNOS promotor activity and protein levels. A time course with incubation
times ranging from 30 minutes to 24 hours showed that eNOS enzyme activity was slightly
attenuated during the first eight hours, but increased significantly afterwards. We
therefore hypothesize that the de novo synthesis of another protein is needed to mediate
this effect. This is the first time that positive effects of MRPs on eNOS activity
and NO production are demonstrated in-vitro. Given the regular nutritional uptake of MRPs due to their great abundance in food,
these results could be of physiologic importance.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Dr. C.-J.S. Edgell (University of North Carolina)
for EA.hy926 cells and Daniel Schachner for excellent technical assistance.
References: 1. Naseem, K.M. (2005), Mol. Aspects Med. 26:33–65. 2. Somoza, V. (2005), Mol. Nutr.
Food. Res. 49: 663–672. 3. Edgell, C.-J.S. et al. (1983), Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 80: 3734–3737. 4. Leikert, J.F. et al. (2001), FEBS Lett. 506: 131–134.