Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Fast Forward
    • Latest Articles
    • Archive
  • Information
    • Instructions to Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • FAQs
    • For Subscribers
    • Terms & Conditions of Use
    • Permissions
  • Editorial Board
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Virtual Issues
  • Feedback
  • Submit
  • Other Publications
    • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
    • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
    • Molecular Pharmacology
    • Pharmacological Reviews
    • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
    • ASPET

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Pharmacological Reviews
  • Other Publications
    • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
    • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
    • Molecular Pharmacology
    • Pharmacological Reviews
    • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
    • ASPET
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Pharmacological Reviews

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Fast Forward
    • Latest Articles
    • Archive
  • Information
    • Instructions to Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • FAQs
    • For Subscribers
    • Terms & Conditions of Use
    • Permissions
  • Editorial Board
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Virtual Issues
  • Feedback
  • Submit
  • Visit Pharm Rev on Facebook
  • Follow Pharm Rev on Twitter
  • Follow ASPET on LinkedIn
Review ArticleReview Article
Open Access

On the Clinical Pharmacology of Reactive Oxygen Species

Ana I. Casas, Cristian Nogales, Hermann A. M. Mucke, Alexandra Petraina, Antonio Cuadrado, Ana I. Rojo, Pietro Ghezzi, Vincent Jaquet, Fiona Augsburger, Francois Dufrasne, Jalal Soubhye, Soni Deshwal, Moises Di Sante, Nina Kaludercic, Fabio Di Lisa and Harald H. H. W. Schmidt
Rhian M. Touyz, ASSOCIATE EDITOR
Pharmacological Reviews October 2020, 72 (4) 801-828; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/pr.120.019422
Ana I. Casas
Department of Pharmacology and Personalized Medicine, Maastricht University, School of Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht, The Netherlands (A.I.C., C.N., A.P., H.H.H.W.S.); H. M. Pharma Consultancy, Wien, Austria (H.A.M.M.); Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red sobre Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas (CIBERNED), ISCIII, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas “Alberto Sols” UAM-CSIC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Paz (IdiPaz), Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain (A.C., A.I.R.); Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, United Kingdom (P.G.); Department of Pathology and Immunology, Medical School, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland (V.J., F.A.); Microbiology, Bioorganic and Macromolecular Chemistry, RD3, Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Bruxelles, Belgium (F.D., J.S.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences (S.D., M.D.S., F.D.L.) and CNR Neuroscience Institute (N.K., F.D.L.), University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: a.casasguijarro@maastrichtuniversity.nl
Cristian Nogales
Department of Pharmacology and Personalized Medicine, Maastricht University, School of Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht, The Netherlands (A.I.C., C.N., A.P., H.H.H.W.S.); H. M. Pharma Consultancy, Wien, Austria (H.A.M.M.); Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red sobre Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas (CIBERNED), ISCIII, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas “Alberto Sols” UAM-CSIC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Paz (IdiPaz), Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain (A.C., A.I.R.); Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, United Kingdom (P.G.); Department of Pathology and Immunology, Medical School, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland (V.J., F.A.); Microbiology, Bioorganic and Macromolecular Chemistry, RD3, Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Bruxelles, Belgium (F.D., J.S.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences (S.D., M.D.S., F.D.L.) and CNR Neuroscience Institute (N.K., F.D.L.), University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hermann A. M. Mucke
Department of Pharmacology and Personalized Medicine, Maastricht University, School of Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht, The Netherlands (A.I.C., C.N., A.P., H.H.H.W.S.); H. M. Pharma Consultancy, Wien, Austria (H.A.M.M.); Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red sobre Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas (CIBERNED), ISCIII, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas “Alberto Sols” UAM-CSIC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Paz (IdiPaz), Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain (A.C., A.I.R.); Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, United Kingdom (P.G.); Department of Pathology and Immunology, Medical School, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland (V.J., F.A.); Microbiology, Bioorganic and Macromolecular Chemistry, RD3, Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Bruxelles, Belgium (F.D., J.S.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences (S.D., M.D.S., F.D.L.) and CNR Neuroscience Institute (N.K., F.D.L.), University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexandra Petraina
Department of Pharmacology and Personalized Medicine, Maastricht University, School of Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht, The Netherlands (A.I.C., C.N., A.P., H.H.H.W.S.); H. M. Pharma Consultancy, Wien, Austria (H.A.M.M.); Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red sobre Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas (CIBERNED), ISCIII, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas “Alberto Sols” UAM-CSIC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Paz (IdiPaz), Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain (A.C., A.I.R.); Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, United Kingdom (P.G.); Department of Pathology and Immunology, Medical School, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland (V.J., F.A.); Microbiology, Bioorganic and Macromolecular Chemistry, RD3, Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Bruxelles, Belgium (F.D., J.S.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences (S.D., M.D.S., F.D.L.) and CNR Neuroscience Institute (N.K., F.D.L.), University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Antonio Cuadrado
Department of Pharmacology and Personalized Medicine, Maastricht University, School of Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht, The Netherlands (A.I.C., C.N., A.P., H.H.H.W.S.); H. M. Pharma Consultancy, Wien, Austria (H.A.M.M.); Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red sobre Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas (CIBERNED), ISCIII, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas “Alberto Sols” UAM-CSIC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Paz (IdiPaz), Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain (A.C., A.I.R.); Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, United Kingdom (P.G.); Department of Pathology and Immunology, Medical School, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland (V.J., F.A.); Microbiology, Bioorganic and Macromolecular Chemistry, RD3, Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Bruxelles, Belgium (F.D., J.S.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences (S.D., M.D.S., F.D.L.) and CNR Neuroscience Institute (N.K., F.D.L.), University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ana I. Rojo
Department of Pharmacology and Personalized Medicine, Maastricht University, School of Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht, The Netherlands (A.I.C., C.N., A.P., H.H.H.W.S.); H. M. Pharma Consultancy, Wien, Austria (H.A.M.M.); Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red sobre Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas (CIBERNED), ISCIII, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas “Alberto Sols” UAM-CSIC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Paz (IdiPaz), Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain (A.C., A.I.R.); Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, United Kingdom (P.G.); Department of Pathology and Immunology, Medical School, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland (V.J., F.A.); Microbiology, Bioorganic and Macromolecular Chemistry, RD3, Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Bruxelles, Belgium (F.D., J.S.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences (S.D., M.D.S., F.D.L.) and CNR Neuroscience Institute (N.K., F.D.L.), University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pietro Ghezzi
Department of Pharmacology and Personalized Medicine, Maastricht University, School of Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht, The Netherlands (A.I.C., C.N., A.P., H.H.H.W.S.); H. M. Pharma Consultancy, Wien, Austria (H.A.M.M.); Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red sobre Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas (CIBERNED), ISCIII, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas “Alberto Sols” UAM-CSIC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Paz (IdiPaz), Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain (A.C., A.I.R.); Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, United Kingdom (P.G.); Department of Pathology and Immunology, Medical School, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland (V.J., F.A.); Microbiology, Bioorganic and Macromolecular Chemistry, RD3, Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Bruxelles, Belgium (F.D., J.S.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences (S.D., M.D.S., F.D.L.) and CNR Neuroscience Institute (N.K., F.D.L.), University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vincent Jaquet
Department of Pharmacology and Personalized Medicine, Maastricht University, School of Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht, The Netherlands (A.I.C., C.N., A.P., H.H.H.W.S.); H. M. Pharma Consultancy, Wien, Austria (H.A.M.M.); Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red sobre Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas (CIBERNED), ISCIII, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas “Alberto Sols” UAM-CSIC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Paz (IdiPaz), Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain (A.C., A.I.R.); Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, United Kingdom (P.G.); Department of Pathology and Immunology, Medical School, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland (V.J., F.A.); Microbiology, Bioorganic and Macromolecular Chemistry, RD3, Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Bruxelles, Belgium (F.D., J.S.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences (S.D., M.D.S., F.D.L.) and CNR Neuroscience Institute (N.K., F.D.L.), University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fiona Augsburger
Department of Pharmacology and Personalized Medicine, Maastricht University, School of Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht, The Netherlands (A.I.C., C.N., A.P., H.H.H.W.S.); H. M. Pharma Consultancy, Wien, Austria (H.A.M.M.); Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red sobre Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas (CIBERNED), ISCIII, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas “Alberto Sols” UAM-CSIC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Paz (IdiPaz), Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain (A.C., A.I.R.); Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, United Kingdom (P.G.); Department of Pathology and Immunology, Medical School, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland (V.J., F.A.); Microbiology, Bioorganic and Macromolecular Chemistry, RD3, Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Bruxelles, Belgium (F.D., J.S.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences (S.D., M.D.S., F.D.L.) and CNR Neuroscience Institute (N.K., F.D.L.), University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Francois Dufrasne
Department of Pharmacology and Personalized Medicine, Maastricht University, School of Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht, The Netherlands (A.I.C., C.N., A.P., H.H.H.W.S.); H. M. Pharma Consultancy, Wien, Austria (H.A.M.M.); Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red sobre Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas (CIBERNED), ISCIII, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas “Alberto Sols” UAM-CSIC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Paz (IdiPaz), Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain (A.C., A.I.R.); Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, United Kingdom (P.G.); Department of Pathology and Immunology, Medical School, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland (V.J., F.A.); Microbiology, Bioorganic and Macromolecular Chemistry, RD3, Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Bruxelles, Belgium (F.D., J.S.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences (S.D., M.D.S., F.D.L.) and CNR Neuroscience Institute (N.K., F.D.L.), University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jalal Soubhye
Department of Pharmacology and Personalized Medicine, Maastricht University, School of Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht, The Netherlands (A.I.C., C.N., A.P., H.H.H.W.S.); H. M. Pharma Consultancy, Wien, Austria (H.A.M.M.); Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red sobre Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas (CIBERNED), ISCIII, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas “Alberto Sols” UAM-CSIC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Paz (IdiPaz), Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain (A.C., A.I.R.); Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, United Kingdom (P.G.); Department of Pathology and Immunology, Medical School, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland (V.J., F.A.); Microbiology, Bioorganic and Macromolecular Chemistry, RD3, Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Bruxelles, Belgium (F.D., J.S.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences (S.D., M.D.S., F.D.L.) and CNR Neuroscience Institute (N.K., F.D.L.), University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Soni Deshwal
Department of Pharmacology and Personalized Medicine, Maastricht University, School of Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht, The Netherlands (A.I.C., C.N., A.P., H.H.H.W.S.); H. M. Pharma Consultancy, Wien, Austria (H.A.M.M.); Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red sobre Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas (CIBERNED), ISCIII, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas “Alberto Sols” UAM-CSIC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Paz (IdiPaz), Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain (A.C., A.I.R.); Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, United Kingdom (P.G.); Department of Pathology and Immunology, Medical School, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland (V.J., F.A.); Microbiology, Bioorganic and Macromolecular Chemistry, RD3, Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Bruxelles, Belgium (F.D., J.S.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences (S.D., M.D.S., F.D.L.) and CNR Neuroscience Institute (N.K., F.D.L.), University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Moises Di Sante
Department of Pharmacology and Personalized Medicine, Maastricht University, School of Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht, The Netherlands (A.I.C., C.N., A.P., H.H.H.W.S.); H. M. Pharma Consultancy, Wien, Austria (H.A.M.M.); Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red sobre Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas (CIBERNED), ISCIII, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas “Alberto Sols” UAM-CSIC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Paz (IdiPaz), Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain (A.C., A.I.R.); Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, United Kingdom (P.G.); Department of Pathology and Immunology, Medical School, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland (V.J., F.A.); Microbiology, Bioorganic and Macromolecular Chemistry, RD3, Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Bruxelles, Belgium (F.D., J.S.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences (S.D., M.D.S., F.D.L.) and CNR Neuroscience Institute (N.K., F.D.L.), University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nina Kaludercic
Department of Pharmacology and Personalized Medicine, Maastricht University, School of Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht, The Netherlands (A.I.C., C.N., A.P., H.H.H.W.S.); H. M. Pharma Consultancy, Wien, Austria (H.A.M.M.); Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red sobre Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas (CIBERNED), ISCIII, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas “Alberto Sols” UAM-CSIC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Paz (IdiPaz), Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain (A.C., A.I.R.); Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, United Kingdom (P.G.); Department of Pathology and Immunology, Medical School, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland (V.J., F.A.); Microbiology, Bioorganic and Macromolecular Chemistry, RD3, Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Bruxelles, Belgium (F.D., J.S.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences (S.D., M.D.S., F.D.L.) and CNR Neuroscience Institute (N.K., F.D.L.), University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fabio Di Lisa
Department of Pharmacology and Personalized Medicine, Maastricht University, School of Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht, The Netherlands (A.I.C., C.N., A.P., H.H.H.W.S.); H. M. Pharma Consultancy, Wien, Austria (H.A.M.M.); Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red sobre Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas (CIBERNED), ISCIII, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas “Alberto Sols” UAM-CSIC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Paz (IdiPaz), Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain (A.C., A.I.R.); Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, United Kingdom (P.G.); Department of Pathology and Immunology, Medical School, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland (V.J., F.A.); Microbiology, Bioorganic and Macromolecular Chemistry, RD3, Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Bruxelles, Belgium (F.D., J.S.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences (S.D., M.D.S., F.D.L.) and CNR Neuroscience Institute (N.K., F.D.L.), University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Harald H. H. W. Schmidt
Department of Pharmacology and Personalized Medicine, Maastricht University, School of Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht, The Netherlands (A.I.C., C.N., A.P., H.H.H.W.S.); H. M. Pharma Consultancy, Wien, Austria (H.A.M.M.); Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red sobre Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas (CIBERNED), ISCIII, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas “Alberto Sols” UAM-CSIC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Paz (IdiPaz), Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain (A.C., A.I.R.); Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, United Kingdom (P.G.); Department of Pathology and Immunology, Medical School, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland (V.J., F.A.); Microbiology, Bioorganic and Macromolecular Chemistry, RD3, Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Bruxelles, Belgium (F.D., J.S.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences (S.D., M.D.S., F.D.L.) and CNR Neuroscience Institute (N.K., F.D.L.), University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: h.schmidt@maastrichtuniversity.nl
Rhian M. Touyz
Roles: ASSOCIATE EDITOR
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Reactive oxygen species (ROS) have been correlated with almost every human disease. Yet clinical exploitation of these hypotheses by pharmacological modulation of ROS has been scarce to nonexistent. Are ROS, thus, irrelevant for disease? No. One key misconception in the ROS field has been its consideration as a rather detrimental metabolic by-product of cell metabolism, and thus, any approach eliminating ROS to a certain tolerable level would be beneficial. We now know, instead, that ROS at every concentration, low or high, can serve many essential signaling and metabolic functions. This likely explains why systemic, nonspecific antioxidants have failed in the clinic, often with neutral and sometimes even detrimental outcomes. Recently, drug development has focused, instead, on identifying and selectively modulating ROS enzymatic sources that in a given constellation cause disease while leaving ROS physiologic signaling and metabolic functions intact. As sources, the family of NADPH oxidases stands out as the only enzyme family solely dedicated to ROS formation. Selectively targeting disease-relevant ROS-related proteins is already quite advanced, as evidenced by several phase II/III clinical trials and the first drugs having passed registration. The ROS field is expanding by including target enzymes and maturing to resemble more and more modern, big data–enhanced drug discovery and development, including network pharmacology. By defining a disease based on a distinct mechanism, in this case ROS dysregulation, and not by a symptom or phenotype anymore, ROS pharmacology is leaping forward from a clinical underperformer to a proof of concept within the new era of mechanism-based precision medicine.

Significance Statement Despite being correlated to almost every human disease, nearly no ROS modulator has been translated to the clinics yet. Here, we move far beyond the old-fashioned misconception of ROS as detrimental metabolic by-products and suggest 1) novel pharmacological targeting focused on selective modulation of ROS enzymatic sources, 2) mechanism-based redefinition of diseases, and 3) network pharmacology within the ROS field, altogether toward the new era of ROS pharmacology in precision medicine.

I. Introduction

For decades, the oxidative stress theory has placed ROS as the basis of numerous disease states (Ghezzi et al., 2017). Consequently, antioxidants have been broadly tested as therapeutic agents for neurodegenerative diseases (Schmidt et al., 2015), cancer (Nezis and Stenmark, 2012), brain ischemia (Lees et al., 2006), and endothelial dysfunction (Ashor et al., 2014), to name a few. So far, hardly any of them have reached the efficacy and or safety criteria sufficient for drug approval. There is only one approved antioxidant drug, edaravone, to treat a small subset (Abe et al., 2017) of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Hardiman and van den Berg, 2017). From a clinical pharmacological perspective, the questions arise as to whether the oxidative stress theory is wrong, whether ROS are a therapeutic target at all, and whether the wrong diseases or wrong approaches have been chosen.

One fundamental theory of ROS biology that introduced a considerable bias for redox medicine has been the concept of whole-cell redox balance or homeostasis (Sies, 2019). Moreover, the notion that ROS are dangerous metabolic by-products to be controlled to a certain tolerable level to prevent oxidative stress remains as controversial theory. In fact, the existence of antioxidant enzymes such as superoxide dismutase (McCord and Fridovich, 1988) could be viewed in support of this bias. Many other second messengers, however, are also controlled by both synthesis (e.g., cyclases, kinases) and degradation (e.g., phosphodiesterases, phosphatases). This would argue both against the notion of ROS being primarily detrimental and against an ROS-specific cellular mechanism to ensure local steady-state levels of a signaling molecule. If ROS formation is dysregulated and triggers disease, this may happen only in a certain cellular compartment, whereas many other simultaneous ROS signaling events in different compartments may still be required for essential physiologic processes, such as cell differentiation and proliferation, immune response, vascular tone, and hormone synthesis (Altenhöfer et al., 2015). This would argue against a whole-cell redox status. Moreover, these latter physiologic roles of ROS can occur at both high and low concentrations, demonstrating a strictly quantitative criteria for ROS being physiologic or pathologic, and this may explain the recurrent failures in translating broadly acting antioxidants for clinical application (Steinhubl, 2008). Finally, disease-relevant ROS dysregulation may include the following: 1) the induction of ROS-forming enzymes and local overproduction of ROS; 2) translocation of ROS-forming enzymes to cellular sites where, physiologically, there is no ROS formation; 3) unphysiological ROS formation interfering with ROS-sensitive pathways; or 4) changes in the ROS formed, e.g., superoxide or peroxynitrite instead of hydrogen peroxide or nitric oxide (Dröge, 2002; Casas et al., 2015; Dao et al., 2015).

The novel and more clinically promising pharmacological approach to ROS reviewed here suggests selectively inhibiting only the disease-relevant ROS sources and leaving all others intact. To achieve this, disease relevance and target validation have to go beyond the concept of “small amounts of ROS beneficial or tolerable, large amounts detrimental” and no longer use terms such as “redox balance,” “redox gradient,” or “oxidative stress”; instead, the identification of a specific enzyme’s dysregulation as a causal disease mechanism is required (Ghezzi et al., 2017). Also, cases of secondary ROS formation as a by-product of many inflammatory reactions (e.g., NOX2 or NOS2) are most likely an epiphenomenon not suited as a therapeutic target. We thus strictly limit this review to clinical validations at the level of at least a phase II clinical trial or higher. This excludes, for now, some targets commonly considered in basic and preclinical research, such as 1) mitochondria and ROS-induced ROS release, which, in our view, may occur but are currently not realistic to be safely targeted pharmacologically in humans; or 2) other ROS sources for which hitherto no disease or therapeutic relevance has been shown.

Therefore, the ROS-forming and metabolizing enzymes considered for this review include NADPH oxidase (NOX) (Schramm et al., 2012; Rousset et al., 2015; Warren et al., 2017), NO synthase (NOS) (Li and Pagano, 2017), xanthine oxidoreductase (XOR) (Berry and Hare, 2004), monoamine oxidase (MAO) (Bortolato et al., 2008), and myeloperoxidase (MPO) (Malle et al., 2007). Additionally, we include proteins that are not generally considered by the ROS field. However, we view them as mechanistically related and therapeutically relevant (in particular, targets of ROS) if they are disease-relevant and amenable to pharmacological modulation, i.e., nuclear factor (erythroid-derived 2)-like 2 (NRF2) and its activators (Dao et al., 2015; Cuadrado et al., 2019) and the nitric oxide synthase (NOS)-soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) signaling pair (Evgenov et al., 2006). Drugs targeting sGC (Sandner et al., 2019) do not modulate ROS formation directly but correct functional ROS-dependent dysregulation (Melichar et al., 2004).

Maturing the ROS field concerning successful drug discovery is confronted, however, with an even more significant challenge that the entire pharmaceutical industry and biomedicine field in general faces. Even for several drugs that are on the market, population-based studies fail to show patient-relevant benefits (Lee et al., 2012; Nosengo, 2016). Moreover, research covering drug approvals since the 1970s suggests that only a limited number of new drugs provide real advances over existing drugs; most studies put the proportion of real innovation at under 15% (Ebrahim, 2001). One of the factors contributing to this innovation roadblock is a conceptual knowledge gap applied to the whole field of medicine and our current definitions of diseases. Most diseases are defined based on a dominant symptom—indeed, mostly in one organ. However, they are often not defined based on a causal molecular mechanism, which for most common diseases, is not known. A drug, however, can only be effectively developed and applied in a precise manner if the molecular disease mechanism is known (Caldera et al., 2019; Choobdar et al., 2019).

As we are moving to molecular redefinitions of disease (Aguirre-Plans et al., 2018), we realize that common diseases are not defined by single causal proteins, unlike in highly penetrant monogenic diseases, but rather by a dysregulated signaling network as part of the cellular interactome (Sharma et al., 2015). Indeed, proteins associated with specific diseases are not randomly spread but tend to interact, forming connected subgraphs, i.e., disease modules (Menche et al., 2015). A given ROS source or ROS target may be part of one such disease module but not another. In fact, different modules may cause different or similar symptoms (phenotypes) (Ghiassian et al., 2016). Moreover, there are several ways of defining disease models. The Disease Module Identification DREAM Challenge was recently launched as an open competition to assess diverse identification methods (Choobdar et al., 2019). Although all models in the ROS field give almost identical results, we selected the first-neighbor approach obtained from validated protein-protein interactions (PPIs) within the experimentally assessed interactome (Zhang and Itan, 2019). These disease models were further pruned according to the subnetwork participation degree to correct for hub node proteins. Then, identification of disease models is, therefore, occurring because of the high number of interactions in the whole network. Thus, we present here the first draft of a network pharmacology approach to redox medicine based on clinically validated therapeutic ROS targets (seed genes) and associated construction of disease modules (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

A mechanotype approach to ROS-related diseases. Red shows validated ROS-related disease targets and their first neighbors (blue). A participation degree score was calculated for each protein by the ratio of total protein-protein interactions in the subnetwork to the total protein-protein interaction in the interactome. A cutoff of 0.25 was chosen for the participation degree score to filter non–cluster-relevant highly promiscuous proteins. These data suggest that ROS pathophysiology is split up into at least 10 distinct mechanotypes, which will become mechanistic disease definitions. Once metabolites are included, possible new module connections may appear, such as NOX4 linking into NOS1 signaling (Casas et al., 2019a).

This “ROSome” currently shows 10 distinct PPI modules. One module overlaps with cGMP signaling (ROS-cGMP, i.e., ROCG module). Moreover, modules may interact not only through PPI but also functionally through metabolites, as shown for the ROCG and the NOX4 module (Casas et al., 2019a), reducing the ROSome to nine functional modules. Therefore, we show here that different ROS sources belong to nonconnected modules and, thus, probably different diseases. Hence, we need to identify mechanism-related targets that will only be associated with some ROS-related disease phenotypes presenting specific ROS source-disease couples and no longer considering ROS as a general disease mechanism. Since all seed proteins are disease-relevant, these functional modules will be starting points for ROS-related target selection, diagnostics, and therapeutic prioritization as part of new mechanistic disease definitions. Thus, what we currently name a disease would be annotated as a phenotype or symptom of this “mechanotype” (Schmidt et al., 2018). Hence, we propose 1) novel pharmacological targeting focused on selective modulation of ROS enzymatic sources, 2) mechanism-based redefinition of diseases, and 3) implementation of network pharmacology approaches as the future of the ROS field in the new era of precision medicine.

II. ROS Revisited: From Oxidative Stress and Redox Biology to Redox Medicine

Based on the above, both the terms disease and redox medicine need to be renewed. One common bias has been a focus on the roles of ROS in disease rather than in physiology, thereby overlooking or neglecting many of their nonpathologic roles (Ghezzi et al., 2017). Physiologic ROS sources are expressed in different cell structures, i.e., mitochondria, peroxisomes, endoplasmic reticulum, lysosomes, and plasma membrane (Di Meo et al., 2016). Based on their distribution and colocalization, the activation of different ROS sources will result in differential subcellular superoxide (O2•), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), hydroxyl, or [by interaction with nitric oxide (NO) or nitrite] peroxynitrite formation.

Physiologic ROS production is involved in several essential signaling functions regulating cell growth, necrosis, apoptosis, proliferation, and survival (Zuo et al., 2015); immune system functioning (Sena and Chandel, 2012); and mitocondrial metabolism. H2O2 alters protein function through post-translational modification (Finkel, 2012) of mitogen-activated protein kinase, phosphatase and tensin homolog (Tonks, 2005; Rojo et al., 2014), and others. Finally, autophagy in response to cellular stress involving ROS leads to programmed cell death (Scherz-Shouval and Elazar, 2011; Sena and Chandel, 2012; Pajares et al., 2017, 2018). However, ROS is among several other intracellular signaling transducers that sustain and control autophagy. Mitochondria-derived ROS indirectly activates AMP protein kinases, which are involved in several signaling mechanisms, e.g., glucose metabolism and inflammatory response. Indeed, AMP protein kinase inhibitors have been suggested as a possible pharmacotherapy for neuroprotection and cancer, although no compound reached the clinical stage (Viollet et al., 2010).

Immune cells destroy pathogens via the NOX2-mediated oxidative burst, a key mechanism for antiviral, antiparasitic, and antibacterial responses (Arsenijevic et al., 2000), and NOX-dependent regulation of toll-like receptor 4 (Ogier-Denis et al., 2008). In the nervous system, ROS regulate synaptic plasticity at the cellular level by modulating long-term potentiation as part of the learning process and memory formation and/or maintenance. Conversely, ROS dysregulation is involved in the impairment of memory in the aged brain in neurodegenerative diseases and dementia (Rojo et al., 2017, 2018). Moreover, NOX3 is essential for audition because of its role in otoconia formation, whereas different NO synthase isoforms play a role in blood pressure regulation, inflammation, and neuronal homeostasis. ROS toxifiers, e.g., MPO, use H2O2 to oxidize the halides I−, Br−, and Cl−, resulting in the subsequent hypopseudohalous acids with an extreme oxidative reactivity (Casas et al., 2015). ROS are therefore linked to several physiologic mechanisms, and if essential, their dysregulation of off-target inhibition may lead to pathology or drug side effects, respectively (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Role of ROS in physiology and disease. ROS plays a crucial role in several physiologic mechanisms, i.e., angiogenesis, cell signaling, immune system, and memory formation. However, ROS have also been suggested to be part of several pathomechanisms because of a dysregulation of specific ROS sources that leads to unphysiological 1) regulation, 2) location, and 3) amount of ROS produced. Our approach is focused on inhibition of ROS formation through NOX, XO, MAO, NOS, and MPO. A parallel strategy focuses on the direct repair of ROS-induced damage through modulation of the cGMP-forming enzyme sGC using both activators [sGC activators (sGCas)] and stimulators (sGCs). ONOO−, peroxynitrite.

III. ROS Generators and Toxifiers in Disease

For several ROS sources and toxifiers, clear target validation has been demonstrated. For therapeutic application, this has to be evaluated in light of their physiologic function, possible side effects, and the resulting risk-benefit ratio. Thus, in the following sections, both of these aspects are discussed per target. In general, acute indications such as ischemic stroke (Kleinschnitz et al., 2010; Casas et al., 2017, 2019a,b) and neurotrauma (Stover et al., 2014) appear safer than those potentially requiring chronic therapy. Moreover, since most targets are embedded in multiprotein signaling modules (see above), multidrug approaches on the same module, i.e., network pharmacology (Casas et al., 2019a), with lower doses of each drug also seem more promising and safer than single-target, single-drug approaches.

A. Focus on Oxidases

1. NADPH Oxidase

Human NADPH oxidases are a family of seven transmembrane proteins, i.e., five mono-oxidases [NOX1, NOX2, NOX3, NOX4, and NOX5 (Wingler et al., 2011)] and two dual oxidases [DUOX1 and DUOX2 (van der Vliet et al., 2018)], each with specific tissue distribution and physiologic functions. Of these, NOX5 is the only one that is missing from the mouse and rat genome and requires knockin mouse models to be investigated in animal models, which has resulted in the fact that this isoform is preclinically understudied (Jha et al., 2017; Casas et al., 2019b; Touyz et al., 2019a,b). NOX1–4 catalytic units, but not NOX5, form a complex with the transmembrane protein p22phox and, further, with different cytosolic regulatory (e.g., p67phox or NOXA1; the small G protein Rac) and/or organizational protein partners (e.g., p47phox or NOXO1). Most NOX isoforms produce O2•−, whereas NOX4 primarily leads to H2O2 (Peng et al., 2019). NOX isoforms also differ regarding ROS generation kinetics (low and high output), abundance (low and high expression levels), subunit requirements, and modes of activation (basally active or inactive). Concerning regulation, NOX5 and the DUOXs stand out by being directly calcium-activated (Rigutto et al., 2009; Touyz et al., 2019b). However, unlike NOX5, DUOX produces H2O2 similar to NOX4; for details, see (Altenhöfer et al., 2015).

NOX1 is mainly expressed in the colon, where it appears to play a role in gut immune regulation (Schwerd et al., 2018). NOX2 was the first NOX to be identified, originally named phagocytic oxidase glycoprotein of 91 kDa, gp91phox, and is mainly expressed in leukocytes (eosinophils, neutrophils, macrophages). It represents a vital component of the phagocytic oxidative burst, and it has been suggested that it is involved in cell proliferation, differentiation, and survival; contractility; neuronal plasticity; and apoptosis (Diebold et al., 2015). Moreover, inflammatory cytokines signal through mitochondrial ROS production lead to the activation of the tumor necrotic factor receptor which promotes NF-kB inflammatory response. NLRP3-dependent inflammasomes are activated through ROS, promoting a quick inflammatory response (Tschopp, 2011). NOX3 appears to have the most restricted distribution, e.g., in the inner ear, where it is essential for the formation of otoconia, calcium carbonate crystals in the vestibule responsible for the detection of linear acceleration, gravity, and audition (Paffenholz et al., 2004; Kiss et al., 2006). A recent study, however, showed NOX3 overexpression in heart failure, suggesting new physiologic roles for this isoform (Bkaily et al., 2019). Conversely, NOX4 has the most ubiquitous distribution, including in the brain, endothelium, kidney, muscle, and adipose tissue. Therefore, NOX4 is constitutively active to preferentially produce H2O2, as opposed to all other NOXs, which produce superoxide. NOX4 plays a crucial role in cell differentiation, e.g., in preadipocytes and endothelial cells for angiogenesis (Schröder et al., 2009), as well as in neural precursor cells for hippocampal neurogenesis and memory formation (Choi et al., 2019; Yoshikawa et al., 2019). NOX5 is physiologically expressed in endothelium, spermatocytes, and lymphoid organs (Jagnandan et al., 2007). In mice, a triple NOX1-2-4 knockout is viable and lacks a distinct phenotype (Rezende et al., 2016). Thus, at least in mice under basal conditions, NOX1-2-4 appear to be neither essential for survival nor indispensable for basal physiology. This scenario changes, of course, upon infection or under stress condition (Odalys et al., 2015) or under stress conditions (Zhang et al., 2010). DUOX1 and 2 are expressed in the thyroid gland and are essential for thyroid hormone synthesis (Moreno et al., 2002).

Regarding validated pathophysiological roles, NOX enzymes are involved in several disease conditions primarily based on NOX dysregulation (Casas et al., 2015; Dao et al., 2015) (Table 1). Current drug developments for NOX inhibition focus on fibrotic and neurovascular disease indications, with NOX1, 4, and 5 as the main isoforms to be targeted (Casas et al., 2017; Jha et al., 2017; Teixeira et al., 2017). NOX1 mutations are also found in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (Scherz-Shouval and Elazar, 2011; Hayes et al., 2015). Moreover, NOX1 appears to contribute to diabetic atherosclerosis (Di Marco et al., 2016) and retinopathies (Wilkinson-Berka et al., 2014). As a proinflammatory gene, it is not surprising that NOX2 has been suggested as a therapeutic target not only in inflammatory diseases, i.e., acute respiratory distress syndrome and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but also in muscle and neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and schizophrenia, to name a few (Diebold et al., 2015). Moreover, the genetic deletion of NOX2 may reduce lung metastasis (Xu et al., 2016; van der Weyden et al., 2017). Because of its role in the inner ear, NOX3 could be a key target for hearing loss. NOX4-derived H2O2 leads to the pathologic fibrosis of liver (Lan et al., 2015) and lung (Carnesecchi et al., 2011) and blood-brain barrier breakdown and neurodegeneration upon ischemic stroke (Kleinschnitz et al., 2010; Casas et al., 2017, 2019a,b), but it is surprisingly protective in atherosclerosis (Gray et al., 2016). NOX5 might be a suitable target in cardiovascular pathologies (Touyz et al., 2019a) and stroke (Casas et al., 2019b). DUOX2 and DUOXA2 loss-of-function mutations lead to congenital hypothyroidism (Weber et al., 2013) and can be targeted for radiation-induced thyroid cancer (Ameziane-El-Hassani et al., 2016).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

NOX isoforms: function and potential pathologic role

Concerning safety-benefit considerations, pharmacological inhibition of DUOX2 should most likely be circumvented to avoid hypothyroidism and bowel inflammation (Hayes et al., 2015). Also, the safety profile of inhibiting NOX2 is controversial based on its role in innate immunity (Sareila et al., 2011). A small residual activity, however, may be sufficient to confer antimicrobial activity (Diebold et al., 2015), although the risk of noninfectious complications similar to those in patients with chronic granulomatous disease is less clear (Henrickson et al., 2018). A potential concern regarding NOX1 and NOX4 inhibition is to enhance inflammation in the gut by inhibiting NOX1 and diminishing the potential protective mechanisms of NOX4 in vascular cells, thus promoting atherosclerosis (Schürmann et al., 2015; Gray et al., 2016) as well as enhancing the risks of kidney fibrosis (Nlandu Khodo et al., 2012) and liver cancer (Crosas-Molist et al., 2017). Acute indications such as ischemic stroke (Kleinschnitz et al., 2010; Casas et al., 2017) are likely to have, however, a low risk-benefit profile.

2. Nitric Oxide Synthases

NOSs are homodimeric NADPH binding flavoheme proteins additionally regulated by the redox-sensitive cofactor tetrahydrobiopterin (H4Bip), calmodulin, and several other modulatory interactions (Nedvetsky et al., 2002) to convert l-arginine (Schmidt et al., 1988) to NO. Three isoforms exist, and they were initially named according to their first observed cellular/tissue localization or expressional regulation, i.e., neuronal, inducible, and endothelial (i.e., NOS1, NOS2, and NOS3) (Schmidt et al., 1991; Förstermann et al., 1992; Chakrabarti et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2012; Caviedes et al., 2017). Qualitatively, three functional states need to be differentiated: 1) physiologic NO formation signaling via sGC into cGMP and PKG (Schmidt and Walter, 1994); 2) excessive NO formation leading to cellular and tissue damage (Kleinschnitz et al., 2016), e.g., in stroke; and 3) uncoupled states of NOS in which the activation of oxygen is not coupled to the oxidation of arginine but results in leakage of ROS, such as in endothelial dysfunction and hypertension (Li et al., 2015).

Several mechanisms have been suggested to cause NOS uncoupling, for which oxidation of H4Bip (tetrahydrobiopterin) to H2Bip (dihydrobiopterin) appears to be crucial (Schmidt et al., 1992; Bömmel et al., 1998). H2Bip leads to enzyme monomerization (Reif et al., 1999) and inhibition of activity (Kotsonis et al., 1999). In turn, supplementation with arginine (Schramm et al., 2002) and/or H4Bip in vitro (Kotsonis et al., 2000) or in vivo (Moens et al., 2011) recouples NOS and restores NO-cGMP signaling and function. An alternative approach to substituting H4Bip may be to facilitate its endogenous recycling via dihydrofolate reductase (Crabtree et al., 2009; Crabtree and Channon, 2011). Counterproductive competition of folic acid with H4Bip does not seem to occur. Another pathophysiologically relevant event is the accumulation of methylated arginine analogs, in particular asymmetric dimethylarginine (Antoniades et al., 2009), which inhibits NOS and appears to be an independent cardiovascular risk factor. This mechanism may be a rationale to clinically substitute l-arginine (Schramm et al., 2002) or l-citrulline (subsequently converted to l-arginine) to compete against asymmetric dimethylarginine–induced NOS inhibition, despite cellular l-arginine being sufficiently high to also thoroughly saturate NOS under disease conditions. Besides augmenting NO synthesis and subsequent cGMP formation, there may be situations in which NO levels are unphysiologically high, causing disease states, most likely in a cGMP-independent manner. These include inflammatory and hypoxic states. Attempts to exploit previous conditions clinically have all failed. Conversely, NOS inhibition using anti-pterins (Fröhlich et al., 1999; Kotsonis et al., 2001), such as ronopterin, in neurotrauma (Stover et al., 2014) and stroke (Kleinschnitz et al., 2016; Casas et al., 2019a) may be promising. Future pivotal clinical trials [No Synthase in Traumatic Brain Injury (NOSTRA) III, NCT02794168] to be finalized in 2020 will tell.

Concerning risk-benefit profile, NOS inhibition (chronic inhibition, in particular) could be detrimental for patients suffering from cardiovascular and renal diseases due to endothelial dysfunction, i.e., vasoconstriction, hypertension, atherosclerosis, and insulin resistance. Thus, acute indications seem to be more promising.

3. Xanthine Oxidase

Xanthine oxidoreductase is a terminal enzyme in the purine catabolic pathway that catalyzes the conversion of hypoxanthine to xanthine and then to uric acid (UA). XOR exists in two isoforms: xanthine oxidase (XO) and xanthine dehydrogenase (XDH). To note, XDH and XO are interconvertible, i.e., XDH can be converted into XO (Battelli et al., 1973). Thus, not only is XO an ROS-generating enzyme, but oxidative modification would convert residual XDH into XO to produce more ROS.

Physiologically, UA can directly activate the NACHT, LRR, and PYD domain–containing protein 3 inflammasome, resulting in toll-like receptor–independent production of interleukin (IL)-1β and IL-18 (Martinon et al., 2006). This is not only restricted to urate crystals but also an activity of soluble UA (Braga et al., 2017). Thus, UA adds a further element of complexity into possible ROS-independent activities of XO. Moreover, UA is not just a biomarker of XO activation, but it has also been indicated as a potent antioxidant (Ames, 1989).

The best-known pathologic role of XOR is independent of ROS in the accumulation of uric acid in gout. Text mining analysis presents ischemia-reperfusion injury (Granger et al., 1981) as the primary disease concept associated to XO (841 hits), followed by tumor development (422) and several cardiovascular diseases (CVD), including hypertension (169), diabetes (143), myocardial ischemia (125), myocardial infarction (101), atherosclerosis (118), coronary disease (115), and heart failure (111). XO can be activated in reperfusion because of the high availability of substrates. Angiotensin II can induce XO levels in aortic endothelial cells in vitro (Landmesser et al., 2007), which may be relevant in CVD states. For example, in patients with coronary artery disease, XO is activated along with NOX (Spiekermann et al., 2003), and plasma XO levels are associated with left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertension (Butts et al., 2019). Assuming that XO activation is a causal mechanism in disease, one might expect that UA would correlate with disease or disease severity. Despite all evidence of XO in CVD, the association of hyperuricemia and CVD has remained unclear and controversial (Feig et al., 2006). A positive correlation between UA levels and disease was observed for chronic kidney disease (Wang et al., 2018a), peripheral artery disease (Wang et al., 2018a), atrial fibrillation (Tamariz et al., 2014), and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (Jaruvongvanich et al., 2017). In several other conditions, however, meta-analyses resulted in a negative correlation between UA and disease, including neurologic or psychiatric diseases such as Parkinson (Wei et al., 2018), Alzheimer (Mullan et al., 2018), depression (Bartoli et al., 2018), autism (Wen et al., 2017), and dementia (Khan et al., 2016). XO is also elevated in tissues and serum after viral or bacterial infection (Akaike et al., 1990). The induction of XO by pathogens is probably mediated by interferon (IFN), which acts as an XO inducer at the transcriptional level (Ghezzi et al., 1984). These findings may explain infections as risk factors for CVD.

For a risk-benefit profile of XO as a target, safety appears to be high based on the decade-long experience with antigout medication. It has been suggested that close monitoring should be taken into account in patients with impaired renal function (Jordan and Gresser, 2018). A recent study argues, however, against such a risk (Vargas-Santos et al., 2018).

4. Monoamine Oxidase

MAOs are flavin-containing enzymes located in the outer mitochondrial membrane. They catalyze the oxidative deamination of both endogenous and exogenous amines, especially modulating the metabolism of neurotransmitters and several drugs. During this process, MAOs generate a significant amount of H2O2 as a by-product and, indirectly, aldehyde and ammonia (Casas et al., 2015). MAOs exist in two isoforms, A and B, which differ in structure, substrate preference, inhibitor specificity, and tissue distribution (Binda et al., 2002; De Colibus et al., 2005; Finberg, 2014). MAO-dependent increases in H2O2 formation have been observed in isolated skeletal and cardiac myocytes (Kaludercic et al., 2010, 2014; Sorato et al., 2014; Deshwal et al., 2018); increased expression of MAO-B, but not MAO-A, has been observed in various other tissues upon aging, including brain (Fowler et al., 1997).

In mood disorder models related to stress and glucocorticoid administration, a decrease in neurotransmitter levels and the preferred utilization of serotonin and noradrenaline by MAO-A led to the development of MAO-A inhibitors as antidepressants. Clinical data are, however, not yet available. MAO-A–dependent ROS formation contributes to muscle dystrophy and other pathologies (Sorato et al., 2014), such us prostate tumorigenesis and cancer metastasis. Pharmacological or genetic inhibition of MAO-A reduced or even eliminated prostate tumor growth and metastasis in prostate cancer mouse models, whereas high MAO-A expression in cancer tissues correlated with worse clinical outcomes in patients (Wu et al., 2014a). These findings suggest that MAO-A has potential as a therapeutic target in cancer treatment. On the other hand, MAO-B is increased in Huntington, Alzheimer, and Parkinson diseases (Kumar et al., 2003; Gulyás et al., 2011; Krzysztoń-Russjan et al., 2013; Ooi et al., 2015), and inhibition of MAO-B is indicated in the treatment of Parkinson disease because of its efficacy in sparing endogenous dopamine (Bortolato and Shih, 2011; Fišar, 2016). Several reports suggest that, in addition to modulating neurotransmitter levels, MAO-dependent ROS generation promotes the development of neurodegenerative disorders by causing oxidative damage to neurons (Youdim et al., 2006; Bortolato et al., 2008). Additionally, MAO contributes to cardiovascular disease, including ischemia-reperfusion injury (Bianchi et al., 2005; Pchejetski et al., 2007; Carpi et al., 2009), pressure overload (Kaludercic et al., 2010, 2014), diabetic cardiomyopathy (Deshwal et al., 2018), postoperative atrial fibrillation (Anderson et al., 2014), and vascular dysfunction (Sturza et al., 2013). MAO activity is increased in the left and right ventricles from patients with ischemic heart disease (Manni et al., 2016). The mechanisms underlying MAO toxicity have mostly been attributed to excessive H2O2 and aldehyde generation, which leads to impaired mitochondria-endoplasmic reticulum cross talk and cardiomyocyte death (Kaludercic et al., 2014; Deshwal et al., 2018). Based on the known side effects of MAO inhibitors, their risk-benefit profile for novel severe indications appears to be beneficial.

B. Focus on Toxifiers

1. Myeloperoxidase

Myeloperoxidase is heme protein (Fiedler et al., 2000) that is located primarily in neutrophils and, to a lesser extent, in monocytes (Bainton et al., 1971) and uses H2O2 to oxidize the halides I−, Br−, and Cl− (but not F−) and the pseudohalide SCN− to give the corresponding hypohalous and hypopseudohalous acids, which have high oxidative reactivity (Jantschko et al., 2005). Besides hypo(pseudo)halous species (HOSCN), MPO produces other potent oxidative compounds, such as the nitrous radical (NO•) and peroxynitrite (Eiserich et al., 2002). The highly oxidative product, hypochlorous acid, has an essential role in immunity by causing oxidative damage to biomolecules of pathogens phagocytosed by neutrophils (Odell and Segal, 1988) and stimulating the release of inflammatory mediators. By oxidizing serotonin, MPO not only impairs physiologic functions of serotonin but also generates the neurotoxic compound tryptamine-4,5-dione (Ximenes et al., 2009). Besides, MPO-catalyzed oxidation of uric acid has been reported in patients with gout, in whom reactive metabolites from urate may contribute to the pathology of gout (Stamp et al., 2012) and may be implicated in several chronic inflammatory syndromes related to the central nervous system, cardiovascular system, respiratory system, and renal system, including glomerular and tubulointerstitial disorders (Klebanoff, 2005). MPO is involved in the development of atherosclerosis (Libby et al., 2011), which is related to the overexpression of the enzyme, and chloro-tyrosine (ClTyr) has been considered as a potential biomarker for CVD (see section VI. Biomarkers of ROS). MPO-dependent oxidative modification makes high-density lipoprotein dysfunctional, i.e., unable to contribute to cholesterol efflux (Smith, 2010). In gestational hypertension, MPO mediates endothelial dysfunction by directly consuming NO (Nicholls and Hazen, 2005; Rocha-Penha et al., 2017). However, MPO-deficient mice do not show enhanced endothelial function compared with wild-type mice, even when provoked with lipopolysaccharide (Golubinskaya et al., 2014). Moreover, high levels of MPO have been detected in brain tissues of patients with several neurodegenerative disorders (Gellhaar et al., 2017), such as Parkinson (Choi et al., 2005), Huntington (Choi et al., 2005), Alzheimer (Green et al., 2004), and multiple sclerosis (Nagra et al., 1997). However, mice lacking MPO are more susceptible to experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (Brennan et al., 2001). Studies on epileptic brains suggested that MPO is the key source of chlorination stress in epileptogenesis (Ray and Katyal, 2016). Patients with cystic fibrosis show high amounts of MPO in lung tissue. Moreover, the damaged tissues contain significant levels of 3-chlorotyrosine, 3,3′-dityrosine, and nitrotyrosine (van der Weyden et al., 2017). Finally, MPO correlates with several types of cancers, i.e., lung (Li et al., 2014), renal (Ramsaransing et al., 2003), esophageal (Inayama et al., 2007), epithelial ovarian (Saed et al., 2010), bladder (Hung et al., 2004), larynx (Cascorbi et al., 2000), and acute leukemia (Kim et al., 2012).

IV. Pharmacological Modulation of ROS

A. Inhibition of ROS Formation

1. NADPH Oxidase Inhibitors

Conventional methods used to measure NOX activity are prone to artifacts (Maghzal et al., 2012; Dao et al., 2020), and particular attention is required for assays used to measure H2O2 and O2•, such as L-012, luminol, or Amplex Red, because of their lack of specificity and further shortcomings (Dikalov and Harrison, 2014; Zielonka et al., 2014). Thus, methods to eliminate nonspecific hits are essential. This type of approach has indeed limited many reported NOX inhibitors, including apocynin, VAS2870, 2-acetylphenothiazine (ML-171), GKT136901.

Small-molecule NOX inhibitors are already well described in the literature (Jaquet et al., 2009; Altenhöfer et al., 2015). GSK2795039 was identified after a high-throughput screening performed by GlaxoSmithKline, which it had claimed in international patent application WO/2012/170752 or WO/2011/075559. Its IC50 is in the sub-micromolar range for NOX2, and it is inactive against other NOX isoforms. GSK2795039 is orally bioavailable, it can dose-dependently block NOX2 in a model of paw inflammation, and has a protective effect in the cerulein mouse model of pancreatitis. CPP11G and CPP11H are two recently discovered in silico–modeled NOX2 inhibitors that can improve endothelial cell inflammation and vessel dysfunction by abolishing tumor necrotic factor α-induced ROS production (Li et al., 2019). Thioridazine and several other phenothiazines, some of them already marketed for different indications (i.e., antipsychotic), are moderate inhibitors of NOX1–5 that are in the low micromolar range. Thioridazine is a useful pharmacological tool to inhibit NOX in vivo, as it was shown to mitigate O2− production in the spinal cord of a mouse model of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). However, it did not show increased survival (Seredenina et al., 2016). Unfortunately, N-substituted phenothiazines are molecules with numerous described modes of action and, therefore, several off-target effects to be considered. Ewha-18278 (APX-115) inhibits NOX1, NOX2, and NOX4 in the low micromolar range. Ewha-18278 is orally available and shows therapeutic benefit in a mouse model of ovariectomy-induced osteoporosis (Joo et al., 2016) and mouse models of diabetic nephropathy (Cha et al., 2017).

NADPH oxidase inhibitors have attracted international patent submissions starting in 1990, when small companies and academia took the lead, whereas large pharmaceutical entities were mostly absent. The premiere patentee is the French company Genkyotex SA, which has built a pipeline of NOX inhibitors, although recently promising compounds have been patented by Actelion (MX2017016908) and Glenmark (WO2018203298). Although the earliest Genkyotex research had focused on the NOX2 isoform, the lead candidate GKT137831 (Setanaxib, but also recently abbreviated to GKT-831) is claimed as a NOX1/4 dual inhibitor. So far, it is one of the few NADPH oxidase inhibitors besides APX-115 (see below) that has reached the clinical trial stage. Apocynin, a methoxycatechol investigated by the Medical University of Lodz by inhalation in chronic congestive pulmonary disease and patients with asthma, is far from being NOX-specific and, thus, is not considered a NOX inhibitor in this context. GKT-831 is being developed for diabetic nephropathy in its first clinical efficacy studies, and in November 2015, an orphan drug designation was obtained in the United States and Europe for systemic sclerosis.

During the phase I program, this candidate exhibited a favorable pharmacokinetic profile that was dose-proportional over the 10- to 900-mg range. In the subsequent phase II trial (NCT02010242) in 155 patients with diabetic nephropathy and residual albuminuria, despite maximal inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, the primary endpoint (reduction of albuminuria) was not reached. A phase II study with GKT-831 (400 mg once or twice daily for 24 weeks) in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (an orphan disease) started in June 2017 (NCT03226067) and met its primary and secondary interim efficacy endpoints in November 2018. Success in this indication could expand the clinical applications of GKT-831 to other liver fibrosis opportunities, such as nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

In 2018, Genkyotex announced a phase II clinical trial with GKT-831 in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, an indication that Genkyotex had initially chosen not to pursue. This indication follows another phase II trial in type 1 diabetes and kidney disease launched in Australia (Table 2). APX-115 is also clinically developed for the same indication, i.e., diabetic nephropathy (Lee et al., 2020), moving from phase I to II, which was originally announced for 2019 but has not yet been listed in clinicaltrials.gov.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Inhibition of ROS formation and toxification: translation to the clinics

Additional preclinical-stage compounds from the extensive Genkyotex NOX inhibitor portfolio, such as GKT136901, are currently under evaluation (Teixeira et al., 2017). Evidence in eye disease has been preclinically published in retinopathy of prematurity (Deliyanti and Wilkinson-Berka, 2015) but could very likely be extended to diabetic retinopathy. VAS2870, a NOX4 inhibitor from Vasopharm (claimed in WO/2005/111041), has recently been reported to inhibit the proliferation of retinal pigment epithelial cells after their epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition, a significant pathologic change involved in proliferative vitreoretinopathy (Yang et al., 2018). The Swedish company Glucox Biotech AB is also focused on NOX4 inhibitors and is reported to be looking into diabetes, Marfan syndrome, stroke, and cancer. GLX351322 (Anvari et al., 2015), GLX7013107, and GLX7013114 (GLX114) (Wang et al., 2018b) are compounds that are likely to be covered by the substantial intellectual property portfolio in Glucox’s name: WO/2016/133446, WO/2016/096720, WO/2014/064118, WO/2013/135803, WO/2008/008033, and WO/2003/087399. A remarkable range of less apparent indications for NOX inhibitors has been claimed by academia: cardiac arrhythmia (WO/2013/158782, University of California), muscular dystrophies (WO/2013/078261, University of Maryland), cataract and presbyopia (WO/2009/044294, Université de Genève), and a broad range of psychiatric disorders (WO/2009/052454, University of California). So far, it is not possible to estimate what clinical potential NOX inhibitors could have in these applications. Similarly, 1) the tetrahydroisoquinoline NOX2 inhibitors from Pittsburgh University (WO/2014/179592), 2) bi- and triaromatic compounds claimed by the University of Surrey (WO/2013/038136), and finally 3) quinazolines (WO/2013/181135, WO/2012/058211) and piperazines (WO/2012/173952) from Emory University merit significant attention (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

NADPH oxidase isoforms with clinical potential. NOX1 and 4 need a complete protein complex to be fully activated and generate superoxide (O2−; in the case of NOX1) and H2O2 (in the case of NOX4). NOX5 stands out by being directly calcium-activated and also producing superoxide. Under several pathophysiological conditions, all NADPH oxidase isoforms can be directly induced. Pan-inhibitors, dual NOX1/4 inhibitors, and specific NOX4 and NOX5 inhibitors are shown based on their current status, i.e., under clinical testing or preclinical development.

a. Limitations of NOX inhibitors

The observed protected role of NOX inhibition in several preclinical studies identifies NOX isoforms as a promising therapeutic target. However, the specificity of NOX inhibitors remains controversial. Widely used compounds such as diphenyleneiodonium chloride, ebselen, and VAS2870 inhibit all NOXs in similar micromolar or sub-micromolar ranges, compromising their usefulness as isoform-specific experimental tools. Moreover, apocynin, frequently used as a NOX2 inhibitor, resulted in complete inactivation of all NOXs, suggesting that its anti-inflammatory therapeutic properties cannot be attributed to NOX inhibition. Controversially, a recent report has shown that GKT137831 and its close analog, GKT136901, are indeed not active on NOX enzymes (Augsburger et al., 2019) but rather to an oxidant scavenging effect, as previously suggested (Schildknecht et al., 2014). However, several previous studies and in-house experimentation showed its NOX1/4 activity (Altenhöfer et al., 2015). Although the field is intensively criticized, highly specific compounds recently entered the pipeline. GSK2795039 (Hirano et al., 2015) remains the first NOX2 competitive inhibitor in which in vivo efficacy was thoroughly studied, although other compounds, i.e., CPP11G and CPP11H, are now in the early stages of development (Li et al., 2019). Moreover, GLX7013114 (Glucox, Sweden) has shown a NOX4-specific profile, whereas ML090 resulted in a potent NOX5 inhibitor (Casas et al., 2019b). An immediately applicable NOX inhibitor panel has been recently proposed that suggests ML171, VAS2870, M13, and ML090 as NOX1, 2, 4, and 5 inhibitors, respectively (at specific concentrations), allowing NOX-dependent target validation in scenarios in which using knockout/knockin animals is not possible (Dao et al., 2020). Thus, IC50 values of these compounds should be carefully considered for experimental design to ensure a suitable concentration range for both in vivo and in vitro studies. Despite recent advances, precise systematic evaluation using multiple redox test systems is still required to identify novel compounds to wisely target NOXs and their pathologic role.

2. NO Synthase Inhibitors

A large number of nitric oxide synthase inhibitors with various degrees of selectivity for NOS isoenzymes are available and claimed in patents. However, few have reached the clinical trial stage, and not all of these meet the criteria for pharmaceutical development ability. This applies primarily to the numerous derivatives of l-arginine, the physiologic NOS substrate:

  • NG-monomethyl-l-arginine (tilarginine; the archetypal, relatively nonselective NOS inhibitor, also endogenous),

  • NG-nitro-l-arginine methyl ester (inactive prodrug of NG-nitro-l-arginine) (Pfeiffer et al., 1996), and

  • other nitroarginine esters (l-NG-benzylarginine, l-NG-aminoarginine, iminoethylornithine).

Clinical trials have been conducted with most of these compounds. Many were conducted in stand-alone settings, e.g., tilarginine was tested in acute myocardial infarction complicated by refractory cardiogenic shock (the TRIUMPH trial, NCT00112281), which failed to reduce mortality (Alexander et al., 2007). Recently, l-arginine–derived NOS inhibitors have been employed as potentially synergistic adjuncts to other candidate compounds, such as tilarginine, to block blood flow in the gut to prevent glucagon-like peptide-2 release from gut lipid stores (ongoing study sponsored by the Toronto University Health Network, NCT03534661). Additionally, tilarginine is also used to treat cancers when combined with the anti–programmed death-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab (Merck & Co.’s Keytruda), again as a blood flow disruptor (NCT03236935; phase Ib). Moreover, specific inducible NOS inhibitors, i.e., acetamidine derivatives, have been synthesized and evaluated that show high isoform specificity under sub-micromolar concentrations (Fantacuzzi et al., 2016). l-S-methylthiocitrulline is another amino acid derivative that is selective for neuronal NO synthase and has been reported in a phase II clinical study. However, stability issues and (more importantly) lack of patentability will prevent the further development of these compounds into drugs. The situation is different for 2-iminobiotin, a selective neuronal NOS and inducible NOS inhibitor that was originally patented by the Amsterdam University Medical Center for the treatment and prevention of perinatal asphyxia (WO/2001/074351) and is currently being developed by the Dutch company Neurophyxia B.V. The company has published an international patent application claiming the compound for cerebral hypoxia-ischemia and reperfusion injury (WO/2017/105237) and other pharmaceutical formulations (WO/2011/149349). The company has been recruiting patients for a phase II study to prevent hypoxic brain injury in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (NCT02836340) using an intravenous administration within 6 hours after the event. The current status of the trial is unknown.

The most advanced NOS inhibitor is Vasopharm Biotech GmbH’s ronopterin (VAS203; 4-aminotetrahydrobiopterine). It entered phase III development for moderate and severe closed traumatic brain injury in September 2016; recruitment for the 220-patient NOSTRA-III study (NCT02794168) was 50% complete in March 2018, with 35 European neurotrauma centers in Germany, Austria, France, United Kingdom, and Spain participating (Fig. 4). NOSTRA-III, which is due for completion in November 2019, aims to confirm the data from the phase IIa NOSTRA trial (NCT02012582), in which ronopterin produced a clinically significant two-point improvement in the extended Glasgow Outcomes Score—a clinically significant benefit (Stover et al., 2014). Vasopharm holds several patent applications on ronopterin and related pteridines (WO/2005/037286 and WO/2004/084906). With no drug treatment approved explicitly for neuroprotection after traumatic brain injury, considerable hope rests on this drug candidate (Table 2).

Fig. 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

Therapeutic targeting of NO-sGC signaling in physiology and disease. Under physiologic conditions, NO produced by NOS1 and 3 activates the sGC, which results in cGMP formation and cell signaling regulation. However, dysregulation of this mechanism leads to increase NO and superoxide production through NOS1 and NOS3, respectively, resulting in nitrative damage. In oxidative stress conditions, the sGC heme can be either oxidized or removed (apo-sGC) and, therefore, is no longer an active enzyme. NOS inhibitors, sGC stimulators, and activators are shown based on their current status, i.e., already marketed, under clinical testing, or under preclinical development. L-NAME, l-arginine methyl ester; L-NMMA, L-NG-monomethyl arginine; SMTC, S-methyl-L-thiocitrulline; un-NOS3, uncouple endothelial NO synthase.

3. Xanthine Oxidoreductase Inhibitors

As mentioned earlier, the first XO inhibitor developed was allopurinol, currently used for the treatment of gout, followed by its derivative, oxypurinol. However, adverse events and the need for high doses (in the range of 300 mg) prompted research for novel XO inhibitors. Indeed, febuxostat has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2009 and can be given at lower doses for hyperuricemia in adults suffering from gout, together with other drugs also being tested, i.e., topiroxostat. For this reason, many current trials test febuxostat rather than allopurinol. An earlier meta-analysis on congestive heart failure and other CVDs has shown an effect of allopurinol or oxypurinol on surrogate markers, including vascular function, as well as on malondialdehyde, a biomarker of excess ROS (Higgins et al., 2012). A recent trial with allopurinol in patients with chronic heart failure did not show an improvement in arterial stiffness, but it is important to note that these patients were not hyperuricemic (Alem et al., 2018). In August 2018, the University of Iowa completed the Xanthine Oxidase Inhibition in Renal Transplant Recipients trial (NCT01332799) to evaluate the effect of daily allopurinol on cardiovascular events and endothelial function in these vulnerable patients. This is in line with a small study conducted by the University of Dundee (NCT00688480) that investigated whether allopurinol can reduce both left ventricular hypertrophy and endothelial dysfunction in cardiovascular patients with renal dysfunction. Two earlier United States–based studies (NCT00181155, NCT00997542) had focused on heart failure. There are a few active clinical trials that focus on the effect of allopurinol as a suppressor of ROS generation: 1) XILO-FIST (NCT02122718), managed by the UK National Health System and the University of Glasgow, investigates whether allopurinol can reduce the formation of white matter hyperintensities, cardiac hypertrophy, and the onset of hypertonia after an ischemic stroke. The phase IV trial, which plans to randomize 464 patients, commenced in May 2014 and is estimated to last until September 2020 (Dawson et al., 2018). 2) University Hospital Tübingen, in collaboration with a dozen other European clinical centers, is recruiting for ALBINO. This phase III trial (NCT03162653), planned for 646 participants, investigates the drug’s efficacy and safety when administered immediately after birth to near-term infants with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, in addition to standard hypothermic treatment. The estimated study completion date is December 2020. 3) A prospective randomized clinical trial with allopurinol versus topiroxostat (another XO inhibitor) in patients with chronic heart failure is currently ongoing in Japan (Sakuma et al., 2018). Nonpurine xanthine oxidase inhibitors have been developed to avoid the many side effects of allopurinol, but none has quite matched it in terms of efficacy. Of relevance are febuxostat (marketed as Uloric), which was discovered at the Japanese pharmaceutical company Teijin in 1998 and licensed to Takeda Pharmaceuticals and Ipsen, and topiroxostat (approval in Japan in 2013; sold as Topiloric and Uriadec). Patenting for xanthine oxidase inhibitors reveals low interest for new agents, which are almost exclusively focused on the treatment of gout (Fig. 5). Recent exceptions point toward applications in which ROS might be involved, including cancer (WO/2017/142091) and angina (WO/2010/136823). Thus, it seems highly unlikely that xanthine oxidase inhibitors would be developed into drugs that specifically address undesired ROS formation, not only because of side effects but also because of the possibility to interfere with purine metabolism (Table 2).

Fig. 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 5.

XO as a therapeutic target. In normoxic conditions, ATP levels remain stable, whereas under hypoxia, ATP is catabolized, leading to accumulation of purines, i.e., inosine and hypoxanthine. XDH under oxidative conditions gets oxidized, leading to XO. Later, XO catabolizes purines to uric acid while generating ROS. Uric acid can directly activate inflammatory pathways, resulting in toll-like receptor–independent production of IL-1β and IL-18, activation of NACHT, LRR and PYD domains-containing protein 3 (NALP3) and, therefore, inflammation and oxidative stress coursing with the disease. XO inhibitors are shown based on their current status, i.e., already marketed or under preclinical development.

4. Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors

After the initial compounds, clorgyline and deprenyl, a wide array of MAO inhibitors have been developed, including the reversible inhibitor moclobemide for MAO-A. Reversible inhibition should be less prone to adverse effects and devoid of overdose toxicity (Lum and Stahl, 2012). However, the high degree of inhibition required for the pharmacological effects might be more challenging to achieve, since the administered inhibitor has to compete with endogenous substrates. The monoamine oxidase inhibitor that has been most intensely investigated for potential neuroprotective effects is rasagiline, an irreversible MAO-B inhibitor that has been approved as a symptomatic treatment of Parkinson disease. Efforts to prove an additional disease-modifying effect in this disease (NCT00256204) yielded ambiguous results, which caused the US Food and Drug Administration to refuse the corresponding application for an approved extension. Although rasagiline did seem to show indications of such a neuroprotective effect in ALS when added to the standard treatment riluzole (Ludolph et al., 2018), another trial found no effect on disease progression after 1 year of treatment (Statland et al., 2019). A phase IV clinical study investigating rasagiline for neuroprotection in retinal detachment (NCT02068625), suggested by data obtained with a mouse model (Eigeldinger-Berthou et al., 2012), was prematurely terminated on 31 December 2018 because of persistent recruitment difficulties. Its termination was reported in February 2019, although no further information regarding outcome has been provided yet (Table 2). Besides, multimodal compounds have been developed that combine the propargyl moiety of MAO inhibitors with compounds targeting other processes involved in neurodegenerative disorders. The best examples are ladostigil, which adds the anticholinesterase action of rivastigmine to rasagiline (Youdim et al., 2006). The latest MAO-B inhibitor released on the market is safinamide, a highly selective and reversible inhibitor of monoamine oxidase B. It is currently being used as an add-on therapy in patients with mid- to late-stage fluctuating Parkinson disease (Fabbri et al., 2015). The cardioprotective and antitumorigenic effects of MAO inhibitors are well established in animal models, so it is tempting to speculate whether the currently available compounds could be repurposed for the treatment of these pathologies. Notably, among the mitochondrial sources of ROS, MAO inhibition represents the only pharmacological approach devoid of effects on the vital functions of mitochondria related to energy conservation. This critical advantage is further enhanced by the clinical availability of MAO inhibitors, which is not the case with any other mitochondrial source of ROS. The availability of selective and reversible MAO inhibitors, currently used in patients with depression and neurodegenerative disorders and devoid of well known MAO inhibitor side effects, opens a possibility for the compounds to be considered as candidate drugs for the treatment of pathologies such as cardiovascular diseases or prostate cancer (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 6.

Clinical perspective of monoamine oxidase inhibitors. MAO-A and MAO-B catalyze the oxidative deamination of endogenous and exogenous amines including several neurotransmitters, i.e., serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine, leading to H2O2 and aldehyde production. Dysregulation of MAOs under certain pathologic conditions results in MAO activity and, therefore, elevated availability of MAO subproducts, i.e., H2O2. MAO inhibitors are shown based on their current status, i.e., already marketed or under clinical development.

B. Inhibition of ROS Toxification

1. Myeloperoxidase Inhibitors

MPO contributes to many chronic inflammatory syndromes and aims to help treat, prevent, or at least stop the development of these diseases in high-risk patients (Malle et al., 2007; Lazarević-Pasti et al., 2015). According to the mechanism of inhibition, MPO inhibitors are divided into two main categories: 1) reversible inhibitors and 2) irreversible inhibitors (Soubhye et al., 2016).

a. Reversible inhibitors

Dietary flavonoids are useful for suppressing the lipid peroxidation of low-density lipoprotein occurring by MPO/nitrite or peroxynitrite (Schewe and Sies, 2005) and protecting the endothelial cell (Tian et al., 2017). Oral administration of (−)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate has been found to prevent colitis in mice and to be essential for mucoprotective effects (Nastase et al., 2016). Besides flavonoids, other natural compounds showed good activity against MPO, including ursolic acid, eugenol (Narasimhulu and Vardhan, 2015), and harmaline (Bensalem et al., 2014). Random and rational screening of non–anti-inflammatory drugs revealed that metoclopramide, hydralazine (Soubhye et al., 2017), and paroxetine (Soubhye et al., 2014) are potent MPO inhibitors. In vivo experiments have disclosed that different tryptamine compounds have an extensive therapeutic index as promising candidates for anti-inflammation. Use of N-acetyl lysyltyrosylcysteine amide (KYC) in mice with experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis and middle cerebral artery occlusion can reduce the migration of myeloid cells. This inhibitor may be effective in the treatment of middle cerebral artery occlusion, reduce the formation of ClTyr and NO2Tyr, and consequently be useful for treating brain damage after stroke (Yu et al., 2016). In apolipoprotein E knockout mice that were given a high-fat diet, ferulic acid (INV-315) showed a reduction of atherogenic plaques and improvement of endothelial function, suggesting that the inhibition of MPO could be useful for treating atherosclerosis (Liu et al., 2012). None of these compounds have, however, been translated to the clinics so far.

b. Irreversible inhibitors

Although this is a niche mechanism, two of the major global players in the pharmaceutical industry, i.e., AstraZeneca and Pfizer, have embarked on the pharmacological development of these compounds. However, the efforts have never gained breadth. At least two candidates have been discontinued, and progress on the single remaining one stays slow. Only one compound, 4-aminobenzoic acid hydrazide, showed in vivo decreased development of aortic atherosclerosis (Békési et al., 2005) myeloid inflammation, tissue damage in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, demyelinating diseases such as multiple sclerosis (MS) (Forghani et al., 2012), blood-brain barrier dysfunction (Üllen et al., 2013), and improved neurogenesis after ischemic stroke (Kim et al., 2016). AstraZeneca had advanced AZD3241 into phase II trials for Parkinson disease (NCT01527695, NCT01603069) and multiple system atrophy (NCT02388295; negative outcome). After discontinuing development in April 2017, the company released it for third-party development as a part of its Open Innovation initiative. AZD3241 has been replaced by AZD4831, which is in active development for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). A phase I study (NCT03136991) in healthy males has been completed; the second one, in patients with HFpEF, is scheduled for completion at the end of 2020 (Table 2). Pfizer’s thiouracil derivative PF-06282999, an irreversible MPO inhibitor, entered clinical development for the treatment of acute coronary syndrome in June 2012. Pfizer announced its discontinuation in August 2017. Deduced from the most recent patenting activity, Bristol Myers Squibb Co. is now investing heavily in the discovery of MPO inhibitors (Fig. 7). The company has international patent applications for macrocyclic molecules (WO/2018/005336) and a broad range of triazolopyridines and triazolopyrimidines [WO/2017/160632, WO/2017/161145, WO/2017/040451, WO/2017/040450, WO/2017/04044, WO/2016/040419, WO/2016/040417 (Duclos et al., 2017)].

Fig. 7.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 7.

Role of myeloperoxidase in physiology and disease. MPO generates through H2O2 several reactive chlorinating (Cl−), bromating (Br−), and radical (SCN− NO2) species, which are later transformed into more reactive hypohalous acids [hypobromous acid (HOBr), hypothiocyanous acid (HOSCN), hypochlorous acid (HOCl)] and reactive nitric species (NO•/ONNO−). Thus, MPO actively contributes to nucleoside and lipid oxidation, together with protein (Tyr) nitration (NO2Tyr) and chlorination (ClTyr). Dysregulation of MPO results in a broad oxidative environment that contributes to several pathologic conditions. MPO inhibitors are shown based on their current status, i.e., already marketed, under clinical testing, or under preclinical development. 8-oxoG, 8-oxo-guanosine.

V. Targeting ROS Beyond Oxidases

A. Direct Antioxidants

Antioxidants have been used as nutraceuticals for the prevention of aging and disease or even as a therapeutic, often with little or no clinical control. The origin of the antioxidant therapy concept is tightly connected to the free radical theory of aging established by Harman (1956, 1972), which was later expanded to also include age-related diseases. According to this concept, free radicals, i.e., any molecular species capable of independent existence that contains an unpaired electron in an atomic orbital, are generated from several sources, including mitochondria, and cause progressive oxidant damage to macromolecules, such as DNA, that limit cell functionality. Consequently, antioxidants that reduce free radical reactions should protect against aging and disease. However, the existence of the large enzyme family of NADPH oxidases and DUOXs with the sole physiologic function to generate ROS clearly indicated that ROS have at least two qualities, and thus, antioxidants should be a double-edged sword.

In clinical trials, antioxidants have failed consistently to show benefits in humans (Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group, 1994; Marchioli, 1999; de Gaetano, 2001; Collins et al., 2002). Vitamin E has been studied in the context of cardiovascular disease in the CHAOS (Stephens et al., 1996) and HOPE (Hegele, 2000; Lonn et al., 2005) trials, in which it failed to improve cardiovascular mortality. Moreover, several meta-analyses focusing on the effect of vitamin E in CVD showed similar results, i.e., no clear evidence of a positive effect on either mortality or morbidity (Vivekananthan et al., 2003; Eidelman et al., 2004; Kris-Etherton et al., 2004; Shekelle et al., 2004). Similarly, no effect was detected in cancer (Bjelakovic et al., 2004) or other causes of mortality and quality of life (Bjelakovic et al., 2007).

N-acetylcysteine, which increases glutathione levels, and vitamin E promote the acceleration of tumor progression by reducing p53 expression in rodents. Similarly, supplements of vitamin E showed the same effect on p53 levels. Indeed, high doses of antioxidants in patients with diabetes were detrimental because of an indirect increase in blood glucose levels (Sarangarajan et al., 2017). Moreover, long-term supplementation also provides a risk for metabolic syndrome incidence. Vitamin E supplementation significantly increases prostate cancer risk and even provides evidence of increased hemorrhagic stroke risk. Moreover, chronic use of multivitamins without clinical control, especially lipid-soluble antioxidants at dosages above the upper safety limit, has been associated with increased health risks (Bjelakovic and Gluud, 2007). Moreover, during the past years, teratogenic effects were reported and associated with high intakes of vitamin A together with accelerated bone loss and risk of fracture due to increased osteoporosis.

Regarding vitamin C, epidemiologic studies initially suggested that low plasma levels correlate with increased inflammation and endothelial dysfunction (Wannamethee et al., 2006). In the EPIC study, a vitamin C–rich diet improved endothelium-dependent vasodilation and hemostasis (Sargeant et al., 2001). A later meta-analysis, however, failed to show benefit in reducing major cardiovascular events (Myung et al., 2013). Specific meta-analyses claimed a beneficial effect of vitamin C in breast cancer (Harris et al., 2014). Ultra–high-dose therapy with vitamin C may be beneficial in cancer through a pro- rather than an antioxidant effect. In colon cancer, the effects of vitamin C have been attributed to its oxidized form, dihydroascorbate (Chen et al., 2008; Yun et al., 2015). In either non–small-cell lung cancer or glioblastoma, the safety, not the efficacy, of high-dose vitamin C injections was tested (Schoenfeld et al., 2017). Vitamin C may help to alleviate some of the side effects of antitumor treatment (Carr et al., 2014), but conversely, other clinical trials had to be stopped because of severe side effects by vitamin C (Subbarayan et al., 2007). Thus, vitamin C fails to reduce all-cause mortality, and antioxidants do not exhibit beneficial effects in either cardiovascular or other diseases (Bjelakovic et al., 2012), whereas the antitumor, pro-oxidant effect of high-dose vitamin C dihydroascorbate is to some degree open, but far away from being recommended. Vitamin C has also been suggested to increase the risk of calcium oxalate kidney stones.

Coenzyme Q has been used in several trials with little or no benefit. Recently, the 2CARE study was conducted in a large cohort of patients with early Huntington disease. This study was stopped for futility, as it would be very unlikely (less than a 5% statistical probability) to see a benefit of coenzyme Q10 treatment over placebo (McGarry et al., 2017). Dietary polyphenols have also been tested, leading to another translational failure when positive data in animal models could not be replicated in humans (McDougall et al., 2005; Yang et al., 2011).

Some synthetic antioxidants also provided disappointing results. The spin-trapping synthetic antioxidant NXY-059 was used in two trials of patients with ischemic stroke (SAINTI and SAINTII). NXY-059 showed no effect on mortality and neurologic function (Lees et al., 2006; Shuaib et al., 2007). Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the failure of most antioxidants in clinic practice, although the overall reason is still unknown:

  1. Broadly interfering with ROS biology, which will inevitably also scavenge essential and physiologic ROS, is of general concern.

  2. The concept that low ROS is beneficial or neutral and that high ROS is always detrimental is not sustainable.

  3. There is no whole-body redox status, and even at a cellular level, there are independent compartments of ROS biology.

  4. The molecular targets of the antioxidants are usually poorly defined, leading to a broad mechanism of action mainly focused on ROS scavenging with neither specific subcellular localization nor predefined enzymatic target (Cochemé and Murphy, 2010).

  5. Absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and bioavailability, i.e., pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of specific antioxidants, may not have been analyzed sufficiently, and dosing may have been wrong or insufficient (Manach et al., 2005).

  6. Inadequate trial duration may have resulted in the underestimation of any therapeutic effect. Chronic clinical trials might not last long enough to obtain positive outcomes, and post-trial follow-up may have had time and funding limitations (Steinhubl, 2008).

Nevertheless, most antioxidant therapies not only seem to be ineffective based on clinical evidence but are also associated with some risk of detrimental outcomes depending on the dose or pathology being treated (Salehi et al., 2018).

One exception to the above may be edaravone (3-methyl-l-phenyl-pyrazolin-5-one, MCI-186), which has been approved for stroke (Miyaji et al., 2015) and/or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in some countries, including Japan (Radicut) and the United States (Radicava), but the market authorization application was withdrawn in Europe. Edaravone is considered to act as a free radical scavenger with neuroprotective effects both in in vitro and in vivo models of ROS-related neurodegenerative diseases, especially brain ischemia (Lei et al., 2014; Sun et al., 2015) and ALS (Xu et al., 2017). ROS have been considered as a critical player in ALS pathophysiology being involved in neuromotor degeneration and glial and endothelial dysfunctions. Indeed, edaravone, prevents motor neuron death (Nagase et al., 2016). Preclinical studies hypothesized that the neuroprotective effect of edaravone is mediated by plasma membrane stabilization (Wu et al., 2014b) via 1) scavenging hydroxyl radicals, 2) inhibiting lipid peroxidation, and 3) playing a potent antioxidant effect (Feng et al., 2011). Despite the recent approval for ALS treatment, there are still limitations, since the intravenous infusion is inconvenient for the patients and costly (Hardiman and van den Berg, 2017). Based on promising in vivo studies (Wu et al., 2014b), multiple clinical trials were conducted demonstrating an effect of edaravone in patients diagnosed with stroke (Otomo et al., 2003) and patients with acute cerebral large-vessel occlusion as a subanalysis of the RESCUE-Japan Registry (Miyaji et al., 2015). Several systematic reviews, however, found no evidence for edaravone’s efficacy (Lapchak, 2010), along with serious shortcomings in clinical trial design, randomization, patient numbers, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and outcome parameters (Feng et al., 2011). Edaravone has also been investigated in a pilot for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (NCT00265239), ischemia-reperfusion injury in patients with kidney transplantation (NCT02644915), Parkinson disease, Alzheimer disease, atherosclerosis, retinal diseases, and diabetes mellitus. No clinical outcome data have been released (Ahmadinejad et al., 2017).

B. Indirect Antioxidants: NRF2 Activators

Considering the failure of most direct antioxidants in clinical studies, a new approach has been suggested focused on the activation of the endogenous redox homeostatic system. The advantage of this strategy is to achieve redox regulation in the tissues, cells, or organelles where it is required. Transcription factor nuclear factor (erythroid-derived 2)-like 2, the master regulator of the antioxidant response, is a very promising target, since it can be activated pharmacologically. NRF2 is a basic leucine zipper transcription factor that forms heterodimers and controls the basal and stress-inducible expression of over 250 genes through its binding to the enhancer antioxidant response element (Cuadrado et al., 2018, 2019). The most successful NRF2 activators are electrophile drugs that alter the structure of KEAP1 through the interaction with several redox-sensitive cysteines, including C151, C273, and C288. At least 30 recent patents for NRF2 modulators are indexed in the World Intellectual Property Organization. Although most of these compounds proved to be useful to some degree in preclinical proof-of-concept studies, only a few have entered clinical trials approved, and even fewer have reached phases II/III. The three most successful examples are sulforaphane, synthetic triterpenoids, and dimethyl fumarate. Sulforaphane is an isothiocyanate obtained from cruciferous plants, and it is already used so far in at least 32 clinical studies of chronic diseases with an oxidant and inflammatory component, including cancer, asthma, chronic kidney disease, type 2 diabetes, and cystic fibrosis (Houghton et al., 2013). In these studies, sulforaphane improved blood glucose, lipid profile, and molecular markers of ROS. Evgen Pharma Inc. has developed a new cyclodextrin complex formulation (Sulforadex) to increase its solubility and stability. Nowadays, this compound is under phase II clinical trial for the treatment of metastatic breast neoplasm and subarachnoid hemorrhage. Synthetic triterpenoids, derived from 2-cyano-3,12-dioxooleana-1,9(11)dien-28-oate, are the most potent activators of NRF2 and have been developed as antioxidant modulators of inflammation (Dinkova-Kostova et al., 2010). Despite excellent results in preclinical models, serious concerns were raised in the first clinical trial for diabetic nephropathy. Despite excellent results in preclinical models, serious concerns were raised in the first clinical trial for diabetic nephropathy since the therapeutic effects were not related to NRF2, but most likely to an off-target alteration of endothelin signaling (Chen et al., 2015). Reata Pharmaceuticals has developed a second generation of synthetic oleanane triterpenoid (RTA408). This compound is currently in phase II/III trials of patients with Friedreich ataxia, mitochondrial myopathies, immunooncology, and prevention of corneal endothelial cell loss after cataract surgery. The best therapeutic results for an NRF2 activator have been obtained so far with dimethyl fumarate (DMF), which is the only NRF2 activator that has been approved as a drug by the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency. Initially used for the treatment of psoriasis (Fumaderm), DMF is currently used as the first-line oral therapy for MS (Tedfidera) (Bomprezzi, 2015). NRF2 activation by DMF correlates with decreased levels of proinflammatory markers and macrophage infiltration in the spinal cord (Schimrigk et al., 2006), which is in line with phase II/III trials in which a significant reduction of MS lesions and annualized relapse was demonstrated (Fox et al., 2012) (Fig. 8; Table 3). However, uncontrolled Nrf2 activation can lead to deleterious effects due to the so-called reductive stress event, which is detrimental in muscle disorders and different cardiomyopathies (Pérez-Torres et al., 2017; Bellezza et al., 2018). A novel strategy for NRF2 activation is based on the development of PPI inhibitors. These small molecules interfere with the docking of NRF2 to KEAP1, hence preventing NRF2 degradation. Several NRF2/KEAP1 PPI inhibitors have been developed and are under patent protection, but further research is required to demonstrate that they are highly selective and that off-target effects are negligible (Cuadrado et al., 2019).

Fig. 8.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 8.

Clinical pharmacology of NRF2. The KEAP1 E3 ligase adapter is a homodimer that presents NRF2 to the cullin3 (CUL3)/RING-box protein (RBX) complex for ubiquitination and further proteasome degradation. This process restrains NRF2 protein levels. ROS (H2O2) and electrophiles alter KEAP1 and lead to a stalled KEAP1/NRF2/CUL3/RBX complex. Then, newly synthetized NRF2 accumulates in the nucleus, makes heterodimers with small transcription factor MAF (MAF) proteins, and activates target genes that contain the antioxidant response element (ARE). Clinically relevant electrophiles, such as sulforaphane, dimethyl fumarate, bardoxolone, or omaveloxone, disrupt the capacity of KEAP1 to target NRF2 for degradation and therefore increase NRF2 levels.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3

Targeting ROS beyond oxidases: translation to the clinics

C. Functional Repair of ROS-Induced Damage

All of the above approaches are aimed at reducing ROS levels, either by reducing their synthesis or toxification or by scavenging them. Functionally repairing ROS-induced damage is, however, in our view, a promising complementary strategy that is consistent with the identified ROS disease modules and, importantly, has already entered clinical trialing and practice.

1. sGC Activators

Physiologically, soluble guanylate cyclase mediates the generation of the second messenger cGMP upon stimulation by NO. NO-cGMP signaling regulates several physiologic mechanisms, including vasodilation, prevention of fibrosis, antithrombosis, anti-inflammation, and memory formation (Ding et al., 2004; Dasgupta et al., 2015). The effects of cGMP are mediated by a family of cGMP-dependent protein kinases (PKG) (Francis et al., 2010). In addition to its activation by cGMP, PKG has also been reported to be activated by oxidative modification, presumably by hydrogen peroxide, which can lead to vasorelaxation (Burgoyne et al., 2007) and angiogenesis (Burgoyne et al., 2015). Thus, ROS formation, on the one hand, interferes with endothelium-dependent relaxation (possibly via superoxide scavenging of NO) and, on the other hand, should induce vasorelaxation (by hydrogen peroxide acting as an endothelial hyperpolarizing factor). What is unclear is whether these apparently contradictory scenarios can coexist and what their pathophysiological or therapeutic relevance is.

Nonphysiologic ROS production can affect the NO-sGC-cGMP by direct chemical scavenging, resulting in redox state changes of the NO responder soluble guanylate cyclase or even, finally, in loss of its heme group. The nonactive resulting enzyme, called apo-sGC, is unable to respond to NO signaling, dramatically reducing the bioavailability of cGMP (Casas et al., 2015). The so-called sGC activators could functionally reverse this mechanism. These compounds bind to both the oxidase and heme-free forms of the enzyme, reactivating it as the common NO-stimulated sGC and preventing its proteasomal degradation (Meurer et al., 2009). sGC activations can replace the weakly bound oxidized heme in apo-sGC or also occupy the empty heme pocket after the loss of the heme group (Stasch et al., 2006), stabilizing the heme-free enzyme and preventing degradation (Dasgupta et al., 2015). The NO-sGC-cGMP signaling pathway is widely established as a potent cardiovascular target because of its role in hypertension and cardiovascular diseases. Therefore, sGC activators have been preclinically tested not only for cardiac hypertrophy (Costell et al., 2012), heart failure (Breitenstein et al., 2017), and ischemia-reperfusion injury (Nossaman et al., 2012) but also in other pathologies such as fibrosis (Sandner and Stasch, 2017) and diabetic nephropathy (Boustany-Kari et al., 2016) and stroke (Langhauser et al., 2018). After preclinical validation, some sGC activators have been translated to the clinical stage. Phase II clinical trials were initiated recently using cinaciguat (BAY 58-2667), which is a potent vasodilator (Dasgupta et al., 2015), as a treatment of acute heart failure (NCT01067859, NCT00559650) and heart decompensation (NCT01064037). Unfortunately, all trials for decompensated heart failure (COMPOSE 1, COMPOSE 2, and COMPOSE EARLY) were terminated because of systemic hypotension and difficulty enrolling patients. Another phase II clinical trial using a new sGC activator, ataciguat (HMR 1766), as a treatment of aortic valve calcification (NCT02481258) was completed in July 2018, with no results available so far (Fig. 4). Other indications, like neuropathic pain, have also been investigated (NCT00799656) in a phase II trial (Table 3).

2. sGC Stimulators

sGC stimulators can directly activate sGC, resulting in an increase of cGMP formation in pathologic conditions and preventing NO-dependent disorders (Nossaman et al., 2012). sGC stimulators bind to an allosteric binding site of Fe(II)heme-containing sGC, resulting in an NO-independent sGC stimulation. Therefore, contrary to sGC activators, stimulators do not work under the heme-free/oxidized form of sGC (Dao et al., 2015). Different sGC stimulators, i.e., BAY 41-8543 and BAY 41-2272, have been preclinically tested in animal models of pulmonary hypertension and show a decrease in systemic and pulmonary arterial pressure, which has been translated to the clinics (Nossaman et al., 2012). The clinical success of Bayer’s riociguat (Adempas) in pulmonary arterial hypertension prompted development efforts for repurposing sGC stimulators to other therapeutic indications, although their biologic effects are less directly related to ROS generation compared with the oxidases (Sandner et al., 2019). Leading these efforts is the collaboration between Merck Sharp & Dohme and Bayer, which are conducting Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction (VICTORIA) (NCT02861534), a large phase III clinical trial with vericiguat (BAY1021189/MK-1242-001) (Follmann et al., 2017) in over 4800 patients with HFpEF. It is scheduled for completion in 2019. When VICTORIA was announced in 2016, it was considered a surprise because vericiguat had produced a mixed performance in the preceding phase II SOCRATES-REDUCED trial. In fact, the candidate had failed to meet its primary endpoint of achieving a significant reduction in the biomarker N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide, although a subgroup given the highest dose, 10 mg, did show a benefit compared with placebo. SOCRATES-PRESERVED (NCT01951638), an earlier phase II trial in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, is being followed up with VITALITY-HFpEF (NCT03547583), another phase II trial that is supposed to be completed in November 2019. An sGC stimulator would represent a promising mechanistic deviation from the current small-molecule therapeutic strategies for heart failure and could be especially important in HFpEF. However, development might be risky. Bayer has already discontinued cinaciguat (BAY 58-2667) for this indication. Indeed, Bayer has investigated combinations of its approved phosphodiesterase inhibitor vardenafil with nelociguat (desmethyl riociguat, BAY60-4552; WO/2003/095451) in phase II clinical trials for male erectile dysfunction. Highly interesting is Ironwood Pharmaceuticals’ olinciguat (IW-1701), an sGC stimulator in development for sickle cell disease. STRONG SCD (NCT03285178) is a phase II trial that investigates disease-specific symptoms and pharmacodynamic biomarkers over a 12-week treatment course; it is planned for completion in July 2019 (Fig. 4). Olinciguat is also in phase II for the esophageal sphincter disorder achalasia (Table 3).

VI. Biomarkers of ROS

Current drug therapy is imprecise (Schork, 2015), and since the 1950s, drug development has an ever-increasing risk to fail (Scannell et al., 2012). Even the most widely sold drugs in the United States only provide relative benefit in one in four patients treated. The number needed to treat (number of patients who would need to be treated with one specific drug to prevent one adverse outcome) remains extremely high in more than 90% of approved drugs (Schork, 2015). To move from here to precision medicine, patients need to be stratified based on the fact that they will respond with a high likelihood to a drug. Biomarker-based stratification of patients in different populations may help to target pharmacologically the different mechanisms affected in each patient. The National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Definitions Working Group defined a biomarker as “a characteristic that is objectively measured and evaluated as an indicator of normal biological process, pathogenic processes, or pharmacologic responses to a therapeutic intervention.” Moreover, clinically relevant biomarkers must have diagnostic or prognostic value or correlate with disease activity. Finally, the stability, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness are additional important criteria for clinical acceptance of a biomarker. In the ROS field, a wide range of biomarkers have already been tested, including in humans. However, none has entered clinical practice or any guideline.

A. Xanthine Oxidase and Myeloperoxidase

ROS-forming enzymes such as XO and MPO can be found circulating in blood, independent of the release mechanism. After administration of IFN or IFN inducers, XO activity increases in tissues as well as in plasma (Ghezzi et al., 1984). MPO is stored in granules of neutrophils and monocytes and is released during degranulation (Zhang et al., 2001). Clinical studies have previously used plasma or serum MPO levels as a potential prognostic biomarker of inflammation in cardiovascular disease (Vita et al., 2004), myocardial infarction (Cavusoglu et al., 2007; Khan et al., 2007), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Morrow et al., 2015), and cognitive impairment (Heringa et al., 2014). Another alternative is to measure MPO activity. 3-Chlorotyrosine, as well as chlorinated lipids, is a specific marker of MPO action highly elevated in low-density lipoproteins (Hazen and Heinecke, 1997). Several clinical studies have found pronounced 3-chlorotyrosine levels in cardiovascular (Cheng et al., 2008; Delporte et al., 2014) and rheumatoid arthritis (Wu and Pizzo, 2001; Stamp et al., 2012) in plasma or synovial fluid using high performance liquid chromatography or liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry. To date, there is no specific and reliable anti-ClTyr antibody available.

B. ROS-Dependent Protein Modification

Protein 3-nitrotyrosine (NO2Tyr), either within polypeptide sequences or as a free amino acid, is a marker of nitrative stress. At least two mechanisms for its formation exist: 1) chemically, in a diffusion-limited reaction between nitric oxide and superoxide and intermediate peroxynitrite; and 2) enzymatically, by heme peroxidases such as MPO or eosinophil peroxidase from nitrite and H2O2 (van der Vliet et al., 1997; Wu et al., 1999). In inflammatory disease states, NO2Tyr has been identified as a stable marker of nitrative stress (Herce-Pagliai et al., 1998). The analytical gold standard for NO2Tyr is mass spectrometry (Tsikas and Duncan, 2014), but this is not suitable for high-throughput analysis of clinical samples. Other quantitative approaches, such as ELISA (Pirro et al., 2007; Richardot et al., 2009), liquid chromatography (Shishehbor et al., 2003; Misko et al., 2013), or high performance liquid chromatography (Kaur and Halliwell, 1994), are currently explored to detect NO2Tyr clinically. However, extra effort is still needed in the field to further use NO2Tyr as a clinical biomarker, although the current data seem extremely promising. Clinical studies have already explored the potential of NO2Tyr as a marker of disease. It has been reported that NO2Tyr can estimate cerebrovascular stress after reperfusion in patients diagnosed with stroke (Bas et al., 2012). In addition, nitrated fibrinogen has also been detected in patient samples after ischemic stroke (Ill-Raga et al., 2015), and it has been suggested to be a cardiovascular disease risk factor (Heffron et al., 2009).

C. ROS-Dependent DNA/RNA Modification

DNA and RNA are also targets and biomarkers of ROS oxidation, with 8-oxo-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-oxodG) and 8-oxo-guanosine being the most common oxidative lesions, respectively. They are secreted into the urine and can be measured, usually by chromatography coupled with MS (Weimann et al., 2001). They provide information about systemic ROS and are lacking in high-ROS conditions in specific organs. Nevertheless, 8-oxodG and 8-oxo-guanosine are among the most relevant ROS biomarkers examined. In fact, recent systematic reviews and meta-analysis studies have validated and highlighted the role of 8-oxodG as a biomarker in, e.g., cardiovascular disease (Di Minno et al., 2016), chronic heart failure, and Parkinson disease (Wei et al., 2018).

The field of ROS biomarkers is constantly growing, and therefore, extensive wet laboratory validation studies are still required. We have highlighted some of the most ROS-relevant biomarkers, with a focus on stable oxidative modifications. However, there are plenty more worth mentioning—e.g., vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation levels in platelets are used in the clinic for drug monitoring. Although several methods have been discussed, antibody-based methods remain the most feasible in a point-of-care setting. Moreover, if disease definitions will become pathway modules, they need to be analyzed in cells or tissue. Since most proteins are present in most cells, most pathways may be assessable in circulating blood cells or platelets. One potential addition to this are recent developments in liquid biopsies and harvesting rare circulating cells such as tumor cells (Luecke et al., 2015) or endothelial cells (Farinacci et al., 2018).

VII. Summary

For decades, ROS have been proposed as a cause of aging and numerous diseases, primarily because of correlation with the detection of ROS or ROS biomarkers. Antioxidant therapy to scavenge ROS sounded like a logical intervention but failed for reasons that we now understand. The new therapeutic approaches reviewed here no longer focus on ROS but on classic pharmacological protein targets, i.e., 1) ROS sources, 2) ROS toxifiers, 3) activating the endogenous antioxidant defense systems, and 4) functionally repairing ROS-induced damage. They jointly represent the future of redox medicine, a field distinct of and synergistic with general ROS biology. Pathologic overexpression or overactivation of specific enzymatic sources of ROS can be selectively inhibited without affecting physiologic sources of ROS and physiologic signaling. With respect to isoforms of NOX, NOS, MAO, XO, and MPO, their inhibition has resulted in promising therapeutic approaches currently under development in late clinical stages, i.e., VAS203, in phase III for traumatic brain injury, and GKT-831, in phase III for diabetic nephropathy. XO and MAO inhibitors have been approved, although with different mechanisms in mind, but their clinical efficacy may still involve ROS aspects. In any case, the latter opens new clinical opportunities through repurposing strategies for mechanism-based ROS indications, e.g., XO inhibitors for congestive heart failure, MAO inhibitors for macula detachment, or NOX inhibitors for stroke. Activation of endogenous antioxidant defense systems such as the master redox regulator NRF2 may represent a viable alternative to the futile exogenous antioxidants, as NRF2 activators will physiologically modulate ROS and have indeed provided clinical success, e.g., in multiple sclerosis. These ROS-centric approaches are complemented by functionally repairing ROS-induced damage. The best example of this is soluble guanylate stimulators in pulmonary hypertension (riociguat) and heart failure (vericiguat) that sensitize sGC for lower NO levels to reach a physiologic cGMP signal. sGC activators are able to functionally repair damaged sGC in its apo-sGC state, e.g., for aortic valve calcification (ataciguat). The redefinition of diseases by causal molecular modules will lead to mechanism-based combination therapies, i.e., network pharmacology, and therapeutic synergy between many of the above drug principles if they act in the same module. Finally, mechanism-based validated biomarkers, once they become available, will enable 1) mechanism-based rather than phenotype-based patient stratification, 2) a higher success rate of subsequent interventional clinical trials, and 3) lower numbers needed to treat in clinical practice for ROS-related diseases as a role model for precision medicine.

Authorship Contributions

Wrote or contributed to the writing of the manuscript: Casas, Nogales, Mucke, Petraina, Cuadrado, Rojo, Ghezzi, Jaquet, Augsburger, Dufrasne, Soubhye, Deshwal, Di Sante, Kaludercic, Di Lisa, Schmidt.

Footnotes

  • This study was supported by the European Research Council Advanced Investigator Grant/RadMed [Grant 294683], Proof-of-Concept Grant/SAVEBRAIN [Grant 737586], and H2020 Project REPO-TRIAL [Grant 777111] (to H.H.H.W.S.) and short-term scientific missions by the COST Actions EU-ROS and Open-MultiMed, and Kootstra Talented Fellowship (Maastricht University) (to A.I.C.).

  • https://doi.org/10.1124/pr.120.019422.

Abbreviations

ALS
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
ClTyr
chloro-tyrosine
CVD
cardiovascular disease
DMF
dimethyl fumarate
DUOX
dual oxidase
H4Bip
tetrahydrobiopterin
HFpEF
heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
H2O2
hydrogen peroxide
IFN
interferon
IL
interleukin
KEAP1
Kelch-like ECH-associated protein 1
MAO
monoamine oxidase
MPO
myeloperoxidase
MS
multiple sclerosis
NO
nitric oxide
NO2Tyr
3-nitrotyrosine
NOS
NO synthases
NOSTRA
No Synthase in Traumatic Brain Injury
NOX
NADPH oxidase
NRF2
nuclear factor (erythroid-derived 2)-like 2
O2•
superoxide
8-oxodG
8-oxo-2′-deoxyguanosine
PKG
protein kinase G
PPI
protein-protein interaction
ROCG
ROS-cGMP signaling network
ROS
reactive oxygen species
sGC
soluble guanylate cyclase
UA
uric acid
XDH
xanthine dehydrogenase
XO
Xanthine oxidase
XOR
xanthine oxidoreductase
  • Copyright © 2020 by The Author(s)

This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC Attribution 4.0 International license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Abe K,
    2. Aoki M,
    3. Tsuji S,
    4. Itoyama Y,
    5. Sobue G,
    6. Togo M,
    7. Hamada C,
    8. Tanaka M,
    9. Akimoto M,
    10. Nakamura K, et al., and Writing Group Edaravone (MCI-186) ALS 19 Study Group
    (2017) Safety and efficacy of edaravone in well defined patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 16:505–512.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    1. Aguirre-Plans J,
    2. Piñero J,
    3. Menche J,
    4. Sanz F,
    5. Furlong LI,
    6. Schmidt HHHW,
    7. Oliva B, and
    8. Guney E
    (2018) Proximal pathway enrichment analysis for targeting comorbid diseases via network endopharmacology. Pharmaceuticals (Basel) 11:61.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Ahmadinejad F,
    2. Geir Møller S,
    3. Hashemzadeh-Chaleshtori M,
    4. Bidkhori G, and
    5. Jami M-S
    (2017) Molecular mechanisms behind free radical scavengers function against oxidative stress. Antioxidants 6:51.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Akaike T,
    2. Ando M,
    3. Oda T,
    4. Doi T,
    5. Ijiri S,
    6. Araki S, and
    7. Maeda H
    (1990) Dependence on O2- generation by xanthine oxidase of pathogenesis of influenza virus infection in mice. J Clin Invest 85:739–745.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Alem MMA,
    2. Alshehri AMA,
    3. Cahusac PM, and
    4. Walters MR
    (2018) Effect of xanthine oxidase inhibition on arterial stiffness in patients with chronic heart failure. Clin Med Insights Cardiol 12:1179546818779584.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Alexander,
    2. JH,
    3. Reynolds,
    4. HR,
    5. Stebbins,
    6. AL,
    7. Dzavik,
    8. V,
    9. Harrington,
    10. RA, et al., and TRIUMPH Investigators
    (2007) Effect of tilarginine acetate in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: the TRIUMPH randomized controlled trial. JAMA 297:1657–1666.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group
    (1994) The effect of vitamin E and beta carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. N Engl J Med 330:1029–1035.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Altenhöfer S,
    2. Radermacher KA,
    3. Kleikers PWM,
    4. Wingler K, and
    5. Schmidt HHHW
    (2015) Evolution of NADPH oxidase inhibitors: selectivity and mechanisms for target engagement. Antioxid Redox Signal 23:406–427.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Ames BN
    (1989) Endogenous DNA damage as related to cancer and aging. Mutat Res 214:41–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Ameziane-El-Hassani R,
    2. Schlumberger M, and
    3. Dupuy C
    (2016) NADPH oxidases: new actors in thyroid cancer? Nat Rev Endocrinol 12:485–494.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Anderson EJ,
    2. Efird JT,
    3. Davies SW,
    4. O’Neal WT,
    5. Darden TM,
    6. Thayne KA,
    7. Katunga LA,
    8. Kindell LC,
    9. Ferguson TB,
    10. Anderson CA, et al.
    (2014) Monoamine oxidase is a major determinant of redox balance in human atrial myocardium and is associated with postoperative atrial fibrillation. J Am Heart Assoc 3:e000713.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Antoniades C,
    2. Shirodaria C,
    3. Leeson P,
    4. Antonopoulos A,
    5. Warrick N,
    6. Van-Assche T,
    7. Cunnington C,
    8. Tousoulis D,
    9. Pillai R,
    10. Ratnatunga C, et al.
    (2009) Association of plasma asymmetrical dimethylarginine (ADMA) with elevated vascular superoxide production and endothelial nitric oxide synthase uncoupling: implications for endothelial function in human atherosclerosis. Eur Heart J 30:1142–1150.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Anvari E,
    2. Wikström P,
    3. Walum E, and
    4. Welsh N
    (2015) The novel NADPH oxidase 4 inhibitor GLX351322 counteracts glucose intolerance in high-fat diet-treated C57BL/6 mice. Free Radic Res 49:1308–1318.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Arsenijevic D,
    2. Onuma H,
    3. Pecqueur C,
    4. Raimbault S,
    5. Manning BS,
    6. Miroux B,
    7. Couplan E,
    8. Alves-Guerra M-C,
    9. Goubern M,
    10. Surwit R, et al.
    (2000) Disruption of the uncoupling protein-2 gene in mice reveals a role in immunity and reactive oxygen species production. Nat Genet 26:435–439.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Ashor AW,
    2. Lara J,
    3. Mathers JC, and
    4. Siervo M
    (2014) Effect of vitamin C on endothelial function in health and disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Atherosclerosis 235:9–20.
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Augsburger F,
    2. Filippova A,
    3. Rasti D,
    4. Seredenina T,
    5. Lam M,
    6. Maghzal G,
    7. Mahiout Z,
    8. Jansen-Dürr P,
    9. Knaus UG,
    10. Doroshow J, et al.
    (2019) Pharmacological characterization of the seven human NOX isoforms and their inhibitors. Redox Biol 26:101272.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Bainton DF,
    2. Ullyot JL, and
    3. Farquhar MG
    (1971) The development of neutrophilic polymorphonuclear leukocytes in human bone marrow. J Exp Med 134:907–934.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  18. ↵
    1. Bartoli F,
    2. Trotta G,
    3. Crocamo C,
    4. Malerba MR,
    5. Clerici M, and
    6. Carrà G
    (2018) Antioxidant uric acid in treated and untreated subjects with major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis and meta-regression. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 268:119–127.
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Bas DF,
    2. Topcuoglu MA,
    3. Gursoy-Ozdemir Y,
    4. Saatci I,
    5. Bodur E, and
    6. Dalkara T
    (2012) Plasma 3-nitrotyrosine estimates the reperfusion-induced cerebrovascular stress, whereas matrix metalloproteinases mainly reflect plasma activity: a study in patients treated with thrombolysis or endovascular recanalization. J Neurochem 123 (Suppl 2):138–147.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Battelli MG,
    2. Lorenzoni E, and
    3. Stripe F
    (1973) Milk xanthine oxidase type D (dehydrogenase) and type O (oxidase). Purification, interconversion and some properties. Biochem J 131:191–198.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Békési G,
    2. Heinle H,
    3. Kakucs R,
    4. Pázmány T,
    5. Szombath D,
    6. Dinya M,
    7. Tulassay Z,
    8. Fehér J,
    9. Rácz K,
    10. Székács B, et al.
    (2005) Effect of inhibitors of myeloperoxidase on the development of aortic atherosclerosis in an animal model. Exp Gerontol 40:199–208.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Bellezza I,
    2. Giambanco I,
    3. Minelli A, and
    4. Donato R
    (2018) Nrf2-Keap1 signaling in oxidative and reductive stress. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Cell Res 1865:721–733.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. ↵
    1. Bensalem S,
    2. Soubhye J,
    3. Aldib I,
    4. Bournine L,
    5. Nguyen AT,
    6. Vanhaeverbeek M,
    7. Rousseau A,
    8. Boudjeltia KZ,
    9. Sarakbi A,
    10. Kauffmann JM, et al.
    (2014) Inhibition of myeloperoxidase activity by the alkaloids of Peganum harmala L. (Zygophyllaceae). J Ethnopharmacol 154:361–369.
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Berry CE and
    2. Hare JM
    (2004) Xanthine oxidoreductase and cardiovascular disease: molecular mechanisms and pathophysiological implications. J Physiol 555:589–606.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Bianchi P,
    2. Kunduzova O,
    3. Masini E,
    4. Cambon C,
    5. Bani D,
    6. Raimondi L,
    7. Seguelas M-H,
    8. Nistri S,
    9. Colucci W,
    10. Leducq N, et al.
    (2005) Oxidative stress by monoamine oxidase mediates receptor-independent cardiomyocyte apoptosis by serotonin and postischemic myocardial injury. Circulation 112:3297–3305.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Binda C,
    2. Newton-Vinson P,
    3. Hubálek F,
    4. Edmondson DE, and
    5. Mattevi A
    (2002) Structure of human monoamine oxidase B, a drug target for the treatment of neurological disorders. Nat Struct Biol 9:22–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Bjelakovic G and
    2. Gluud C
    (2007) Surviving antioxidant supplements. J Natl Cancer Inst 99:742–743.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Bjelakovic G,
    2. Nikolova D,
    3. Gluud LL,
    4. Simonetti RG, and
    5. Gluud C
    (2007) Mortality in randomized trials of antioxidant supplements for primary and secondary prevention: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 297:842–857.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Bjelakovic G,
    2. Nikolova D,
    3. Gluud LL,
    4. Simonetti RG, and
    5. Gluud C
    (2012) Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev:CD007176 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007176.pub2.
  30. ↵
    1. Bjelakovic G,
    2. Nikolova D,
    3. Simonetti RG, and
    4. Gluud C
    (2004) Antioxidant supplements for prevention of gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 364:1219–1228.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Bkaily G,
    2. Najibeddine W, and
    3. Jacques D
    (2019) Increase of NADPH oxidase 3 in heart failure of hereditary cardiomyopathy 1. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 97:902–908.
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. Bömmel HM,
    2. Reif A,
    3. Fröhlich LG,
    4. Frey A,
    5. Hofmann H,
    6. Marecak DM,
    7. Groehn V,
    8. Kotsonis P,
    9. La M,
    10. Köster S, et al.
    (1998) Anti-pterins as tools to characterize the function of tetrahydrobiopterin in NO synthase. J Biol Chem 273:33142–33149.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Bomprezzi R
    (2015) Dimethyl fumarate in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: an overview. Ther Adv Neurol Disord 8:20–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Bortolato M,
    2. Chen K, and
    3. Shih JC
    (2008) Monoamine oxidase inactivation: from pathophysiology to therapeutics. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 60:1527–1533.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Bortolato M and
    2. Shih JC
    (2011) Behavioral outcomes of monoamine oxidase deficiency: preclinical and clinical evidence. Int Rev Neurobiol 100:13–42.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Boustany-Kari CM,
    2. Harrison PC,
    3. Chen H,
    4. Lincoln KA,
    5. Qian HS,
    6. Clifford H,
    7. Wang H,
    8. Zhang X,
    9. Gueneva-Boucheva K,
    10. Bosanac T, et al.
    (2016) A soluble guanylate cyclase activator inhibits the progression of diabetic nephropathy in the ZSF1 rat. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 356:712–719.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Braga TT,
    2. Forni MF,
    3. Correa-Costa M,
    4. Ramos RN,
    5. Barbuto JA,
    6. Branco P,
    7. Castoldi A,
    8. Hiyane MI,
    9. Davanso MR,
    10. Latz E, et al.
    (2017) Soluble uric acid activates the NLRP3 inflammasome. Sci Rep 7:39884.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Breitenstein S,
    2. Roessig L,
    3. Sandner P, and
    4. Lewis KS
    (2017) Novel sGC stimulators and sGC activators for the treatment of heart failure. Handb Exp Pharmacol 243:225–247.
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    1. Brennan M,
    2. Gaur A,
    3. Pahuja A,
    4. Lusis AJ, and
    5. Reynolds WF
    (2001) Mice lacking myeloperoxidase are more susceptible to experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. J Neuroimmunol 112:97–105.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Burgoyne JR,
    2. Madhani M,
    3. Cuello F,
    4. Charles RL,
    5. Brennan JP,
    6. Schroder E,
    7. Browning DD, and
    8. Eaton P
    (2007) Cysteine redox sensor in PKGIa enables oxidant-induced activation. Science 317:1393–1397.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Burgoyne JR,
    2. Rudyk O,
    3. Cho HJ,
    4. Prysyazhna O,
    5. Hathaway N,
    6. Weeks A,
    7. Evans R,
    8. Ng T,
    9. Schröder K,
    10. Brandes RP, et al.
    (2015) Deficient angiogenesis in redox-dead Cys17Ser PKARIα knock-in mice. Nat Commun 6:7920.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. ↵
    1. Butts B,
    2. Calhoun DA,
    3. Denney TS Jr..,
    4. Lloyd SG,
    5. Gupta H,
    6. Gaddam KK,
    7. Aban I,
    8. Oparil S,
    9. Sanders PW,
    10. Patel R, et al.
    (2019) Plasma xanthine oxidase activity is related to increased sodium and left ventricular hypertrophy in resistant hypertension. Free Radic Biol Med 134:343–349.
    OpenUrl
  43. ↵
    1. Caldera M,
    2. Müller F,
    3. Kaltenbrunner I,
    4. Licciardello MP,
    5. Lardeau C-H,
    6. Kubicek S, and
    7. Menche J
    (2019) Mapping the perturbome network of cellular perturbations. Nat Commun 10:5140.
    OpenUrl
  44. ↵
    1. Carnesecchi S,
    2. Deffert C,
    3. Donati Y,
    4. Basset O,
    5. Hinz B,
    6. Preynat-Seauve O,
    7. Guichard C,
    8. Arbiser JL,
    9. Banfi B,
    10. Pache J-C, et al.
    (2011) A key role for NOX4 in epithelial cell death during development of lung fibrosis. Antioxid Redox Signal 15:607–619.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Carpi A,
    2. Menabò R,
    3. Kaludercic N,
    4. Pelicci P,
    5. Di Lisa F, and
    6. Giorgio M
    (2009) The cardioprotective effects elicited by p66(Shc) ablation demonstrate the crucial role of mitochondrial ROS formation in ischemia/reperfusion injury. Biochim Biophys Acta 1787:774–780.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Carr AC,
    2. Vissers MCM, and
    3. Cook JS
    (2014) The effect of intravenous vitamin C on cancer- and chemotherapy-related fatigue and quality of life. Front Oncol 4:283.
    OpenUrl
  47. ↵
    1. Casas AI,
    2. Dao VT-V,
    3. Daiber A,
    4. Maghzal GJ,
    5. Di Lisa F,
    6. Kaludercic N,
    7. Leach S,
    8. Cuadrado A,
    9. Jaquet V,
    10. Seredenina T, et al.
    (2015) Reactive oxygen-related diseases: therapeutic targets and emerging clinical indications. Antioxid Redox Signal 23:1171–1185.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. ↵
    1. Casas AI,
    2. Geuss E,
    3. Kleikers PWM,
    4. Mencl S,
    5. Herrmann AM,
    6. Buendia I,
    7. Egea J,
    8. Meuth SG,
    9. Lopez MG,
    10. Kleinschnitz C, et al.
    (2017) NOX4-dependent neuronal autotoxicity and BBB breakdown explain the superior sensitivity of the brain to ischemic damage. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:12315–12320.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. ↵
    1. Casas AI,
    2. Hassan AA,
    3. Larsen SJ,
    4. Gomez-Rangel V,
    5. Elbatreek M,
    6. Kleikers PWM,
    7. Guney E,
    8. Egea J,
    9. López MG,
    10. Baumbach J, et al.
    (2019a) From single drug targets to synergistic network pharmacology in ischemic stroke. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116:7129–7136.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    1. Casas AI,
    2. Kleikers PWM,
    3. Geuss E,
    4. Langhauser F,
    5. Adler T,
    6. Busch DH,
    7. Gailus-Durner V,
    8. de Angelis MH,
    9. Egea J,
    10. Lopez MG, et al.
    (2019b) Calcium-dependent blood-brain barrier breakdown by NOX5 limits postreperfusion benefit in stroke. J Clin Invest 130:1772–1778.
    OpenUrl
  51. ↵
    1. Cascorbi I,
    2. Henning S,
    3. Brockmöller J,
    4. Gephart J,
    5. Meisel C,
    6. Müller JM,
    7. Loddenkemper R, and
    8. Roots I
    (2000) Substantially reduced risk of cancer of the aerodigestive tract in subjects with variant--463A of the myeloperoxidase gene. Cancer Res 60:644–649.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    1. Caviedes A,
    2. Varas-Godoy M,
    3. Lafourcade C,
    4. Sandoval S,
    5. Bravo-Alegria J,
    6. Kaehne T,
    7. Massmann A,
    8. Figueroa JP,
    9. Nualart F, and
    10. Wyneken U
    (2017) Endothelial nitric oxide synthase is present in dendritic spines of neurons in primary cultures. Front Cell Neurosci 11:180.
    OpenUrl
  53. ↵
    1. Cavusoglu E,
    2. Ruwende C,
    3. Eng C,
    4. Chopra V,
    5. Yanamadala S,
    6. Clark LT,
    7. Pinsky DJ, and
    8. Marmur JD
    (2007) Usefulness of baseline plasma myeloperoxidase levels as an independent predictor of myocardial infarction at two years in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome. Am J Cardiol 99:1364–1368.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Cha JJ,
    2. Min HS,
    3. Kim KT,
    4. Kim JE,
    5. Ghee JY,
    6. Kim HW,
    7. Lee JE,
    8. Han JY,
    9. Lee G,
    10. Ha HJ, et al.
    (2017) APX-115, a first-in-class pan-NADPH oxidase (Nox) inhibitor, protects db/db mice from renal injury. Lab Invest 97:419–431.
    OpenUrl
  55. ↵
    1. Chakrabarti S,
    2. Chan CK,
    3. Jiang Y, and
    4. Davidge ST
    (2012) Neuronal nitric oxide synthase regulates endothelial inflammation. J Leukoc Biol 91:947–956.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Chen D,
    2. Liu X,
    3. Yang Y,
    4. Yang H, and
    5. Lu P
    (2015) Systematic synergy modeling: understanding drug synergy from a systems biology perspective. BMC Syst Biol 9:56.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  57. ↵
    1. Chen Q,
    2. Espey MG,
    3. Sun AY,
    4. Pooput C,
    5. Kirk KL,
    6. Krishna MC,
    7. Khosh DB,
    8. Drisko J, and
    9. Levine M
    (2008) Pharmacologic doses of ascorbate act as a prooxidant and decrease growth of aggressive tumor xenografts in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:11105–11109.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. ↵
    1. Cheng M-L,
    2. Chen C-M,
    3. Gu P-W,
    4. Ho H-Y, and
    5. Chiu DT-Y
    (2008) Elevated levels of myeloperoxidase, white blood cell count and 3-chlorotyrosine in Taiwanese patients with acute myocardial infarction. Clin Biochem 41:554–560.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Choi D-K,
    2. Pennathur S,
    3. Perier C,
    4. Tieu K,
    5. Teismann P,
    6. Wu DC,
    7. Jackson-Lewis V,
    8. Vila M,
    9. Vonsattel JP,
    10. Heinecke JW, et al.
    (2005) Ablation of the inflammatory enzyme myeloperoxidase mitigates features of Parkinson’s disease in mice. J Neurosci 25:6594–6600.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. ↵
    1. Choi SA,
    2. Kim YH,
    3. Park YH,
    4. Yang HJ,
    5. Jeong PS,
    6. Cha JJ,
    7. Yoon SB,
    8. Kim JS,
    9. Song BS,
    10. Lee JH, et al.
    (2019) Novel crosstalk between Vps26a and Nox4 signaling during neurogenesis. Cell Death Differ 26:1582–1599 DOI: 10.1038/s41418-018-0226-0.
    OpenUrl
  61. ↵
    1. Choobdar S,
    2. Ahsen ME,
    3. Crawford J,
    4. Tomasoni M,
    5. Fang T,
    6. Lamparter D,
    7. Lin J,
    8. Hescott B,
    9. Hu X,
    10. Mercer J, et al., and DREAM Module Identification Challenge Consortium
    (2019) Assessment of network module identification across complex diseases. Nat Methods 16:843–852.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. ↵
    1. Cochemé HM and
    2. Murphy MP
    (2010) Can antioxidants be effective therapeutics? Curr Opin Investig Drugs 11:426–431.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Collins R,
    2. Armitage J,
    3. Parish S,
    4. Sleight P,
    5. Peto R, and Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group
    (2002) MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of antioxidant vitamin supplementation in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 360:23–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Costell MH,
    2. Ancellin N,
    3. Bernard RE,
    4. Zhao S,
    5. Upson JJ,
    6. Morgan LA,
    7. Maniscalco K,
    8. Olzinski AR,
    9. Ballard VLT,
    10. Herry K, et al.
    (2012) Comparison of soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators and activators in models of cardiovascular disease associated with oxidative stress. Front Pharmacol 3:128.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Crabtree MJ and
    2. Channon KM
    (2011) Synthesis and recycling of tetrahydrobiopterin in endothelial function and vascular disease. Nitric Oxide 25:81–88.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Crabtree MJ,
    2. Tatham AL,
    3. Hale AB,
    4. Alp NJ, and
    5. Channon KM
    (2009) Critical role for tetrahydrobiopterin recycling by dihydrofolate reductase in regulation of endothelial nitric-oxide synthase coupling: relative importance of the de novo biopterin synthesis versus salvage pathways. J Biol Chem 284:28128–28136.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. ↵
    1. Crosas-Molist E,
    2. Bertran E,
    3. Rodriguez-Hernandez I,
    4. Herraiz C,
    5. Cantelli G,
    6. Fabra À,
    7. Sanz-Moreno V, and
    8. Fabregat I
    (2017) The NADPH oxidase NOX4 represses epithelial to amoeboid transition and efficient tumour dissemination. Oncogene 36:3002–3014.
    OpenUrl
  68. ↵
    1. Cuadrado A,
    2. Manda G,
    3. Hassan A,
    4. Alcaraz MJ,
    5. Barbas C,
    6. Daiber A,
    7. Ghezzi P,
    8. León R,
    9. López MG,
    10. Oliva B, et al.
    (2018) Transcription factor NRF2 as a therapeutic target for chronic diseases: a systems medicine approach. Pharmacol Rev 70:348–383.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  69. ↵
    1. Cuadrado A,
    2. Rojo AI,
    3. Wells G,
    4. Hayes JD,
    5. Cousin SP,
    6. Rumsey WL,
    7. Attucks OC,
    8. Franklin S,
    9. Levonen A-L,
    10. Kensler TW, et al.
    (2019) Therapeutic targeting of the NRF2 and KEAP1 partnership in chronic diseases. Nat Rev Drug Discov 18:295–317.
    OpenUrl
  70. ↵
    1. Dao VT-V,
    2. Casas AI,
    3. Maghzal GJ,
    4. Seredenina T,
    5. Kaludercic N,
    6. Robledinos-Anton N,
    7. Di Lisa F,
    8. Stocker R,
    9. Ghezzi P,
    10. Jaquet V, et al.
    (2015) Pharmacology and clinical drug candidates in redox medicine. Antioxid Redox Signal 23:1113–1129.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  71. ↵
    1. Dao VT-V,
    2. Elbatreek MH,
    3. Altenhöfer S,
    4. Casas AI,
    5. Pachado MP,
    6. Neullens CT,
    7. Knaus UG, and
    8. Schmidt HHHW
    (2020) Isoform-selective NADPH oxidase inhibitor panel for pharmacological target validation. Free Radic Biol Med 148:60–69.
    OpenUrl
  72. ↵
    1. Dasgupta A,
    2. Bowman L,
    3. D’Arsigny CL, and
    4. Archer SL
    (2015) Soluble guanylate cyclase: a new therapeutic target for pulmonary arterial hypertension and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Clin Pharmacol Ther 97:88–102.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Dawson J,
    2. Broomfield N,
    3. Dani K,
    4. Dickie DA,
    5. Doney A,
    6. Forbes K,
    7. Houston G,
    8. Kean S,
    9. Lees K,
    10. McConnachie A, et al.
    (2018) Xanthine oxidase inhibition for the improvement of long-term outcomes following ischaemic stroke and transient ischaemic attack (XILO-FIST) - protocol for a randomised double blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. Eur Stroke J 3:281–290.
    OpenUrl
  74. ↵
    1. De Colibus L,
    2. Li M,
    3. Binda C,
    4. Lustig A,
    5. Edmondson DE, and
    6. Mattevi A
    (2005) Three-dimensional structure of human monoamine oxidase A (MAO A): relation to the structures of rat MAO A and human MAO B. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:12684–12689.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  75. ↵
    1. de Gaetano G and Collaborative Group of the Primary Prevention Project
    (2001) Low-dose aspirin and vitamin E in people at cardiovascular risk: a randomised trial in general practice. Lancet 357:89–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. ↵
    1. Deliyanti D and
    2. Wilkinson-Berka JL
    (2015) Inhibition of NOX1/4 with GKT137831: a potential novel treatment to attenuate neuroglial cell inflammation in the retina. J Neuroinflammation 12:136.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    1. Delporte C,
    2. Boudjeltia KZ,
    3. Noyon C,
    4. Furtmüller PG,
    5. Nuyens V,
    6. Slomianny M-C,
    7. Madhoun P,
    8. Desmet J-M,
    9. Raynal P,
    10. Dufour D, et al.
    (2014) Impact of myeloperoxidase-LDL interactions on enzyme activity and subsequent posttranslational oxidative modifications of apoB-100. J Lipid Res 55:747–757.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  78. ↵
    1. Deshwal S,
    2. Forkink M,
    3. Hu C-H,
    4. Buonincontri G,
    5. Antonucci S,
    6. Di Sante M,
    7. Murphy MP,
    8. Paolocci N,
    9. Mochly-Rosen D,
    10. Krieg T, et al.
    (2018) Monoamine oxidase-dependent endoplasmic reticulum-mitochondria dysfunction and mast cell degranulation lead to adverse cardiac remodeling in diabetes. Cell Death Differ 25:1671–1685.
    OpenUrl
  79. ↵
    1. Di Marco E,
    2. Gray SP,
    3. Chew P,
    4. Kennedy K,
    5. Cooper ME,
    6. Schmidt HHHW, and
    7. Jandeleit-Dahm KAM
    (2016) Differential effects of NOX4 and NOX1 on immune cell-mediated inflammation in the aortic sinus of diabetic ApoE-/- mice. Clin Sci (Lond) 130:1363–1374.
    OpenUrl
  80. ↵
    1. Di Meo S,
    2. Reed TT,
    3. Venditti P, and
    4. Victor VM
    (2016) Role of ROS and RNS sources in physiological and pathological conditions. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2016:1245049.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  81. ↵
    1. Di Minno A,
    2. Turnu L,
    3. Porro B,
    4. Squellerio I,
    5. Cavalca V,
    6. Tremoli E, and
    7. Di Minno MN
    (2016) 8-Hydroxy-2-Deoxyguanosine levels and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Antioxid Redox Signal 24:548–555 DOI: 10.1089/ars.2015.6508.
    OpenUrl
  82. ↵
    1. Diebold BA,
    2. Smith SME,
    3. Li Y, and
    4. Lambeth JD
    (2015) NOX2 as a target for drug development: indications, possible complications, and progress. Antioxid Redox Signal 23:375–405.
    OpenUrl
  83. ↵
    1. Dikalov SI and
    2. Harrison DG
    (2014) Methods for detection of mitochondrial and cellular reactive oxygen species. Antioxid Redox Signal 20:372–382.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    1. Ding J-D,
    2. Burette A,
    3. Nedvetsky PI,
    4. Schmidt HHHW, and
    5. Weinberg RJ
    (2004) Distribution of soluble guanylyl cyclase in the rat brain. J Comp Neurol 472:437–448.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. ↵
    1. Dinkova-Kostova AT,
    2. Talalay P,
    3. Sharkey J,
    4. Zhang Y,
    5. Holtzclaw WD,
    6. Wang XJ,
    7. David E,
    8. Schiavoni KH,
    9. Finlayson S,
    10. Mierke DF, et al.
    (2010) An exceptionally potent inducer of cytoprotective enzymes: elucidation of the structural features that determine inducer potency and reactivity with Keap1. J Biol Chem 285:33747–33755.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  86. ↵
    1. Dröge W
    (2002) Free radicals in the physiological control of cell function. Physiol Rev 82:47–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. ↵
    1. Duclos F,
    2. Abell LM,
    3. Harden DG,
    4. Pike K,
    5. Nowak K,
    6. Locke GA,
    7. Duke GJ,
    8. Liu X,
    9. Fernando G,
    10. Shaw SA, et al.
    (2017) Triazolopyrimidines identified as reversible myeloperoxidase inhibitors. MedChemComm 8:2093–2099.
    OpenUrl
  88. ↵
    1. Ebrahim S
    (2001) The use of numbers needed to treat derived from systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Caveats and pitfalls. Eval Health Prof 24:152–164.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. ↵
    1. Eidelman RS,
    2. Hollar D,
    3. Hebert PR,
    4. Lamas GA, and
    5. Hennekens CH
    (2004) Randomized trials of vitamin E in the treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease. Arch Intern Med 164:1552–1556.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. ↵
    1. Eigeldinger-Berthou S,
    2. Meier C,
    3. Zulliger R,
    4. Lecaudé S,
    5. Enzmann V, and
    6. Sarra G-M
    (2012) Rasagiline interferes with neurodegeneration in the Prph2/rds mouse. Retina 32:617–628.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  91. ↵
    1. Eiserich JP,
    2. Baldus S,
    3. Brennan M-L,
    4. Ma W,
    5. Zhang C,
    6. Tousson A,
    7. Castro L,
    8. Lusis AJ,
    9. Nauseef WM,
    10. Roger White C, et al.
    (2002) Myeloperoxidase, a leukocyte-derived vascular NO oxidase. Science 296:2391–2394.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  92. ↵
    1. Evgenov OV,
    2. Pacher P,
    3. Schmidt PM,
    4. Haskó G,
    5. Schmidt HHHW, and
    6. Stasch J-P
    (2006) NO-independent stimulators and activators of soluble guanylate cyclase: discovery and therapeutic potential. Nat Rev Drug Discov 5:755–768.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. ↵
    1. Fabbri M,
    2. Rosa MM,
    3. Abreu D, and
    4. Ferreira JJ
    (2015) Clinical pharmacology review of safinamide for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Neurodegener Dis Manag 5:481–496.
    OpenUrl
  94. ↵
    1. Fantacuzzi M,
    2. Maccallini C,
    3. Di Matteo M,
    4. Ammazzalorso A,
    5. Bruno I,
    6. De Filippis B,
    7. Giampietro L,
    8. Mollica A, and
    9. Amoroso R
    (2016) Screening of NOS activity and selectivity of newly synthesized acetamidines using RP-HPLC. J Pharm Biomed Anal 120:419–424.
    OpenUrl
  95. ↵
    1. Farinacci M,
    2. Krahn T,
    3. Dinh W,
    4. Volk H-D,
    5. Düngen H-D,
    6. Wagner J,
    7. Konen T, and
    8. von Ahsen O
    (2018) Circulating endothelial cells as biomarker for cardiovascular diseases. Res Pract Thromb Haemost 3:49–58.
    OpenUrl
  96. ↵
    1. Feig DI,
    2. Mazzali M,
    3. Kang D-H,
    4. Nakagawa T,
    5. Price K,
    6. Kannelis J, and
    7. Johnson RJ
    (2006) Serum uric acid: a risk factor and a target for treatment? J Am Soc Nephrol 17 (4 Suppl 2):S69–S73.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  97. ↵
    1. Feng S,
    2. Yang Q,
    3. Liu M,
    4. Li W,
    5. Yuan W,
    6. Zhang S,
    7. Wu B, and
    8. Li J
    (2011) Edaravone for acute ischaemic stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev:CD007230 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007230.pub2.
  98. ↵
    1. Fiedler TJ,
    2. Davey CA, and
    3. Fenna RE
    (2000) X-ray crystal structure and characterization of halide-binding sites of human myeloperoxidase at 1.8 A resolution. J Biol Chem 275:11964–11971.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  99. ↵
    1. Finberg JPM
    (2014) Update on the pharmacology of selective inhibitors of MAO-A and MAO-B: focus on modulation of CNS monoamine neurotransmitter release. Pharmacol Ther 143:133–152.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  100. ↵
    1. Finkel T
    (2012) From sulfenylation to sulfhydration: what a thiolate needs to tolerate. Sci Signal 5:pe10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  101. ↵
    1. Fišar Z
    (2016) Drugs related to monoamine oxidase activity. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 69:112–124.
    OpenUrl
  102. ↵
    1. Follmann M,
    2. Ackerstaff J,
    3. Redlich G,
    4. Wunder F,
    5. Lang D,
    6. Kern A,
    7. Fey P,
    8. Griebenow N,
    9. Kroh W,
    10. Becker-Pelster E-M, et al.
    (2017) Discovery of the soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator vericiguat (BAY 1021189) for the treatment of chronic heart failure. J Med Chem 60:5146–5161.
    OpenUrl
  103. ↵
    1. Forghani R,
    2. Wojtkiewicz GR,
    3. Zhang Y,
    4. Seeburg D,
    5. Bautz BRM,
    6. Pulli B,
    7. Milewski AR,
    8. Atkinson WL,
    9. Iwamoto Y,
    10. Zhang ER, et al.
    (2012) Demyelinating diseases: myeloperoxidase as an imaging biomarker and therapeutic target. Radiology 263:451–460.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. ↵
    1. Förstermann U,
    2. Schmidt HHHW,
    3. Kohlhaas KL, and
    4. Murad F
    (1992) Induced RAW 264.7 macrophages express soluble and particulate nitric oxide synthase: inhibition by transforming growth factor-β. Eur J Pharmacol 225:161–165.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  105. ↵
    1. Fowler JS,
    2. Volkow ND,
    3. Wang G-J,
    4. Logan J,
    5. Pappas N,
    6. Shea C, and
    7. MacGregor R
    (1997) Age-related increases in brain monoamine oxidase B in living healthy human subjects. Neurobiol Aging 18:431–435.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. ↵
    1. Fox RJ,
    2. Miller DH,
    3. Phillips JT,
    4. Hutchinson M,
    5. Havrdova E,
    6. Kita M,
    7. Yang M,
    8. Raghupathi K,
    9. Novas M,
    10. Sweetser MT, et al., and CONFIRM Study Investigators
    (2012) Placebo-controlled phase 3 study of oral BG-12 or glatiramer in multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 367:1087–1097.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. ↵
    1. Francis SH,
    2. Busch JL,
    3. Corbin JD, and
    4. Sibley D
    (2010) cGMP-dependent protein kinases and cGMP phosphodiesterases in nitric oxide and cGMP action. Pharmacol Rev 62:525–563.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  108. ↵
    1. Fröhlich LG,
    2. Kotsonis P,
    3. Traub H,
    4. Taghavi-Moghadam S,
    5. Al-Masoudi N,
    6. Hofmann H,
    7. Strobel H,
    8. Matter H,
    9. Pfleiderer W, and
    10. Schmidt HHHW
    (1999) Inhibition of neuronal nitric oxide synthase by 4-amino pteridine derivatives: structure-activity relationship of antagonists of (6R)-5,6,7,8-tetrahydrobiopterin cofactor. J Med Chem 42:4108–4121.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  109. ↵
    1. Gellhaar S,
    2. Sunnemark D,
    3. Eriksson H,
    4. Olson L, and
    5. Galter D
    (2017) Myeloperoxidase-immunoreactive cells are significantly increased in brain areas affected by neurodegeneration in Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. Cell Tissue Res 369:445–454.
    OpenUrl
  110. ↵
    1. Ghezzi P,
    2. Bianchi M,
    3. Mantovani A,
    4. Spreafico F, and
    5. Salmona M
    (1984) Enhanced xanthine oxidase activity in mice treated with interferon and interferon inducers. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 119:144–149.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  111. ↵
    1. Ghezzi P,
    2. Jaquet V,
    3. Marcucci F, and
    4. Schmidt HHHW
    (2017) The oxidative stress theory of disease: levels of evidence and epistemological aspects. Br J Pharmacol 174:1784–1796.
    OpenUrl
  112. ↵
    1. Ghiassian SD,
    2. Menche J,
    3. Chasman DI,
    4. Giulianini F,
    5. Wang R,
    6. Ricchiuto P,
    7. Aikawa M,
    8. Iwata H,
    9. Müller C,
    10. Zeller T, et al.
    (2016) Endophenotype network models: common core of complex diseases. Sci Rep 6:27414.
    OpenUrl
  113. ↵
    1. Golubinskaya V,
    2. Brandt-Eliasson U,
    3. Gan L-M,
    4. Kjerrulf M, and
    5. Nilsson H
    (2014) Endothelial function in a mouse model of myeloperoxidase deficiency. BioMed Res Int 2014:128046.
    OpenUrl
  114. ↵
    1. Granger DN,
    2. Rutili G, and
    3. McCord JM
    (1981) Superoxide radicals in feline intestinal ischemia. Gastroenterology 81:22–29.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  115. ↵
    1. Gray SP,
    2. Di Marco E,
    3. Kennedy K,
    4. Chew P,
    5. Okabe J,
    6. El-Osta A,
    7. Calkin AC,
    8. Biessen EAL,
    9. Touyz RM,
    10. Cooper ME, et al.
    (2016) Reactive oxygen species can provide atheroprotection via NOX4-dependent inhibition of inflammation and vascular remodeling. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 36:295–307.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  116. ↵
    1. Green PS,
    2. Mendez AJ,
    3. Jacob JS,
    4. Crowley JR,
    5. Growdon W,
    6. Hyman BT, and
    7. Heinecke JW
    (2004) Neuronal expression of myeloperoxidase is increased in Alzheimer’s disease. J Neurochem 90:724–733.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  117. ↵
    1. Gulyás B,
    2. Pavlova E,
    3. Kása P,
    4. Gulya K,
    5. Bakota L,
    6. Várszegi S,
    7. Keller E,
    8. Horváth MC,
    9. Nag S,
    10. Hermecz I, et al.
    (2011) Activated MAO-B in the brain of Alzheimer patients, demonstrated by [11C]-L-deprenyl using whole hemisphere autoradiography. Neurochem Int 58:60–68.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  118. ↵
    1. Hardiman O and
    2. van den Berg LH
    (2017) Edaravone: a new treatment for ALS on the horizon? Lancet Neurol 16:490–491.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  119. ↵
    1. Harman D
    (1956) Aging: a theory based on free radical and radiation chemistry. J Gerontol 11:298–300.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  120. ↵
    1. Harman D
    (1972) The biologic clock: the mitochondria? J Am Geriatr Soc 20:145–147.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  121. ↵
    1. Harris HR,
    2. Orsini N, and
    3. Wolk A
    (2014) Vitamin C and survival among women with breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 50:1223–1231.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  122. ↵
    1. Hayes P,
    2. Dhillon S,
    3. O’Neill K,
    4. Thoeni C,
    5. Hui KY,
    6. Elkadri A,
    7. Guo CH,
    8. Kovacic L,
    9. Aviello G,
    10. Alvarez LA, et al.
    (2015) Defects in NADPH oxidase genes NOX1 and DUOX2 in very early onset inflammatory bowel disease. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol 1:489–502.
    OpenUrl
  123. ↵
    1. Hazen SL and
    2. Heinecke JW
    (1997) 3-Chlorotyrosine, a specific marker of myeloperoxidase-catalyzed oxidation, is markedly elevated in low density lipoprotein isolated from human atherosclerotic intima. J Clin Invest 99:2075–2081.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  124. ↵
    1. Heffron SP,
    2. Parastatidis I,
    3. Cuchel M,
    4. Wolfe ML,
    5. Tadesse MG,
    6. Mohler ER III.,
    7. Ischiropoulos H,
    8. Rader DJ, and
    9. Reilly MP
    (2009) Inflammation induces fibrinogen nitration in experimental human endotoxemia. Free Radic Biol Med 47:1140–1146.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  125. ↵
    1. Hegele RA
    (2000) Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition in the secondary prevention of vascular disease: The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) trial and its substudies. Curr Atheroscler Rep 2:361–362.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  126. ↵
    1. Henrickson SE,
    2. Jongco AM,
    3. Thomsen KF,
    4. Garabedian EK, and
    5. Thomsen IP
    (2018) Noninfectious manifestations and complications of chronic granulomatous disease. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc 7 (Suppl 1):S18–S24.
    OpenUrl
  127. ↵
    1. Herce-Pagliai C,
    2. Kotecha S, and
    3. Shuker DEG
    (1998) Analytical methods for 3-nitrotyrosine as a marker of exposure to reactive nitrogen species: a review. Nitric Oxide 2:324–336.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  128. ↵
    1. Heringa SM,
    2. van den Berg E,
    3. Reijmer YD,
    4. Nijpels G,
    5. Stehouwer CDA,
    6. Schalkwijk CG,
    7. Teerlink T,
    8. Scheffer PG,
    9. van den Hurk K,
    10. Kappelle LJ, et al.
    (2014) Markers of low-grade inflammation and endothelial dysfunction are related to reduced information processing speed and executive functioning in an older population - the Hoorn Study. Psychoneuroendocrinology 40:108–118.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  129. ↵
    1. Higgins P,
    2. Dawson J,
    3. Lees KR,
    4. McArthur K,
    5. Quinn TJ, and
    6. Walters MR
    (2012) Xanthine oxidase inhibition for the treatment of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Ther 30:217–226.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  130. ↵
    1. Hirano K,
    2. Chen WS,
    3. Chueng ALW,
    4. Dunne AA,
    5. Seredenina T,
    6. Filippova A,
    7. Ramachandran S,
    8. Bridges A,
    9. Chaudry L,
    10. Pettman G, et al.
    (2015) Discovery of GSK2795039, a novel small molecule NADPH oxidase 2 inhibitor. Antioxid Redox Signal 23:358–374.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  131. ↵
    1. Houghton CA,
    2. Fassett RG, and
    3. Coombes JS
    (2013) Sulforaphane: translational research from laboratory bench to clinic. Nutr Rev 71:709–726.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  132. ↵
    1. Hung RJ,
    2. Boffetta P,
    3. Brennan P,
    4. Malaveille C,
    5. Gelatti U,
    6. Placidi D,
    7. Carta A,
    8. Hautefeuille A, and
    9. Porru S
    (2004) Genetic polymorphisms of MPO, COMT, MnSOD, NQO1, interactions with environmental exposures and bladder cancer risk. Carcinogenesis 25:973–978.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  133. ↵
    1. Ill-Raga G,
    2. Palomer E,
    3. Ramos-Fernández E,
    4. Guix FX,
    5. Bosch-Morató M,
    6. Guivernau B,
    7. Tajes M,
    8. Valls-Comamala V,
    9. Jiménez-Conde J,
    10. Ois A, et al.
    (2015) Fibrinogen nitrotyrosination after ischemic stroke impairs thrombolysis and promotes neuronal death. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis 1852:421–428.
    OpenUrl
  134. ↵
    1. Inayama M,
    2. Hashimoto N,
    3. Tokoro T, and
    4. Shiozaki H
    (2007) Involvement of oxidative stress in experimentally induced reflux esophagitis and esophageal cancer. Hepatogastroenterology 54:761–765.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  135. ↵
    1. Jagnandan D,
    2. Church JE,
    3. Banfi B,
    4. Stuehr DJ,
    5. Marrero MB, and
    6. Fulton DJR
    (2007) Novel mechanism of activation of NADPH oxidase 5. calcium sensitization via phosphorylation. J Biol Chem 282:6494–6507.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  136. ↵
    1. Jantschko W,
    2. Furtmüller PG,
    3. Zederbauer M,
    4. Neugschwandtner K,
    5. Lehner I,
    6. Jakopitsch C,
    7. Arnhold J, and
    8. Obinger C
    (2005) Exploitation of the unusual thermodynamic properties of human myeloperoxidase in inhibitor design. Biochem Pharmacol 69:1149–1157.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  137. ↵
    1. Jaquet V,
    2. Scapozza L,
    3. Clark RA,
    4. Krause K-H, and
    5. Lambeth JD
    (2009) Small-molecule NOX inhibitors: ROS-generating NADPH oxidases as therapeutic targets. Antioxid Redox Signal 11:2535–2552.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  138. ↵
    1. Jaruvongvanich V,
    2. Ahuja W,
    3. Wirunsawanya K,
    4. Wijarnpreecha K, and
    5. Ungprasert P
    (2017) Hyperuricemia is associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 29:1031–1035.
    OpenUrl
  139. ↵
    1. Jha JC,
    2. Banal C,
    3. Okabe J,
    4. Gray SP,
    5. Hettige T,
    6. Chow BSM,
    7. Thallas-Bonke V,
    8. De Vos L,
    9. Holterman CE,
    10. Coughlan MT, et al.
    (2017) NADPH oxidase Nox5 accelerates renal injury in diabetic nephropathy. Diabetes 66:2691–2703.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  140. ↵
    1. Joo JH,
    2. Huh J-E,
    3. Lee JH,
    4. Park DR,
    5. Lee Y,
    6. Lee SG,
    7. Choi S,
    8. Lee HJ,
    9. Song S-W,
    10. Jeong Y, et al.
    (2016) A novel pyrazole derivative protects from ovariectomy-induced osteoporosis through the inhibition of NADPH oxidase. Sci Rep 6:22389.
    OpenUrl
  141. ↵
    1. Jordan A and
    2. Gresser U
    (2018) Side effects and interactions of the xanthine oxidase inhibitor febuxostat. Pharmaceuticals (Basel) 11:51.
    OpenUrl
  142. ↵
    1. Kaludercic N,
    2. Carpi A,
    3. Nagayama T,
    4. Sivakumaran V,
    5. Zhu G,
    6. Lai EW,
    7. Bedja D,
    8. De Mario A,
    9. Chen K,
    10. Gabrielson KL, et al.
    (2014) Monoamine oxidase B prompts mitochondrial and cardiac dysfunction in pressure overloaded hearts. Antioxid Redox Signal 20:267–280.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  143. ↵
    1. Kaludercic N,
    2. Takimoto E,
    3. Nagayama T,
    4. Feng N,
    5. Lai EW,
    6. Bedja D,
    7. Chen K,
    8. Gabrielson KL,
    9. Blakely RD,
    10. Shih JC, et al.
    (2010) Monoamine oxidase A-mediated enhanced catabolism of norepinephrine contributes to adverse remodeling and pump failure in hearts with pressure overload. Circ Res 106:193–202.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  144. ↵
    1. Kaur H and
    2. Halliwell B
    (1994) Evidence for nitric oxide-mediated oxidative damage in chronic inflammation. Nitrotyrosine in serum and synovial fluid from rheumatoid patients. FEBS Lett 350:9–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  145. ↵
    1. Khan AA,
    2. Quinn TJ,
    3. Hewitt J,
    4. Fan Y, and
    5. Dawson J
    (2016) Serum uric acid level and association with cognitive impairment and dementia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Age (Dordr) 38:16.
    OpenUrl
  146. ↵
    1. Khan SQ,
    2. Kelly D,
    3. Quinn P,
    4. Davies JE, and
    5. Ng LL
    (2007) Myeloperoxidase aids prognostication together with N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide in high-risk patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction. Heart 93:826–831.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  147. ↵
    1. Kim H,
    2. Wei Y,
    3. Lee JY,
    4. Wu Y,
    5. Zheng Y,
    6. Moskowitz MA, and
    7. Chen JW
    (2016) Myeloperoxidase inhibition increases neurogenesis after ischemic stroke. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 359:262–272.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  148. ↵
    1. Kim Y,
    2. Yoon S,
    3. Kim SJ,
    4. Kim JS,
    5. Cheong J-W, and
    6. Min YH
    (2012) Myeloperoxidase expression in acute myeloid leukemia helps identifying patients to benefit from transplant. Yonsei Med J 53:530–536.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  149. ↵
    1. Kiss PJ,
    2. Knisz J,
    3. Zhang Y,
    4. Baltrusaitis J,
    5. Sigmund CD,
    6. Thalmann R,
    7. Smith RJH,
    8. Verpy E, and
    9. Bánfi B
    (2006) Inactivation of NADPH oxidase organizer 1 results in severe imbalance. Curr Biol 16:208–213.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  150. ↵
    1. Klebanoff SJ
    (2005) Myeloperoxidase: friend and foe. J Leukoc Biol 77:598–625.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  151. ↵
    1. Kleinschnitz C,
    2. Grund H,
    3. Wingler K,
    4. Armitage ME,
    5. Jones E,
    6. Mittal M,
    7. Barit D,
    8. Schwarz T,
    9. Geis C,
    10. Kraft P, et al.
    (2010) Post-stroke inhibition of induced NADPH oxidase type 4 prevents oxidative stress and neurodegeneration. PLoS Biol 8:e1000479.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  152. ↵
    1. Kleinschnitz C,
    2. Mencl S,
    3. Kleikers PWM,
    4. Schuhmann MK,
    5. López MG,
    6. Casas AI,
    7. Sürün B,
    8. Reif A, and
    9. Schmidt HHHW
    (2016) NOS knockout or inhibition but not disrupting PSD-95-NOS interaction protect against ischemic brain damage. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 36:1508–1512.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  153. ↵
    1. Kotsonis P,
    2. Frey A,
    3. Fröhlich LG,
    4. Hofmann H,
    5. Reif A,
    6. Wink DA,
    7. Feelisch M, and
    8. Schmidt HH
    (1999) Autoinhibition of neuronal nitric oxide synthase: distinct effects of reactive nitrogen and oxygen species on enzyme activity. Biochem J 340:745–752.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  154. ↵
    1. Kotsonis P,
    2. Fröhlich LG,
    3. Raman CS,
    4. Li H,
    5. Berg M,
    6. Gerwig R,
    7. Groehn V,
    8. Kang Y,
    9. Al-Masoudi N,
    10. Taghavi-Moghadam S, et al.
    (2001) Structural basis for pterin antagonism in nitric-oxide synthase. Development of novel 4-oxo-pteridine antagonists of (6R)-5,6,7,8-tetrahydrobiopterin. J Biol Chem 276:49133–49141.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  155. ↵
    1. Kotsonis P,
    2. Fröhlich LG,
    3. Shutenko ZV,
    4. Horejsi R,
    5. Pfleiderer W, and
    6. Schmidt HH
    (2000) Allosteric regulation of neuronal nitric oxide synthase by tetrahydrobiopterin and suppression of auto-damaging superoxide. Biochem J 346:767–776.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  156. ↵
    1. Kris-Etherton PM,
    2. Lichtenstein AH,
    3. Howard BV,
    4. Steinberg D,
    5. Witztum JL, and Nutrition Committee of the American Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism
    (2004) Antioxidant vitamin supplements and cardiovascular disease. Circulation 110:637–641.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  157. ↵
    1. Krzysztoń-Russjan J,
    2. Zielonka D,
    3. Jackiewicz J,
    4. Kuśmirek S,
    5. Bubko I,
    6. Klimberg A,
    7. Marcinkowski JT, and
    8. Anuszewska EL
    (2013) A study of molecular changes relating to energy metabolism and cellular stress in people with Huntington’s disease: looking for biomarkers. J Bioenerg Biomembr 45:71–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  158. ↵
    1. Kumar MJ,
    2. Nicholls DG, and
    3. Andersen JK
    (2003) Oxidative α-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase inhibition via subtle elevations in monoamine oxidase B levels results in loss of spare respiratory capacity: implications for Parkinson’s disease. J Biol Chem 278:46432–46439.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  159. ↵
    1. Lan T,
    2. Kisseleva T, and
    3. Brenner DA
    (2015) Deficiency of NOX1 or NOX4 prevents liver inflammation and fibrosis in mice through inhibition of hepatic stellate cell activation. PLoS One 10:e0129743.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  160. ↵
    1. Landmesser U,
    2. Spiekermann S,
    3. Preuss C,
    4. Sorrentino S,
    5. Fischer D,
    6. Manes C,
    7. Mueller M, and
    8. Drexler H
    (2007) Angiotensin II induces endothelial xanthine oxidase activation: role for endothelial dysfunction in patients with coronary disease. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 27:943–948.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  161. ↵
    1. Langhauser F,
    2. Casas AI,
    3. Dao V-T-V,
    4. Guney E,
    5. Menche J,
    6. Geuss E,
    7. Kleikers PWM,
    8. López MG,
    9. Barabási A-L,
    10. Kleinschnitz C, et al.
    (2018) A diseasome cluster-based drug repurposing of soluble guanylate cyclase activators from smooth muscle relaxation to direct neuroprotection. NPJ Syst Biol Appl 4:8.
    OpenUrl
  162. ↵
    1. Lapchak PA
    (2010) A critical assessment of edaravone acute ischemic stroke efficacy trials: is edaravone an effective neuroprotective therapy? Expert Opin Pharmacother 11:1753–1763.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  163. ↵
    1. Lazarević-Pasti T,
    2. Leskovac A, and
    3. Vasić V
    (2015) Myeloperoxidase inhibitors as potential drugs. Curr Drug Metab 16:168–190.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  164. ↵
    1. Lee M-S,
    2. Flammer AJ,
    3. Lerman LO, and
    4. Lerman A
    (2012) Personalized medicine in cardiovascular diseases. Korean Circ J 42:583–591.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  165. ↵
    1. Lee SR,
    2. An EJ,
    3. Kim J, and
    4. Bae YS
    (2020) Function of NADPH oxidases in diabetic nephropathy and development of nox inhibitors. Biomol Ther (Seoul) 28:25–33.
    OpenUrl
  166. ↵
    1. Lees KR,
    2. Zivin JA,
    3. Ashwood T,
    4. Davalos A,
    5. Davis SM,
    6. Diener H-C,
    7. Grotta J,
    8. Lyden P,
    9. Shuaib A,
    10. Hårdemark H-G, et al., and Stroke-Acute Ischemic NXY Treatment (SAINT I) Trial Investigators
    (2006) NXY-059 for acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med 354:588–600.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  167. ↵
    1. Lei S,
    2. Zhang P,
    3. Li W,
    4. Gao M,
    5. He X,
    6. Zheng J,
    7. Li X,
    8. Wang X,
    9. Wang N,
    10. Zhang J, et al.
    (2014) Pre- and posttreatment with edaravone protects CA1 hippocampus and enhances neurogenesis in the subgranular zone of dentate gyrus after transient global cerebral ischemia in rats. ASN Neuro 6:175909141455841.
    OpenUrl
  168. ↵
    1. Li J,
    2. Fu Y,
    3. Zhao B,
    4. Xiao Y, and
    5. Chen R
    (2014) Myeloperoxidase G463A polymorphism and risk of lung cancer. Tumour Biol 35:821–829.
    OpenUrl
  169. ↵
    1. Li Q,
    2. Youn J-Y, and
    3. Cai H
    (2015) Mechanisms and consequences of endothelial nitric oxide synthase dysfunction in hypertension. J Hypertens 33:1128–1136.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  170. ↵
    1. Li Y,
    2. Cifuentes-Pagano E,
    3. DeVallance ER,
    4. de Jesus DS,
    5. Sahoo S,
    6. Meijles DN,
    7. Koes D,
    8. Camacho CJ,
    9. Ross M,
    10. St Croix C, et al.
    (2019) NADPH oxidase 2 inhibitors CPP11G and CPP11H attenuate endothelial cell inflammation & vessel dysfunction and restore mouse hind-limb flow. Redox Biol 22:101143.
    OpenUrl
  171. ↵
    1. Li Y and
    2. Pagano PJ
    (2017) Microvascular NADPH oxidase in health and disease. Free Radic Biol Med 109:33–47.
    OpenUrl
  172. ↵
    1. Libby P,
    2. Ridker PM, and
    3. Hansson GK
    (2011) Progress and challenges in translating the biology of atherosclerosis. Nature 473:317–325.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  173. ↵
    1. Liu AC,
    2. Lee M,
    3. McManus BM, and
    4. Choy JC
    (2012) Induction of endothelial nitric oxide synthase expression by IL-17 in human vascular endothelial cells: implications for vascular remodeling in transplant vasculopathy. J Immunol 188:1544–1550.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  174. ↵
    1. Lonn E,
    2. Bosch J,
    3. Yusuf S,
    4. Sheridan P,
    5. Pogue J,
    6. Arnold JM,
    7. Ross C,
    8. Arnold A,
    9. Sleight P,
    10. Probstfield J, et al., and HOPE and HOPE-TOO Trial Investigators
    (2005) Effects of long-term vitamin E supplementation on cardiovascular events and cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 293:1338–1347.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  175. ↵
    1. Ludolph AC,
    2. Schuster J,
    3. Dorst J,
    4. Dupuis L,
    5. Dreyhaupt J,
    6. Weishaupt JH,
    7. Kassubek J,
    8. Weiland U,
    9. Petri S,
    10. Meyer T, et al., and RAS-ALS Study Group
    (2018) Safety and efficacy of rasagiline as an add-on therapy to riluzole in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol 17:681–688.
    OpenUrl
  176. ↵
    1. Luecke K,
    2. Gasiorowski L,
    3. Herold S,
    4. Brychta N,
    5. Gallerani G,
    6. Krahn T,
    7. Fabbri F,
    8. Dyszkiewicz W, and
    9. Schumann C
    (2015) The GILUPI CellCollector as an in vivo tool for circulating tumor cell enumeration and molecular characterization in lung cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 33:e22035.
    OpenUrl
  177. ↵
    1. Lum CT and
    2. Stahl SM
    (2012) Opportunities for reversible inhibitors of monoamine oxidase-A (RIMAs) in the treatment of depression. CNS Spectr 17:107–120.
    OpenUrl
  178. ↵
    1. Maghzal GJ,
    2. Krause K-H,
    3. Stocker R, and
    4. Jaquet V
    (2012) Detection of reactive oxygen species derived from the family of NOX NADPH oxidases. Free Radic Biol Med 53:1903–1918.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  179. ↵
    1. Malle E,
    2. Furtmüller PG,
    3. Sattler W, and
    4. Obinger C
    (2007) Myeloperoxidase: a target for new drug development? Br J Pharmacol 152:838–854.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  180. ↵
    1. Manach C,
    2. Williamson G,
    3. Morand C,
    4. Scalbert A, and
    5. Rémésy C
    (2005) Bioavailability and bioefficacy of polyphenols in humans. I. Review of 97 bioavailability studies. Am J Clin Nutr 81 (1 Suppl):230S–242S.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  181. ↵
    1. Manni ME,
    2. Rigacci S,
    3. Borchi E,
    4. Bargelli V,
    5. Miceli C,
    6. Giordano C,
    7. Raimondi L, and
    8. Nediani C
    (2016) Monoamine oxidase is overactivated in left and right ventricles from ischemic hearts: an intriguing therapeutic target. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2016:4375418.
    OpenUrl
  182. ↵
    1. Marchioli R
    (1999) Dietary supplementation with n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and vitamin E after myocardial infarction: results of the GISSI-Prevenzione trial. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell’Infarto miocardico. Lancet 354:447–455.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  183. ↵
    1. Martinon F,
    2. Pétrilli V,
    3. Mayor A,
    4. Tardivel A, and
    5. Tschopp J
    (2006) Gout-associated uric acid crystals activate the NALP3 inflammasome. Nature 440:237–241.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  184. ↵
    1. McCord JM and
    2. Fridovich I
    (1988) Superoxide dismutase: the first twenty years (1968-1988). Free Radic Biol Med 5:363–369.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  185. ↵
    1. McDougall GJ,
    2. Fyffe S,
    3. Dobson P, and
    4. Stewart D
    (2005) Anthocyanins from red wine--their stability under simulated gastrointestinal digestion. Phytochemistry 66:2540–2548.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  186. ↵
    1. McGarry A,
    2. McDermott M,
    3. Kieburtz K,
    4. de Blieck EA,
    5. Beal F,
    6. Marder K,
    7. Ross C,
    8. Shoulson I,
    9. Gilbert P,
    10. Mallonee WM, et al., and Huntington Study Group 2CARE Investigators and Coordinators
    (2017) A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of coenzyme Q10 in Huntington disease. Neurology 88:152–159.
    OpenUrl
  187. ↵
    1. Melichar VO,
    2. Behr-Roussel D,
    3. Zabel U,
    4. Uttenthal LO,
    5. Rodrigo J,
    6. Rupin A,
    7. Verbeuren TJ,
    8. Kumar H S A, and
    9. Schmidt HHHW
    (2004) Reduced cGMP signaling associated with neointimal proliferation and vascular dysfunction in late-stage atherosclerosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:16671–16676.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  188. ↵
    1. Menche J,
    2. Sharma A,
    3. Kitsak M,
    4. Ghiassian SD,
    5. Vidal M,
    6. Loscalzo J, and
    7. Barabasi A-L
    (2015) Disease networks. Uncovering disease-disease relationships through the incomplete interactome. Science 347:1257601.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  189. ↵
    1. Meurer S,
    2. Pioch S,
    3. Pabst T,
    4. Opitz N,
    5. Schmidt PM,
    6. Beckhaus T,
    7. Wagner K,
    8. Matt S,
    9. Gegenbauer K,
    10. Geschka S, et al.
    (2009) Nitric oxide-independent vasodilator rescues heme-oxidized soluble guanylate cyclase from proteasomal degradation. Circ Res 105:33–41.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  190. ↵
    1. Misko TP,
    2. Radabaugh MR,
    3. Highkin M,
    4. Abrams M,
    5. Friese O,
    6. Gallavan R,
    7. Bramson C,
    8. Hellio Le Graverand MP,
    9. Lohmander LS, and
    10. Roman D
    (2013) Characterization of nitrotyrosine as a biomarker for arthritis and joint injury. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 21:151–156.
    OpenUrl
  191. ↵
    1. Miyaji Y,
    2. Yoshimura S,
    3. Sakai N,
    4. Yamagami H,
    5. Egashira Y,
    6. Shirakawa M,
    7. Uchida K,
    8. Kageyama H, and
    9. Tomogane Y
    (2015) Effect of edaravone on favorable outcome in patients with acute cerebral large vessel occlusion: subanalysis of RESCUE-Japan Registry. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 55:241–247.
    OpenUrl
  192. ↵
    1. Moens AL,
    2. Ketner EA,
    3. Takimoto E,
    4. Schmidt TS,
    5. O’Neill CA,
    6. Wolin MS,
    7. Alp NJ,
    8. Channon KM, and
    9. Kass DA
    (2011) Bi-modal dose-dependent cardiac response to tetrahydrobiopterin in pressure-overload induced hypertrophy and heart failure. J Mol Cell Cardiol 51:564–569.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  193. ↵
    1. Moreno JC,
    2. Bikker H,
    3. Kempers MJE,
    4. van Trotsenburg ASP,
    5. Baas F,
    6. de Vijlder JJM,
    7. Vulsma T, and
    8. Ris-Stalpers C
    (2002) Inactivating mutations in the gene for thyroid oxidase 2 (THOX2) and congenital hypothyroidism. N Engl J Med 347:95–102.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  194. ↵
    1. Morrow JD,
    2. Qiu W,
    3. Chhabra D,
    4. Rennard SI,
    5. Belloni P,
    6. Belousov A,
    7. Pillai SG, and
    8. Hersh CP
    (2015) Identifying a gene expression signature of frequent COPD exacerbations in peripheral blood using network methods. BMC Med Genomics 8:1 DOI: 10.1186/s12920-014-0072-y.
    OpenUrl
  195. ↵
    1. Mullan K,
    2. Cardwell CR,
    3. McGuinness B,
    4. Woodside JV, and
    5. McKay GJ
    (2018) Plasma antioxidant status in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and cognitively intact elderly: a meta-analysis of case-control studies. J Alzheimers Dis 62:305–317.
    OpenUrl
  196. ↵
    1. Myung S-K,
    2. Ju W,
    3. Cho B,
    4. Oh S-W,
    5. Park SM,
    6. Koo B-K,
    7. Park B-J, and Korean Meta-Analysis Study Group
    (2013) Efficacy of vitamin and antioxidant supplements in prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 346:f10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  197. ↵
    1. Nagase M,
    2. Yamamoto Y,
    3. Miyazaki Y, and
    4. Yoshino H
    (2016) Increased oxidative stress in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and the effect of edaravone administration. Redox Rep 21:104–112.
    OpenUrl
  198. ↵
    1. Nagra RM,
    2. Becher B,
    3. Tourtellotte WW,
    4. Antel JP,
    5. Gold D,
    6. Paladino T,
    7. Smith RA,
    8. Nelson JR, and
    9. Reynolds WF
    (1997) Immunohistochemical and genetic evidence of myeloperoxidase involvement in multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimmunol 78:97–107.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  199. ↵
    1. Narasimhulu CA and
    2. Vardhan S
    (2015) Therapeutic potential of Ocimum tenuiflorum as MPO inhibitor with implications for atherosclerosis prevention. J Med Food 18:507–515.
    OpenUrl
  200. ↵
    1. Nastase M-V,
    2. Zeng-Brouwers J,
    3. Frey H,
    4. Hsieh LT-H,
    5. Poluzzi C,
    6. Beckmann J,
    7. Schroeder N,
    8. Pfeilschifter J,
    9. Lopez-Mosqueda J,
    10. Mersmann J, et al.
    (2016) An essential role for SHARPIN in the regulation of caspase 1 activity in sepsis. Am J Pathol 186:1206–1220.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  201. ↵
    1. Nedvetsky PI,
    2. Sessa WC, and
    3. Schmidt HHHW
    (2002) There’s NO binding like NOS binding: protein-protein interactions in NO/cGMP signaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:16510–16512.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  202. ↵
    1. Nezis IP and
    2. Stenmark H
    (2012) p62 at the interface of autophagy, oxidative stress signaling, and cancer. Antioxid Redox Signal 17:786–793.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  203. ↵
    1. Nicholls SJ and
    2. Hazen SL
    (2005) Myeloperoxidase and cardiovascular disease. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 25:1102–1111.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  204. ↵
    1. Nlandu Khodo S,
    2. Dizin E,
    3. Sossauer G,
    4. Szanto I,
    5. Martin P-Y,
    6. Feraille E,
    7. Krause KH, and
    8. de Seigneux S
    (2012) NADPH-oxidase 4 protects against kidney fibrosis during chronic renal injury. J Am Soc Nephrol 23:1967–1976.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  205. ↵
    1. Nosengo N
    (2016) Can you teach old drugs new tricks? Nature 534:314–316.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  206. ↵
    1. Nossaman B,
    2. Pankey E, and
    3. Kadowitz P
    (2012) Stimulators and activators of soluble guanylate cyclase: review and potential therapeutic indications. Crit Care Res Pract 2012:290805.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  207. ↵
    1. Odalys OC,
    2. William QP,
    3. Luis PY,
    4. Miladys OC,
    5. Reinaldo MG, and
    6. María PM
    (2015) Chronic granulomatous disease: a case report. Front Immunol 6.
  208. ↵
    1. Odell EW and
    2. Segal AW
    (1988) The bactericidal effects of the respiratory burst and the myeloperoxidase system isolated in neutrophil cytoplasts. Biochim Biophys Acta 971:266–274.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  209. ↵
    1. Ogier-Denis E,
    2. Mkaddem SB, and
    3. Vandewalle A
    (2008) NOX enzymes and Toll-like receptor signaling. Semin Immunopathol 30:291–300.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  210. ↵
    1. Ooi J,
    2. Hayden MR, and
    3. Pouladi MA
    (2015) Inhibition of excessive monoamine oxidase A/B activity protects against stress-induced neuronal death in Huntington disease. Mol Neurobiol 52:1850–1861.
    OpenUrl
  211. ↵
    1. Otomo E,
    2. Tohgi H,
    3. Kogure K,
    4. Hirai S,
    5. Takakura K,
    6. Terashi A,
    7. Gotoh F,
    8. Maruyama S,
    9. Tazaki Y,
    10. Shinohara Y, et al., and Edaravone Acute Infarction Study Group
    (2003) Effect of a novel free radical scavenger, edaravone (MCI-186), on acute brain infarction. Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study at multicenters. Cerebrovasc Dis 15:222–229.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  212. ↵
    1. Paffenholz R,
    2. Bergstrom RA,
    3. Pasutto F,
    4. Wabnitz P,
    5. Munroe RJ,
    6. Jagla W,
    7. Heinzmann U,
    8. Marquardt A,
    9. Bareiss A,
    10. Laufs J, et al.
    (2004) Vestibular defects in head-tilt mice result from mutations in Nox3, encoding an NADPH oxidase. Genes Dev 18:486–491.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  213. ↵
    1. Pajares M,
    2. Cuadrado A,
    3. Engedal N,
    4. Jirsova Z, and
    5. Cahova M
    (2018) The role of free radicals in autophagy regulation: implications for ageing. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2018:2450748.
    OpenUrl
  214. ↵
    1. Pajares M,
    2. Cuadrado A, and
    3. Rojo AI
    (2017) Modulation of proteostasis by transcription factor NRF2 and impact in neurodegenerative diseases. Redox Biol 11:543–553.
    OpenUrl
  215. ↵
    1. Pchejetski D,
    2. Kunduzova O,
    3. Dayon A,
    4. Calise D,
    5. Seguelas M-H,
    6. Leducq N,
    7. Seif I,
    8. Parini A, and
    9. Cuvillier O
    (2007) Oxidative stress-dependent sphingosine kinase-1 inhibition mediates monoamine oxidase A-associated cardiac cell apoptosis. Circ Res 100:41–49.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  216. ↵
    1. Peng J-J,
    2. Xiong S-Q,
    3. Ding L-X,
    4. Peng J, and
    5. Xia X-B
    (2019) Diabetic retinopathy: focus on NADPH oxidase and its potential as therapeutic target. Eur J Pharmacol 853:381–387.
    OpenUrl
  217. ↵
    1. Pérez-Torres I,
    2. Guarner-Lans V, and
    3. Rubio-Ruiz ME
    (2017) Reductive stress in inflammation-associated diseases and the pro-oxidant effect of antioxidant agents. Int J Mol Sci 18:2098.
    OpenUrl
  218. ↵
    1. Pfeiffer S,
    2. Leopold E,
    3. Schmidt K,
    4. Brunner F, and
    5. Mayer B
    (1996) Inhibition of nitric oxide synthesis by NG-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester (L-NAME): requirement for bioactivation to the free acid, NG-nitro-L-arginine. Br J Pharmacol 118:1433–1440.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  219. ↵
    1. Pirro M,
    2. Schillaci G,
    3. Mannarino MR,
    4. Savarese G,
    5. Vaudo G,
    6. Siepi D,
    7. Paltriccia R, and
    8. Mannarino E
    (2007) Effects of rosuvastatin on 3-nitrotyrosine and aortic stiffness in hypercholesterolemia. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 17:436–441.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  220. ↵
    1. Ramsaransing G,
    2. Teelken A,
    3. Prokopenko VM,
    4. Arutjunyan AV, and
    5. De Keyser J
    (2003) Low leucocyte myeloperoxidase activity in patients with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 74:953–955.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  221. ↵
    1. Ray RS and
    2. Katyal A
    (2016) Myeloperoxidase: bridging the gap in neurodegeneration. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 68:611–620.
    OpenUrl
  222. ↵
    1. Reif A,
    2. Fröhlich LG,
    3. Kotsonis P,
    4. Frey A,
    5. Bömmel HM,
    6. Wink DA,
    7. Pfleiderer W, and
    8. Schmidt HHHW
    (1999) Tetrahydrobiopterin inhibits monomerization and is consumed during catalysis in neuronal NO synthase. J Biol Chem 274:24921–24929.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  223. ↵
    1. Rezende F,
    2. Löwe O,
    3. Helfinger V,
    4. Prior K-K,
    5. Walter M,
    6. Zukunft S,
    7. Fleming I,
    8. Weissmann N,
    9. Brandes RP, and
    10. Schröder K
    (2016) Unchanged NADPH oxidase activity in Nox1-Nox2-Nox4 triple knockout mice: what do NADPH-stimulated chemiluminescence assays really detect? Antioxid Redox Signal 24:392–399.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  224. ↵
    1. Richardot P,
    2. Charni-Ben Tabassi N,
    3. Toh L,
    4. Marotte H,
    5. Bay-Jensen A-C,
    6. Miossec P, and
    7. Garnero P
    (2009) Nitrated type III collagen as a biological marker of nitric oxide-mediated synovial tissue metabolism in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 17:1362–1367.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  225. ↵
    1. Rigutto S,
    2. Hoste C,
    3. Grasberger H,
    4. Milenkovic M,
    5. Communi D,
    6. Dumont JE,
    7. Corvilain B,
    8. Miot F, and
    9. De Deken X
    (2009) Activation of dual oxidases Duox1 and Duox2: differential regulation mediated by camp-dependent protein kinase and protein kinase C-dependent phosphorylation. J Biol Chem 284:6725–6734.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  226. ↵
    1. Rocha-Penha L,
    2. Caldeira-Dias M,
    3. Tanus-Santos JE,
    4. de Carvalho Cavalli R, and
    5. Sandrim VC
    (2017) Myeloperoxidase in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and its relation with nitric oxide. Hypertension 69:1173–1180.
    OpenUrl
  227. ↵
    1. Rojo AI,
    2. Pajares M,
    3. García-Yagüe AJ,
    4. Buendia I,
    5. Van Leuven F,
    6. Yamamoto M,
    7. López MG, and
    8. Cuadrado A
    (2018) Deficiency in the transcription factor NRF2 worsens inflammatory parameters in a mouse model with combined tauopathy and amyloidopathy. Redox Biol 18:173–180.
    OpenUrl
  228. ↵
    1. Rojo AI,
    2. Pajares M,
    3. Rada P,
    4. Nuñez A,
    5. Nevado-Holgado AJ,
    6. Killik R,
    7. Van Leuven