Biochemical Discrimination between Selenium and Sulfur 1: A Single Residue Provides Selenium Specificity to Human Selenocysteine Lyase

Selenium and sulfur are two closely related basic elements utilized in nature for a vast array of biochemical reactions. While toxic at higher concentrations, selenium is an essential trace element incorporated into selenoproteins as selenocysteine (Sec), the selenium analogue of cysteine (Cys). Sec lyases (SCLs) and Cys desulfurases (CDs) catalyze the removal of selenium or sulfur from Sec or Cys and generally act on both substrates. In contrast, human SCL (hSCL) is specific for Sec although the only difference between Sec and Cys is the identity of a single atom. The chemical basis of this selenium-over-sulfur discrimination is not understood. Here we describe the X-ray crystal structure of hSCL and identify Asp146 as the key residue that provides the Sec specificity. A D146K variant resulted in loss of Sec specificity and appearance of CD activity. A dynamic active site segment also provides the structural prerequisites for direct product delivery of selenide produced by Sec cleavage, thus avoiding release of reactive selenide species into the cell. We thus here define a molecular determinant for enzymatic specificity discrimination between a single selenium versus sulfur atom, elements with very similar chemical properties. Our findings thus provide molecular insights into a key level of control in human selenium and selenoprotein turnover and metabolism

Effects of losartan vs candesartan in reducing cardiovascular events in the primary treatment of hypertension

Although angiotensin receptor blockers have different receptor binding properties no comparative studies with cardiovascular disease (CVD) end points have been performed within this class of drugs. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that there are blood pressure independent CVD-risk differences between losartan and candesartan treatment in patients with hypertension without known CVD. Seventy-two primary care centres in Sweden were screened for patients who had been prescribed losartan or candesartan between the years 1999 and 2007. Among the 24 943 eligible patients, 14 100 patients were diagnosed with hypertension and prescribed losartan (n=6771) or candesartan (n=7329). Patients were linked to Swedish national hospitalizations and death cause register. There was no difference in blood pressure reduction when comparing the losartan and candesartan groups during follow-up. Compared with the losartan group, the candesartan group had a lower adjusted hazard ratio for total CVD (0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77–0.96, P=0.0062), heart failure (0.64, 95% CI 0.50–0.82, P=0.0004), cardiac arrhythmias (0.80, 95% CI 0.65–0.92, P=0.0330), and peripheral artery disease (0.61, 95% CI 0.41–0.91, P=0.0140). No difference in blood pressure reduction was observed suggesting that other mechanisms related to different pharmacological properties of the drugs may explain the divergent clinical outcomes

Losartan modulates muscular capillary density and reverses thiazide diuretic-exacerbated insulin resistance in fructose-fed rats

The renin–angiotensin system (RAS) is involved in the pathogenesis of insulin sensitivity (IS). The role of RAS in insulin resistance and muscular circulation has yet to be elucidated. Therefore, this study sought to determine the mechanisms of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and/or diuretics on IS and capillary density (CD) in fructose-fed rats (FFRs). Sprague-Dawley rats were fed either normal chow (control group) or fructose-rich chow for 8 weeks. For the last 4 weeks, FFRs were allocated to four groups: an FFR group and groups treated with the thiazide diuretic hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), with the ARB losartan, or both. IS was evaluated by the euglycemic hyperinsulinemic glucose clamp technique at week 8. In addition, CD in the extensor digitorum longus muscle was evaluated. Blood pressure was significantly higher in the FFRs than in the controls. HCTZ, losartan and their combination significantly lowered blood pressure. IS was significantly lower in the FFR group than in the controls and was even lower in the HCTZ group. Losartan alone or combined with HCTZ significantly increased IS. In all cases, IS was associated with muscular CD, but not with plasma adiponectin or lipids. These results indicate that losartan reverses HCTZ-exacerbated insulin resistance, which can be mediated through the modulation of muscular circulation in rats with impaired glucose metabolism

Reno-protective effects of renin–angiotensin system blockade in type 2 diabetic patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the renal outcomes between ACE inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) and other antihypertensive drugs or placebo in type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Publications were identified from Medline and Embase up to July 2011. Only randomised controlled trials comparing ACEI/ARB monotherapy with other active drugs or placebo were eligible. The outcome of end-stage renal disease, doubling of serum creatinine, microvascular complications, microalbuminuria, macroalbuminuria and albuminuria regression were extracted. Risk ratios were pooled using a random-effects model if heterogeneity was present; a fixed-effects model was used in the absence of heterogeneity. RESULTS: Of 673 studies identified, 28 were eligible (n = 13-4,912). In direct meta-analysis, ACEI/ARB had significantly lower risk of serum creatinine doubling (pooled RR = 0.66 [95% CI 0.52, 0.83]), macroalbuminuria (pooled RR = 0.70 [95% CI 0.50, 1.00]) and albuminuria regression (pooled RR 1.16 [95% CI 1.00, 1.39]) than other antihypertensive drugs, mainly calcium channel blockers (CCBs). Although the risks of end-stage renal disease and microalbuminuria were lower in the ACEI/ARB group (pooled RR 0.82 [95% CI 0.64, 1.05] and 0.84 [95% CI 0.61, 1.15], respectively), the differences were not statistically significant. The ACEI/ARB benefit over placebo was significant for all outcomes except microalbuminuria. A network meta-analysis detected significant treatment effects across all outcomes for both active drugs and placebo comparisons. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Our review suggests a consistent reno-protective effect of ACEI/ARB over other antihypertensive drugs, mainly CCBs, and placebo in type 2 diabetes. The lack of any differences in BP decrease between ACEI/ARB and active comparators suggest this benefit is not due simply to the antihypertensive effect