日本語View as Markdown

Revisiting molecular hydrogen signaling in mitochondria: Is the Rieske protein the entry point or a downstream sentinel?

ミトコンドリアにおける水素シグナル伝達の再考:RieskeタンパクはH2作用の入口か下流センチネルか

review not specified not assessed

Abstract

This review examines recent evidence that molecular hydrogen (H2) suppresses mitochondrial Complex III activity through the Rieske iron-sulfur protein (RISP) and subsequent LONP1-mediated proteolysis, prompting a reassessment of whether RISP constitutes the primary molecular entry point for H2 signaling. From evolutionary and structural perspectives, RISP belongs to a broader family of hydrogenase-like mitochondrial redox proteins sharing ancient iron-sulfur architectures. Candidate proteins including succinate dehydrogenase subunit B (SDHB), Complex I iron-sulfur subunits, and CISD-family [2Fe-2S] proteins exhibit comparable redox properties and strategic positions within mitochondrial bioenergetic networks. The review organizes these candidates into a hierarchical, testable framework and proposes comparative structural, biochemical, and proteostatic approaches to identify the true molecular target of H2 in human mitochondria.

Mechanism

H2 may suppress mitochondrial Complex III via the Rieske iron-sulfur protein (RISP), triggering LONP1-dependent proteolysis; however, SDHB, Complex I iron-sulfur subunits, and CISD-family [2Fe-2S] proteins are proposed as alternative primary molecular targets warranting comparative investigation.

Bibliographic

Authors
Ostojic SM
Journal
Redox Biol
Year
2026
PMID
41496215
DOI
10.1016/j.redox.2026.104003
PMC
PMC12808497

Tags

Mechanism:抗酸化酵素 ヒドロキシルラジカル消去 炎症抑制 ミトコンドリア 酸化ストレス 活性酸素種

Delivery context

The delivery route is not clearly identifiable from this paper. For hydrogen intake, inhalation is the most efficient route; inhalation, however, carries explosion risk (empirical LFL of 10%; high-concentration devices are not recommended).

Safety notes

The delivery route is not clearly identifiable from this paper. For hydrogen intake, inhalation is the most efficient route; inhalation, however, carries explosion risk (empirical LFL of 10%; high-concentration devices are not recommended).

See also:

Cite as: H2 Papers — PMID 41496215. https://h2-papers.org/en/papers/41496215
Source: PubMed PMID 41496215