Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Understanding the controversy over the identity of EDRF

Abstract

THIRTEEN years after its discovery1, there is still controversy over the chemical identity of endothelium-derived relaxing factor (EDRF). Although pharmacological and chemical evidence indicates that EDRF is nitric oxide2, other candidates, including S-nitrosocysteine3,4, dinitrosyl–iron–cysteine complex5, nitroxyl6 and hydroxylamine7, have been proposed to account for the vasorelaxant properties of EDRF. Such diverse compounds should differ in their stability and in reactivity with oxhaemoglobin and with redox-active nucleophiles such as thiols. Here we use a bioassay to compare the pharmacodynamic profiles of these and other compounds with those of nitric oxide and EDRF. We find that some S-nitrosothiols, dinitrosyl–iron–cysteine complex, sodium nitroxyl and hydroxylamine can be eliminated as candidates as they are more stable than EDRF and less susceptible to inhibition by oxyhaemoglobin. Co-infusion of cysteine revealed major differences between the remaining candidates because it reduced the effect of authentic nitric oxide and EDRF on the bioassay tissues but enhanced the survival of S-nitrosocysteine and S-nitroso-cysteamine. Our results further support the evidence that EDRF, the pharmacological entity described by Furchgott and Zawadzki1, is nitric oxide.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Furchgott, R. F. & Zawadzki, J. V. Nature 288, 373–376 (1980).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Palmer, R. M. J., Ferrige, A. G. & Moncada, S. Nature 327, 524–526 (1987).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Myers, P. R., Minor, R. L. Jr, Guerra, R. Jr, Bates, J. & Harrison, D. G. Nature 345, 161–163 (1990).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rubanyi, G. M., Johns, A., Harrison, D. & Wilcox, D. Circulation (suppl.) 80, 11–281 (abstr.) (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Vanin, A. F. FEBS LETT. 289, 1–3 (1991).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Fukuto, J. M., Hszieh, R. & Chiang, K. T. FASEB J. 6, A972 (abstr.) (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Thomas, G. & Ramwell, P. W. Biochem. biophys. Res. Commun. 164, 889–893 (1989).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Palmer, R. M. J., Ferrige, A. G. & Moncada, S. Nature 327, 524–526 (1987).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lewis, S. J. et al. FASEB J. 6, A1165 (abstr.) (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Flitney, F. W., Megson, I. L., Flitney, D. E. & Butler, A. R. Br. J. Pharmac. 107, 842–848 (1992).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Furchgott, R. F., Jothianandan, D. & Khan, M. T. Jpn. J. Pharmac. 58, (Suppl. 2), 185P–191P (1992).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Stamler, J. S. et al. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 89, 444–448 (1992).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Misra, H. P. J. biol. Chem. 269, 2151–2155 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Moncada, S., Palmer, R. M. J. & Gryglewski, R. J. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 83, 9164–9168 (1986).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Zamora Pino, R. & Feelisch, M. Endothelium 1, S69 (abstr.) (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fukuto, J. M., Chiang, K., Hszieh, R., Wong, P. & Chaudhuri, G. J. Pharmac. exp. Ther. 263, 546–551 (1992).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. McAninly, J., Williams, D. L. H., Askew, S. C., Butler, A. R. & Russell, C. JCS chem. Commun. 23, 1758–1759 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jocelyn, P. C. Biochemistry of the SH Group (Academic, New York, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Feelisch, M. J. cardiovasc. Pharmac. 17, S25–S33 (1991).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Vedernikov, Y. P., Mordvintcev, P. I., Maienkova, I. V. & Vanin, A. F. Eur. J. Pharmac. 221, 313–317 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zintl, E. & Harder, A. Chem. Ber. 66, 760–761 (1933).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kelm, M. et al. Biochem. biophys. Res. Commun. 154, 236–244 (1988).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Feelisch, M., te Poel, M., Zamora, R. et al. Understanding the controversy over the identity of EDRF. Nature 368, 62–65 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1038/368062a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/368062a0

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing