It seems fitting that molecular oxygen serves as the terminal electron acceptor for disulfide formation since its reduction potential is greater than all other biological oxidants. However, the complete four-electron reduction of molecular oxygen to water is kinetically sluggish, and the reduction intermediates and byproducts such as superoxide and hydrogen peroxide are highly reactive and damaging to macromolecules. In bacteria, this problem is solved by coupling oxidative folding to the respiratory chain (
Bader et al., 1999), which consists of a complex series of membrane electron transfer proteins that efficiently reduce molecular oxygen to water. However, since in eukaryotes oxidative folding and respiration are confined to separate organelles (ER versus mitochondria), the Ero1p oxidation system has evolved to function independently of respiration and has adopted the use of flavin-based redox chemistry (
Tu et al., 2000). In contrast to quinones, FAD is a relatively weak oxidant due to a low redox potential, but the ability of FAD-bound Ero1p to rapidly pass electrons directly to O
2 provides the driving force for eukaryotic disulfide formation (
Tu and Weissman, 2002).
The fate of the molecular oxygen consumed by Ero1p remains unclear. A standard two-electron reduction of O
2 produces hydrogen peroxide (H
2O
2). It does not appear that Ero1p is releasing stoichiometric amounts of hydrogen peroxide per disulfide formed, although substoichiometric amounts of hydrogen peroxide can be detected during its catalysis of disulfide formation (
Tu and Weissman, 2002). However, on the cellular level, recent studies suggest that uncontrolled Ero1p oxidase activity could be a significant source of oxidative stress.
Harding et al. (2003) have recently found that ER stress can lead to the acute production of reactive oxygen species. Stressing the ER in worms lacking the transmembrane kinase PERK, which phosphorylates eIF2α to decrease global translation upon ER stress (
Harding et al., 1999), leads to a significant accumulation of peroxides in the cell, and lowering Ero1p function by RNAi largely eliminates this effect (
Harding et al., 2003).
These observations indicate that Ero1p could be responsible for a significant proportion of ROS in the cell. A simple calculation indicates the plausibility of this hypothesis. Assuming ~1/3 of all proteins are secretory proteins, one disulfide must be formed for every ~500 amino acids translated. If the equivalent of approximately three ATP are consumed per amino acid translated (
Stryer, 1995), then one disulfide is formed for every ~1,500 ATP. ROS from ATP production occurs at 1–2% frequency (
Stryer, 1995), and if approximately four to five ATP are produced per molecule of oxygen reduced, then one to two molecules of ROS are expected per 500 ATP produced through respiration. Assuming one molecule of ROS is produced per disulfide formed, Ero1p-mediated oxidation could account for up to ~25% of cellular ROS produced during protein synthesis, which has been suggested by a recent study to be the major source of cellular energy consumption (
Princiotta et al., 2003). ROS production by Ero1p appeared significant but substoichiometric, which may be a limitation of the detection method (
Tu and Weissman, 2002). The mechanism and extent of ROS production by Ero1p needs to be explored further. Nonetheless, it is clear that disulfide formation could contribute a significant source of ROS, especially in specialized secretory cells. Many secretory proteins also contain large numbers of disulfides, and their proper formation may require multiple cycles of misoxidation, reduction, and reoxidation. In addition, Ero1p activity is the main source of oxidized glutathione (GSSG) in the cell (
Cuozzo and Kaiser, 1999;
Tu et al., 2000), which contributes an additional source of oxidative stress.
Thus, Ero1p activity may be a substantial source of oxidative stress, necessitating proper regulation of oxidative folding and the function of reductant systems in the ER. It is likely to be important for a cell to tie protein oxidation to its folding load, since without control of oxidative folding, the ER could become over-oxidized, leading to protein misfolding, the production of reactive oxygen species and oxidized glutathione, and the futile consumption of energy in the form of reducing equivalents. This production of oxidizing equivalents may also need to be controlled in order to facilitate the maintenance of PDI homologues and perhaps a portion of PDI itself in a reduced form, and to minimize the intrinsic toxicity caused by oxidative stress associated with disulfide formation. UPR induction is one mechanism to regulate oxidative folding, but there may be more direct means of regulation. As the Ero1p oxidation system is highly responsive to levels of free FAD in the cell, controlling the levels of free FAD available to Ero1p may be a posttranslational mechanism to regulate oxidative folding according to the cell's needs. Although speculative, it is interesting to note that
RIB1, which controls the first step of riboflavin biosynthesis, is a target of the UPR (
Travers et al., 2000). Moreover, preliminary experiments indicate that free FAD levels in yeast can vary according to its growth phase and conditions (unpublished data). Alternatively, free FAD levels in the ER could be controlled by a FAD-specific transporter.