Kendra L. Nelson
Venkata Saroja Voruganti- 1Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
- 2Nutrition Research Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Kannapolis, NC, United States
Xanthine oxidoreductase (XOR) catalyzes the final steps of purine catabolism: the oxidation of hypoxanthine to xanthine, and xanthine to UA. XOR exists as interconvertible proteoforms, xanthine dehydrogenase (XDH) and xanthine oxidase (XO). The balance between XDH and XO determines whether purine degradation is redox-neutral or strongly pro-oxidant. Evidence across cardiovascular, renal, oncological and neurological disorders shows that excess XO-derived ROS, rather than UA itself, is a likely mediator of tissue injury and clinical progression, with several lines of research linking them to the interplay between XOR and purinergic signaling. Pharmacological inhibition or down-regulation of XO ameliorates pathology even when UA concentrations remain unchanged, underscoring the therapeutic relevance of the proteoform-specific mechanism. This mini-review focuses on the structure, regulation, and pathological roles of XOR, with emphasis on its implications in oxidative stress-related diseases.
Introduction
Purine metabolism is essential for cellular energy balance, nucleic acid turnover, and redox regulation (1, 2). In humans, this pathway encompasses de novo synthesis, salvage, and degradation, culminating in the sequential oxidation of hypoxanthine to xanthine and then to uric acid (UA) (Figure 1) (3). In most other mammals, the enzyme uricase further oxidizes UA into allantoin, though humans lost functional uricase in a series of mutations which occurred between 13–24 million years ago (4–6). This has resulted in humans having a serum urate (soluble ion of UA) concentration approximately five times greater than observed in most other animals (6). This elevated UA concentration may be of great evolutionary importance, as UA primarily functions as an antioxidant when in circulation (7), and it has been hypothesized to be a driver of the large brains and extended life spans of Homo sapiens compared to other mammals which maintain functional uricase (8). UA accounts for about 60% of human body’s antioxidant activity, and neutralizes reactive oxygen and nitrogen species and thus, can confer anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects (9).
Figure 1. Overview of purine metabolism. An overview of the purine metabolism pathway in humans, showing metabolites and enzymes involved in de novo synthesis, salvage, and degradation. ATP, ADP, AMP, Adenosine tri-, di-, mono phosphate; IMP, Inosine monophosphate; GMP, Guanosine monophosphate; XOR, Xanthine oxidoreductase; AS – HPRT, Hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyltransferase; APRT, Adenine phosphoribosyltransferase.
However, research has shown that elevated UA does not always confer benefits. Gout (10, 11), hypertension and cardiovascular disease (CVD) (12, 13), and renal disease (12) are all associated with elevated UA. In pathologies for which UA has been shown to be protective, such as Parkinson’s disease (12, 14, 15) and Multiple Sclerosis (16), associations are not always consistent—evidence exists for both positive and negative associations between UA and these pathologies and others such as cognitive decline (17–19). To explain the lack of consistency, some have focused on the dual role of UA. While primarily considered an antioxidant, UA may serve as a pro-oxidant in some physiological contexts (7, 20). Importantly, the oxidative potential of UA production depends not only on UA itself but on the enzyme responsible for its formation: xanthine oxidoreductase (XOR) (3).
XOR catalyzes the final steps of purine catabolism: the oxidation of hypoxanthine to xanthine, and xanthine to UA. XOR exists as interconvertible proteoforms, xanthine dehydrogenase (XDH) and xanthine oxidase (XO), and while both carry out the same purine conversions, they utilize different electron acceptors, thus generating different byproducts despite culminating in UA (21). XDH carries out the hypoxanthine to xanthine and the xanthine to UA reactions using NAD+ as the electron acceptor, generating NADH as its by product. Conversely, XO uses molecular oxygen as the electron acceptor, generating hydrogen peroxide and superoxides. Thus, degradation of purines resulting in identical UA concentration may result in no additional generation of reactive oxygens species (ROS) when catalyzed by XDH but may result in significant increase in ROS generation when catalyzed by XO (Figure 2) (21). Inconsistency in the association between UA and certain pathologies may then be the result of differences in enzymatic activity generating UA and not the UA concentration itself. This mini-review focuses on the structure, regulation, and pathological roles of XOR, with emphasis on its interaction with purinergic signaling and implications in oxidative stress-related diseases.
Figure 2. Comparison of reactions carried out by XOR proteoforms xanthine dehydrogenase (XDH) and xanthine oxidase (XO). Degradation of hypoxanthine into xanthine and further into uric acid can be carried out using XDH, employing NAD+ as the electron acceptor and generating NADH as its by product, or using XO, employing molecular oxygen as the electron acceptor and generating reactive oxygen species as a byproduct. NADH, Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide; H2O2, Hydrogen peroxide; NAFLD, Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; ROS, Reactive oxygen species.
Xanthine oxidoreductase
XOR is a molybdo-flavoenzyme encoded by the XDH gene on chromosome 2p23.1 and is initially translated as the XDH proteoform. In this state, XDH preferentially uses NAD+ as an electron acceptor, producing NADH as a byproduct in the degradation of purines toward UA, resulting in no additional generation of ROS (21, 22). However, once XDH is expressed, it can be converted to the XO proteoform. In this form molecular oxygen is used as the electron acceptor, resulting in generation of superoxides, and hydrogen peroxide as byproducts in the degradation toward UA. The conversion of XDH to XO can occur via a reversible oxidation reaction or an irreversible proteolytic reaction (21, 23). In conditions of mild oxidative stress, disulfide bonds may form between Cys535 and Cys992 and between Cys1316 and Cys1324 of XDH, resulting in a conformational change in the enzyme to the XO proteoform (23). Reducing agents such as dithiothreitol (DTT) can reverse this change, reverting XO to the XDH form (23).
In more extreme cases, such as hypoxia (24, 25), ischemia (24, 25), or inflammation (21), calcium-dependent proteases cleave XDH into an XO proteoform, resulting in an irreversible shift to XO activity (21). During hypoxia or ischemia, reduced oxygen results in increased thiol oxidation and the formation of disulfide bridges. Rapid oxygen reperfusion can magnify the negative effects, as the reintroduction of oxygen triggers the now-converted XO to generate additional ROS (24–26). In cases of inflammation, cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin-1beta(IL-1β) increase transcription of XDH, and inflammatory conditions promote the proteolytic, irreversible conversion of XDH to XO (27).
This interplay between XDH and XO activity determines the degree to which purine degradation contributes to redox homeostasis or leads to increased oxidative stress and injury (21). XDH activity creates a net antioxidant effect as it generates UA without generating additional ROS (22), while XO activity’s production of UA is partnered with generation of superoxide and hydrogen peroxide (22). Given that this activity is more common under conditions of inflammation and poor antioxidant defense (21, 25), a shift toward XO activity and away from XDH activity promotes excessive oxidative tissue damage (21, 25). Thus, individuals may have equivalent XOR transcription activity, XOR protein content, and UA concentrations but experience vastly different redox states. The activity of the different proteoforms, then, is of critical importance in disease contexts and likely plays some role in the inconsistent associations between UA and certain pathologies reported in previous literature (21, 22). Thus, the products of XOR activities, UA, reduced NADH from XDH and ROS from XO have wide ranging effects. On one hand there are antioxidant and neuroprotective effects of UA and generation of ATP by NADH by donation of electrons to electron transport chain (28). On the other hand, there are detrimental effects of ROS on cellular signaling, inflammation and oxidative stress (27) among many others that are described in this review.
Purinergic signaling and XOR
Purinergic signaling is a communication system involving several nucleotides (ATP, ADP, AMP, UTP, UDP) and nucleoside adenosine (29). The purinergic signaling molecules act as ligands to two families of purinergic receptors, P1 (ADORA1, ADORA2A, ADORA2B, ADORA3) and P2 (P2X and P2Y) (30, 31). P1 receptors are specific to adenosine and P2X receptors are specific to ATP whereas P2Y are activated by ATP, ADP, AMP, and UDP. The system also involves ecto-enzymes known as ectonucleotidases, which catalyze hydrolysis reactions (32). Purinergic receptors are expressed in several cell types and are critical for signaling in processes like neuromodulation, secretion, cell proliferation, differentiation and development, etc. XOR activity and purinergic signaling are closely linked. XOR inhibition provides the purines necessary for purine salvage pathway and affects the subsequent purinergic signaling activity, and the nature of that XOR activity, be it via XO or XDH activity, impacts balance of oxidative species. (33). P1 receptors are of particular interest because the caffeine metabolite methylxanthine, one of many purine metabolites, acts as an antagonist of P1 receptors and competes with adenosine when binding to adenosine receptors (34). Similarly, inosine, a breakdown product of adenosine and a substrate of XOR, also competes with adenosine to bind to P1 receptors (35). However, caffeine and inosine actions are different, one being antagonistic and the other being an agonist to adenosine (36). Also, XOR metabolizes several steps in caffeine catabolism, and caffeine is an inhibitor of XO activity (37). The interplay between XOR and purinergic signaling is crucial for several physiological processes.
Genetic variants in XDH and risk for metabolic diseases
The XDH gene which encodes XOR is found on human chromosome 2 and is comprised of about 60Kb, made up of 27 exons. Mutations in XDH result in type I and II Xanthinuria. Although individuals with these mutations may experience xanthine crystallization into renal calculi, as well as renal failure and myopathies, 50% of them remain asymptomatic. Several XDH genetic variants have been linked to impaired purine metabolism and related-metabolic diseases. In a study in cancer patients in Spain, rs207454 on XDH was linked to survival in breast cancer patients who are progesterone receptor (PGR) negative (38). The same SNP was also linked to survival in patients with gastric cancer in a study from China (39, 40). Other studies that studied XDH SNPs link with oxidative stress related metabolic diseases showed their important role in sepsis and acute respiratory diseases, where the authors postulated that XDH maybe a genetic and biochemical marker for risk outcome for these diseases (41). Others have shown that XDH SNPs are associated with diabetes and kidney disease (42); altered NO2- substrate and O2- levels (43); and blood pressure and incident hypertension (44). Overall, XDH polymorphisms have been implicated in higher ROS and RNS production and oxidative stress (45) and risk for related metabolic diseases. Furthermore, XDH mutations have been shown to affect its gene expression. Massimo et al. showed in COS-7 cells that the mutants Asn909Lys, Thr910Lys, Asn1109Thr, His1221Arg and Pro555Ser in XDH resulted in negligible levels of protein. As compared to the wild type. Likewise, XOR enzymatic activity was also significantly affected by its gene mutations (43).
XOR in obesity, diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
Obesity is a metabolic disorder that is characterized by excess fat accumulation leading to many other metabolic disturbances (46). The imbalance between energy intake and expenditure is key to the development of obesity. Given the close link between energy and purine metabolism, purine metabolites are often implicated in obesity (47). Serum concentrations of urate have been shown to be elevated in obesity and diabetes (48). Similarly, XOR activity is often associated with BMI, independent of UA. In a human study, BMI, smoking, alanine transaminase, triglycerides and insulin resistance as measured by HOMA-IR were independent predictors of XOR activity, which is also negatively linked to adiponectin (49). In a study of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), XOR activity was increased and was positively correlated with BMI and insulin resistance (50). In a study in mice investigating the role of XOR inhibition in obesity, XOR inhibitor increased burning of lipids and activated the purine salvage pathway, thus potentially helping in weight loss (51). When individuals were divided into two categories of low and high XOR activity, the Furuhashi et al. found most of the individuals with obesity were in the higher XOR activity category (49).
XOR in cardiovascular-renal diseases
In circulation, XOR is converted from its dehydrogenase form to oxidase form (52). In vascular dysfunction, pro-inflammatory agents such as IL-1, IL-6, and TNF-α increase transcription of XOR (53) while circulating XO binds to vascular endothelial cells, gaining stability and increasing production of ROS (54). Once this shift occurs, the superoxide radicals generated by the increased XO activity reduces bioavailability of nitric oxide (NO) which in turn impairs vasodilation and promotes oxidative damage of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, promoting plaque formation (52, 53). In cardiac ischemia-reperfusion injuries, XDH conversion to XO is primarily via irreversible proteolysis (25) and results in a large influx of ROS when tissue is reperfused, a mechanism of great import in cases of myocardial infarction, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease (21, 24, 25). The XOR products also modulate arteriolar tone and endothelial function (55).
In cases of essential and secondary hypertension, shifts toward the XO proteoform are seen, especially in the renal vasculature (56). Hypertension risk can also be elevated with increased XOR activity which can increase inflammation, decrease endothelial NO availability, mediate endothelial dysfunction, and activate vascular remodeling (40, 57, 58). The activity of XO in these tissues promotes renal inflammation and injury (59). Inhibitors of XO, such as allopurinol and febuxostat, have been shown to reduce blood pressure and proteinuria in hypertensive and hyperuricemic models due to ROS suppression more so than the lowering of UA concentration (60, 61). The contribution of XOR to chronic kidney disease (CKD) is multifaceted. On one hand, it can increase deposition of urate crystals in the renal tubules and medullary interstitial spaces, causing gouty nephropathy, on the other hand, it can lead to glomerular and tubular injury and fibrosis through its action of increasing ROS. In patients on hemodialysis, glycemic control assumed importance as patients in glycemic control were able to manage their XOR activity and ROS production as compared to others (62). Similarly, the duration of dialysis and the type of renal replacement therapy used seem to affect XOR activity (63). In contrast, a study in rats showed that XDH is essential for kidney maturation and its absence leads to developmental issues and susceptibility to kidney damage in adulthood (64).
XOR in neurological and neurodegenerative diseases
The brain is uniquely vulnerable to oxidative stress due to its high oxygen consumption, abundance of polyunsaturated lipids, and relatively low antioxidant capacity (65, 66). Because of this, the relative activity levels of XDH or XO are of paramount importance. In normal physiological conditions, XOR activity in the brain is low, and the predominate form is XDH, leading to no additional ROS generation (67, 68). However, neuroinflammation, ischemia, or mitochondrial dysfunction can induce shifts, both reversible and irreversible, toward XO. The resulting increase in superoxide and hydrogen peroxide can cause or exacerbate neuronal damage, cerebral aneurysms (69) and can damage the blood-brain barrier (65, 67, 68).
Oxidative stress is a well-established feature of both Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and vascular dementia (67, 70). The XDH/XO balance may modulate cerebrovascular health and neuronal integrity via redox signaling. Burrage et al. demonstrated that XO inhibition with febuxostat ameliorated cognitive deficits and improved cerebral vasodilation in a mouse model of chronic stress. These effects were not attributable to UA, suggesting that XO-derived ROS rather than UA concentration contributed to impaired neurovascular function (67). In human studies, use of inhibitors of XO were associated with lower incident dementia rates (71). These findings support the hypothesis that XO activity specifically, not just XOR activity in general or its resulting UA concentration, contributes directly to cognitive decline, which is likely through chronic ROS exposure affecting vascular and neuronal resilience.
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a neurodegenerative disease involving inflammation of the central nervous system and demyelination of nerve cells; and ROS are heavily implicated in progression of degeneration (72). In an experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) model, Honorat et al. found increased XO activity within CNS lesions, along with elevated ROS. Subsequent treatment with febuxostat reduced XO activity, ROS generation, inflammatory infiltration, and clinical severity of the condition (72). This suggests that shifting from XDH activity toward XO activity contributes to oxidative stress and resultant injury in MS. Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disease characterized by dopaminergic neuron loss in the substantia nigra (73). Watanabe et al. investigated the combined administration of febuxostat and inosine in PD patients. Improvements in motor scores were observed after 8 weeks, but the mechanisms were not solely attributable to increased UA levels (74). Given febuxostat’s specificity for XO, these findings imply that XO-derived ROS may exacerbate dopaminergic neurotoxicity, and that inhibition of this XO activity may be neuroprotective. In addition, purine salvage pathway, which is augmented by XOR inhibition, is more effective in generating ATP than de novo synthesis (75). Thus, this pathway is crucial for brain cells and for generating adenosine, a neurotransmitter.
XOR in cancers
Purine metabolism has been implicated in cancers as an important link between tumorigenesis and cancer progression. Battelli et al. noted that in many tumors, increased XO activity correlated with worse outcomes only when associated with high ROS load, suggesting that it is not total XOR, but ROS-generating XO activity that mediates oncogenic signaling, angiogenesis, and immune evasion. (76). Veljkovic et al. found a strong positive correlation between XO activity and prostate-specific antigen and oxidative stress (77). To underscore that it is the XO activity itself and not its resulting UA which could come about via XDH activity as well, downregulation or loss of XDH has been linked to potentiation of gastric, breast and hepatocellular cancers. Linder et al. (78) found that decreased XDH was a predictor of poor prognosis in early-stage gastric cancer (78). Similar results were provided by Chen et al. who found reduced expression of XDH and promotion of TGFB signaling in hepatocellular carcinoma cells (HCC) (79). The expression and activity of XOR in cancer varies based on the tissue of origin, with lower levels observed in gastrointestinal, colorectal, liver and breast tumors and higher levels in prostate, bladder and lung cancer as compared to non-cancerous tissues of the same type (80). Thus, XOR inhibition therapy needs to be tissue specific and should be considered carefully, particularly because XOR inhibition augments the purine salvage pathway, which may, in turn, provide more nucleotides for malignant cells (80). In some cases, increasing expression of XOR may enhance the effectiveness of chemotherapy (81), while in other cases, XOR-derived ROS have been shown to promote progression to malignancy (76). Taken together, these observations indicate that XOR has a dual role in cancer with XDH activity being associated with better oncological states while XO activity amid oxidative stress is detrimental in cancer.
Sex and lifestyle-specific effects on XOR
The activity of XOR shows sex-specific differences. Like UA, XOR activity is higher in males than females, although the levels of XOR in blood are low (82). The association between XOR activity and related metabolic disorders such as hypertension, diabetes, fatty liver disease and kidney diseases has been shown to be significantly different between sexes across various population groups (83–86). Dietary intake of specific nutrients also affects XOR activity. High intake of diets rich in saturated fats, and fructose increase XOR activity in plasma (87). Lastra et al. (87) also showed that XO inhibition protected the mice against aortic stiffness and impaired vasorelaxation induced by Western diets. Moreover, XO overexpression promoted lipid accumulation in a xdh knockin mice model (88). Another lifestyle factor, physical exercise affects XOR activity. Few studies have been conducted researching this aspect of XOR and they have shown contradictory results based on the type and intensity of the physical exercise. On one hand, physically intensive marathon increased XOR activity in young men (89), on the other hand, aerobic exercise training reduced XOR activity in middle aged men and women (90). These findings show the importance of genetic as well as lifestyle factors in the variation in XOR activity.
XOR in other disorders
Conversion of XDH to XO can result from mechanical injury and inflammation, and this conversion in keratinocytes at the site of injury results in local accumulation of ROS (91). The ROS impair healing, and chronic wounds and pressure injuries show sustained activity of XO in contrast to XDH, delaying wound closure (22). Weinstein and colleagues (91) treated diabetic wounds with XDH siRNA, resulting in reduced mRNA expression, XO activity, ROS levels, and pathological wound burden, and a 7 day acceleration in wound healing (91). XO has also been involved in exercise-induced oxidative stress. A study in rats showed an increase in XO activity in response to an exhaustive physical exercise which was ameliorated by allopurinol (XO inhibitor). The authors postulated that the increase in XO during exercise may result in increased superoxide production in the vascular bed. This was supported by another study where the authors found that XO binds to sulphated glycosaminoglycans in the vascular endothelial cells, which may promote superoxide production (92, 93). Similarly, in mice, Yisireyili et al. found that restraint stress in mice increased XOR and XO activity and ROS in visceral adipose tissue. Treatment with febuxostat (another XO inhibitor) not just reduced XO but also improved serum UA concentrations, insulin sensitivity and prothrombic state (94).
Discussion
XO activity, beyond simply the resulting UA concentration, is implicated in pathologies in many tissues and organs in both human and animal models. Evidence suggests that this is due to the associated generation of ROS not seen when XDH catalyzes similar reactions in purine metabolism.
Inflammation, mechanical stress, hypoxia and ischemia-reperfusion all can drive the XOR enzyme from its initial XDH form toward its XO conformation, increasing the generation of superoxide and hydrogen peroxide. These resulting ROS can impair endothelial function, oxidize cellular components, and damage mitochondria. The ROS overwhelm endogenous antioxidant capacity and may impair endothelial dilatation, oxidize lipoproteins and other cellular components, and damage mitochondria. Cardiovascular (53, 56) and renal (59–61) studies demonstrate that ROS burden, rather than serum UA concentration itself, predicts dysfunction, while diabetic wounds (91), solid tumors (76), and neurodegenerative disorders (67, 72, 74) demonstrate similar effects in which high XO activity is associated with worse outcomes when controlling for UA concentration.
Despite these documented associations from many research groups covering many different pathologies, the precise mechanisms governing the favoring of XDH or XO over its counterpart remain unclear. Post-translational modifications, availability of substrate, proteolytic cleavage, and redox potential of the environment all likely contribute to this ratio. This complexity undoubtedly also plays a role in understanding the variable outcomes for different pathologies despite similar UA concentrations.
Therapeutically, inhibitors that block the molybdenum center of XO (allopurinol, febuxostat) confer benefits that exceed what would be expected from UA lowering alone. In animal and human models they restore endothelial nitric−oxide bioavailability, blunt inflammatory cell infiltration, and improve cognitive or motor performance (67, 71, 74). They have also been shown to increase central nervous system (CNS) adenosine during hypoxia potentiating its neuroprotective effects (95), in addition to increasing energy delivery in human failing hearts (96). The inhibition of XOR also increases availability of purine nucleotides and restoration of ATP levels through the salvage pathway (75).
Complicating investigation into this topic, accurately quantifying XO activity in vivo remains technically challenging. Epidemiological studies tend to rely on serum UA concentration or purine ratios as surrogates for enzyme activity, and so these do not capture the differences in ROS production that come from different ratios of XDH and XO activity. Future research in this area should focus not only on how targeted inhibitors like febuxostat alter outcomes, but on measurement of the relative activity of both proteoforms of XOR. The adoption of broader assays meant to specifically measure XO activity and itss oxidative products, separate from measurement of XDH activity, will be of the utmost importance in future research in this area.
Individual variability and the roles of precision medicine and precision nutrition are similarly highlighted by these factors. Genetic variability in the XOR gene, differences in capacity to balance oxidative stress, and specific context within different tissues all play into heterogeneity of outcomes observed across populations at similar UA concentrations. Thus, incorporating direct measures of XO activity into future clinical studies will allow for more accurate prediction of risk and more appropriate targeting of interventions.
In light of these findings, it is clear that elucidating the role of purine metabolism in pathological conditions must involve not only measurement of the purine metabolites themselves, but corresponding analysis of redox homeostasis. Across many pathologies, disease risk rises when the physiological context favors conversion of XDH to XO. With this in mind, seemingly contradictory epidemiological associations between UA and health outcomes are able to be understood. Future work should aim to characterize the drivers of the transition from XDH and XO and if this is carried out in a reversible manner, identify and validate biomarkers of ROS derived from XO activity, and determine whether modifying the balance of the proteoforms offers better therapeutic specificity than indiscriminate targeting of UA concentration.
Conclusion
Research that focuses only on UA concentration cannot fully explain the divergent associations observed between purine metabolism and chronic disease. The balance between XDH and XO, the two proteoforms of the XOR enzyme, determines whether purine degradation is redox-neutral or strongly pro-oxidant. Evidence across cardiovascular, renal, dermatological, oncological and neurological fields shows that excess XO-derived ROS, rather than UA itself, is a likely mediator of tissue injury and clinical progression. Pharmacological inhibition or down-regulation of XO ameliorates pathology even when UA concentrations remain unchanged, underscoring the therapeutic relevance of the proteoform-specific mechanism. This review does not deny that UA may contribute to these pathologies; rather, it stipulates such an association exists. The central message is that inconsistencies across prior studies may arise because, while UA is relevant, it must be considered in the context of the reactions that generate it. This review does not aim to re-evaluate UA’s role per se, but to highlight that XDH and XO activity are at least as important as UA concentration. Equal UA levels can yield very different ROS byproducts depending on the XDH/XO balance, which may obscure UA’s apparent role. Future epidemiological and interventional studies should quantify XO activity directly rather than focusing on the concentration of purines themselves or estimating enzyme activity by comparing ratios of the purine metabolites.
Author contributions
KN: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. VV: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The authors declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Yin J, Ren W, Huang X, Deng J, Li T, and Yin Y. Potential mechanisms connecting purine metabolism and cancer therapy. Front Immunol. (2018) 9:1697. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.01697
2. Torchia N, Brescia C, Chiarella E, Audia S, Trapasso F, and Amato R. Neglected issues in T lymphocyte metabolism: purine metabolism and control of nuclear envelope regulatory processes. New insights into triggering potential metabolic fragilities. Immuno. (2024) 4:521–48. doi: 10.3390/immuno4040032
3. Kennelly PJ, Botham KM, McGuinness OP, Rodwell VW, and Weil PA. Harper’s illustrated biochemistry. 2nd ed. New York Chicago San Francisco Athens London Madrid Mexico City Milan New Delhi Singapore Sydney Toronto: McGraw Hill (2023). (A Lange medical book).
4. Oda M, Satta Y, Takenaka O, and Takahata N. Loss of urate oxidase activity in hominoids and its evolutionary implications. Mol Biol Evol. (2002) 19:640–53. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004123
5. Watanabe S, Kang DH, Feng L, Nakagawa T, Kanellis J, Lan H, et al. Uric acid, hominoid evolution, and the pathogenesis of salt-sensitivity. Hypertension. (2002) 40:355–60. doi: 10.1161/01.HYP.0000028589.66335.AA
6. Álvarez-Lario B and Macarrón-Vicente J. Uric acid and evolution. Rheumatology. (2010) 49:2010–5. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keq204
7. Sautin YY and Johnson RJ. Uric acid: the oxidant-antioxidant paradox. Nucleosides Nucleotides Nucleic Acids. (2008) 27:608–19. doi: 10.1080/15257770802138558
8. Ames BN, Cathcart R, Schwiers E, and Hochstein P. Uric acid provides an antioxidant defense in humans against oxidant- and radical-caused aging and cancer: a hypothesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci. (1981) 78:6858–62. doi: 10.1073/pnas.78.11.6858
9. Xu L, Li C, Wan T, Sun X, Lin X, Yan D, et al. Targeting uric acid: a promising intervention against oxidative stress and neuroinflammation in neurodegenerative diseases. Cell Commun Signaling. (2025) 23:4. doi: 10.1186/s12964-024-01965-4
10. Choi HK, Mount DB, and Reginato AM. Pathogenesis of gout. Ann Internal Med. (2005) 143:499. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-143-7-200510040-00009
11. Dalbeth N, Choi HK, Joosten LAB, Khanna PP, Matsuo H, Perez-Ruiz F, et al. Gout,” Nature reviews. Dis Primers. (2019) 5:69. doi: 10.1038/s41572-019-0115-y
12. Agabiti-Rosei C, Paini A, and Salvetti M. Uric acid and cardiovascular disease: an update. Eur Cardiol Rev. (2016) 11:54. doi: 10.15420/ecr.2016:4:2
13. Borghi C and Piani F. Uric acid and risk of cardiovascular disease: a question of start and finish. Hypertension. (2021) 78(5):1219–21.
14. Annanmaki T, Pessala-Driver A, and Hokkanen L. Uric acid associates with cognition in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. (2008) 14:576–8. doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2007.11.001
15. Ascherio A. Urate as a predictor of the rate of clinical decline in parkinson disease. Arch Neurol. (2009) 66:1460. doi: 10.1001/archneurol.2009.247
16. Wang L, Hu W, Wang J, Qian W, and Xiao H. Low serum uric acid levels in patients with multiple sclerosis and neuromyelitis optica: An updated meta-analysis. Multiple Sclerosis Relat Disord. (2016) 9:17–22. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2016.05.008
17. Vannorsdall TD, Kueider AM, Carlson MC, and Schretlen DJ. Higher baseline serum uric acid is associated with poorer cognition but not rates of cognitive decline in women. Exp Gerontology. (2014) 60:136–9. doi: 10.1016/j.exger.2014.10.013
18. Beydoun MA, Canas JA, Dore GA, Beydoun HA, Rostant OS, Fanelli-Kuczmarski MT, et al. Serum uric acid and its association with longitudinal cognitive change among urban adults. J Alzheimer’s Dis. (2016) 52:1415–30. doi: 10.3233/JAD-160028
19. Alam AB, Wu A, Power MC, West NA, and Alonso A. Associations of serum uric acid with incident dementia and cognitive decline in the ARIC-NCS cohort. J Neurol Sci. (2020) 414:116866. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2020.116866
20. Glantzounis GK, Tsimoyiannis EC, Kappas AM, and Galaris DA. Uric acid and oxidative stress. Curr Pharm Design. (2005) 11:4145–51. doi: 10.2174/138161205774913255
21. Harrison R. Structure and function of xanthine oxidoreductase: where are we now? Free Radical Biol Med. (2002) 33:774–97. doi: 10.1016/S0891-5849(02)00956-5
22. Battelli MG, Polito L, Bortolotti M, and Bolognesi A. Xanthine oxidoreductase in drug metabolism: beyond a role as a detoxifying enzyme. Curr Med Chem. (2016) 23:4027–36. doi: 10.2174/0929867323666160725091915
23. Nishino T, Okamoto K, Eger BT, Pai EF, and Nishino T. Mammalian xanthine oxidoreductase – mechanism of transition from xanthine dehydrogenase to xanthine oxidase. FEBS J. (2008) 275:3278–89. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2008.06489.x
24. Epstein FH and McCord JM. Oxygen-derived free radicals in postischemic tissue injury. New Engl J Med. (1985) 312:159–63. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198501173120305
25. Granger DN and Kvietys PR. Reperfusion injury and reactive oxygen species: The evolution of a concept. Redox Biol. (2015) 6:524–51. doi: 10.1016/j.redox.2015.08.020
26. Jarasch ED, Grund C, Bruder G, Heid HW, Keenan TW, and Franke WW. Localization of xanthine oxidase in mammary-gland epithelium and capillary endothelium. Cell. (1981) 25:67–82. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(81)90232-4
27. Battelli MG, Bolognesi A, and Polito L. Pathophysiology of circulating xanthine oxidoreductase: New emerging roles for a multi-tasking enzyme. Biochim Biophys Acta (BBA) - Mol Basis Dis. (2014) 1842:1502–17. doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2014.05.022
28. Sanders SA, Harrison R, and Eisenthal R. The reaction of human xanthine dehydrogenase with NADH. Biochem Soc Trans. (1997) 25:517S–S. doi: 10.1042/bst025517s
29. Burnstock G. Introduction to purinergic signaling. Methods Mol Biol (Clifton N J). (2020) 2041:1–15. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-9717-6_1
30. Burnstock G. Purine and purinergic receptors. Brain Neurosci Adv. (2018) 2. doi: 10.1177/2398212818817494
31. Sluyter R. Purinergic signalling in physiology and pathophysiology. Int J Mol Sci. (2023) 24:9196. doi: 10.3390/ijms24119196
32. Schrader J. Ectonucleotidases as bridge between the ATP and adenosine world: reflections on Geoffrey Burnstock. Purinergic Signalling. (2022) 18:193–8. doi: 10.1007/s11302-022-09862-6
33. Burnstock G and Gentile D. The involvement of purinergic signalling in obesity. Purinergic Signalling. (2018) 14:97–108. doi: 10.1007/s11302-018-9605-8
34. Ribeiro JA and Sebastião AM. Caffeine and adenosine. J Alzheimer’s Dis. (2010) 20(s1):S3–S15. doi: 10.3233/jad-2010-1379
35. Welihinda AA, Kaur M, Greene K, Zhai Y, and Amento EP. The adenosine metabolite inosine is a functional agonist of the adenosine A2A receptor with a unique signaling bias. Cell Signalling. (2016) 28:552–60. doi: 10.1016/j.cellsig.2016.02.010
36. Abdelkader NF, Ibrahim SM, Moustafa PE, and Elbaset MA. Inosine mitigated diabetic peripheral neuropathy via modulating GLO1/AGEs/RAGE/NF-κB/Nrf2 and TGF-β/PKC/TRPV1 signaling pathways. Biomed Pharmacother. (2022) 145:112395. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2021.112395
37. Gibbs BF, Gonçalves Silva I, Prokhorov A, Abooali M, Yasinska IM, Casely-Hayford MA, et al. Caffeine affects the biological responses of human hematopoietic cells of myeloid lineageviadownregulation of the mTOR pathway and xanthine oxidase activity. Oncotarget. (2015) 6:28678–92. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.5212
38. Rodrigues P, Furriol J, Bermejo B, Chaves F, Lluch A, Eroles P, et al. Identification of candidate polymorphisms on stress oxidative and DNA damage repair genes related with clinical outcome in breast cancer patients. Int J Mol Sci. (2012) 13:16500–13. doi: 10.3390/ijms131216500
39. Liu H, Zhu H, Shi W, Lin Y, Ma G, Tao G, et al. Genetic variants in XDH are associated with prognosis for gastric cancer in a Chinese population. Gene. (2018) 663:196–202. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2018.03.043
40. Korsmo HW, Ekperikpe US, and Daehn IS. Emerging roles of xanthine oxidoreductase in chronic kidney disease. Antioxidants. (2024) 13:712. doi: 10.3390/antiox13060712
41. Gao L, Rafaels N, Dudenkov TM, Damarla M, Damico R, Maloney JP, et al. Xanthine oxidoreductase gene polymorphisms are associated with high risk of sepsis and organ failure. Respir Res. (2023) 24(1):177. doi: 10.1186/s12931-023-02481-8
42. Wang Q, Qi H, Wu Y, Yu L, Bouchareb R, Li S, et al. Genetic susceptibility to diabetic kidney disease is linked to promoter variants of XOR. Nat Metab. (2023) 5:607–25. doi: 10.1038/s42255-023-00776-0
43. Massimo G, Khambata RS, Chapman T, Birchall K, Raimondi C, Shabbir A, et al. Natural mutations of human XDH promote the nitrite (NO2–)-reductase capacity of xanthine oxidoreductase: A novel mechanism to promote redox health? Redox Biol. (2023) 67:102864. doi: 10.1016/j.redox.2023.102864
44. Scheepers LE, Wei F, Stolarz-Skrzypek K, Malyutina S, Tikhonoff V, Thijs L, et al. THU0519 xanthine oxidase gene variants and their association with blood pressure and incident hypertension: A population study. Ann Rheumatic Dis. (2016) 75:379–80. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-eular.2964
45. Krishnamurthy HK, Rajavelu I, Pereira M, Jayaraman V, Krishna K, Wang T, et al. Inside the genome: understanding genetic influences on oxidative stress. Front Genet. (2024) 15:1397352. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2024.1397352
46. Voruganti VS. Precision nutrition: recent advances in obesity. Physiology. (2023) 38:42–50. doi: 10.1152/physiol.00014.2022
47. Voruganti VS, Laston S, Haack K, Mehta NR, Cole SA, Butte NF, et al. Serum uric acid concentrations and SLC2A9 genetic variation in Hispanic children: the Viva La Familia Study. Am J Clin Nutr. (2015) 101:725–32. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.114.095364
48. Nelson KL and Voruganti VS. Purine metabolites and complex diseases: role of genes and nutrients. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. (2021) 24:296–302. doi: 10.1097/mco.0000000000000764
49. Furuhashi M, Matsumoto M, Tanaka M, Moniwa N, Murase T, Nakamura T, et al. Plasma xanthine oxidoreductase activity as a novel biomarker of metabolic disorders in a general population. Circ J. (2018) 82:1892–9. doi: 10.1253/circj.cj-18-0082
50. Kawachi Y, Fujishima Y, Nishizawa H, Nakamura T, Akari S, Murase T, et al. Increased plasma XOR activity induced by NAFLD/NASH and its possible involvement in vascular neointimal proliferation. JCI Insight. (2021) 6. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.144762
51. Nakamura T, Nampei M, Murase T, Satoh E, Akari S, Katoh N, et al. Influence of xanthine oxidoreductase inhibitor, topiroxostat, on body weight of diabetic obese mice. Nutr Diabetes. (2021) 11(1):12. doi: 10.1038/s41387-021-00155-2
52. Bortolotti M, Polito L, Battelli MG, and Bolognesi A. Xanthine oxidoreductase: One enzyme for multiple physiological tasks. Redox Biol. (2021) 41:101882. doi: 10.1016/j.redox.2021.101882
53. Berry CE and Hare JM. Xanthine oxidoreductase and cardiovascular disease: molecular mechanisms and pathophysiological implications. J Physiol. (2004) 555:589–606. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2003.055913
54. Radi R, Rubbo H, Bush K, and Freeman BA. Xanthine oxidase binding to glycosaminoglycans: kinetics and superoxide dismutase interactions of immobilized xanthine oxidase–heparin complexes. Arch Biochem Biophys. (1997) 339:125–35. doi: 10.1006/abbi.1996.9844
55. Battelli MG, Bortolotti M, Polito L, and Bolognesi A. The role of xanthine oxidoreductase and uric acid in metabolic syndrome. Biochim Biophys Acta (BBA) - Mol Basis Dis. (2018) 1864:2557–65. doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2018.05.003
56. George J. Role of urate, xanthine oxidase and the effects of allopurinol in vascular oxidative stress. Vasc Health Risk Manage. (2009) 5:265 72. doi: 10.2147/VHRM.S4265
57. Yoshida S, Kurajoh M, Fukumoto S, Murase T, Nakamura T, Yoshida H, et al. Association of plasma xanthine oxidoreductase activity with blood pressure affected by oxidative stress level: MedCity21 health examination registry. Sci Rep. (2020) 10(1):4437. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-61463-8
58. Neogi T, George J, Rekhraj S, Struthers AD, Choi H, and Terkeltaub RA. Are either or both hyperuricemia and xanthine oxidase directly toxic to the vasculature? A critical appraisal. Arthritis Rheumatism. (2012) 64:327–38. doi: 10.1002/art.33369
59. Johnson RJ, Nakagawa T, Jalal D, Sanchez-Lozada LG, Kang DH, Ritz E, et al. Uric acid and chronic kidney disease: which is chasing which? Nephrol Dialysis Transplant. (2013) 28:2221–8. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gft029
60. Kanbay M, Ozkara A, Selcoki Y, Isik B, Turgut F, Bavbek N, et al. Effect of treatment of hyperuricemia with allopurinol on blood pressure, creatinine clearence, and proteinuria in patients with normal renal functions. Int Urol Nephrol. (2007) 39:1227–33. doi: 10.1007/s11255-007-9253-3
61. Kim HA, Seo Y-I, and Song YW. Four-week effects of allopurinol and febuxostat treatments on blood pressure and serum creatinine level in gouty men. J Korean Med Sci. (2014) 29:1077. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2014.29.8.1077
62. Nakatani A, Nakatani S, Ishimura E, Murase T, Nakamura T, Sakura M, et al. Xanthine oxidoreductase activity is associated with serum uric acid and glycemic control in hemodialysis patients. Sci Rep. (2017) 7(1):15416. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-15419-0
63. Cecerska-Heryc E, Heryc R, Dutkiewicz G, Michalczyk A, Grygorcewicz B, Serwin N, et al. Xanthine oxidoreductase activity in platelet-poor and rich plasma as a oxidative stress indicator in patients required renal replacement therapy. BMC Nephrol. (2022) 23(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s12882-021-02649-8
64. Dissanayake LV, Kravtsova O, Lowe M, McCrorey MK, Van Beusecum JP, Palygin O, et al. The presence of xanthine dehydrogenase is crucial for the maturation of the rat kidneys. Clin Sci. (2024) 138:269–88. doi: 10.1042/cs20231144
65. Cobley JN, Fiorello ML, and Bailey DM. 13 reasons why the brain is susceptible to oxidative stress. Redox Biol. (2018) 15:490–503. doi: 10.1016/j.redox.2018.01.008
66. Jelinek M, Jurajda M, and Duris K. Oxidative stress in the brain: basic concepts and treatment strategies in stroke. Antioxidants. (2021) 10:1886. doi: 10.3390/antiox10121886
67. Burrage EN, Coblentz T, Prabhu SS, Childers R, Bryner RW, Lewis SE, et al. Xanthine oxidase mediates chronic stress-induced cerebrovascular dysfunction and cognitive impairment. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. (2023): 43:905–20. doi: 10.1177/0271678X231152551
68. Bortolotti M, Polito L, Battelli MG, and Bolognesi A. Xanthine oxidoreductase: A double-edged sword in neurological diseases. Antioxidants. (2025) 14:483. doi: 10.3390/antiox14040483
69. Li L, Yang X, Dusting GJ, Wu Z, and Jiang F. Increased oxidative stress and xanthine oxidase activity in human ruptured cerebral aneurysms. Neuroradiol J. (2007) 20:545–50. doi: 10.1177/197140090702000512
70. Butterfield DA and Halliwell B. Oxidative stress, dysfunctional glucose metabolism and Alzheimer disease. Nat Rev Neurosci. (2019) 20:148–60. doi: 10.1038/s41583-019-0132-6
71. Kuwabara M, Nakai M, Sumita Y, Iwanaga Y, Ae R, Kodama T, et al. Xanthine oxidase inhibitors treatment or discontinuation effects on mortality: evidence of xanthine oxidase inhibitors withdrawal syndrome. Front Pharmacol. (2024) 14:1289386. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1289386
72. Honorat JA, Kinoshita M, Okuno T, Takata K, Koda T, Tada S, et al. Xanthine oxidase mediates axonal and myelin loss in a murine model of multiple sclerosis. PloS One. (2013) 8:e71329. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071329
73. Schapira AH and Jenner P. Etiology and pathogenesis of Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. (2011) 26:1049–55. doi: 10.1002/mds.23732
74. Watanabe H, Hattori T, Kume A, Misu K, Ito T, Koike Y, et al. Improved Parkinsons disease motor score in a single-arm open-label trial of febuxostat and inosine. Medicine. (2020) 99:e21576. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000021576
75. Sekine M, Fujiwara M, Okamoto K, Ichida K, Nagata K, Hille R, et al. Significance and amplification methods of the purine salvage pathway in human brain cells. J Biol Chem. (2024) 300:107524. doi: 10.1016/j.jbc.2024.107524
76. Battelli MG, Polito L, Bortolotti M, and Bolognesi A. Xanthine oxidoreductase in cancer: more than a differentiation marker. Cancer Med. (2016) 5:546–57. doi: 10.1002/cam4.601
77. Veljković A, Hadži-Dokić J, Sokolović D, Bašić D, Veličković-Janković L, Stojanović M, et al. Xanthine oxidase/dehydrogenase activity as a source of oxidative stress in prostate cancer tissue. Diagnostics. (2020) 10:668. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics10090668
78. Linder N, Bützow R, Lassus H, Lundin M, and Lundin J. Decreased xanthine oxidoreductase is a predictor of poor prognosis in early-stage gastric cancer. J Clin Pathol. (2006) 59:965–71. doi: 10.1136/jcp.2005.032524
79. Chen GL, Ye T, Chen HL, Zhao ZY, Tang WQ, Wang LS, et al. Xanthine dehydrogenase downregulation promotes TGFβ signaling and cancer stem cell-related gene expression in hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncogenesis. (2017) 6:e382–2. doi: 10.1038/oncsis.2017.81
80. Chen M and Meng L. The double faced role of xanthine oxidoreductase in cancer. Acta Pharmacol Sin. (2022) 43:1623–32. doi: 10.1038/s41401-021-00800-7
81. Linder N, Bützow R, Lassus H, Lundin M, and Lundin J. Decreased xanthine oxidoreductase (XOR) is associated with a worse prognosis in patients with serous ovarian carcinoma. Gynecologic Oncol. (2012) 124:311–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.10.026
82. Kotozaki Y, Satoh M, Nasu T, Tanno K, Tanaka F, and Sasaki M. Human plasma xanthine oxidoreductase activity in cardiovascular disease: evidence from a population-based study. Biomedicines. (2023) 11(3):754.
83. Gomez-Marcos MA, Recio-Rodriguez JI, Patino-Alonso MC, Agudo-Conde C, Rodriguez-Sanchez E, Gomez-Sanchez L, et al. Relationship between uric acid and vascular structure and function in hypertensive patients and sex-related differences. Am J Hypertens. (2013) 26:599–607. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hps097
84. Halperin Kuhns VL and Woodward OM. Sex differences in urate handling. Int J Mol Sci. (2020) 21:4269. doi: 10.3390/ijms21124269
85. Chen JH, Tsai CC, Liu YH, Wu PY, Huang JC, Chung TL, et al. Sex difference in the associations among hyperuricemia with new-onset chronic kidney disease in a large Taiwanese population follow-up study. Nutrients. (2022) 14:3832. doi: 10.3390/nu14183832
86. Bolognesi A, Bortolotti M, Battelli MG, and Polito L. Gender influence on XOR activities and related pathologies: A narrative review. Antioxidants. (2024) 13:211. doi: 10.3390/antiox13020211
87. Lastra G, Manrique C, Jia G, Aroor AR, Hayden MR, Barron BJ, et al. Xanthine oxidase inhibition protects against Western diet-induced aortic stiffness and impaired vasorelaxation in female mice. Am J Physiol.-Regul. Integr Comp Physiol. (2017) 313:R67–77. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00483.2016
88. Liu L, Zhang Y, Wang X, Meng H, He Y, Xu X, et al. Xanthine oxidase promotes hepatic lipid accumulation through high fat absorption by the small intestine. JHEP Rep. (2024) 6:101060. doi: 10.1016/j.jhepr.2024.101060
89. Kosaki K, Kumamoto S, Tokinoya K, Yoshida Y, Sugaya T, Murase T, et al. Xanthine oxidoreductase activity in marathon runners: potential implications for marathon-induced acute kidney injury. J Appl Physiol. (2022) 133:1–10. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00669.2021
90. Kosaki K, Kamijo-Ikemori A, Sugaya T, Tanahashi K, Akazawa N, Hibi C, et al. Habitual exercise decreases plasma xanthine oxidoreductase activity in middle-aged and older women. J Clin Biochem Nutr. (2018) 62:247–53. doi: 10.3164/jcbn.17-101
91. Weinstein AL, Lalezarzadeh FD, Soares MA, Saadeh PB, and Ceradini DJ. Normalizing dysfunctional purine metabolism accelerates diabetic wound healing. Wound Repair Regener. (2015) 23:14–21. doi: 10.1111/wrr.12249
92. Adachi T, Fukushima T, Usami Y, and Hirano K. Binding of human xanthine oxidase to sulphated glycosaminoglycans on the endothelial-cell surface. Biochem J. (1993) 289:523–7. doi: 10.1042/bj2890523
93. Viña J, Gimeno A, Sastre J, Desco C, Asensi M, Pallardó FV, et al. Mechanism of free radical production in exhaustive exercise in humans and rats; role of xanthine oxidase and protection by allopurinol. IUBMB Life. (2000) 49:539–44. doi: 10.1080/15216540050167098
94. Yisireyili M, Hayashi M, Wu H, Uchida Y, Yamamoto K, Kikuchi R, et al. Xanthine oxidase inhibition by febuxostat attenuates stress-induced hyperuricemia, glucose dysmetabolism, and prothrombotic state in mice. Sci Rep. (2017) 7(1). doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-01366-3
95. Marro PJ, Mishra OP, and Delivoria-Papadopoulos M. Effect of allopurinol on brain adenosine levels during hypoxia in newborn piglets. Brain Res. (2006) 1073 1074:444-50.
Keywords: purine metabolism, uric acid, xanthine, adenosine, oxidative stress
Citation: Nelson KL and Voruganti VS (2026) Implication of xanthine oxidoreductase in oxidative stress-related chronic diseases. Front. Endocrinol. 16:1662037. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2025.1662037
Received: 08 July 2025; Accepted: 22 December 2025; Revised: 26 September 2025;
Published: 11 February 2026.
Edited by:
Darko Stefanovski, University of Pennsylvania, United StatesReviewed by:
Naresh Kshirasagar, Texas A&M University, United StatesCopyright © 2026 Nelson and Voruganti. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Venkata Saroja Voruganti, c2Fyb2phQHVuYy5lZHU=