Mitochondrial (‘mild’) uncoupling and ROS production: Physiologically relevant or not?
Abstract
During the last decade, the possibility that 'mild' uncoupling could be protective against oxidative damage by diminishing ROS (reactive oxygen species) production has attracted much interest. In the present paper, we briefly examine the evidence for this possibility. It is only ROS production from succinate under reverse electron-flow conditions that is sensitive to membrane potential fluctuations, and so only this type of ROS production could be affected; however, the conditions under which succinate-supported ROS production is observed include succinate concentrations that are supraphysiological. Any decrease in membrane potential, even 'mild uncoupling', must necessarily lead to large increases in respiration, i.e. it must be markedly thermogenic. Mitochondria within cells are normally ATP-producing and thus already have a diminished membrane potential, and treatment of cells, organs or animals with small amounts of artificial uncoupler does not seem to have beneficial effects that are explainable via reduced ROS production. Although it has been suggested that members of the uncoupling protein family (UCP1, UCP2 and UCP3) may mediate a mild uncoupling, present evidence does not unequivocally support such an effect, e.g. the absence of the truly uncoupling protein UCP1 is not associated with increased oxidative damage. Thus present evidence does not support mild uncoupling as a physiologically relevant alleviator of oxidative damage.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Strong evidence of mitochondrial uncoupling property is clear for UCP-1 but still heavily debated for other UCPs.
“Importantly, although strong evidence of the mitochondrial uncoupling property is clear for UCP-1 [7,12], it is still heavily debated for the other UCPs [13,14,15].”
From Mitochondrial Uncoupling: A Key Controller of Biological Processes in Physiology and Diseases (2019) · cites this paper as [14]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 50 · Cited by 110
- Authors
- Shabalina, I. G., & Nedergaard, J.
- Affiliations
- Stockholm University (SE)
- Venue
- Biochemical Society Transactions
- Publisher
- Portland Press Ltd.
- Published
- 2011-09-21
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1305-1309
- ISSN
- 0300-5127 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-8752
- OpenAlex
- W2045325776
- Cited by
- 110
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 0.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Biochemical Society Transactions (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Mitochondrial Function and Pathology
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Redox biology and oxidative stress
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › ATP Synthase and ATPases Research
- Keywords
- mitochondrial uncoupling, reactive oxygen species, oxidative damage, reverse electron flow, membrane potential, thermogenesis, uncoupling proteins, UCP1, UCP2, UCP3
- MeSH terms
- Uncoupling Protein 1, Electron Transport, Ion Channels, Mitochondria, Oxidation-Reduction, Reactive Oxygen Species, Oxidative Stress, Cell Respiration, Mitochondrial Proteins, Electron Transport Chain Complex Proteins
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review