Glutathione Complex Formation with Mercury(II) in Aqueous Solution at Physiological pH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mercury(II) complexes formed in neutral aqueous solution with glutathione (GSH, here denoted AH(3) in its triprotonated form) were studied using Hg L(III)-edge extended X-ray absorption fine structure (EXAFS) and (199)Hg NMR spectroscopy, complemented with electrospray ionization mass spectrometric (ESI-MS) analyses. The [Hg(AH)(2)](2-) complex, with the Hg-S bond distances at 2.325 ± 0.01 Å in linear S-Hg-S coordination, and the (199)Hg NMR chemical shift at -984 ppm, dominates except at high excess of glutathione. In a series of solutions with C(Hg(II)) ∼17 mM and GSH/Hg(II) mole ratios rising from 2.4 to 11.8, the gradually increasing mean Hg-S bond distance corresponds to an increasing amount of the [Hg(AH)(3)](4-) complex. ESI-MS peaks appear at -m/z values of 1208 and 1230 corresponding to the [Na(4)Hg(AH)(2)(A)](-) and [Na(5)Hg(AH)(A)(2)](-) species, respectively. In another series of solutions at pH 7.0 with C(Hg(II)) ∼50 mM and GSH/Hg(II) ratios from 2.0 to 10.0, the Hg L(III)-edge EXAFS and (199)Hg NMR spectra show that at high excess of glutathione (∼0.35 M) about ∼70% of the total mercury(II) concentration is present as the [Hg(AH)(3)](4-) complex, with the average Hg-S bond distance 2.42 ± 0.02 Å in trigonal HgS(3) coordination. The proportions of HgS(n) species, n = 2, 3, and 4, quantified by fitting linear combinations of model EXAFS oscillations to the experimental EXAFS data in our present and previous studies were used to obtain stability constants for the [Hg(AH)(3)](4-) complex and also for the [Hg(A)(4)](10-) complex that is present at high pH. For Hg(II) in low concentration at physiological conditions (pH 7.4, C(GSH) = 2.2 mM), the relative amounts of the HgS(2) species [Hg(AH)(2)](2-), [Hg(AH)(A)](3-), and the HgS(3) complex [Hg(AH)(3)](4-) were calculated to be 95:2:3. Our results are not consistent with the formation of dimeric Hg(II)-GSH complexes proposed in a recent EXAFS study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".