In addition to the physiological substrate heme, HO-1 responds to induction by a wide variety of stimuli associated with oxidative stress. Such inducing agents include hypoxia, hyperoxia, cytokines, nitric oxide (NO), heavy metals, ultraviolet-A (320-380 nm) radiation, heat shock, shear stress, hydrogen peroxide, and thiol (-SH)-reactive substances [3] . The multiplicity of toxic inducers suggest that HO-1 may function as a critical cytoprotective molecule [3, 4] . Many studies have suggested that HO-1 acts as an inducible defense against oxidative stress, in models of inflammation, ischemia-reperfusion, hypoxia, and hyperoxia-mediated injury (reviewed in [3] ). The mechanisms by which HO-1 can mediate cytoprotection are still poorly understood. All three products of the HO reaction potentially participate in cellular defense, of which the gaseous molecule CO has recently received the most attention [30, 31] . The administration of CO at low concentrations can compensate for the protective effects of HO-1 in the presence of competitive inhibitors of HO-1 activity [32] [33] [34] . While HO-1 gene transfer confers protection against oxidative stress in a number of systems, clearly not all studies support a beneficial role for HO-1 expression. Cell-culture studies have suggested that the protective effects of HO-1 overexpression fall within a critical range, such that the excess production of HO-1 or HO-2 may be counterprotective due to a transient excess of reactive iron generated during active heme metabolism [35, 36] . Thus, an important caveat of comparative studies on the therapeutic effects of CO administration versus HO-1 gene delivery arises from the fact that the latter approach, in addition to producing CO, may have profound effects on intracellular iron metabolism.