4.5 Article

Immune-Related Proteins Induced in the Hemolymph After Aseptic and Septic Injury Differ in Honey Bee Worker Larvae and Adults

Journal

ARCHIVES OF INSECT BIOCHEMISTRY AND PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 69, Issue 4, Pages 155-167

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/arch.20269

Keywords

Apis mellifera; antimicrobial peptides; hemolymph proteins; humoral immune response

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We have employed the proteomic approach in combination with mass spectrometry to study the immune response of honey bee workers at different developmental stages. Analysis of the hemolymph proteins of noninfected, mock-infected and immune-challenged individuals by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis showed differences in the protein profiles. We present evidence that in vitro reared honey bee larvae respond with a prominent humoral reaction to aseptic and septic injury as documented by the transient synthesis of the three antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) hymenoptaecin, defensin1, and abaecin. In contrast, young adult worker bees react with a broader spectrum of immune reactions that include the activation of prophenoloxidase and humoral immune responses. At least seven proteins appeared consistently in the hemolymph of immune-challenged bees, three of which are identical to the AMPs induced also in larvae. The other four, i.e., phenoloxidase (PO), peptidoglycan recognition protein-S2, carboxylesterase (CE), and an Apis-specific protein not assigned to any function (HP30), are induced specifically in adult bees and, with the exception of PO, are not expressed after aseptic injury. Structural features of CE and HP30, such as classical leucine zipper motifs, together with their strong simultaneous induction upon challenge with bacteria suggest an important role of the two novel bee-specific immune proteins in response to microbial infections. Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol. 69:155-167, 2008. (C) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available