4.1 Article

Substrate specificity of schistosome versus human legumain determined by P1-P3 peptide libraries

Journal

MOLECULAR AND BIOCHEMICAL PARASITOLOGY
Volume 121, Issue 1, Pages 99-105

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0166-6851(02)00026-9

Keywords

Schistosoma mansoni; asparaginyl endopeptidase; legumain; specificity; positional scanning

Funding

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI35707] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Asparaginyl endopeptidases. or 'legumains' have been identified and characterized in plants, the blood fluke parasite Schistosoma, and mammals. The legumains are a novel family of cysteine proteases and display restricted specificity for peptide hydrolysis on the carboxyl side of asparagine residues. Two forms of recombinant asparaginyl endopeptidase from Schistosoma mansoni (C 197 Sm32 and N197C Sm32), expressed in Pichia pastoris, have been analyzed for substrate specificity using a Positional-scanning synthetic combinatorial library (PS-SCL). We first screened Sm32 using a P1-diverse library. This library demonstrated the absolute specificity of Sm32 for asparagine at P1. To determine the P2-P3 preferences of Sm32, we constructed a library, with asparagine fixed at P1, and the P2-P3 positions randomized. The library was screened using the two forms of Sm32. human asparagin l endopeptidase, and to confirm its diversity, cruzain from Trypanosoma cruzi. The schistosome legumain showed a preference for P3: Thr > Ala > Val > Ile, and P2: Ala > Thr > Val > Asn, with an overall broader specificity at P3 than at P2. Both human and schistosome legumain can accommodate Thr and Ala at P1 and P3. However, optimal Substrate sequences differ, with Sm32 preferring Thr-Ala-Asn, and human legumain preferring Pro-Thr-Asn. Predictions of substrate specificity from the library screen were confirmed using Single peptide substrates for kinetic assays. (C) 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available