4.5 Article

Comparative analysis of two attacin genes from Hyphantria cunea

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cbpb.2008.07.002

Keywords

antibacterial protein; attacin; Hyphantria cunea; induction; secondary structure; antibacterial activity

Funding

  1. Korea Science Engineering Foundation [R14-2002-056-01001-0]
  2. Gyeongsang National University
  3. AVDRC [R13-2005-005-01003-0]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A full-length clone corresponding to attacin was isolated from a cDNA library made from fat body of immunized Hyphantria cunea larvae. This newly isolated attacin B shows characteristics different from those previously reported for attacin A. The two attacin cDNAs encode precursor proteins of 233 and 248 amino acid residues, respectively. The two attacins show 45.9% identity at the amino acid level, and 35.2% identity at the nucleotide level. Attacins A and B of H. cunea show significant identities with the attacins of Lepidoptera. Attacin B is a typical glycine-rich protein, while attacin A is leucine-rich. Attacin B is expressed from last instar larvae to adult, while attacin A showed stage-specific expression during the prepupal and pupal stages. Attacins A and B are predicted to have different secondary structure in that attacin A has no tendency to form helices but attacin B contains a substantial number of helices. Attacin A is induced at a trace level in infected larvae, while attacin B is strongly induced against Gram-positive and negative bacteria, fungi, and viruses. The attacin B transcripts were detected in fat body, epidermis and hemocytes after injection with Escherichia coli, Citrobacter freundii, or Candida albicans, but not in the midgut and Malpighian tubule. Recombinant attacin A showed no antibacterial activity, while recombinant attacin B showed strong antibacterial activity in proportion to the amount of the protein injected. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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