4.5 Article

In vitro antibacterial and hemolytic activities of crotamine, a small basic myotoxin from rattlesnake Crotalus durissus

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIBIOTICS
卷 64, 期 4, 页码 327-331

出版社

JAPAN ANTIBIOTICS RESEARCH ASSOC
DOI: 10.1038/ja.2011.10

关键词

antimicrobial peptides; crotamine; beta-defensin; snake venom; toxin

资金

  1. FAPESP
  2. S. Paulo, Brazil
  3. USDA [2008-35204-04544]
  4. Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology [HR07-113, AR07.2-087]
  5. Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station [H-2507]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Crotamine, a myotoxin from the venom of South American rattlesnake, is structurally related to beta-defensins, antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) found in vertebrate animals. Here, we tested the antibacterial properties of crotamine and found that it killed several strains of Escherichia coli, with the MICs ranging from 25 to 100 mu g ml(-1). Time-kill and bacterial membrane permeabilization assays revealed that killing of bacteria by crotamine occurred within 1 h and reached the maximum by 2 h. Additionally, the anti-E. coli activity of crotamine was completely abolished with 12.5 mM NaCl. Furthermore, the three intramolecular disulfide bonds of crotamine appeared dispensable for its antibacterial activity. The reduced form of crotamine was active against E. coli as well. However, crotamine showed no or weak activity up to 200 mu g ml(-1) against other species of Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria. Crotamine showed no appreciable hemolytic activity to erythrocytes. Our studies revealed that crotamine is also an AMP that kills bacteria through membrane permeabilization. However, crotamine appears to have a narrow antibacterial spectrum, distinct from many classical beta-defensins, reinforcing the notion that crotamine originated from the beta-defensin gene lineage, but has undergone significant functional diversification. The Journal of Antibiotics (2011) 64, 327-331; doi: 10.1038/ja.2011.10; published online 9 March 2011

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据