4.4 Article

Cloning and characterization of a novel Kunitz-type inhibitor from scorpion with unique cysteine framework

期刊

TOXICON
卷 72, 期 -, 页码 5-10

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2013.05.022

关键词

Scorpion; BmKPI; Kunitz-type; Elastase inhibitor; Unique cysteine framework

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2010CB529800, 2009CB918600]
  2. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China [2012AA020304]
  3. National Natural Sciences Foundation of China [30530140, 31200557]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Kunitz-type proteins from animal venom are good tools for understanding structure-function relationships between serine proteases and their inhibitors. We used a cDNA library to clone and characterize the Buthus martensi Kunitz-type protease inhibitor (BmKPI) present in the venom gland of the scorpion B. martensi. The gene codes for a signal peptide of 19 residues and a mature peptide of 64 residues. The mature BmKPI peptide possesses a unique cysteine framework reticulated by four disulfide bridges, unlike many other Kunitz-type proteins with three disulfide bridges. The recombinant BmKPI peptide was functionally expressed and showed strong inhibitory activity toward trypsin (Ki 1.8 x 10(-6) M), chymotrypsin (Ki 3.2 x 10(-8) M), and elastase (Ki 1.6 x 10(-7) M). Structure-functional relationship between elastase and BmKPI was further studied. Cysteine mutagenesis experiment showed that the unique disulfide bridge Cys53-Cys61 had little effect on its inhibiting elastase. Molecular dynamics simulation revealed that BmKPI possesses elastase inhibitory active sites similar to the classical Kunitz-type venom peptides, although their cysteine frameworks were different. These results showed that BmKPI is a new multifunctional serine protease inhibitor. To the best of our knowledge, BmKPI is the first functionally characterized Kunitz-type elastase inhibitor derived from scorpion venoms. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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