4.4 Article

Melittin peptide kills Trypanosoma cruzi parasites by inducing different cell death pathways

期刊

TOXICON
卷 69, 期 -, 页码 227-239

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2013.03.011

关键词

Melittin; Trypanosoma cruzi; Chagas disease chemotherapy; Programmed cell death

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  2. Fundacao Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ)
  3. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are components of the innate immune response that represent desirable alternatives to conventional pharmaceuticals, as they have a fast mode of action, a low likelihood of resistance development and can act in conjunction with existing drug regimens. AMPs exhibit strong inhibitory activity against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, fungi, viruses, metazoans and other parasites, such as the protozoan Leishmania. Melittin is a naturally occurring AMP, which comprises 40-50% of the dry weight of Apis mellifera venom. Our group has recently shown that crude A. mellifera venom is lethal to Trypanosoma cruzi, the Chagas disease etiologic agent, and generates a variety of cell death phenotypes among treated parasites. Here, we demonstrate that the melittin affected all of T cruzi developmental forms, including the intracellular amastigotes. The ultrastructural changes induced by melittin suggested the occurrence of different programmed cell death pathways, as was observed in A. mellifera-treated parasites. Autophagic cell death appeared to be the main death mechanism in epimastigotes. In contrast, melittin-treated trypomastigotes appeared to be dying via an apoptotic mechanism. Our findings confirm the great potential of AMPs, including melittin, as a potential source of new drugs for the treatment of neglected diseases, such as Chagas disease. (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