4.7 Article

Antibacterial and immunomodulatory activities of insect defensins-DLP2 and DLP4 against multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-10839-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31372346, 31672467, 31572444, 31572445]
  2. Project of the National Support Program for Science and Technology in China [2013BAD10B02]
  3. Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest in China [201403047]
  4. Agricultural Science and Technology in CAAS [CAAS-ASTIP-2013-FRI-02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), are the most frequent cause of sepsis, which urgently demanding new drugs for treating infection. Two homologous insect CS alpha beta peptides-DLP2 and DLP4 from Hermetia illucens were firstly expressed in Pichia pastoris, with the yields of 873.5 and 801.3 mg/l, respectively. DLP2 and DLP4 displayed potent antimicrobial activity against Gram-positive bacteria especially MRSA and had greater potency, faster killing, and a longer postantibiotic effect than vancomycin. A 30-d serial passage of MRSA in the presence of DLP2/DLP4 failed to produce resistant mutants. Macromolecular synthesis showed that DLP2/DLP4 inhibited multi-macromolecular synthesis especially for RNA. Flow cytometry and electron microscopy results showed that the cell cycle was arrested at R-phase; the cytoplasmic membrane and cell wall were broken by DLP2/DLP4; mesosome-like structures were observed in MRSA. At the doses of 3-7.5 mg/kg DLP2 or DLP4, the survival of mice challenged with MRSA were 80-100%. DLP2 and DLP4 reduced the bacterial translocation burden over 95% in spleen and kidneys; reduced serum pro-inflammatory cytokines levels; promoted anti-inflammatory cytokines levels; and ameliorated lung and spleen injury. These data suggest that DLP2 and DLP4 may be excellent candidates for novel antimicrobial peptides against staphylococcal infections.

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

4.7
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