4.5 Article

Characterization of Litopenaeus vannamei secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine -like in WSSV infection

期刊

JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY
卷 183, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jip.2021.107593

关键词

Shrimp; SPARC-L; Sequence; WSSV; Apoptosis

类别

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [31672679]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFD0900501]
  3. Central Publicinterest Scientific Institution Basal Research Fund [2020TD39]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study cloned the full-length cDNA sequence of LvSPARC-L from shrimp, and indicated that LvSPARC-L might play an antiviral role by regulating apoptosis.
Secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine (SPARC) is an extracellular and non-structural glycoprotein. In shrimp, a significant function of SPARC in WSSV infection remains unclear. In this study, the full-length cDNA sequence of a secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine -like was cloned from shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei (named as LvSPARC-L). LvSPARC-L contained an open reading frame of 1002 bp, encoding 333 amino acids. Bioinformatics analysis showed that LvSPARC-L contained a SPARC Ca2+-binding region in the C-terminus, a Kazal-type serine protease inhibitor domain and a BUD22 domain. Tissue distribution assay indicated that LvSPARC-L generally expressed in all tissues selected with a higher expression in hemocyte, stomach and pleoplod. In hepatopancreas and intestine, the relative expression of LvSPARC-L was significantly up-regulated following the WSSV challenge. Besides, the relative expression of viral immediately early gene IE1 and a late gene VP28 was significantly increased in the LvSPARCL-silenced shrimp. Furthermore, the relative expression of LvP53 and LvCaspase3 was extremely decreased in the stomach of dsLvSPARC-L treated shrimp, while that of LvP38 was not affected significantly. All data together suggest that LvSPARC-L might play an antiviral role by regulating apoptosis.

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