4.6 Article

Mass Spectrometric Identification of Antimicrobial Peptides from Medicinal Seeds

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 26, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules26237304

关键词

Linum usitatissimum; flax; Trifolium pratense; red clover; Sesamum indicum; sesame; cysteine-rich; antimicrobial peptides

资金

  1. NIH-NIGMS [R01-GM125814]
  2. NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program [DGE-1650016]
  3. NSF Major Research Instrumentation award [CHE-1726291]
  4. American Chemical Society Division of Analytical Chemistry Graduate Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, in silico analysis and proteomic analysis revealed the presence of Cys-rich AMPs in flax, red clover, and sesame, providing direct evidence for their translation. The negative activity observed in antibacterial screening emphasizes the importance of a multi-pronged approach for AMP discovery. Overall, these traditional medicinal plants are promising sources for further AMP discovery and characterization.
Traditional medicinal plants contain a variety of bioactive natural products including cysteine-rich (Cys-rich) antimicrobial peptides (AMPs). Cys-rich AMPs are often crosslinked by multiple disulfide bonds which increase their resistance to chemical and enzymatic degradation. However, this class of molecules is relatively underexplored. Herein, in silico analysis predicted 80-100 Cys-rich AMPs per species from three edible traditional medicinal plants: Linum usitatissimum (flax), Trifolium pratense (red clover), and Sesamum indicum (sesame). Bottom-up proteomic analysis of seed peptide extracts revealed direct evidence for the translation of 3-10 Cys-rich AMPs per species, including lipid transfer proteins, defensins, alpha-hairpinins, and snakins. Negative activity revealed by antibacterial screening highlights the importance of employing a multi-pronged approach for AMP discovery. Further, this study demonstrates that flax, red clover, and sesame are promising sources for further AMP discovery and characterization.

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

4.6
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