4.7 Article

Antimicrobial effect of the 60S ribosomal protein L29 (cgRPL29), purified from the gill of pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas

期刊

FISH & SHELLFISH IMMUNOLOGY
卷 67, 期 -, 页码 675-683

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fsi.2017.06.058

关键词

60S ribosomal protein L29; Antimicrobial activity; Pacific oyster; Crassostrea gigas; cDNA; Tissue distribution

资金

  1. Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, Korea [20140447]
  2. National Institute of Fisheries Science in the Republic of Korea [R2017022]
  3. Institute of Planning & Evaluation for Technology in Food, Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries (iPET), Republic of Korea [R2017022] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We purified an -6.4-kDa antimicrobial peptide from an acidified gill extract of the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, by cation-exchange and C-18 reversed-phase high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The identified peptide was composed of 54 amino acids and had a molecular weight of 6484.6 Da. Comparison of the amino acid sequence and molecular weight with those of other known proteins or peptides revealed that the peptide had high identity with the 60S ribosomal protein L29, and so was named cgRPL29. The full-length cgRPL29 cDNA of the Pacific oyster comprised 325-bp, including a 5'-untranslated region (UTR) of 100-bp, a 3'-UTR of 57-bp, and an open reading frame of 168-bp encoding 55 amino acids, with a Met residue at the N-terminus. The cgRPL29 mRNA tissue distribution suggested that it is constitutively expressed in a non-tissue-specific manner. Secondary structural prediction and homology modeling indicated cgRPL29 have an unordered structure containing two partial a-helical regions. This is to our knowledge the first report of the antimicrobial effect of the 60S ribosomal protein L29 from marine invertebrates. (C) 2017 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

4.7
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