4.6 Article

Evolutionarily conserved and species-specific glycoproteins in the N-glycoproteomes of diverse insect species

期刊

INSECT BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
卷 100, 期 -, 页码 22-29

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ibmb.2018.04.011

关键词

n-Glycosylation; N-glycosites; N-glycoproteome; Drosophila melanogaster; Pest insect; Mass spectrometry

资金

  1. Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen, Belgium)
  2. Ghent University (Belgium)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

N-glycosylation is one of the most abundant and conserved protein modifications in eukaryotes. The attachment of N-glycans to proteins can modulate their properties and influences numerous important biological processes, such as protein folding and cellular attachment. Recently, it has been shown that protein N-glycosylation plays a vital role in insect development and survival, which makes the glycans an interesting target for pest control. Despite the importance of protein N-glycosylation in insects, knowledge about insect N-glycoproteomes is scarce. To fill this gap, the N-glycosites were identified in proteins from three major pest insects, spanning different insect orders and diverging in post-embryonic development, feeding mechanism and evolutionary ancestry: Drosophila melanogaster (Diptera), Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera) and Acyrthosiphon pisum (Hemiptera). The N-glyco-FASP method for isolation of N-glycopeptides was optimized to study the insect N-glycosites and allowed the identification of 889 N-glycosylation sites in T. castaneum, 941 in D. melanogaster and 1338 in A. pisum. Although a large set of the corresponding glycoproteins is shared among the three insects, species- and order-specific glycoproteins were also identified. The functionality of the insect glycoproteins together with the conservation of the N-glycosites throughout evolution is discussed. This information can help in the elaboration of novel pest insect control strategies based on interference in insect glycosylation.

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