4.6 Article

Investigating the properties of Bacillus thuringiensis cry proteins with novel loop replacements created using combinatorial molecular biology

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 74, 期 11, 页码 3497-3511

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02844-07

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cry proteins are a large family of crystalline toxins produced by Bacillus thuringiensis. Individually, the family members are highly specific, but collectively, they target a diverse range of insects and nematodes. Domain II of the toxins is important for target specificity, and three loops at its apex have been studied extensively. There is considerable interest in determining whether modifications in this region may lead to toxins with novel specificity or potency. In this work, we studied the effect of loop substitution on toxin stability and specificity. For this purpose, sequences derived from antibody complementarity-determining regions (CDR) were used to replace native domain II apical loops to create Crybodies. Each apical loop was substituted either individually or in combination with a library of third heavy-chain CDR (CDR-H3) sequences to create seven distinct Crybody types. An analysis of variants from each library indicated that the Cry1Aa framework can tolerate considerable sequence diversity at all loop positions but that some sequence combinations negatively affect structural stability and protease sensitivity. CDR-H3 substitution showed that loop position was an important determinant of insect toxicity: loop 2 was essential for activity, whereas the effects of substitutions at loop 1 and loop 3 were sequence dependent. Unexpectedly, differences in toxicity did not correlate with binding to cadherins-a major class of toxin receptors-since all Crybodies retained binding specificity. Collectively, these results serve to better define the role of the domain II apical loops as determinants of specificity and establish guidelines for their modification.

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