4.6 Article

Cadherin, Alkaline Phosphatase, and Aminopeptidase N as Receptors of Cry11Ba Toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. jegathesan in Aedes aegypti

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 77, 期 1, 页码 24-31

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.01852-10

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [1R01 AI066014]
  2. DGAPA/UNAM [IN218608, IN210208-N]
  3. CONACyT [U48631-Q]
  4. University of California Agricultural Experiment Station
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [R01AI066014] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cry11Ba is one of the most toxic proteins to mosquito larvae produced by Bacillus thuringiensis. It binds Aedes aegypti brush border membrane vesicles (BBMV) with high affinity, showing an apparent dissociation constant (K-d) of 8.2 nM. We previously reported that an anticadherin antibody competes with Cry11Ba binding to BBMV, suggesting a possible role of cadherin as a toxin receptor. Here we provide evidence of specific cadherin repeat regions involved in this interaction. Using cadherin fragments as competitors, a C-terminal fragment which contains cadherin repeat 7 (CR7) to CR11 competed with Cry11Ba binding to BBMV. This binding was also efficiently competed by the CR9, CR10, and CR11 peptide fragments. Moreover, we show CR11 to be an important region of interaction with Cry11Ba toxin. An alkaline phosphatase (AaeALP1) and an aminopeptidase-N (AaeAPN1) also competed with Cry11Ba binding to Ae. aegypti BBMV. Finally, we found that Cry11Ba and Cry4Ba share binding sites. Synthetic peptides corresponding to loops alpha 8, beta 2-beta 3 (loop 1), beta 8-beta 9, and beta 10-beta 11 (loop 3) of Cry4Ba compete with Cry11Ba binding to BBMV, suggesting Cry11Ba and Cry4Ba have common sites involved in binding Ae. aegypti BBMV. The data suggest that three different Ae. aegypti midgut proteins, i.e., cadherin, AaeALP1, and AaeAPN1, are involved in Cry11Ba binding to Ae. aegypti midgut brush border membranes.

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