4.6 Article

Hydralysins, a new category of β-pore-forming toxins in Cnidaria

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 280, 期 24, 页码 22847-22855

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M503242200

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cnidaria are venomous animals that produce diverse protein and polypeptide toxins, stored and delivered into the prey through the stinging cells, the nematocytes. These include pore-forming cytolytic toxins such as well studied actinoporins. In this work, we have shown that the non-nematocystic paralytic toxins, hydralysins, from the green hydra Chlorohydra viridissima comprise a highly diverse group of beta-pore-forming proteins, distinct from other cnidarian toxins but similar in activity and structure to bacterial and fungal toxins. Functional characterization of hydralysins reveals that as soluble monomers they are rich in beta-structure, as revealed by far UV circular dichroism and computational analysis. Hydralysins bind erythrocyte membranes and form discrete pores with an internal diameter of similar to 1.2 nm. The cytolytic effect of hydralysin is cell type-selective, suggesting a specific receptor that is not a phospholipid or carbohydrate. Multiple sequence alignment reveals that hydralysins share a set of conserved sequence motifs with known pore-forming toxins such as aerolysin, epsilon-toxin, alpha-toxin, and LSL and that these sequence motifs are found in and around the pore-forming domains of the toxins. The importance of these sequence motifs is revealed by the cloning, expression, and mutagenesis of three hydralysin isoforms that strongly differ in their hemolytic and paralytic activities. The correlation between the paralytic and cytolytic activities of hydralysin suggests that both are a consequence of receptor-mediated pore formation. Hydralysins and their homologues exemplify the wide distribution of beta-pore formers in biology and provide a useful model for the study of their molecular mode of action.

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