4.4 Article

Degenerate peptide recognition by Candida albicans adhesins Als5p and Als1p

期刊

INFECTION AND IMMUNITY
卷 72, 期 4, 页码 2029-2034

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.72.4.2029-2034.2004

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Candida albicans and Saccharomyces cerevisiae expressing the adhesins Als5p or Als1p adhere to immobilized peptides and proteins that possess appropriate sequences of amino acids in addition to a sterically accessible peptide backbone. In an attempt to further define the nature of these targets, we surveyed the ability of yeast cells to adhere to 90-mum-diameter polyethylene glycol beads coated with a 7-mer peptide from a library of 197 unique peptide-beads. C albicans bound to ca. 10% of beads from the library, whereas S. cerevisiae expressing Als5p or Als1p bound to ca. 0.1 to 1% of randomly selected peptide-beads. S. cerevisiae expressing Als1p had a distinctly different adherence phenotype than did cells expressing Als5p. The former adhered in groups or clumps of cells, whereas the latter adhered initially as single cells, an event which was followed by the build up of cell-cell aggregates. Beads with adherent cells were removed, and the peptide attached to the bead was determined by amino acid sequencing. All adhesive beads carried a three-amino-acid sequence Motif (tauphi+) that possessed a vast combinatorial potential. Adherence was sequence specific and was inhibited when soluble peptide identical to the immobilized peptide was added. The Als5p adhesin recognized some peptides that went unrecognized by Als1p. The sequence motif of adhesive peptides identified by this method is common in proteins and offers so many possible sequence combinations that target recognition by the Als proteins is clearly degenerate. A degenerate recognition system provides the fungi with the potential of adhering to a multitude of proteins and peptides, an advantage for any microorganism attempting to establish a commensal or pathogenic relationship with a host.

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

4.4
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