3.8 Article

Key role of the loop connecting the two beta strands of mussel defensin in its antimicrobial activity

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 270, 期 13, 页码 2805-2813

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1432-1033.2003.03657.x

关键词

defensin; antimicrobial peptide; solid-phase synthesis; active loop; cyclic peptide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To elucidate the structural features of the mussel defensin MGD1 required for antimicrobial activity, we synthesized a series of peptides corresponding to the main known secondary structures of the molecule and evaluated their activity towards Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, and filamentous fungi. We found that the nonapeptide corresponding to residues 25-33 of MGD1 (CGGWHRLRC) exhibited bacteriostatic activity once it was cyclized by a non-naturally occurring disulfide bridge. Longer peptides corresponding to the amino acid sequences of the alpha-helical part or to the beta-strands of MGD1 had no detectable activity. The bacteriostatic activity of the sequence 25-33 was strictly dependent on the bridging of Cys25 and Cys33 and was proportional to the theoretical isoelectric point of the peptide, as deduced from the variation of activity in a set of peptide analogues of the 25-33 sequence with different numbers of cationic charges. By using confocal fluorescence microscopy, we found that the cyclic peptides bound to Gram-positive bacteria without apparent lysis. However, by using a fluorescent dye, we observed that dead bacteria had been permeated by the cyclic peptide 25-33. Sequence comparisons in the family of arthopod defensins indicate that MGD1 belongs to a subfamily of the insect defensins, characterized by the constant occurrence of both positively charged and hydrophobic amino acids in the loop. Modelling studies showed that in the MGD1 structure, positively charged and hydrophobic residues are organized in two layered clusters, which might have a functional significance in the docking of MGD1 to the bacterial membrane.

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

3.8
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