4.6 Article

Processing of Cry1Ab δ-endotoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis by Manduca sexta and Spodoptera frugiperda midgut proteases:: role in protoxin activation and toxin inactivation

期刊

INSECT BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
卷 31, 期 12, 页码 1155-1163

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0965-1748(01)00061-3

关键词

Bacillus thuringiensis; protoxin activation; toxin degradation's; midgut proteases; mode of action

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Activation of Cry protoxins is carried out by midgut proteases. This process is important for toxicity and in some cases for specificity. Commercial proteases have been used for in vitro protoxin activation. In the case of Cry1A protoxins, trypsin digestion generates a toxic fragment of 60-65 kDa. Here, we have analyzed the in vitro and in vivo activation of Cry1Ab. We found differences in the processing of Cry1Ab protoxin by Manduca sexta and Spodoptera frugiperda midgut proteases as compared to trypsin. Midgut juice proteases produced two additional nicks at the N-terminal end removing helices alpha1 and alpha 2a to produce a 58 kDa protein. A further cleavage within domain II splits the toxin into two fragments of 30 kDa. The resulting fragments were not separated, but instead coeluted with the 58 kDa monomer, in size-exclusion chromatography. To examine if this processing was involved in the activation or degradation of Cry1Ab toxin, binding, pore formation, and toxicity assays were performed. Pore formation assays showed that midgut juice treatment produced a more active toxin than trypsin treatment. In addition, it was determined that the alpha1 helix is dispensable for Cry1Ab activity. In contrast, the appearance of the 30 kDa fragments correlates with a decrease in pore formation and insecticidal activities. Our results suggest that the cleavage in domain II may be involved in toxin inactivation, and that the 30 kDa fragments are stable intermediates in the degradation pathway. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

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