4.6 Article

An acetylcholinesterase purified from the greenbug (Schizaphis graminum) with some unique enzymological and pharmacological characteristics

期刊

INSECT BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
卷 31, 期 11, 页码 1095-1104

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0965-1748(01)00057-1

关键词

acetylcholinesterase; enzyme kinetics; enzyme inhibition; enzyme purification; greenbug; Schizaphis graminum

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An acetylcholinesterase (AChE, EC 3.1.1.7) was purified from the greenbug, Schizaphis graminum (Rondani). The maximum velocities (V-max) for hydrolyzing acetylthiocholine (ATC), acetyl-(beta -methyl) thiocholine (A beta MTC), propionylthiocholine, and S-butyrylthiocholine were 78.0, 67.0, 37.4, and 2.3 mu mol/min/mg, and the Michaelis constants (K-m) were 57.6, 60.6, 31.3, and 33.4 muM, respectively. More than 98% of AChE activity was inhibited by 10 muM eserine or BW284C51, but only 7% of the activity was inhibited by ethopropazine at the same concentration. Based on the substrate and inhibitor specificities, the purified enzyme appeared to be a true AChE. Nondenaturing polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) and isoelectric focusing of the purified AChE revealed three molecular forms. The isoelectric points were 7.3 for the major form and 6.3 and 7.1 for two minor forms. The major form of purified AChE showed molecular masses of 129 kDa for its native protein and 72 kDa for its subunits on SDS-PAGE. However, the purified AChE exhibited some distinctive characteristics including: (1) lack of affinity to the affinity ligand 3-(carboxyphenyl) ethyldimethyl ammonium, which has been used widely in purification of AChE from various insect species; and (2) 20-200-fold higher substrate-inhibition thresholds for ATC and A beta MTC than AChE from other insect species. These biochemical properties may reflect structural differences of AChE purified from the greenbug compared with that from other insect species. (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