4.6 Article

Characterization of inhibitory mechanism and antifungal activity between group-1 and group-2 phytocystatins from taro (Colocasia esculenta)

期刊

FEBS JOURNAL
卷 275, 期 20, 页码 4980-4989

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2008.06631.x

关键词

allosteric activation; anti-fungal activity; cysteine proteinase inhibitor; inhibitory kinetics; tarocystatin (CeCPI)

资金

  1. National Science Council, Taiwan [NSC-95-2317B-002-005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tarocystatin from Colocasia esculenta, a group-2 phytocystatin, is a defense protein against phytopathogenic nematodes and fungi. It is composed of a highly conserved N-terminal region, which is homological to group-1 cystatin, and a repetitive peptide at the C-terminus. The purified recombinant proteins of tarocystatin, such as full-length (FL), N-terminus (Nt) and C-terminus (Ct) peptides, were produced and their inhibitory activities against papain as well as their antifungal effects were investigated. Kinetic analysis revealed that FL peptide exhibited mixed type inhibition (K-ia = 0.098 mu m and K-ib = 0.252 mu m) and Nt peptide showed competitive inhibition (K-i = 0.057 mu m), whereas Ct peptide possessed weak papain activation properties. A shift in the inhibitory pattern from competitive inhibition of Nt peptide alone to mixed type inhibition of FL peptide implied that the Ct peptide has an regulatory effect on the function of FL peptide. Based on the inhibitory kinetics of FL (group-2) and Nt (group-1) peptides on papain activity, an inhibitory mechanism of group-2 phytocystatins and a regulatory mechanism of extended Ct peptide have each been proposed. By contrast, the antifungal activity of Nt peptide appeared to be greater than that of FL peptide, and the Ct peptide showed no effect on antifungal activity, indicating that the antifungal effect is not related to proteinase inhibitory activity. The results are valid for most phytocystatins with respect to the inhibitory mechanism against cysteine proteinase.

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