4.4 Article

Isolation and molecular cloning of venom peptides from Orancistrocerus drewseni (Hymenoptera: Eumenidae)

期刊

TOXICON
卷 55, 期 4, 页码 711-718

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2009.10.023

关键词

Orancistrocerus drewseni; Venom; Antimicrobial peptide; EST library

资金

  1. BioGreen 21 grant [034032]
  2. Rural Development Administration (RDA), Republic of Korea [PJ00708520101136300] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three venom peptides (OdVP1, OdVP2 and OdVP3) were isolated from the venom of the solitary wasp Orancistrocerus drewseni (Hymenoptera: Eumenidae). The mature venom peptide sequences were determined via ESI-Q-TOF MS/MS and by searching the O. drewseni venom gland/sac-specific EST library. All of the OdVPs shared the typical characteristics of amidated C-termini proteins and contained a high content of hydrophobic and positively charged amino acids, suggesting that they adopt an amphipathic alpha-helical secondary structure, as is the case for mastoparan from Vespula lewisii. The cDNA sequence of the OdVP1 precursor was obtained by 5'- and 3'-rapid amplification of cDNA ends (RACE), and the OdVP2 and OdVP3 precursor transcripts were identified from the venom gland/sac-specific EST library. While the mature peptide sequences were distinct from one another, the overall transcript structure of the OdVPs showed a high homology to that of mastoparan-B from Vespa basalis in that they contained a signal sequence, a prosequence, a mature peptide and a C-terminal glycine. The OdVPs, particularly OdVP2 and OdVP2L (an analog of OdVP2), exhibited strong antifungal activities, but poor antibacterial activities. OdVP2L, which possessed additional Glu-Pro residues, did not have antimicrobial activity against bacteria or Gram-positive yeast but retained activity against Botrytis cinerea. (C) 2009 Elsevier 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

4.4
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