4.6 Article

Identification of the novel bioactive peptides dRYamide-1 and dRYamide-2, ligands for a neuropeptide Y-like receptor in Drosophila

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2011.06.081

关键词

GPCR; Novel bioactive peptide; Drosophila; Neuropeptide Y

资金

  1. Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
  2. University of Miyazaki
  3. Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture, Japan
  4. Program for Promotion of Basic Research Activities for Innovative Bioscience (PROBRAIN)
  5. Suzuken Memorial Foundation
  6. Shimadzu Scientific Foundation
  7. Uehara Memorial Foundation
  8. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22390170, 22126003, 21591189, 23780297, 22126002, 23659422, 22790892, 22300132] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A number of bioactive peptides are involved in regulating a wide range of animal behaviors, including food consumption. Vertebrate neuropeptide Y (NPY) is a potent stimulator of appetitive behavior. Recently, Drosophila neuropeptide F (dNPF) and short NPF (sNPF), the Drosophila homologs of the vertebrate NPY, were identified to characterize the functions of NPFs in the feeding behaviors of this insect. Dm-NPFR1 and NPFR76F are the receptors for dNPF and sNPF, respectively; both receptors are G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Another GPCR (CG5811; NepYR) was indentified in Drosophila as a neuropeptide Y-like receptor. Here, we identified 2 ligands of CG5811, dRYamide-1 and dRYamide-2. Both peptides are derived from the same precursor (CG40733) and have no significant structural similarities to known bioactive peptides. The C-terminal sequence RYamide of dRYamides is identical to that of NPY family peptides; on the other hand, dNPF and sNPF have C-terminal RFamide. When administered to blowflies, dRYamide-1 suppressed feeding motivation. We propose that dRYamides are related to the NPY family in vertebrates, similar to dNPF and sNPF. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. 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