Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T11:44:04.137Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

In vitro proteolysis of nematode FMRFamide-like peptides (FLPs) by preparations from a free-living nematode (Panagrellus redivivus) and two plant-parasitic nematodes (Heteroderaglycines and Meloidogyne incognita)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2011

E.P. Masler*
Affiliation:
Nematology Laboratory, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 10300 Baltimore Avenue, BARC-West, BeltsvilleMD20705-2350, USA
*
*Fax: +1 301-504-5589 E-mail: edward.masler@ars.usda.gov
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Proteolytic activities in extracts from three nematodes, the plant parasites Heterodera glycines and Meloidogyneincognita, and the free-living Panagrellus redivivus, were surveyed for substrate preferences using a battery of seven FRET-modified peptide substrates, all derived from members of the large FMRF-amide like peptide (FLP) family in nematodes. Overall protease activity in P. redivivus was four- to fivefold greater than in either of the parasites, a result that might reflect developmental differences. Digestion of the M. incognita FLP KHEFVRFa (substrate Abz-KHEFVRF-Y(3-NO2)a) by M. incognita extract was sevenfold greater than with H. glycines extract and twofold greater than P. redivivus, suggesting species-specific preferences. Additional species differences were revealed upon screening 12 different protease inhibitors. Two substrates were used in the screen, Abz-KHEFVRF-Y(3-NO2)a and Abz-KPSFVRF-Y(3-NO2)a), which was digested equally by all three species. The effects of various inhibitor, substrate and extract source combinations on substrate digestion suggest that M. incognita differs significantly from P. redivivus and H. glycines in its complement of cysteine proteases, particularly cathepsin L-type protease.

Information

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011. This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Protease activities in Panagrellus redivivus, Heterodera glycines and Meloidogyne incognita extracts detected using FLP-FRET substrates. Extracts and peptide substrates were obtained as described, and digestion reactions prepared in 25 μl 100 mm Tris, pH 7.8 with 0.08–0.1 μg/μl extract protein, 4 pmol/μl peptide substrate and 2% DMSO. Reactions were initiated by substrate addition and monitored for 1 h at 27°C for increasing fluorescence. Activities are expressed as mean Vmax/min/μg ±  SEM (n = 4–8). Means were compared using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's multiple comparison test. For each substrate, means were compared across species and those followed by different letters were significantly different (P <  0.05). For each species, means were compared across substrates and those followed by different numbers were significantly different (P <  0.05). White bars, P. redivivus; grey bars, H. glycines; black bars, M. incognita. Substrates tested were: (a) KHEYLRF [QXL520-KHEYLRF-K(5-FAM)a], KSAYMRF [QXL520-KSAYMRF-K(5-FAM)a], RNKFEFIRF [QXL520-RNKFEFIRF-K(5-FAM)a], and SAPYDPNFLRF [QXL520-SAPYDPNFLRF-K(5-FAM)a]; (b) KHEFVRF [Abz-KHEFVRF-Y(3-NO2)a], KNEFIRF [Abz-KNEFIRF-Y(3-NO2)a], KPSFVRF [Abz-KPSFVRF-Y(3-NO2)a], RPKPKFIRF [Abz-RPKPKFIRF-Y(3-NO2)a], SAEPFGTMRF [Abz-SAEPFGTMRF-Y(3-NO2)a].

Figure 1

Table 1 Comparison of overall protease activities in extracts prepared from three nematode species, Heterodera glycines (Hg), Meloidogyne incognita (Mi) and Panagrellus redivivus (Pr) for nine different FLP substrates.

Figure 2

Fig. 2 Effect of 12 protease inhibitors on the digestion of KPSFVRF [Abz-KPSFVRF-Y(3-NO2)a] by extracts from Panagrellus redivivus, Heterodera glycines and Meloidogyne incognita. Assays were conducted as described, except that inhibitors were added 15 min prior to the addition of substrate. Aliquots of inhibitor stock solutions were first diluted into assay buffer and then added to reactions to provide the following concentrations: AEBSF (1.67 mm), ALLN (41.7 μm), antipain (118 μm), aprotinin (0.49 μm), bestatin (208 μm), chymostatin (159 μm), E-64 (44.8 μm), EDTA-Na2 (8 mm), leupeptin (18.8 μm), pepstatin (16.3 μm), phosphoramidon (29.4 μm), PMSF (1.60 mm). Results are expressed as the average of 2–3 separate assays ±  range. Percentage inhibition was calculated as: ((Vmax/min/μgcontrol − Vmax/min/μginhibitor)/Vmax/min/μgcontrol) × 100. White bars, P. redivivus; grey bars, H. glycines; black bars, M. incognita. Dashed lines represent 25% and 50% inhibition levels.

Figure 3

Fig. 3 Effect of 12 protease inhibitors on the digestion of KHEFVRF [Abz-KHEFVRF-Y(3-NO2)a] by extracts from Panagrellus redivivus and Meloidogyne incognita. Assays were conducted as described, except that inhibitors were added 15 min prior to the addition of substrate. Aliquots of inhibitor stock solutions were first diluted into assay buffer and then added to reactions to provide the following concentrations: AEBSF (1.67 mm), ALLN (41.7 μm), antipain (118 μm), aprotinin (0.49 μm), bestatin (208 μm), chymostatin (159 μm), E-64 (44.8 μm), EDTA-Na2 (8 mm), leupeptin (18.8 μm), pepstatin (16.3 μm), phosphoramidon (29.4 μm), PMSF (1.60 mm). Results are expressed as the average of 2–3 separate assays ±  range. Percent inhibition was calculated as: ((Vmax/min/μgcontrol − Vmax/min/μginhibitor)/Vmax/min/ μgcontrol) × 100. White bars, P. redivivus; black bars, M. incognita. Dashed lines represent 25% and 50% inhibition levels.

Figure 4

Fig. 4 Inhibition of KHEFVRF [Abz-KHEFVRF-Y(3-NO2)a] digestion by extracts of Meloidogyne incognita by the cysteine protease inhibitors antipain and E-64. Dilution series of inhibitors were prepared in 100 mm Tris and added to reactions 15 min prior to the addition of substrate. Reaction conditions: 0.09 μg/μl M. incognita extract protein, 2.45–0.03 μm inhibitor, 2% DMSO in 25 μl 100 mm Tris pH 7.8, 27°C. Data are expressed as means ±  SD of percent inhibition (3–4 independent assays for each inhibitor) versus log inhibitor concentration. Percent inhibition was calculated as: ((Vmax/min/μgcontrol − Vmax/min/μginhibitor)/ Vmax/min/μgcontrol) × 100. Filled circles, E-64; open circles, antipain.