| Literature DB >> 30155485 |
Yuhao Sun1,2,3,4, Xiaolin Chen1,2,4, Lin Song5, Song Liu1,2,4, Huahua Yu1,2,4, Xueqin Wang1,2,4, Yukun Qin1,2,4, Pengcheng Li1,2,4.
Abstract
Avian Leukosis Virus Subgroup J (ALV-J), a retrovirus of avian, has caused enormous economics losses to poultry industry around the world. Polysaccharides from marine algae are featured diversity bioactivities. To find the potential effect to prevent ALV-J spread, in this study, polysaccharides from Ulva pertusa (UPPs) and four low molecular weight (Mw) U. pertusa polysaccharides (LUPPs) were prepared and their functions on ALV-J were investigated. Firstly, LUPPs were obtained by hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) oxidative degradation. The effects of degradation conditions on Mw of the UPP were also investigated. Results showed that the H2O2 oxidative degradation method could degrade UPP effectively, and the degradation was positively related to H2O2 concentration and temperature and negatively to pH. The chemical characteristics of UPP and LUPPs were also determined. Afterwards, the anti-ALV-J activity of the polysaccharides were carried out in vitro. Results showed that UPP and LUPPs could inhibit ALV-J and LUPP-3 and Mw of 4.3 kDa exerted the strongest suppression. The action phase assay showed that LUPP-3 could bind with the viral particles and prevented ALV-J adsorption onto the host cells. And the ALV-J relative gene and gp85 protein expression were significantly suppressed after being administration with LUPP-3. Therefore, the low Mw polysaccharides from U. pertusa have great potential as an anti-ALV-J drug alternative.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30155485 PMCID: PMC6098872 DOI: 10.1155/2018/9415965
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Effect of pH on degradation of UPP. UPP was degraded in 0.3% H2O2 at 80°C and pH values of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 were tested.
Figure 2Effect of H2O2 concentration on degradation of UPP. The reaction temperature was 80°C and pH 4 was used. Different H2O2 concentrations varying from 0.15% to 4.5% were tested.
Figure 3Effect of temperature on degradation of UPP. UPP was degraded in pH 4 and 3% H2O2. Temperatures from 60°C to 100°C were tested.
Degradation conditions and yield of LUPPs.
| Sample | Temperature (°C) | pH | H2O2 (%) | Time (min) | Yield (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LUPP-1 | 70 | 4 | 3 | 45 | 58.22 |
| LUPP-2 | 80 | 4 | 3 | 125 | 39.02 |
| LUPP-3 | 90 | 4 | 3 | 90 | 17.60 |
| LUPP-4 | 100 | 4 | 3 | 90 | 22.65 |
Properties of the polysaccharides (%w/w of dry weight). Values are as mean ± standard deviation (n=3).
| Sample | Mw (kDa) | Total Sugar (%) | Sulfate (%) | Protein (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UPP | 159 ± 0.9 | 44.61 ± 1.20 | 17.46 ± 0.24 | 1.12 ± 0.01 |
| LUPP-1 | 23.6 ± 0.5 | 42.49 ± 0.65 | 21.24 ± 0.16 | 0.76 ± 0.01 |
| LUPP-2 | 9.0 ± 0.2 | 38.77 ± 0.69 | 19.43 ± 0.06 | 0.19 ± 0.01 |
| LUPP-3 | 4.3 ± 0.3 | 37.59 ± 0.44 | 20.18 ± 0.24 | 0.17 ± 0.01 |
| LUPP-4 | 2.5 ± 0.1 | 33.40 ± 0.35 | 20.63 ± 0.23 | 0.28 ± 0.01 |
Figure 4FT-IR spectra of UPP and LUPPs.
Relative Survival Rate of DF-1 cells. Values are as mean ± standard deviation (n=3).
| Concentration (mg/mL) | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.25 | 0.125 | 0.0625 | 0.03125 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UPP | 0.96 ± 0.02 | 1.03 ± 0.04 | 1.02 ± 0.03 | 1.09 ± 0.05 | 1.01 ± 0.06 | 0.96 ± 0.04 | 1.06 ± 0.04 |
| LUPP-1 | 0.95 ± 0.01 | 1.09 ± 0.02 | 1.00 ± 0.04 | 1.01 ± 0.05 | 0.96 ± 0.07 | 1.10 ± 0.04 | 1.04 ± 0.06 |
| LUPP-2 | 0.94 ± 0.04 | 1.09 ± 0.03 | 1.07 ± 0.01 | 1.08 ± 0.05 | 1.05 ± 0.02 | 0.97 ± 0.03 | 1.06 ± 0.04 |
| LUPP-3 | 0.95 ± 0.03 | 1.11 ± 0.05 | 1.04 ± 0.05 | 1.07 ± 0.01 | 1.11 ± 0.08 | 0.96 ± 0.07 | 1.11 ± 0.04 |
| LUPP-4 | 0.99 ± 0.03 | 0.98 ± 0.06 | 1.06 ± 0.04 | 0.98 ± 0.02 | 1.09 ± 0.05 | 1.04 ± 0.04 | 0.99 ± 0.05 |
Figure 5Relative expression of ALV p27 antigen. After being treated with ALV-J and polysaccharides for 2 h simultaneously, the cells were washed by PBS and incubated with MM with corresponding polysaccharides for 24 h. Values represent mean + standard deviation (n=3). Statistical significance p < 0.05, compared with each other.
Figure 6p27 expression of different modes of administration detected by ELISA. BA: DF-1 cells handled with polysaccharides before virus adsorption; Ad: DF-1 cells handled with polysaccharides at the virus adsorption phase; AA: DF-1 cells handled with polysaccharides after virus adsorption. Values represent mean + standard deviation (n=3). Statistical significance p < 0.05, compared with each other.
Figure 7Gene relative expression of ALV-J. DF-1 cells inoculated with ALV-J and polysaccharides of different concentration for 2 h simultaneously. Then the cells were washed by PBS and covered with MM for 24 h. After that, the cells were collected for RT-PCR assay. Values represent mean + standard deviation (n=3). Statistical significance p < 0.05, compared with each other.
Figure 8Western-blot analysis of ALV-J gp85 protein expression. DF-1 cells inoculated with ALV-J and polysaccharides of different concentration for 2 h simultaneously. Then the cells were washed by PBS and covered with MM for 24 h. After that, the cells were collected and lysed for western-blot assay.
Figure 9IFA analysis of ALV-J gp85 protein. DF-1 cells inoculated with ALV-J and polysaccharides of different concentration for 2 h simultaneously. Then the cells were washed by PBS and covered with MM for 5 days. After that, the IFA was carried out. (a) Virus control, (b) cell control, (c) ALV-J handled with 40 μg/mL LUPP-3, (d) ALV-J handled with 200 μg/mL LUPP-3, and (e) ALV-J handled with 1000 μg/mL LUPP-3.