| Literature DB >> 30400299 |
Rosa Maria Vitale1, Enrico D'Aniello2,3, Stefania Gorbi4, Andrea Martella5, Cristoforo Silvestri6,7, Maria Elisa Giuliani8, Tariq Fellous9, Alessandra Gentile10, Marianna Carbone11, Adele Cutignano12, Laura Grauso13,14, Laura Magliozzi15, Gianluca Polese16, Biagio D'Aniello17, Fanny Defranoux18, Serena Felline19,20, Antonio Terlizzi21,22,23, Antonio Calignano24, Francesco Regoli25, Vincenzo Di Marzo26,27, Pietro Amodeo28, Ernesto Mollo29.
Abstract
Although the chemical warfare between invasive and native species has become a central problem in invasion biology, the molecular mechanisms by which bioactive metabolites from invasive pests influence local communities remain poorly characterized. This study demonstrates that the alkaloid caulerpin (CAU)-a bioactive component of the green alga Caulerpa cylindracea that has invaded the entire Mediterranean basin-is an agonist of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs). Our interdisciplinary study started with the in silico prediction of the ligand-protein interaction, which was then validated by in vivo, ex vivo and in vitro assays. On the basis of these results, we candidate CAU as a causal factor of the metabolic and behavioural disorders observed in Diplodus sargus, a native edible fish of high ecological and commercial relevance, feeding on C. cylindracea. Moreover, given the considerable interest in PPAR activators for the treatment of relevant human diseases, our findings are also discussed in terms of a possible nutraceutical/pharmacological valorisation of the invasive algal biomasses, supporting an innovative strategy for conserving biodiversity as an alternative to unrealistic campaigns for the eradication of invasive pests.Entities:
Keywords: Caulerpa cylindracea; Mediterranean; PPAR; biological invasions; caulerpin; molecular interactions
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30400299 PMCID: PMC6267082 DOI: 10.3390/md16110431
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mar Drugs ISSN: 1660-3397 Impact factor: 5.118
Figure 1Structural comparison between CAU and a selective PPARα agonist. (a) CAU 2D structure and (b) a 3D fit of CAU (thick sticks, carbon = cyan) on GW590735 (thin sticks, carbon = green), a potent and selective PPARα agonist, showing the “V-shaped” structure shared by the two molecules.
Figure 2Multi-alignment of Sparus aurata (50882276), Dentex dentex (A4UQV9) and human (Q07869) PPARα sequences obtained with ClustalW program (CLUSTAL 2.1 multiple sequence alignment). Critical residues involved in binding with canonical agonists are depicted with a green background and numbered according to the human sequence. The Ligand Binding Domain (LBD) is indicated with a bold red line over the sequence. The Ω loop is indicated over the sequences, printed in medium grey and depicted with light grey background. The symbols under the sequences stand for sequence identity (*), strict conservation of residue type (:), loose conservation of residue type (.) and sequence variability (space).
Figure 3Representative MD structures of PPAR-CAU complexes. Panels a-f show CAU and representative MD structures of PPARα-CAU (magenta) and PPARγ-CAU (gold) complexes. In particular, panels show PPARα/γ I (a), PPARα II, III (this latter in mauve)/PPARγ II (b), PPARγ III (c), PPARα/γ IV (d), PPARα/γ V (e) and PPARα/γ VI (f) complex structures from MD representative frames. Proteins and ligands are shown as half-transparent pipes-and-planks and opaque stick with non-carbon atoms coloured by type (red: oxygen, blue: nitrogen, white: hydrogen), respectively. Complexes are grouped by similarity and shown in the same orientation, resulting from a recursive best-fit of protein heavy atoms, iterated by pruning distant atom pairs until no pair exceeds 2.0 Å.
Figure 4Luciferase reporter assays on COS7 cells. CAU activate mPPARα (a, n = 5) and mPPARγ (b, n = 6) but not RXRα (c, n = 9) in COS-7 cells. Fenofibrate (FFB), rosiglitazone (RGZ) and 9-cis retinoic acid (9-cis-RA) were used respectively as PPARα, PPARγ and RXRα agonist. Statistical analysis vs. vehicle (DMSO) were performed by one-way ANOVA, followed by Dunnett’s analysis. * p < 0.05. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean.
Figure 5In vivo experiments. (a) CAU levels in the tissues of D. sargus fed with food treated with CAU (n = 4 for each bar). (b) PPARα gene expression in the liver of D. sargus fed with artificial food treated with purified CAU, in comparison with individuals fed with control food (n = 3 for each bar).
Figure 6Ex vivo and in vitro experiments. (a–c) Time-dependent mRNA levels of PPARα, ACADM and ACOX1 under exposure of precision-cut tissue slices of D. sargus liver to either CAU or FFB (n = 3 for each bar). (d–g) Time-dependent expression of PPARα responsive genes in HepG2 cells. qPCR analyses were performed comparing PPARα (d), ACADM (e), ACOX1 (f) and CPT1A (g) gene expression relative to DMSO in cells treated with CAU and FFB at 6 h (n = 4), 24 h (n = 3) and 48 h (n = 4). (h) Expression of CPT1A protein in HepG2 cells (western blot) at 48 h (n = 2). Averaged optical density (OD) values for the CPT1A bands were normalized to that of α-tubulin. (i) MTT assays on HepG2 cells (n = 3). Statistical analyses were performed using unpaired t-tests. * p < 0.05 vs. vehicle (DMSO). Error bars indicate standard error of the mean.