| Literature DB >> 30462698 |
Somia Debbabi1, Marie-Christine Groleau1, Myriam Létourneau1, Chitra Narayanan1, Laura-Lee Gosselin1, Mustapha Iddir1, Jacinthe Gagnon1, Nicolas Doucet1, Eric Déziel1, David Chatenet1.
Abstract
The Pituitary Adenylate Cyclase-Activating Polypeptide (PACAP), a polycationic, amphiphilic and helical neuropeptide, is well known for its neuroprotective actions and cell penetrating properties. In the present study, we evaluated the potent antibacterial property of PACAP38 and related analogs against various bacterial strains. Interestingly, PACAP38 and related analogs can inhibit the growth of various bacteria including Escherichia coli (JM109), Bacillus subtilis (PY79), and the pathogenic Burkholderia cenocepacia (J2315). Investigation of the mechanism of action suggested that a PACAP metabolite, identified as PACAP(9-38), might indeed be responsible for the observed PACAP38 antibacterial action. Surprisingly, PACAP(9-38), which does not induce haemolysis, exhibits an increased specificity toward Burkholderia cenocepacia J2315 compared to other tested bacteria. Finally, the predisposition of PACAP(9-38) to adopt a π-helix conformation rather than an α-helical conformation like PACAP38 could explain this gain in specificity. Overall, this study has revealed a new function for PACAP38 and related derivatives that can be added to its pleiotropic biological activities. This innovative study could therefore pave the way toward the development of new therapeutic agents against multiresistant bacteria, and more specifically the Burkholderia cenocepacia complex.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30462698 PMCID: PMC6248945 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207366
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of PACAP and related analogs on various bacterial strains.
| 113 | 77 | 93 | 56 | 186 | 113 | 33 | >160 | >200 | |
| >200 | >200 | >200 | 112 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >160 | >200 | |
| >200 | >200 | >200 | 112 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >160 | >200 | |
| >200 | 116 | 93 | 28 | 112 | 37 | >200 | >160 | 165 | |
| 10 | 10 | 9 | 5 | 20 | 8 | 2 | >160 | >200 | |
| >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >160 | >200 | |
| >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >160 | >200 | |
| 94 | 58 | 21 | 47 | 84 | 94 | 6 | >160 | >200 | |
| >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >160 | >200 | |
| 7.5 | 232 | 112 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >160 | >200 | |
| 28 | 12 | 5 | 3 | 42 | 3.5 | 7 | >160 | 154 | |
| 76 | 87 | 33 | 61 | 168 | 52 | 71 | >160 | >200 | |
| 42 | 26 | 10 | 7 | 20 | 9 | 21 | >160 | 134 | |
| >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >160 | >200 | |
| >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >160 | >200 |
a Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) represents the lowest concentration of an antimicrobial that will inhibit the visible growth of a microorganism after overnight incubation. Concentrations are expressed in μg/ml. Experiments were done at least in triplicates.
MIC of PACAP and related analogs on homologous bacterial strains.
| >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | |
| >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | |
| >200 | >200 | >200 | 168 | >200 | 113 | >200 | >200 | |
| >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | |
| >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | |
| >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | |
| >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | >200 | |
| >200 | 154 | 111 | 168 | 56 | 187 | >200 | >200 |
aMinimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) represents the lowest concentration of an antimicrobial that will inhibit the visible growth of a microorganism after overnight incubation. Concentrations are expressed in μg/ml. Experiments were performed at least in triplicate.
Mass spectrometry analysis of bacterial compartments following incubation with PACAP38.
| Cell fraction | Observed mass (Da) | Sequence | Calculated mass (Da) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4534.1 | 4534.3 | ||
| 4536.6 | 4534.3 | ||
| 3667.9 | 3661.3 | ||
| 4534.1 | 4534.3 | ||
| - | - | - | |
| 4533.2 | 4534.3 | ||
| 3666.6 | 3661.3 | ||
| - | - | - | |
| 4542.3 | 4534.3 | ||
| 3663.3 | 3661.3 | ||
| 4536.3 | 4534.3 | ||
| 3669.2 | 3661.3 | ||
| - | - | - | |
| 4543.8 | 4534.3 | ||
| Observed mass (Da) | Sequence | Calculated mass (Da) | |
| 4534.1 | 4534.3 | ||
| 4536.6 | 4534.3 | ||
| 3667.9 | 3661.3 | ||
| 4534.1 | 4534.3 | ||
| - | - | - | |
| 4533.2 | 4534.3 | ||
| 3666.6 | 3661.3 | ||
| - | - | - | |
| 4542.3 | 4534.3 | ||
| 3663.3 | 3661.3 | ||
| 4536.3 | 4534.3 | ||
| 3669.2 | 3661.3 | ||
| - | - | - | |
| 4543.8 | 4534.3 | ||
*Methionine oxidation
Binding affinity of PACAP38 and PACAP(9–38).
| HPLC | MS | MS | PAC1 | VPAC1 | VPAC2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC50 | pIC50 | IC50 | pIC50 | IC50 | pIC50 | ||||
| PACAP38 | 98% | 4534.3 | 4534.9 | 4.6 (2.7–7.7) | 8.34 ± 0.11 | 3.6 (2.2–5.7) | 8.45 ± 0.09 | 18 (4–78) | 7.74 ± 0.28 |
| PACAP(9–38) | 98% | > 10−6 | 5.87 ± 0.19 | > 10−6 | 5.29 ± 0.37 | > 10−6 | 5.77 ± 0.13 | ||
aPercentage of purity determined by HPLC using the eluent system: A = H2O (0.1% TFA) and B = 60% CH3CN/40% A with a gradient slope of 1% B/min, at a flow rate of 1 mL/min on a Vydac C18 column. Detection at 229 nm.
bTheorical monoisotopic molecular weight as calculated with ChemDraw Ultra 7.0.1.
cm/z value assessed by MALDI-TOF-MS.
dIC50 represents the concentration at 50% binding inhibition. Values in parentheses are 95% confidence limits.
MIC values of PACAP(9–38) (10) against PACAP-sensitive bacteria.
| 10 | |
|---|---|
| 19 | |
| >183 | |
| >183 | |
| >183 | |
| >183 | |
| >183 | |
| >183 | |
| >183 |
aMinimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) represents the lowest concentration of an antimicrobial that will inhibit the visible growth of a microorganism after overnight incubation. Concentrations are expressed in μg/ml. Experiments were performed at least in triplicate.
Fig 1Haemolytic activity of PACAP38 and PACAP(9–38) performed after 30 min (A) and and 3h (B) incubation with various concentrations of PACAP38 or PACAP(9–38). Statistical analysis was performed by using ANOVA, followed by a Dunnett’s multiple comparison test, and differences were considered significant when ***P < 0.001.
Fig 2Circular dichroism analysis of PACAP38 and PACAP(9–38).
Each spectrum is the mean of 3 scans corrected for solvent contribution.
Fig 3Secondary structural propensities of PACAP38 and PACAP(9–38).
The average percent α-helix, 310 and π helix as a function of residue number along the sequence are represented as red, green and blue lines, respectively, for two independent MD runs of PACAP38 (A, C) and PACAP9-38 (B, D).