| Literature DB >> 31546575 |
Marios Tomazou1,2, Anastasis Oulas3,4, Athanasios K Anagnostopoulos5, George Th Tsangaris6, George M Spyrou7,8.
Abstract
Milk and dairy products are a major functional food group of growing scientific and commercial interest due to their nutritional value and bioactive "load". A major fraction of the latter is attributed to milk's rich protein content and its biofunctional peptides that occur naturally during digestion. On the basis of the identified proteome datasets of milk whey from sheep and goat breeds in Greece and feta cheese obtained during previous work, we applied an in silico workflow to predict and characterise the antimicrobial peptide content of these proteomes. We utilised existing tools for predicting peptide sequences with antimicrobial traits complemented by in silico protein cleavage modelling to identify frequently occurring antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract in humans. The peptides of interest were finally assessed for their stability with respect to their susceptibility to cleavage by endogenous proteases expressed along the intestinal part of the GI tract and ranked with respect to both their antimicrobial and stability scores.Entities:
Keywords: antimicrobial peptides; functional foods; gastrointestinal tract; in silico digestion; milk whey; peptidomics; proteases; proteolysis; proteomics
Year: 2019 PMID: 31546575 PMCID: PMC6958355 DOI: 10.3390/proteomes7040032
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proteomes ISSN: 2227-7382
Figure 1(A) The protein datasets analysed comprise the milk whey proteomes from three sheep and two goat breeds as well as the feta cheese proteome. (B) The AMPA algorithm identified the protein sequences with high antimicrobial potential with a number of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) proportional to the initial proteome size. (C) The in silico cleavage analysis started by extracting all peptides occurring after pepsin digestion followed by sequence-matching with the AMPA set. The matching peptides were filtered and assessed for stability regarding their affinity to other intestinal proteases. Finally, a combined score of protease stability, half-life estimation obtained from the HLP predictor, and AMPA antimicrobial propensity was used to rank the identified peptide sequences.
Figure 2(A) Barplot showing the number of selected matching AMPs from the AMPA and pepsin digestion sets and the rejected peptides per proteome, grouped on the basis of the length of residual amino acids upstream and downstream of the corresponding AMPA peptide’s C- and N-termini. (B) Histogram and density plot of the distribution of various features of the selected AMP set. These include the peptide sequence length, number of cleavage positions by intestinal proteases, resultant stability score, AMPA propensity score, HLP half-life and HLP relative stability. The red dashed line corresponds to the mean value. (C) Venn diagrams showing the number of common and unique AMPs across different proteome sets. (D) Dotplot of the combined antimicrobial score across proteomes and the top 100 in rank over a combined antimicrobial score (CAS) threshold of 0.22.
Population metrics for the selected AMP set.
| Proteome | Proteins (n) | AMPs (n) | Ratio to Proteome | Mean Propensity | Mean | Mean CSS | Mean CAS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 595 | 602 | 1.012 | 0.224 | 1.270 | 7.08 | 0.062 |
|
| 486 | 407 | 0.837 | 0.224 | 1.155 | 7.156 | 0.069 |
|
| 685 | 442 | 0.645 | 0.225 | 1.120 | 6.891 | 0.069 |
|
| 550 | 416 | 0.756 | 0.225 | 1.238 | 6.989 | 0.063 |
|
| 583 | 415 | 0.712 | 0.224 | 1.199 | 6.869 | 0.064 |
|
| 489 | 338 | 0.691 | 0.224 | 0.968 | 7.382 | 0.086 |
Population metrics for the top 100 AMP (CAS > 0.22).
| Proteome | Proteins (n) | AMPs (n) | Ratio to proteome | Mean Propensity | Mean | Mean CSS | Mean CAS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 595 | 36 | 0.061 | 0.229 | 0.288 | 9.895 | 0.312 |
|
| 486 | 32 | 0.066 | 0.231 | 0.310 | 10.31 | 0.311 |
|
| 685 | 34 | 0.050 | 0.229 | 0.283 | 9.713 | 0.326 |
|
| 550 | 24 | 0.044 | 0.231 | 0.301 | 10.304 | 0.311 |
|
| 583 | 28 | 0.048 | 0.228 | 0.296 | 9.632 | 0.3 |
|
| 489 | 44 | 0.090 | 0.229 | 0.271 | 10.045 | 0.338 |
Figure 3Analysis of the top 100 ranking AMPs. (A) Barplot showing the number of AMP from the top 100 set, across proteomes. (B) Dot and box plots showing the CAS score across proteomes. (C) Network of total, common and unique AMPs across proteomes. Nodes represent proteome sets with a size proportional to the total number of AMPs identified in each proteome. U represents the number of unique AMPs in each proteome, while edge size is proportional to the number of common AMPs shown as edge label. CP: Capra prisca, S: Skopelos, K: Karagkouniko, M: Mpoutsko, Ch: Chios, F: feta cheese.