| Literature DB >> 31775848 |
Joseph L Humble1, Greta Carmona-Antoñanzas1, Carol M McNair1, David R Nelson2, David I Bassett1, Ingibjørg Egholm1, James E Bron1, Michaël Bekaert1, Armin Sturm3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The salmon louse (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) infests farmed and wild salmonid fishes, causing considerable economic damage to the salmon farming industry. Infestations of farmed salmon are controlled using a combination of non-medicinal approaches and veterinary drug treatments. While L. salmonis has developed resistance to most available salmon delousing agents, relatively little is known about the molecular mechanisms involved. Members of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) superfamily are typically monooxygenases, some of which are involved in the biosynthesis and metabolism of endogenous compounds, while others have central roles in the detoxification of xenobiotics. In terrestrial arthropods, insecticide resistance can be based on the enhanced expression of CYPs. The reported research aimed to characterise the CYP superfamily in L. salmonis and assess its potential roles in drug resistance.Entities:
Keywords: Aquaculture; Caligidae; Cytochrome P450; Drug resistance; Lepeophtheirus salmonis; Salmon farming
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31775848 PMCID: PMC6880348 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-019-3808-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
The Lepeophtheirus salmonis CYP superfamily. CYPs were identified by homology searches in transcriptome (EBI ENA reference ERS237607) and genome assemblies (LSalAtl2s, ensemble.metazoa.org) and annotated following the criteria of the Cytochrome P450 Nomenclature Committee
| Annotation | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P450 clan | CYP name | Length (aa) | Transcript | Gene | Best BLAST hit | Accession number | Species | E-value | Identity (%) |
| CYP2 | CYP18P1 | 527 | HACA01008353a | EMLSAG00000004688 | Cytochrome P450 18E1 | AKH03496.1 | 0.00E+00 | 53.56 | |
| CYP2 | CYP307N1 | 476 | HACA01014463a,b; HACA01014464b | EMLSAG00000001150b | Cytochrome P450 307F1 | AKH03498.1 | 5.00E−121 | 45.09 | |
| CYP2 | CYP3031C1 | 526 | HACA01022487a | EMLSAG00000005163 | Cytochrome P450 CYP3031A1 | AIL94135.1 | 2.00E−124 | 40.00 | |
| CYP2 | CYP3038E1 | 548 | HACA01006511b | EMLSAG00000005721a | Cytochrome P450 CYP3038B1 | APH81379.1 | 5.00E−139 | 42.09 | |
| CYP2 | CYP3041C1 | 490 | HACA01003809a | EMLSAG00000007328 | Cytochrome P450 3041B1 | AKH03506.1 | 2.00E−145 | 48.92 | |
| CYP2 | CYP3041C2 | 480 | HACA01027076b; HACA01031477b | EMLSAG00000002359a | Cytochrome P450 3041B1 | AKH03506.1 | 9.00E−145 | 46.30 | |
| CYP2 | CYP3041D1 | 481 | HACA01029496a | EMLSAG00000007758 | Cytochrome P450 CYP3041A2 | AIL94133.1 | 3.00E−123 | 42.65 | |
| CYP2 | CYP3041E1 | 477 | HACA01001994a; HACA01011887 | EMLSAG00000007334b; EMLSAG00000007335b; EMLSAG00000011475b | Cytochrome P450 CYP3041A2 | APH81382.1 | 9.00E−126 | 40.57 | |
| CYP2 | CYP3041E2 | 482 | HACA01000555a | EMLSAG00000006822 | Cytochrome P450 3041B1 | AKH03506.1 | 2.00E−118 | 41.19 | |
| CYP3 | CYP3027H1 | 484 | HACA01003852a,c | EMLSAG00000010829 | Cytochrome P450 3A24 | ACO15001.1 | 0.00E+00 | 65.45 | |
| CYP3 | CYP3027H2 | 482 | HACA01014781a | EMLSAG00000009405 | Cytochrome P450 3A24 | ACO15001.1 | 0.00E+00 | 63.73 | |
| CYP3 | CYP3027H3 | 482 | HACA01004583a | EMLSAG00000005269 | Cytochrome P450 3A24 | ACO15001.1 | 0.00E+00 | 63.09 | |
| CYP3 | CYP3027H4 | 494 | HACA01012946b | EMLSAG00000012088a | Cytochrome P450 3A24 | ACO15001.1 | 0.00E+00 | 62.31 | |
| CYP3 | CYP3027H–fragment1 | 197 | – | EMLSAG00000010833a,b | Cytochrome P450 3A24 | ACO10681.1 | 5.00E−33 | 64.52 | |
| CYP3 | CYP3027H–fragment2 | 87 | – | EMLSAG00000006848a,b | Cytochrome P450 3A24 | ACO10681.1 | 7.00E−26 | 66.20 | |
| CYP3 | CYP3649A1 | 537 | HACA01001887a,b | EMLSAG00000004666b | Cytochrome P450 CYP3025B1 | APH81387.1 | 3.00E−111 | 36.08 | |
| CYP3 | CYP3649A2 | 537 | HACA01004064a | EMLSAG00000006058 | Cytochrome P450 CYP3025B1 | APH81387.1 | 2.00E−122 | 36.02 | |
| CYP3 | CYP3649A–fragment1 | 107 | – | EMLSAG00000002804a,b | Cytochrome P450-like protein 3 | ADB28828.1 | 1.00E−08 | 41.18 | |
| CYP3 | CYP3651A1P | 492 | HACA01014825a | – | Cytochrome P450 CYP3025B1 | APH81387.1 | 8.00E−22 | 23.72 | |
| Mitochondrial | CYP44M1 | 483 | HACA01005509a | EMLSAG00000008058 | Cytochrome P450 CYP44D1 | APH81396.1 | 4.00E−144 | 44.05 | |
| Mitochondrial | CYP44M2 | 431 | HACA01005507a,b | EMLSAG00000008058 | Cytochrome P450 CYP44D1 | APH81396.1 | 7.00E−126 | 44.34 | |
| Mitochondrial | CYP302A1 | 470 | HACA01015112b; HACA01015113a | EMLSAG00000005374 | Putative ecdysteroid 22-hydroxylase | EFX63066.1 | 1.00E-144 | 47.50 | |
| Mitochondrial | CYP314A1 | 527 | HACA01031265a | EMLSAG00000009224 | Cytochrome P450 CYP314A1 | AIL94172.1 | 0.00E+00 | 54.46 | |
| Mitochondrial | CYP315E1 | 421 | – | EMLSAG00000003403a,e | Cytochrome P450 315A1 | AKH03535.1 | 6.00E−85 | 38.00 | |
| Mitochondrial | CYP3650A1 | 478 | HACA01009722a | EMLSAG00000005044 | Cytochrome P450 3020B1 | AKH03536.1 | 7.00E−95 | 36.75 | |
RT-PCR followed by Sanger sequencing was used to confirm cDNA sequences, which were deposited in GenBank (see Additional file 2: Table S2 for accession numbers)
aPredicted polypeptide length based on this sequence
bPartial sequence
cHACA01003852 contains a one-base deletion disrupting the open reading frame, predicted peptide length according to corrected sequence based on RT-PCR/sequencing data
dHACA01015113 contains a one-base deletion disrupting the open reading frame, predicted peptide length according to corrected sequence based on RT-PCR/sequencing data
eGene model EMLSAG00000003403 is the fusion between a CYP gene and a kinase, probably reflecting an assembly problem. Polypeptide length based on CYP sequence only
Fig. 1Phylogenetic analysis of 22 L. salmonis CYPs. Peptide sequences were aligned using the programme GramAlign v3.0 [54] and analysed using IQ-TREE v1.6.9 [55]. a Phylogenetic tree of CYPs from L. salmonis and four arthropod species (Daphnia pulex, Tigriopus japonicus, Paracyclopina nana and Apis mellifera). b Phylogenetic tree of CYPs from L. salmonis and A. mellifera. Numbers at the branching points of nodes represent percent bootstrap support values
Fig. 2CYP transcript expression in two L. salmonis strains. Transcript expression of CYPs was determined by RT-qPCR in preadult-II females and adult males of two L. salmonis strains (IoA-00: drug-susceptible, IoA-02: multi-resistant). The transcript abundance in the relevant stage and strain is expressed as fold expression compared to the average expression among all groups, with above average expression highlighted in green and below average expression in red. Effects of strain, sex/stage and interaction of strain and sex/stage were assessed by the Scheirer-Ray-Hare test. P-values significant after Bonferroni correction are given in bold print
Fig. 3Effects of deltamethrin on CYP transcript expression in L. salmonis. Preadult-II females and adult males of two L. salmonis strains (IoA-00, drug-susceptible; IoA-02, multiresistant) were exposed to deltamethrin (DM0.05, 0.05 µg/l; DM2.00, 2.0 µg/l) for 30 min and allowed to recover for 24 h in clean seawater before CYP transcript abundance was determined by RT-qPCR. Transcript levels in exposed parasites are given as fold expression compared to untreated control animals, with upregulation highlighted in green and downregulation in red. Data were subjected to Kruskal–Wallis tests (bold: significant after Bonferroni correction) followed by post-hoc comparisons to the control group (Dunn’s test; *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001)
Fig. 4Effects of emamectin benzoate (EMB) on CYP transcript expression in L. salmonis. Preadult-II females and adult males of two L. salmonis strains (IoA-00, drug-susceptible; IoA-02, multiresistant) were exposed to emamectin benzoate (EMB25, 25 µg/l; EMB150, 150 µg/l) for 24 h before CYP transcript abundance was determined by RT-qPCR. Transcript levels in exposed parasites are given as fold expression compared to untreated control animals, with upregulation highlighted in green and downregulation in red. Data were subjected to Kruskal-Wallis tests (bold: significant after Bonferroni correction) followed by post-hoc comparisons to the control group (Dunn’s test; *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001)