| Literature DB >> 32231120 |
James A Reihill1, Xuan Ouyang1, Zhixuan Yang1, Lisa E J Douglas1, Mei Zhou1, Tianbao Chen1, S Lorraine Martin1.
Abstract
Epithelial barrier dysfunction, characteristic of allergic airway disease may be, at least in part, due to the action of allergen-associated protease activities. Cockroach allergy is a major global health issue, with cockroaches containing considerable serine trypsin-like protease (TLP) activity. The present study sought to evaluate two novel protease inhibitors (PE-BBI and pLR-HL), recently isolated from amphibian skin secretions, for their potential to neutralise cockroach TLP activity and to determine any protective effect on cockroach-induced airway epithelial barrier disruption. Inhibitor potencies against the cockroach-associated activities were determined using a fluorogenic peptide substrate-based activity assay. 16HBE14o- cells (16HBE; a bronchial epithelial cell line) were treated with cockroach extract (CRE) in the presence or absence of the compounds in order to assess cell viability (RealTime Glo luminescent assay) and epithelial barrier disruption (transepithelial resistance and paracellular dextran flux). PE-BBI potently and selectively inhibited CRE TLP activity (pIC50 -8), but not host (16HBE) cell surface activity, which conferred protection of 16HBE cells from CRE-induced cell damage and barrier disruption. Novel protease inhibitor strategies such as PE-BBI may be useful for the treatment of allergic airway disease caused by cockroach proteases.Entities:
Keywords: airway epithelial barrier; airway epithelial barrier dysfunction; airway epithelium; allergen; cockroach; protease; protease inhibitor
Year: 2020 PMID: 32231120 PMCID: PMC7226075 DOI: 10.3390/biom10040515
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomolecules ISSN: 2218-273X
Figure 1(A) Exemplar concentration–response (inhibition) curve analysis where the x-axis is the log QUB-1813 concentration (molar) and the y-axis the response (expressed as percentage inhibition calculated against the vehicle control value) for cockroach extract (CRE) trypsin-like protease (TLP) activity. (B) Summary table detailing the potency of candidate protease inhibitors tested against recombinant trypsin activity and the TLP activity present in CRE as assessed by fluorogenic peptide substrate-based assay. n ≥ 4.
Figure 2Evaluation of protease inhibitors compounds on polarised 16HBE surface TLP activity. (A) Typical kinetic trace demonstrating TLP cell surface protease activity in the presence or absence of putative inhibitor compounds. Summary data are quantified in panel (B). Data are presented as the mean ± SEMs (n = 7). ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001, ns (not significant).
Figure 3The effect of protease inhibitors on cockroach-mediated cell death (submerged 16HBE cells). (A) Addition of cockroach extract resulted in reduced cell viability in a dose-dependent manner. (B) Heat-inactivated cockroach extract (75 °C, 3 min), which completely abolishes proteolytic activity, does not affect cell viability when added at a high dose (50 µg/well). (C) Cell viability was unaltered by protease inhibitors added alone (at a 50 µM dose for 24 hr). (D) Cockroach extract (16.5 µg/well, 24 h) significantly elicited decreased cell viability that was rescued by co-administration of PE-BBI but not pLR-HL or GM (all added at a 50 µM dose). Data are presented as the mean ± SEMs (n = 6). * P < 0.05.
Figure 4The impact of protease inhibitors on CRE-mediated epithelial barrier disruption. Epithelial barrier function was measured by (A) TEER measurement and (B) Texas red dextran flux. CRE and heat-inactivated (HI)-CRE were added at the same concentration (16.5 µg protein/well). Data are presented as the mean ± SEMs (n ≥ 4). * P < 0.05, *** P < 0.001.