| Literature DB >> 32933215 |
Sonia André1,2, Zahid Raja1, Vincent Humblot3, Christophe Piesse4, Thierry Foulon1, Denis Sereno5,6, Bruno Oury6, Ali Ladram1.
Abstract
Amphibian skin is a promising natural resource for antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), key effectors of innate immunity with attractive therapeutic potential to fight antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Our previous studies showed that the skin of the Sahara Frog (Pelophylax saharicus) contains broad-spectrum AMPs of the temporin family, named temporins-SH. Here, we focused our study on temporin-SHe, a temporin-SHd paralog that we have previously identified in this frog but was never structurally and functionally characterized. We synthesized and determined the structure of temporin-SHe. This non-amphipathic α-helical peptide was demonstrated to strongly destabilize the lipid chain packing of anionic multilamellar vesicles mimicking bacterial membranes. Investigation of the antimicrobial activity revealed that temporin-SHe targets Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, including clinical isolates of multi-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains. Temporin-SHe exhibited also antiparasitic activity toward different Leishmania species responsible for visceral leishmaniasis, as well as cutaneous and mucocutaneous forms. Functional assays revealed that temporin-SHe exerts bactericidal effects with membrane depolarization and permeabilization, via a membranolytic mechanism observed by scanning electron microscopy. Temporin-SHe represents a new member of the very limited group of antiparasitic temporins/AMPs. Despite its cytotoxicity, it is nevertheless an interesting tool to study the AMP antiparasitic mechanism and design new antibacterial/antiparasitic agents.Entities:
Keywords: bacteria; broad-spectrum activity; frog antimicrobial peptide; membrane disrupting mechanism; parasites; scanning electron microscopy; secondary structure; temporin-SHe
Year: 2020 PMID: 32933215 PMCID: PMC7555312 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21186713
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Sequence alignment and physicochemical properties of temporins-SH.
| Temporin | Sequence Alignment 1 | Reference | Residue | Net Charge 2 | Mw 3 | GRAVY 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SHa | FLSGIVGMLGKLFamide | [ | 13 | +2 | 1381.74 | 1.67 |
| SHb | FLPIVTNLLSGLLamide | [ | 13 | +1 | 1399.74 | 1.81 |
| SHc | FLSHIAGFLSNLFamide | [ | 13 | +1 | 1465.71 | 1.34 |
| SHd | FLPAALAGIGGILGKLFamide | [ | 17 | +2 | 1658.06 | 1.65 |
| SHe | FLP-ALAGIAGLLGKIFamide | [ | 16 | +2 | 1601.01 | 1.78 |
| SHf | FFFLSRIFamide | [ | 8 | +2 | 1076.31 | 1.77 |
1 ClustalW alignment (https://npsa.lyon.inserm.fr/). Identical amino acids are highlighted in grey.2 The peptide net charge is at neutral pH. 3 Molecular weight and 4 Grand average of hydropathicity were calculated using ProtParam (https://web.expasy.org/protparam/).
Figure 1Secondary structure of temporin-SHe in the membrane-mimicking environment. (A) Circular dichroism (CD) spectrum of temporin-SHe in PBS containing negatively charged DMPC/DMPG (3:1) LUVs (1 mg/mL) at a peptide/lipid molar ratio of 1:100. (B) CD spectrum of temporin-SHe (30 µM) in sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) 80 mM (purple line) and PBS (black line). The CD signal corresponds to the dichroic increment (∆ε) per residue.
Figure 2Schiffer–Edmundson helical wheel projection. (A) Temporins SHe. (B) Temporin-SHd. Apolar residues are colored in yellow. Neutral Gly residues appear in purple and basic residues in blue. Amino acid residues are represented proportionally to their volume. N and C letters in red indicate N- and C-peptide termini. The hydrophobic moment vector is denoted by an arrow. The hydrophobicity (
Figure 3DSC heating thermograms illustrating the effect of temporin-SHe on the thermotropic phase behavior of DMPC/DMPG 3:1 multilamellar vesicles (MLVs). Scans were acquired with no peptide (blank) and at different peptide/lipid molar ratios (1:200, 1:100 and 1:50).
Antimicrobial activity of temporin-SHe compared to temporin-SHd.
| MIC (µM) 1 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Temporin-SHe | Temporin-SHd | |
|
| ||
| 25 | 5 * | |
| 50 | 50 * | |
| 50 | 25 * | |
| 60 | >200 * | |
|
| 100 | >200 * |
| 25 | 25 * | |
| 100 | 100 * | |
|
| ||
| 3.12 | 6.25 * | |
| 3.12 | 6.25 * | |
| 3.12 | 6.25 * | |
| 3.12 | 6.25 * | |
|
| 5 | 10 |
| 12.5 | 25 * | |
|
| 1.56 | 1.56 * |
|
| ||
| >100 | 100 * | |
| 50 | >200 * | |
|
| 12.5 | 25 * |
1 Minimal inhibitory concentration. 2 Salmonella enterica serotype Enteritidis. 3 Resistant to methicillin and oxacillin. 4 Resistant to amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, cephalothin, ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, gentamicin, imipenem, oxacillin, penicillin, tetracycline, ampicillin, doxycycline, methicillin, azithromycin, ceftriaxone, clindamycin, lincomycin, perfloxacin, rifampin and tobramycin. * Values taken from [15].
Figure 4Dose-dependent leishmanicidal effects of temporin-SHe and temporin-SHd against different species of Leishmania promastigotes. (A) L. infantum. (B) L. braziliensis. (C) L. major. Data are the mean ± S.D. of three independent assays performed in triplicates. For temporin-SHd, data were taken from previous experiments [15] and presented as histograms for comparison with temporin-SHe. Statistical differences were assessed for temporin-SHe using one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s test (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001).
Activity of temporin-SHe on different Leishmania species.
| IC50 (µM) 1 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Temporin-SHe | Temporin-SHd | |
|
| 4.6 | 16.5 * |
|
| 10.5 | 17.9 * |
|
| 11.6 | 14.6 * |
1 IC50 values (half-maximal inhibitory concentrations) represent the mean of three independent experiments performed in triplicate. * Values were taken from reference [15].
Figure 5Toxic activity of temporin-SHe against mammalian cells. (A) Comparison of temporin-SHe and temporin-SHd dose-dependent effects on human erythrocytes. Percent hemolysis was calculated by normalizing to PBS-treated cells (0% hemolysis) and Triton X-100-treated cells (100% hemolysis). (B) Effect of temporin-SHe on human THP-1 monocytes. Data are the mean ± S.D. of two independent assays performed in triplicates. Statistical differences were assessed for temporin-SHe using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001).
Figure 6Temporin-SHe-induced membrane depolarization. The cytoplasmic membrane depolarization of S. aureus ATCC 25923 was monitored using the potentiometric fluorescent dye DiSC3(5). After equilibration with DiSC3(5), peptides were added (t = 0). Melittin was used as positive control, and PBS as negative control. The data shown are from a single experiment representative of three independent assays. A.U.: Arbitrary units.
Figure 7Time-dependent bacterial membrane permeabilization after treatment with increasing concentrations of temporin-SHe. (A) E. coli ML-35p. (B) S. aureus ST1065. [K3]-temporin-SHa (10 µM) was used as positive control (black lines). o-nitro-phenol (ONP) production was monitored by measuring absorbance at 405 nm. Data are from a representative experiment out of two experiments carried out in triplicates. They are expressed as the mean ± S.D. after subtraction of the negative control values (no peptide) from the test values.
Figure 8Comparison of the bactericidal effects of temporin-SHe and temporin-SHd at two-fold MIC concentration. (A) Effect on the Gram-positive S. aureus ST1065 after time-dependent incubation with 6.25 µM temporin-SHe and 12.5 µM temporin-SHd. (B) Effect on the Gram-negative E. coli ATCC 25922 after incubation with 50 µM temporin-SHe and 10 µM temporin-SHd. The control corresponds to bacteria incubated in PBS with no peptide. The data are the mean ± S.D. of one representative experiment out of two independent assays performed in triplicates.
Figure 9Scanning electron microscopy imaging of S. aureus bacteria (ATCC 25923 strain) treated with temporin-SHe. (A) Control: untreated S. aureus bacteria. (B) Effect of temporin-SHe (6.25 µM). (C) Effect of temporin-SHd (25 µM). The scale bar indicated on the right bottom represents 2 µm.