Next Article in Journal
The Antimicrobial Effect of Cold Atmospheric Plasma against Dental Pathogens—A Systematic Review of In-Vitro Studies
Next Article in Special Issue
The Influence of Cellulose-Type Formulants on Anti-Candida Activity of the Tyrocidines
Previous Article in Journal
Rapid Methods for Antimicrobial Resistance Diagnostics
Previous Article in Special Issue
Pigs Overexpressing Porcine β-Defensin 2 Display Increased Resilience to Glaesserella parasuis Infection
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 10
Issue 2
10.3390/antibiotics10020212
antibiotics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Attacins: A Promising Class of Insect Antimicrobial Peptides

by
Francesco Buonocore
1,*,
Anna Maria Fausto
1,
Giulia Della Pelle
1,
Tomislav Roncevic
2,
Marco Gerdol
3 and
Simona Picchietti
1
1
Department for Innovation in Biological, Agro-food and Forest systems, University of Tuscia, Largo dell’Università snc, 05100 Viterbo, VT, Italy
2
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Split, Rudera Boskovica 33, 21000 Split, Croatia
3
Department of Life Sciences, University of Trieste, Via Giorgieri 5, 34127 Trieste, TS, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2021, 10(2), 212; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10020212
Submission received: 21 January 2021 / Revised: 17 February 2021 / Accepted: 18 February 2021 / Published: 20 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Therapeutic Use of Antimicrobial Peptides: Joys and Sorrows)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Insects produce a large repertoire of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) as the first line of defense against bacteria, viruses, fungi or parasites. These peptides are produced from a large precursor that contains a signal domain, which is cleaved in vivo to produce the mature protein with antimicrobial activity. At present, AMPs from insects include several families which can be classified as cecropins, ponericins, defensins, lebocins, drosocin, Metchnikowin, gloverins, diptericins and attacins according to their structure and/or function. This short review is focused on attacins, a class of glycine-rich peptides/proteins that have been first discovered in the cecropia moth (Hyalophora cecropia). They are a rather heterogeneous group of immunity-related proteins that exhibit an antimicrobial effect mainly against Gram-negative bacteria. Here, we discuss different attacin and attacin-like AMPs that have been discovered so far and analyze their structure and phylogeny. Special focus is given to the physiological importance and mechanism of action of attacins against microbial pathogens together with their potential pharmacological applications, emphasizing their roles as antimicrobials.

1. Introduction

Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are important effector molecules of innate immunity [1] that can act against bacteria, viruses, fungi or parasites. The mechanism of action of these peptides, which often involves non-specific membrane interactions, prevents the development of long-lasting resistance by pathogens [2]. Although ubiquitous in nature, AMPs of animal origin can be found, from invertebrates to humans, in outer and inner epithelia [3], in phagocytic cells [4,5] and body fluids [6], providing a first line of host defense to eliminate invading pathogens [7,8] and boost immune responses [9].
So far, more than 3000 AMPs have been isolated from prokaryotes and eukaryotes, with an ever-growing fraction predicted via bioinformatic approaches [10,11] and genome mining [12,13,14]. A large fraction of protein sequences deposited in UniProt (i.e., 180,000,000), in addition to those reviewed and confirmed, are derived from bioinformatic prediction. Therefore, several undiscovered AMPs are likely to be included among the unreviewed sequences found in TrEMBL (Translated EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Data Library).
Since AMPs most likely derive from multiple independent evolutionary events, these molecules display an astounding diversity among taxa [2,15,16], but, at the same time, they share some common physicochemical properties that allow their classification into broad categories.
AMPs are produced from relatively short proteins usually containing 50–300 amino acids with a MW between 5 and 30 kDa. These precursors are cleaved by proteases to produce biologically active (mature) peptides that are mostly composed of 10–30 residues. Furthermore, amino acids are often arranged in an amphipathic manner, allowing for a certain clusterization of polar/charged and hydrophobic residues within the peptide sequence, which results in spatial separation in the active peptide [17,18,19]. They are usually composed of a large percentage of basic residues, often higher than 30% [20,21], which confers a positive net charge to most of the known peptides [22]. The cationic nature of AMPs allows their interaction with the cytoplasmic membranes of both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria which are rich in phospholipids characterized by a negatively charged head group [23]. Moreover, they can also target the fungi cell wall and destroy the virus envelope or the parasitic protozoa membrane [24].
Therefore, the mechanism of action against these pathogens often involves membrane interaction [21,25], followed by the reaching of a critical peptide concentration [21,26,27,28] and subsequent membrane lysis. The latter can occur by toroidal pore, carpet like [29,30,31,32], and barrel stave [33] modes of action, with the barrel stave being recently called into question. However, numerous exceptions to these rules of thumb exist, and for more details we refer the reader to the following reviews [34,35,36].
A unifying theory about the mode of action of AMPs based on the thermodynamic interaction between the molecule and the lipid double layer, the so-called “graded/all or nothing” model, has been proposed by Almeida’s group [21,37]. Moreover, recent work focused on the molecular dynamics of the interaction between AMPs and phase separated model membranes [38], which demonstrated that the peptides showed a clear preference towards liquid-disordered phases. On the other hand, a certain number of AMPs show a different behavior and act in a non-lytic manner, preferring intracellular targets [39,40], operating as membrane transporter blockers [41], inhibiting cell division [42] and interacting with nucleic acids [43,44,45] and/or with the protein biosynthesis process [42].

2. Insects Antimicrobial Peptides: A Brief Insight

Having colonized nearly every ecological niche, insects can be considered the most successful animal taxon on Earth [46,47]. Their large AMP repertoire may be reasonably related to various environmental threats faced by each species during evolution [48]. Furthermore, their innate immune system is strictly interconnected with their endosymbionts, most often bacteria [49,50], which still retain immunoregulatory activity despite having lost most of their biosynthetic pathways. These endosymbionts reside in specialized cells called bacteriocytes [51] and the most represented genera are Wolbachia, Spiroplasma and Wigglesworthia [52]. The relation between the expression of insect AMPs and the control of these endosymbionts has only been recently clarified in detail [49,53].
In insects, AMPs are usually produced locally at various surface epithelia or secreted systemically by hemocytes and fat bodies into the hemolymph [48,54]. The release of the peptides in the hemolymph is triggered by the recognition of the pathogen by pattern-recognition receptors [55]. Moreover, in Drosophila it has been demonstrated that the ofteninterchangeable Toll and IMD (immune deficiency)-signaling pathways [56,57] regulate, respectively, Gram-negative and Gram-positive responses with the so-called “immune loitering” effect [55,58]. However, the relationship between the immune response mediated by AMPs and “acquired immunity” towards specific pathogens in insects likely relies on more complex regulatory mechanisms [49].
Although AMPs have been known since 1939 [15] (i.e., the first isolated peptides were gramicidins from the soil bacteria Aneurinibacillus migulanus), it was not until 1981 that the first insect antimicrobial peptide, named cecropin, was identified from the hemolymph of the Hyalophora cecropia pupae [59,60]. Several AMPs that can be classified according to their structure or function in different families (such as cecropins, ponericins, defensins, lebocins, drosocin, Metchnikowin, gloverins, diptericins and attacins) are presently known in insects.
Cecropins are cationic peptides of 31–39 amino acid residues that have been identified in lepidopteran, dipteran and coleopteran insects [61]. They show, as do most AMPs, a random coil structure in aqueous solution but convert to an α-helical linear structure in a hydrophobic environment [20,43]. Cecropins are active against fungi, Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria [61]. Some cecropin-like peptides have been also identified and assigned different names such as sarcotoxin, papiliocin, stomoxyn, hinnavin, bacteridicin, hyphancin and enbocin [62].
Ponericins are isolated from the venom of the predatory ant Pachycondyla goeldii. They are classified, based on their primary structure, into ponericins G, W and L [63], which show high sequence homology with other insect AMPs: cecropin, gaegurins/melittin and dermaseptins, respectively. Ponericins exhibit insecticidal and hemolytic activity against cricket larvae [62].
Insect defensins are small inducible cationic peptides with six cysteines [61,64]. Their structure, stabilized by three disulfide bridges, is composed of an N-terminal loop followed by an antiparallel β-sheet. AMPs belonging to the defensins family have been identified in different insect orders including Diptera, Hymenoptera, Coleoptera, Trichoptera, Hemiptera and Odonata [65]. Most defensins are active against Gram-positive bacteria, including some human pathogenic bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus, and a few are also active against Gram-negative bacteria and fungi [61].
Other insect AMPs, including lebocins, drosocin, Metchnikowin, gloverins and diptericins, show a high percentage of specific amino acid residues, such as proline and/or glycine. Lebocins were first identified in the hemolymph of Bombix mori after immunization with Escherichia coli. They consist of 32 amino acids with a high fraction of proline residues and are prone to O-glycosylation. Lebocin precursors have been isolated in different lepidopteran species and they demonstrate broad biological activity against Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, as well as some fungi [61]). Drosocin and Metchnikowin are produced by Drosophila melanogaster [66,67]. The former is a proline-rich peptide of 19 amino acids and is O-glycosylated, which is crucial to maximize its biological activity. The latter is a 26-residue proline-rich peptide which exhibits antibacterial activity against Gram-positive bacteria and also has antifungal properties. Gloverins are glycine-rich antimicrobial peptides exclusively present in Lepidopteran insects. The first gloverin peptide was identified in the hemolynph of Hyposphora gloveri pupae [68]. Gloverins shows a broad spectrum of antimicrobial activity, with some members of this family only being active against Gram-positive bacteria and others only against Gram-negative bacteria or viruses [61]. Finally, diptercins belong to a family of glycine-rich AMPs found in Dipteran hemolymph with an Mr of about 8000. The most important member of the family is diptericin A, which is mainly active against Gram-negative bacteria [62]. We decided to focus this Mini-review on attacins, providing a description of their first isolation and highlighting their known antimicrobial activities. Due to their higher molecular mass compared to most other AMPs, attacins need to be produced as recombinant molecules to test their biological activity. The widespread occurrence of attacins in several orders of insects highlights the evolutionary success of this class of AMPs and justifies the interest in their potential pharmacological applications.

3. Attacins

3.1. First Identification and Main Structural Features

The first paper reporting the identification of a new insect AMP family named attacin, from the giant silk moth Hyalophora cecropia, is dated 1983 [69]. Different isoforms with molecular masses of 20 to 23 KDa and isoelectric points (pI) ranging from 5.7 to 8.3 were purified from the hemolymph after the immunization of the pupae with the bacterium Enterobacter cloacae β12. The six isolated AMPs were classified in two groups: a basic group formed by attacins A to D, and an acidic one comprising attacins E and F.
Attacin F, which was demonstrated to represent a proteolytically derived product of attacin E [70], was produced as a recombinant protein by using the baculovirus expression system utilizing Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) in Spodoptera frugiperda cells [71]. Interestingly, the two acidic attacin peptides and three out of four basic attacin peptides showed identical N-terminal sequences. This was confirmed by the isolation of only two cDNA clones for all attacins, one for each of the main isoforms [72]. The mature proteins exhibited a high degree of homology (76% on the nucleotide level and 79% on the amino acid level), while the homology dropped to lower levels in the 3′UTR region.
The expression of both attacin genes from Hyalophora cecropia could be upregulated by the stimulation of the pupae with phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA), lipopolysaccharide (LPS from Escherichia coli D21) and bacteria (Enterobacter cloacae β12) [73]. The gene coding for the acidic attacin isoform displayed a faster response to the bacterial infection and it was the only one to show modulation after injury [73]. As most AMPs, attacins are produced as pre-pro-proteins. The pro-protein is formed by a pro-peptide (the P domain) and a mature peptide which consists of an N-terminal attacin domain and two glycine-rich (G1 and G2) domains (see Figure 1) [72,74]. The mature peptide is obtained through proteolytic cleavage by a furin-like enzyme, which recognizes a conserved RXXR motif found in the N-terminal region of the pro-protein; this sequence needs to be removed for efficient secretion of attacins from fat body cells [71].
Attacins adopt a random coil secondary structure in an aqueous buffer and, unlike many known AMPs, they do not show any transition to helical conformation in an anisotropic environment [73]. This is mostly due to the glycine-rich nature of these peptides, together with the lack of cysteine bridges that could stabilize their structure. Their complete mature region is approximately 190 amino acids in length, with net charges ranging from −3 to +10 (see Table 1). Since attacins are relatively large proteins, their net charge may not be detrimental for antimicrobial activity, as is often the case for shorter AMPs. Similarly, other important physicochemical properties correlated with the potency of peptides, such as relative hydrophobicity and amphipathicity, do not necessarily provide reliable information linked with their antimicrobial activity that most likely rely on a different mode of action. Indeed, the activity of attacins is probably linked with certain sections of the sequence with particular chemo-physical properties (e.g., positive charge, abundance of hydrophobic residues), that could be responsible for membrane interaction and subsequent antimicrobial activity.

3.2. Phylogenetic Considerations

After the first identification in Hyalophora cecropia, various attacin-like peptides have been discovered in many lepidopteran, dipteran and coleopteran species. Figure 2 shows a phylogenetic tree obtained from a multiple sequence alignment of attacin amino acid sequences. The peptides are divided in three different clades corresponding to the respective insect order they were isolated from. In the Diptera clade, multiple tandemly duplicated genes are usually present. In Drosophila for example, attacins A and B are placed close to each other in the same chromosome, whereas the phylogenetically distant attacin D is located on a different chromosome [74]. The comparison between attacins and other classes of AMPs found in insects evidenced that they share some similarities with the protein domains of sarcotoxin II and diptericin [73,74]. This homology is mainly evident within exon 2 and exon 3 of the attacins, which encode the G1 and G2 domains, although diptericin contains only a single glycine-rich domain. Since these two exons also show a significant pairwise sequence homology, it has been proposed that the three different AMP classes may have evolved from a single ancestral exon [73]. The C-terminal attacin domain (PFAM number PF03769) has been found in most of the Holometabola genomes studied so far, and in the orders Orthoptera, Isoptera and Hemiptera (where the encoded peptide is named prolixicin) [65]. Finally, attacin-like sequences have been very recently identified in the stick insect Peruphasma schultei (Pseudophasmatidae) after an infection with a microbial cocktail [75].

3.3. Antimicrobial Activity of Attacins and Therapeutical Applications

Generally, the available data show that attacins are active against both Gram-negative bacteria and Gram-positive bacteria, with certain selectivity towards Gram-negative strains [59,60]. Due to their size, attacins need to be produced as recombinant proteins prior to antimicrobial characterization (see the cut symbol in the multiple sequence alignment displayed in Figure 1).
The initial discovery of attacins in the giant silk moth immediately led to extensive investigations, allowing significant data collection about their antimicrobial activity within one year [69]. This was characterized by the sub-micromolar activity of attacin B and E against Acinetobacter calcoaceticus, Pseudomonas maltophilia and Escherichia coli, all representatives of Gram-negative bacteria (see Table 1).
Carlsson et al. [76] confirmed this activity against Escherichia coli, linking it to the alteration of the outer bacterial membrane through specific inhibition of the synthesis of several membrane proteins. More importantly, the same group showed that attacin was active against Proetus mirabilis polymyxin-resistant cells at a concentration 100-fold lower than that of polymyxin [76]. Given the fact that polymyxin is being successfully used to treat Gram-negative infections [77], this undoubtedly sparked the interest in future attacin-related research. These studies also showed that attacins trigger the expression of several stress proteins in the bacteria upon interaction with their receptor (i.e., bacterial lipopolysaccharide ); therefore, growth inhibition and stress induction do not require the entry of attacins into the cells [76].
Attacin A from Drosophila melanogaster, expressed as a recombinant protein in E. coli, exhibited antimicrobial activity against the Gram-negative bacteria E. coli DH5α and, at a lesser extent, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (Table 1). Moreover, the peptide did not show any hemolytic activity on porcine red blood cells, which is especially important in terms of possible therapeutic applications, as it demonstrated selectivity against bacterial cell membranes [78].
Two attacin genes named attacin A and attacin B have been identified in the fall webworm Hyphantria cunea [79]. Attacin A and attacin B are leucine-rich and glycine-rich peptides, respectively, which displayed an opposite trend of expression in response to infection of larvae with bacteria, fungi and viruses. While the former was poorly induced, the latter underwent strong upregulation. Recombinant attacin A showed no antibacterial and antifungal activity, while recombinant attacin B was active against the Gram-negative bacteria E. coli and Citrobacter freundii and the fungus Candida albicans (Table 1).
Another attacin gene named seattacin was isolated from the beet armyworm (Spodoptera exigua). It was strongly upregulated 12 h after the stimulation of larvae with UV-killed bacteria E. coli and Bacillus subtilis (Gram-positive). The mature peptide was expressed in E. coli, and this recombinant molecule showed antimicrobial activity against E. coli DH5α, Pseudomonas cichorii (Gram-negative) and two Gram-positive species, B. subtilis and Listeria monocytogenes [80].
The expression of attacin A1, found in the fat body tissue of the tsetse fly Glossina morsitans morsitans, the vector of African trypanosome, was found to be highly induced after an infection with the protozoan agent. The purified attacin A1 recombinant peptide, expressed in the Drosophila S2 cells, showed strong antimicrobial activity against E. coli K12 and in vitro inhibitory effects against the mammalian bloodstream form and the insect stage of Trypanosoma brucei [81]. In particular, this last aspect has been considered of high pharmacological potential.
Another attacin-like peptide was identified in the black soldier fly Hermetia illucens [82]. The putative mature molecule, showing 50% homology with the attacin B from the oriental fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis [83], was produced as recombinant protein in the inclusion bodies of E. coli. This attacin displayed antibacterial activity against E. coli and, more interestingly, against the Staphylococcus aureus KCCM 40881, a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). This is extremely important in terms of possible pharmacological applications.
Attacins have also been determined as one of the components of larval (Lucilia sericata) secretions that evidenced a positive effect in the chronic wound treatment of 30 patients involved in a clinical trial [84]. In recent years, the use of live maggots in biosurgery has been taken into consideration due to the possibility of disinfecting and cleaning infected injuries [84]. In the study by Wollina and colleagues [84], the secretion from the common green bottle fly showed a positive effect on tissue oxygenation, edema and the development of red granulation tissue. It was demonstrated that this effect was not only due to embryonic growth stimulating substances [84], but also to the presence of attacin peptides with antimicrobial effects on both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria [85]. No in vivo data are presently available concerning attacin toxicity in mammal models. However, very recently the antimicrobial activity of a sarcotoxin from Lucilia sericata, which is structurally similar to attacins, was investigated against multiple drug resistant (MDR) pathogens [86]. A peptide concentration of 4 mg/l inhibited 90% of the tested MDR isolates. The sarcotoxin showed neither hemolytic nor cytotoxic effects on human cells. Moreover, in vivo tolerability studies in mice revealed that the peptide is not toxic and has better tolerance compared to colistin, a drug that has already been approved for clinical use [86].

4. Conclusions

In conclusion, attacins are certainly an interesting and still under-studied class of insect AMPs that deserve further investigations aimed at elucidating their potential pharmacological applications. Although some preliminary results on the antimicrobial activity of attacins against both methicillin-resistant bacteria and infective protozoan agents are available, several limitations need to be overcome. For instance, the clinical importance of AMPs resides in the fact that is quite challenging for microbes to develop permanent resistance, as this would imply preserving cell membrane functionality and integrity while simultaneously avoiding the action of AMPs. However, recent studies have shed new light on the mechanisms by which bacteria may develop resistance under selective pressure [23,87], providing a solid ground for the possible applications of AMPs.
Another key aspect that limits the possibilities of AMPs in a clinical context is their toxicity towards host cells which is often significant, as in the case of the bee venom peptide melittin, which is extremely potent towards bacteria, but at the same time toxic towards their host cells at similar concentrations which are needed to inhibit or kill bacteria [88]. This kind of data is still lacking for the majority of known attacin sequences and certainly deserves appropriate investigation in the future.
Finally, for a possible therapeutic application, it is fundamental to study the peptide stability in physiological conditions (i.e., the presence of salt, serum and proteases), as they are often quickly degraded. To overcome these setbacks concerning low stability and high toxicity, peptides can be synthetically modified in several ways. Some protective modifications may include cyclization (linking the C and N-terminus), the introduction of D isomers and/or the incorporation of non-proteinogenic amino acids in the peptide sequence [22].
However, these approaches are relatively complicated and, more importantly, they can increase the final production cost of AMPs, which is therefore usually higher than that of already available antibiotics. Further research is in progress to improve the low success rate of AMPs clinical applications compared to the high number of new peptides identified each year [24].

Author Contributions

F.B., G.D.P., S.P.: original draft preparation; T.R. and M.G.: writing—review and editing; A.M.F.: supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the “Department of Excellence-2018” Program (Dipartimenti di Eccellenza) of the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research, DIBAF-Department of University of Tuscia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Boman, H.G. Antibacterial peptides: Basic facts and emerging concepts. J. Intern. Med. 2003, 254, 197–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Zasloff, M. Antimicrobial peptides of multicellular organisms. Nature 2002, 415, 389–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Geitani, R.; Moubareck, C.A.; Xu, Z.; Karam Sarkis, D.; Touqui, L. Expression and Roles of Antimicrobial Peptides in Innate Defense of Airway Mucosa: Potential Implication in Cystic Fibrosis. Front. Immunol. 2020, 11, 1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ganz, T.; Lehrer, R.I. Antimicrobial peptides of leukocytes. Curr. Opin. Hematol. 1997, 4, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Tang, Y.Q.; Yuan, J.; Ösapay, G.; Ösapay, K.; Tran, D.; Miller, C.J.; Ouellette, A.J.; Selsted, M.E. A cyclic antimicrobial peptide produced in primate leukocytes by the ligation of two truncated α-defensins. Science (80-) 1999, 286, 498–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Bastos, P.; Trindade, F.; da Costa, J.; Ferreira, R.; Vitorino, R. Human Antimicrobial Peptides in Bodily Fluids: Current Knowledge and Therapeutic Perspectives in the Postantibiotic Era. Med. Res. Rev. 2018, 38, 101–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Zasloff, M. Magainins, a class of antimicrobial peptides from Xenopus skin: Isolation, characterization of two active forms, and partial cDNA sequence of a precursor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1987, 84, 5449–5453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Mukherjee, S.; Hooper, L.V. Antimicrobial defense of the intestine. Immunity 2015, 42, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Diamond, G.; Beckloff, N.; Weinberg, A.; Kisich, K. The Roles of Antimicrobial Peptides in Innate Host Defense. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2009, 15, 2377–2392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Wang, G.; Li, X.; Wang, Z. APD3: The antimicrobial peptide database as a tool for research and education. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015, 44, 1087–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Fields, F.R.; Freed, S.D.; Carothers, K.E.; Hamid, M.N.; Hammers, D.E.; Ross, J.N.; Kalwajtys, V.R.; Gonzalez, A.J.; Hildreth, A.D.; Friedberg, I.; et al. Novel antimicrobial peptide discovery using machine learning and biophysical selection of minimal bacteriocin domains. Drug Dev. Res. 2020, 81, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Porto, W.F.; Pires, A.S.; Franco, O.L. Computational tools for exploring sequence databases as a resource for antimicrobial peptides. Biotechnol. Adv. 2017, 35, 337–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Velásquez, J.E.; Van der Donk, W.A. Genome mining for ribosomally synthesized natural products. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2011, 15, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Leikoski, N.; Liu, L.; Jokela, J.; Wahlsten, M.; Gugger, M.; Calteau, A.; Permi, P.; Kerfeld, C.A.; Sivonen, K.; Fewer, D.P. Genome mining expands the chemical diversity of the cyanobactin family to include highly modified linear peptides. Chem. Biol. 2013, 20, 1033–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Phoenix, D.A.; Dennison, S.R.; Harris, F. Antimicrobial Peptides: Their History, Evolution, and Functional Promiscuity. Antimicrob. Pept. 2013, 1–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hanson, M.A.; Lemaitre, B.; Unckless, R.L. Dynamic Evolution of Antimicrobial Peptides Underscores Trade-Offs between Immunity and Ecological Fitness. Front. Immunol. 2019, 10, 2620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Wimley, W.C.; White, S.H. Membrane Partitioning: Distinguishing Bilayer Effects from the Hydrophobic Effect. Biochemistry 1993, 32, 6307–6312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wimley, W.C.; White, S.H. Determining the membrane topology of peptides by fluorescence quenching. Biochemistry 2000, 39, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Pan, C.Y.; Chen, J.Y.; Cheng, Y.S.E.; Chen, C.Y.; Ni, I.H.; Sheen, J.F.; Pan, Y.L.; Kuo, C.M. Gene expression and localization of the epinecidin-1 antimicrobial peptide in the grouper (Epinephelus coioides), and its role in protecting fish against pathogenic infection. DNA Cell Biol. 2007, 26, 403–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Giuliani, A.; Pirri, G.; Nicoletto, S.F. Antimicrobial peptides: An overview of a promising class of therapeutics. Cent. Eur. J. Biol. 2007, 2, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Almeida, P.F.; Pokorny, A. Mechanisms of antimicrobial, cytolytic, and cell-penetrating peptides: From kinetics to thermodynamics. Biochemistry 2009, 48, 8083–8093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Rončević, T.; Puizina, J.; Tossi, A. Antimicrobial peptides as anti-infective agents in pre-post-antibiotic era? Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 5713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Mahlapuu, M.; Håkansson, J.; Ringstad, L.; Björn, C. Antimicrobial peptides: An emerging category of therapeutic agents. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2016, 6, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Huan, Y.; Kong, Q.; Mou, H.; Yi, H. Antimicrobial Peptides: Classification, Design, Application and Research Progress in Multiple Fields. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 582779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Yu, G.; Baeder, D.Y.; Regoes, R.R.; Rolff, J. Combination Effects of Antimicrobial Peptides. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2016, 60, 1717–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Matsuzaki, K.; Mitani, Y.; Akada, K.Y.; Murase, O.; Yoneyama, S.; Zasloff, M.; Miyajima, K. Mechanism of synergism between antimicrobial peptides magainin 2 and PGLa. Biochemistry 1998, 37, 15144–15153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Huang, H.W. Current Topics Action of Antimicrobial Peptides: Two-State Model. Biochemistry 2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hara, T.; Mitani, Y.; Tanaka, K.; Uematsu, N.; Takakura, A.; Tachi, T.; Kodama, H.; Kondo, M.; Mori, H.; Otaka, A.; et al. Heterodimer formation between the antimicrobial peptides magainin 2 and PGLa in lipid bilayers: A cross-linking study. Biochemistry 2001, 40, 12395–12399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Shai, Y. Mechanism of the binding, insertion and destabilization of phospholipid bilayer membranes by α-helical antimicrobial and cell non-selective membrane-lytic peptides. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Biomembr. 1999, 1462, 55–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Galanth, C.; Abbassi, F.; Lequin, O.; Ayala-Sanmartin, J.; Ladram, A.; Nicolas, P.; Amiche, M. Mechanism of antibacterial action of dermaseptin B2: Interplay between helix—Hinge—Helix structure and membrane curvature strain. Biochemistry 2009, 48, 313–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hollmann, A.; Martinez, M.; Maturana, P.; Semorile, L.C.; Maffia, P.C. Antimicrobial peptides: Interaction with model and biological membranes and synergism with chemical antibiotics. Front. Chem. 2018, 6, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Olivieri, C.; Bugli, F.; Menchinelli, G.; Veglia, G.; Buonocore, F.; Scapigliati, G.; Stocchi, V.; Ceccacci, F.; Papi, M.; Sanguinetti, M.; et al. Design and characterization of chionodracine-derived antimicrobial peptides with enhanced activity against drug-resistant human pathogens. RSC Adv. 2018, 8, 41331–41346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Oren, Z.; Shai, Y. Mode of action of linear amphipathic α-helical antimicrobial peptides. Biopolymers 1998, 47, 451–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tennessen, J.A. Molecular evolution of animal antimicrobial peptides: Widespread moderate positive selection. J. Evol. Biol. 2005, 18, 1387–1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Wiesner, J.; Vilcinskas, A. Antimicrobial peptides: The ancient arm of the human immune system. Virulence 2010, 1, 440–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Park, N.G.; Silphaduang, U.; Moon, H.S.; Seo, J.K.; Corrales, J.; Noga, E.J. Structure-Activity Relationships of Piscidin 4, a Piscine Antimicrobial Peptide. Biochemistry 2011, 50, 3288–3299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wheaten, S.A.; Lakshmanan, A.; Almeida, P.F. Statistical analysis of peptide-induced graded and all-or-none fluxes in giant vesicles. Biophys. J. 2013, 105, 432–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Niu, S.F.; Jin, Y.; Xu, X.; Qiao, Y.; Wu, Y.; Mao, Y.; Su, Y.Q.; Wang, J. Characterization of a novel piscidin-like antimicrobial peptide from Pseudosciaena crocea and its immune response to Cryptocaryon irritans. Fish Shellfish. Immunol. 2013, 35, 513–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ongey, E.L.; Pflugmacher, S.; Neubauer, P. Bioinspired designs, molecular premise and tools for evaluating the ecological importance of antimicrobial peptides. Pharmaceuticals 2018, 11, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Armengol, E.; Domenech, O.; Fusté, E.; Pérez-Guillén, I.; Borrell, J.H.; Sierra, J.M.; Vinas, M. Efficacy of combinations of colistin with other antimicrobials involves membrane fluidity and efflux machinery. Infect. Drug Resist. 2019, 12, 2031–2038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Zhao, Y.; Chen, Z.; Cao, Z.; Li, W.; Wu, Y. Defensins, a novel type of animal toxin-like potassium channel inhibitor. Toxicon 2019, 157, 101–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Le, C.F.; Fang, C.M.; Sekaran, S.D. Intracellular targeting mechanisms by antimicrobial peptides. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2017, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Huo, L.; Zhang, K.; Ling, J.; Peng, Z.; Huang, X.; Liu, H.; Gu, L. Antimicrobial and DNA-binding activities of the peptide fragments of human lactoferrin and histatin 5 against Streptococcus mutans. Arch. Oral Biol. 2011, 56, 869–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yan, J.; Wang, K.; Dang, W.; Chen, R.; Xie, J.; Zhang, B.; Song, J.; Wang, R. Two hits are better than one: Membrane-active and DNA binding-related double-action mechanism of NK-18, a novel antimicrobial peptide derived from mammalian NK-lysin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2013, 57, 220–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Olivieri, C.; Buonocore, F.; Picchietti, S.; Taddei, A.R.; Bernini, C.; Scapigliati, G.; Dicke, A.A.; Vostrikov, V.V.; Veglia, G.; Porcelli, F. Structure and membrane interactions of chionodracine, a piscidin-like antimicrobial peptide from the icefish Chionodraco hamatus. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Biomembr. 2015, 1848, 1285–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Otvos, L. Antibacterial peptides isolated from insects. J. Pept. Sci. 2000, 6, 497–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Feldhaar, H.; Gross, R. Insects as hosts for mutualistic bacteria. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2009, 299, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Vilcinskas, A. Evolutionary plasticity of insect immunity. J. Insect Physiol. 2013, 59, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Makarova, O.; Rodriguez-Rojas, A.; Eravci, M.; Weise, C.; Dobson, A.; Johnston, P.; Rolff, J. Antimicrobial defence and persistent infection in insects revisited. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2016, 371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Masson, F.; Zaidman-Rémy, A.; Heddi, A. Antimicrobial peptides and cell processes tracking endosymbiont dynamics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2016, 371, 20150298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Schaible, U.E.; Haas, A. Intracellular Niches of Microbes: A Pathogens Guide through the Host Cell; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; ISBN 9783527322077. [Google Scholar]
  52. Doudoumis, V.; Alam, U.; Aksoy, E.; Abd-Alla, A.M.M.; Tsiamis, G.; Brelsfoard, C.; Aksoy, S.; Bourtzis, K. Tsetse-Wolbachia symbiosis: Comes of age and has great potential for pest and disease control. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2013, 112, S94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Login, F.H.; Balmand, S.; Vallier, A.; Vincent-Monégat, C.; Vigneron, A.; Weiss-Gayet, M.; Rochat, D.; Heddi, A. Antimicrobial peptides keep insect endosymbionts under control. Science (80-) 2011, 334, 362–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bulet, P.; Stöcklin, R.; Menin, L. Anti-microbial peptides: From invertebrates to vertebrates. Immunol. Rev. 2004, 198, 169–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Cooper, D.; Eleftherianos, I. Memory and specificity in the insect immune system: Current perspectives and future challenges. Front. Immunol. 2017, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Tanji, T.; Hu, X.; Weber, A.N.R.; Ip, Y.T. Toll and IMD Pathways Synergistically Activate an Innate Immune Response in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2007, 27, 4578–4588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Tanaka, H.; Yamakawa, M. Regulation of the innate immune responses in the silkworm, Bombyx mori. Invertebr. Surviv. J. 2011, 8, 59–69. [Google Scholar]
  58. Khan, I.; Prakash, A.; Agashe, D. Experimental evolution of insect immune memory versus pathogen resistance. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2017, 284, 20171583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Steiner, H.; Hultmark, D.; Engström, Å.; Bennich, H.; Boman, H.G. Sequence and specificity of two antibacterial proteins involved in insect immunity. Nature 1981, 292, 246–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Åsling, B.; Dushay, M.S.; Hultmark, D. Identification of early genes in the Drosophila immune response by PCR-based differential display: The Attacin A gene and the evolution of attacin-like proteins. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1995, 25, 511–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yi, H.Y.; Chowdhury, M.; Huang, Y.D.; Yu, X.Q. Insect antimicrobial peptides and their applications. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2014, 98, 5807–5822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Wu, Q.; Patočka, J.; Kuča, K. Insect Antimicrobial Peptides, a Mini Review. Toxins 2018, 10, 461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Orivel, J.; Redeker, V.; Le Caer, J.P.; Krier, F.; Revol-Junelles, A.M.; Longeon, A.; Chaffotte, A.; Dejean, A.; Rossier, J. Ponericins, New Antibacterial and Insecticidal Peptides from the Venom of the Ant Pachycondyla goeldii. J. Biol. Chem. 2001, 276, 17823–17829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Wu, C.C.; Kruse, F.; Vasudevarao, M.D.; Junker, J.P.; Zebrowski, D.C.; Fischer, K.; Noël, E.S.; Grün, D.; Berezikov, E.; Engel, F.B.; et al. Spatially Resolved Genome-wide Transcriptional Profiling Identifies BMP Signaling as Essential Regulator of Zebrafish Cardiomyocyte Regeneration. Dev. Cell 2016, 36, 36–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Mylonakis, E.; Podsiadlowski, L.; Muhammed, M.; Vilcinskas, A. Diversity, evolution and medical applications of insect antimicrobial peptides. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2016, 371, 20150290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Bulet, P.; Hetru, C.; Dimarcq, J.L.; Hoffmann, D. Antimicrobial peptides in insects; structure and function. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 1999, 23, 329–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Levashina, E.A.; Ohresser, S.; Bulet, P.; Reichhart, J.-M.; Hetru, C.; Hoffmann, J.A. Metchnikowin, a Novel Immune-Inducible Proline-Rich Peptide from Drosophila with Antibacterial and Antifungal Properties. Eur. J. Biochem. 1995, 233, 694–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Axén, A.; Carlsson, A.; Engström, Å.; Bennich, H. Gloverin, an antibacterial protein from the immune hemolymph of Hyalophora pupae. Eur. J. Biochem. 1997, 247, 614–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hultmark, D.; Engström, A.; Andersson, K.; Steiner, H.; Bennich, H.; Boman, H.G. Insect immunity. Attacins, a family of antibacterial proteins from Hyalophora cecropia. EMBO J. 1983, 2, 571–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Engström, A.; Engström, P.; Tao, Z.J.; Carlsson, A.; Bennich, H. Insect immunity. The primary structure of the antibacterial protein attacin F and its relation to two native attacins from Hyalophora cecropia. EMBO J. 1984, 3, 2065–2070. [Google Scholar]
  71. GUNNE, H.; HELLERS, M.; STEINER, H. Structure of preproattacin and its processing in insect cells infected with a recombinant baculovirus. Eur. J. Biochem. 1990, 187, 699–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kockum, K.; Faye, I.; Hofsten, P.V.; Lee, J.Y.; Xanthopoulos, K.G.; Boman, H.G. Insect immunity. Isolation and sequence of two cDNA clones corresponding to acidic and basic attacins from Hyalophora cecropia. EMBO J. 1984, 3, 2071–2075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sun, S.-C.; Lindström, I.; Lee, J.-Y.; Faye, I. Structure and expression of the attacin genes in Hyalophora cecropia. Eur. J. Biochem. 1991, 196, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hedengren, M.; Borge, K.; Hultmark, D. Expression and evolution of the Drosophila Attacin/Diptericin gene family. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2000, 279, 574–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Shelomi, M.; Jacobs, C.; Vilcinskas, A.; Vogel, H. The unique antimicrobial peptide repertoire of stick insects. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 2020, 103, 103471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Carlsson, A.; Nyström, T.; De Cock, H.; Bennich, H. Attacin—An insect immune protein—Binds LPS and triggers the specific inhibition of bacterial outer-membrane protein synthesis. Microbiology 1998, 144, 2179–2188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Wenzler, E.; Bunnell, K.L.; Danziger, L.H. Clinical use of the polymyxins: The tale of the fox and the cat. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2018, 51, 700–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Wang, L.N.; Yu, B.; Han, G.Q.; Chen, D.W. Molecular cloning, expression in Escherichia coli of Attacin A gene from Drosophila and detection of biological activity. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2010, 37, 2463–2469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Kwon, Y.M.; Kim, H.J.; Kim, Y.I.; Kang, Y.J.; Lee, I.H.; Jin, B.R.; Han, Y.S.; Cheon, H.M.; Ha, N.G.; Seo, S.J. Comparative analysis of two attacin genes from Hyphantria cunea. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. B Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2008, 151, 213–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bang, K.; Park, S.; Yoo, J.Y.; Cho, S. Characterization and expression of attacin, an antibacterial protein-encoding gene, from the beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua (Hübner) (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Mol. Biol. Rep. 2012, 39, 5151–5159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Hu, Y.; Aksoy, S. An antimicrobial peptide with trypanocidal activity characterized from Glossina morsitans morsitans. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2005, 35, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Shin, H.S.; Park, S.I. Novel attacin from Hermetia illucens: cDNA cloning, characterization, and antibacterial properties. Prep. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2019, 49, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Liao, Y.Y.; Zuo, Y.H.; Tsai, C.L.; Hsu, C.M.; Chen, M.E. Cdna cloning and transcriptional regulation of the cecropin and attacin from the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (DIPTERA: TEPHRITIDAE). Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol. 2015, 89, 111–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Wollina, U.; Liebold, K.; Schmidt, W.D.; Hartmann, M.; Fassler, D. Biosurgery supports granulation and debridement in chronic wounds—Clinical data and remittance spectroscopy measurement. Int. J. Dermatol. 2002, 41, 635–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Kaihanfar, M.; Momeni-Moghaddam, M.; Moghaddam, M.J.M.; Hajar, T.; Pak, V.D.; Bidi, J.O. Investigation of antimicrobial effects of treated Lucilia sericata larvae extract on bacteria. Iran. J. Microbiol. 2018, 10, 409–416. [Google Scholar]
  86. Hirsch, R.; Wiesner, J.; Marker, A.; Pfeifer, Y.; Bauer, A.; Hammann, P.E.; Vilcinskas, A. Profiling antimicrobial peptides from the medical maggot Lucilia sericata as potential antibiotics for MDR Gram-negative bacteria. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2019, 74, 96–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  87. Andersson, D.I.; Hughes, D.; Kubicek-Sutherland, J.Z. Mechanisms and consequences of bacterial resistance to antimicrobial peptides. Drug Resist. Updat. 2016, 26, 43–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Asthana, N.; Yadav, S.P.; Ghosh, J.K. Dissection of antibacterial and toxic activity of melittin: A leucine zipper motif plays a crucial role in determining its hemolytic activity but not antibacterial activity. J. Biol. Chem. 2004, 279, 55042–55050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Antibiotics 10 00212 g001 550
Figure 1. Alignment of attacin amino acid sequences from Lepidoptera obtained by Clustal ω. The predicted signal peptide and the different domains are highlighted above the sequences, together with the RXXR motif (indicated as cut symbol). Accession numbers: Trichoplusia ni U46130; Hyphantria cunea Attacin B ABL63641; Danaus plexippus plexippus OWR54405; Hyphantria cunea Attacin A AAD09288; Manduca sexta AAY82587; Bombyx mori 2 Q26431; Bombyx mandarina XP_028041931; Bombyx mori 1 ADB08384; Hyalophora cecropia Basic CAA44179; Samia ricini BAB69462; Lonomia obliqua Q5MGE6; Hyalophora cecropia Acidic CAA40886; Antheraea mylitta ABG72695; Antheraea pernyi ACB45562; Antheraea yamamai AFS30776. Sequence conservation is shown as a histogram below the multiple sequence alignment; Att = Attacin.
Figure 1. Alignment of attacin amino acid sequences from Lepidoptera obtained by Clustal ω. The predicted signal peptide and the different domains are highlighted above the sequences, together with the RXXR motif (indicated as cut symbol). Accession numbers: Trichoplusia ni U46130; Hyphantria cunea Attacin B ABL63641; Danaus plexippus plexippus OWR54405; Hyphantria cunea Attacin A AAD09288; Manduca sexta AAY82587; Bombyx mori 2 Q26431; Bombyx mandarina XP_028041931; Bombyx mori 1 ADB08384; Hyalophora cecropia Basic CAA44179; Samia ricini BAB69462; Lonomia obliqua Q5MGE6; Hyalophora cecropia Acidic CAA40886; Antheraea mylitta ABG72695; Antheraea pernyi ACB45562; Antheraea yamamai AFS30776. Sequence conservation is shown as a histogram below the multiple sequence alignment; Att = Attacin.
Antibiotics 10 00212 g001
Antibiotics 10 00212 g002 550
Figure 2. Phylogenetic tree of attacins from different insect orders obtained using the MEGA 6.0 program. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together in the bootstrap test (10.000 replicates) is shown next to the branches. The number 0.2 represents the genetic distance. Accession numbers: Drosophila simulans Attacin A EDX07123; Drosophila yakuba EDW91058; Drosophila melanogaster Attacin A Z46893; Drosophila obscura XP_022225780; Drosophila busckii ALC41796; Drosophila melanogaster Attacin B AAL23652; Drosophila simulans Attacin C AAP69835; Ceratitis capitata Attacin A XP004517761; Ceratitis capitata Attacin C XP004517762; Bactrocera dorsalis KJ598077; Musca domestica AAU08203; Glossina morsitans morsitans Attacin A AAL34113; Glossina morsitans morsitans Attacin D CAP78962; Lucilia sericata HM243534; Drosophila melanogaster Attacin D AAF55446; Drosophila yakuba Attacin D EDW95807; Microdera dzhungarica AHH34162; Anatolica polita APX53001; Diabrotica virgifera virgifera AHB11276; Onthophagus taurus XP_022912795; Leptinotarsa decemlineata XP_023024624. For the Lepidoptera accession numbers, see Figure 1. Att = Attacin.
Figure 2. Phylogenetic tree of attacins from different insect orders obtained using the MEGA 6.0 program. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together in the bootstrap test (10.000 replicates) is shown next to the branches. The number 0.2 represents the genetic distance. Accession numbers: Drosophila simulans Attacin A EDX07123; Drosophila yakuba EDW91058; Drosophila melanogaster Attacin A Z46893; Drosophila obscura XP_022225780; Drosophila busckii ALC41796; Drosophila melanogaster Attacin B AAL23652; Drosophila simulans Attacin C AAP69835; Ceratitis capitata Attacin A XP004517761; Ceratitis capitata Attacin C XP004517762; Bactrocera dorsalis KJ598077; Musca domestica AAU08203; Glossina morsitans morsitans Attacin A AAL34113; Glossina morsitans morsitans Attacin D CAP78962; Lucilia sericata HM243534; Drosophila melanogaster Attacin D AAF55446; Drosophila yakuba Attacin D EDW95807; Microdera dzhungarica AHH34162; Anatolica polita APX53001; Diabrotica virgifera virgifera AHB11276; Onthophagus taurus XP_022912795; Leptinotarsa decemlineata XP_023024624. For the Lepidoptera accession numbers, see Figure 1. Att = Attacin.
Antibiotics 10 00212 g002
Table
Table 1. Attacins mature sequences (N-terminal, G1 and G2 domains) and antimicrobial activity.
Table 1. Attacins mature sequences (N-terminal, G1 and G2 domains) and antimicrobial activity.
NameSequenceChargePathogenAntimicrobial
Activity
Attacin B from Hyalophora cecropiaQAGALTINSDGTSGAV-VKVPITGNENHKFSALGSVDLT-NQMKL+3E. coli D210.6 µM
(inhibition zone assay)
GAATAGLAYDNGNGHGATLT KTHIPGFGDKMTAAGKVNLFHNE. coli D220.06 µM
DNHDFSAKAFATKNMP-NIPQVPNFNTVGAGVDYMFKDKIGP. maltophilia Pm14 µM
ASANAAHTDFINRNDYS-LGGKLNLFKTPTTSLDFNAGWKKFA. calcoaceticus Ac110.4 µM
DTPFFKSSWEPSTSFSFSKYF
Attacin E from Hyalophora cecropiaDAHGALTLNSDGTSGAVVKVPFAGNDKNIVSAIGSVDLT-DRQKL−3E. coli D212 µM
(inhibition zone assay)
GAATAGVALDNINGHGLSLTDT HIPGFGDKMTAAGKVNVFHNDNHDE. coli D220.3 µM
ITAKAFATRNMPDIANVPN FNTVGGGIDYMFKDKIGP. maltophilia Pm115 µM
ASASAAHTDFINRNDYSLDGKLNLFKTPDTSIDFNAGFKKFDTPFMKSSA. calcoaceticus Ac111 µM
WEPNFGFSLSKYF
Attacin A from Drosophila melanogasterQVLGGSLTSNPAGGADARLDLT-KGIGNPNHNVVGQVFAAGNTQSG+3E. coli DH5αN.D.
PVTTGGTLAYNNAGHGASLTKT HTPGVKDVFQQEAHANLFNNGRHS. maltophilia
NLDAKVFASQ NKLANGFEFQRN GAGLDYSHINGHGASLTHSNF
PGIGQQLGLDGRANLWSSPNRAT-TLDLTGSASKWTSGPFANQKPNF
GAGLGLSHHFG
Attacin B from Hyphantria cuneaQAQGSLTFNGDGSAGVGAKVPLVGNDRNVLSAIGSVNLDDRMKLASKG+5E. coli0.1 and 1.0 µg of protein (radial diffusion assay)
IGLAFDNANGHGVSVMKET IPGFGSKLTGAGHATLFNNDNHNIGANAC. freundii
FVSRNMPNIPNVPNFNTVGGG LDYTYNNKVGASLGMAHTPFLQRKDC. albicans
YSAMGNLNVFRNPTSTVDFSAGFKKFDSPFPKSGWKPNLGLSFERIF
Attacin from Spodoptera exiguaQAQGSVTLNSDGGMGLGAKI-PLANNDRNVLSAVGSMDLNNN-MNPTSKG+4E. coli DH5α1, 0.5, 0.1, and 0.05 µg of protein (radial diffusion assay)
FGLALDNVNGHGLTVMKES VPG-FGDRLSGAGKLNVFHNDNHNVAVTGSLP. cichorii
TRNMPSIPNVPNFN-TIGGGVDYMYKNKVGASLGMASTPFLDRKDYSAMGB. subtilis
NLNLFRSPTTSVDFSGGFKK-FESPFMSSGWKPNFGLTFGRSFL. monocytogenes
Attacin A1 from Glossina morsitans morsitansGQFGGTVSSNPNGGLDVNARLSKTIGDPNANVVGGVFAAGNTDGGPATRGA+4E. coli K120.3 µM
(minimum bactercidal concentration, MBC)
FLAANKDGHGLSLQHSKTDNFGSSLTSSAHAHLFNDKTHKLDANAFH
SRTHLDNGFKFDRVGGGLRYDHVTGHGASLTASRIPQLDMNTLGLTGKANLTrypanosoma brucei0.075 µM
(50 % minimal inhibitory concentration, MIC50)
WSSPNRATTLDLTGGVSKHFGGPFDGQTNKQIGLGLNSRF
Attacin from Hermetia illucensKFLGNPNHNIGGGVFAAGN-TRSNTPSLGAF-GTLNLKDHSLGVSKTITPGVS+10E. coliN.D.
DTFSQNARLNILKTPDHR-VDANVFNSHTRLN-NGFAFDKRRGGSLDYTHS. aureus KCCM 40881
RAGHGLSLGA-SHIP-KFGTTAELTGKANLWRSPSGLSTFDLTGSASRTF
GGPMAGRNNFGAGLGFSHRF
N.D. = not determined. The results were descriptive in the considered papers and no numerical values could be obtained from the available data.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Buonocore, F.; Fausto, A.M.; Della Pelle, G.; Roncevic, T.; Gerdol, M.; Picchietti, S. Attacins: A Promising Class of Insect Antimicrobial Peptides. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10020212

AMA Style

Buonocore F, Fausto AM, Della Pelle G, Roncevic T, Gerdol M, Picchietti S. Attacins: A Promising Class of Insect Antimicrobial Peptides. Antibiotics. 2021; 10(2):212. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10020212

Chicago/Turabian Style

Buonocore, Francesco, Anna Maria Fausto, Giulia Della Pelle, Tomislav Roncevic, Marco Gerdol, and Simona Picchietti. 2021. "Attacins: A Promising Class of Insect Antimicrobial Peptides" Antibiotics 10, no. 2: 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10020212

APA Style

Buonocore, F., Fausto, A. M., Della Pelle, G., Roncevic, T., Gerdol, M., & Picchietti, S. (2021). Attacins: A Promising Class of Insect Antimicrobial Peptides. Antibiotics, 10(2), 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10020212

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop