Advertisement

3 Biotech

, 9:295 | Cite as

Biological characterization of omw1 and omw2: antimicrobial peptides derived from omwaprin

  • Bency Thankappan
  • Jayaraman AngayarkanniEmail author
Original Article
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

Two cationic antimicrobial peptides (AMP) were designed based on the snake venom peptide, omwaprin, hypothesized to be shorter, cost effective and potent. Omw1 and omw2 demonstrated significant broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity against standard and clinical strains at a MIC ranging from 15.625 to 250 µg/ml for omw1 and from 31.3 to 500 µg/ml for omw2. Time–kill kinetics revealed that omw1 caused complete lysis of E. coli ATCC 25922 at 1× MIC and S. aureus ATCC 25923 at 2× MIC after 40 and 60 min of incubation, respectively. Membranolytic activity of the peptides was assessed by propidium iodide stain, where red fluorescence was observed in cells treated with the peptides compared to untreated cells. Notable morphological changes were observed in the microbes treated with peptides, as revealed by scanning electron micrographs. Omw1 and omw2 were also potent to inhibit the formation as well as dispersal of matured biofilms at 1/2× MIC against clinical strain, C. albicans. Further, minimal hemolytic activity demonstrated by both the peptides at microbicidal concentration against human erythrocytes proves that the designed peptides were less toxic and potent antimicrobial agents which could be considered for further studies with animal models to affirm its efficiency.

Keywords

Antimicrobial peptides Omwaprin AMP derivative Antibiofilm activity Cationicity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first author greatly acknowledges the financial support from University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi, India in the form of fellowship and contingency. Both authors are thankful to the Bharathiar University administration for the instrumentation facilities in the department.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

13205_2019_1801_MOESM1_ESM.tif (1.7 mb)
Purification of omw1 by HPLC (a) and determination of mass by MALDI-TOF (b). Omw1 was obtained at 95% purity and the observed molecular weight was 2460 Da.
13205_2019_1801_MOESM2_ESM.tif (1.6 mb)
Purification of omw2 by HPLC (a) and determination of mass by MALDI-TOF (b). Omw2 was obtained at 95% purity and the observed molecular weight was 2119 Da.

References

  1. Aboudy Y, Mendelson E, Shalit I et al (1994) Activity of two synthetic amphiphilic peptides and magainin-2 against herpes simplex virus types 1 and 2. Int J Pept Protein Res 43:573–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bastos M, Adão R, Nazmi K, Bolscher JM (2011) C- and N-truncated antimicrobial peptides from LFampin 265–284: biophysical versus microbiology results. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 3:60.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-7406.76467 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Bi X, Wang C, Dong W et al (2014) Antimicrobial properties and interaction of two Trp-substituted cationic antimicrobial peptides with a lipid bilayer. J Antibiot 67:361–368.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ja.2014.4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Biswas S, Van Dijck P, Datta A (2007) Environmental sensing and signal transduction pathways regulating morphopathogenic determinants of Candida albicans. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 71:348–376.  https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00009-06 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Chan DI, Prenner EJ, Vogel HJ (2006) Tryptophan- and arginine-rich antimicrobial peptides: structures and mechanisms of action. Biochim Biophys Acta Biomembr 1758:1184–1202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2006.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen Y, Guarnieri MT, Vasil AI et al (2007) Role of peptide hydrophobicity in the mechanism of action of alpha-helical antimicrobial peptides. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 51:1398–1406.  https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00925-06 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Choi H, Lee DG (2012) Antimicrobial peptide pleurocidin synergizes with antibiotics through hydroxyl radical formation and membrane damage, and exerts antibiofilm activity. Biochim Biophys Acta 1820:1831–1838.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbagen.2012.08.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dathe M, Wieprecht T, Nikolenko H et al (1997) Hydrophobicity, hydrophobic moment and angle subtended by charged residues modulate antibacterial and haemolytic activity of amphipathic helical peptides. FEBS Lett 403:208–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de la Fuente-Núñez C, Reffuveille F, Haney EF et al (2014) Broad-spectrum anti-biofilm peptide that targets a cellular stress response. PLoS Pathog 10:e1004152.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1004152 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Dostert M, Belanger CR, Hancock RE (2018) Design and assessment of anti-biofilm peptides: steps toward clinical application. J Innate Immun 11:193–204.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000491497 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Durham-Colleran MW, Verhoeven AB, van Hoek ML (2010) Francisella novicida forms in vitro biofilms mediated by an orphan response regulator. Microb Ecol 59:457–465.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-009-9586-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Ebenhan T, Gheysens O, Kruger HG et al (2014) Antimicrobial peptides: their role as infection-selective tracers for molecular imaging. Biomed Res Int 2014:867381.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/867381 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Hancock RE, Diamond G (2000) The role of cationic antimicrobial peptides in innate host defences. Trends Microbiol 8:402–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hancock REW, Sahl H-G (2006) Antimicrobial and host-defense peptides as new anti-infective therapeutic strategies. Nat Biotechnol 24:1551–1557.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1267 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Huertas N, Monroy Z, Medina R, Castañeda J (2017) Antimicrobial activity of truncated and polyvalent peptides derived from the FKCRRQWQWRMKKGLA sequence against Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 and Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923. Molecules 22:987.  https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules22060987 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Juba ML, Porter DK, Williams EH et al (2015) Helical cationic antimicrobial peptide length and its impact on membrane disruption. Biochim Biophys Acta Biomembr 1848:1081–1091.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2015.01.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kanthawong S, Bolscher JGM, Veerman ECI et al (2012) Antimicrobial and antibiofilm activity of LL-37 and its truncated variants against Burkholderia pseudomallei. Int J Antimicrob Agents 39:39–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2011.09.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ko SJ, Kang NH, Kim MK et al (2019) Antibacterial and anti-biofilm activity, and mechanism of action of pleurocidin against drug resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Microb Pathog 127:70–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2018.11.052 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Leberer E, Harcus D, Dignard D et al (2001) Ras links cellular morphogenesis to virulence by regulation of the MAP kinase and cAMP signalling pathways in the pathogenic fungus Candida albicans. Mol Microbiol 42:673–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lin M-C, Hui C-F, Chen J-Y, Wu J-L (2013) Truncated antimicrobial peptides from marine organisms retain anticancer activity and antibacterial activity against multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Peptides 44:139–148.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peptides.2013.04.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Luo Y, McLean DTF, Linden GJ et al (2017) The Naturally occurring host defense peptide, LL-37, and its truncated mimetics KE-18 and KR-12 have selected biocidal and antibiofilm activities against Candida albicans, Staphylococcus aureus, and Escherichia coli in vitro. Front Microbiol 8:544.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00544 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Lyu Y, Yang Y, Lyu X et al (2016) Antimicrobial activity, improved cell selectivity and mode of action of short PMAP-36-derived peptides against bacteria and Candida. Sci Rep 6:27258.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep27258 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Nair DG, Fry BG, Alewood P et al (2007) Antimicrobial activity of omwaprin, a new member of the waprin family of snake venom proteins. Biochem J 402:93–104.  https://doi.org/10.1042/BJ20060318 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Pasupuleti M, Chalupka A, Mörgelin M et al (2009a) Tryptophan end-tagging of antimicrobial peptides for increased potency against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Biochim Biophys Acta 1790:800–808.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbagen.2009.03.029 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Pasupuleti M, Schmidtchen A, Chalupka A et al (2009b) End-tagging of ultra-short antimicrobial peptides by W/F stretches to facilitate bacterial killing. PLoS ONE 4:e5285.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005285 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Qu P, Gao W, Chen H et al (2016) The central hinge link truncation of the antimicrobial peptide fowlicidin-3 enhances its cell selectivity without antibacterial activity loss. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60:2798–2806.  https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.02351-15 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Ramage G, VandeWalle K, López-Ribot JL, Wickes BL (2002) The filamentation pathway controlled by the Efg1 regulator protein is required for normal biofilm formation and development in Candida albicans. FEMS Microbiol Lett 214:95–100.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2002.tb11330.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Ramírez-Carreto S, Jiménez-Vargas JM, Rivas-Santiago B et al (2015) Peptides from the scorpion Vaejovis punctatus with broad antimicrobial activity. Peptides 73:51–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peptides.2015.08.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Schmidtchen A, Pasupuleti M, Mörgelin M et al (2009) Boosting antimicrobial peptides by hydrophobic oligopeptide end tags. J Biol Chem 284:17584–17594.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M109.011650 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Schmidtchen A, Pasupuleti M, Malmsten M (2014) Effect of hydrophobic modifications in antimicrobial peptides. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 205:265–274.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2013.06.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Svendsen JSM, Grant TM, Rennison D et al (2019) Very short and stable lactoferricin-derived antimicrobial peptides: design principles and potential uses. Acc Chem Res 52:749–759.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.8b00624 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Thankappan B, Jeyarajan S, Hiroaki S et al (2013) Antimicrobial and antibiofilm activity of designed and synthesized antimicrobial peptide, KABT-AMP. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 170:1184–1193.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-013-0258-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Yeaman MR, Yount NY (2003) Mechanisms of antimicrobial peptide action and resistance. Pharmacol Rev 55:27–55.  https://doi.org/10.1124/pr.55.1.2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Yin LM, Edwards MA, Li J et al (2012) Roles of hydrophobicity and charge distribution of cationic antimicrobial peptides in peptide–membrane interactions. J Biol Chem 287:7738–7745.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M111.303602 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Zapotoczna M, Forde É, Hogan S et al (2017) Eradication of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm infections using synthetic antimicrobial peptides. J Infect Dis 215:975–983.  https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jix062 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Zelezetsky I, Tossi A (2006) Alpha-helical antimicrobial peptides—using a sequence template to guide structure-activity relationship studies. Biochim Biophys Acta 1758:1436–1449.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2006.03.021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Microbial BiotechnologyBharathiar UniversityCoimbatoreIndia

Personalised recommendations