Advertisement

An Approach to Reveal the Possible Underlying Mechanisms Inherent to Oecophylla smaragdina as a Biocontrol Agent

  • Priya DasEmail author
  • Achuthsankar S. Nair
  • Pawan K. Dhar
  • Oommen V. Oommen
Research Article
  • 63 Downloads

Abstract

Oecophylla smaragdina, a biological pest control agent attacks its prey with their mandibles followed by ejection of venom; rendering them paralyzed. Even though Oecophylla smaragdina is a successful pest control agent, no attempts have been made to outline its molecular mechanism of action hitherto. The first part of this study intends characterization of venom constituents using preliminary methods followed by coupled gas chromatography and mass spectroscopy (GC–MS) analysis. The results indicate the anticipated presence of neurotoxin in ant venom (2,5-dipropyl-decahydroquinoline). This alkaloid is a known non-competitive inhibitor of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs), but the proper mechanism of inhibition by decahydroquinoline was obscure and has been addressed in this study. Based on the results and known facts, the second part of this study deals with in silico docking and molecular dynamics simulations to portray the molecular level inhibition of nAChRs by decahydroquinolines. Molecular docking and dynamics studies indicate that the inhibition of nAChRs by decahydroquinoline is attained by occluding the pore lumen of nAChRs in the serine–leucine ring. The GC–MS analysis followed by in silico studies thereby indicates that the potent non-competitive inhibitor of nAChRs found in the venom of Oecophylla must be posing paralyzing effects on its prey.

Keywords

Oecophylla smaragdina Non-competitive inhibition of nAChRs 2,5 dipropyl decahydroquinoline Molecular dynamics Biopest control agent Biological control 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Financial support from DST-INSPIRE is greatly acknowledged. The authors are grateful to Dr. P.R. Sudhakaran for his keen advices in this investigation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest for publishing this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Hölldobler BK, Wilson EO (1977) Weaver ants. Sci Am 237:146–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van Mele P (2008) A historical review of research on the weaver ant Oecophylla in biological control. Agric For Entomol 10:13–22Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Offenberg J (2011) Oecophylla smaragdina food conversion efficiency: prospects for ant farming. J Appl Entomol 135:575–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Peng RK, Christian K, Gibb K (1995) The effect of the green ant, Oecophylla smaragdina (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), on insect pests of cashew trees in Australia. Bull Entomol Res 85:279–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peng RK, Christian K, Reilly D (2011) The effect of weaver ants Oecophylla smaragdina on the shoot borer Hypsipyla robusta on African mahoganies in Australia. Agric For Entomol 13:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rifflet A, Tene N, Orivel J, Treilhou M, Dejean A, Vetillard A (2011) Paralyzing action from a distance in an Arboreal African ant species. PLoS ONE 6:e28571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daly JW, Nishizawa Y, Padgett WL, Tokuyama T, McCloskey PJ, Waykole L et al (1991) Decahydroquinoline alkaloids: noncompetitive blockers for nicotinic acetylcholine receptor-channels in pheochromocytoma cells and Torpedo electroplax. Neurochem Res 16:1207–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jones AK, Sattelle DB (2010) Diversity of insect nicotinic acetylcholine receptor subunits. Adv Exp Med Bio 683:25–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thany SH, Tricoire-Leignel H (2011) Emerging pharmacological properties of cholinergic synaptic transmission: comparison between mammalian and insect synaptic and extrasynaptic nicotinic receptors. Curr Neuropharmacol 9:706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arias HR (1998) Binding sites for exogenous and endogenous non-competitive inhibitors of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Biomembr 1376:173–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arias HR, Targowska-duda KM, Feuerbach D, Jozwiak K (2013) Mecamylamine inhibits muscle nicotinic acetylcholine receptors by competitive and noncompetitive mechanisms. OA Biochemistry 7:1–15Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Daloze D, Kaisin M, Detrain C, Pasteels JM (1991) Chemical defense in the three European species of Crematogaster ants. Experientia 47:1082–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Palma MS (2006) Insect venom peptides. In: Kastin A, Kastin AJ (eds) Handbook of biologically active peptides. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 389–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harborne JB (1998) Phytochemical methods a guide to modern techniques of plant analysis. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Morgan ED, Tyler RC (1977) Microchemical methods for the identification of volatile pheromones. J Chromatogr A 134:174–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Das P, Dileepkumar R, Krishnan SA, Nair AS, Dhar PK, Oommen OV (2014) Decahydroquinolines from the venom of a formicinae ant, Oecophylla smaragdina. Toxicon 92:50–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    OLBoyle NM, Banck M, James CA, Morley C, Vandermeersch T, Hutchison GR (2011) Open Babel: an open chemical toolbox. J Cheminf 3:33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Unwin N (2005) Refined structure of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor at 4Å resolution. J Mol Biol 346:967–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miyazawa A, Fujiyoshi Y, Unwin N (2003) Structure and gating mechanism of the acetylcholine receptor pore. Nature 423:949–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morris GM, Huey R, Lindstrom W, Sanner MF, Belew RK, Goodsell D et al (2009) Autodock4 and AutoDockTools4: automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J Comput Chem 16:2785–2791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Morris GM, Goodsell DS, Halliday RS, Huey R, Hart WE, Belew RK, Olson AJ (1998) Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J Comput Chem 19(14):1639–1662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scott WR, Hünenberger PH, Tironi IG, Mark AE, Billeter SR, Fennen J, Torda AE, Huber T, Kruger P, van Gunsteren WF (1999) The GROMOS biomolecular simulation program package. J Phys Chem A 103:3596–3607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Malde AK, Zuo L, Breeze M, Stroet M, Poger D, Nair PC et al (2011) An automated force field topology builder (ATB) and repository: version 1.0. J Chem Theory Comput 7:4026–4037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hess B, Bekker H, Berendsen HJ, Fraaije JG (1997) LINCS: a linear constraint solver for molecular simulations. J Comput Chem 18:1463–1472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Darden T, York D, Pedersen L (1993) Particle mesh Ewald: an N·log (N) method for Ewald sums in large systems. J Chem Phys 98:10089–10092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tikhonov DB, Zhorov BS (1998) Kinked-helices model of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor ion channel and its complexes with blockers: simulation by the Monte Carlo minimization method. Biophys J 74:242–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Daly JW, Garraffo HM, Jain P, Spande TF, Snelling RR, Jaramillo C, Rand AS (2000) Arthropod–frog connection: decahydroquinoline and pyrrolizidine alkaloids common to microsympatric myrmicine ants and dendrobatid frogs. J Chem Ecol 26(1):73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The National Academy of Sciences, India 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computational Biology and BioinformaticsUniversity of KeralaThiruvananthapuramIndia
  2. 2.Centre for Systems and Synthetic BiologyUniversity of KeralaThiruvananthapuramIndia
  3. 3.School of BiotechnologyJawaharlal Nehru UniversityNew DelhiIndia
  4. 4.Kerala State Biodiversity BoardThiruvananthapuramIndia

Personalised recommendations