Advertisement

Amino Acids

, Volume 48, Issue 5, pp 1241–1251 | Cite as

The stereochemical effect of SMAP-29 and SMAP-18 on bacterial selectivity, membrane interaction and anti-inflammatory activity

  • Binu Jacob
  • Ganesan Rajasekaran
  • Eun Young Kim
  • Il-Seon Park
  • Jeong-Kyu BangEmail author
  • Song Yub ShinEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Sheep myeloid antimicrobial peptide-29 (SMAP-29) is a cathelicidin-related antimicrobial peptide derived from sheep myeloid cells. In order to investigate the effects of l-to-d-amino acid substitution in SMAP-29 on bacterial selectivity, membrane interaction and anti-inflammatory activity, we synthesized its two d-enantiomeric peptides (SMAP-29-E1 and SMAP-29-E2 containing d-Ile and d-allo-Ile, respectively) and two diastereomeric peptides (SMAP-29-D1 and SMAP-29-D2). Additionally, in order to address the effect of l-to-d-amino acid substitution in the N-terminal helical peptide of SMAP-29 (named SMAP-18) on antimicrobial activity, we synthesized its two d-enantiomeric peptides (SMAP-18-E1 and SMAP-18-E2), which are composed of d-amino acids entirely. l-to-d-amino acid substitution in membrane-targeting AMP, SMAP-29 did not affect its antimicrobial activity. However, d-allo-Ile containing-SMAP-29-E2 and SMAP-29-D2 exhibited less hemolytic activity compared to d-Ile containing-SMAP-29-E1 and SMAP-29-D1, respectively. l-to-d-amino acid substitution in intracellular targeting-AMPs, SMAP-18 and buforin-2 improved antimicrobial activity by 2- to eightfold. The improved antimicrobial activity of the d-isomers of SMAP-18 and buforin-2 seems to be due to the stability against proteases inside bacterial cells. Membrane depolarization and dye leakage suggested that the membrane-disruptive mode of SMAP-29-D1 and SMAP-29-D2 is different from that of SMAP-29, SMAP-29-E1, and SMAP-29-E2. l-to-d-amino acid substitution in SMAP-29 improved anti-inflammatory activity in LPS-stimulated RAW 264.7 cells. In summary, we propose here that d-allo-Ile substitution is a more powerful strategy for increasing bacterial selectivity than d-Ile substitution in the design of d-enantiomeric and diastereomeric AMPs. SMAP-29-D1, and SMAP-29-D2 with improved bacterial selectivity and anti-inflammatory activity can serve as promising candidates for the development of anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial agents.

Keywords

SMAP-29/SMAP-18 l-to-d-amino acid substitution Bacterial selectivity Anti-inflammatory activity Protease stability 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the research fund from Chosun University, 2015.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bagella L, Scocchi M, Zanetti M (1995) cDNA sequences of the three sheep myeloid cathelicidins. FEBS Lett 376:225–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bahar A, Ren D (2013) Antimicrobial peptides. Pharmaceuticals 6:1543–1575CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Braunstein A, Papo N, Shai Y (2004) In vitro activity and potency of an intravenously injected antimicrobial peptide and its dl amino acid analog in mice infected with bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 48:3127–3129CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Brogden KA (2005) Antimicrobial peptides: pore formers or metabolic inhibitors in bacteria? Nat Rev Microbiol 3:238–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown KL, Poon GF, Birkenhead D, Pena OM, Falsafi R, Dahlgren C, Karlsson A, Bylund J, Hancock RE, Johnson P (2011) Host defense peptide LL-37 selectively reduces proinflammatory macrophage responses. J Immunol 186:5497–5505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Carmona G, Rodriguez A, Juarez D, Corzo G, Villegas E (2013) Improved protease stability of the antimicrobial peptide Pin2 substituted with d-amino acids. Protein J 32:456–466CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Dawson RM, Liu CQ (2009) Cathelicidin peptide SMAP-29: comprehensive review of its properties and potential as a novel class of antibiotics. Drug Dev Res 70:481–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dawson RM, Liu CQ (2011) Analogues of peptide SMAP-29 with comparable antimicrobial potency and reduced cytotoxicity. Int J Antimicrobial Agents 37:432–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dawson RM, McAllister J, Liu CQ (2010) Characterisation and evaluation of synthetic antimicrobial peptides against Bacillus globigii, Bacillus anthracis and Burkholderia thailandensis. Int J Antimicrob Agents 36:359–363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dong N, Zhu X, Chou S, Shan A, Li W, Jiang J (2014) Antimicrobial potency and selectivity of simplified symmetric-end peptides. Biomaterials 35:8028–8039CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Eckert R (2011) Road to clinical efficacy: challenges and novel strategies for antimicrobial peptide development. Future Microbiol 6:635–651CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hale JD, Hancock REW (2007) The alternative mechanisms of action of cationic antimicrobial peptides on bacteria. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 5:951–959CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamamoto K, Kida Y, Zhang Y, Shimizu T, Kuwano K (2002) Antimicrobial activity and stability to proteolysis of small linear cationic peptides with d-amino acid substitutions. Microbiol Immunol 46:741–749CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hancock REW, Sahl HG (2006) Antimicrobial and host-defense peptides as new antiinfective therapeutic strategies. Nat Biotechnol 24:1551–1557CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hardaway RM (2000) A review of septic shock. Am Surg 66:22–29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hong SY, Oh JE, Lee KH (1999) Effect of d-amino acid substitution on the stability, the secondary structure, and the activity of membrane-active peptide. Biochem Pharmacol 58:1775–1780CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Iwagaki A, Porro M, Pollack M (2000) Influence of synthetic antiendotoxin peptides on lipopolysaccharide (LPS) recognition and LPS-induced proinflammatory cytokine responses by cells expressing membrane bound CD14. Infect Immun 68:1655–1663CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Jacob B, Kim Y, Hyun JK, Park IS, Bang JK, Shin SY (2014) Bacterial killing mechanism of sheep myeloid antimicrobial peptide-18 (SMAP-18) and its Trp-substituted analog with improved cell selectivity and reduced mammalian cell toxicity. Amino Acids 46:187–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim S, Kim SS, Lee BJ (2005) Correlation between the activities of & #x03B1;-helical antimicrobial peptides and hydrophobicities represented as RP-HPLC retention times. Peptides 26:2050–2056CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kondejewski LH, Jelokhani-Niaraki M, Farmer SW, Lix B, Kay CM, Sykes BD, Hancock RE, Hodges RS (1999) Dissociation of antimicrobial and hemolytic activities in cyclic peptide diastereomers by systematic alterations in amphipathicity. J Biol Chem 274:13181–13192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Nagaoka I, Hirota S, Niyonsaba F, Hirata M, Adachi Y, Tamura H, Tanaka S, Heumann D (2002) Augmentation of the lipopolysaccharide-neutralizing activities of human cathelicidin CAP18/LL-37-derived antimicrobial peptides by replacement with hydrophobic and cationic amino acid residues. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 9:972–982PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Nan YH, Lee SH, Kim HJ, Shin SY (2010) Mammalian cell toxicity and candidacidal mechanism of Arg- or Lys-containing Trp-rich model antimicrobial peptides and their d-enantiomeric peptides. Peptides 31:1826–1831CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Nell MJ, Tjabringa GS, Wafelman AR, Verrijk R, Hiemstra PS, Drijfhout JW, Grote JJ (2006) Development of novel LL-37 derived antimicrobial peptides with LPS and LTA neutralizing and antimicrobial activities for therapeutic application. Peptides 27:649–660CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Peschel A, Sahl HG (2006) The co-evolution of host cationic antimicrobial peptides and microbial resistance. Nature Rev Microbiol 4:529–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rosenfeld Y, Papo N, Shai Y (2006) Endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide) neutralization by innate immunity host-defense peptides. Peptide properties and plausible modes of action. J Biol Chem 281:1636–1643CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosenfeld Y, Lev N, Shai Y (2010) Effect of the hydrophobicity to net positive charge ratio on antibacterial and anti-endotoxin activities of structurally similar antimicrobial peptides. Biochemistry 49:853–861CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Shin SY, Park EJ, Yang ST, Jung HJ, Eom SH, Song WK, Kim Y, Hahm KS, Kim JI (2001) Structure-activity analysis of SMAP-29, a sheep leukocytes-derived antimicrobial peptide. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 285:1046–1051CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Skerlavaj B, Benincasa M, Risso A, Zanetti M, Gennaro R (1999) SMAP-29: a potent antibacterial and antifungal peptide from sheep leukocytes. FEBS Lett 463:58–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Tack BF, Sawai MV, Kearney WR, Robertson AD, Sherman MA, Wang W, Hong T, Boo LM, Wu H, Waring AJ, Lehrer RI (2002) SMAP-29 has two LPS-binding sites and a central hinge. Eur J Biochem 269:1181–1189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Wei GX, Bobek LA (2005) Human salivary MUC7 12-mer-L and 12-mer-D peptides: antifungal activity in saliva, enhancement of activity with protease inhibitor cocktail or EDTA, and cytotoxicity to human cells. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 49:2336–2342CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Wessolowski A, Bienert M, Dathe M (2004) Antimicrobial activity of arginine- and tryptophan-rich hexapeptides: the effects of aromatic clusters, d-amino acid substitution and cyclization. J Pept Res 64:159–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Yang L, Harroun TA, Weiss TM, Ding L, Huang HW (2001) Barrel stave model or toroidal model? a case study on melittin pores. Biophys J 81:1475–1485CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Zasloff M (2002) Antimicrobial peptides of multicellular organisms. Nature 415:389–395CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Binu Jacob
    • 1
  • Ganesan Rajasekaran
    • 1
  • Eun Young Kim
    • 1
  • Il-Seon Park
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jeong-Kyu Bang
    • 3
    Email author
  • Song Yub Shin
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Medical Science, Graduate SchoolChosun UniversityGwangjuRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, School of MedicineChosun UniversityGwangjuRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Division of Magnetic ResonanceKorea Basic Science InstituteOchangRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations