Protease Inhibitor from Insect Silk-Activities of Derivatives Expressed In Vitro and in Transgenic Potato
- 276 Downloads
Several recombinant derivatives of serine protease inhibitor called silk protease inhibitor 2 (SPI2), which is a silk component in Galleria mellonella (Lepidoptera, Insecta), were prepared in the expression vector Pichia pastoris. Both the native and the recombinant protease inhibitors were highly active against subtilisin and proteinase K. The synthetic SPI2 gene with Ala codon in the P1 position was fused with mGFP-5 to facilitate detection of the transgene and its protein product. A construct of the fusion gene with plant regulatory elements (promoter 35S and terminator OCS) was inserted into the binary vector pRD400. The final construct was introduced into Agrobacterium tumefaciens that was then used for genetic transformation of the potato variety Velox. The transgene expression was monitored with the aid of ELISA employing polyclonal antibody against natural SPI2. In vitro tests showed increased resistance to the late blight Phytophthora infestans in several transformed lines. No effect was seen on the growth, mortality, life span or reproduction of Spodoptera littoralis (Lepidoptera, Insecta) caterpillars, while feeding on transformed potato plants expressing the fusion protein, indicating that the transformed potatoes may be harmless to non-target organisms.
KeywordsGenetically modified organism Silk protease inhibitor Protease Transgene Insect Resistance Potato
This study was supported by project no. QI91A229 from the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic. The authors thank Misses J. Zralá and R. Tanzer Fabiánová for their technical assistance, and Mr. Richard Klee (University of South Bohemia) for the English corrections.
- 1.Barrett, A. J., & Salvesen, G. (1986). Proteinase inhibitors. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- 7.Hněvsová, V., Kodrík, D., & Weyda, F. (2011). European Journal of Entomology, 108, 711–715.Google Scholar
- 13.Chou, J., & Chou, T. C. (1987). Dose-effect analysis with microcomputers. Cambridge: Biosoft.Google Scholar
- 18.Lee, K. Y., Valaitis, A. P., & Denlinger, D. L. (1998). Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology, 37, 97–205.Google Scholar
- 22.Stoscheck, C. M. (1990). In M. P. Deutscher (Ed.), Methods in enzymology (Vol. 182, pp. 50–68). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- 23.Horáčková, V., Domkářová, J., & Kreuz, L. (2007). Scientific works. Potato Research Institute Havlíčkův Brod, 15, 101–109.Google Scholar
- 24.Vrbová, M., Horáček, J., Seidenglanz, M., Smýkalová, I., Sehnal, F., Navrátil, O., & Griga, M. (2010). In Vitro Cellular & Development Biology–Animal, 46, 118.Google Scholar
- 32.Gatehouse, J. A., Gatehouse, A. M. R., & Bown, D. P. (2000). In D. Michaud (Ed.), Recombinant protease inhibitors in plants (pp. 9–26). Georgetown: Landes Bioscience Eurekan Com.Google Scholar
- 34.Navrátil, O., Kodrík, D., Kludkiewicz, B., Vinokurov, K. S., Sehnal, F., & Horáčková, V. (2012). In J. Romeis, M. Meissle, & F. Álvarez-Alfageme (Eds.), GMOs in Integrated Plant Production, IOBC wprs Bulletin, 73 (pp. 61–67). Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar