Abstract
AbstractCry4Aa, produced by Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis, exhibits specific toxicity to larvae of medically important mosquito genera. Cry4Aa functions as a pore-forming toxin, and a helical hairpin (α4-loop-α5) of domain I is believed to be the transmembrane domain that forms toxin pores. Pore formation is considered to be a central mode of Cry4Aa action, but the relationship between pore formation and toxicity is poorly understood. In the present study, we constructed Cry4Aa mutants in which each polar amino acid residues within the transmembrane α4 helix was replaced with glutamic acid. Bioassays using Culex pipiens mosquito larvae and subsequent ion permeability measurements using symmetric KCl solution revealed an apparent correlation between toxicity and toxin pore conductance for most of the Cry4Aa mutants. In contrast, the Cry4Aa mutant H178E was a clear exception, almost losing its toxicity but still exhibiting a moderately high conductivity of about 60% of the wild-type. Furthermore, the conductance of the pore formed by the N190E mutant (about 50% of the wild-type) was close to that of H178E, but the toxicity was significantly higher than that of H178E. Ion selectivity measurements using asymmetric KCl solution revealed a significant decrease in cation selectivity of toxin pores formed by H178E compared to N190E. Our data suggest that the toxicity of Cry4Aa is primarily pore related. The formation of toxin pores that are highly ion-permeable and also highly cation-selective may enhance the influx of cations and water into the target cell, thereby facilitating the eventual death of mosquito larvae.
Funder
The Okayama Foundation for Science and Technology
The Yakumo Foundation for Environmental Science
JSPS KAKENHI
Okayama University
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference30 articles.
1. Goldberg LJ, Margalit J (1977) A bacterial spore demonstrating rapid larvicidal activity against Anopheles sergentii, Uranotaenia unguiculata, Culex univitattus, Aedes aegypti, and Culex pipiens. Mosq News 37:355–358
2. Poncet S, Delécluse A, Klier A, Rapoport G (1995) Evaluation of synergistic interactions among the CryIVA, CryIVB, and CryIVD toxic components of B. thuringiensis subsp. israelensis crystals. J Invertebr Pathol 66:131–135. https://doi.org/10.1006/jipa.1995.1075
3. Ben-Dov E (2014) Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis and its dipteran-specific toxins. Toxins 6:1222–1243. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins6041222
4. Schnepf E, Crickmore N, Van Rie J, Lereclus D, Baum J, Feitelson J, Zeigler DR, Dean DH (1998) Bacillus thuringiensis and its pesticidal crystal proteins. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 62:775–806. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.62.3.775-806.1998
5. de Maagd RA, Bravo A, Berry C, Crickmore N, Schnepf HE (2003) Structure, diversity, and evolution of protein toxins from spore-forming entomopathogenic bacteria. Annu Rev Genet 37:409–433. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genet.37.110801.143042