N. sphaeroides phycocyanin subunit Ns-α and Ns-β improve C. elegans antioxidative capacity via ROS-related regulation


Abstract

Oxidative stress and damage to macromolecules due to free radicals are commonly considered factors that can impair health. Phycocyanin, a natural pigment-apoprotein complex composed of protein α- and β-subunits with attached linear tetrapyrrole chromophores, has health benefits such as reducing the impact of reactive oxygen species (ROS) . However, the potential functions of the subunit proteins in vitro remain unexplored. In this study, bacterial expression vectors were separately constructed to induce two engineering subunit proteins, Ns-α and Ns-β, with genes derived from Nostoc sphaeroides (Gexianmi), a valuable resource with both medicinal and edible virtues. These engineering proteins were then examined for their potential to enhance antioxid ative capacity in C. elegans. A proper concentration of the proteins Ns-α and Ns-β in vitro exhibited 2, 2-azino-bis 3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS) radical scavenging activity. While there were no other observed effects on the nematodes, those treated with the proteins showed significant improvements in motility and reduced levels of lipofuscin compared to the control group. Furthermore, the treated nematodes demonstrated increased resistance to oxidation, as evidenced by the higher survivals under oxidative conditions induced by 5 mM H2O2. Notably, the treated nematodes exhibited decline in endogenous ROS levels, and the redox-related genes, such as SOD-3 and CAT-1, were down-regulated following consumption of the engineering proteins. These findings suggest that engineering proteins Ns-α and Ns-β improve the antioxidative capacity of C. elegans by modulatin g ROS-related regulation, making them potential modulators in responding to oxidative stressors.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.