Edwin R. Burgess IV , Shova Mishra , Xin Yan , Zhongwu Guo , Christopher J. Geden , Jon S. Miller , Michael E. Scharf
{"title":"家蝇体内乙草胺和马来酸二乙酯与谷胱甘肽 S-转移酶及其谷胱甘肽辅助因子的不同相互作用","authors":"Edwin R. Burgess IV , Shova Mishra , Xin Yan , Zhongwu Guo , Christopher J. Geden , Jon S. Miller , Michael E. Scharf","doi":"10.1016/j.pestbp.2024.106170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Glutathione <em>S</em>-transferases (GSTs) are an important class of enzymes that facilitate the conjugation of reduced glutathione (GSH) with electrophilic substrates, including some insecticides. Two inhibitors of GSTs, ethacrynic acid (EA) and diethyl maleate (DEM), are often used as diagnostic tools to implicate GST involvement in insecticide resistance, but their modes of action against insect GSTs are largely assumed based on mammalian studies. In mammalian studies, there are two proposed mechanisms of inhibition of GST function by EA and DEM: 1) scavenging or “depleting” cytosolic GSH through non-enzymatic conjugation, and 2) inhibition of GST activity directly by the inhibitor-GSH conjugate (EA-SG and DEM-SG).</div><div>The objective of this study was to characterize putative inhibitory mechanisms of EA and DEM against insect (house fly) GSTs and the co-factor GSH. Both EA and DEM synergized topical applications of naled and propoxur but not permethrin. As a GSH scavenger, EA was ∼10-fold more potent compared to DEM. Conditions such as pH, GSH concentration, and incubation time significantly affected the ability of both inhibitors to scavenge GSH. EA demonstrated scavenging at a wider pH range than DEM and scavenged GSH at a faster rate than DEM. Whereas EA peak scavenging was observed almost instantly, there was a 54.4 % increase in scavenged GSH for DEM between 0 and 30 min of incubation. Increasing concentration of GSH diminished the effect of scavenging at the highest tested concentrations of both inhibitors. In the presence of both GSH and GSTs in crude homogenate, EA was 300-fold more potent as a GST inhibitor compared to DEM at pH 7.5. No comparison was made at pH 6.5 because the tested concentrations of DEM did not produce enough inhibition to derive an IC<sub>50</sub> value while EA concentrations did. With purified GSTs, EA-SG was 205-fold more potent as an inhibitor compared to DEM-SG, while EA alone was 7.6-fold more potent than EA-SG and 1565-fold more potent than DEM-SG. These findings establish in insects that the insecticide synergists EA and DEM function mainly by scavenging the GST co-factor GSH, with some inhibition due to interactions with GSTs and the inhibitor-GSH conjugates, rather than through interaction between the inhibitors and the GST protein itself. These resulting impacts are two-fold, whereby (i) GSH bioavailability is limited and (ii) the GSH-inhibitor complex attenuates GST-based xenobiotic metabolism.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":19828,"journal":{"name":"Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology","volume":"205 ","pages":"Article 106170"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differential interactions of ethacrynic acid and diethyl maleate with glutathione S-transferases and their glutathione co-factor in the house fly\",\"authors\":\"Edwin R. Burgess IV , Shova Mishra , Xin Yan , Zhongwu Guo , Christopher J. Geden , Jon S. Miller , Michael E. Scharf\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.pestbp.2024.106170\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Glutathione <em>S</em>-transferases (GSTs) are an important class of enzymes that facilitate the conjugation of reduced glutathione (GSH) with electrophilic substrates, including some insecticides. Two inhibitors of GSTs, ethacrynic acid (EA) and diethyl maleate (DEM), are often used as diagnostic tools to implicate GST involvement in insecticide resistance, but their modes of action against insect GSTs are largely assumed based on mammalian studies. In mammalian studies, there are two proposed mechanisms of inhibition of GST function by EA and DEM: 1) scavenging or “depleting” cytosolic GSH through non-enzymatic conjugation, and 2) inhibition of GST activity directly by the inhibitor-GSH conjugate (EA-SG and DEM-SG).</div><div>The objective of this study was to characterize putative inhibitory mechanisms of EA and DEM against insect (house fly) GSTs and the co-factor GSH. Both EA and DEM synergized topical applications of naled and propoxur but not permethrin. As a GSH scavenger, EA was ∼10-fold more potent compared to DEM. Conditions such as pH, GSH concentration, and incubation time significantly affected the ability of both inhibitors to scavenge GSH. EA demonstrated scavenging at a wider pH range than DEM and scavenged GSH at a faster rate than DEM. Whereas EA peak scavenging was observed almost instantly, there was a 54.4 % increase in scavenged GSH for DEM between 0 and 30 min of incubation. Increasing concentration of GSH diminished the effect of scavenging at the highest tested concentrations of both inhibitors. In the presence of both GSH and GSTs in crude homogenate, EA was 300-fold more potent as a GST inhibitor compared to DEM at pH 7.5. No comparison was made at pH 6.5 because the tested concentrations of DEM did not produce enough inhibition to derive an IC<sub>50</sub> value while EA concentrations did. With purified GSTs, EA-SG was 205-fold more potent as an inhibitor compared to DEM-SG, while EA alone was 7.6-fold more potent than EA-SG and 1565-fold more potent than DEM-SG. These findings establish in insects that the insecticide synergists EA and DEM function mainly by scavenging the GST co-factor GSH, with some inhibition due to interactions with GSTs and the inhibitor-GSH conjugates, rather than through interaction between the inhibitors and the GST protein itself. These resulting impacts are two-fold, whereby (i) GSH bioavailability is limited and (ii) the GSH-inhibitor complex attenuates GST-based xenobiotic metabolism.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19828,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology\",\"volume\":\"205 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106170\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048357524004036\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048357524004036","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Differential interactions of ethacrynic acid and diethyl maleate with glutathione S-transferases and their glutathione co-factor in the house fly
Glutathione S-transferases (GSTs) are an important class of enzymes that facilitate the conjugation of reduced glutathione (GSH) with electrophilic substrates, including some insecticides. Two inhibitors of GSTs, ethacrynic acid (EA) and diethyl maleate (DEM), are often used as diagnostic tools to implicate GST involvement in insecticide resistance, but their modes of action against insect GSTs are largely assumed based on mammalian studies. In mammalian studies, there are two proposed mechanisms of inhibition of GST function by EA and DEM: 1) scavenging or “depleting” cytosolic GSH through non-enzymatic conjugation, and 2) inhibition of GST activity directly by the inhibitor-GSH conjugate (EA-SG and DEM-SG).
The objective of this study was to characterize putative inhibitory mechanisms of EA and DEM against insect (house fly) GSTs and the co-factor GSH. Both EA and DEM synergized topical applications of naled and propoxur but not permethrin. As a GSH scavenger, EA was ∼10-fold more potent compared to DEM. Conditions such as pH, GSH concentration, and incubation time significantly affected the ability of both inhibitors to scavenge GSH. EA demonstrated scavenging at a wider pH range than DEM and scavenged GSH at a faster rate than DEM. Whereas EA peak scavenging was observed almost instantly, there was a 54.4 % increase in scavenged GSH for DEM between 0 and 30 min of incubation. Increasing concentration of GSH diminished the effect of scavenging at the highest tested concentrations of both inhibitors. In the presence of both GSH and GSTs in crude homogenate, EA was 300-fold more potent as a GST inhibitor compared to DEM at pH 7.5. No comparison was made at pH 6.5 because the tested concentrations of DEM did not produce enough inhibition to derive an IC50 value while EA concentrations did. With purified GSTs, EA-SG was 205-fold more potent as an inhibitor compared to DEM-SG, while EA alone was 7.6-fold more potent than EA-SG and 1565-fold more potent than DEM-SG. These findings establish in insects that the insecticide synergists EA and DEM function mainly by scavenging the GST co-factor GSH, with some inhibition due to interactions with GSTs and the inhibitor-GSH conjugates, rather than through interaction between the inhibitors and the GST protein itself. These resulting impacts are two-fold, whereby (i) GSH bioavailability is limited and (ii) the GSH-inhibitor complex attenuates GST-based xenobiotic metabolism.
期刊介绍:
Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology publishes original scientific articles pertaining to the mode of action of plant protection agents such as insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, and similar compounds, including nonlethal pest control agents, biosynthesis of pheromones, hormones, and plant resistance agents. Manuscripts may include a biochemical, physiological, or molecular study for an understanding of comparative toxicology or selective toxicity of both target and nontarget organisms. Particular interest will be given to studies on the molecular biology of pest control, toxicology, and pesticide resistance.
Research Areas Emphasized Include the Biochemistry and Physiology of:
• Comparative toxicity
• Mode of action
• Pathophysiology
• Plant growth regulators
• Resistance
• Other effects of pesticides on both parasites and hosts.