Isolation and partial characterization of a complementary protein from the mycoparasite, Piptocephalis virginiana, which specifically binds to two glycoproteins b and c of the host cell surface

Presence of surface glycoprotein in Piptocephalis virginiana that recognizes the host glycoproteins band c, reported earlier from our laboratory, was detected by immunofluorescence microscopy. Germinated spores of P. virginiana treated with Mortierella pusilla cell wall protein extract, primary antibodies prepared against glycoproteins band c and FITC-goat anti-rabbit IgG conjugate showed fluorescence. This indicated that on the surfaces of the biotrophic mycoparasite P. virginiana , there might be a complementary molecule which recognizes the glycoproteins band c from M. pusilla. Immunobinding analysis identified a glycoprotein of Mr 100 kDa from the mycoparasite which binds with the host glycoproteins band c, separately as well as collectively. Purification of this glycoprotein was achieved by (i) 60% ammonium sulfate precipitation, (ii) followed by heat treatment, and (iii) Sephadex G-IOO gel filtration. The glycoprotein was isolated by preparative polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis by cutting and elution. The purity of the protein ·was ascertained by SDS-PAGE and Western blot analysis. Positive reaction to periodic acid-Schiff reagent revealed the glycoprotein nature of this 100 kDa protein. Mannose was identified as a major sugar component of this glycoprotein by using a BoehringerMannheim Glycan Differentiation Kit. Electrophoretically purified glycoprotein was used to raIse polyclonal antibody in rabbit. The specificity of the antibody was determined by dot-immunobinding test and western-blot analysis. Immunofluorescence mIcroscopy revealed surface localization of the protein on the germ tube of Piptocephalis virginiana. Fluorescence was also observed at the surfaceJ of the germinated spores and hyphae of the host, M. pusilla after treatment with complementary protein from P. virginiana, primary antibody prepared against the complementary protein and FITC-goat anti-rabbit IgG conjugate.

Probing cell surfaces of host and nonhost species of a mycoparasite, using FITC-labeled lectins

Cell surfaces of susceptible host species (Mortierella pusllla and Cboanepilora cucurbitarum ), resistant host (Pilascolomyces articulosus ), nonhost (Mortierella candelabrum ) and the mycoparasite (Piptocepilalis virginiana) were examined for sugar distribution patterns using light and fluorescent microscopy techniques. The susceptible host, resistant host and the mycoparasite species exhibited a similar sugar distribution profile; they all showed N-acetyl glucosamine and D-glucose on their cell wall surfaces. The nonhost cell wall surface showed a positive binding reaction to FITClectins specific for N-acetyl glucosamine and also for OI.-fucose, N-acetyl galactosamine and galactose. Treatment of these fungi with mild concentrations of proteinases (both commercial as well as the mycoparasiteproteinase) resulted in the revelation of additional sugars on the fungal cell walls. The susceptible host treated with proteinase expressed higher levels of N-acetyl glucosamine and D-glucose. The susceptible host also showed the presence of OI.-fucose, N-acetyl galactosamine and galactose. The proteinasetreated susceptible host cell walls also showed an increase in the levels of attachment with the mycoparasite. Treatment of the resistant host with proteinases revealed OI.-fucose in addition to N-acetyl glucosamine and D-glucose. Treatment of the nonhost cell wall with proteinase resulted in the exposure of low levels of D-glucose, in addition to sugars found on the untreated nonhost cell wall surface. The mycoparasite treated with proteinase revealed OI.-fucose, N-acetyl galactosamine and galactose on its cell surface in addition to the sugars N-acetyl glucosamine and D-glucose. Protoplasts were isolated from hosts and nonhost fungi and their surfaces were examined for sugar distribution patterns. The susceptible host and nonhost protoplast membranes showed all the sugars (N-acetyl glucosamine, D-glucose, (It.-fucose, N-acetyl galactosamine and galactose) tested for. The resistant host protoplast membrane however, had only N-acetyl glucosamine and D-glucose exposed. This sugar distribution profile resembles that exhibited by the untreated resistant host cell wall, as well as that shown by the untreated mycoparasite cell surface. Only susceptible host protoplasts were successful in attaching to the mycoparasite surface. Resistant host protoplasts did not show any interaction with the i mycoparasite cell surface. Both susceptible as well as resistant host protoplasts were incapable of attaching to agarose beads surface-coated with specific carbohydrates. The mycoparasite however, did attach to agarose beads surface-coated with either N-acetyl glucosamine, D-glucose/Dmannose or o:,- methyl-D-mannose. The relevance of the cell wall and the protoplast membrane in the light of the present results, in reacting appropriately to bring about either a susceptible, a resistant or a nonhost response has been discussed.