J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2016, 10(4): 519–527 HR Basseri et al.: Isolation and Purification of … 519 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: October 04, 2016 Original Article Isolation and Purification of an Antibacterial Protein from Immune Induced Haemolymph of American Cockroach, Periplaneta americana *Hamid Reza Basseri 1, Amir Dadi-Khoeni 2, Ronak Bakhtiari 3, Mandan Abolhassani 1, Reza Hajihosseini-Baghdadabadi 2 1Department of Medical Entomology, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran 2Department of Biology, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran 3Department of Photobiology, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran (Received 21 Jan 2014; accepted 14 Apr 2015) Abstract Background: Antimicrobial peptides play a role as effectors substances in the immunity of vertebrate and inverte- brate hosts. In the current study, antimicrobial peptide was isolated from the haemolymph of the American cock- roach, Periplaneta americana. Methods: Micrococcus luteus as Gram-positive bacteria and Escherichia coli as Gram-negative bacteria were candi- date for injection. Induction was done by injecting both bacteria into the abdominal cavity of two groups of cock- roaches separately. The haemolymphs were collected 24 hours after post injection and initially tested against both bacteria. Subsequently, the immune induced haemolymph was purified by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) to separate the proteins responsible for the antibacterial activity. Results: The non-induced haemolymph did not show any activity against both bacteria whereas induced haemo- lymph exhibited high activity against M. luteus but did less against E. coli. Two fractions showed antibacterial activ- ity against M. luteus. Finally the molecular weight of the isolated antibacterial proteins were determined as 72 kDa and 62 kDa using SDS-PAGE. Conclusion: Induced haemolymph of American cockroaches has the ability to produce peptides to combat against Gram-positive bacteria when an immune challenge is mounted. Further work has to be done to sequence of the pro- tein, which it would be advantageous. Keywords: American cockroach, Antibacterial protein, Isolation, Micrococcus luteus, Escherichia coli Introduction Insects exhibit an amazing evolutionary success that can be explained by a variety of reasons (Jarosz 1996, Lazzaro 2008, Gao and Zhu 2012), among which the fact that their potent immunity play a major role in defense against bacteria (Hoffmann et al. 1996, Wil- son et al. 1999, Lamberty et al. 2001, Laz- zaro 2008). Based on habitat of cockroaches, they are always exposed to potentially patho- genic microorganisms and parasites, but only a few encounters result in infection (Gilles- pie and Kanost 1997). Antimicrobial peptides play an essential role in fighting against invading pathogens in insects, especially those that lack an adap- tive immunity (Toke 2005). Normally due to microbial infection, antimicrobial peptides are synthesized in fat body or certain haemo- lymph cells of insects or body injury, and then rapidly released into haemolymph to kill microorganisms (Brivio et al. 2006, Yu et al. 2010, Yakovlev 2011). However, in- sects count on cellular and humoral mecha- nisms to fight against pathogens and subse- *Corresponding author: Dr Hamid Reza Basseri, E-mail: basserih@tums.ac.ir J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2016, 10(4): 519–527 HR Basseri et al.: Isolation and Purification of … 520 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: October 04, 2016 quently, innate immunity, which is being dominant in the final category. Insects are remarkably resistant to bacte- rial infections by detecting of bacteria, a com- plex genetic cascade is activated, which even- tuates in the production of a series of anti- bacterial peptides and is released into the haemolymph (Eleftherianos et al. 2006, Eleftherianos et al. 2007). These antimicro- bial peptides are mostly small, amphipathic, cationic molecules (Gao and Zhu 2013). They have an effect on membrane of micro- bial cell changing permeability or by break- down bacteria membrane (Toke 2005, Dai et al. 2008, Huang et al. 2008). In addition, in- sect peptides may affect the synthesizing of DNA or protein as well as the protein fold- ing of the bacteria (Otvos 2000, Huang et al. 2008, Shen et al. 2010, Bang et al. 2012). Insects can synthesize some antimicrobial pep- tides such as cecropins, which exhibit anti- cancer activity (Ye et al. 2004). Some in- sects can synthesize inducible antibacterial peptides such as lysozyme which is also con- stitutive like lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-bind- ing protein which was isolated from the hae- molymph of the American cockroach (Peri- planeta americana) (Ha Lee et al. 2007, Fiolka 2008). This protein acts as an opsonin (Jomori and Natori 1992, Hashimoto et al. 2009, Kim et al. 2010). Generally, five major groups of antibacterial peptides have been introduced (Hultmark 1993) including cecropins, insect defensins, attacin-like (glycine-rich) proteins, proline rich peptides and lysozymes. The mechanisms of some these peptides have been studied extensively (Sawa and Ku- rahashi 1999, Imler and Bulet 2005, Wang et al. 2009). American cockroach spends most of its time in sewage, sewer pipe. These environ- ments usually contain high density of bacte- ria. Therefore, it is likely to defend itself against invading pathogens by means of an- timicrobial compounds. The purpose of the current study was to isolate and purify an antimicrobial protein from the haemolymph of American cockroach. In this study, we isolated and purified an antimicrobial protein in immune induced haemolymph of P. americana which may open up new way of research to detect new antimicrobial pathogens. Materials and Methods Insect rearing and haemolymph collection American cockroaches, P. americana, were maintained in an insectary at 25±2 °C with a 12h light/dark ratio, and fed on dried bred, date and water. To collect non-induced hae- molymph, two groups each included 30 adults and final instars cockroaches were anaesthetized with CO2. The ventral surface of sternum of each insect was sterilized with 70% ethanol, and the coxal membranes of legs were punched with still needle. The ex- uded haemolymph from the wounds was im- mediately collected, centrifuged at 1800×g for 10 minutes. For collecting of induced haemolymph, 100 μl of M. luteus or E. coli (106 cells/ml) was injected into the ab- dominal cavity of each cockroach. Based on preliminary time optimization, the insects were anesthetized 20 hours after injection and the haemolymph was collected using sterile sy- ringe, and then centrifuged. All collected sam- ples were transferred into clean and chilled eppendorf tubes containing few crystals of phenyl thiourea in order to prevent melaniza- tion. Finally, the supernatants and pallets were kept in -20 °C until used. The protein concentration of all samples was analyzed by Bradford method before being used. Bacterial strains In order to screen the antibacterial activ- ity of the heamolymph compounds on and based on evidences mentioned in previous studies (Jomori and Natori 1990, Serja et al. 2003), two strains of bacteria, one Gram pos- itive and one Gram negative bacteria were J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2016, 10(4): 519–527 HR Basseri et al.: Isolation and Purification of … 521 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: October 04, 2016 chosen. The bacteria were collected from Per- sian type culture collection, Science and In- dustrial Research Organization of Iran. The bacteria strains used for screening antimicro- bial peptides were nonpathogenic bacteria, ATCC 9341recently named as Kocuria rhi- zophila and E. coli ATCC25922 which is susceptible to all of the antibiotic, and Mi- croccus leteus ATCC 9341 is resistance to all antibiotic except chloramphenicol, doxy cycline, hydramycinand tetracline. Antibacterial assay The antibacterial assays were done by dif- fusion disc method. Sterile Petri dishes re- ceived 20 ml of melted Luria Burtenii me- dium, pH 7.0. After solidification of the me- dium, the agar surface was inoculated with 0.1 ml (106 cells/ml) of the test bacterial strain and spread with the help of a glass rod. Sterile paper discs soaked with 20 μl of the haemolymph (at concentration of 1.21mg/ml) was places on the medium. As control, paper discs soaked with 20 µ l of non-induced hae- molymph (at concentration of 1.34 mg/ml) were used. The plate was incubated over- night at 37 °C, and the diameters of the clear zones were recorded. The assay was carried out three times. Reverse Phase-High Performance Liquid Chromatography (RP-HPLC) The antibacterial compounds from haemo- lymph was purified by semi-preparative high performance liquid chromatography (RP- HPLC) (Knauer, Germany) under the fol- lowing conditions: flow rate =1 ml min-1, stationary phase = Spherisorb C18 column (Waters, USA, ODS2 Column 5 µ m, 250 mm×4.6mm), mobile phase = acetonitrile in water containing 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), detector wavelength at 230 nm. The fractions were eluted in an elution range of 20% to 80% acetonitrile in water for 40 min. The fractions were concentrated by freeze- dried, redissolved in 50 ml of apyrogenic water and then the antimicrobial activity of all fractions against both bacteria was tested using disc diffusion assay. Separation of Antibacterial Agents by SDS-PAGE The eluted protein was applied to SDS- PAGE as discussed by Laemmeli (1970). The protein was mixed with 5l of 5x SDS- PAGE sample buffer under non-reducing conditions and then heated for 10 minutes at 100 C. The sample (20 l) was then centri- fuged at 10000g for 5 min to remove debris before loading into the gel. The supernatant was applied to SDS-PAGE electrophoresis in a 10% polyacrylamide gel to analyse the eluted protein. Electrophoresis was performed at a constant voltage of 200v for ca, 45 min using the bio-Rad mini-protean II apparatus (Bio-Rad laboratories LTD, Hemel Hemp- stead, Hertforshire, UK). After separation, the gel was fixed by 30-min-long gentle shaking in 10% acetic acid, 50% methanol (v/v) and visualized by staining with Coo- massie Brillant Blue R-250. Results Antibacterial assay The whole non-induced haemolymph of cockroach did not show any antibacterial ac- tivity against M. luteus and E. coli. On con- trary, the induced haemolymph showed high antibacterial activity against M. luteus and less activity against E. coli (Fig. 1A, B). Purification of the antibacterial peptides The haemolymph with antibacterial ac- tivity subjected to semi-preparative Reverse Phase-High Performance Liquid Chromatog- raphy (RP-HPLC) for separation and purifi- cation of the peptides. Fifteen different peaks were obtained and the fractions col- lected (Fig. 2). All fractions were freeze- dried and redissolved in 50 ml of apyrogenic J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2016, 10(4): 519–527 HR Basseri et al.: Isolation and Purification of … 522 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: October 04, 2016 water and then separately subjected to anti- bacterial susceptibility test against both M. luteus and E. coli. Factions 2 and 3 showed high antibacterial activity against only M. luteus (Fig. 3). No activity was observed against E. coli. To remove any possible im- purity, the active fractions were reloaded onto RP-HPLC, tested for antibacterial ac- tivity and then subjected to SDS-PAGE. Two protein bands were observed at 60 kDa and 72 kDa on the polyacrylamide gel (Fig. 4). Fig. 1. Antibacterial activity of whole haemolymph against Micrococcus luteus (A) and Escherichia coli (B) where ‘S’ indicates treatment and ‘B’ control (non-induced haemolymph). The clear zone around the discs indicates antibacterial activity Fig. 2. RP-HPLC chromatogram of Periplaneta americana heamolymph induced with Micrococcus luteus. The absorbance was measured at 230 nm. The antibacterial activity of all fractions was separately tested against M. luteus. Only fractions 2 and 3 showed antibacterial activity. Fractions 2 and 3 were concentrated and reloaded onto RP-HPLC to remove any possible impurity Fig. 3. Antibacterial activity of fraction 2 (A) and 3 (B) against Micrococcus luteus (A). The fractions were concentrated by freeze-dried, redissolved in 50 ml of apyrogenic water J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2016, 10(4): 519–527 HR Basseri et al.: Isolation and Purification of … 523 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: October 04, 2016 Fig. 4. SDS-PAGE of fractions 2 and 3 L2 shows molecular mass of whole heamolymph proteins and L1 and L3 show molecular weight of fraction 2 and 3 respectively Discussion Insects have many systems that work to- gether to limit the spread of bacteria and other pathogens. They can synthesis antimicrobial peptides within their body. They have pat- tern recognition proteins that can bind to the external surface of bacteria or other patho- gens (Vilcinskas 2013). In this study the non-induced haemolymph and the induced haemolymph of American cockroach were screened for the antimicrobial activity against two Gram negative and Gram-positive bacte- rial strains. The non-induced haemolymph did not show inhibitory activity against any of the tested bacterial strains. It does not in- dicate that peptides are absent but they may be present in lesser quantity so that no de- tectible action in vitro studies is seen. It has been stated that the adult American cock- roach can generate an adaptive humoral im- mune response to pathogens (Karp 1985, George et al. 1987, Faulhaber and Karp 1992). In this scenario, defensive peptides or proteins play a main and crucial in insect humoral immune response against invading microorganisms (Leclerc and Reichhart 2004, Levy et al. 2004, Mak et al. 2010). Generally, each insect species may pos- sess an individual set of antimicrobial pep- tides synthesized in response to non-self recog- nition (Engstrom 1999). For example, Dro- sophila melanogaster metchnikowins pep- tides have no activity against Gram-negative bacteria but they inhibit growth of M. luteus (Imler and Bulet 2005, Rahnamaeian et al. 2009, Rahnamaeian and Vilcinskas 2012). We found similar result by injecting Gram- negative bacteria, E. coli and Gram-positive bacteria, M. luteus. Although, whole haemo- lymph of immune cockroaches showed an- timicrobial activity against E. coli (Fig. 1) but we could not find these activities in any fraction. It seems that they are not directly in- volved in killing E. coli, and some molecules may be involved in signaling mechanism to remove the bacteria. Another possibility is that the quantity of antimicrobial activity against E. coli may too less to see visible action. Various insect species, which bacteria in- jected into the haemocoel, elicit the syn- thesis of a number of peptides and proteins, which are individually or cooperatively ac- tive against the foreign microorganisms (Co- ciancich et al. 1994, Vilcinskas 2013). Induc- tion is a common process in many insect species (Cociancich et al. 1994). In the pre- sent study, induction of such peptide(s) was done by injecting E. coli or M. luteus into the abdominal cavity of American cock- roaches. The immune induced peptides were active against tested bacterial strains and this result suggests that peptides are produced to combat bacterial infection. However, con- stitutive and inducible proteins may be pre- sent in haemolymph of some insects and may act as signaling molecules such as lyso- zyme (Royet and Dziarski 2007, Royet et al. 2011, Bosco-Drayon et al. 2012). We found two proteins with antibacterial activity and then they were subjected to non- reducing SDS-PAGE to determine the size J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2016, 10(4): 519–527 HR Basseri et al.: Isolation and Purification of … 524 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: October 04, 2016 of proteins. The molecular weight of pro- teins was 60 and 72 kDa (Fig. 4) and these separated proteins allow us to observe anti- bacterial activity of them separately. The purified proteins are predominantly active against the Gram-positive bacteria; it suggests that the antibacterial activity of the peptides is related to the cell wall of the bac- teria. It may be assumed that the proteins identified in this study might play an im- portant role in their self-defense against bac- terial infection in American cockroaches in- dividually or cooperatively. However, further studies are needed to work out the combined effect of peptides. At this point, it is also important to remember the development of resistance to ordinary an- tibiotic like Gentamicin, penicillin and so on, by variety of infectious bacteria. It is also believed that antimicrobial peptides will be assumed in the near future as an alternative for the nowadays-classical antibiotics (Małgor- zata et al. 2007). The advantages of antimi- crobial peptides are many viz, selectivity, fast killing, broad antimicrobial spectra and lack of resistance development (Matsuzaki 1999, Papo and Shai 2005). However, the present result is preliminary and future study will be done in other methods to confirm the antimicrobial property of peptides. Conclusion The main idea of this research is to isolate new antimicrobial peptides from haemolymph of American cockroaches, Periplaneta Amer- icana and to study its activity against these two a Gram-positive and Gram-negative bac- teria. We found that induced haemolymph of American cockroaches has the ability to pro- duce peptides to combat against Gram-posi- tive bacteria when an immune challenge is mounted. Before immune challenge, anti- microbial peptides were indistinguishable, whereas concentration increased tremendous- ly in the haemolymph after induction pep- tide. Further work has to be done to improve purification steps of antibacterial proteins without damaging the proteins so that the peptides can act equally or higher than con- ventional antibiotics, and sequencing of the proteins would be advantageous. Acknowledgements We thank Mr Hossaini, for the kind coop- eration in insectary of department of Medical Entomology and Vector Control, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. References Bang K, Park S, Yoo JY, Cho S (2012) Characterization and expression of at- tacin, an antibacterial protein-encoding gene, from the beet armyworm, Spodop- tera exigua (Hubner) (Insecta: Lepi- doptera: Noctuidae). Mol Biol Rep. 39: 5151–5159. Bosco-Drayon V, Poidevin M, Boneca IG, Narbonne-Reveau K, Royet J, Char- roux B ( 2012) Peptidoglycan sensing by the receptor PGRP-LE in the Dro- sophila gut induces immune responses to infectious bacteria and tolerance to microbiota. Cell Host Microbe. 12: 153–165. Brivio M, F. Moro M, Mastore M (2006) Down-regulation of antibacterial pep- tide synthesis in an insect model in- duced by the body-surface of an en- tomoparasite (Steinernema feltiae). Dev Comp Immunol. 30: 627–638. Cociancich S, Bulet P, Hetru C, Hoffmann JA (1994) The inducible antibacterial peptides of insects. Parasitol Today. 10: 132–139. J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2016, 10(4): 519–527 HR Basseri et al.: Isolation and Purification of … 525 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: October 04, 2016 Dai H, Rayaprolu S, Gong Y, Huang R, Prakash O, Jiang H (2008) Solution structure, antibacterial activity, and ex- pression profile of Manduca sexta moricin. J Pept Sci 14: 855–863. Eleftherianos I, Marokhazi J, Millichap PJ, Hodgkinson AJ, Sriboonlert A, ffrench- Constant RH, Reynolds SE (2006) Prior infection of Manduca sexta with non-pathogenic Escherichia coli elicits immunity to pathogenic Photorhabdus luminescens: roles of immune-related proteins shown by RNA interference. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 36: 517–525. Eleftherianos I, Gokcen F, Felfoldi G, Millichap PJ, Trenczek TE, ffrench- Constant RH, Reynolds SE (2007) The immunoglobulin family protein Hemo- lin mediates cellular immune respons- es to bacteria in the insect Manduca sexta. Cell Microbiol. 9: 1137–1147. Engstrom Y (1999) Induction and regulation of antimicrobial peptides in Drosoph- ila. Dev Comp Immunol. 23: 345–358. Faulhaber LM, Karp RD (1992) A diphasic immune response against bacteria in the American cockroach. Immunology. 75: 378–381. Fiolka MJ (2008) Immunosuppressive effect of cyclosporin A on insect humoral immune response. J Invertebr Pathol. 98: 287–292. Gao B, Zhu S (2012) Alteration of the mode of antibacterial action of a defensin by the amino-terminal loop substitution. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 426: 630–635. Gao B, Zhu S (2013) An insect defensin- derived beta-hairpin peptide with en- hanced antibacterial activity. ACS Chem Biol. Epub ahead of print. George JF, Karp RD, Rellahan BL, Lessard JL (1987) Alteration of the protein com- position in the haemolymph of Amer- ican cockroaches immunized with sol- uble proteins. Immunol. 62: 505–509. Gillespie JP, Kanost MR (1997) Biology me- diators of insect immunity. Annual Re- view of Entomology. 42: 611–643. Ha Lee J, Hee Lee I, Noda H, Mita K, Taniai K (2007) Verification of elicitor effi- cacy of lipopolysaccharides and pepti- doglycans on antibacterial peptide gene expression in Bombyx mori. Insect Bi- ochem Mol Biol. 37: 1338–1347. Hashimoto Y, Tabuchi Y, Sakurai K, Kutsuna M, Kurokawa K, Awasaki T, Sekimizu K, Nakanishi Y, Shiratsuchi A (2009) Identification of lipoteichoic acid as a ligand for draper in the phag- ocytosis of Staphylococcus aureus by Drosophila hemocytes. J Immunol. 183: 7451–7460. Hoffmann JA, Reichhart JM, Hetru C (1996) Innate immunity in higher insects. Curr Opin Immunol. 8: 8–13. Huang Y, Lou H, Wu X, Chen Y (2008) Characterization of the BPI-like gene from a subtracted cDNA library of large yellow croaker (Pseudosciaena crocea) and induced expression by formalin- inactivated Vibrio alginolyticus and Nocardia seriolae vaccine challenges. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 25: 740–750. Imler JL, Bulet P (2005) Antimicrobial peptides in Drosophila: structures, ac- tivities and gene regulation. Chem Immunol Allergy. 86: 1–21. Jarosz J (1996) Anti-infective defence strate- gies and methods of escape from en- tomologic pathogens under immuno- logic control of insects. Wiad Para- zytol. 42: 3–27. Jomori T, Natori S (1992) Function of the lipopolysaccharide-binding protein of Periplaneta americana as an opsonin. FEBS Lett. 296: 283–286. Karp RD (1985) Preliminary characteriza- tion of the inducible humoral factor in the American cockroach (Periplaneta americana). Dev Comp Immunol. 9: 569–575. J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2016, 10(4): 519–527 HR Basseri et al.: Isolation and Purification of … 526 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: October 04, 2016 Kim CH, Shin YP, Noh MY, Jo YH, Han YS, Seong YS, Lee IH (2010) An insect multiligand recognition protein functions as an opsonin for the phag- ocytosis of microorganisms. J Biol Chem. 285: 25243–25250. Laemmli UK (1970) Cleavage of Structural Proteins during the Assembly of the Head of Bacteriophage T4. Nature. 227: 680–685. Lamberty M, Zachary D, Lanot R, Borde- reau C, Robert A, Hoffmann JA, Bulet P (2001) Insect immunity. Constitutive expression of a cysteine-rich antifun- gal and a linear antibacterial peptide in a termite insect. J Biol Chem. 276: 4085–4092. Lazzaro BP (2008) Natural selection on the Drosophila antimicrobial immune sys- tem. Curr Opin Microbiol. 11: 284–289. Leclerc V, Reichhart JM (2004) The im- mune response of Drosophila melano- gaster. Immunol Rev. 198: 59–71. Levy F, Rabel D, Charlet M, Bulet P, Hoffmann JA, Ehret-Sabatier L (2004) Peptidomic and proteomic analyses of the systemic immune response of Drosophila. Biochimie. 86: 607–616. Mak P, Zdybicka-Barabas A, Cytrynska M (2010) A different repertoire of Gal- leria mellonella antimicrobial peptides in larvae challenged with bacteria and fungi. Dev Comp Immunol. 34: 1129– 1136. Rahnamaeian M, Vilcinskas A (2012) De- fense gene expression is potentiated in transgenic barley expressing antifungal peptide Metchnikowin throughout pow- dery mildew challenge. J Plant Res. 125: 115–124. Rahnamaeian M, Langen G, Imani J, Khalifa W, Altincicek B, von Wettstein D, Kogel KH, Vilcinskas A (2009) Insect peptide metchnikowin confers on bar- ley a selective capacity for resistance to fungal ascomycetes pathogens. J Exp Bot. 60: 4105–4114. Royet J, Dziarski R (2007) Peptidoglycan recognition proteins: pleiotropic sen- sors and effectors of antimicrobial de- fences. Nat Rev Microbiol. 5: 264–277. Royet J, Gupta D, Dziarski R (2011) Pep- tidoglycan recognition proteins: mod- ulators of the microbiome and inflam- mation. Nat Rev Immunol. 11: 837–851. Sawa T, Kurahashi K (1999) Antimicrobial peptides/proteins-application to the ther- apy of sepsis. Masui. 48: 1186–1193. Shen X, Ye G, Cheng X, Yu C, Altosaar I, Hu C (2010) Characterization of an abaecin-like antimicrobial peptide iden- tified from a Pteromalus puparum cDNA clone. J Invertebr Pathol. 105: 24–29. Toke O (2005) Antimicrobial peptides: new candidates in the fight against bacterial infections. Biopolymers. 80: 717–735. Vilcinskas A (2013) Evolutionary plasticity of insect immunity. J Insect Physiol. 59: 123–129. Wade JD, Lin F, Condie BA, Hanrieder J, Hoffmann R (2005) Designer antibac- terial peptides kill fluoroquinolone- resistant clinical isolates. J Med Chem. 48: 5349–5359. Wang Y, Jin X, Zhu J, Zeng A, Chu F, Yang X, Ma Y (2009) Expression pattern of antibacterial genes in the Musca domes- tica. Sci China C Life Sci. 52: 823–830. Wilson R, Chen C, Ratcliffe NA (1999) Innate immunity in insects: the role of multiple, endogenous serum lectins in the recognition of foreign invaders in the cockroach, Blaberus discoidalis. J Immunol. 162: 1590–1596. Yakovlev AY (2011) Induction of antimicro- bial peptide synthesis by the fat body cells of maggots of Calliphora vicina R.-D. (Diptera: Calliphoridae). Zh Evol Biokhim Fiziol. 47(6): 461–468. Ye JS, Zheng XJ, Leung KW, Chen HM, Sheu FS (2004) Induction of transient ion channel-like pores in a cancer cell J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2016, 10(4): 519–527 HR Basseri et al.: Isolation and Purification of … 527 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: October 04, 2016 by antibiotic peptide. J Biochem. 136: 255–259. Yu Y, Park JW, Kwon HM, Hwang HO, Jang IH, Masuda A, Kurokawa K, Nakayama H, Lee WJ, Dohmae N, Zhang J, Lee BL (2010) Diversity of innate immune recognition mechanism for bacterial polymeric meso-diaminopimelic acid- type peptidoglycan in insects. J Biol Chem. 285: 32937–32945.