Background: Arthropod-borne diseases are some of the most rapidly spreading diseases. Reducing the vector population is currently the only effective way to reduce case numbers. Central metabolic pathways are potential targets to control vector populations, but have not been well explored to this aim. The information available on energy metabolism, as a way to control lifespan and dispersion through flight of dipteran vectors, is inadequate.
Methods: Phosphofructokinase (PFK) activity was measured in the presence of both of its substrates, fructose-6-phosphate (F6P) and ATP, as well as some allosteric effectors: Fructose- 2,6 - bisphosphate (F2, 6BP), citrate and AMP. Aedes aegypti phosphofructokinase sequence (AaPFK) was aligned with many other insects and also vertebrate sequences. A 3D AaPFK model was produced and docking experiments were performed with AMP and citrate.
Results: The kinetic parameters of AaPFK were determined for both substrates: F6P (V = 4.47 ± 0.15 μmol of F1, 6BP/min, K0.5 = 1.48 ± 0.22 mM) and ATP (V = 4.73 ± 0.57 μmol of F1, 6BP/min, K0.5 = 0.43 ± 0.10 mM). F2,6P was a powerful activator of AaPFK, even at low ATP concentrations. AaPFK inhibition by ATP was not enhanced by citrate, consistent with observations in other insects. After examining the sequence alignment of insect and non-insect PFKs, the hypothesis is that a modification of the citrate binding site is responsible for this unique behavior. AMP, a well-known positive effector of PFK, was not capable of reverting ATP inhibition. Aedes, Anopheles and Culex are dengue, malaria and filariasis vectors, respectively, and are shown to have this distinct characteristic in phosphofructokinase control. The alignment of several insect PFKs suggested a difference in the AMP binding site and a significant change in local charges, which introduces a highly negative charge in this part of the protein, making the binding of AMP unlikely. This hypothesis was supported by 3D modeling of PFK with AMP docking, which suggested that the AMP molecule binds in a reverse orientation due to the electrostatic environment. The present findings imply a potential new way to control PFK activity and are a unique feature of these Diptera.
Conclusions: The present findings provide the first molecular explanation for citrate insensitivity in insect PFKs, as well as demonstrating for the first time AMP insensitivity in dipterans. It also identified a potential target for novel insecticides for the control of arthropod-borne diseases.