This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Web of Science (88) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Baumgartner, B. Articles by Chrispeels, M. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Baumgartner, B. Articles by Chrispeels, M. J. Agricola Articles by Baumgartner, B. Articles by Chrispeels, M. J.

Articles

Partial Characterization of a Protease Inhibitor Which Inhibits the Major Endopeptidase Present in the Cotyledons of Mung Beans ¹

^a Department of Biology, John Muir College, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093

Germination of mung beans (Phaseolus aureus, Roxb.) is accompanied by an increase in the activity of the endopeptidase involved in storage protein metabolism. Enzyme activity in the cotyledons increases 25-fold during the first 5 days of germination. The cotyledons also contain inhibitory activity against the endopeptidase, and this inhibitory activity declines during germination, suggesting that inhibitors may play a role in regulating the activity of the endopeptidase.

The inhibitory activity against the mung bean endopeptidase is due to the presence of two inhibitors which can be separated by chromatography on Sephadex G-100. The two inhibitors have approximate molecular weights of 12,000 and smaller than 2,000 daltons. The large inhibitor coelutes with trypsin inhibitor on Sephadex G-100, but these two inhibitory activities can be separated by means of a trypsin affinity column.

The inhibitory activity disappears slowly from crude extracts incubated at 6 C and more rapidly when the extracts are incubated at 25 C or 37 C. The disappearance of inhibitory activity is accompanied by a rise of the endopeptidase activity, but an examination of the kinetics of these two phenomena suggests that they are not causally related. Fractionation of the cellular organelles on sucrose gradients shows that the inhibitory activity is not associated with the protein bodies, but rather with the cytosol. Our results suggest that the endopeptidase inhibitor(s) does not regulate the increase in endopeptidase activity which accompanies germination or the metabolism of storage protein. We, therefore, postulate that the inhibitor(s) may function in protecting the cytoplasm from accidental rupturing of the protease-containing protein bodies.