Table 1.
Labeling‡ | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Antibody | Peptide sequence | RR‐2 proteins containing the exact peptide† | 0 min | 15 min |
anti‐Ap2‐01 | HDATSYAFYHPK | ACYPI000300, ACYPI004990 | None (0/11) | None (0/11) |
anti‐pepS§ | FEYSVNDPHTYDVKS | ACYPI000983, ACYPI002200, ACYPI002889, ACYPI003453, ACYPI004074, ACYPI004893, ACYPI006045, ACYPI007329, ACYPI008534, ACYPIG166965, ACYPIG314262, ACYPIG566276 | Dots (17/18) | Weak (12/12) |
anti‐Ap2‐02 | SDGNSEPEPFNFA | ACYPI000461, ACYPI002106, ACYPI006175 | None (0/11) | Dots (6/21) |
anti‐Ap2‐03 | YDVKSQSEYSDGNGY | ACYPI000983, ACYPI002889, ACYPI004074, ACYPI004893 | Dots (7/15) | Dots (3/10) |
anti‐Ap2‐04 | KSQSEYSDGNGYVKG | ACYPI000983, ACYPI001644, ACYPI002243, ACYPI002889, ACYPI003527, ACYPI004074, ACYPI004893, ACPYI56622 | Dots (1/7) | None (0/25) |
anti‐pepL§ | GSYSLLEADGSTRTVE | ACYPI002200, ACYPI002889, ACYPI003453, ACYPI004074, ACYPI004113, ACYPI004983, ACYPI006045, ACYPI008534, ACYPIG166965, ACYPIG566276 | Dots (17/21) | Strong (22/22) |
anti‐Ap2‐05 | TRTVEYTADDHSG | ACYPI004893 | Dots (17/21) | Strong (21/22) |
anti‐Ap2‐06 | TRTVEYTADDYNG | ACYPI004074, ACYPI004113, ACPYPI006045, ACYPI007329, ACYPIG566276 | None (0/10) | Dots (4/7) |
anti‐Ap2‐07 | EYTADDHSGFNAE | ACYPI000983, ACYPI008570, ACYPI56617, ACYPI56618 | None (0/13) | Dots (2/17) |
anti‐Ap2‐08 | VVKNEGGYKAPSYSA | ACYPI002694, ACYPI004893, ACYPI006791, ACYPI007928 ACYPI008534, ACYPI009804 | Dots (4/8) | Strong (22/24) |
anti‐Ap2‐09 | KIEGHSQGYK | ACYPI000983, ACYPI56617, ACYPI56618, ACYPIG435644 | None (0/8) | None (0/11) |
anti‐Ap2‐10 | KEGTPSYSSAP | ACYPI001644, ACYPI002243, ACYPI003527, ACYPI56622 | None (0/9) | None (0/12) |
†ACYPI numbers of RR‐2 subfamily CuPs from Acyrthosiphon pisum containing a perfect match for the peptide sequence, names according to Gallot et al. (2010). Underlined ACYPI numbers represent incomplete genes that matched the corresponding peptide sequence.
‡ In vitro immunolabeling of A. pisum maxillary stylets without (0 min) or with 15 min of chitinase digestion treatment. Labeling at the acrostyle was rated either: none, incomplete (dots), weak, or strong.
§Previously developed (Uzest et al., 2010).