Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17634088›Full record

ArticleBMC biochemistry2007

Comparison of interactions between beta-hairpin decapeptides and SDS/DPC micelles from experimental and simulation data.

Allison A Langham, Alan J Waring, Y N Kaznessis

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC biochemistry, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Detergent-mediated protein aggregation.Chemistry and physics of lipids · 2013
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Dimerization of protegrin-1 in different environments.International journal of molecular sciences · 2010
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. On the nature of antimicrobial activity: a model for protegrin-1 pores.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2008
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Allison A LanghamDepartment of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. langham@dtc.umn.edu <langham@dtc.umn.edu>
Alan J Waring
Y N Kaznessis

Funding

Computational Modeling /Design of Antimicrobial PeptidesR01GM070989 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI KAZNESSIS, YIANNIS · 2005 to 2009
$1.1M
NIGMS NIH HHS GM 070989NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM070989
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe applied a combined experimental and computational approach to ascertain how peptides interact with host and microbial membrane surrogates, in order to validate simulation methodology we hope will enable the development of insights applicable to the design of novel antimicrobial peptides. We studied the interactions of two truncated versions of the potent, but cytotoxic, antimicrobial octadecapeptide protegrin-1, PC-72 [LCYCRRRFCVC] and PC-73 [CYCRRRFCVC].

resultsWe used a combination of FTIR, fluorescence spectroscopy and molecular dynamics simulations to examine the peptides' interactions with sodium dodecylsulfate (SDS) and dodecylphosphocholine (DPC) micelles. The relative amounts of secondary structure determined by FTIR agreed with those from the simulations. Fluorescence spectroscopy, deuterium exchange experiments and the simulations all indicate that neither peptide embeds itself deeply into the micelle core. Although molecular simulations placed both peptides at the micelle-water interface, further examination revealed differences in how certain residues interacted with the micelle core.

conclusionWe demonstrate here the accuracy of molecular dynamics simulations methods through comparison with experiments, and have used the simulation results to enhance the understanding of how these two peptides interact with the two types of micelles. We find agreement between simulation and experimental results in the final structure of the peptides and in the peptides final conformation with respect to the micelle. Looking in depth at the peptide interactions, we find differences in the interactions between the two peptides from the simulation data; Leu-1 on PC-72 interacts strongly with the SDS micelle, though the interaction is not persistent--the residue withdraws and inserts into the micelle throughout the simulation.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationMicellesAmino Acid SequenceAntimicrobial Cationic PeptidesKineticsModels, MolecularOligopeptidesPhosphorylcholineProtein BindingProteinsProtein Structure, SecondarySodium Dodecyl SulfateSpectrometry, FluorescenceSpectroscopy, Fourier Transform InfraredThermodynamicsAntimicrobial Cationic PeptidesdodecylphosphocholineMicellesOligopeptidesPhosphorylcholineprotegrin-1ProteinsSodium Dodecyl Sulfate

Identifiers

PMID17634088
PMCPMC1959233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.