Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17846143›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2007

Global phenotype screening and transcript analysis outlines the inhibitory mode(s) of action of two amphibian-derived, alpha-helical, cationic peptides on Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

C Oliver Morton, Andrew Hayes, Michael Wilson, Bharat M Rash, Stephen G Oliver, Peter Coote

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Anti-Cariogenic Effects ofPharmaceutics · 2024
    Article
  2. Membrane-Interacting Antifungal Peptides.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Defensins: antifungal lessons from eukaryotes.Frontiers in microbiology · 2014
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Soft X-ray tomography of phenotypic switching and the cellular response to antifungal peptoids in Candida albicans.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2009
    Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

C Oliver MortonCentre for Biomolecular Sciences, School of Biology, University of St. Andrews, The North Haugh, St. Andrews KY16 9ST, United Kingdom.
Andrew Hayes
Michael Wilson
Bharat M Rash
Stephen G Oliver
Peter Coote
University of Manchester · GBUniversity of St Andrews · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dermaseptin S3(1-16) [DsS3(1-16)] and magainin 2 (Mag 2) are two unrelated, amphibian-derived cationic peptides that adopt an alpha-helical structure within microbial membranes and have been proposed to kill target organisms via membrane disruption. Using a combination of global deletion mutant library phenotypic screening, expression profiling, and physical techniques, we have carried out a comprehensive in vitro analysis of the inhibitory action of these two peptides on the model fungus Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Gene ontology profiling (of biological processes) was used to identify both common and unique effects of each peptide. Resistance to both peptides was conferred by genes involved in telomere maintenance, chromosome organization, and double-strand break repair, implicating a common inhibitory action of DNA damage. Crucially, each peptide also required unique genes for maintaining resistance; for example, DsS3(1-16) required genes involved in protein targeting to the vacuole, and Mag 2 required genes involved in DNA-dependent DNA replication and DNA repair. Thus, DsS3(1-16) and Mag 2 have both common and unique antifungal actions that are not simply due to membrane disruption. Physical techniques revealed that both peptides interacted with DNA in vitro but in subtly different ways, and this observation was supported by the functional genomics experiments that provided evidence that both peptides also interfered with DNA integrity differently in vivo. This implies that both peptides are able to pass through the cytoplasmic membrane of yeast cells and damage DNA, an inhibitory action that has not been previously attributed to either of these peptides.

Indexed as

Amphibian ProteinsAmphibiansAnimalsAntifungal AgentsAntimicrobial Cationic PeptidesDNA, FungalDNA RepairDNA ReplicationGene Expression Regulation, FungalGenome, FungalMagaininsPhenotypeProtein Structure, SecondarySaccharomyces cerevisiaeAmphibian ProteinsAntifungal AgentsAntimicrobial Cationic PeptidesdermaseptinDNA, FungalMagainins

Identifiers

PMID17846143
PMCPMC2151447
OpenAlexW2153359392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.