Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27160599›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2016

Perspectives on the evolutionary ecology of arthropod antimicrobial peptides.

Jens Rolff, Paul Schmid-Hempel

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The ncRNA-mediated regulatory networks ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Parasitic nematode secreted phospholipase AFrontiers in immunology · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Why do insects evolve immune priming? A search for crossroads.Developmental and comparative immunology · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. TheFrontiers in microbiology · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jens RolffEvolutionary Biology, Institute of Biology, Freie Universität Berlin, Königin-Luise-Strasse 1-3, 14195 Berlin, Germany Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), 14195 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1529-5409
Paul Schmid-HempelETH Zürich, Institute of Integrative Biology (IBZ), ETH-Zentrum CHN, Universitätsstrasse 16, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland psh@env.ethz.ch.ORCID 0000-0002-4748-0553
Berlin Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research · DEETH Zurich · CH

Funding

European Research Council 260986European Research Council 268853
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are important elements of the innate immune defence in multicellular organisms that target and kill microbes. Here, we reflect on the various points that are raised by the authors of the 11 contributions to a special issue of Philosophical Transactions on the 'evolutionary ecology of arthropod antimicrobial peptides'. We see five interesting topics emerging. (i) AMP genes in insects, and perhaps in arthropods more generally, evolve much slower than most other immune genes. One explanation refers to the constraints set by AMPs being part of a finely tuned defence system. A new view argues that AMPs are under strong stabilizing selection. Regardless, this striking observation still invites many more questions than have been answered so far. (ii) AMPs almost always are expressed in combinations and sometimes show expression patterns that are dependent on the infectious agent. While it is often assumed that this can be explained by synergistic interactions, such interactions have rarely been demonstrated and need to be studied further. Moreover, how to define synergy in the first place remains difficult and needs to be addressed. (iii) AMPs play a very important role in mediating the interaction between a host and its mutualistic or commensal microbes. This has only been studied in a very small number of (insect) species. It has become clear that the very same AMPs play different roles in different situations and hence are under concurrent selection. (iv) Different environments shape the physiology of organisms; especially the host-associated microbial communities should impact on the evolution host AMPs. Studies in social insects and some organisms from extreme environments seem to support this notion, but, overall, the evidence for adaptation of AMPs to a given environment is scant. (v) AMPs are considered or already developed as new drugs in medicine. However, bacteria can evolve resistance to AMPs. Therefore, in the light of our limited understanding of AMP evolution in the natural context, and also the very limited understanding of the evolution of resistance against AMPs in bacteria in particular, caution is recommended. What is clear though is that study of the ecology and evolution of AMPs in natural systems could inform many of these outstanding questions, including those related to medical applications and pathogen control.This article is part of the themed issue 'Evolutionary ecology of arthropod antimicrobial peptides'.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGene ExpressionAnimalsAnti-Infective AgentsAntimicrobial Cationic PeptidesArthropodsHost-Pathogen InteractionsImmunity, InnateInsectaInsect ProteinsSelection, GeneticAnti-Infective AgentsAntimicrobial Cationic PeptidesInsect Proteinsantimicrobial peptidesecological immunology

Identifiers

PMID27160599
PMCPMC4874394
OpenAlexW2347198424

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.