Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27725697›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2016

Cathelicidins in the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii).

E Peel, Y Cheng, J T Djordjevic, S Fox, T C Sorrell, K Belov

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 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
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Lessons learnt from the Tasmanian devil facial tumour regarding immune function in cancer.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2018
    Review
  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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

E PeelFaculty of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Y ChengFaculty of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
J T DjordjevicCentre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, The Westmead Institute for Medical Research, and Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
S FoxDepartment of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, 134 Macquarie Street, Hobart, Tasmania 7000, Australia.
T C SorrellCentre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, The Westmead Institute for Medical Research, and Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
K BelovFaculty of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
University of Sydney · AUDepartment of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment · AUWestmead Institute for Medical Research · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tasmanian devil joeys, like other marsupials, are born at a very early stage of development, prior to the development of their adaptive immune system, yet survive in a pathogen-laden pouch and burrow. Antimicrobial peptides, called cathelicidins, which provide innate immune protection during early life, are expressed in the pouch lining, skin and milk of devil dams. These peptides are active against pathogens identified in the pouch microbiome. Of the six characterised cathelicidins, Saha-CATH5 and 6 have broad-spectrum antibacterial activity and are capable of killing problematic human pathogens including methicillin-resistant S. aureus and vancomycin-resistant E. faecalis, while Saha-CATH3 is active against fungi. Saha-CATH5 and 6 were toxic to human A549 cells at 500 μg/mL, which is over seven times the concentration required to kill pathogens. The remaining devil cathelicidins were not active against tested bacterial or fungal strains, but are widely expressed throughout the body, such as in immune tissues, in digestive, respiratory and reproductive tracts, and in the milk and pouch, which indicates that they are likely also important components of the devil immune system. Our results suggest cathelicidins play a role in protecting naive young during pouch life by passive immune transfer in the milk and may modulate pouch microbe populations to reduce potential pathogens.

Indexed as

A549 CellsAnimalsAnti-Infective AgentsCathelicidinsCell SurvivalEvolution, MolecularHumansImmunityMarsupialiaMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPhylogenyVancomycin-Resistant EnterococciAnti-Infective AgentsCathelicidins

Identifiers

PMID27725697
PMCPMC5057115
OpenAlexW2531510289

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.