Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27872334›Full record

ReviewJournal of dental research2017

Antimicrobial Peptides: Mechanisms of Action and Resistance.

B Bechinger, S-U Gorr

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of dental research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 335 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
335citing papers in PubMed
32.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

335 citing papers in PubMed, 701 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. TARGETING THE CAPSULE OFbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Coordination-Driven CuAdvanced healthcare materials · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

275 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

B Bechinger1 University of Strasbourg/CNRS, Chemistry Institute, Strasbourg, France.
S-U Gorr2 University of Minnesota School of Dentistry, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UMN CTSI)UL1TR000114 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI BLAZAR, BRUCE R · 2012 to 2015
$35.0M
Antibacterial and anti-inflammatory activities of Parotid Secretory ProteinR01DE017989 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI GORR, SVEN-ULRIK · 2010 to 2013
$1.4M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000114NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE017989
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

More than 40 antimicrobial peptides and proteins (AMPs) are expressed in the oral cavity. These AMPs have been organized into 6 functional groups, 1 of which, cationic AMPs, has received extensive attention in recent years for their promise as potential antibiotics. The goal of this review is to describe recent advances in our understanding of the diverse mechanisms of action of cationic AMPs and the bacterial resistance against these peptides. The recently developed peptide GL13K is used as an example to illustrate many of the discussed concepts. Cationic AMPs typically exhibit an amphipathic conformation, which allows increased interaction with negatively charged bacterial membranes. Peptides undergo changes in conformation and aggregation state in the presence of membranes; conversely, lipid conformation and packing can adapt to the presence of peptides. As a consequence, a single peptide can act through several mechanisms depending on the peptide's structure, the peptide:lipid ratio, and the properties of the lipid membrane. Accumulating evidence shows that in addition to acting at the cell membrane, AMPs may act on the cell wall, inhibit protein folding or enzyme activity, or act intracellularly. Therefore, once a peptide has reached the cell wall, cell membrane, or its internal target, the difference in mechanism of action on gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria may be less pronounced than formerly assumed. While AMPs should not cause widespread resistance due to their preferential attack on the cell membrane, in cases where specific protein targets are involved, the possibility exists for genetic mutations and bacterial resistance. Indeed, the potential clinical use of AMPs has raised the concern that resistance to therapeutic AMPs could be associated with resistance to endogenous host-defense peptides. Current evidence suggests that this is a rare event that can be overcome by subtle structural modifications of an AMP.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial Cationic PeptidesBacterial ProteinsBiofilmsDrug Resistance, BacterialGram-Negative BacteriaGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsGram-Positive BacteriaGram-Positive Bacterial InfectionsHost-Pathogen InteractionsHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMicrobial ViabilitySignal TransductionStructure-Activity RelationshipAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial Cationic PeptidesBacterial Proteinsantibacterial agentsantibiotic resistance bacterialcell membranecell wallgram negative bacteriagram positive bacteria

Identifiers

PMID27872334
PMCPMC5298395
OpenAlexW2556828189

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.