Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28445757›Full record

ArticleBiophysical journal2017

Action of Antimicrobial Peptides on Bacterial and Lipid Membranes: A Direct Comparison.

Joseph E Faust, Pei-Yin Yang, Huey W Huang

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Biophysical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A unified model of transient poration induced by antimicrobial peptides.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Super-Resolution Microscopy Reveals a Direct Interaction of IntracellularInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joseph E FaustDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Rice University, Houston, Texas.
Pei-Yin YangDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Rice University, Houston, Texas.
Huey W HuangDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Rice University, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: hwhuang@rice.edu.
Rice University · US

Funding

Membrane-active Peptides and ProteinsR01GM055203 · NIGMS · RICE UNIVERSITY · PI HUANG, HUEY W. · 1997 to 2017
$5.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM055203
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The bacterial membrane represents an attractive target for the design of new antibiotics to combat widespread bacterial resistance. Understanding how antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) and other membrane-active agents attack membranes could facilitate the design of new, effective antimicrobials. Despite intense study of AMPs on model membranes, we do not know how well the mechanism of attack translates to real biological membranes. To that end, we have characterized the attack of AMPs on Escherichia coli cytoplasmic membranes and directly compared this action to model membranes. AMPs induce membrane permeability in E. coli spheroplasts or giant unilamellar vesicles (GUVs) under well-defined concentrations of AMPs and fluorescent molecules. The action of AMPs on spheroplasts is unique in producing an intracellular fluorescence intensity time curve that increases in a sigmoidal fashion to a steady state. This regular pattern is reproducible by melittin, LL37, and alamethicin but not by CCCP or daptomycin, agents known to cause ion leakage. Remarkably, a similar pattern was also reproduced in GUVs. Indeed the steady-state membrane permeability induced by AMPs is quantitatively the same in spheroplasts and GUVs. There are, however, interesting dissimilarities in details that reveal differences between bacterial and lipid membranes. Spheroplast membranes are permeabilized by a wide range of AMP concentrations to the same steady-state membrane permeability. In contrast, only a narrow range of AMP concentrations permeabilized GUVs to a steady state. Tension in GUVs also influences the action of AMPs, whereas the spheroplast membranes are tensionless. Despite these differences, our results provide a strong support for using model membranes to study the molecular interactions of AMPs with bacterial membranes. As far as we know, this is the first time the actions of AMPs, on bacterial membranes and on model membranes, have been directly and quantitatively compared.

Indexed as

AlamethicinAnti-Infective AgentsAntimicrobial Cationic PeptidesCathelicidinsCell MembraneCell Membrane PermeabilityEscherichia coliFluorescent DyesLipid BilayersMelittenMicroscopy, ConfocalSpheroplastsUnilamellar LiposomesAlamethicinAnti-Infective AgentsAntimicrobial Cationic PeptidesCathelicidinsFluorescent DyesLipid BilayersMelittenUnilamellar Liposomes

Identifiers

PMID28445757
PMCPMC5406281
OpenAlexW2584315626

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.