ArticleScientific reports2017
Comparative NanoUPLC-MS
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- tsAMP: a strain-level antimicrobial peptide identification framework based on large language models and pathogen genomic variation.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- The Role of Outer Membrane Proteins in UPEC Antimicrobial Resistance: A Systematic Review.Membranes · 2022Review
- Proteome ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Recent advancements in microfluidic chip biosensor detection of foodborne pathogenic bacteria: a review.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2022Review
- Article
- Non-Lytic Antibacterial Peptides That Translocate Through Bacterial Membranes to Act on Intracellular Targets.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Snake Venom Cathelicidins as Natural Antimicrobial Peptides.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Review
- Biophysical Investigations Elucidating the Mechanisms of Action of Antimicrobial Peptides and Their Synergism.Biomolecules · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years the antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) have been prospected and designed as new alternatives to conventional antibiotics. Indeed, AMPs have presented great potential toward pathogenic bacterial strains by means of complex mechanisms of action. However, reports have increasingly emerged regarding the mechanisms by which bacteria resist AMP administration. In this context, we performed a comparative proteomic study by using the total bacterial lysate of magainin I-susceptible and -resistant E. coli strains. After nanoUPLC-MS
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.