ReviewBiophysical reviews2017
Lipid-packing perturbation of model membranes by pH-responsive antimicrobial peptides.
Review in Biophysical reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tweaking Polybia-MP1: How a Lysine-Histidine Swap Redefines Its Surface Properties.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- The Unusual Aggregation and Fusion Activity of the Antimicrobial Peptide W-BP100 in Anionic Vesicles.Membranes · 2023Article
- On the Coupling between Mechanical Properties and Electrostatics in Biological Membranes.Membranes · 2021Review
- Membrane-Interacting Antifungal Peptides.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021Review
- Antimicrobial peptides - Advances in development of therapeutic applications.Life sciences · 2020Review
- Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Antimicrobial Peptides to Better Predict Efficacy.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020Review
- Role of Lipid Composition, Physicochemical Interactions, and Membrane Mechanics in the Molecular Actions of Microbial Cyclic Lipopeptides.The Journal of membrane biology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The indiscriminate use of conventional antibiotics is leading to an increase in the number of resistant bacterial strains, motivating the search for new compounds to overcome this challenging problem. Antimicrobial peptides, acting only in the lipid phase of membranes without requiring specific membrane receptors as do conventional antibiotics, have shown great potential as possible substituents of these drugs. These peptides are in general rich in basic and hydrophobic residues forming an amphipathic structure when in contact with membranes. The outer leaflet of the prokaryotic cell membrane is rich in anionic lipids, while the surface of the eukaryotic cell is zwitterionic. Due to their positive net charge, many of these peptides are selective to the prokaryotic membrane. Notwithstanding this preference for anionic membranes, some of them can also act on neutral ones, hampering their therapeutic use. In addition to the electrostatic interaction driving peptide adsorption by the membrane, the ability of the peptide to perturb lipid packing is of paramount importance in their capacity to induce cell lysis, which is strongly dependent on electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions. In the present research, we revised the adsorption of antimicrobial peptides by model membranes as well as the perturbation that they induce in lipid packing. In particular, we focused on some peptides that have simultaneously acidic and basic residues. The net charges of these peptides are modulated by pH changes and the lipid composition of model membranes. We discuss the experimental approaches used to explore these aspects of lipid membranes using lipid vesicles and lipid monolayer as model membranes.
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.