ReviewAIMS microbiology2018
New and old tools to evaluate new antimicrobial peptides.
Review in AIMS microbiology, 2018. 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.
- Predicting Antimicrobial Peptide Activity: A Machine Learning-Based Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Approach.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- The Escherichia coli AZY operon links copper uptake to antibiotic resistance.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Lipid-Functionalized Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes as Probes for Screening Cell Wall Disruptors.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2023Article
- Characterizing the Interactions of Cell-Membrane-Disrupting Peptides with Lipid-Functionalized Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2023Article
- A Synergic Potential of Antimicrobial Peptides againstMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing inAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Article
- Sarconesin II, a New Antimicrobial Peptide Isolated fromMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The emergence of antimicrobial resistance due to the overuse of antimicrobials together with the existence of naturally untreatable infections well demonstrates the need for new instruments to fight microbes. Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are a promising family of molecules in this regard, because they abundantly occur in nature and the results of preliminary studies of their clinical potential have been encouraging. However, further progress will benefit from the standardization of research methods to assess the antimicrobial properties of AMPs. Here we review the diverse methods used to study the antimicrobial power of AMPs and recommend a pathway to explore new molecules. The use of new methodologies to quantitatively evaluate the physical effect on bacterial biofilms such as force spectroscopy and surface cell damage evaluation, constitute novel approaches to study new AMPs.
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.