Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31921046›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2019

Mechanisms of Action for Antimicrobial Peptides With Antibacterial and Antibiofilm Functions.

Nigare Raheem, Suzana K Straus

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 178 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
178citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

178 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. The dental implant surface: a review of the past, present and future.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2026
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

118 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.

Nigare RaheemDepartment of Chemistry, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Suzana K StrausDepartment of Chemistry, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The antibiotic crisis has led to a pressing need for alternatives such as antimicrobial peptides (AMPs). Recent work has shown that these molecules have great potential not only as antimicrobials, but also as antibiofilm agents, immune modulators, anti-cancer agents and anti-inflammatories. A better understanding of the mechanism of action (MOA) of AMPs is an important part of the discovery of more potent and less toxic AMPs. Many models and techniques have been utilized to describe the MOA. This review will examine how biological assays and biophysical methods can be utilized in the context of the specific antibacterial and antibiofilm functions of AMPs.

Indexed as

antimicrobial peptideantimicrobial resistancebiological assaysbiophysical methodshost defense peptidemechanism of action

Identifiers

PMID31921046
PMCPMC6927293

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.