Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32733816›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2020

Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Antimicrobial Peptides to Better Predict Efficacy.

Derry K Mercer, Marcelo D T Torres, Searle S Duay, Emma Lovie, Laura Simpson, Maren von Köckritz-Blickwede, Cesar de la Fuente-Nunez, Deborah A O'Neil, Alfredo M Angeles-Boza

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed
10.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 125 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Synergistic Action of Antimicrobial Peptides and Antibiotics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Derry K MercerNovaBiotics Ltd, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Marcelo D T TorresMachine Biology Group, Departments of Psychiatry and Microbiology, Institute for Biomedical Informatics, Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics, Perelman School of Medicine, Penn Institute for Computational Science, and Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Searle S DuayDepartment of Chemistry, Institute of Materials Science, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States.
Emma LovieNovaBiotics Ltd, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Laura SimpsonNovaBiotics Ltd, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Maren von Köckritz-BlickwedeInstitute for Biochemistry, University of Veterinary Medicine, Hanover, Germany.
Cesar de la Fuente-NunezMachine Biology Group, Departments of Psychiatry and Microbiology, Institute for Biomedical Informatics, Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics, Perelman School of Medicine, Penn Institute for Computational Science, and Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Deborah A O'NeilNovaBiotics Ltd, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Alfredo M Angeles-BozaDepartment of Chemistry, Institute of Materials Science, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States.
NovaBiotics (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of Connecticut · USTranslational Therapeutics (United States) · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the development of antimicrobial peptides (AMP) as potential therapeutics, antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) stands as an essential part of the process in identification and optimisation of candidate AMP. Standard methods for AST, developed almost 60 years ago for testing conventional antibiotics, are not necessarily fit for purpose when it comes to determining the susceptibility of microorganisms to AMP. Without careful consideration of the parameters comprising AST there is a risk of failing to identify novel antimicrobials at a time when antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is leading the planet toward a post-antibiotic era. More physiologically/clinically relevant AST will allow better determination of the preclinical activity of drug candidates and allow the identification of lead compounds. An important consideration is the efficacy of AMP in biological matrices replicating sites of infection, e.g., blood/plasma/serum, lung bronchiolar lavage fluid/sputum, urine, biofilms, etc., as this will likely be more predictive of clinical efficacy. Additionally, specific AST for different target microorganisms may help to better predict efficacy of AMP in specific infections. In this manuscript, we describe what we believe are the key considerations for AST of AMP and hope that this information can better guide the preclinical development of AMP toward becoming a new generation of urgently needed antimicrobials.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective AgentsBiofilmsMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPore Forming Cytotoxic ProteinsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective AgentsPore Forming Cytotoxic Proteinsantibioticantifungalantimicrobial peptide (AMP)antimicrobial susceptibility testinghost defence peptide (HDP)

Identifiers

PMID32733816
PMCPMC7358464
OpenAlexW3036187415

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.