Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32952397›Full record

ReviewBioinformatics and biology insights2020

Plant Antimicrobial Peptides: State of the Art, In Silico Prediction and Perspectives in the Omics Era.

Carlos André Dos Santos-Silva, Luisa Zupin, Marx Oliveira-Lima, Lívia Maria Batista Vilela, João Pacifico Bezerra-Neto, José Ribamar Ferreira-Neto, José Diogo Cavalcanti Ferreira, Roberta Lane de Oliveira-Silva, Carolline de Jesús Pires, Flavia Figueira Aburjaile and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bioinformatics and biology insights, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Bioactive Peptides From theFood science & nutrition · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Food chemistry. Molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

14 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Carlos André Dos Santos-SilvaDepartamento de Genética, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil.
Luisa ZupinGenetic Immunology laboratory, Institute for Maternal and Child Health-IRCCS, Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5886-9129
Marx Oliveira-LimaDepartamento de Genética, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil.
Lívia Maria Batista VilelaDepartamento de Genética, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil.
João Pacifico Bezerra-NetoDepartamento de Genética, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil.
José Ribamar Ferreira-NetoDepartamento de Genética, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil.
José Diogo Cavalcanti FerreiraDepartamento de Genética, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil.
Roberta Lane de Oliveira-SilvaDepartamento de Genética, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1876-0094
Carolline de Jesús PiresDepartamento de Genética, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil.
Flavia Figueira AburjaileDepartamento de Genética, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1067-1882
Marianne Firmino de OliveiraDepartamento de Genética, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil.
Ederson Akio KidoDepartamento de Genética, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil.
Sergio CrovellaGenetic Immunology laboratory, Institute for Maternal and Child Health-IRCCS, Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy.
Ana Maria Benko-IsepponDepartamento de Genética, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil.
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco · BRIRCCS Materno Infantile Burlo Garofolo · ITUniversity of Trieste · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Even before the perception or interaction with pathogens, plants rely on constitutively guardian molecules, often specific to tissue or stage, with further expression after contact with the pathogen. These guardians include small molecules as antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), generally cysteine-rich, functioning to prevent pathogen establishment. Some of these AMPs are shared among eukaryotes (eg, defensins and cyclotides), others are plant specific (eg, snakins), while some are specific to certain plant families (such as heveins). When compared with other organisms, plants tend to present a higher amount of AMP isoforms due to gene duplications or polyploidy, an occurrence possibly also associated with the sessile habit of plants, which prevents them from evading biotic and environmental stresses. Therefore, plants arise as a rich resource for new AMPs. As these molecules are difficult to retrieve from databases using simple sequence alignments, a description of their characteristics and in silico (bioinformatics) approaches used to retrieve them is provided, considering resources and databases available. The possibilities and applications based on tools versus database approaches are considerable and have been so far underestimated.

Indexed as

cyclotideDefensinheveinimpatiens-likeknotinlipid transfer proteinmacadamia β-barrelinspuroindolinesnakinthaumatin

Identifiers

PMID32952397
PMCPMC7476358
OpenAlexW3083440759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.