Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33110440›Full record

ReviewPlant methods2020

Isolation of antimicrobial peptides from different plant sources: Does a general extraction method exist?

Anna S Barashkova, Eugene A Rogozhin

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Plant methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Peptide PN5 fromACS omega · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Complex of Defense Polypeptides of Wheatgrass (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Diversity of Cationic Antimicrobial Peptides in Black Cumin (International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anna S BarashkovaShemyakin and Ovchinnikov Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, RAS, ul. Miklukho-Maklaya, 16/10, Moscow, Russia 117997.ORCID 0000-0002-3455-2335
Eugene A RogozhinShemyakin and Ovchinnikov Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, RAS, ul. Miklukho-Maklaya, 16/10, Moscow, Russia 117997.
Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plants are good sources of biologically active compounds with antimicrobial activity, including polypeptides. Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) represent one of the main barriers of plant innate immunity to environmental stress factors and are attracting much research interest. There are some extraction methods for isolation of AMPs from plant organs based on the type of extractant and initial fractionation stages. But most methods are directed to obtain some specific structural types of AMPs and do not allow to understand the molecular diversity of AMP inside a whole plant. In this mini-review, we suggest an optimized scheme of AMP isolation from plants followed by obtaining a set of peptides belonging to various structural families. This approach can be performed for large-scale screening of plants to identify some novel or homologous AMPs for fundamental and applied studies.

Indexed as

Antimicrobial peptidesExtractionIsolationLiquid chromatographyPlants

Identifiers

PMID33110440
PMCPMC7585225
OpenAlexW3094429649

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.