Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33194788›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2020

A How-To Guide for Mode of Action Analysis of Antimicrobial Peptides.

Ann-Britt Schäfer, Michaela Wenzel

Abstract 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 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
–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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Contribution of theMicrobiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Additive Effects ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

2 authors.

Ann-Britt SchäferDivision of Chemical Biology, Department of Biology and Biological Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Michaela WenzelDivision of Chemical Biology, Department of Biology and Biological Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are a promising alternative to classical antibiotics in the fight against multi-resistant bacteria. They are produced by organisms from all domains of life and constitute a nearly universal defense mechanism against infectious agents. No drug can be approved without information about its mechanism of action. In order to use them in a clinical setting, it is pivotal to understand how AMPs work. While many pore-forming AMPs are well-characterized in model membrane systems, non-pore-forming peptides are often poorly understood. Moreover, there is evidence that pore formation may not happen or not play a role

Indexed as

Antimicrobial Cationic PeptidesProteomicsAnti-Bacterial AgentsMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPore Forming Cytotoxic ProteinsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial Cationic PeptidesPore Forming Cytotoxic Proteinsantibioticsantimicrobial peptidesmembranesmicroscopymode of action

Identifiers

PMID33194788
PMCPMC7604286

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.