Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35073755›Full record

ArticlemBio2022

Ceragenins and Antimicrobial Peptides Kill Bacteria through Distinct Mechanisms.

Gabriel Mitchell, Melanie R Silvis, Kelsey C Talkington, Jonathan M Budzik, Claire E Dodd, Justin M Paluba, Erika A Oki, Kristine L Trotta, Daniel J Licht, David Jimenez-Morales and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in mBio, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. An unusual genetic switch controlsbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. A Bird's-Eye View of the Pathophysiologic Role of the Human Urobiota in Health and Disease: Can We Modulate It?Pathophysiology : the official journal of the International Society for Pathophysiology · 2024
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Gabriel MitchellDepartment of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeleygrid.47840.3f, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7977-5316
Melanie R SilvisDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Kelsey C TalkingtonDepartment of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeleygrid.47840.3f, California, USA.
Jonathan M BudzikDepartment of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeleygrid.47840.3f, California, USA.
Claire E DoddDepartment of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeleygrid.47840.3f, California, USA.
Justin M PalubaDepartment of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeleygrid.47840.3f, California, USA.
Erika A OkiDepartment of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeleygrid.47840.3f, California, USA.
Kristine L TrottaDepartment of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Daniel J LichtDepartment of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeleygrid.47840.3f, California, USA.
David Jimenez-MoralesDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4356-6461
Seemay ChouDepartment of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Paul B SavageDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Brigham Young Universitygrid.253294.b, Provo, Utah, USA.
Carol A GrossDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Michael A MarlettaDepartment of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeleygrid.47840.3f, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8715-4253
Jeffery S CoxDepartment of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeleygrid.47840.3f, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5061-6618
University of California, Berkeley · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USBrigham Young University · USQB3 · US

Funding

MUTIDISCIPLINARY TRAINING PROGRAM IN LUNG DISEASEST32HL007185 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI David J Erle, LAURENCE HUANG · 1985 to 2026
$24.6M
Cellular homeostasis pathways in bacteriaR35GM118061 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI GROSS, CAROL ANNE · 2016 to 2025
$9.0M
Microbial Pathogenesis and Host DefenseT32AI060537 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Joanne N. Engel · 2004 to 2026
$6.5M
UCSF Career Development Program in Omics of Lung DiseasesK12HL119997 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI BURCHARD, ESTEBAN GONZALEZ, ERLE, DAVID J · 2013 to 2017
$1.4M
Deciphering the role of autophagy receptor phosphorylation and host kinases in the targeting of M. tuberculosis to autophagyK08AI146267 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI BUDZIK, JONATHAN M · 2019 to 2023
$995k
NHLBI NIH HHS K12 HL119997NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007185NIAID NIH HHS K08 AI146267NIAID NIH HHS T32 AI060537NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM118061
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ceragenins are a family of synthetic amphipathic molecules designed to mimic the properties of naturally occurring cationic antimicrobial peptides (CAMPs). Although ceragenins have potent antimicrobial activity, whether their mode of action is similar to that of CAMPs has remained elusive. Here, we reported the results of a comparative study of the bacterial responses to two well-studied CAMPs, LL37 and colistin, and two ceragenins with related structures, CSA13 and CSA131. Using transcriptomic and proteomic analyses, we found that Escherichia coli responded similarly to both CAMPs and ceragenins by inducing a Cpx envelope stress response. However, whereas E. coli exposed to CAMPs increased expression of genes involved in colanic acid biosynthesis, bacteria exposed to ceragenins specifically modulated functions related to phosphate transport, indicating distinct mechanisms of action between these two classes of molecules. Although traditional genetic approaches failed to identify genes that confer high-level resistance to ceragenins, using a Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats interference (CRISPRi) approach we identified E. coli essential genes that when knocked down modify sensitivity to these molecules. Comparison of the essential gene-antibiotic interactions for each of the CAMPs and ceragenins identified both overlapping and distinct dependencies for their antimicrobial activities. Overall, this study indicated that, while some bacterial responses to ceragenins overlap those induced by naturally occurring CAMPs, these synthetic molecules target the bacterial envelope using a distinctive mode of action.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsAntimicrobial PeptidesAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial Cationic PeptidesBacteriaEscherichia coliMicrobial Sensitivity TestsProteomicsSteroidsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective AgentsAntimicrobial Cationic PeptidesAntimicrobial PeptidescerageninsSteroidsAntibioticsCSAGram-negativeGram-positivemycobacteria

Identifiers

PMID35073755
PMCPMC8787472
OpenAlexW4220799456

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.