Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40033017›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

The difference between MelP5 and melittin membrane poration.

Bing Zan, Martin B Ulmschneider, Jakob P Ulmschneider

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

3 authors.

Bing ZanSchool of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Martin B UlmschneiderDepartment of Chemistry, King's College London, London, UK. martin.ulmschneider@kcl.ac.uk.
Jakob P UlmschneiderSchool of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. jakob@sjtu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Melittin, a natural peptide found in bees, has been shown to induce pore formation in cell membranes. However, its artificial mutant, MelP5 can do so at concentrations 200 times lower than melittin. The mechanism of the enhanced portion ability is not fully understood. By conducting all-atom molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, we found that MelP5 forms a stable pore that is macro-molecular sized. Our results suggest that the mutation of five amino acids from melittin reduces the electrostatic repulsion between peptides and strengthens hydrophobic interactions between MelP5 and lipid tails, resulting in the formation of a stable and larger pore. Furthermore, we found that cholesterol (CHOL), which occupies 30% in mammalian cell membranes, plays a crucial role in enhancing the pore formation of MelP5. As the amount of CHOL increases, the pore becomes larger, more stable, and forms more quickly. The presence of CHOL also promotes the formation of oligomers, which further support the pore. Our findings indicate that CHOL promotes the insertion of peptides into the membrane and reduces the amount of surface state peptides, thereby stabilizing the pore. These results highlight the important role of CHOL in membrane permeabilization by MelP5 and provide new insights into the mechanism of action of membrane-active antimicrobial peptides.

Indexed as

Cell MembraneMelittenAnimalsCell Membrane PermeabilityCholesterolHydrophobic and Hydrophilic InteractionsLipid BilayersMolecular Dynamics SimulationCholesterolLipid BilayersMelittenAntimicrobial peptidesMembraneMolecular dynamics

Identifiers

PMID40033017
PMCPMC11876596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.