ArticleMarine drugs2025
Synthesis and Evaluation of Aquatic Antimicrobial Peptides Derived from Marine Metagenomes Using a High-Throughput Screening Approach.
Article in Marine drugs, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated Genome Mining, Bacterial Co-Culture Activation, and Peptidomic Analyses Identify Antimicrobial Peptide Candidates from South American Bacteria.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review
- Harnessing Machine Learning Approaches for the Identification, Characterization, and Optimization of Novel Antimicrobial Peptides.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Marine Antimicrobial Peptides: Advances in Discovery, Multifunctional Mechanisms, and Therapeutic Translation Challenges.Marine drugs · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bacterial diseases cause high mortality and considerable losses in aquaculture. The rapid expansion of intensive aquaculture has further increased the risk of large-scale outbreaks. However, the emergence of drug-resistant bacteria, food safety concerns, and environmental regulations have severely limited the availability of antimicrobial. Compared to traditional antibiotics, antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) offer broad spectrum activity, physicochemical stability, and lower resistance development. However, their low natural yield and high extraction costs along with the time-consuming and expensive nature of traditional drug discovery, pose a challenge. In this study, we applied a machine-learning macro-model to predict AMPs from three macrogenomes in the water column of South American white shrimp aquaculture ponds. The AMP content per megabase in the traditional earthen pond (TC1) was 1.8 times higher than in the biofloc pond (ZA1) and 63% higher than in the elevated pond (ZP11). A total of 1033 potential AMPs were predicted, including 6 anionic linear peptides, 616 cationic linear peptides, and 411 cationic cysteine-containing peptides. After screening based on structural, and physio-chemical properties, we selected 10 candidate peptides. Using a rapid high-throughput cell-free protein expression system, we identified nine peptides with antimicrobial activity against aquatic pathogens. Three were further validated through chemical synthesis. The three antimicrobial peptides (K-5, K-58, K-61) showed some inhibitory effects on all four pathogenic bacteria. The MIC of K-5 against Vibrio alginolyticus was 25 μM, the cell viability of the three peptides was higher than 70% at low concentrations (≤12.5 μM), and the hemolysis rate of K-5 and K-58 was lower than 5% at 200 μM. This study highlights the benefits of machine learning in AMP discovery, demonstrates the potential of cell-free protein synthesis systems for peptide screening, and provides an efficient method for high-throughput AMP identification for aquatic applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.