Interaction of protamine with gram‐negative bacteria membranes: possible alternative mechanisms of internalization in <i>Escherichia coli</i>, <i>Salmonella typhimurium</i> and <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was concerned with the interaction between the cationic antimicrobial peptide, protamine (Ptm) and the cytoplasmic membranes of the gram-negative bacteria Escherichia coli, Salmonella typhimurium and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The objective of the study was to explain the observed paradox of internalization without permanent disruption of the cell envelope. We carried out Monte Carlo computer simulation of Ptm in an aqueous environment in the presence of ~100 mM NaCl and model membranes consisting of either (65:35) or (75:25) PE:PG molar ratios. The (75:25) model, representative of the gram-negative cytoplasmic membrane, showed that the Ptm center of mass remained at least 7 nm from the membrane surface leading to the prediction that Ptm would not internalize via disruption of the inner membrane. By using immunoelectron microscopy of Ptm-treated cells, we showed that Ptm internalization to the cytoplasm took place rapidly in the presence or absence of the outer envelope. Ultrastructural examination revealed no obvious morphological changes to cells that were treated with subinhibitory or bactericidal levels of Ptm. Reconstituted phospholipid bilayers were constructed and were unperturbed by Ptm treatment over a wide range of concentrations and applied transmembrane voltages. We conclude that in the cases of the cell envelopes of E. coli, S. typhimurium and P. aeruginosa, Ptm internalized by means independent of the phospholipid bilayer, most likely mediated by one or more membrane proteins such as cation-selective barrel-like proteins. Work is currently underway to test this hypothesis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".