Conformation and interaction of the cyclic cationic antimicrobial peptides in lipid bilayers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the role of peptide-membrane interactions in the biological activity of cyclic cationic peptides, the conformations and interactions of four membrane-active antimicrobial peptides [based on Gramicidin S (GS)] were examined in neutral and negatively charged micelles and phospholipid vesicles, using CD and fluorescence spectroscopy and ultracentrifugation techniques. Moreover, the effects of these peptides on the release of entrapped fluorescent dye from unilamellar vesicles of phosphatidylcholine (PC) and phosphatidylethanolamine/phosphatidylglycerol (PE/PG) were studied. The cyclic peptides include GS10 [Cyclo(VKLdYP)2], GS12 [Cyclo(VKLKdYPKVKLdYP)], GS14 [Cyclo(VKLKVdYPLKVKLdYP)] and [d-Lys]4GS14 [Cyclo(VKLdKVdYPLKVKLdYP)] (underlined residues are d-amino acids), were different in their ring size, structure and amphipathicity, and covered a broad spectrum of hemolytic and antimicrobial activities. Interaction of the peptides with the zwitterionic PC and negatively charged PE/PG vesicles were distinct from each other. The hydrophobic interaction seems to be the dominant factor in the hemolytic activity of the peptides, as well as their interaction with the PC vesicles. A combination of electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions of the peptides induces aggregation and fusion in PE/PG vesicles with different propensities in the order: [d-Lys]4GS14 > GS14 > GS12 > GS10. GS10 and GS14 are apparently located in the deeper levels of the membrane interfaces and closer to the hydrophobic core of the bilayers, whereas GS12 and [d-Lys]4GS14 reside closer to the outer boundary of the interface. Because of differing modes of interaction of the cyclic cationic peptides with lipid bilayers, the mechanism of their biological activity (and its relation to peptide-lipid interaction) proved to be versatile and complex, and dependent on the biophysical properties of both the peptides and membranes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".