Mechanisms of action of ostrich β-defensins against<i>Escherichia coli</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To understand their mechanism of antimicrobial activity against Gram-negative bacteria, ostrich beta-defensins, ostricacins-1 and 2 (Osp-1 and Osp-2), were compared with those of sheep myeloid antimicrobial peptide (SMAP)-29 and human neutrophil peptide (HNP)-1, well-characterized sheep alpha-helical and human alpha-defensin peptides, respectively. Fluorescence-based biochemical assays demonstrated that the ostricacins bound lipopolysaccharides and disrupted both outer and cytoplasmic membrane integrity. The ostricacins' permeabilizing ability was weaker than that of SMAP-29, but stronger than HNP-1. As ostricacins have previously shown the ability to inhibit bacterial growth, these peptides were suggested to be bacteriostatic to Gram-negative bacteria, which are caused by the interaction between the peptides and cytoplasmic targets causing the inhibition of DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis as well as enzymatic activities. These findings indicated promising possibilities for the peptides to be used in the development of therapeutic and topical products.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".