Design of Host Defence Peptides for Antimicrobial and Immunity Enhancing Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Host defense peptides are a vital component of the innate immune systems of humans, other mammals, amphibians, and arthropods. The related cationic antimicrobial peptides are also produced by many species of bacteria and function as part of the antimicrobial arsenal to help the producing organism reduce competition for resources from sensitive species. The antimicrobial activities of many of these peptides have been extensively characterized and the structural requirements for these activities are also becoming increasingly clear. In addition to their known antimicrobial role, many host defense peptides are also involved in a plethora of immune functions in the host. In this review, we examine the role of structure in determining antimicrobial activity of certain prototypical cationic peptides and ways that bacteria have evolved to usurp these activities. We also review recent literature on what structural components are related to these immunomodulatory effects. It must be stressed however that these studies, and the area of peptide research, are still in their infancy. Keywords: cationic antimicrobial peptide, intracellular targets, bacterial membrane, polyphemusin, lipopolysaccharide (lps), phosphatidylglycerol (pg), electrophorese, hydrophobic moment, gramicidin s (gs), gram-negative bacteria
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".