Comparing bacterial membrane interactions and antimicrobial activity of porcine lactoferricin-derived peptides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antibiotic treatment for microbial infections is under scrutiny due to increasing resistance to conventional antibiotics, warranting discovery of new classes of antibiotic agents. Antimicrobial peptides are part of the innate defense system found in nearly all organisms and possess bactericidal mechanisms that make it more difficult for bacteria to develop resistance. Porcine lactoferricin (LFP-20) is an antimicrobial peptide located in the N terminus of lactoferrin (LF). To develop novel cell-selective antimicrobial peptides with improved antimicrobial specificity compared with LFP-20, analogs LF2A LF-2, LF-4, and LF-6 were substituted with Ala, Ser, or Trp residues at different positions in the molecule. Analogs displayed a 2- to 16-fold higher antimicrobial activity than LFP-20, but were hemolytic at 64 μg/mL. Additionally, LFP-20, LF2A, LF-2, and LF-4 exhibited lower cytotoxicity against human peripheral blood mononuclear cells than LF-6 at concentrations of 25 to 100 μg/mL. To better understand the antibacterial mechanisms of LFP-20 and its analogs we examined their effect on the cytoplasmic membrane of Escherichia coli. The LFP-20 was not effective in depolarizing cytoplasmic membranes, whereas the other 3 analogs gradually dissipated the membrane potential of E. coli. Membrane potential increased with minimal inhibitory concentrations changes, demonstrating a correlation between bactericidal activity and membrane depolarization. Analogs were more efficient than LFP-20 in displacing lipopolysaccharide-bound dansyl-polymyxin B, which also rapidly increased 1-N-phenyl-naphthylamine uptake and release of cytoplasmic β-galactosidase by increasing the permeability of the outer and inner membranes of E. coli. The 3 analogs caused an increased potential for calcein leakage from negatively charged lipid vesicles at high concentrations. Collectively, these results suggest that the first targets of LF-2, LF-4, and LF-6 in E. coli are cytoplasmic membranes. The 3 analogs exhibited lethal effects based on their abilities to disrupt membranes and permit transit of large intracellular components, such as calcein.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".