MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Identification and Rational Design of Novel Antimicrobial Peptides for Plant Protection

2008· review· en· W2114496961 on OpenAlexaff
José F. Marcos, Alberto Muñoz, Enríque Pérez‐Payá, Santosh Misra, Belén López‐García

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Phytopathology · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntimicrobial Peptides and Activities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyRational designAntimicrobial peptidesAntimicrobialComputational biologyIdentification (biology)Mode of actionBiotechnologyPeptideBiochemistryMicrobiologyGeneticsBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peptides and small proteins exhibiting antimicrobial activity have been isolated from many organisms ranging from insects to humans, including plants. Their role in defense is established, and their use in agriculture was already being proposed shortly after their discovery. However, some natural peptides have undesirable properties that complicate their application. Advances in peptide synthesis and high-throughput activity screening have made possible the de novo and rational design of novel peptides with improved properties. This review summarizes findings in the identification and design of short antimicrobial peptides with activity against plant pathogens, and will discuss alternatives for their heterologous production suited to plant disease control. Recent studies suggest that peptide antimicrobial action is not due solely to microbe permeation as previously described, but that more subtle factors might account for the specificity and absence of toxicity of some peptides. The elucidation of the mode of action and interaction with microbes will assist the improvement of peptide design with a view to targeting specific problems in agriculture and providing new tools for plant protection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations204
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of PhytopathologySame topicAntimicrobial Peptides and ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207