MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2760881614 · doi:10.1103/physreve.96.042405

Opposing effects of cationic antimicrobial peptides and divalent cations on bacterial lipopolysaccharides

2017· article· en· W2760881614 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew Smart, A RAJAGOPAL, Wing‐Ki Liu, Bae‐Yeun Ha

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntimicrobial Peptides and Activities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMagaininDivalentAntimicrobial peptidesCationic polymerizationPeptideBiophysicsBacteriaChemistryLipopolysaccharideAmphiphileBacterial outer membraneMoleculeAntimicrobialBiochemistryBiologyOrganic chemistryEscherichia coli

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The permeability of the bacterial outer membrane, enclosing Gram-negative bacteria, depends on the interactions of the outer, lipopolysaccharide (LPS) layer, with surrounding ions and molecules. We present a coarse-grained model for describing how cationic amphiphilic molecules (e.g., antimicrobial peptides) interact with and perturb the LPS layer in a biologically relevant medium, containing monovalent and divalent salt ions (e.g., Mg^{2+}). In our approach, peptide binding is driven by electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions and is assumed to expand the LPS layer, eventually priming it for disruption. Our results suggest that in parameter ranges of biological relevance (e.g., at micromolar concentrations) the antimicrobial peptide magainin 2 effectively disrupts the LPS layer, even though it has to compete with Mg^{2+} for the layer. They also show how the integrity of LPS is restored with an increasing concentration of Mg^{2+}. Using the approach, we make a number of predictions relevant for optimizing peptide parameters against Gram-negative bacteria and for understanding bacterial strategies to develop resistance against cationic peptides.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations32
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. ESame topicAntimicrobial Peptides and ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207