Protamine-like proteins have bactericidal activity. The first evidence in Mytilus galloprovincialis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The major acid-soluble protein components of the mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis sperm chromatin consist of the protamine-like proteins PL-II, PL-III and PL-IV, an intermediate group of sperm nuclear basic proteins between histones and protamines. The aim of this study was to investigate the bactericidal activity of these proteins since, to date, there are reports on bactericidal activity of protamines and histones, but not on protamine-like proteins. We tested the bactericidal activity of these proteins against Gram-positive bacteria: Enterococcus faecalis and two different strains of Staphylococcus aureus, as well as Gram-negative bacteria: Proteus mirabilis, Proteus vulgaris, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Salmonella typhmurium, Enterobacter aerogenes, Enterobacter cloacae, and Escherichia coli. Clinical isolates of the same bacterial species were also used to compare their sensitivity to these proteins. The results show that Mytilus galloprovincialis protamine-like proteins exhibited bactericidal activity against all bacterial strains tested with different minimum bactericidal concentration values, ranging from 15.7 to 250 µg/mL. Furthermore, these proteins were active against some bacterial strains tested that are resistant to conventional antibiotics. These proteins showed very low toxicity as judged by red blood cell lysis and viability MTT assays and seem to act both at the membrane level and within the bacterial cell. We also tested the bactericidal activity of the product obtained from an in vitro model of gastrointestinal digestion of protamine-like proteins on a Gram-positive and a Gram-negative strain, and obtained the same results with respect to undigested protamine-like proteins on the Gram-positive bacterium. These results provide the first evidence of bactericidal activity of protamine-like-proteins.
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) | 0.000 | 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".