Toward building a physical model for membrane selectivity of antimicrobial peptides: making a quantitative sense of the selectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are naturally-occurring peptide antibiotics. AMPs are typically cationic and utilize their electrostatic interactions with the bacterial membrane to selectively attack bacteria. The way they work has inspired a vigorous search for optimized peptides for fighting resistant bacteria. Here, we present a physical model of membrane selectivity of AMPs. The challenge for theoretical modeling of membrane-peptide systems arises from the simultaneous presence of several competing effects, including lipid demixing and peptide-peptide interactions on the membrane surface. We first examine critically a number of models of peptide-membrane interactions and map out one, which incorporates adequately these competing effects as well as the geometry of various regions in membranes, occupied by bound peptides, anionic lipids within the interaction range of each peptide, and those outside this range. This effort leads to a systematically-improved model for peptide selectivity. Using the model, we relate peptide's intrinsic (Ccell-independent) selectivity to an apparent, Ccell-dependent one, and clarify the relative roles of peptide parameters and cell densities in determining their selectivity. This relationship suggests that the selectivity is more sensitive to peptide parameters at low cell densities; as a result, the optimal peptide charge, at which the selectivity is maximized, increases with the cell density in such a manner that this notion becomes less meaningful at high cell densities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".