An Overview of Databases and Bioinformatics Tools for Plant AntimicrobialPeptides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antimicrobial Peptides (AMPs) are small, ribosomally synthesized proteins found in nearly all forms of life. In plants, AMPs play a central role in plant defense due to their distinct physicochemical properties. Due to their broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity and rapid killing action, plant AMPs have become important candidates for the development of new drugs to control plant and animal pathogens that are resistant to multiple drugs. Further research is required to explore the potential uses of these natural compounds. Computational strategies have been increasingly used to understand key aspects of antimicrobial peptides. These strategies will help to minimize the time and cost of "wet-lab" experimentation. Researchers have developed various tools and databases to provide updated information on AMPs. However, despite the increased availability of antimicrobial peptide resources in biological databases, finding AMPs from plants can still be a difficult task. The number of plant AMP sequences in current databases is still small and yet often redundant. To facilitate further characterization of plant AMPs, we have summarized information on the location, distribution, and annotations of plant AMPs available in the most relevant databases for AMPs research. We also mapped and categorized the bioinformatics tools available in these databases. We expect that this will allow researchers to advance in the discovery and development of new plant AMPs with potent biological properties. We hope to provide insights to further expand the application of AMPs in the fields of biotechnology, pharmacy, and agriculture.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.017 |
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".