↓ Skip to main content

Focal Targeting of the Bacterial Envelope by Antimicrobial Peptides

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Focal Targeting of the Bacterial Envelope by Antimicrobial Peptides
Published in
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fcell.2016.00055
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rafi Rashid, Mark Veleba, Kimberly A. Kline

Abstract

Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are utilized by both eukaryotic and prokaryotic organisms. AMPs such as the human beta defensins, human neutrophil peptides, human cathelicidin, and many bacterial bacteriocins are cationic and capable of binding to anionic regions of the bacterial surface. Cationic AMPs (CAMPs) target anionic lipids [e.g., phosphatidylglycerol (PG) and cardiolipins (CL)] in the cell membrane and anionic components [e.g., lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and lipoteichoic acid (LTA)] of the cell envelope. Bacteria have evolved mechanisms to modify these same targets in order to resist CAMP killing, e.g., lysinylation of PG to yield cationic lysyl-PG and alanylation of LTA. Since CAMPs offer a promising therapeutic alternative to conventional antibiotics, which are becoming less effective due to rapidly emerging antibiotic resistance, there is a strong need to improve our understanding about the AMP mechanism of action. Recent literature suggests that AMPs often interact with the bacterial cell envelope at discrete foci. Here we review recent AMP literature, with an emphasis on focal interactions with bacteria, including (1) CAMP disruption mechanisms, (2) delocalization of membrane proteins and lipids by CAMPs, and (3) CAMP sensing systems and resistance mechanisms. We conclude with new approaches for studying the bacterial membrane, e.g., lipidomics, high resolution imaging, and non-detergent-based membrane domain extraction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 2%
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 125 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 15%
Student > Master 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 28 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 32 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 19%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 5%
Engineering 6 5%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 31 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 July 2016.
All research outputs
#7,237,809
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
#1,701
of 9,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,435
of 341,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
#7
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,045 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,014 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.