4.2 Article

Membrane permeability and antimicrobial kinetics of cecropin P1 against Escherichia coli

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEPTIDE SCIENCE
卷 15, 期 6, 页码 398-403

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/psc.1125

关键词

antimicrobial peptide; cecropin P1; antimicrobial activity; lipopolysaccharide; membrane permeabilization; E. coli

资金

  1. [08-196]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The interaction of cecropinP1 (CP1) with Escherichia coli was investigated to gain insight into the time-dependent antimicrobial action. Biophysical characterizations of CP1 with whole bacterial cells were performed using both fluorescent and colorimetric assays to investigate the role of membrane permeability and lipopolysaccharide (LIPS) binding in lytic behavior. The kinetics of CP1 growth inhibition assays indicated a minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of 3 lam. Bactericidal kinetics at the MIC indicated rapid killing of E. coli (<30 min). Membrane permeability studies illustrated permeation as a time-dependent event. Maximum permeability at the MIC occurred within 30 min, which correlates to the bactericidal action. Further investigation showed that the immediate permeabilizing action of CP1 is concentration-dependent, which correlates to the concentration dependent nature of the inhibition assays. At the MIC and above, the immediate permeability was significant enough that the cells could not recover and exhibit growth. Below the MIC, immediate permeability was evident, but the level was insufficient to inhibit growth. Dansyl polymyxin B displacement studies showed LPS binding is essentially the same at all concentrations investigated. However, it does appear that only the immediate interaction is important, because binding continued to increase over time beyond cell viability. Our studies correlated CP1 bactericidal kinetics to membrane permeability suggesting CP1 concentration-dependent killing is driven by the extent of the immediate permeabilizing action of the peptide. Published in 2009 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据