4.7 Article

Comparative Structure-Activity Analysis of the Antimicrobial Activity, Cytotoxicity, and Mechanism of Action of the Fungal Cyclohexadepsipeptides Enniatins and Beauvericin

期刊

TOXINS
卷 11, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/toxins11090514

关键词

cyclic fungal peptides; cyclohexadepsipeptide; enniatin; beauvericin; mycotoxin; antibiotic; antimicrobial peptide; AMP; Clostridium perfringens

资金

  1. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) through the grant Biomimetisme 2019-HelicAMP
  2. ANR through the grant EmergingMyco [ANR-18-CE34-0014]
  3. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-18-CE34-0014] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Filamentous fungi, although producing noxious molecules such as mycotoxins, have been used to produce numerous drugs active against human diseases such as paclitaxel, statins, and penicillin, saving millions of human lives. Cyclodepsipeptides are fungal molecules with potentially adverse and positive effects. Although these peptides are not novel, comparative studies of their antimicrobial activity, toxicity, and mechanism of action are still to be identified. In this study, the fungal cyclohexadepsipeptides enniatin (ENN) and beauvericin (BEA) were assessed to determine their antimicrobial activity and cytotoxicity against human cells. Results showed that these peptides were active against Gram-positive bacteria, Mycobacterium, and fungi, but not against Gram-negative bacteria. ENN and BEA had a limited hemolytic effect, yet were found to be toxic at low doses to nucleated human cells. Both peptides also interacted with bacterial lipids, causing low to no membrane permeabilization, but induced membrane depolarization and inhibition of macromolecules synthesis. The structure-activity analysis showed that the chemical nature of the side chains present on ENN and BEA (either iso-propyl, sec-butyl, or phenylmethyl) impacts their interaction with lipids, antimicrobial action, and toxicity.

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

4.7
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