4.6 Article

Rationalisation of Antifungal Properties of α-Helical Pore-Forming Peptide, Mastoparan B

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 27, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules27041438

关键词

antifungal peptides; drug resistance; invasive fungal infections; non-albicans Candida; skin wounds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Due to high mortality and limited available antifungal drugs, there is a need to develop alternative therapies. This study investigated the effectiveness of four pore-forming antimicrobial peptides against clinically relevant pathogens and assessed their compatibility with human cells. Mastoparan B exhibited strong antifungal activity, while cecropin A was the least potent. These findings are important for the design and development of safe antifungal peptide-based drugs.
The high mortality associated with invasive fungal infections, narrow spectrum of available antifungals, and increasing evolution of antifungal resistance necessitate the development of alternative therapies. Host defense peptides are regarded as the first line of defense against microbial invasion in both vertebrates and invertebrates. In this work, we investigated the effectiveness of four naturally occurring pore-forming antimicrobial peptides (melittin, magainin 2, cecropin A, and mastoparan B) against a panel of clinically relevant pathogens, including Candida albicans, Candida parapsilosis, Candida tropicalis, and Candida glabrata. We present data on the antifungal activities of the four pore-forming peptides, assessed with descriptive statistics, and their cytocompatibility with cultured human cells. Among the four peptides, mastoparan B (MB) displayed potent antifungal activity, whereas cecropin A was the least potent. We show that MB susceptibility of phylogenetically distant non-candida albicans can vary and be described by different intrinsic physicochemical parameters of pore-forming alpha-helical peptides. These findings have potential therapeutic implications for the design and development of safe antifungal peptide-based drugs.

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

4.6
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