4.5 Review

Systematic review of antiprotozoal potential of antimicrobial peptides

期刊

ACTA TROPICA
卷 236, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2022.106675

关键词

AMPs; Plant peptides; Plasmodium; Toxoplasma; Trypanosoma

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
  3. Fundacao Cearense de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (FUNCAP)
  4. CAPES [88887.318820/2019-00]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antimicrobial peptides, especially those of animal origin, have potential therapeutic effects against protozoal infections. However, research on plant antimicrobial peptides mainly focuses on Leishmania infections.
Protozoa is a group of microorganisms that cause neglected tropical diseases, such as malaria, Chagas disease, and Leishmaniasis. Due to the growing demand for new therapeutic agents, antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) have gained attention for antiprotozoal action. A systematic literature review described the current scenario of plant and animal AMPs with action antiprotozoal. The terms antimicrobial peptides, plane, and animal combined with the names of the etiological agents were used in the search. Boolean and Operator were used to connect the terms. The search found 4,825 articles. However, 79 articles were excluded because they were duplicates, and 4,627 were excluded based on title and abstract. Therefore, 119 were evaluated and included here. Of these, the use of antimicrobial peptides of animal origin was predominant. Still, the works with plant peptides focused on the genus Leishmania. Only antimicrobial peptides of animal origin were described for the other genera of protozoa (Toxoplasma spp, Trypanosoma spp, Plasmodium spp). Antimicrobial peptides are an excellent option as a pharmacological tool to fight these infections due to their aggregation and extravasation of cellular content through the formation of pores in the cell membrane of these microorganisms.

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

4.5
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