Efficacy of natural antimicrobial peptides versus peptidomimetic analogues: a systematic review

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review › Research › peer-review

Standard

Efficacy of natural antimicrobial peptides versus peptidomimetic analogues : a systematic review. / Hellewell, Lauren; Gilani, Nakisa Malek; Stanton, Christopher James; Pelligand, Ludovic; Franzyk, Henrik; Guardabassi, Luca; Good, Liam.

In: Future Medicinal Chemistry, Vol. 14, No. 24, 2022, p. 1899–1921.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Hellewell, L, Gilani, NM, Stanton, CJ, Pelligand, L, Franzyk, H, Guardabassi, L & Good, L 2022, 'Efficacy of natural antimicrobial peptides versus peptidomimetic analogues: a systematic review', Future Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 14, no. 24, pp. 1899–1921. https://doi.org/10.4155/fmc-2022-0160

APA

Hellewell, L., Gilani, N. M., Stanton, C. J., Pelligand, L., Franzyk, H., Guardabassi, L., & Good, L. (2022). Efficacy of natural antimicrobial peptides versus peptidomimetic analogues: a systematic review. Future Medicinal Chemistry, 14(24), 1899–1921. https://doi.org/10.4155/fmc-2022-0160

Vancouver

Hellewell L, Gilani NM, Stanton CJ, Pelligand L, Franzyk H, Guardabassi L et al. Efficacy of natural antimicrobial peptides versus peptidomimetic analogues: a systematic review. Future Medicinal Chemistry. 2022;14(24):1899–1921. https://doi.org/10.4155/fmc-2022-0160

Author

Hellewell, Lauren ; Gilani, Nakisa Malek ; Stanton, Christopher James ; Pelligand, Ludovic ; Franzyk, Henrik ; Guardabassi, Luca ; Good, Liam. / Efficacy of natural antimicrobial peptides versus peptidomimetic analogues : a systematic review. In: Future Medicinal Chemistry. 2022 ; Vol. 14, No. 24. pp. 1899–1921.

Bibtex

@article{2833886ca60c48a8964a3ee9b581c3a2,
title = "Efficacy of natural antimicrobial peptides versus peptidomimetic analogues: a systematic review",
abstract = " Aims: This systematic review was carried out to determine whether synthetic peptidomimetics exhibit significant advantages over antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) in terms of in vitro potency. Structural features - molecular weight, charge and length - were examined for correlations with activity. Methods: Original research articles reporting minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values against Escherichia coli, indexed until 31 December 2020, were searched in PubMed/ScienceDirect/Google Scholar and evaluated using mixed-effects models. Results: In vitro antimicrobial activity of peptidomimetics resembled that of AMPs. Net charge significantly affected MIC values (p < 0.001) with a trend of 4.6% decrease for increments in charge by +1. Conclusion: AMPs and antibacterial peptidomimetics exhibit similar potencies, providing an opportunity to exploit the advantageous stability and bioavailability typically associated with peptidomimetics. ",
author = "Lauren Hellewell and Gilani, {Nakisa Malek} and Stanton, {Christopher James} and Ludovic Pelligand and Henrik Franzyk and Luca Guardabassi and Liam Good",
year = "2022",
doi = "10.4155/fmc-2022-0160",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "1899–1921",
journal = "Future Medicinal Chemistry",
issn = "1756-8919",
publisher = "Future Science",
number = "24",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Efficacy of natural antimicrobial peptides versus peptidomimetic analogues

T2 - a systematic review

AU - Hellewell, Lauren

AU - Gilani, Nakisa Malek

AU - Stanton, Christopher James

AU - Pelligand, Ludovic

AU - Franzyk, Henrik

AU - Guardabassi, Luca

AU - Good, Liam

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - Aims: This systematic review was carried out to determine whether synthetic peptidomimetics exhibit significant advantages over antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) in terms of in vitro potency. Structural features - molecular weight, charge and length - were examined for correlations with activity. Methods: Original research articles reporting minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values against Escherichia coli, indexed until 31 December 2020, were searched in PubMed/ScienceDirect/Google Scholar and evaluated using mixed-effects models. Results: In vitro antimicrobial activity of peptidomimetics resembled that of AMPs. Net charge significantly affected MIC values (p < 0.001) with a trend of 4.6% decrease for increments in charge by +1. Conclusion: AMPs and antibacterial peptidomimetics exhibit similar potencies, providing an opportunity to exploit the advantageous stability and bioavailability typically associated with peptidomimetics.

AB - Aims: This systematic review was carried out to determine whether synthetic peptidomimetics exhibit significant advantages over antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) in terms of in vitro potency. Structural features - molecular weight, charge and length - were examined for correlations with activity. Methods: Original research articles reporting minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values against Escherichia coli, indexed until 31 December 2020, were searched in PubMed/ScienceDirect/Google Scholar and evaluated using mixed-effects models. Results: In vitro antimicrobial activity of peptidomimetics resembled that of AMPs. Net charge significantly affected MIC values (p < 0.001) with a trend of 4.6% decrease for increments in charge by +1. Conclusion: AMPs and antibacterial peptidomimetics exhibit similar potencies, providing an opportunity to exploit the advantageous stability and bioavailability typically associated with peptidomimetics.

U2 - 10.4155/fmc-2022-0160

DO - 10.4155/fmc-2022-0160

M3 - Review

C2 - 36421051

VL - 14

SP - 1899

EP - 1921

JO - Future Medicinal Chemistry

JF - Future Medicinal Chemistry

SN - 1756-8919

IS - 24

ER -

ID: 327059670