Our study showed that cell membrane damage is critical for viability; however, we believe that cell wall disorders should also be taken into account when analyzing the effects of the mechanisms of action of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs)

On By msisig

Our study showed that cell membrane damage is critical for viability; however, we believe that cell wall disorders should also be taken into account when analyzing the effects of the mechanisms of action of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs). which causes a wide variety of pathologies, remains probably one of the most harmful bacteria, and has been researched for over 100 years. R9F2 peptides on was more severe than the effect of (KFF)3K peptides. Chlorhexidine greatly damaged the bacteria cell wall, in particular in areas of septa formation, while cytoplasm kept its structure within the observation time. Our study showed that cell membrane damage is critical for viability; however, we believe that cell wall disorders should also be WHI-P180 taken into account when analyzing the effects of the mechanisms of action of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs). which causes a wide variety of pathologies, remains probably one of the most harmful bacteria, and has been investigated for over 100 years. The notorious reputation of is primarily based on its resistance to various groups of standard antibiotics [1,2,3,4], and the need to obtain a fresh drugs which efficiently destroy and don’t cause the development of drug resistance is probably the top priorities for effective control of the infection [5,6]. Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are considered as promising tool to battle multidrug-resistant bacteria. Currently, more than 5000 of AMPs are known; these small molecules are found in all organisms and run as WHI-P180 a part of the innate immune response, killing bacteria, viruses, fungi and even tumor cells [7,8,9]; natural AMPs effective against were examined in [3]. Although many details of natural peptide action are still unfamiliar, the collected data display that their effect is not associated with specific bacteria molecules, and therefore the development of bacterial resistance to AMPs may be a rare trend, which increases the significance of these compounds [10]. The excellent antimicrobial properties of natural AMPs are recognized in living organisms, but their practical use in medicine is definitely hampered by the difficulty of obtaining AMPs from natural sources and standardization for medical software, so synthetic AMPs are entering the market as the main players [9,11]. A number of Rabbit polyclonal to ZNF200 models for the connection of bacteria with AMPs have been proposed, but the mechanism of this connection is not fully recognized [7,8,9]. In the mean time, it is known that AMPs interact with bacteria cell membranes, and such physico-chemical properties as amino acid sequence, size, helicity, online charge, hydrophobicity, amphipathicity and solubility are important for AMPs effect on bacteria cells [7,12]. It is believed that synthetic peptides can be highly effective and affordable analogs of natural AMPs, and therefore understanding the mechanisms of their effects on bacterial cells is necessary to enhance their procurement and increase their effectiveness. Evaluation of the mechanisms of AMP action could be made at different levels: whole human population of cells, solitary cells and at molecular level. The action of AMPs at the population level is usually analyzed using microbiological and biochemical methods. Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) represents the main tool for studying changes at the cellular level. This method allows to analyze cell structures in the nanometer level and gives an idea of what is happening inside the cell [13,14]. In contrast, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) allows to examine the bacteria surface only and to observe cell wall deformation or breach, and leakage of the cytoplasm [15,16,17]. Earlier we synthesized and characterized two cationic AMPs, highly amphiphilic R9F2 and moderately amphiphilic peptide (KFF)3K, and showed their antibacterial effect, as well as the absence of cytotoxicity for eukaryotic cells [18]. We applied TEM of ultrathin sections for examination of successive changes in ultrastructure under the influence of R9F2 and (KFF)3K peptides and found clear differences in their effects [19]. is an eukaryotic microorganism with a solid cell wall, mainly composed of highly mannosylated glycoproteins [20], and it was interesting to compare its damage by R9F2 and (KFF)3K peptides with their effects on prokaryotic microorganisms enclosed in a cell wall, such as cells was unsuccessful: the works reported microbiological studies of peptide efficacy, offered AMP physico-chemical characteristics, discussed possible mechanisms of AMPs action, and sometimes showed damage of the cells in TEM or SEM at the last time-point of incubation [21,22,23,24,25]. To compare the changes in ultrastructure caused by cationic peptides with some well-known antibacterial compounds (positive control), we decided to use chlorhexidine as a reference, confident that its effects were well analyzed and published. To our surprise, only 35 publications were found in PubMed for the query chlorhexidine & electron WHI-P180 microscopy & ultrastructure. We focused our work on how.