The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Insect antimicrobial peptides and their applications
Open accessAbstract
Insects are one of the major sources of antimicrobial peptides/proteins (AMPs). Since observation of antimicrobial activity in the hemolymph of pupae from the giant silk moths Samia Cynthia and Hyalophora cecropia in 1974 and purification of first insect AMP (cecropin) from H. cecropia pupae in 1980, over 150 insect AMPs have been purified or identified. Most insect AMPs are small and cationic, and they show activities against bacteria and/or fungi, as well as some parasites and viruses. Insect AMPs can be classified into four families based on their structures or unique sequences: the α-helical peptides (cecropin and moricin), cysteine-rich peptides (insect defensin and drosomycin), proline-rich peptides (apidaecin, drosocin, and lebocin), and glycine-rich peptides/proteins (attacin and gloverin). Among insect AMPs, defensins, cecropins, proline-rich peptides, and attacins are common, while gloverins and moricins have been identified only in Lepidoptera. Most active AMPs are small peptides of 20–50 residues, which are generated from larger inactive precursor proteins or pro-proteins, but gloverins (~14 kDa) and attacins (~20 kDa) are large antimicrobial proteins. In this mini-review, we will discuss current knowledge and recent progress in several classes of insect AMPs, including insect defensins, cecropins, attacins, lebocins and other proline-rich peptides, gloverins, and moricins, with a focus on structural-functional relationships and their potential applications.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Expression of the antimicrobial peptides in plants to control phytopathogenic bacteria and fungi
Oard, S. V., & Enright, F. M. (2006) · Plant Cell Reports · doi:10.1007/s00299-005-0102-5 · Cited by 68
Cited by
Insect immunology and hematopoiesis
Hillyer, J. F. (2016) · Developmental & Comparative Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.dci.2015.12.006 · Cited by 561
Surendra, K. C., Tomberlin, J. K., van Huis, A., Cammack, J. A., Heckmann, L.-H. L., & Khanal, S. K. (2020) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2020.07.050 · Cited by 456
Edible insects: an alternative of nutritional, functional and bioactive compounds.
Jantzen da Silva Lucas, A., Menegon de Oliveira, L., da Rocha, M., & Prentice, C. (2020) · Food Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.126022 · Cited by 412
Insect meals in fish nutrition
Nogales‐Mérida, S., Gobbi, P., Józefiak, D., Mazurkiewicz, J., Dudek, K., Rawski, M., Kierończyk, B., & Józefiak, A. (2019) · Reviews in Aquaculture · doi:10.1111/raq.12281 · Cited by 361
Antimicrobial Peptides: An Update on Classifications and Databases
Bin Hafeez, A., Jiang, X., Bergen, P. J., & Zhu, Y. (2021) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms222111691 · Cited by 341
Metadata
- Authors
- Yi, H.-Y., Chowdhury, M., Huang, Y.-D., & Yu, X.-Q.
- Venue
- Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
- Published
- 2014-05-09
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 5807-5822
- ISSN
- 0175-7598 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-0614
- OpenAlex
- W2082270598
- Cited by
- 635
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 24.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Insect antimicrobial peptides and their applications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00253-014-5792-6
- The paper
- Yi, H.-Y., Chowdhury, M., Huang, Y.-D., & Yu, X.-Q. (2014). Insect antimicrobial peptides and their applications. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-014-5792-6
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.