The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Role of lipid‐bound peptidoglycan precursors in the formation of pores by nisin, epidermin and other lantibiotics
Open accessAbstract
It is generally assumed that type A lantibiotics primarily kill bacteria by permeabilization of the cytoplasmic membrane. As previous studies had demonstrated that nisin interacts with the membrane‐bound peptidoglycan precursors lipid I and lipid II, we presumed that this interaction could play a role in the pore formation process of lantibiotics. Using a thin‐layer chromatography system, we found that only nisin and epidermin, but not Pep5, can form a complex with [14 C]‐lipid II. Lipid II was then purified from Micrococcus luteus and incorporated into carboxyfluorescein‐loaded liposomes made of phosphatidylcholine and cholesterol (1:1). Liposomes supplemented with 0.05 or 0.1 mol% of lipid II did not release any marker when treated with Pep5 or epilancin K7 (peptide concentrations of up to 5 mol% were tested). In contrast, as little as 0.01 mol% of epidermin and 0.1 mol% of nisin were sufficient to induce rapid marker release; phosphatidylglycerol‐containing liposomes were even more susceptible. Controls with moenomycin‐, undecaprenol‐ or dodecaprenolphosphate‐doped liposomes demonstrated the specificity of the lantibiotics for lipid II. These results were correlated with intact cells in an in vivo model. M. luteus and Staphylococcus simulans were depleted of lipid II by preincubation with the lipopeptide ramoplanin and then tested for pore formation. When applied in concentrations below the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) and up to 5–10 times the MIC, the pore formation by nisin and epidermin was blocked; at higher concentrations of the lantibiotics the protective effect of ramoplanin disappeared. These results demonstrate that, in vitro and in vivo, lipid II serves as a docking molecule for nisin and epidermin, but not for Pep5 and epilancin K7, and thereby facilitates the formation of pores in the cytoplasmic membrane.
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
Cited by
Antimicrobial peptides of multicellular organisms
Zasloff, M. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/415389a · Cited by 8,457
Bacteriocins: Developing innate immunity for food
Cotter, P. D., Hill, C., & Ross, R. P. (2005) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro1273 · Cited by 2,380
Bacteriocins: safe, natural antimicrobials for food preservation.
Cleveland, J., Montville, T. J., Nes, I. F., & Chikindas, M. L. (2001) · International Journal of Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/s0168-1605(01)00560-8 · Cited by 1,835
Gram-positive bacterial cell envelopes: The impact on the activity of antimicrobial peptides
Malanovic, N., & Lohner, K. (2016) · Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Biomembranes · doi:10.1016/j.bbamem.2015.11.004 · Cited by 586
Alternative mechanisms of action of cationic antimicrobial peptides on bacteria
Hale, J. D., & Hancock, R. E. (2007) · Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy · doi:10.1586/14787210.5.6.951 · Cited by 549
Metadata
- Authors
- Brötz, H., Josten, M., Wiedemann, I., Schneider, U., Götz, F., Bierbaum, G., & Sahl, H.
- Venue
- Molecular Microbiology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1998-10
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 317-327
- ISSN
- 0950-382X (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2958
- OpenAlex
- W1963494339
- Cited by
- 421
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Role of lipid‐bound peptidoglycan precursors in the formation of pores by nisin, epidermin and other lantibiotics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2958.1998.01065.x
- The paper
- Brötz, H., Josten, M., Wiedemann, I., Schneider, U., Götz, F., Bierbaum, G., & Sahl, H. (1998). Role of lipid‐bound peptidoglycan precursors in the formation of pores by nisin, epidermin and other lantibiotics. Molecular Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2958.1998.01065.x
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.