The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The role of antimicrobial peptides in animal defenses
Open accessAbstract
It is becoming clear that the cationic antimicrobial peptides are an important component of the innate defenses of all species of life. Such peptides can be constitutively expressed or induced by bacteria or their products. The best peptides have good activities vs. a broad range of bacterial strains, including antibiotic-resistant isolates. They kill very rapidly, do not easily select resistant mutants, are synergistic with conventional antibiotics, other peptides, and lysozyme, and are able to kill bacteria in animal models. It is known that bacterial infections, especially when treated with antibiotics, can lead to the release of bacterial products such as lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and lipoteichoic acid, resulting in potentially lethal sepsis. In contrast to antibiotics, the peptides actually prevent cytokine induction by bacterial products in tissue culture and human blood, and they block the onset of sepsis in mouse models of endotoxemia. Consistent with this, transcriptional gene array experiments using a macrophage cell line demonstrated that a model peptide, CEMA, blocks the expression of many genes whose transcription was induced by LPS. The peptides do this in part by blocking LPS interaction with the serum protein LBP. In addition, CEMA itself has a direct effect on macrophage gene expression. Because cationic antimicrobial peptides are induced by LPS and are able to dampen the septic response of animal cells to LPS, we propose that, in addition to their role in direct and lysozyme-assisted killing of microbes, they have a role in feedback regulation of cytokine responses. We are currently developing variant peptides as therapeutics against antibiotic-resistant infections.
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
Cationic peptides: effectors in innate immunity and novel antimicrobials
Hancock, R. E. (2001) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(01)00092-5 · Cited by 978
Self-citationSato, H., & Feix, J. B. (2006) · Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Biomembranes · doi:10.1016/j.bbamem.2006.02.021 · Cited by 522
Applications of Lysozyme, an Innate Immune Defense Factor, as an Alternative Antibiotic
Ferraboschi, P., Ciceri, S., & Grisenti, P. (2021) · Antibiotics · doi:10.3390/antibiotics10121534 · Cited by 448
Inactivation of a Pseudomonas aeruginosa quorum-sensing signal by human airway epithelia
Chun, C. K., Ozer, E. A., Welsh, M. J., Zabner, J., & Greenberg, E. P. (2004) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0308750101 · Cited by 290
The porcine innate immune system: an update
Mair, K. H., Sedlak, C., Käser, T., Pasternak, A., Levast, B., Gerner, W., Saalmüller, A., Summerfield, A., Gerdts, V., Wilson, H. L., et al. (2014) · Developmental & Comparative Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.dci.2014.03.022 · Cited by 264
Metadata
- Authors
- Hancock, R. E. W., & Scott, M. G.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2000-08
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 8856-8861
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2085136523
- Cited by
- 971
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 26.05
- 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: The role of antimicrobial peptides in animal defenses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.97.16.8856
- The paper
- Hancock, R. E. W., & Scott, M. G. (2000). The role of antimicrobial peptides in animal defenses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.97.16.8856
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.