The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Strategies for antimicrobial peptide coatings on medical devices: a review and regulatory science perspective
Abstract
Indwelling and implanted medical devices are subject to contamination by microbial pathogens during surgery, insertion or injection, and ongoing use, often resulting in severe nosocomial infections. Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) offer a promising alternative to conventional antibiotics to reduce the incidence of such infections, as they exhibit broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity against Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, microbial biofilms, fungi, and viruses. In this review-perspective, we first provide an overview of the progress made in this field over the past decade with an emphasis on the local release of AMPs from implant surfaces and immobilization strategies for incorporating these agents into a wide range of medical device materials. We then provide a regulatory science perspective addressing the characterization and testing of AMP coatings based on the type of immobilization strategy used with a focus on the US market regulatory niche. Our goal is to help narrow the gulf between academic studies and preclinical testing, as well as to support a future literature base in order to develop the regulatory science of antimicrobial coatings.
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
Mussel-inspired surface chemistry for multifunctional coatings
Lee, H., Dellatore, S. M., Miller, W. M., & Messersmith, P. B. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1147241 · Cited by 10,965
Antimicrobial peptides of multicellular organisms
Zasloff, M. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/415389a · Cited by 8,457
Methods for in vitro evaluating antimicrobial activity: A review
Balouiri, M., Sadiki, M., & Ibnsouda, S. K. (2016) · Journal of Pharmaceutical Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.jpha.2015.11.005 · Cited by 8,044
Antimicrobial peptides: pore formers or metabolic inhibitors in bacteria?
Brogden, K. A. (2005) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro1098 · Cited by 5,829
Polymer brushes: surface-immobilized macromolecules
Zhao, B., & Brittain, W. J. (2000) · Progress in Polymer Science · doi:10.1016/s0079-6700(00)00012-5 · Cited by 1,628
Anti-microbial peptides: from invertebrates to vertebrates
Bulet, P., Stöcklin, R., & Menin, L. (2004) · Immunological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.0105-2896.2004.0124.x · Cited by 1,107
Recent advances in MEMS sensor technology-mechanical applications
Khoshnoud, F., & de Silva, C. W. (2012) · IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine · doi:10.1109/mim.2012.6174574 · Cited by 116
Candidaemia in Patients with an Inserted Medical Device
Cauda, R. (2009) · Drugs · doi:10.2165/11315520-000000000-00000 · Cited by 48
Cited by
Balasubramaniam, B., Prateek, Ranjan, S., Saraf, M., Kar, P., Singh, S. P., Thakur, V. K., Singh, A., & Gupta, R. K. (2021) · ACS Pharmacology & Translational Science · doi:10.1021/acsptsci.0c00174 · Cited by 285
Metadata
- Authors
- Kazemzadeh-Narbat, M., Cheng, H., Chabok, R., Alvarez, M. M., de la Fuente-Nunez, C., Phillips, K. S., & Khademhosseini, A.
- Venue
- Critical Reviews in Biotechnology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-10-18
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 94-120
- ISSN
- 0738-8551 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-7801
- OpenAlex
- W3092936665
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 13.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Strategies for antimicrobial peptide coatings on medical devices: a review and regulatory science perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/07388551.2020.1828810
- The paper
- Kazemzadeh-Narbat, M., Cheng, H., Chabok, R., Alvarez, M. M., de la Fuente-Nunez, C., Phillips, K. S., & Khademhosseini, A. (2021). Strategies for antimicrobial peptide coatings on medical devices: a review and regulatory science perspective. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2020.1828810
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.