Talk:Antimicrobial peptides

I've
I've recently finished my PhD on the topic of antimicrobial peptides so I thought that I would contribute a first draft on this topic.D.M.E.Bowdish 21:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Rename to Host Defense Peptides?
Perhaps this article should be renamed to better reflect common terminology regarding the topic?


 * AMPs are called antimicrobial peptides much more often than they are called host defense peptides. The phrase host defense peptides is somewhat controvesial, so I would recommend leaving the page as-is for the time being.  There is currently a redirect from "Host defence peptide".


 * I agree that they are more often called antimicrobial peptides. However, most immunologists are now calling them Host Defense Peptides because many have more than just antimicrobial activity.  For example, some are known to induce or modulate chemokine or cytokine production. Mattpope 22:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Though MeSH lags behind the scientific literature, sometimes substantially, it is still useful to see how the term is described there. In the 2006 MeSH, "host defense peptide" or "host defence peptide" does not appear even as a synonym.  On the other hand, neither does "antimicrobial peptide" as a stand alone term; the closest is "Antimicrobial Cationic Peptides" which includes "defensins, protegrins, tachyplesins, and thionins".  Now this is in the MeSH Headings section; in the Supplementary Concepts there are plenty of terms that begin with or include "antimicrobial peptide".  MeSH is only one of many different lexicons that could be checked, though it is one that typically spans the gap between lay and expert use in many areas. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note Ceyockey. Here is a quote from Dawn Bowdish (who actually started this article, see above), who is probably one of the best authorities on the matter, in a recent review article:

"'Initally described as 'antimicrobial peptides', these components of the immune system are conserved across plants, animals and insects. It is becoming increasingly evident that this label is misleading in some cases, relating more to a bias for in vitro antimicrobial testing at the point of discovery rather than their likely in vivo function. In mammals, conditions at many in vivo sites are such that several of these peptides probably have little if any direct microbicidal activity, but instead may have multiple immunomodulatory effects.' (from 'A Re-evaluation of the Role of Host Defense Peptides in Mammalian Immunity', Current Protein and Peptide Science, 2005,6,35-51).  Case closed? --Mattpope 05:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)"


 * There are plenty of cases where proteins or protein families have historical names that do not reflect their full role (or even accurately reflect part of the role) in vivo; Crystallin comes to mind, as do the many genes which are named based on phenotypic effects of null mutations in model organisms. I agree with Dawn, but I'd be hesistant to crystallize an emerging scientific opinion into Wikipedia by a name change ... rather I'd prominently feature a paraphrase of this quoted passage in the text.  In other words, let the scientific community lead and Wikipedia follow; let's not lead from Wikipedia.  I'd be of a different opinion if (and I've not looked at this) one could show that the majority of emerging manuscripts on this topic now used the new term.  That can change quickly, on the order of six-months or less in some fast moving fields; terminology can literally change overnight, particularly after the emergence of an influential paper or after a global scientific meeting.  If that has indeed happened, let's change the title of the article; otherwise, I'd suggest leaving it where it is for the time being.  Regards, User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ceyockey, your suggestion is well written and sounds good to me. I'm actually writing a paper on the immunomodulatory activities of host defense peptide LL-37 right now, and I will be researching several current papers regarding the topic in the coming weeks.  From the most recent papers I'm reviewing right now, it does seem to be apparent that there has been a switch in the terminology; however, most of them have Bowdish as a contributing author.  I agree that there is no point in being hasty.   --Mattpope 04:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Page renamed to Antimicrobial Peptide s ?
Curious about why this page was renamed to the plural. Is that a Wikipedia convention? Peptide, Protein, Nonribosomal peptide, and Amino Acid are all singular -- why is this different?


 * Because they are a group of peptides. Mattpope 22:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

A category?
I guess we need a Category:Antimicrobial peptides Biophys 01:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Resistance or not?
The article contradicts itself, first saying that resistance to AMPs does not evolve (under applications), and then in a later section on reistance, saying it does evolve. The second of these is correct, but the first should be removed. Not only does resistance occur (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/273/1583/251.short), but subsequently it's been shown that cross-resistance to the human immune system can occur that may render the human host much more susceptible to infection (http://bama.ua.edu/~rlearley/Habets_2012.pdf). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.255 (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Could mention Host defense peptide mimetics
eg To clarify if they are merely derivatives of the natural peptides or must be essentially non-peptide (like the defensin mimetics). - Rod57 (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Article cleaning
There are a number of minor sections in the article that could be merged into a more organized flowthrough. For instance the "Research" section is a non-descriptive header, and bizarrely only mentions anticancer properties of Cecropin and then AMPs of monotremes. Surely this page is built upon "research," and anticancer activities could be its own section. There is a litany of literature on anticancer properties of AMPs. LL-37 is commonly investigated, beta-defensins as cytokines are targets of research, and in fruit flies endogenous defensins and perhaps other AMPs seem to selectively kill tumors. A section on anticancer activity of AMPs should likely mention cell surface modifications of tumors that make them more negatively charged, a character that is thought to attract positively-charged AMPs to tumor membranes.