↓ Skip to main content

The anti-inflammatory effect of the synthetic antimicrobial peptide 19-2.5 in a murine sepsis model: a prospective randomized study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The anti-inflammatory effect of the synthetic antimicrobial peptide 19-2.5 in a murine sepsis model: a prospective randomized study
Published in
Critical Care, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc11920
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tobias Schuerholz, Sabine Doemming, Mathias Hornef, Lukas Martin, Tim-Philipp Simon, Lena Heinbockel, Klaus Brandenburg, Gernot Marx

Abstract

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Increasing rates of multi-resistant bacteria are a major problem in the treatment of critically ill patients. Furthermore, conventional antibiotics lead to the release of bacterial derived membrane parts initiating pro-inflammatory cascades with potential harm to the patient. Antimicrobial peptides (AMP) may kill bacteria without releasing pro-inflammatory factors. Thus, we compared three newly developed synthetic anti-lipopolysaccharide peptides (SALPs) with a broader range of efficacy to suppress cytokine release in plasma and CD14 mRNA expression in organ tissue in a murine, polymicrobial sepsis model. METHODS: A randomized, experimental trial was conducted in an animal research facility. Male NMRI mice (n = 90; 8- to 12-weeks old) were randomized to the following six groups: (i) sham operation and parenteral vehicle (NaCl 0.9%) administration (sham); (ii) cecal ligation and puncture (CLP) and vehicle infusion (sepsis-control), (iii) CLP and polymyxin B infusion (polyB), or (iv to vi) CLP and infusion of three different synthetic antimicrobial peptides Peptide 19-2.5 (Pep2.5), Peptide 19-4 (Pep4) or Peptide 19-8 (Pep8). All animals underwent arterial and venous catheterization for hemodynamic monitoring 48 hours prior to CLP or sham-operation. Physical appearance and behavior (activity), plasma cytokine levels, and CD14 mRNA expression in heart, lung, liver, spleen and kidney tissue were determined 24 hours after CLP or sham operation. RESULTS: Only Pep2.5 significantly enhanced the activity after CLP, whereas none of the therapeutic regimens elevated the mean arterial pressure or heart rate. The strongly elevated IL-6, IL-10 and monocyte chemoattractant protein serum levels in septic animals were significantly reduced after Pep2.5 administration (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, and P < 0.001, respectively). Similarly, Pep2.5 significantly reduced the sepsis-induced CD14 mRNA expression in heart (P = 0.003), lung (P = 0.008), and spleen tissue (P = 0.009) but not in kidney and liver. CONCLUSIONS: Structurally variable SALPs exhibit major differences in their anti-inflammatory effect in vivo. Continuous parenteral administration of Pep2.5 is able to reduce sepsis-induced cytokine release and tissue inflammation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
France 1 2%
Ghana 1 2%
Unknown 52 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 14 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 40%
Chemistry 5 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 13 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 January 2013.
All research outputs
#17,302,400
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,469
of 6,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,605
of 290,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#60
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,558 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 290,468 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.