| Literature DB >> 33144376 |
Giuseppe Buda De Cesare1, Shane A Cristy1,2, Danielle A Garsin3,2, Michael C Lorenz3,2.
Abstract
Invasive fungal infections in humans are generally associated with high mortality, making the choice of antifungal drug crucial for the outcome of the patient. The limited spectrum of antifungals available and the development of drug resistance represent the main concerns for the current antifungal treatments, requiring alternative strategies. Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), expressed in several organisms and used as first-line defenses against microbial infections, have emerged as potential candidates for developing new antifungal therapies, characterized by negligible host toxicity and low resistance rates. Most of the current literature focuses on peptides with antibacterial activity, but there are fewer studies of their antifungal properties. This review focuses on AMPs with antifungal effects, including their in vitro and in vivo activities, with the biological repercussions on the fungal cells, when known. The classification of the peptides is based on their mode of action: although the majority of AMPs exert their activity through the interaction with membranes, other mechanisms have been identified, including cell wall inhibition and nucleic acid binding. In addition, antifungal compounds with unknown modes of action are also described. The elucidation of such mechanisms can be useful to identify novel drug targets and, possibly, to serve as the templates for the synthesis of new antimicrobial compounds with increased activity and reduced host toxicity.Entities:
Keywords: antifungal drugs; antimicrobial peptides; mycology
Year: 2020 PMID: 33144376 PMCID: PMC7642678 DOI: 10.1128/mBio.02123-20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: mBio Impact factor: 7.867
FIG 1Biosynthesis of antimicrobial peptides. The figure describes the three routes adopted for the production of the AMPs: classical ribosomal synthesis (a), the nonribosomal pathway (b), and the cryptic peptides (c). In ribosomal synthesis, the gene for the AMP is harbored by a cluster that is translated into the mature peptide via ribosomal synthesis of common amino acids, which can undergo structural modifications, such as glycosylation in the case of leucinostatin A. The compounds produced via the nonribosomal route, unlike the previous-described pathway, are assembled by large enzymes, referred to as nonribosomal peptide synthases (NRPS). They incorporate nonproteinogenic amino acids and also catalyze other structural modifications, such as lipidation and cyclization. For example, as shown here, the gramicidin synthases I and II (encoded by grsA and grsB, respectively), produce the cyclic decapeptide gramicidin S. GS1 modules (blue) consist of three domains in total, responsible for the reactions of adenylation, thiolation, and epimerization. GS2 contains four modules, each containing condensation, adenylation, and thiolation, with a thioesterase at the end. The cryptic peptides originate from the proteolytic digestion of proteins with other functions, such as the histone H2A of the Asian toad. In the toad’s stomach, the enzymatic activity of pepsin C produces buforin I, which in turn is processed by an endopeptidase to generate buforin II.
FIG 2Schematic representation of the targets of the antimicrobial peptides with antifungal activity. The peptides are listed according to the putative target within the fungal cell. The asterisk following some of the peptides indicates the target has only been hypothesized according to the data present in literature.