Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cecropin D was synthesized by solid-phase methods and shown to be homogeneous and of correct composition and molecular weight. It was indistinguishable from natural cecropin D and constitutes a structure proof for this peptide. Several analogs of cecropin D were synthesized and used to draw conclusions about the structural features contributing to antibacterial activity. They included [Lys1]cecropin D, [Gln3, Leu4] cecropin D, and cecropin D-(9-37). It was concluded that a strongly basic NH2-terminal segment is a prerequisite for antibacterial activity. A hybrid analog cecropin A-(1-11) D-(12-37) was designed and predicted to have enhanced potency. It was found to be 5 to 55 times as active as cecropin D against six of the bacteria tested and was slightly more active than cecropin A. However, against Bacillus subtilis Bs11 the analog was 6 times more active than cecropin A.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fink et al. (1989) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: