Primary literature evidence
Search paper-level observations with their value, target, assay, evidence sentence, source location, and stable record links. Evidence without a safely standardized sequence remains visible without being misrepresented as a canonical peptide.
Evidence records
Both of them had a pronounced reduction of their viabilities when treated with bioengineered OMVs ... while OMV^MPI-C had the lowest half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) (Figures 2B, C).
Both of them had a pronounced reduction of their viabilities when treated with bioengineered OMVs ... while OMV^MPI-C had the lowest half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) (Figures 2B, C).
The results presented in Figure 2F manifested the percentage of apoptotic MB49 cells increased to 44.3% in OMV^MPI-C group, much higher than the 8.43% in PBS group and 11.0% in OMV^WT group.
With regard to UMUC3 cells, we unsurprisingly obtained a very similar result (Figure 2G).
However, a non-carcinomatous cell named bEnd.3 ... exhibited no viability suppression when being treated with different OMVs at the concentration of <100 μg/ml (Figure S5), indicating the specific destruction ability of MPI fusion peptides in bioengineered OMVs to tumor cells.
Tumor growth curves shown in Figure 3C depicted different therapy efficacies of OMVs ... OMV^MPI-SP and OMV^MPI-C treatments resulted in better therapeutic outcomes with statistical significance when compared with the PBS group.
After incubation ... the calculated hemolysis ratio of OMV groups was lower than 5% (Figures 5A, B), indicating the negligible hemolysis caused by bioengineered OMVs in vitro.
Both of them had a pronounced reduction of their viabilities when treated with bioengineered OMVs (OMV^MPI-N, OMV^MPI-SP, and OMV^MPI-C) for 24 h when compared with OMV^WT treatment.
Both of them had a pronounced reduction of their viabilities when treated with bioengineered OMVs (OMV^MPI-N, OMV^MPI-SP, and OMV^MPI-C) for 24 h when compared with OMV^WT treatment.
However, a non-carcinomatous cell named bEnd.3 ... exhibited no viability suppression when being treated with different OMVs at the concentration of <100 μg/ml (Figure S5).
Although OMV^WT and OMV^MPI-N presented slight inhibition potency, OMV^MPI-SP and OMV^MPI-C treatments resulted in better therapeutic outcomes with statistical significance when compared with the PBS group.
After incubation ... the calculated hemolysis ratio of OMV groups was lower than 5% (Figures 5A, B).
Both of them had a pronounced reduction of their viabilities when treated with bioengineered OMVs (OMV^MPI-N, OMV^MPI-SP, and OMV^MPI-C) for 24 h when compared with OMV^WT treatment.
Both of them had a pronounced reduction of their viabilities when treated with bioengineered OMVs (OMV^MPI-N, OMV^MPI-SP, and OMV^MPI-C) for 24 h when compared with OMV^WT treatment.
However, a non-carcinomatous cell named bEnd.3 ... exhibited no viability suppression when being treated with different OMVs at the concentration of <100 μg/ml (Figure S5).
OMV^MPI-SP and OMV^MPI-C treatments resulted in better therapeutic outcomes with statistical significance when compared with the PBS group.
After incubation ... the calculated hemolysis ratio of OMV groups was lower than 5% (Figures 5A, B).
Octopromycin has shown minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of 50 and 200 µg/mL, respectively, for a lab strain of A. baumannii [24].
Octopromycin has shown minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of 50 and 200 µg/mL, respectively, for a lab strain of A. baumannii [24].
Octopromycin displayed inhibitory and eradication effects on A. baumannii biofilm, with an MBIC ranging from 350–500 μg/mL and an MBEC ranging from 600–700 μg/mL (data not shown).
Names such as P1, PEP1, or peptide 1 are paper-local labels. Search results group them by publication and never assume cross-paper molecular identity without sequence or explicit structural evidence.
