LL-37 Triggers Antimicrobial Activity in Human Platelets
Authors: Sánchez-Peña FJ, Romero-Tlalolini MLÁ, Torres-Aguilar H, Cruz-Hernández DS, Baltiérrez-Hoyos R, et al.
A 2023 study showing LL-37 triggers antimicrobial activity in human platelets — an unexpected link between coagulation and innate immunity. Adds to the picture of cathelicidin as a broadly active host-defence peptide rather than a simple antibiotic.
Abstract
Platelets play a crucial role in hemostasis and the immune response, mainly by recognizing signals associated with vascular damage.. However, it has recently been discovered that the antimicrobial peptide LL-37 activates platelets in functions related to thrombus formation and inflammation.. Therefore, this work aims to evaluate the effect of LL-37 on the activation of antimicrobial functions of.
Key Findings
Therefore, this work aims to evaluate the effect of LL-37 on the activation of antimicrobial functions of human platelets. | Our results show that platelets treated with LL-37 increase the surface expression of receptors (Toll-like receptors (TLRs) 2 and -4, CD32, CD206, Dectin-1, CD35, LOX-1, CD41, CD62P, and αIIb&#x...Study Design
Research studyMore LL-37 Research Papers
Additional peer-reviewed studies and clinical trials indexed for LL-37 on PepsReview:
- LL-37: Cathelicidin-related antimicrobial peptide with pleiotropic activity — Pharmacol Rep, 2016 (200 citations)
- Design of Antimicrobial Peptides: Progress Made with Human Cathelicidin LL-37 — Adv Exp Med Biol, 2019 (140 citations)
- The LL-37 domain: A clue to cathelicidin immunomodulatory response? — Peptides, 2023 (60 citations)
About This LL-37 Research Paper
This study is part of PepsReview's indexed research library for LL-37. We systematically index peer-reviewed publications, clinical trial results, and scientific studies related to LL-37 to provide researchers and clinicians with a centralized, searchable database of evidence. Each paper in our index includes metadata such as journal name, publication year, citation count, study type, and condition studied, along with key findings and study design summaries where available.
LL-37 is classified in our Immune support category. Human cathelicidin — broad-spectrum antimicrobial peptide For a complete list of research papers on LL-37, visit the research index page. To compare vendor pricing and read user reviews, visit the main LL-37 profile page.
Understanding LL-37 Research
LL-37 has been the subject of growing scientific interest, with researchers investigating its pharmacological properties, therapeutic potential, and safety profile across multiple study designs. The research landscape for LL-37 includes preclinical in vitro and animal model studies that elucidate its mechanism of action, Phase I clinical trials assessing safety and pharmacokinetics in human subjects, and larger Phase II and Phase III trials evaluating efficacy in target populations. Published studies vary in design — some are randomized controlled trials with placebo groups, others are open-label dose-escalation studies, and many are retrospective analyses of real-world data from clinics and compounding pharmacies.
When interpreting LL-37 research, it is important to consider several factors: the study population size and demographics, the dosage range tested, the duration of follow-up, the presence of confounding variables, and whether the results have been replicated in independent cohorts. Single studies, even well-designed ones, should not be considered definitive evidence. The strongest conclusions come from meta-analyses that pool data across multiple studies and from replicated findings across different research groups. Our research index for LL-37 allows you to browse all available studies in one place and compare their methodologies, outcomes, and limitations side by side.
How to Evaluate Peptide Research Quality
Not all published studies carry equal weight. When reviewing LL-37 research, consider the following quality indicators: peer-reviewed publication in a reputable journal with an impact factor, large sample sizes (n > 100 for clinical studies), randomized and blinded study designs, clearly defined endpoints, appropriate control groups, and disclosure of funding sources and potential conflicts of interest. Studies published in top-tier journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA, or Diabetes Care undergo rigorous peer review and are generally more reliable. Preclinical studies and animal models, while valuable for hypothesis generation, should not be extrapolated to human use without clinical validation.
Additionally, pay attention to the condition studied and whether it aligns with your research interest. A study examining LL-37 for one condition may not be applicable to a different therapeutic context. Dosage ranges, administration routes, and treatment durations can significantly affect outcomes. Always cross-reference findings with the broader literature and consult the full text of the original publication rather than relying solely on abstracts or summaries.
Related Research on LL-37
PepsReview continues to index new LL-37 publications as they appear in the scientific literature. Our research library is updated regularly with studies from PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and direct journal submissions. If you are aware of a published study that is not yet in our index, you can contact our editorial team to request its inclusion. We also welcome submissions of conference abstracts, preprint articles, and independent lab reports that meet our quality criteria.
For researchers new to LL-37, we recommend starting with the most highly cited papers in our index, as these typically represent foundational studies that have shaped the field. You can also browse by study type — clinical trials, animal studies, review articles, or case reports — to find the evidence most relevant to your work.
Research Disclaimer
The studies indexed on PepsReview are provided for educational and informational purposes only. They do not constitute medical advice. Peptides discussed in these publications may be investigational, and their safety and efficacy have not been established by the FDA unless explicitly noted. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before making decisions based on research findings. PepsReview does not endorse, recommend, or guarantee the accuracy of any individual study. Our role is to index and organize published research for the convenience of the scientific community.