To compare the effects of four antimicrobial peptides (MUC7 12-mer, histatin 12-mer, cathelicidin KR20, and a peptide containing lactoferricin amino acids 1 to 11) on the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, we employed a genomewide fitness screen of combined collections of mutants with homozygous deletions of nonessential genes and heterozygous deletions of essential genes. When an arbitrary fitness score cutoffs of 1 (indicating a fitness defect, or hypersensitivity) and ؊1 (indicating a fitness gain, or resistance) was used, 425 of the 5,902 mutants tested exhibited altered fitness when treated with at least one peptide. Functional analysis of the 425 strains revealed enrichment among the identified deletions in gene groups associated with the Gene Ontology (GO) terms "ribosomal subunit," "ribosome biogenesis," "protein glycosylation," "vacuolar transport," "Golgi vesicle transport," "negative regulation of transcription," and others. Fitness profiles of all four tested peptides were highly similar, particularly among mutant strains exhibiting the greatest fitness defects. The latter group included deletions in several genes involved in induction of the RIM101 signaling pathway, including several components of the ESCRT sorting machinery. The RIM101 signaling regulates response of yeasts to alkaline and neutral pH and high salts, and our data indicate that this pathway also plays a prominent role in regulating protective measures against all four tested peptides. In summary, the results of the chemical genomic screens of S. cerevisiae mutant collection suggest that the four antimicrobial peptides, despite their differences in structure and physical properties, share many interactions with S. cerevisiae cells and consequently a high degree of similarity between their modes of action. C ationic antimicrobial peptides (CAMPs) are small positively charged peptides, active against a broad range of microorganisms, including bacteria, fungi, viruses, and parasites (1-3). Because of their broad spectrum of activity, they have been considered promising alternatives to conventional antimicrobial agents. The mechanisms by which CAMPs mediate their effect, however, remain unclear and controversial. Several recent reviews have summarized different models proposed to explain the CAMP mechanism of action (1, 4-7). These models fall into two categories, transmembrane pore formation models (e.g., barrel stave or toroidal) and non-pore-based models (which include the carpet model and the detergent-like model). Both involve peptide-induced membrane permeabilization/disruption of target cells, leading to membrane depolarization, loss of vital ions and other cellular components, and ultimately lysis and cell death. There is, however, a growing acceptance that CAMPs also operate through interactions with intracellular targets or via disruption of key intracellular processes (reviewed in reference 6). In this scenario, the peptides cross the microbial membranes without significant disruption of the membrane. Finally, some peptides have ...