Antimicrobial peptides as an alternative to relieve antimicrobial growth promoters in poultry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. This review describes different classes of antimicrobial peptides (AMP) found in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract of avian species, and their antimicrobial and immunomodulatory activities. The potential benefits of synthetic AMP in poultry production are examined, in the context of the use of AMP as alternatives to antimicrobial growth promoters (AGP).2. Since the mid-1950s, antibiotic growth promoters (AGP) have been used in feed at low prophylactic doses to modulate the homoeostasis of intestinal microbiota, decreasing the risk of intestinal dysbacteriosis and the growth of pathogens within the avian gut. Over the last three decades, AGP have faced major regulatory restrictions due to concerns of generating antimicrobial resistance (AMR). It is now well documented that the rate of infectious disease outbreaks is higher in flocks that are not fed prophylactic antibiotics, resulting in a compensatory increase in antimicrobial use for therapeutic purposes.3. Endogenous natural AMP production is associated with the presence of microbiota and their interaction with the intestinal epithelial and lamina propria lymphoid cells. Their antimicrobial activity shapes the beneficial microbiota population and controls intestinal pathogens such Clostridium and Salmonella spp., and stimulates the development and maturation of the local immune system.4. Similar to AGP, AMP can establish a well-balanced gut beneficial microbiota for adequate immune-competence, animal health and high growth performance parameters such as feed intake, daily weight, feed conversion and accumulated mortality.5. Antimicrobial proteins and peptides constitute an essential part of the innate immune system of all organisms and protect the host from invading pathogenic bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites by interacting with the negatively charged pathogen membranes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".