Efficacy and safety evaluation of artificial intelligence-identified antimicrobial peptides for use against avian pathogenic <i>Escherichia coli</i> in the poultry industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The overuse of antibiotics in both veterinary and human medicine has resulted in the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, prompting a search for effective alternatives. Antimicrobial peptides (AMP) are short, often cationic, peptide-based molecules with antimicrobial and immunomodulatory activity, which makes them promising alternatives to conventional antibiotics in poultry production. From a prior machine-learning-guided screen of 875 candidate AMPs, 62 exhibited activity against avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) and low in vitro hemolytic and cytotoxic activity. We selected three lead AMPs from this list (named TeRu4, TeBi1, and PeNi4), and evaluated their in vitro and in vivo efficacy, safety, and immunomodulatory potential for use in poultry farming. In animal experiments, AMPs were administered via in ovo injection on day 18 of embryonic development. In APEC challenge trials, yolk sacs were inoculated with APEC post-hatch to assess early chick mortality, while in pen trials, birds were raised in a commercial production setting for 35 days. For challenged birds, TeBi1 (10 μg/egg) significantly reduced bacterial detection in the air sac and pericardium, increased body weight by 50% and reduced cytokine transcript levels by 10-30% on day 7 post hatch. In HD11 chicken macrophage-like cultured cells, TeRu4 (16 μg/mL) suppressed lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced pro-inflammatory cytokine transcript levels. In pen trials, TeRu4 (20 μg/egg) increased the survival probability of female birds by 4.9%, while TeBi1 (20 μg/egg) increased the survival probability of all birds by 4.4%, by day 35. Gene expression analysis revealed AMP- and sex-specific cytokine responses. In pen trials, no significant differences were observed in mean weights, feed conversion ratio (FCR), and flock uniformity on day 35. These findings demonstrate that the three selected AMPs are safe antibiotic alternatives that improve survival, modulate immune responses, and maintain normal growth performance in broiler chickens.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".