MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414299794 · doi:10.1101/2025.09.15.675954

Efficacy and safety evaluation of artificial intelligence-identified antimicrobial peptides for use against avian pathogenic <i>Escherichia coli</i> in the poultry industry

2025· preprint· en· W4414299794 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntimicrobial Peptides and Activities
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease ControlBC Cancer AgencyAbbotsford Veterinary ClinicUniversity of SaskatchewanBGC Engineering (Canada)University of VictoriaCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre
FundersProducteurs d'oeufs d'incubation du CanadaMitacsGenome British ColumbiaGenome Canada
KeywordsIn ovoAntimicrobialAntibioticsAntimicrobial peptidesPoultry farmingIn vivoIn vitroCytokineImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it