Efficacy and safety evaluation of artificial intelligence-identified antimicrobial peptides for use against avian pathogenic Escherichia coli in the poultry industry
This study evaluated three AI-identified antimicrobial peptides (TeRu4, TeBi1, PeNi4) as safe alternatives to antibiotics in poultry, finding they improved survival, modulated immune responses, and maintained growth performance in broiler chickens.
One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works
The study used a prior machine-learning-guided screen of 875 antimicrobial peptides to identify 62 candidates active against avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) with low in vitro hemolytic and cytotoxic activity, from which three leads (TeRu4, TeBi1, and PeNi4) were selected for evaluation. AMPs were administered to embryonic chicks via in ovo injection on day 18, and efficacy was assessed using APEC challenge trials (early mortality and bacterial detection in air sac/pericardium) and 35-day commercial pen trials, alongside in vitro immune assays in HD11 macrophage-like cells; key findings were that TeBi1 reduced bacterial detection and increased body weight while lowering cytokine transcript levels, TeRu4 suppressed LPS-induced pro-inflammatory cytokine transcripts and modestly increased female survival, and pen trials showed no significant differences in growth and performance metrics with gene expression responses that differed by AMP and sex. A major limitation is that the work focused specifically on APEC in poultry rather than broader infection types or long-term outcomes. This paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.
Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works
Abstract
Full text
3,172 characters
· extracted from
oa-doi-fallback
· click to expand
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works
Citation neighborhood (no data yet)
We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.
Source provenance
- europepmc
- last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00