Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42135842›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science and biotechnology2026

Efficacy and safety evaluation of artificial intelligence-identified antimicrobial peptides targeting avian pathogenic Escherichia coli in broiler chickens.

Emre Demirsoy, Teagan I Parkin, Shaeleen E Mihalynuk, Anna H Dema, Lorissa Corrie, Marika E Heilker, Haley N Kuecks-Winger, Anat Yanai, Uluc B Birol, Michael McIlwee and 17 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

27 authors.

Emre Demirsoy *BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1L3, Canada.
Teagan I Parkin *Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2, Canada.
Shaeleen E MihalynukDepartment of Biochemistry and Microbiology, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2, Canada.
Anna H DemaDepartment of Biochemistry and Microbiology, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2, Canada.
Lorissa CorrieDepartment of Biochemistry and Microbiology, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2, Canada.
Marika E HeilkerDepartment of Biochemistry and Microbiology, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2, Canada.
Haley N Kuecks-WingerDepartment of Biochemistry and Microbiology, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2, Canada.
Anat YanaiCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre at BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 4S6, Canada.
Uluc B BirolAmphoraxe Life Sciences Inc., Vancouver, BC, V6L 3C9, Canada.
Michael McIlweeSJ Ritchie Research Farms, Abbotsford, BC, V4X 2N4, Canada.
Kay de WetSJ Ritchie Research Farms, Abbotsford, BC, V4X 2N4, Canada.
Mathijs KnipscheerSJ Ritchie Research Farms, Abbotsford, BC, V4X 2N4, Canada.
Victoria BowesSJ Ritchie Research Farms, Abbotsford, BC, V4X 2N4, Canada.
Vanessa TuytelSJ Ritchie Research Farms, Abbotsford, BC, V4X 2N4, Canada.
Liam RitchieSJ Ritchie Research Farms, Abbotsford, BC, V4X 2N4, Canada.
Wolfgang KösterVaccine and Infectious Disease Organization (VIDO), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5E3, Canada.
Emil BerberovVaccine and Infectious Disease Organization (VIDO), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5E3, Canada.
William R CoxAmphoraxe Life Sciences Inc., Vancouver, BC, V6L 3C9, Canada.
Monica KotkoffCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre at BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 4S6, Canada.
Vanessa C ThompsonDepartment of Biochemistry and Microbiology, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2, Canada.
René L WarrenBC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1L3, Canada.
Erin FraserCommunicable Disease Prevention and Response, British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, BC, V6Z R4R, Canada.
Linda M N HoangBritish Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Public Health Laboratory, Vancouver, BC, V6Z R4R, Canada.
Fraser HofDepartment of Chemistry, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2, Canada.
Fatih BirolAmphoraxe Life Sciences Inc., Vancouver, BC, V6L 3C9, Canada.
Caren C HelbingDepartment of Biochemistry and Microbiology, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2, Canada.
Inanc BirolBritish Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Public Health Laboratory, Vancouver, BC, V6Z R4R, Canada. inanc.birol@ubc.ca.

Funding

Genome British Columbia #291PEPGenome Canada #291PEPInvestment Agriculture Foundation of British Columbia INV106 and INV247Mitacs IT28945 and IT43363
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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 (AMPs) are short, often cationic, peptide-based molecules with antimicrobial and immunomodulatory activity, which makes them promising alternatives to conventional antibiotics in poultry production.

resultsFrom a prior machine-learning-guided screen of 875 candidate AMPs against a wide bacterial panel, 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 d 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 d. For challenged birds, TeBi1 (10 μg/egg) significantly reduced culture-positive rates for APEC in the air sac and pericardium, increased body weight by 50% and reduced cytokine transcript levels by 10%-30% on d 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 d 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 d 35. By integrating high-throughput in ovo automation with large-scale commercial pen trials, this study provides a systematic translational bridge from in silico AI discovery to field-relevant poultry production interventions.

conclusionsThese findings demonstrate that TeBi1 and TeRu4 are promising antibiotic alternatives that improve survival, modulate immune responses, and maintain normal growth performance in broiler chickens in this experimental setting.

Indexed as

Antimicrobial peptideAPECBroiler chickenEfficacyImmunomodulationSafetyTranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID42135842
PMCPMC13177867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.