Antibacterial activity, cytotoxicity and mechanisms of action of cathelicidin peptides against enteric pathogens in weaning piglets

21Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

In the last few decades, long-term and highdose usage of antibiotics in livestock diets has led to the emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria, antibiotic residues in animal products and environmental pollution, adversely affecting animal health. Because of these concerns, a study screening cathelicidin peptides from different animal origins (i.e. protegrin-1 [PG-1], PMAP-23, LL-37, indolicidin and cathelicidin-BF [C-BF]) as antibiotic replacements with higher antimicrobial activity and lower cytotoxicity was designed to study their mechanisms towards enteric pathogens in weaning piglets. PG-1 and C-BF proved to be the most effective bacteriocids with the widest spectra of activity, with the MIC values equal to or lower than commonly used antibiotics towards several Escherichia and Salmonella strains, and showed a synergistic effect with aureomycin. Mechanism studies suggested the C-BF killing mechanism is based on membrane permeability, while multiple targets maybe exist for PG-1, including membrane and intracellular biomacromolecules. Cytotoxicity tests showed PMAP-23 and C-BF exhibited the lowest cytotoxic effects, while PG-1, LL-37 and indolicidin displayed cytotoxicity by dose. This study demonstrated that among the peptides tested, C-BF has the capacity to inactivate enteric pathogens with lower cytotoxicity and is potentially a novel anti-bacterial agent. The activity of PG-1 is highly efficient, with the potential to reduce cytotoxicity using molecular design. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Liu, Y., Luan, C., Xia, X., An, S., & Wang, Y. (2011). Antibacterial activity, cytotoxicity and mechanisms of action of cathelicidin peptides against enteric pathogens in weaning piglets. International Journal of Peptide Research and Therapeutics, 17(3), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10989-011-9255-y

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free