You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Antimicrobial Peptides for Bacterial Control: History
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:

Antimicrobial resistance to conventional drugs has resulted in high global rates of recurrent invasive infections, facilitating disease progression and reducing the likelihood of effective treatments.

  • antimicrobial peptides
  • photochemotherapy

1. Introduction

In 2020, the World Health Organization warned about the appearance of strains increasingly resistant and difficult to control. The indiscriminate use of antimicrobial drugs is facilitated by inadequate medical prescriptions and substandard medications [2].
Considering the challenges related to antimicrobial resistance, other strategies for controlling infections have been suggested [3,4,5,6]. Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) has been used to inactivate microorganisms and treat infections [3,4,5,6]. aPDT involves the application of a photosensitizing agent (PS), an LED source corresponding to the absorption band of the PS, and the presence of oxygen. This therapy has several advantages in the treatment of infections from microorganisms, such as the wide spectrum of action and a low mutagenic potential in exposed cells [6].
When comparing aPDT with other therapies, it has the advantage of local PS application, restricting the treatment to the area of interest, thus preventing systemic side effects. There is also an immediate onset of action and elimination of virulence factors secreted by resistant microorganisms [7]. Lastly, the literature did not report the development of bacteria and fungi resistance to aPDT [4,8].
Studies have shown that microbial biofilms reduce the susceptibility to aPDT compared to planktonic cultures [4]. Considering the protection endowed by the extracellular matrix (ECM), it is difficult for the PS to penetrate the deeper layers of the microbial biofilm, impairing aPDT activity [9]. To overcome this limitation, aPDT associated with enzymes or antifungal agents was more effective for microbial inactivation than aPDT alone [5,9]. Additionally, antimicrobial peptides (AMP) have been used alone [10,11], combined with aPDT [12,13], or by conjugating a PS to the AMP molecule [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31], presenting satisfactory results in pathogenic microorganism inactivation.
AMP are molecules expressed by all living organisms and responsible for the innate defense system against pathogen infection, including viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites [32]. AMP are oligopeptides with up to 50 amino acids with a broad spectrum of action against microorganisms [33,34]. This new class of compounds has boosted science for new methodologies for synthesizing, isolating, purifying, analyzing, and quantifying peptides [35]. The presence of cationic residues (Arg and Lys) in AMP promotes a positive liquid charge for this structure, resulting in the interaction with the negative cell membrane of the target organism, such as bacteria [35]. Another important aspect of the construction of the AMP amphipathic structure is the high fraction of hydrophobic amino acids (>50%) [36], which is vital for membrane penetration. The biological activity of AMP is closely related to their structure, and these could be classified as α-helix, β-sheet, extended peptides, and both α-helix and β-sheet peptides [37], with the first two appearing more frequently [38]. Although the molecular target of some peptides is inside the cell, as non-membrane disruptive AMP [39], most peptides interact with the anionic components of the membranes of microorganisms and damage this structure [32].
The literature has described the association of AMP and aPDT to explore the best properties of both treatments, increasing the effectiveness and decreasing the time of application [12,13]. AMP can form pores in cell membranes and present biofilm activity [11], which leads to the penetration of the PS into the membrane, facilitating the inactivation of structures through LED photoexcitation [12]. Other advantages of association treatments are reduced effective dose, minimized toxicity potential, and reduced treatment costs [12,40].

2. Search Results

The flowchart in Figure 1 shows the process of article selection. The preliminary electronic search yielded 213 articles. After excluding duplicates, 36 studies remained. The titles and abstracts were read, and no article was excluded. After evaluating the abstracts, 25 studies were considered for a full-text evaluation. Then, 5 articles were excluded because they did not report details about the predetermined microbiological assays.
Figure 1. Flowchart based on the PRISMA statement.

3. Synthesis of Results

The results of the systematic review show that all articles had an in vitro experimental design and 3 of them were both in vitro and in vivo experimental studies [28,30,31]. Moreover, of the 20 articles analyzed, 18 performed the therapy with a portion of the PS redirected to AMP and only 2 studies performed the therapy combined with AMP [12,13]. The shortest and longest irradiation times were 30 s [14] and 20 h [21,22], respectively. The most commonly used PS were chlorin e6 [12,13,24,28,30,31] and porphyrin [14,16,17,19,21,22,25,26]. Additionally, the most frequently used microorganism in the assay was Staphylococcus aureus [12,14,15,17,18,19,20,21,22,24,26,27,29,30,31], followed by Escherichia coli [12,14,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,26,27,30,31]. Most of the studies analyzed evaluated the microorganisms in suspension (planktonic culture) and only 4 evaluated the therapy in a biofilm culture [12,24,28,31] (Table 1).
Table 1. Summary of the characteristics of the studies included.
Study (Year) Study Design Peptide Irradiation Time Wavelength Photosensitizer Microorganism Culture Type Sample Size Outcomes
Bourré et al. 2010 [14] In vitro Tat 30, 43, 60, and 120 s 410 nm Tetracks (phenol) and porphyrin Escherichia coli
Staphylococcus aureus
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Streptococcus pyogenes
Suspension ND Reduction in the concentration of 1 uM from 3 to 6 log10 CFU/mL. The greatest effect was in the first 30 s.
Yang et al. 2011 [15] In vitro WLBU2 100 s 652 nm Temoporfin + WLBU2 S. aureus (methicillin resistant)
P. aeruginosa
Suspension 3 Reduction by 100% for S. aureus (aPDT only and aPDT + peptide) and reduction by 2 log10 CFU/mL for P. aeruginosa (aPDT + peptide).
Liu et al. 2012 [16] In vitro WI13WF (YVLWKRKRKFCFI-amide) 2, 5, and 10 min 400 to 900 nm Protoporphyrin IX E. coli
Salmonella enteric
Klebsiella pneumoniae
Suspension ND Peptide and PS conjugate 99% lethal.
Dosseli et al. 2013 [17] In vitro Apidaecin ND 600–750 nm
390–460 nm
Porphyrin E. coli
S. aureus
Suspension ND Reduction by 100% for E. coli.
Johnson et al. 2013 [18] In vitro (KLAKLAK)2 30 min 525 nm (KLAKLAK)2 + Eosin Y Acinetobacter baumannii
P. aeruginosa
E. coli
S. aureus
Staphylococcus epidermidis
Suspension ND Reduction by 99% for all microorganisms.
Dosseli et al. 2014 [19] In vitro Magainin
Buforin
ND 390–460 nm Porphyrin E. coli
S. aureus (methicillin resistant)
Suspension ND Reduction by 100% for all microorganisms.
Johnson et al. 2014 [20] In vitro (KLAKLAK)2 2 min
5 min
30 min
525 nm (KLAKLAK)2 + Eosin Y E. coli
S. aureus
Suspension 3 Reduction by 50% for all microorganisms (2 min of irradiation).
Reduction by 90% (5 min of irradiation).
Reduction by 99.99% (30 min of irradiation).
Le guern et al. 2017 [21] In vitro Polymyxin B 20 h 420 nm Porphyrin S. aureus
E. coli
P. aeruginosa
Suspension ND Antibactericidal activity of the PS and peptide association on 3 strains.
De Freitas et al. 2018 [12] In vitro Aurein 1.2 (AU) ND 660 nm Methylene blue
Chlorin e6
S. aureus
A. baumannii
E. coli
Enterococcus faecium
Suspension 9 S. aureus reduction
-
MB ~ 1.0 log10 CFU/mL
-
MB + AU ~ 6.0 log10 CFU/mL
-
Ce6 and Ce6 + Au = total reduction

A. baumannii reduction
-
MB ~ 1.0 log10 CFU/mL
-
MB + AU ~ 6.0 log10 CFU/mL
-
Ce6 and Ce6 + AU no significant results

E. coli reduction
-
MB ~ 4.0 log10 CFU/mL
-
MB + AU ~ 4.0 log10 CFU/mL
-
Ce6 and Ce6 + AU no significant results

E. faecium reduction
-
MB ~ 1.0 log10 CFU/mL
-
MB + AU ~ 3.0 log10 CFU/mL
-
Ce6 ~ 1.0 log10 CFU/mL
-
Ce6 + AU = total reduction
Le guern et al. 2018 [22] In vitro Polymyxin B modified by lysine 20 h 420 nm Porphyrin S. aureus
E. coli
P. aeruginosa
Suspension ND Reduced antibacterial activity of polymyxin modified by lysine.
Nakonieczana et al. 2018 [23] In vitro CAMEL
Pexiganan
668 s
1335 s
2668 s
514 nm Rose-bengal (RB) P. aeruginosa Suspension 3 Reduction by 2.06 log10 CFU/mL for RB + CAM.
Reduction by 6.00 log10 CFU/mL for RB + PEX.
Gao et al. 2019 [24] In vitro Magainin I 2 min
4 min
8 min
660 nm Magainin I + Chlorin e6 P. aeruginosa
S. aureus (methicillin resistant)
Biofilm ND P. aeruginosa
2 min (0.385 log10 CFU/mL reduction)
4 min (1.645 log10 CFU/mL reduction)
8 min (6.724 log10 CFU/mL reduction)
S. aureus
2 min (0.922 log10 CFU/mL reduction)
4 min (3.796 log10 CFU/mL reduction)
8 min (6.586 log10 CFU/mL reduction)
De Freitas et al. 2019 [13] In vitro AU (GLFDIIKKIAESF-NH2)
(AU)2K[(GLFDIIKKIAESF)2-k]
ND 664 nm Methylene blue
Chlorin e6
Enterococcus faecalis
S. aureus
E. faecium
Biofilm 9 Reducing the early biofilm stage
-
95.5%—(Ce6-aPDT + (AU)2K)
-
78%—Ce6-aPDT
-
30%—MB-aPDT + AU
-
20%—MB-aPDT
-
30%—AU
-
70%—(AU)2K)
Feese et al. 2019 [25 In vitro Alkyne 1-Zn
TMPYP
5, 15, and 30 min 400 to 700 nm Porphyrin Mycobacterium smegmatis Suspension   Inactivation of 4 Log10 CFU/mL when associated with porphyrin and 1-Zn.
Zhang et al. 2019 [26] In vitro (KLAKLAK)2(KLA) 5 min (in vivo)
10 min (in vitro)
660 nm PpIX
PPK = PpIX + (KLAKLAK)2(KLA)
S. aureus
E. coli
Suspension ND Inhibition rate
S. aureus = 100% for both PS
E. coli = 100% (PPK)/50% (PpIX)
Chu et al. 2021 [27] In vitro Bacitracin 5 and 30 min 610 nm Phthalocyanine E. coli
S. aureus
Suspension 9 High phototoxicity of the Peptide with PS.
The group without light 99% reduced.
Gao et al. 2021 [28] In vitro/in vivo PEGylated polypeptide 5 min 660 nm PEGylated polypeptide + Chlorin e6 P. aeruginosa Biofilm ND Total eradication of P. aeruginosa biofilms.
Judzewitsch et al. 2021 [29] In vitro ZnTTP-AC 30 min Green-light irradiation ZnTTP-AC S. aureus
P. aeruginosa
Suspension 3 4.5 log10 CFU/mL reduction for S. aureus.
Total reduction for P. aeruginosa.
Qiu et al. 2021 [a] [30] In vitro/in vivo GKRWWKWWR-RPLGVRG 5 min 660 nm GKRWWKWWR-RPLGVRG + Chlorin e6 S. aureus
E. coli
Suspension 3 Total reduction for S. aureus
90% reduction for E. coli
Qiu et al. 2021 [b] [31] In vitro/in vivo GKRWWKWWRR 10 min
20 min
30 min
660 nm GKRWWKWWRR + Chlorin e6 + AuNPs S. aureus
E. coli
Biofilm 3 S. aureus
10 min (~50% viability)
20 min (~20% viability)
30 min (~2.5% viability)
E. coli
10 min (~60% viability)
20 min (~42.5% viability)
30 min (~10% viability)

ND: not documented; s: seconds; min: minutes: h: hour; PS: photosensitizer; ~: approximately; MB: methylene blue; RB: rose-bengal; Ce6: chlorin e6.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/ijms23063226

Academic Video Service