Peptide Stability Is Important but Not a General Requirement for Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Activity In Vitro and In Vivo.
Decker. Aaron P AP; Su. Yajuan Y; Mishra. Biswajit B; Verma. Atul A; Lushnikova. Tamara T; Xie. Jingwei J; Wang. Guangshun G
Key Findings
- Both GF‑17 and 17BIPHE2 kill planktonic bacteria with similar strength in vitro
- 17BIPHE2, which resists proteases, outperforms GF‑17 at breaking down established MRSA biofilms
- In a live insect model, 17BIPHE2 provides better protection against MRSA infection than GF‑17
- Embedding the peptides in nanofiber/microneedle devices protects them from degradation and makes both equally effective in mouse chronic‑wound healing
Practical Outcomes
- For DIY biohackers, the take‑away is that peptide stability matters mainly for biofilm and in‑vivo use, so choosing a protease‑resistant version or using a protective delivery system (like nanofiber patches) can boost effectiveness against stubborn infections. Simple topical applications without such protection may work in lab tests but could fail in real wounds.
Summary
The study shows that while both a natural fragment of LL‑37 (GF‑17) and a more stable engineered version (17BIPHE2) kill bacteria equally well in simple lab tests, the stable peptide works better against tough biofilm infections and protects insects from deadly MRSA. Using a nanofiber or microneedle patch can shield any peptide from breakdown, making even the less stable version effective in wound healing.
Abstract
Peptide stability to proteases has been a major requirement for developing peptide therapeutics. This study investigates the effects of peptide stability on antimicrobial and antibiofilm activity under various conditions. For this purpose, two human cathelicidin-derived peptides differing in stability to proteases were utilized. While GF-17, a peptide derived from the major antimicrobial region of human LL-37, can be rapidly cleaved by proteases, the engineered peptide 17BIPHE2 is resistant to multiple proteases. In the standard antimicrobial susceptibility, killing kinetics, and membrane permeabilization assays conducted in vitro using planktonic bacteria, these two peptides displayed similar potency. The two peptides were also similarly active against methicillin-resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> (MRSA) USA300 prior to biofilm formation. However, 17BIPHE2 was superior to GF-17 in disrupting preformed biofilms probably due to both enhanced stability and slightly higher DNA binding capacity. In a wax moth model, 17BIPHE2 better protected insects from MRSA infection-caused death than GF-17, consistent with the slower degradation of 17BIPHE2 than GF-17. Here, peptide antimicrobial activity was found to be critical for in vivo efficacy. When incorporated in the nanofiber/microneedle delivery device, GF-17 and 17BIPHE2 displayed a similar effect in eliminating MRSA in murine chronic wounds, underscoring the advantage of nanofibers in protecting the peptide from degradation. Since nanoformulation can ease the requirement of peptide stability, it opens the door to a direct use of natural peptides or their cocktails for antimicrobial treatment, accelerating the search of effective antibiofilm peptides to treat chronic wounds.
Study Information
pubmed
2022
2022-12-09T00:00:00.000Z
10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.2c00918
9
46