Abstract
In recent years, the widespread use of antibiotics has caused many bacterial pathogens resistance to conventional antibiotics. Therefore, generation of new antibiotics to control and reduce the effects of these pathogens is urgently needed. Antimicrobial peptides and proteins are important members of the host defense system in eukaryotes. These peptides are potent, broad-spectrum antibiotics that demonstrate potential as novel and alternative therapeutic agents for the treatment of drug-resistant infections. Accordingly, we evaluated two hybrid peptides CM11 (WKLFKKILKVL-NH2) and CM15 (KWKLFKKIGAVLKVL-NH2) on five important pathogenic bacteria. These peptides are short cecropin–melittin hybrid peptides obtained through a sequence combination approach, which are highly effective to inhibit the growth of important pathogenic bacteria. The activity of these two cationic peptides (CM11 and CM15) in different concentrations (2–64 mg/L) was investigated against standard and clinical isolates of important hospital infection bacteria by measuring MIC, MBC, and bactericidal assay. These peptides demonstrated the same ranges of inhibitory values: The organisms in early 24 h were more susceptible to polycationic peptides (MIC: 8 mg/L and MBC 32 mg/L), but after 48 h the MIC and MBC remained constant for the CM11 peptide. Bactericidal assay showed that all bacteria strains did not have any growth in agar plates after 40 min. The result showed that these two peptides are more effective than other peptides.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) virtually form an essential part of the innate immune system of all forms of life [1–5]. During the last decades, AMPs have been widely studied, as they may become an alternative to conventional antibiotics, especially for the treatment of drug-resistant infections [6–8]. Hundreds of antimicrobial peptides have been isolated and several thousands have been de novo designed and synthetically produced. They display a wide range of biological activities against bacteria, fungi, protozoa, enveloped viruses, and even tumor cells [9–16].
Many different peptide antibiotics have been identified, including defensins [17], insect cecropins [18], magainins, and melittin [19]. Cecropins and melittin belong to the group of antimicrobial peptides that exist in a random-coil configuration in aqueous solutions but adopt a helix-turn-helix structure upon interaction with membranes [20, 21]. Cecropins, first isolated from the hemolymph of the giant silk moth Hyalophora cecropia, are some of the best studied antimicrobial peptides. These peptides are composed of 31–39 amino acids with antibacterial activity against both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria but Gram-negative bacteria are generally more sensitive. Cecropins do not exhibit cytotoxic effects against human erythrocytes and other eukaryotic cells, but are susceptible to protease degradation [22, 23]. Also melittin, which is a linear 26-residue noncell-selective antimicrobial peptide, is isolated from the venom of European honey bee, Apis mellifera. Melittin displays strong lytic activity against bacteria and human red blood cells. Both of these peptides have one amphipathic α-helix and one hydrophobic α-helix, but the order of these helices in the two peptides is inverted.
To overcome the high production costs of such long peptides and to improve their biological properties and reduce toxicity, short peptide analogs have been designed and synthesized. Studies in this field led to the identification of nontoxic and more stable peptide sequences displaying a broader and higher activity than their natural counterparts including cecropin–melittin hybrid peptides that possess the amphipathic N-terminal α-helix of cecropin followed by the hydrophobic N-terminal α-helix of melittin [24, 25]. These peptides have been shown to have a broad range of antibacterial activity against both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria with lower cytotoxic activity for mammalian cells [25].
A hybrid cecropin–melittin is one of them consisting of seven residues from 1 to 7 residues in the first segment of cecropin A and 8 residues from 2 to 9 of melittin, which was identified as the minimal sequence that has an antimicrobial effect. This recombinant peptide was named CM15 and like the native cecropin has two parts that consists of a highly basic N-terminal domain from cecropin A and relatively hydrophobic C-terminal domain from melittin [24].
In similar to CM15, WKLFKKILKVL-NH2 (pep3), a hybrid peptide derived from 2 to 8 cecropin A residues and from 6 to 9 residues of melittin with two parts that consists of a highly basic N-terminal domain from cecropin A and relatively hydrophobic C-terminal domain from melittin has been found to be sufficient for antifungal and antibacterial activities, while displaying low cytotoxicity [24, 26].
The mechanism of bactericidal activity by these peptides has not been firmly identified, but it has been suggested that the bactericidal process is occurred. Studies have shown that cationic peptides cross the outer membrane by the self-promoted uptake pathway. In this pathway, cationic compounds displace the divalent cations that form stabilizing cross bridges between adjacent lipopolysaccharide (LPS) molecules. This results in a localized outer membrane perturbation through which the cationic compound is taken up, following this process, disruption of the cytoplasmic membrane occurs that leads to bacterial cell death. This process do not have a specific receptor, but the distortion of bilayer is occurred by disruption or pore formation via direct interaction with cell membrane [27]. In addition, the antimicrobial peptides have anti-endotoxic properties that comes from their ability to contact with the anionic and amphipathic nature of lipid A in LPS structure of Gram-negative bacteria [28]. During the last decades, resistance to most of the clinically available antimicrobial agents has emerged among several pathogens. Today antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Vibrio cholerae, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Escherichia coli are important hospital infection problem as an emerging cause of antimicrobial treatments failure and an increasing problem in community-acquired infections. In the hospital environment, antibiotic resistance to a variety of agents classes other than lactams is responsible for many life-threatening infections [29]. The species belonging to the A. baumannii and P. aeruginosa complexes act as causative agents for a wide variety of clinical conditions [30, 31]. It is particularly insidious in intensive care units, where the use of invasive devices, broad-spectrum antibiotics, and prolonged stay patient are associated with high morbidity and mortality rates [32–34].
Acinetobacter species and P. aeruginosa have shown an outstanding capacity to develop resistance against common antibiotics such as carbapenems and other broad-spectrum.
β-lactams, tetracyclines, fluoroquinolones, and aminoglycosides through a wide variety of mechanisms. This has led to a practical exhaustion in the repertoire of active antibiotics, including imipenem, which until recently was considered the gold standard for Acinetobacter treatment [26].
Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) is responsible for a large proportion of nosocomial infections that makes treatment difficult due to the increasing resistance to multiple antibiotics [35]. Also E. coli is an important nosocomial pathogen that causes both community and nosocomial urinary tract infection (UTI) [36]. Vibrio cholerae is a water- and foodborne organism that can cause acute watery diarrhea, vomiting, severe dehydration and death. Similar to other pathogenic bacteria that resist to various antibiotics, V. cholerae strains have been isolated from both clinical and environmental place [37].
As mentioned previously, the resistance of pathogenic bacteria to various antibiotics are expanded, thus it appears that utilizing alternative agents are necessary to eliminate resistant pathogenic bacteria.
In this work, we determined the activity of selected cecropin–melittin CM11 (WKLFKKILKVL-NH2) and CM15 (KWKLFKKIGAVLKVL-NH2) hybrid peptides against five selected clinical strains of hospital infection with the different degrees of antibiotic resistance and compared CM11 and CM15 with each other. This work is the first step toward the in vitro assay of these peptides as an alternative to antibiotics.
Materials and Methods
Peptide Synthesis
The CM15 and CM11 hybrid peptides were synthesized as a C-terminal carboxamide on a Rink p-methylbenzhydrylamine resin by the solid-phase synthesis method using standard method [38]. The peptides were purified by reversed-phase semipreparative HPLC on C18 Tracer column using a linear gradient from 10 to 60% acetonitrile in water with 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid over 50 min. The peptides were obtained with >95% HPLC purity. Electrospray ionization mass spectrometry was used to confirm peptide identity.
The in vitro activity of two cationic peptides, CM15 (KWKLFKKIGAVLKVL-NH2) and CM11 (WKLFKKILKVL-NH2) was separately investigated in different concentrations (2 to 128 mg/L) against five standard strains and clinical isolates by the standard method of macro dilution. Antimicrobial activities were measured by MIC, MBC, and bactericidal assay.
Bacterial Strains
The control strains P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853, V. cholerae ATCC 11623, A. baumannii ATCC 17978, S. aureus subsp. aureus ATCC 33592, E. coli ATCC 43890 and 40 clinical isolates of P. aeruginosa, 30 clinical isolates of V. cholerae, 30 clinical isolates of A. baumannii, 40 clinical isolates of S. aureus, 40 clinical isolates of E. coli were tested. All clinical isolates used in this experiment have received from clinical microbiology laboratories and were confirmed by criteria laboratory control tests in these laboratories.
Antibiotic Resistance Assay
The agar disk diffusion test was used for investigating antibiotic resistance. The tests were carried out in Mueller–Hinton agar using 0.2 mL of inoculums (108 cells/mL) and special antibiotic disks were selected according to the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS 2010, Table 1) [39]. The rate of antimicrobial resistance was determined by measuring the diameter of inhibition zone disk.
Peptide Soluble Preparation
The peptides were solubilized in phosphate-buffered saline (pH 7.2) to yield 1 mg/mL solution.
MIC and MBC Determinations
To measure antibacterial activity of CM15 and CM11 peptides, minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined using a broth macro dilution method with Mueller–Hinton broth and an initial inoculum of ~5 × 105 CFU/mL according to the procedures outlined by the NCCLS. Bacterial cultures with different peptide concentrations from 2 to 128 mg/L were incubated in a shaking bath for 18 h at 37 °C. The lowest peptides concentration that inhibited bacterial growth was considered minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC). The minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC) was taken as the lowest concentration of each drug that resulted in more than 99.9% reduction in the initial inoculums. Experiments were performed in triplicate.
Bacterial Killing Assay
Tubes containing freshly prepared Mueller–Hinton broth supplemented with minimal inhibitory concentration of CM15 and CM11 peptides were inoculated with standard and clinical strains to a density of ~5 × 105 CFU/mL and incubated in a shaking bath at 37 °C. Aliquots were removed after 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 min. Samples were diluted serially and plated on Mueller–Hinton agar plates to obtain viable colonies.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was done by SPSS 15.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago,IL). The data in each figure was a representative of three independent experiments expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD). The level of significance was determined at p < 0.05.
Results
Antibiotic Resistance Assay
To evaluate the antibiotic resistance of bacteria strains, we investigated the growth inhibitory effect of selected antibiotics on bacteria by measuring the diameter of inhibition zone around each antibiotic disk. Results were analyzed by NCCLS standards for each strain and relate antibiotics. Selection of the bacterial strains with highest resistance pattern was used after antibiogram test; results are summarized in Table 1.
MIC and MBC Determination
The peptides demonstrated same ranges of inhibitory values: the organisms in early 24 h were more susceptible to polycationic peptides (MIC: 4 mg/L and MBC 16 mg/L), but after 48 h, the MIC and MBC remained constant for the shorter peptide (CM11), the other peptide (CM15) was increased to two times. The MIC and MBC results are summarized in the Table 2.
Bacterial Killing Assay
Viable counts of S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, V. cholerae, A. baumannii, and E. coli treated with two CM11 and CM15 peptides are shown in Fig. 1a and b.
The time-kill curve was determined for the survival of five bacterial strains after challenge with the MIC of CM11 (Fig. 1a) and CM15 (Fig. 1b) peptides. The viable bacterial concentration decreased between 0 and 10 min and reached a plateau between 10 and 20 min, during the treatment with the MIC of peptides CM11 and CM15. There was a statistically significant difference between test and control groups (p < 0.05).
For each time, two peptides showed similar bactericidal effect, but reducing bacterial cell between times was more tangible for CM11 peptide. Also for A. baumannii and E. coli, bactericidal activity was completed after a 30 min, but it was completed for other bacteria after a 40 min.
Discussion
The activity of cationic antimicrobial peptides has been mainly connected to their interaction with membranes. The studies proved that for many of these peptides, membrane disruption is the primary mechanism of bactericidal activity [15, 40].
Antimicrobial cationic peptides play a significant role in host defenses and are now being considered for use as therapeutic agents, it is necessary to understand how these peptides work. Some studies have shown the ability of these peptides to form channels in lipid bilayer membranes [41]. In contrast, few studies have dealt with the issue of how these peptides interact with and cross the barrier of outer membrane in Gram-negative bacteria. The self-promoted uptake pathway that was originally proposed to be used by the cationic antibiotics polymyxin B and gentamicin was also suggested as the mechanism of uptake for the defensins macrophage cationic proteins 1 and 2 across the outer membrane of P. aeruginosa [42, 43]. Elucidating their mechanism of action and their specific membrane damaging properties are crucial for the rational design of novel antibiotic peptides with high antibacterial activity and low cytotoxicity [15].
In this study, we tested two small peptides (CM11 and CM15) against five important hospital infection strains of bacteria. Our results showed that these peptides are highly active against clinical isolates of S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, V. cholerae, A. baumannii, and E. coli. It seems that CM11 and CM15 similar to many cationic peptides might act by interaction with bacteria cell membrane and initiate the activity of bacterial lysis leading to the damage of cytoplasmic membrane structure [29].
To obtain MIC and MBC, peptides were used at low to high concentration to find the concentration that inhibits bacterial growth in broth and agar cultures, respectively. Results showed the MIC and MBC of CM15 and CM11 peptides against the clinical isolates were significantly increased in comparison with standard controls. According to the bacteriostatic effect of antibacterial agents in MIC, we found that in the minimal inhibitory concentration of these peptides, the bacteria challenged with CM11 between 24 and 48 h have not grown, but the bacteria challenged with CM15 have grown at the same time. However, CM11 peptide is more effective than CM15 peptide in first 48 h; moreover, minimum bacterial growth inhibition in both peptides was the same. Time-killing curves were used to evaluate the antibacterial activities of CM15 and CM11 peptide.
Giacometti et al. (2004) investigated the antibacterial activity of CM15 peptide on clinical isolates of S. aureus [29]. Their results showed that all isolates were inhibited by CM15 at concentrations of 1–16 mg/L, with MIC50 of 4 mg/L and MIC90 of 8 mg/L. For the control strain of S. aureus, peptide exhibited MIC and MBC of 2 and 4 mg/L, respectively, which are similar to our results. Also bacteria’s killing by CM15 was completed after 20 min at a concentration of 8 mg/L, while our results showed that bactericidal activity by CM15 and CM11 peptides were completed after 30 min at a concentration of 4 mg/L for S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, and V. cholerae and for A. baumannii and E. coli after 40 min.
Rodriguez-Hernandez et al. [44] and Saugar et al. [26] reported the antibacterial activity of several peptides on clinical isolates of A. baumannii, among these peptides CM15 was used for antibacterial activity test [26, 43]. Their results showed that MIC for 3 standard strains of A. baumannii is 2 mg/L that is half of peptide concentration in our standard test, also in this research, results of clinical isolates showed a MIC range between 4 and 64 mg/L for CM15 peptide and 2–32 mg/L for CM11 peptide, which demonstrated that the clinical isolates are lower sensitive to CM15 peptide.
Also Ferre et al. [45] studied the antibacterial activity of CM11 (Pep3) peptide and 22 new analogs against the plant phytopathogenic bacteria Erwinia amylovora, Xanthomonas vesicatoria and Pseudomonas syringae. Their results showed that 10 to 14 mg/L concentration of CM11 was operative on three bacteria.
These different levels of bacterial susceptibility to antibacterial peptides with different amino acid sequences have been attributed to the variation in the plasma membranes components of target microorganism, for example, charge and lipid composition, which would influence the rates of binding of cationic peptides to the membranes.
In summary, the present study demonstrated that small peptides (CM11, CM15) have significant activity against clinical isolates of S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, V. cholerae, A. baumannii, and E. coli in vitro. We hope that these findings will lead to new treatment strategies for the eradication of resistance hospital infections, which is closely associated with persistent hospital environment.
References
Brogden KA, Ackermann M, McCray PB Jr, Tack BF (2003) Antimicrobial peptides in animals and their role in host defences. Int J Antimicrob Agents 22(5):465–478
Bulet P, Stocklin R, Menin L (2004) Anti-microbial peptides: from invertebrates to vertebrates. Immunol Rev 198:169–184
Otvos L Jr (2000) Antibacterial peptides isolated from insects. J Pept Sci 6(10):497–511
Zasloff M (2002) Antimicrobial peptides of multicellular organisms. Nature 415(6870):389–395
Wang J, Wong ES, Whitley JC, Li J, Stringer JM, Short KR, Renfree MB, Belov K, Cocks BG (2011) Ancient antimicrobial peptides kill antibiotic-resistant pathogens: Australian mammals provide new options. PLoS ONE 6(8):e24030
Hancock RE, Patrzykat A (2002) Clinical development of cationic antimicrobial peptides: from natural to novel antibiotics. Curr Drug Targets Infect Disord 2(1):79–83
Hancock RE, Sahl HG (2006) Antimicrobial and host-defense peptides as new anti-infective therapeutic strategies. Nat Biotechnol 24(12):1551–1557
Gordon YJ, Romanowski EG, McDermott AM (2005) A review of antimicrobial peptides and their therapeutic potential as anti-infective drugs. Curr Eye Res 30(7):505–515
Boman HG (2003) Antibacterial peptides: basic facts and emerging concepts. J Intern Med 254(3):197–215
Jenssen H, Hamill P, Hancock RE (2006) Peptide antimicrobial agents. Clin Microbiol Rev 19(3):491–511
Montesinos E (2007) Antimicrobial peptides and plant disease control. FEMS Microbiol Lett 270(1):1–11
Zhang L, Falla TJ (2006) Antimicrobial peptides: therapeutic potential. Expert Opin Pharmacother 7(6):653–663
Brogden KA (2005) Antimicrobial peptides: pore formers or metabolic inhibitors in bacteria? Nat Rev Microbiol 3(3):238–250
Yeaman MR, Yount NY (2003) Mechanisms of antimicrobial peptide action and resistance. Pharmacol Rev 55(1):27–55
Ferre R, Melo MN, Correia AD, Feliu L, Bardaji E, Planas M, Castanho M (2009) Synergistic effects of the membrane actions of cecropin-melittin antimicrobial hybrid peptide BP100. Biophys J 96(5):1815–1827
Gentilucci L, Tolomelli A, Squassabia F (2006) Peptides and peptidomimetics in medicine, surgery and biotechnology. Curr Med Chem 13(20):2449–2466
Lehrer RI, Lichtenstein AK, Ganz T (1993) Defensins: antimicrobial and cytotoxic peptides of mammalian cells. Annu Rev Immunol 11:105–128
Boman HG, Faye I, Gudmundsson GH, Lee JY, Lidholm DA (1991) Cell-free immunity in Cecropia. A model system for antibacterial proteins. Eur J Biochem 201(1):23–31
Zasloff M (1987) Magainins, a class of antimicrobial peptides from Xenopus skin: isolation, characterization of two active forms, and partial cDNA sequence of a precursor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 84(15):5449–5453
Dempsey CE (1990) The actions of melittin on membranes. Biochim Biophys Acta 1031(2):143–161
Steiner H (1982) Secondary structure of the cecropins: antibacterial peptides from the moth H. cecropia. FEBS Lett 137(2):283–287
Moore AJ, Beazley WD, Bibby MC, Devine DA (1996) Antimicrobial activity of cecropins. J Antimicrob Chemother 37(6):1077–1089
Tamang DG, Saier MH Jr (2006) The cecropin superfamily of toxic peptides. J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol 11(1–2):94–103
Andreu D, Ubach J, Boman A, Wahlin B, Wade D, Merrifield RB, Boman HG (1992) Shortened cecropin. A-melittin hybrids significant size reduction retains potent antibiotic activity. FEBS Lett 296(2):190–194
Wade D, Andreu D, Mitchell SA, Silveira AM, Boman A, Boman HG, Merrifield RB (1992) Antibacterial peptides designed as analogs or hybrids of cecropins and melittin. Int J Pept Protein Res 40(5):429–436
Saugar JM, Rodriguez-Hernandez MJ, de la Torre BG, Pachon-Ibanez ME, Fernandez-Reyes M, Andreu D, Pachon J, Rivas L (2006) Activity of cecropin A-melittin hybrid peptides against colistin-resistant clinical strains of A. baumannii: molecular basis for the differential mechanisms of action. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 50(4):1251–1256
Christensen B, Fink J, Merrifield RB, Mauzerall D (1988) Channel-forming properties of cecropins and related model compounds incorporated into planar lipid membranes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 85(14):5072–5076
David SA (2001) Towards a rational development of anti-endotoxin agents: novel approaches to sequestration of bacterial endotoxins with small molecules. J Mol Recognit 14:370–387
Giacometti A, Cirioni O, Kamysz W, D’Amato G, Silvestri C, Simona Del Prete M, Lukasiak J, Scalise G (2004) In vitro activity and killing effect of the synthetic hybrid cecropin A-melittin peptide CA(1–7)M(2–9)NH(2) on methicillin-resistant nosocomial isolates of S. aureus and interactions with clinically used antibiotics. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 49(3):197–200
Jarvis WR (2003) Epidemiology and control of P. aeruginosa infections in the intensive care unit. In: Hauser AR, Rello J (eds) Severe infections caused by P. aeruginosa. Kluwer Academic, Boston
Cisneros JM, Rodriguez-Bano J (2002) Nosocomial bacteremia due to A. baumannii : epidemiology, clinical features and treatment. Clin Microbiol Infect 8(11):687–693
Richards MJ, Edwards JR, Culver DH, Gaynes RP (1999) Nosocomial infections in medical intensive care units in the United States. National nosocomial infections surveillance system. Crit Care Med 27(5):887–892
Navon-Venezia S, Ben-Ami R, Carmeli Y (2005) Update on P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii infections in the healthcare setting. Curr Opin Infect Dis 18(4):306–313
Van Looveren M, Goossens H (2004) Antimicrobial resistance of Acinetobacter spp. in Europe. Clin Microbiol Infect 10(8):684–704
Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE, Daum RS, Fridkin SK, Gorwitz RJ, Kaplan SL, Karchmer AW, Levine DP, Murray BE MJR, Talan DA, Chambers HF (2011) Clinical practice guidelines by the infectious diseases society of america for the treatment of methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections in adults and children: executive summary. Clin Infect Dis 52(3):285–292
Bean DC, Krahe D, Wareham DW (2008) Antimicrobial resistance incommunity and nosocomial E. coli urinary tract isolates, London 2005–2006. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 7:13
Kitaoka M, Miyata ST, Unterweger D, Pukatzki S (2011) Antibiotic resistance mechanisms of Vibrio cholera. J Med Microbiol 60(4):397–407
Badosa E, Ferre R, Planas M, Feliu L, Besalu E, Cabrefiga J, Bardaji E, Montesinos E (2007) A library of linear undecapeptides with bactericidal activity against phytopathogenic bacteria. Peptides 28(12):2276–2285
National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (2010) Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically: Approved standard M7-A6. Villanova, PA
Bechinger B (2004) Structure and function of membrane-lytic peptides. Crit Rev Plant Sci 23:271–292
Vogel H, Jahnig F (1986) The structure of melittin in membranes. Biophys J 50(4):573–582
Piers KL, Brown MH, Hancock RE (1994) Improvement of outer membrane-permeabilizing and lipopolysaccharide-binding activities of an antimicrobial cationic peptide by C-terminal modification. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 38(10):2311–2316
Sawyer JG, Martin NL, Hancock RE (1988) Interaction of macrophage cationic proteins with the outer membrane of P. aeruginosa. Infect Immun 56(3):693–698
Rodriguez-Hernandez MJ, Saugar J, Docobo-Perez F, de la Torre BG, Pachon-Ibanez ME, Garcia-Curiel A, Fernandez-Cuenca F, Andreu D, Rivas L, Pachon J (2006) Studies on the antimicrobial activity of cecropin A-melittin hybrid peptides in colistin-resistant clinical isolates of A. baumannii. J Antimicrob Chemother 58(1):95–100
Ferre R, Badosa E, Feliu L, Planas M, Montesinos E, Bardaji E (2006) Inhibition of plant-pathogenic bacteria by short synthetic cecropin A-melittin hybrid peptides. Appl Environ Microbiol 72(5):3302–3308
Acknowledgments
We thank from clinical microbiology laboratory of Baqiyatallah, Khatam al anbia and Shahid motahari hospitals for preparing bacterial strains.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Moghaddam, M.M., Abolhassani, F., Babavalian, H. et al. Comparison of in vitro antibacterial activities of two cationic peptides CM15 and CM11 against five pathogenic bacteria: Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Vibrio cholerae, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Escherichia coli . Probiotics & Antimicro. Prot. 4, 133–139 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-012-9098-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-012-9098-7