| Literature DB >> 35983086 |
Yared Abate Getahun1, Destaw Asfaw Ali2, Bihonegn Wodajnew Taye3, Yismaw Alemie Alemayehu4.
Abstract
The emergence and spread of multidrug-resistant microbes become a serious threat to animal and human health globally because of their less responsiveness to conventional antimicrobial therapy. Multidrug-resistant microbial infection poses higher morbidity and mortality rate with significant economic losses. Currently, antimicrobial peptides and the CRISPR/Cas9 system are explored as alternative therapy to circumvent the challenges of multidrug-resistant organisms. Antimicrobial peptides are small molecular weight, cationic peptides extracted from all living organisms. It is a promising drug candidate for the treatment of multidrug-resistant microbes by direct microbial killing or indirectly modulating the innate immune system. The CRISPR/Cas9 system is another novel antimicrobial alternative used to manage multidrug-resistant microbial infection. It is a versatile gene-editing tool that uses engineered single guide RNA for targeted gene recognition and the Cas9 enzyme for the destruction of target nucleic acids. Both the CRISPR/Cas9 system and antimicrobial peptides were used to successfully treat nosocomial infections caused by ESKAPE pathogens, which developed resistance to various antimicrobials. Despite, their valuable roles in multidrug-resistant microbial treatments, both the antimicrobial peptides and the CRISPR/Cas systems have various limitations like toxicity, instability, and incurring high manufacturing costs. Thus, this review paper gives detailed explanations of the roles of the CRISPR/Cas9 system and antimicrobial peptides in circumventing the challenges of multidrug-resistant microbial infections, its limitation and prospects in clinical applications.Entities:
Keywords: CRISPR/cas system; antimicrobial peptides; clinical applications; multidrug-resistant organism
Year: 2022 PMID: 35983086 PMCID: PMC9379109 DOI: 10.2147/VMRR.S366533
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet Med (Auckl) ISSN: 2230-2034
Figure 1Alternative strategies to combat antimicrobial resistance. Data from Sharma et al.23
Figure 2Classification of antimicrobial peptides. Adapted from Huan Y, Kong Q, Mou H, Yi H. Antimicrobial peptides: classification, design, application and research progress in multiple fields. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:582779.32
FDA Approved Cell Wall and Cell Membrane Acting Antimicrobial Peptides
| Types of AMP | Mode of Application | Type of Microorganisms Acting On | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intravenous | Together with other antibiotics, used for the treatment of | [ | |
| Intravenous/intramuscular | MDR Gram-negative bacteria like | [ | |
| Oral | MDR Gram-positive bacteria like | [ | |
| Topical | MDR Gram positive bacteria: | [ | |
| Intravenous | [ | ||
| Subcutaneous | Prevent fusion of HIV-1 | [ | |
| Intravenous | Effective against | [ | |
| Oral | Hepatitis-C Virus | [ | |
| Intravenous | [ | ||
| Intravenous | MRSA, | [ |
Abbreviations: MDR, multidrug resistance; MRSA, multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; CoNS, coagulase negative Staphylococcus Species.
Antimicrobial Peptides Extracted from Animals and Effective Against Multidrug Resistant-Microbial Therapy
| Animal Species | Type of AMPs | Pathogen Treated | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bovine | Indolicidin | [ | |
| BMAMP-28 | Leishmaniasis, | [ | |
| Bovine Neutrophil β-Defensins (BNBD) | [ | ||
| Swine | SIAMP | IBV in chickens | [ |
| Protegrins (PG-1) | [ | ||
| Proline-Arginine-39 (PR-39) | [ | ||
| Sheep | SBD-1 | Variety of G. positive and G. negative bacteria | [ |
| Equine | Equine α and β Defensin | [ | |
| Fish | Hepcidins (LEAP-2) | [ | |
| Goat | ChMAP-28 | Extensive drug resistance microbes and cancer therapy | [ |
| Poultry | [ | ||
| CATH-1 and ABD1 | Various Gram-positive and negative bacteria | [ |
Abbreviations: BMAPs,bovine myeloid antimicrobial peptides; SIAMP, swine intestinal antimicrobial peptide; LEAP, liver expressed antimicrobial peptide; PG, protegrins; SBD, sheep beta-defensin; CATH, cathelicidins; ChMAP, Capra hircus myeloid antimicrobial peptides.
The Pros and Cons of Using the Different CRISPR-Cas9 Delivery Techniques
| Delivery System | Advantages | Disadvantages | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
Highly specific and reproducible Suitable for all types of CRISPR-Cas9 gene edition | Induce cell damage Require good human skills | [ | |
Suitable for all cell type Good cell transfection Can be applied in vitro and Suitable for all strategies of CRISPR-Cas9 | Induce cell death Cell transfection is not specific | [ | |
Effective for Cas9 and sgRNA delivery | Lower efficiency in primary cells Not suitable for in vivo applications | [ | |
High delivery efficiency Low cell death | Limited to in vitro use | [ | |
Simple and efficient method for in vivo transfection in small animals Highly efficient for transfecting the liver Suitable for all strategies of CRISPR-Cas9 | May cause damage to the heart, liver expansion and animal death Not suitable for large animals and clinical applications It is highly efficient for the liver but not for other organs | [ | |
Easy to prepare and Safe Suitable for all strategies of CRISPR-Cas9 | Low delivery efficiency | [ | |
Controllable size and architecture | Assembly is complicated Poor stability of the DNA carrier | [ | |
Good delivery efficiency | Potential toxicity in vivo at high concentrations | [ | |
High infection efficiency Safe Broad cell tropism | Limited packaging size. Difficulty in production | [ | |
High infection efficiency Large packing size and long-term gene expression | Potential for insertional mutagenesis | [ |