Antimicrobial efficacy and toxicity of novel CAMPs against P. aeruginosa infection in a murine skin wound infection model

• Main Authors: Ming Yang, Chunye Zhang, Sarah A. Hansen, William J. Mitchell, Michael Z. Zhang, Shuping Zhang
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2019-12-01
• Series: BMC Microbiology
• Subjects: Cationic antimicrobial peptides; Toxicity; Antimicrobial activity; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Mouse model; Skin infection
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-019-1657-6

Abstract Background Treatment of P. aeruginosa wound infection is challenging due to its inherent and acquired resistance to many conventional antibiotics. Cationic antimicrobial peptides (CAMPs) with distinct modes of antimicrobial action have been considered as the next-generation therapeutic agents. In the present study, a murine skin surgical wound infection model was used to evaluate the in vivo toxicity and efficacy of two newly designed antimicrobial peptides (CAMP-A and CAMP-B), as chemotherapeutic agents to combat P. aeruginosa infection. Results In the first trial, topical application of CAMPs on the wounds at a dose equivalent to 4 × MIC for 7 consecutive days did not cause any significant changes in the physical activities, hematologic and plasma biochemical parameters, or histology of systemic organs of the treated mice. Daily treatment of infected wounds with CAMP-A and CAMP-B for 5 days at a dose equivalent to 2× MIC resulted in a significant reduction in wound bacterial burden (CAMP-A: 4.3 log10CFU/g of tissue and CAMP-B: 5.8 log10CFU/g of tissue), compared to that of the mock-treated group (8.1 log10CFU/g of tissue). Treatment with CAMPs significantly promoted wound closure and induced epidermal cell proliferation. Topical application of CAMP-A on wounds completely prevented systemic dissemination of P. aeruginosa while CAMP-B blocked systemic infection in 67% of mice and delayed the onset of systemic infection by at least 2 days in the rest of the mice (33%). In a second trial, daily application of CAMP-A at higher doses (5× MIC and 50× MIC) didn’t show any significant toxic effect on mice and the treatments with CAMP-A further reduced wound bacterial burden (5× MIC: 4.5 log10CFU/g of tissue and 50× MIC: 3.8 log10CFU/g of tissue). Conclusions The data collectively indicated that CAMPs significantly reduced wound bacterial load, promoted wound healing, and prevented hepatic dissemination. CAMP-A is a promising alternative to commonly used antibiotics to treat P. aeruginosa skin infection.