Advanced antimicrobial solutions for poultry and egg production, ensuring food safety and animal welfare
With antibiotic use in livestock now restricted to prescription-only across the US and Canada, the agricultural industry urgently needs effective alternatives. Amphoraxe is developing antimicrobial peptides tailored for poultry and egg production.
Our solutions help maintain animal health and food safety without contributing to antimicrobial resistance, supporting sustainable farming practices and protecting global food supply chains.
Five peptides tested in challenge and pen trials were evaluated in-vitro against two avian pathogens — avian pathogenic E. coli (APEC 317) and Salmonella Enteritidis (LS101) — along with safety assessments using pig red blood cells and HEK293 cells.
Shorter bar = lower MIC = more potent
APEC 317 (E. coli)
Gram −LS101 (S. Enteritidis)
Gram −*MIC values are minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values (µg/mL) across all experiments conducted. MIC90 = concentration inhibiting 90% of isolates. MDR = multidrug-resistant. HC50/CC50 values indicate the concentration at which 50% hemolysis or cytotoxicity occurs — higher values indicate greater safety margins.
Sources: 1 Jeong J et al. (2021). Microorganisms 9(5):946. PMC: 8145765 · 2 Bhattarai RK et al. (2024). Vet World 17(2):480-499. PMID: 38595648 · 3 Johar A et al. (2021). Antibiotics 10(5):564. PMID: 34064966 · 4 Yu X et al. (2021). Poult Sci 100(2):1016-1023. PMID: 33518060 · 5 EFSA/ECDC (2025). EFSA J 23(3):e9237. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9237 · 6 Redgrave LS et al. (2014). Trends Microbiol 22(8):438-445. PMID: 24842194
Five antimicrobial peptides were tested in challenge and pen trials against two avian pathogens — avian pathogenic E. coli (APEC 317) and Salmonella Enteritidis (LS101).
Unlike conventional antibiotics that target specific molecular pathways, antimicrobial peptides disrupt bacterial membranes through physical interaction. This fundamental difference in mechanism is central to our research focus:
HC50 & CC50 values 3–100× above MIC in our experiments — wide safety margin for host cells
Membrane-targeting mechanism makes resistance evolution fundamentally difficult
4 of 5 peptides show activity against both APEC and Salmonella Enteritidis in our experiments
Bars represent relative potency (1/MIC) normalized to the most potent peptide per pathogen. MIC values are minimum inhibitory concentration (µg/mL) across all experiments conducted.
MDR = multidrug-resistant.
Sources: 2 Bhattarai RK et al. (2024). Vet World 17(2):480-499. PMID: 38595648 · 3 Johar A et al. (2021). Antibiotics 10(5):564. PMID: 34064966 · 4 Yu X et al. (2021). Poult Sci 100(2):1016-1023. PMID: 33518060 · 5 EFSA/ECDC (2025). EFSA J 23(3):e9237. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9237
Five antimicrobial peptides were tested in challenge and pen trials against two avian pathogens — avian pathogenic E. coli (APEC 317) and Salmonella Enteritidis (LS101). Below are our candidates ranked by minimum inhibitory concentration.
Shorter bar = lower MIC = more potent
APEC 317 (E. coli)
Gram −LS101 (S. Enteritidis)
Gram −MIC values are minimum inhibitory concentration (µg/mL) across all experiments. HC50/CC50 values indicate the concentration at which 50% hemolysis or cytotoxicity occurs — higher values indicate greater safety margins.
Low toxicity: All candidates show HC50 & CC50 values of 128–140 µg/mL — far above their effective MIC concentrations, providing wide therapeutic windows.
Low resistance risk: AMPs target bacterial membranes through physical disruption, making resistance development fundamentally more difficult than with conventional antibiotics.
Antibiotic-free production: Peptide-based solutions support the industry’s transition away from conventional antibiotics in poultry and egg production, meeting regulatory and consumer demand.
Our discovery platform has identified 5 antimicrobial peptides with potent activity against the two primary avian pathogens responsible for poultry disease and foodborne illness. By selecting the best-performing candidates against each pathogen, we are developing targeted treatment solutions.
Pipeline Summary
Product Strategy
Our top-performing peptides against the two primary avian pathogens, ranked by minimum inhibitory concentration. Four of five candidates show dual-pathogen activity at low MIC values.
Shorter bar = lower MIC = more potent
APEC 317 (E. coli)
Gram −LS101 (S. Enteritidis)
Gram −MIC values are minimum inhibitory concentration (µg/mL) across all experiments conducted.
Conventional antibiotics are losing effectiveness against common avian pathogens. With antibiotic use now restricted to prescription-only, the poultry industry urgently needs alternatives that do not contribute to antimicrobial resistance.
Antibiotic Resistance Landscape
The AMP Advantage
Sources: 1 Jeong J et al. (2021). Microorganisms 9(5):946. PMC: 8145765 · 2 Bhattarai RK et al. (2024). Vet World 17(2):480-499. PMID: 38595648 · 3 Johar A et al. (2021). Antibiotics 10(5):564. PMID: 34064966 · 4 Yu X et al. (2021). Poult Sci 100(2):1016-1023. PMID: 33518060 · 5 EFSA/ECDC (2025). EFSA J 23(3):e9237. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9237
Interested in co-developing antimicrobial peptides for agricultural applications?
Get in Touch