Antibacterial efficacy of in-house designed cell-penetrating peptide against multi-drug resistant strains of Salmonella Enteritidis and Salmonella Typhimurium.

The in vitro antibacterial efficacy of an in-house designed cell-penetrating peptide (CPP) variant of Cecropin A (1-7)-Melittin (CAMA) (CAMA-CPP) against the characterized multi-drug resistant (MDR) field strains of Salmonella Enteritidis and Salmonella Typhimurium were evaluated and compared with two identified CPPs namely, P7 and APP, keeping CAMA as control. Initially, the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) (µg ml-1 ) of in-house designed CAMA-CPP, APP and CAMA was determined to be 3.91, whereas that of P7 was 7.81; however, the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of all the peptides were twice the MIC. CAMA-CPP and CAMA were found to be stable under different conditions (high-end temperatures, proteinase-K, cationic salts, pH and serum) when compared to the other CPPs. Moreover, CAMA-CPP exhibited negligible cytotoxicity in HEp-2 and RAW 264.7 cell lines as well as haemolysis in the sheep and human erythrocytes with no adverse effects against the commensal gut lactobacilli. In vitro time-kill assay revealed that the MBC levels of CAMA-CPP and APP could eliminate the intracellular MDR-Salmonella infections from mammalian cell lines; however, CAMA and P7 peptides were ineffective. CAMA-CPP appears to be a promising antimicrobial candidate and opens up further avenues for its in vivo clinical translation.

Development and comparative evaluation of droplet digital PCR and quantitative PCR for the detection and quantification of Chlamydia psittaci.

Chlamydia psittaci is a zoonotic pathogen mainly transmitted by psittacine birds and poultry. The low shedding rate of the pathogen in the apparently healthy birds and human clinical cases may result in false-negative results. In the present study, a droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) assay was developed and compared with optimized quantitative PCR (qPCR) for the detection of C. psittaci from the clinical samples. The ddPCR assay was found to be comparatively more sensitive than the qPCR, wherein the limit of detection (LOD) of ddPCR was upto 2.4 copies of the DNA template, whereas, the qPCR could detect upto 38 copies of the DNA template in the reaction mixture. Overall, the developed ddPCR assay was found to be robust, specific, and could reliably quantify up to 17.8 copies of the DNA template. Finally, the applicability of the developed ddPCR assay was tested by screening the field samples (n = 124), comprising lung tissues from dead poultry and feral birds; pooled faecal samples from the free-living birds, commercial and backyard poultry farms; pharyngeal and cloacal swabs collected from the duck farms. Of these, a total of seven samples were found to be positive by the ddPCR, whereas, three samples could be detected as positive using the qPCR. The developed ddPCR could serve as a reliable screening tool, particularly in those clinical samples wherein the shedding of C. psittaci is substantially very low.