The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Insect proteins as a potential source of antimicrobial peptides in livestock production. A review
Open accessAbstract
Together with the extraction of first insect antimicrobial protein (AMP) from the pupae of the giant silk moths Hyalophora cecropia the antibacterial activity of insects was observed for the first time in 1980.Practically, AMPs are small, cationic proteins that exhibit activity against bacteria, fungi as well as certain parasites and viruses.It is known that in addition to their antimicrobial effect, they boost host specific innate immune responses and exert selective immunomodulatory effects involved in angiogenesis and wound healing.More than 1,500 proteins with antimicrobial activity have been identified in different organisms, including plants, fungi, bacteria and animals.Insects are a primary source of AMPs which are considered as not resulting in the development of natural bacterial resistance.In general, they are characterized as heat-stable with no adverse effects on eukaryotic cells.These characteristics contribute to the potential use of these proteins in human and veterinary medicine and in animal nutrition.Depending on their mode of action, insect AMPs may be applied as single peptides, as a complex of different AMPs and as an active fraction of insect proteins in the nutrition of different livestock.The great potential for the use of AMPs in animal production is primarily associated with the growing problem of antibiotics resistance, which has triggered the search for alternatives to antibiotics in livestock production.The review presents the current knowledge of insect AMPs, their chemical structure and mode of action with focus on their potential use in agriculture and livestock production.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
State of the art on use of insects as animal feed.
Makkar, H. P. S., Tran, G., Heuzé, V., & Ankers, P. (2014) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.07.008 · Cited by 1,846
Anti-microbial peptides: from invertebrates to vertebrates
Bulet, P., Stöcklin, R., & Menin, L. (2004) · Immunological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.0105-2896.2004.0124.x · Cited by 1,107
Ouellette, A. J., Darmoul, D., Tran, D., Huttner, K. M., Yuan, J., & Selsted, M. E. (1999) · Infection and Immunity · doi:10.1128/iai.67.12.6643-6651.1999 · Cited by 56
Cited by
Insect meals in fish nutrition
Nogales‐Mérida, S., Gobbi, P., Józefiak, D., Mazurkiewicz, J., Dudek, K., Rawski, M., Kierończyk, B., & Józefiak, A. (2019) · Reviews in Aquaculture · doi:10.1111/raq.12281 · Cited by 361
Self-citationJózefiak, A., Nogales-Mérida, S., Rawski, M., Kierończyk, B., & Mazurkiewicz, J. (2019) · BMC Veterinary Research · doi:10.1186/s12917-019-2070-y · Cited by 93
Self-citationSypniewski, J., Kierończyk, B., Benzertiha, A., Mikołajczak, Z., Pruszyńska-Oszmałek, E., Kołodziejski, P., Sassek, M., Rawski, M., Czekała, W., & Józefiak, D. (2020) · British Poultry Science · doi:10.1080/00071668.2020.1716302 · Cited by 84
Metadata
- Authors
- Józefiak, A., & Engberg, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences
- Published
- 2017-05-15
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 87-99
- ISSN
- 1230-1388 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2618979271
- Cited by
- 176
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 8.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Insect proteins as a potential source of antimicrobial peptides in livestock production. A review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.22358/jafs/69998/2017
- The paper
- Józefiak, A., & Engberg, R. (2017). Insect proteins as a potential source of antimicrobial peptides in livestock production. A review. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences. https://doi.org/10.22358/jafs/69998/2017
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.