Home / Science & Evidence
Science & Evidence
What has been shown, how, and where the limits are.
We separate demonstrated results from IMBT's research position and from potential applications. This page sets out the findings, the study behind them, and what would make the evidence stronger.
How to read this site.
Measured in experiments, with the result and its limits stated.
A method IMBT has legal protection for. Protection is not proof of effect.
IMBT's scientific reasoning. Plausible, not yet established.
Where the work may be relevant. Not shown.
The key study
Campylobacter in broiler chicks.
Campylobacter jejuni is a leading cause of foodborne illness and is carried in the gut of poultry. The study asked whether feeding stimulated larvae changed colonisation after a deliberate oral challenge.
- Day 0
Diets begin
Day-old Ross broiler chicks are given commercial crumb with 10% added: soya meal (control), unstimulated larvae, or stimulated larvae.
- Day 3
Challenge
Birds are infected orally with C. jejuni (about 105 colony-forming units).
- Day 8
Measure
Caeca are examined for Campylobacter, lactic acid bacteria and enterobacteria. A separate analysis measures gut peptide expression.
Stimulated larvae vs soya control: significant at P<0.05.
Result
Feeding stimulated larvae significantly reduced the number of birds colonised by Campylobacter compared with the soya control. The significant effect is reported for the stimulated-larvae diet; unstimulated larvae (18% free) sat close to the control.
Lactic acid bacteria and enterobacteria were not significantly changed between groups, in the sampling reported.
Carried out under the supervision of Dr Tristan Cogan at the University of Bristol Veterinary School, and reported in IMBT's granted US patent documentation. Group sizes and full statistics are available on request.
Evidence at a glance
Every demonstrated finding, with its limits.
Bacterial exposure raised larval antimicrobial peptide expression up to thirty-fold.
Live or dead bacteria can be used, with no effect on larval feed consumption or final weight.
Different bacterial doses favour different peptides (diptericin at high doses, sapecin at low).
Powder from stimulated larvae (1% w/v) killed C. jejuni over three hours; unstimulated powder did not (P=0.0015).
Fewer birds colonised with Campylobacter after feeding stimulated larvae (41% free vs 13% soya control).
Higher Gallinacin 11 expression in the chick caecal tonsil on stimulated larvae than on unstimulated larvae (P=0.0007).
No significant change in lactic acid bacteria or enterobacteria.
Lower IL-10 expression in the chick gut-associated tissue on stimulated larvae than on the soya control; IL-1β and IL-6 did not differ significantly.
Background science
The concepts, in plain English.
Innate immunity
The body's fast, general first line of defence. It recognises broad features of pathogens and responds within hours, without needing to have met them before.
Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs)
Small proteins made by almost all living things as part of innate defence. They can disrupt microbial membranes and interfere with microbial processes, and some also signal to other immune cells.
Adaptive immunity
The slower, targeted response that builds antibodies and immune memory over days.
Immune regulation
The balancing of immune responses so they are strong enough to control infection without causing damage. Signals such as interleukin-10 (IL-10) act as brakes. Some pathogens interfere with this balance to avoid detection.
Research position IMBT's interest in how supplied peptides might support immune regulation is a line of research, not an established result.
What would strengthen the evidence
The natural next steps.
The results so far are encouraging and specific. Anyone assessing the technology should also see where the gaps are. The questions we would expect a rigorous partner to want answered include:
- Independent replication of the poultry result, ideally across several flocks and Campylobacter strains.
- Dose and duration studies to define the optimal inclusion rate and feeding period.
- Other species and pathogens beyond broilers and Campylobacter.
- Characterisation of the peptide profile in the final product, and its consistency between batches.
- Safety and regulatory data appropriate to each intended use.
- Follow-up on IL-10: measuring it as protein as well as gene expression, in more tissues and over time, to establish what the change means.
- Peer-reviewed publication of the findings.
These are exactly the areas where research and development partners can add the most value.
Technical documentation
Available on request.
For serious enquirers we can share:
- Full study design, group sizes and statistical analysis for the poultry work.
- Larval peptide-expression and dose-response data.
- IMBT's technical background notes on antimicrobial peptide science.
- Detail on IMBT's protected intellectual property.
Common questions
Evidence FAQ.
What has IMBT's research demonstrated?
Larval peptide expression rose up to thirty-fold after bacterial exposure. Powder from stimulated larvae killed C. jejuni in the laboratory, and in a broiler chick study fewer birds were colonised and the chicks' own gut peptide expression rose.
Has this been tested in humans?
No. The demonstrated results are laboratory and poultry findings. IMBT makes no human-health claims.
Has the work been peer reviewed?
The poultry results are reported in IMBT's patent documentation. Independent replication and peer-reviewed publication are natural next steps, and we welcome research partners who can help.
Does this replace antibiotics?
No. IMBT does not make that claim. The work is investigated as a way of supporting an animal's own defences.
Work with us
Want to help test, replicate or extend this work? IMBT is looking for research and development partners.