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 and 18% unstimulated larvae).
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.
Stimulating black soldier fly larvae raised the expression of the genes controlling the Cecropin family, Attacin-A, Defensin-A and Defensin-like peptide 4 antimicrobial peptides. The stimulation did not cause larval mortality.
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.
Supporting rationale
Research position
What the published literature says
IMBT's approach rests on a chain of ideas: that insect larvae make antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) when they meet bacteria, that this can be steered by the choice of bacterium and dose, and that material from stimulated larvae can help animals resist infection. Published work by independent groups supports the plausibility of each link. It does not replace IMBT's own results, which are reported above and in its patents.
- Black soldier fly larvae carry a rich set of AMP genes. Elhag et al. (2017) identified and characterised novel AMP genes from Hermetia illucens, and Xia et al. (2021) reviewed these peptides as an alternative to antibiotics in livestock farming.
- Bacterial exposure changes AMP expression in the larvae. Santori et al. (2025) and Shah et al. (2025) report altered AMP expression in black soldier fly larvae after bacterial challenge, with the response depending on dose and time, which is the principle behind IMBT's dose-selected method.
- Extract from immunised larvae can act against pathogens. Lee et al. (2020) found that an extract of larvae immunised with Lactobacillus casei had antibacterial activity against Salmonella, in line with IMBT's in vitro result against Campylobacter jejuni.
- Insect-derived material has benefited broilers. Park (2023) reported benefits from housefly larvae extract in broilers, and Dalmoro et al. (2023) reviewed black soldier fly and mealworm in poultry diets.
- Chickens have gut defence peptides that act against food-borne pathogens. van Dijk et al. (2007) showed that a chicken β-defensin expressed in the digestive tract has antimicrobial activity against food-borne pathogens. IMBT's patent work looks at related gut peptides such as gallinacin 11.
- The need is established. EFSA (2020) assessed feed and water additives among the control options for Campylobacter in broilers, where even modest reductions in gut load matter for human health.
The same literature shows why more work is needed, and we say so plainly. A rise in peptide gene expression does not always mean more active peptide (Dho et al., 2023). Wounding or diet alone can also change AMP expression (Santori et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2024), so careful controls matter. Too high a bacterial dose can kill the larvae (Shah et al., 2025). EFSA measures benefit in the reduction of Campylobacter load in the gut, so confirming IMBT's finding in larger, repeated trials is a natural next step. These are the questions IMBT's research partners would help answer.
References: Elhag O, et al. PLoS One 2017;12:e0169582, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169582. Xia J, et al. Animals 2021;11:1937, doi:10.3390/ani11071937. Santori D, et al. Insects 2025;16:692, doi:10.3390/insects16070692. Shah PN, et al. J Invertebr Pathol 2025;209:108272, doi:10.1016/j.jip.2025.108272. Lee K-S, et al. Insects 2020;11:704, doi:10.3390/insects11100704. Park S. Czech J Anim Sci 2023;68:44-51, doi:10.17221/168/2022-CJAS. Dalmoro YK, et al. Vet Sci 2023;10:702, doi:10.3390/vetsci10120702. van Dijk A, et al. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2007;51:912-922, doi:10.1128/AAC.00568-06. EFSA BIOHAZ Panel. EFSA J 2020;18:e06090, doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6090. Dho M, et al. Antibiotics 2023;12:952, doi:10.3390/antibiotics12060952. Liu S, et al. Insects 2024;15:872, doi:10.3390/insects15110872.
Founder's concept paper
Historical document, not evidence
The founder's concept paper, IMBT: Insect Antimicrobial Peptides, Science and Strategies, sets out the thinking behind IMBT: innate immunity as the body's first line of defence, antimicrobial peptides across insects, plants and mammals, and the case for natural peptide mixtures. It was written by Chris Leonard around 2007 (its most recent citations are from that year) and is published here as a historical record of the reasoning.
It is a concept paper, not a study. It contains no IMBT experimental data and predates the poultry study and every granted patent described on this site. It also discusses possible future applications, including in human health, as proposals for research. IMBT makes no human-health claims at the moment, and those ideas are not demonstrated results. Read the experimental findings in the Evidence section above.
Wider scientific context: the Gaia hypothesis revisited
Independent preprint, not peer-reviewed
IMBT's One Health Concept sits within a long scientific conversation about how living things and their environment depend on one another. One recent contribution is a paper by Carlos de Castro and Arthur Lauer (University of Valladolid, Spain) that revisits James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis. It proposes that the Earth's living and non-living parts can be understood as one self-regulating system, and sets out three principles, drawn from thermodynamics and symbiosis, that it says make such a system likely.
The paper does not discuss immunity, antimicrobial peptides or IMBT's work, and its authors are independent of IMBT. We share it as wider context for the thinking behind the One Health Concept, not as evidence for our own findings. A preprint is a draft released before formal peer review.
“I’m happy for you to use my document and paper and I agree with your research.”
Carlos de Castro works in applied physics, not immunology, so this provides a platform for planetary health, into which IMBT science and technology fits.
de Castro, C. and Lauer, A. (2025). The Gaia hypothesis revisited: Introducing an Organic Theory of Gaia. EGUsphere preprint, discussion started 11 April 2025. doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-1532. Copy shared unchanged under the CC BY 4.0 licence.
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 at the moment.
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.