Abstract
The human gut microbiome encodes a large variety of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), but the short lengths of AMPs pose a challenge for computational prediction. Here we combined multiple natural language processing neural network models, including LSTM, Attention and BERT, to form a unified pipeline for candidate AMP identification from human gut microbiome data. Of 2,349 sequences identified as candidate AMPs, 216 were chemically synthesized, with 181 showing antimicrobial activity (a positive rate of >83%). Most of these peptides have less than 40% sequence homology to AMPs in the training set. Further characterization of the 11 most potent AMPs showed high efficacy against antibiotic-resistant, Gram-negative pathogens and demonstrated significant efficacy in lowering bacterial load by more than tenfold against a mouse model of bacterial lung infection. Our study showcases the potential of machine learning approaches for mining functional peptides from metagenome data and accelerating the discovery of promising AMP candidate molecules for in-depth investigations.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Our study contains only publicly available AMP, non-AMP, metagenome and metaproteome data. AMP data were mainly collected from four public AMP datasets—ADAM: http://bioinformatics.cs.ntou.edu.tw/adam/, APD: http://aps.unmc.edu, CAMP: http://www.camp.bicnirrh.res.in/ and LAMP: http://biotechlab.fudan.edu.cn/database/lamp/—which cover most of AMP sequences from different sources (downloaded as of 2 October 2018). The non-AMP dataset was downloaded from UniProt (https://www.uniprot.org) by setting the ‘subcellular location’ filter to cytoplasm and removing any entry that matches the following keywords: antimicrobial, antibiotic, antiviral, antifungal, effector or excreted (downloaded as of 20 November 2018). Validation datasets: non-AMPs part ENA project ID is PRJEB19640; AMPs part was downloaded from http://bagel4.molgenrug.nl/index.php. The representative genomes dataset was derived from species-level genome bins: https://opendata.lifebit.ai/table/SGB. The metaproteome datasets were collected from https://www.ebi.ac.uk/pride, PRIDE project IDs: PXD005780, PXD008870, PXD003907 and PXD000114. The 15 independent, large-scale metagenomic cohorts—BioProject IDs: PRJNA422434, PRJEB4336, PRJEB1220, PRJEB6337, PRJEB6456, PRJEB10878, PRJEB11532, PRJNA319574, PRJEB9584, PRJNA290380, PRJEB6337, PRJEB15371, PRJNA356102 and https://github.com/MetaSUB/MetaSUB-metadata. Source data are provided with this paper.
Code availability
The c_AMP prediction codes can be found at https://github.com/mayuefine/c_AMPs-prediction.
References
O’Neil, J. Tackling drug-resistant infections globally: final report and recommendations. (Review on Antimicrobial Resistance, 2016).
De Oliveira, D. M. P. et al. Antimicrobial resistance in ESKAPE pathogens. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 33, e00102-19 (2020).
Tacconelli, E. et al. Global priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to guide research, discovery, and development of new antibiotics. (World Health Organization, 2017).
PEW Charitable Trusts. Analysis shows continued deficiencies in antibiotic developments since 2014. PEW https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/data-visualizations/2019/five-year-analysis-shows-continued-deficiencies-in-antibiotic-development (2019).
Lazzaro, B. P., Zasloff, M. & Rolff, J. Antimicrobial peptides: application informed by evolution. Science 368, eaau5480 (2020).
Heng, N. C. K. & Tagg, J. R. What’s in a name? Class distinction for bacteriocins. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 4, 160–160 (2006).
Chen, X. et al. Roles and mechanisms of human cathelicidin LL-37 in cancer. Cell. Physiol. Biochem. 47, 1060–1073 (2018).
Yu, G., Baeder, D. Y., Regoes, R. R. & Rolff, J. Predicting drug resistance evolution: insights from antimicrobial peptides and antibiotics. Proc. Biol. Sci. 285, 20172687 (2018).
Kintses, B. et al. Phylogenetic barriers to horizontal transfer of antimicrobial peptide resistance genes in the human gut microbiota. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 447–458 (2019).
Buffie, C. G. & Pamer, E. G. Microbiota-mediated colonization resistance against intestinal pathogens. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 13, 790–801 (2013).
Bisanz, J. E. et al. A genomic toolkit for the mechanistic dissection of intractable human gut bacteria. Cell Host Microbe 27, 1001–1013 (2020).
Wilson, M. R. et al. The human gut bacterial genotoxin colibactin alkylates DNA. Science 363, eaar7785 (2019).
Kent, A. G., Vill, A. C., Shi, Q., Satlin, M. J. & Brito, I. L. Widespread transfer of mobile antibiotic resistance genes within individual gut microbiomes revealed through bacterial Hi-C. Nat. Commun. 11, 4379 (2020).
Sberro, H. et al. Large-scale analyses of human microbiomes reveal thousands of small, novel genes. Cell 178, 1245–1259 (2019).
Kim, S. G. et al. Microbiota-derived lantibiotic restores resistance against vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus. Nature 572, 665–669 (2019).
Li., J. et al. Mining the human tonsillar microbiota as autoimmune modulator. Preprint at bioRxiv https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/719807v1.full (2019).
Walsh, C. T. Insights into the chemical logic and enzymatic machinery of NRPS assembly lines. Nat. Prod. Rep. 33, 127–135 (2016).
Spänig, S. & Heider, D. Encodings and models for antimicrobial peptide classification for multi-resistant pathogens. BioData Min. 12, 7 (2019).
Stokes, J. M. et al. A deep learning approach to antibiotic discovery. Cell 180, 688–702 (2020).
Zhavoronkov, A. et al. Deep learning enables rapid identification of potent DDR1 kinase inhibitors. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 1038–1040 (2019).
Das, P. et al. Accelerated antimicrobial discovery via deep generative models and molecular dynamics simulations. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 5, 613–623 (2021).
Nagarajan, D. et al. Computational antimicrobial peptide design and evaluation against multidrug-resistant clinical isolates of bacteria. J. Biol. Chem. 293, 3492–3509 (2018).
Van Oort, C. M., Ferrell, J. B., Remington, J. M., Wshah, S. & Li, J. AMPGAN v2: machine learning-guided design of antimicrobial peptides. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 61, 2198–2207 (2021).
Wang, C., Garlick, S. & Zloh, M. Deep learning for novel antimicrobial peptide design. Biomolecules 11, 471 (2021).
Gupta, A. & Zou, J. Feedback GAN for DNA optimizes protein functions. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 105–111 (2019).
Veltri, D., Kamath, U. & Shehu, A. Deep learning improves antimicrobial peptide recognition. Bioinformatics 34, 2740–2747 (2018).
Devlin., J., Chang., M.-W., Lee., K. & Toutanova., K. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805 (2018).
Pasolli, E. et al. Extensive unexplored human microbiome diversity revealed by over 150,000 genomes from metagenomes spanning age, geography, and lifestyle. Cell 176, 649–662 (2019).
Bevins, C. L. & Salzman, N. H. Paneth cells, antimicrobial peptides and maintenance of intestinal homeostasis. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 9, 356–368 (2011).
Login, F. H. et al. Antimicrobial peptides keep insect endosymbionts under control. Science 334, 362–365 (2011).
World Health Organization. 2019 Antibacterial Agents in Clinical Development (World Health Organization, 2019).
Gong, L. et al. A nosocomial respiratory infection outbreak of carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli ST131 with multiple transmissible blaKPC-2 carrying plasmids. Front. Microbiol. 11, 2068 (2020).
Upert, G., Luther, A., Obrecht, D. & Ermert, P. Emerging peptide antibiotics with therapeutic potential. Med. Drug Discov. 9, 100078 (2021).
Cigana, C. et al. Efficacy of the novel antibiotic POL7001 in preclinical models of Pseudomonas aeruginosa pneumonia. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 60, 4991–5000 (2016).
Florin, T. et al. An antimicrobial peptide that inhibits translation by trapping release factors on the ribosome. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 24, 752–757 (2017).
Gagnon, M. G. et al. Structures of proline-rich peptides bound to the ribosome reveal a common mechanism of protein synthesis inhibition. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, 2439–2450 (2016).
Chu, H. et al. Human α-defensin 6 promotes mucosal innate immunity through self-assembled peptide nanonets. Science 337, 477–481 (2012).
Loth, K. et al. The ancestral N-terminal domain of big defensins drives bacterially triggered assembly into antimicrobial nanonets. mBio 10, e01821-19 (2019).
De Fauw, J. et al. Clinically applicable deep learning for diagnosis and referral in retinal disease. Nat. Med. 24, 1342–1350 (2018).
Coudray, N. et al. Classification and mutation prediction from non-small cell lung cancer histopathology images using deep learning. Nat. Med. 24, 1559–1567 (2018).
Kather, J. N. et al. Deep learning can predict microsatellite instability directly from histology in gastrointestinal cancer. Nat. Med. 25, 1054–1056 (2019).
Xiong, Z. et al. Pushing the boundaries of molecular representation for drug discovery with the graph attention mechanism. J. Med. Chem. 63, 8749–8760 (2020).
Zhong, H. et al. Distinct gut metagenomics and metaproteomics signatures in prediabetics and treatment-naïve type 2 diabetics. EBioMedicine 47, 373–383 (2019).
Fjell, C. D., Hancock, R. E. & Cherkasov, A. AMPer: a database and an automated discovery tool for antimicrobial peptides. Bioinformatics 23, 1148–1155 (2007).
Zhao, X., Wu, H., Lu, H., Li, G. & Huang, Q. LAMP: a database linking antimicrobial peptides. PLoS ONE 8, e66557 (2013).
Chu, J., Vila-Farres, X. & Brady, S. F. Bioactive synthetic-bioinformatic natural product cyclic peptides inspired by nonribosomal peptide synthetase gene clusters from the human microbiome. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 141, 15737–15741 (2019).
Garcia-Gutierrez, E., Mayer, M. J., Cotter, P. D. & Narbad, A. Gut microbiota as a source of novel antimicrobials. Gut Microbes 10, 1–21 (2019).
Ryu, M., Park, J., Yeom, J. H., Joo, M. & Lee, K. Rediscovery of antimicrobial peptides as therapeutic agents. J. Microbiol. 59, 113–123 (2021).
Cullen, T. W. et al. Gut microbiota. Antimicrobial peptide resistance mediates resilience of prominent gut commensals during inflammation. Science 347, 170–175 (2015).
Müller, A. T., Gabernet, G., Hiss, J. A. & Schneider, G. modlAMP: Python for antimicrobial peptides. Bioinformatics 33, 2753–2755 (2017).
Agrawal, P. & Raghava, G. P. S. Prediction of antimicrobial potential of a chemically modified peptide from its tertiary structure. Front. Microbiol. 9, 2551 (2018).
Lertampaiporn, S., Vorapreeda, T., Hongsthong, A. & Thammarongtham, C. Ensemble-AMPPred: robust AMP prediction and recognition using the ensemble learning method with a new hybrid feature for differentiating AMPs. Genes 12, 137 (2021).
Barrett, R., Jiang, S. & White, A. D. Classifying antimicrobial and multifunctional peptides with Bayesian network models. Pept. Sci. 110, e24079 (2018).
Kumar, P., Kizhakkedathu, J. N. & Straus, S. K. Antimicrobial peptides: diversity, mechanism of action and strategies to improve the activity and biocompatibility in vivo. Biomolecules 8, 4 (2018).
Guha, S., Ghimire, J., Wu, E. & Wimley, W. C. Mechanistic landscape of membrane-permeabilizing peptides. Chem. Rev. 119, 6040–6085 (2019).
Mourtada, R. et al. Design of stapled antimicrobial peptides that are stable, nontoxic and kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria in mice. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 1186–1197 (2019).
Luther, A. et al. Chimeric peptidomimetic antibiotics against Gram-negative bacteria. Nature 576, 452–458 (2019).
Munoz-Price, L. S. et al. Clinical epidemiology of the global expansion of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases. Lancet Infect. Dis. 13, 785–796 (2013).
Bonomo, R. A. et al. Carbapenemase-producing organisms: a global scourge. Clin. Infect. Dis. 66, 1290–1297 (2018).
Santos-Júnior, C. D., Pan, S., Zhao, X. M. & Coelho, L. P. Macrel: antimicrobial peptide screening in genomes and metagenomes. PeerJ 8, e10555 (2020).
Bhadra, P., Yan, J., Li, J., Fong, S. & Siu, S. W. I. AmPEP: sequence-based prediction of antimicrobial peptides using distribution patterns of amino acid properties and random forest. Sci. Rep. 8, 1697 (2018).
Xiao, X., Wang, P., Lin, W. Z., Jia, J. H. & Chou, K. C. iAMP-2L: a two-level multi-label classifier for identifying antimicrobial peptides and their functional types. Anal. Biochem. 436, 168–177 (2013).
Meher, P. K., Sahu, T. K., Saini, V. & Rao, A. R. Predicting antimicrobial peptides with improved accuracy by incorporating the compositional, physico-chemical and structural features into Chou’s general PseAAC. Sci. Rep. 7, 42362 (2017).
Fingerhut, L., Miller, D. J., Strugnell, J. M., Daly, N. L. & Cooke, I. R. ampir: an R package for fast genome-wide prediction of antimicrobial peptides. Bioinformatics 36, 5262–5263 (2020).
Xiao, X., Shao, Y. T., Cheng, X. & Stamatovic, B. iAMP-CA2L: a new CNN-BiLSTM-SVM classifier based on cellular automata image for identifying antimicrobial peptides and their functional types. Brief. Bioinform. 22, bbab209 (2021).
Wang, G., Li, X. & Wang, Z. APD3: the antimicrobial peptide database as a tool for research and education. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, D1087–D1093 (2016).
Waghu, F. H., Barai, R. S., Gurung, P. & Idicula-Thomas, S. CAMPR3: a database on sequences, structures and signatures of antimicrobial peptides. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, D1094–D1097 (2016).
van Heel, A. J., de Jong, A., Montalbán-López, M., Kok, J. & Kuipers, O. P. BAGEL3: automated identification of genes encoding bacteriocins and (non-)bactericidal posttranslationally modified peptides. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, W448–W453 (2013).
Neme, R., Amador, C., Yildirim, B., McConnell, E. & Tautz, D. Random sequences are an abundant source of bioactive RNAs or peptides. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0217 (2017).
Domazet-Loso, M. & Haubold, B. Efficient estimation of pairwise distances between genomes. Bioinformatics 25, 3221–3227 (2009).
Gavin, P. G. et al. Intestinal metaproteomics reveals host-microbiota interactions in subjects at risk for type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 41, 2178–2186 (2018).
Tanca, A., Palomba, A., Pisanu, S., Addis, M. F. & Uzzau, S. Enrichment or depletion? The impact of stool pretreatment on metaproteomic characterization of the human gut microbiota. Proteomics 15, 3474–3485 (2015).
Chatterjee, S. et al. A comprehensive and scalable database search system for metaproteomics. BMC Genomics 17, 642 (2016).
Young, J. C. et al. Metaproteomics reveals functional shifts in microbial and human proteins during a preterm infant gut colonization case. Proteomics 15, 3463–3473 (2015).
Danko, D. et al. A global metagenomic map of urban microbiomes and antimicrobial resistance. Cell 184, 3376−3393 (2021).
Zeevi, D. et al. Personalized nutrition by prediction of glycemic responses. Cell 163, 1079–1094 (2015).
Vatanen, T. et al. Variation in microbiome LPS immunogenicity contributes to autoimmunity in humans. Cell 165, 842–853 (2016).
Schirmer, M. et al. Linking the human gut microbiome to inflammatory cytokine production capacity. Cell 167, 1125–1136 (2016).
Bäckhed, F. et al. Dynamics and stabilization of the human gut microbiome during the first year of Life. Cell Host Microbe 17, 690–703 (2015).
Nielsen, H. B. et al. Identification and assembly of genomes and genetic elements in complex metagenomic samples without using reference genomes. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 822–828 (2014).
Qin, J. et al. A metagenome-wide association study of gut microbiota in type 2 diabetes. Nature 490, 55–60 (2012).
Le Chatelier, E. et al. Richness of human gut microbiome correlates with metabolic markers. Nature 500, 541–546 (2013).
Xie, H. et al. Shotgun metagenomics of 250 adult twins reveals genetic and environmental impacts on the gut microbiome. Cell Syst. 3, 572–584 (2016).
Mitchell, A. L. et al. EBI Metagenomics in 2017: enriching the analysis of microbial communities, from sequence reads to assemblies. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, D726–D735 (2018).
Yu, J. et al. Metagenomic analysis of faecal microbiome as a tool towards targeted non-invasive biomarkers for colorectal cancer. Gut 66, 70–78 (2017).
Liu, W. et al. Unique features of ethnic mongolian gut microbiome revealed by metagenomic analysis. Sci. Rep. 6, 34826 (2016).
He, Q. et al. Two distinct metacommunities characterize the gut microbiota in Crohn’s disease patients. Gigascience 6, 1–11 (2017).
Qin, N. et al. Alterations of the human gut microbiome in liver cirrhosis. Nature 513, 59–64 (2014).
Human Microbiome Project Consortium. Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature 486, 207–214 (2012).
Tang., G., Müller., M., Rios., A. & Sennrich., R. Why self-attention? A targeted evaluation of neural machine translation architectures. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.08946 (2018).
Vaswani., A. et al. Attention is all you need. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762 (2017).
Abadi, M. et al. TensorFlow: large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous distributed systems. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.04467 (2016).
Paszke., A. et al. PyTorch: an imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. 33rd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2019); https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2019/file/bdbca288fee7f92f2bfa9f7012727740-Paper.pdf
Rice, P., Longden, I. & Bleasby, A. EMBOSS: the European Molecular Biology Open Software Suite. Trends Genet. 16, 276–277 (2000).
Westbrook, A. et al. PALADIN: protein alignment for functional profiling whole metagenome shotgun data. Bioinformatics 33, 1473–1478 (2017).
Li, H. et al. The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25, 2078–2079 (2009).
Segata, N. et al. Metagenomic microbial community profiling using unique clade-specific marker genes. Nat. Methods 9, 811–814 (2012).
Zhang, B. & Horvath, S. A general framework for weighted gene co-expression network analysis. Stat. Appl. Genet. Mol. Biol. 4, Article17 (2005).
Langfelder, P. & Horvath, S. WGCNA: an R package for weighted correlation network analysis. BMC Bioinformatics 9, 559 (2008).
Pollard, K. S., Gilbert, H. N., Ge, Y., Taylor, S. & Dudoit, S. multtest: resampling-based multiple hypothesis testing. scienceopen.com https://www.scienceopen.com/document?vid=43b5caa2-bac4-47c7-80d1-ee9c30ba9be7 (2011).
Shannon, P. et al. Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Res. 13, 2498–2504 (2003).
Cock, P. J. et al. Biopython: freely available Python tools for computational molecular biology and bioinformatics. Bioinformatics 25, 1422–1423 (2009).
Wayne, P. A. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk Susceptibility Tests (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 1991).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (grant no. XDB29020000); the National Key Research and Development Program of China (grant nos. 2018YFC2000500 and 2018YFA0901900); the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 32025002, 91857101 and 31771481); the Biological Resources Programme of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (grant no. KFJ-BRP-009); and the Beijing Nova Program (202077/202120).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
J.W. and Y.C. conceptualized and managed this study. Y.M. developed the bioinformatics pipeline and screening. Y.M., X.L., B.X., Z.G., Y.Z., Y.Y., N.T., X.T. and M.W. carried out the experiments. Y.M., Z.G., B.X., X.L., X.Y., J.F., Y.C. and J.W. analyzed the data. Y.M., X.L., Y.C. and J.W. drafted the manuscript. J.F., Y.C. and J.W. edited the manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Biotechnology thanks Luis Pedro Coelho and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Length distribution of datasets and model converge in the training stage.
a, The length distribution of sequences in three training sets (Train AMPs: training set for AMP sequences, Train Non-AMPs: training set for non-AMP sequences with similar amount of sequences to that of Train AMPs, Train 10Non-AMPs: training set for non-AMP sequences with 10 times amount of sequences to that of Train AMPs) training data are matched. The colored squares indicate the different length distributions. This was plotted by http://www.bioinformatics.com.cn. b, The loss during training process of different models. Attention and LSTM models converged with 100-200 epochs of training steps, while Bert converged with higher number of epochs. c, Length distribution of 2,349 candidate AMPs from the metagenomic cohorts in our study.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Spectra and level of bacterial inhibition of all c_AMPs against the four strains of bacteria used for the initial screening.
Green color indicates that a c_AMPs significantly decreased the OD of at least one of the testing species. ‘*’ denotes 0.01 < p ≤ 0.05, ‘#’ denotes 0.001 < p ≤ 0.01 and ‘+’ denotes p ≤ 0.001, all in Dunnett’s test (two-sided).
Extended Data Fig. 3 Identities between AMPs and non-AMPs in our training set/discovered AMPs, and amino acid composition.
a, Identity distributions based on multiple sequence alignment between c_AMPs and training set of AMPs/10Non-AMPs (see Methods), the grey line indicates the median of the identity values, Med stand for median identity. b, Sequence identity distributions in the training set, there was significantly higher identities among AMPs than between AMPs and non-AMPs (both balanced and unbalanced sets). One-sided Wilcoxon test was performed for each comparison. c, Amino acids composition of c_AMPs discovered in our study, and of known AMPs/non-AMPs in training sets (balanced dataset, pink; and unbalanced dataset, light yellow).
Extended Data Fig. 4 c_AMPs mechanism of action and resistance development.
a, Transmission electronic microscopy (TEM) examination of E. coli DH5α cells treated with c_AMP1043 at 10× MIC concentration, showing cell content leakage and cell wall/membrane disruption. Experiments were performed in triplicates with similar results and one representative figure is shown. b, Section photo of E. coli DH5α cells treated with c_AMP1043 and HEPES as control, with c_AMP1043 at MIC and 10× MIC concentration in the test, and three microscope images at difference magnifications were selected for each treatment. Experiments were performed in triplicates with similar results and one representative figure is shown. c, Mechanistic assays against E. coli DH5α for the ten other c_AMPs in the selected list. ALP, PI, NPN and DISC3(5) assays were used to examine the potential mechanism of function of c_AMPs, in particular the disruption of membrane of G- bacteria E. coli (see Methods and Results). Colored lines indicate dosage-dependent increase of signals. N = 3 independent experiments. Data are presented as mean values +/− SEM. d, Resistance development experiment of AMP1043 by serial passage against E. coli DH5α. The y-axis indicates the MIC measured directly from the tubes during the serial passages (μM) and the x-axis is the number of passages. In 30 passages, no observed resistance occurred as MIC remained <10 μM. N = 3 independent experiments.
Extended Data Fig. 5 Determination of peptide structures using circular dichroism (CD) spectra.
a, CD results for the 11 most potent peptides and b, corresponding proportions of secondary structures calculated from CD data using CDNN. Purple: in water phase; dark blue: peptide mixed with 20 times of DMPE/DMPG lipid mixture (see Methods). c, and d, Further CD results and predicted structures of 11 randomly selected peptides with AMP activity. e, positive control Magainin 2, with CD results (left), predicted proportions of each secondary structure (middle) and known structure in PDB (right, accession no. 2LSA).
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Figs. 1–5, Methods and Tables 1–17.
Source data
Source Data Fig. 2
Statistical source data.
Source Data Fig. 3
Statistical source data.
Source Data Fig. 4
Statistical source data.
Source Data Fig. 5
Statistical source data.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 1
Statistical source data.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2
Statistical source data.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 3
Statistical source data.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 4
Statistical source data.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 5
Statistical source data.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ma, Y., Guo, Z., Xia, B. et al. Identification of antimicrobial peptides from the human gut microbiome using deep learning. Nat Biotechnol 40, 921–931 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-022-01226-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-022-01226-0
This article is cited by
-
Antimicrobial resistance crisis: could artificial intelligence be the solution?
Military Medical Research (2024)
-
KEGG orthology prediction of bacterial proteins using natural language processing
BMC Bioinformatics (2024)
-
Machine learning for antimicrobial peptide identification and design
Nature Reviews Bioengineering (2024)
-
Microbiota–gut–brain axis and its therapeutic applications in neurodegenerative diseases
Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy (2024)
-
Antimicrobial Peptides Targeting Streptococcus mutans: Current Research on Design, Screening and Efficacy
Current Microbiology (2024)