Review of antiviral peptides for use against zoonotic and selected non-zoonotic viruses.

Viruses remain one of the leading causes of animal and human disease. Some animal viral infections spread sporadically to human populations, posing a serious health risk. Particularly the emerging viral zoonotic diseases such as the novel, zoonotic coronavirus represent an actual challenge for the scientific and medical community. Besides human health risks, some animal viral infections, although still not zoonotic, represent important economic loses to the livestock industry. Viral infections pose a genuine concern for which there has been an increasing interest for new antiviral molecules. Among these novel compounds, antiviral peptides have been proposed as promising therapeutic options, not only for the growing body of evidence showing hopeful results but also due to the many adverse effects of chemical-based drugs. Here we review the current progress, key targets and considerations for the development of antiviral peptides (AVPs). The review summarizes the state of the art of the AVPs tested in zoonotic (coronaviruses, Rift Valley fever viruses, Eastern Equine Encephalitis Virus, Dengue and Junín virus) and also non-zoonotic farm animal viruses (avian and cattle viruses). Their molecular target, amino acid sequence and mechanism of action are summarized and reviewed. Antiviral peptides are currently on the cutting edge since they have been reported to display anti-coronavirus activity. Particularly, the review will discuss the specific mode of action of AVPs that specifically inhibit the fusion of viral and host-cell membranes for SARS-CoV-2, showing in detail some important features of the fusion inhibiting peptides that target the spike protein of these risky viruses.

Interactions of "de novo" designed peptides with bacterial membranes: Implications in the antimicrobial activity.

Antimicrobial peptides are small molecules that display antimicrobial activity against a wide range of pathogens. In a previous work, by using model membranes we studied P6, a peptide that shows no antimicrobial activity, and P6.2, which exhibits antibacterial activity. In the present work we aimed to unravel the mode of action of these peptides by studying their interaction in vivo with Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus. In this sense, to study the interactions with bacterial cells and their effect on the bacterial surface, zeta potential, spectroscopic, and microscopic methodologies were applied. P6.2 exhibits a higher affinity toward both bacterial envelopes. The ability of both peptides to disrupt afterwards the bacterial membrane was also studied. Both peptides were able to induce bacterial membrane damage, but higher concentrations of P6 were needed to obtain results comparable to those obtained for P6.2. Additionally, P6.2 exhibited faster damage kinetics. Altogether, these data allow postulating, in a physiologic model, that the lower affinity of P6 for bacterial envelope results in a minor final concentration of the peptide in the bacterial membrane unable to trigger the antimicrobial activity. Finally, the fact that the active P6.2 has the same MIC value for the Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria tested, but not the same profile in the permeabilization assays, reinforces the question of whether cell wall components act as electrostatic barriers preventing or minimizing membrane-active AMPs lethal action at the membrane level.