Antifungal Activity of LL-37 and Truncated Mimetics

Background: Candida albicans is a commensal organism and a constituent of the normal oral flora. Cell concentrations of 1x102 cells/ml and below are indicative of commensal colonisation in the oral cavity, above this level C. albicans can become an opportunistic pathogen; it is the most prevalent human fungal pathogen and a causal agent of the oral infection, candidiasis. The capacity of C. albicans to cause infection arises from its ability to exist in a biofilm ecosystem. Mature C. albicans biofilms display a high level of resistance to antifungals and the need for other therapeutic options has become paramount. Objectives: The objectives of the current study were to determine the antifungal activity of LL-37 (a member of the human cathelicidin family) and two truncated peptide mimetics against C. albicans in both planktonic and biofilm form. Methods: Radial diffusion assays were used to obtain the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of LL-37 and the truncated mimetics KE-18 and KR-12 against planktonic C. albicans. A 96 well microtitre plate assay was employed to study the effects of the peptides on early candida biofilm formation (up to 24 hours) compared with the antifungal drug fluconazole. Biofilm quantification was achieved using the crystal violet assay. Results: MIC values obtained: LL-37 >250µg/ml; KE-18 51µg/ml; and KR-12 11µg/ml. LL-37 significantly reduced the quantity of biofilm formed by C.albicans at both the 4 h and 24 h timepoints (p <0.0001). KE-18 showed significant biofilm reduction over 4 h and 24 h (p=0.0002, p=0.013 respectively), KR-12 showed significant reduction at the 24 h time point only (p=0.0256). Conclusions: Results suggest that LL-37 has the ability to disrupt early biofilm formation of C. albicans with its potency of action similar with that of fluconazole.

Bouyid v Belgium: The “minimum level of severity” and Human Dignity's Role in Article 3 ECHR

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights recently delivered an important judgment on Article 3 ECHR in the case of Bouyid v Belgium. In Bouyid, the Grand Chamber was called upon to consider whether slaps inflicted on a minor and an adult in police custody were in breach of Article 3 ECHR, which provides that ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. Overruling the Chamber judgment in the case, the Grand Chamber ruled by 14 votes to 3 that there had been a substantive violation of Article 3 in that the applicants had been subjected to degrading treatment by members of the Belgian police; it found that there had been a breach of the investigative duty under Article 3 also. In this comment, I focus on the fundamental basis of disagreement between the majority of the Grand Chamber and those who found themselves in dissent, on the question of whether there had been a substantive breach of Article 3. The crux of the disagreement lay in the understanding and application of the test of ‘minimum level of severity’, which the ECtHR has established as decisive of whether a particular form of ill-treatment crosses the Article 3 threshold, seen also in light of Article 3’s absolute character, which makes it non-displaceable – that is, immune to trade-offs of the type applicable in relation to qualified rights such as privacy and freedom of expression. I consider the way the majority of the Grand Chamber unpacked and applied the concept of dignity – or ‘human dignity’ – towards finding a substantive breach of Article 3, and briefly distil some of the principles underpinning the understanding of human dignity emerging in the Court’s analysis.