Animal health & feed
The strongest data to date is in broiler chickens and Campylobacter. IMBT is interested in partners for further studies, other species and product development.
Biotechnology · Innate immunity · Antimicrobial peptides
IMBT researches how the evolutionarily conserved innate immune defences of insects can be used to help control harmful bacteria and support immune responses in animals, starting with chickens. The method is patented, and its founder has been developing it since 1999.
Why this research matters
The World Health Organization describes antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as one of the top global public health threats: bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites are evolving resistance to the medicines that control them. WHO fact sheet
The WHO, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) ask that solutions follow a One Health approach, which recognises that the health of people, animals, plants and the environment is interconnected. IMBT's work adds insects to that picture.
Insects and animals share an ancient first line of defence, the innate immune system, and components of it can pass between organisms through food: from milk to a newborn mammal, for example, or in birds that eat insects. IMBT's science is built on what it calls the One Health Concept, first set out in 2004: that plants, insects, animals and people share these defences, parts of which are passed on through food.
Antibiotics have long been used in animal production, and their residues and resistance genes can spread through food chains and the environment.
IMBT asks whether the natural defences of insects could offer a complementary route. Its research question is practical: can the defence an insect produces under challenge be harvested and used to support the defences of another animal? So far, the clearest evidence is in broiler chickens.
The IMBT approach
Insects defend themselves with antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), small proteins made within hours of encountering bacteria. IMBT's patented method uses that response deliberately.
Fly larvae are exposed to a carefully chosen bacterium, preferably Pseudomonas syringae, which the patent describes as non-pathogenic to humans and animals. Live or dead bacteria can be used.
The larvae respond by producing more of their own AMPs, up to thirty-fold in the optimal case. Different bacterial doses favour different peptides, so the dose can be used to shape the mix.
The larvae are harvested, dried and ground. When this material was fed to chicks, fewer birds were colonised by Campylobacter, and the chicks' own gut defence peptide expression rose.
The method exposes larval forms of an insect (preferably Lucilia sericata) to food containing bacteria for a defined period, with the dose selected so that particular AMPs, such as diptericin at higher doses and sapecin at lower doses, are maximally expressed. The patent's examples measure larval AMP expression, in vitro activity against Campylobacter jejuni, caecal colonisation in broiler chicks, and chick caecal tonsil Gallinacin 11 expression.
Demonstrated in the patent's experiments. Interpretation beyond that is IMBT's research position, not an established outcome.
The evidence
In a controlled study, broiler chicks were given feed containing either soya, unstimulated larvae, or stimulated larvae, then challenged with Campylobacter jejuni. Eight days later, significantly more of the birds fed stimulated larvae were free of Campylobacter in the caecum.
Single study, broiler chicks, oral challenge model, carried out at the University of Bristol Veterinary School and reported in IMBT's patent documentation. Significant at P<0.05. The same study found no significant change in lactic acid bacteria or enterobacteria. Not a clinical result, and not yet repeated in other species.
Experimental results, such as the poultry study and the increase in larval AMP expression.
The methods IMBT has legal protection for.
IMBT's scientific reasoning, still being tested.
Where the technology may be relevant, not yet shown.
We label every claim on this site with one of these four levels.
The expertise
IMBT was founded in 1999 by Christopher Jeremy Leonard, a biochemist (BSc Chemistry/Biochemistry, University of Nottingham, 1973; MSc marine biology, University of North Wales, 1974) and the named inventor on the company's patent family. His work on inducing antimicrobial peptide production in insects spans a first UK patent filed soon after the company began and three granted US patents, the most recent in November 2025.
He works directly with partners on the science, alongside Chief Scientific Officer Associate Professor Tristan Cogan. Meet the team
Where it may matter
IMBT is looking for organisations that can help take the research further. These are the areas where we see the clearest fit.
The strongest data to date is in broiler chickens and Campylobacter. IMBT is interested in partners for further studies, other species and product development.
AMPs and innate immune regulation are active research areas. IMBT's production method and peptide mixtures may be of interest to teams exploring alternatives to conventional antimicrobials.
Independent validation, new pathogen models and mechanism studies are all welcome, with access to IMBT's expertise and methods.
Intellectual property
IMBT owns the patented method. Protected intellectual property covers how the larvae are stimulated and how the resulting material is used. Details are shared with serious partners.
Partnership
IMBT is open to research collaboration, licensing and commercial development. If your organisation works in animal health, feed, biotechnology or antimicrobial research, we would like to talk.