Foodborne illness is a serious problem, causing 9.4 million cases of foodborne disease, nearly 56,000 hospitalizations, and more than 1,350 deaths yearly in the United States alone, according to estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These illnesses are the target of phage therapies produced by biotech development company Intralytix, Inc.Intralytix cofounder and chief scientific officer Alexander Sulakvelidze remembers listening to colleague Glenn Morris, a physician at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, vent his frustrations when multidrug-resistant infections started claiming the lives of his patients in the mid-1990s. Sulakvelidze, then a visiting researcher from Georgia in the former Soviet Union, was stunned that Morris had never heard of phages. “It was like lightning struck,” he says of learning that phages were not used in the United States, despite all the country’s advanced medical technologies. “People die because western medicine is no longer aware of phage therapy.” Together, Sulakvelidze and Morris launched Intralytix in 1998.Today the company sells two phage products approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Each product contains a “cocktail” of phages that target and kill the same bacterium. “Our technology goes after only bad bacteria,” says Sulakvelidze. By comparison, he says, antibiotics and chemical disinfectants also kill good bacteria “like casualties of war.” There’s an increasing recognition that we cannot kill all microbes, “and we don’t want to,” Sulakvelidze notes, “because without bacteria there would be no life on Earth.”Intralytix’s ListShield™, the first phage product approved by the FDA as a food additive, targets Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meat and poultry (e.g., deli meats and frankfurters). The microbe, which also contaminates dairy products and raw produce, grows even in refrigerated foods and causes a serious infection called listeriosis with a fatality rate of about 20%.Eliminating the bacterium from food processing plants is very difficult. “Despite intense cleaning by food processors, L. monocytogenes is ubiquitous and stubborn,” says Sulakvelidze. ListShield is sprayed on meat products as well as on drains, floors, coolers, and other surfaces that might harbor L. monocytogenes at food processing plants. According to Sulakvelidze, the product typically reduces L. monocytogenes contamination by 95% or better.A second product, EcoShield™, is sprayed on red meat before grinding into hamburger to kill Escherichia coli O157:H7, the cause of 62,000 foodborne diseases yearly in the United States. Meat trimmings from different carcasses are combined into ground meat, and bacteria from just one animal can infect large batches of meat. In studies with government investigators, Sulakvelidze demonstrated that EcoShield killed 95–100% of E. coli O157:H7 within 5 minutes.Jitu Patel and Manan Sharma, researchers at the USDA in Beltsville, Maryland, have also tested EcoShield on fresh-cut lettuce and cantaloupes experimentally contam-inated with E. coli O157:H7. Biofilms, or persistent colonies, of this pathogen can contaminate blades used to harvest lettuce, spinach, and other crops. Even though blades are disinfected with chlorine, some of the cells in a biofilm may elude killing. In the USDA studies, however, EcoShield reduced pathogen levels by 100-fold within a day. Sharma says he knows of no one using the product to treat fruits or vegetables.EcoShield and ListShield are odorless, tasteless, invisible, and noncorrosive. The phages in these products are present at 0.001% in a liquid spray, making the final solution nearly “as benign as water to anything except targeted bacteria,” according to Sulakvelidze. The phages quickly dissipate, and no phage solution residue is passed on to consumers.A third product, SalmoFresh™, is pending FDA approval and will target Salmonella in poultry and other foods. Intralytix is working on other phage treatments for wound healing, veterinary care, and oral health.
Lysins: An Alternative Approach
As an alternative to phage cocktails, some researchers are isolating the phage enzymes that make bacteria explode (see box “How Phages Work”). When a phage replicates within a host bacterial cell, two key enzymes are produced—holins, which perforate the inner cell membrane, and lysins, which enter through the holes created by the holins and attack the cell wall, eventually bursting the cell like a balloon to release hundreds more phages.Significantly, says Daniel Nelson, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland’s Institute for Bioscience and Biotechnology Research, lysins applied directly to bacteria can “chew up” and destroy the cell wall from the outside even in the absence of phages or holins. “It’s called ‘lysis from without,’ meaning lysis without phage infection,” Nelson explains.
Phages are also now being explored in medical applications in the United States. In 2008 the FDA approved the first phase 1 clinical trial to evaluate an unnamed cocktail of eight phages prepared by Intralytix to treat venous leg ulcers. The phages target Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, and E. coli. The treatment was proven safe, the main goal of phase 1 trials. “Before this, no formal study was ever done in the United States to show the safety of phage cocktails,” says Sulakvelidze. Funding is needed to proceed to phase 2 trials to evaluate how well the treatment works.Nelson and colleagues at Rockefeller University in New York City have purified lysins that in animal studies killed Streptococci responsible for scarlet fever, rheumatic fever, necrotizing fasciitis (“flesh-eating disease”), and pneumonia., They recently solved the X-ray crystal structure of PlyC, the most powerful lysin known, providing clues to its superior potency. PlyC is 100 times more efficient at killing than other lysins and chemical disinfectants. Just 10 ng of PlyC kills 107 bacteria in 5 seconds.“The structure gives us insights into how to engineer other lysins to work better,” Nelson says. He and his colleagues speculate that similar lysins could control methicillin-resistant S. aureus- in hospitals and nursing homes, and Streptococcus pneumoniae in schools, daycare centers, and military barracks.Phages are also being explored for use in treating acne. Up to 60% of strains of Propionibacterium acnes, the bacterium that causes acne, are antibiotic-resistant, and improved acne therapies are needed. Jenny Kim, a dermatologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, Medical School, suspects that naturally occurring skin phages protect some people from acne. “We all carry P. acnes,” she explains, “but not everyone gets acne.” She suggests the skin microbiome of people with clear skin may have phage populations that keep P. acnes in check.Kim and colleagues sequenced the genomes of phages obtained from the sebaceous follicles (where P. acnes concentrates) of people with and without acne. They identified a variety of phages that kill P. acnes to varying degrees. Kim says there is “a great therapeutic opportunity” to develop a topical phage treatment for acne.In addition to treating bacterial infections, phages may also help in diagnosing them. A team from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, the University of Pittsburgh, and the Nelson R. Mandela School of Medicine in Durban, South Africa, engineered a fluorophage carrying green fluorescent protein reporter genes that glows when it infects Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the cause of tuberculosis (TB). The goal of developing the fluorophage was to speed the detection of drug-resistant strains of M. tuberculosis in sputum from TB patients. Standard cell culture tests take up to two months; meanwhile, just a small number of inhaled bacteria spread TB.“The technology looks promising and a more reasonable goal than treating TB with phages,” says codeveloper Graham Hatfull, a professor of biotechnology at the University of Pittsburgh, although he says a phage nasal spray could potentially prevent the transmission of TB. “Phages are an extraordinary reservoir for new genes and applications,” Hatfull says.
Water Treatment
Water treatment is still another area where phages are seeing a renaissance in the United States. Sewage contains up to 1,000 times more viruses than other water bodies. Civil and environmental engineers screen sewage to find phages that can improve drinking and wastewater treatment. Briefly, they pass wastewater samples through nylon filters and collect the filtrate. Phages in the filtrate are grown on agar plates seeded with the bacterium the engineers want to kill. After this first round of killing, the phage solution is collected and centrifuged; the supernatant liquid is a rich source of the desired phages. “Phages are a new area of research for wastewater treatment, and they could easily integrate into existing systems,” says Ramesh Goel, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.During activated sludge processing of sewage, sludge settles in tanks, and the supernatant is drained off for further purification. But this process is foiled by filamentous microbes such as Sphaerotilus natans, which grow long tentacles that suspend sludge and impede settling. Disinfectants such as chlorine are added to kill these bacteria, but they tend to kill bacteria near the water’s surface, and there are plenty more below that quickly take over when treatment stops.In experiments Goel has targeted these problematic filamentous bacteria with phages isolated from sewage. In one study turbid wastewater contaminated with S. natans showed reduced sludge volume and clearer supernatant after 12 hours; in addition, the phages remained stable and active for more than 9 months and tolerated temperature and pH fluctuations common to activated sludge processes.Zhiqiang Hu, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Missouri, Columbia, has conducted similar studies with bacterial biofilms of P. aeruginosa, which commonly clog filters at drinking water treatment plants and require chlorine and expensive flushing to clean them. Hu isolated phages from sewage that kill P. aeroginosa biofilms and tested them against chlorine, the standard treatment, which removed 40% of P. aeroginosa biofilms. Phages alone killed 89%, and phages followed by chlorine knocked out 97% of the biofilms.As in many natural settings—including the human body—wastewater treatment plants maintain a careful balance of microbes, with many desirable species breaking down wastes and controlling odors at the plants. “The goal is to remove pathogenic bacteria with minimal impact on beneficial bacteria,” says Hu. Because the number of phages surrounding water treatment facilities is huge, “adding desired phages should not cause environ-mental or health concerns,” he adds.
Authors: Paras Jain; Travis E Hartman; Nell Eisenberg; Max R O'Donnell; Jordan Kriakov; Karnishree Govender; Mantha Makume; David S Thaler; Graham F Hatfull; A Willem Sturm; Michelle H Larsen; Preshnie Moodley; William R Jacobs Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: P S Mead; E F Dunne; L Graves; M Wiedmann; M Patrick; S Hunter; E Salehi; F Mostashari; A Craig; P Mshar; T Bannerman; B D Sauders; P Hayes; W Dewitt; P Sparling; P Griffin; D Morse; L Slutsker; B Swaminathan Journal: Epidemiol Infect Date: 2005-12-01 Impact factor: 2.451
Authors: J Todd Hoopes; Caren J Stark; Han Ah Kim; Daniel J Sussman; David M Donovan; Daniel C Nelson Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2009-01-09 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Laura J Marinelli; Sorel Fitz-Gibbon; Clarmyra Hayes; Charles Bowman; Megan Inkeles; Anya Loncaric; Daniel A Russell; Deborah Jacobs-Sera; Shawn Cokus; Matteo Pellegrini; Jenny Kim; Jeff F Miller; Graham F Hatfull; Robert L Modlin Journal: MBio Date: 2012-09-25 Impact factor: 7.867
Authors: Elaine Scallan; Robert M Hoekstra; Frederick J Angulo; Robert V Tauxe; Marc-Alain Widdowson; Sharon L Roy; Jeffery L Jones; Patricia M Griffin Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 6.883
Authors: Maya Merabishvili; Jean-Paul Pirnay; Gilbert Verbeken; Nina Chanishvili; Marina Tediashvili; Nino Lashkhi; Thea Glonti; Victor Krylov; Jan Mast; Luc Van Parys; Rob Lavigne; Guido Volckaert; Wesley Mattheus; Gunther Verween; Peter De Corte; Thomas Rose; Serge Jennes; Martin Zizi; Daniel De Vos; Mario Vaneechoutte Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-03-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mohammed Imam; Bandar Alrashid; Faizal Patel; Ahmed S A Dowah; Nathan Brown; Andrew Millard; Martha R J Clokie; Edouard E Galyov Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 5.640
Authors: Francesco Di Pierro; Valeria Sagheddu; Serena Galletti; Mara Forti; Marina Elli; Alexander Bertuccioli; Simone Gaeta Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 5.640