| Literature DB >> 27555842 |
Mosab Ahmadi1, M Amir Karimi Torshizi1, Shaban Rahimi1, John J Dennehy2.
Abstract
Infections caused by Salmonella bacteria, often through poultry products, are a serious public health issue. Because of drawbacks associated with antibiotic prophylaxis, alternative treatments are sought. Bacterial viruses (bacteriophages) may provide an effective alternative, but concerns remain with respect to bacteriophage stability and effectiveness. To this end, we assessed the stability of a novel bacteriophage isolated from poultry excreta, siphovirus PSE, and its effectiveness in reducing Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis colonization in vitro and in vivo. Moreover, we sought to determine how the timing (prophylactic or therapeutic) and route (oral gavage or vent lip) of PSE administration impacted its effectiveness. Here we report that significant quantities of viable PSE bacteriophages were recovered following exposure to high and low pH, high temperatures, and bile salts, testifying to its ability to survive extreme conditions. In addition, we found that ileal lactic acid bacteria and Streptococcus spp. counts increased, but colibacilli and total aerobe counts decreased, in quail receiving phage PSE through both oral gavage and vent lip routes. In other experiments, we assessed the efficiency of PSE administration, in both prophylactic and therapeutic contexts, via either oral gavage or vent lip administration, on S. Enteritidis colonization of quail cecal tonsils. Our results demonstrate that administration of PSE as a preventive agent could reduce the S. Enteritidis colonization more effectively than post-challenge administration. Furthermore, oral administration of PSE phage is a more effective prophylactic tool for reduction of S. Enteritidis shedding in poultry than is vent lip administration.Entities:
Keywords: Salmonella Enteritidis; microflora population; phage administration method; phage therapy; prophylactic agent
Year: 2016 PMID: 27555842 PMCID: PMC4977285 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01253
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Scheme of Experiment 2.
| Daya | Group 1 (preventive) | Group 2 (therapeutic) | Group 3 (positive) | Group 4 (negative) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phage doseb | SE dosec | Phage doseb | SE dosec | SE dosec | – | |
| 8 | 106 | – | – | 1.2 × 109 | 1.2 × 109 | – |
| 9 | 106 | – | 106 | – | – | – |
| 10 | 106 | – | 106 | – | – | – |
| 11 | – | 1.2 × 109 | 106 | – | – | – |
Scheme of Experiment 3.
| Daya | Group 1 (negative control) | Group 2 (positive control) | Group 3 (oral gavage) | Group 4 (vent lip) | Group 5 (phage control) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SE dosec | Phage doseb | SE dosec | Phage doseb | SE dosec | Oral | Vent | ||
| 1 | - | - | 109 | - | 2 × 1010 | - | 109 | 2 × 1010 |
| 2 | - | - | 109 | - | 2 × 1010 | - | 109 | 2 × 1010 |
| 3 | - | - | 109 | - | 2 × 1010 | - | 109 | 2 × 1010 |
| 4 | - | 1.2 × 109 | 109 | 1.2 × 109 | 2 × 1010 | 1.2 × 109 | 109 | 2 × 1010 |
| 5 | - | - | 109 | - | 2 × 1010 | - | 109 | 2 × 1010 |
| 6 | - | - | 109 | - | 2 × 1010 | - | 109 | 2 × 1010 |
The lytic spectrum of PSE on 15 bacterial strains from 7 genera.
| Strain | Sources/Reference | Lysis by bacteriophage PSE |
|---|---|---|
| RVSRI1 | + | |
| Faculty of Veterinary, Tehran University | + | |
| RVSRI1 | + | |
| RVSRI1 | - | |
| RVSRI1 | - | |
| RVSRI1 | - | |
| RVSRI1 | - | |
| Isolated from Mutaflor®, Germany | - | |
| - | ||
| - | ||
| - | ||
| Isolated from Bactocell®, France | - | |
| ATCC2 | - | |
| ATCC2 | - | |
| Isolated from Gallipro®, Denmark | - | |
Effect of phage PSE treatment on bacterial counts in quail ilea (Log 10 CFU g-1 ileal contents, mean of 10 birds per each group).
| Groups | Bacterial group | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total aerobes | Colibacilli | Lactobacilli | Streptococci | |
| 1 (Control) | 8.54 | 8.31 | 6.31 | 5.74 |
| 2 (Oral) | 7.39 | 7.99 | 7.78 | 6.79 |
| 3 (Vent lip) | 7.79 | 7.84 | 7.04 | 6.32 |
| SEM∗ | 0.008 | 0.01 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 0.0001 | 0.005 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | |
Frequency of S. Enteritidis positive cecal tonsils per group (%).
| Groups | Time of sampling | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 12 h1 post-challenge | 24 h1 post-challenge | 7 d2 post-challenge | |
| 1 (Prophylactic) | 2/6 (33.33%) | 2/6 (33.33%) | 2/10 (20%) |
| 2 (Therapeutic) | 6/6 (100%) | 6/6 (100%) | 10/10 (100%) |
| 3 (Positive control) | 6/6 (100%) | 6/6 (100%) | 10/10 (100%) |
| 4 (Negative control) | 0/6 (0%) | 0/6 (0%) | 0/10 (0%) |
Efficiency of phage PSE administration methods on S. Enteritidis recovery from cecal tonsils of Japanese quail (S. Enteritidis positive cecal tonsil/ total).
| Groups | Time post-challenge | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 h1 | 12 h | 1 d2 | 2 d | 3 d | 7 d | 14 d | 28 d | 35 d | |
| 1 (Negative) | 0/8 | 0/6 | 0/8 | 0/6 | 0/6 | 0/6 | 0/6 | 0/6 | 0/8 |
| 2 (Positive) | 6/8 | 6/6 | 6/8 | 4/6 | 6/6 | 6/6 | 6/6 | 6/6 | 8/8 |
| 3 (Oral) | 2/8 | 0/6 | 0/8 | 0/6 | 0/6 | 0/6 | 0/6 | 0/6 | 0/8 |
| 4 (Vent lip) | 2/8 | 2/6 | 0/8 | 0/6 | 2/6 | 0/6 | 2/6 | 2/6 | 0/8 |
| 5 (Phage) | 0/8 | 0/6 | 0/8 | 0/6 | 0/6 | 0/6 | 0/6 | 0/6 | 0/8 |
Recovery of bacteriophage from feces of birds after 7 days post treatment.
| Groups | Bacteriophage (Log pfu/g)a |
|---|---|
| 1 (Negative control) | 0 |
| 2 (Positive control) | 0 |
| 3 (Oral gavage) | 105 |
| 4 (Vent lip) | 104 |
| 5 (Phage control) | 105 |