| Literature DB >> 35069459 |
Elena G Olson1, Andrew C Micciche2, Michael J Rothrock3, Yichao Yang4, Steven C Ricke1.
Abstract
Campylobacter is a major foodborne pathogen with over a million United States cases a year and is typically acquired through the consumption of poultry products. The common occurrence of Campylobacter as a member of the poultry gastrointestinal tract microbial community remains a challenge for optimizing intervention strategies. Simultaneously, increasing demand for antibiotic-free products has led to the development of several alternative control measures both at the farm and in processing operations. Bacteriophages administered to reduce foodborne pathogens are one of the alternatives that have received renewed interest. Campylobacter phages have been isolated from both conventionally and organically raised poultry. Isolated and cultivated Campylobacter bacteriophages have been used as an intervention in live birds to target colonized Campylobacter in the gastrointestinal tract. Application of Campylobacter phages to poultry carcasses has also been explored as a strategy to reduce Campylobacter levels during poultry processing. This review will focus on the biology and ecology of Campylobacter bacteriophages in poultry production followed by discussion on current and potential applications as an intervention strategy to reduce Campylobacter occurrence in poultry production.Entities:
Keywords: Campylobacter; bacteriophage; post-harvest; poultry; pre-harvest
Year: 2022 PMID: 35069459 PMCID: PMC8766974 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.458721
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Campylobacter phages taxonomy and description.
| Order ( | Family ( | Nucleic acid type and phage example ( | Morphotype ( | Grouping not based on genome analysis ( | Genome size ( | Applicability ( | Genera based on genome sequencing ( | Phages ( | Phage resistance development ( | Host range ( |
| Caudovirales |
| Linear dsDNA (T4) | Morphotype A1 with contractile tail | Group I | ∼320 kb | Unstable | Motility defect | |||
| Group II | Average ∼162,601 | Stable for phage therapy | CP220virus | CP21, CP220, Cpt10, vB-Ccom-IBB-35 | Motility defect | |||||
| Group III | Average ∼133,166 | Stable for phage therapy | CP8virus | CP81, CPX, NCTC12673, Cp30A, PC14, PC5, vB_CjeM_Los1, CP8 | CPS structure |
| ||||
|
| Linear dsDNA (Lambda) | Morphotype B1 with non-contractile tail | 15–17 kb | Stable for phage therapy | CAM-P21 |
| ||||
|
|
FIGURE 1Outline of main concepts of isolation, propagation, concentration, and purification of Campylobacter phages.
FIGURE 2Poultry pre- and post-harvest phage applicability. Figure was created with Biorender.com.
Campylobacter phage treatments during in vivo preharvest studies.
| Phage | Group | Source | Administration | Flock age | Outcome | Developed resistance | Time of sustained reduction | Study | |
| Phage 71 (NCTC 12671) | Group III | NCTC | ∼1010 PFU by oral gavage | 32 days | 3 log10 CFU/g reduction in 24 h in cecal contents | n/a | 1 log sustained reduction over 30 days compared to control in both trials |
| |
| Phage 71, Phage 69 | Group III | ∼1010 PFU by oral gavage | 1.5 log10 CFU/g initial reduction | ||||||
| CP8 | Group III | Broiler chicken excreta, free-range layer chicken excreta, processed chicken meat | 7 log10 PFU by oral gavage | 25 days | 5.6 log10 CFU/g cecal content | <4% | 2.1–1.8 log10 sustained reduction for 5 days |
| |
| CP34 | Group III | 7 log10 PFU by oral gavage | 3.9 log10 CFU/g cecal counts | ||||||
| CP220 | Group II | Poultry sources | 7 log10 PFU by oral gavage | 20 days | 2.1 log10 CFU/g reduction 24 h post phage | 2% | 2 log10 sustained reduction for 2 days |
| |
| CP220 | Group II | 9 log10 PFU by oral gavage | 2 log10 reduction | ||||||
| PhiCcoIBB35, PhiCcoIBB37, PhiCcoIBB12 | Group II | Poultry intestinal contents | 1 × 106 PFU phage cocktail by oral gavage or 1.5 × 107 PFU through feed | 7 days | 1.25 log10 CFU/g reduction in feces by oral gavage 2 days post administration; 2 log10 CFU/g reduction in feces by feed route 2 days post administration | 13% | 1.7 log10 CFU/g sustained reduction in feces by oral gavage 7 days post administration; 2 log10 CFU/g sustained reduction in feces by feed route 7 days post administration |
| |
| NCTC 12672, NCTC 12673, NCTC 12674, NCTC 12678 | Group III | NCTC | Phage cocktail of 7.4 log10 PFU/bird | 36 d | 3.2 log CFU/g reduction in cecal content compared to control 1 day post administration | n/a | 1.66–2.14 PFU/g sustained reduction in cecal content 6 days post administration |
| |
| NCTC 12673 | Group III | NCTC | 107 PFU into crop of broiler | 9 d | 1.3 CFU/g log10 reduction of cecal contents compared to control up to 3 days post administration | Initially 43% | 2.8 log10 sustained reduction 21 days post administration in trial II |
| |
| NCTC 12673, NCTC 12674, NCTC 12678, NCTC 12672 | Group III | NCTC | Phage cocktail of 107 PFU directly into crop of broiler | 1.3 CFU/g log10 reduction of cecal content compared to control | Initially 24% | ||||
| CP14 | Group III | Chicken fecal samples of organic origin | 5 × 108 PFU by oral gavage | 27 days | 1 log10 reduction of cecal contents | 5% |
| ||
| CP14, CP81 | Group III | Retail chicken | 5 × 108 PFU by oral gavage | No reduction | 7%(CP14); 8% (CP81) | ||||
| CP14, 24 h later CP68 | Group II, III | Chicken fecal samples of organic origin | 5 × 108 PFU of CP14; 5 × 1010 PFU of CP68 by oral gavage | 3 log10 reduction of cecal contents 2 days post administration of CP68 | 5% (CP14) 2% (CP68) | ||||
| CP20, CP30A | Group II, III | Commercial broiler chicken excreta | 7 log10 PFU | 24 d | 2.4 log CFU g–1 reduction of cecal contents 2 days post treatment. | 0.1 | 1.3 log10 CFU g–1 sustained reduction after 5 days |
|
Campylobacter phage treatments during the postharvest studies.
| Phage | Group | Source | Administration | Results | Resistance | Study | |
| φ2 | Group III | NCTC 12674, ACTC 35922-B2 | 107 PFU/cm2 | 106 CFU/cm2
| 4°C >1 log10 CFU reduction 30 min, 3 days, 5 days | None |
|
| –20°C 2.3 log10 CFU reduction 5 days post administration | |||||||
| NCTC 12673 | Group III | NCTC | 106 PFU/cm2 on chicken skin | 104 CFU/cm2
| 4°C non-phage 90% reduction 24 h post administration | n/a |
|
| 4°C with phage 95% reduction 24 h post administration | |||||||
| Cj6 | Group not specified | Chicken feces | Low MOI (10) or | <100 cm–2 or | 5°C(high MOI, high host density) >2 log cm–2 reduction 24 h post administration for cooked meat and 1.5 log cm–2 for raw beef | n/a |
|
| high MOI (104) | 104 cm–2 of | ||||||
| Cj6 | Group not specified | Chicken feces | 102-108 PFU mL–1 | 10-104 CFU mL–1 of | 24°C and 2 h post administration: | n/a |
|
| 1.8 × 105 PFUmL–1 3–8% reduction | |||||||
| 1.2 × 106 PFUmL–1 33–52.3% reduction | |||||||
| 1.1 × 107 PFUmL–1 >96% reduction | |||||||
| Without phages 8.9% reduction | |||||||
| CP8 or CP 30 | Group III | Poultry excreta | 106 or 109 PFU/ml | In biofilms: CP30 or CP8 versus 11168 or PT14 | NCTC 11168 à CP8 (84%) à CP30 (90%) None in PT14 |
| |
| 3 log10 CFU/cm2 reduction 2 h post administration | |||||||
| CP8 versus 11168 barely detectable limits 24 h post administration | |||||||
| CP8 versus PT14 1 log10 CFU/cm2 reduction 24 h post administration | |||||||
| CP30 versus PT14 2.5 log10 CFU/cm2 reduction 4 h post administration | |||||||
| Planktonic cells: | |||||||
| CP30 versus PT14 < 1 log CFU/cm2 reduction 4 h post administration | |||||||
| F356 + F357 | Group not specified | Free range poultry farms | 107 PFU/cm2 | 104 CFU/cm2 of | 0.73 log10 reduction at 5°C 24 h post administration | n/a |
|