| Literature DB >> 35335222 |
Jiaxi Lin1,2, Fangyuan Du1,2, Miao Long1,2, Peng Li1,2.
Abstract
Bacterial infectious diseases cause serious harm to human health. At present, antibiotics are the main drugs used in the treatment of bacterial infectious diseases, but the abuse of antibiotics has led to the rapid increase in drug-resistant bacteria and to the inability to effectively control infections. Bacteriophages are a kind of virus that infects bacteria and archaea, adopting bacteria as their hosts. The use of bacteriophages as antimicrobial agents in the treatment of bacterial diseases is an alternative to antibiotics. At present, phage therapy (PT) has been used in various fields and has provided a new technology for addressing diseases caused by bacterial infections in humans, animals, and plants. PT uses bacteriophages to infect pathogenic bacteria so to stop bacterial infections and treat and prevent related diseases. However, PT has several limitations, due to a narrow host range, the lysogenic phenomenon, the lack of relevant policies, and the lack of pharmacokinetic data. The development of reasonable strategies to overcome these limitations is essential for the further development of this technology. This review article described the current applications and limitations of PT and summarizes the existing solutions for these limitations. This information will be useful for clinicians, people working in agriculture and industry, and basic researchers.Entities:
Keywords: applications; bacteriophage; existing solutions; limitations; phage therapy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35335222 PMCID: PMC8951143 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27061857
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Phage lysis cycle and lysogenic cycle.
Application field of phage therapy and corresponding host bacteria.
| Application Field | Phage Treatment | Host Bacteria | Treatment Effect | Reference(s) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Human | Oral phage mixture (including 676/F, A3/R and A5/80) | Resistant | Successfully decolonized drug-resistant | [ | |
| The film covers the wound surface and contains PhagoBioDerm, a new type of slow-release biopolymer impregnated with lysophage, antibiotics, and analgesics | Negative | [ | |||
| A filter paper disc soaked in a purified phage suspension covers the infected area |
| Three days after applying the phage, | [ | ||
| Animal | Cattle | Injection of phage Ø26, Ø29, Ø21, Ø27, Ø6, Ø44, Ø16, Ø39, Ø55, and Ø51 | Shigatoxigenic | Improved calf diarrhea, lowered rectal temperature, and increased calf weight | [ |
| Poultry | Cloaca drops or oral bacteriophages CB4Ø and WT45Ø | Significantly reduced | [ | ||
| Aerosol spray or drinking water to administer phage BPs * (mixture of phage BP1, BP2 and BP3) | Reduced | [ | |||
| Oral or spray administration of BPs and Broilact (a commercial probiotic product) | Significantly reduced | [ | |||
| Oral bacteriophages CNPSA1, CNPSA3 and CNPSA4 | [ | ||||
| Oral phage ØCJ107 | Significantly reduced colonization and horizontal spread of | [ | |||
| Oral bacteriophages S2a, S9 and S11 and Protexin (a probiotic product) | Significantly reduced the number of | [ | |||
| Spray and intramuscular injection of bacteriophage SPR02 and DAF6 | Significantly reduced mortality | [ | |||
| Bacteriophage SPR02 and DAF6 injection | Significantly reduced mortality rate and incidence and severity of air sacculitis injury | [ | |||
| Bacteriophage SPR02 airbag inoculation | Significantly reduced mortality | [ | |||
| Mixture of phages phi F78E, phiF258E, and phi F61E | Significantly reduced morbidity and mortality | [ | |||
| Aerosol spray of bacteriophage SPRO2 and DAF6 | Significantly reduced weight loss and mortality | [ | |||
| Pig | Mixture of phages F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, and F8 | Significantly reduced | [ | ||
| Oral two-strain phage mixture | Reduced intestinal colonization of | [ | |||
| 14 kinds of phage mixture (PEW 1–14) gavage and oral administration, microencapsulated | Reduced | [ | |||
| Oral microcapsules composed of 14 kinds of phage mixtures (PEW 1–14) and bacteriophage Felix O1 | Reduced colonization of | [ | |||
| Oral phage CJ12 |
| Decreased diarrhea rate and significantly reduced | [ | ||
| Oral mixture of several of the 7 phages (GJ1–GJ7) | Prevention or treatment of diarrhea, significantly reduced damage by diarrhea | [ | |||
| Mouse | Intraperitoneal injection of bacteriophages ENB6 and C33 |
| Significantly reduced mortality | [ | |
| Intraperitoneal injection of phage ØEF24C | Significantly reduced mortality | [ | |||
| Intraperitoneal injection of a single dose of phage CSV-31 | Significantly reduced mortality | [ | |||
| Intraperitoneal injection of phage ØA392 | Significantly increased survival rate | [ | |||
| Intraperitoneal injection of bacteriophage SS |
| Significantly reduced | [ | ||
| Intraperitoneal injection of phage ØNK5 | Significantly inhibited liver damage and death caused by | [ | |||
| Plant | Citrus fruit trees | Spray phages CP2, ØXac2005-1, ccØ7, ccØ13, ØXacm2004-4, ØXacm2004-16, ØX44, ØXaacAl |
| Significantly reduced the severity of citrus canker and citrus bacterial spot | [ |
| Potato | Phage φMA1, φMA1A, φMA2, φMA5, φMA6, and φMA7 | Significantly reduced rate and area of soft rot | [ | ||
| Food | Beef/vegetables and ground beef | Use of a dropper to administer a mixture of the phages e11/2, pp01, and e4/1c, dropwise |
| Eliminated or significantly reduced | [ |
| Coated phage ECP-100 (a mixture of ECML-4, ECML-117, and ECML-134) | Significantly reduced the number of | [ | |||
| Dip into the washing solution made of bacteriophages C14, V9, L1, and LL15 | Significantly reduced | [ | |||
| Chicken skin/fresh cut fruit/sausage | Spray phage type 4 strains P125589, P22, and 29C |
| Significantly reduced the number of | [ | |
| Drops of bacteriophage Felix O1 | Significantly suppressed the number of | [ | |||
* BP: Bacteriophage.
Limitations of PT, their impact on clinical applications, and solutions.
| Types of Defects in Bacteriophage Therapy | Limitations of Bacteriophage Therapy | Implications for Clinical Applications | Solution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disadvantages of bacteriophages | Phage specificity | Unable to treat mixed bacterial infections | Phage Mix |
| Lysogenic phage | Cannot lyse bacteriophages and may transmit toxin genes and drug resistance genes to bacteria | Strict use of lytic phage | |
| The composition is complex, and the quality and efficacy test and evaluation are difficult | Unable to assess its quality and efficacy | Determine the dosage form and concentration of phage preparations, compare similar drugs, and select reasonable evaluation methods | |
| Bacteria resistance to bacteriophages | Lead to ineffective treatment | Combined dosage, regimens with antibiotics or probiotics, phage mixtures | |
| Policies, regulations and standards | Lack of regulations and policies | Lack of regulatory supervision, easy to abuse | Formulate regulations and improve policies |
| Lack of separation and purification standards | The isolated phage is not standardized enough and not pure enough | Establish complete separation and purification standards | |
| Clinical application | Determination of administration method and dosage form | Different dosage forms affect the efficacy | Explore the advantages and disadvantages of different administration methods and dosage forms |
| Lack of pharmacokinetic data | Unable to determine the half-life and action time of the phage in the body | Statistic data on pharmacokinetics of different formulations of phage and use of phage protectors | |
| Endotoxin release | May cause endotoxemia | Establish a treatment plan for the foreseeable release of endotoxin | |
| Phage protein immune response | May cause immune stress | Record possible immune response through a large number of clinical trials | |
| Lack of data from double-blind randomized controlled clinical trials | Unsure of its efficacy | Double-blind randomized controlled trials of phage therapeutics to evaluate their therapeutic effects |