| Literature DB >> 36146802 |
Emmanuel Kuffour Osei1,2,3, Jennifer Mahony1,2, John G Kenny2,3,4.
Abstract
Bacterial infections of livestock threaten the sustainability of agriculture and public health through production losses and contamination of food products. While prophylactic and therapeutic application of antibiotics has been successful in managing such infections, the evolution and spread of antibiotic-resistant strains along the food chain and in the environment necessitates the development of alternative or adjunct preventive and/or therapeutic strategies. Additionally, the growing consumer preference for "greener" antibiotic-free food products has reinforced the need for novel and safer approaches to controlling bacterial infections. The use of bacteriophages (phages), which can target and kill bacteria, are increasingly considered as a suitable measure to reduce bacterial infections and contamination in the food industry. This review primarily elaborates on the recent veterinary applications of phages and discusses their merits and limitations. Furthermore, using Streptococcus suis as a model, we describe the prevalence of prophages and the anti-viral defence arsenal in the genome of the pathogen as a means to define the genetic building blocks that are available for the (synthetic) development of phage-based treatments. The data and approach described herein may provide a framework for the development of therapeutics against an array of bacterial pathogens.Entities:
Keywords: Streptococcus suis; anti-viral defence; food; phage; prophages; zoonosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36146802 PMCID: PMC9501460 DOI: 10.3390/v14091996
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Viruses ISSN: 1999-4915 Impact factor: 5.818
Advantages and limitations associated with phages as antibacterial agents.
| Feature | Advantages | Limitations/Remarks |
|---|---|---|
| Specificity | Targets bacterial strains in a highly specific manner, thereby targeting only the intended bacteria and leaving bystander members of the resident microbiota unharmed | Strain specificity typically results in narrow target range compared to antibiotics. A mixture of several phages (cocktail) may be required for optimal bacteria clearance |
| Mode of action | Autodosing: ability to replicate at the site of infection and lyse bacterial cells | Temperate phages may integrate into bacterial chromosomes (prophages) and be passively replicated without resulting in bacterial lysis |
| Toxicity, safety | Phages do not infect or have serious adverse effect on eukaryotic cells. Endotoxins can be easily removed during phage purification. | Efficacy of phages may be reduced through neutralisation by animal immune system |
| Efficacy against MDR | Effective against multidrug resistant bacteria | Some phages may encode antibiotic resistance to genes and toxins that confer extra fitness to bacteria |
| Resistance | Specificity of phages limits the widespread use of specific phages in different infections, thus reducing the chances of resistance development by bacteria | Bacteria encode anti-phage systems such as abortive infection, restriction-modification, gabija, CRISPR-Cas, DISARM, etc., that interfere with successful phage infection |
| Production | Natural; can be isolated from diverse clinical and environmental sources and characterised rapidly compared to antibiotic discovery and development | Difficulty in isolating good therapeutic phage candidates against specific species or strains such as |
| Administration | Can be incorporated into feed or water and administered to animals | Challenges in formulation and stabilisation of phage preparation for therapy have been reported |
Figure 1Schematic representation of (A) conventional preclinical phage characterisation and (B) novel approaches to phage characterisation.
Some applications of phages in human infections (2017–2022).
| Condition/Infection | Phage Intervention | Remarks | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cystic fibrosis/ | Phage cocktail (3 × 108 pfu/mL) for 20 d via inh, p.o. | Dyspnea resolved and cough reduced | [ |
| Crohn’s disease/MDR | 3 week cycle single phage treatment | 15 days after first PT treatment, no MDR | [ |
| Necrotising pancreatitis/systemic | 3 different phage cocktails (1 × 109 pfu/mL i.c. for 18 weeks and 5 × 109 pfu/mL i.v. for 2 or 16 weeks) | Patient awoke from coma; mental health and renal function improvedPatient was discharged on day 245 | [ |
| Aorto-cutaneous fistula/ | Single i.o. dose of 108 pfu/mL phage OMKO1 | Blood cultures tested negative for | [ |
| Fracture-related infection (FRI)/ | 100 mL of 108 pfu/mL on day 1 and 107 pfu/mL was instilled on surgical wound via catheter t.i.d. up to day 5 | Improved microbiological, radiological and blood parameters 3 months post-phage therapy | [ |
| Disseminated cutaneous/ | i.v. of 109 pfu/mL b.i.d. for > 6 months | Discharged on day 4 following no adverse effects and improved laboratory markers | [ |
| Chronic vascular graft infection/ | local application of 20 mL 109 pfu/mL via drainage q.12 h for two days | Negative blood culture after last day of phage treatmentNo sign of graft infection | [ |
| Sternal wound abscesses/ | Single 4 ml 4 × 1010 pfu/mL i.o. | Wound was completely healed | [ |
| Cystic fibrosis/ | 8 weeks of 4 × 109 pfu/mL i.v., q.6 h | Resolution of renal function, white blood cell counts and fever | [ |
| Cystic fibrosis/ | Single topical 109 pfu/mL cocktail on wound | Negative serum and sputum cultures | [ |
| Lung disease/ | Up to 109 pfu/mL i.v., b.i.d. for > 6 months | [ |
Abbreviations: d: days; inh: inhalation; p.o.: orally; i.c.: intracutaneous; mo: months; i.v.: intravenous; i.o.: intraoperative; t.i.d.: three times a day; b.i.d.: twice a day; q.12 h: every twelve hours; q.6 h: every six hours; pfu: plaque forming unit.
Summary of phage studies in food matrices and surfaces.
| Food Matrix/Surface | Target Pathogen | Phage Treatment | Results/Log Unit Pathogen Reduction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Celery [ |
| cocktail | Reduced initial 5.0 by 2.2 (celery) and 1.8 (mushroom) |
| Salmon meat [ |
| SH3-3 phage | Target undetectable at 72 h compared to control (2.31) |
| Milk [ | cocktail | Milk: undetectable by 2 h (MOI 1000) or 12 h (MOI 100) at 25 °C | |
| Milk [ |
| phage LPSTLL | Initial 3.0 reduced by 2.8 in milk and by 0.52 in apple juice |
| Chicken-lettuce salad [ | SapYZU01 | Initial 5.1 reduced by 3.4 | |
| Meat and vegetables [ |
| Phage DW-EC | Initial 6.0 reduced by 43.38–87.89% on the foods |
| Mung beans [ |
| phage Sa45lw | Initial 4.8 reduced by 2.0 within 6 h |
| Chicken [ |
| phage CJ01 | Initial 4.0 reduced by 1.68 in chicken and 1.70 in mutton |
| Acid curd [ |
| cocktail | undetectable by 4 h in acid curd or 1 h in rennet curd |
| Chicken breast [ |
| phage SflS-ISF001 | Initial 4.0 reduced beyond 2.0 |
| Stainless steel [ |
| cocktail | Initial ~5.4 was undetectable by 75 min |
| Rubber [ |
| phage JK004 | inhibition rate for 6 h for rubber, polyethylene or SS was 99.95, 99.83, or 99.84%, respectively |
| Stainless steel [ | phages BP1369 and BP1370 | Undetectable after 144 h at 10 °C | |
| Stainless steel [ |
| phage AZO145A | Initially 4.8 reduced by 2.9 in 24 h |
Some commercially available phage products for food industry applications.
| Product Name | Target Pathogen | Application | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proteon Pharmaceuticals (Poland) | Bafasal® | Feed or water additive | |
| Bafador® | Feed additive for aquaculture | ||
| Intralytix (USA) | INT-401™ |
| In-feed or water additive |
| PLSV-1™ | Animal health care | ||
| Ecolicide PX™ |
| Hides of live animals | |
| ListShield™ |
| Food and surface decontamination | |
| ShigaShield™ | Decontamination of ready-to-eat (RTE) foods | ||
| SalmoLyse® | Decontamination of pet food | ||
| ACD Pharma (Norway) | CUSTUS® YRS |
| Treatment of fish environment in aquaculture |
| Phagelux (China) | LUZON | Control of infections in pig farms | |
| SHIJUNSHA | Control of infections in poultry farms | ||
| OmniLytics Inc. (USA) | Agriphage™ | Infection control on pepper and tomato | |
| CJ Cheiljedang Corp. | Biotector | Disease management on farms | |
| Micreos Food Safety | PhageGuard Listex™ |
| Decontamination of RTE and frozen foods |
| PhageGuard E |
| Decontamination of food products | |
| PhageGuard S | Decontamination of food products |
Figure 2Analysis of anti-viral defence systems detected among 133 publicly available S. suis genomes using PADLOC. (A) Abundance of defence systems calculated as the percentage of genomes (out of the total 133) that encode a specific defence system. (B) Total number of anti-viral systems per genome. (C) Categories of anti-viral systems based on molecular mechanism.
Figure 3Prevalence of prophages in S. suis genomes. Predicted regions were categorised into full-length (42.9%), putative full-length (54.1%), and incomplete prophages (84.2%). Of the 133 genomes, 84.2% are polylysogens—strains harbouring more than one phage region.
Figure 4Whole proteomic heatmap of the 71 full-length S. suis prophages. Nine clusters (C1–C9) and four singletons were identified. Members within each cluster share ≥ 50% (≥0.5) proteomic identity. Scale bar on the right represents sequence identity. Blue (1.0) represents highest identity, and white (0) represents no proteomic pairwise identity.
Figure 5Phylogenetic tree of S. suis (pro)phages. Tree was constructed from DNA sequence of the 71 full-length prophages with phage SMP as root. Computations of distance matrix and proteomic tree generation were performed in ViPtree. The final tree was visualised using iTOL. Clades are shown in different colours.
Figure 6Schematic representation of (pro)phage CDS similarity and organisation. Representative full-length (pro)phage genomes from each clade (of similar genome size) were selected and aligned. Horizontal colour-coded arrows indicate gene function (key on the bottom). Coloured diagonal and vertical lines (alignment) represent percent identity of genes. Dot plot of pairwise alignment indicated on the far left. Colour scale for alignments and dot plots presented in the top left.
Figure 7Association between number of prophages and defence systems or host genome size. (A) Average number of defence systems correlated with number of prophages identified in a genome (Spearman’s r = 0.40, p < 0.0001). (B) Average number of prophages per host genome size (Spearman’s r = 0.56, p < 0.0001).