Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Critique
Editorial
Errata
Erratum
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Perspective
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Short Paper
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Viewpoint
White Paper
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Critique
Editorial
Errata
Erratum
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Perspective
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Short Paper
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Viewpoint
White Paper
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Correspondence
144 (
3
); 482-483
doi:
10.4103/0971-5916.198691

A need for careful consideration of bacteriophage therapy

Department of Microbiology, Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, Kalapet, Puducherry 605 014, India
Licence

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

Sir,

We read with great interest the article by Kishor et al1 on phage therapy of staphylococcal chronic osteomyelitis in experimental animal model. Bacteriophages have been used for therapy as far back as 1917 by Felix d’Herelle who after ingesting them himself administered them to a 12 yr old boy with severe dysentery2. Phages have been routinely used as therapeutic agents in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, being administered by various routes, with only a few reported cases of severe adverse reactions3.

PhagoBioDerm (Phage International, Georgia) is a commercial preparation containing a panel of phages against Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Proteus and Streptococcus4. The United States Food and Drug Administration has approved the use of anti-Listeria phage cocktails (ListShield™ and LISTEX™ P100) as food additives (poultry products and meat)5. Omnilytics, Inc., (US) specializes in supplying customized phage preparations for agricultural use (Omnilytics’ Agriphage™), tailored against bacteria infecting plants during the growing season6. However, detailed research on the kinetics of phages administered to animals and humans is lacking. Available data on the pharmacokinetics of phage preparations suggest that phages can enter the bloodstream and be found in the internal organs within 10 h of administration, and can remain in the body for up to several days. Sequestration in the filtering organs would prevent the bulk of administered phages from reaching the infecting bacteria7. Moreover, the environment in some body compartments where bacteria reside may not allow the phages to establish themselves. Mathematical models developed by Cairns et al8 have suggested that paradoxically, addition of antibiotics in parallel with phage may hamper phage efficacy. A detailed study on the effects of varying phage doses and time of administration after infection using a mouse model of vancomycin-resistant enterococci is available9.

One should also remember that phages may harbour virulence factors or toxin genes. The determination of the complete nucleotide sequence of a P. aeruginosa-specific phage led to the observation that a number of the gene products bore striking similarity to functionally unknown proteins from diverse organisms10.

Host range, phage virulence and burst size are some important parameters that need to be considered when selecting phages for therapeutic uses. Perhaps, the authors could have detailed the quantification of the phages carried out to prepare the various concentrations1. How were the most virulent phages determined to prepare the cocktail? Have the results of electron microscopy and molecular tests been used to help classify the isolated phages? An individual phage may have a host range of 30-40 strains of bacteria, and even bacteria from other genera. The phage cocktail prepared could have been tested in vitro on S. aureus or methicillin-resistant S. aureus strains before being injected into the rabbits to demonstrate host specificity. However, the concern that phages administered therapeutically might disturb the normal flora is largely unfounded as phages are highly receptor-specific, and no such data have been reported from studies elsewhere3. One of the possible roles for phages in the near future that can be relatively safely explored is their use as a fomite decontaminant11.

There are several questions that arise after reading the article by Kishor et al1. An appropriate control group is essential to validate the results. Instead of the chronic osteomyelitis model group (group B), the group in which therapeutic intervention was not carried out (group A) could have been designated as the control group. The autopsy findings of the animals have not been presented: was there bacterial invasion of the bloodstream in spite of phage therapy? Was an attempt made to isolate the administered phages from the bloodstream and various organs? Group B rabbits, which became culture negative in the eighth week, were followed up for another two months but outcome at the end of this period was not mentioned. Was there any change in them? Since results for rabbits in group B have been presented up to the eighth week, some of the rabbits in group A could have been kept alive for the same time, serving as a control for the chronic osteomyelitis group at the time of intervention.

As we look for weapons to add to the depleting arsenal against multidrug-resistant bacteria, studies such as this need to be designed well to solve several unanswered queries. Detailed research on the available options will go a long way in adding to the armamentarium to treat infections with pan-drug resistant organisms.

Conflicts of Interest: None.

References

  1. , , , , , , . Phage therapy of staphylococcal chronic osteomyelitis in experimental animal model. Indian J Med Res. 2016;143:87-94.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , . [Sur un microbe invisible antagoniste des bacilles dysenterique] CR Acad Sci Ser D. 1917;165:373-5.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , . Experimental phage therapy on multiple drug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in mice. J Antivir Antiretrovir. 2013;S10:005.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , , , , . Experimental phage therapy for Burkholderia pseudomallei infection. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0158213.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , , . Antibacterial bioagents based on principles of bacteriophage biology: an overview. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58:528-534.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. , , . Phage choice, isolation, and preparation for phage therapy. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2010;11:2-14.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. , , , , , . Different approaches for using bacteriophages against antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Bacteriophage. 2014;4:e28491.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , , , . Quantitative models of in vitro bacteriophage-host dynamics and their application to phage therapy. PLoS Pathog. 2009;5(1):e1000253.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , , , , . Bacteriophage therapy rescues mice bacteremic from a clinical isolate of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium. Infect Immun. 2002;70:204-10.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. , , , , , , . The genome of bacteriophage phiKZ of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Mol Biol. 2002;317:1-19.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. , , , , , , . Isolation and host range of bacteriophage with lytic activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and potential use as a fomite decontaminant. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0131714.
    [Google Scholar]

    Fulltext Views
    14

    PDF downloads
    9
    View/Download PDF
    Download Citations
    BibTeX
    RIS
    Show Sections
    Scroll to Top