Indan Journal of Medical Research Indan Journal of Medical Research Indan Journal of Medical Research
  Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login  
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 1759    

   Table of Contents      
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 144  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 482-483

A need for careful consideration of bacteriophage therapy

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

Date of Submission17-Jun-2016
Date of Web Publication20-Jan-2017

Correspondence Address:
Stephen Mathew
Department of Microbiology, Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, Kalapet, Puducherry 605 014
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0971-5916.198691

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Mathew S. A need for careful consideration of bacteriophage therapy. Indian J Med Res 2016;144:482-3

How to cite this URL:
Mathew S. A need for careful consideration of bacteriophage therapy. Indian J Med Res [serial online] 2016 [cited 2021 Sep 26];144:482-3. Available from:


We read with great interest the article by Kishor et al[1] 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 dysentery [2]. 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 reactions [3].

PhagoBioDerm (Phage International, Georgia) is a commercial preparation containing a panel of phages against Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Proteus and Streptococcus[4]. 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 season [6]. 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 bacteria [7]. Moreover, the environment in some body compartments where bacteria reside may not allow the phages to establish themselves. Mathematical models developed by Cairns et al[8] 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 available [9].

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 organisms [10].

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 concentrations [1]. 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 elsewhere [3]. One of the possible roles for phages in the near future that can be relatively safely explored is their use as a fomite decontaminant [11].

There are several questions that arise after reading the article by Kishor et al[1]. 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 Top

Kishor C, Mishra RR, Saraf SK, Kumar M, Srivastav AK, Nath G. Phage therapy of staphylococcal chronic osteomyelitis in experimental animal model. Indian J Med Res 2016; 143 :87-94.  Back to cited text no. 1
d' Herelle F. [Sur un microbe invisible antagoniste des bacilles dysenterique]. CR Acad Sci Ser D 1917; 165 : 373-5.  Back to cited text no. 2
Golkar Z, Bagasra O, Jamil N. Experimental phage therapy on multiple drug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in mice. J Antivir Antiretrovir 2013; S10:005.   Back to cited text no. 3
Guang-Han O, Leang-Chung C, Vellasamy KM, Mariappan V, Li-Yen C, Vadivelu J. Experimental phage therapy for Burkholderia pseudomallei infection. PLoS One 2016; 11 (7) : e0158213.   Back to cited text no. 4
Knoll BM, Mylonakis E. Antibacterial bioagents based on principles of bacteriophage biology: an overview. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 58 : 528-534.  Back to cited text no. 5
Gill JJ, Hyman P. Phage choice, isolation, and preparation for phage therapy. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 2010; 11 : 2-14  Back to cited text no. 6
Yosef I, Kiro R, Molshanski-Mor S, Edgar R, Qimron U. Different approaches for using bacteriophages against antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Bacteriophage 2014; 4 : e28491.   Back to cited text no. 7
Cairns BJ, Timms AR, Jansen VAA, Connerton IF, Payne RJH. Quantitative models of in vitro bacteriophage-host dynamics and their application to phage therapy. PLoS Pathog 2009; 5 (1) : e1000253.  Back to cited text no. 8
Biswas B, Adhya S, Washart P, Paul B, Trostel AN, Powell B, et al. Bacteriophage therapy rescues mice bacteremic from a clinical isolate of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium. Infect Immun 2002; 70 : 204-10.  Back to cited text no. 9
Mesyanzhinov VV, Robben J, Grymonprez B, Kostyuchenko VA, Bourkaltseva MV, Sykilinda NN, et al. The genome of bacteriophage phiKZ of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Mol Biol 2002; 317 : 1-19.  Back to cited text no. 10
Jensen KC, Hair BB, Wienclaw TM, Murdock MH, Hatch JB, Trent AT, et al. 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.  Back to cited text no. 11

This article has been cited by
1 Lytic Bacteriophage EFA1 Modulates HCT116 Colon Cancer Cell Growth and Upregulates ROS Production in an Enterococcus faecalis Co-culture System
Mwila Kabwe,Terri Meehan-Andrews,Heng Ku,Steve Petrovski,Steven Batinovic,Hiu Tat Chan,Joseph Tucci
Frontiers in Microbiology. 2021; 12
[Pubmed] | [DOI]


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded313    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal