Phage therapy—the use of bacterial viruses as equivalents of antibacterial “drugs”—has been practiced for nearly 100 years. Much, particularly since the 1940s, has taken place in the former Soviet Union. Nevertheless, interest in phage therapy in Western countries has been steadily building since the 1980s. Much of this interest has been in response to growing concerns over antibiotic resistance, though there are concerns, as well, over antibiotic side effects (Langdon et al., 2016). Phage therapy in many cases has been used as a means of treating chronic bacterial infections which may be tolerant to antibiotic treatment rather than necessarily also genetically resistant. This antibiotic tolerance is thought to occur predominantly as a consequence of bacterial growth within biofilms (Olsen, 2015). In practice, however, what is going on is that phage therapy has been used to treat bacterial infections against which antibiotics, often following months or years of treatment, have not been successful (e.g., Rhoads et al., 2009; Wright et al., 2009; Miedzybrodzki et al., 2012).
Despite this clinical aspect of phage therapy, pre-clinical studies have not tended to focus experimentally on chronic bacterial infections. There have been exceptions, however, particularly in which a fair amount of time has elapsed between bacterial challenge and start of phage treatment (Table 1). Here I focus on the recent study of Kishor et al. (2016), which employs the longest delay of which I am aware, in an animal model, between bacterial challenge and phage application.
Table 1
| Organism(s) treated | Delay before treatmentb | Challenge | Consequence | Treatment | Resultsc | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Escherichia coli | 168 h | Force-fed axenic mice with 5 × 107 CFU | Intestinal colonization | 105 PFU/ml in drinking water | ~108 CFU/ml reduced to ~104 CFU/ml in feces | Chibani-Chennoufi et al., 2004 |
| Escherichia coli O157:H7 | 48 h | Force-fed mice with 109 CFU | Intestinal colonization | Force fed 108 PFU, 1 dose, or 1010 PFU, 1 dose or “daily” | < 103 vs. < 102 CFU/g in feces for control (etc.) vs. “daily” treatment, around day 8 | Tanji et al., 2005 |
| Mycobacterium avium | 168 h | IV 3 × 107 CFU to mice | Continuing replication | IV 8 × 109 PFU or 4 × 107 phage-infected M. smegmatis in 100 μl, 1 or 2 doses | ~0.5-log fewer CFU in spleen for phage-infected M. smegmatis, day 14, no reduction for phage only | Danelishvili et al., 2006 |
| Staphylococcus aureus | 96 h | Subcutaneous 108 or 109 CFU/mouse | Abscess development | Subcutaneous 109 PFUd in 200 μl, 1 or 4 doses | ~108 vs. ~106 or ~104 CFU per abscess for control vs. treatments | Capparelli et al., 2007 |
| Staphylococcus aureus | 240 h | IV 5 × 106 CFU to mice | Non-lethal systemic infection | 109 PFU in 200 μle | ~104 CFU vs. 0 in various organs, day 20 | Capparelli et al., 2007 |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 96, 240 hf | 108 CFU/ml in mouse drinking waterg | Gut-derived septicemia | 1010 PFU in 100 μl orally administered | 0, 10, and 66.7% 20-day survival for no, 240, and 96-h treatments | Watanabe et al., 2007 |
| Salmonella enterica | 48, 336 h | IV 106 or 105 CFU, respectively, to mice | Sublethal systemic infection | IV 107 PFU in 100 μl | ~104 CFU reduced to 0 in various organs | Capparelli et al., 2010 |
| Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus | 96 h | Mouse wounds injected with 100 μl of organisms of one type | Infected wound (diabetes mellitus model) | 108–109 PFU presumably topical following one or more debridements, >10 doses | ~105 vs. ~102 CFU/swab, day 8, control vs. treatment (S. aureus)h | Mendes et al., 2013 |
| Mycobacterium ulcerans | 792 h | Subcutaneous 3 × 105 CFU into mouse footpad | Footpad swelling with continuing replication | Subcutaneous 108 PFU into mouse footpad | ~3 × 105 vs. ~3 × 103 CFU/footpad, day 68, control vs. treatment | Trigo et al., 2013 |
| Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) | 96 h | Intranasal 106 CFU/mouse | Nare potentially transient colonization | Intranasal 50 μl of 107 PFU/ml, 2 doses | ~105.5 vs. ~101 CFU/g, day 11, control vs. treatment | Chhibber et al., 2014 |
| Staphylococcus aureus | 168 h | Sinus inoculation of sheep | Sinusitis model | Sinus inoculation of 100 ml of 2 × 108 PFU/ml, 5 doses | ~80% reduction in biofilm biomass, control vs. treatment | Drilling et al., 2014 |
| Acinetobacter baumannii (multi-drug resistant) | 48 h | 108 CFU inoculated into wound of diabetic rats | Abscess development | 400 μl of 3 × 109/ml PFU sprayed onto debrided wound | ~109 vs. 0 CFU, day 8, control vs. treatment | Shivaswamy et al., 2015 |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae | 48, 72 h | Intranasal 104 CFU/mouse | Lobar pneumonia | IP, liposome-entrapped phagesi | ~105 vs. ~103 vs. 0 CFU, day 5, control vs. 72-h delay vs. 48-h delayj | Singla et al., 2015 |
| Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) | 504, 1008 hk | Intramedullary injection of rabbits with uncertain number (≤ 5 × 106) CFU | Chronic osteomyelitis | Intralesional injection of 5 × 1011 PFU, 4 doses | Cure of infection versus (for 504 h delay) lack of cure w/o treatment | Kishor et al., 2016 |
Animal models of human phage therapy with treatment delays exceeding 24 ha.
CFU, Colony-Forming Units; IP, Intraperitoneal; IV, Intravenous; MRSA, Methicillin-Resistant or Multi-drug Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; PFU, Plaque-Forming Units.
Time between initial exposure to bacteria and initial exposure to phages. Shown per study are only those delays of longer than 24 h.
Day indicated is post initial bacterial challenge.
It is difficult to tell whether the phage administration was or was not made directly to the abscess.
Phages were presumably delivered intravenously, though this is not explicitly stated.
Phage additions were either 48- to 96-h prior to (96-h treatment) or 48- to 96-h post (240-h treatment) the cyclophosphamide-mediated induction of septicemia.
This was followed days later by cyclophosphamide IP injection to induce septicemia.
P. aeruginosa saw similar drops without phage treatment though sooner with phage treatment; A. baumanni also saw substantial drops with phage treatment when assaying for colony counts using selective media; mostly analogous though not identical and also more variable results were seen for S. aureus and P. aeruginosa with an otherwise equivalent pig model.
Both free and liposome-entrapped phages were administered in this study representing concentrations of 109 and 107 PFU/ml and multiplicities of infection of 1 and 0.01, respectively.
No difference in results was observed between control and 48-h delay in phage treatment w/o liposome entrapment. Note that 5-days post bacterial challenge is 3 and 2 days post 48 and 72-h phage treatment, respectively. The 72-h treatment also was reduced to zero CFU 7 days post bacterial challenge while the no-treatment control was reduced to 103 CFU/ml at 7 days.
3 and 6 weeks, respectively, though the 3-week treatment may in fact have actually begun on day 16.
Kishor et al. (2016) present a rabbit model of chronic osteomyelitis caused by a methicillin-resistant isolate of Staphylococcus aureus. Two rabbits were used to test phage cocktail safety (intraperitoneal delivery of ~1011 plaque-forming units), four served as untreated controls, 12 were treated with phages after ~3 weeks, and another four were treated with phages after 6 weeks. Cocktails consisted of seven phages and a total of four doses were applied, 2 days between each. Wounds were prepared thusly (p. 89): “…a 2 cm long incision was made at the lateral aspect of distal end of femur and metaphysial area was exposed. With the help of a hand drill, a 5 mm diameter unicortical defect was created…” Following bacterial inoculation, “The incised area was covered by sterile bandages with one stitch at middle of open area.” Phage treatment by injection into the infected area, with either 3- and 6-week delays, resulted in negative cultures in 15 cases. The 16th was sacrificed for study prior to completion of phage administration.
I have a few minor criticisms of the study, which the authors note is “preliminary.” First, it is difficult to tell just how many bacteria were applied. Second, all control rabbits were sacrificed during week 6, meaning that there were no no-treatment controls for the 6-week-delay experiments. Lastly is the notion of “lysis of bacteria from outside,” which I interpret as reference to “lysis from without” (Abedon, 2011) but which the authors appear to be equating, incorrectly, with the concept of inundation (Payne and Jansen, 2001). Inundation therapy generally is assumed to involve bacteria killing though not necessarily also phage replication nor even bacterial lysis.
A much more substantive concern is that these authors have, in essence, made their reported treatment look too easy. This is not a criticism of the results presented but instead stems from a much more general question of just what constitutes a chronic bacterial infection as typically treated clinically using phage therapy. Thus, does this rabbit osteomyelitis model, impressive as it appears, come close to actually modeling antibiotic-tolerant chronic bacterial infections?
The authors indicate that chronic osteomyelitis is defined by bone inflammation that has lasted for at least 6 weeks. By contrast, by the time phage treatment has begun in the clinic, chronic infections typically have persisted, often despite ongoing antibiotic treatment, for up to many years, e.g., a median of 43 months as reported by Miedzybrodzki et al. (2012). Differences therefore may exist between chronic osteomyelitis at 6 weeks and that which phage therapists may encounter in the clinic, and particularly so given that there have been delays in treatment until after more conventional approaches have failed.
Drawing on the Kishor et al. (
2016) study as well as others presented in Table
1, I would like to suggest five criteria for judging experimental animal infections as models for phage therapy of chronic infections as encountered in the clinic. As the first criterion should be assumed as a given, I start the list at zero:
0. Substantial delays, e.g., multiple days, weeks, or longer, following bacterial challenge; minimally including demonstration of some degree of infection stabilization prior to the onset of phage treatment.
1. Equivalent degrees of site preparation as used clinically prior to the onset of treatment, e.g., debridement in the case of wound infections.
Generally these should be followed with at least two of the following:
2. Demonstration, in most cases, of a lack of adequate treatment success without multiple, temporally separated phage applications over relatively long periods, i.e., if multiple doses over weeks are required in the clinic to adequately combat chronic infections then success using only a single dose in the laboratory ought to be suspect.
3. Demonstration, in many cases, of development of biofilms prior to treatment.
4. Demonstration of physiological development, by model infections, of antibiotic tolerance.
The latter point in a sense is an operational definition since chronic infections can become eligible for phage therapy due to a failure to be effectively treated using antibiotics—failures which are not necessarily consequences of genetically acquired resistance and particularly as associated with biofilm formation. Thus, chronic infection models for phage therapy in at least some cases should be ones for which antibiotics, as normally employed, have lost their ability to clear otherwise laboratory-sensitive bacteria over the course of infection development.
In conclusion, with few quibbles, I want to stress that I am delighted with Kishor et al.'s efforts. But, as with good science generally, as many questions are raised by their study as have been answered.
Statements
Author contributions
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for publication.
Acknowledgments
The author has consulted and served on advisory boards for companies with phage therapy interests, holds equity stake in a number of these companies, and maintains the websites phage.org and phage-therapy.org. The text presented, however, represents the perspective of the author alone and no help was received in its writing.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
AbedonS. T. (2011). Lysis from without. Bacteriophage1, 46–49. 10.4161/bact.1.1.13980
2
CapparelliR.NocerinoN.IannacconeM.ErcoliniD.ParlatoM.ChiaraM.et al. (2010). Bacteriophage therapy of Salmonella enterica: a fresh appraisal of bacteriophage therapy. J. Infect. Dis.201, 52–61. 10.1086/648478
3
CapparelliR.ParlatoM.BorrielloG.SalvatoreP.IannelliD. (2007). Experimental phage therapy against Staphylococcus aureus in mice. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.51, 2765–2773. 10.1128/AAC.01513-06
4
ChhibberS.GuptaP.KaurS. (2014). Bacteriophage as effective decolonising agent for elimination of MRSA from anterior nares of BALB/c mice. BMC Microbiol.14:212. 10.1186/s12866-014-0212-8
5
Chibani-ChennoufiS.SidotiJ.BruttinA.KutterE.SarkerS.BrüssowH. (2004). In vitro and in vivo bacteriolytic activities of Escherichia coli phages: implications for phage therapy. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.48, 2558–2569. 10.1128/AAC.48.7.2558-2569.2004
6
DanelishviliL.YoungL. S.BermudezL. E. (2006). In vivo efficacy of phage therapy for Mycobacterium avium infection as delivered by a nonvirulent mycobacterium. Microb. Drug Res.12, 1–6. 10.1089/mdr.2006.12.1
7
DrillingA.MoralesS.BoaseS.Jervis-BardyJ.JamesC.JardelezaC.et al. (2014). Safety and efficacy of topical bacteriophage and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid treatment of Staphylococcus aureus infection in a sheep model of sinusitis. Int. Forum Allergy Rhinol.4, 176–186. 10.1002/alr.21270
8
KishorC.MishraR. R.SarafS. K.KumarM.SrivastavA. K.NathG. (2016). Phage therapy of staphylococcal chronic osteomyelitis in experimental animal model. Indian J. Med. Res.143, 87–94. 10.4103/0971-5916.178615
9
LangdonA.CrookN.DantasG. (2016). The effects of antibiotics on the microbiome throughout development and alternative approaches for therapeutic modulation. Genome Med.8:1. 10.1186/s13073-016-0294-z
10
MendesJ. J.LeandroC.Corte-RealS.BarbosaR.Cavaco-SilvaP.Melo-CristinoJ.et al. (2013). Wound healing potential of topical bacteriophage therapy on diabetic cutaneous wounds. Wound Repair Regen.21, 595–603. 10.1111/wrr.12056
11
MiedzybrodzkiR.BorysowskiJ.Weber-DabrowskaB.FortunaW.LetkiewiczS.SzufnarowskiK.et al. (2012). Clinical aspects of phage therapy. Adv. Virus Res.83, 73–121. 10.1016/B978-0-12-394438-2.00003-7
12
OlsenI. (2015). Biofilm-specific antibiotic tolerance and resistance. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.34, 877–886. 10.1007/s10096-015-2323-z
13
PayneR. J. H.JansenV. A. A. (2001). Understanding bacteriophage therapy as a density-dependent kinetic process. J. Theor. Biol.208, 37–48. 10.1006/jtbi.2000.2198
14
RhoadsD. D.WolcottR. D.KuskowskiM. A.WolcottB. M.WardL. S.SulakvelidzeA. (2009). Bacteriophage therapy of venous leg ulcers in humans: results of a phase I safety trial. J. Wound Care18, 237–244. 10.12968/jowc.2009.18.6.42801
15
ShivaswamyV. C.KalasuramathS. B.SadanandC. K.BasavarajuA. K.GinnavaramV.BilleS.et al. (2015). Ability of bacteriophage in resolving wound infection caused by multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in uncontrolled diabetic rats. Microb. Drug Resist.21, 171–177. 10.1089/mdr.2014.0120
16
SinglaS.HarjaiK.KatareO. P.ChhibberS. (2015). Bacteriophage-loaded nanostructured lipid carrier: improved pharmacokinetics mediates effective resolution of Klebsiella pneumoniae induced lobar pneumonia. J. Infect. Dis.212, 325–334. 10.1093/infdis/jiv029
17
TanjiY.ShimadaT.FukudomiH.MiyanagaK.NakaiY.UnnoH. (2005). Therapeutic use of phage cocktail for controlling Escherichia coli O157:H7 in gastrointestinal tract of mice. J. Biosci. Bioeng.100, 280–287. 10.1263/jbb.100.280
18
TrigoG.MartinsT. G.FragaA. G.Longatto-FilhoA.CastroA. G.AzeredoJ.et al. (2013). Phage therapy is effective against infection by Mycobacterium ulcerans in a murine footpad model. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis.7:e2183. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002183
19
WatanabeR.MatsumotoT.SanoG.IshiiY.TatedaK.SumiyamaY.et al. (2007). Efficacy of bacteriophage therapy against gut-derived sepsis caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa in mice. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.51, 446–452. 10.1128/AAC.00635-06
20
WrightA.HawkinsC. H.AnggårdE. E.HarperD. R. (2009). A controlled clinical trial of a therapeutic bacteriophage preparation in chronic otitis due to antibiotic-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa; a preliminary report of efficacy. Clin. Otolaryng.34, 349–357. 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2009.01973.x
Summary
Keywords
phage therapy, chronic infection, antibacterial agents, bacteriophages, staphylococcal infections, animal models
Citation
Abedon ST (2016) Commentary: Phage Therapy of Staphylococcal Chronic Osteomyelitis in Experimental Animal Model. Front. Microbiol. 7:1251. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01251
Received
20 June 2016
Accepted
28 July 2016
Published
10 August 2016
Volume
7 - 2016
Edited by
Joshua D. Nosanchuk, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, USA
Reviewed by
Philippe Georgel, University of Strasbourg, France; Victor Krylov, I. I. Mechikov Institute for Vaccines and Sera, Russia
Updates
Copyright
© 2016 Abedon.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Stephen T. Abedon abedon.1@osu.edu
This article was submitted to Antimicrobials, Resistance and Chemotherapy, a section of the journal Frontiers in Microbiology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.