4.6 Article

The Susceptibility of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Strains from Cystic Fibrosis Patients to Bacteriophages

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 8, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060575

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. association Vaincre La Mucoviscidose [2010/IC1020]
  2. Agence Universitaire de la Francophonie

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Phage therapy may become a complement to antibiotics in the treatment of chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. To design efficient therapeutic cocktails, the genetic diversity of the species and the spectrum of susceptibility to bacteriophages must be investigated. Bacterial strains showing high levels of phage resistance need to be identified in order to decipher the underlying mechanisms. Here we have selected genetically diverse P. aeruginosa strains from cystic fibrosis patients and tested their susceptibility to a large collection of phages. Based on plaque morphology and restriction profiles, six different phages were purified from pyophage, a commercial cocktail directed against five different bacterial species, including P. aeruginosa. Characterization of these phages by electron microscopy and sequencing of genome fragments showed that they belong to 4 different genera. Among 47 P. aeruginosa strains, 13 were not lysed by any of the isolated phages individually or by pyophage. We isolated two new phages that could lyse some of these strains, and their genomes were sequenced. The presence/absence of a CRISPR-Cas system (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats and Crisper associated genes) was investigated to evaluate the role of the system in phage resistance. Altogether, the results show that some P. aeruginosa strains cannot support the growth of any of the tested phages belonging to 5 different genera, and suggest that the CRISPR-Cas system is not a major defence mechanism against these lytic phages.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available