4.7 Article

In vivo efficiency evaluation of a phage cocktail in controlling severe colibacillosis in confined conditions and experimental poultry houses

Journal

VETERINARY MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 146, Issue 3-4, Pages 303-308

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2010.05.015

Keywords

Bacteriophages; Therapy; E. coli; Large scale; Poultry

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Infections caused by avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) cause important economic losses to poultry industry. The studies presented herein, aimed at investigating the in vivo performance of a cocktail of three phages in treating severe respiratory E. coli infections in experimentally contaminated birds and naturally infected flocks. Three lytic coliphages, phi F78E (Myoviridae), phi F258E (Siphoviridae) and phi F61E (Myoviridae) were combined in a 5.0 x 10(7) PFU/ml cocktail to be used in naturally APEC infected flocks (refractive to antibiotherapy). Experimentally infected birds were treated with phi F78E at two different titres (10(7) PFU/ml and 10(9) PFU/ml). Phage administration was performed orally and by spray, in a single application. The morbidity, mortality and pathology scores were compared with control birds not receiving phage therapy. The results revealed that the success of phage therapy in experimental rooms was dosage dependent, being 10(7) PFU/ml not enough to treat the infected chickens whereas a concentration of 10(9) PFU/ml of phi F78E allowed a decrease of 25% and 43% in chickens' mortality and morbidity, respectively. In the large scale experiments, the results obtained showed a remarkable efficacy of the low titre phage cocktail (10(7) PFU/ml) in decreasing the flocks' mortality to levels below 0.5% in no more than 3 weeks, with no recidivism. Based on the results we can conclude that phage treatment is a valuable alternative to control APEC infections in poultry. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available