4.1 Article

Bacteriophage treatment significantly reduces viable Clostridium difficile and prevents toxin production in an in vitro model system

Journal

ANAEROBE
Volume 16, Issue 6, Pages 549-554

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2010.08.006

Keywords

Clostridium difficile; Bacteriophage; Phage

Categories

Funding

  1. University of East Anglia
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BBS/E/F/00044446, BBS/E/F/00042262, BBS/E/F/00042196] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. BBSRC [BBS/E/F/00042196, BBS/E/F/00042262, BBS/E/F/00044446] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Clostridium difficile is primarily a nosocomial pathogen, causing thousands of cases of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea in the UK each year. In this study, we used a batch fermentation model of a C. difficile colonised system to evaluate the potential of a prophylactic and a remedial bacteriophage treatment regime to control the pathogen. It is shown that the prophylaxis regime was effective at preventing the growth of C difficile (p = <0.001) and precluded the production of detectable levels of toxins A and B. The remedial treatment regime caused a less profound and somewhat transient decrease in the number of viable C. difficile cells (p = <0.0001), but still resulted in a lower level of toxin production relative to the control. The numbers of commensal bacteria including total aerobes and anaerobes, Bifidobacterium sp., Bacteroides sp., Lactobacillus sp., total Clostridium sp., and Enterobacteriaceae were not significantly decreased by this therapy, whereas significant detrimental effects were observed with metronidazole treatment. Our study indicates that phage therapy has potential to be used for the control of C. difficile; it highlights the main benefits of this approach, and some future challenges. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available