4.7 Article

Phage Activity against Planktonic and Biofilm Staphylococcus aureus Periprosthetic Joint Infection Isolates

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01879-21

关键词

antibiotic resistance; biofilm; phage; periprosthetic joint infection

资金

  1. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) [T32 AR56950]
  2. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) [UL1 TR002377]
  3. [UM1 AI104681]
  4. [R01 AR056647]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the activity of seven phages against 122 clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus causing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The results demonstrated that phages were active against both planktonic and biofilm phenotypes of bacteria, suggesting their potential as an alternative or adjunct to antibiotics for the treatment of PJI.
We recently reported the successful treatment of a case of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) with phage. Phage activity against bacteria causing PJI has not been systematically evaluated. Here, we examined the in vitro activity of seven phages against 122 clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus recovered between April 1999 and February 2018 from subjects with PJI. Phages were assessed against planktonic and biofilm phenotypes. Activity of individual phages was demonstrated against up to 73% of bacterial isolates in the planktonic state and up to 100% of biofilms formed by isolates that were planktonically phage susceptible. Susceptibility to phage was not correlated with small-colony-variant phenotype for planktonic or biofilm bacteria; correlation between antibiotic susceptibility and planktonic phage susceptibility and between biofilm phage susceptibility and strength of biofilm formation were noted under select conditions. These results demonstrate that phages can infect S. aureus causing PJI in both planktonic and biofilm phenotypes, and thus are worthy of investigation as an alternative or addition to antibiotics in this setting.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据