4.7 Article

Evaluation of the influence of bacteriophage titer on the treatment of colibacillosis in broiler chickens

期刊

POULTRY SCIENCE
卷 85, 期 8, 页码 1373-1377

出版社

POULTRY SCIENCE ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.1093/ps/85.8.1373

关键词

bacteriophage therapy; Escherichia coli; chicken; colibacillosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two studies were conducted to determine the efficacy of bacteriophage SPR02 and DAF6 at varying titers to treat colibacillosis in chickens. In Study 1, the treatments consisted of a control, i.m. injection of bacteriophage SPR02 or DAF6, Escherichia coli airsac challenge, and E. coli challenge followed by treatment at different titers with bacteriophage SPR02 or DAF6. The E. coli-challenged birds were injected with 6 x 10(4) cfu into the left thoracic airsac at 7 d of age. Immediately after the birds were challenged with E. coli, they were treated by administration of bacteriophage SPR02 or DAF6 by i.m. injection into the left thigh with 4 x 10(8), 10(6), 10(4), or 10(2) pfu. Study 2 was identical to Study 1, with the exception that the E. coli challenge was increased to 9 x 10(4) cfu, and the titers of SPR02 and DAF6 were slightly less at 3 X 10(8), 10(6), 10(4), and 10(2) pfu. Both studies were concluded when the birds were 3 wk of age. Mortality in the birds challenged with E. coli in Studies 1 and 2 was 48 and 47%, respectively. The only consistently effective bacteriophage treatment was the highest titer (10(8) pfu) of bacteriophage SPR02, which significantly reduced mortality from 48 and 47% in the birds only challenged with E. coli (positive control) to 7% in both studies, which was not significantly different from the unchallenged negative control treatments. These studies indicate that an effective multiplicity of infection for i.m. treatment with SPR02 was 10(4) in this experimental model of colibacillosis. Bacteriophage administered at sufficient titers can be effective therapeutic agents and provide an alternative to antibiotics in the treatment of bacterial diseases.

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