4.6 Article

Back to the future: evolving bacteriophages to increase their effectiveness against the pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1

期刊

EVOLUTIONARY APPLICATIONS
卷 6, 期 7, 页码 1054-1063

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/eva.12085

关键词

coevolution; cross-infection; cystic fibrosis; disinfection; evolutionary engineering; experimental evolution; nosocomial; phage therapy; phage training; resistance

资金

  1. Erasmus Mundus Masters Programme
  2. McDonnell Foundation [JSMF 220020294/SCS]
  3. Agence National de la Recherche [ANR-09-BLAN-099-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antibiotic resistance is becoming increasingly problematic for the treatment of infectious disease in both humans and livestock. The bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa is often found to be resistant to multiple antibiotics and causes high patient mortality in hospitals. Bacteriophages represent a potential option to combat pathogenic bacteria through their application in phage therapy. Here, we capitalize on previous studies showing how evolution may increase phage infection capacity relative to ancestral genotypes. We passaged four different phage isolates (podoviridae, myoviridae) through six serial transfers on the ancestral strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1. We first demonstrate that repeated serial passage on ancestral bacteria increases infection capacity of bacteriophage on ancestral hosts and on those evolved for one transfer. This result is confirmed when examining the ability of evolved phage to reduce ancestral host population sizes. Second, through interaction with a single bacteriophage for 24h, P.aeruginosa can evolve resistance to the ancestor of that bacteriophage; this also provides these evolved bacteria with cross-resistance to the other three bacteriophages. We discuss how the evolutionary training of phages could be employed as effective means of combatting bacterial infections or disinfecting surfaces in hospital settings, with reduced risk of bacterial resistance compared with conventional methods.

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

4.6
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