Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21140149›Full record

ArticleCurrent microbiology2011

Efficacy of a broad host range lytic bacteriophage against E. coli adhered to urothelium.

Sanna Sillankorva, Dulce Oliveira, Alexandra Moura, Mariana Henriques, Alberta Faustino, Ana Nicolau, Joana Azeredo

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Current microbiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. UropathogenicAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. UropathogenicMicroorganisms · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sanna SillankorvaDepartment of Biological Engineering, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal. s.sillankorva@deb.uminho.pt
Dulce Oliveira
Alexandra Moura
Mariana Henriques
Alberta Faustino
Ana Nicolau
Joana Azeredo

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Persistent urinary tract infections (UTI) are often caused by E. coli adhered to urothelium. This type of cells is generally recognized as very tolerant to antibiotics which renders difficult the treatment of chronic UTI. This study investigates the use of lytic bacteriophages as alternative antimicrobial agents, particularly the interaction of phages with E. coli adhered to urothelium and specifically determines their efficiency against this type of cells. The bacterial adhesion to urothelium was performed varying the bacterial cell concentrations and the period and conditions (static, shaken) of adhesion. Three collection bacteriophages (T1, T4, and phiX174 like phages) were tested against clinical E. coli isolates and only one was selected for further infection experiments. Based on the lytic spectrum against clinical isolates and its ability to infect the highest number of antibiotic resistant strains, the T1-like bacteriophage was selected. This bacteriophage caused nearly a 45% reduction of the bacterial population after 2 h of treatment. This study provides evidence that bacteriophages are effective in controlling suspended and adhered cells and therefore can be a viable alternative to antibiotics to control urothelium- adhered bacteria.

Indexed as

Bacterial AdhesionHost SpecificityBacteriophagesBiological TherapyCell LineEscherichia coliEscherichia coli InfectionsHumansUrinary Tract InfectionsUrothelium

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.