ArticlePloS one2016
The Effectiveness of Bacteriophages against Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus ST398 Nasal Colonization in Pigs.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of phage therapy in pigs: systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of animal science · 2021Pooled it
- Isolation, characterization, and genomic analysis of a novel lytic bacteriophage with potent antibiofilm activity against multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Intervention strategies for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus control in pig farming: a comprehensive review.Porcine health management · 2025Review
- Primary cell culture systems to investigate host-pathogen interactions in bacterial respiratory tract infections of livestock.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Review
- Immunomodulation in Non-traditional Therapies for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Management.Current microbiology · 2024Review
- Staphylococcus aureus colonisation and strategies for decolonisation.The Lancet. Microbe · 2024Review
- Bacteriophage Therapy in Companion and Farm Animals.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Efficacy and clinical potential of phage therapy in treating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections: A review.European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2024Review
- The Safety of Bacteriophages in Treatment of Diseases Caused by Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- The host phylogeny determines viral infectivity and replication across Staphylococcus host species.PLoS pathogens · 2023Article
- Clinical relevance of topical antibiotic use in co-selecting for multidrug-resistantAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2023Article
- Phascinating Phages.Microorganisms · 2022Review
- Overview of the risks of Staphylococcus aureus infections and their control by bacteriophages and bacteriophage-encoded products.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2021Review
- Article
- Application of the Resazurin Cell Viability Assay to MonitorAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Phages in Food Industry Biocontrol and Bioremediation.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Last Call for Replacement of Antimicrobials in Animal Production: Modern Challenges, Opportunities, and Potential Solutions.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Determinants of Phage Host Range inApplied and environmental microbiology · 2019Review
- Sequential Combined Effect of Phages and Antibiotics on the Inactivation ofMicroorganisms · 2018Article
- Bordetella bronchiseptica bateriophage suppresses B. bronchiseptica-induced inflammation in swine nasal turbinate cells.Genes & genomics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is an important colonizer in animals and an opportunistic pathogen in humans. In humans, MRSA can cause infections that might be difficult to treat because of antimicrobial resistance. The use of bacteriophages has been suggested as a potential approach for the control of MRSA colonization to minimize the-often occupational-exposure of humans. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of bacteriophage treatment on porcine nasal colonization with MRSA in vitro, in vivo, and ex vivo. The effectiveness of a bacteriophage combination of phage K*710 and P68 was assessed in vitro by incubating them with MRSA V0608892/1 (ST398) measuring the OD600 hourly. To study the in vivo effect, bacteriophages were administered in a gel developed for human application, which contain 109 plaque-forming units (pfu)/mL (K and P68 in a 19.25:1 ratio) for 5 days to piglets (N = 8) that were experimentally colonized with the MRSA strain. Eight piglets experimentally colonized were used as a negative control. The MRSA strain was also used to colonize porcine nasal mucosa explants and bacteriophages were applied to assess the ex vivo efficacy of treatment. Bacteriophages were effective in vitro. In vivo, sixteen piglets were colonized with MRSA but the number of CFU recovered after the application of the bacteriophages in 8 piglets was not reduced compared to the control animals (approx. 105 CFU/swab). In the ex vivo model, 108 CFU were used to establish colonization with MRSA; a reduction of colonization was not observed after application of bacteriophages. However, application of mupirocin both in vivo and ex vivo resulted in a near eradication of MRSA. IN
conclusioni) The MRSA strain was killed in the presence of the bacteriophages phage K*710 and P68 in vitro. ii) Bacteriophages did not reduce porcine nasal colonization in vivo or ex vivo. Physiological in vivo and ex vivo conditions may explain these observations. Efficacy in the ex vivo model matched that of the in vivo system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.