Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33881767›Full record

ReviewBioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy2021

Engineered Bacteriophage Therapeutics: Rationale, Challenges and Future.

Małgorzata Łobocka, Krystyna Dąbrowska, Andrzej Górski

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
15.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

103 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 152 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Prophage: agent provocateur?Archives of microbiology · 2026
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

43 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Małgorzata ŁobockaInstitute of Biochemistry and Biophysics of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0679-5193
Krystyna DąbrowskaInstitute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Wrocław, Poland.
Andrzej GórskiInstitute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Wrocław, Poland. andrzej.gorski@hirszfeld.pl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0863-6041
Ludwik Hirszfeld Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy · PLInstitute of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences · PL

Funding

Narodowe Centrum Nauki 2019/33/B/NZ2/02006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current problems with increasing bacterial resistance to antibacterial therapies, resulting in a growing frequency of incurable bacterial infections, necessitates the acceleration of studies on antibacterials of a new generation that could offer an alternative to antibiotics or support their action. Bacteriophages (phages) can kill antibiotic-sensitive as well as antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and thus are a major subject of such studies. Their efficacy in curing bacterial infections has been demonstrated in in vivo experiments and in the clinic. Unlike antibiotics, phages have a narrow range of specificity, which makes them safe for commensal microbiota. However, targeting even only the most clinically relevant strains of pathogenic bacteria requires large collections of well characterized phages, whose specificity would cover all such strains. The environment is a rich source of diverse phages, but due to their complex relationships with bacteria and safety concerns, only some naturally occurring phages can be considered for therapeutic applications. Still, their number and diversity make a detailed characterization of all potentially promising phages virtually impossible. Moreover, no single phage combines all the features required of an ideal therapeutic agent. Additionally, the rapid acquisition of phage resistance by bacteria may make phages already approved for therapy ineffective and turn the search for environmental phages of better efficacy and new specificity into an endless race. An alternative strategy for acquiring phages with desired properties in a short time with minimal cost regarding their acquisition, characterization, and approval for therapy could be based on targeted genome modifications of phage isolates with known properties. The first example demonstrating the potential of this strategy in curing bacterial diseases resistant to traditional therapy is the recent successful treatment of a progressing disseminated Mycobacterium abscessus infection in a teenage patient with the use of an engineered phage. In this review, we briefly present current methods of phage genetic engineering, highlighting their advantages and disadvantages, and provide examples of genetically engineered phages with a modified host range, improved safety or antibacterial activity, and proven therapeutic efficacy. We also summarize novel uses of engineered phages not only for killing pathogenic bacteria, but also for in situ modification of human microbiota to attenuate symptoms of certain bacterial diseases and metabolic, immune, or mental disorders.

Indexed as

Bacterial InfectionsBacteriophagesAdolescentAnti-Bacterial AgentsHost SpecificityHumansAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID33881767
PMCPMC8084836
OpenAlexW3152554333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.