ArticleVirology journal2024
Evaluation of effectiveness of bacteriophage purification methods.
Article in Virology journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Progress of Bacteriophage Research and Application in the Treatment of Bovine Mastitis: A Review.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- Complementary Activities of Bacteriophages and Antimicrobial Peptide Dendrimers Against Prosthetic Joint Infection Pathogens.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Lytic properties and genomic analysis of bacteriophage Brt_Psa3, targeting Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Characterisation of novelJournal of oral microbiology · 2025Article
- Bacteriophage FNU1 negatesFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of bacteriophages for therapy has increased over the last decade. While there is need for clear regulatory pathways for bacteriophage approval for mainstream use in clinical practice, practitioners and patients have been able to access bacteriophage therapy under compassionate grounds and through magistral preparations. However, there is currently no standard for purifying these bacteriophages to ensure safety, and good manufacturing practice certification may not be achieved in these emergency uses. In this study, we employed an Interleukin Receptor Associated Kinase (IRAK) 3 knockout monocyte-based assay to evaluate the endotoxin removal efficacy of three common bacteriophage purification methods: Triton X-100 exposure, CsCl density gradient ultracentrifugation, and Pierce™ High-Capacity Endotoxin Removal Resin spin columns. In our experiments we tested these purification methods on three different bacteriophage morphotypes: siphovirus, podovirus and myovirus. We showed that the lowest endotoxin levels and immune responses were achieved when purifying bacteriophages with Triton-X treatment. The results from purifying with CsCl density gradient ultracentrifugation were comparable, and these were both significantly better than purification with Pierce™ High-Capacity Endotoxin Removal Resin spin columns. We also showed that Triton X-100 purification resulted in the lowest loss of bacteriophage titres. Finally, of the bacteriophages tested here, it did not appear that virus morphology affected efficacy of endotoxin removal.
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.