ArticlePLoS biology2025
Extreme diversity of phage amplification rates and phage-antibiotic interactions revealed by PHORCE.
Article in PLoS biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of human urinary microenvironment and fluid flow on antibiotic and phage therapy efficacy against uropathogenic Escherichia coli.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Mathematical Modelling and Intuition in Microbiology: A Perspective.Environmental microbiology · 2026Review
- Review
- Isolation and characterization of a lytic bacteriophage against Staphylococcus aureus.BMC veterinary research · 2026Article
- Rapid resistance evolution against phage cocktails.The ISME journal · 2026Article
- From Isolation to Application: Designing a Multi-Target Phage Cocktail for Bivalve Safety.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Quantifying phage infectivity from characteristics of bacterial population dynamics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Completing the BASEL phage collection to unlock hidden diversity for systematic exploration of phage-host interactions.PLoS biology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Growth rate plays a fundamental role in microbiology and serves as an important proxy for fitness in evolution. While high-throughput measurements of bacterial growth rates are easily performed in any microbiology laboratory, similar methods are lacking for bacteriophages. This gap hinders systematic comparisons of important phage phenotypes, such as their amplification rate in bacterial populations and their bactericidal effect, across different phages and environmental conditions. Here, we show that the amplification rate of lytic phages can be quantified by analyzing bacterial population growth and collapse dynamics under phage predation using a parsimonious mathematical model - an approach termed Phage-Host Observation for Rate estimation from Collapse Events (PHORCE). We found that the resulting phage amplification rate captures the bactericidal effect independent of initial phage and bacterial population sizes for fast-growing hosts and adsorption-limited phages. Using high-throughput PHORCE, we found that the amplification rates of Escherichia coli phages vary widely by more than three orders of magnitude. Furthermore, our approach suggests that phage-antibiotic interactions are predominantly determined by the antibiotic, and not by the phage. In particular, the ribosome-inhibiting antibiotic doxycycline generally showed antagonism with phage amplification, whereas the DNA-damaging antibiotic nitrofurantoin was synergistic. This framework provides a means to quantitatively characterize phage phenotypes and may facilitate future high-throughput phage screens for antibacterial applications.
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.