ReviewViruses2026
Bacteriophages as Phagobiotics: Scientific Rationale and Translational Boundaries for Gut Microbiome Modulation.
Review in Viruses, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most translational work on bacteriophages has focused on antibacterial therapy or food biocontrol. A third use case is scientifically plausible but remains insufficiently defined: the intentional use of characterized phages to modulate gut microbial communities without infection-treatment claims. In this review, the term "phagobiotics" is used for defined, purified and process-controlled bacteriophages or phage cocktails intended for selective gut microbiota modulation. The concept is evaluated across natural human phage exposure, the gut phageome, mechanisms of phage-mediated community modulation, human intervention studies, preclinical models, manufacturing quality and regulatory boundaries. Current evidence supports biological plausibility and indicates that oral phage exposure can be well tolerated and, in some contexts, can selectively affect target bacterial groups without broad microbiota disruption. Generalized clinical efficacy and broad microbiome-support claims, however, remain insufficiently established. Microbiological-modulation claims require target-linked evidence, whereas claims to treat, prevent or cure disease or replace antibiotics fall outside the proposed non-therapeutic category. A proportionate framework is proposed in which natural exposure and food-use precedents inform, but do not determine, the safety rationale; product-specific controls focus on identity, purity, production-host control, manufacturing consistency, stability, genomic characterization and claim-linked evidence. Regulatory classification remains case-specific and depends on intended use, product format, target population and claims.
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.