Journal of Viruses

Journal of Viruses / 2014 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2014 |Article ID 382539 | 20 pages |

Bacteriophages and Their Derivatives as Biotherapeutic Agents in Disease Prevention and Treatment

Academic Editor: Yves Mely
Received25 Oct 2013
Accepted04 Dec 2013
Published26 Mar 2014


The application of bacteriophages for the elimination of pathogenic bacteria has received significantly increased attention world-wide in the past decade. This is borne out by the increasing prevalence of bacteriophage-specific conferences highlighting significant and diverse advances in the exploitation of bacteriophages. While bacteriophage therapy has been associated with the Former Soviet Union historically, since the 1990s, it has been widely and enthusiastically adopted as a research topic in Western countries. This has been justified by the increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance in many prominent human pathogenic bacteria. Discussion of the therapeutic aspects of bacteriophages in this review will include the uses of whole phages as antibacterials and will also describe studies on the applications of purified phage-derived peptidoglycan hydrolases, which do not have the constraint of limited bacterial host-range often observed with whole phages.

1. Bacteriophage History

Bacteriophages (phages) were first characterised about 100 years ago by [13]. Earlier authors, such as Ernest Hankin [4], Nikolay Gamaleya [5], and Frederick Twort [6], are understood to have observed the antibacterial activity of phages without being able to recognise or identify the agents responsible. Nowadays, most recognition for the development of phage therapy goes to Felix d’Herelle who isolated these agents from the stool samples of dysentery patients, named them bacteriophages, and developed the phage assays which remain in use up to the present [7, 8]. He also initiated the first phage therapy experiments in the early 1920s. Research in phage therapy was eclipsed in the West by the advent and increasing widespread successful application of antibiotics in medical practice from the late 1940s. Phage therapy, on the other hand, was declined largely due to variable and unpredictable results, an issue related to the relatively poor understanding of phage biology at the time. Certainly, many of the illnesses that had been treated with phage preparations up to the mid-twentieth century were likely to have not had a bacterial basis. Thus, the results of phage therapy generally tended to be inferior to those observed for antibiotics, since the latter had a broader therapeutic spectrum and, generally, did not require detailed bacteriological knowledge for effective prescribing by practitioners. The use of phages to treat bacterial infections has recently gained attention in Western medicine mainly due to ever-increasing incidence of bacterial resistance to antibiotics and also due to the fact that phage biology, phage-bacteria interaction, and the basis for bacterial infections are vastly better understood than was the case in the mid-twentieth century when phage therapy was eclipsed by antibiotic treatments [7].

2. Sources of Bacteriophages

Phages are found in almost all environments on Earth, ranging from soil, sediments, water (both river and seawater), and in/on living or dead plants/animals. Essentially, phages can be isolated from almost any material that will support bacterial growth. The estimated global phage population size is extraordinarily high. For instance, it is estimated that aquatic environments have a total phage population above 1031 [9, 10]. Many terrestrial ecosystems have been shown to harbour 107 phages per gram of soil; and sewage is known to contain in the range of 108–1010 phage per millilitre [1115].

3. Classification of Bacteriophages

Phages have evolved an array of shapes, sizes, capsid symmetries, and structures. All are composed of nucleic acid (genome) encapsulated by a protein coat (capsid). Phage genomes can be double- or single-stranded DNA or double- or single-stranded RNA. Capsids have been identified in many forms, ranging from small 3D hexagon-like structures to filaments to highly complex structures consisting of a head and a tail (Figure 1). It is estimated that approximately 5,500 bacteriophages have been viewed by electron microscopy since 1959. Of those studied from a morphological perspective, 96.3% had a tailed morphology [16, 17]. Over the years, a sophisticated phage classification system has been drawn up by the International Committee for Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) to account for the diversity. Originally the taxonomy of phages was organised according to their morphological characteristics, type of nucleic acid, and presence or absence of envelope or lipid. According to this approach, phages were organised into 14 distinct phage families as shown in Figure 2 [1820]. More recently, the importance of phage genome sequences comparisons has also been recognised. Some of the phage families have been grouped into orders; for example, the three-tailed phage families (Figure 2) (Myoviridae, Siphoviridae, and Podoviridae) belong to the Caudoviralesorder, and the Archaea-infecting Lipothrixviridae and Rudiviridae phages belong to the Ligamenvirales order.It is noteworthy that many of the other families have not yet been assigned an order. The inoviruses (Inoviridae family) consist of a nonenveloped rod of protein filaments surrounding a circular, ssDNA genome. The microviruses (Microviridae family) possess a linear, ssDNA genome and a nonenveloped, icosahedral capsid. The tectiviruses (Tectiviridae family) and corticoviruses (Corticoviridae family) both possess external icosahedral capsids with a lipid membrane lying directly beneath. These two families differ in terms of capsid and genome organisation. Whereas the corticovirus genome is circular and highly supercoiled, the tectivirus genome is linear with terminal inverted repeats. By contrast, the plasmaviruses (Plasmaviridae family) possess an external lipid envelope, pleomorphic geometry, and a circular genome. They are only known to infect the mycoplasmal genus Acholeplasma. The cystoviruses (Cystoviridae family) have a linear, segmented, dsRNA genome. They are charactarised by a double capsid with a surrounding lipid envelope. The leviviruses (Leviviridae family) have a linear, positive-stranded, ssRNA genome and a nonenveloped, spherical capsid (Table 1; Figure 3).

FamilyMorphologyNucleic acid

MyoviridaeNonenveloped, contractile tailLinear dsDNA
SiphoviridaeNonenveloped, noncontractile tail (long)Linear dsDNA
PodoviridaeNonenveloped, noncontractile tail (short)Linear dsDNA
LipothrixviridaeEnveloped, rod-shaped (infect Archea)Linear dsDNA
RudiviridaeNonenveloped, rod-shaped (infect Archea)Linear dsDNA
AmpullaviridaeEnveloped, bottle-shapedLinear dsDNA
BicaudaviridaeNonenveloped, lemon-shapedCircular dsDNA
ClavaviridaeNonenveloped, rod-shapedCircular dsDNA
CorticoviridaeNonenveloped, isometricCircular dsDNA
CystoviridaeEnveloped, sphericalSegmented dsRNA
FuselloviridaeNonenveloped, lemon-shapedCircular dsDNA
GlobuloviridaeEnveloped, isometricLinear dsDNA
GuttavirusNonenveloped, ovoidCircular dsDNA
InoviridaeNonenveloped, filamentousCircular ssDNA
LeviviridaeNonenveloped, isometricLinear ssRNA
MicroviridaeNonenveloped, isometricCircular ssDNA
PlasmaviridaeEnveloped, pleomorphicCircular dsDNA
TectiviridaeNonenveloped, isometricLinear dsDNA

4. Bacteriophage Life Cycles

A common characteristic of phages is that, although their genome carries the information required to drive their own multiplication, they completely rely on the energy and protein biosynthetic machinery of their bacterial hosts to complete their lytic cycle, rendering them obligatory intracellular parasites of bacteria [8, 10, 21]. The first contact between a phage and its host happens by random collision, provided that the cell carries specific receptors on its surface. The contact is usually made between the receptor molecules of the host (e.g., teichoic acid in Gram-positives or lipopolysaccharide in Gram-negatives) and specific phage proteins located at the tip of the tail fibre, or at one end of a filamentous phage. Injection of DNA follows immediately after a phage has stably and irreversibly adsorbed to the cell surface [22]. Based on their subsequent propagation cycle, most phages can be broadly divided into two major groups: virulent and temperate (Figure 4). Virulent phages immediately redirect the host metabolism toward the production of new phage virions, which are released upon cell death within several minutes to hours after the initial phage attachment event. This is termed the lytic cycle. Virulent phage infection results in clear plaques on the respective host bacterial lawns. Temperate phages can replicate either by the lytic cycle as described above or by establishing a stable long-term viable relationship with their host bacteria. In this state, the phage DNA is replicated together with the host’s chromosome. This is termed the lysogenic cycle, during which viral genes that are detrimental to the host are not expressed [8, 13, 20, 23, 24].

5. Bacterial Resistance to Phages

Bacteria can evolve resistance to phages. These resistance mechanisms are manifested when an interruption occurs during phage development, through specific molecular mechanisms, which have evolved in bacteria throughout their coevolution with phages. Bacteria are able to defend against phage infection almost in every stage of the infection process. By blocking phage receptors, producing an extracellular matrix and competitive inhibitors, bacteria prevent the phage from adsorbing to their surface. This is termed phage adsorption inhibition. Injection of the phage genome can also be inhibited through a process known as injection blocking [25]. Phage inhibition can also occur after phage genome injection into a host as a result of bacterial-encoded endonucleases that recognise and destroy foreign DNA, a phenomenon known as restriction-modification. Bacterial protection of its own DNA is based on modification by methylation at specific points on its DNA sequence, which concomitantly will give protection against restriction endonuclease cleavage. Restriction results in the cleavage of foreign DNA that does not carry the corresponding methylation pattern. Some unmodified phage genomes physically avoid host-mediated restriction (possibly by encountering the methylase enzyme molecule in advance of meeting the endonuclease), and, on being replicated, their genome becomes modified. This enables resulting phage to evade restriction by a particular host restriction/modification system in subsequent infective cycles [2628]. Another mechanism of phage resistance termed abortive infection represents a broad range of diverse phage resistance mechanisms whereby the phage-infected cells often die before completing the lytic cycle, thus containing the virus and preventing it from proliferating. Abortive infection mechanisms frequently have a different primary function in bacteria [25]. CRISPRs (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) are loci containing multiple, short direct repeats, which are found in the genomes of approximately 40% of sequenced bacteria and 90% of sequenced Archaea [29]. CRISPRs function like a prokaryotic immune system in that they confer a form of acquired immunity to exogenous genetic elements such as plasmids and phages. Short segments of foreign DNA, called spacers, are incorporated into the genome between CRISPR repeats and serve as a “memory” of past exposures. CRISPR spacers are then used to recognise and silence exogenous genetic elements in a manner analogous to RNA in eukaryotic organisms [25, 30, 31]. The mechanism of CRISPR/Cas interference involves three phases (Figure 5).

Firstly, resistance is acquired via the integration of short sequences from foreign genetic elements (termed spacers) into repetitive genetic elements known as CRISPR arrays. Secondly, CRISPR arrays are then transcribed and processed into small RNAs (crRNAs) by Cas proteins. In the third and final step, targeting of the invading phage or plasmid is mediated by a Cas protein complex that contains crRNAs. During this stage, the crRNA-Cas protein complex then interferes, in a sequence-specific manner, with the foreign nucleic acids [32].

6. Significance of Bacteriophages

6.1. Ecological Importance of Bacteriophages

Phages are more numerous than any other organism in the biosphere, prokaryotes included, and are found in all ecosystems on Earth. There is considerable evidence of the significant role that phages play in prokaryotic evolution in terms of gene transfer by transduction and also in terms of controlling bacterial populations in specific niches. The concentration of phages in natural waters indicates that phage infection may be an important factor in recycling of nutrients as a result of prokaryotic cell lysis and thus influence levels of planktonic microorganisms [33]. For example Hankin in 1896 investigated the difference between the cholera outbreaks along the Ganges and Jumna Rivers in India; Hankin found an unknown source of antibacterial activity against V. cholerae in the river and then suggested that this unidentified substance, which passed through fine porcelain filters and was heat labile, was responsible for limiting the spread of cholera epidemics [4]. At the same time, an interesting relationship between V. cholerae and vibriophages in the environment was also reported and suggested that the cessation of cholera epidemic was due to the spread of bacteriophages from convalescent cases [34]. It is also noted that significant quantities of phages are also found in soil and in the gut of animals where they are likely to have similar roles [35].

6.2. Economic Importance of Bacteriophages

In the dairy industries, many different lactic acid bacteria are used as starter cultures in the production of products such as cheese and yoghurt. Infections of starter cultures by lytic phages can lead to the slowing or arrest of fermentations and subsequent loss of production. Thus, phages of lactic acid bacteria are a real threat to the milk fermentation industry because of (a) its global magnitude and (b) the fact that in a typical factory, there is multiple filling of vats providing ample opportunities for phages to propagate to high numbers in a single day’s production, which may typically see many vats of several thousand litres filled repeatedly with milk each day [36, 37]. The fact that the substrate is a nonsterile liquid facilitates easier dissemination of phage particles. Thus, a typical observation in a cheese factory might be to see the starter culture “phaging out” after 15 vats of the planned 40, resulting in reduced product output by the industry. Such a detrimental economic impact has resulted in major investment in phage-resistant starter culture research and the genetic improvement of industrial starter strains of lactic acid bacteria [25]. In the area of food safety, phages also are becoming very important. Since 2006, phages have been approved for the elimination of Listeria monocytogenes in food products [38]. A study using phage for biocontrol of Salmonella on both cooked and raw beef found significant reductions when samples were incubated at both refrigeration and room temperature conditions [39], and this application is likely to expand in the future.

6.3. Medical and Therapeutic Application of Bacteriophages

The first use of phages as therapeutic agents in humans started in 1919, shortly after their discovery (Figure 6), when they were successfully used to treat severe cases of bacterial dysentery in four children in Paris, France. All of the treated children recovered from what otherwise could have been a fatal infection. The study was conducted in close collaboration with Felix d’Herelle, one of the discoverers of phages. Shortly afterwards, in 1921, Richard Bruynoghe and Joseph Maisin used phages to treat a staphylococcal skin disease [40]. Despite this promising beginning in the preantibiotic era, the success of early phage therapy was short-lived [41, 42]. This was due to a variety of factors that included (1) a lack of understanding of phage biology, (2) poor experimental techniques, (3) poor quality of phage preparations, (4) a lack of understanding of the underlying causes of ailment being treated, and (5) ultimately the discovery and ease of use of antibiotics. The first evidence of the nature of phage only became available in 1936 when Schlesinger reported the composition of phage particles being 50% protein and 50% nucleic acid and later with the first electron microscopic observation of phages [43, 44]. Thus, the application of phages as therapeutic agents was heavily compromised. As a result, phage therapy and its associated research were abandoned in Western countries, but they continued in Poland and in countries within the Former Soviet Union (FSU). For example, the Bacteriophage Institute in Tbilisi (now the George Eliava Institute of Bacteriophage, Microbiology and Virology) is still researching phage therapy applications and supplies phage for the treatment of various bacterial infections [8, 10, 42, 45].

The increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance and multidrug-resistance in bacterial pathogens led the Western scientific community to reassess the potential applications of phages and phage products in the treatment of certain infectious diseases [44, 4648], such as Pseudomonas spp. [49], vancomycin-resistant Enterococci [5052], antibiotic-resistant Staphylococci [53, 54], multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumonia [55], imipenem-resistant [56, 57] and multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa [58, 59], antibiotic-resistant strains of Escherichia coli [60], and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [61]. Today, there are several different antibacterial strategies derived from phages including enzybiotics (cloned host-specific, phage-encoded lytic enzymes introduced to combat bacteria without the whole phage) and whole-phage therapy (introducing whole, viable phage to attack the infecting bacteria) [8, 6264]. Typically, whole-phage preparations may contain one or a small number of phage strains, each with a broad range of activity within a bacterial genus; or, alternatively, phage may be applied as a mixture of several phages, which as a mixture has activity against a broad range of strains/species [2]. This approach with whole phages is largely based on the phage preparations used throughout the Former Soviet Union (FSU). Available data suggest that the use of phages as antibacterial agents is rather simple and has many advantages over antibiotics [8, 19, 53, 54, 65]. These advantages may be summarised as follows: (1) phages are specific and, therefore, cannot eliminate ecologically important bacteria (e.g., gut microflora); (2) phages cease to function soon after all their specific target host bacterial cells are destroyed and, hence, will disperse harmlessly; (3) human patients who are allergic to antibiotics can be treated with phages with no side effects; (4) phages are safe to use because they have no effect on mammalian cells; (5) phages can be administered in various routes—for example, topically, intravenous, or orally; (6) phages reproduce exponentially; hence, a single dose can be sufficient to treat an infection; (7) when resistant bacterial strains arise in the host, the phage has capabilities to overcome this resistance by mutating in step with the evolving bacteria; (8) production of phages is simple and inexpensive; (9) phages are ubiquitous and, thus, regarded as safe.

There are, however, still some disadvantages that must be considered when using phage therapy: (1) phage specificity implies that the causative bacterial pathogens have to be identified by the medical practitioner prior to phage administration, and, also, the lytic spectrum of the phage may be limited to only one subtype of bacterial pathogen; (2) low or no efficacy has been reported in certain cases, but this may be attributed to either incorrect diagnosis of the disease or insufficient phage dose, together with an ineffective phage delivery approach; (3) phage administration requires a neutralised environment, which, for example, is generally not found in the digestive system of animals due to the presence of gastric secretions [12, 21, 66].

In comparing the advantages and disadvantages, phages do certainly have several characteristics that confer on them strong potential as therapeutic agents. In addition, the large and ever-increasing number of publications shows that the scientific and technical understanding of phage therapy is constantly improving, and given the increasing need for nonantibiotic therapies, it is likely that phage therapy will become a reality in the near future.

6.4. Recent Research in the Use of Phages as Antimicrobial Agents

The last decade has brought several substantial developments in phage therapy, which is currently leading to greater interest in Western medicine as an alternative to antibiotics in the treatment of infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria [67]. The recent increase in interest began to a large extent with a Polish study first reported in 1985 in which phages were applied in 114 cases of suppurative bacterial infections in children followed by scientific analysis. Positive therapeutic results were obtained in 109 (95.6%) cases; patients had a wide range of bacterial infections caused by the pathogenic Staphylococci, Klebsiella, Escherichia, Proteus, and Pseudomonas bacteria [68]. In a follow-up to this study, phage preparations were administered to patients in various age groups with a wide range of antibiotic-resistant infections caused by the aforementioned pathogens. The patient ages ranged from one week to 86 years of age. The phages were administered orally three times per day, locally by direct application on wounds, or by dropping a phage suspension into the eye, ear, or nose. In most cases, bacterial sensitivity to the phage was monitored and different phages were applied in situations where phage resistance had occurred. In one report from this study, the results from 550 cases were reported from 1981 to 1986. These results showed that over 92% of patients were cured, and about 6.9% of patients showed an improvement in condition in contrast to only 0.7% of the cases of patients where the phage therapy proved to be ineffective [23, 69]. Another suppurative chronic skin infection study by the same group used phage to treat the infections in 31 patients ranging in age from 12 to 86 years old, whose infections were caused by Pseudomonas, Staphylococcus, Klebsiella, Proteus, and E. coli. Of the 31 cases, 77% showed improvements in condition [70]. Later, the same group reported a broader study with a larger number of patients and obtained similar results [71]. These infections included suppurative wound infections, gastroenteritis, sepsis, osteomyelitis, dermatitis, empyemas, and pneumonia: and again, pathogens included Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, Klebsiella, Escherichia, Proteus, Pseudomonas, Shigella, and Salmonella spp. More recently in the same group, antibiotic-resistant septicaemia was treated with phage therapy in 94 patients. In 71 of these cases, antibiotic treatment was continued in conjunction with phage therapy and in the remaining 23 cases phage alone was administered. Of the 94 cases, complete recovery was achieved in 85.1% of cases, whereas in 14.9% of cases phage therapy was ineffective [47]. The Polish scientists reported a success rate of 80–95% [72, 73], which applied to the older studies in which phage preparations were produced by the institute and distributed to local hospitals and individual patients. It is noteworthy that most patients, some of them with acute rather than chronic infections, were not directly monitored by the institute staff. Therefore, not all data reported could be directly verified. In 2005, the phage therapy centre was established at the institute, which is responsible for direct patient care, supervision, and monitoring according to the current standards of the EU and FDA under the Declaration of Helsinki. Only patients with antibiotic-resistant infections have been accepted and the published results suggest notable success rates of approximately 40% for this group of patients in whom all available therapy had failed [74]. The results have been supported by a more recent but similar British study, which also demonstrated significant efficacy of phages against Escherichia coli, Acinetobacter spp., Pseudomonas spp., and Staphylococcus aureus [75]. In this case, phage therapies in a group of 1,307 patients ranging in age from 4 weeks to 86 years from 1987 to 1999 were investigated. Full recovery occurred in 85.9% of cases, and an improvement in condition occured in 10.9% of cases, while no improvement was observed in 3.8% of cases. As with the earlier study, patients had a wide range of bacterial infections caused by the pathogens Staphylococcus, Klebsiella, Escherichia, Enterobacter, Proteus, and Pseudomonas. Similar important work with similar findings was performed at the Eliava Institute for Bacteriophage, Microbiology and Virology in Tbilisi, Georgia, and the details have been reviewed by Sulakvelidze and Kutter [44]. A Swiss group led by Brussow performed a safety test on phage administration in human volunteers. In this study, 15 healthy adult volunteers received T4 coliphage in their drinking water, at a concentration up to 105 PFU/mL. No adverse effects identified in volunteers receiving phage T4 [76]. Also Sarker et al. gave a 9-phage cocktail to 15 healthy adult volunteers. The phages were detected in 64% of the stool samples when subjects were treated with higher titer phage, compared to 30% and 28% when treated with lower-titer phage. No Escherichia coli was present in initial stool samples, and no amplification of phage was observed. One percent of the administered oral phage was recovered from the feces. No adverse events were observed by self-report, clinical examination, or from laboratory tests for liver, kidney, and hematology function. In addition, no impact was seen on the fecal microbiota composition with respect to bacterial 16S rRNA from stool [77].

7. Phages Therapy in Animal Models of Human Infection

Notwithstanding the above promising human studies, several animal models have also been conducted in keeping with the normal process in new drug or anti-infective development studies. These models have allowed for the evaluation and comparison of the different possible administration routes, timings, and dose-titres of phage. The use of animals as models for microbiological infections has been a fundamental part of infectious disease research, and many research groups have also applied this to phage and their studies are summarised in Table 2. The study of Smith and Huggins 1982 mentioned that a single intramuscular dose of one anti-K1 phage was more effective than multiple intramuscular doses of tetracycline, ampicillin, chloramphenicol, or trimethoprim plus sulphafurazole in curing mice of a potentially lethal intramuscularly or intracerebrally induced infection of Escherichia coli strain; it was at least as effective as multiple intramuscular doses of streptomycin. A notable study by Biswas et al. [50] used the virulent phage ENB6 from raw sewage, and its activity was tested against a wide range of clinical isolates of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VRE). The study reports that the induction of a bacteremia in mice with a high dose of VRE (109 CFU) and an incubation time of 45 h after injection can be fully cured by a single intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection dose of PFU of phage ENB6. Another recent interesting use of phage therapy showed the efficacy of the lytic phage 9882 isolated from hospital sewage in overcoming virulent beta-lactamase- (ESBL-) producing E. coli strains. Notably, this study examined the timing of administration of the therapeutic phage and showed that it is of major importance for the total elimination of infectious bacteria. For example, the efficacy of the activity of the phage varied up to 100% if the phage was introduced 40 min after the bacterial infection to 60% if the phage was introduced 60 min after infection. This study also showed that therapeutic efficacy was directly linked to the functional capability of the phage and not to any other immunological reaction of the host that may be thought to have been triggered by the physical introduction of the phage [56]. These researchers used the same strategy to examine the effectiveness of phages in the treatment of imipenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (IMPR-Pa). The phage (isolated from hospital sewage and designated phage A392) was shown to have in vitro lytic activity against a wide range of clinical isolates of IMPR-Pa. The phage was shown to overcome a high-dose, systemic bacterial infection as well as wound infection in mice. Thus, the study demonstrated that the therapeutic efficacy of the phages was independent of the administration routes, but overall, the timing of administration is very important [57]. Another study focused on the details of multiplicity of infection (MOI) of phage against multidrug-resistant uropathogenic E. coli (UPEC). Phage T4 and a newly isolated phage (KEP10) were injected at an MOI of 60 in mice that were administrated with a UPEC strain. After seven days, 100 and 90% of mice treated with T4 and KEP10, respectively, had survived. In the control group, where no phages were administered, all the mice died within three days [78]. In addition, lower multiplicities of infection (0.03 and 0.003) resulted in a reduced rescue of animals (60 and 40%) [79].

Infection hosts BacteriaPhageMain outcomeReference

MiceE. coli Anti-K1 Better mice survival rates with phageSmith and Huggins, 1982 [119]
BALB/c miceKlebsiella Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteriophageRescue of generalized Klebsiella infectionBogovazova et al., 1991 [120]
Guinea pigsP. aeruginosa BS24Skin graft protection from bacteria by phageSoothill, 1994 [75]
MiceE. coli, S. typhimurium λ and P22Identification, isolation, and subsequent use of long circulating phageMerril et al., 1996 [65]
Chickens and calvesE. coli H247 (O18 : K1 : H7) ΦRProtection against morbidity and mortalityBarrow et al., 1998 [121]
HamstersC. difficile CD1405/6 hamster survived in the phage-treated group compared with none in the control Rdamesh, 1999 [122]
BALB/c miceHelicobacter pylori M13 Reduction of stomach colonization by Helicobacter Cao et al., 2000 [123]
MiceE. faecium ENB6100% survival 45 min after phage administrationBiswas et al., 2002 [50]
MiceV. vulnificus CK-2, 153A-5, and 153A-7Different results of mice protection depending on the phage used. CK-2 and 153A-5 protected mice, whereas 153A-7 did notCerveny et al., 2002 [124]
MiceE. coli LW and LHMortality rates in mice varied depending on the phage usedBull et al., 2002 [125]
MiceS. aureus MR11Better mouse survival rates with phage administration (MOI40.1) straight after bacterial administrationMatsuzaki et al., 2003 [126]
Chicken skinSalmonella enterica and Campylobacter jejuni P125589 and P22Reduction by 2 log units in bacterial abundance over 48 hoursGoode et al., 2003 [127]
BALB/c micePseudomonas aeruginosa Phage Pf3R Higher survival rate and reduced inflammatory response after 12–24 hoursHagens et al., 2004 [128]
RabbitsS. aureus LS2aReduction in abscess size in phage-treated animals and no difference when phage administration was delayedWills et al., 2005 [81]
MiceE. coli
O157 : H7
SP15, SP21, and SP22Successive daily phage administration was required to reduce cell numbers from the gastrointestinal tractTanji et al., 2005 [129]
Chicken Salmonella enteritidis CNPSA 1, CNPSA 3, and CNPSA 4Reduction of Salmonella enteritidis counts in treated chicken cutsFiorentin et al., 2005 [130]
Salmonella-specific phagesReduction in Salmonella counts in cecum and ileum treated chickensToro et al., 2005 [131]
MiceP. aeruginosa A392100% survival rate 60 min after phage administration. Reduced survival rates when phages were administrated at 180 and 360 minWang et al., 2006b [57]
MiceE. coli 9882100% survival at 24–168 h after phage administration (40 min after bacterial administration)Wang et al., 2006a [56]
Shrimp Vibrio harveyi SiphoviridaeImproved larval survivalVinod et al., 2006 [132]
MiceP. aeruginosa Pa1, Pa2, and Pa1187% protection against bacterial infection in mouse burn model compared with 6% in the untreated group after intraperitoneal injectionMcVay et al., 2007 [133]
MiceP. aeruginosa KPP10Survival rates of 66.7% for the phage-treated group versus 0% for the saline-treated control groupWatanabe et al., 2007 [134]
MiceE. coli T4 and KEP10100% survival rate with T4. 90% survival rate with KEP10Nishikawa et al., 2008 [78]
MiceE. faecalis EF24C100% survival rate with a phage MOI of 0.1Uchiyama et al., 2008 [51]
MiceP. aeruginosa CSV-31100% protection observed when phage was administrated 45 min after bacterial challengeVinodkumar et al., 2008 [58]
MiceK. pneumonia SSImmediate administration of phage resulted in 100% protection; this decreased after 3 h and no protection at 6 h was observed after bacterial challengeChhibber et al., 2008 [80]
MiceK. pneumoniae Kpn5Phage was able to rescue mice from infection caused by K. pneumoniae Kumari et al., 2010 [135]
MiceP. aeruginosa PA1No viable bacteria were found in organ samples after 48 h of the phage treatment Tiwari et al., 2011 [136]
MiceP. aeruginosa NH-4 and MR299-2Killing the pathogen in the lungs of infected mice after phage mixture administrationAlemayehu et al., 2012 [137]
MiceE. coli EC200(PP)100% survival mice 1 and 7 h after phage administration Pouillot et al., 2012 [138]

An intraperitoneal phage administration study involving phage SS specific for K. pneumoniae was conducted to treat mice that had been challenged by intranasal inoculation with K. pneumoniae (108 CFU/mL). A single intraperitoneal injection of 1010 CFU/mL phage SS administered immediately after intranasal inoculation challenge was sufficient to rescue 100% of animals from the K. pneumoniae-mediated respiratory infections [80]. In addition, in a rabbit model of wound infection, abscess formation in rabbits was prevented when PFU of phage LS2a was injected simultaneously with CFU of S. aureus into the same subcutaneous site [81]. The studies reported above were performed under different conditions but demonstrate that the experimental conditions for phage therapy are dependent on the specific infection being treated. Furthermore, these studies illustrate the importance of timing of phage administration, MOI, and route of phage administration in some cases. In addition, phages can have enhanced therapeutic efficacy when they are (i) virulent for the corresponding bacterial host, (ii) essentially free of contaminating bacterial toxin, and (iii) capable of evading the reticuloendothelial system (RES). A notable study by Merril et al. [65] identified phages that were selected for their ability to survive longer than control phage in the blood of mice. The development of such phage may provide important tools for the treatment of bacterial diseases. Therefore, before phages are administered to humans and animals for treatment, (especially for new phages) animal models are an important initial step to help determine potential experimental conditions down the line, such as route and timing of administration and MOI.

8. Use of Phage to Eliminate Biofilms

Biofilm formation is an important bacterial survival strategy, particularly on surfaces. Biofilms are microbial structures consisting of microbial cells surrounded by an exopolymeric matrix. In humans, biofilms are responsible for many pathologies, including those associated with the use of medical devices [82]. Since the first phage/biofilm study was reported in 1995 [83], there has been an increased interest in using phage to eliminate biofilms (Table 3). This is due to the ability of phages in general to replicate at the site of an infection and in some cases to produce enzymes that degrade the extracellular polymeric substance matrix of a biofilm [84]. Significantly, the development of extracellular polysaccharide-based matrices by biofilm bacteria does not protect cells from lysis by bacteriophage [85]. Phages evidently penetrate the extracellular biofilm matrix that binds macromolecules and cells to eliminate their target bacterial cells [86].

Year Bacteria Phage Reference

1995 E. coli T4 Doolittle et al., 1995 [83]
1996 E. coli, P. aeruginosa T4, E79 Doolittle et al., 1996 [139]
1998 E. agglomerans 53b SF153b Hughes et al., 1998 [140]
2001 E. coli K-12 T4 Corbin et al., 2001 [141]
2004 P. fluorescens φS1 Sillankorva et al., 2004 [142]
2005 E. coli O157 : H7 KH1 Sharma et al., 2005 [143]
2008P. fluorescens φS1 Sillankorva et al., 2008 [144]
2010K. pneumoniae KPO1K2Verma et al., 2010 [145]
2010L. monocytogenes P100Soni and Nannapaneni, 2010 [146]
2011S. aureus SAP-26Rahman et al., 2011 [147]
2011P. aeruginosa PAO1 and ATCC 10145Pires et al., 2011 [148]
2012P. aeruginosa φMR299-2 and φNH-4Alemayehu et al., 2012 [137]
2012E. coli vB_EcoP_ACG-C91, vB_EcoM_ACG-C40, vB_EcoS_ACG-M12Chibeu et al., 2012 [149]
2012S. aureus KKelly et al., 2012 [85]
2012A. baumannii AB7-IBB1Yele et al., 2012 [150]
2012A. baumannii AB7-IBB2Thawal et al., 2012 [151]

9. Phage Endolysins as Therapeutics

Many phages encode specific peptidoglycan-degrading enzymes, also known as murein hydrolases or endolysins (lysins), which are responsible for lysis of the host bacterial cell at the end of the lytic cycle. To achieve access to the cell wall, endolysins require a second lysis factor—a small membrane protein designated a holin, which permits penetration of the plasma membrane [8791]. Both endolysin and holin proteins are produced in the late stage of the lytic cycle, when they accumulate in the cytosol of the host cell. At a genetically specific time, holin protein forms pores in the plasma membrane, thus, providing access for the endolysin to reach its target in the peptidoglycan where it will cause rapid cell lysis with the concomitant release of mature phage progeny (Figure 7) [92, 93]. Many endolysins studies to date display a two- or three-domain modular structure [94, 95] with an N-terminal catalytic domain(s) and a C-terminal cell wall-binding domain [9699] (Figure 7(b)). Lysins are classified into five different groups depending on their cleavage site within the peptidoglycan. These are (1) N-acetyl-β-D-muramidase (lysozymes); (2) lytic transglycosylase; (3) N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidases (glycosidases), which hydrolyse the β-1-4 glycosidic bond in the sugar moiety of the cell wall; (4) N-acetylmuramoyl-L-alanine amidases, which cleave the amide bond connecting the sugar and peptide moieties of the bacterial cell wall, and (5) L-alanoyl-D-glutamate endopeptidases and interpeptide bridge-specific endopeptidases, which attack the peptide moiety of the cell wall peptidoglycan (Figure 8) [96, 100102]. If purified and applied exogenously, endolysins are only effective against Gram-positive bacteria; the outer membrane of Gram-negatives prevents access of exogenous Gram-negative endolysins [103].

Lysins have recently received considerable attention in the context of exploitation as novel antibacterials, and their potential has been extensively reviewed [24, 100, 104].

A variety of in vitro tests and animal models using different purified preparations of lysins, either alone, in combination, or together with classical antibiotics, have demonstrated the potential of many phage lysins as therapeutics or biocontrol agents, and those that have been well researched are summarised in Tables 4(a) and 4(b).


S. pneumoniae Cp1Cpl-1MuramidaseLoeffler et al., 2001 [105]; Jado et al., 2003 [107]; McCullers et al., 2007 [108]
S. pneumoniae Dp-1PalAmidaseJado et al., 2003 [107]
S. pyogenes C1C1AmidaseNelson et al., 2001 [106]
B. anthracis γPlyGAmidaseSchuch et al., 2002 [109]
B. anthracis Ames prophagePlyPHAmidaseYoong et al., 2006 [110]
E. faecalis and
E. faecium
Phi1PlyV12AmidaseYoong et al., 2004 [114]
S. aureus MR11MV-LEndopeptidase and amidaseRashel et al., 2007 [99]
S. pyogenes C1PlyCAmidaseHoopes et al., 2009 [152]
S. agalactiae B30GBS lysinMuramidase and endopeptidasePritchard et al., 2004 [153]
S. aureus P68Lys16Endopeptidase Takáč et al., 2005 [154]
S. aureus KLysKAmidase and endopeptidaseO'Flaherty et al., 2005 [53]
S. aureus MR11MV-LAmidase and endopeptidaseRashel et al., 2007 [99]
L. monocytogenes A118Ply118Amidase Gaeng et al., 2000 [155]
L. monocytogenes A511Ply511Amidase Gaeng et al., 2000 [155]
L. monocytogenes A500Ply500EndopeptidaseLoessner et al., 2002 [91]
S. pneumoniae ΦDp-1Pal, SAmidase and endopeptidaseLoeffler et al., 2001 [105]
S. agalactiae LambdaSa1
LambdaSa1 prophage lysinGlycosidase Pritchard et al., 2007 [156]
S. agalactiae LambdaSa2
LambdaSa2 prophage lysinGlycosidase and endopeptidase Pritchard et al., 2007 [156]
S. uberis (ATCC700407) prophagePly700Amidase Celia et al., 2008 [111]
S. suis SMPLySMPGlycosidase and endopeptidaseWang et al., 2009 [113]
B. anthracis Bcp1 PlyB, Muramidase Porter et al., 2007 [157]
S. aureus Phi11 and Phi12Phi11 lysinAmidase and endopeptidase Sass and Bierbaum, 2007 [158]
S. aureus ΦMR11 MV-LAmidase and endopeptidaseRashel et al., 2007 [99]
S. aureus ΦH5 LysH5Amidase and endopeptidaseObeso et al., 2008 [112]
S. warneri ΦWMY LysWMY Amidase and endopeptidase Yokoi et al., 2005 [159]
Streptococci (GBS)ΦNCTC 11261PlyGBSMuramidase and endopeptidase Cheng et al., 2005 [160]
C. perfringens Φ3626 Ply3626 AmidaseZimmer et al., 2002 [115]
C. difficile ΦCD27 CD27 lysinAmidase Mayer et al., 2008 [161]
E. faecalis Φ1 PlyV12AmidaseYoong et al., 2004 [114]
A. naeslundii ΦAv-1-Av-1 lysinPutative amidase/
Delisle et al., 2006 [162]
L. gasseri ΦgaY LysgaYMuramidase Sugahara et al., 2007 [163]
S. aureus ΦSA4LysSA4Amidase and endopeptidase Mishra et al., 2013 [164]
S. haemolyticus ΦSH2SH2Amidase and endopeptidase Schmelcher et al., 2012 [165]
B. thuringiensis ΦBtCS33PlyBt33Amidase Yuan et al., 2012 [166]
L. monocytogenes ΦP40PlyP40Amidase Eugster and Loessner, 2012 [167]
L. monocytogenes ΦFWLLm3LysZ5Amidase Zhang et al., 2012 [168]
B. cereus ΦBPS13LysBPS13Amidase Park et al., 2012 [169]
S. aureus ΦGH15LysGH15Amidase and endopeptidase Gu et al., 2011 [170]
S. aureus ΦvB_SauS-PLA88HydH5Endopeptidase and glycosidase Rodríguez et al., 2011 [171]
E. faecalis ΦF168/08Lys168Endopeptidase Proença et al., 2012 [172]
E. faecalis ΦF170/08Lys170Amidase Proença et al., 2012 [172]
S. aureus ΦP-27/HPP-27/HPNonspecified Gupta and Prasad, 2011 [173]
C. perfringens ΦSM101PsmMuramidase Nariya et al., 2011 [174]
C. sporogenes Φ8074-B1CS74LAmidase Mayer et al., 2012 [175]
S. typhimurium ΦSPN1SLysin SPN1SGlycosidase Lim et al., 2012 [176]
C. michiganensis ΦCMP1CMP1Peptidase Wittmann et al., 2010 [177]
C. michiganensis ΦCN77CN77Peptidase Wittmann et al., 2010 [177]
A. baumannii ΦAB2LysAB2Glycosidase Lai et al., 2011 [178]
B. cereus ΦB4LysB4Endopeptidase Son et al., 2012 [179]
P. aeruginosa ΦKMVKMV45NonspecifiedBriers et al., 2011 [117]
C. tyrobutyricum ΦCTP1Ctp1lGlycosidase Mayer et al., 2010 [180]
P. aeruginosa ΦELEL188Transglycosylase Briers et al., 2007 [181]
P. aeruginosa ΦKZKZ144Transglycosylase Briers et al., 2007 [181]
S. aureus Ply187Nonspecified Mao et al., 2013 [182]
P. fluorescens ΦOBPOBPgp279Glycosidase Walmagh et al., 2012 [116]
L. monocytogenes ΦP35PlyP35Amidase Eugster et al., 2011 [183]
L. fermentum ΦPYB5Lyb5Muramidase Hu et al., 2010 [184]
S. pneumoniae ΦCP-7Cpl-7Muramidase Bustamante et al., 2010 [185]
P. chlororaphis201 Φ2-1201φ2-1gp229Glycosidase Walmagh et al., 2012 [116]
S. enterica ΦPVP-SE1)PVP-SE1gp146Glycosidase Walmagh et al., 2012 [116]
Corynebacterium ΦBFK20BFK20Amidase Gerova et al., 2011 [186]
E. faecalis ΦEFAP-1EFAL-1Amidase Son et al., 2010 [187]
Lactobacilli lamdaSA2LysA, LysA2, and LysgaYNonspecified Roach et al., 2013 [188]
S. aureus SAL-1Nonspecified Jun et al., 2013 [189]

The pioneer of endolysin antibacterial research is undoubtedly Vincent Fischetti, whose group showed that the streptococcal lysin encoded by phage C1 is specific for groups A, C, and E Streptococci [105, 106]. The addition of 1,000 U of purified lysin in vitro within five seconds resulted in 100% inhibition of 107 CFU/mL of group A Streptococci. Furthermore, in a mouse model of infection, protection of mice from group A Streptococci colonisation was evident. In this case, a single dose of lysin (250 U) was added to the oral cavity of mice before the addition of 107 CFU/mL of group A Streptococci. Indeed, in an additional experiment following administration of lysin (500 U) to mice that were heavily colonised with group A Streptococci, no Streptococci were detected 2 h after treatment [106]. The same research group also studied the Streptococcus pneumoniae phage lysin enzyme (Pal) and demonstrated that it was able to eradicate 15 common serotypes of Pneumococci [105]. It has clearly been shown that the use of purified Cpl-1 and/or Pal 1 lysins was very efficient in curing heavy infections caused by S. pneumoniae strain 6B and the acute otitis caused by S. pneumoniae [107, 108]. Fischetti’s group also focused on a Bacillus anthracis phage lysin and showed that it could be exploited for the detection and elimination of this pathogen, which has associations with bioterrorism. In this case, the lysin was identified from phage γ of B. anthracis and was found to be effective against vegetative cells as well as germinating spores. The lysins tested were PlG and PlyPH. The latter is especially resistant to a wide pH range [109, 110]. Other lysins were also shown to have a great deal of lytic activity against streptococci; however, it is noteworthy that LySMP manifested a prominent lytic activity that is greater than that seen with the whole phage [111113].

Staphylococcal phage MR11 was originally reported to be active against Staphylococcus infections in mice. Its lysin was subsequently cloned and designated MV-L lysin and used to eliminate MRSA in the nasal cavities of mice. Complete elimination of bacteria was observed in one of nine mice treated with MV-L lysin. The remaining mice had much lower CFU/nasal cavity numbers than the untreated controls. In an additional experiment with a model of systemic MRSA disease after 60 days, all mice treated with MV-L lysin directly or 30 min after bacterial administration survived compared with 60% survival 60 min after bacterial administration [99]. In the genus Enterococcus, the lysin PlyV12 was found to have activity not only against its host E. faecalis but also against other Gram-positive pathogens, such as Staphylococci and Streptococci. In this case, the authors suggested that this might be due to a common surface structure between these pathogens [114].

The use of lysins is not limited to animal models of infection and the control of infection caused by virulent bacteria. Their use was recently extended to the area of food safety. This is illustrated by the use of the lysin Ply3626 that is active against C. perfringens [115], really third most common cause of food-borne illness. Investigations in the area of Gram-negative endolysins as antibacterial applications have also been undertaken, for example, in the case of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. While such endolysins (unlike those of Gram-positives) generally have a broad target range among Gram-negative genera, their application as antibacterials is compromised by the presence of the outer membrane. Thus, antibacterial activity has only been shown to be possible after treatment of the outer membrane of Gram-negative cells with EDTA [116] or by the fusion of hydrophobic amino acids to the endolysin, which enables the movement of the endolysin across the outer membrane. The latter approach has been recently developed in endolysins by the group of Lavigne in Belgium [117] and was based on earlier observations where the action of lysozyme against E. coli was enhanced by the fusion of a hydrophobic pentapeptide onto the C-terminus [118]. The advantage of the use of lysins over other antibacterials (or antibiotics) is their specificity for one bacterial pathogen without disturbing other nonpathogenic bacterial flora. There is also a very low chance of bacterial resistance to endolysins, due to the fact that resistance would necessitate an alteration in fundamental peptidoglycan structure. To date no lysin-resistant bacteria have been identified. Thus, lysins could be effective antibacterials in an age of increasing antibiotic resistance. It is worthy of mention that one potential concern in the use of lysins is the development of lysin-neutralising antibodies. Unlike antibiotics, which are small molecules that are generally not immunogenic, endolysins are proteins that stimulate an immune response when delivered both mucosally and systemically. Despite the limited studies on endolysin immunogenicity, it has been reported that highly immune serum slows, but does not block the killing of bacteria by lysins [87, 88, 114].

10. Conclusions

The continued, world-wide antibiotic resistance problem requires the exploitation of inexpensive, natural, available, safe, and efficient therapeutic agents. Consequently, investigations of phage confirmed that they can be specific and highly effective in lysing targeted pathogenic bacteria. The safety of such therapies has been demonstrated by their wide clinical use in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Phages are stable and easy to purify at a relatively low cost. They are naturally widespread in many environments on Earth and play an important role in bacterial ecology and evolution. Therefore, investigations of the use of phage for the elimination of pathogenic bacteria are well justified and from the cases discussed here it is clear that use of phages or their lytic enzymes has a considerable array of applications as therapeutics in the modern medical and veterinary fields.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare no conflict of interests.


  1. F. d'Hérelle, “Sur un microbe invisible antagoniste des bacilles dysentériques,” Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences—Series D, vol. 165, pp. 373–375, 1917. View at: Google Scholar
  2. D. H. Duckworth, “‘Who discovered bacteriophage?’,” Bacteriological Reviews, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 793–802, 1976. View at: Google Scholar
  3. M. Mattey and J. Spencer, “Bacteriophage therapy—cooked goose or Phoenix rising?” Current Opinion in Biotechnology, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 608–612, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. E. H. Hankin, “L'action bactéricide des eaux de la Jumna et du Gange sur le vibrion du cholera,” Annales de l'Institut Pasteur, vol. 10, pp. 511–523, 1896. View at: Google Scholar
  5. N. F. Gamaleya, “Bacteriolysins—ferments destroying bacteria,” Russian Archives of Pathology, Clinical Medicine, and Bacteriology, vol. 6, pp. 607–613, 1898. View at: Google Scholar
  6. F. W. Twort, “An investigation on the nature of ultramicroscopic viruses,” The Lancet, vol. 186, no. 4814, pp. 1241–1243, 1915. View at: Google Scholar
  7. A. Sulakvelidze, Z. Alavidze, and J. G. Morris Jr., “Bacteriophage therapy,” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 649–659, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  8. W. C. Summers, “Bacteriophage therapy,” Annual Review of Microbiology, vol. 55, pp. 437–451, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. M. L. Pedulla, M. E. Ford, J. M. Houtz et al., “Origins of highly mosaic mycobacteriophage genomes,” Cell, vol. 113, no. 2, pp. 171–182, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. A. Parisien, B. Allain, J. Zhang, R. Mandeville, and C. Q. Lan, “Novel alternatives to antibiotics: bacteriophages, bacterial cell wall hydrolases, and antimicrobial peptides,” Journal of Applied Microbiology, vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. A. Dublanchet and S. Bourne, “The epic of phage therapy,” Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 15–18, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  12. B. Guttman, R. Raya, and E. Kutter, “Basic phage biology,” in Bacteriophages: Biology and Applications, pp. 29–63, CRC Press, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  13. E. Strauch, J. A. Hammerl, and S. Hertwig, “Bacteriophages: new tools for safer food?” Journal fur Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 138–143, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. D. L. Ewert and M. J. B. Paynter, “Enumeration of bacteriophages and host bacteria in sewage and the activated-sludge treatment process,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 576–583, 1980. View at: Google Scholar
  15. K. Dabrowska, K. Switała-Jelen, A. Opolski, B. Weber-Dabrowska, and A. Gorski, “Bacteriophage penetration in vertebrates,” Journal of Applied Microbiology, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 7–13, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. H. W. Ackermann and D. Prangishvili, “Prokaryote viruses studied by electron microscopy,” Archives of Virology, vol. 157, no. 10, pp. 1843–1849, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  17. J. Klumpp, R. Lavigne, M. J. Loessner, and H.-W. Ackermann, “The SPO1-related bacteriophages,” Archives of Virology, vol. 155, no. 10, pp. 1547–1561, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. H.-W. Ackermann, “Frequency of morphological phage descriptions in the year 2000,” Archives of Virology, vol. 146, no. 5, pp. 843–857, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. H. W. Ackermann, “Bacteriophage classification,” in Bacteriophages: Biology and Applications, pp. 67–89, CRC Press, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  20. S. Matsuzaki, M. Rashel, J. Uchiyama et al., “Bacteriophage therapy: a revitalized therapy against bacterial infectious diseases,” Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 211–219, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. S. Mc Grath and D. van Sinderen, Bacteriophage Genetics and Molecular Biology, 2007.
  22. J. W. Lengeler, G. Drews, and H. G. Schlegel, Biology of the Prokaryotes, 1999.
  23. S. Deresinski, “Bacteriophage therapy: exploiting smaller fleas,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 1096–1101, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. M. Parviz Sabour and W. Mansel Griffiths, Bacteriophages in the Control of Food and Waterborne Pathogens, American Society for Microbiology, 2010.
  25. A. Coffey and R. P. Ross, “Bacteriophage-resistance systems in dairy starter strains: molecular analysis to application,” Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, vol. 82, no. 1–4, pp. 303–321, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. B. J. M. Bohannan and R. E. Lenski, “Linking genetic change to community evolution: insights from studies of bacteria and bacteriophage,” Ecology Letters, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 362–377, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. B. R. Levin and J. J. Bull, “Population and evolutionary dynamics of phage therapy,” Nature Reviews Microbiology, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 166–173, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. D. H. Kruger and T. A. Bickle, “Bacteriophage survival: multiple mechanisms for avoiding the deoxyribonucleic acid restriction systems of their hosts,” Microbiological Reviews, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 345–360, 1983. View at: Google Scholar
  29. F. J. M. Mojica, C. Ferrer, G. Juez, and F. Rodríguez-Valera, “Long stretches of short tandem repeats are present in the largest replicons of the Archaea Haloferax mediterranei and Haloferax volcanii and could be involved in replicon partitioning,” Molecular Microbiology, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 85–93, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. M. P. Terns and R. M. Terns, “CRISPR-based adaptive immune systems,” Current Opinion in Microbiology, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 321–327, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. L. A. Marraffini and E. J. Sontheimer, “CRISPR interference: RNA-directed adaptive immunity in bacteria and archaea,” Nature Reviews Genetics, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 181–190, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. K. S. Makarova, D. H. Haft, R. Barrangou et al., “Evolution and classification of the CRISPR-Cas systems,” Nature Reviews Microbiology, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 467–477, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. O. Bergh, K. Y. Borsheim, G. Bratbak, and M. Heldal, “High abundance of viruses found in aquatic environments,” Nature, vol. 340, no. 6233, pp. 467–468, 1989. View at: Google Scholar
  34. Y. Wei, P. Ocampo, and B. R. Levin, “An experimental study of the population and evolutionary dynamics of Vibrio cholerae O1 and the bacteriophage JSF4,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 277, no. 1698, pp. 3247–3254, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. S. Mills, F. Shanahan, C. Stanton, C. Hill, A. Coffey, and P. R. Ross, “Movers and shakers: influence of bacteriophages in shaping the mammalian gut microbiota,” Gut Microbes, vol. 1, pp. 4–16, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  36. H. Brussow, “Phages of dairy bacteria,” Annual Review of Microbiology, vol. 55, pp. 283–303, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  37. C. Madera, C. Monjardín, and J. E. Suárez, “Milk contamination and resistance to processing conditions determine the fate of Lactococcus lactis bacteriophages in dairies,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 70, no. 12, pp. 7365–7371, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. D. Pattron, Public Health Safety of Bacteriophages in Ready-To-Eat Meats & Poultry Products, Food Safety, Public Health Scientist and Consultant in Trinidad Article Source, 2006.
  39. T. Bigwood, J. A. Hudson, C. Billington, G. V. Carey-Smith, and J. A. Heinemann, “Phage inactivation of foodborne pathogens on cooked and raw meat,” Food Microbiology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 400–406, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. R. Bruynoghe and J. Maisin, “Essais de thérapeutique au moyen du bacteriophage,” Comptes Rendus des Séances et Mémoires de la Société de Biologie, vol. 85, pp. 1120–1121, 1921. View at: Google Scholar
  41. O. ’Flaherty S, R. P. Ross, and A. Coffey, “Bacteriophage and their lysins for elimination of infectiousbacteria,” FEMS Microbiology Reviews, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 801–819, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  42. W. C. Summers, “Bacteriophage research: early history,” in Bacteriophages: Biology and Applications, E. Kutter and A. Sulakvelidze, Eds., pp. 5–27, CRC Press, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  43. H. Ruska, “Uber die Sichtbarmachung der bakteriophagen Lyse im mikroskop,” Die Naturwissenschaften, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 45–46, 1940. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. A. Sulakvelidze and E. Kutter, “Bacteriophage therapy in humans,” in Bacteriophages, Biology and Applications, E. Kutter and A. Sulakvelidze, Eds., chapter 14, pp. 381–436, CRC Press, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  45. O. McAuliffe, R. P. Ross, and G. F. Fitzgerald, “The new phage biology: from genomics to applications,” in Bacteriophage: Genetics and Molecular Biology, S. McGrath and D. van Sinderen, Eds., Caister Academic, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  46. A. Sulakvelidze, “Phage therapy: an attractive option for dealing with antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections,” Drug Discovery Today, vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 807–809, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. B. Weber-Ḑbrowska, M. Mulczyk, and A. Górski, “Bacteriophages as an efficient therapy for antibiotic-resistant septicemia in man,” Transplantation Proceedings, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 1385–1386, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. G. O. Klein, “Bacteriophage therapy can be the rescue when antibiotics no longer work,” Lakartidningen, vol. 106, no. 40, pp. 2530–2533, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  49. S. I. Ahmad, “Treatment of post-burns bacterial infections by bacteriophages, specifically ubiquitous Pseudomonas spp. notoriously resistant to antibiotics,” Medical Hypotheses, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 327–331, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. B. Biswas, S. Adhya, P. Washart et al., “Bacteriophage therapy rescues mice bacteremic from a clinical isolate of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium,” Infection and Immunity, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 204–210, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. J. Uchiyama, M. Rashel, I. Takemura, H. Wakiguchi, and S. Matsuzaki, “In silico and in vivo evaluation of bacteriophage φEF24C, a candidate for treatment of Enterococcus faecalis infections,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 74, no. 13, pp. 4149–4163, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. J. Uchiyama, M. Rashel, Y. Maeda et al., “Isolation and characterization of a novel Enterococcus faecalis bacteriophage φEF24C as a therapeutic candidate,” FEMS Microbiology Letters, vol. 278, no. 2, pp. 200–206, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. S. O'Flaherty, A. Coffey, W. Meaney, G. F. Fitzgerald, and R. P. Ross, “The recombinant phage lysin LysK has a broad spectrum of lytic activity against clinically relevant staphylococci, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus,” Journal of Bacteriology, vol. 187, no. 20, pp. 7161–7164, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. S. O'Flaherty, R. P. Ross, W. Meaney, G. F. Fitzgerald, M. F. Elbreki, and A. Coffey, “Potential of the Polyvalent anti-Staphylococcus bacteriophage K for control of antibiotic-resistant staphylococci from hospitals,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 1836–1842, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. C. S. Vinodkumar, Y. F. Neelagund, and S. Kalsurmath, “Bacteriophage in the treatment of experimental septicemic mice from a clinical isolate of multidrug resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae,” Journal of Communicable Diseases, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 18–29, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  56. J. Wang, B. Hu, M. Xu et al., “Therapeutic effectiveness of bacteriophages in the rescue of mice with extended spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli bacteremia,” International Journal of Molecular Medicine, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 347–355, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  57. J. Wang, B. Hu, M. Xu et al., “Use of bacteriophage in the treatment of experimental animal bacteremia from imipenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa,” International Journal of Molecular Medicine, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 309–317, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  58. C. Vinodkumar, S. Kalsurmath, and Y. Neelagund, “Utility of lytic bacteriophage in the treatment of multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa septicemia in mice,” Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 360–366, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. A. Wright, C. H. Hawkins, E. E. Änggård, and D. R. Harper, “A controlled clinical trial of a therapeutic bacteriophage preparation in chronic otitis due to antibiotic-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa; a preliminary report of efficacy,” Clinical Otolaryngology, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 349–357, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. M. Viscardi, A. G. Perugini, C. Auriemma et al., “Isolation and characterisation of two novel coliphages with high potential to control antibiotic-resistant pathogenic Escherichia coli (EHEC and EPEC),” International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 152–157, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. N. H. Mann, “The potential of phages to prevent MRSA infections,” Research in Microbiology, vol. 159, no. 5, pp. 400–405, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. J. A. Hermoso, J. L. García, and P. García, “Taking aim on bacterial pathogens: from phage therapy to enzybiotics,” Current Opinion in Microbiology, no. 5, pp. 461–472, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  63. N. K. Petty, T. J. Evans, P. C. Fineran, and G. P. C. Salmond, “Biotechnological exploitation of bacteriophage research,” Trends in Biotechnology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 7–15, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. R. López, E. García, and P. García, “Enzymes for anti-infective therapy: phage lysins,” Drug Discovery Today, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 469–474, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. C. R. Merril, B. Biswas, R. Carlton et al., “Long-circulating bacteriophage as antibacterial agents,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 93, no. 8, pp. 3188–3192, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. M. Skurnik and E. Strauch, “Phage therapy: facts and fiction,” International Journal of Medical Microbiology, vol. 296, no. 1, pp. 5–14, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. J. Borysowski and A. Górski, “Is phage therapy acceptable in the immunocompromised host?” International Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 466–471, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. S. Slopek, A. Kucharewicz-Krukowska, B. Weber-Dabrowska, and M. Dabrowski, “Evaluation of the results obtained in children,” Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 241–259, 1985. View at: Google Scholar
  69. S. Slopek, B. Weber-Dabrowska, M. Dabrowski, and A. Kucharewicz-Krukowska, “Results of bacteriophage treatment of suppurative bacterial infections in the years 1981–1986,” Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 569–583, 1987. View at: Google Scholar
  70. M. Cislo, M. Dabrowski, B. Weber-Dabrowska, and A. Woyton, “Bacteriophage treatment of suppurative skin infections,” Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 175–183, 1987. View at: Google Scholar
  71. B. Weber-Ḑbrowska, M. Mulczyk, and A. Górski, “Bacteriophage therapy of bacterial infections: an update of our institute's experience,” Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 547–551, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  72. J. Alisky, K. Iczkowski, A. Rapoport, and N. Troitsky, “Bacteriophages show promise as antimicrobial agents,” Journal of Infection, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 5–15, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  73. A. Almeida, Â. Cunha, N. C. M. Gomes, E. Alves, L. Costa, and M. A. F. Faustino, “Phage therapy and photodynamic therapy: low environmental impact approaches to inactivate microorganisms in fish farming plants,” Marine Drugs, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 268–313, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  74. R. Międzybrodzki, J. Borysowski, B. Weber-Dąbrowska et al., “Clinical aspects of phage therapy,” Advances in Virus Research, vol. 83, pp. 73–121, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  75. J. S. Soothill, “Bacteriophage prevents destruction of skin grafts by Pseudomonas aeruginosa,” Burns, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 209–211, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. A. Bruttin and H. Brüssow, “Human volunteers receiving Escherichia coli phage T4 orally: a safety test of phage therapy,” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 2874–2878, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  77. S. A. Sarker, S. McCallin, C. Barretto et al., “Oral T4-like phage cocktail application to healthy adult volunteers from Bangladesh,” Virology, vol. 434, no. 2, pp. 222–232, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  78. H. Nishikawa, M. Yasuda, J. Uchiyama et al., “T-even-related bacteriophages as candidates for treatment of Escherichia coli urinary tract infections,” Archives of Virology, vol. 153, no. 3, pp. 507–515, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  79. E. M. Ryan, S. P. Gorman, R. F. Donnelly, and B. F. Gilmore, “Recent advances in bacteriophage therapy: how delivery routes, formulation, concentration and timing influence the success of phage therapy,” Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, vol. 63, no. 10, pp. 1253–1264, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. S. Chhibber, S. Kaur, and S. Kumari, “Therapeutic potential of bacteriophage in treating Klebsiella pneumoniae B5055-mediated lobar pneumonia in mice,” Journal of Medical Microbiology, vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 1508–1513, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. Q. F. Wills, C. Kerrigan, and J. S. Soothill, “Experimental bacteriophage protection against Staphylococcus aureus abscesses in a rabbit model,” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 1220–1221, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  82. J. Azeredo and I. W. Sutherland, “The use of phages for the removal of infectious biofilms,” Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 261–266, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  83. M. M. Doolittle, J. J. Cooney, and D. E. Caldwell, “Lytic infection of Escherichia coli biofilms by bacteriophage T4,” Canadian Journal of Microbiology, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 12–18, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  84. J. B. Jones, L. E. Jackson, B. Balogh, A. Obradovic, F. B. Iriarte, and M. T. Momol, “Bacteriophages for plant disease control,” Annual Review of Phytopathology, vol. 45, pp. 245–262, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  85. D. Kelly, O. Mcauliffe, R. P. Ross, and A. Coffey, “Prevention of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation and reduction in established biofilm density using a combination of phage K and modified derivatives,” Letters in Applied Microbiology, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 286–291, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  86. P. Lacroix-Gueu, R. Briandet, S. Lévêque-Fort, M.-N. Bellon-Fontaine, and M.-P. Fontaine-Aupart, “In situ measurements of viral particles diffusion inside mucoid biofilms,” Comptes Rendus Biologies, vol. 328, no. 12, pp. 1065–1072, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. V. A. Fischetti, “The use of phage lytic enzymes to control bacterial infections,” in Bacteriophages, Biology and Applications, E. Kutter and A. Sulakvelidze, Eds., chapter 12, pp. 321–334, CRC Press, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  88. V. A. Fischetti, “Bacteriophage lytic enzymes: novel anti-infectives,” Trends in Microbiology, vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 491–496, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  89. R. Young, “Bacteriophage lysis: mechanism and regulation,” Microbiological Reviews, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 430–481, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  90. R. Young, I.-N. Wang, and W. D. Roof, “Phages will out: strategies of host cell lysis,” Trends in Microbiology, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 120–128, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  91. M. J. Loessner, K. Kramer, F. Ebel, and S. Scherer, “C-terminal domains of Listeria monocytogenes bacteriophage murein hydrolases determine specific recognition and high-affinity binding to bacterial cell wall carbohydrates,” Molecular Microbiology, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 335–349, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  92. R. Young and U. Bläsi, “Holins: form and function in bacteriophage lysis,” FEMS Microbiology Reviews, vol. 17, no. 1-2, pp. 191–205, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  93. I.-N. Wang, D. L. Smith, and R. Young, “Holins: the protein clocks of bacteriophage infections,” Annual Review of Microbiology, vol. 54, pp. 799–825, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  94. E. Diaz, R. Lopez, and J. L. Garcia, “Chimeric phage-bacterial enzymes: a clue to the modular evolution of genes,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 87, no. 20, pp. 8125–8129, 1990. View at: Google Scholar
  95. P. García, J. L. García, E. García, J. M. Sánchez-Puelles, and R. López, “Modular organization of the lytic enzymes of Streptococcus pneumoniae and its bacteriophages,” Gene, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 81–88, 1990. View at: Google Scholar
  96. M. J. Loessner, “Bacteriophage endolysins—current state of research and applications,” Current Opinion in Microbiology, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 480–487, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  97. M. Larkin, “Vincent Fischetti-following phages for life,” Lancet Infectious Diseases, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 246–249, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  98. W. W. Navarre, H. Ton-That, K. F. Faull, and O. Schneewind, “Multiple enzymatic activities of the murein hydrolase from staphylococcal phage φ11: identification of a D-alanyl-glycine endopeptidase activity,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 274, no. 22, pp. 15847–15856, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  99. M. Rashel, J. Uchiyama, T. Ujihara et al., “Efficient elimination of multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus by cloned lysin derived from bacteriophage φMR11,” Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 196, no. 8, pp. 1237–1247, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  100. R. López and E. García, “Recent trends on the molecular biology of pneumococcal capsules, lytic enzymes, and bacteriophage,” FEMS Microbiology Reviews, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 553–580, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  101. V. A. Fischetti, “Bacteriophage lysins as effective antibacterials,” Current Opinion in Microbiology, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 393–400, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  102. H. Oliveira, L. D. Melo, S. B. Santos et al., “Molecular aspects and comparative genomics of bacteriophage endolysins,” Journal of Virology, vol. 87, no. 8, pp. 4558–4570, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  103. P. García, L. Rodríguez, A. Rodríguez, and B. Martínez, “Food biopreservation: promising strategies using bacteriocins, bacteriophages and endolysins,” Trends in Food Science and Technology, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 373–382, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  104. V. A. Fischetti, “Bacteriophage endolysins: a novel anti-infective to control Gram-positive pathogens,” International Journal of Medical Microbiology, vol. 300, no. 6, pp. 357–362, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  105. J. M. Loeffler, D. Nelson, and V. A. Fischetti, “Rapid killing of Streptococcus pneumoniae with a bacteriophage cell wall hydrolase,” Science, vol. 294, no. 5549, pp. 2170–2172, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  106. D. Nelson, L. Loomis, and V. A. Fischetti, “Prevention and elimination of upper respiratory colonization of mice by group A streptococci by using a bacteriophage lytic enzyme,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 98, no. 7, pp. 4107–4112, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  107. I. Jado, R. López, E. García et al., “Phage lytic enzymes as therapy for antibiotic-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae infection in a murine sepsis model,” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 967–973, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  108. J. A. McCullers, Å. Karlström, A. R. Iverson, J. M. Loeffler, and V. A. Fischetti, “Novel strategy to prevent otitis media caused by colonizing Streptococcus pneumoniae,” PLoS Pathogens, vol. 3, article e28, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  109. R. Schuch, D. Nelson, and V. A. Fischetti, “A bacteriolytic agent that detects and kills Bacillus anthracis,” Nature, vol. 418, no. 6900, pp. 884–889, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  110. P. Yoong, R. Schuch, D. Nelson, and V. A. Fischetti, “PlyPH, a bacteriolytic enzyme with a broad pH range of activity and lytic action against Bacillus anthracis,” Journal of Bacteriology, vol. 188, no. 7, pp. 2711–2714, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  111. L. K. Celia, D. Nelson, and D. E. Kerr, “Characterization of a bacteriophage lysin (Ply700) from Streptococcus uberis,” Veterinary Microbiology, vol. 130, no. 1-2, pp. 107–117, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  112. J. M. Obeso, B. Martínez, A. Rodríguez, and P. García, “Lytic activity of the recombinant staphylococcal bacteriophage PhiH5 endolysin active against Staphylococcus aureus in milk,” International Journal of Food Microbiology, vol. 128, no. 2, pp. 212–218, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  113. Y. Wang, J. H. Sun, and C. P. Lu, “Purified recombinant phage lysin LySMP: an extensive spectrum of lytic activity for swine streptococci,” Current Microbiology, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 609–615, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  114. P. Yoong, R. Schuch, D. Nelson, and V. A. Fischetti, “Identification of a broadly active phage lytic enzyme with lethal activity against antibiotic-resistant Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium,” Journal of Bacteriology, vol. 186, no. 14, pp. 4808–4812, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  115. M. Zimmer, N. Vukov, S. Scherer, and M. J. Loessner, “The murein hydrolase of the bacteriophage φ3626 dual lysis system is active against all tested Clostridium perfringens strains,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 68, no. 11, pp. 5311–5317, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  116. M. Walmagh, Y. Briers, S. B. dos Santos, J. Azeredo, and R. Lavigne, “Characterization of modular bacteriophage endolysins from Myoviridaephages OBP, 201φ2-1 and PVP-SE1,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 5, Article ID e36991, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  117. Y. Briers, M. Walmagh, and R. Lavigne, “Use of bacteriophage endolysin EL188 and outer membrane permeabilizers against Pseudomonas aeruginosa,” Journal of Applied Microbiology, vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 778–785, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  118. H. R. Ibrahim, M. Yamada, K. Matsushita, K. Kobayashi, and A. Kato, “Enhanced bactericidal action of lysozyme to Escherichia coli by inserting a hydrophobic pentapeptide into its C terminus,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 269, no. 7, pp. 5059–5063, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  119. H. W. Smith and M. B. Huggins, “Successful treatment of experimental Escherichia coli infections in mice using phage: its general superiority over antibiotics,” Journal of General Microbiology, vol. 128, no. 2, pp. 307–318, 1982. View at: Google Scholar
  120. G. G. Bogovazova, N. N. Voroshilova, and V. M. Bondarenko, “The efficacy of Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteriophage in the therapy of experimental Klebsiella infection,” Zhurnal Mikrobiologii Epidemiologii i Immunobiologii, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 5–8, 1991. View at: Google Scholar
  121. P. Barrow, M. Lovell, and A. Berchieri Jr., “Use of lytic bacteriophage for control of experimental Escherichia coli septicemia and meningitis in chickens and calves,” Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 294–298, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  122. V. Rdamesh, Bacteriophage Therapy of Clostridium Difficile-Associated Intestinal Disease in a Hamster Model‘ Miroecol Anarobes, 1999.
  123. J. Cao, Y.-Q. Sun, T. Berglindh et al., “Helicobacter pylori-antigen-binding fragments expressed on the filamentous M13 phage prevent bacterial growth,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, vol. 1474, no. 1, pp. 107–113, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  124. K. E. Cerveny, A. DePaola, D. H. Duckworth, and P. A. Gulig, “Phage therapy of local and systemic disease caused by Vibrio vulnificus in iron-dextran-treated mice,” Infection and Immunity, vol. 70, no. 11, pp. 6251–6262, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  125. J. J. Bull, B. R. Levin, T. DeRouin, N. Walker, and C. A. Bloch, “Dynamics of success and failure in phage and antibiotic therapy in experimental infections,” BMC Microbiology, vol. 2, article 1, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  126. S. Matsuzaki, M. Yasuda, H. Nishikawa et al., “Experimental protection of mice against lethal staphylococcus aureus infection by novel bacteriophage φMR11,” The Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 187, no. 4, pp. 613–624, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  127. D. Goode, V. M. Allen, and P. A. Barrow, “Reduction of experimental Salmonella and Campylobacter contamination of chicken skin by application of lytic bacteriophages,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 69, no. 8, pp. 5032–5036, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  128. S. Hagens, A. Habel, U. von Ahsen, A. von Gabain, and U. Bläsi, “Therapy of experimental Pseudomonas infections with a nonreplicating genetically modified phage,” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 3817–3822, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  129. Y. Tanji, T. Shimada, H. Fukudomi, K. Miyanaga, Y. Nakai, and H. Unno, “Therapeutic use of phage cocktail for controlling Escherichia coli O157:H7 in gastrointestinal tract of mice,” Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 280–287, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  130. L. Fiorentin, N. D. Vieira, and W. Barioni Júnior, “Use of lytic bacteriophages to reduce Salmonella enteritidis in experimentally contaminated chicken cuts,” Revista Brasileira de Ciência Avícola, vol. 7, pp. 255–260, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  131. H. Toro, S. B. Price, S. McKee et al., “Use of bacteriophages in combination with competitive exclusion to reduce Salmonella from infected chickens,” Avian Diseases, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 118–124, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  132. M. G. Vinod, M. M. Shivu, K. R. Umesha et al., “Isolation of Vibrio harveyi bacteriophage with a potential for biocontrol of luminous vibriosis in hatchery environments,” Aquaculture, vol. 255, no. 1–4, pp. 117–124, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  133. C. S. McVay, M. Velásquez, and J. A. Fralick, “Phage therapy of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in a mouse burn wound model,” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1934–1938, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  134. R. Watanabe, T. Matsumoto, G. Sano et al., “Efficacy of bacteriophage therapy against gut-derived sepsis caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa in mice,” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 446–452, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  135. S. Kumari, K. Harjai, and S. Chhibber, “Topical treatment of klebsiella pneumoniae B5055 induced burn wound infection in mice using natural products,” Journal of Infection in Developing Countries, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 367–377, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  136. B. R. Tiwari, S. Kim, M. Rahman, and J. Kim, “Antibacterial efficacy of lytic Pseudomonas bacteriophage in normal and neutropenic mice models,” Journal of Microbiology, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 994–999, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  137. D. Alemayehu, P. G. Casey, O. Mcauliffe et al., “Bacteriophages φMR299-2 and φNH-4 can eliminate Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the murine lung and on cystic fibrosis lung airway cells,” mBio, vol. 3, no. 2, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  138. F. Pouillot, M. Chomton, H. Blois et al., “Efficacy of bacteriophage therapy in experimental sepsis and meningitis caused by a clone O25b:H4-ST131 Escherichia coli strain producing CTX-M-15,” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 3568–3575, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  139. M. M. Doolittle, J. J. Cooney, and D. E. Caldwell, “Tracing the interaction of bacteriophage with bacterial biofilms using fluorescent and chromogenic probes,” Journal of Industrial Microbiology, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 331–341, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  140. K. A. Hughes, I. W. Sutherland, and M. V. Jones, “Biofilm susceptibility to bacteriophage attack: the role of phage-borne polysaccharide depolymerase,” Microbiology, vol. 144, no. 11, pp. 3039–3047, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  141. B. D. Corbin, R. J. C. McLean, and G. M. Aron, “Bacteriophage T4 multiplication in a glucose-limited Escherichia coli biofilm,” Canadian Journal of Microbiology, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 680–684, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  142. S. Sillankorva, R. Oliveira, M. J. Vieira, I. W. Sutherland, and J. Azeredo, “Bacteriophage Φ S1 infection of Pseudomonas fluorescens planktonic cells versus biofilms,” Biofouling, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 133–138, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  143. M. Sharma, J.-H. Ryu, and L. R. Beuchat, “Inactivation of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in biofilm on stainless steel by treatment with an alkaline cleaner and a bacteriophage,” Journal of Applied Microbiology, vol. 99, no. 3, pp. 449–459, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  144. S. Sillankorva, R. Oliveira, M. J. Vieira, and J. Azeredo, “Real-time quantification of Pseudomonas fluorescens cell removal from glass surfaces due to bacteriophage φS1 application,” Journal of Applied Microbiology, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 196–202, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  145. V. Verma, K. Harjai, and S. Chhibber, “Structural changes induced by a lytic bacteriophage make ciprofloxacin effective against older biofilm of Klebsiella pneumoniae,” Biofouling, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 729–737, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  146. K. A. Soni and R. Nannapaneni, “Removal of listeria monocytogenes biofilms with bacteriophage P100,” Journal of Food Protection, vol. 73, no. 8, pp. 1519–1524, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  147. M. Rahman, S. Kim, S. M. Kim, S. Y. Seol, and J. Kim, “Characterization of induced Staphylococcus aureus bacteriophage SAP-26 and its anti-biofilm activity with rifampicin,” Biofouling, vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 1087–1093, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  148. D. Pires, S. Sillankorva, A. Faustino, and J. Azeredo, “Use of newly isolated phages for control of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 and ATCC 10145 biofilms,” Research in Microbiology, vol. 162, no. 8, pp. 798–806, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  149. A. Chibeu, E. J. Lingohr, L. Masson et al., “Bacteriophages with the ability to degrade uropathogenic Escherichia Coli biofilms,” Viruses, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 471–487, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  150. A. B. Yele, N. D. Thawal, P. K. Sahu, and B. A. Chopade, “Novel lytic bacteriophage AB7-IBB1 of Acinetobacter baumannii: isolation, characterization and its effect on biofilm,” Archives of Virology, vol. 157, no. 8, pp. 1441–1450, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  151. N. D. Thawal, A. B. Yele, P. K. Sahu, and B. A. Chopade, “Effect of a Novel Podophage AB7-IBB2 on Acinetobacter baumannii Biofilm,” Current Microbiology, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 66–72, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  152. J. T. Hoopes, C. J. Stark, H. A. Kim, D. J. Sussman, D. M. Donovan, and D. C. Nelson, “Use of a bacteriophage lysin, PlyC, as an enzyme disinfectant against Streptococcus equi,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 1388–1394, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  153. D. G. Pritchard, S. Dong, J. R. Baker, and J. A. Engler, “The bifunctional peptidoglycan lysin of Streptococcus agalactiae bacteriophage B30,” Microbiology, vol. 150, no. 7, pp. 2079–2087, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  154. M. Takáč, A. Witte, and U. Bläsi, “Functional analysis of the lysis genes of Staphylococcus aureus phage P68 in Escherichia coli,” Microbiology, vol. 151, no. 7, pp. 2331–2342, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  155. S. Gaeng, S. Scherer, H. Neve, and M. J. Loessner, “Gene cloning and expression and secretion of Listeria monocytogenes bacteriophage-lyric enzymes in Lactococcus lactis,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 66, no. 7, pp. 2951–2958, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  156. D. G. Pritchard, S. Dong, M. C. Kirk, R. T. Cartee, and J. R. Baker, “LambdaSa1 and LambdaSa2 prophage lysins of Streptococcus agalactiae,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 73, no. 22, pp. 7150–7154, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  157. C. J. Porter, R. Schuch, A. J. Pelzek et al., “The 1.6 A crystal structure of the catalytic domain of PlyB, a bacteriophage lysin active against Bacillus anthracis,” Journal of Molecular Biology, vol. 366, no. 2, pp. 540–550, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  158. P. Sass and G. Bierbaum, “Lytic activity of recombinant bacteriophage φ11 and φ12 endolysins on whole cells and biofilms of Staphylococcus aureus,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 347–352, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  159. K.-J. Yokoi, N. Kawahigashi, M. Uchida et al., “The two-component cell lysis genes holWMY and lysWMY of the Staphylococcus warneri M phage φWMY: cloning, sequencing, expression, and mutational analysis in Escherichia coli,” Gene, vol. 351, pp. 97–108, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  160. Q. Cheng, D. Nelson, S. Zhu, and V. A. Fischetti, “Removal of group B streptococci colonizing the vagina and oropharynx of mice with a bacteriophage lytic enzyme,” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 111–117, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  161. M. J. Mayer, A. Narbad, and M. J. Gasson, “Molecular characterization of a Clostridium difficile bacteriophage and its cloned biologically active endolysin,” Journal of Bacteriology, vol. 190, no. 20, pp. 6734–6740, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  162. A. L. Delisle, G. J. Barcak, and M. Guo, “Isolation and expression of the lysis genes of Actinomyces naeslundii phage Av-1,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 1110–1117, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  163. K. Sugahara, K.-J. Yokoi, Y. Nakamura et al., “Mutational and biochemical analyses of the endolysin LysgaY encoded by the Lactobacillus gasseri JCM 1131T phage φgaY,” Gene, vol. 404, no. 1-2, pp. 41–52, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  164. K. Mishra, M. Rawat, K. N. Viswas, Abhishek, S. Kumar, and M. Reddy, “Expression and lytic efficacy assessment of the Staphylococcus aureus phage SA4 lysin gene,” Journal of Veterinary Science, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 37–43, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  165. M. Schmelcher, O. Korobova, N. Schischkova et al., “Staphylococcus haemolyticus prophage ΦSH2 endolysinrelies on cysteine, histidine-dependent amidohydrolases/peptidases activity for lysis ‘from without’,” Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 162, no. 2-3, pp. 289–298, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  166. Y. Yuan, Q. Peng, and M. Gao, “Characteristics of a broad lytic spectrum endolysin from phage BtCS33 of Bacillus thuringiensis,” BMC Microbiology, vol. 12, article 297, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  167. M. R. Eugster and M. J. Loessner, “Wall teichoic acids restrict access of bacteriophage endolysin Ply118, Ply511, and PlyP40 cell wall binding domains to the Listeria monocytogenes peptidoglycan,” Journal of Bacteriology, vol. 194, no. 23, pp. 6498–6506, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  168. H. Zhang, H. Bao, C. Billington, J. A. Hudson, and R. Wang, “Isolation and lytic activity of the Listeria bacteriophage endolysin LysZ5 against Listeria monocytogenes in soya milk,” Food Microbiology, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 133–136, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  169. J. Park, J. Yun, J. A. Lim, D. H. Kang, and S. Ryu, “Characterization of an endolysin, LysBPS13, from a Bacillus cereus bacteriophage,” FEMS Microbiology Letters, vol. 332, no. 1, pp. 76–83, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  170. J. Gu, R. Lu, X. Liu et al., “LysGH15B, the SH3b domain of staphylococcal phage endolysin LysGH15, retains high affinity to staphylococci,” Current Microbiology, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 538–542, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  171. L. Rodríguez, B. Martínez, Y. Zhou, A. Rodríguez, D. M. Donovan, and P. García, “Lytic activity of the virion-associated peptidoglycan hydrolase HydH5 of Staphylococcus aureus bacteriophage vB-SauS-phiIPLA88,” BMC Microbiology, vol. 11, article 138, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  172. D. Proença, S. Fernandes, C. Leandro et al., “Phage endolysins with broad antimicrobial activity against Enterococcus faecalis clinical strains,” Microb Drug Resist, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 322–332, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  173. R. Gupta and Y. Prasad, “P-27/HP endolysin as antibacterial agent for antibiotic resistant Staphylococcus aureus of human infections,” Current Microbiology, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 39–45, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  174. H. Nariya, S. Miyata, E. Tamai, H. Sekiya, J. Maki, and A. Okabe, “Identification and characterization of a putative endolysin encoded by episomal phage phiSM101 of Clostridium perfringens,” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, vol. 90, no. 6, pp. 1973–1979, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  175. M. J. Mayer, M. J. Gasson, and A. Narbad, “Genomic sequence of bacteriophage ATCC, 8074-B1 and activity of its endolysin and engineered variants against Clostridium sporogenes,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 78, no. 10, pp. 3685–3692, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  176. J.-A. Lim, H. Shin, D.-H. Kang, and S. Ryu, “Characterization of endolysin from a Salmonella Typhimurium-infecting bacteriophage SPN1S,” Research in Microbiology, vol. 163, no. 3, pp. 233–241, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  177. J. Wittmann, R. Eichenlaub, and B. Dreiseikelmann, “The endolysins of bacteriophages CMP1 and CN77 are specific for the lysis of Clavibacter michiganensis strains,” Microbiology, vol. 156, no. 8, pp. 2366–2373, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  178. M.-J. Lai, N.-T. Lin, A. Hu et al., “Antibacterial activity of Acinetobacter baumannii phage ΦaB2 endolysin (LysAB2) against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria,” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 529–539, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  179. B. Son, J. Yun, J.-A. Lim, H. Shin, S. Heu, and S. Ryu, “Characterization of LysB4, an endolysin from the Bacillus cereus-infecting bacteriophage B4,” BMC Microbiology, vol. 12, article 33, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  180. M. J. Mayer, J. Payne, M. J. Gasson, and A. Narbad, “Genomic sequence and characterization of the virulent bacteriophage φCTP1 from Clostridium tyrobutyricum and heterologous expression of its endolysin,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 76, no. 16, pp. 5415–5422, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  181. Y. Briers, G. Volckaert, A. Cornelissen et al., “Muralytic activity and modular structure of the endolysins of Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteriophages φKZ and EL,” Molecular Microbiology, vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 1334–1344, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  182. J. Mao, M. Schmelcher, W. J. Harty, J. Foster-Frey, and D. M. Donovan, “Chimeric Ply187 endolysin kills Staphylococcus aureus more effectively than the parental enzyme,” FEMS Microbiology Letters, vol. 342, no. 1, pp. 30–36, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  183. M. R. Eugster, M. C. Haug, S. G. Huwiler, and M. J. Loessner, “The cell wall binding domain of Listeria bacteriophage endolysin PlyP35 recognizes terminal GlcNAc residues in cell wall teichoic acid,” Molecular Microbiology, vol. 81, no. 6, pp. 1419–1432, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  184. S. Hu, J. Kong, W. Kong, T. Guo, and M. Ji, “Characterization of a novel LysM domain from lactobacillus fermentam bacteriophage endolysin and its use as an anchor to display heterologous proteins on the surfaces of lactic acid bacteria,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 76, no. 8, pp. 2410–2418, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  185. N. Bustamante, N. E. Campillo, E. García et al., “Cpl-7, a lysozyme encoded by a pneumococcal bacteriophage with a novel cell wall-binding motif,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 285, no. 43, pp. 33184–33196, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  186. M. Gerova, N. Halgasova, J. Ugorcakova, and G. Bukovska, “Endolysin of bacteriophage BFK20: evidence of a catalytic and a cell wall binding domain,” FEMS Microbiology Letters, vol. 321, no. 2, pp. 83–91, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  187. J. S. Son, S. Y. Jun, E. B. Kim et al., “Complete genome sequence of a newly isolated lytic bacteriophage, EFAP-1 of Enterococcus faecalis, and antibacterial activity of its endolysin EFAL-1,” Journal of Applied Microbiology, vol. 108, no. 5, pp. 1769–1779, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  188. D. R. Roach, P. A. Khatibi, K. M. Bischoff, S. R. Hughes, and D. M. Donovan, “Bacteriophage-encoded lytic enzymes control growth of contaminating Lactobacillus found in fuel ethanol fermentations,” Biotechnology for Biofuels, vol. 6, no. 1, article 20, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  189. S. Y. Jun, G. M. Jung, S. J. Yoon et al., “Antibacterial properties of a pre-formulated recombinant phage endolysin, SAL-1,” International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 156–161, 2013. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2014 Mohamed Elbreki et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

More related articles

3745 Views | 1233 Downloads | 16 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.