In vitro lung delivery of bacteriophages KS4-M and ΦKZ using dry powder inhalers for treatment of Burkholderia cepacia complex and Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections in cystic fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To determine the feasibility of formulating and aerosolizing powders containing bacteriophages KS4-M and ΦKZ for lung delivery and treatment of pulmonary Burkholderia cepacia complex and Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. METHODS AND RESULTS: Endotoxin-removed bacteriophages KS4-M and ΦKZ were lyophilized in lactose/lactoferrin 60 : 40 w/w matrix and deagglomerated in a mixer mill (without beads) to formulate respirable powders. The powders were then aerosolized using an Aerolizer(®) capsule inhaler. Mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) of this inhalable aerosol was determined using Andersen cascade impactor at 60 l min(-1). Measured MMAD for both types of powders was 3·4 μm, and geometric standard deviation was 1·9-2·0. Viability of bacteriophages delivered distal to an idealized mouth-throat replica was determined from bioassays of samples collected on filters placed after the idealized replica. As a percentage of inhaler load, amount of powder delivered distal to the mouth-throat replica, which is a measure of lung delivery, was 33·7 ± 0·3% for KS4-M and 32·7 ± 0·9% for ΦKZ. Titres collected downstream of the mouth throat were (3·4 ± 2·5) × 10(6) PFU for KS4-M with an Aerolizer capsule load of (9·8 ± 4·8) × 10(6) and (1·9 ± 0·6) × 10(7) for ΦKZ with an Aerolizer capsule load of (6·5 ± 1·9) × 10(7). CONCLUSIONS: Bacteriophages KS4-M and ΦKZ can be lyophilized without significant loss of viability in a lactose/lactoferrin 60 : 40 w/w matrix. The resulting powders can be aerosolized to deliver viable bacteriophages to the lungs. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: Development of lactoferrin-based bacteriophage aerosol powders solidifies the ground for future research on developing novel formulations as an alternative to inhaled antibiotic therapy in patients with cystic fibrosis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".