Host range and lytic capability of four bacteriophages against bovine and clinical human isolates of Shiga toxin-producing<i>Escherichia coli</i>O157:H7
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate host range and lytic capability of four bacteriophages (rV5, wV7, wV8 and wV11) against Escherichia coli O157:H7 (STEC O157:H7) from cattle and humans. METHODS AND RESULTS: Four hundred and twenty-two STEC O157:H7 isolates (297 bovine; 125 human) were obtained in Alberta, Canada. The four phages were serially diluted and incubated for 5 h with overnight cultures of STEC O157:H7 to estimate their multiplicity of infection (MOI). All bovine STEC O157:H7 were subjected to pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) and phage typing (PT). Phage wV7 lysed all human and bovine isolates irrespective of PFGE genotype or PT phenotype and exhibited the lowest MOI (0.004-0.006, P < 0.0001) of all phages. Phages rV5 and wV11 exhibited a lower MOI (0.002-0.04, P < 0.0001) than did phage wV8 (25-29) and they had a narrower host range than wV7 or wV8. Phages rV5, wV11 and wV8 lysed 342 (81.0%), 321 (76.1%) and 407 (96.4%), respectively, of the 422 isolates. Susceptibility of bovine STEC O157:H7 to rV5, w11 and wV8 was influenced by PFGE genotype and/or PT phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: Phages exhibited activity against the majority of bovine and human STEC O157:H7 isolates. PFGE genotype and/or PT phenotype of the host-target influenced their vulnerability to phage attack. Susceptibility of bovine STEC O157:H7 to phage may also differ among farms. Both lytic capability and host range should be considered in the selection of therapeutic phage for on-farm control of STEC O157:H7. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: The present work indicates that a four-phage cocktail should be equally effective at mitigating STEC O157:H7 isolates both of bovine and of human origin. Given that some STEC O157:H7 exhibited resistance to some but not all phages, a phage cocktail is the logical approach to efficacious on-farm therapy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".