As issues of product consistency, standardization and specificity are being tackled, can phage therapeutics—long oversold and overhyped—finally realize their antibacterial potential?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Change history
21 May 2019
In the version of this article initially published, we listed 13 companies that were developing phage therapies a decade ago and stated that only a few are still active today. Missing from the active list was Phico Therapeutics of Bourn, UK. In addition, a location (Canada) has been added for PhageTech, and “Last May” has been changed to “In May” at the beginning of the article. The errors have been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.
References
Dedrick, R. M. et al. Nat. Med. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-019-0437-z (2019).
Thiel, K. Nat. Biotechnol. 22, 31–36 (2004).
Schooley, R. T. et al. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 61, e00954–17 (2017).
van Kessel, J. C. & Hatfull, G. F. Nat. Methods 4, 147–152 (2007).
Price, M. N. et al. Nature 557, 503–509 (2018).
Chan, B. K. et al. Evol. Med. Public Health 2018, 60–66 (2018).
Jault, P. et al. Lancet Infect. Dis. 19, 35–45 (2019).
Salmond, G. P. & Fineran, P. C. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13, 777–786 (2015).
Gomaa, A. A. MBio https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00928-13 (2014).
Citorik, R. J., Mimee, M. & Lu, T. K. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 1141–1145 (2014).
Citorik, R. J. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 1141–1145 (2014).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schmidt, C. Phage therapy’s latest makeover. Nat Biotechnol 37, 581–586 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0133-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0133-z
- Springer Nature America, Inc.