Current Microbiology

, Volume 62, Issue 4, pp 1128–1132 | Cite as

Efficacy of a Broad Host Range Lytic Bacteriophage Against E. coli Adhered to Urothelium

  • Sanna SillankorvaEmail author
  • Dulce Oliveira
  • Alexandra Moura
  • Mariana Henriques
  • Alberta Faustino
  • Ana Nicolau
  • Joana Azeredo


Persistent urinary tract infections (UTI) are often caused by E. coli adhered to urothelium. This type of cells is generally recognized as very tolerant to antibiotics which renders difficult the treatment of chronic UTI. This study investigates the use of lytic bacteriophages as alternative antimicrobial agents, particularly the interaction of phages with E. coli adhered to urothelium and specifically determines their efficiency against this type of cells. The bacterial adhesion to urothelium was performed varying the bacterial cell concentrations and the period and conditions (static, shaken) of adhesion. Three collection bacteriophages (T1, T4, and phiX174 like phages) were tested against clinical E. coli isolates and only one was selected for further infection experiments. Based on the lytic spectrum against clinical isolates and its ability to infect the highest number of antibiotic resistant strains, the T1-like bacteriophage was selected. This bacteriophage caused nearly a 45% reduction of the bacterial population after 2 h of treatment. This study provides evidence that bacteriophages are effective in controlling suspended and adhered cells and therefore can be a viable alternative to antibiotics to control urothelium- adhered bacteria.


Phage Infection Adhere Bacterium Lytic Bacteriophage Artificial Urine Magnesium Chloride Hexahydrate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Lepape A, Monnet DL (2009) Experience of European intensive care physicians with infections due to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Euro Surveill 14:1–3Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atterbury RJ, Van Bergen MA, Ortiz F, Lovell MA, Harris JA, De BA, Wagenaar JA, Allen VM, Barrow PA (2007) Bacteriophage therapy to reduce salmonella colonization of broiler chickens. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:4543–4549PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huff WE, Huff GR, Rath NC, Donoghue AM (2006) Evaluation of the influence of bacteriophage titer on the treatment of colibacillosis in broiler chickens. Poult Sci 85:1373–1377PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Loc Carrillo C, Atterbury RJ, el-Shibiny A, Connerton PL, Dillon E, Scott A, Connerton IF (2005) Bacteriophage therapy to reduce Campylobacter jejuni colonization of broiler chickens. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:6554–6563PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wagenaar JA, Van Bergen MA, Mueller MA, Wassenaar TM, Carlton RM (2005) Phage therapy reduces Campylobacter jejuni colonization in broilers. Vet Microbiol 109:275–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krylov VN (2001) Phage therapy in terms of bacteriophage genetics: hopes prospects safety limitations. Russian J Genet 37:715–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weber-Dabrowska B, Dabrowski M, Slopek S (1987) Studies on bacteriophage penetration in patients subjected to phage therapy. Arch Immunol Ther Exp 35:563–568Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nishikawa H, Yasuda M, Uchiyama J, Rashel M, Maeda Y, Takemura I, Sugihara S, Ujihara T, Shimizu Y, Shuin T, Matsuzaki S (2008) T-even-related bacteriophages as candidates for treatment of Escherichia coli urinary tract infections. Arch Virol 153:507–515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Champagne CP, Gardner N (1995) The spot test method for the in-plant enumeration of bacteriophages with paired cultures of Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp bulgaricus and Streptococcus salivarius subsp. thermophilus. Int Dairy J 5:417–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Adams MH (1959) Bacteriophages. Interscience Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Domann E, Hong G, Imirzalioglu C, Turschner S, Kuhle J, Watzel C, Hain T, Hossain H, Chakraborty T (2003) Culture-independent identification of pathogenic bacteria and polymicrobial infections in the genitourinary tract of renal transplant recipients. J Clin Microbiol 41:5500–5510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pezzlo M (1988) Detection of urinary tract infections by rapid methods. Clin microbiol Rev 1:268–280PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Healey MC, Hwang HH, Elsner YY, Johnston AV (1991) A model for demonstrating the adhesion of actinobacillus-seminis to epithelial-cells. Canadian J Veter Res 55:121–127Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Finlay BB, Falkow S (1997) Common themes in microbial pathogenicity revisited. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 61:136–139Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mulvey MA, Schilling JD, Hultgren SJ (2001) Establishment of a persistent Escherichia coli reservoir during the acute phase of a bladder infection. Infect Immun 69:4572–4579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schilling JD, Lorenz RG, Hultgren SJ (2002) Effect of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole on recurrent bacteriuria and bacterial persistence in mice infected with uropathogenic Escherichia coli. Infect Immun 70:7042–7049PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cerca N, Martins S, Cerca F, Jefferson KK, Pier GB, Oliveira R, Azeredo J (2005) Comparative assessment of antibiotic susceptibility of coagulase-negative staphylococci in biofilm versus planktonic culture as assessed by bacterial enumeration or rapid XTT colorimetry. J Antimicrob Chemother 56:331–336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cerca N, Martins S, Sillankorva S, Jefferson KK, Pier GB, Oliveira R, Azeredo J (2005) Effects of growth in the presence of subinhibitory concentrations of dicloxacillin on Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus haemolyticus biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:8677–8682PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Costa AR, Henriques M, Oliveira R, Azeredo J (2009) The role of polysaccharide intercellular adhesin (PIA) in Staphylococcus epidermidis adhesion to host tissues and subsequent antibiotic tolerance. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 28:623–629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ceri H, Olson ME, Stremick C, Read RR, Morck D, Buret A (1999) The calgary biofilm device: new technology for rapid determination of antibiotic susceptibilities of bacterial biofilms. J Clin Microbiol 37:1771–1776PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stewart PS, Costerton JW (2001) Antibiotic resistance of bacteria in biofilms. Lancet 358:135–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sanna Sillankorva
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dulce Oliveira
    • 1
  • Alexandra Moura
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mariana Henriques
    • 1
  • Alberta Faustino
    • 3
  • Ana Nicolau
    • 1
  • Joana Azeredo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological EngineeringUniversity of MinhoBragaPortugal
  2. 2.Instituto PiagetEscola Superior de Saúde JeanPiaget/Vila Nova de GaiaPortugal
  3. 3.São Marcos HospitalBragaPortugal

Personalised recommendations