We examined the activity of phages to control the growth of chicken and swine Salmonella strains in avian (CHIC-8E11), porcine (IPEC-1), and human (HT-29) cell cultures. We optimized a six-phage cocktail by selecting the five most effective myoviruses and a siphovirus that have optimal lysis on prevalent serovars. We observed ∼20% of 7 log10 PFU/well phage and 3–6 log10 CFU bacterial adhesions, and 3–5 log10 CFU bacterial invasion per 2 cm2 of the cultured cells at 2 h post-treatment. The invasive bacteria when plated had a variable reduced susceptibility to the phages. After phage application at an MOI of 10, the prophylaxis regimen had better efficacy at controlling bacterial growth with an up to 6 log10 CFU/well reduction as compared with the 1–2 log10 CFU/well bacterial reduction observed in the remedial and coinfection regimens. Our data support the development of these phages to control salmonellosis in chickens, pigs, and humans.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MajowiczSE, MustoJ, ScallanE, et al.The global burden of nontyphoidal Salmonella gastroenteritis. Clin Infect Dis, 2010; 50(6):882–889; doi: 10.1086/650733
2.
FoleySL, LynneAM, NayakR. Salmonella challenges: Prevalence in swine and poultry and potential pathogenicity of such isolates. J Anim Sci, 2008; 86(14 Suppl):E149–E162; doi: 10.2527/jas.2007-0464
3.
ScharffRL.Food attribution and economic cost estimates for meat- and poultry-related illnesses. J Food Prot, 2020; 83(6):959–967; doi: 10.4315/jfp-19-548
4.
KomarekAM, DunstonS, EnahoroD, et al.Income, consumer preferences, and the future of livestock-derived food demand. Glob Environ Change, 2021; 70:102343; doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102343
5.
HuynhTTT, AarninkAJA, DruckerAG, et al.Pig production in Cambodia, Laos, Philippines, and Vietnam: A review. Asian J Agric Dev, 2006; 3:69–90.
LuongT, SalabarriaA-C, RoachDR. Phage therapy in the resistance era: Where do we stand and where are we going?. Clin Ther, 2020; 42(9):1659–1680; doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.07.014
8.
MoyeZD, WoolstonJ, SulakvelidzeA. Bacteriophage applications for food production and processing. Viruses, 2018; 10(4):205; doi: 10.3390/v10040205
9.
WesselsK, RipD, GouwsP. Salmonella in chicken meat: Consumption, outbreaks, characteristics, current control methods and the potential of bacteriophage use. Foods, 2021; 10(8):1742; doi: 10.3390/foods10081742
10.
Rodrigues da CostaM, PessoaJ, MeemkenD, et al.A systematic review on the effectiveness of pre-harvest meat safety interventions in pig herds to control Salmonella and other foodborne pathogens. Microorganisms, 2021; 9(9):1825; doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9091825
11.
KongsananP, AngkititrakulS, KiddeeA, et al.Spread of antimicrobial-resistant Salmonella from poultry to humans in Thailand. Jpn J Infect Dis, 2021; 74(3):220–227; doi: 10.7883/yoken.JJID.2020.548
12.
SuL-H, ChiuC-H, ChuC, et al.Antimicrobial resistance in nontyphoid Salmonella serotypes: A global challenge. Clin Infect Dis, 2004; 39(4):546–551; doi: 10.1086/422726
13.
AlmRA, GallantK. Innovation in antimicrobial resistance: The CARB-X perspective. ACS Infect Dis, 2020; 6(6):1317–1322; doi: 10.1021/acsinfecdis.0c00026
BrivesC, PourrazJ. Phage therapy as a potential solution in the fight against AMR: Obstacles and possible futures. Palgrave Commun, 2020; 6(1):100; doi: 10.1057/s41599-020-0478-4
FerrariRG, RosarioDKA, Cunha-NetoA, et al.Worldwide epidemiology of Salmonella serovars in animal-based foods: A meta-analysis. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2019; 85(14):e00591–00519; doi: 10.1128/AEM.00591-19
V T NairD, VenkitanarayananK, Kollanoor JohnyA. Antibiotic-resistant Salmonella in the food supply and the potential role of antibiotic alternatives for control. Foods, 2018; 7(10):167; doi: 10.3390/foods7100167
20.
HengkrawitK, TangjadeC. Prevalence and trends in antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of multi-drug-resistance non-typhoidal Salmonella in Central Thailand, 2012–2019. Infect Drug Resist, 2022; 15:1305–1315; doi: 10.2147/idr.S355213
21.
SirinavinS, GarnerP. Antibiotics for treating salmonella gut infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2000;(2):Cd001167; doi: 10.1002/14651858.Cd001167
22.
CardR, VaughanK, BagnallM, et al.Virulence characterisation of Salmonella enterica isolates of differing antimicrobial resistance recovered from UK livestock and imported meat samples. Front Microbiol, 2016; 7:640; doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00640
23.
DanielR, NiladriBP, UrmeshKO, et al.Global transcriptome and mutagenic analyses of the acid tolerance response of Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2015; 81(23):8054–8065; doi: 10.1128/AEM.02172-15
24.
Mendoza-MejíaBD, Medina-AparicioL, Serrano-FujarteI, et al.Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi genomic regions involved in low pH resistance and in invasion and replication in human macrophages. Ann Microbiol, 2021; 71(1):18; doi: 10.1186/s13213-021-01629-5
25.
RocheSM, HolbertS, TrotereauJ, et al.Salmonella Typhimurium invalidated for the three currently known invasion factors keeps its ability to invade several cell models. Front Cell Infect Microbiol, 2018; 8; doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2018.00273
26.
KuboriT, GalánJE. Salmonella type III secretion-associated protein InvE controls translocation of effector proteins into host cells. J Bacteriol, 2002; 184(17):4699–4708; doi: 10.1128/jb.184.17.4699-4708.2002
27.
Van BelleghemJD, DąbrowskaK, VaneechoutteM, et al.Interactions between bacteriophage, bacteria, and the mammalian immune system. Viruses, 2019; 11(1):10.
28.
WisnerAL, PotterAA, KösterW. Effect of the Salmonella pathogenicity island 2 type III secretion system on Salmonella survival in activated chicken macrophage-like HD11 cells. PLoS One, 2011; 6(12):e29787; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029787
29.
LouL, ZhangP, PiaoR, et al.Salmonella Pathogenicity Island 1 (SPI-1) and its complex regulatory network. Front Cell Infect Microbiol, 2019; 9:270; doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2019.00270
30.
HallstromK, McCormickBA. Salmonella interaction with and passage through the intestinal mucosa: Through the lens of the organism. Front Microbiol, 2011; 2:88–88; doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2011.00088
31.
DostalA, GagnonM, ChassardC, et al.Salmonella adhesion, invasion and cellular immune responses are differentially affected by iron concentrations in a combined in vitro gut fermentation-cell model. PLoS One, 2014; 9(3):e93549–e93549; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093549
32.
GagnonM, Zihler BernerA, ChervetN, et al.Comparison of the Caco-2, HT-29 and the mucus-secreting HT29-MTX intestinal cell models to investigate Salmonella adhesion and invasion. J Microbiol Methods, 2013; 94(3):274–279; doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2013.06.027
33.
KaiserP, RothwellL, GalyovEE, et al.Differential cytokine expression in avian cells in response to invasion by Salmonella typhimurium, Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella gallinarum. Microbiology, 2000; 146(12):3217–3226; doi: 10.1099/00221287-146-12-3217
34.
PutraRD, LyrawatiD. Interactions between bacteriophages and eukaryotic cells. Scientifica, 2020; 2020:3589316; doi: 10.1155/2020/3589316
35.
DabrowskaK, OpolskiA, WietrzykJ, et al.Antitumor activity of bacteriophages in murine experimental cancer models caused possibly by inhibition of beta 3 integrin signaling pathway. Acta Virol, 2004; 48(4):241–248.
36.
ShanJ, RamachandranA, ThankiAM, et al.Bacteriophages are more virulent to bacteria with human cells than they are in bacterial culture; insights from HT-29 cells. Sci Rep, 2018; 8(1):5091–5091; doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-23418-y
37.
LeeH, BiswasD, AhnJ. In-vitro adhesion and invasion properties of Salmonella Typhimurium competing with bacteriophage in epithelial cells and chicken macrophages. Braz J Poultry Sci, 2015; 17:427–432.
38.
SukjoiC, BuddhasiriS, TantibhadrasapaA, et al.Therapeutic effects of oral administration of lytic Salmonella phages in a mouse model of non-typhoidal salmonellosis. Front Microbiol, 2022; 13:955136; doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.955136
39.
IslamMS, ZhouY, LiangL, et al.Application of a phage cocktail for control of Salmonella in foods and reducing biofilms. Viruses, 2019; 11(9):841; doi: 10.3390/v11090841
40.
SunZ, Mandlaa, WenH, et al.Isolation, characterization and application of bacteriophage PSDA-2 against Salmonella Typhimurium in chilled mutton. PLoS One, 2022; 17(1):e0262946; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262946
41.
ThankiAM, ClavijoV, HealyK, et al.Development of a phage cocktail to target Salmonella strains associated with swine. Pharmaceuticals (Basel), 2022; 15(1):58; doi: 10.3390/ph15010058
42.
ThankiAM, BrownN, MillardAD, et al.Genomic characterization of jumbo Salmonella phages that effectively target United Kingdom pig-associated Salmonella serotypes. Front Microbiol, 2019; 10:1491; doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01491
43.
PhothawornP, SupokaivanichR, LimJ, et al.Development of a broad-spectrum Salmonella phage cocktail containing Viunalike and Jerseylike viruses isolated from Thailand. Food Microbiol, 2020; 92:103586; doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2020.103586
44.
DesireeK, MosimannS, EbnerP. Efficacy of phage therapy in pigs: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Anim Sci, 2021; 99(7):skab157; doi: 10.1093/jas/skab157
45.
WallSK, ZhangJ, RostagnoMH, et al.Phage therapy to reduce preprocessing Salmonella infections in market-weight swine. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2010; 76(1):48–53; doi: doi:10.1128/AEM.00785-09
46.
NaleJY, VinnerGK, LopezVC, et al.An optimized bacteriophage cocktail can effectively control Salmonella in vitro and in Galleria mellonella. Front Microbiol, 2021; 11:609955; doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.609955
47.
ThankiAM, MignardG, AtterburyRJ, et al.Prophylactic delivery of a bacteriophage cocktail in feed significantly reduces Salmonella colonization in pigs. Microbiol Spectr, 2022; 0(0):e00422–00422; doi: 10.1128/spectrum.00422-22
48.
JohnDA, WilliamsLK, KanamarlapudiV, et al.The bacterial species Campylobacter jejuni induce diverse innate immune responses in human and avian intestinal epithelial cells. Front Microbiol, 2017; 8:1840; doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01840
49.
NossolC, Barta-BöszörményiA, KahlertS, et al.Comparing two intestinal porcine epithelial cell lines (IPECs): Morphological differentiation, function and metabolism. PLoS One, 2015; 10(7):e0132323; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132323
50.
GórskiA, BorysowskiJ, MiȩdzybrodzkiR. Bacteriophage interactions with epithelial cells: Therapeutic implications. Front Microbiol, 2021; 11; doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.631161
51.
HeH, GenoveseKJ, SwaggertyCL, et al.A comparative study on invasion, survival, modulation of oxidative burst, and nitric oxide responses of macrophages (HD11), and systemic infection in chickens by prevalent poultry Salmonella Serovars. Foodborne Pathog Dis, 2012; 9(12):1104–1110; doi: 10.1089/fpd.2012.1233
52.
MastroeniP, GrantAJ. Spread of Salmonella enterica in the body during systemic infection: Unravelling host and pathogen determinants. Expert Rev Mol Med, 2011; 13:e12; doi: 10.1017/s1462399411001840
53.
Lamy-BesnierQ, ChaffringeonL, LourençoM, et al.Prophylactic administration of a bacteriophage cocktail is safe and effective in reducing Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium burden in vivo. Microbiol Spectr, 2021; 9(1):e0049721; doi: 10.1128/Spectrum.00497-21
54.
AhmadiM, Karimi TorshiziMA, RahimiS, et al.Prophylactic bacteriophage administration more effective than post-infection administration in reducing Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis shedding in quail. Front Microbiol, 2016; 7:1253–1253; doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01253
55.
ŻaczekM, GórskiA, SkaradzińskaA, et al.Phage penetration of eukaryotic cells: Practical implications. Future Virol, 2019; 14(11):745–760; doi: 10.2217/fvl-2019-0110
56.
PodlachaM, Grabowski Ł, Kosznik-KawśnickaK, et al.Interactions of bacteriophages with animal and human organisms—Safety issues in the light of phage therapy. Int J Mol Sci, 2021; 22(16):8937.
57.
MalikDJ, SokolovIJ, VinnerGK, et al.Formulation, stabilisation and encapsulation of bacteriophage for phage therapy. Adv Colloid Interface Sci, 2017; 249:100–133; doi: 10.1016/j.cis.2017.05.014
58.
RosnerD, ClarkJ. Formulations for bacteriophage therapy and the potential uses of immobilization. Pharmaceuticals (Basel), 2021; 14(4):359; doi: 10.3390/ph14040359
59.
LiM, LinH, JingY, et al.Broad-host-range Salmonella bacteriophage STP4-a and its potential application evaluation in poultry industry. Poultry Sci, 2020; 99(7):3643–3654; doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2020.03.051
60.
TaoC, YiZ, ZhangY, et al.Characterization of a broad-host-range lytic phage SHWT1 against multidrug-resistant Salmonella and evaluation of its therapeutic efficacy in vitro and in vivo. Front Vet Sci, 2021; 8:683853; doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.683853
61.
Martínez-MaquedaD, MirallesB, RecioI.HT29 cell line. In: The Impact of Food Bioactives on Health: In Vitro and Ex Vivo Models [Internet] (Verhoeckx K, Cotter P, López-Expósito I, et al. eds.) Springer: Cham (CH); 2015.
62.
PorterJ, AndersonJ, CarterL, et al.In vitro evaluation of a novel bacteriophage cocktail as a preventative for bovine coliform mastitis. J Dairy Sci, 2016; 99(3):2053–2062; doi: 10.3168/jds.2015-9748
63.
CoburnB, GrasslGA, FinlayBB. Salmonella, the host and disease: A brief review. Immunol Cell Biol, 2007; 85(2):112–118; doi: 10.1038/sj.icb.7100007
64.
WigleyP, HulmeS, RothwellL, et al.Macrophages isolated from chickens genetically resistant or susceptible to systemic salmonellosis show magnitudinal and temporal differential expression of cytokines and chemokines following Salmonella enterica challenge. Infect Immun, 2006; 74(2):1425–1430; doi: 10.1128/iai.74.2.1425-1430.2006
65.
LajarinF, RubioG, GalvezJ, et al.Adhesion, invasion and intracellular replication of Salmonella typhimurium in a murine hepatocyte cell line. Effect of cytokines and LPS on antibacterial activity of hepatocytes. Microb Pathog, 1996; 21(5):319–329; doi: 10.1006/mpat.1996.0065
66.
BirhanuBT, ParkN-H, LeeS-J, et al.Inhibition of Salmonella Typhimurium adhesion, invasion, and intracellular survival via treatment with methyl gallate alone and in combination with marbofloxacin. Vet Res, 2018; 49(1):101; doi: 10.1186/s13567-018-0597-8
67.
BalanKV, BabuUS. Comparative responses of chicken macrophages to infection with Salmonella enterica serovars. Poultry Science, 2017; 96(6):1849–1854; doi: 10.3382/ps/pew477
68.
KwistK, BridgesWC, BurgKJL. The effect of cell passage number on osteogenic and adipogenic characteristics of D1 cells. Cytotechnology, 2016; 68(4):1661–1667; doi: 10.1007/s10616-015-9883-8
69.
HughesP, MarshallD, ReidY, et al.The costs of using unauthenticated, over-passaged cell lines: How much more data do we need?. Biotechniques, 2007; 43(5):575–586; doi: 10.2144/000112598
70.
MouriauxF, ZanioloK, BergeronM-A, et al.Effects of long-term serial passaging on the characteristics and properties of cell lines derived from uveal melanoma primary tumors. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2016; 57(13):5288–5301; doi: 10.1167/iovs.16-19317
71.
Malik-KaleP, WinfreeS, Steele-MortimerO. The bimodal lifestyle of intracellular Salmonella in epithelial cells: Replication in the cytosol obscures defects in vacuolar replication. PLoS One, 2012; 7(6):e38732–e38732; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038732
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
