Interlaboratory comparison of phage susceptibility testing.

Krupa Parmar, Lauren Komarow, Damon W Ellison, Andrey A Filippov, Mikeljon P Nikolich, Joseph R Fackler, Martin Lee, Anjna Nair, Priyesh Agrawal, Pranita D Tamma, Maria Souli, Scott R Evans, Kerryl E Greenwood-Quaintance, Scott A Cunningham, Robin Patel, Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group
Author Information
  1. Krupa Parmar: Division of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic , Rochester, Minnesota, USA. ORCID
  2. Lauren Komarow: Biostatistics Center, George Washington University , Rockville, Maryland, USA.
  3. Damon W Ellison: Wound Infections Department, Bacterial Diseases Branch, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research , Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
  4. Andrey A Filippov: Wound Infections Department, Bacterial Diseases Branch, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research , Silver Spring, Maryland, USA. ORCID
  5. Mikeljon P Nikolich: Wound Infections Department, Bacterial Diseases Branch, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research , Silver Spring, Maryland, USA. ORCID
  6. Joseph R Fackler: Adaptive Phage Therapeutics Inc. , Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.
  7. Martin Lee: Adaptive Phage Therapeutics Inc. , Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA. ORCID
  8. Anjna Nair: Adaptive Phage Therapeutics Inc. , Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.
  9. Priyesh Agrawal: Adaptive Phage Therapeutics Inc. , Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.
  10. Pranita D Tamma: Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine , Baltimore, Maryland, USA. ORCID
  11. Maria Souli: Duke Clinical Research Institute , Durham, North Carolina, USA. ORCID
  12. Scott R Evans: Biostatistics Center, George Washington University , Rockville, Maryland, USA.
  13. Kerryl E Greenwood-Quaintance: Division of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic , Rochester, Minnesota, USA. ORCID
  14. Scott A Cunningham: Division of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic , Rochester, Minnesota, USA. ORCID
  15. Robin Patel: Division of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic , Rochester, Minnesota, USA. ORCID

Abstract

Standardized approaches to phage susceptibility testing (PST) are essential to inform selection of phages for study in patients with bacterial infections. There is no reference standard for assessing bacterial susceptibility to phage. We compared agreement between PST performed at three centers: two centers using a liquid assay standardized between the sites with the third, a plaque assay. Four phages: PaWRA01ø11 (EPa11), PaWRA01ø39 (EPa39), PaWRA02ø83 (EPa83), PaWRA02ø87 (EPa87), and a cocktail of all four phages were tested against 145 . isolates. Comparisons were made within measurements at the two sites performing the liquid assay and between these two sites. Agreement was assessed based on coverage probability (CP), total deviation index, concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), measurement accuracy, and precision. For the liquid assay, there was satisfactory agreement among triplicate measurements made on different days at site 1, and high agreement based on accuracy and precision between duplicate measurements made on the same run at site 2. There was fair accuracy between measurements of the two sites performing the liquid assay, with CCCs below 0.6 for all phages tested. When compared to the plaque assay (performed once at site 3), there was less agreement between results of the liquid and plaque assays than between the two sites performing the liquid assay. Similar findings to the larger group were noted in the subset of 46 . isolates from cystic fibrosis. Results of this study suggest that reproducibility of PST methods needs further development.

Keywords

References

  1. Cell Host Microbe. 2022 Nov 9;30(11):1556-1569.e5 [PMID: 36302390]
  2. Front Microbiol. 2016 Sep 08;7:1352 [PMID: 27660623]
  3. Methods Mol Biol. 2009;501:141-9 [PMID: 19066818]
  4. Front Microbiol. 2018 May 04;9:775 [PMID: 29780361]
  5. J Appl Lab Med. 2022 Oct 29;7(6):1468-1475 [PMID: 35818639]
  6. Trials. 2022 Dec 28;23(1):1057 [PMID: 36578069]
  7. Biotechnol Lett. 2007 Jul;29(7):995-1003 [PMID: 17364214]
  8. Microbiologyopen. 2018 Apr;7(2):e00558 [PMID: 29195013]
  9. Bacteriophage. 2012 Jul 1;2(3):159-167 [PMID: 23275867]
  10. Viruses. 2018 Apr 12;10(4): [PMID: 29649135]
  11. J Appl Microbiol. 2011 Mar;110(3):631-40 [PMID: 21205097]
  12. Viruses. 2022 Jul 07;14(7): [PMID: 35891470]
  13. Front Microbiol. 2017 Apr 07;8:559 [PMID: 28439260]
  14. PLoS One. 2015 May 21;10(5):e0127603 [PMID: 25996839]
  15. Res Microbiol. 2011 Oct;162(8):798-806 [PMID: 21782936]
  16. Phage (New Rochelle). 2020 Mar 1;1(1):27-36 [PMID: 36147620]
  17. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013 Dec;57(12):5961-8 [PMID: 24041900]
  18. Antibiotics (Basel). 2022 Jan 27;11(2): [PMID: 35203767]
  19. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2015 Aug;46(2):196-200 [PMID: 26100212]
  20. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2019 Oct 30;85(22): [PMID: 31492663]
  21. Microb Biotechnol. 2014 Mar;7(2):165-76 [PMID: 24528873]
  22. Methods Mol Biol. 2009;501:175-202 [PMID: 19066822]
  23. Methods Mol Biol. 2009;501:161-74 [PMID: 19066821]
  24. J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17(4):629-52 [PMID: 17613645]
  25. Biometrics. 1989 Mar;45(1):255-68 [PMID: 2720055]
  26. Front Microbiol. 2021 Feb 24;12:616712 [PMID: 33717006]

Grants

  1. UM1 AI104681/NIAID NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Humans
Bacteriophages
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Reproducibility of Results
Pseudomonas Infections
Cystic Fibrosis
Anti-Bacterial Agents

Chemicals

Anti-Bacterial Agents

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0assayliquidtwositesphagesusceptibilityagreementplaquemeasurementstestingPSTphagesmadeperformingaccuracysitestudybacterialcomparedperformedtestedisolatesbasedprecisionStandardizedapproachesessentialinformselectionpatientsinfectionsreferencestandardassessingthreecenters:centersusingstandardizedthirdFourphages:PaWRA01ø11EPa11PaWRA01ø39EPa39PaWRA02ø83EPa83PaWRA02ø87EPa87cocktailfour145ComparisonswithinAgreementassessedcoverageprobabilityCPtotaldeviationindexconcordancecorrelationcoefficientCCCmeasurementsatisfactoryamongtriplicatedifferentdays1highduplicaterun2fairCCCs063lessresultsassaysSimilarfindingslargergroupnotedsubset46cysticfibrosisResultssuggestreproducibilitymethodsneedsdevelopmentInterlaboratorycomparisonPseudomonasaeruginosa

Similar Articles

Cited By