A comparison of phage susceptibility testing with two liquid high-throughput methods.

Krupa Parmar, Joseph R Fackler, Zuriel Rivas, Jay Mandrekar, Kerryl E Greenwood-Quaintance, Robin Patel
Author Information
  1. Krupa Parmar: Division of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
  2. Joseph R Fackler: Adaptive Phage Therapeutics, Inc. (APT), Gaithersburg, MD, United States.
  3. Zuriel Rivas: Adaptive Phage Therapeutics, Inc. (APT), Gaithersburg, MD, United States.
  4. Jay Mandrekar: Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
  5. Kerryl E Greenwood-Quaintance: Division of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
  6. Robin Patel: Division of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.

Abstract

Phage therapy is a promising antibacterial strategy, especially given that drug-resistant bacterial infections are escalating worldwide. Because phages are not active against all strains of a given species, phages being considered for therapeutic use would ideally be tested against bacterial isolates from individual patients prior to administration. Standardized, clinically validated phage susceptibility testing (PST) methods are needed for assessing phage activity. This study compared two high-throughput liquid-based PST assays. The first, using the Biolog Omnilog, assessed changes in microbial respiration leading to color changes based on a tetrazolium dye. The second, Agilent BioTek Cytation 7, assessed changes in optical density. Both used 96-well microtiter plate formats. A total of 55 diverse phages with activity against , , , , or were studied against their respective susceptible bacterial hosts and non-susceptible controls, with susceptibility defined based on plaque assay. PST was performed by both assays in replicates, with results compared in terms of hold times (time through which bacterial growth is inhibited by phage compared to controls). Coefficients of variance and interclass correlation coefficients were used to assess inter- and intra-assay reproducibility. Based on a ���50% coefficient of variance cutpoint, 87% of Biolog and 84% of Agilent assays were considered valid for susceptible bacteria, with 100% considered valid for non-susceptible bacteria by both systems. Using a 8���h hold time cutpoint, 100% of the results matched between the two assays. The interclass correlation coefficient showed 26% excellent agreement, 35% good agreement, and 17% moderate agreement between the two assays for susceptible isolates and 100% excellent agreement for non-susceptible isolates. Overall, the assays compared provided good/fair statistical reproducibility for the assessment of phage susceptibility.

Keywords

References

  1. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016 Jan;71(1):141-51 [PMID: 26462987]
  2. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2021 May;72(5):589-595 [PMID: 33428794]
  3. J Appl Lab Med. 2022 Oct 29;7(6):1468-1475 [PMID: 35818639]
  4. Trials. 2022 Dec 28;23(1):1057 [PMID: 36578069]
  5. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022 Sep 21;12:1000721 [PMID: 36211951]
  6. PLoS One. 2019 May 9;14(5):e0216292 [PMID: 31071103]
  7. Viruses. 2018 Feb 06;10(2): [PMID: 29415431]
  8. Viruses. 2018 Apr 12;10(4): [PMID: 29649135]
  9. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022 Dec 07;12:1032052 [PMID: 36569196]
  10. Clin Infect Dis. 2023 Nov 2;77(Suppl 5):S337-S351 [PMID: 37932122]
  11. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Mar;64(3):264-9 [PMID: 20189765]
  12. J Clin Microbiol. 2023 Dec 19;61(12):e0061423 [PMID: 37962552]
  13. J Appl Microbiol. 2011 Mar;110(3):631-40 [PMID: 21205097]
  14. Psychol Rep. 1966 Aug;19(1):3-11 [PMID: 5942109]
  15. J Transl Med. 2019 Nov 14;17(1):373 [PMID: 31727099]
  16. Clin Infect Dis. 2023 Oct 16;77(Suppl 4):S321-S330 [PMID: 37843122]
  17. Phage (New Rochelle). 2020 Mar 1;1(1):27-36 [PMID: 36147620]
  18. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2022 Oct;104(2):115759 [PMID: 35872370]
  19. Front Microbiol. 2020 Dec 18;11:602444 [PMID: 33391221]
  20. Bacteriophage. 2012 Jul 1;2(3):159-167 [PMID: 23275867]
  21. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2014 Sep;38(5):916-31 [PMID: 24617569]
  22. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2022 Mar 15;66(3):e0207121 [PMID: 35041506]
  23. Methods Mol Biol. 2009;501:203-19 [PMID: 19066823]
  24. PLoS One. 2021 Mar 23;16(3):e0248917 [PMID: 33755710]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0phageassayssusceptibilitybacterialcomparedtwoagreementphagesconsideredisolatestestingPSTchangessusceptiblenon-susceptiblereproducibility100%therapygivenmethodsactivityhigh-throughputBiologassessedbasedAgilentusedcontrolsassayresultsholdtimevarianceinterclasscorrelationcoefficientcutpointvalidbacteriaexcellentPhagepromisingantibacterialstrategyespeciallydrug-resistantinfectionsescalatingworldwideactivestrainsspeciestherapeuticuseideallytestedindividualpatientsprioradministrationStandardizedclinicallyvalidatedneededassessingstudyliquid-basedfirstusingOmnilogmicrobialrespirationleadingcolortetrazoliumdyesecondBioTekCytation7opticaldensity96-wellmicrotiterplateformatstotal55diversestudiedrespectivehostsdefinedplaqueperformedreplicatestermstimesgrowthinhibitedCoefficientscoefficientsassessinter-intra-assayBased���50%87%84%systemsUsing8���hmatchedshowed26%35%good17%moderateOverallprovidedgood/fairstatisticalassessmentcomparisonliquidPseudomonasaeruginosaStaphylococcusaureus

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.