The in vivo efficacy of two administration routes of a phage cocktail to reduce numbers of Campylobacter coli and Campylobacter jejuni in chickens.
BACKGROUND
Poultry meat is one of the most important sources of human campylobacteriosis, an acute bacterial enteritis which is a major problem worldwide. Campylobacter coli and Campylobacter jejuni are the most common Campylobacter species associated with this disease. These pathogens live in the intestinal tract of most avian species and under commercial conditions they spread rapidly to infect a high proportion of the flock, which makes their treatment and prevention very difficult. Bacteriophages (phages) are naturally occurring predators of bacteria with high specificity and also the capacity to evolve to overcome bacterial resistance. Therefore phage therapy is a promising alternative to antibiotics in animal production. This study tested the efficacy of a phage cocktail composed of three phages for the control of poultry infected with C. coli and C. jejuni. Moreover, it evaluated the effectiveness of two routes of phage administration (by oral gavage and in feed) in order to provide additional information regarding their future use in a poultry unit.


RESULTS
The results indicate that experimental colonisation of chicks was successful and that the birds showed no signs of disease even at the highest dose of Campylobacter administered. The phage cocktail was able to reduce the titre of both C. coli and C. jejuni in faeces by approximately 2 log10 cfu/g when administered by oral gavage and in feed. This reduction persisted throughout the experimental period and neither pathogen regained their former numbers. The reduction in Campylobacter titre was achieved earlier (2 days post-phage administration) when the phage cocktail was incorporated in the birds' feed. Campylobacter strains resistant to phage infection were recovered from phage-treated chickens at a frequency of 13%. These resistant phenotypes did not exhibit a reduced ability to colonize the chicken guts and did not revert to sensitive types.


CONCLUSIONS
Our findings provide further evidence of the efficacy of phage therapy for the control of Campylobacter in poultry. The broad host range of the novel phage cocktail enabled it to target both C. jejuni and C. coli strains. Moreover the reduction of Campylobacter by approximately 2 log10cfu/g, as occurred in our study, could lead to a 30-fold reduction in the incidence of campylobacteriosis associated with consumption of chicken meals (according to mathematical models). To our knowledge this is the first report of phage being administered in feed to Campylobacter-infected chicks and our results show that it lead to an earlier and more sustainable reduction of Campylobacter than administration by oral gavage. Therefore the present study is of extreme importance as it has shown that administering phages to poultry via the food could be successful on a commercial scale.
Carvalho
Carla M
CM
Institute for Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Centre of Biological Engineering, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal.
Gannon
Ben W
BW
Halfhide
Deborah E
DE
Santos
Silvio B
SB
Hayes
Christine M
CM
Roe
John M
JM
Azeredo
Joana
J
D000818:Animals; D001435:Bacteriophages / Q000502:physiology*; D002169:Campylobacter Infections / Q000382:microbiology / Q000517:prevention & control / Q000662:veterinary*; D017000:Campylobacter coli / Q000502:physiology / Q000821:virology*; D016123:Campylobacter jejuni / Q000502:physiology / Q000821:virology*; D002645:Chickens; D005260:Female; D008297:Male; D011201:Poultry Diseases / Q000382:microbiology / Q000517:prevention & control*
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Aug;71(8):4885-7
16085889
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003 Aug;69(8):4511-8
12902236
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001 Jun;67(6):2636-40
11375174
J Gen Microbiol. 1987 May;133(5):1127-35
3309178
Rev Sci Tech. 2000 Aug;19(2):376-95
10935269
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001 Feb;67(2):848-51
11157253
Vet Microbiol. 2004 Apr 19;99(3-4):259-67
15066728
Epidemiol Infect. 1992 Jun;108(3):403-14
1601075
J Clin Microbiol. 1985 Jul;22(1):13-8
4019737
Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2007 Oct;92(3):275-84
17387630
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Nov;71(11):6554-63
16269681
Int J Food Microbiol. 2003 May 25;83(1):87-103
12672595
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004 Jul;70(7):3877-83
15240258
Anim Health Res Rev. 2002 Dec;3(2):95-105
12665109
Avian Dis. 1995 Oct-Dec;39(4):812-20
8719215
J Infect. 2003 Jul;47(1):28-32
12850159
J Food Prot. 2009 Apr;72(4):733-40
19435220
Avian Dis. 2003 Oct-Dec;47(4):1399-405
14708988
Risk Anal. 2006 Dec;26(6):1613-21
17184401
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003 Oct;69(10):6302-6
14532096
Emerg Infect Dis. 2002 Sep;8(9):937-42
12194770
Lett Appl Microbiol. 2010 Feb;50(2):192-7
20002571
Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 1998 May;5(3):294-8
9605979
Vet J. 2000 Mar;159(2):111-23
10712799
Vet Microbiol. 2005 Aug 30;109(3-4):275-83
16024187
Int J Food Microbiol. 2006 Apr 25;108(2):226-32
16478636
Methods Mol Biol. 2009;502:19-25
19082549
Gut. 2002 Dec;51(6):832-41
12427786
BMC Microbiol. 2007 Oct 18;7:90
17945022
Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(3 Suppl):588-92
11485680
J Food Prot. 2001 Nov;64(11):1705-10
11726147
Clin Infect Dis. 2004 Apr 15;38 Suppl 3:S165-74
15095186
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003 Aug;69(8):4343-51
12902214
BMC Microbiol. 2009 Oct 26;9:224
19857251
Poult Sci. 2008 Sep;87(9):1742-7
18753441
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008 Aug;74(15):4799-805
18515488
PLoS Pathog. 2009 Jan;5(1):e1000253
19119417
Vaccine. 1997 Dec;15(17-18):1922-32
9413103
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010 May;8(5):317-27
20348932
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007 Jul;73(14):4543-9
17526794
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001 Sep;67(9):3951-7
11525990
J Med Microbiol. 1998 Feb;47(2):123-8
9879954
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001 Mar;45(3):649-59
11181338
Res Microbiol. 1991 Jun;142(5):541-9
1947426