title: The in vivo efficacy of two administration routes of a phage cocktail to reduce numbers of Campylobacter coli and Campylobacter jejuni in chickens.
abstract: 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.
authors.affiliation: Institute for Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Centre of Biological Engineering, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal.
authors.forename: Carla M
authors.initials: CM
authors.lastname: Carvalho
authors.forename: Ben W
authors.initials: BW
authors.lastname: Gannon
authors.forename: Deborah E
authors.initials: DE
authors.lastname: Halfhide
authors.forename: Silvio B
authors.initials: SB
authors.lastname: Santos
authors.forename: Christine M
authors.initials: CM
authors.lastname: Hayes
authors.forename: John M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Roe
authors.forename: Joana
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Azeredo
mesh_terms: 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*
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Aug;71(8):4885-7
references.pmid: 16085889
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003 Aug;69(8):4511-8
references.pmid: 12902236
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001 Jun;67(6):2636-40
references.pmid: 11375174
references.citation: J Gen Microbiol. 1987 May;133(5):1127-35
references.pmid: 3309178
references.citation: Rev Sci Tech. 2000 Aug;19(2):376-95
references.pmid: 10935269
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001 Feb;67(2):848-51
references.pmid: 11157253
references.citation: Vet Microbiol. 2004 Apr 19;99(3-4):259-67
references.pmid: 15066728
references.citation: Epidemiol Infect. 1992 Jun;108(3):403-14
references.pmid: 1601075
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 1985 Jul;22(1):13-8
references.pmid: 4019737
references.citation: Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2007 Oct;92(3):275-84
references.pmid: 17387630
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Nov;71(11):6554-63
references.pmid: 16269681
references.citation: Int J Food Microbiol. 2003 May 25;83(1):87-103
references.pmid: 12672595
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004 Jul;70(7):3877-83
references.pmid: 15240258
references.citation: Anim Health Res Rev. 2002 Dec;3(2):95-105
references.pmid: 12665109
references.citation: Avian Dis. 1995 Oct-Dec;39(4):812-20
references.pmid: 8719215
references.citation: J Infect. 2003 Jul;47(1):28-32
references.pmid: 12850159
references.citation: J Food Prot. 2009 Apr;72(4):733-40
references.pmid: 19435220
references.citation: Avian Dis. 2003 Oct-Dec;47(4):1399-405
references.pmid: 14708988
references.citation: Risk Anal. 2006 Dec;26(6):1613-21
references.pmid: 17184401
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003 Oct;69(10):6302-6
references.pmid: 14532096
references.citation: Emerg Infect Dis. 2002 Sep;8(9):937-42
references.pmid: 12194770
references.citation: Lett Appl Microbiol. 2010 Feb;50(2):192-7
references.pmid: 20002571
references.citation: Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 1998 May;5(3):294-8
references.pmid: 9605979
references.citation: Vet J. 2000 Mar;159(2):111-23
references.pmid: 10712799
references.citation: Vet Microbiol. 2005 Aug 30;109(3-4):275-83
references.pmid: 16024187
references.citation: Int J Food Microbiol. 2006 Apr 25;108(2):226-32
references.pmid: 16478636
references.citation: Methods Mol Biol. 2009;502:19-25
references.pmid: 19082549
references.citation: Gut. 2002 Dec;51(6):832-41
references.pmid: 12427786
references.citation: BMC Microbiol. 2007 Oct 18;7:90
references.pmid: 17945022
references.citation: Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(3 Suppl):588-92
references.pmid: 11485680
references.citation: J Food Prot. 2001 Nov;64(11):1705-10
references.pmid: 11726147
references.citation: Clin Infect Dis. 2004 Apr 15;38 Suppl 3:S165-74
references.pmid: 15095186
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003 Aug;69(8):4343-51
references.pmid: 12902214
references.citation: BMC Microbiol. 2009 Oct 26;9:224
references.pmid: 19857251
references.citation: Poult Sci. 2008 Sep;87(9):1742-7
references.pmid: 18753441
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008 Aug;74(15):4799-805
references.pmid: 18515488
references.citation: PLoS Pathog. 2009 Jan;5(1):e1000253
references.pmid: 19119417
references.citation: Vaccine. 1997 Dec;15(17-18):1922-32
references.pmid: 9413103
references.citation: Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010 May;8(5):317-27
references.pmid: 20348932
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007 Jul;73(14):4543-9
references.pmid: 17526794
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001 Sep;67(9):3951-7
references.pmid: 11525990
references.citation: J Med Microbiol. 1998 Feb;47(2):123-8
references.pmid: 9879954
references.citation: Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001 Mar;45(3):649-59
references.pmid: 11181338
references.citation: Res Microbiol. 1991 Jun;142(5):541-9
references.pmid: 1947426