Emerging Use of Bacteriophages,Natural Predators of Bacteria,to Combat Antibiotic Resistance in the Clinic and Beyond: A Review of the Field and Biosafety Assessment

Abstract

Introduction:

Bacteriophages (or phages) are viruses that infect and replicate within bacteria. Widespread use of antibiotics during World War II curtailed phage research in the western world. Unfortunately, clinical deployment of antibiotics has led to the prevalence of antibiotic resistance becoming so severe that the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned about the prospect of a postantibiotic world. The WHO is encouraging research into clinical use of bacteriophages as a means of countering antibiotic resistance.

Methods:

This review summarizes advances in phage research, particularly as it pertains to clinical use. Topics covered include considerations for research and development, genetic engineering, biosafety, One Health (clinical, veterinary, and agricultural use), as well as environmental and regulatory issues.

Conclusions:

Keywords

gene therapy clinical trials FDA guidance replication competent retrovirus (RCR)gene editing long-term follow-up (LTFU)

Introduction

Bacteria play key roles in the health and disease of humans, animals, and plants. As part of the human microbiota, bacteria are essential for health.¹ In contrast, bacterial pathogens also caused 7.7 million human deaths worldwide in 2019, comprising nearly 14% of deaths that year.² This dichotomy of positive and negative effects also applies to animal health and agriculture.³ For plants, bacteria are essential for fixing nitrogen and affecting growth, yet they cause devastating diseases resulting in financial loss and famine.⁴

Fighting bacterial disease in humans was fundamentally altered in the early twentieth century with the discovery and development of antibiotics. The discovery of penicillin in 1928 led to its widescale use during World War II and launched the modern age of antibiotics. Over the next century, a wide variety of antibiotics were discovered and/or synthesized. Antibiotics are now widely utilized to treat human, animal, and plant infections.

However, under selective pressure, resistance to antibiotics inevitably followed their clinical and agricultural deployment, leading to a biological arms race. Unfortunately, bacteria develop antibiotic resistance faster than humans can discover, develop, test, and obtain regulatory approval for new antibiotics. As such, the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned for years about the prospect of a postantibiotic world.⁵ Each year, approximately 700,000 deaths related to multidrug-resistant infections are reported worldwide, with one report estimating a death toll of up to 10 million people annually by 2050.⁶ Notably, antibiotic-resistant infections killed more people globally than AIDS or malaria. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in six species of bacteria is responsible for 80% of AMR fatalities, which makes these six organisms the most important targets for alternative therapies.⁷

Escherichia coli

Staphylococcus aureus

Klebsiella pneumoniae

Streptococcus pneumoniae

Acinetobacter baumannii

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Therefore, alternatives to antibiotics to fight bacterial diseases are needed.⁸ Prevention is always best, such as vaccines, sanitation and hygiene, food safety, and so on. Chemicals from plants (phytochemicals) and manipulating the microbiota using probiotics and prebiotics can also be beneficial. Another significant element in fighting bacterial infection is bacteriophages.

Bacteriophages (or phages) are viruses that infect and replicate only within bacteria. The National Institutes of Health generally categorizes phages as Risk Group 1 organisms, because they do not directly cause disease in humans.

Phages were first observed by Frederick W. Twort in 1915, when he observed a transmissible agent that caused the destruction of bacterial colonies.⁹ He noted that this agent was small enough to pass through filters that typically retained bacteria and that the agent required bacteria to grow.

In 1917, Félix d’Hérelle independently discovered a similar phenomenon.¹⁰ Working with dysentery bacilli, he observed clear spots on agar plates where the bacteria had been killed. d’Hérelle correctly interpreted that the bacteria were killed by an “invisible microbe” or a “virus parasitic on bacteria,” and he coined the term “bacteriophage,” meaning “bacteria eater.” He went on to devise and use several phage treatments for a variety of bacterial diseases.¹¹

In the 1930s and 1940s, phage therapies were marketed in the United States by Eli Lilly, Squibb & Sons, and Abbott Laboratories and by others in Europe. In 1923 d’Hérelle cofounded the Eliava Institute in Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia, where extensive research and development in phage therapy continues to this day.

Unfortunately, the intricacies of phage therapy, (i.e., the exquisite specificity of phages for even particular strains of a bacterial species) were not fully understood in the first half of the 20^th century. This led to the unraveling of phage therapy’s initial success. As antibiotics became widely utilized, the West lost interest in phage therapy research, although it continued and even flourished in Eastern Europe.

The AMR crisis has reinvigorated interest in phage therapy in western medicine. The WHO now encourages research into phage-based therapeutics, launching a fact sheet on the matter and publishing a report, Building the Evidence for The Use of Bacteriophage Therapy.¹² In the following discussion, we examine the dramatic increase in research on phages to improve their use in clinical trials as well as increasing numbers of clinical trials to combat bacterial disease.

Phage Biology

Phages share many characteristics with animal viruses that are familiar to those who work in the medical or veterinary fields. Table 1 is a glossary of key terms pertinent to virology and phage biology. Phages possess definite structure and are usually composed of protein capsids containing a nucleic acid genome, most often DNA.¹³ Because electron microscopy preceded molecular nucleic acid techniques, phages were initially classified based on their structural appearances (Figure 1). The vast majority (∼96%) of known phages belong to the Caudovirales order, composed of phages with phage heads and tails with or without fibers (Figure 1B–D). They have double-stranded DNA genomes. The other major groups of medically relevant phages are the icosahedral (no tail or fibers, not shown) and filamentous (no defined capsid head, Figure 1E) phages. Finally, there are the pleomorphic phages (Figure 1G). The vast majority of phages are naked, but there are examples of enveloped phages (Figure 1F). Most phages have DNA genomes, single or double stranded, linear or circular; however, there are examples of RNA phages.

Figure 1.

Phage structure. (A) Detailed phage structure with common components labeled. (B–G) Common phage morphologies. (B) Tailed with tail fibers (e.g., Lambda, T4), (C) Tailed without fibers (e.g., T7, P22), (D) Polyhedral (e.g., ΦX174), (E) Filamentous (e.g., M13), (F) Enveloped (e.g., MS2), (G) Pleomorphic (Plasmaviridae family). Genomes can be DNA or RNA, linear or circular, double-stranded or single-stranded.

Table 1.

Glossary of terms

Bacteriophage (phage)	A virus that infects bacteria
Bacteriophage (Phage) Therapy	The intentional use of phages to suppress bacteria in specific conditions. Most often, this is in human medicine, but it can also apply to veterinary and agricultural use
Biofilm	Dense communities of bacteria adherent to surfaces and characterized by matrices that impede antibacterial activities of phages, antibiotics, and other antibacterial modalities, including immune responses
Capsule	A polysaccharide outer layer of many bacteria that can contribute to virulence by inhibiting phagocytosis
Compassionate use clinical trial	A clinical trial of a very limited scope where a subject has exhausted all traditional medicine and the experimental treatment is a last resort. Because of their extremely limited nature, these trials most often cannot be used to determine efficacy
CRISPR	Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats. Genome editing technology where genome modification (e.g., DNA cleavage/repair, base substitution, chromatin modification) is targeted to a specific genomic locus. This system is derived from a bacterial genetic immune system to phages
Endolysin (Lysin)	Enzymes encoded by phages that break down the host bacterium cell wall during lytic infection
Expanded access clinical trial	A clinical trial of a very limited scope where an approved therapy is used outside of its approved manner in a compassionate or experimental mode. Because of their extremely limited nature, these trials most often cannot be used to determine efficacy
Gram-negative bacteria	Bacteria that stain negative in the Gram stain due to a thin, peptidoglycan layer. They possess a second lipid membrane, the outer membrane, that contains LPS
Gram-positive bacteria	Bacteria that stain positive in the Gram stain due to a thick peptidoglycan-rich cell wall that retains the stain
Interventional clinical trial	A clinical trial with the purpose of causing a desired change in the health of the study subject
Lipopolysaccharide (LPS)	A component of the outer membrane of gram-negative bacteria that is used by some phages to attach to host cells. Because LPS induces a potent inflammatory response in infected mammals, it is also called endotoxin
Lysogenic conversion	Introduction of phage genes into the bacterial host genome by temperate phages during lysogeny. The term is usually applied phage genes of medical importance, e.g., toxins
Lysogeny	The state in which a temperate phage coexists with its bacterial host. Lysogeny can shift to lytic infection of the host cell
Microbiota	A community of microorganisms (e.g., fungi, bacteria, and viruses) that naturally reside in a particular habitat in or on the body (e.g., the gut or skin)
Observational clinical trial	A clinical trial where the study subject is not given a new treatment, but remains on their current treatment
One Health	An approach that recognizes that the health of people is closely connected to the health of animals and the shared environment
Phage cocktail	A mixture of different phages
Phagemid	A plasmid that is packaged into a phage particle. Although it is not a replicative phage, it can transmit genes to the recipient bacterial cell
Plaque forming unit (PFU)	A functional unit of measurement of active phage particles. Phages are mixed with bacteria and plated on agar plates. Plaques are areas in the subsequent bacterial lawn of growth where a phage successfully killed (lysed) the bacterial cells, resulting in a clear spot
Prebiotic	Nutritional supplements, usually complex carbohydrates, that are taken to alter the microbiota, either to encourage growth of beneficial organisms or suppress detrimental organisms
Probiotic	Live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit to the host
Prophage	The genome of a lysogenic phage. It can either integrate into the host chromosome or exist as a plasmid
Rebooting	A method of phage engineering where phage genomes are assembled from fragments of genomic DNA using cell-free systems, bacteria, or yeast. Rebooting can be used to regenerate extinct phages or to create new recombinant or even synthetic phages
Teichoic acid	A component of cell wall of gram-positive bacteria that is used by some phages to attach to host cells
Temperate phage	A phage that can coexist with its bacterial host with the phage genome present as a prophage. They can also cause lytic infection
Transducing particle	A phage particle that contains bacterial DNA, either in place of phage DNA (generalized transduction) or attached to phage DNA (specialized transduction)
Transduction	Transfer of bacterial DNA from donor to recipient bacteria by phages
Tropism/host range	The range or specificity of bacterial strains that a phage can infect and replicate in. It is based on the host cell having an appropriate receptor and the ability of the phage to subvert the host cell physiology for replication
Virulent phage	A phage that always kills its bacterial host cell by replicating in the infected cell, resulting in lysis of the host cell

The phage life cycle

Like animal viruses, the interaction of phages with host cells begins with binding to a specific receptor (Figure 2, parts 1 and 2). This step can be mediated by the phage tail, fibers, or other proteins. The specificity of the receptor binding has the greatest effect on host range and can also affect resistance of bacteria to phage infection (Figure 2, part 2). Manipulating phage receptor binding is the major element in engineering phages for practical applications, such as phage therapy. After initial binding, the phage genome is injected into the host cell, often through the tail (Figure 2, part 3). Inside the bacterial cell, the genome is expressed and replicated, resulting in production of progeny phages (Figure 2, parts 5–7). This step involves complex interactions between the phage and host genomes and components, which can contribute to host range. Consequently, merely enabling a phage to bind to a bacterial cell does not guarantee that successful, productive infection will ensue. This is important for phage therapy development.

Figure 2.

Phage life cycles. (1) A phage particle and its target bacterial cell. The circles on the top side of the bacterial cell are the phage receptors that are complementary to the crescent-shaped receptor-binding proteins on the tail fibers of the phage that specifically recognize the receptors. The triangular surface structures cannot serve as receptors for this phage. (2) The phage binds to the receptors. (3) The phage injects its nucleic acid genome into the bacterial cell. Generally, there are two types of phages in terms of their interactions with their host bacterial cells. (4A) Virulent phages always undergo a lytic process where the physiology of the bacterial cell is immediately subverted for propagation of the phage. (4B) Temperate phages can either undergo a lytic process or they can lysogenize the bacterial cell by maintaining their DNA genome integrated in the host genome (4Bi) or as a plasmid (4Bp). The bacterial cell is now called a lysogen, and the phage genome is called the prophage. At some point, in a regulated manner, the prophage can be induced to express genes for the lytic phase (5, 6) Phage particles are assembled within the bacterial cell. (7) The bacterial cell wall is enzymatically destroyed using endolysins (lysins), releasing progeny phage particles to infect other host cells. Some phages, e.g., filamentous phage M13, chronically infect the host cell being released by the cell without killing it.

Phages are also classified by their life cycle interactions with their host cells (Figure 2):

Lytic phages always kill the target cell after infection (Figure 2, part 4A).

Temperate phages can coexist with their host cells in a process called lysogeny, which bears some similarities to latency observed in animal viruses such as herpes viruses (Figure 2, part 4B). In lysogeny, the phage genome, called a prophage, either integrates into the bacterial chromosome (Figure 2, part 4Bi) or can exist outside of the bacterial chromosome as a plasmid (Figure 2, part 4Bp). At some point, lysogeny can shift to the lytic cycle causing phage replication and killing of the host cell.

Chronic infection is a third form of interaction carried out by some filamentous phages. Rather than lysing the host cell or existing as a quiescent genome, the infected cells produce and secrete phage particles while remaining intact and viable (not shown).

Much like with antibiotic resistance, exposure of bacteria to phages results in selection for resistant mutants (Figure 3). Although this can render phage therapy ineffective, there can also be beneficial results.¹⁴ For example, the most common mechanism of phage resistance is loss of the phage receptor. If the receptor has a function that is important to the organism’s virulence, the mutant may become attenuated (Figure 3, part B). Phages often use surface structures that contribute to virulence as their receptors, such as lipopolysaccharide (LPS), pili that are used for attachment to host cells, or antiphagocytic capsules. Mutants that have lost these factors are attenuated for virulence and less fit to cause disease.^15,16 If a phage binds to an antibiotic efflux pump, loss of that pump renders the bacteria sensitive to the antibiotic (Figure 3, part C).^17,18

Figure 3.

Resistance to phage infection mediated by altering the phage receptor. (A) A phage with the crescent receptor-binding protein infects host cells with the circular receptor (✓). Spontaneous mutations in the host bacterial strain can either eliminate the receptor or change its structure so that it is no longer recognized by the phage (X). Note that mutations affecting the host cell physiology can also interfere with phage replication. (B) Phage resistance resulting in attenuated virulence. If the phage receptor is a virulence factor, in this illustration an antiphagocytic capsule, loss of the capsule will attenuate the ability of the phage-resistant mutant to cause infection. (C) Phase resistance resulting in antibiotic sensitivity. If the phage receptor is a surface protein involved with antibiotic resistance, in this illustration an antibiotic efflux pump, loss of the pump will render the bacterial cell susceptible to the antibiotic.

A final consideration in the phage–host interaction is the mechanism of lysis of the host cell. Almost all bacteria have a cell wall that contains a peptidoglycan layer that is too rigid to enable the phages to escape the dying host cell. Therefore, most phages encode endolysins (lysins), enzymes that degrade peptidoglycan. Some of these lysins have immense antibacterial activity and are being investigated as antibiotic alternatives.¹⁹ Manipulation of lysin activity in phages is also under study as a means of improving their utility as phage therapy agents.

Phage-mediated gene transfer

Recombination is an important aspect of phage genetics with relevance to phage therapy. Phages can be involved in three different mechanisms of recombination (Figure 4). There are two forms of transduction, in which a phage particle can transfer bacterial DNA sequences from the donor cell to a recipient cell. Lysogenic conversion involves delivery of phage genes into bacterial hosts.

Figure 4.

Genetic exchange mediated by phages. (A) Generalized transduction. 1. A phage infects a bacterial cell with the A allele of a particular gene (A⁺ phenotype). 2. The host genome is fragmented, and the phage genome is replicated. 3. Most of the resulting phage particles contain the wild-type phage genome; however, rarely a phage particle will accidentally encapsidate a portion of the host genome instead of the phage genome, in this case the A gene (the lower right phage in part A3). 4. The so-called transducing particle injects the piece of host DNA encoding the A gene into a recipient cell, in this case encoding the B allele of the gene of interest (B⁺ phenotype). 5. While the A allele is transferred to the recipient cell, no phage sequences are transferred. 6. If the A gene recombines into the B⁺ cell genome, it will replace the B allele with the A allele, converting the cell from the B⁺ phenotype to A⁺. (B) Specialized transduction. 1. A temperate phage lysogenizes a bacterial cell that contains the gene A, (A⁺ phenotype). 2. The prophage integrates into the genome in a specific site of the genome, in this example next to the A gene. 3. When the prophage is induced into the lytic phase, most of the progeny phages carry the wild-type phage genome. However, rarely, the prophage will include sequences adjacent to the integration site, so that the resulting phage particle carries the A gene (the lower right phage in part B3). 4 and 5. If the so-called transducing phage lysogenizes a host cell that lacks the A gene, phenotypically A⁻, 6. the host cell will become A⁺. (C) Lysogenic conversion. 1. A host cell lacks the T gene encoding a toxin (Tox⁻ phenotype). 2. A temperate phage encodes the T gene and infects the Tox⁻ cell. 3. The phage lysogenizes the host cell after injecting its genome. 4. The prophage endows the host cell with the ability to produce the toxin (Tox⁺ phenotype). Note that, as opposed to specialized transduction, the gene of interest in lysogenic conversion is a natural phage gene, not of bacterial origin.

In general transduction, the capsid mistakenly acquires a piece of host cell DNA instead of the phage genome (Figure 4, part A).

Specialized transduction is only possible by temperate phages whose prophages are integrated into the host chromosome. Sometimes when the prophage excises during replication, sequences of the host genome adjacent to the integration site get packaged in the progeny phage along with the phage genome. If the specialized phage transducing particle lysogenizes a recipient cell, the donor DNA sequence becomes a part of the recipient genome (Figure 4, part B).

Lysogenic conversion involves the delivery of phage genes by some temperate phages into bacterial hosts. The most notorious examples of lysogenic conversion are toxins of some major bacterial pathogens, such as those that cause cholera, botulism, and diphtheria (Figure 4, part C).

Development of Phages as Antibacterials

In the development of phages as therapy for bacterial infections, there is a critical dichotomy between using naturally occurring wild-type phages versus genetically engineered phages endowed with beneficial attributes. Although there is seemingly immeasurable diversity in naturally occurring phages, there are gaps in terms of having phages to help fight bacterial disease. Based on the critical elements of phage biology described above, filling those gaps with recombinant and synthetic biology offers promise.

One of the blessings and banes of phages as therapeutic agents is their exquisite specificity for their bacterial targets. This specificity enables phages to kill only the intended pathogen, leaving the remaining microbiota intact, as opposed to using antibiotics that may kill both the pathogen and beneficial components of the microbiota. However, the specificity of some phages results in their being able to target only a very limited set of strains of the pathogen. To overcome this specificity problem, several approaches are being undertaken.

Antibacterial approach 1: Personalized phage therapy

Should time permit in treating an infection, the identification of phages from a locally available collection that targets the patient’s infecting agent could result in effective therapy. Determining the sensitivity of a given strain of bacteria to a given phage can take as little as a few hours. This personalized medicine approach is predicated on the existence and availability of a pool of phages collectively targeting all or most strains of a given pathogenic species. The personalized medicine approach currently yields the best results in clinical trials.²⁰

Antibacterial approach 2: Phage collections

Pools of phages that have extensive coverage for diverse strains of a pathogenic species can address the specificity issue. An additional benefit to the pooled phage approach is that if resistance arises against one of the phages in the pool during treatment, other phages in the pool may kill the resistant bacterial mutant.

As obvious as this approach seems, there is a dearth of coordinated effort to create a catalog of phage collections.²¹ However, through the latter part of the previous century, renewed interest in phages resulted in attempts at creating annotated collections. Significant hurdles remain in developing a universal phage bank for clinical use. These include intellectual property rights, standardized methodologies in characterizing phages, and sustainable interest in the venture. Finally, the production of broadly active phage pools is predicated on the isolation of phages with the requisite specificities. Of course, gaps can exist where a phage with the desired specificity does not exist or is yet to be isolated, categorized, and made available.

Antibacterial approach 3: Genetic engineering of phages

Genetic engineering of phages allows for the creation of phages with desired specificity, especially for cases where no naturally occurring phages target the isolated strain of the pathogenic species.

Targets for genetic engineering: Receptor binding

Much like with animal viruses, the ability of a phage to bind to a specific host cell governs its tropism or host range. In tailed phages, receptor binding is performed by tail fibers. Ando et al.²² switched tail fibers that govern host specificity among phages that infect various species of Enterobacteriaceae. The genetic engineering was accomplished using the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae as an intermediate production system. They successfully swapped tail fibers between two E. coli phages that exhibit different host specificities. Eventually, they enabled the E. coli phage to infect Yersinia pseudotuberculosis. Finally, they performed a reciprocal tail fiber switch between an E. coli phage and a K. pneumoniae phage, reversing their host specificities. While these experiments demonstrated that phage tropism could be altered, the host range was limited to bacteria in the same family and the technique relied on existing tail fibers.

To circumvent the limited repertoire of phage specificities existing in nature, generation of new binding specificities has been undertaken.²³ For example, random mutagenesis was used to generate numerous new binding sequences in the host range-determining regions of phage T3.²⁴ Genetically engineering tail fiber specificity should extend host range to bacteria other than the original host strain, possibly even other species.

Targets for genetic engineering: Enhanced bacterial killing

As detailed above, one caveat to such phage engineering is that the ability of a phage to infect, propagate in, and kill a bacterial cell involves more than just binding to the surface. To overcome this barrier, phages have been engineered with mechanisms that enable them to cleave specific DNA sequences in target bacteria, which could either broaden or limit their activity. For example, Bikard et al.²⁵ created phagemids (plasmids that are packaged and delivered by phages) specific to S. aureus. While these phagemids do not replicate their genomes and are unable to produce more infective phagemid-encoding phages in the target bacteria, they encoded a Clustered Regulatory Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats-CRISPR associated protein (CRISPR-Cas9) system that cleaved DNA sequences in certain S. aureus strains. Similarly, Citorik et al.²⁶ engineered CRISPR-Cas into phages to target bacteria possessing specific DNA sequences, such as antibiotic resistance or virulence genes. They named this system RNA-Guided Nucleases (RGNs). They demonstrated in vitro that RGNs could selectively eliminate the target bacteria from mixtures and thus proposed their use to reduce or eliminate antibiotic-resistant or virulent strains from bacterial populations.

Following the phagemid development, Gencay et al.²⁷ created recombinant phages that encoded CRISPR-Cas systems, named CRISPR-Armed Phages, that targeted E. coli. They found eight phages that collectively exhibited the broadest spectrum of activity against over 400 E. coli strains. They genetically engineered tail fibers of some phages to endow them with the ability to recognize both LPS and conserved outer member proteins, thus expanding their specificity while reducing the likelihood that a single mutation could confer resistance. To enable the killing system to function in biofilms that are composed of nonreplicating bacteria, they expressed the CRISPR-Cas system from a biofilm-expressed promoter. Finally, the CRISPR-Cas system targeted five sequences in the E. coli genome: three virulence-associated sequences and two sequences essential for viability. A cocktail of four such phages named SNIPR001 targeted over 90% of 883 E. coli strains, whereas it did not kill other related bacteria. When administered orally, SNIPR001 was effective in killing intestinal E. coli in a mouse infection model. SNIPR001 is being examined in clinical trials by SNIPR Biome to clear E. coli from the intestinal tract of subjects who are about to receive chemotherapy to treat hematological cancers in the hope that it will prevent sepsis caused by E. coli (Table 2).

Table 2.

Human phage therapy studies

NCT number	Study title	Conditions	Start date	Study status
NCT06870409¹	Bacteriophages in Addition to Antibiotics for the Treatment of Patients with Infective Endocarditis	Endocarditis, bacterial	2/5/2025	Recruiting
NCT05590195¹	Effect of PreforPro® on Urinary and Vaginal Health	Bacterial vaginosis, bacterial infections, bacterial vaginosis, vaginal infection	5/1/2024	Not yet recruiting
NCT04682964¹	Bacteriophage Therapy in Tonsillitis	Acute tonsillitis	10/2/2020	Active not recruiting
NCT06942624	Phage Therapy for the Treatment of a Chronic Enterococcus Faecium Periprosthetic Joint Infection	Periprosthetic joint infection	5/2025	Not yet recruiting
NCT06605651	Proof of Concept Study to Assess Safety and Efficacy of Phage Therapy in Hip or Knee Prosthetic Joint Infections Due to Staphylococcus aureus Treated by DAIR	Hip prosthesis infection, knee prosthesis infection	1/2025	Not yet recruiting
NCT06370598	Phase 1/2a to Assess the Safety and Tolerability of TP-122A for the Treatment of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia	Pneumonia, ventilator-associated	9/2024	Not yet recruiting
NCT07048704	Taking Advantage of Phage Technologies (TAPT) to Facilitate Phage Therapy While Reducing the Use of Antibiotics in the Management of Cystic Fibrosis (CF)	Cystic fibrosis (CF), Klebsiella pneumoniae infection, Escherichia coli infections, S. aureus infection, Achromobacter, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection	10/1/2025	Not yet recruiting
NCT06998043	Study With Phage for CF Subjects with Pseudomonas Lung Infection	Chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection, cystic fibrosis (CF)	7/2/2025	Recruiting
NCT06750588	Safety and Tolerability of NTR-101 in Patients with Acute Alcohol-Associated Hepatitis	Alcohol-associated hepatitis	7/1/2025	Not yet recruiting
NCT06409819	Phage Therapy for Recurrent UTIs in Kidney Transplant Recipients	Urinary tract infection (UTI), recurrent	6/15/2025	Active not recruiting
NCT06834984	Ritual Synbiotic+, a Dietary Supplement Designed to Impact Gastrointestinal Health, Mood, and Behavior in Women	Gastrointestinal disease symptoms	5/1/2025	Recruiting
NCT06931977	Natural Product System and Lifestyle Modification	Healthy	4/29/2025	Recruiting
NCT06814756	Bacteriophage Therapy for Morganella morganii Prosthetic Joint Infection	Prosthetic joint infections of hip	3/26/2025	Active not recruiting
NCT06938867	Phase 1 b/2a Randomized Double-blind Study to Investigate Safety Tolerability PK PD Preliminary Efficacy of Oral Administration of SNIPR001 in Patients with Hematological Malignancy Scheduled for Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplant Receiving FQ Prophylaxis & Harboring FQR E. coli Pretransplant	E. coli infections, allogeneic transplant patients	2/25/2025	Recruiting
NCT06559618	Bacteriophage Therapy in Spinal Cord Injury Patients with Bacteriuria	Bacteriuria, spinal cord injuries, asymptomatic bacteriuria, E. coli	2/3/2025	Recruiting
NCT06456424	Bacteriophage Therapy for Methicillin-Sensitive S. aureus Prosthetic Joint Infection	Prosthetic joint infections of hip, S. aureus infection	11/20/2024	Active not recruiting
NCT06827041	Use of Phage Therapy for Treatment of a Periprosthetic Joint Infection	Periprosthetic joint infection	2/22/2024	Active not recruiting
NCT05948592	Bacteriophage Therapy TP-102 in Patients with Diabetic Foot Infection	Diabetic foot infection	11/8/2023	Recruiting
NCT05272579	PrePhage-Fecal Bacteriophage Transfer for Enhanced Gastrointestinal Tract Maturation in Preterm Infants	Necrotizing enterocolitis, microbial substitution	11/7/2023	Recruiting
NCT06319235	Clinical Trial to Demonstrate the Safety and Efficacy of DUOFAG®	Surgical site infection, S. aureus infection, P. aeruginosa infection, bacterial infections, surgical wound infection	10/27/2023	Recruiting
NCT05715619	Safety and Efficacy of Oral Administration of the Phage Cocktail, VRELysin^TM, In Healthy and VRE-Colonized Subjects	Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcal colonization	10/25/2023	Recruiting
NCT05537519	Phage Therapy for the Treatment of Urinary Tract Infection	Recurrent urinary tract infection	5/1/2023	Active not recruiting
NCT05182749	Safety and Efficacy of the Bacteriophage Preparation, ShigActive^TM, in a Human Experimental Model of Shigellosis	Shigellosis	2/23/2023	Active not recruiting
NCT05616221	Study to Evaluate the Safety, Phage Kinetics, and Efficacy of Inhaled AP-PA02 in Subjects with Non-Cystic Fibrosis Bronchiectasis and Chronic Pulmonary Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infection	Non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis, P. aeruginosa, lung infection	1/10/2023	Completed
NCT05453578	A Phase 1 b/2 Trial of the Safety and Microbiological Activity of Bacteriophage Therapy in Cystic Fibrosis Subjects Colonized with P. aeruginosa	Bacterial disease carrier, cystic fibrosis	10/3/2022	Completed
NCT05488340	A Study of LBP-EC01 in the Treatment of Acute Uncomplicated UTI Caused by Drug-Resistant E. coli (ELIMINATE Trial)	Urinary tract infections	7/13/2022	Recruiting
NCT05010577	Nebulized Bacteriophage Therapy in Cystic Fibrosis Patients with Chronic P. aeruginosa Pulmonary Infection	Chronic P. aeruginosa infection, cystic fibrosis	6/21/2022	Completed
NCT05184764	Study Evaluating Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy of Intravenous AP-SA02 in Subjects with S. aureus Bacteremia	Bacteremia, S. aureus, S. aureus bacteremia, bacteremia Staph, bacteremia due to S. aureus	4/26/2022	Completed
NCT05277350	A Study Investigating the Safety, Recovery, and Pharmacodynamics of Multiple Oral Administrations of SNIPR001 in Healthy Subjects	E. coli infections, bloodstream infection	3/24/2022	Completed
NCT05177107	Bacteriophage Therapy in Patients with Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis	Osteomyelitis, diabetic foot osteomyelitis	11/24/2021	Recruiting
NCT05750433	Phage 3 Determination of Phage/Probiotic Synergistic Effects on Gastrointestinal Health	Gastrointestinal dysfunction	10/1/2021	Completed
NCT04684641	CYstic Fibrosis bacterioPHage Study at Yale (CYPHY)	Cystic fibrosis	3/29/2021	Completed
NCT04803708	Bacteriophage Therapy TP-102 in Diabetic Foot Ulcers	Diabetic foot ulcer, P. aeruginosa infection, S. aureus infection, Acinetobacter infection	3/22/2021	Completed
NCT04596319	Ph 1/2 Study Evaluating Safety and Tolerability of Inhaled AP-PA02 in Subjects with Chronic P. aeruginosa Lung Infections and Cystic Fibrosis	Cystic fibrosis, P. aeruginosa, Pseudomonas, lung infection, lung infection Pseudomonal	12/22/2020	Completed
NCT04737876	A Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, and Fecal Pharmacokinetics of BX002-A in Healthy Adults	Healthy volunteers	10/28/2020	Completed
NCT04325685	The Effect of Supraglottic and Oropharyngeal Decontamination on the Incidence of Ventilator-associated Pneumonia	Trauma injury, brain injuries, abdominal sepsis, pancreatitis, meningitis, encephalitis, seizures, acute respiratory distress syndrome	1/1/2020	Completed

This table lists interventional human page therapy studies in the ClinicalTrials.gov database initiated since 2019. The table does not include observational and expanded access studies nor studies with status of withdrawn, terminated, or unknown.

¹Denotes the three phase 3 studies. All others are phase 1, 2, or 1/2.

DAIR, Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention.

In the development of therapeutic phages, the most promising techniques revolve around engineering new phages from components of existing phages or utilizing synthetic biology. Mitsunaka et al.²⁸ developed a system where phage genomes could be assembled by cloning or synthesizing large overlapping segments. Building phages from scratch is called rebooting. They rebooted several wild-type phages from a variety of gram-negative bacteria and even an acid-fast mycobacterium. They created a constitutively lytic P22 phage from Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium (P22 is a temperate phage), changing the host range of E. coli phages or adding a reporter gene to a mycobacterial phage. They also created a cell-free transcription-translation system that enabled the in vitro production of recombinant phages without relying on host bacterial cells. Finally, they developed a phagemid system that could be used to deliver genetic payloads to target bacteria using phage particles that are incapable of replication. This phagemid system was effective in treating a Salmonella infection in a mouse model.

In the realm of engineering expanded phage host specificity, Dunne et al.²⁹ used elegant structural and molecular biology with a Listeria phage. Listeria phages pose a problem in that they most often bind to teichoic acids in cell walls, which can undergo structural variation by mutations. Thus, there is immense variety in the targets and a relatively high rate of mutational resistance to phages. They converted phage PSA from being temperate to virulent by deleting the lysogeny controlling region. Then they added an endolysin that would boost the virulence of the phage to a broader array of host strains. Mutations in the gene that determine receptor binding were introduced by error-prone PCR. To increase the diversity of receptor-binding modifications, they constructed PSA phages with two copies of the gene that governed receptor binding. To obtain a library of sequences that could target listeria phages to the broadest array of serotypes, they examined the genomes of Listeria strains for prophages, reasoning that these phages had the ability to infect the strains from which their genomes were recovered. Creating chimeric phages using receptor-binding domains from a variety of prophages enabled the creation of new phages that collectively had infectivity against almost all major serotypes. This novel approach could enable the production of phage libraries against a broad array of bacteria.

Further engineering of phages has endowed them with qualities that enhance utility in fighting infection and industrial contamination involving biofilms. Biofilms are dense communities of bacteria adherent to surfaces that are characterized by matrices that impede antibacterial activities of phages, antibiotics, and other antibacterial modalities, including immune responses. Lu and Collins³⁰ engineered E. coli phage T7 with the gene for dispersin B (DspB), a bacterial enzyme that degrades biofilm matrix. DspB was produced from the phage genome after infection of the host cells. When the bacteria lysed, they released DspB that degraded the biofilm matrix. There are many bacterial diseases that involve biofilms,³¹ as well as industrial applications.^32,33

Phages as Drug Delivery Vehicles

Phages are also being developed to aid in treatment of noninfectious diseases, such as cancer (reviewed by Li et al.³⁴). Phages are being engineered to deliver drugs and peptides to tumors in a specific manner. For example, Li et al.³⁵ engineered a filamentous fd phage to target breast cancer in a mouse model by binding to and neutralizing an angiogenic protein, angiogenin, that is important for tumor viability. The tip of the phage was genetically engineered to express a breast cancer antigen-binding peptide that was itself identified via phage display technology. The coat protein of the phage, present in over 3,000 copies, was genetically engineered to express a fusion with an angiogenin-binding peptide, also identified with phage display. By homing to tumors, the antiangiogenin activity would have greater efficacy while not having unwanted systemic effects. This so-called nanofiber treatment of mice containing human breast cancer cells was effective in reducing tumor size and stimulating necrosis of tumor cells.

Two related articles demonstrated the potential utility of phages in diagnosing and treating Alzheimer’s disease. Frenkel and Solomon³⁶ showed that a filamentous phage expressing a recombinant antibody that recognizes Amyloid β that is present in Alzheimer’s disease lesions could be intranasally administered to mice and could bind to Amyloid β plaques in the brain. Solomon and Frenkel³⁷ continued this line of investigation using phage display technology to create a filamentous phage expressing a peptide sequence that disrupts Amyloid β plaques. In theory, this phage could be used therapeutically in Alzheimer’s disease.

A powerful recombinant system with broad applicability, named SpyPhage, was recently developed by Liyanagedera et al.³⁸ They split a bacterial fibronectin binding protein (FbaB) into two domains that retained attraction to each other. They genetically inserted the receiving domain into the phage coat protein (SpyTag). Proteins to be attached to the phage capsid were genetically fused with the corresponding SpyCatcher domain from the FbaB protein. Proteins with the SpyCatcher domain are covalently fused to the SpyTag domain on the capsid on contact, thereby enabling the decorating of the phage with essentially any protein. Fusion proteins with human epidermal growth factor or Salmonella Rck enabled the phages to be taken up by human cells, rendering the phages intracellular delivery vehicles.

McClary et al.³⁹ similarly developed a Lambda phage system in which capsid proteins were genetically modified to enable the covalent coupling of proteins, such as tumor-targeting antibodies, and even chemotherapeutic drugs. This dual-acting phage-based designer nanoparticle was effective at delivering the breast cancer drug UbV.7.2 into breast cancer cells via the anti-Human epidermal growth factor 2 monoclonal antibody trastuzumab and inhibiting cancer cell growth in vitro.

An interesting study was recently published in which phages exerted dual activities of killing pathogenic bacteria while delivering a drug to the target site. Zheng et al.⁴⁰ isolated a phage against Fusobacterium nucleatum, a bacterium that is believed to be a promoting factor in colorectal cancer (CRC) and contributes to a pathogenic tumor microenvironment. They encapsulated an anti-CRC drug, irinotecan, into dextran nanoparticles and covalently attached these particles to the anti-Fusobacterium phage. In mouse models of CRC, the phage–drug conjugate reduced tumor size better than chemotherapy alone.

Uses of Phage Other than Medical

Over and above the use of phages to prevent and treat bacterial infections and to aid in other diseases such as cancer, phages have wide use in other realms. They can be used to prevent or treat bacterial infections in animals in agriculture or in veterinary practice. They can clear food animals and food products of bacteria during preparation, packaging, and storage. Phages can be used to prevent or treat bacterial infections of plants and even to disrupt the flora of harmful insects.

One Health

One Health is an integrated consideration of health across people, animals, and ecosystems. Such an all-encompassing approach is aimed at exerting higher efficiency at preventing disease than targeted interventions in only one realm, for example, medicine.

Agriculture—plants

Bacterial diseases are major problems in agriculture worldwide, threatening crops and resulting in food scarcity. Some bacterial infections have been treated with antibiotics; however, resistance has emerged. Therefore, phages have gained acceptance as tools in fighting bacterial diseases of plants of agricultural significance.⁴¹ Czajkowski et al.⁴² recently reviewed the status of phage therapy in treating or preventing plant diseases. There are several phage products approved for use in preventing bacterial diseases of plants in the United States and Europe. In the United States, Omnilytics, Inc. produces several phage products targeting tomato bacterial canker, citrus canker, and fire blight for apples and pears, among others. Most recently, A&P Inphatec obtained E.P.A. approval for XylPhi-PD for the reduction of Pierce’s disease in vineyards. These products not only kill the targeted pathogen but also modify the local microbiota to improve plant health. There are other phage products approved for use in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe. Moving forward, the development of naturally occurring phages for prevention and treatment of bacterial infections of plants represents the most expedient avenue for phage technology.

Agriculture and veterinary—animals

The history of using phages to fight bacterial infections in animals is as old as that for medical use. Felix d’Herelle, one of the discoverers of phages, used phages to fight Salmonella infections in chickens as far back as 1919. As for medicine, early success could not sustain continued use, and phage treatment of animals all but disappeared until the 1980s, when extensive research was reinitiated. This renewed interest in phages led to a wide variety of government-approved phage therapies around the world. In the United States, Intralytix, Arm & Hammer Animal and Food Production, OmniLytics, Delmont Laboratories, and Uni-FAHS all have Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or United States Department of Agriculture approved phage treatments for animals or animal products. Treatment of animals is most often via inclusion in food or water. The most common uses are reduction of specific pathogens in pet food and on animal hides. There are many more products approved in South America, Europe, and Asia.

Aquaculture

There are numerous bacterial diseases of fish, shellfish, and crustaceans, for example, shrimp, with great economic impact. Although significant research on the potential use of phages to prevent or treat these infections is ongoing, there are currently no approved products.⁴³

Insects

Although phages will not exhibit direct activity against insects, many insects depend on symbiosis with specific bacteria for their health and even viability. Therefore, targeting critical bacteria in the environment could aid in suppression of harmful insect populations. For example, Tikhe and Dimopoulos⁴⁴ demonstrated under laboratory conditions that phages targeting Pseudomonas and Enterobacter could inhibit the survival and health of Anopheles mosquitos that transmit human diseases. Releasing phages into the environment would pose special regulatory considerations, especially if they are genetically engineered.

Food preparation

The FDA considers phages as Generally Regarded as Safe for use in food.⁴¹ The first FDA-approved phage for use in food was ListShield produced by Intralytix in 2006. There are now numerous phage products that are approved in the United States, Canada, Israel, United Kingdom, China, and elsewhere.⁴⁵ The most commonly targeted bacteria are E. coli, Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus, and Campylobacter.

Clinical Trials

With regard to regulatory and biosafety considerations of phage, the primary, but not sole, ongoing activity is in clinical trials. It took nearly a century for phage therapy to gain enough attention in western medicine for serious basic science studies and eventual clinical trials to be performed.

It is important to note the unique aspects of phage therapy that affect the difficulty of conducting such trials in the current regulatory environment. This has been recently reviewed.^46,47 The first problem is the nature of phages, themselves. As viruses of bacteria, as opposed to chemical drugs, their interactions with target bacterial cells, production, and purification can be extremely variable, depending on the specific bacterial targets and the sourcing of the stocks for a clinical trial. Therefore, a phage preparation for a given infectious disease might be highly effective in one trial at one site, but then fail miserably at another similar trial at a different site. For example, if phages in the treatment stock are not confirmed to exhibit activity against the target(s), the trial is doomed to failure. It would therefore be ideal if therapeutic phage stocks were sourced from common entities that had thoroughly characterized the phage activity. There are some issues in common with antibiotic studies, for example, the nature of the infection and complexity of the infecting agents. Superficial infections might be easier to treat than systemic infections, and single agent infections would be easier to treat than polymicrobial infections. Like antibiotics, the route of administration can have an immense effect on efficacy. Unlike antibiotics, the nature of the phage preparation can affect success. For example, phages might benefit from being coated in a matrix that improves stability or resists being cleared by the host innate immune system. Another major problem is trial design. When treating serious bacterial infections, it would be unethical to withhold antibiotic treatment. Therefore, most trials involve adding phage therapy to antibiotics. This makes interpretation of the results difficult. Furthermore, it is possible that coadministration of antibiotics could hinder the effectiveness of phage therapy if the target bacteria are impeded from being able to serve as productive hosts for phage replication, for example, by use of protein synthesis inhibitors. There have been many compassionate use studies where there were no effective antibiotics. However, such studies cannot be scrutinized in relation to controls or by rigorous statistical analysis because they are most often single subject studies.

As is usually the case, science is advancing faster than the associated regulations or regulatory guidance. There has been an explosion in PubMed listed publications involving phage therapy with 5,726 of the 8,394 publications published between 2015 and 2025. Similarly, the overwhelming majority of ClinicalTrials.gov entries for clinical trials involving bacteriophages have taken place within the last 6 years. A search of the ClinicalTrials.gov database for the search term “bacteriophage” yielded 115 studies, of which 85 were interventional phage therapy, as opposed to observational. Among interventional studies not represented in the ClnicalTrials.gov database, 16 multisubject studies were reviewed by Stacey et al.⁴⁸ and 41 individual subject case studies were summarized by Uyttebroek et al.⁴⁹ (Figure 5). Figure 5 shows that more than half of the clinical trials involving phages are multisubject interventional. These are the most effective clinical trials for gaining meaningful data. Observational and individual case studies and expanded access trials can contribute some evidence, but they lack some of the components that are integral to controlled clinical trials. Of the 115 studies in ClinicalTrials.gov, 72 were initiated between 2019 and 2025. Select interventional studies from this group are listed in Table 2. As a general trend, the number of clinical trials utilizing phage-based investigational products is increasing, as is the percentage of trials demonstrating clinical efficacy.^49,50 Sites of infection under study vary widely from implanted devices to disseminated infections and infections localized to specific sites or organs. Similarly, various methods for phage delivery vary widely with oral administration being most common (30%), followed by topical (16%), intrarectal (15%), injection (13%), transdermal (10%), and inhalation (3%).⁴¹

Figure 5.

Phage therapy studies reported in ClinicalTrials.gov or select published review. A search of the ClinicalTrials.gov database for the term “bacteriophage” yielded 115 studies of various types and status. Studies represented that are not documented in the ClinicalTrials.gov database include 16 controlled, multisubject studies reviewed by Stacey et al. and 41 individual case studies summarized by Uyttebroek et al.⁴⁹

Before reviewing recent clinical trials from the United States, the extensive literature from Eastern Europe, particularly Poland and the former Soviet Union, cannot be ignored. Sulakvelidze et al.⁵¹ reviewed the literature and early phage therapy history, especially from the non-English literature that was mostly ignored by western scientists moving into phage therapy. They noted that after the brief commercial use of phage therapy in the West was stopped for several reasons, it was never halted in Eastern Europe. Therefore, conducting clinical trials on established treatment modalities was not considered essential. A notable study was conducted in Tbilisi, GA in the early 1960s involving over 30,000 children.⁵² Half received a phage cocktail against Shigella, whereas the other half got nothing. The rate of dysentery was nearly 4-fold higher in the control group. Some studies compared one phage preparation with another; Zhukov-Verezhnikov et al.⁵³ compared patient-specific phages to standard off-the-shelf preparations that were in common use to treat surgical wounds. The patient-directed phages were 5- to 6-fold more effective. A large study involving 340 patients compared phage therapy to antibiotics for lung infection.⁵⁴ There were similar successful treatment rates between phage (82%) and antibiotics (64%). This is just a small sampling of the work detailed in Sulakvelidze et al.⁵¹

Phage therapy clinical trials are rapidly advancing in western medicine (reviewed by Palma et al.⁵⁵ and Liu et al.).⁵⁶ Although there are numerous ongoing clinical trials in the United States, there are very limited peer-reviewed publications describing the results of completed trials. Ibrahim et al.⁴⁶ reported the results of 11 recent phage therapy clinical trials that met rigorous criteria. It is clear that none of the phage therapies caused significant adverse events in study subjects. Unfortunately, data on efficacy are extremely limited. Most of the trials are phase 1 and/or 2, and so, they consist of very small sample sizes and the primary objectives are safety, not efficacy. Pirnay et al.²⁰ summarized the results of phage therapy in 100 patients treated in Belgium. Commercially available phage preparations were used to treat a variety of complex bacterial infections. Although the ongoing study has demonstrated both safety and efficacy, it was important to confirm that the causative bacterial agents were sensitive to the phage products using a personalized medicine approach. One other noted that phage therapy success was a recent study on phage treatment of hip joint replacement infection.⁵⁷ Combination of phages and antibiotics outperformed antibiotics alone. Ibrahim et al.⁴⁶ also discussed failures in phage therapy, which could not always be explained. Liu et al.⁵⁶ described results of numerous clinical trials and focused on the nature of the phage therapy: noncustomized to the patient’s infecting agent, where the phages are blindly obtained from existing sources; customized selection, where the phages are confirmed to kill the patient’s infecting agent; and customized production, where the phages are propagated on the patient’s infecting agent. Customized production was optimal, but it also had the most severe practical limitations in terms of obtaining the necessary phages in a timely manner, if at all. Their meta-analysis confirmed the safety and efficacy of phage therapy. Other recent reviews of phage therapy clinical trials have reported similar efficacy and uniform safety.⁴⁸

We conclude this discussion of phage therapy clinical trials by discussing in detail a model study that is ongoing, but whose preliminary results were recently published.⁵⁸ This is a phase 1/2a trial examining a phage cocktail named BX004-A to treat P. aeruginosa respiratory infections in people with cystic fibrosis. P. aeruginosa is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in these patients and is highly resistant to antibiotics. In addition, the organism frequently creates a biofilm, which serves as a physical barrier for drugs, making antibiotic treatment even more difficult. Weiner et al. collected 143 clinical P. aeruginosa strains and then isolated phages with activity against these strains from environmental sources. Through screening and characterization of 164 plaque-forming phages, they arrived at a set of three phages, which they named BX004-A, that exhibited desirable characteristics of phage therapy. It had broad lytic activity against a wide diversity of Pseudomonas strains. The phage cocktail demonstrated activity against Pseudomonas biofilms and was not affected by concomitant treatment with clinically useful antibiotics in vitro. The cocktail was safe in mice. Finally, they worked out delivery to the lower respiratory tract via nebulization. The report is a preliminary analysis of the phase 1 portion of the phase 1/2a study. Nine adults with cystic fibrosis and Pseudomonas infection were included in the study. Seven received various doses of phage therapy, whereas two received vehicle. All continued with antibiotics. There were no adverse events associated with the phage treatment. Phage-treated subjects had reduced levels of P. aeruginosa in their sputum at specific times after treatment, but there was no total clearance. No phage-resistant Pseudomonas strains were recovered from subjects. In summary, this study modeled the up-front analysis and development of new phage therapy, confirmed safety, and demonstrated some efficacy. The preliminary nature of the study with a small sample size precludes more definitive conclusions.

Biosafety, Biocontainment, and Regulatory Matters

As noted above, the unique aspects of phages compared with antibiotics and other drugs raise important considerations moving forward with their development in medicine and elsewhere. The regulatory environment in dealing with these issues has not always kept up with the science.

Desirable properties for phage-based investigational products

Ideally, phage-based therapeutics would possess the following attributes:⁵⁹

The ability to efficiently kill the intended pathogen in vitro and in vivo without a large proportion of bacterial survival or damage to the indigenous microbiota. This means that the phage should be virulent, not temperate.

The phage should be easy to propagate, produce in high-titer preparations, and purify (e.g., >10¹⁰ plaque-forming units [PFU]/mL). The final preparation should be free of harmful contaminants, including bacterial endotoxins.

The phage should be stable over a range of concentrations, such that storage for extended time periods at refrigerator temperatures is not associated with substantial loss of infectivity. Samples diluted down to 10⁶ PFU/mL may rapidly lose viability.⁶⁰

The phage genome should not include any genes that are toxic, oncogenic, or otherwise encode virulence factors.

The phage should not have the capability to function as a generalized transducing phage, unless it is intended to do so to carry out its therapeutic effect.

When using a phage cocktail, the phages should not utilize the same cellular receptor, as loss of that receptor would allow the host to develop resistance to the entire cocktail.

Biosafety considerations

Lytic phages are best for combating bacterial infections.⁵⁹ Temperate phages can be utilized if the genes involved in lysogeny (i.e., repressor of lytic phase and integrase) are deleted. As noted above, this is being done in developing recombinant phages with improved qualities. Lysogenic conversion can enable phages to confer deleterious properties, such as toxins, to lysogenized bacterial hosts (Figure 4C). Therefore, all phages to be used in clinical trials must be genomically sequenced. If dangerous genes are identified, they can be deleted using recombinant means. Papudeshi et al.⁶¹ recently devised an automated phage sequencing and analysis tool named Sphae that scans phage genomes for virulence factors, antibiotic resistance genes, and genes involved with lysogeny.

Phages are species-, and sometimes, strain-specific, meaning that they will only replicate in their natural host. Most of the phages being considered for phage therapy will therefore have bacterial pathogens as their hosts and propagating the phages would require large-scale cultures of these pathogens. Therefore, to avoid these complications, when possible, avirulent species or attenuated strains should be used for phage production. As noted above, cell-free extracts allow for phage replication without utilizing live bacterial host cells.^{28,38,62–64} It is possible to create cell-free extracts from a virulent host in containment, validate the lack of live virulent bacteria, and then transfer the extract to a lower biosafety level for phage production. Of course, this strategy is dependent on the risk assessment, validation of the methodology, and approval of the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) and any applicable local/Federal regulatory agencies.

Environmental release

Biosafety professionals are trained to focus on containment, with little to no tolerance for environmental release of active biological hazards, especially those that contain recombinant DNA. The FDA currently does not consider the environmental release of a replicating gene therapy vector until after the dose expansion phase of a clinical trial, typically phase II.^65,66 The FDA normally does not consider biosafety and environmental issues until deliberating on whether to issue marketing approval for a biologics license application, typically at the conclusion of a phase III clinical trial. If the clinical trial design involves replication-competent phages, it is a reasonable assumption that phages will be shed in bodily fluids, especially in urine and feces.

Hospital wastewater contains a diverse array of microorganisms, including human pathogens.^67–70 Large healthcare facilities within the United States must comply with the EPA Clean Water Act and are typically regulated by local municipalities. Large medical centers are typically considered industrial users and are required to develop industrial pretreatment programs for their wastewater before it may be released to the sanitary sewer for final treatment. Pretreatment decreases the microbial burden, but it does not completely eliminate biohazards. Healthcare facility wastewater quality is an area of research and debate with several groups calling for regulatory requirements to mitigate biological hazards posed by healthcare facility wastewater.

Wastewater treatment at a treatment plant proceeds through several steps with different capabilities for inactivating biohazards. Large particles are removed through screening, grit removal, and sedimentary clarification. Secondary treatment involves aeration and introduction of bacteria to break down biological waste, resulting in activated sludge. This process is slow to break down phages as MS2, a surrogate for nonenveloped enteric viruses, was observed for up to 35 days after introduction in activated sludge, whereas Φ−6 bacteriophage, a surrogate for lipid enveloped viruses, was detected for no more than 4 days after its introduction.⁷¹ The final steps in wastewater treatment involve filtration and disinfection with chlorine, ozone, or UV light, which have the greatest efficacy in phage inactivation.⁷²

Biocontainment

If phages are shed into the sanitary sewer, biocontainment can be achieved through the creation of replication-deficient phages in a manner that bears similarities to replication-deficient viral vectors (Figure 6). A gene essential to phage replication is deleted, rendering the phage replication defective (Figure 6, part 2). The deleted gene is cloned into host bacterial cells, which function akin to packaging cells for viral vectors enabling the propagation of the phage (Figure 6, part 3). Mitsunaka et al. rendered T7 phage replication deficient by deleting either the packaging signal sequence (Pac) necessary to package phage genome into the head particle or the 10AB genes encoding the major and minor head proteins.²⁸ The E. coli host serving as the packaging cell was transformed with a plasmid bearing the respective complementing gene (Pac or 10AB) to allow phage replication. They also made a Salmonella phage SP6 mutant that lacked gene 31 (SP6_Δhead), which encodes a capsid protein, and created a complementing S. typhimurium strain expressing gene 31 to propagate the phage. In a mouse model of S. typhimurium sepsis, the biocontained phage SP6 was as effective in preventing death from Salmonella sepsis as was the wild-type phage, showing that the genetic modifications did not significantly interfere with the ability of the phage to kill the pathogen. This system demonstrates both biocontainment and the ability to kill the intended pathogen.

Figure 6.

Conditionally replicative phages. (1) A wild-type phage infects wild-type bacteria (Phage–Bacterial Host) resulting in lysis of the host (Bacterial Outcome) and production of progeny phage (Phage Outcome). (2) A phage with a deletion of a critical gene (Δ) infects a wild-type bacterium, resulting in no lysis and no progeny phages. (3) A phage with a deletion of a critical gene infects a bacterium encoding the deleted phage gene (+ [complementation]), resulting in lysis and progeny phages. (4) A conditionally replicative phage with amber stop mutations in critical genes (stop sign) infects a wild-type bacterium, resulting in no lysis and no progeny phages. (5) A conditionally replicative phage with amber stop mutations in critical genes infects a bacterium encoding an amber suppressor mutation (Go sign), resulting in lysis and progeny phages. (6) A mutant nonreplicative phage (x) that encodes super lysin activity (L) infects a wild-type bacterium, resulting in lysis but no progeny phage.

Another method of generating a conditionally replicating phage is engineering Amber stop mutations in critical replication genes (Figure 6, part 4).⁷³ These mutations render the replication proteins nonfunctional because their translation is prematurely terminated. However, when propagated in a bacterial host that encodes an Amber-suppressor mutation in a tRNA gene, the proteins are completely translated and the phage can reproduce (Figure 6, part 5). These strategies allow the phage to propagate in the complementing/suppressing host cells. It is possible to use nonreplicating phages for therapy (Figure 6, part 6). If such a phage can infect a target bacterial cell and particularly if it has been engineered with a super lysin, it can still lyse and kill the cell without replicating itself. The downside of these biocontained phages is that they do not replicate in the treated patient. As noted above, such phages have demonstrated efficacy in animal models.

Regulatory Considerations

As noted above, regulation of the development of the use of phages in medicine, agriculture, and elsewhere has lagged behind the scientific development. In June 2025, the United Kingdom became the first country to publish guidance on regulatory considerations for use of phage-based therapeutics.⁷⁴ Such guidance is necessary to standardize expectations for the preclinical research needed to obtain permission to conduct clinical trials, manufacture bacteriophage-based investigational products for clinical trials, and write clinical protocols.

In the United States, phage therapy is regulated by the FDA under the expanded access IND program for single-patient investigational new drug applications.⁷⁵ This requires several quality assurance steps such as characterization of the phage and sterility of the final stock. Wurstle et al.⁷⁶ developed a pipeline for rapid identification and characterization of phages for use in patients in less than 3 weeks. This study highlights many essential practical components of development and ultimate use of phages in the clinic.

For phage therapy to advance through good laboratory practice compliant preclinical animal studies and good manufacturing practice (GMP) compliant clinical use, the phage preparation must achieve an adequate level of purity, particularly the absence of bacterial host cell-derived molecules. Scalable purification methods that can adequately remove bacterial host cell endotoxins, proteins, and DNA must be implemented. For example, endotoxins are pro-inflammatory LPSs found in the outer membrane of gram-negative bacteria and can cause toxic effects such as fever, multiorgan failure, septic shock, and sepsis. To circumvent these problems, phages could be propagated on strains with decreased or less toxic components.^59,77–79 Ideally, such hosts should be nonpathogenic, well characterized, and devoid of endogenous prophages that can cause lysogenic phage contamination.⁶³ Purification methods are critically important in generating safe phage preparations.⁸⁰

Another approach to control LPS contamination is production of phage in cell-free extracts.^38,62–64 Although it may seem like a technically difficult problem, production of phages in bacterial cells is much more straightforward than for animal viruses, which navigate intracellular membranes and compartments. Cell-free in vitro transcription and translation kits have been used for decades to produce bacterial proteins in vitro. Extending these systems to production of whole, infectious phages has found remarkable success. As noted above, they have been useful in rebooting phages from synthesized genomes.^28,62,63

In the United Kingdom, biologics are regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Thus far, Regulatory Considerations for Therapeutic Use of Bacteriophages in The UK is the world’s only country-specific regulatory guidance document.⁷⁴ The United Kingdom’s guidance considers bacteriophages as biological medicines that include active substances grown and purified from cultures of bacteria, yeast, plant, or animal cells, relying on regulatory requirements for that classification of drugs including:

GMP-compliant manufacturing to ensure consistent production and quality control.

Controlling contamination risks, especially from adventitious agents, during the production of bacterial cultures and subsequent purification of the medicinal product. This includes measures to prevent contamination with other bacteria, viruses, or cell lines.

A robust quality control strategy for seed and cell banks as well as for the final product.

The MHRA encourages the development and use of real-time, nondestructive methods for monitoring contamination during the manufacturing process.

Future Directions

With all of the advancements in the development of phages as tools in medicine, agriculture, and food safety, what lies in the future? Turner et al.⁸¹ propose a spectrum of possibilities. On the very practical side, they note that production and characterization of phage repositories would greatly help effective treatment. On the more futuristic side, they propose that phages could be produced on-site as needed. This would involve existing technologies such as cell-free production. They propose a phage printer that would synthesize the genomes of the needed phages, produce the phages in a cell-free system, and then purify and characterize the phages. Given the challenges of hospitals to keep up with developing diagnostic technologies today, on-site phage production does not seem very likely.

A more science fiction-like musing on the future of phage therapy was published by Pirnay.⁸² He proposed that DNA from an infected site would be quickly isolated and sequenced to identify the causative agents and their relevant characteristics. Artificial Intelligence algorithms would predict which phages would be best suited to treat the infectious agent(s). As proposed by Turner et al.,⁸¹ the therapeutic phages would be produced on-site.

Conclusion

For phage therapy and broader uses of phages to be successful, several changes in thought and understanding at many levels are required. The scientific community has already embraced phages for their usefulness and is rapidly advancing knowledge and technology. Governments are moving toward developing regulatory frameworks to enable phage research to be conducted and products to be implemented. Industries must buy in to the potential of phages to be profitable entities or they will not invest in producing them. Finally, the public must understand and accept phages as beneficial tools. All of this requires effective communication of scientific advancements and education of all stakeholders.

Research and development of phage therapy is a promising avenue for combating the dangerous rise in antibiotic resistance and may eventually become a standard medical countermeasure to complement or replace antibiotics. Biosafety professionals and Institutional Biosafety Committees should become familiar with the technology, risks, and associated safety/regulatory considerations to safely oversee the research.

Authors’ Contributions

P.G. wrote the majority of the article. D.E. wrote the abstract as well as portions of the introduction and sections pertaining to biological safety and environmental and regulatory considerations. D.E. originally conceived of the article and served as project leader, editor, and corresponding author. S.S. created the tables and participated in thoughtful discussion and review of the article.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Stephanie Pyle and Mark Fields for assistance with article preparation.

Funding Information

No funding was received for this work.

Authors’ Disclosure Statement

P.G. works as a part-time contractor and IBC Vice Chair for Advarra. S.S. and D.E. are employed by Advarra, a for-profit clinical research compliance company. Advarra did not provide any funding for this work.

References

Kumar

, Mukherjee

, Gaur

, et al. Unveiling roles of beneficial gut bacteria and optimal diets for health. Front Microbiol, 2025; 16:1527755; doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2025.1527755

Ikuta

, Swetschinski

, Robles Aguilar

, et al. Global mortality associated with 33 bacterial pathogens in 2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet, 2022; 400(10369):2221–2248; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02185-7

Kappes

, Tozooneyi

, Shakil

, et al. Livestock health and disease economics: A scoping review of selected literature. Front Vet Sci, 2023; 10:1168649; doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1168649

Kannan

, Bastas

, Devi

. Scientific and Economic Impact of Plant Pathogenic Bacteria. In: Sustainable Approaches to Controlling Plant Pathogenic Bacteria. ( Kannan

, Bastas

. eds.) CRC Press: Boca Raton; 2015; pp. 370–392.

Organization WH. Antimicrobial Resistance: Global Report on Surveillance. Geneva; 2014.

Wall

. Prevention of antibiotic resistance—an epidemiological scoping review to identify research categories and knowledge gaps. Glob Health Action, 2019; 12(1):1756191; doi: 10.1080/16549716.2020.1756191

Collaborators AR. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: A systematic analysis. Lancet, 2022; 399:629–655.

Gupta

, Sharma

. Role of alternatives to antibiotics in mitigating the antimicrobial resistance crisis. Indian J Med Res, 2022; 156(3):464–477; doi: 10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_3514_20

Twort

FW.

ii ., An investigation on the nature of ultramicroscopic viruses. Lancet, 1915.

10.

D’Herelle

. Sur un microbe invisible antagoniste des bacilles dysente′riques. C R Acad Sci (Paris), 1917; 165:373–375.

11.

Duckworth

, Gulig

. Bacteriophages: Potential treatment for bacterial infections. BioDrugs, 2002; 16(1):57–62; doi: 10.2165/00063030-200216010-00006

12.

Organization WH. Building the Evidence for the Use of Bacteriophage Therapy. World Health Organization: Copenhagen; 2025.

13.

Giri

. Bacteriophage structure, classification, assembly and phage therapy. Biosci, Biotech Res Asia, 2021; 18(2):239–250.

14.

Kortright

, Chan

, Koff

, et al. Phage therapy: A renewed approach to combat antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Cell Host Microbe, 2019; 25(2):219–232; doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2019.01.014

15.

Smith

, Huggins

. Successful treatment of experimental Escherichia coli infections in mice using phage: Its general superiority over antibiotics. J Gen Microbiol, 1982; 128(2):307–318; doi: 10.1099/00221287-128-2-307

16.

Foster

. Immune evasion by staphylococci. Nat Rev Microbiol, 2005; 3(12):948–958; doi: 10.1038/nrmicro1289

17.

German

, Misra

. The TolC protein of Escherichia coli serves as a cell-surface receptor for the newly characterized TLS bacteriophage. J Mol Biol, 2001; 308(4):579–585; doi: 10.1006/jmbi.2001.4578

18.

Chan

, Sistrom

, Wertz

, et al. Phage selection restores antibiotic sensitivity in MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Sci Rep, 2016; 6:26717; doi: 10.1038/srep26717

19.

MKY

, Zhang

, Chen

, et al. Bacteriophage endolysins against gram-positive bacteria, an overview on the clinical development and recent advances on the delivery and formulation strategies. Crit Rev Microbiol, 2022; 48(3):303–326; doi: 10.1080/1040841X.2021.1962803

20.

Pirnay

, Djebara

, Steurs

, et al.; Bacteriophage Donors. Personalized bacteriophage therapy outcomes for 100 consecutive cases: A multicentre, multinational, retrospective observational study. Nat Microbiol, 2024; 9(6):1434–1453; doi: 10.1038/s41564-024-01705-x

21.

Resch

, Brives

, Debarbieux

, et al. Between centralization and fragmentation: The past, present, and future of phage collections. Phage (New Rochelle), 2024; 5(1):22–29; doi: 10.1089/phage.2023.0043

22.

Ando

, Lemire

, Pires

, et al. Engineering modular viral scaffolds for targeted bacterial population editing. Cell Syst, 2015; 1(3):187–196; doi: 10.1016/j.cels.2015.08.013

23.

Pizarro-Bauerle

, Ando

. Engineered bacteriophages for practical applications. Biol Pharm Bull, 2020; 43(2):240–249; doi: 10.1248/bpb.b19-00914

24.

Yehl

, Lemire

, Yang

, et al. Engineering phage host-range and suppressing bacterial resistance through phage tail fiber mutagenesis. Cell, 2019; 179(2):459–469.e9; doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.09.015

25.

Bikard

, Euler

, Jiang

, et al. Exploiting CRISPR-Cas nucleases to produce sequence-specific antimicrobials. Nat Biotechnol, 2014; 32(11):1146–1150; doi: 10.1038/nbt.3043

26.

Citorik

, Mimee

, Lu

. Sequence-specific antimicrobials using efficiently delivered RNA-guided nucleases. Nat Biotechnol, 2014; 32(11):1141–1145; doi: 10.1038/nbt.3011

27.

Gencay

, Jasinskytė

, Robert

, et al. Engineered phage with antibacterial CRISPR-Cas selectively reduce E. coli burden in mice. Nat Biotechnol, 2024; 42(2):265–274; doi: 10.1038/s41587-023-01759-y

28.

Mitsunaka

, Yamazaki

, Pramono

, et al. Synthetic engineering and biological containment of bacteriophages. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2022; 119(48):e2206739119; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2206739119

29.

Dunne

, Rupf

, Tala

, et al. Reprogramming bacteriophage host range through structure-guided design of chimeric receptor binding proteins. Cell Rep, 2019; 29(5):1336–1350.e4; doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.09.062

30.

, Collins

. Dispersing biofilms with engineered enzymatic bacteriophage. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2007; 104(27):11197–11202; doi: 10.1073/pnas.0704624104

31.

Upadhyay

, Jaiswal

, Kumar

. Biofilm battle: New transformative tactics to tackle the bacterial biofilm infections. Microb Pathog, 2025; 199:107277; doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2025.107277

32.

Dawan

, Zhang

, Ahn

. Recent advances in biofilm control technologies for the food industry. Antibiotics (Basel), 2025; 14(3):254; doi: 10.3390/antibiotics14030254

33.

Yang

, Xu

, Li

. Mini-review of biofilm interactions with surface materials in industrial piping system. Membranes (Basel), 2023; 13(2):125; doi: 10.3390/membranes13020125

34.

, Peng

, Feng

, et al. Recent progress in phage-based nanoplatforms for tumor therapy. Small, 2024; 20(7):e2307111; doi: 10.1002/smll.202307111

35.

, Qu

, Cao

, et al. Selectively suppressing tumor angiogenesis for targeted breast cancer therapy by genetically engineered phage. Adv Mater, 2020; 32(29):e2001260; doi: 10.1002/adma.202001260

36.

Frenkel

, Solomon

. Filamentous phage as vector-mediated antibody delivery to the brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2002; 99(8):5675–5679; doi: 10.1073/pnas.072027199

37.

Solomon

, Frenkel

. Generation and brain delivery of anti-aggregating antibodies against beta-amyloid plaques using phage display technology. J Neural Transm (Suppl 2002)(62):321–325; doi: 10.1007/978-3-7091-6139-5_30

38.

Liyanagedera

SBW

, Williams

, Wheatley

, et al. SpyPhage: A cell-free TXTL platform for rapid engineering of targeted phage therapies. ACS Synth Biol, 2022; 11(10):3330–3342; doi: 10.1021/acssynbio.2c00244

39.

McClary

, Catala

, Zhang

, et al. A designer nanoparticle platform for controlled intracellular delivery of bioactive macromolecules: Inhibition of ubiquitin-specific protease 7 in breast cancer cells. ACS Chem Biol, 2022; 17(7):1853–1865; doi: 10.1021/acschembio.2c00256

40.

Zheng

, Dong

, Pan

, et al. Phage-guided modulation of the gut microbiota of mouse models of colorectal cancer augments their responses to chemotherapy. Nat Biomed Eng, 2019; 3(9):717–728; doi: 10.1038/s41551-019-0423-2

41.

Huang

, Wang

, Zhang

, et al. Phage products for fighting antimicrobial resistance. Microorganisms, 2022; 10(7):1324; doi: 10.3390/microorganisms10071324

42.

Czajkowski

, Roca

, Matilla

. Harnessing bacteriophages for sustainable crop protection in the face of climate change. Microb Biotechnol, 2025; 18(2):e70108; doi: 10.1111/1751-7915.70108

43.

Jun

. A concise overview of studies on successful real-world applications of bacteriophages in aquaculture. Viruses, 2024; 16(12):1843; doi: 10.3390/v16121843

44.

Tikhe

, Dimopoulos

. Phage therapy for mosquito larval control: A proof-of-principle study. mBio, 2022; 13(6):e0301722; doi: 10.1128/mbio.03017-22

45.

Wagh

, Priyadarshi

, Khan

, et al. The role of active packaging in the defense against foodborne pathogens with particular attention to bacteriophages. Microorganisms, 2025; 13(2):401; doi: 10.3390/microorganisms13020401

46.

Ibrahim

, Aranjani

, Kalikot Valappil

, et al. Unveiling the potential bacteriophage therapy: A systematic review. Future Sci OA, 2025; 11(1):2468114; doi: 10.1080/20565623.2025.2468114

47.

Kim

, Suh

, Cullen

, et al. Bacteriophage therapy for multidrug-resistant infections: Current technologies and therapeutic approaches. J Clin Invest, 2025; 135(5):e187996; doi: 10.1172/JCI187996

48.

Stacey

, De Soir

, Jones

. The safety and efficacy of phage therapy: A systematic review of clinical and safety trials. Antibiotics (Basel), 2022; 11(10):1340; doi: 10.3390/antibiotics11101340

49.

Uyttebroek

, Chen

, Onsea

, et al. Safety and efficacy of phage therapy in difficult-to-treat infections: A systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis, 2022; 22(8):e208–e220; doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00612-5

50.

Strathdee

, Hatfull

, Mutalik

, et al. Phage therapy: From biological mechanisms to future directions. Cell, 2023; 186(1):17–31; doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2022.11.017

51.

Sulakvelidze

, Alavidze

, Morris

. Bacteriophage therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2001; 45(3):649–659; doi: 10.1128/AAC.45.3.649-659.2001

52.

Babalova

, Katsitadze

, Sakvarelidze

, et al. [Preventive value of dried dysentery bacteriophage]. Zh Mikrobiol Epidemiol Immunobiol, 1968; 45(2):143–145.

53.

Zhukov-Verezhnikov

, Peremitina

, Berillo

, et al. A study of the therapeutic effect of bacteriophage agents in a complex treatment of suppurative surgical diseases. Sov Med, 1978; 12:64–66.

54.

Meladze

, Mebuke

, Chkhetia

, et al. The efficacy of staphylococcal bacteriophage in treatment of purulent diseases of lungs and pleura. Grudn Khir, 1982; 1:53–56.

55.

Palma

, Qi

. Advancing phage therapy: A comprehensive review of the safety, efficacy, and future prospects for the targeted treatment of bacterial infections. Infect Dis Rep, 2024; 16(6):1127–1181; doi: 10.3390/idr16060092

56.

Liu

, Thong

, Moreira

, et al. Clinical application of customized and non-customized bacteriophage therapy in patients with refractory/resistant bacterial infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Antimicrob Agents, 2025; 66(4):107570; doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2025.107570

57.

Fedorov

, Samokhin

, Kozlova

, et al. Short-term outcomes of phage-antibiotic combination treatment in adult patients with periprosthetic hip joint infection. Viruses, 2023; 15(2):499; doi: 10.3390/v15020499

58.

Weiner

, Kahan-Hanum

, Buchstab

, et al. Phage therapy with nebulized cocktail BX004-A for chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections in cystic fibrosis: A randomized first-in-human trial. Nat Commun, 2025; 16(1):5579; doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-60598-4

59.

Hatfull

, Dedrick

, Schooley

. Phage therapy for antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Annu Rev Med, 2022; 73:197–211; doi: 10.1146/annurev-med-080219-122208

60.

Jault

, Leclerc

, Jennes

, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of a cocktail of bacteriophages to treat burn wounds infected by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PhagoBurn): A randomised, controlled, double-blind phase 1/2 trial. Lancet Infect Dis, 2019; 19(1):35–45; doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30482-1

61.

Papudeshi

, Roach

, Mallawaarachchi

, et al. Sphae: An automated toolkit for predicting phage therapy candidates from sequencing data. Bioinform Adv, 2025; 5(1):vbaf004; doi: 10.1093/bioadv/vbaf004

62.

Nour El-Din

, Kettal

, Lam

, et al. Cell-free expression system: A promising platform for bacteriophage production and engineering. Microb Cell Fact, 2025; 24(1):42; doi: 10.1186/s12934-025-02661-9

63.

Brooks

, Morici

, Sandoval

. Cell free bacteriophage synthesis from engineered strains improves yield. ACS Synth Biol, 2023; 12(8):2418–2431; doi: 10.1021/acssynbio.3c00239

64.

Rustad

, Eastlund

, Jardine

, et al. Cell-free TXTL synthesis of infectious bacteriophage T4 in a single test tube reaction. Synth Biol (Oxf), 2018; 3(1):ysy002; doi: 10.1093/synbio/ysy002

65.

Eisenman

, Swindle

. FDA guidance on shedding and environmental impact in clinical trials involving gene therapy products. Appl Biosaf, 2022; 27(3):191–197; doi: 10.1089/apb.2022.0020

66.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FaDA, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Determining the need for and content of environmental assessments for gene therapies, vectored vaccines, and related recombinant viral or microbial products - guidance for industry. 2015. [Last accessed: July 22 ].

67.

Majumder

, Gupta

, Ghosal

, et al. A review on hospital wastewater treatment: A special emphasis on occurrence and removal of pharmaceutically active compounds, resistant microorganisms, and SARS-CoV-2. J Environ Chem Eng, 2021; 9(2):104812; doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2020.104812

68.

Kang

, Wang

, Zhu

, et al. Unveiling the genomic diversity and ecological impact of phage communities in hospital wastewater. J Hazard Mater, 2024; 477:135353; doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.135353

69.

Jebri

, Yahya

, Rahmani

, et al. Inactivation of biohazards in healthcare wastewater by E-Beam and Gamma irradiation: A comparative study. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2022; 29(50):75575–75586; doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-21159-0

70.

Center HER. Facilities management—Wastewater treatment. 2015. Available from: https://www.hercenter.org/facilitiesandgrounds/wwtreatment.php [Last accessed: July 22 ].

71.

Schupp

, Burdsall

, Silva

, et al. Persistence of surrogates for high consequence viral and bacterial pathogens in a pilot-scale activated sludge treatment system. PLoS One, 2022; 17(10):e0275482; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275482

72.

Kingsley

, Fay

, Calci

, et al. Evaluation of chlorine treatment levels for inactivation of human norovirus and MS2 bacteriophage during sewage treatment. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2017; 83(23):e01270–e01217; doi: 10.1128/AEM.01270-17

73.

Tsoumbris

, Vincent

, Jaschke

. Designing a simple and efficient phage biocontainment system using the amber suppressor initiator tRNA. Arch Virol, 2024; 169(12):248; doi: 10.1007/s00705-024-06170-9

74.

Agency MaHpR. Regulatory considerations for therapeutic use of bacteriophages in the UK. London; 2025.

75.

Administration USFaD. IND applications for clinical treatment (expanded access): Overview. 2016. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/investigational-new-drug-ind-application/ind-applications-clinical-treatment-expanded-access-overview [Last accessed: July 22 ].

76.

Würstle

, Lee

, Kortright

, et al. Optimized preparation pipeline for emergency phage therapy against Pseudomonas aeruginosa at Yale University. Sci Rep, 2024; 14(1):2657; doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-52192-3

77.

Dedrick

, Guerrero-Bustamante

, Garlena

, et al. Engineered bacteriophages for treatment of a patient with a disseminated drug-resistant Mycobacterium abscessus. Nat Med, 2019; 25(5):730–733; doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0437-z

78.

Van Belleghem

, Merabishvili

, Vergauwen

, et al. A comparative study of different strategies for removal of endotoxins from bacteriophage preparations. J Microbiol Methods, 2017; 132:153–159; doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2016.11.020

79.

Boratyński

, Syper

, Weber-Dabrowska

, et al. Preparation of endotoxin-free bacteriophages. Cell Mol Biol Lett, 2004; 9(2):253–259.

80.

Binte Mohamed Yakob Adil

, Tucci

, Irving

, et al. Evaluation of effectiveness of bacteriophage purification methods. Virol J, 2024; 21(1):318; doi: 10.1186/s12985-024-02580-y

81.

Turner

, Azeredo

, Buurman

, et al. Addressing the research and development gaps in modern phage therapy. Phage (New Rochelle), 2024; 5(1):30–39; doi: 10.1089/phage.2023.0045

82.

Pirnay

. Phage therapy in the year 2035. Front Microbiol, 2020; 11:1171; doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.01171