↓ Skip to main content

Challenges and Promises for Planning Future Clinical Research Into Bacteriophage Therapy Against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Cystic Fibrosis. An Argumentative Review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Challenges and Promises for Planning Future Clinical Research Into Bacteriophage Therapy Against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Cystic Fibrosis. An Argumentative Review
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00775
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martina Rossitto, Ersilia V. Fiscarelli, Paola Rosati

Abstract

Although early aggressive and prolonged treatment with specific antibiotics can extend survival in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) colonized by opportunistic Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA), antibiotics fail to eradicate the infecting multidrug-resistant (MDR) PA strains in CF. Century-long research has suggested treating patients with bacteriophages (phages, prokaryotic viruses) naturally hosted by bacteria. Although the only phage types used in therapy, lytic phages, lyse PA aggregated in biofilm matrix by depolymerase degrading enzymes, how they can effectively, safely, and persistently do so in patients with CF is unclear. Even though advanced techniques for formulating phage cocktails, training phages and collecting phage libraries have improved efficacy in vitro, whether personalized or ready-to-use therapeutic approaches or phages and antibiotics combined are effective and safe in vivo, and can reduce PA biofilms, remains debatable. Hence, to advance clinical research on phage therapy in clinical trials, also involving mucoid and non-mucoid multidrug-resistant PA in CF, and overcome problems in Western international regulations, we need reliable and repeatable information from experiments in vitro and in vivo on phage characterization, cocktail selection, personalized approaches, and phages combined with antibiotics. These findings, challenges, and promises prompted us to undertake this argumentative review to seek up-to-date information from papers describing lytic phage activity tested in vitro on PA laboratory strains, and PA strains from chronic infections including CF. We also reviewed in vivo studies on phage activity on pulmonary and non-pulmonary animal host models infected by laboratory or CF PA strains. Our argumentative review provides essential information showing that future phage clinical research in CF should use well-characterized and selected phages isolated against CF PA, tested in vitro under dynamic conditions in cocktails or combined with antibiotics, and in vivo on non-pulmonary and pulmonary host models infected with mucoid and non-mucoid CF MDR PA. Our findings should encourage pharmaceutical industries to conduct clinical trials in vitro and in vivo testing patented genomic engineered phages from phage libraries combined with antibiotics to treat or even prevent multidrug-resistant PA in CF, thus helping international regulatory agencies to plan future clinical research on phage therapy in CF.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 163 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 15%
Student > Master 20 12%
Researcher 12 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 21 13%
Unknown 50 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 21 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 4%
Other 20 12%
Unknown 58 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2018.
All research outputs
#5,521,976
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#5,054
of 25,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,861
of 326,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#174
of 612 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,669 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 612 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.