The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Phage Therapy Revisited: The Population Biology of a Bacterial Infection and Its Treatment with Bacteriophage and Antibiotics
Abstract
Phage therapy is the use of bacterial viruses (bacteriophage) to treat bacterial infections. It has been practiced sporadically on humans and domestic animals for nearly 75 yr. Nevertheless, phage therapy has remained outside the mainstream of modern medicine, presumably because of doubts about its efficacy, and possibly because it was eclipsed by antibiotics and other chemotherapeutic agents. In this report, we develop the study of phage therapy and antibiotic therapy as a population biological phenomenon-the dynamic interaction of bacteria with a predator (phage) or a toxic chemical (antibiotic) inside a host whose immune and other defenses also affect the interaction. Our goal is to identify the conditions under which phage and antibiotics can successfully control a bacterial infection and when they cannot. We review data published in the 1980s by H. Williams Smith and J. B. Huggins on the use of phage and antibiotics to control lethal, systemic infections of Escherichia coli in experimentally inoculated mice. We show that some of their observations can be accommodated by a quantitative model that invokes known or plausible assumptions about host defenses and the interactions of bacteria with phage and antibiotics; some observations remain unexplained by the model. Our analysis identifies several hypotheses about the population dynamics of phage and antibiotic therapy that can be tested experimentally. Included among these are hypotheses that account for variation in the efficacy of the different phages employed by Smith and Huggins and why, in their study, phages were more effective than antibiotics.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The crisis in antibiotic resistance
Neu, H. C. (1992) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.257.5073.1064 · Cited by 2,834
Cited by
Ecology of prokaryotic viruses
Weinbauer, M. G. (2004) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.femsre.2003.08.001 · Cited by 1,771
Population and evolutionary dynamics of phage therapy
Levin, B. R., & Bull, J. J. (2004) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro822 · Cited by 511
Self-citationRoach, D. R., Leung, C. Y., Henry, M., Morello, E., Singh, D., Di Santo, J. P., Weitz, J. S., & Debarbieux, L. (2017) · Cell Host & Microbe · doi:10.1016/j.chom.2017.06.018 · Cited by 484
Summers, W. C. (2001) · Annual Review of Microbiology · doi:10.1146/annurev.micro.55.1.437 · Cited by 474
Alternatives to antibiotics: bacteriocins, antimicrobial peptides and bacteriophages
Joerger, R. (2003) · Poultry Science · doi:10.1093/ps/82.4.640 · Cited by 465
Metadata
- Authors
- Levin, B. R., & Bull, J. J.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1996-06
- Volume
- 147
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 881-898
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W2045864306
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Phage Therapy Revisited: The Population Biology of a Bacterial Infection and Its Treatment with Bacteriophage and Antibiotics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/285884
- The paper
- Levin, B. R., & Bull, J. J. (1996). Phage Therapy Revisited: The Population Biology of a Bacterial Infection and Its Treatment with Bacteriophage and Antibiotics. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/285884
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.