The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Isolation of Phages for Phage Therapy: A Comparison of Spot Tests and Efficiency of Plating Analyses for Determination of Host Range and Efficacy
Open accessAbstract
Phage therapy, treating bacterial infections with bacteriophages, could be a future alternative to antibiotic treatment of bacterial infections. There are, however, several problems to be solved, mainly associated to the biology of phages, the interaction between phages and their bacterial hosts, but also to the vast variation of pathogenic bacteria which implies that large numbers of different phages are going to be needed. All of these phages must under present regulation of medical products undergo extensive clinical testing before they can be applied. It will consequently be of great economic importance that effective and versatile phages are selected and collected into phage libraries, i.e., the selection must be carried out in a way that it results in highly virulent phages with broad host ranges. We have isolated phages using the Escherichia coli reference (ECOR) collection and compared two methods, spot testing and efficiency of plating (EOP), which are frequently used to identify phages suitable for phage therapy. The analyses of the differences between the two methods show that spot tests often overestimate both the overall virulence and the host range and that the results are not correlated to the results of EOP assays. The conclusion is that single dilution spot tests cannot be used for identification and selection of phages to a phage library and should be replaced by EOP assays. The difference between the two methods can be caused by many factors. We have analysed if the differences and lack of correlation could be caused by lysis from without, bacteriocins in the phage lysate, or by the presence of prophages harbouring genes coding for phage resistance systems in the genomes of the bacteria in the ECOR collection.
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
Cited by
More Is Better: Selecting for Broad Host Range Bacteriophages
Ross, A., Ward, S., & Hyman, P. (2016) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2016.01352 · Cited by 367
Phages and their potential to modulate the microbiome and immunity
Federici, S., Nobs, S. P., & Elinav, E. (2021) · Cellular & Molecular Immunology · doi:10.1038/s41423-020-00532-4 · Cited by 222
Bacteriophage Therapy: Discovery, Development, and FDA Approval Pathways
Niazi, S. K. (2025) · Pharmaceuticals · doi:10.3390/ph18081115 · Cited by 56
Bacteriophages as Targeted Therapeutic Vehicles: Challenges and Opportunities
Venkataraman, S., Shahgolzari, M., Yavari, A., & Hefferon, K. (2025) · Bioengineering · doi:10.3390/bioengineering12050469 · Cited by 38
Humolli, D., Piel, D., Maffei, E., Heyer, Y., Agustoni, E., Shaidullina, A., Willi, L., Imwinkelried, P., Estermann, F., Cuénod, A., et al. (2025) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3003063 · Cited by 36
Metadata
- Authors
- Khan Mirzaei, M., & Nilsson, A. S.
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2015-03-11
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- e0118557
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2068345774
- Cited by
- 516
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Isolation of Phages for Phage Therapy: A Comparison of Spot Tests and Efficiency of Plating Analyses for Determination of Host Range and Efficacy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0118557
- The paper
- Khan Mirzaei, M., & Nilsson, A. S. (2015). Isolation of Phages for Phage Therapy: A Comparison of Spot Tests and Efficiency of Plating Analyses for Determination of Host Range and Efficacy. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118557
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.