The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Phage Therapy in Clinical Practice: Treatment of Human Infections
Abstract
Phage therapy is the application of bacteria-specific viruses with the goal of reducing or eliminating pathogenic or nuisance bacteria. While phage therapy has become a broadly relevant technology, including veterinary, agricultural, and food microbiology applications, it is for the treatment or prevention of human infections that phage therapy first caught the world's imagination--see, especially, Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis (1925)--and which today is the primary motivator of the field. Nonetheless, though the first human phage therapy took place in the 1920s, by the 1940s the field, was in steep decline despite early promise. The causes were at least three-fold: insufficient understanding among researchers of basic phage biology; over exuberance, which led, along with ignorance, to carelessness; and the advent of antibiotics, an easier to handle as well as highly powerful category of antibacterials. The decline in phage therapy was neither uniform nor complete, especially in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, where phage therapy traditions and practice continue to this day. In this review we strive toward three goals: 1. To provide an overview of the potential of phage therapy as a means of treating or preventing human diseases; 2. To explore the phage therapy state of the art as currently practiced by physicians in various pockets of phage therapy activity around the world, including in terms of potential commercialization; and 3. To avert a recapitulation of phage therapy's early decline by outlining good practices in phage therapy practice, experimentation, and, ultimately, commercialization.
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
Pros and cons of phage therapy
Loc-Carrillo, C., & Abedon, S. T. (2011) · Bacteriophage · doi:10.4161/bact.1.2.14590 · Cited by 1,020
Self-citationJault, P., Leclerc, T., Jennes, S., Pirnay, J. P., Que, Y.-A., Resch, G., Rousseau, A. F., Ravat, F., Carsin, H., Le Floch, R., et al. (2019) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(18)30482-1 · Cited by 874
Mammalian Host-Versus-Phage immune response determines phage fate in vivo
Hodyra-Stefaniak, K., Miernikiewicz, P., Drapała, J., Drab, M., Jończyk-Matysiak, E., Lecion, D., Kaźmierczak, Z., Beta, W., Majewska, J., Harhala, M., et al. (2015) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep14802 · Cited by 302
Maciejewska, B., Olszak, T., & Drulis-Kawa, Z. (2018) · Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology · doi:10.1007/s00253-018-8811-1 · Cited by 222
Clinical translation of microbe‐based therapies: Current clinical landscape and preclinical outlook
Vargason, A. M., & Anselmo, A. C. (2018) · Bioengineering & Translational Medicine · doi:10.1002/btm2.10093 · Cited by 71
Metadata
- Authors
- Kutter, E., De Vos, D., Gvasalia, G., Alavidze, Z., Gogokhia, L., Kuhl, S., & Abedon, S.
- Venue
- Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology
- Publisher
- Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
- Published
- 2010-01-01
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 69-86
- ISSN
- 1389-2010 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2117840807
- Cited by
- 670
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.88
- 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 in Clinical Practice: Treatment of Human Infections. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2174/138920110790725401
- The paper
- Kutter, E., De Vos, D., Gvasalia, G., Alavidze, Z., Gogokhia, L., Kuhl, S., & Abedon, S. (2010). Phage Therapy in Clinical Practice: Treatment of Human Infections. Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.2174/138920110790725401
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.