Introduction

Antibiotics are one of the most important scientific discoveries as they are used to treat the bacterial and fungal infections that affect animals, humans, and plants¹ They have been used for approximately 70 years and, in turn, they have decreased the incidence of infectious disease-related illnesses and deaths. However, there has been an increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, generating a significant health issue ² Resistance occurs when antibiotics fail to kill the target bacteria because it has evolved to fight the treatment. These bacteria can multiply and lead to colonies of antibiotic-resistant that evolve further ³. As a result, millions of individuals become infected with multiple-drug-resistant bacteria every year, leading to numerous deaths. ⁴ The World Health Organization (WHO) has published an A-list of pathogens consisting of the most dangerous types of resistant bacteria that affect human health and comprising 12 families of bacteria. Among these, Salmonella is among the most severe hazards.⁵

S. typhimurium, considered part of the Enterobacteriaceae family, is a gram-negative bacterium that causes many diseases (6). Salmonella is transmitted through contaminated water or undercooked food; in turn, it leads to infection in the gastrointestinal tract. Poultry is an important reservoir for Salmonella bacteria as it transfers these bacteria through the food chain. (8); (9). In 2009, an outbreak of Salmonella occurred in the United States of America, affecting 714 people. (3) Recently, Salmonella has developed resistance to antibiotics (10). In response to this potential issue, renewed emphasis has been placed on bacterial viruses called bacteriophages (5).

Bacteriophages can be defined as the viruses that specifically affect bacterial cells. The term “bacteriophage” signifies “eater of microorganisms” ¹¹ . As such, these viruses are essential in maintaining ecosystem balance  ^{12, 13} They are naturally occurring organisms found in all ecological niches. Moreover, they are found throughout the body, including the oral cavity, the digestive tract, the skin, as well as the vagina¹⁴ Bradley’s study in 1967 was a breakthrough, and it remains the basis for the modern-day bacteriophage classification system. As their genetic material, Phages contain either RNA or DNA¹⁵. Although the bacteriophage structure varies between phages, the majority share certain basic features. The fundamental distinction between phages is the presence or absence of a ‘tail’ component. Phages have either a lysogenic or a lytic life cycle ¹⁷. Lytic cycles are distinguished by phages adhering to the bacterial cell, using the genetic material of host bacterium for multiplying, and releasing an enzyme that lyses the cell. Consequently, new phages release into the environment, making them ideal for use in phage treatment ^{18, 19, 20}. In terms of phage therapy, bacterial viruses are unique and effective for treating bacterial infections, and especially the those that have occurred as a result of drug-resistant bacteria ²¹. There are several reasons for this uniqueness. First, phages act against antibiotic-resistant bacteria; notably, they can be used alone or with antibiotics and other medications ^22. Second, in most cases, only one dose of a certain phage is needed in treatment because it can multiply and increase in number ²³. Moreover, phages are plentiful and found in many places ²⁴. They are not harmful or toxic to humans, animals, plants, or the atmosphere because they are incapable of infecting eukaryotic cells ^{25; 26}. Bacteriophages can endure in severe conditions and their virulence does not end until they have sharply reduced the amount of host bacteria ²⁷. Nevertheless, there remains a gap in research conducted on phages, and little is known about their capacity and diversity in the natural environment ²⁸ even though phages outnumber bacterial cells tenfold ²⁹

Animal farms include a variety of components – such as soil, wastewater, animal feces, and animals – that may be an essential source of phages and their bacterial hosts ³⁰. Chickens are a significant source of Salmonella, a bacterial disease that can contaminate human food and cause food-borne diseases  ^{8; 9}. In 2013, phages (Eφ151, Tφ10, and Tφ11) were isolated from chicken feces. Hungary et al. found that the populations of S. typhimurium and S. enteritidis reduced by over 70% after phagocytic therapy, as compared to those of controls. This supports using phages as bio-sanitizers in the food industry ³¹.

In 2022, Anjay et al. conducted a study involving isolating 21 lytic Salmonella phages and their subsequent screening against S. typhimurium strain E4231. The phage cocktail that the researchers used in an experimentally-contaminated sample of meat substantially reduced the viable count of S. typhimurium in the experimental group with comparison to that in the control group ³² In this current study, we isolated and characterized SAL 10 a lytic phage against S. Typhimurium. We aimed to use phages as alternative biocontrol tool against S. Typhimurium in chicken.

Materials and Methods

Sample Collection

In September of both 2020 to 2021, we randomly obtained soil samples (soil mixed with water and animal waste) from chicken farms in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. For a sample collection, we placed 5 g of surface soil into sterile. Bagged samples were labeled to reflect their source and location and then they were refrigerated at 4 °C. Subsequently, we brought these samples to a laboratory KFMRC for bacteriophage isolation.

Bacterial strains

We purchased a strain Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium from American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) 14028 (in Gaithersburg, Maryland). In turn, this strain was isolated from the pools of heart and liver tissues of 28-day-old chickens. The isolates were then grown either in standard nutrient broth or a nutrient agar medium (Oxoid^®, Hampshire, England). Furthermore, the culture was kept in 18% glycerol at a temperature of −80 °C.

Antibiotic susceptibility assay

We suspended bacteria in 4 mL of nutrient broth (Oxoid, ® Hampshire, England) for 24 h before the experiment began. The turbidity of this culture was adjusted to 0.5 McFarland through augmenting the number of bacteria if it was too low or by diluting the substance with a mixture of sterile saline if it was too high. We inoculated the dry surface of a Mueller–Hinton agar plate three times by rubbing the swab across the surface; the plate was rotated 60° each time to achieve the uniform dispersion of the inoculum. We then placed antimicrobial-impregnated discs upon the agar surface. Then, the discs were placed on an MH agar plate that, from center to center, was more than 24 mm away.

Subsequently, we inverted the plates and put them in an incubator for 24 h at 37 °C. In turn, we used a ruler to measure the zone diameters to the closest millimeter.

The bacteria were tested against 12 antibiotics (Merseyside, U.K.), namely ciprofloxacin (CIP) 5 µg, amikacin (AK) 30 µg, cefoxitin (FOX) 30 µg, ceftazidime (CAZ) 30 µg, imipenem (IMI)10 µg, piperacillin (PRL) 100 mg, amoxicillin (AUG) 30 µg, cephalothin (KF) 30 µg, gentamicin (GM)10 µg, aztreonam (ATM) 30 µg, ampicillin (AP) 10 µg, and cotrimoxazole (TS) 25 µg. Afterwards, we measured the inhibition zones and we recorded them in millimeters.

Phage isolation and purification:

Phage isolation

S. typhimurium ATCC 14028 was selected to be the host for the phage isolation. Soil samples from chicken farms served to isolate the lytic bacteriophages. Two grams of the soil sample were suspended in 20 mL Phosphate buffered Saline (PBS Gibco™ 70011044, UK) and incubated overnight to remove solid matter. We then filtered the suspension by using a disposable syringe filter that had a pore size of 0.22 mm. (Axiva, Faridabad, India). Following that, we combined the filtrate with the incubated culture of S. typhimurium treated with 10 mM CaCl₂ and 0.5 mM MgSO₄. We incubated these enriched samples for 48 h at 37 °C and then shook them at 120 rpm before centrifugation for 10 min at 10,000 × g. To eliminate any residual bacterial cells, we filtered the supernatant using a disposable syringe filter with a 0.22 mm pore size ³³. We placed the plaque-forming filtrates at 4 °C in PBS and used this as the bacteriophage lysate solution in the remainder of the research.³⁴ For phage purification: we used the double-layer agar described by Maszewska & Różalski ³⁵ to get pure phage SAL 10. In this method, we prepared both phage serial dilution and bacterial host culture for use in a double layer agar.

Preparation of phage serial dilution for double agar experiment

The serial dilutions of phage were prepared as follows: 900 μL of PBS and 100 μL of phage were mixed using a vortex (Labnet, U.S.A) to prepare a10⁻¹ dilution. Then, we combined 100 μL of this dilution into 900 μL of PBS to prepare a 10⁻² dilution. In turn, we repeated this dilution process until reaching a 10⁻⁶ dilution.

 Preparation of bacterial culture for double agar experiment

Four milliliters of nutrient broth was inoculated with bacterial S. typhimurium and then incubated at a temperature of 37 ˚C for 24 h (note: this was done one day before the actual experiment). Then, 60 μL of CaCl₂ was added to and mixed with this bacterial culture

The double-layer agar experiment

100 μL was taken from the previously prepared culture and it was added to and mixed with 100 μL of the 10⁻¹,10⁻², 10⁻³…10⁻⁶ phage solutions. All the tubes were incubated for 20 min at a temperature of 37 °C. Subsequently, we mixed each tube containing bacteria and phage with another tube that contained 5 mL of soft agar and then transferred it to a nutrient agar plate. We took a rest period of 10–15 min for the plates to ensure that the mixture solidified; after this was accomplished, all of them were placed in the incubator at 37 ºC for 24 h.

We replicated the double-layer agar thrice until it derived a single plaque of pure phage (meaning that it was the same size) ³⁵. Finally, PBS was withdrawn from the dish after 24 h, purified using a 0.22 mm filter, and then stowed as pure phage at a temperature of 4 °C ^34.

Spot tests assay

A spot test is used to determine whether a phage sample can infect a bacterium ³⁶. One performs the test by dropping a small drop or “spot” of bacteriophage onto a plate that has been inoculated with the bacteria.

Preparation of bacterial culture for the spot test

We inoculated four milliliters of nutrient broth with bacterial S. typhimurium and then incubated it at a temperature of 37 ˚C for 24 h (note: this was done one day prior to the actual experiment). Then, we added 60 μL of CaCl₂ and mixed it with this bacterial culture.

The spot test experiment

100 μL of the prepared bacterial culture was inserted into a tube that contained 5 mL of soft agar and we then transmitted the blend to a nutrient agar plate. We used a 10-15 min rest period for the plates to ensure that the mixture solidified. After solidification, we combined 100 μL of the phage drop with the agar surface; subsequently, the plates were put into the incubator at 37 °C for 24 h. The next day, we examined the plates for lytic phages. A positive spot test occurred in cases where we observed a clear plaque. Thus, phages that resulted in clear plaques were virulent and able to infect the bacteria. A negative spot test indicated that the bacteria grew normally, and that the phage was failed to infect the bacteria.

Bacteriophage Titer Determination

We made a tenfold dilution of the bacteriophage lysate solution in PBS; to find the titer of the phage, we used a double-agar overlay assay. Plates with concentrations between 30 and 300 PFU/mL were selected to ascertain the bacteriophage titer in the complete suspension.

Bacteria Reduction assay

In a 96-well microtiter plate, we added a 200 μL of an overnight pure culture of S. typhimurium. Furthermore, we mixed 200 μL of the S. typhimurium culture with 200 μL of the pure phage SAL 10 (1 x 10⁷ CFU/mL) and placed it in another well. Finally, 200 μL of nutrient broth was added to another well to serve as the control. The plates were then placed in the incubator for 24 h at a temperature of 37 °C, and following that, shaken at a speed of 100 rpm. Subsequently, we measured the absorbance at 600 nm (OD₆₀₀) at 2-h intervals for 12 h to detect changes in the turbidity of the mixture. The same volume of nutrient broth was then combined with the log phase bacterial cultures to serve as the negative.

Characterization of S. typhimurium phage

Host range of the bacteriophage

In order to determine the host range of the lytic phage SAL 10, a spot assay was performed. This was done using seven bacterial strains, namely Shigella sonni (ATCC 25931), Klebsiella oxytoca (ATCC 49131), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 9027), Escherichia coli (ATCC 25922), Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 12600), Proteus vulgaris (ATCC 49132), and Enterococcus faecalis (ATCC 29212). The emergence of the spot was seen after the plates had been placed in the incubator overnight at a temperature of 37 °C³⁶.The outcomes were distributed into 2 categories according to their degree of clarity: no plaques (−) and plaques that were clear (+).

S. typhimurium phage Thermal stability

 We determined the in vitro thermal inactivation point of SAL 10 phage using the technique reported by Othman et al ³⁷, with minor changes by subjecting the purified phage lysate to temperatures between 37 °C and 90 °C. Briefly, we placed an Eppendorf tube containing 500 μL of pure phage lysate (1 × 10⁸ PFU/mL) in a water bath warmed at a range of levels of warmth (37°C through 90°C) for 2 h. We then measured the bacteriophage titer by using the double-agar overlay technique. 

S. typhimurium phage pH stability 

We tested the capacity of the SAL 10 phage to endure at various pH levels by subjecting each phage suspension to modified pH values ranging between 2 and 14 using 0.1 M HCl/NaOH at a temperature of 37 °C for 1 h. Again, we used the double-layer agar technique to establish the phage titer in each solution.

Using transmission electron microscopy (TEM) for bacteriophage morphological analysis

Concentrated phage stocks are necessary for electron microscopy. Therefore, we generated fresh high-titer stocks by creating 10 plates of our derived phage stock utilizing the overlay technique to attain confluent lysis plates. We then placed them in the incubator overnight to replicate ideal host conditions. Subsequently, we placed 5 mL PBS on each plate and stirred it for 24 h at 25 °C. After scraping the liquid and soft agar into disposable centrifuge tubes, we centrifuged the samples at 3000 × g for 15 min. We then utilized a 0.22 mm filter in order to filter it. Further, we portioned 50 µL of glutaraldehyde to each tube of pure phage. We placed a high-titer phage lysate (5 µL) onto copper grids for 90 s to coat the grids thoroughly. We then eliminated the extra liquid. Filter paper was used to further absorb liquid from the grid. In turn, uranyl acetate (2%) was added to the grids for 30 s for negative staining. We allowed the grids to dry before imaging (JEOL, Tokyo, Japan) ³⁸

Statistical analysis

To evaluate the difference in bacterial growth in the different groups (bacteria without phage, bacteria with phage, and control group) at 0, 1, 2, 3, and 6h time points, we used a two-way repeated measures ANOVA to analyze our data. Moreover, a one-way repeated measures ANOVA was subsequently implemented to check the change with time. Furthermore, we did a one-way ANOVA to check the variance in bacterial growth amid all three sets at each period of time. The statistical significance was prescribed at (P < 0.001)

In addition, We implemented a two-way ANOVA to evaluate the influences of different phage dilutions (10⁻¹, 10⁻², and 10⁻³) and different pH values (4, 7, and 14) on the bacterial growth. A one-way ANOVA was also used to check the horizontal change in the bacterial counts at different pH values. Moreover, we utilized a one-way ANOVA to check the disparity in the bacterial counts at three different phage dilutions (10⁻¹, 10⁻², and 10⁻³) at each pH value. a two-way ANOVA was also conducted to evaluate the consequences of the different phage dilutions (10−1, 10−2, and 10−3) and different pH values (4, 7, and 14) on the bacterial growth. A one-way ANOVA was used to check the horizontal change in the bacterial counts at different pH values. Moreover, we also utilized a one-way ANOVA to check the variance in the bacterial counts at three different phage dilutions (10−1, 10−2, and 10−3) at each pH value.

Results

Antibiotic sensitivity of S. typhimurium:

The results showed that S. typhimurium was resistant to three antibiotics: AK (30 mg), CIP (5 µg), and FOX (30 µg). The strain was also sensitive to CAZ (30 mg), IMI (10 µg), PRL (100 mg), AUG (30 mg), cephalothin (KF), GM (10 mg), and ATM (30 mg). In turn, the effect was intermediate for AP and TS (Figure 1) (Table 1).

Table 1: Complete list of antibiotic tests. The inhibition zones were measured and recorded in mm. The labels are as follows: resistant: R; sensitive: S; intermediate: I

Figure 1: Antibiotic test using the disc-diffusion method. The bacteria were tested against 12 types of antibiotics, namely amikacin (AK), ciprofloxacin (CIP), cefoxitin (FOX), ceftazidime (CAZ), imipenem (IMI). Click here to view figure

Bacteriophage isolation and morphology

A spot test was conducted using S. typhimurium bacteria as a host. The test yielded tiny, transparent plaques with <1 mm diameter; this phage was named as SAL 10 (Figure 2). 

Figure 2: (A) Spot assay and (B, C) serial dilutions for phage SAL 10 at 105 and 106 PFU/mL. The characterization of the isolated bacteriophage plaques revealed clear, tiny (<1 mm diameter) plaque.  Click here to view figure

Phage titer

The bacteriophage titers were measured following 24 h of being in the incubator at a temperature of 37 °C with the host bacteria. They were in the range of 10³–10⁸ PFU/mL. The bacteriophage titers in all the experiments conducted were estimated using the titration formula: =

Bacteria reduction assay

To evaluate the phage’s ability to lyse the host strain S. typhimurium, the bacteria were cultured in LB broth and, in turn, they were infected with phage SAL 10. Further, the growth of the bacteria was tracked by calculating the optical density at OD₆₀₀. The optical density of the bacterial culture was reduced, indicating that the bacterial growth had been inhibited by phage infection (Table 2, Figures 3 and 4). In the S. typhimurium strain, the lysis kinetics of SAL 10 were determined approximately 60 min after the infection.

Statistical analysis

We implemented a two-way repeated measures ANOVA to evaluate the difference in bacterial growth in the different groups (bacteria without phage, bacteria with phage, and control group) and with consideration of multiple junctures of time (0, 1, 2, 3, and 6 h). The overall difference in bacterial growth between the groups was highly significant.

 In addition, the difference in bacterial growth between the time points listed above was highly significant, and a significant change was induced in the bacterial growth by the interactions amid the treatment groups and the span of time (P < 0.001).

Next, a one-way repeated measures ANOVA was carried out to check the change over time, which was highly significant in the bacterial groups without phage (P < 0.001) and in the bacterial groups with phage (P < 0.001); however, there was no significant change in the control group with regard to time (P > 0.05).

A one-way ANOVA was implemented to check the disparity in bacterial growth among the 3 treatment groups along every interval of time. There was a highly significant difference among the three treatment groups at all time points.

Table 2: The ability of phage SAL 10 to lyse the host strain S. typhimurium. Analysis of variance: ANOVA

*, significant at P < 0.05; **, significant at P < 0.01; ***, significant at P < 0.001; NS, non-significant at P > 0.05.

Figure 3: Bar chart showing the ability of SAL 10 phage to lyse the host strain S. typhimurium. When different letters occur subsequent to the means, this indicates that they are are significantly dissimilar, according to Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT). Click here to view figure

Figure 4: Regression trendline that shows the interrelationship between time (x-axis) and bacterial count (y-axis) Click here to view figure

 Host range of phage

Host ranges S. typhimurium of isolated phages against various strains were analyzed. All tests were carried out at a temperature of 37 °C. The phages showed lytic activity against only one species (E. coli) out of the seven species analyzed, which were comprised of S. sonni (ATCC 25931), K. oxytoca (ATCC 49131), S. aureus (ATCC 12600), E. coli (ATCC 25922), E. faecalis (ATCC 29212), P. aeruginosa (ATCC 9027), and P. vulgaris (ATCC 49132) (Table 3).

Table 3: Host ranges S. typhimurium of isolated phages against different strains. Phages showed lytic activity against one species out of the seven examined.

Positive numbers (+) show that the phage has infected the bacteria; negative numbers (-) show that the bacteria grew normally, and the phage was not able to infect it.

Thermal stability of phage S. typhimurium

The results of the thermal stability test of phage S. typhimurium reflected a significant disparity in the growth of bacteria induced by different temperatures (***P < 0.001), phage dilutions (***P < 0.001), and the interaction among phage dilutions and temperature (***P < 0.001). The data in Table 4 and Figure 5 are presented as the mean ± SD. The results revealed that 37 °C was the optimal temperature for phage SAL 10. Moreover, phage SAL 10 was highly stable between 40 °C and 50 °C and it was inactivated at 60 °C.

A two-way ANOVA was utilized to evaluate the influence of different phage dilutions (10⁻³, 10⁻⁴, 10⁻⁵, and 10⁻⁶) and diverse temperatures (37, 40, 50, and 60 °C) on the bacterial growth. A statistically significant difference was induced by different phage dilutions (P < 0.001) and temperatures (P < 0.001). Moreover, a significant change was induced in the bacterial growth by the interaction between phage dilutions and temperatures (P < 0.001).

Subsequently, we performed a one-way ANOVA to check the vertical change in the bacterial growth at different temperatures, which was highly significant at phage dilutions 10⁻³, 10⁴, 10⁵, and 10⁻⁶, all of which were (P < 0.001).

Moreover, to check the horizontal disparity in the bacterial growth at four phage dilution (10⁻³, 10⁻⁴, 10⁻⁵, and 10⁻⁶), a one-way ANOVA was used, at each temperature. The results reflected a highly significant disparity in the bacterial growth among the four phage dilutions at temperatures 37 °C, 40 °C, 50 °C, and 60 °C, which were again all (P < 0.001).

A correlation matrix showing the relationship between the effect of the temperature and the different phage dilutions on the bacterial growth is presented in Figure 6. Blue reflects that there is a positive correlation; in turn, a negative correlation comes across as red; finally, when there are boxes, this reflects that there is a significant correlation. Temperature was strongly, negatively (inversely), and significantly correlated with increasing temperature, as shown by both the Pearson’s correlation (Figure 6) and the linear regression (Figure 7). 

Table 4: Phage’s ability to lyse the host strain S. typhimurium. Analysis of variance: ANOVA.

 *, significant at P < 0.05; **, significant at P < 0.01; ***, significant at P < 0.001; NS, non-significant at P > 0.05.

Figure 5: Bar chart showing the thermal stability of phage S. typhimurium. Bars in which different letters are subsequent are significantly dissimilar according to DMRT. Click here to view figure

(a, b, c, d represent the results of DMRTs, which is a post hoc (post ANOVA) test. This test is able to perform further comparison between subgroups. It is used to compare any two bars with similar letters that indicate a non-significant difference; in turn, bars with different letters indicate significant difference.

e.g., d, d = not significant. c, d = significant. a, b = significan

Figure 6: Correlation matrix showing the relationship between temperature and different phage dilutions on the bacterial growth. Blue reflects a positive correlation; negative correlation is reflected by red, while boxes denote a significant association. Click here to view figure

Figure 7: Regression trendline showing the relationship between increasing temperature and different phage dilutions on the bacterial growth. Click here to view figure

y: y-axis, which indicates the bacterial growth; R²: determination coefficient which corresponds to the correlation coefficient; 0.6–0.9: strong correlation; 0.3–0.5: moderate correlation; 0.1–0.25: weak correlation; 0: indicates that there is zero correlation.

pH stability of phage S. typhimurium

We performed a two-way ANOVA to evaluate the influences of different phage dilutions (10⁻¹, 10⁻², and 10⁻³) and different pH values (4, 7, and 14) on the bacterial growth (Table 5). The differences in bacterial counts at different phage dilutions (10⁻¹, 10⁻², 10⁻³) were shown to be highly significant (***P < 0.001); moreover, different pH values (4, 7, 14) induced significant differences in bacterial counts (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the interactions between different phage dilutions and pH induced a significant change in the bacterial growth (P < 0.001).

To check the horizontal change in the bacterial counts at different pH values, a one-way ANOVA was used. This reflected that there was a highly significant disparities in the bacterial count at different tested pH (4, 7, 14) and at different phage dilutions 10⁻¹ (P < 0.001), 10⁻² (P < 0.001), and 10⁻³ (P < 0.001).

A one-way ANOVA was also utilized to check the difference in the bacterial count at three different phage dilutions (10⁻¹, 10⁻², and 10⁻³) at each pH. This reflected a highly significant difference in the bacterial count at 3 phage dilutions at pH 4 (P < 0.001) and pH 7 (P < 0.001). However, the bacterial count at different phage dilutions at pH 14 (P < 0.001) showed no significant difference (Figure 8).

Table 5: The bacterial strain count presented as the mean ± SD at different phage dilutions and pH (4, 7, 14).

*, significant at P < 0.05; **, significant at P < 0.01; ***, significant at P < 0.001; NS, non-significant at P > 0.05.

Figure 8: Bar chart presenting the effects of different levels of pH (4, 7, 14) on the bacterial isolates Click here to view figure

Bacteriophage morphology analysis using TEM

We established the morphology of the virion by utilizing TEM and negative staining. They were found to be tailed phages belonging to the order Caudovirales. In turn, we also determined that the isolated phage SAL 10 belonged to the Siphoviridae family. We came to this conclusion because of the existence of an isometric head as well as the fact that the tail was long and non-contractile (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Transmission electron micrographs of negatively stained bacteriophages. TEM analysis of the purified phage SAL 10 reflected that SAL 10 was from the Siphoviridae family. Its tail is non-contractile and long; moreover, it has an isometric head. (Scale bar = 200 nm).  Click here to view figure

Discussion

Since their first discovery, bacteriophages have been regarded as promising antibacterial therapies for treating numerous infectious illnesses in humans ^39. Initially, bacteriophages were used in clinical settings to treat acute intestinal illnesses ⁴⁰ as well as other ailments, including skin infections ^41. Subsequently, surgical therapists implemented bacteriophages to treat purulent wounds and postoperative infections ^{42, 43.} Several organizations, universities, and institutes are now investigating phage therapy for mammals, including human beings ^44. Bacteriophages’ existence is tightly connected with their natural hosts. In the current research, we collected soil samples from chicken farms to isolate lytic bacteriophages against S. typhimurium. We isolated the S. typhimurium bacteria from liver and heart tissues that we extracted from 28-day-old chickens. The morphological characterization of the isolated bacteriophage plaques revealed that all of them formed clear, tiny (<1 mm diameter) plaques. Host range was an essential factor to consider when choosing phages ^45. Our results indicated that the isolated bacteriophages had a narrow range of activity. The results of the bacteriophage of Salmonella bacteria in the narrowness of their lytic activity agree with the results of Tao et al. 2021 ⁴⁶ in that no lytic activity was observed against the other genera of bacteria. Moreover, results also indicated that pH as well as temperature can influence the efficacy of bacteriophage treatments of pathogenic microorganisms ⁴⁷. Greater temperatures can cause irreparable harm or the denaturation of viral particles ^48. In this study, we tested the stability of the isolated phages by subjecting them to different temperatures. The temperatures for incubation were derived with consideration for the normal temperature of the living organisms, which ranges from 37 to 40 °C. The temperature stability test results indicated that each of the bacteriophages stay reasonably stable between 37 to 50 °C; in turn, they were inactivated at temperatures above 50 °C. Shang et al. (2021) ⁴⁹ demonstrated that phage vB SalP TR2 against salmonella was relatively stable at temperatures ranging from 4°C to 60°C. The findings are similar to previous research ^{50, 51.}  The pH stability test results reflected that the studied materials remained reasonably stable at pH values between 6 to 8; in turn, they were inactivated at pH 14.A similar result was found by Shang et al. (2021) ⁴⁹ wherein the phage vB_SalP_TR2 against salmonella remained reasonably stable at pH 4 to pH 11. These conclusions support a previous report from Jonczyk et al. 2011 ^52. The capability of phages to persist at such pH and temperatures implies that it would be possible to use them as therapeutic agents in living organisms. Furthermore, the current study determined that the phage infections inhibited bacterial growth. For S. typhimurium, the lysis kinetics of SAL 10 were determined approximately 60 min after the infection, while the culture’s optical density also reduced. The bacterial growth slightly increased after 6 h. Once again, our results are complimentary with those of previous studies performed by Huang et al. ⁵³ and Imam et al. ^54.

Conclusion

Phage treatment is a promising approach that is poised to tackle antibiotic resistance. Multiple studies have highlighted the potential use of therapeutic phages both in vitro and in vivo; however, more evidence is required to establish a solid regulatory case for its clinical use. There are still significant obstacles to phage treatment, but perhaps most notably regulatory policy management ^(55).

This study can aid in providing information regarding utilizing these phages as a successful substitute for antibiotics against S. typhimurium.

We have presented biological analyses of SAL 10 and we have revealed that phage SAL 10 has antimicrobial activity against S. typhimurium. This implies that it could be used as a therapeutic agent.

Limitations

 In our study, we isolated only a few predators (phages) that we encountered over a short period of time. These constraints are related primarily to time and money. Therefore, more comprehensive studies that consider more phages and different timeframes are required to fill this gap. Moreover, if the sample size were to be increased, it would achieve better results.

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank king Fahd medicale research center for thier cooporation to accomplish this research

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest 

References

1. World Health Orgnazation. Antimicrobial resistance.https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antimicrobial-resistance.
2. Spellberg, B., & Gilbert, D. N. (2014). The Future of Antibiotics and Resistance: A Tribute to a Career of Leadership by John Bartlett. Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 59(Suppl 2), S71. https://doi.org/10.1093/CID/CIU392.
   CrossRef
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Infectious Disease Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2013. Apr, 2013. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013. Accessed January 17, 2021
4. Aminov, R. I. (2009). The role of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance in nature.Environmental Microbiology, 11(12), 2970-2988. doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.01972.x.
   CrossRef
5. (2001). WHO global strategy for containment of antimicrobial resistance.Weekly Epidemiological Record, 76(38), 298. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/216501250
6. Slauch, J. M., Mahan, M. J., Michetti, P., Neutra, M. R., & Mekalanos, J. J. (1995). Acetylation (O-factor 5) affects the structural and immunological properties of Salmonella typhimurium lipopolysaccharide O antigen. Infection and Immunity, 63(2), 437–441. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.63.2.437-441.1995
   CrossRef
7. Desin, T. S., Köster, W., & Potter, A. A. (2014). Salmonella vaccines in poultry: past, present and future. Https://Doi.Org/10.1586/Erv.12.138, 12(1), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1586/ERV.12.138.
   CrossRef
8. Cogan, T. A., & Humphrey, T. J. (May 2003). The rise and fall of salmonella enteritidis in the UK. Paper presented at the, 94(32) 114-119. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2672.94.s1.13.x .
   CrossRef
9. Mead, G. C. (2005). Food safety control in the poultry industry doi:10.1533/9781845690236.
   CrossRef
10. Jiu, Y., Meng, X., Hong, X., Huang, Q., Wang, C., Chen, Z., Zhao, L., Liu, X., Lu, Y., & Li, S. (2020). Prevalence and Characterization of Salmonella in Three Typical Commercial Pig Abattoirs in Wuhan, China. Https://Home.Liebertpub.Com/Fpd, 17(10), 620–627. https://doi.org/10.1089/FPD.2019.2737.
    CrossRef
11. D’HERELLE, F. (1917). Sun un microbe invisible antagoniste des baceries dysenteriques. Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences, 165: 373-375.
12. Walker, K. (2006). USE OF BACTERIOPHAGES AS NOVEL FOOD ADDITIVES. Food Regulation in the United States. http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/mayer/phage.htm.
13. Guttman, B., Raya, R., & Kutter, E. (2004). Basic Phage Biology. In Bacteriophages (pp. 42–76.). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203491751.ch3.
    CrossRef
14. Wahida, A., Ritter, K., & Horz, H. P. (2016). The Janus-Face of Bacteriophages across Human Body Habitats. PLoS Pathogens, 12(6). https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PPAT.1005634
    CrossRef
15. Clark, J. R., & March, J. B. (2006). Bacteriophages and biotechnology: vaccines, gene therapy and antibacterials. In Trends in Biotechnology (Vol. 24, Issue 5, pp. 212–218). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2006.03.003.
    CrossRef
16. Lavigne, R., Molineux, I., and Kropinski, A. (2012). Caudovirales. In King, A., Adams, M., Carstens, E., and Lefkowitz, E., editors, Virus Taxonomy: Ninth Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, pages 39–45. Elsevier Science, San Diego
    CrossRef
17. Inal, J. M. (2003). Phage therapy: A reappraisal of bacteriophages as antibiotics. In Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis (Vol. 51, Issue 4, pp. 237–244). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12956433/.
18. Ofir, G., & Sorek, R. (2018). Contemporary Phage Biology: From Classic Models to New Insights. In Cell (Vol. 172, Issue 6, pp. 1260–1270). Cell Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.10.045.
    CrossRef
19. Keen, E. C. (2015). A century of phage research: Bacteriophages and the shaping of modern biology. BioEssays, 37(1), 6–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201400152.
    CrossRef
20. Trudil, D. (2015). Phage lytic enzymes: a history. In Virologica Sinica (Vol. 30, Issue 1, pp. 26–32). Science Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12250-014-3549-0.
    CrossRef
21. Górski, A., Międzybrodzki, R., Łobocka, M., Głowacka-Rutkowska, A., Bednarek, A., Borysowski, J., Jończyk-Matysiak, E., Łusiak-Szelachowska, M., Weber-Dabrowska, B., Bagińska, N., Letkiewicz, S., Dabrowska, K., & Scheres, J. (2018). Phage therapy: What have we learned? In Viruses (Vol. 10, Issue 6, p. 288). MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/v10060288
    CrossRef
22. Domingo-Calap, P., & Delgado-Martínez, J. (2018). Bacteriophages: Protagonists of a post-antibiotic era. In Antibiotics (Vol. 7, Issue 3). MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics7030066.
    CrossRef
23. Loc-Carrillo, C., & Abedon, S. T. (2011). Pros and cons of phage therapy. Bacteriophage, 1(2), 111–114. https://doi.org/10.4161/bact.1.2.14590.
    CrossRef
24. Clokie, M. R. J., Millard, A. D., Letarov, A. v., & Heaphy, S. (2011). Phages in nature. Bacteriophage, 1(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.4161/bact.1.1.14942.
    CrossRef
25. Naomi Osborne. (2013). phages and food safety FROM SHASHI SIR.pdf. https://www.thermofisher.com/blog/food/phages-and-food-safety/.
26. SYLWIA PARASION. (2014).Bacteriophages as an alternative strategy for fighting biofilm development from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25115107/
27. Schmelcher, M., & Loessner, M. J. (2014). Application of bacteriophages for detection of foodborne pathogens. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.4161/bact.28137.
    CrossRef
28. Jurczak-Kurek, A., Gasior, T., Nejman-Faleńczyk, B., Bloch, S., Dydecka, A., Topka, G., Necel, A., Jakubowska-Deredas, M., Narajczyk, M., Richert, M., Mieszkowska, A., Wróbel, B., Wȩgrzyn, G., & Wȩgrzyn, A. (2016). Biodiversity of bacteriophages: Morphological and biological properties of a large group of phages isolated from urban sewage. Scientific Reports, 6, 34338–34338. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34338.
    CrossRef
29. Weitz, J. S., Poisot, T., Meyer, J. R., Flores, C. O., Valverde, S., Sullivan, M. B., & Hochberg, M. E. (2013). Phage-bacteria infection networks. In Trends in Microbiology (Vol. 21, Issue 2, pp. 82–91). Elsevier Current Trends. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2012.11.003.
    CrossRef
30. Armon, R. (2011). Soil Bacteria and Bacteriophages (pp. 67–112). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14512-4_3.
    CrossRef
31. Hungaro, H. M., Mendonça, R. C. S., Gouvêa, D. M., Vanetti, M. C. D., & Pinto, C. L. de O. (2013). Use of bacteriophages to reduce Salmonella in chicken skin in comparison with chemical agents. Food Research International, 52(1), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2013.02.032.
    CrossRef
32. Anjay, Kumar, A., Abhishek, Malik, H., Dubal, Z. B., Jaiswal, R. K., Kumar, S., Kumar, B., & Agarwal, R. K. (2022). Isolation and characterization of Salmonella phages and phage cocktail mediated biocontrol of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium in chicken meat. LWT, 155, 112957. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LWT.2021.112957 .
    CrossRef
33. .ADAMS, M. H. (1949). THE STABILITY OF BACTERIAL VIRUSES IN SOLUTIONS OF SALTS. The Journal of General Physiology, 32(5), 579. https://doi.org/10.1085/JGP.32.5.579 .
    CrossRef
34. Poxleitner M, Pope W, Sera DJ, Sivanathan V, Hatfull G. Phage discovery guide. 638 Chevy Chase (US): Howard Hughes Medical Institute; 2017.
35. Maszewska, A., & Różalski, A. (2019). Isolation and Purification of Proteus mirabilis Bacteriophage. In Methods in Molecular Biology (Vol. 2021, pp. 231–240). Humana Press Inc. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9601-8_20.
    CrossRef
36. Pereira, C., Silva, Y. J., Santos, A. L., Cunha, Â., Gomes, N. C. M., & Almeida, A. (2011). Bacteriophages with Potential for Inactivation of Fish Pathogenic Bacteria: Survival, Host Specificity and Effect on Bacterial Community Structure. Marine Drugs, 9(11), 2236. https://doi.org/10.3390/MD9112236 .
    CrossRef
37. Othman, B. A., Askora, A., & Abo-Senna, A. S. M. (2015). Isolation and characterization of a Siphoviridaephage infecting Bacillus megateriumfrom a heavily trafficked holy site in Saudi Arabia. Folia Microbiologica, 60(4), 289–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12223-015-0375-1.
    CrossRef
38. Stenholm, A. R., Dalsgaard, I., & Middelboe, M. (2008). Isolation and Characterization of Bacteriophages Infecting the Fish Pathogen Flavobacterium psychrophilum. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 74(13), 4070. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00428-08 .
    CrossRef
39. Sulakvelidze, A., Alavidze, Z., Morris, J. G., & Jr. (2001). Bacteriophage Therapy. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 45(3), 649. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.45.3.649-659.2001 .
    CrossRef
40. ) Summers, W. C. (1999). Felix d’Herelle and the Origins of Molecular Biology. 655 New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
41. BRUYNOGHE, R. and MAISIN, 1. (1921). Essais de therapeutique au moyen du bacteriophage Staphylocoque. Comptes Rendus des Seances de la Societe de Biologie et de ses Filiales, 85: 1120-1121.
42. Tsulukidze, A. P. (1940). Phage treatment in surgery. Surgery (”Khirurgia”) 12, 661 132–133.
43. Krestovnikova, V. A. (1947). Phage treatment and phage prophylactics and their approval in the works of the Soviet researchers. J. Microb. Epidemiol. Immunol. 3, 56–65.
44. Almeida, A., Cunha, Â., Gomes, N. C. M., Alves, E., Costa, L., & Faustino, M. A. F. (2009). Phage Therapy and Photodynamic Therapy: Low Environmental Impact Approaches to Inactivate Microorganisms in Fish Farming Plants. Marine Drugs, 7(3), 268. https://doi.org/10.3390/MD7030268
    CrossRef
45. Duc, H. M., Son, H. M., Honjoh, K. ichi, & Miyamoto, T. (2018). Isolation and application of bacteriophages to reduce Salmonella contamination in raw chicken meat. LWT, 91, 353–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LWT.2018.01.072 .
    CrossRef
46. Tao, C., Yi, Z., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Zhu, H., Afayibo, D. J. A., Li, T., Tian, M., Qi, J., Ding, C., Gao, S., Wang, S., & Yu, S. (2021). Characterization of a Broad-Host-Range Lytic Phage SHWT1 Against Multidrug-Resistant Salmonella and Evaluation of Its Therapeutic Efficacy in vitro and in vivo. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/FVETS.2021.683853/FULL.
    CrossRef
47. Ly-Chatain, M. H. (2014). The factors affecting effectiveness of treatment in phages therapy. Frontiers in Microbiology, 5(FEB). https://doi.org/10.3389/FMICB.2014.00051 .
    CrossRef
48. Ahmadi, H., Radford, D., Kropinski, A. M., Lim, L. T., & Balamurugan, S. (2017). Thermal-stability and reconstitution ability of Listeria phages P100 and A511. Frontiers in Microbiology, 8(DEC). https://doi.org/10.3389/FMICB.2017.02375/FULL .
    CrossRef
49. Shang, Y., Sun, Q., Chen, H., Wu, Q., Chen, M., Yang, S., Du, M., Zha, F., Ye, Q., & Zhang, J. (2021). Isolation and Characterization of a Novel Salmonella Phage vB_SalP_TR2. Frontiers in Microbiology, 12, 664810. https://doi.org/10.3389/FMICB.2021.664810/FULL.
    CrossRef
50. Jamalludeen, N., Johnson, R. P., Friendship, R., Kropinski, A. M., Lingohr, E. J., & Gyles, C. L. (2007). Isolation and characterization of nine bacteriophages that lyse O149 enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli. Veterinary Microbiology, 124(1–2), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.VETMIC.2007.03.028.
    CrossRef
51. Takamatsu, R., Teruya, H., Takeshima, E., Ishikawa, C., Matsumoto, K., Mukaida, N., Li, J. D., Heuner, K., Higa, F., Fujita, J., & Mori, N. (2010). Molecular characterization of Legionella pneumophila-induced interleukin-8 expression in T cells. BMC Microbiology, 10, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-10-1.
    CrossRef
52. Jończyk, E., Kłak, M., Międzybrodzki, R., & Górski, A. (2011). The influence of external factors on bacteriophages—review. Folia Microbiologica, 56(3), 191. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12223-011-0039-8 .
    CrossRef
53. Ye, M., Sun, M., Zhao, Y., Jiao, W., Xia, B., Liu, M., Feng, Y., Zhang, Z., Huang, 679 D., Huang, R., Wan, J., Du, R., Jiang, X., & Hu, F. (2018). Targeted inactivation 680 of antibiotic-resistant Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a soil- 681 lettuce system by combined polyvalent bacteriophage and biochar treatment. 682 Environmental Pollution, 241, 978–987. 683 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2018.04.070.
    CrossRef
54. Imam, M., Alrashid, B., Patel, F., Dowah, A. S. A., Brown, N., Millard, A., 590 Clokie, M. R. J., & Galyov, E. E. (2019). vB_PaeM_MIJ3, a Novel Jumbo Phage 591 Infecting Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Possesses Unusual Genomic Features. 592 Frontiers in Microbiology, 10, 2772. 593 https://doi.org/10.3389/FMICB.2019.02772/BIBTEX.
    CrossRef
55. Furfaro, L. L., Payne, M. S., & Chang, B. J. (2018). Bacteriophage Therapy: 576 Clinical Trials and Regulatory Hurdles. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection 577 Microbiology, 8, 376. https://doi.org/10.3389/FCIMB.2018.00376.
    CrossRef