Back

Modeling Phage Therapy

De Boer, R. j.; Schooley, R.; Perelson, A. S.

2025-11-08 microbiology
10.1101/2025.11.08.687339 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Patients infected with life-threatening multi-drug resistant (MDR) bacteria have been treated with cocktails of bacteriophages. This is a complicated form of personalized medicine as the phages given to a patient have to be selected beforehand on the basis of their lytic capacity of the infecting bacteria. Because bacteria rapidly become resistant, the evolution of resistance to a diverse cocktail of phages is a complicated dynamical process, during which competing bacterial strains replace one another by accumulating several resistance mechanisms, each of which may involve a fitness cost. As a consequence, it is typically not known why a particular phage therapy succeeded or failed, and how one can optimize the composition of the cocktails to maximize the rate of success. To improve upon this, we extend an existing in vivo-calibrated mouse model into a novel mathematical model for the human situation, and include multiple phages infecting multiple bacterial strains, differing in their resistance to each of the phages. We adjust several parameter estimates of the bacterial model to the human situation, and use the model to describe a successful case of phage therapy involving several cocktails, each containing several phages. In the model, treatment success crucially depended on pretreatment resistance levels, and on the diversity and the timing of the cocktails. Once an appropriate cocktail is found, it is less important to further optimize the infection rates of the phages. Resistant bacterial strains expand rapidly when sensitive strains decline, and the higher the infectivity of the phages, the faster resistant strains expand. Because resistance evolves rapidly, it is best to provide a diverse set of phages right from the start of therapy, i.e., to hit hard and early, and create a high genetic barrier to bacterial resistance.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
22.9%
2
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 9%
9.9%
3
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 4%
8.1%
4
Physical Review X
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
5
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
235 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 28%
5.3%
7
Physical Review Research
49 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.1%
8
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 39%
2.7%
9
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
393 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
10
Journal of Theoretical Biology
162 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.5%
11
Physical Review E
112 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.4%
12
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.2%
13
PNAS Nexus
159 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
14
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.2%
15
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 24%
1.2%
16
Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering
23 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
17
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
92 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
18
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
72 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
19
Biophysical Journal
631 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
20
Viruses
332 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
21
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 29%
0.9%
22
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 38%
0.6%
23
mSystems
394 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
24
Physical Review Letters
47 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%
25
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%