Skip to main content
Download PDF

Genomic and proteomic characterization of four novel Schitoviridae family phages targeting uropathogenic Escherichia coli strain

Virology Journal volume 22, Article number: 83 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Escherichia coli-associated urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most prevalent bacterial infections in humans. Typically, antibiotic medication is used to treat UTIs, but over the time, growth of multidrug resistance among these bacteria has created a global public health issue that necessitates other treatment modalities, such as phage therapy.

Methods

The UPEC strain PSU-5266 (UE-17) was isolated from human urine samples, while phages were obtained from wastewater. These phages were characterized through host range analysis, stability studies, adsorption assays, and electron microscopy. Additionally, genomic, phylogenetic, and proteomic analyses were conducted to provide further insights.

Results

The current study describes the isolation and characterization of four Escherichia coli phages designated as UE-S5a, UE-S5b, UE-M3 and UE-M6. Bactericidal assays depicted that all bacteriophages exhibited a strong lytic ability against uropathogenic E. coli (UPEC) strain PSU-5266 (UE-17). The phages displayed a broad host range (31–41%) among 104 tested isolates and adsorption rate of 15–20 min. They were stable within pH range of 5–11 and temperature range of 4 to 55 °C. Electron microscopy showed that all phages have icosahedral heads (70–74 nm) and short non-contractile tails, thus exhibiting a podovirus morphology. Sequencing results showed that they have linear double stranded DNA, genome of 73 to 76 kb in length, with GC content of 42% and short direct terminal repeats. Their genomes contain 84–88 predicted genes with putative functions predicted to 42–48% of gene products. The phylogenetic and comparative genomic analysis results depicted that these phages, sharing > 98% sequence similarity, are new members of genus Gamaleyavirus of subfamily Enquatrovirinae, in the Schitoviridae family. Mass spectrometric analysis of purified phage particles identified 44–56 phage particle-associated proteins (PPAPs) belonging to various functional groups such as lysis proteins, structural proteins, DNA packaging related proteins, and proteins involved in replication, metabolism and regulation. In addition, no genes encoding virulence factors, antibiotic resistance or lysogeny factors were identified.

Conclusion

The overall findings suggest that these bacteriophages are potential candidates for phage therapy in treating UTIs caused by UPEC strains.

Introduction

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are one of the most common infectious diseases that affected > 400 million people, and caused > 235,000 mortalities worldwide in 2019 [1]. Nearly 50% of women and 12–15% of men experience a urinary tract infection once in their lifetime [2]. Moreover, UTIs rank among the most prevalent infections reported in older people, following closely behind respiratory infections. They contribute to approximately 15.5% of hospitalizations and 6.2% of fatalities in individuals aged over 65 years [3, 4]. This high prevalence rate causes 11 million doctor visits and 1.7 million emergency room visits every year, which has brought a huge economic burden to the health care system, and the global disease treatment and management costs are as high as 6 billion US dollars annually [5]. A European study investigated the healthcare cost of complicated UTIs caused by MDR Gram-negative bacteria in eight high prevalence countries, revealing that the average treatment cost was EUR 5,700 per case [6].

UTIs can be caused by Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria as well as by certain fungi but the main etiological agent responsible for up to 80–90% of infections is uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) [7, 8]. UPECs have been classified into four major phylogenetic groups, i.e., A, B1, B2 and D, distinguished by numerous virulence factors and pathogenicity islands (PAI) [9]. These groups express a range of virulence factors, including adhesins, flagella, toxins, iron-acquisition systems, and surface polysaccharides contributing to their ability to cause UTIs [10]. UPECs do not cause only UTIs, but also more severe diseases such as pyelonephritis, often accompanied by sepsis. Generally, antibiotics such as ciprofloxacin, ampicillin, trimethoprim (TMP), sulfamethoxazole (SMX), second or third-generation β-lactam cephalosporins are often used for its treatment [11]. However, even after treatment, patients often suffer from repeated infections of the same or different UPEC strains. In addition, effective long-term treatments are complicated by the increased number of antibiotic resistant UPEC strains [12]. A 2022 study on the economic burden of UTI caused by antibiotic-resistant UPEC strains incurred $426 more in per case treatment costs over a 6-month period compared to those with susceptible strains [13]. According to WHO, Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) 2022 report, more than 20% of UPEC strains are resistant to first- and second-line antibiotics, such as co-trimoxazole, ampicillin, and fluoroquinolones. Additionally, 41.8% of E. coli strains responsible for bloodstream infections exhibit resistance to third-generation cephalosporins, highlighting a concerning trend in antimicrobial resistance [14]. Moreover, the World Health Organization (WHO) has classified carbapenem-resistant E. coli as a critical pathogen for new treatment development [15]. Therefore, alternative drugs and therapies are required to cope this problem. Bacteriophage (phage) therapy has received recently growing interest worldwide as a promising alternative to treat antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections [16]. In phage therapy phages are used to treat bacterial infections. The idea of phage therapy was proposed by Felix d’Herelle already in 1917 for the treatment of dysentery caused by strains of Shigella spp. [17]. Phages are ubiquitous entities, estimated to reach up to 1031 phage particles in the world, and can be found in soil, water, and are part of human normal microflora [18]. Compared with antibiotics, they have several advantages. Phages are very specific and do not disrupt the normal microbiota thus reducing the probability of adverse effects associated with antibiotics, such as dysbiosis and secondary infections. Most phages exhibit bactericidal activity as compared to some antibiotics that have bacteriostatic activity. Additionally, various phages have the ability to disrupt and remove bacterial biofilms [19]. Since phages are only composed of nucleic acids and proteins, they show low toxicity, and unlike broad-spectrum chemical antibiotics, excreted therapeutic phages will only affect a small number of environmental bacteria. Isolation of new phages against pathogenic bacteria is easy and they are usually found from wastewater or sewage [20]. Phages possess a natural ability to co-evolve with bacteria, potentially overcoming existing bacterial resistance mechanisms. Furthermore, phages can be engineered to get desired properties, such as enhanced lytic activity, extended host range, or resistance to host defence mechanisms [21, 22].

Al-Anany et al.., (2023) in a comprehensive review evaluated the efficiency and safety of phage therapy in treating UTIs from 1920 till 2022 [23]. Over 72% of published cases reported positive results on use of phage therapy for UTIs in terms of clinical improvement and eliminating the infection causing bacteria. Phages were also generally considered safe (99%) and were found to produce only mild adverse event (1%) when used in animals or humans [23]. Various studies have been performed on the therapeutic utilization of bacteriophages on pathogenic bacteria including E.coli, Salmonella spp, Staphylococcus aureus, K. pneumoniae [24,25,26,27].

Despite the surging interest in bacteriophage therapy for UTIs, significant gaps remain in our knowledge of the genomic and proteomic characteristics of phages targeting UPEC strains. In the current work, we report the isolation, genomic sequencing, and proteomic assessment of four novel bacteriophages targeting UPEC, offering insights into their genomic architecture, protein composition, and therapeutic potential.

Materials and methods

Bacterial strains, media, and growth conditions

The UPEC strain PSU-5266 (UE-17), serotype O25:H4, was isolated from human urine sample, collected from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Islamabad, Pakistan. PSU-5266 (UE-17) was initially identified for its growth on urine or synthetic urine media [28]. Further identification was done by whole genome sequence analysis (accession number: SAMN27614568). The lysogeny broth (LB) was used for bacterial growth at 37 °C for 16–18 h with constant shaking at 120 rpm. Eosin methylene blue (EMB) agar plates (Oxoid™), or LB agar (LA, LB supplemented with 1.5% agar) were used for bacterial cultures. LB supplemented with 0.4% agar was used to make soft agar plates.

Antibiotic susceptibility testing

Antibiotic susceptibility testing of bacterial strains was performed using the Kirby–Bauer disc-diffusion method, in accordance to the guidelines provided by the clinical and laboratory standards institute (CLSI) [29]. The strains were assessed against a panel of 26 different antibiotics (Table S1). The E. coli ATCC-25,922 strain was used as the antibiotic-sensitive control.

Bacteriophages isolation, enrichment, and purification

Bacteriophages isolation was done from wastewater collected from different areas of Pakistan. Wastewater samples were collected in 50 ml sterile polypyrene falcon tubes. After bringing the samples to the laboratory, they were homogenized to break any solid particles, and remaining particulate material was removed by centrifugation at 6000 rpm for 10 min and the obtained supernatant was passed through 0.45 μm syringe filters (HyDocs, London, UK). Enrichment of UPEC phages were performed as reported [30] with few changes. Bacterial strain PSU-5266 (UE-17) was grown in LB at 37 °C overnight. Ten ml of sewage filtrate and 1 ml of overnight bacterial culture were added to 40 ml LB and incubated in a shaking incubator at 37 °C for 16–18 h. The enrichment culture was treated with 1% chloroform, followed by centrifugation at 6000 rpm for 20 min. The obtained supernatant was passed through 0.45 μm filter to remove bacterial cells.

The presence of phages in these lysates was checked by the spot test [31]. Briefly, 100 µl of overnight bacterial culture was mixed with 3 ml of soft agar, vortexed briefly and poured onto LA plates. The plates were incubated at room temperature (RT, 23 °C) for 20 min, after which 5 µl of serial dilutions of phage lysates were spotted onto bacterial lawn and allowed to dry for 30 min. Plates were incubated at 37 °C overnight and were observed for the clear zones of lysis.

Bacteriophage titration and purification

Bacteriophages were enumerated by using the double agar layer method [32, 33]. The phage lysates were serially diluted ten-fold using SM buffer (100 mM NaCl,10 mM MgSO4, 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5). 100 µl of bacterial culture (OD600 ≈ 0.5) and 50 µl of phage dilution were mixed with 3 ml of molten soft agar, vortexed and poured on LA plates. Plates were incubated at 37 °C overnight. Phage titers were calculated as plaque-forming units per ml (PFU/mL), on the basis of phage dilution and counted plaque numbers. Bacteriophages were plaque-purified by picking single plaques from soft agar [34]. Briefly, a single plaque was picked using a pipette tip or an inoculating loop, mixed with 200 µl SM buffer, and shaken at RT for one hour. The phage concentration was determined by titration, and the plaque-purification was repeated at least three times to ensure the purity of each bacteriophage.

Bacteriophage production from liquid lysates

High titer bacteriophage lysates were prepared using the PEG precipitation method with some modifications [35]. Overnight bacterial culture was diluted 1:10 by adding 5 ml bacterial culture into 45 ml LB broth. Then 50 ml of this diluted bacterial culture, 1 ml of phage lysate (1 × 1010 PFU/ml) and 450 ml of LB were added into 1000 ml Erlenmeyer flask. The cultures were incubated at 37 °C overnight with constant shaking. RNase A and DNase I were added to the flasks, each to final concentration of 1 µg ml− 1, followed by incubation at RT for 30 min. Then, solid NaCl (29.2 g) was added, and after incubation on ice for one hr, the lysate was centrifuged at 11000xg for 20 min at 4 °C. The phage particles were precipitated by slowly stirring PEG-8000 at RT into the supernatant until it reached 10% of final concentration. The mixture was then incubated at 4 ◦C for one hr. The precipitated phages were pelleted by centrifugation at 11,000× g for 20 min. The phages pellets were resuspended into 8 ml of TM buffer (50 mM Tris-Cl, 10 mM MgSO4, pH 7.8) and allowed to stand at 4 °C overnight. The obtained suspension was further extracted three times with an equivalent volume of chloroform and then centrifuged at 3000×g at 4◦C for 15 min to remove any remaining PEG. The glycerol density gradient ultracentrifugation [36] was used to further purify the phages. The phage lysates were centrifuged through 5% and 40% glycerol cushions in TM buffer at 40,000 rpm for 3 h at 4 °C using the BSW55Ti Beckman rotor. The obtained phage pellet was resuspended in SM buffer, and the ultracentrifugation was repeated one more time. Phage titers were determined using the double agar layer technique.

Transmission Electron microscopy

For TEM analysis the high titer phage lysate buffer was changed into neutral 0.1 M ammonium acetate utilizing the Vivaspin 6 (105 Da cut-off) ultrafiltration (Minisartfi Sartorius) concentrator. Three µl of phage sample was pipetted on carbon coated 400 mesh copper grids, and after allowing the phages to absorb for 60 s, 3 µl of 3% Uranyl acetate was added, and after 30 s the liquid was removed using filter paper. The prepared grids were observed under 80 kV using a Hitachi HT7800 transmission electron microscope (Institute of Biotechnology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland). Images were captured via the Gatan Rio 9 (model 1809) bottom-mounted CMOS camera.

Host range and efficacy of plating analysis

Bacteriophages were screened against a total of 104 bacterial strains, comprising of 97 strains of E. coli, including four E. coli laboratory strains, two Klebsiella pneumoniae, two Bacillus safensis, two Streptococcus pneumoniae strains, and one Acinetobacter baumannii strain (Table S2). Bacteriophage sensitivity was tested using the spot test as described above. Plates were observed for zone of lysis after overnight incubation at 37 °C.

To further validate the host range, the efficiency of plating (EOP) assay was performed following a previously described protocol [31]. Briefly, 21 bacterial strains that exhibited clear, turbid, or no spots in the initial spot test were selected and grown under the same conditions. Serial dilutions of the phages (10⁸ to 10² PFU) were prepared, and 10 µL drops were spotted onto double-layer agar plates. After overnight incubation, the plates were examined for zones of lysis or individual plaques within the spots. The EOP was calculated as the ratio of PFU on the target bacteria to PFU on the host bacteria. Phage infection efficiency was considered high with EOP values ≥ 0.5, medium with EOP values between 0.1 and 0.5, low with EOP values 0.001 and 0.1, and was classify as inefficient with EOP ≤ 0.001.

Rate of phage adsorption

Phage adsorption assay was carried out in accordance with Bleackley et al., (2009) some modification [37]. Phage lysate at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.1 was added to bacterial culture in LB (OD600 ∼ 0.5 and/or 1.2 × 108 CFU/ml). 100 µl aliquots of the phage-bacterial suspension were withdrawn from the flask every 3 min for 21 min. The aliquots were diluted 1:10 in ice-chilled SM buffer and centrifuged for 5 min at 4 °C and 12,000 rpm. The supernatant was transferred into a new eppendorf tube and filter sterilized using a 0.22 μm pore size syringe filter. The remaining phage titers in the supernatants were determined using the double layer agar assay as described above. The phage absorption was estimated as the non-adsorbed phage percentage, N/N0 × 100, where N0 is pfu ml− 1 at T = 0 min, and N is pfu ml− 1 at T = 3,6,9,12,15 min.

Phage stability assays

The stability of phages at various temperatures and pH was studied as described by [38, 39]. The temperature stability of the phages was checked by pre-incubating the phage suspension at different temperatures (4 °C, 25 °C, 35 °C, 45 °C, 55 °C, 60 °C, 65 °C) for 2 h. The phage suspensions were then cooled to RT, diluted 1:10 in TM buffer, and the phage titer determined using the double agar layer method.

For pH stability assay, phage lysates were diluted 1:10 into 1 ml of LB with pH values adjusted to pH 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 14 using 1 M NaOH and 1 M HCl solution before autoclaving. After incubation for 60 min at 37 °C, the suspensions were diluted 1:10 in TM buffer, and the phage titers were determined using the double layer agar method.

In vitro phage killing assay

The assay was performed as described previously with some changes [40]. Briefly, overnight culture of the UPEC strain PSU-5266 (UE-17) was diluted in LB to OD600 of 0.2. From this, 180 µl aliquots were distributed into 96 microtiter plate wells, to which 20 µl of phage dilutions were added to achieve MOIs of 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, and 100. 20 µl of LB was pipetted to control wells. The plates were incubated with constant shaking at 37 °C, and the OD600 was measured every hr up to 7 h using microplate reader.

Phage DNA isolation

Phage DNAs were extracted utilizing the phenol-chloroform method with few changes [41]. Briefly, 10 µl of RNase A (1 mg/ml) and 3 µl of DNase I (1U/µl) were added to a 1 ml aliquot of the phage lysate, and incubated at 37 °C for one hr. Then 40 µl of EDTA (0.5 M), 3 µl of Proteinase K (20 mg/ml), and 50 µl of 10% SDS, were added to the tube that was gently mixed and incubated at 55 °C for one hr. After allowing the tube to cool for 10–15 min at RT, an equal volume of phenol was added, gently mixed for 10–15 min, and then centrifuged at 13k rpm for 5 min to separate the phases. The phenol extraction of the aqueous phase was repeated two to three times, followed by extraction with an equal volume of chloroform. To precipitate DNA, 0.1 volume of ice chilled 3 M sodium acetate (pH 7.0) and 2 volumes of absolute EtOH were added to the sample, and centrifuged after 15 min incubation on ice at 13k rpm for 5 min. The obtained pellet was washed with 1 ml of 70% ethanol and air dried at 37 °C for 15–20 min. The pellet was dissolved into 100 µl MiQ water and incubated at 4 °C overnight. Qubit™ 4 Fluorometer device (Invitrogen, Thermo Fisher Scientific) was utilized to determine the DNA concentration.

Phage genome sequencing and bioinformatics analysis

DNA sequencing was performed utilizing the Illumina NovaSeq PE150 platform at Novogene. The quality assessment of the obtained raw sequence reads was conducted via FastQC v.0.12.1 tool (http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/). For assembly, subsets comprising 50,000 forward and reverse sequence reads for each phage were prepared using the Chipster platform [42]. The de-novo assembly was then performed from these subset sequences using A5 miseq pipeline [43]. To validate the assembly, the original reads were mapped to the assembled contigs using the Geneious Prime 2022.2.2 (https://www.geneious.com/). To identify the phage genome physical ends, the PhageTerm tool was employed [44]. Putative protein-coding open reading frames (ORFs) were identified and annotated through the Rapid Annotation using Subsystem Technology (RAST) [45]. The annotation was further manually verified using Artemis 18.2.0 [46], Pharokka [47], BLASTp (Protein Basic Local Alignment Search Tool) [48] and the MPI bioinformatics toolkit HHpred [49]. The phage life cycle was depicted using the web tool Phage AI (https://phage.ai/) [50] and BACPHLIP [51]. Virulence genes were searched using VirulenceFinder 2.0 (https://bio.tools/virulencefinder) [52], while Antibiotic resistance genes, using ResFinder 4.1 (https://cge.food.dtu.dk/services/ResFinder/) [53]. For the identification of tRNA genes, the tRNAscan-SE tool (http://lowelab.ucsc.edu/tRNAscan-SE/) was used [54].

Restriction endonuclease analysis

To validate genome assembly results, phage DNA digested using restriction enzyme ApaLI (Thermo Fischer Scientific) that was selected as it produced well-separated bands when the phage sequences were subjected to in silico digestion using the NEBcutter tool (https://nc3.neb.com/NEBcutter/). The 20 µl of restriction digestion reactions contained phage DNA (1 µL), restriction enzyme (1 µL), and 10× Fast digest buffer (2 µL) (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and 16 µL water. The tubes were incubated at 37 °C for two hr. The digested DNA fragments were analyzed on 0.7% agarose gel containing Midori green and the bands visualized using the BioRad GelDoc XR + imaging system.

Phage particle proteomics analysis

After the protein concentration of the glycerol-density-gradient-purified phages was determined using Qubit™ 4 Fluorometer (Invitrogen, Thermo Fisher Scientific), the phages (∼1010 pfu/ml) were sent to the Proteomics Unit, Institute of Biotechnology, University of Helsinki, Finland, for protein identification by liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS).

Phylogeny and genome comparative analysis

The phylogenetic and comparative assessment of the phages was achieved by various approaches. To determine pairwise intergenomic similarities between phages, sixteen bacteriophages exhibiting high similarity to all four phages were identified using BLASTn (Table S3). The analysis was performed using Virus Intergenomic Distance Calculator (VIRDIC) (https://rhea.icbm.uni-oldenburg.de/viridic/) with the default threshold levels for genus (> 70%) and for species (> 95%) discrimination [55]. For the construction of the phylogenetic tree based on terminase large subunit unit amino acid sequences, thirty terminase sequences were identified using BLASTp for phages belonging to different genera of class Caudoviricetes (Table S4). The multiple sequence alignment of these sequences was performed in MEGA 11 using Clustal W algorithm, and subsequently the phylogenetic tree was constructed using neighbor-joining phylogenetic tree employing 1,000 bootstrap replicates [56]. The resulting tree was visualized using iTOL [57]. The whole genome sequence comparisons among four phages and their closest relatives were performed utilizing Easyfig v 2.2.5 [58].

Results

Antibiotic susceptibility pattern of the UPEC strain PSU-5266 (UE-17)

The AST results of UPEC strain PSU-5266 (UE-17) showed that strain was resistant to fourteen antibiotics including amoxicillin, ampicillin, tetracycline, gentamicin, streptomycin, ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin, levofloxacin, sulfonamide (SXT), erythromycin, ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, cefepime, ofloxacin, and that it showed intermediate resistance to ceftazidime (Table S1).

Phage isolation and morphology features

The four bacteriophages designated as UE-S5a, UE-S5b, UE-M3 and UE-M6 were isolated from wastewater. The phages produced clear plaques with haloes in the soft agar against their host strain (Fig. 1). The plaques of UE-S5a were 1 ± 0.2 mm in diameter, while those of UE-S5b, UE-M3 and UE-M6 were 2 ± 0.2 mm in diameter. TEM revealed that all phages had icosahedral heads and short non-contractile tails (Table 1; Fig. 2), thus presenting clear podovirus morphology. Based on TEM, all phages were classified into the order Caudovirales.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Plaques formed by phages (A) UE-S5a (B) UE-S5b (C) UE-M3 (D) UE-M6, on their UPEC host strain after an overnight incubation at 37°C

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Transmission electron micrograph of (A) UE-S5a (B) UE-S5b (C) UE-M3 (D) UE-M6

Full size image
Table 1 Dimension of four isolated phages (n = 10 phage particles)
Full size table

Host range and efficacy of plating analysis

The host range analysis via spot test showed that the phages were able to infect a high number of strains, with clear lysis observed for 31–41% of E. coli strains (Table 2). Phage UE-M3 demonstrated the broadest host range infecting 41% of the E. coli strains isolated from stool, urine and blood samples. In addition, phage UE-M3 formed turbid spots on 17 UPEC strains. Likewise, phage UE-M6 also showed a broad host range, infecting 33% of the E. coli strains. However, phage UE-S5a and UE-S5b displayed relatively narrow host ranges, lysing only 31–32% of the E. coli strains. Phages UE-S5a, UE-M3 and UE-M6 effectively lysed the E. coli laboratory strains PM191, DH1, and K12 and UE-S5b could infect only the PM191 and K12 strains. In addition, phage UE-M3 and UE-M6 producing turbid plaques on the JM103 laboratory strain. Interestingly, all infected efficiently the Avian pathogenic E. coli strain APEC-01 and the mastitis causing E. coli strain CME-7. The EOP results revealed distinct infection patterns among the phages. Phages UE-M3 and UE-M6 demonstrated high efficiency (EOP ≥ 0.5) on 4 out of the 22 tested bacterial strains, while exhibiting medium efficiency (EOP ≥ 0.1) on 6 and 5 bacterial strains, respectively. In contrast, phages UE-S5a and UE-S5b showed high efficiency on 2 and 3 bacterial strains, respectively, with medium efficiency observed on 4 and 3 strains, respectively. Additionally, UE-S5a and UE-M6 displayed no efficient infection (EOP ≤ 0.0001) on 7 bacterial strains, whereas UE-S5b and UE-M3 showed no efficiency on 6 bacterial strains.

Table 2 Host range and EOP analysis on different bacterial strains
Full size table

Phage adsorption curves

Phage adsorption assay was conducted to evaluate the initial attachment efficiencies of phages to their host bacterial cell. Phage UE- S5a showed efficient adsorption, almost 80% of the phages were absorbed within 3 min and reached 100% adsorption by 15 min. Phage UE-M6 displayed only 50% absorption within 3 min but achieved complete adsorption within 15 min. Phages UE-S5b and UE-M3 exhibited slower adsorption compared to others, with almost 95% adsorption at 20 min (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Adsorption curve of phages UE-S5a, UE-S5b, UE-M3, and UE-M6 against their UPEC host strain. The percentage of unabsorbed/free phages was calculated by T/T0×100. The results presented here are the mean values with SD indicated by error bars from three independent experiments

Full size image

Stability of phages at different temperatures and pH

The results of the temperature and pH stability assays of the phages are shown in Fig. 4. The phages, incubated between 4 and 75 °C for 2 h, generally, survived well temperatures up to 45 °C, however, with the exception that phages UE-S5a and UE-M6 displayed a 0.5 to 1 log PFU/ml reduction in their titers at 45 °C (Fig. 4A). Significant declines in the titers were observed for all phages in the temperature range of 55 to 75 °C (p < 0.0001). In the pH stability assay, phages tolerated well pH 7, and phages UE-S5a and UE-M3, also pH 9 (Fig. 4B). However, significant reductions in the titers were observed for all phages at pH 3, 5, 11 and 14 (p < 0.0001).

Fig. 4
figure 4

The stability of phages UE-S5a, UE-S5b, UE-M3, and UE-M6 under various (A) temperature and (B) pH conditions. Statistical differences were determined by comparing values (a) at 4°C and (b) at pH 7. Results are the mean values with SD indicated by error bars from three independent experiments. The asterisks **, *** and **** denotes the significant values P<0.01, P<0.001 and P<0.0001, respectively, ns not significant

Full size image

Time kill analysis

Bacteriolytic activity of phages UE-S5a, UE-S5b, UE-M3 and UE-M6 was evaluated by infecting UPEC strain PSU-5266 (UE-17) in liquid culture at different MOIs (0.01,0.1,1,10, and 100). Bacterial growth was followed by OD600 measurements for 7 h. After the first hr of incubation, all phage treated groups displayed an increase in OD600 (Fig. 5). After 2–3 h of incubation, a slight decrease in OD600 was noted for groups treated with MOIs 10 and 100. After 7 h of incubation, a noticeable reduction in OD600 was observed across all MOIs for all phage treated groups, while a consistent increase in OD600 was seen for the control groups. A clear dose related relationship among MOIs and bacterial growth was observed for all four phages. Higher phage concentration (MOIs 10 and 100) significantly restricted the OD600 of a bacterial host, however less reduction in OD600 was observed at MOIs 0.01 and 0.1. Additionally, throughout the 7-hr experiment, there was no subsequent increase in OD600 observed in all phage treated groups.

Fig. 5
figure 5

In-vitro time killing curve of bacteriophages (A) UE-S5a, (B) UE-S5b, (C) UE-M3, and (D) UE-M6 at various MOIs of 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10 and 100. Control represent UPEC strains PSU-5266 with 20 µl of LB broth. The OD600 of the culture was measured for 7 hours. Results are the mean values with SD indicated by error bars from three independent experiments

Full size image

General genomic characteristics

Phages UE-S5a, UE-S5b, UE-M3 and UE-M6 possess linear double stranded DNA genomes of 73,821, 73,766, 73,728, and 76,110 bp in length, respectively, with a 42% GC content that is lower than that of the UPEC host strain (50.77%). Approximately 95–98% sequence reads were mapped back to assembled phage contigs, signifying successful genome assemblies for all phages. The experimental restriction digestion results with ApaLI enzyme precisely matched the in-silico digestion fragments, validating the correctness of the assembly for all phages (Figure S1). The PhageTerm analysis identified short direct terminal repeats of 401 bp for all the phages. All four phages harboured three tRNA genes and notably lacked antibiotic resistance and virulence genes. Phage AI analysis classified the phages as virulent with 98% confidence, making these phages promising candidates for therapeutics use (Table 3).

Table 3 Genomic features of the isolated phages
Full size table

The annotations revealed that the phages UE-S5a, UE-S5b, UE-M3, and UE-M6 have 86, 87, 84, and 88 predicted genes, respectively. While 52–58% of the genes were annotated to encode hypothetical proteins, putative functions were identified for the products of the remaining 43–48% of genes. These gene products were further classified into different functional groups based on database searches, including (I) structural proteins, (II) lysis, (III) DNA packaging, (IV) replication and repair, (V) nucleotide metabolism and (VI) regulatory. In addition, the absence of genes encoding lysogeny associated products such as integrases, excisionases, repressors, or recombinases, further strengthened their potential usefulness for therapeutic purposes.

Phylogenetic and comparative analysis of phages

The pairwise intergenomic similarity comparisons using the VIRDIC software was employed to assess the genetic relatedness of the four phages to sixteen previously identified phages (Fig. 6). The analysis revealed that our four phages were closely related sharing > 98% sequence similarity, suggesting their close evolutionary relationship. Furthermore, the phages exhibited 82% sequence similarity with Escherichia phage PGN829.1 (NC_070871.1), and 81%, with enterobacteria phages Bp4 (NC_024142.2), PD38 (MH669274.1) and vB_EcoS_Uz-1 (OP312987.1). The phylogenetic tree based on the large terminase subunit sequences of thirty phages yielded results largely consistent with the pairwise intergenomic similarity data (Fig. 7). The analysis positioned the four phages in close proximity to established members of the genus Gamaleyavirus including Escherichia phages U1G (99.62% identity), Caudoviricetes sp. isolate 355 (99.81%), Bp4 (99.43%), PGN829.1 (99.62%), vB_Eco_F22 (98.11%), and Shigella virus Moo19 (88.68%).

Fig. 6
figure 6

This heatmap visualizes pairwise comparisons of intergenomic similarity between four isolated and sixteen closely related phages using VIRDIC software. The upper right half shows percentage intergenomic similarity, darker colours indicate higher percentage similarity between genomes. The lower left half shows, three values for each genome pair (top to bottom); top value: Proportion of Genome 1 aligned with its partner, middle value: ratio of the two genomes' lengths, bottom value proportion of Genome 2 aligned with its partner. Darker colours represent lower values, potentially indicating less aligned sequence or significant length differences. Horizontal and vertical axes list corresponding phage GenBank accession numbers. Bacteriophages of current study are marked with a red asterisk (*) next to their accession numbers.

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

The phylogenetic tree analysis based on the large terminase subunit sequence, illustrating relationship between current study phages and thirty other Caudoviricetes phages (supplementary table S4). UPEC Phages are highlighted in red, while different groups are indicated by different colours

Full size image

Based on all these phylogenetic data the four phages can be classified as new members of realm Duplodnaviria > kingdom Heunggongvirae > phylum Uroviricota > class Caudoviricetes > family Schitoviridae > sub-family Enquatrovirinae > genus Gamaleyavirus. The whole genome sequence alignments of the four phages with the three most closely related phages PGN829.1, Bp4 and U1G, performed using the Blastn analysis in Easyfig, demonstrated the close similarity between the phage genomes (Fig. 8), with clear difference only between the genomic region encoding for the receptor binding proteins and packaging related.

Fig. 8
figure 8

Comparison of the genome sequences of UE-S5a, UE-S5b, UE-M3, and UE-M6 with closely related members of Escherichia_phage-PGN829.1 (NC_070871.1) and Enterobacteria_phageBp4 (NC_024142.2) and phage_U1G (NC_070872.1). The grey colour between the genome maps indicates level of homology with the scales representing the percentage genome identity between the regions obtained through BLASTn

Full size image

Phage particle proteomics analysis

LC-MS/MS analysis of tryptic peptides was employed to identify phage particle associated proteins (PPAPs) of phages UE-S5a, UE-S5b, UE-M3, and UE-M6. The LC-MS/MS data provided details on the sequence coverage, molecular mass, protein probability, and the number of unique peptides of the detected proteins. PPAPs were detected by comparing identified tryptic peptide sequences to the tryptic peptides predicted to arise from the predicted gene products of the phages. To ensure accurate identification, only proteins with a high probability score (> 1), at least two identified unique peptides, and/or greater than 5% sequence coverage were considered PPAPs. By applying these criteria, 54, 56, 52 and 44 PPAPs were validated for UE-S5a, UE-S5b, UE-M3, and UE-M6 (Tables S5, S6, S7, and S8), respectively. Several PPAPs were identified across all four phages, these included endosialidase, K5 LYASE, G-9 protein, tail needle protein gp26, phage portal (connector) protein, phage tape measure protein and major capsid proteins. Additionally, Hoc head outer capsid protein was identified only in UE-S5a and UE-M6. Five lysis related proteins, holin, endolysin, Rz-like spanin, rIIA lysis inhibitor, and rIIB lysis inhibitor, were also identified as PPAPs. Furthermore, PPAPs that are involved in metabolism, replication and repair were also identified such as RNA polymerase, RUVC, single stranded DNA binding protein, phage-associated DNA primase exonuclease, putative 3’-phosphatase, 5’-polynucleotide kinase, phage-associated DNA polymerase, phage DNA helicase, putative NTP pyro phosphohydrolase, DNA binding protein, FAD-dependent thymidylate synthase, dCTP deaminase, RNAP1, RNAP2, and HNH endonuclease. In addition, few regulatory proteins were also identified.

Discussion

In current study, the four isolated phages designated as UE-S5a, UE-S5b, UE-M3 and UE-M6, were evaluated for their efficacy against the MDR UPEC strain PSU-5266 (UE-17). This strain exhibited resistance to fourteen antibiotics spanning seven distinct antimicrobial classes (Table S1) [59]. TEM micrographs showed that all phages have a podovirus morphology with icosahedral heads (70–74 nm) and short non-contractile tails (Table 1; Fig. 2). The phylogenetic and comparative genomic analysis results indicated that these phages shares > 98% similarity and belong to the family Schitoviridae and genus Gamaleyavirus. The hallmark features of the Schitoviridae family are the occurrence of large (~ 3500 aa) virion-associated RNA polymerase and two small RNA polymerases [60]. Interestingly, all four bacteriophages encode for the large (3456 aa) virion associated RNA polymerase (UES5a_027, UES5b_026, UEM3_026, UEM6_026), and two small ones; RNA Polymerase 1 (UES5b_067, UES5b_070, UEM3_068, UEM6_068) and RNA polymerase 2 (UES5b_069, UES5b_068, UEM3_066, UEM6_066). This further supports their classification under the family Schitoviridae. Until December 2024, only 252 members have been classified into this new family [61].

Assessing the ability of bacteriophages to infect different hosts is crucial for selecting therapeutic phages. We screened the phages via spot test against a total of 104 bacterial strains and they demonstrated relatively broad host ranges of 31–41%. Notably, all four phages were also able to infect the avian pathogenic and mastitis causing E. coli strains. These findings are in line with a study on UPEC phages MLP2, and MLP3 that were also able to lyse diffusely adherent and enteroaggregative E. coli, DAEC and EAggEC, respectively. It was speculated that this might be due to close phylogenetic relation between DAEC and EAggEC with UPEC, or they might share same phage receptors [62]. Similarly, the T4 phage QL01 had a broad host range (52%) and also infected one neonatal meningitis-causing E. coli (NMEC) strain [63]. The EOP results further elucidated the infection efficiency of the phages, revealing distinct patterns among them. Phages UE-M3 and UE-M6 demonstrated high efficiency (EOP ≥ 0.5) on 18% bacterial strains, with medium efficiency (EOP ≥ 0.1) in 27% and 22% strains, respectively. This aligns with their broad host range observed in the spot test. In contrast, phages UE-S5a and UE-S5b exhibited narrower host ranges and lower infection efficiencies, with high efficiency limited to 9–13% strains, respectively, and medium efficiency on 13–18% strains. The presence of no productive infections (EOP ≤ 0.0001) in 27–31% strains for all phages suggests that while the phages while the phages could attach to host receptors, they are unable to complete the lytic cycle. This incomplete infection process likely explains the formation of spots on the bacterial lawns without resulting in productive lysis [64]. Although these phages share more than 98% sequence similarity, they exhibit differences in their host range. To investigate the basis for this variation, four receptor binding proteins i.e. endosialidase, K5 lyase, G-9 protein, and tail needle protein gp26—were analysed and compared. The results revealed no significant difference expect single amino acid variation in G-9 protein at position 11 and two amino acid variation in K5 Lyase at position 334 and 385. The phage host range specificity depends mostly on its adsorption onto the bacterial cell that is the key step in the infection process representing the initial point of contact between phage and the host. During adsorption, bacteriophages specific binding proteins recognize complementary receptors on the bacterial surface. Once attached, bacteriophage can eject its DNA into the bacterial cell to initiate phage replication process [65]. In this study, we investigated the adsorption rate of our isolated phages. UE-S5a and UE-M6 phages achieved complete adsorption within 15 min, indicating rapid adsorption. In comparison, phage UE-S5b and UE-M3 exhibited slower adsorption, taking up to 20 min to reach nearly 95% adsorption. This low adsorption rate of phages may be due to the use of low bacterial concentration (108 cfu/ml).

The stability of bacteriophages at various temperatures and pH are essential factors for storing and therapeutic applications [66]. Various investigation have conducted on the influence of external factors on phages survivability [67]. Phages UE-S5a, UE-S5b, UE-M3 and UE-M6 were stable up to 45 °C, however a significant decline in titers was observed for all phages within temperature range of 55 to 75 °C. Our results corroborate with previous findings that reported decrease in phage titer with increase in temperature [68, 69]. The phages were stable at pH 7–9, and did not tolerate well lower or higher pH values. These results are consistent with studies on UPEC phage VB_EcoS-Golestan [70], phage vB_Ec_ZCEC14 [71]. The results suggest that our phages can be stored at ambient temperatures and neutral pH without considerable loss of activity.

Understanding of the relationship between multiplicity of infection (MOI) and bacterial counts is an important factor to consider. In our study, a clear dose related relationship among MOIs and bacterial growth was observed for all four phages. Results showed that higher phage concentration (MOIs 1, 10 and 100) significantly restricted the growth of bacterial host, however less reduction in bacterial growth was noted at MOI 0.01 and 0.1. Similar lytic activity results were observed for bacteriophages BF9, BF15, and BF17 against E. coli [72], phage vB_SsapS-104 against Staphylococcus saprophyticus [73], and phages vB_KpnS_Kp13 against K. pneumoniae strain [74]. Additionally, throughout the 7 h experiment, no subsequent increase in bacterial growth was seen in all phage treated groups. This might be due to high phage concentrations likely increased rapid phage adsorption, that leads to decreased bacterial population quickly [75] or possibly due to the absences of phage resistant mutants [76].

The genomic analysis of phages UE-S5a, UE-S5b, UE-M3 and UE-M6 showed that they possess linear double stranded DNA genomes of 73 to 76 kb in length, with GC content of 42% and short 401 bp direct terminal repeats. These features align with previously identified phages of Schitoviridae family [77, 78]. All phages harbor three tRNAs i.e., tRNA-Ile-AAT, tRNA-Undet-NNN and tRNA-Cys-ACA. Several hypotheses have been proposed on the role of these tRNAs, codon compensation being the most established one [79]. Recently Yang et al., 2021, proposed that phages have their own tRNA is to keep their genes translation smooth as the host machinery gets damaged during infection [80]. In addition, safety assessment analysis showed that the bacteriophages did not contain virulence-related or antibiotics resistance genes, or lysogeny-related genes, making them promising candidates for phage therapy [81].

Comparative analysis using VIRDIC, and phylogenetic tree based on phage proteome and large terminase subunit further confirmed that these phages are new members of family Schitoviridae, sub-family Enquatrovirinae and genus Gamaleyavirus. They showed the highest similarity to Escherichia phage PGN829.1 and Enterobacteria phage Bp4 and phage U1G.

We identified altogether 44–56 PPAPs by LC-MS/MS analysis using the accepted criteria [82]. All four phages encode lysis proteins holin, endolysin and spanin. The holin form small pores in bacterial cytoplasmic membrane, allowing endolysin to leak into periplasmic space and degrade the peptidoglycan layer, and in the final step spanin degrades the outer membrane [83]. This lytic mechanism is usually employed by phages to infect bacteria cells and release new progeny [84]. Furthermore, genes for head morphogenesis, tail fiber formation, DNA packaging and metabolism were also identified by proteomic analysis.

Conclusion

This study presents four lytic phages UE-S5a, UE-S5b, UE-M3 and UE-M6 that belong to Gamaleyavirus genus of Enquatrovirinae, a sub-family of Schitoviridae family. The phages showed a broad host range, stability at various temperatures and pH values. Moreover, genomic and proteomic results confirmed the absence of genes encoding virulence factors, antibiotics resistance or lysogeny associated proteins. Therefore, we concluded that this study provides significant addition to bacteriophage database and reports these bacteriophages as suitable candidates for phage therapy of UTI caused by UPEC.

Data availability

The annotated bacteriophage genome sequences were deposited to GenBank database under the accession numbers PP175015 for phage UE-S5a, PP301341 for phage UES5b, PP301342 for phage UE-M3, and PP301343 for phage UE-M6.

Abbreviations

UTIs:

Urinary tract infections

MDR:

Multiple drug resistance

MOI:

Multiplicity of infection

ANI:

Average nucleotide identity

OD:

Optical density

PFU:

Plaque forming unit

WHO:

World Health Organization

tRNA:

Transfer RNA

References

  1. Yang X, Chen H, Zheng Y, Qu S, Wang H, Yi F. Disease burden and long-term trends of urinary tract infections: A worldwide report. Front Public Heal. 2022;10:888205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Klein RD, Hultgren SJ. Urinary tract infections: microbial pathogenesis, host–pathogen interactions and new treatment strategies. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020;18(4):211–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Rowe TA, Juthani-Mehta M. Urinary tract infection in older adults. Aging Health. 2013;9(5):519–28.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kline KA, Bowdish DME. Infection in an aging population. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2016;29:63–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brumbaugh AR, Mobley HLT. Preventing urinary tract infection: progress toward an effective Escherichia coli vaccine. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2012;11(6):663–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Vallejo-Torres L, Pujol M, Shaw E, Wiegand I, Vigo JM, Stoddart M et al. Cost of hospitalised patients due to complicated urinary tract infections: a retrospective observational study in countries with high prevalence of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: the COMBACTE-MAGNET, RESCUING study. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2018;8(4):e020251. Available from: http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/4/e020251.abstract

  7. Flores-Mireles AL, Walker JN, Caparon M, Hultgren SJ. Urinary tract infections: epidemiology, mechanisms of infection and treatment options. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2015;13(5):269–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Terlizzi ME, Gribaudo G, Maffei ME. UroPathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) infections: virulence factors, bladder responses, antibiotic, and non-antibiotic antimicrobial strategies. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:280574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Halaji M, Fayyazi A, Rajabnia M, Zare D, Pournajaf A, Ranjbar R. Phylogenetic group distribution of uropathogenic Escherichia coli and related antimicrobial resistance pattern: A Meta-Analysis and systematic review. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12:790184.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Bien J, Sokolova O, Bozko P. Role of Uropathogenic Escherichia coli virulence factors in development of urinary tract infection and kidney damage. Andrade L, editor. Int J Nephrol [Internet]. 2012;2012:681473. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1155/2012/681473

  11. Gupta K, Hooton TM, Naber KG, Wullt B, Colgan R, Miller LG, et al. International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of acute uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis in women: a 2010 update by the infectious diseases society of America and the European society for microbiology and infectious diseases. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(5):e103–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Etefia EU, Ben SA. Virulence markers, phylogenetic evolution, and molecular techniques of uropathogenic Escherichia coli. J Nat Sci Med. 2020;3(1):13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shafrin J, Marijam A, Joshi AV, Mitrani-Gold FS, Everson K, Tuly R et al. Economic burden of antibiotic-not-susceptible isolates in uncomplicated urinary tract infection: Analysis of a US integrated delivery network database. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control [Internet]. 2022;11(1):84. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13756-022-01121-y

  14. Ajulo S, Awosile B. Global antimicrobial resistance and use surveillance system (GLASS 2022): investigating the relationship between antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial consumption data across the participating countries. PLoS ONE. 2024;19(2):e0297921.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Sati H, Tacconelli E, Carrara E, Savoldi A, Unit W, AG W, et al. WHO bacterial priority pathogens list. Switz: World Heal Organ Geneva; 2024.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rehman S, Ali Z, Khan M, Bostan N, Naseem S. The dawn of phage therapy. Rev Med Virol. 2019;29(4):e2041.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kuhl SJ, Mazure H, d’Hérelle. Preparation of therapeutic bacteriophages, appendix 1 from: Le phénomène de La guérison Dans les maladies infectieuses: Masson et Cie, 1938, Paris—OCLC 5784382. Vol. 1, bacteriophage. Taylor & Francis; 2011. pp. 55–65.

  18. Comeau AM, Hatfull GF, Krisch HM, Lindell D, Mann NH, Prangishvili D. Exploring the prokaryotic virosphere. Res Microbiol. 2008;159(5):306–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Loc-Carrillo C, Abedon ST. Pros and cons of phage therapy. Bacteriophage. 2011;1(2):111–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Lin DM, Koskella B, Lin HC. Phage therapy: an alternative to antibiotics in the age of multi-drug resistance. World J Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther. 2017;8(3):162.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Pires DP, Cleto S, Sillankorva S, Azeredo J, Lu TK. Genetically engineered phages: a review of advances over the last decade. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2016;80(3):523–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Kashiwagi A, Yomo T. Ongoing phenotypic and genomic changes in experimental Coevolution of RNA bacteriophage Qβ and Escherichia coli. PLoS Genet. 2011;7(8):e1002188.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Al-Anany AM, Hooey PB, Cook JD, Burrows LL, Martyniuk J, Hynes AP, et al. Phage therapy in the management of urinary tract infections: a comprehensive systematic review. Phage. 2023;4(3):112–27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Johri AV, Johri P, Hoyle N, Nadareishvili L, Pipia L, Nizharadze D. Case report: Successful treatment of recurrent E. coli infection with bacteriophage therapy for patient suffering from chronic bacterial prostatitis. Front Pharmacol [Internet]. 2023;14. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:262191571

  25. Ichikawa M, Nakamoto N, Kredo-Russo S, Weinstock E, Weiner I, Khabra E et al. Bacteriophage therapy against pathological Klebsiella pneumoniae ameliorates the course of primary sclerosing cholangitis. Nat Commun [Internet]. 2023;14. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:259090050

  26. Lorenzo-Rebenaque L, Malik DJ, Catalá-Gregori P, Marín C, Sevilla-Navarro S. In Vitro and In Vivo Gastrointestinal Survival of Non-Encapsulated and Microencapsulated Salmonella Bacteriophages: Implications for Bacteriophage Therapy in Poultry. Pharmaceuticals [Internet]. 2021;14. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:235196831

  27. Ramirez-Sanchez C, Gonzales FB, Buckley M, Biswas B, Henry MS, Deschenes MV et al. Successful Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus Prosthetic Joint Infection with Bacteriophage Therapy. Viruses [Internet]. 2021;13. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:235653316

  28. Brooks T, Keevil C. A simple artificial urine for the growth of urinary pathogens. Lett Appl Microbiol. 1997;24(3):203–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Humphries R, Bobenchik AM, Hindler JA, Schuetz AN. Overview of changes to the clinical and laboratory standards Institute performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, M100. J Clin Microbiol. 2021;59(12):10–1128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Van Twest R, Kropinski AM. Bacteriophage enrichment from water and soil. Methods Mol Biol. 2009;501:15–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Khan Mirzaei M, Nilsson AS. 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. 2015;10(3):e0118557.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Adams MH. Bacterlophages. Bacterlophages. 1959.

  33. Kropinski AM, Mazzocco A, Waddell TE, Lingohr E, Johnson RP. Enumeration of bacteriophages by double agar overlay plaque assay. Bacteriophages methods Protoc Vol 1 Isol Charact Interact. 2009;69–76.

  34. Sambrook J, Russell DW. Picking Bacteriophage λ Plaques. CSH Protoc. 2006;2006(1).

  35. Sambrook J, Russell DW. Precipitation of bacteriophage lambda particles from large-scale lysates. CSH Protoc. 2006;2006(1).

  36. Sambrook J, Russell DW. Purification of bacteriophage Λ particles by centrifugation through a glycerol step gradient. Cold Spring Harb Protoc. 2006;2006(1):pdb–prot3969.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Bleackley J, Cooper J, Kaminski M, Sandilands S. The reduction of T7 phage adsorption in Escherichia coli B23 cells treated with sub-lethal levels of Kanamycin. J Exp Microbiol Immunol. 2009;13:89–92.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Chen M, Xu J, Yao H, Lu C, Zhang W. Isolation, genome sequencing and functional analysis of two T7-like coliphages of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli. Gene. 2016;582(1):47–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ma YL, Lu CP. Isolation and identification of a bacteriophage capable of infecting Streptococcus suis type 2 strains. Vet Microbiol. 2008;132(3–4):340–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Liu J, Gao S, Dong Y, Lu C, Liu Y. Isolation and characterization of bacteriophages against virulent Aeromonas hydrophila. BMC Microbiol [Internet]. 2020;20(1):141. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12866-020-01811-w

  41. Sambrook J, Russell DW. Purification of nucleic acids by extraction with phenol: chloroform. Cold Spring Harb Protoc. 2006;2006(1):pdb–prot4455.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kallio MA, Tuimala JT, Hupponen T, Klemelä P, Gentile M, Scheinin I, et al. Chipster: user-friendly analysis software for microarray and other high-throughput data. BMC Genomics. 2011;12:1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Coil D, Jospin G, Darling AE. A5-miseq: an updated pipeline to assemble microbial genomes from illumina miseq data. Bioinformatics. 2014;31(4):587–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Garneau JR, Depardieu F, Fortier L-C, Bikard D, Monot M. PhageTerm: a tool for fast and accurate determination of phage termini and packaging mechanism using next-generation sequencing data. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):8292.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Aziz RK, Bartels D, Best AA, DeJongh M, Disz T, Edwards RA, et al. The RAST server: rapid annotations using subsystems technology. BMC Genomics. 2008;9:1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Carver T, Harris SR, Berriman M, Parkhill J, McQuillan JA. Artemis: an integrated platform for visualization and analysis of high-throughput sequence-based experimental data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28(4):464–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Bouras G, Nepal R, Houtak G, Psaltis AJ, Wormald P-J, Vreugde S. Pharokka: a fast scalable bacteriophage annotation tool. Bioinformatics. 2023;39(1):btac776.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Sf A. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215:403–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Alva V, Nam S-Z, Söding J, Lupas AN. The MPI bioinformatics toolkit as an integrative platform for advanced protein sequence and structure analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(W1):W410–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Tynecki P, Guziński A, Kazimierczak J, Jadczuk M, Dastych J, Onisko A. PhageAI-bacteriophage life cycle recognition with machine learning and natural Language processing. BioRxiv. 2020;2007–20. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1101/2020.07.11.198606

  51. Hockenberry AJ, Wilke CO. BACPHLIP: predicting bacteriophage lifestyle from conserved protein domains. PeerJ. 2021;9:e11396.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Malberg Tetzschner AM, Johnson JR, Johnston BD, Lund O, Scheutz F. In Silico genotyping of Escherichia coli isolates for extraintestinal virulence genes by use of whole-genome sequencing data. J Clin Microbiol. 2020;58(10):10–1128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Bortolaia V, Kaas RS, Ruppe E, Roberts MC, Schwarz S, Cattoir V, et al. ResFinder 4.0 for predictions of phenotypes from genotypes. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2020;75(12):3491–500.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Chan PP, Lin BY, Mak AJ, Lowe TM. tRNAscan-SE 2.0: improved detection and functional classification of transfer RNA genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49(16):9077–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Moraru C, Varsani A, Kropinski AM. VIRIDIC-A novel tool to calculate the intergenomic similarities of Prokaryote-Infecting viruses. Viruses. 2020;12(11).

  56. Saitou N, Nei M. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol. 1987;4(4):406–25.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive tree of life (iTOL) v5: an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49(W1):W293–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Sullivan MJ, Petty NK, Beatson SA. Easyfig: a genome comparison visualizer. Bioinformatics. 2011;27(7):1009–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Magiorakos A-P, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, Carmeli Y, Falagas ME, Giske CG, et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18(3):268–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Wittmann J, Turner D, Millard A, Mahadevan P, Kropinski A, Adriaenssens E. From orphan phage to a proposed new Family-The diversity of N4-Like viruses. Antibiotics. 2020;9.

  61. Schoch CL, Ciufo S, Domrachev M, Hotton CL, Kannan S, Khovanskaya R, et al. NCBI taxonomy: a comprehensive update on curation, resources and tools. Database. 2020;2020:baaa062.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Javiera V-M, Patricio S, S-VC A. C. M-QR. Isolation and Characterization of Novel Lytic Phages Infecting Multidrug-Resistant Escherichia coli. Microbiol Spectr [Internet]. 2022;10(1):e01678-21. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1128/spectrum.01678-21

  63. Xu J, Chen M, He L, Zhang S, Ding T, Yao H et al. Isolation and characterization of a T4-like phage with a relatively wide host range within Escherichia coli. J Basic Microbiol [Internet]. 2016;56(4):405–21. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1002/jobm.201500440

  64. Labrie SJ, Samson JE, Moineau S. Bacteriophage resistance mechanisms. Nat Rev Microbiol [Internet]. 2010;8(5):317–27. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1038/nrmicro2315

  65. Bertozzi Silva J, Storms Z, Sauvageau D. Host receptors for bacteriophage adsorption. FEMS Microbiol Lett [Internet]. 2016;363(4):fnw002. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1093/femsle/fnw002

  66. Abdelrahman F, Rezk N, Fayez MS, Abdelmoteleb M, Atteya R, Elhadidy M et al. Isolation, characterization, and genomic analysis of three novel E. coli bacteriophages that effectively infect E. coli O18. Microorganisms. 2022;10(3).

  67. Jończyk E, Kłak M, Międzybrodzki R, Górski A. The influence of external factors on bacteriophages—review. Folia Microbiol (Praha) [Internet]. 2011;56(3):191–200. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s12223-011-0039-8

  68. Feng YY, Ong SL, Hu JY, Tan XL, Ng WJ. Effects of pH and temperature on the survival of coliphages MS2 and Qβ. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2003;30(9):549–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Zhao J, Zhang Z, Tian C, Chen X, Hu L, Wei X, et al. Characterizing the biology of lytic bacteriophage vB_EaeM_φEap-3 infecting multidrug-resistant Enterobacter aerogenes. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:420.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Yazdi M, Bouzari M, Ghaemi EA, Shahin K. Isolation, characterization and genomic analysis of a novel bacteriophage VB_EcoS-Golestan infecting Multidrug-Resistant Escherichia coli isolated from urinary tract infection. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):7690.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Ismael NM, Azzam M, Abdelmoteleb M, El-Shibiny A. Phage vB_Ec_ZCEC14 to treat antibiotic-resistant Escherichia coli isolated from urinary tract infections. Virol J [Internet]. 2024;21(1):44. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12985-024-02306-0

  72. Śliwka P, Weber-Dąbrowska B, Żaczek M, Kuźmińska-Bajor M, Dusza I, Skaradzińska A. Characterization and comparative genomic analysis of three virulent E. coli bacteriophages with the potential to reduce antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the environment. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(6):5696.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Yazdi M, Bouzari M, Ghaemi EA. Isolation and characterization of a potentially novel Siphoviridae phage (vB_SsapS-104) with lytic activity against Staphylococcus saprophyticus isolated from urinary tract infection. Folia Microbiol (Praha) [Internet]. 2019;64(3):283–94. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s12223-018-0653-9

  74. Horváth M, Kovács T, Koderivalappil S, Ábrahám H, Rákhely G, Schneider G. Identification of a newly isolated lytic bacteriophage against K24 capsular type, carbapenem resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):5891.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Shen G-H, Wang J-L, Wen F-S, Chang K-M, Kuo C-F, Lin C-H et al. Isolation and Characterization of φkm18p, a Novel Lytic Phage with Therapeutic Potential against Extensively Drug Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. PLoS One [Internet]. 2012;7(10):e46537. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1371/journal.pone.0046537

  76. Zhong Z, Wang Y, Li H, Zhang H, Zhou Y, Wang R et al. Characterization and genomic analysis of a novel E. coli lytic phage with extended lytic activity against S. Enteridis and S. Typhimurium. Food Prod Process Nutr [Internet]. 2023;6(1):14. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s43014-023-00193-6

  77. Sundaramoorthy N, KU V, Nair V, Bharathi RK, JBB J, Rajendran M et al. Genome Analysis of Bacteriophage (U1G) of Schitoviridae, Host Receptor Prediction using Machine Learning Tools and its Evaluation to Mitigate Colistin Resistant Clinical Isolate of Escherichia Coli In Vitro and In Vivo. 2023.

  78. Tajuddin S, Khan AM, Chong LC, Wong CL, Tan J, Sen, Ina-Salwany MY et al. Genomic analysis and biological characterization of a novel Schitoviridae phage infecting Vibrio alginolyticus. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol [Internet]. 2023;107(2):749–68. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s00253-022-12312-3

  79. Bailly-Bechet M, Vergassola M, Rocha EPC. Causes for the intriguing presence of tRNAs in phages. Genome Res [Internet]. 2007;17 10:1486–95. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:16567519

  80. Yang JY, Fang W, Miranda-Sanchez F, Brown JM, Kauffman KM, Acevero CM et al. Degradation of host translational machinery drives tRNA acquisition in viruses. Cell Syst [Internet]. 2021; Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:235479971

  81. Cui Z, Guo X, Dong K, Zhang Y, Li Q, Zhu Y et al. Safety assessment of Staphylococcus phages of the family Myoviridae based on complete genome sequences. Sci Rep [Internet]. 2017;7(1):41259. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1038/srep41259

  82. Leskinen K, Tuomala H, Wicklund A, Horsma-Heikkinen J, Kuusela PI, Skurnik M et al. Characterization of vB\_SauM-fRuSau02, a Twort-Like Bacteriophage Isolated from a Therapeutic Phage Cocktail. Viruses [Internet]. 2017;9. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4770176

  83. Young RF. Phage lysis: Three steps, three choices, one outcome. J Microbiol [Internet]. 2014;52:243–58. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:11982754

  84. Oliveira H, Domingues R, Evans B, Sutton JM, Adriaenssens EM, Turner D. Genomic Diversity of Bacteriophages Infecting the Genus Acinetobacter. Viruses [Internet]. 2022;14(2). Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/14/2/181

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge Higher education commission (HEC) of Pakistan for the award of the International Research Support Initiative Program (IRSIP) for University of Helsinki, Finland.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Atta ur Rahman School of Applied Biosciences (ASAB), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan

    Hira Niaz & Fazal Adnan

  2. Department of Bacteriology and Immunology, Human Microbiome Research Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, FI, Finland

    Mikael Skurnik

Authors
  1. Hira Niaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mikael Skurnik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fazal Adnan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HN, MS and FA conceived and designed the study. HN performed the experiments. HN, MS and FA analyzed the data. HN wrote the initial draft and MS and FD edited and commented on the paper. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Mikael Skurnik or Fazal Adnan.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Niaz, H., Skurnik, M. & Adnan, F. Genomic and proteomic characterization of four novel Schitoviridae family phages targeting uropathogenic Escherichia coli strain. Virol J 22, 83 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12985-025-02691-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12985-025-02691-0

Keywords

Virology Journal

ISSN: 1743-422X