Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38834561›Full record

ArticleNature communications2024

Bacteriophage defends murine gut from Escherichia coli invasion via mucosal adherence.

Jiaoling Wu, Kailai Fu, Chenglin Hou, Yuxin Wang, Chengyuan Ji, Feng Xue, Jianluan Ren, Jianjun Dai, Jeremy J Barr, Fang Tang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Characterization ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Phage Therapy in Gastrointestinal Diseases: Current Status and Challenges.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Dissecting the role of flagellar subunits inJournal of bacteriology · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jiaoling WuCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Nanjing Agricultural University; Key Laboratory of Animal Bacteriology, Ministry of Agriculture, Nanjing, China.
Kailai FuCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Nanjing Agricultural University; Key Laboratory of Animal Bacteriology, Ministry of Agriculture, Nanjing, China.
Chenglin HouCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Nanjing Agricultural University; Key Laboratory of Animal Bacteriology, Ministry of Agriculture, Nanjing, China.
Yuxin WangCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Nanjing Agricultural University; Key Laboratory of Animal Bacteriology, Ministry of Agriculture, Nanjing, China.
Chengyuan JiCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Nanjing Agricultural University; Key Laboratory of Animal Bacteriology, Ministry of Agriculture, Nanjing, China.
Feng XueCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Nanjing Agricultural University; Key Laboratory of Animal Bacteriology, Ministry of Agriculture, Nanjing, China.
Jianluan RenCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Nanjing Agricultural University; Key Laboratory of Animal Bacteriology, Ministry of Agriculture, Nanjing, China.
Jianjun DaiCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Nanjing Agricultural University; Key Laboratory of Animal Bacteriology, Ministry of Agriculture, Nanjing, China. jjdai@njau.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9123-5731
Jeremy J BarrSchool of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Victoria, Australia. jeremy.barr@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5603-5294
Fang TangCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Nanjing Agricultural University; Key Laboratory of Animal Bacteriology, Ministry of Agriculture, Nanjing, China. tfalice@126.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bacteriophage are sophisticated cellular parasites that can not only parasitize bacteria but are increasingly recognized for their direct interactions with mammalian hosts. Phage adherence to mucus is known to mediate enhanced antimicrobial effects in vitro. However, little is known about the therapeutic efficacy of mucus-adherent phages in vivo. Here, using a combination of in vitro gastrointestinal cell lines, a gut-on-a-chip microfluidic model, and an in vivo murine gut model, we demonstrated that a E. coli phage, øPNJ-6, provided enhanced gastrointestinal persistence and antimicrobial effects. øPNJ-6 bound fucose residues, of the gut secreted glycoprotein MUC2, through domain 1 of its Hoc protein, which led to increased intestinal mucus production that was suggestive of a positive feedback loop mediated by the mucus-adherent phage. These findings extend the Bacteriophage Adherence to Mucus model into phage therapy, demonstrating that øPNJ-6 displays enhanced persistence within the murine gut, leading to targeted depletion of intestinal pathogenic bacteria.

Indexed as

Escherichia coliEscherichia coli InfectionsIntestinal MucosaMucin-2AnimalsBacterial AdhesionColiphagesFemaleFucoseHumansMiceMice, Inbred C57BLMucusPhage TherapyFucoseMuc2 protein, mouseMucin-2

Identifiers

PMID38834561
PMCPMC11150434

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.