Phage Therapy: Eco-Physiological Pharmacology

Bacterial virus use as antibacterial agents, in the guise of what is commonly known as phage therapy, is an inherently physiological, ecological, and also pharmacological process. Physiologically we can consider metabolic properties of phage infections of bacteria and variation in those properties as a function of preexisting bacterial states. In addition, there are patient responses to pathogenesis, patient responses to phage infections of pathogens, and also patient responses to phage virions alone. Ecologically, we can consider phage propagation, densities, distribution (within bodies), impact on body-associated microbiota (as ecological communities), and modification of the functioning of body “ecosystems” more generally. These ecological and physiological components in many ways represent different perspectives on otherwise equivalent phenomena. Comparable to drugs, one also can view phages during phage therapy in pharmacological terms. The relatively unique status of phages within the context of phage therapy as essentially replicating antimicrobials can therefore result in a confluence of perspectives, many of which can be useful towards gaining a better mechanistic appreciation of phage therapy, as I consider here. Pharmacology more generally may be viewed as a discipline that lies at an interface between organism-associated phenomena, as considered by physiology, and environmental interactions as considered by ecology.

Archaeal Viruses, Not Archaeal Phages: An Archaeological Dig

Viruses infect members of domainsBacteria,Eukarya, andArchaea. While those infecting domainEukaryaare nearly universally described as “Viruses”, those of domainBacteria, to a substantial extent, instead are called “Bacteriophages,” or “Phages.” Should the viruses of domainArchaeatherefore be dubbed “Archaeal phages,” “Archaeal viruses,” or some other construct? Here we provide documentation of published, general descriptors of the viruses of domainArchaea. Though at first the term “Phage” or equivalent was used almost exclusively in the archaeal virus literature, there has been a nearly 30-year trend away from this usage, with some persistence of “Phage” to describe “Head-and-tail” archaeal viruses, “Halophage” to describe viruses of halophilicArchaea, use of “Prophage” rather than “Provirus,” and so forth. We speculate on the root of the early 1980’s transition from “Phage” to “Virus” to describe these infectious agents, consider the timing of introduction of “Archaeal virus” (which can be viewed as analogous to “Bacterial virus”), identify numerous proposed alternatives to “Archaeal virus,” and also provide discussion of the general merits of the term, “Phage.” Altogether we identify in excess of one dozen variations on how the viruses of domainArchaeaare described, and document the timing of both their introduction and use.

MODERN WAYS OF TREATMENT OF THE INFECTION THE BOTTOM DEPARTMENT OF SEXUAL WAYS OF WOMEN

In article various ways of increase of efficiency of treatment of is mixed the bacterial-virus infection of the bottom department of sexual ways at women by means of application in complex therapy of homologous bacteriophages, pectovit, antiviral –immunomodulation therapies and sated with oxygen (oxygenic) water solutions of antiseptic tanks are considered. The scientifically-practical urgency of this problem is represented and actual for the decision of an important social and economic problem of improvement of quality of life, decrease in number of infectious complications and perfection of the medical help to sick women with frequent recidives an infection of the bottom department of sexual ways.