I found a bacteria-eating virus in my loo - could it save your life?
We all know the viral bad guys – Covid, flu, norovirus, herpes, chicken pox, measles… the list goes on.
But there's a type of virus that's not interested in infiltrating our bodies, instead it preys on bacteria.
They're known as bacteria eaters, or bacteriophage, or commonly as phage.
Capturing them could give us new ways of treating infections, including superbugs that are becoming incurable.
So, how to catch a killer?
I've been promised it's surprisingly easy. The team at the Phage Collection Project sent me some vials to collect samples, along with a pair of gloves. All I need to do is hunt for some dirty water, the dirtier the better, dip the vials in and screw on the lid.
I tried a couple of ponds, the juice from a worm-composting bin and then I needed my dirtiest sample. I didn't flush the toilet after a poo and left it for a couple of hours. I pop on a glove and hold my breath as I go in for the final sample. Strict hygiene instructions, including vigorous hand-washing, were followed, at all times.
The vials were packaged up for collection and then three days later I headed off to the University of Southampton to see what was inside.
"They were a bit dirty when I received them," phage scientist Michelle Lin tells me as we don our blue lab-coats and matching gloves to go into the Containment Level 2 microbiology laboratory.
We grab my samples from the fridge, which look much clearer now they have been filtered of any… debris. "It's fine, it's needed," Michelle, who had the unpleasant job, reassures me.
Filtering is the first step in looking for phage, next they get served dinner – a cocktail of yummy bacteria - to help them grow in number.
Now comes the really cool bit – finding a useful phage. The scientists have been working with the local hospital to collect bacteria from patients with troublesome infections.
Michelle grabs a petri dish that's growing bacteria from a patient with a painful, urinary tract infection that keeps coming back.
And to my amazement – one of the phage I collected from my toilet was able to kill this infection in the lab.
"The way to see that the phage has infected bacteria is you get these zones where the bacteria are not growing and that's because they've been killed by the phage," says Michelle.
You can see the leopard print pattern in the petri dish where the phage have been making light work of a bacterial infection that modern medicine was struggling to shift.
"As crazy as it sounds, well done to the toilet sample," says Michelle with great delight.
And when I was offered the chance to name the phage, well of course it's the Gallagher-phage.
"Sounds amazing to me," says Michelle.
So far this is all good fun in the laboratory, but could my phage ever be given to a patient?
"Yes and I hope so," says associate professor Dr Franklin Nobrega as we look at images of my phage captured with an electron microscope.
"Your phage, already in just 24 hours, we were able to get in a high concentration and able to be a very good killer, which means this is very promising for patients, so thank you," said Dr Nobrega.
Phage remind me of a moon lander – a big capsule on spindly legs – just instead of landing on the surface of the moon they use their legs to select their victim.
They then hijack the bacteria and transform it into a mass-production factory for more phage, which burst out of their host, killing it in the process.
There are pros and cons to phage. They reproduce as they go along so you don't need constant doses like you would with drugs.
They are also very picky eaters. You need a precise match between phage and the strain of bacteria you're trying to treat whereas antibiotics tend to kill everything good and bad. So it is harder to find the right phage, but if you do it comes with fewer side effects.
Dr Nobrega tells me infected wounds are a "very good application" for phage because you can apply them directly to the injury, but they can also be inhaled via a nebuliser to treat lung infections or to target urinary tract infections "which is our target currently".
Phage science may sound new and exciting, but it is actually a century old idea stemming from the discoveries of Felix d'Hérelle and Frederick Twort in the 1910s.
Bacteriophage therapy was a branch of medicine and the idea was compelling. Even as late as the 1940s there was an active pharmaceutical industry in western countries trying to produce phage-therapy to defeat bacterial infections.
However, it was rapidly eclipsed by the wonder-drug of the 20th century.
"Antibiotics were working so well that most people said 'why bother'," says Dr Nobrega.
Work on phage therapy continued in places like Georgia and there are individual accounts of it working wonders; but there hasn't been the same depth of medical research and clinical trials as there have for drugs.
But just as the initial success of antibiotics suppressed phage research, the failure of antibiotics is reigniting excitement at their potential.
More than a million people a year are already dying from infections caused by microbes that are resistant to treatment – it's known as the "silent pandemic". By 2050, that figure is projected to reach 10 million a year.
This "antibiotic apocalypse" would mean common infections could kill again and undermine modern medicine. The drugs are also used to make organ transplants, open surgery and chemotherapy possible.
"The predictions around antibiotic resistance are very frightening, but the reality is we're seeing it now and it's only going to get worse," says Prof Paul Elkington, the director of the institute for medical innovation at the University of Southampton.
He is also a doctor with a speciality in lung medicine and is already at the point where - after a year of treatment and turning to ever more toxic and less effective antibiotics - "in the end you have to have a conversation [and say] 'we can't treat this infection, we're really sorry'".
He says we can't rely solely on antibiotics in the future and phage are a potential alternative.
But he warns the steps needed to get from the laboratory and into patients are "uncharted".
Things are changing. Phage therapy is available in the UK on compassionate grounds when other treatments have failed. And the drugs regulator – The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency – has published its first official rules to support the development of phage therapy.
"If one looks 15-20 years into the future, with the emerging methodologies, it's going to be possible for them to be much more widely available and for doctors to prescribe phage instead of antibiotics for some infections," says Prof Elkington.
If you want to see if you can find a friendly virus too then The Phage Collection Project are launching their new sampling kits at the Summer Science Exhibition taking place this week at the Royal Society and through their website.
"Antimicrobial resistance is something that could affect all of us," says Esme Brinsden from the Phage Collection Project, "when the public get involved they may just find the next phage that can help treat and save a patient's life".
Photography by the BBC's Emma Lynch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Tracking the Aftermath From Erin on the Ocean
Hurricane Erin is crossing over the Atlantic Ocean as an unusually wide Category 2 storm, lashing the East Coast with heavy surf and flooding. As the storm moves on toward Europe, scientists are looking at the oceanic imprint it's leaving behind. One key signature is temperature. The ocean is layered like a cake, with warm water on top and cold water below. Hurricanes churn those layers, bringing cooler water to the surface. Because hurricanes feed on heat, this cooling effect could weaken future storms in the area, said Greg Foltz, an oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.'A hurricane, from an oceanographic point of view, causes a huge amount of mixing,' said Sally Warner, an associate professor of climate science at Brandeis University. 'You can look at sea surface temperatures from satellites, and see this streak of cold water where the hurricane has passed by.'Meteorologists are already seeing this happen with Hurricane Erin's wake. East of the Bahamas, around where Erin rapidly intensified into a major storm last Friday night, a bloom of colder water has begun to show up on maps of sea surface temperature.'The warmth of the ocean is extremely important for looking at what the conditions will be for future hurricanes,' said Brian McNoldy, a senior research associate at the University of Miami. If another storm forms in the same area immediately after, the same atmospheric steering patterns may send it running on a similar track toward that cold patch. Forecasters are monitoring two atmospheric disturbances near Erin's birthplace, both with over a 50 percent chance of becoming a storm in the coming days. Still, Dr. McNoldy cautioned that Erin's cooling effect is likely short-lived and that the August sun will quickly warm the surface back up. A similar storm in October, he said, could leave behind a much longer-lasting chill. Other effects are harder to see. 'Just as hurricanes mix the cold water up, they're also mixing the hot water down,' said Dr. Warner. In 2023, she contributed to a paper that found the mixing caused by hurricanes transports ocean heat into the depths, where it gets matters, because 'over 90 percent of the excess heat that humans have put into the atmosphere via burning fossil fuels has ended up in the ocean,' she said. In some ways, moving the heat into the deep ocean means that there's less heat in the atmosphere. But this excess heat could have other consequences, especially for wildlife and larger climate systems. 'Yes, there could be a mitigating impact of climate change if we're moving the surface ocean heat down deep,' said Dr. Warner. 'But it's not to say that there won't be impacts.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Not drinking enough water causes greater biological response to stress
People who do not drink enough water have a stronger biological response to stress, according to a study. Researchers found those who habitually drink less release greater levels of the stress hormone cortisol, despite not feeling any thirstier than people who drink more. Keeping a water bottle nearby during stressful periods could be beneficial for long-term health, researchers suggest. The study, led by experts at Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU), included 16 people who drank under 1.5 litres of water a day, along with 16 people who regularly met daily recommended guidelines for fluid intake. Researchers used the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) guidelines, which recommends men should drink 2.5 litres of water a day while women should drink two litres. In the UK, the Eatwell Guide suggests adults should drink between six and eight cups of fluid a day, which is roughly 1.5 to two litres. However, people may need to drink more when it is hot, if they are very active, if they are recovering from an illness, or if they are pregnant or breastfeeding. Researchers monitored hydration in both groups over seven days using urine and blood samples, after which they were invited into the lab for a stress test. The test involved an impromptu job interview, for which each individual was given 10 minutes to prepare for. After that time, they were invited into another room where a fake camera was set up and asked to do the interview to a panel of three people dressed in white coats. Following the fake interview, individuals were then asked to do a mental arithmetic challenge which involved subtracting numbers as fast as they can. Professor Neil Walsh, of the LJMU School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, described the test as 'really flustering'. He told the PA news agency: 'We know that people who have a low daily fluid intake, who don't meet the recommendations, are likely to be poorly hydrated. 'But what we didn't know was whether, when you then stress those people under controlled conditions, they would have a greater stress hormone response.' Researchers collected saliva samples from the group before and after the stress test to measure cortisol levels. Cortisol, known as the stress hormone, is produced by the adrenal glands in response to stress and also plays a role in immune response, metabolism and blood pressure. The team found cortisol levels were higher in those who drank less. Prof Shaw noted that stress responses such as increased heart rate, sweaty hands and dry mouth were similar between the two groups. 'Both groups felt equally anxious and experienced similar increases in heart rate during the stress test,' he said. 'But the people who were poorly hydrated, because they were not drinking enough water each day, had much greater cortisol responses.' The low-fluid intake group did also not report feeling more thirsty than those who drank more, according to Prof Walsh. He added: 'Cortisol is the body's primary stress hormone and exaggerated cortisol reactivity to stress is associated with an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes and depression. 'If you know you have a looming deadline or a speech to make, keeping a water bottle close could be a good habit with potential benefits for your long-term health.' Prof Walsh said further research is needed to better understand the findings, published in the Journal of Applied Physiology, and to see if increasing water intake in those who do not drink enough can reduce responses to daily 'micro stressors' like traffic jams or presentations at work. 'We'd like to think that meeting the water intake guidelines could be one of a number of things you could do to blunt that cortisol response day to day,' he added.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Baby food firms told to cut sugar and salt
Baby food manufacturers must cut levels of salt and sugar in their products and stop promoting snacks for babies under the age of one, the government has said. The new guidance would also restrict the use of marketing claims that suggest health benefits without scientific evidence. Firms that do not make their products healthier within 18 months may face action. It comes four months after a BBC Panorama investigation found top-brand baby food pouches lacked key nutrients and parents were often being misled by marketing. Manufacturers told the BBC they were committed to providing high quality and nutritious foods, and marketing and labelling them in a responsible way. There has been significant growth in the baby food and drink market in recent years. Food in pouches makes up more than a third of this market and there's been a rise in sales of snacks like fruit and vegetable-based straws, puffs and wafers. "Companies are dressing these products up as being healthy, when actually they're much like a crisp or a sweetie. They're putting profit before health," says former chief nutritionist to the government, Dr Alison Tedstone. "I hope an ethical business will stand back and think about the health of our children." In June, NHS advice was updated to tell parents they should not rely on baby food pouches as everyday meals, with experts believing they can cause health problems for children if used as their main source of nutrition. These new government guidelines now turn to manufacturers - telling them to improve their products and ranges. This has been a key demand of health campaigners who say it is companies that need to improve, so not all the pressure is on parents. Kristal, a mum of two from Leeds, has used commercial baby food to feed her son Austin, who is now two. "Like most parents I take my children's health and nutrition very seriously," she told the BBC. "[But] for far too long there have been misleading marketing messages about the nutritional value of baby food and implied 'healthiness' of some of the infant snack foods". Top-brand baby food pouches lack key nutrients Campaigners call for urgent action over unhealthy baby food Restrict shop-bought baby food, government tells parents Companies have previously been able to market products to babies as young as four months old, even though government guidelines state that solid foods should not be given to babies under six months. Firms have also marketed snacks to infants under 12 months, when NHS guidance for parents says children under one do not need snacks. The new guidelines say both of these practices should now be phased out, which could have significant ramifications for manufacturers. Under the guidelines, sugar levels will be restricted in finger foods, snacks, desserts and non-refrigerated yoghurts, but there is no maximum level of sugar permitted in fruit pouches. This is despite many such products containing more sugar in a single pouch than a one-year-old should have in a day. Companies have also been told to restrict the use of marketing claims on their products which are not based on scientific evidence. Experts argue these claims often make products appear healthier than they really are, and sometimes even appear a better choice than homemade food. Some leading baby food pouches carry labels such as "just good stuff" or "packed with goodness", despite BBC Panorama finding some products to be low in key nutrients and very high in sugar. But there is concern the guidelines are not clear on what is and isn't permissible. Dr Vicky Sibson, a public health nutritionist and director of the charity First Steps Nutrition Trust, describes them as "open to exploitation" by companies. A version of these guidelines was first drafted five years ago by Public Health England for the then-Conservative government. However, the guidelines were never published as prime ministers changed and new priorities came in during the Covid-19 pandemic. Dr Alison Tedstone led the team that wrote those guidelines and told the BBC she hopes "this is the line in the sand". The guidelines are voluntary, and the government hopes they will be followed. But none of the companies approached by the BBC responded when asked if they would adhere to the guidelines in full. A public relations firm representing Ella's Kitchen, a market leader, disputed whether some of its products fell under the guidelines relating to the advertising of snacks. It told the BBC their carrot and parsnip melty puffs and tomato and basil melty sticks – advertised clearly as snacks on supermarket websites, and in the 'snacks and finger foods' section on their own website – were actually intended to be used as part of a meal or 'picky plate'. Dr Vicky Sibson called the Ella's Kitchen response "disingenuous", adding that parents regularly use such products as snacks. She said puffs and melty sticks were wholly inappropriate for use within main meals as infants need food that is high in nutrients. Dr Tedstone said she heard such arguments time and time again from baby food companies and that it was "inevitable" some companies would not adhere to the guidelines. The government says "additional or alternative measures" will be considered if businesses fail to implement these guidelines by February 2027. Campaigners hope this would take the form of improved mandatory legislation. The government declined to specify if this was an option. The guidelines apply in England only, but it's expected that manufacturers will sell any updated ranges or products across the UK. The British Specialist Nutrition Association (BSNA), an industry body that represents the biggest baby food companies including Ella's Kitchen, Organix, Kiddilicious and Hipp Organic, told the BBC its members "have carried out significant improvements to recipes in recent years, including reducing sugar and increasing vegetable content, and continually review on-pack information'. "We will continue to work towards the published guidelines," it added. 'Baby foods can play an important role alongside home-prepared meals and offer options for parents on-the-go." Heinz and Kiddilicious did not respond to the BBC. Organix and Ella's Kitchen did not provide their own statements, referring us to the BSNA. Piccolo said they "remain committed to evolving with the guidance to best serve families". Charlotte Stirling-Reed, a baby weaning expert and author, told the BBC that she hoped brands adhered "for the future health of children". She added that families should not feel guilty for having used the products. "This is about making changes to the food products that are available for young children, not about shaming us as parents." Do you have more information about this story? You can reach Catrin Nye by email at or her Instagram account.
