It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Bacteriophage-based biocontrol is a cost-effective, sustainable strategy with low ecological impact, which can control the growth of bacteria such as Escherichia coli that impacts public health problems. This work aimed to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the implementation of bacteriophages as a biocontrol strategy to prevent the contamination of meat products with E. coli. The search was performed by two field experts to avoid reviewer bias. The initial search identified 2,695 bibliographic sources, of which 2,480 were discarded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria, which were the origin of phage, application method, phage taxonomy, E. coli pathotype and meat products, getting 157 articles because they were duplicates, and 47 because they lacked the necessary numerical data. Finally, 11 articles were selected for quantitative analysis. Likewise, phage characteristics (p < 0.05) and E. coli pathotype (p < 0.05), showed that the bacteriophage-bacteria ratio is an item that should be taken into account for the design of bacteriophage application strategies. This meta-analysis evaluates the use of phages in the reduction of E. coli in meat products, considering multiple methodological criteria. Studies were included that specify the origin of the phages (natural or modified), their method of application (direct in meat, in solution, in aerosol, etc.), their taxonomic classification, as well as the pathotype of the target E. coli (EHEC, ETEC, etc.). In addition, the different types of meat products were analyzed, including beef, pork, and chicken. These criteria help clarify the factors affecting phage therapy efficacy in the meat industry.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details







1 Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Autonomous University of the State of Hidalgo, San Miguel Huatengo, Hidalgo, Mexico
2 Faculty of Higher Studies Cuautitlán, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Cuautitlán Izcalli, Estado de México, Mexico
3 Mayan Faculty of Agricultural Studies, Autonomous University of Chiapas, Catazajá, Chiapas, Mexico