We aim to contribute to our feeding’s foundation by offering a safe solution to one of the biggest problems of the milk production chain. With a shared commitment, we work in an attempt to reduce food waste and improve quality as well as enhance food safety. This way, AureoBos reveals a new possibility to revolutionize the dairy industry.
We reduce milk waste by swiftly treating mastitis in dairy cattle, minimizing the need to discard milk due to infection or presence of antibiotic residues.
We empower dairy farmers by providing an effective and sustainable solution, which enhances animal health and productivity, while reducing production costs, ensuring their long-term success in the dairy industry.
We enhance food safety to safeguard consumers by reducing antibiotic residues in dairy products and minimizing the risk of antibiotic-resistant pathogens, ensuring healthier and safer food.
In the biggest state of Mexico, Chihuahua, lies our tight-knit team, bound not only by our passion for science but also by our love for our community. One would say the way to someone’s heart is through their stomach, and we are certain about that. Our gastronomy is known worldwide and besides being delicious, it tells the story of the people living in our country. At least in Mexico, our kitchen wouldn’t be complete without a key ingredient: milk. Quesadillas, enchiladas, flan, jamoncillo and numerous delicacies come from this golden liquid.
During the project's early stages, we found ourselves inspired by the story of our teammate Alexa. She told us about the challenges her godmother, a dairy farmer, faced daily. This is when we delved into her issues, specifically into mastitis Udder inflammation, characterized by swelling, increased warmth, alterations in milk appearance, and potential systemic illness, results in physiological and/or anatomical changes to the udder. : a common and prevalent disease in dairy cattle. This caught our attention due to its significant multifaceted impact on dairy owners. Motivated by Chihuahua's prominence in the Mexican dairy industry1, we recognized the global significance of addressing this issue. We were also inspired by the work of previous iGEM teams, particularly the 2017 TU Delft and the 2021 IISER Kolkata teams, whose project focuses on the diagnosis of mastitis. This led us to choose a different path, focusing on developing a non-antibiotic treatment for mastitis.
Mastitis reduces the quality and quantity of milk produced. Current treatments to eradicate this infection include antibiotics, which force producers to withdraw the milk, affecting their incomes and decreasing even more the supply of this food. Over 6 billion people worldwide trust their nutrition on milk which is rich in high-quality protein and vital nutrients that are easily absorbed by our bodies. These nutrients include fats, fatty acids, carbohydrates, sugars, vitamins, and minerals2 as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Nutrients of whole milk, excluding water. 3
When we think about milk, we immediately associate it with cows, and that is not very far from reality, although it can also be obtained from buffaloes, camels or goats. 82% of total world milk is obtained from cattle.4 About 150 million households worldwide are engaged in dairy farming.5 In most developing countries, like Mexico, milk production is carried out by smallholders, exerting a significant impact on household livelihoods, food security and nutritional requirements. With an astonishing production of 550,498 thousand metric tons of milk worldwide as of July 2023,6 the dairy industry stands as a major employer worldwide, underscoring the critical importance of udder health.
The limited access and high cost of milk are related to several reasons that contribute to mastitis, as seen below.7,8
Malfunctioning milking machines can facilitate the reverse flow of bacteria into the udder. They are responsible for 40% of new infections.
Flies transmit contagious mastitis-causing pathogens as S. aureus and E. coli. This problem intensifies especially in the summer.
The transfer of bacteria between cows is facilitated by non-disposable gloves and hands of dairy workers. Manual milking has a higher infection rate.
S. aureus infection is also associated with the purchase of new cows, which can introduce new pathogen strains to the herd.
Transmission of S. uberis can occur from bedding material (soil, sawdust, straw).
Figure 2. Common ethiological agents of bovine mastitis.
Specific contagious pathogens stand out as significant contributors, mainly Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus agalactiae, and Streptococcus uberis as shown in Figure 3, microorganisms that causes damage on the milking tissue, causing irreversible damage to the cow’s milk peak production.
S. aureus, the predominant pathogen responsible for bovine mastitis, produces harmful toxins and enzymes. These include protein A, which hinders antibody recognition by neutrophils; β-lactamase inducing microabscess formation; and TSST-1 (toxic shock syndrome toxin-1), the major cause of toxic shock syndrome characterized by fever, rash and organ failure.9,10
On the other hand, S. agalactiae is adept at forming biofilms and resides in the bovine gastrointestinal tract.11 Lastly, S. uberis is associated with clinical and sub-clinical infections. It was reported that α-casein and β-casein in milk induce production of biofilms, which help S. uberis to persist under environmental stress and resist antibiotic treatment.12
Staphylococcus aureus is one of the most feared pathogens by dairy farmers. It produces toxins and enzymes that damage milking tissue for life.
Streptococcus uberis produces alpha and beta casein in milk. By proliferation, they induce the production of biofilms which allows the bacteria to resist antibiotics. It is also very harmful for the host.
Streptococcus agalactiae is adept at forming biofilms. As mentioned before, bacteria who form biofilms are prone to resist antibiotic treatment.
Escherichia coli is an environmental bacteria, and its entry to the udder depends on the season. It has been proved that this microorganism is also very important in bovine mastitis, fact which was later confirmed by our stakeholders
The most common microorganisms known to cause bovine mastitis are three gram-positive bacteria and one gram-negative bacteria. These pathogens are considered of great importance in the dairy farming context because of the irreversible damage they cause on milking tissue.
Figure 3. S. agalactiae, S. aureus and S. uberis in the mastitis infection.
The impact of bovine mastitis extends beyond individual cows. When engaging with our stakeholders, we noticed that the
absence of preventive measures such as proper hygiene in both the cowpens and the milking routine
significantly raises the risk of infection.
Mastitis infections manifest in three forms: subclinical level is when the infection isn't visibly
noticeable, and no symptoms can be detected; clinical level is
the state, where mastitis symptoms become noticeable, and the cow's milk production decreases; chronic
mastitis: This refers to a condition where the infection keeps coming back, and symptoms of clinical
level reappears as shown in Figure 4. Subclinical mastitis, if not addressed, progresses to
clinical stage. Untreated mastitis lowers milk production, increases financial losses, and can harm the
cow's udder. Severe cases can even result in cow mortality.13
Figure 4. Classification of mastitis according to symptoms and signs.
Milk is a valuable commodity worldwide. The global dairy market was valued at 893 billion USD in 202214, and milk production and consumption have been increasing in the last 5 years. As a result, at least 80% of the world's population consumes dairy products15.
Did you know...
Of 7.888 billion of people, about 6.3104 billion consume milk and dairy
Bovine mastitis results in substantial expenses encompassing treatment, animal care, and compromised milk yield. Milk composition, quantity, and quality are adversely affected, with enduring consequences such as impaired udders hindering future milk production for affected cows.8 For both the Mexican dairy sector and global economies, bovine mastitis stands as a leading cause of financial loss, estimated at $200 USD per cow each year.16 The National Mastitis Council of the United States estimated that losses in this country amount to two billion dollars per year, and an average of 200 dollars per cow per year.17 With rising dairy cattle populations, the disease's prevalence is poised to escalate, projecting the bovine mastitis market size to significantly impact the global economy by 2027. According to the research from the University of Glasgow, mastitis is estimated to cost around 19.7 billion dollars to 30 billion USD worldwide; these costs include diagnostics, milk loss, veterinary services, labor, therapeutics, among others.18
Mastitis’ primary treatment consists of antibiotics, such as natural or synthetic penicillins. However, overuse of antibiotics in bovine mastitis can trigger resistance and non-response, raising costs and endangering public health.19
Penicilin
Cephalosporins
Ceftiofur
Tetracycline
Figure 5. Commonly used antibiotics according to our stakeholders
In Mexico, a wide range of antibiotics are approved by the government for treating mastitis, as shown in Figure 5. However, there are several alternative treatments which offer various options to dairy farmers such as intramammary infusion, dry cow therapy, vaccination, bacteriophages, probiotics and herbal remedies.
Figure 6. Available treatments for bovine mastitis
Intramammary infusion of antibiotics is notable for effectively reducing the incidence of mastitis and improving milk quality. Antibiotics, although effective, have the disadvantage of requiring a withdrawal period after administration due to regulatory problems in many countries. This withdrawal period prohibits the collection of milk for human consumption, which leads to economic losses for farmers20 The economic impact of mastitis can be considerable. To learn more about the existing solutions as shown above and the comparison of treatments against AureoBosyou can check our analysis and benchmarking in the entrepreneurship section.
Due to their efficacy, antibiotics are still widely used by dairy cattle farmers. However, this widespread use leads to a significant release of antibiotics into milk, which poses a serious threat to human health.20
Antibiotic resistance manifests itself innate or acquired, and plasmid-mediated resistance contributes significantly to its dissemination. In addition, bacterial biofilm growth offers protection against the effects of antibiotics, making inappropriate antibiotic stewardship counterproductive and increasing resistance.21 Despite the inevitability of antimicrobial resistance, the current situation is due to disproportionate and erroneous use of antibiotics.22 Alarmingly, about 4.95 million deaths in 2019 were related to bacterial resistance to antibiotics23, underscoring the urgency of raising awareness of antibiotic use in our food chain. WHO has declared that antimicrobial resistance is one of the top 10 public health threats facing humanity.24
Discussing mastitis inevitably brings attention to the substantial issue of food wastage. The persistence of food waste remains a significant challenge within the food supply chain, with a staggering one-third of produced nourishment being discarded and approximately 735 million people facing hunger.25
Addressing the issue of hunger, tackling dairy industry losses becomes a significant stride in the ongoing battle to eradicate health and nutrition inequality. In the past decade, dairy consumption has seen an increase, however, in our country, milk production is largely dominated by bigger producers, leading to inflated product prices.1 In response, AureoBos introduces an innovative approach to curbing milk losses and enhancing the availability of dairy derivatives.
As previously discussed, three main gram-positive bacteria are frequently linked with mastitis:S. aureus, S. uberis, and S. agalactiae .26 The prevalence of multidrug-resistant strains, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) among gram-positive bacteria are a significant healthcare concern. Consequently, there's a pressing need for new antimicrobial agents.27
The most efficient antimicrobial agents come from submicroscopic entities: bacteriophages. Endolysins, which are enzymes present in bacteriophages' double-stranded DNA, capable of breaking down peptidoglycan in bacterial cell walls that lead to the bursting of bacterial cells, facilitating the release of new viral particles. These endolysins demonstrate notable potential as an alternative to antibiotics, displaying specific antimicrobial effects on gram-positive bacteria, even in the presence of antibiotic-resistant strains. AureoBos emerged from the realization that externally applying endolysins to bacterial cell walls leads to peptidoglycan degradation and swift bacterial cell lysis. 28
LysSS cuts the bond between N-acetylmuramic acid and N-glucosamine. In our case, we fused this endolysin into an artilysin for it to be capable of weakening the outer membrane of gram-negative bacteria, as Escherichia coli
LysCSA13 has an amidase domain, which allows it to cut the bond between N-acetylmuramico acid and L-ala, mainly attacking Staphylococcus aureus
Lys K has two active lysis domain amidase and endopeptidase ( is essential to attack Streptococci) which allows it to cover a wide group of microorganisms. The SH3b cell wall binding domain is known to bind to the pentaglycine bridge
Peptidoglycan is composed of the repeat polymer of the amino sugars N-acetylglucos-amine and N-acetylmuramic acid, linked together by ß-I,4 glycosidic bonds, and tetrapeptide side chains attached to the lactyl group of the muramic acid by amide bonds. Endolysins bind to carbohydrate sequences that make up teichoic acids, proteins, glycan sequences of peptidoglycan, and choline. In the case of gram-negatives, endolysin have to pass through the cell wall to reach the peptidoglycan layer. Our artilisin has the ability to break through thanks to the incorporated policationic nonapeptide, whose function is to destabilize the cell membrane.
Figure 7. Action mechanisms that our selected endolysins show.
Grounded in the principles of synthetic biology, our project is fundamentally centered on the bioengineering of recombinant fusion proteins within prokaryotic cells.
Our approach involves the use of endolysins Bacteriophage-encoded lytic enzymes responsible for breaking down the peptidoglycan within the bacterial cell wall 29 and albumin binding domains, resulting as a product of novel fusion proteins with great antimicrobial potential. Fusion proteins are a novel technology that involve the genetic combination of two or more domains from proteins. This changes its properties according to each component added. One of its main applications is biopharmaceuticals, since the protein can acquire the ability to target specific molecules or cells.30
For gram-positive bacteria, we utilize two endolysins: LysCSA13 and LysK. These endolysins possess distinct components, including the N-terminal catalytic domain and the C-terminal cell wall binding domain, which confers bacterial specificity.31
Nevertheless, gram-negative bacteria represent a challenge for endolysins due to the non-permeable lipopolysaccharide layer in their cell wall. Artilysins, endolysins fused with lipopolysaccharide destabilizer peptides, are able to disrupt and penetrate this layer, lysing cells in the process.32 By fusing endolysin LysSS, polycationic nonapeptide and CeCA, an antimicrobial peptide, artilysins start forming part of our project.
However, a significant limitation is the remarkably short in vivo half-life of these endolysins, lasting only 20 minutes.33 This brief duration significantly impedes their potential to serve as effective active pharmaceutical agents: it is unfeasible to encompass the entire process of production, purification, distribution, storage, and other essential stages for successful application and market availability. Thus, we aim to extend its half-life by incorporating an albumin-binding domain, thereby enhancing their viability and potential impact.34
All these enzymes will have a sole purpose: find mastitis causing pathogens in the udder. AureoBos’s mechanism is simple: an alginate chitosan gel solution encapsulating our three endolysins will be injected directly into the udder via intramammary infusion.35
Despite the challenge in quantifying milk loss due to mastitis accurately, our stakeholders emphasize its significant impact. We are dedicated to a noble mission: to pioneer a synthetic biology-based treatment of bovine mastitis using endolysins to counteract food waste and improve food safety. Aiming to minimize milk loss while also addressing the limitations and risks associated with antibiotic use, AureoBos primary goal is to offer an effective, safe alternative benefiting dairy farmers of all sizes. Our vision is simple yet profound: to showcase the antimicrobial potential of endolysins, remarkable proteins that combat antibiotic-resistant strains.38
We embarked on this journey by immersing ourselves in the world of mastitis, actively engaging with stakeholders who shape and are impacted by our project. This field research has become the bedrock of our laboratory work, providing us with invaluable insights that by mathematical modeling the lifecyle of our solution guides our path to success. Each step we took was enhanced by the concerns, needs, and knowledge shared by our stakeholders. We envision our treatment transcending as a startup. We offer a solution that addresses the multifaceted challenges faced by local, national, and international dairy farmers, making a meaningful contribution to their well-being and sustainability.
AureoBos’ mission aligns with an anti-waste focus, acknowledging the importance of Sustainable Development Goal 2: Zero Hunger39, helping through the collection of safe and nutritious milk. Our responsibility to preserve Chihuahua's culture fuels our commitment to effect positive and sustainable changes both locally and beyond. Our project exemplifies how synthetic biology, an unfamiliar field to many, can significantly contribute to community well-being. Through genetic engineering and biotechnological tools, we aim to combat bovine mastitis, benefiting local industries and advancing scientific knowledge. AureoBos showcases how synthetic biology can propel wellness progress. The team draws inspiration from our stakeholders’ contributions and strives to create a brighter, healthier future for the dairy industry and the global community.
(1) SIAP. Escenario Mensual de Productos Agroalimentarios; Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, 2022. https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/744355/Leche_de_bovino_Junio.pdf.
(2) Górska-Warsewicz, H.; Rejman, K.; Laskowski, W.; Czeczotko, M. Milk and Dairy Products and Their Nutritional Contribution to the Average Polish Diet. Nutrients 2019, 11 (8), 1771. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11081771.
(3) FoodData Central; USDA. Milk, Whole, 2020. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/1097512/nutrients.
(4) Faccia, M.; D’Alessandro, A. G.; Summer, A.; Hailu, Y. Milk Products from Minor Dairy Species: A Review. Animals 2020, 10 (8), 1260. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10081260.
(5) FAO. Gateway to dairy production and products. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://www.fao.org/dairy-production-products/production/en/ (accessed 2023-08-02).
(6) Foreign Agricultural Service; USDA. Dairy: World Markets and Trade; Global Market Analysis; 2023. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/dairy.pdf.
(7) Adesogan, A. T.; Dahl, G. E. MILK Symposium Introduction: Dairy Production in Developing Countries. Journal of Dairy Science 2020, 103 (11), 9677–9680. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-18313.
(8) Sharun, K.; Dhama, K.; Tiwari, R.; Gugjoo, M. B.; Iqbal Yatoo, Mohd.; Patel, S. K.; Pathak, M.; Karthik, K.; Khurana, S. K.; Singh, R.; Puvvala, B.; Amarpal; Singh, R.; Singh, K. P.; Chaicumpa, W. Advances in Therapeutic and Managemental Approaches of Bovine Mastitis: A Comprehensive Review. Veterinary Quarterly 2021 ,41 (1), 107–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/01652176.2021.1882713.
(9) Algharib, S. A.; Dawood, A.; Xie, S. Nanoparticles for Treatment of Bovine Staphylococcus Aureus Mastitis. Drug Delivery 2020, 27 (1), 292–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/10717544.2020.1724209.
(10) Babić, M.; Pajić, M.; Nikolić, A.; Teodorović, V.; Mirilović, M.; Milojević, L.; Velebit, B. Expression of Toxic Shock Syndrome Toxin-1 Gene of Staphylococcus Aureus in Milk: Proof of Concept. Mljekarstvo 2018, 12–20. https://doi.org/10.15567/mljekarstvo.2018.0102.
(11) Abd El-Aziz, N. K.; Ammar, A. M.; El-Naenaeey, E. Y. M.; El Damaty, H. M.; Elazazy, A. A.; Hefny, A. A.; Shaker, A.; Eldesoukey, I. E. Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Potentials of Cinnamon Oil and Silver Nanoparticles against Streptococcus Agalactiae Isolated from Bovine Mastitis: New Avenues for Countering Resistance. BMC Vet Res 2021, 17 (1), 136. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-021-02842-9.
(12) Varhimo, E.; Varmanen, P.; Fallarero, A.; Skogman, M.; Pyörälä, S.; Iivanainen, A.; Sukura, A.; Vuorela, P.; Savijoki, K. Alpha- and β-Casein Components of Host Milk Induce Biofilm Formation in the Mastitis Bacterium Streptococcus Uberis. Veterinary Microbiology 2011, 149 (3–4), 381–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2010.11.010.
(13) Cheng, W. N.; Han, S. G. Bovine Mastitis: Risk Factors, Therapeutic Strategies, and Alternative Treatments - A Review. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2020, 33 (11), 1699–1713. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.20.0156.
(14) IMARC Group. Global Dairy Market: Industry Trends, Share, Size, Growth, Opportunity and Forecast 2023-2028; Market Research Report SR112023A703; IMARC Group, 2022. https://www.imarcgroup.com/global-dairy-market.
(15) FAO; GDP. limate Change and the Global Dairy Cattle Sector – The Role of the Dairy Sector in a Low-Carbon FutureC; Rome, 2018; p 36 pp. https://www.fao.org/3/CA2929EN/ca2929en.pdf.
(16) Quintana, A. Impacto económico de la mastitis en la productividad del ganadero lechero. BM Editores, SA de CV. https://bmeditores.mx/ganaderia/impacto-economico-de-la-mastitis-en-la-productividad-del-ganadero-lechero/ (accessed 2023-07-26).
(17) Soca, M.; Suárez, Y.; Soca, M.; Pestano, M.; Puron, C. Evaluación Epizootiológica de La Mastitis Bovina En Dos Unidades Ganaderas de La Empresa Pecuaria “El Cangre.” REDVET. Relectrónica de Veterinaria 2005, VI (8), 1–10.
(18) Fortune Business Insights. Bovine Mastitis Market Size, Share & COVID-19 Impact Analysis, By Type (Clinical, and Sub-Clinical), By Product (Antibiotics, and Others), By Route of Administration (Intra-Mammary, and Systemic), By Therapy (Lactating Period and Dry Period {Antibiotics , and Others}) and Regional Forecast, 2020–2027; Bovine Mastitis Market; Market Research Report FBI103482; Fortune Business Insights: Global, 2020; p 150. https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/bovine-mastitis-market-103482.
(19) Gomes, F.; Henriques, M. Control of Bovine Mastitis: Old and Recent Therapeutic Approaches. Curr Microbiol 2016,72 (4), 377–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-015-0958-8.
(20) Sachi, S.; Ferdous, J.; Sikder, M. H.; Azizul Karim Hussani, S. M. Antibiotic Residues in Milk: Past, Present, and Future. J Adv Vet Anim Res 2019, 6 (3), 315–332. https://doi.org/10.5455/javar.2019.f350.
(21) Palma, E.; Tilocca, B.; Roncada, P. Antimicrobial Resistance in Veterinary Medicine: An Overview. Int J Mol Sci 2020, 21 (6), 1914. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061914.
(22) Jonas, O.; Irwin, A.; Berthe, F.; Le Gall, F.; Marquez, P. Drug-Resistant Infections : A Threat to Our Economic Future (Vol. 2) : Final Report; Final Report 114679; World Bank, 2017. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/323311493396993758/final-report.
(23) Murray, C. J. L.; Ikuta, K. S.; Sharara, F.; Swetschinski, L.; Robles Aguilar, G.; Gray, A.; Han, C.; Bisignano, C.; Rao, P.; Wool, E.; Johnson, S. C.; Browne, A. J.; Chipeta, M. G.; Fell, F.; Hackett, S.; Haines-Woodhouse, G.; Kashef Hamadani, B. H.; Kumaran, E. A. P.; McManigal, B.; Achalapong, S.; Agarwal, R.; Akech, S.; Albertson, S.; Amuasi, J.; Andrews, J.; Aravkin, A.; Ashley, E.; Babin, F.-X.; Bailey, F.; Baker, S.; Basnyat, B.; Bekker, A.; Bender, R.; Berkley, J. A.; Bethou, A.; Bielicki, J.; Boonkasidecha, S.; Bukosia, J.; Carvalheiro, C.; Castañeda-Orjuela, C.; Chansamouth, V.; Chaurasia, S.; Chiurchiù, S.; Chowdhury, F.; Clotaire Donatien, R.; Cook, A. J.; Cooper, B.; Cressey, T. R.; Criollo-Mora, E.; Cunningham, M.; Darboe, S.; Day, N. P. J.; De Luca, M.; Dokova, K.; Dramowski, A.; Dunachie, S. J.; Duong Bich, T.; Eckmanns, T.; Eibach, D.; Emami, A.; Feasey, N.; Fisher-Pearson, N.; Forrest, K.; Garcia, C.; Garrett, D.; Gastmeier, P.; Giref, A. Z.; Greer, R. C.; Gupta, V.; Haller, S.; Haselbeck, A.; Hay, S. I.; Holm, M.; Hopkins, S.; Hsia, Y.; Iregbu, K. C.; Jacobs, J.; Jarovsky, D.; Javanmardi, F.; Jenney, A. W. J.; Khorana, M.; Khusuwan, S.; Kissoon, N.; Kobeissi, E.; Kostyanev, T.; Krapp, F.; Krumkamp, R.; Kumar, A.; Kyu, H. H.; Lim, C.; Lim, K.; Limmathurotsakul, D.; Loftus, M. J.; Lunn, M.; Ma, J.; Manoharan, A.; Marks, F.; May, J.; Mayxay, M.; Mturi, N.; Munera-Huertas, T.; Musicha, P.; Musila, L. A.; Mussi-Pinhata, M. M.; Naidu, R. N.; Nakamura, T.; Nanavati, R.; Nangia, S.; Newton, P.; Ngoun, C.; Novotney, A.; Nwakanma, D.; Obiero, C. W.; Ochoa, T. J.; Olivas-Martinez, A.; Olliaro, P.; Ooko, E.; Ortiz-Brizuela, E.; Ounchanum, P.; Pak, G. D.; Paredes, J. L.; Peleg, A. Y.; Perrone, C.; Phe, T.; Phommasone, K.; Plakkal, N.; Ponce-de-Leon, A.; Raad, M.; Ramdin, T.; Rattanavong, S.; Riddell, A.; Roberts, T.; Robotham, J. V.; Roca, A.; Rosenthal, V. D.; Rudd, K. E.; Russell, N.; Sader, H. S.; Saengchan, W.; Schnall, J.; Scott, J. A. G.; Seekaew, S.; Sharland, M.; Shivamallappa, M.; Sifuentes-Osornio, J.; Simpson, A. J.; Steenkeste, N.; Stewardson, A. J.; Stoeva, T.; Tasak, N.; Thaiprakong, A.; Thwaites, G.; Tigoi, C.; Turner, C.; Turner, P.; Van Doorn, H. R.; Velaphi, S.; Vongpradith, A.; Vongsouvath, M.; Vu, H.; Walsh, T.; Walson, J. L.; Waner, S.; Wangrangsimakul, T.; Wannapinij, P.; Wozniak, T.; Young Sharma, T. E. M. W.; Yu, K. C.; Zheng, P.; Sartorius, B.; Lopez, A. D.; Stergachis, A.; Moore, C.; Dolecek, C.; Naghavi, M. Global Burden of Bacterial Antimicrobial Resistance in 2019: A Systematic Analysis. The Lancet 2022, 399(10325), 629–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02724-0.
(24) WHO. Resistencia a los antimicrobianos. https://www.who.int/es/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antimicrobial-resistance (accessed 2023-08-22).
(25) FAO, I. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023: Urbanization, Agrifood Systems Transformation and Healthy Diets across the Rural–Urban Continuum; The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI); FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, WHO: Rome, Italy, 2023. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc3017en.
(26) Tomanić, D.; Samardžija, M.; Kovačević, Z. Alternatives to Antimicrobial Treatment in Bovine Mastitis Therapy: A Review. Antibiotics 2023, 12 (4), 683. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12040683.
(27) Liu, H.; Hu, Z.; Li, M.; Yang, Y.; Lu, S.; Rao, X. Therapeutic Potential of Bacteriophage Endolysins for Infections Caused by Gram-Positive Bacteria. J Biomed Sci 2023, 30 (1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12929-023-00919-1.
(28) Borysowski, J.; Weber-Dąbrowska, B.; Górski, A. Bacteriophage Endolysins as a Novel Class of Antibacterial Agents. Exp Biol Med (Maywood) 2006, 231 (4), 366–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/153537020623100402.
(29) Oliveira, H.; Azeredo, J.; Lavigne, R.; Kluskens, Leon. D. Bacteriophage Endolysins as a Response to Emerging Foodborne Pathogens. Trends in Food Science & Technology 2012, 28 (2), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2012.06.016.
(30) Taylor, R. J.; Geeson, M. B.; Journeaux, T.; Bernardes, G. J. L. Chemical and Enzymatic Methods for Post-Translational Protein–Protein Conjugation. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2022, 144 (32), 14404–14419. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.2c00129.
(31) Fernández, L.; González, S.; Campelo, A. B.; Martínez, B.; Rodríguez, A.; García, P. Downregulation of Autolysin-Encoding Genes by Phage-Derived Lytic Proteins Inhibits Biofilm Formation in Staphylococcus Aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2017, 61 (5), e02724-16. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.02724-16.
(32) Briers, Y.; Walmagh, M.; Van Puyenbroeck, V.; Cornelissen, A.; Cenens, W.; Aertsen, A.; Oliveira, H.; Azeredo, J.; Verween, G.; Pirnay, J.-P.; Miller, S.; Volckaert, G.; Lavigne, R. Engineered Endolysin-Based “Artilysins” To Combat Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Pathogens. mBio 2014, 5 (4), 10.1128/mbio.01379-14. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01379-14.
(33) Resch, G.; Moreillon, P.; Fischetti, V. A. PEGylating a Bacteriophage Endolysin Inhibits Its Bactericidal Activity. AMB Express 2011, 1, 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/2191-0855-1-29.
(34) Seijsing, J.; Sobieraj, A. M.; Keller, N.; Shen, Y.; Zinkernagel, A. S.; Loessner, M. J.; Schmelcher, M. Improved Biodistribution and Extended Serum Half-Life of a Bacteriophage Endolysin by Albumin Binding Domain Fusion. Front Microbiol 2018, 9, 2927. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02927.
(35) Kaur, J.; Kour, A.; Panda, J. J.; Harjai, K.; Chhibber, S. Exploring Endolysin-Loaded Alginate-Chitosan Nanoparticles as Future Remedy for Staphylococcal Infections. AAPS PharmSciTech 2020, 21 (6), 233. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12249-020-01763-4.
(36) Schmelcher, M.; Powell, A. M.; Camp, M. J.; Pohl, C. S.; Donovan, D. M. Synergistic Streptococcal Phage ΛSA2 and B30 Endolysins Kill Streptococci in Cow Milk and in a Mouse Model of Mastitis. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2015, 99 (20), 8475–8486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-015-6579-0.
(37) Loeffler, J. M.; Fischetti, V. A. Synergistic Lethal Effect of a Combination of Phage Lytic Enzymes with Different Activities on Penicillin-Sensitive and -Resistant Streptococcus Pneumoniae Strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003, 47 (1), 375–377. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.47.1.375-377.2003.
(38) Rahman, M. U.; Wang, W.; Sun, Q.; Shah, J. A.; Li, C.; Sun, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhang, B.; Chen, W.; Wang, S. Endolysin, a Promising Solution against Antimicrobial Resistance. Antibiotics 2021, 10 (11), 1277. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10111277.
(39) Martin. Goal 2: Zero Hunger. United Nations Sustainable Development. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger/ (accessed 2023-08-16).