Shruti Suresh, Christina Fruciano, Domenica DiStasio1. They chose to use bacteriophages because they have been used for decades in eastern Europe and are still used today. They also used them because bacteriophage biology is much better understood today than it used to be in the 20th century. They also used phages against the other organism, the Pseudomonas, because opportunistic pathogens are becoming resistant, so they needed an organism that could adapt to the presence of the pathogens. They also used the bioluminescent P. aeruginosa strain to record the infection because they could monitor the spread of the bacteria. 2. The author proposed if bacteriophages could be used in infection therapy and if noninvasive bioluminescence could be used to better view the effects of the phage therapy. 3. The author tried to answer if the efficacy of bacteriophages could be used to better treatinfections. Additionally, they also wanted to see if the bacteriophages could specifically target the pathogen and adapt. They also wanted to see if this therapeutic use could be translated to animals. 4. The testable hypothesis was that the authors aimed to see if an isolated bacteriophage could be used to for therapy in an animal lung infection model. The predictions made were that the bacteriophages could target the pathogen and effectively kill it-bioluminescence would go down.5. The dependent variable is the state of the infection in the mice (if it went down or not)/the amount of bioluminescence. The independent variable(s) are the time when the injected the phages, the amount of phage concentration they injected. 6. The control is the PBS solution injected into the mice which tested/made sure both mice were under the same conditions and were injected with something to see the effects of the phages. And the mice injected with just the phages to see if they were harmful. Yes, the controls could be-controls well for the experiment or could not be sufficient-individual immune system/strain of mice. 7. Yes, these results support the hypothesis as the mice injected with the phages show less light/luminescence.8. Figure 3 tries to answer the question of which injection timing works the best. Figure 3 shows pictures of how the bioluminescence shows/how the state of the infection changes when the mice are injected at different times. The author claimed that the miceinjected at hour 2 had the least amount of infection (almost 100% cured). Their evidenceis fairly strong as we can see the limited light in the hour 2 mice.9. The author came to the conclusion that noninvasive bioluminescence technology is very useful for monitoring the efficacy of bacteriophage treatment. It was also claimed that this experiment was useful in studying infections and treating them. These are reasonable conclusions as the results supported these claims and were significant. 10. These results matter to humans because if this works with mice it can be translated on some level to humans. And this could help with cystic fibrosis