OBJECTIVES: electrostatic forces mediate the initial interaction between cationic colistin and Gram-negative bacterial cells. Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) loss mediates colistin resistance in some A. baumannii strains. Our aim was to determine the surface charge of colistin-susceptible and -resistant A. baumannii as a function of growth phase and in response to polymyxin treatment. METHODS: the zeta potential of A. baumannii ATCC 19606 and 10 clinical multidrug-resistant strains (MICs 0.5-2 mg/L) was assessed. Colistin-resistant derivatives (MIC >128 mg/L) of wild-type strains were selected in the presence of 10 mg/L colistin, including the LPS-deficient lpxA mutant, ATCC 19606R. To determine the contribution of LPS to surface charge, two complemented ATCC 19606R derivatives were examined, namely ATCC 19606R + lpxA (containing an intact lpxA gene) and ATCC 19606R + V (containing empty vector). Investigations were conducted as a function of growth phase and polymyxin treatment (1, 4 and 8 mg/L). RESULTS: wild-type cells exhibited a greater negative charge (-60.5 ± 2.36 to -26.2 ± 2.56 mV) thancolistin-resistant cells (-49.2 ± 3.09 to -19.1 ± 2.80 mV) at mid-log phase (ANOVA, P < 0.05). Opposing growth-phase trends were observed for both phenotypes: wild-type cells displayed reduced negative charge and colistin-resistant cells displayed increased negative charge at stationary compared with mid-logarithmic phase. Polymyxin exposure resulted in a concentration-dependent increase in zeta potential. Examination of ATCC 19606R and complemented strains supported the importance of LPS in determining surface charge, suggesting a potential mechanism of colistin resistance. CONCLUSIONS: zeta potential differences between A. baumannii phenotypes probably reflect compositional outer-membrane variations that impact the electrostatic component of colistin activity.
OBJECTIVES: electrostatic forces mediate the initial interaction between cationic colistin and Gram-negative bacterial cells. Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) loss mediates colistin resistance in some A. baumannii strains. Our aim was to determine the surface charge of colistin-susceptible and -resistant A. baumannii as a function of growth phase and in response to polymyxin treatment. METHODS: the zeta potential of A. baumannii ATCC 19606 and 10 clinical multidrug-resistant strains (MICs 0.5-2 mg/L) was assessed. Colistin-resistant derivatives (MIC >128 mg/L) of wild-type strains were selected in the presence of 10 mg/L colistin, including the LPS-deficientlpxA mutant, ATCC 19606R. To determine the contribution of LPS to surface charge, two complemented ATCC 19606R derivatives were examined, namely ATCC 19606R + lpxA (containing an intact lpxA gene) and ATCC 19606R + V (containing empty vector). Investigations were conducted as a function of growth phase and polymyxin treatment (1, 4 and 8 mg/L). RESULTS: wild-type cells exhibited a greater negative charge (-60.5 ± 2.36 to -26.2 ± 2.56 mV) thancolistin-resistant cells (-49.2 ± 3.09 to -19.1 ± 2.80 mV) at mid-log phase (ANOVA, P < 0.05). Opposing growth-phase trends were observed for both phenotypes: wild-type cells displayed reduced negative charge and colistin-resistant cells displayed increased negative charge at stationary compared with mid-logarithmic phase. Polymyxin exposure resulted in a concentration-dependent increase in zeta potential. Examination of ATCC 19606R and complemented strains supported the importance of LPS in determining surface charge, suggesting a potential mechanism of colistin resistance. CONCLUSIONS: zeta potential differences between A. baumannii phenotypes probably reflect compositional outer-membrane variations that impact the electrostatic component of colistin activity.
Authors: Jian Li; Robert W Milne; Roger L Nation; John D Turnidge; Kingsley Coulthard Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Alejandro Beceiro; Enrique Llobet; Jesús Aranda; José Antonio Bengoechea; Michel Doumith; Michael Hornsey; Hiran Dhanji; Henrik Chart; Germán Bou; David M Livermore; Neil Woodford Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2011-05-16 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Rachel L Soon; Roger L Nation; Marina Harper; Ben Adler; John D Boyce; Chun-Hong Tan; Jian Li; Ian Larson Journal: Int J Antimicrob Agents Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 5.283
Authors: Timothy R Sampson; Xiang Liu; Max R Schroeder; Colleen S Kraft; Eileen M Burd; David S Weiss Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2012-08-20 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Jennifer H Moffatt; Marina Harper; Ashley Mansell; Bethany Crane; Timothy C Fitzsimons; Roger L Nation; Jian Li; Ben Adler; John D Boyce Journal: Infect Immun Date: 2012-12-17 Impact factor: 3.441
Authors: Alberto Oddo; Thomas T Thomsen; Susanne Kjelstrup; Ciara Gorey; Henrik Franzyk; Niels Frimodt-Møller; Anders Løbner-Olesen; Paul R Hansen Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2015-11-16 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Marta Martínez-Guitián; Juan C Vázquez-Ucha; Joshua Odingo; Tanya Parish; Margarita Poza; Richard D Waite; German Bou; David W Wareham; Alejandro Beceiro Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2016-06-20 Impact factor: 5.191