| Literature DB >> 24977157 |
Clarence F G Castillo1, Maurice H T Ling2.
Abstract
Antibiotics resistance is a serious biomedical issue as formally susceptible organisms gain resistance under its selective pressure. There have been contradictory results regarding the prevalence of resistance following withdrawal and disuse of the specific antibiotics. Here, we use experimental evolution in "digital organisms" to examine the rate of gain and loss of resistance under the assumption that there is no fitness cost for maintaining resistance. Our results show that selective pressure is likely to result in maximum resistance with respect to the selective pressure. During deselection as a result of disuse of the specific antibiotics, a large initial loss and prolonged stabilization of resistance are observed, but resistance is not lost to the stage of preselection. This suggests that a pool of partial persists organisms persist long after withdrawal of selective pressure at a relatively constant proportion. Hence, contradictory results regarding the prevalence of resistance following withdrawal and disuse of the specific antibiotics may be a statistical variation about constant proportion. Our results also show that subsequent reintroduction of the same selective pressure results in rapid regain of maximal resistance. Thus, our simulation results suggest that complete elimination of specific antibiotics resistance is unlikely after the disuse of antibiotics once a resistant pool of microorganisms has been established.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24977157 PMCID: PMC4054778 DOI: 10.1155/2014/648389
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Gain of resistant traits under selective pressure. Panels (a) and (b) are results from TS, while Panels (c) and (d) are results from FPS. Panels (a) and (c) show the average (n = 25) percentage of maximum fitness scores across 200 generations for the 4 different complexities of resistant traits, referred to as “target sequence,” from truncation selection and fitness-proportionate selection, respectively. For example, “target sequence = 5 × 0” refers to the simulation of 10 blocks of 5 zeros as resistant trait. Panels (b) and (d) show the average absolute fitness scores from truncation selection and fitness-proportionate selection, respectively.
Figure 2Fitness in unselected population across 5000 generations as control.
Figure 3Average fitness score for 5000 generations of deselection (generation 201 to 5200). Panels (a), (b), (c), and (d) show 4 different resistant complexities (referred to as “target sequence”), respectively. The average population fitness and the average fitness of the fittest organism of each triplicated simulation are shown for each generation. For each target sequence, the corresponding average fitness scores at each generation for control (from Figure 2) are added for comparison. Hence, the average fitness scores for controls in each panel are identical. Paired t-tests are performed between average population fitness and control for both TS and FPS.
Estimated number of generations after selection that are needed to lose fitness traits. Regression models are generated from gradual loss of fitness after withdrawal of selection pressure (generation 2000 to 5200) as initial fitness loss (generation 201 to 1999) may overestimate the rate of fitness loss. These regression models were generated using only data from FPS.
| Target sequence | Regression model | Estimated generations needed to lose fitness | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average top fitness | 7x0 | (−95% CI) Fitness = 62.4 − 0.000017 generation | 1,290,000 |
| (Mean) Fitness = 62.4 − 0.000001 generation | 21,800,000 | ||
| (+95% CI) Fitness = 62.4 + 0.000017 generation | Infinity | ||
| 9x0 | (−95% CI) Fitness = 65.5 − 0.000107 generation | 233000 | |
| (Mean) Fitness = 65.5 + 0.000119 generation | Infinity | ||
| (+95% CI) Fitness = 65.5 + 0.000345 generation | Infinity | ||
| 11x0 | (−95% CI) Fitness = 67.3 − 0.000061 generation | 438,000 | |
| (Mean) Fitness = 67.3 + 0.000021 generation | Infinity | ||
| (+95% CI) Fitness = 67.3 + 0.000292 generation | Infinity | ||
|
| |||
| Average population fitness | 5x0 | (−95% CI) Fitness = 47.3 − 0.000044 generation | 152,000 |
| (Mean) Fitness = 47.3 + 0.000016 generation | Infinity | ||
| (+95% CI) Fitness = 47.3 + 0.000076 generation | Infinity | ||
| 7x0 | (−95% CI) Fitness = 53.2 − 0.000058 generation | 217,000 | |
| (Mean) Fitness = 53.2 + 0.000060 generation | Infinity | ||
| (+95% CI) Fitness = 53.2 + 0.000178 generation | Infinity | ||
| 9x0 | (−95% CI) Fitness = 54.5 − 0.000179 generation | 78,000 | |
| (Mean) Fitness = 54.5 − 0.000021 generation | 661,000 | ||
| (+95% CI) Fitness = 54.5 + 0.000137 generation | Infinity | ||
| 11x0 | (−95% CI) Fitness = 54.7 − 0.000081 generation | 175,000 | |
| (Mean) Fitness = 54.7 + 0.000072 generation | Infinity | ||
| (+95% CI) Fitness = 54.7 + 0.000225 generation | Infinity | ||
Figure 4Average population fitness score for 200 generations of reintroduction of selective pressure. Reintroduction of selective pressure was carried out from deselection experiment (generation 5200 in Experiment 3). This is compared to initial introduction of selection to a native population (Experiment 1) and paired t-test is performed between the generation-matched average fitness of initial introduction (generation 1 to 200) and reintroduction (generation 5201 to 5400) for both TS and FPS.
Paired t-test comparisons of average population fitness between deselections. Paired t-tests were used instead of one-way ANOVA as the former is targeted towards testing the difference in 2 sets of data; hence, paired t-test is a more appropriate test compared to one-way ANOVA. Our results show that there is no statistical difference between the average population fitness (from 25 replicates) from any 2 deselections, regardless of selection methods. However, the average population fitness from any deselection is significantly higher than control.
| Paired |
|
|---|---|
| TS, loss-1 (generation 201 to 5200) versus loss-2 (generation 5401 to 10400) | 0.617 |
| TS, loss-1 (generation 201 to 5200) versus loss-3 (generation 10601 to 15400) | 0.422 |
| TS, loss-1 (generation 201 to 5200) versus loss-4 (generation 15801 to 20800) | 0.656 |
| TS, loss-2 (generation 5401 to 10400) versus loss-3 (generation 10601 to 15400) | 0.061 |
| TS, loss-2 (generation 5401 to 10400) versus loss-4 (generation 15801 to 20800) | 0.683 |
| TS, loss-3 (generation 10601 to 15400) versus loss-4 (generation 15801 to 20800) | 0.158 |
|
| |
| FPS, loss-1 (generation 201 to 5200) versus loss-2 (generation 5401 to 10400) | 0.980 |
| FPS, loss-1 (generation 201 to 5200) versus loss-3 (generation 10601 to 15400) | 0.975 |
| FPS, loss-1 (generation 201 to 5200) versus loss-4 (generation 15801 to 20800) | 0.483 |
| FPS, loss-2 (generation 5401 to 10400) versus loss-3 (generation 10601 to 15400) | 0.974 |
| FPS, loss-2 (generation 5401 to 10400) versus loss-4 (generation 15801 to 20800) | 0.522 |
| FPS, loss-3 (generation 10601 to 15400) versus loss-4 (generation 15801 to 20800) | 0.458 |
|
| |
| Loss-2 (generation 5401 to 10400), TS versus FPS | 0.278 |
| Loss-3 (generation 10601 to 15400), TS versus FPS | 0.157 |
| Loss-4 (generation 15801 to 20800), TS versus FPS | 0.332 |
|
| |
| Control versus TS loss-2 (generation 5401 to 10400) | 3.5 × 10−17 |
| Control versus TS loss-3 (generation 10601 to 15400) | 2.2 × 10−17 |
| Control versus TS loss-4 (generation 15801 to 20800) | 4.7 × 10−17 |
| Control versus FPS loss-2 (generation 5401 to 10400) | 1.7 × 10−25 |
| Control versus FPS loss-3 (generation 10601 to 15400) | 1.5 × 10−25 |
| Control versus FPS loss-4 (generation 15801 to 20800) | 6.1 × 10−26 |
Figure 5Average population fitness in 4 consecutive TS deselections. There is no significant difference between consecutive deselections and between TS and FPS deselections (see Table 2; paired t-test P value > 0.15).