| Literature DB >> 25226591 |
Nagendra N Mishra1, Arnold S Bayer1, Christopher Weidenmaier2, Timo Grau3, Stefanie Wanner3, Stefania Stefani4, Viviana Cafiso4, Taschia Bertuccio4, Michael R Yeaman5, Cynthia C Nast6, Soo-Jin Yang1.
Abstract
Development of in vivo daptomycin resistance (DAP-R) among Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates, in association with clinical treatment failures, has become a major therapeutic problem. This issue is especially relevant to methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) strains in the context of invasive endovascular infections. In the current study, we used three well-characterized and clinically-derived DAP-susceptible (DAP-S) vs. resistant (DAP-R) MRSA strain-pairs to elucidate potential genotypic mechanisms of the DAP-R phenotype. In comparison to the DAP-S parental strains, DAP-R isolates demonstrated (i) altered expression of two key determinants of net positive surface charge, either during exponential or stationary growth phases (i.e., dysregulation of dltA and mprF), (ii) a significant increase in the D-alanylated wall teichoic acid (WTA) content in DAP-R strains, reflecting DltA gain-in-function; (iii) heightened elaboration of lysinylated-phosphatidylglyderol (L-PG) in DAP-R strains, reflecting MprF gain-in-function; (iv) increased cell membrane (CM) fluidity, and (v) significantly reduced susceptibility to prototypic cationic host defense peptides of platelet and leukocyte origins. In the tested DAP-R strains, genes conferring positive surface charge were dysregulated, and their functionality altered. However, there were no correlations between relative surface positive charge or cell wall thickness and the observed DAP-R phenotype. Thus, charge repulsion mechanisms via altered surface charge may not be sufficient to explain the DAP-R outcome. Instead, changes in the compositional or biophysical order of the DAP CM target of such DAP-R strains (i.e., increased fluidity) may be essential to this phenotype. Taken together, DAP-R in S. aureus appears to involve multi-factorial and strain-specific adaptive mechanisms.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25226591 PMCID: PMC4166420 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107426
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Bacterial strains examined in the current studies. *
| Strain | ST type | SCC | PFGE |
| DAP MICs | VANC MICs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*These data have been previously published [31]; DAP = daptomycin; VAN = vancomycin; SNPs = single nucleotide polymorphisms.
In vitro susceptibility to killing by cationic host defense peptides and the congener, RP-1.
| Strain | % survival (mean ± SD) after 2-h exposure to: | |||||||
| tPMPs (2 µg/ml) | tPMPs (1 µg/ml) | LL-37 (1 µg/ml) | LL-37 (0.5 µg/ml) | hNP-1 (20 µg/ml) | hNP-1 (10 µg/ml) | RP-1 (1 µg/ml) | RP-1 (0.5 µg/ml) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*P<0.05;
**P<0.01 vs the DAP-S parental strains.
Comparative fatty acid (FA) compositions of S. aureus study strains.
| Strains | FA species (% of fatty acid composition ± SD) | |||
| Iso-BCFA | Anteiso-BCFA | UFAs | SFAs | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BCFAs = Branched chain fatty acids; UFAs = unsaturated fatty acids;
SFAs = Saturated fatty acids.
*P<0.05 vs. respective parental strain.
Comparative cell membrane phospholipid profiles of study strains.
| Strains | % of total phospholipids ± SD | ||||
| Inner-LPG | Outer-LPG | Total LPG | PG | CL | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abbreviations: LPG, lysyl-phosphatydylglycerol; PG, phosphatidylglycerol; CL, cardiolipin.
*P<0.05;
**P<0.01 vs respective DAP-S parental strains.
Figure 5Relative transcription level of mprF during exponential (A) and stationary (B) growth phase.
RNA samples were isolated from exponential- and stationary-phase cultures of the strains and were subjected to qRT-PCR to detect transcription of mprF and gyrA. EXPO = exponential growth phase; ST = stationary growth phase; Fold expression = compared to gyrB gene, with parental strain fold-expression set at “1”. **P<0.01 vs DAP-S parental strains.
Figure 6Relative transcription level of dltA during exponential (A) and stationary (B) growth phase.
RNA samples were isolated from exponential- and stationary-phase cultures of the strains and were subjected to RT-PCR to detect transcription of dltA and gyrA. EXPO = exponential growth phase; ST = stationary growth phase; Fold expression = compared to gyrB gene, with parental strain fold-expression set at “1”. *P<0.05; **P<0.01 vs DAP-S parental strains.