Priti Kambli1, Kanchan Ajbani1, Chaitali Nikam1, Meeta Sadani1, Anjali Shetty1, Zarir Udwadia2, Sophia B Georghiou3, Timothy C Rodwell3, Antonino Catanzaro3, Camilla Rodrigues4. 1. Microbiology Section, Department of Laboratory Medicine, P. D. Hinduja Hospital & Medical Research Centre, Mumbai, India. 2. Pulmonology Section, Department of Medicine, P. D. Hinduja Hospital & Medical Research Centre, Mumbai, India. 3. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, United States. 4. Microbiology Section, Department of Laboratory Medicine, P. D. Hinduja Hospital & Medical Research Centre, Mumbai, India. Electronic address: dr_crodrigues@hindujahospital.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE/ BACKGROUND: The in vitro drug-susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis reports isolates as resistant or susceptible on the basis of single critical concentrations. It is evident that drug resistance in M. tuberculosis is quite heterogeneous, and involves low level, moderate level, and high level of drug-resistant phenotypes. Thus, the aim of our study was to correlate rrs (X52917) and eis (AF144099) promoter mutations, found in M. tuberculosis isolates, with corresponding minimum inhibitory concentrations of amikacin, kanamycin, and capreomycin. METHODS: Ninety M. tuberculosis clinical isolates were analyzed in this study. The minimum inhibitory concentrations were determined by MGIT 960 for 59 isolates with resistance-associated mutations in the rrs and eis promoter gene regions, and 31 isolates with wild-type sequences, as determined by the GenoType MTBDRsl (version 1) assay. RESULTS: The rrs A1401G mutation was identified in 48 isolates resistant to the second-line injectables. The eis promoter mutations C-14T (n=3), G-10C (n=3), G-10A (n=3), and C-12T (n=2) were found within 11 isolates with various resistance profiles to the second-line injectables. Thirty-one isolates had wild-type sequences for the rrs and eis promoter gene regions of interest, one of which was amikacin, kanamycin, and capreomycin resistant. The isolates with the rrs A1401G mutation had amikacin, kanamycin, and capreomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations of >40mg/L, >20mg/L, and 5-15mg/L, respectively. The isolates with eis promoter mutations had amikacin, kanamycin, and capreomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations of 0.25-1.0mg/L, 0.625-10mg/L, and 0.625-2.5mg/L, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study provides a preliminary basis for the prediction of phenotypic-resistance levels to the second-line injectables based upon the presence of genetic mutations associated with amikacin, kanamycin, and capreomycin resistance. The results suggest that isolates with eis promoter mutations have consistently lower resistance levels to amikacin, kanamycin, and capreomycin than isolates with the rrs A1401G mutation.
OBJECTIVE/ BACKGROUND: The in vitro drug-susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis reports isolates as resistant or susceptible on the basis of single critical concentrations. It is evident that drug resistance in M. tuberculosis is quite heterogeneous, and involves low level, moderate level, and high level of drug-resistant phenotypes. Thus, the aim of our study was to correlate rrs (X52917) and eis (AF144099) promoter mutations, found in M. tuberculosis isolates, with corresponding minimum inhibitory concentrations of amikacin, kanamycin, and capreomycin. METHODS: Ninety M. tuberculosis clinical isolates were analyzed in this study. The minimum inhibitory concentrations were determined by MGIT 960 for 59 isolates with resistance-associated mutations in the rrs and eis promoter gene regions, and 31 isolates with wild-type sequences, as determined by the GenoType MTBDRsl (version 1) assay. RESULTS: The rrs A1401G mutation was identified in 48 isolates resistant to the second-line injectables. The eis promoter mutations C-14T (n=3), G-10C (n=3), G-10A (n=3), and C-12T (n=2) were found within 11 isolates with various resistance profiles to the second-line injectables. Thirty-one isolates had wild-type sequences for the rrs and eis promoter gene regions of interest, one of which was amikacin, kanamycin, and capreomycin resistant. The isolates with the rrs A1401G mutation had amikacin, kanamycin, and capreomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations of >40mg/L, >20mg/L, and 5-15mg/L, respectively. The isolates with eis promoter mutations had amikacin, kanamycin, and capreomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations of 0.25-1.0mg/L, 0.625-10mg/L, and 0.625-2.5mg/L, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study provides a preliminary basis for the prediction of phenotypic-resistance levels to the second-line injectables based upon the presence of genetic mutations associated with amikacin, kanamycin, and capreomycin resistance. The results suggest that isolates with eis promoter mutations have consistently lower resistance levels to amikacin, kanamycin, and capreomycin than isolates with the rrs A1401G mutation.
Authors: M Analise Zaunbrecher; R David Sikes; Beverly Metchock; Thomas M Shinnick; James E Posey Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2009-11-11 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Linda M Parsons; Akos Somoskövi; Cristina Gutierrez; Evan Lee; C N Paramasivan; Alash'le Abimiku; Steven Spector; Giorgio Roscigno; John Nkengasong Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: Alistair D Calver; Alecia A Falmer; Megan Murray; Odelia J Strauss; Elizabeth M Streicher; Madelene Hanekom; Thelma Liversage; Mothusi Masibi; Paul D van Helden; Robin M Warren; Thomas C Victor Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 6.883
Authors: Laura E Via; Sang-Nae Cho; Soohee Hwang; Hyeeun Bang; Seung Kyu Park; Hyung Seok Kang; Doosoo Jeon; Seon Yeong Min; Taegwon Oh; Yeun Kim; Young Mi Kim; Vignesh Rajan; Sharon Y Wong; Isdore Chola Shamputa; Matthew Carroll; Lisa Goldfeder; Song A Lee; Steven M Holland; Seokyong Eum; Hyeyoung Lee; Clifton E Barry Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2009-12-23 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: N Bablishvili; N Tukvadze; E Shashkina; B Mathema; N R Gandhi; H M Blumberg; R R Kempker Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Sophia B Georghiou; Marva Seifert; Donald G Catanzaro; Richard S Garfein; Timothy C Rodwell Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: S B Georghiou; M Seifert; D Catanzaro; R S Garfein; F Valafar; V Crudu; C Rodrigues; T C Victor; A Catanzaro; T C Rodwell Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2016-06-20 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: L T Daum; O S Konstantynovska; O S Solodiankin; O O Liashenko; P I Poteiko; V I Bolotin; I I Hrek; A V Rohozhyn; J D Rodriguez; G W Fischer; J P Chambers; A P Gerilovych Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2018-05-25 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Roger Vargas; Luca Freschi; Andrea Spitaleri; Sabira Tahseen; Ivan Barilar; Stefan Niemann; Paolo Miotto; Daniela Maria Cirillo; Claudio U Köser; Maha R Farhat Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2021-08-30 Impact factor: 5.938
Authors: Derek Conkle-Gutierrez; Calvin Kim; Sarah M Ramirez-Busby; Samuel J Modlin; Mikael Mansjö; Jim Werngren; Leen Rigouts; Sven E Hoffner; Faramarz Valafar Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2022-05-09 Impact factor: 5.938
Authors: Yingda L Xie; Soumitesh Chakravorty; Derek T Armstrong; Sandra L Hall; Laura E Via; Taeksun Song; Xing Yuan; Xiaoying Mo; Hong Zhu; Peng Xu; Qian Gao; Myungsun Lee; Jongseok Lee; Laura E Smith; Ray Y Chen; Joon Sung Joh; YoungSoo Cho; Xin Liu; Xianglin Ruan; Lili Liang; Nila Dharan; Sang-Nae Cho; Clifton E Barry; Jerrold J Ellner; Susan E Dorman; David Alland Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Serej D Ley; Samantha Pillay; Elizabeth M Streicher; Yuri F van der Heijden; Frederik Sirgel; Brigitta Derendinger; Marianna de Kock; Sébastien Gagneux; Robin M Warren; Grant Theron; Margaretha de Vos Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 5.191