| Literature DB >> 27606007 |
Ricardo S Ramiro1, Henrique Costa1, Isabel Gordo1.
Abstract
Small-colony variants (SCVs) are commonly observed in evolution experiments and clinical isolates, being associated with antibiotic resistance and persistent infections. We recently observed the repeated emergence of Escherichia coli SCVs during adaptation to the interaction with macrophages. To identify the genetic targets underlying the emergence of this clinically relevant morphotype, we performed whole-genome sequencing of independently evolved SCV clones. We uncovered novel mutational targets, not previously associated with SCVs (e.g. cydA, pepP) and observed widespread functional parallelism. All SCV clones had mutations in genes related to the electron-transport chain. As SCVs emerged during adaptation to macrophages, and often show increased antibiotic resistance, we measured SCV fitness inside macrophages and measured their antibiotic resistance profiles. SCVs had a fitness advantage inside macrophages and showed increased aminoglycoside resistance in vitro, but had collateral sensitivity to other antibiotics (e.g. tetracycline). Importantly, we observed similar results in vivo. SCVs had a fitness advantage upon colonization of the mouse gut, which could be tuned by antibiotic treatment: kanamycin (aminoglycoside) increased SCV fitness, but tetracycline strongly reduced it. Our results highlight the power of using experimental evolution as the basis for identifying the causes and consequences of adaptation during host-microbe interactions.Entities:
Keywords: antibiotic resistance; collateral sensitivity; experimental evolution; macrophages; mouse gut colonization; small‐colony variants; whole‐genome sequencing
Year: 2016 PMID: 27606007 PMCID: PMC4999529 DOI: 10.1111/eva.12397
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evol Appl ISSN: 1752-4571 Impact factor: 5.183
Mutations identified in E. coli clones evolved in the presence of MΦs. Deletions (Δ), transposition of insertion sequences (IS) or small nucleotide insertions (+) are shown at the specific position of each mutation, within the gene. For SNPs, the particular nucleotide and corresponding amino acid replacement change is indicated. The deletion in clone 1 includes both intergenic and coding regions, starting at an intergenic position and ending within the cydA coding region. Genomic positions are indicated relative to the GenBank reference: NC_012759.1
| Population | Day | Clone no. | Position | Gene | Mutation | Annotation | Product |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | 8 | 1 | 673,439 |
| Intergenic (+844/−3) – coding (5/1,569 nt) | Δ6 bp |
|
| M1 | 8 | 61 | 174,223 |
| A→C | L220R (CTG→CGG) | Glutamate‐1‐semialdehyde aminotransferase |
| 3,077,939 |
| Coding (562/630 nt) | IS5 | Predicted inner membrane protein | |||
| 4,205,688 |
| Coding (193/204 nt) | IS1 | Hypothetical protein | |||
| M2 | 4 | 11 | 174,688 |
| C→T | G65D (GGC→GAC) | Glutamate‐1‐semialdehyde aminotransferase |
| M2 | 4 | 19 | 905,376 |
| Coding (297/543 nt) | IS2 | Predicted fimbrial‐like adhesin protein |
| 2,223,615 |
| Coding (222–231/723 nt) | Δ10 bp | Bifunctional 3‐demethylubiquinone‐8 3‐O‐methyltransferase and 2‐octaprenyl‐6‐hydroxyphenol methylase | |||
| M3 | 5 | 26 | 174,223 |
| A→C | L220R (CTG→CGG) | Glutamate‐1‐semialdehyde aminotransferase |
| 3,077,939 |
| Coding (562/630 nt) | IS5 | Predicted inner membrane protein | |||
| M3 | 5 | 28 | 174,223 |
| A→C | L220R (CTG→CGG) | Glutamate‐1‐semialdehyde aminotransferase |
| 3,077,939 |
| Coding (562/630 nt) | IS5 | Predicted inner membrane protein | |||
| 4,205,688 |
| Coding (193/204 nt) | IS1 | Hypothetical protein | |||
| M5 | 8 | 41 | 2,939,858 |
| Coding (153/1,326 nt) | IS1 | Proline aminopeptidase P II |
| M5 | 8 | 48 | 1,069,386 |
| C→T | H52Y (CAC→TAC) | NADH:ubiquinone oxidoreductase II |
| 2,283,177 |
| G→C | Y272* (TAC→TAG) | NADH:ubiquinone oxidoreductase I, chain G | |||
| M6 | 4 | 51 | 2,927,004 |
| Coding (522/981 nt) | +GC | Folate‐binding protein |
| 3,874,865 |
| T→A | D237V (GAT→GTT) | Predicted protoheme IX synthesis protein | |||
| M6 | 4 | 52 | 2,927,004 |
| Coding (522/981 nt) | +GC | Folate‐binding protein |
| 3,874,865 |
| T→A | D237V (GAT→GTT) | Predicted protoheme IX synthesis protein | |||
| M4 | 5 | 31 | 4,324,488 |
| C→G | W547C (TGG→TGC) | Mechanosensitive channel of miniconductance, monomer |
| M4 | 5 | 40 | 4,324,488 |
| C→G | W547C (TGG→TGC) | Mechanosensitive channel of miniconductance, monomer |
Figure 3The fitness advantage of SCVs within the mouse gut is modulated by antibiotic treatment. (A and C) Boxplots of the competitive index (CI) of SCVs (CFP) against the ancestral (YFP), during colonization of the mouse gut in mice that did not received antibiotic treatment (A) or in mice that were treated (C) with kanamycin (left), nalidixic acid (centre) or tetracycline (right). CI was calculated as the natural logarithm of the ratio of CFP cfu to YFP cfu. (B and D) Frequency of fluorescent marker/colony size for mice without (B) or with (D) antibiotic treatment. Each panel represents a single mouse and shows the frequency of SCVs (SCV:CFP; dark blue), SCV revertants (REV:CFP; light blue) and ancestral bacteria (Anc:YFP; yellow). Horizontal dashed lines in A–D indicate where SCVs and Anc are competitively equivalent. See Fig. S3 for slopes of CI against time, mean (±2) CFP frequency and bacterial loads
Figure 1SCVs have a fitness advantage inside MΦs. Competitive index (CI) for two SCV clones (28, 41) and a positive control clone (31), inside MΦs at 1 hr (left) and 6 hr (right) postinfection (YFP ancestral is used as reference). Dots represent the CI for each independent experiment (n = 6), and lines represent mean ± 2 standard errors (SE), across all experiments. Significant deviations from CI = 0 are denoted by *(p < .05) or **(p < .01, t‐test). See Figure S2 for evidence of marker neutrality
Figure 2SCVs show increased resistance to aminoglycosides, but collateral sensitivity to other antibiotic classes. Heatmap of the relative inhibition halo (i.e. mean inhibition halo for SCV clones relative to that of the ancestral). In total, 3–8 independent replicates were carried for any clone‐antibiotic combination. Colours red, blue and white indicate whether the inhibition halo is smaller (i.e. more resistant), larger (i.e. more sensitive) or equal to the ancestral, respectively. Significant differences (p < .05; anova contrasts) relative to the ancestral are denoted by a “*”. AMI – Amikacin; GEN – Gentamicin; KAN – Kanamycin; NET – Netilmicin; TOB – Tobramycin; TET – Tetracycline; NAL – Nalidixic acid; CIP – Ciprofloxacin; CTX – Cefotaxime. See Fig. S7 for the mean (±2) relative inhibition halo and the mean halo (in mm)