| Literature DB >> 28496433 |
Diana Machado1, Tatiane S Coelho2,3, João Perdigão4, Catarina Pereira4, Isabel Couto1, Isabel Portugal4, Raquel De Abreu Maschmann2,5, Daniela F Ramos3, Andrea von Groll3, Maria L R Rossetti5,6, Pedro A Silva2,3, Miguel Viveiros1.
Abstract
Numerous studies show efflux as a universal bacterial mechanism contributing to antibiotic resistance and also that the activity of the antibiotics subject to efflux can be enhanced by the combined use of efflux inhibitors. Nevertheless, the contribution of efflux to the overall drug resistance levels of clinical isolates of Mycobacterium tuberculosis is poorly understood and still is ignored by many. Here, we evaluated the contribution of drug efflux plus target-gene mutations to the drug resistance levels in clinical isolates of M. tuberculosis. A panel of 17 M. tuberculosis clinical strains were characterized for drug resistance associated mutations and antibiotic profiles in the presence and absence of efflux inhibitors. The correlation between the effect of the efflux inhibitors and the resistance levels was assessed by quantitative drug susceptibility testing. The bacterial growth/survival vs. growth inhibition was analyzed through the comparison between the time of growth in the presence and absence of an inhibitor. For the same mutation conferring antibiotic resistance, different MICs were observed and the different resistance levels found could be reduced by efflux inhibitors. Although susceptibility was not restored, the results demonstrate the existence of a broad-spectrum synergistic interaction between antibiotics and efflux inhibitors. The existence of efflux activity was confirmed by real-time fluorometry. Moreover, the efflux pump genes mmr, mmpL7, Rv1258c, p55, and efpA were shown to be overexpressed in the presence of antibiotics, demonstrating the contribution of these efflux pumps to the overall resistance phenotype of the M. tuberculosis clinical isolates studied, independently of the genotype of the strains. These results showed that the drug resistance levels of multi- and extensively-drug resistant M. tuberculosis clinical strains are a combination between drug efflux and the presence of target-gene mutations, a reality that is often disregarded by the tuberculosis specialists in favor of the almost undisputed importance of antibiotic target-gene mutations for the resistance in M. tuberculosis.Entities:
Keywords: TB eXIST; efflux inhibitors; synergism; time to detection; tuberculosis
Year: 2017 PMID: 28496433 PMCID: PMC5406451 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00711
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Categorization of the .
| H37Rv | – | H37Rv | None | Susceptible |
| MtbPT1 | 2006 | LAM9—Orphan | None | Susceptible |
| MtbPT2 | 2008 | Unknown—SIT150 | None | Susceptible |
| MtbPT3 | 2003 | T1 | INH | Monoresistant to INH |
| MtbPT4 | 2009 | LAM1 | INH | Monoresistant to INH |
| MtbPT5 | 2003 | LAM1 | RIF | Monoresistant to RIF |
| MtbPT6 | 2005 | LAM1 | RIF | Monoresistant to RIF |
| MtbBR1 | 2009 | EAI1-SOM | OFX | Monoresistant to OFX |
| MtbBR2 | 2007 | Beijing | INH, OFX | Poly-drug resistant |
| MtbBR3 | 2010 | H3 | INH, RIF | MDR |
| MtbBR4 | 2011 | T1 | INH, RIF | MDR |
| MtbBR5 | 2011 | T2 | INH, RIF | MDR |
| MtbPT7 | 2009 | LAM1—Lisboa3 | INH; RIF | MDR |
| MtbBR6 | 2008 | Beijing | INH, RIF, AMK, CAP | MDR |
| MtbPT8 | 2011 | Beijing | INH; RIF; AMK; CAP | MDR |
| MtbPT9 | 2009 | LAM1—Lisboa3 | INH; RIF; AMK; CAP; OFX | XDR |
| MtbPT10 | 2009 | LAM4—Q1 | INH; RIF; AMK; CAP; OFX | XDR |
| MtbPT11 | 2012 | LAM4—Q1 | INH; RIF; AMK; CAP; OFX | XDR |
Spoligotype lineages/sublineages according to the international spoligotype database SITVITWEB rules. “Unknown” designates patterns with signatures that do not belong to any of the major lineages defined in the SITVITWEB database.
Lisboa3 and Q1 M. tuberculosis strains were clustered by 24-loci MIRU-VNTR analysis. AMK, amikacin; CAP, capreomycin; EAI, East-African-Indian; H, Haarlem. INH, isoniazid; LAM, Latin American-Mediterranean; MDR, multidrug resistant; OFX, ofloxacin; RIF, rifampicin; SIT, spoligotype international type; XDR, extensively drug resistant.
Mutations associated with resistance to first- and second-line drugs detected in the .
| H37Rv | wt | wt | wt | wt | wt | wt | wt | wt |
| MtbPT1 | wt | wt | wt | wt | wt | wt | wt | wt |
| MtbPT2 | wt | wt | wt | wt | wt | wt | wt | wt |
| MtbPT3 | wt | wt | S315T | wt | wt | nt | nt | wt |
| MtbPT4 | C-15T | wt | wt | wt | wt | nt | nt | wt |
| MtbPT5 | wt | nt | wt | S531L | wt | wt | wt | wt |
| MtbPT6 | wt | nt | wt | S531L | wt | nt | nt | wt |
| MtbBR1 | wt | nt | wt | wt | wt | nt | nt | D94N |
| MtbBR2 | wt | nt | S315T | D516Y | wt | nt | nt | A90V |
| MtbBR3 | wt | nt | S315T | S531L | wt | wt | nt | wt |
| MtbBR4 | wt | nt | S315T | S531L | wt | wt | nt | wt |
| MtbBR5 | wt | nt | S315T | S531L | wt | wt | nt | wt |
| MtbPT7 | C-15T | S94A | wt | S531L | wt | wt | wt | wt |
| MtbBR6 | wt | nt | D735A | S531L | A1401G | wt | wt | wt |
| MtbPT8 | wt | wt | S315T | S531L | wt/A1401G | wt | wt | wt |
| MtbPT9 | C-15T | S94A | wt | S531L | wt | G-10A | ins GT at pos 755/756 | S91P |
| MtbPT10 | C-15T | I194T | wt | S531L | A1401G | wt | wt | D94A |
| MtbPT11 | C-15T | I194T | wt | S531L | A1401G | nt | nt | D94A |
Heteroresistance. AMK, amikacin; CAP, capreomycin; ID, identification; INH, isoniazid; MDR, multidrug resistant; nt, not tested; OFX, ofloxacin; ORF, open reading frame; Poly-DR, poly-drug resistant; Prom, promoter; QRDR, quinolone resistance determining region; RIF, rifampicin; RRDR, rifampicin resistance determining region; wt, wild-type sequence; XDR, extensively drug resistant.
MIC of antibiotics and efflux inhibitors for the .
| H37Rv | 0.1 | 1 | 1 | 2.5 | 1 | 256 | 15 | 30 |
| MtbPT1 | 0.1 | 1 | 1 | 2.5 | 1 | 256 | 30 | 30 |
| MtbPT2 | 0.1 | 1 | 1 | 2.5 | 1 | 256 | 15 | 30 |
| MtbPT3 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2.5 | 1 | 256 | 15 | 30 |
| MtbPT4 | 0.4 | 1 | 1 | 2.5 | 1 | 256 | 15 | 30 |
| MtbPT5 | 0.1 | 256 | 1 | 2.5 | 1 | 256 | 15 | 30 |
| MtbPT6 | 0.1 | 512 | 1 | 2.5 | 1 | 256 | 15 | 30 |
| MtbBR1 | 0.1 | 1 | 1 | 2.5 | 32 | 128 | 15 | 30 |
| MtbBR2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2.5 | 10 | 256 | 15 | 30 |
| MtbBR3 | 10 | 320 | 1 | 2.5 | 1 | 256 | 15 | 15 |
| MtbBR4 | 10 | 640 | 1 | 2.5 | 1 | 256 | 15 | 15 |
| MtbBR5 | 10 | 160 | 1 | 2.5 | 1 | 128 | 15 | 15 |
| MtbPT7 | 3 | 320 | 1 | 2.5 | 1 | 256 | 15 | 30 |
| MtbBR6 | 80 | 80 | 320 | 5 | 1 | 128 | 30 | 30 |
| MtbPT8 | 20 | 320 | 40 | 25 | 1 | 256 | 15 | 30 |
| MtbPT9 | 20 | 80 | 4 | 25 | 10 | 128 | 15 | 30 |
| MtbPT10 | 3 | 320 | 640 | 25 | 10 | 256 | 15 | 30 |
| MtbPT11 | 3 | 320 | 640 | 50 | 10 | 256 | 15 | 30 |
The lowest concentration tested corresponded to the critical concentration for each antibiotic (see Section Materials and Methods for details). AMK, amikacin; CAP, capreomycin; CPZ, chlorpromazine; INH, isoniazid; MDR, multidrug resistant; OFX, ofloxacin; Poly-DR, poly-drug resistant; RIF, rifampicin; TZ, thioridazine; VP, verapamil; XDR, extensively drug resistant.
Quantitative drug susceptibility testing for isoniazid, rifampicin, amikacin, and ofloxacin in the presence and absence of efflux inhibitors.
| 0.1 | 10 | 0.4 | – | – | – | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 3 | 80 | 20 | 20 | 3 | 3 | ||
| 0.1 | 10 | 0.4 | – | – | – | 10 | |||||||||||
| 0.1 | 0.4 | – | – | – | 10 | 20 | |||||||||||
| 0.1 | 0.4 | – | – | – | 10 | 10 | |||||||||||
| 1 | – | – | 256 | 512 | – | 1 | 320 | 640 | 160 | 320 | 80 | 320 | 80 | 320 | 320 | ||
| 1 | – | – | – | ||||||||||||||
| 1 | – | – | 256 | – | 320 | 320 | 80 | 320 | 320 | 320 | |||||||
| 1 | – | – | – | 320 | 320 | ||||||||||||
| – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 320 | 40 | 4 | 640 | 640 | |||
| 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 320 | 4 | 640 | 640 | |||
| 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 320 | 4 | 640 | 640 | |||
| 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 320 | 4 | |||||
| 2.5 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 5 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 50 | ||
| 2.5 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 5 | 25 | 25 | ||||
| 2.5 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 25 | 25 | 25 | ||||
| 2.5 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 25 | 25 | |||||
| 1 | – | – | – | – | 32 | 10 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 10 | 10 | 10 | ||
| 1 | – | – | – | – | 16 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 10 | 10 | 10 | |||
| 1 | – | – | – | – | 16 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 10 | 10 | 10 | |||
| 1 | – | – | – | – | 16 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 10 | 10 | 10 | |||
The lowest concentration tested corresponds to the critical concentration for each antibiotic except for rifampicin testing for strain MtbBR2 (see Section Materials and Methods for details). Synergistic interactions are in bold; –, not done. AMK, amikacin; CAP, capreomycin; CPZ, chlorpromazine; EI, efflux inhibitor; INH, isoniazid; MDR, multidrug resistant; OFX, ofloxacin; RIF, rifampicin; TZ, thioridazine; VP, verapamil; XDR, extensively drug resistant.
Figure 1Assessment of efflux activity on the . Ethidium bromide was used at the equilibrium concentration for each strain as follows: 0.25 μg/ml for H37Rv, MtbPT1, MtbPT5, MtbPT7, and MtbPT11; 0.5 μg/ml, MtbPT3; and 1 μg/ml, MtbBR1; verapamil was tested at half MIC.
Figure 2Evaluation of the effect of efflux inhibitors on the accumulation of ethidium bromide on the . Ethidium bromide (EtBr) was used at the equilibrium concentration for each strain as follows: 0.25 μg/ml for H37Rv, MtbPT1, MtbPT5, MtbPT7, and MtbPT11; 0.5 μg/ml, MtbPT3; and 1 μg/ml, MtbBR1; each efflux inhibitor was tested at half MIC.
RFF based on the accumulation of ethidium bromide for the .
| H37Rv | 0.82 ± 0.15 | 0.81 ± 0.03 | |
| MtbPT1 | 0.86 ± 0.03 | 0.18 ± 0.06 | 0.13 ± 0.02 |
| MtbPT3 | 0.78 ± 0.02 | 0.45 ± 0.02 | |
| MtbPT5 | 0.24 ± 0.09 | 0.26 ± 0.06 | |
| MtbBR1 | 0.88 ± 0.13 | ||
| MtbPT7 | 0.98 ± 0.02 | 0.67 ± 0.04 | |
| MtbPT11 | |||
Ethidium bromide was used at the equilibrium concentration for each strain as follows: 0.25 μg/ml, H37Rv, MtbPT1, MtbPT5, MtbPT7, and MtbPT11; 0.5 μg/ml, MtbPT3; and 1 μg/ml, MtbBR1; the inhibitors were tested at half MIC. The effect of the inhibitors on the accumulation of ethidium bromide was interpreted as follows: RFF values above zero indicated that the cells accumulate more ethidium bromide under the condition used than those of the control (non-treated cells). Values in boldface (above 1) indicated enhanced accumulation of ethidium bromide in the presence of the efflux inhibitors. Each assay was performed in triplicate and the results presented correspond to the average of three independent assays plus standard deviation (±SD). The results were considered significant when
P < 0.05; and highly significant when
P < 0.01 and
P < 0.001.
Figure 3Quantification of the relative mRNA expression levels of a panel of efflux pump genes. Strains were grown in MGIT tubes for the MGIT 960 system in the presence of half MIC of each antibiotic as follows: MtbPT3 was exposed to isoniazid; MtbPT5 was exposed to rifampicin; MtbBR1 was exposed to ofloxacin; H37Rv, MtbPT7, and MtbPT11 were exposed to isoniazid or rifampicin. The relative expression of the efflux pump genes was assessed by comparison of the relative quantity of the respective mRNA in the presence of an antibiotic to the non-exposed strain. A level of relative expression equal to 1 indicates that the expression level was identical to the strain that was being compared (gray dashed line in the graphs). Genes showing expression levels above 1 were considered to be expressed; genes showing expression levels above two were considered to be significant overexpressed. The results were considered significant when *P < 0.05; and highly significant when **P < 0.01 and ***P < 0.001.
Figure 4Quantitative drug susceptibility testing of rifampicin for the strain MtbPT11, in the presence or absence of verapamil. Quantitative drug susceptibility testing of isoniazid was conducted using the BACTEC 960 system and the Epicenter V5.80A software equipped with the TB eXIST module. In the Figure is presented the result of the testing for the strain MtbPT11 at 20 μg/ml of rifampicin alone (full orange curve) and rifampicin at 20 μg/ml in the presence of verapamil at half MIC (dashed orange curve). Verapamil alone does not inhibit the growth of the strain (gray curve). Absolute control is given by the dotted blue curve (undiluted strain 1:1) and the proportional control is given by the continuous blue curve (strain diluted 1:100). At the time of growth of the proportional growth control (GU = 400—black dashed line), the comparison between this tube and the tubes containing the drugs(s) was performed. If the GU of the tubes containing the drug were >100 (red dashed line), they were considered to be resistant to that concentration. If the GU of the tube containing the drug was <100 they were considered susceptible.
Figure 5Quantitative drug susceptibility testing of isoniazid for the strain MtbPT11, in the presence or absence of verapamil. Quantitative drug susceptibility testing of isoniazid was conducted using the BACTEC 960 system and the Epicenter V5.80A software equipped with the TB eXIST module. Absolute control is given by the dotted blue curve (undiluted strain 1:1) and the proportional control is given by the continuous blue curve (strain diluted 1:100). The orange, yellow, pink, and green full curves correspond to the growth curves of the strain in the presence of only isoniazid; the respective colored dashed curves corresponded to the growth curves of the strain in the presence of isoniazid and verapamil; Verapamil alone does not inhibit the growth of the strain (gray curve). At the time of growth of the proportional growth control (GU = 400—black dashed line), the comparison between this tube and the tubes containing the drugs(s) was performed. If the GU of the tubes containing the drug were >100 (red dashed line), they were considered to be resistant to that concentration. If the GU of the tube containing the drug was <100 they were considered susceptible. Isoniazid was tested at 0.1, 1, 3, and 10 μg/ml with and without half MIC of verapamil.