| Literature DB >> 29018116 |
E Recacha1,2, J Machuca1,3,4, P Díaz de Alba1, M Ramos-Güelfo1, F Docobo-Pérez2,3,4, J Rodriguez-Beltrán3,4, J Blázquez5,6, A Pascual1,2,3,4, J M Rodríguez-Martínez7,3,4.
Abstract
Suppression of the SOS response has been postulated as a therapeutic strategy for potentiating antimicrobial agents. We aimed to evaluate the impact of its suppression on reversing resistance using a model of isogenic strains of Escherichia coli representing multiple levels of quinolone resistance. E. coli mutants exhibiting a spectrum of SOS activity were constructed from isogenic strains carrying quinolone resistance mechanisms with susceptible and resistant phenotypes. Changes in susceptibility were evaluated by static (MICs) and dynamic (killing curves or flow cytometry) methodologies. A peritoneal sepsis murine model was used to evaluate in vivo impact. Suppression of the SOS response was capable of resensitizing mutant strains with genes encoding three or four different resistance mechanisms (up to 15-fold reductions in MICs). Killing curve assays showed a clear disadvantage for survival (Δlog10 CFU per milliliter [CFU/ml] of 8 log units after 24 h), and the in vivo efficacy of ciprofloxacin was significantly enhanced (Δlog10 CFU/g of 1.76 log units) in resistant strains with a suppressed SOS response. This effect was evident even after short periods (60 min) of exposure. Suppression of the SOS response reverses antimicrobial resistance across a range of E. coli phenotypes from reduced susceptibility to highly resistant, playing a significant role in increasing the in vivo efficacy.IMPORTANCE The rapid rise of antibiotic resistance in bacterial pathogens is now considered a major global health crisis. New strategies are needed to block the development of resistance and to extend the life of antibiotics. The SOS response is a promising target for developing therapeutics to reduce the acquisition of antibiotic resistance and enhance the bactericidal activity of antimicrobial agents such as quinolones. Significant questions remain regarding its impact as a strategy for the reversion or resensitization of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. To address this question, we have generated E. coli mutants that exhibited a spectrum of SOS activity, ranging from a natural SOS response to a hypoinducible or constitutively suppressed response. We tested the effects of these mutations on quinolone resistance reversion under therapeutic concentrations in a set of isogenic strains carrying different combinations of chromosome- and plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance mechanisms with susceptible, low-level quinolone resistant, resistant, and highly resistant phenotypes. Our comprehensive analysis opens up a new strategy for reversing drug resistance by targeting the SOS response.Entities:
Keywords: RecA; SOS response; quinolones; resensitization of antibiotic-resistant bacteria; resistance reversion
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29018116 PMCID: PMC5635686 DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00971-17
Source DB: PubMed Journal: mBio Impact factor: 7.867
FIG 1 Engineered recA and lexA variants in E. coli displaying a range of SOS activities. The LexA protein is represented by green ovals, and lexA1 (G80D) cleavage mutations are labeled in orange. RecA is shown as red filaments, and recA deleted mutants are labeled in red. Strains with a natural SOS response are labeled in green. Four lexA1 mutants and six mutants with recA deleted were derived from low-level quinolone-resistant (LLQR), resistant, and high-level resistant wild-type (WT) phenotypes of quinolone resistance, allowing the bacterial response to quinolones to be examined across a spectrum of SOS activity. Activated RecA filaments led to cleavage of LexA and inducible expression of SOS genes in the WT strain. Deletion of recA (ΔrecA) inactivated the SOS response. Mutations in the LexA protein (G80D) reduce the rate of self-cleavage relative to the WT strain and so affect the level of SOS induction.
Genotypes and ciprofloxacin susceptibility (by Etest) of isogenic strains
| Strain | Genotype | MIC | CC (CLSI/ | Fold | Source or | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SOS system | ||||||||||
| ATCC | WT | 0.008 | S/S | Lab collection | ||||||
| ATCCrecA | Δ | <0.002 | S/S | >4 | This study | |||||
| ATCClexA1 | 0.004 | S/S | 2 | This study | ||||||
| EC02 | S83L | WT | 0.25 | S/S | ||||||
| EC02recA | S83L | Δ | 0.03 | S/S | 8 | This study | ||||
| EC04 | S83L | S80R | WT | 0.5 | S/S | |||||
| EC04recA | S83L | S80R | ΔrecA | 0.125 | S/S | 4 | This study | |||
| EC04lexA1 | S83L | S80R | 0.5 | S/S | 1 | This study | ||||
| EC08 | S83L | D87N | S80R | WT | 2 | |||||
| EC08recA | S83L | D87N | S80R | Δ | 0.5 | 4 | This study | |||
| EC09 | S83L | D87N | S80R | Δ | WT | 8 | ||||
| EC09recA | S83L | D87N | S80R | Δ | ΔrecA | 1 | 8 | This study | ||
| EC09lexA1 | S83L | D87N | S80R | Δ | 2 | 4 | This study | |||
| EC59 | S83L | D87N | S80R | Δ | WT | >32 | R/R | |||
| EC59recA | S83L | D87N | S80R | Δ | ΔrecA | 4 | R/R | >8 | This study | |
| EC59lexA1 | S83L | D87N | S80R | Δ | 32 | R/R | >1 | This study | ||
Strains are isogenic to E. coli ATCC 25922 and carry only the chromosomal modifications, qnrS gene, and/or SOS dysfunction (recA deletion or nonproteolizable LexA variant [LexA1]). Resistance-associated mutations located in the GyrA and ParC proteins have been defined as resistance mechanisms that alter the target site.
MIC (in milligrams per liter) of ciprofloxacin by Etest.
CC, clinical category according to the CLSI and EUCAST breakpoints (25, 38). The clinical category according to the CLSI breakpoint is shown before the slash, and the clinical category according to the EUCAST breakpoint is shown after the slash. The clinical categories are shown as follows: S, susceptible; I, intermediate susceptibility; R, resistant. Subgroups with clinical category changes are indicated in boldface type.
Fold reduction of MIC compared to the MIC of wild-type strain for the SOS system in each isogenic subgroup.
E. coli ATCC 25922.
WT, wild-type.
FIG 2 SOS inactivation enhances bactericidal activity against resistant strains. Viable bacterial counts of the EC08/EC08recA and EC09/EC09recA isogenic pairs in time-kill assays at ciprofloxacin (CIP) concentrations of 1 mg/liter (breakpoint for resistance according to EUCAST) and 2.5 mg/liter (human serum Cmax), respectively. Data are represented as the means from at least three independent measurements. Standard deviations are indicated by the error bars (standard deviations not shown are smaller than the symbols).
FIG 3 Flow cytometry of four groups of isogenic LLQR cells (harboring a natural [wild-type] or inactive SOS system [ΔrecA]) treated for 60 min at 2.5 mg/liter or at 4× MIC (relative to the MIC of the wild-type SOS) of ciprofloxacin. Survival was measured as staining with green fluorescent SYTO9.Strains EC02 (A), EC04 (B), EC08 (C), and EC09 (D) were studied.
FIG 4 SOS inactivation reduces the in vivo survival of mice infected with bacteria receiving quinolone treatment. Efficacies of ciprofloxacin (CIP) in a murine model of sepsis caused by strains EC08 (intact SOS system) and EC08recA (inactivated SOS system). Group 1 was given ciprofloxacin 50 mg/kg q12h intraperitoneally. Group 2 was given ciprofloxacin 100 mg/kg q12h intraperitoneally. The control group was not treated with ciprofloxacin. Standard deviations are indicated by the error bars. Values that were significantly different (P < 0.001) are indicated by a bar and asterisk. Values that were not significantly different (ns) are indicated.
FIG 5 A general qualitative model illustrating the efficacy of SOS response suppression for reversion of fluoroquinolone resistance. Reversion of resistance was even observed in bacteria carrying genes encoding four different resistance mechanisms. Red bars correspond to E. coli with an intact SOS system; green bars correspond to E. coli with a suppressed SOS response. The epidemiological cutoff (ECOFF) (0.032 mg/liter [http://www.eucast.org]) is indicated by the red dotted line. S, I, and R mean susceptibility, intermediate susceptibility, and clinical resistance, respectively. SOS- means SOS response suppression.