| Literature DB >> 34063307 |
Salma Waheed Sheikh1, Ahmad Ali2, Asma Ahsan3, Sidra Shakoor4, Fei Shang1, Ting Xue1.
Abstract
The emergence of multidrug-resistant pathogens presents a global challenge for treating and preventing disease spread through zoonotic transmission. The water and foodborne Enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) are capable of causing intestinal and systemic diseases. The root cause of the emergence of these strains is their metabolic adaptation to environmental stressors, especially acidic pH. Acid treatment is desired to kill pathogens, but the protective mechanisms employed by EHECs cross-protect against antimicrobial peptides and thus facilitate opportunities for survival and pathogenesis. In this review, we have discussed the correlation between acid tolerance and antibiotic resistance, highlighting the identification of novel targets for potential production of antimicrobial therapeutics. We have also summarized the molecular mechanisms used by acid-adapted EHECs, such as the two-component response systems mediating structural modifications, competitive inhibition, and efflux activation that facilitate cross-protection against antimicrobial compounds. Moving beyond the descriptive studies, this review highlights low pH stress as an emerging player in the development of cross-protection against antimicrobial agents. We have also described potential gene targets for innovative therapeutic approaches to overcome the risk of multidrug-resistant diseases in healthcare and industry.Entities:
Keywords: acid tolerance; cross-protection; enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli; foodborne infections; multidrug resistance; two-component signaling system
Year: 2021 PMID: 34063307 PMCID: PMC8147483 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics10050522
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6382
Figure 1Representation of the oxidative, glutamate-dependent, arginine-dependent, and lysine-dependent acid resistance systems in Escherichia coli. All abbreviations are listed at the end of the manuscript.
Overview of the genes involved in acid resistance regulatory systems in E. coli.
| Protection | Main | Decarboxylases | Antiporter | Final | Regulators | Level of Protection | pH | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oxidative | Glucose | - | - | - | RpoS | Least | 2.5 | [ |
| Glutamate | GadA | GadC | GABA | GadE | Highest | ≤2 | [ | |
| Arginine | AdiA | AdiC | Agmatine | - | Modest | 5.2 | [ | |
| Lysine | Lysine | CadA | CadB | Cadaverine | CadC | Quite | NA | [ |
Note: All abbreviations are defined at the end of the manuscript.
Figure 2Schematic representation of acid stress regulation by different two-component signal transduction systems, acid-resistance networks, and their interconnecting assemblies. All abbreviations are defined at the end of the manuscript.
Acid-adapted pathogens other than EHEC pathotypes’ and their acquired antibiotic resistance.
| Organism | Treatment | Acquired Resistance | MIC at Low pH | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Listeria | pH 5.5–6.0 | Multidrug-resistant | Increased | [ |
| Acid stress | Erythromycin, ciprofloxacin, | Increased | [ | |
| Salmonella enterica | pH 2–3.8 | Tetracycline, chloramphenicol, ampicillin, | Increased | [ |
| Chloramphenicol, tetracycline, ampicillin, | Increased | [ | ||
| Acinetobacter | Acid stress | Amikacin, norfloxacin, imipenem, meropenem | Increased | [ |
| Cronobacter sakazakii | pH 3.5 | Tetracycline, tilmicosin, florfenicol, amoxicillin, ampicillin, vancomycin, neomycin, | Increased | [ |
| Staphylococcus aureus | pH 1.5 | Multidrug-resistant | Increased | [ |
Note: MIC above the breakpoint indicates that the organism is resistant.
Figure 3Schematic representation of the acid-induced activation of a specific set of genes by two-component systems leading to LPS modification, efflux pump activation, enhanced survival, and antibiotic resistance in EHECs. All abbreviations are defined at the end of the manuscript.
Role of different two-component systems involved in mediating antibiotic resistance in response to acid stress. All abbreviations are listed at the end of the manuscript.
| Treatment under | Two-Component | Acquired Antibiotic | Phenotypic | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Δ | CpxRA | Cationic antimicrobial peptides (CAPs) | Increased tolerance | [ |
| Δ | RcsCB, CpxRA | Mecillinam and cefsulodin | Increased tolerance | [ |
| Δ | CpxRA | Cephalexin | Increased tolerance | [ |
| W3110 | MarRAB, AcrAB, EmrKY, MdtABC | Extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs) | Increased tolerance | [ |
| Δ | MarRAB, AcrAB | Beta-lactamase, rifampicin, spectinomycin, streptomycin, tetracycline, nalidixic acid | Increased resistance | [ |
| Δ | RcsBC | Cefsulodin | Increased tolerance | [ |
| RcsBC, CpxRA, | Mecillinam and cefsulodin | |||
| BaeRS, MdtABC, | Ceftriaxone, | 8 fold increased resistance | [ | |
| novobiocin, | ||||
| deoxycholate | ||||
| pH stress only | ArcAB, MarRAB | Ceftriaxone, | Presence ofhyper-resistantcolonies | [ |
| amikacin, | ||||
| nalidixic acid | ||||
| ArcAB, MarRAB, MdtABC | Multidrugresistance | [ | ||
| RcsCB | Cationic antimicrobial peptides (CAPs) | Intrinsic resistance | [ | |
| Aztreonam | [ | |||
| Beta-lactams | [ | |||
| Daptomycin | [ | |||
| Δ | RcsBC, CpxRA | Ampicillin | Increased tolerance | [ |
| Δ | PmrAB, | PolymyxinB | Increased tolerance | [ |
| Δ | BaeSR, RcsBC, CpxRA, EvgAS, | Multidrug | 16- to 32-fold increased resistance | [ |
| Δ | MarRAB | Norfloxacin | Increased tolerance | [ |
| Δ | ArcAB, EvgAS, EmrKY | Multidrug | 4 fold increased resistance | [ |
| Overexpression of | BaeSR, RcsBC, CpxRA, EvgAS, | Multidrug | 16- to 32-fold increased resistance | [ |
1 Resistance is an increase in MIC above the breakpoint; tolerance is the loss of killing with no change in MIC.
Effect of low pH-mediated cross-protection against antibiotics and minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) of different EHEC serotypes.
| Acid-Adapted Strains | pH | Acquired | MIC | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EHEC O157:H7 ATCC 43889 | 2.75 | Polymixin B, | Increased | [ |
| Acidic | Colistin | Increased | [ | |
| 2 | Tetracycline | Increased | [ | |
| Foodborne EHEC strain | 4 | Nalidixic acid, | 5 fold | [ |
| 2 | Multidrug | Increased | [ | |
| 4.8 | Trimethoprim, ampicillin, and ofloxacin | Increased | [ | |
| EHEC Gut flora | 2.5–4 | Multidrug | Increased | [ |
| Tetracycline | [ | |||
| Rifampicin | 2.5–4 | Sulphonamide, gentamicin and ampicillin | Increased | [ |
| 3.7 | Streptomycin | Increased | [ | |
| 29A and 29B EHEC strains | 2.5–4 | Ampicillin | Increased | [ |
| 3.2 | Chitosan | Increased | [ | |
| Foodborne | Acidic | Aminoglycosides, cephalosporins, and quinolones | Increased | [ |
| Acidic | Ampicillin-sulbactam, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, cefotaxime, trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole, tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, nitrofurantoin | Not evaluated | [ | |
| Acidic | Amoxicillin, tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, chloramphenicol, streptomycin, erythromycin, and gentamicin | Increased | [ | |
| 3 | Trimethoprim | Increased | [ | |
| 4.2–4.4 | Ampicillin, kanamycin, streptomycin, trimethoprim, nalidixic acid, rifampicin, sulphonamides, chloramphenicol, chloramphenicol, tetracycline, minocycline, doxycycline | Increased | [ | |
| 1.5 | Trimethoprim, ampicillin, | Increased | [ | |
|
| Acidic | Ampicillin | Increased | [ |
| Acidic | Chloramphenicol | Increased | [ | |
| EHEC EV18 strain | Acidic | Norfloxacin | Increased | [ |
| Acidic | Cephalosporins, ceftiofur, | 2-fold increased | [ |
Note: MIC above the breakpoint indicates that the organism is resistant.