Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, September 2003, p. 2903-2913, Vol. 47, No. 9
0066-4804/03/$08.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/AAC.47.9.2903-2913.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
GlaxoSmithKline Research and Development, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2NY, United Kingdom
Received 10 March 2003/ Returned for modification 14 May 2003/ Accepted 23 June 2003
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
An important factor in developing a new drug is the criterion that the compound must provide selective inhibition of the intended target. Microarray profiling may be useful in delivering this confirmation, through comparison of gene expression profiles obtained in response to novel inhibitors with signature gene expression profiles of drugs of known modes of action. This approach has been demonstrated in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, for which the mode of action of a novel inhibitor was predicted through the concordance of responsive genes with drugs known to inhibit ergosterol biosynthesis (2). Transcript profiling of the response of Haemophilus influenzae to the DNA gyrase inhibitors novobiocin and ciprofloxacin demonstrated that the two different modes of action were clearly reflected in the cellular response (14). In a more recent study, signature profiles generated in response to treatment of Streptococcus pneumoniae with translation inhibitors enabled distinction among antibiotics inhibiting different steps in the translation cycle (23). The response of M. tuberculosis to treatment with the antimycobacterial drugs isoniazid and ethionamide has also been studied (33). Induced genes could be predicted to either compensate for inhibition of the target pathway or respond to the toxic effect of the drug and led to the proposal that RNA response profiles could serve as a fingerprint of a given drug's mode of action (33).
Isoniazid, thiolactomycin, and triclosan all inhibit the biosynthesis of mycolic acids, one of the major components of the mycobacterial cell wall (9), but have different mechanisms of action (17). Isoniazid is a front-line antimycobacterial drug that targets the type II fatty acid synthase (FAS-II) system of mycobacteria, though its precise mechanism of action has been difficult to elucidate and remains controversial. Both the enoyl-acyl carrier protein (ACP) reductase InhA (3, 26) and the ß-ketoacyl-ACP synthase KasA (22, 29) have been proposed as the primary target; however, the most recent body of evidence seems to weigh in favor of InhA (19, 31). Thiolactomycin is a natural product with broad-spectrum antibiotic activity that specifically inhibits FAS-II (16). It exhibits activity against mycobacterial FAS-II (28) by its inhibition of the ß-ketoacyl-ACP synthases KasA and KasB (18, 27). Its favorable physical and pharmacokinetic properties and low toxicity profile have made it an attractive candidate for a lead optimization program aimed at developing analogues with enhanced activity against M. tuberculosis (12). Triclosan is a broad-spectrum antibiotic that has been shown to inhibit InhA from M. smegmatis (21) and M. tuberculosis (25).
In order to support drug development programs aimed at the provision of novel InhA inhibitors and thiolactomycin analogues, we have, by using DNA microarrays, generated signature profiles of M. tuberculosis in response to treatment with isoniazid, thiolactomycin, and triclosan. We have compared and contrasted the response profiles to the three drugs and can distinguish between isoniazid and thiolactomycin treatment, thereby providing insight into the differences in the mechanisms of action of these two drugs. We built a predictive model, based on the expression pattern of 21 genes, which is able to perfectly classify isoniazid-, thiolactomycin-, or triclosan-treated M. tuberculosis. This can be used to evaluate novel inhibitors and will facilitate lead optimization programs by enabling the modes of action of inhibitors to be tracked, thus aiding the translation of enzyme activity to the whole cell.
|
|
|---|
RNA isolation and preparation of labeled cDNA. Cultures were harvested by centrifugation (1,900 x g, 15 min) after 2 or 6 h of drug treatment. Vehicle-treated control samples were harvested at time zero (t = 0) and at 2 and 6 h. Pellets were resuspended in 1 ml of TRIzol (Invitrogen), and RNA extraction was performed as previously described (6). Fluorescently labeled cDNA copies of total RNA were prepared by direct incorporation of fluorescent nucleotide analogues during a first-strand reverse transcription (RT) reaction using genome-directed priming (30). Each 25-µl labeling reaction included 2.5 µg of RNA; 1.5 µl of primer mix; 0.5 mM each of dATP, dGTP, and dCTP; 0.05 mM dTTP; 10 mM dithiothreitol (DTT); and 200 U of reverse transcriptase (Superscript II, Invitrogen) in a 1x reaction buffer provided by the enzyme manufacturer and 2 nmol of either Cy3-dUTP or Cy5-dUTP (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech). The RNA and primers were preheated to 70°C for 3 min and snap-cooled on ice before adding the remaining reaction components. The RT reaction was allowed to proceed for 2 min at 25°C followed by 90 min at 42°C. Any remaining RNA was inactivated for 25 min at 37°C using RNase H (Invitrogen). All treated samples were compared to the time zero control by cohybridization. The two labeled cDNA samples to be compared were combined and purified using a QIAquick PCR purification kit (Qiagen), and eluted cDNA was dried by vacuum centrifugation.
Microarray hybridization and data analysis. DNA microarrays consisted of 3,880 PCR-amplified open reading frame (ORF)-specific DNA fragments, representing 99% of the predicted 3,924 M. tuberculosis strain H37Rv ORFs (11), which were printed onto glass slides. Prior to hybridization, microarray slides were washed twice in isopropanol, first for 5 min and then for 10 min, before being boiled in double-distilled H2O for 5 min. Slides were then incubated at 42°C for 30 min in prehybridization buffer (1% bovine serum albumin, 5x SSC [1x SSC is 0.15 M NaCl plus 0.015 M sodium citrate], 0.1% sodium dodecyl sulfate [SDS]), washed twice in 0.06x SSC for 2 min, and dried by centrifugation (100 x g, 1 min). Probes were applied to the array in 40 µl of hybridization solution (5x SSC, 25% formamide, 0.5% SDS, 1x Denhardt's solution, 0.125 µg of salmon sperm DNA per ml, and 0.125 µg of Escherichia coli tRNA per ml). Samples were first denatured by heating them to 98°C for 3 min, and hybridization was carried out under a glass coverslip in a humidified slide chamber (Corning) submerged in a 42°C water bath for approximately 18 h. Coverslips were removed by incubation for 1 min in wash buffer I (2x SSC, 0.1% SDS, 1 mM DTT) prewarmed to 42°C, and slides were then washed sequentially in buffer I, buffer II (0.1x SSC, 0.1% SDS, 1 mM DTT) and twice in buffer III (0.1x SSC, 1 mM DTT) for 5 min each at room temperature. Finally, slides were dipped in 0.06x SSC for 10 s, dried by centrifugation (100 x g, 1 min), and immediately scanned using a GenePix 4000B scanner (Axon Instruments). The resulting images were analyzed using GenePix Pro 3.0 software (Axon Instruments), and data were imported into the Rosetta Resolver version 3.1 Gene Expression Data Analysis System for further analysis. An error model, calculated from 10 same-versus-same hybridizations, was applied in order to standardize log expression ratios generated from the intensity values of the treated/time zero control channels and then to quantify the significance of expression changes in each treated sample compared to the time zero control. Principal components analysis (PCA) and partial least-squares discriminant analysis (13) were performed using SIMCA-P version 10 software. Stepwise linear-discriminant analysis (15) was performed using SAS version 8 software.
Real-time quantitative RT-PCR (QRT-PCR). cDNA was synthesized from 1 µg of RNA using Superscript II reverse transcriptase (Invitrogen) as described above but using equal concentrations of dATP, dGTP, dCTP, and dTTP (0.5 mM) as well as omitting the labeled nucleotide. After incubation at 42°C for 90 min, the cDNA was diluted to a volume of 120 µl, and 2.5 µl was used per PCR. Primers were designed using Primer Express software version 2.0 (Applied Biosystems) and the sequences shown in Table 1. PCR was performed using an Applied Biosystems 7900HT Sequence Detector System, with samples in 384-well plates. Each 10-µl reaction mixture included cDNA from 20 ng of RNA, 400 nM of each primer pair, and QuantiTect SYBR Green PCR Master Mix (Qiagen). PCR parameters used were 50°C for 2 min, 95°C for 10 min, and 33 cycles of 95°C for 15 s and 60°C for 1 min. A linear-regression line calculated from the standard curves of serially diluted M. tuberculosis H37Rv genomic DNA allowed relative transcript levels in RNA samples to be determined. Quantitative results for each cDNA were normalized to the number of sigA molecules and the significance of differential gene expression in each treated sample, relative to the nontreated, time zero control, measured using analysis of covariance (7). Analysis was performed on duplicate biological samples that were each assayed in duplicate. Chromosomal DNA contamination was measured by real-time PCR of RNA not treated with reverse transcriptase and found to be negligible.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 1. Primers used for the QRT-PCR
|
|
|
|---|
Data were analyzed using Rosetta Resolver version 3.1 software, and P values representing the significance of differential expression relative to the time zero control were generated through application of a predetermined error model. Genes displaying a P value that was <0.001 were considered significantly differentially expressed relative to the time zero control. Drug-specific changes were determined by removing genes found to be differentially expressed in the vehicle control samples at the same time point with a P value of <0.05; however, genes with value changes in response to drug treatment (n-fold) of more than 1.5 times those in this vehicle control were retained as drug-induced changes.
Global gene expression patterns. The numbers of genes, according to functional class, regulated by the drug treatments at each time point are displayed in Table 2. In general, fewer than 100 genes were regulated in response to each treatment, the exception being 5x-MIC triclosan, in which case several hundreds of genes were significantly differentially expressed. Genes encoding enzymes involved in fatty acid metabolism, oxidoreductases, and membrane proteins were among those upregulated by the 5x-MIC triclosan treatments. Genes downregulated included those encoding ribosomal proteins, fatty acid biosynthesis, and modification enzymes and proteins involved in aerobic respiration. This suggests that the 5x-MIC triclosan treatments induced many nonspecific secondary effects and genes involved in growth slowdown or cell death. In contrast, both the 1x- and 5x-MIC isoniazid or thiolactomycin treatments induced a much more specific response, including upregulation of cell wall and lipid metabolism genes.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 2. Numbers of genes regulated in M. tuberculosis by each drug's indicated MIC, according to functional class, at 2 and 6 ha
|
![]() View larger version (18K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Overlap of genes regulated by isoniazid, thiolactomycin, or triclosan treatment of M. tuberculosis. Numbers within the sectors indicate the total numbers of genes regulated uniquely or in common by either 1x or 5x MIC treatment of each drug at either 2 or 6 h (P < 0.001). INH, isoniazid; TLM, thiolactomycin; TRC, triclosan.
|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 3. Genes commonly regulated by the drug treatments
|
![]() View larger version (95K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 2. Two-dimensional cluster analysis of the drug-treated expression profiles. Two-dimensional agglomerative clustering was performed on the 877 genes significantly regulated in response to any of the drug treatments (P < 0.001). The individual genes are represented on the x axis and the different samples are indicated on the y axis. Red, upregulation; green, downregulation; black, no change relative to the time zero control. INH, isoniazid; TLM, thiolactomycin; TRC, triclosan.
|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 4. Differential response of the kas operon to isoniazid, thiolactomycin, or triclosan treatment
|
![]() View larger version (23K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 3. Response of the kas operon to isoniazid, thiolactomycin, or triclosan treatment as measured by QRT-PCR. (A) Schematic representation of the kas operon in the M. tuberculosis H37Rv genome. Ratio between the number of cDNA copies detected in each sample relative to the time zero control by QRT-PCR at 2 h (B) and 6 h (C) is represented. Each value is the average of two biological replicates, each analyzed in duplicate. INH, isoniazid; TLM, thiolactomycin; TRC, triclosan.
|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 5. Genes induced in M. tuberculosis by all triclosan (TRC) treatments
|
![]() View larger version (26K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 4. Genes induced by triclosan treatment of M. tuberculosis as measured by QRT-PCR. Organization of Rv1685c to Rv1687c (A) and Rv3160c to Rv3161c (C) in the M. tuberculosis H37Rv genome. Ratio between the number of cDNA copies detected in each sample relative to the time zero control by QRT-PCR for Rv1685c to Rv1687c (B) and Rv3160c to Rv3161c (D). Each value is the average of two biological replicates, each analyzed in duplicate. TRC, triclosan.
|
![]() View larger version (7K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 5. PCA of isoniazid, thiolactomycin, triclosan, and control expression profiles. The largest source of variance is explained on the x axis and the second largest on the y axis. Each hybridization is represented by a single point. Isoniazid treatments, circles; thiolactomycin treatments, triangles; triclosan treatments, squares; vehicle control treatments, diamonds. Two-hour treatments, open shapes; 6-h treatments, closed shapes. 1x MIC, black; 5x MIC, red; vehicle control, blue.
|
Stepwise linear-discriminant analysis of the top 500 ranking genes from the partial least-squares analysis was then performed in order to generate a mathematical function capable of discriminating between the four groups for the 5x-MIC treatment at 6 h. Stepwise linear-discriminant analysis builds a linear model by selecting a small subset of genes that best discriminate among the groups. The model was built using the data obtained from the original hybridizations for each of the four treatment groupsisoniazid, thiolactomycin, triclosan, or treatment controlgiving a total of 24 expression profiles. A function involving 21 genes (Table 6) was found to perfectly classify each of the expression profiles into one of the four groups. The equation for the discriminant function is shown in Table 6. All 21 genes were required for perfect classification, with the first three genes accounting for 85% of the variance between the four groups and Rv1686c and acpM being the two most important discriminant genes. The experiment was then repeated in the same format to generate a set of independent data in order to test the model. A total of four hybridizations of two biological replicates was performed for each of the four treatments, giving a total of 16 expression profiles. The test data were classified into one of the four groups based on a probability score defining how closely each profile fitted the model for that group. All 16 expression profiles classified correctly into their respective groups with a probability of >0.99, thus providing independent validation of the model.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 6. The genes and discriminant function required for classification of isoniazid (INH), thiolactomycin (TLM), triclosan (TRC), or control groups
|
|
|
|---|
As thiolactomycin and triclosan both have well-defined targets, KasA/KasB and InhA, respectively, they have previously been used as tools to study the molecular mechanism of isoniazid and the relative contributions of InhA and KasA in an effort to address the controversy surrounding the primary target of isoniazid (29). Our clustering and PCA analyses have shown isoniazid expression profiles to more closely resemble thiolactomycin than triclosan profiles. However, the isoniazid and thiolactomycin profiles were distinct from one another, and more genes were regulated uniquely in response to each drug than were in common with the other treatments. There were also differences in the regulation of the kas operon in response to isoniazid and thiolactomycin. Although the kas operon genes were induced by the 5x-MIC isoniazid treatment to levels similar to those observed with thiolactomycin treatment, the kinetics of the response appeared to be slower in response to isoniazid, perhaps reflecting an indirect effect. In addition, the 1x-MIC isoniazid dose did not significantly induce the kas operon, more closely resembling the 1x-MIC triclosan treatment, which also had no effect on the expression of these genes beyond that of the treatment control. Based on these observations, it seems likely that the similarities that exist in the response profiles toward isoniazid and thiolactomycin are due to both drugs inhibiting the same pathway but that differences are seen due to the drugs inhibiting different primary targets. The induction of the kas operon in response to isoniazid treatment may therefore be a secondary effect of the drug, reflected in the slower kinetics of induction compared to thiolactomycin and the absence of induction in response to 1x-MIC levels of drug. In supporting different primary targets for isoniazid and thiolactomycin, these findings would therefore support InhA rather than KasA as the primary target of isoniazid. In their study, using a luciferase reporter strain, Slayden and colleagues showed induction of the kas operon in response to isoniazid even at concentrations below the MIC (29). This difference may be due to the greater sensitivity of the luciferase assay compared to microarray analysis or the fact that cultures were incubated with the drug for 24 h prior to measuring expression levels. In a previous study using DNA microarrays, isoniazid was found to induce the kas operon after 1 h of exposure, but this was in response to concentrations equivalent to either 2x or 10x the MIC that was used in this study (33). In agreement with previous studies (33), we have not observed induction of inhA in response to isoniazid treatment. The lack of inhA induction following isoniazid treatment may represent one of the properties of an ideal target whose inhibition leads to a bactericidal event (31). The failure of a drug to induce its own target gene would preclude transient resistance and increase its effectiveness.
A recent study into the membranotropic effects of triclosan has suggested that the antibacterial effects of the drug are mediated, at least in part, through intercalation into the membrane, resulting in destabilizing structures and interfering with normal membrane-dependent processes (32). The results presented here, showing upregulation of many genes encoding membrane proteins in response to triclosan treatment, would support this mechanism in M. tuberculosis. The difference between the triclosan and the isoniazid and thiolactomycin response profiles may therefore be due to inefficient entry of triclosan into the cell, leading to low intracellular concentration of drug and hence poor inhibition of the target enzyme. In this case, response profiles would not reflect the effects of inhibition of the target enzyme but would instead reflect other nonspecific effects such as those seen for triclosan in the present study.
Further insight into the apparent failure of triclosan to effectively inhibit its target enzyme is given by the two groups of genes that were most highly induced in response to triclosan treatment. Rv1685c encodes a conserved hypothetical protein of unknown function but which has some similarity to possible transcription regulators of M. tuberculosis, including Rv3160c and a putative transcriptional regulator from Streptomyces coelicolor. Rv1686c and Rv1687c encode an integral membrane protein and an ATP-binding protein of an ABC transport system, respectively. Bioinformatic analysis of the protein sequence of this ABC transporter has found it to cluster together with other M. tuberculosis transporters similar to known antibiotic resistance systems (8). As this transporter is induced in response to triclosan treatment, it is possible that it is involved in antibiotic resistance in M. tuberculosis through provision of an efflux mechanism to export the drug from the cell. Rv3160c encodes a possible transcriptional regulator of the TetR-AcrR family, and Rv3161c encodes a possible dioxygenase with similarity to several bacterial aromatic dioxygenases involved in the degradation of arenes. As triclosan consists of a diphenyl ether structure, it is possible that induction of this enzyme could serve to degradeand hence detoxifytriclosan. Therefore, the apparent lack of a triclosan effect on its target may be due to the induction of a triclosan efflux pump and detoxification system with resultant low intracellular concentration of triclosan. This would explain the discrepancy between the 50% inhibitory concentration for triclosan against InhA in vitro, which is lower than that for isoniazid, and the poor whole-cell activity reflected by its high MIC.
Generation of drug treatment response profiles such as those demonstrated in this study has several applications within the drug discovery process (4, 10). Signature profiles of drugs of known modes of action can be used to predict the modes of action of novel inhibitors identified through whole-cell screens. Promoters induced upon inhibition of a target pathway may be used to create reporter strains for use in an in vivo whole-cell screening approach to identify compounds that specifically inhibit the desired pathway. A further application would be the use of response profiles to confirm that a particular compound provides selective inhibition of the intended target (10, 20). A common problem encountered in the development of antimycobacterials is translating activity against an enzyme in vitro into whole-cell activity against M. tuberculosis. Triclosan is an example of a drug that has good enzyme activity but poor whole-cell activity. Microarray profiling would aid the identification of such compounds. For example, induction of the putative ABC transporter seen in response to triclosan could serve as a marker of poor cell wall penetration and could be used to identify compounds likely to have poor whole-cell activity against M. tuberculosis. The predictive model described here provides a mechanism for classifying M. tuberculosis treated with isoniazid, thiolactomycin, triclosan, or no drug. Any expression profile not fitting the model for one of these four groups would be classified as "other." In its present form, the model is a valuable tool for confirming that thiolactomycin analogues or novel InhA inhibitors are inhibiting the correct target within the whole cell and will have significant impact on our drug discovery programs in these areas. Future generation of M. tuberculosis response profiles to drugs that target different pathways as well as further refinement of the model will extend its use to the classification of a wider range of inhibitors.
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»