This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fluit, A. C.
Right arrow Articles by Milatovic, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fluit, A. C.
Right arrow Articles by Milatovic, D.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, April 2005, p. 1636-1638, Vol. 49, No. 4
0066-4804/05/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/AAC.49.4.1636-1638.2005
Copyright © 2005, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Presence of Tetracycline Resistance Determinants and Susceptibility to Tigecycline and Minocycline

Ad C. Fluit,* Alice Florijn, Jan Verhoef, and Dana Milatovic

Eijkman-Winkler Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Received 5 August 2004/ Returned for modification 12 September 2004/ Accepted 16 December 2004


arrow
ABSTRACT
 
No relation between the presence of tetracycline resistance determinants tet(A) to tet(E) and the MICs of tigecycline was observed for Enterobacteriaceae, although tetracycline-susceptible isolates were more susceptible overall to tigecycline, whereas the presence of tet(M) in Staphylococcus aureus was associated with higher MICs of minocycline.


arrow
TEXT
 
Tetracycline resistance can be mediated by efflux, ribosomal protection, or chemical modification, but the first two mechanisms are the most clinically significant (14). A variety of resistance determinants may encode these mechanisms. Depending on the species, the tet(A) to tet(E) determinants are generally responsible for tetracycline resistance in Enterobacteriaceae (2). In Staphylococcus aureus, the tet(K) and tet(M) determinants are commonly encountered, and in Streptococcus pneumoniae, the tet(M) and tet(O) determinants are commonly encountered (2, 10). The tet(A) to tet(E) and tet(K) determinants encode efflux pumps, whereas the tet(M) and tet(O) determinants offer ribosomal protection. In some cases, cross-resistance is observed with doxycycline and minocycline. To overcome these resistance mechanisms, glycylcyclines were developed, with tigecycline being one of the most promising members (8). Tigecycline is a new tetracycline antibiotic with activity against both gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria (5), but only limited data for the MIC of tigecycline in relation to the presence of resistance determinants are available.

The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between the presence of tetracycline resistance determinants and the MICs of tigecycline and minocycline for Enterobacteriaceae, Staphylococcus aureus, and Streptococcus pneumoniae.

Tetracycline-resistant isolates were randomly chosen from a collection of isolates obtained from 23 European hospitals. As a control, tetracycline-susceptible isolates lacking the tet(A) to tet(E), tet(M), and tet(K) determinants were chosen from the same collection.

MICs were determined using NCCLS broth microdilution methodology (4). The MIC distribution of tigecycline and minocycline for isolates with different tetracycline resistance determinants are listed in Tables 1 and 2. The presence of the tetracycline determinants was established by specific PCRs. Escherichia coli isolates (n = 54) were tested for the presence of tet(A) to tet(E), Klebsiella spp. (n = 53) were tested for tet(A) to tet(D), Serratia marcescens isolates (n = 54) were tested for tet(A) to tet(C) and tet(E), and Enterobacter spp. (n = 55) were tested for tet(B) to tet(D). Staphylococcus aureus (n = 106) was tested for tet(K) and tet(M). Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates (n = 104) were tested for tet(K) and tet(O). PCRs were performed with 25-µl incubation mixtures, each consisting of a 0.2 mM concentration of each deoxynucleoside triphosphate, 0.25 U of SuperTaq DNA polymerase (HT Biotechnology), SuperTaq buffer, and 6.5 µg of the appropriate primer per ml. The primers used were 5'-TCT CTT GGA TCA ATT TGC TG and 5'-CCA TCA GTG ATA TCG GCA AT (354-bp amplification product) for tet(A), 5'-GTC TTG CCA ACG TTA TTA CG and 5'-GAG AAG CTG AGG TGG TAT CG (305-bp amplification product) for tet(B), 5'-ATC TAA CAA TGC GCT CAT CG and 5'-CAT TAG GAA GCA GCC CAG TA (538-bp amplification product) for tet(C), 5'-GCT GGT GAT TAC ACT GCT GG and 5'-AGT ATT GCC GCA ATG ACA AA (477-bp amplification product) for tet(D), and 5'-CAC TGT GAT GAT GGC ACT GG and GCC TGT AAC GAA AGT TGA CC (468-bp amplification product) for tet(E) (GenBank accession no. J018301, AY150213.1, J01749, X65876, and L06940, respectively). A total of 35 amplification cycles were carried out. Each cycle consisted of 1 min at 96°C, 1 min at 58°C [tet(A) and tet(B)] or 60°C [tet(C) to tet(E)], and 1 min at 72°C. The tet(K)-, tet(M)-, and tet(O)-specific PCRs were performed as described previously (10). The amplification products were analyzed on a 1% agarose gel and visualized using ethidium bromide and UV illumination.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1. Distribution of tigecycline and minocycline MICs according to the resistance determinants in the gram-negative bacteria tested


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 2. Distribution of tigecycline and minocycline MICs according to the resistance determinants in the gram-positive bacteria tested

Both tetracycline-susceptible Enterobacteriaceae and gram-positive isolates lacking all tested tetracycline resistance determinants were more susceptible overall to tigecycline than were tetracycline-resistant isolates (Tables 1 and 2).

Seven E. coli isolates contained two determinants, whereas only two Klebsiella isolates and two Enterobacter isolates contained two determinants (Table 1). None of the tested determinants was present in 30 Enterobacter isolates and 45 Serratia marcescens isolates, suggesting that other resistance mechanisms are responsible for the tetracycline resistance in these organisms. For all combinations of resistance determinants among the Enterobacteriaceae, the MICs of minocycline were higher than those of tigecycline. No correlation between any combination of resistance determinants and the MICs of tigecycline and minocycline was observed, although isolates carrying one or more of these determinants showed higher MICs on average than isolates that lacked these determinants. These data are in accordance with initial reports that efflux mechanisms encoded by tet(A) to tet(D) are not efficient for glycylcyclines (9). The presence of tet(B) or tet(C) in E. coli has also been reported to have no effect on the MICs of tigecycline. The presence of the efflux pump AcrAB and its close homologue AcrEF resulted in a fourfold increase in the MIC of tigecycline. AcrAB is normally expressed in wild-type E. coli cells. This expression explains the usually reduced susceptibility to tigecycline in these cells (3). It has also been reported that the E. coli AcrAB homologue in Proteus mirabilis is associated with reduced levels of susceptibility to tigecycline (12). A different mechanism for reduced glycylcycline susceptibility was suggested for two veterinary Salmonella isolates. These isolates harbor a tet(A) resistance determinant, but the genes that encode these determinants have mutations that result in a double frameshift and possibly an effect on tigecycline susceptibility (11).

The minocycline MICs for Staphylococcus aureus isolates carrying the tet(M) determinant were significantly higher than those for isolates carrying the tet(K) determinant alone (Table 2). In contrast, there was no difference in the distribution of tigecycline MICs between isolates carrying the tet(M) and tet(K) determinants. The minocycline MICs for tet(M) positive isolates were significantly higher (range, 4 to 32 mg/liter) than the tigecycline MICs (range, 0.25 to 0.5 mg/liter). When tet(K) alone was present, the minocycline and tigecycline MIC distributions were comparable, with the MICs of tigecycline ranging from 0.12 to 2 mg/liter and the MICs of minocycline ranging from 0.06 to 8 mg/liter. All Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates that were tested carried the tet(M) determinant only. The MICs of tigecycline for Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates ranged from ≤0.03 to 1 mg/liter, whereas the MICs of minocycline were significantly higher (range, 4 to 32 mg/liter). However, the minocycline MICs for isolates which lacked the tet(M) determinant were lower (range, ≤ 0.03 to 0.5 mg/liter). These data are in accordance with initial reports that efflux mechanisms encoded by tet(M) or tet(K) are ineffective against glycylcyclines (6, 9). The correlation between the high minocycline MIC and the presence of tet(M) in Staphylococcus aureus is in accordance with previous findings (1, 7, 10, 13). This finding is also true for Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates.

To summarize, no clear relation between the presence of tetracycline resistance determinants and the MICs of tigecycline was observed for Enterobacteriaceae, Staphylococcus aureus, and Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates, although tetracycline-susceptible isolates were more susceptible overall to tigecycline. The presence of the tet(M) determinant correlated with a high minocycline MIC for Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae strains.


arrow
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This study was supported by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.


arrow
FOOTNOTES
 
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Eijkman-Winkler Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room G04.614, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands. Phone: 31 30 2507630. Fax: 31 30 2541770. E-mail: A.C.Fluit{at}lab.azu.nl. Back


arrow
REFERENCES
 
    1
  1. Bismuth, R., R. Zilhao, H. Sakamoto, J. L. Guesdon, and P. Courvalin. 1990. Gene heterogeneity for tetracycline resistance in Staphylococcus spp. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 34:1611-1614.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    2. 2
  2. Chopra, I., and M. Roberts. 2001. Tetracycline antibiotics: mode of action, applications, molecular biology, and epidemiology of bacterial resistance. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 65:232-260.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    3. 3
  3. Hirata, T., A. Saito, K. Nishino, N. Tamura, and A. Yamaguchi. 2004. Effects of efflux transporter genes on susceptibility of Escherichia coli to tigecycline (GAR-936). Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 48:2179-2184.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    4. 4
  4. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 2000. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically, 5th ed. Approved standard M7-A5. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa.
    5. 5
  5. Petersen, P. J., N. V. Jacobus, W. J. Weiss, P. E. Sum, and R. T. Testa. 1999. In vitro and in vivo antibacterial activities of a novel glycylcycline, the 9-t-butylglycylamido derivative of minocycline (GAR-936). Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 43:738-744.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    6. 6
  6. Rasmussen, B. A., Y. Gluzman, and F. P. Tally. 1994. Inhibition of protein synthesis occurring on tetracycline-resistant, TetM-protected ribosomes by a novel class of tetracyclines, the glycylcyclines. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 38:1658-1660.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    7. 7
  7. Schmitz, F.-J., A. Krey, R. Sadurski, J. Verhoef, D. Milatovic, and A. C. Fluit for the European SENTRY Participants. 2001. Resistance to tetracycline and distribution of tetracycline resistance genes in European Staphylococcus aureus isolates. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 47:239-246.[Free Full Text]
    8. 8
  8. Sum, P. E., and P. Petersen. 1999. Synthesis and structure-activity relationship of novel glycylcycline derivatives leading to the discovery of GAR-936. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 9:1459-1462.[CrossRef][Medline]
    9. 9
  9. Tally, F. T., G. A. Ellestad, and R. T. Testa. 1995. Glycylcyclines: a new generation of tetracyclines. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 35:449-452.[Free Full Text]
    10. 10
  10. Trzcinski, K., B. S. Cooper, W. Hryniewicz, and C. D. Dowson. 2000. Expression of resistance to tetracyclines in strains of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 45:763-770.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    11. 11
  11. Tuckman, M., P. J. Petersen, and S. J. Projan. 2000. Mutations in the interdomain loop region of the tetA(A) tetracycline resistance gene increase efflux of minocycline and glycylcyclines. Microb. Drug Resist. 6:277-282.[Medline]
    12. 12
  12. Visalli, M. A., E. Murphy, S. J. Projan, and P. A. Bradford. 2003. AcrAB multidrug efflux pump is associated with reduced levels of susceptibility to tigecycline (GAR-936) in Proteus mirabilis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 47:665-669.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    13. 13
  13. Warsa, U. C., M. Nonoyama, T. Ida, R. Okamoto, T. Okubo, C. Shimauchi, A. Kuga, and M. Inouye. 1996. Detection of tet(K) and tet(M) in Staphylococcus aureus of Asian countries by the polymerase chain reaction. J. Antibiot. 49:1127-1132.[Medline]
    14. 14
  14. Zhanel, G. G., K. Homenuik, K. Nichol, A. Noreddin, L. Vercaigne, J. Embil, A. Gin, J. A. Karlowsky, and D. J. Hoban. 2004. The glycylcyclines: a comparative review with the tetracyclines. Drugs 64:63-88.[CrossRef][Medline]

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, April 2005, p. 1636-1638, Vol. 49, No. 4
0066-4804/05/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/AAC.49.4.1636-1638.2005
Copyright © 2005, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Vaudaux, P., Fleury, B., Gjinovci, A., Huggler, E., Tangomo-Bento, M., Lew, D. P. (2009). Comparison of Tigecycline and Vancomycin for Treatment of Experimental Foreign-Body Infection Due to Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 53: 3150-3152 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Bell, J. M., Turnidge, J. D., Jones, R. N. (2009). Development of a Disk Diffusion Method for Testing Moraxella catarrhalis Susceptibility Using Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Methods: a SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program Report. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47: 2187-2193 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Peleg, A. Y., Seifert, H., Paterson, D. L. (2008). Acinetobacter baumannii: Emergence of a Successful Pathogen. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 21: 538-582 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Hope, R., Parsons, T., Mushtaq, S., James, D., Livermore, D. M. (2007). Determination of disc breakpoints and evaluation of Etests for tigecycline susceptibility testing by the BSAC method. J Antimicrob Chemother 60: 770-774 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Tuckman, M., Petersen, P. J., Howe, A. Y. M., Orlowski, M., Mullen, S., Chan, K., Bradford, P. A., Jones, C. H. (2007). Occurrence of Tetracycline Resistance Genes among Escherichia coli Isolates from the Phase 3 Clinical Trials for Tigecycline. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 51: 3205-3211 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Peleg, A. Y., Adams, J., Paterson, D. L. (2007). Tigecycline Efflux as a Mechanism for Nonsusceptibility in Acinetobacter baumannii. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 51: 2065-2069 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Hope, R., Warner, M., Potz, N. A. C., Fagan, E. J., James, D., Livermore, D. M. (2006). Activity of tigecycline against ESBL-producing and AmpC-hyperproducing Enterobacteriaceae from South-East England. J Antimicrob Chemother 58: 1312-1314 [Full Text]  
  • Morosini, M.-I., Garcia-Castillo, M., Coque, T. M., Valverde, A., Novais, A., Loza, E., Baquero, F., Canton, R. (2006). Antibiotic Coresistance in Extended-Spectrum-{beta}-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae and In Vitro Activity of Tigecycline.. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 50: 2695-2699 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Jones, C. H., Tuckman, M., Howe, A. Y. M., Orlowski, M., Mullen, S., Chan, K., Bradford, P. A. (2006). Diagnostic PCR Analysis of the Occurrence of Methicillin and Tetracycline Resistance Genes among Staphylococcus aureus Isolates from Phase 3 Clinical Trials of Tigecycline for Complicated Skin and Skin Structure Infections. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 50: 505-510 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Hope, R., Warner, M., Mushtaq, S., Ward, M. E., Parsons, T., Livermore, D. M. (2005). Effect of medium type, age and aeration on the MICs of tigecycline and classical tetracyclines. J Antimicrob Chemother 56: 1042-1046 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Livermore, D. M. (2005). Tigecycline: what is it, and where should it be used?. J Antimicrob Chemother 56: 611-614 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fluit, A. C.
Right arrow Articles by Milatovic, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fluit, A. C.
Right arrow Articles by Milatovic, D.

Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»