Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Mechanisms of Resistance

Induction of Telithromycin Resistance by Erythromycin in Isolates of Macrolide-Resistant Staphylococcus spp

Kepler A. Davis, Sharon A. Crawford, Kristin R. Fiebelkorn, James H. Jorgensen
Kepler A. Davis
1Infectious Diseases Service, Department of Medicine, Brooke Army Medical Center, Ft. Sam Houston, Texas 78234
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: kepler.davis@amedd.army.mil
Sharon A. Crawford
2Department of Pathology, The University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas 78229
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kristin R. Fiebelkorn
2Department of Pathology, The University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas 78229
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James H. Jorgensen
2Department of Pathology, The University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas 78229
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.49.7.3059-3061.2005
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Staphylococcal isolates were examined for possible macrolide-inducible resistance to telithromycin. All macrolide-resistant isolates demonstrated telithromycin D-shaped zones. This result did not discriminate between resistance due to an efflux mechanism (msrA) or a ribosomal target modification (ermA or ermC). Inducible telithromycin resistance in staphylococci does not appear to be analogous to inducible clindamycin resistance.

Telithromycin is the first commercially available ketolide. Ketolides are a recently developed class of antimicrobial agents that belong to the macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B (MLSB) family. Ketolides possess significant structural differences from macrolides, including a second site of interaction with the ribosome at domain II on the 23S rRNA of the 50S ribosomal subunit (4). This is in addition to the interaction at domain V, which is where 14- and 15-membered-ring macrolides act (2). These and other modifications improve the stability of ketolides in acidic environments, prevent the induction of MLSB resistance, and maintain activity against organisms that develop inducible resistance to MLSB antimicrobials (2). Mechanisms that confer resistance to MLSB antimicrobials include target site modification and active antimicrobial efflux (1). Target site modification is encoded by constitutive or inducible erm genes (16) that may require exposure to subinhibitory concentrations of erythromycin for optimal expression (18). The active antimicrobial efflux pumps that have been described for Staphylococcus aureus are encoded by the msrA, msrB, and NorA genes (11, 16).

We previously reported a practical disk approximation method which identified 97% of S. aureus strains and 100% of coagulase-negative staphylococcus (CoNS) strains with inducible MLSB resistance during routine disk diffusion susceptibility testing (6). A similar method involves placing erythromycin and clindamycin disks in close proximity on standard sheep blood agar plates used for verification of inoculum purity when broth-based susceptibility tests are performed (10). These tests are intended to detect strains with inducible MLSB resistance in order to avoid potential clinical failures with clindamycin therapy (5, 7, 15, 17). The goal of the present study was to determine if inducible telithromycin resistance, like inducible clindamycin resistance, might occur in macrolide-resistant staphylococci.

A group of 100 S. aureus clinical isolates and 100 CoNS clinical isolates, some of which have been previously described (6), were selected for study. All isolates were macrolide resistant by standard Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI; formerly NCCLS) disk diffusion testing (14). An additional 10 S. aureus isolates that were susceptible to erythromycin were included. Standard CLSI disk diffusion testing (14) was performed on all isolates by use of Mueller-Hinton agar (Becton-Dickinson Microbiology Systems, Cockeysville, MD) with standard 15-μg erythromycin disks, 2-μg clindamycin disks, and 15-μg telithromycin disks (Becton-Dickinson). Two sets of three disks were placed on the same agar plate (Fig. 1). Each set consisted of a centrally placed erythromycin disk with either clindamycin or telithromycin disks placed at 20 mm and 26 mm on opposite sides of the erythromycin disk. Zone diameters were carefully measured and evaluated for the formation of a D-shaped zone (D zone) following incubation for 16 to 18 h at 35°C.

A second method to assess possible inducible telithromycin resistance was performed on a subset of isolates by determining telithromycin MICs. This was completed by standard broth dilution testing (13) with and without the addition of a subinhibitory concentration of erythromycin (0.5 μg/ml). MIC testing was then repeated with the addition of one of three known efflux pump inhibitors: reserpine (10, 25, 50, and 100 μg/ml), 2,4-dinitrophenol (20 μg/ml), or carbonyl cyanide m-chlorophenylhydrazone (CCCP; 0.5 μg/ml) (all obtained from Sigma Chemical Company, St. Louis, MO) (8, 9, 12). Both reserpine and CCCP were initially dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide (American Type Culture Collection, Manassas, VA) prior to serial dilutions in sterile Mueller-Hinton broth (Becton-Dickinson). The reversal of macrolide-induced telithromycin MIC elevation in the presence of an efflux pump inhibitor would infer that resistance was due to active antimicrobial efflux.

Preparation of whole-cell DNA, PCR for the ermA, ermC, and msrA genes and detection of amplified DNA was completed as previously described (6). Control strains for disk diffusion tests and molecular analysis included S. aureus ATCC 25923 (macrolide and clindamycin susceptible; negative for ermA, ermC, and msrA), S. aureus RN1551 (containing ermA), S. aureus RN4220 (with plasmid pE194 containing ermC), and S. aureus RN4220 (with plasmid pAT10 containing msrA) (6).

Initial disk diffusion testing demonstrated that 74 S. aureus isolates and 45 CoNS isolates were susceptible to telithromycin (zone diameter of ≥22 mm) (Table 1), with all but two S. aureus isolates and three CoNS isolates susceptible to clindamycin (zone diameter of ≥21 mm). Unexpectedly, disk approximation testing revealed that all macrolide-resistant, telithromycin-susceptible staphylococcal isolates produced telithromycin D zones (Table 1 and Fig. 1). None of the erythromycin-susceptible S. aureus isolates demonstrated a flattening of the zones of inhibition. In contrast, inducible clindamycin resistance predicted the presence of an inducible erm gene, except for three CoNS isolates with msrA genes (Table 2). The telithromycin MIC of five selected S. aureus isolates with only the msrA genotype was 0.06 μg/ml, which increased to 0.5 μg/ml in the presence of a subinhibitory concentration of erythromycin (Table 3). Likewise, the telithromycin MIC was also induced by erythromycin for S. aureus isolates that contained only ermA or ermC. The negative-control strain, S. aureus ATCC 25923, did not demonstrate an elevated telithromycin MIC in the presence of erythromycin. The addition of reserpine, 2,4-dinitrophenol, or CCCP did not significantly decrease the induced telithromycin MICs.

All macrolide-resistant staphylococcal isolates in this study, irrespective of genotype, unexpectedly demonstrated positive telithromycin D-zone induction tests. Our previous study demonstrated that a positive macrolide induction test with clindamycin was a marker for those isolates that contained only a ribosomal-modification ermA or ermC gene and not the msrA efflux mechanism gene (6). A positive macrolide induction test with telithromycin did not discriminate between these resistance mechanisms. We initially postulated that inducible telithromycin resistance in these isolates was due to an alternate efflux pump that we had not identified. However, the addition of known inhibitors of staphylococcal efflux pumps did not reverse the erythromycin-induced telithromycin MICs, implying that either the pump was not affected by these inhibitors or there is an alternate mechanism of this inducible resistance. The mechanism of macrolide-induced telithromycin resistance may or may not be target site modification in those strains that contained ermA or ermC. Further work is needed to explain the exact mechanism of inducible telithromycin resistance observed in this study.

Regardless of the mechanism for this observation, we do not recommend routinely testing clinical isolates for inducible telithromycin resistance. It is unclear what, if any, clinical significance this observation provides, for two reasons. First, our results did not demonstrate a discriminating cause for the positive telithromycin D test, as is the case with the clindamycin D test (6). Second, to our knowledge, there have been no reports of clinical failure of telithromycin therapy for patients who have infections caused by telithromycin-susceptible, erythromycin-resistant isolates. It is concerning that the erythromycin induction of telithromycin resistance did elevate the telithromycin MIC above the resistance breakpoint (3) for one of the ermC-containing strains. Any potential clinical relevance of this phenomenon may become apparent with the expanded use of telithromycin. For now, clinical laboratories should not test for inducible telithromycin resistance unless further investigation reveals its cause and demonstrates that it is a relevant finding.

FIG. 1.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG. 1.

S. aureus induction test result demonstrating positive induction tests for both clindamycin and telithromycin. Upper row, clindamycin disk (left), erythromycin disk (center), and clindamycin disk (right). Lower row, telithromycin disk (left), erythromycin disk (center), and telithromycin disk (right). For each row, the left disk is separated from the central disk by 20 mm, and the right disk is separated from the central disk by 26 mm.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1.

Staphylococcal resistance phenotypesc

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2.

Staphylococcal genotype results

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3.

MICs for select S. aureus isolates

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Dee Shortridge for technical advice, Rosemary Paxson and University Hospital Laboratory personnel for collecting isolates, Fred C. Tenover and J. Sutcliff for providing reference strains, and Chong Cho and Jared Huisinga for technical assistance.

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government. The corresponding author is an employee of the U.S. government. This work was prepared as part of his official duties, and as such, there is no copyright to be transferred.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 24 November 2004.
    • Returned for modification 19 January 2005.
    • Accepted 3 March 2005.
  • Copyright © 2005 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Ackermann, G., and A. C. Rodloff. 2003. Drugs of the 21st century: telithromycin (HMR 3647)—the first ketolide. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.51:491-511.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    Bryskier, A. 2000. Ketolides—telithromycin, an example of a new class of antibacterial agents. Clin. Microbiol. Infect.6:661-669.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    CLSI. 2005. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Fifteenth informational supplement M100-S15. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, Pa.
  4. 4.↵
    Douthwaite, S. 2001. Structure-activity relationships of ketolides vs. macrolides. Clin. Microbiol. Infect.7(Suppl. 3):11-17.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.↵
    Drinkovic, D., E. R. Fuller, K. P. Shore, D. J. Holland, and R. Ellis-Pegler. 2001. Clindamycin treatment of Staphylococcus aureus expressing inducible clindamycin resistance. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.48:315-316.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    Fiebelkorn, K. R., S. A. Crawford, M. L. McElmeel, and J. H. Jorgensen. 2003. Practical disk diffusion method for detection of inducible clindamycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci. J. Clin. Microbiol.41:4740-4744.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Frank, A. L., J. F. Marcinak, P. D. Mangat, J. T. Tjhio, S. Kelkar, P. C. Schreckenberger, and J. P. Quinn. 2002. Clindamycin treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in children. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J.21:530-534.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    Gibbons, S., M. Oluwatuyi, and G. W. Kaatz. 2003. A novel inhibitor of multidrug resistant efflux pumps in Staphylococcus aureus. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.51:13-17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    Hamilton-Miller, J. M. T., and S. Shah. 2000. Patterns of phenotypic resistance to the macrolide-lincosamide-ketolide-streptogramin group of antibiotics in staphylococci. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.46:941-949.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    Jorgensen, J. H., S. A. Crawford, M. L. McElmeel, and K. R. Fiebelkorn. 2004. Detection of inducible clindamycin resistance of staphylococci in conjunction with performance of automated broth susceptibility testing. J. Clin. Microbiol.42:1800-1802.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    Markham, P. N., E. Westhaus, K. Klyachko, M. E. Johnson, and A. A. Neyfakh. 1999. Multiple novel inhibitors of the NorA multidrug transporter of Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.43:2404-2408.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    Matsuoka, M., L. Janosi, K. Endou, and Y. Nakajima. 1999. Cloning and sequence of inducible and constitutive macrolide resistance genes in Staphylococcus aureus that correspond to an ABC transporter. FEMS Microbiol. Lett.181:91-100.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    NCCLS. 2003. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically. Approved standard M7-A6. NCCLS, Wayne, Pa.
  14. 14.↵
    NCCLS. 2003. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests. Approved standard M2-A8. NCCLS, Wayne, Pa.
  15. 15.↵
    Rao, G. G. 2000. Should clindamycin be used in treatment of patients with infections caused by erythromycin-resistant staphylococci? J. Antimicrob. Chemother.45:715.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.↵
    Roberts, M. C., J. Sutcliffe, P. Courvalin, L. B. Jensen, J. Rood, and H. Seppala. 1999. Nomenclature for macrolide and macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B resistance determinants. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.43:2823-2830.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    Siberry, G. K., T. Tekle, K. Carroll, and J. Dick. 2003. Failure of clindamycin treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus expressing inducible clindamycin resistance in vitro. Clin. Infect. Dis.37:1257-1260.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    Weisblum, B. 1995. Erythromycin resistance by ribosome modification. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.39:577-585.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Induction of Telithromycin Resistance by Erythromycin in Isolates of Macrolide-Resistant Staphylococcus spp
Kepler A. Davis, Sharon A. Crawford, Kristin R. Fiebelkorn, James H. Jorgensen
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jun 2005, 49 (7) 3059-3061; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.49.7.3059-3061.2005

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Induction of Telithromycin Resistance by Erythromycin in Isolates of Macrolide-Resistant Staphylococcus spp
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Induction of Telithromycin Resistance by Erythromycin in Isolates of Macrolide-Resistant Staphylococcus spp
Kepler A. Davis, Sharon A. Crawford, Kristin R. Fiebelkorn, James H. Jorgensen
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jun 2005, 49 (7) 3059-3061; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.49.7.3059-3061.2005
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Anti-Bacterial Agents
Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial
Gene Expression Regulation, Bacterial
ketolides
macrolides
Staphylococcus

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AAC
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • AAC Podcast
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AACJournal

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0066-4804; Online ISSN: 1098-6596