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

Genomewide Screen for Modulators of Evolvability under Toxic Antibiotic Exposure

Orsolya Méhi, Balázs Bogos, Bálint Csörgő, Csaba Pál
Orsolya Méhi
Synthetic and Systems Biology Unit, Institute of Biochemistry, Biological Research Centre, Szeged, Hungary
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Balázs Bogos
Synthetic and Systems Biology Unit, Institute of Biochemistry, Biological Research Centre, Szeged, Hungary
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bálint Csörgő
Synthetic and Systems Biology Unit, Institute of Biochemistry, Biological Research Centre, Szeged, Hungary
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Csaba Pál
Synthetic and Systems Biology Unit, Institute of Biochemistry, Biological Research Centre, Szeged, Hungary
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.02454-12
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Antibiotic resistance is generally selected within a window of concentrations high enough to inhibit wild-type growth but low enough for new resistant mutants to emerge. We studied de novo evolution of resistance to ciprofloxacin in an Escherichia coli knockout library. Five null mutations had little or no effect on intrinsic antibiotic susceptibility but increased the upper antibiotic dosage to which initially sensitive populations could adapt. These mutations affect mismatch repair, translation fidelity, and iron homeostasis.

TEXT

For many antimicrobial agents—including fluoroquinolones, cephalosporins, and rifamycins—a prominent factor contributing to the evolution of resistance is the acquisition of chromosomal mutations during therapy (1–3). While a wealth of high-throughput studies have investigated the impact of individual genes on intrinsic antibiotic susceptibility (4–6) or persistence (7), no systematic large-scale study has been devoted to the identification of molecular mechanisms that promote the evolution of antibiotic resistance.

Here we systematically tested the impact of gene inactivation on the de novo evolution of antibiotic resistance. Escherichia coli is undoubtedly an ideal model prokaryote for such a study. The availability of a nearly complete single gene deletion library (the KEIO collection) enables the study of this issue in nearly all of the nonessential genes of this species (8). Our investigations concentrated on understanding the development of resistance to ciprofloxacin. It is one of the most widely deployed fluoroquinolone antibiotics in clinics, and its mechanism of action has been well studied (9–11).

We developed a simple, high-throughput protocol that allows investigation of the de novo evolution of quinolone resistance in thousands of parallel bacterial cultures. Our goal was to identify genotypes (i.e., single-gene knockout strains) that permit adaptation to high antibiotic concentrations demanding the acquisition of one or more rare mutations (12, 13). All experiments were conducted with 96-deep-well plates containing 350 μl LB medium supplemented with a toxic concentration of ciprofloxacin (200 ng/ml). The antibiotic dosage used is more than 10 times the MIC for wild-type (WT) E. coli (Table 1). About 108 cells were added to each well (two replicate populations per genotype). Following 5 days of incubation (37°C, 320 rpm), 2 μl of each culture was transferred to an agar plate containing the same concentration of the antibiotic. After 24 h, the resistant bacteria of each genotype were counted. Initial positive hits (i.e., at least one resistant population per genotype) were validated with new sets of laboratory experiments. We used the same procedure as above with 96 replicate populations per genotype. Final hits were checked for the presence of the appropriate gene deletion by PCR using site-specific primers. At such a high ciprofloxacin concentration, the toxic effect of the antibiotic is substantial and population size rapidly declines (14). Typically, WT cultures became extinct by the end of the 5-day treatment period (data not shown). Development of resistance was generally rare; it occurred only in ∼4% of parallel WT populations. The screen identified six genotypes with a massive increase in the frequency of resistant populations. In these cases, 60 to 100% of the independent populations were capable of acquiring resistance to ciprofloxacin. By using the ASKA overexpression plasmid library (15), we complemented these candidate strains with the corresponding WT alleles. In all but one case (ybgJ), we confirmed that the deletion mutation was responsible for the enhanced frequency of resistance (data not shown). The remaining five genotypes are presented in Table 1. Similar results were obtained when these five genotypes were tested against antibiotics of two other classes, chloramphenicol and streptomycin (Table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Increased evolvability of five knockout strains under single-step antibiotic exposurea

Using a standard microdilution method (16) with 1.4-fold dilution steps, we found that the MIC for these genotypes is comparable to that for the WT (Table 1). Further support comes from a systematic chemo-genomic study that exposed a transposon library of E. coli to 17 different antibiotics at sublethal concentrations (17). None of our candidate genes influences growth rates in the presence of any of these 17 antibiotics. The only exception is a null mutation of miaA that appears to enhance the growth rate on nalidixic acid, another quinolone. We next asked whether the survival rate upon toxic antibiotic exposure is especially high in the knockout populations. These experiments were conducted with 96-deep-well plates (350 μl LB medium). Large cell numbers (∼108) were transferred to fresh medium containing 200 ng/ml ciprofloxacin. Persistence was measured by determining survival rates upon antibiotic exposure. Viable cell numbers were determined every hour during the 5 h of ciprofloxacin treatment by plating dilutions onto 24-well LB agar macroplates and counting growing colonies. We confirmed that during the first 5 h of antibiotic exposure, the number of resistant cells remained below the detection level (below 1 per 1.4 × 107 cells). As demonstrated previously (14, 18), the surviving fraction of a WT E. coli culture treated with ciprofloxacin produces a typical biphasic pattern, reflecting rapid killing of most of the cells (99%) except for a small persister subpopulation. None of the five genotypes showed a statistically significant increase in survival compared with that of the WT (Fig. 1). We conclude that the capacity of these genotypes to evolve resistance is not due to changes in intrinsic antibiotic susceptibility or elevated persister formation (19). What else might be the cause? Genotypes with increased constitutive mutation rates (mutators) are generally considered to have an important role during microbial evolution (20, 21). They are frequently found in evolving natural and experimental populations and facilitate rapid adaptation during periods of stress, such as antibiotic exposure (22–25). To measure mutation rates, we used a classic lac reversion screen (26). We investigated the rates of six major types of nucleotide substitutions (Table 2) by using six indicator E. coli strains with different inactivating mutations at the same coding position in the lacZ gene. Each strain is Lac− and reverts to Lac+ only when the appropriate codon is restored. The appropriate gene deletion mutations were introduced into each of the six indicator strains by P1 transduction and checked by PCR with site-specific primer pairs. We followed established protocols (27) to measure the frequency of Lac+ revertants for each type of point mutation. Mutation rates were calculated by using the MSS maximum-likelihood method (FALCOR package) (28, 29). Remarkably, all of the knockout strains have an elevated mutation rate and their mutations partially influence different aspects of mutagenesis (Table 2).

Fig 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 1

Survival of WT (BW25113, CGSC 7636) and mutant strains under ciprofloxacin (200 ng/ml) treatment. We followed standard protocols. Strains were exposed to ciprofloxacin in the late exponential phase, and viable cell numbers were determined by counting colonies on agar plates (see references 14 and 18). None of the single-knockout mutants showed enhanced survival under ciprofloxacin stress (P > 0.05, Wilcoxon test). Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Mutational spectra of gene knockout strains with enhanced evolutionary potentiala

The corresponding mutator genes have diverse molecular functions. First, our list includes central components of methyl-directed mismatch repair (mutS, mutH, and mutL) (30, 31). Defects in and downregulation of these genes are frequently associated with pathogenic populations, indicating a central role for this pathway during bacterial adaptation in nature (22, 24, 32). Second, defects in tRNA modification due to miaA deletion cause reduced fidelity and efficiency of translation (33). This gene encodes a tRNA dimethylallyltransferase and is involved in hypermodification of the A37 base of certain tRNAs (34). Removal of miaA results in an ∼50-fold increase in GC → TA transversions (31) (Table 2). While the cascade of events that promotes mutations in ΔmiaA mutant populations is far from clear, several clues indicate that it is associated with translational stress-induced mutagenesis (33). Our screen also identified a central regulator of iron homeostasis (fur) (35) whose removal yields a mutator phenotype. Inactivation of fur leads to an increase in the intracellular concentration of ferrous iron (Fe2+) (36), which accelerates the Fenton reaction and potentiates oxidative damage-induced mutagenesis (37). This possibility will be explored in a future work.

There are many further known null mutations that confer a mild mutator phenotype, none of which appeared as positive hits in our screen (31). We briefly investigated two well-described genes (mutD and mutT). Despite the moderate mutator phenotypes the corresponding null mutations confer (31), these genes had no or only a minor effect on either resistance evolution (Fig. 2) or intrinsic susceptibility to ciprofloxacin (data not shown).

Fig 2
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 2

Evolvability of mild mutators and null mutants with decreased antibiotic susceptibility exposed to a high ciprofloxacin concentration (200 ng/ml, 96 parallel populations per strain). Error bars correspond to 95% confidence intervals of a proportion.

Why should this be so? As noted previously, adaptation to a high ciprofloxacin dosage demands one or more specific mutations (12). To investigate this issue, we isolated 10 ciprofloxacin-resistant clones revealed by our screen (7 and 3 in the ΔmutS mutant and WT genetic backgrounds, respectively). We sequenced the quinolone resistance-determining regions (QRDRs) of the gyrA and parC genes and the marR gene. These genes are known to bear mutations in ciprofloxacin-resistant isolates (38, 39). The major target protein (GyrA) of ciprofloxacin was regularly mutated, and the same amino acid substitution occurred in all 10 isolates (S83L substitution, Table 3). The very same mutation is regularly observed in ciprofloxacin-resistant laboratory (40) and clinical (40) E. coli strains. While multiple mutations were observed in one clone only (Table 3), there are two reasons why other unknown loci were also mutated. First, the measured MICs for these clones are above the value the single S83L mutation confers (41). This was achieved by engineering a single point mutation in the WT background (by single-stranded oligonucleotide-mediated recombineering [42]) and then measuring the MIC for this strain (Table 3).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3

Characterization of 10 ciprofloxacin-resistant clones isolated after 5 days of ciprofloxacin treatmenta

In addition, six strains showed slight but significant decreases in intracellular levels of the fluorescent probe Hoechst 33342 (43), suggesting either decreased porin or increased efflux pump activity (Table 3).

Contrary to our initial expectations, enhanced evolutionary capacity is not due to changes in intrinsic antibiotic susceptibility. This is somewhat surprising, as numerous E. coli single knockouts have elevated growth rates under low quinolone stress (17), including those lacking members of the general bacterial porin family (e.g., OmpF) and a regulator of the AcrAB efflux pump (AcrR). Although null mutations in the genes for these two proteins enhance viability under mild quinolone stress (44, 45), they had no major effect on the frequency of resistant populations (Fig. 2). Additionally, we failed to identify gene deletions that overlap genes previously recognized as modulators of intrinsic antibiotic tolerance (7). This result suggests that a minor variation in antibiotic tolerance has a relatively small impact on the evolution of clinically significant resistance. As the main objective of this work was to identify genes that mold the upper antibiotic dosage to which populations can adapt, we expect that further genes with mild positive or negative effects on the rate of resistance evolution remain to be identified. Single gene deletions may also fail to uncover phenotypes if the underlying mutational pathways are redundant. Regardless of these limitations, our work clearly demonstrates that at high antibiotic concentrations, an enhanced mutation supply can dramatically alter the outcome of selection.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by grants from the European Research Council (202591), the Welcome Trust, and the Lendület Program of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 10 December 2012.
    • Returned for modification 30 December 2012.
    • Accepted 5 May 2013.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 13 May 2013.
  • Copyright © 2013, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Alekshun MN,
    2. Levy SB
    . 2007. Molecular mechanisms of antibacterial multidrug resistance. Cell 128:1037–1050.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. Martinez JL,
    2. Baquero F
    . 2000. Mutation frequencies and antibiotic resistance. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 44:1771–1777.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Spratt B
    . 1994. Resistance to antibiotics mediated by target alterations. Science 264:388–393.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Liu A,
    2. Tran L,
    3. Becket E,
    4. Lee K,
    5. Chinn L,
    6. Park E,
    7. Tran K,
    8. Miller JH
    . 2010. Antibiotic sensitivity profiles determined with an Escherichia coli gene knockout collection: generating an antibiotic bar code. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54:1393–1403.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Nichols RJ,
    2. Sen S,
    3. Choo YJ,
    4. Beltrao P,
    5. Zietek M,
    6. Chaba R,
    7. Lee S,
    8. Kazmierczak KM,
    9. Lee KJ,
    10. Wong A,
    11. Shales M,
    12. Lovett S,
    13. Winkler ME,
    14. Krogan NJ,
    15. Typas A,
    16. Gross CA
    . 2011. Phenotypic landscape of a bacterial cell. Cell 144:143–156.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    1. Breidenstein EBM,
    2. Khaira BK,
    3. Wiegand I,
    4. Overhage J,
    5. Hancock REW
    . 2008. Complex ciprofloxacin resistome revealed by screening a Pseudomonas aeruginosa mutant library for altered susceptibility. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 52:4486–4491.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Hansen S,
    2. Lewis K,
    3. Vulic M
    . 2008. Role of global regulators and nucleotide metabolism in antibiotic tolerance in Escherichia coli. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 52:2718–2726.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Baba T,
    2. Ara T,
    3. Hasegawa M,
    4. Takai Y,
    5. Okumura Y,
    6. Baba M,
    7. Datsenko KA,
    8. Tomita M,
    9. Wanner BL,
    10. Mori H
    . 2006. Construction of Escherichia coli K-12 in-frame, single-gene knockout mutants: the Keio collection. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2:2006.2008. doi:10.1038/msb4100050.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.↵
    1. Wolfson JS,
    2. Hooper DC
    . 1985. The fluoroquinolones: structures, mechanisms of action and resistance, and spectra of activity in vitro. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 28:581–585.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Hooper DC,
    2. Wolfson JS,
    3. Ng EY,
    4. Swartz MN
    . 1987. Mechanisms of action of and resistance to ciprofloxacin. Am. J. Med. 82:12–20.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    1. Drlica K
    . 1999. Mechanism of fluoroquinolone action. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2:504–508.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    1. Hooper DC
    . 2001. Emerging mechanisms of fluoroquinolone resistance. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 7:337–341.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    1. Olofsson SK,
    2. Marcusson LL,
    3. Komp Lindgren P,
    4. Hughes D,
    5. Cars O
    . 2006. Selection of ciprofloxacin resistance in Escherichia coli in an in vitro kinetic model: relation between drug exposure and mutant prevention concentration. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 57:1116–1121.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    1. Eliopoulos GM,
    2. Gardella A,
    3. Moellering RC Jr
    . 1984. In vitro activity of ciprofloxacin, a new carboxyquinoline antimicrobial agent. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 25:331–336.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Kitagawa M,
    2. Ara T,
    3. Arifuzzaman M,
    4. Ioka-Nakamichi T,
    5. Inamoto E,
    6. Toyonaga H,
    7. Mori H
    . 2005. Complete set of ORF clones of Escherichia coli ASKA library (a complete set of E. coli K-12 ORF archive): unique resources for biological research. DNA Res. 12:291–299.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.↵
    1. Wiegand I,
    2. Hilpert K,
    3. Hancock REW
    . 2008. Agar and broth dilution methods to determine the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of antimicrobial substances. Nat. Protoc. 3:163–175.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    1. Girgis HS,
    2. Hottes AK,
    3. Tavazoie S
    . 2009. Genetic architecture of intrinsic antibiotic susceptibility. PLoS One 4:e5629. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005629.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Levin BR,
    2. Rozen DE
    . 2006. Non-inherited antibiotic resistance. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 4:556–562.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. 19.↵
    1. Dörr T,
    2. Lewis K,
    3. Vulić M
    . 2009. SOS response induces persistence to fluoroquinolones in Escherichia coli. PLoS Genet. 5:e1000760. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000760.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Taddei F,
    2. Radman M,
    3. Maynard-Smith J,
    4. Toupance B,
    5. Gouyon PH,
    6. Godelle B
    . 1997. Role of mutator alleles in adaptive evolution. Nature 387:700–702.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. 21.↵
    1. Sniegowski PD,
    2. Gerrish PJ,
    3. Lenski RE
    . 1997. Evolution of high mutation rates in experimental populations of E. coli. Nature 387:703–705.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. 22.↵
    1. Matic I,
    2. Radman M,
    3. Taddei F,
    4. Picard B,
    5. Doit C,
    6. Bingen E,
    7. Denamur E,
    8. Elion J,
    9. LeClerc JE,
    10. Cebula TA
    . 1997. Highly variable mutation rates in commensal and pathogenic Escherichia coli. Science 277:1833–1834.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Denamur E,
    2. Bonacorsi S,
    3. Giraud A,
    4. Duriez P,
    5. Hilali F,
    6. Amorin C,
    7. Bingen E,
    8. Andremont A,
    9. Picard B,
    10. Taddei F,
    11. Matic I
    . 2002. High frequency of mutator strains among human uropathogenic Escherichia coli isolates. J. Bacteriol. 184:605–609.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Wiegand I,
    2. Marr AK,
    3. Breidenstein EBM,
    4. Schurek KN,
    5. Taylor P,
    6. Hancock REW
    . 2008. Mutator genes giving rise to decreased antibiotic susceptibility in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 52:3810–3813.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Andersson DI,
    2. Hughes D
    . 2011. Persistence of antibiotic resistance in bacterial populations. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 35:901–911.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    1. Cupples CG,
    2. Miller JH
    . 1989. A set of lacZ mutations in Escherichia coli that allow rapid detection of each of the six base substitutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 86:5345–5349.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Seier T,
    2. Padgett DR,
    3. Zilberberg G,
    4. Sutera VA,
    5. Toha N,
    6. Lovett ST
    . 2011. Insights into mutagenesis using Escherichia coli chromosomal lacZ strains that enable detection of a wide spectrum of mutational events. Genetics 188:247–262.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Hall BM,
    2. Ma CX,
    3. Liang P,
    4. Singh KK
    . 2009. Fluctuation analysis CalculatOR: a web tool for the determination of mutation rate using Luria-Delbrück fluctuation analysis. Bioinformatics 25:1564–1565.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. 29.↵
    1. Sarkar S,
    2. Ma WT,
    3. Sandri GH
    . 1992. On fluctuation analysis: a new, simple and efficient method for computing the expected number of mutants. Genetica 85:173–179.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. 30.↵
    1. Junop MS,
    2. Yang W,
    3. Funchain P,
    4. Clendenin W,
    5. Miller JH
    . 2003. In vitro and in vivo studies of MutS, MutL and MutH mutants: correlation of mismatch repair and DNA recombination. DNA Repair 2:387–405.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Horst J-P,
    2. Wu T,
    3. Marinus MG
    . 1999. Escherichia coli mutator genes. Trends Microbiol. 7:29–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 32.↵
    1. LeClerc JE,
    2. Li B,
    3. Payne WL,
    4. Cebula TA
    . 1996. High mutation frequencies among Escherichia coli and Salmonella pathogens. Science 274:1208–1211.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Zhao J,
    2. Leung HE,
    3. Winkler ME
    . 2001. The miaA mutator phenotype of Escherichia coli K-12 requires recombination functions. J. Bacteriol. 183:1796–1800.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Jenner LB,
    2. Demeshkina N,
    3. Yusupova G,
    4. Yusupov M
    . 2010. Structural aspects of messenger RNA reading frame maintenance by the ribosome. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 17:555–560.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. 35.↵
    1. Hantke K
    . 1981. Regulation of ferric iron transport in Escherichia coli K12: isolation of a constitutive mutant. Mol. Gen. Genet. 182:288–292.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. 36.↵
    1. Touati D,
    2. Jacques M,
    3. Tardat B,
    4. Bouchard L,
    5. Despied S
    . 1995. Lethal oxidative damage and mutagenesis are generated by iron in delta fur mutants of Escherichia coli: protective role of superoxide dismutase. J. Bacteriol. 177:2305–2314.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Nunoshiba T,
    2. Obata F,
    3. Boss AC,
    4. Oikawa S,
    5. Mori T,
    6. Kawanishi S,
    7. Yamamoto K
    . 1999. Role of iron and superoxide for generation of hydroxyl radical, oxidative DNA lesions, and mutagenesis in Escherichia coli. J. Biol. Chem. 274:34832–34837.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Bagel S,
    2. Hullen V,
    3. Wiedemann B,
    4. Heisig P
    . 1999. Impact of gyrA and parC mutations on quinolone resistance, doubling time, and supercoiling degree of Escherichia coli. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 43:868–875.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Komp Lindgren P,
    2. Marcusson LL,
    3. Sandvang D,
    4. Frimodt-Moller N,
    5. Hughes D
    . 2005. Biological cost of single and multiple norfloxacin resistance mutations in Escherichia coli implicated in urinary tract infections. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 49:2343–2351.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Cirz RT,
    2. Chin JK,
    3. Andes DR,
    4. De Crécy-Lagard V,
    5. Craig WA,
    6. Romesberg FE
    . 2005. Inhibition of mutation and combating the evolution of antibiotic resistance. PLoS Biol. 3:e176. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030176.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Marcusson LL,
    2. Frimodt-Møller N,
    3. Hughes D
    . 2009. Interplay in the selection of fluoroquinolone resistance and bacterial fitness. PLoS Pathog. 5:e1000541. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1000541.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Ellis HM,
    2. Yu D,
    3. DiTizio T,
    4. Court DL
    . 2001. High efficiency mutagenesis, repair, and engineering of chromosomal DNA using single-stranded oligonucleotides. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98:6742–6746.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Coldham NG,
    2. Webber M,
    3. Woodward MJ,
    4. Piddock LJV
    . 2010. A 96-well plate fluorescence assay for assessment of cellular permeability and active efflux in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium and Escherichia coli. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 65:1655–1663.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  44. 44.↵
    1. Kern WV,
    2. Oethinger M,
    3. Jellen-Ritter AS,
    4. Levy SB
    . 2000. Non-target gene mutations in the development of fluoroquinolone resistance in Escherichia coli. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 44:814–820.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    1. Cohen SP,
    2. McMurry LM,
    3. Hooper DC,
    4. Wolfson JS,
    5. Levy SB
    . 1989. Cross-resistance to fluoroquinolones in multiple-antibiotic-resistant (Mar) Escherichia coli selected by tetracycline or chloramphenicol: decreased drug accumulation associated with membrane changes in addition to OmpF reduction. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 33:1318–1325.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Genomewide Screen for Modulators of Evolvability under Toxic Antibiotic Exposure
Orsolya Méhi, Balázs Bogos, Bálint Csörgő, Csaba Pál
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jun 2013, 57 (7) 3453-3456; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.02454-12

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.
Genomewide Screen for Modulators of Evolvability under Toxic Antibiotic Exposure
(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
Genomewide Screen for Modulators of Evolvability under Toxic Antibiotic Exposure
Orsolya Méhi, Balázs Bogos, Bálint Csörgő, Csaba Pál
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jun 2013, 57 (7) 3453-3456; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.02454-12
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • TEXT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

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