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

Targeting Multiple Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetases Overcomes the Resistance Liabilities Associated with Antibacterial Inhibitors Acting on a Single Such Enzyme

Christopher P. Randall, Dace Rasina, Aigars Jirgensons, Alex J. O'Neill
Christopher P. Randall
aAntimicrobial Research Centre and School of Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dace Rasina
bLatvian Institute of Organic Synthesis, Riga, Latvia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aigars Jirgensons
bLatvian Institute of Organic Synthesis, Riga, Latvia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alex J. O'Neill
aAntimicrobial Research Centre and School of Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00674-16
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Bacterial aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (aaRSs) represent promising antibacterial drug targets. Unfortunately, the aaRS inhibitors that have to date reached clinical trials are subject to rapid resistance development through mutation, a phenomenon that limits their potential clinical utility. Here, we confirm the intuitively correct idea that simultaneous targeting of two different aaRS enzymes prevents the emergence of spontaneous bacterial resistance at high frequency, a finding that supports the development of multitargeted anti-aaRS therapies.

TEXT

The aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase (aaRS) enzymes possess several features that render them promising prospects as broad-spectrum antibacterial drug targets; they are essential for viability, are found in all bacterial pathogens, and are in many cases sufficiently structurally distinct from their eukaryotic counterparts to allow selective targeting (1, 2). Furthermore, chemical and clinical validation exists for these enzymes as useful targets for antibacterial chemotherapy (1). However, despite the potential promise of this family of targets, only a single aaRS inhibitor with a relatively limited indication has been approved for the management of bacterial infection. Mupirocin (MUP), an inhibitor of isoleucyl-tRNA synthetase, is a topical agent deployed for nasal decolonization of Staphylococcus aureus and for the treatment of superficial skin infection (3).

Unfortunately, as with other antibacterial agents that act on a single enzyme target, aaRS inhibitors possess an intrinsic resistance liability (4). Mutants resistant to aaRS inhibitors are selected at a high frequency in bacterial populations (∼10−7), typically as a result of point mutations within the gene encoding the drug target that lead to alteration of the latter in a manner that negatively impacts inhibitor binding (1). This liability, while manageable in the context of aaRS inhibitors such as MUP that are applied topically at concentrations sufficiently high to prevent or mitigate resistance, presents a problem for the development of aaRS inhibitors for systemic treatment of more serious bacterial disease. Indeed, GlaxoSmithKline halted phase II clinical trials of the leucyl-tRNA synthetase inhibitor GSK2251052 for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections in adults following the emergence of mutants of Escherichia coli that were resistant to the drug in 3 of 14 patients within 2 days of administration (5).

It has been proposed that the resistance liabilities associated with aaRS inhibitors could be overcome with an inhibitor capable of targeting two or more aaRS enzymes simultaneously (1, 2, 6); an equivalent effect could be achieved with a cocktail of two or more aaRS inhibitors delivered in combination. This proposal is supported by the multitarget hypothesis, which states that antibacterial agents for which resistance is not readily selected by mutation usually act on more than one cellular target (7). By targeting two or more aaRS enzymes simultaneously, a situation is created in which the likelihood of resistance arising as a consequence of mutation in multiple targets becomes extremely low; for two aaRS enzymes, the frequency of mutation to resistance would be predicted to drop to ∼10−14 (∼10−7 × ∼10−7). While this idea seems intuitively correct, it is possible to conceive of reasons why it might not hold true (e.g., a single mutation at a site other than the target genes may confer resistance to inhibition of multiple aaRS enzymes), and to our knowledge, it has not been tested. Here, we sought to evaluate the potential utility of such an approach by studying the in vitro emergence of resistance to combinations of aaRS inhibitors in S. aureus.

The antibacterial aaRS inhibitors used in this study were MUP (Sigma-Aldrich, Poole, United Kingdom); GSK2251052 (GSK), which was synthesized as described previously (8, 9); and the methionyl-tRNA synthetase inhibitor REP8839 (REP; Axon Medchem, Groningen, Netherlands). MICs of each compound against S. aureus SH1000 (10, 11) were determined by broth microdilution in Mueller-Hinton II (MHII) following CLSI guidelines (12), and the frequency at which mutants resistant to each individual compound arose was measured at 4× MIC on MHII agar, essentially as described previously (13). MUP, REP, and GSK inhibited growth of S. aureus SH1000 at concentrations of 0.25, 0.125, and 4 μg/ml, respectively, and at 4× MIC, all three compounds selected resistant mutants at frequencies of 10−7 to 10−8 (Table 1). For MUP and REP, these frequencies are comparable to those previously reported for S. aureus (14, 15); for GSK, mutation frequencies to resistance have not been reported for S. aureus, but the values obtained here are comparable to those reported for E. coli (5). To confirm that the colonies recovered were indeed mutants exhibiting reduced susceptibility to the corresponding aaRS inhibitor (not break-through growth), they were subjected to MIC determinations and PCR amplification/DNA sequencing of the gene encoding the drug target (ileS, metRS, and leuS in strains selected with MUP, REP, and GSK, respectively). All colonies tested exhibited ≥4-fold reductions in susceptibility to the aaRS inhibitor used for their selection. DNA sequence analysis of two MUP-resistant and two REP-resistant strains identified nonsynonymous mutations in ileS encoding amino acid substitutions V588F or V631F and in metRS encoding I57N or V242F, respectively; all of these mutations were reported previously in the context of resistance to these aaRS inhibitors (14-16). In two GSK-resistant mutants, nonsynonymous mutations were independently identified in leuS that encode the amino acid substitution G303V or D346N; the latter substitution has previously been identified in a GSK-resistant mutant of E. coli (5).

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

Selection and characterization of S. aureus SH1000 mutants resistant to aaRS inhibitors

To determine the mutation frequency for resistance to simultaneous inhibition of two aaRS enzymes, cultures of SH1000 were concentrated by centrifugation and plated onto MHII agar containing all three possible combinations of aaRS inhibitors (MUP/REP, MUP/GSK, and REP/GSK), with each inhibitor included at 4× its respective MIC. No mutants resistant to any combination were recovered (limit of detection, ∼1 × 10−12) after 72 h of incubation. Since potential synergistic interactions between aaRS inhibitors could complicate interpretation of these results by dramatically enhancing the antibacterial activity of individual compounds and thereby increasing the effective level of selection from 4XMIC to higher multiples of the MIC, we determined the fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC) index for each combination to exclude such effects (17). All three combinations were found to be additive (i.e., not synergistic), yielding FIC index values between 0.8 and 1.0 (data not shown). Thus, targeting two aaRS enzymes simultaneously prevents the rapid development of resistance associated with targeting one aaRS enzyme.

While a dual-targeted aaRS inhibitor/inhibitor combination would therefore overcome the gross resistance liability associated with single-target aaRS inhibitors, it seems likely that resistance would nonetheless arise over time by stepwise accumulation of resistance mutations, as has been observed for other multitargeted antibacterials (e.g., fluoroquinolones, β-lactams [18, 19]). To assess this, the SH1000 mutants resistant to a single aaRS inhibitor described above were used to independently select resistance to each of the other two aaRS inhibitors at 4× MIC (Table 1). In all cases, resistance to the second aaRS inhibitor in these resistant mutants arose at a similar frequency to that observed for selection of resistance to the same aaRS inhibitor in the fully susceptible SH1000 strain (Table 1). Thus, it is not difficult to select resistance to multiple aaRS inhibitors when the bacterium is challenged with both agents sequentially rather than simultaneously. To further evaluate the likelihood that strains resistant to multiple aaRS inhibitors may emerge, spread, and persist in the clinical setting, we examined whether the resulting resistance genotypes were associated with a reduction in competitive fitness. Pairwise competition assays were conducted between resistant strains and SH1000 over 24 h, following an established protocol (14). Fitness costs were relatively modest for mutants resistant to a single aaRS inhibitor (7% to 14%), while more considerable fitness costs were observed for mutants concurrently resistant to two aaRS inhibitors (31% to 42%) (Table 1). Thus, even when mutants resistant to multitargeted or multiple aaRS inhibitors do arise, they incur fitness burdens that may act to limit their clinical prevalence.

In conclusion, we have demonstrated that simultaneous targeting of two aaRS enzymes overcomes the considerable resistance liabilities associated with inhibitors acting against a single aaRS enzyme. Although mutants resistant to inhibitors of two aaRS enzymes can become selected in a sequential manner, suggesting that such genotypes would emerge in the clinical setting following prolonged selection, the double mutants are less fit and may be compromised in respect to clinical spread or persistence. Our findings therefore support the idea of discovering/developing aaRS inhibitor combinations or single agents that achieve dual targeting of aaRS enzymes. The latter represents a particularly appealing prospect and, in view of the high degree of structural similarity shared by the catalytic sites of subsets of the aaRS family (1), one that may prove feasible.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by a grant from the European Union Framework 7 (FP7) program, Health.2013.2.31-1-NABARSI (grant agreement 601725).

The funders had no role in the study design or the decision to submit the work for publication.

We declare no conflicts of interest.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 24 March 2016.
    • Returned for modification 18 April 2016.
    • Accepted 12 July 2016.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 18 July 2016.
  • Copyright © 2016, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Hurdle JG,
    2. O'Neill AJ,
    3. Chopra I
    . 2005. Prospects for aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase inhibitors as new antimicrobial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 49:4821–4833. doi:10.1128/AAC.49.12.4821-4833.2005.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Ochsner UA,
    2. Sun X,
    3. Jarvis T,
    4. Critchley I,
    5. Janjic N
    . 2007. Aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases: essential and still promising targets for new anti-infective agents. Expert Opin Invest Drugs 16:573–593. doi:10.1517/13543784.16.5.573.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    1. Laupland KB,
    2. Conly JM
    . 2003. Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus colonization and prophylaxis for infection with topical intranasal mupirocin: an evidence-based review. Clin Infect Dis 37:933–938. doi:10.1086/377735.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    1. Silver LL
    . 2011. Challenges of antibacterial discovery. Clin Microbiol Rev 24:71–109. doi:10.1128/CMR.00030-10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. O'Dwyer K,
    2. Spivak AT,
    3. Ingraham K,
    4. Min S,
    5. Holmes DJ,
    6. Jakielaszek C,
    7. Rittenhouse S,
    8. Kwan AL,
    9. Livi GP,
    10. Sathe G,
    11. Thomas E,
    12. Van Horn S,
    13. Miller LA,
    14. Twynholm M,
    15. Tomayko J,
    16. Dalessandro M,
    17. Caltabiano M,
    18. Scangarella-Oman NE,
    19. Brown JR
    . 2015. Bacterial resistance to leucyl-tRNA synthetase inhibitor GSK2251052 develops during treatment of complicated urinary tract infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 59:289–298. doi:10.1128/AAC.03774-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Lloyd AJ,
    2. Potter NJ,
    3. Fishwick CWG,
    4. Roper DI,
    5. Dowson CG
    . 2013. Adenosine tetraphosphoadenosine drives a continuous ATP-release assay for aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases and other adenylate-forming enzymes. ACS Chem Biol 8:2157–2163. doi:10.1021/cb400248f.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Silver LL
    . 2007. Multi-targeting by monotherapeutic antibacterials. Nat Rev Drug Discov 6:41–55. doi:10.1038/nrd2202.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    1. Baker SJ,
    2. Hernandez VS,
    3. Sharma R,
    4. Nieman JA,
    5. Akama T,
    6. Zhang YK,
    7. Plattner JJ,
    8. Alley MRK,
    9. Singh R,
    10. Rock F
    . October 2010. Boron-containing small molecules. US patent 7816344 B2.
  9. 9.↵
    1. Gupta A,
    2. Monteferrante C,
    3. Rasina D,
    4. Leitis G,
    5. Randall CP,
    6. Tomlinson JH,
    7. Jirgensons A,
    8. Goessens WH,
    9. Hays JP,
    10. O'Neill AJ
    . 2016. Polymorphism in leuS confers reduced susceptibility to GSK2251052 in a clinical isolate of Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60:3219–3221. doi:10.1128/aac.02940-15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Horsburgh MJ,
    2. Aish JL,
    3. White IJ,
    4. Shaw L,
    5. Lithgow JK,
    6. Foster SJ
    . 2002. σB modulates virulence determinant expression and stress resistance: characterization of a functional rsbU strain derived from Staphylococcus aureus 8325-4. J Bacteriol 184:5457–5467. doi:10.1128/JB.184.19.5457-5467.2002.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. O'Neill AJ
    . 2010. Staphylococcus aureus SH1000 and 8325-4: comparative genome sequences of key laboratory strains in staphylococcal research. Lett Appl Microbiol 51:358–361. doi:10.1111/j.1472-765X.2010.02885.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2012 Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically; approved standard—9th ed. CLSI Document M07-A9. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  13. 13.↵
    1. Ryder VJ,
    2. Chopra I,
    3. O'Neill AJ
    . 2012. Increased mutability of Staphylococci in biofilms as a consequence of oxidative stress. PLoS One 7:e47695. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047695.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Hurdle JG,
    2. O'Neill AJ,
    3. Ingham E,
    4. Fishwick C,
    5. Chopra I
    . 2004. Analysis of mupirocin resistance and fitness in Staphylococcus aureus by molecular genetic and structural modeling techniques. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 48:4366–4376. doi:10.1128/AAC.48.11.4366-4376.2004.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Ochsner UA,
    2. Young CL,
    3. Stone MC,
    4. Dean FB,
    5. Janjic N,
    6. Critchley IA
    . 2005. Mode of action and biochemical characterization of REP8839, a novel inhibitor of methionyl-tRNA synthetase. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 49:4253–4262. doi:10.1128/AAC.49.10.4253-4262.2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Hurdle JG,
    2. O'Neill AJ,
    3. Chopra I
    . 2004. The isoleucyl-tRNA synthetase mutation V588F conferring mupirocin resistance in glycopeptide-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus is not associated with a significant fitness burden. J Antimicrob Chemother 53:102–104. doi:10.1093/jac/dkh020.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    1. Pillai SK,
    2. Moellering RC,
    3. Eliopoulos GM
    . 2005. Antimicrobial combinations, p 365–440. In Lorian V (ed.), Antibiotics in laboratory medicine. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, MD.
  18. 18.↵
    1. Strahilevitz J,
    2. Hooper DC
    . 2005. Dual targeting of topoisomerase IV and gyrase to reduce mutant selection: direct testing of the paradigm by using WCK-1734, a new fluoroquinolone, and ciprofloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 49:1949–1956. doi:10.1128/AAC.49.5.1949-1956.2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Sun S,
    2. Selmer M,
    3. Andersson DI
    . 2014. Resistance to β-lactam antibiotics conferred by point mutations in penicillin-binding proteins PBP3, PBP4 and PBP6 in Salmonella enterica. PLoS One 9:e97202. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097202.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Targeting Multiple Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetases Overcomes the Resistance Liabilities Associated with Antibacterial Inhibitors Acting on a Single Such Enzyme
Christopher P. Randall, Dace Rasina, Aigars Jirgensons, Alex J. O'Neill
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Sep 2016, 60 (10) 6359-6361; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00674-16

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.
Targeting Multiple Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetases Overcomes the Resistance Liabilities Associated with Antibacterial Inhibitors Acting on a Single Such Enzyme
(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
Targeting Multiple Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetases Overcomes the Resistance Liabilities Associated with Antibacterial Inhibitors Acting on a Single Such Enzyme
Christopher P. Randall, Dace Rasina, Aigars Jirgensons, Alex J. O'Neill
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Sep 2016, 60 (10) 6359-6361; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00674-16
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