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
Editor's Pick Mechanisms of Resistance

Systematic Investigation of Resistance Evolution to Common Antibiotics Reveals Conserved Collateral Responses across Common Human Pathogens

Mari C. Rodriguez de Evgrafov, Marius Faza, Konstantinos Asimakopoulos, Morten O. A. Sommer
Mari C. Rodriguez de Evgrafov
aThe Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Biosustainability, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marius Faza
aThe Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Biosustainability, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Konstantinos Asimakopoulos
aThe Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Biosustainability, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Morten O. A. Sommer
aThe Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Biosustainability, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Morten O. A. Sommer
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01273-20
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

As drug resistance continues to grow, treatment strategies that turn resistance into a disadvantage for the organism will be increasingly relied upon to treat infections and to lower the rate of multidrug resistance. The majority of work in this area has investigated how resistance evolution toward a single antibiotic effects a specific organism’s collateral response to a wide variety of antibiotics. The results of these studies have been used to identify networks of drugs which can be used to drive resistance in a particular direction. However, little is known about the extent of evolutionary conservation of these responses across species. We sought to address this knowledge gap by performing a systematic resistance evolution study of the ESKAPE pathogens (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter cloacae) under uniform growth conditions using five clinically relevant antibiotics with diverse modes of action. Evolved lineages were analyzed for collateral effects and the molecular mechanisms behind the observed phenotypes. Fourteen universal cross-resistance and two global collateral sensitivity relationships were found among the lineages. Genomic analyses revealed drug-dependent divergent and conserved evolutionary trajectories among the pathogens. Our findings suggest that collateral responses may be preserved across species. These findings may help extend the contribution of previous collateral network studies in the development of treatment strategies to address the problem of antibiotic resistance.

INTRODUCTION

The discovery and introduction of antibiotics has been called the greatest health care advancement in history (1). In addition to reducing morbidity and mortality from bacterial infections, antibiotics have made modern medical procedures such as surgery, organ transplants, and chemotherapy possible (2). Unfortunately, the widespread use of these drugs has resulted in extensive resistance, which threatens to reverse many of the medical advancements made in the last century and return us to a preantibiotic era (3). A slowdown in the discovery and development of new antibiotics, due to scientific difficulties and financial and regulatory hurdles (4, 5), means that society cannot rely upon new antimicrobials becoming available. Given this critical junction, there is an urgent need to consider treatment strategies that combat resistance and prolong the use of our current antibiotic arsenal.

Treatment strategies that turn resistance into a disadvantage for the organism are the most desirable and are referred to as collateral sensitivity (CS)-informed antimicrobial strategies (6). CS is when resistance to one antibiotic simultaneously results in susceptibility to another (7). Over the last decade, several studies have considered how resistance evolution toward a single antibiotic effects CS and its converse, cross-resistance (CR), for a wide variety of antibiotics and bacterial species (8–20). The results of these works have been used to identify networks of drugs which can be used to drive resistance in a particular direction to take advantage of CS.

To date, most of this work has been performed using specific laboratory-adapted strains (8–12, 15, 17, 18, 20) or a limited number of clinical isolates (6, 13, 14, 16). While these studies have been vital to our understanding of CS in a wide variety of species, little remains known regarding the extent of evolutionary conservation or the universality of CS and CR across species (21). Such answers are important for determining the predictability of collateral responses. Recent work performed using several clinically resistant urinary tract Escherichia coli isolates found that collateral responses may be predictable across a species (6).

To investigate the extent of evolutionary conservation, we sought to identify commonalities in collateral networks of the ESKAPE pathogens—Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter cloacae (1). Members of the ESKAPE group are capable of causing a wide variety of illnesses, including bacteremia and skin, soft tissue, respiratory, and urinary tract infections (22–27). Our networks were derived from populations systematically evolved to five antimicrobials with diverse modes of action under uniform growth conditions. Whole-genome sequencing was used to characterize the molecular mechanisms involved in resistance and collateral responses. Our results suggest that collateral responses may be consistent across the species for select drugs.

RESULTS

Evolution leads to high resistance levels in both populations and isolates.Wild-type (WT) strains of E. faecium, S. aureus strain Newman, K. pneumoniae, A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, and E. cloacae were evolved in four replicate lineages, designated A, B, C, and D, to increasing concentrations of five broad-spectrum antibiotics (Table 1). To account for possible resistance phenotypes due to medium evolution, parallel medium-only evolution experiments were also performed using the WT for each species. These replicate lineages were designated MA, MB, MC, and MD. The evolution of each lineage was performed by growing a single freshly restreaked colony of each WT organism overnight in liquid medium (Fig. 1). An aliquot of each overnight culture was inoculated into five different antibiotic conditions with increasing antibiotic concentrations and grown for 18 h. All evolution experiments began at antibiotic concentrations eight times less than the corresponding WT MIC values (Table 2). At the end of each growth period, the optical density was measured and the most resistant culture from each replicate with an inhibition less than 60% (see Materials and Methods) was used as the next inoculum. E. faecium, S. aureus, and K. pneumoniae were evolved for 18 days, while A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, and E. cloacae were evolved for 12 days. A total of 144 lineages (120 drug evolved and 24 medium only) were evolved.

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

List of antibiotics used in this study

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

Resistance evolution of ESKAPE pathogens to individual drugs. An illustration of the initial evolution process and an example of the decision-making process used to determine which well to use for passage are shown. (A) An overnight culture of wild-type species X was used to inoculate microtiter plates containing different drugs with increasing concentrations or with medium only (Media). Each plate also included negative controls. Four replicate populations were created for each condition. The highest concentration where growth was present was used to inoculate the next concentration challenge. E. faecium, S. aureus, and K. pneumoniae were evolved for 18 days, while A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, and E. cloacae were evolved for 12 days. (B) The top table shows day 1 drug concentrations. OD values of the evolved lineages minus the negative-control OD values are shown in the second table. OD values of the evolved mutants normalized by the OD value of the medium-only-evolved lineage are show in the third table. The fourth table shows the calculated percent inhibition for each well. Wells with the best growth and less than 60% inhibition were selected as the inoculum for the next resistance evolution challenge. These wells are highlighted in green. The bottom table lists concentrations used in the next challenge.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 2

Starting concentrations for adaptation experiments

Overall, resistance increased steadily within each resistance group (Fig. 2). A resistance group refers to all species evolved to the same antibiotic (6); for example, ESKAPE species evolved to cefepime (FEP) are the FEP resistance group. Resistance improvement values of less than 1 were occasionally observed in the early days of the evolution period and indicated that some populations were less resistant than initially determined. The first day’s resistance improvement of P. aeruginosa PAO1 to FEP was markedly higher than that of any other species and drug combination. This large gain in resistance improvement was likely the result of the inoculum effect, which is frequently observed in in vitro studies using cephalosporins (28). Plateaus in the evolution process were observed in every resistance group. Nearly all populations (94%) completed the evolution period with at least a 10-fold increase in resistance compared to their corresponding WT. E. cloacae populations evolved to ciprofloxacin (CIP) and cefepime were able to grow in concentrations 1,000-fold greater than their WT (Fig. 2). In contrast, S. aureus populations evolved to meropenem had the smallest increase, 5-fold or less, in resistance relative to their WT.

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

Change in drug tolerance over the course of the resistance evolution period. Each graph shows the resistance improvement, the concentration tolerated by the isolate relative to the corresponding WT IC90 value, over the course of the resistance evolution period. All normalized values were log transformed. Drugs used in the experiments are color coded and indicated on the right, while species investigated are indicated at the top. Each graph is comprised of three to four replicates. Each point reflects the mean resistance improvement of the isolates on a specific day. Error bars represent a single standard deviation. E. faecium, S. aureus, and K. pneumoniae were evolved for 18 days, while A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, and E. cloacae were evolved for 12 days.

Following resistance evolution, four isolates from each of the most evolved populations were tested for their individual resistance levels. The isolate results were then compared with the final resistance evolution concentrations of their corresponding populations. To determine if the selected medium influenced the resistance evolution of each species, isolates from all medium-evolved lineages were also tested for their individual resistance levels.

In general, the resistance levels of the isolates mirrored those of their respective populations (Fig. 3). However, there were seven instances where the differences in the population and isolate resistance levels were statistically significant. Approximately half of these cases involved lineages evolved to the beta-lactams and in particular those evolved to cefepime (Fig. 3). These isolates were markedly less resistant than their corresponding populations. We speculate that this difference may be due to storage of our populations at −80°C prior to the performance of subsequent phenotypic testing. Loss of resistance following cryostorage has previously been observed in Helicobacter pylori resistant to amoxicillin (29) and S. aureus resistant to methicillin (30, 31) and vancomycin (32). Alternatively, the difference may be due to the inoculum effect, which is known to occur with beta-lactams, in particular cephalosporins (28, 33). In the case of strain PAO, the inoculum effect is most likely the cause of the difference observed between the populations and their corresponding isolates.

FIG 3
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 3

Resistance improvement of drug-evolved isolates relative to their corresponding populations. Four biological isolates from each of the evolved populations were evaluated to determine the extent of their individual resistances. These values were converted to resistance improvement by normalization to their corresponding WT IC90 values and then compared to resistance improvement of the population. The final resistance evolution concentration of the corresponding population was used to generate a resistance improvement value. Isolates from all medium-evolved lineages had their IC90 values tested to determine how the medium chosen may have affected resistance evolution of each species. All normalized values were log transformed, and error bars represent a single standard deviation. The bars at the top of each graph represent the resistance improvement of the isolates. The middle bars show the improvement of the evolved populations. The bars at the bottom of each graph show the resistance improvement of the media-evolved lineages (media only [MA]). If no MA bar is visible, it is because the IC90 value is the same as that of the WT. The resistance improvement of the isolates closely mirrored that of their corresponding populations. An asterisk denotes a statistically significant difference between the resistance improvement of the population and isolates.

With the exception of the meropenem resistance group, the medium used in the evolution experiments does not appear to have promoted or hindered evolution (Fig. 3). E. faecium, S. aureus, and A. baumannii MA lineages all experienced notable changes in their susceptibility to meropenem. Interestingly, the medium used appears to have had a slightly negative impact on the resistance evolution of A. baumannii.

Universal cross-resistance relationships emerge across the species.We investigated the collateral responses of laboratory strains of E. faecium, S. aureus, K. pneumoniae, A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, and E. cloacae after resistance evolution. Following the evolution period, four isolates from each of the most evolved populations were tested against all five drugs—cefepime (FEP), ciprofloxacin (CIP), gentamicin (GEN), meropenem (MEM), and tetracycline (TET)—used in this study. A total of 480 isolates were inoculated into the different antibiotic conditions and allowed to grow for 18 h. The 90% inhibitory concentration (IC90) values of the resistant isolates were compared with those of their corresponding WTs for the different antibiotics.

Overall, collateral responses were widespread and observed in 55% (254/464) of possible instances. Collateral responses were proportionately distributed across all drugs and species (Fig. 4A). Cross-resistance accounted for 80% (202/254) of all the collateral responses observed. Occurrences of collateral sensitivity were less frequent and comprised 20% (52/254) of the observed collateral responses. Cross-resistance or collateral sensitivity was defined as a 2-fold increase or decrease in the MIC of the antibiotic-evolved strain relative to its WT (9).

FIG 4
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 4

Collateral interactions resulting from resistance evolution to a single antibiotic. Isolates from the most evolved lineages were tested against the other antibiotics used in this study. (A) Heat map results are grouped according to resistance group. Rows identify the species tested, while the challenge drugs are listed by column. Each individual square represents the results of a single lineage. A collateral response was decided for each species of a resistance group when ≥ 50% the species’ lineages exhibited resistance or sensitivity. Blue indicates CS, while red represents CR. (B) A high degree of cross-resistance agreement was observed among the different species, with a total of 14 relationships being found. The robustness of the relationship is conveyed by the line style. Solid red lines reflect all species of a resistance group sharing the same response. Dashed red lines represent responses where five out of six species shared the same response. Dotted red lines show responses where four of the six species shared the same response. Two global CS relationships were found and are shown as blue lines. CS relationships were less robust, with only half the species of the resistance group exhibiting the response. (C and D) The number of collateral interactions as a function of the drug to which resistance evolved (C) and the drug against which the species was tested (D). (E) Average number of collateral interactions per species.

A collateral response was considered universal when all species of a resistance group shared the same response toward a particular drug. A collateral response was considered broad when five out of six species of a resistance group shared the same response toward the same drug. Finally, a collateral response was considered extended when four out of six species of a resistance group shared the same collateral response toward the same drug. A collateral response was decided for each species of a resistance group when ≥ 50% of the lineages exhibited resistance or sensitivity.

A review of the cross-resistance instances revealed a high degree of agreement among the different species, with three universal, six broad, and five extended cross-resistance relationships being found (Fig. 4B). The universal relationships observed were cefepime evolution resulting in tetracycline cross-resistance, ciprofloxacin evolution conferring cross-resistance to tetracycline, and meropenem evolution resulting in cefepime cross-resistance. The broad relationships found were cefepime cross-resistance in lineages evolved to ciprofloxacin or gentamicin, ciprofloxacin cross-resistance in lineages evolved to gentamicin and meropenem, and finally bidirectional cross-resistance between tetracycline and meropenem. The extended relationships observed were cefepime resistance resulting in cross-resistance to ciprofloxacin and meropenem, tetracycline resistance conferring cross-resistance to ciprofloxacin and cefepime, and cross-resistance to tetracycline resulting from gentamicin resistance. Conspicuously absent is cross-resistance to gentamicin. Surprisingly, resistance evolution of E. faecium toward any single drug invariably resulted in cross-resistance toward meropenem (Fig. 4A).

Global collateral sensitivity responses were fewer and less robust (Fig. 4B). Gentamicin collateral sensitivity was observed in half of the resistance groups evolved to cefepime or ciprofloxacin. Interestingly, resistance evolution of S. aureus toward any single drug consistently resulted in collateral sensitivity toward ciprofloxacin (Fig. 4A).

Review of the collateral response data based on the drug to which it had evolved revealed an evenness in the number of cross-resistance and collateral sensitivity interactions observed across the drugs used in the evolution process (Fig. 4C). Evaluating these same data on the basis of per drug tested to revealed an inequality in the distribution of cross-resistance across the tested drugs (Fig. 4D). All resistance groups tested against tetracycline or cefepime were frequently observed to be cross-resistant to these two drugs (20 and 21 instances, respectively), indicating that these two drugs would likely be a poor second drug choice in a drug cycling plan. In contrast, resistance groups tested against gentamicin consistently displayed either a neutral response (11 instances) or a collaterally sensitive response (eight instances) to this drug, indicating that gentamicin might be good second drug choice in a multistep treatment plan. Collateral sensitivity to gentamicin following resistance evolution has previously been observed in several single-species adaptive evolution studies (6, 16, 34). Analysis of the response data on a per species basis uncovered an average of 13 ± 4 (standard deviation [SD]) cross-resistance responses, 5 ± 2 neutral responses, and 2 ± 2 collateral sensitivity responses per species. Deviating from these values considerably were the S. aureus populations, which had only six cross-resistance interactions but nine neutral and five collateral sensitivity interactions (Fig. 4E).

Evolutionary responses are divergent or conserved in a drug-dependent manner.To explore the molecular basis of the drug resistances observed in our experiments, we sequenced a single isolate from each of the most evolved populations (120 drug-evolved isolates and 24 medium only evolved) and a WT ancestral isolate for each species. The sequenced isolates were then analyzed according to their resistance group. Mutations arising from evolution to the medium were identified and removed from further analysis in the drug-evolved isolates.

A total of 874 mutations was identified in the resistant isolates, and of these, 69% (605/874) were nonsynonymous (NS) mutations. The average number of NS mutations per drug was less than 20, with the exception of that for gentamicin, where a single hypermutating E. faecium isolate had 187 NS mutations (Fig. 5A). Approximately 26% (155/605) of NS mutations were located in genes previously associated with resistance.

FIG 5
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 5

Beta-lactams and tetracycline provoke divergent genomic responses. Single isolates from each of the most evolved populations were sequenced and compared to the ancestral WT and medium-evolved lineages to identify mutations that arose from resistance evolution. (A) The average number of nonsilent (NS) mutations per drug. (B to D) NS mutations observed in lineages with resistance evolution to cefepime (B), meropenem (C), and tetracycline (D). The mutations shown were found in genes associated with resistance determinants as defined by the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD) (71). Columns detail the species, while rows indicate genes in which mutations were observed. Genes are grouped by resistance mechanism. Different colors represent the number of the lineages carrying a mutation in the listed gene per species, ranging from 1 to 4. A black background indicates an absence of gene mutation. E. faecium lineages evolved to cefepime did not include mutations in genes associated with resistance determinants defined by CARD, and therefore this species is not included in panel B.

Analysis of the mutations revealed two categories of genomic response—a diverse response group and a conserved one (see Data Sets S1 to S5 in the supplemental material). The diverse response group was comprised of the beta-lactam and tetracycline resistance groups and was characterized by changes in a variety of pathways (Fig. 5B to D; Data Sets S1 to S3). For example, resistance groups evolved to meropenem had mutations in genes related to target modification, efflux pumps, beta-lactamases, and reduced permeability (Fig. 5C; Data Set S2). E. faecium, S. aureus, and P. aeruginosa lineages all had target modification mutations, while in K. pneumoniae, A. baumannii, and E. cloacae lineages, mutations were found in efflux pumps. P. aeruginosa lineages also had mutations in efflux pumps and a gene related to reduced permeability. The genetic response to the beta-lactams appears to have been preserved within certain species. For example, E. cloacae lineages evolved to both cefepime and meropenem had mutations in ampD and cpxA (Data Sets S1 and S2). Similar findings were observed in A. baumannii and K. pneumoniae lineages. Interestingly, E. faecium lineages evolved to FEP and MEM possessed few mutations, which could be associated with conferring beta-lactam resistance. A closer examination of the E. faecium WT species revealed genes related to cell envelope stress response and to altering cell wall charge but none associated with beta-lactam resistance.

In contrast, the conserved response group was composed of resistance groups evolved to drugs (ciprofloxacin and gentamicin) that elicited a limited number of changes in select pathways (Fig. 6A and B; Data Sets S4 and S5). Indeed, all species evolved to gentamicin had mutations in the fusA gene. Analysis of the fusA gene from all our evolved isolates revealed that the observed mutations were confined primarily to domain IV. This domain is situated at the A site of the 30S subunit and interacts with mRNA, tRNA, and the decoding center on h44 (35). Mutations in this domain have previously been identified as responsible for kanamycin resistance (36). Alignment of the fusA gene from all six species revealed that 80% of the domain IV mutations were contained between amino acids (AA) 510 and 610 (based on strain PAO1 numbering) (Fig. 6C). AA516, AA595, and AA608 were mutated in more than one species. AA608, in particular, was mutated twice in K. pneumoniae and once each in A. baumannii and E. cloacae. Previous work conducted using PAO1 hypothesized that fusA mutations led to structural changes that altered the binding of aminoglycosides to h44, thus lowering their affinity for the ribosome (37). fusA mutations have previously been shown to confer resistance to aminoglycosides in S. aureus (38, 39), P. aeruginosa (40, 41), and E. coli (11, 42).

FIG 6
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 6

Resistance evolution to gentamicin is characterized by localized mutations in the fusA gene. Single isolates from each of the most evolved populations were sequenced and compared to the ancestral WT and medium-evolved lineages to identify mutations that arose from resistance evolution. (A and B) NS mutations were observed in lineages evolved to ciprofloxacin (A) and gentamicin (B). The mutations shown were found in genes associated with resistance determinants as defined by the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD) (71). Columns detail the species, while rows indicate genes in which mutations were observed. Genes are grouped by resistance mechanism. Different colors represent the number of the lineages carrying a mutation in the listed gene per species, ranging from 1 to 4. A black background indicates an absence of gene mutation. (C) Schematic of the fusA gene highlighting the mutations that arose during resistance evolution. The table below the gene schematic lists the species in which the mutations are observed, provides a color code for each species, supplies the number of amino acids (AA) present in the gene, identifies the amino acids changed, and supplies information about the gene region in which the amino acid change is located. The majority of mutations in fusA were found between AA516 and AA608 (numbered according to strain PAO1) in domain IV of the gene. Domain IV is home to two highly conserved loops where aminoglycosides are known to bind. (D) A mutation in the fusA gene was associated with at least a 100-fold improvement in IC90 relative to that of the WT for all species expect E. faecium. A. baumannii isolates with fusA mutations had 1,000-fold improvements.

In general, mutations in the fusA gene correlated with a 100-fold increase in resistance to gentamicin relative to the WT strains (Fig. 6D). The exceptions to this observation were the A. baumannii lineages, which had a 1,000-fold increase in resistance, and the E. faecium lineages, which had a 100-fold increase in resistance regardless of mutations in the fusA gene. The A. baumannii lineages had additional mutations in the two-component system AdeRS. This system regulates the resistance-nodulation-cell division (RND) pump AdeABC, which is known to confer high-level resistance to aminoglycosides, beta-lactams, fluoroquinolones, tetracyclines, and several other antimicrobials (43). The WT E. faecium strain used possessed a wide array of antibiotic efflux mechanisms. It is likely that the gentamicin resistance observed in those lineages without fusA mutations is due to these mechanisms.

In addition to fusA mutations, the Gram-negative species had additional mutations in efflux pump regulators, in parRS (P. aeruginosa), and in the two-component envelope stress response system, cpx (K. pneumoniae and E. cloacae). Mutations in cpxA are known to confer aminoglycoside resistance in E. coli (11, 44, 45). The presence of cpx mutations in E. cloacae and K. pneumoniae lineages may explain the observed cross-resistance to cefepime and meropenem (K. pneumoniae only).

Another example of conserved mutations was observed in lineages evolved to ciprofloxacin. With the exception of E. faecium, all species had mutations in gyrA or gyrB (DNA gyrase) and parC or parE (topoisomerase IV), the primary targets of quinolone drugs. The majority of mutations observed in our study were located in the quinolone resistance-determining region (46, 47) at two specific amino acid sites (AA90 or AA94, numbered according to S. aureus). The genome of the E. faecium WT was found to contain the pmrA gene, which is known to confer low-level ciprofloxacin resistance (48–50). It is possible that the pmrA gene is responsible for the observed resistance and may explain the absence of drug target gene mutations in these lineages.

Previous work has shown that large deletions are commonly observed in laboratory evolution studies (51). Large deletions were found in every species and under every drug condition investigated. While the majority of deleted genes were classified as hypothetical proteins with unknown functions, there were a few instances where the gene deletions were either extensive or included known resistance functions. For example, the tetracycline-evolved P. aeruginosa isolates all had several large (>10) gene cluster losses. In one isolate in particular, these deletions included the mexR, mexA, mexB, and oprM genes, which are known to be involved with drug resistance (52) (Data Set S3). Since neither the mutations nor the gene deletions were reintroduced into their corresponding WT organisms, it is not possible to assess their contributions to the observed phenotypic response.

Genetic basis for observed collateral sensitivity is obscure.We sought to provide a genomic explanation for the observed collateral sensitivity in resistance groups evolved to FEP and CIP. Using gene ontology (GO) as a means of categorizing the observed mutations, we examined the difference between lineages with and without GEN collateral sensitivity within the same resistance group and then across resistance groups. GO provides information about the molecular function, cellular component, and biological process each gene product may carry out (53, 54). The GO characterization of each mutated gene was found in the UniProt Knowledgebase (UniProtKB) (55). Information pertaining to molecular function (MF) was the most consistently available, and thus MF terms were used to categorize the mutation data. MF terms describe the molecular activities of individual gene products. Genes for which a product has not been annotated are described as having unknown activities.

In FEP-evolved lineages with GEN collateral sensitivity, genes with unknown activities comprised the largest portion of mutations (31%), followed by those associated with ATP binding (17%) and DNA binding (12%). FEP-evolved lineages without collateral sensitivity had a similar distribution of mutations. Genes with unknown activities accounted for one-third of the mutations, followed by those associated with ATP binding (18%) and DNA binding (8%). Approximately 33% of all the mutations observed in the nonsensitive lineages were also found to be present in those with sensitivity.

Analysis of CIP-evolved lineages with and without GEN collateral sensitivity yielded similar results. In the collaterally sensitive lineages, genes with unknown activities once again comprised the largest group of mutations (41%), followed by those associated with ATP binding (32%) and DNA binding (14%). In the nonsensitive lineages, genes with unknown activities represented the largest category of mutations (38%), followed by those associated with ATP binding (31%). Genes with products related to DNA binding accounted for only 5% of the observed mutations. Analogous to the FEP-evolved lineages, 37% of mutations found in the nonsensitive lineages were also found in the sensitive lineages.

The large fraction of genes with unknown activities found in all lineages in both resistance groups obscure the genetic mechanisms responsible for the observed collateral sensitivity. Additionally, the mutation overlap observed between lineages with and without collateral sensitivity within each resistance group makes it unclear as to why some lineages became sensitive and others did not. These similarities prevent conclusions being drawn across resistance groups.

DISCUSSION

To date, the bulk of collateral network studies have considered only the effects of resistance evolution of a single laboratory species. Questions remain about the universality of these findings (21). Recent studies have attempted to extend these findings by comparing the results of laboratory strains and clinical isolates (16), by considering the conservation of collateral findings across different clinical isolates of the same species (6), and by investigating the role that genetic background plays in collateral interactions (21). What has not yet been explored is the extent of conservation of collateral networks across different species. The work presented here sought to address this question.

To this end, we performed a systematic resistance evolution study of the ESKAPE pathogens under uniform growth conditions using five clinically relevant antibiotics with diverse modes of action. Our evolved lineages were analyzed for collateral effects and the molecular mechanisms behind the observed phenotypes.

A total of 14 universal CR and two global CS relationships were observed. Similar to previous studies (6, 8–10), the magnitude of collateral interactions observed was generally low (<10-fold) (Fig. 4A). In contrast to an earlier study that considered several clinical isolates of the same species (6), the collateral responses observed in our work did not vary statistically across the response groups (Fig. 4C). Instead, collateral responses varied by the drug tested against and the species (Fig. 3E and 4D). Regardless of the antimicrobial to which a lineage had evolved, if the next drug exposure was to gentamicin, there was a greater likelihood for a CS interaction to take place than a CR interaction. Conversely, if the next drug exposure was to tetracycline or cefepime, the likelihood of a CR interaction was high. Our evolved S. aureus lineages were recalcitrant to collateral effects, whereas PAO1 became multidrug resistant following resistance evolution toward one antimicrobial. This difference is likely due to PAO1 having substantially more inherent resistance mechanisms than the S. aureus strain used.

Drug-dependent divergent and conserved evolutionary trajectories were revealed in genomic analyses of the most evolved lineages. Cefepime, meropenem, and tetracycline elicited a diverse genomic response that involved mutations in a wide range of genes across the different species, whereas for ciprofloxacin and gentamicin, the genomic response appeared to be limited to a few genes across the different species. In the case of gentamicin, mutations in the fusA gene could be correlated with an increase of 100-fold resistance improvement in most species. The observed diverse and converse genomic response could not be correlated with occurrence of CR or CS (Fig. 4C).

To date, there are several resistance evolution studies of individual members of the ESKAPE group (9, 13, 16, 56–61); however, no study has examined the commonalities that arise from resistance evolution of these species under uniform conditions toward more than one class of antibiotic. A study by Michiels et al. considered the persistence of the ESKAPE pathogens toward aminoglycosides but was performed under inconsistent environmental conditions (62). The work presented in this study is the first to consider the simultaneous resistance evolution of all ESKAPE species toward a broad suite of antibiotics under uniform conditions and to identify commonalities in their collateral and genomic responses.

The findings presented here, while addressing an existing shortcoming, do have limitations. First, our results stem from a laboratory evolution environment in which conditions, such as the absence of competition for nutrients, environmental stresses, etc., are unlike those encountered in a clinical setting. Nevertheless, some of the mutations observed in our work have also been found in clinical isolates. In particular, gyrase mutations contributing to ciprofloxacin resistance have been previously observed in clinical isolates of E. coli (63), Staphylococcus epidermidis (64), S. aureus (65), A. baumannii (66), and P. aeruginosa (67). Additionally, the work presented here does not consider the role of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) in multidrug resistance. HGT is an important driver of antibiotic resistance for several of the ESKAPE pathogens, in particular those from the Enterobacteriaceae and Enterococcaceae families (68). It is important to note that the choice of adaptive evolution methodology plays a role in the evolutionary trajectory taken, in particular, the roles that biofilms (61, 69) and population size (70) play in the outcomes of resistance evolution. Moreover, the mutations observed in this work were not reintroduced back into the species where they were found, and therefore, it cannot conclusively be said that they confer the resistance attributed to them. Further, the number of drugs used in our study was small compared with other laboratory resistance evolution studies (6, 8–11, 17, 38, 51). This was due to difficulty in finding antimicrobials to which all our species were sensitive. It is likely that we could have included more antimicrobials following the resistance evolution period. Finally, our work considers only a single laboratory representative of each ESKAPE member. The results of this work would be strengthened by a larger study that included a larger number and wider variety of strains from each ESKAPE member. Despite the aforementioned limitations, the results of our work serve as a first attempt in addressing the question of universality of collateral interactions across a wide range of species.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Bacteria and reagents.Drug-sensitive E. faecium (DSM 2146), S. aureus strain Newman, K. pneumoniae (DSM 30104), A. baumannii (ATCC 17978), P. aeruginosa (PAO1), and E. cloacae (ATCC 13047) were evolved to five antibiotics: cefepime, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, meropenem, and tetracycline. Drug stock solutions were prepared every 10 days and stored at −20°C until needed. Working stock solutions were prepared from frozen stocks every 4 days and stored at 4°C. All experiments were performed in cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth (Sigma) supplemented with 0.5% (wt/vol) glucose.

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing.Wild-type (WT) 90% inhibitory concentrations (IC90) and MICs were established for every organism to each antibiotic. Each WT organism was plated on nonselective medium and allowed to grow overnight. Four individual colonies from each species were then randomly selected and grown in nonselective medium for 4 to 6 h. After the allotted growth period, the optical density (OD) of each preculture was measured and a cell concentration was determined. Dilutions of approximately 103 cells/μl were made for all precultures.

All susceptibility tests were performed in 96-well microtiter plates containing 150 μl of medium. A 10-dilution-step 2-fold drug gradient was used on every microtiter plate. Each plate also included positive (non-antibiotic-containing medium plus bacterial inoculum) and negative (non-antibiotic-containing medium only) controls. All inoculated wells received 10 μl of diluted preculture. Following inoculation, the plates were incubated at 37°C without shaking for 18 h. After the allotted growth period, the OD at 600 nm (OD600) of each plate was measured using an Epoch absorbance reader (BioTek). The average OD600 values of the negative controls were subtracted from all remaining OD600 values. The percent inhibition was calculated according to equation 1:Percent inhibition=1−OD600, growth−OD600,negative controlOD600,positive control−OD600,negative control (1)

The drug concentration causing 90% growth inhibition was determined using a Python script.

Evolution of antibiotic-resistant isolates.All evolution experiments began at concentrations eight times lower than the corresponding WT MIC and increased in 2-fold steps. All evolution experiments were performed in quadruplicate in two 24-well microtiter plates. Each well contained 2 ml of medium. Positive (non-antibiotic-containing medium plus bacterial inoculum) and negative (non-antibiotic-containing medium only) controls were included in all evolution experiments. The positive-control isolates are referred to as medium-adapted (MA) lineages.

A single WT colony of each species was grown overnight in liquid medium. This overnight culture was used as the inoculum to begin the evolution experiments. All inoculated wells received 50 μl of overnight culture. Following inoculation, the microtiter plates were incubated at 37°C without shaking for 18 h. After the allotted growth period, the OD600 of each plate was measured using an Epoch absorbance plate reader (BioTek) at a wavelength of 600 nm. The OD600 values of the negative control was subtracted from all remaining OD600 values. Percent inhibition was calculated according to equation 1. A 60% inhibition cutoff was used to determine the starting concentration of the next experiment. This concentration was referred to as the experimental MIC. The 60% inhibition value was selected based on previous work (38). The well with the best growth closest to the experimental MIC was used as the inoculum for the next evolution experiment. The evolution process was repeated for 12 (A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, and E. cloacae) or 18 (E. faecium, S. aureus, and K. pneumoniae) days. Aliquots of the selected wells were frozen in 96-well plates every 3 days. Medium-only-evolved populations experienced no inhibition and were passaged daily. Aliquots of the medium-evolved populations were also frozen every 3 days. On the final day of evolution, aliquots from the most resistant wells that met the 60% inhibition cutoff were plated and grown overnight. A single colony from each agar plate was randomly picked and grown overnight in liquid medium. Aliquots of these overnight cultures were saved for future analysis. A total of 144 isolates were saved.

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing postevolution.Following resistance evolution, isolates of the drug-evolved and MA populations were profiled for their individual resistance to each antibiotic. Final exposure populations were plated on nonselective medium and allowed to grow overnight. Four colonies from each population were randomly selected and grown in nonselective medium for 4 to 6 h. These isolates were then tested against all five drugs used in the resistance evolution experiments. Susceptibility testing and data analysis were performed according to the method described in “Antimicrobial susceptibility testing.” Each WT species also had its antimicrobial susceptibility reestablished. MA and WT isolates were tested on the same day.

Whole-genome sequencing.A single isolated colony from each of the 144 evolved lineages and the six WT species was grown overnight in nonselective medium. Genomic DNA was isolated from the overnight cultures using an UltraClean microbial DNA isolate kit (MoBio Laboratories, Inc.). The DNA was sent to Macrogen for library construction using the TruSeq Nano (550 bp) DNA library prep kit (Illumina) and sequencing by Illumina MiSeq 300-bp paired end. Additional sequencing was performed by the Sequencing Core Facility at the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Biosustainability.

Analysis of genome sequences.The following chromosomes were used to align their corresponding sequence data: A. baumannii (GenBank accession no. CP018664, version CP018664.1), P. aeruginosa (accession no. NC_002516, version NC_002516.2), E. cloacae (accession no. NC_014121, NC_014108, and NC_014107; version NC_014121.1, NC_014108.1, and NC_014107.1), S. aureus strain Newman (accession no. NC_009641, version NC_009641.1). Reference genomes were unavailable for the specific E. faecium and K. pneumoniae strains used. The WT genomes of these species were de novo assembled using the De Novo assembly function in Genomics Workbench 9.0.1 (CLC Bio, Qiagen), annotated using RAST, and then used as a reference.

A minimum coverage of 30-fold was obtained for each isolate. All sequences were trimmed to remove low-quality reads and reads of less than 75 bp. All sequences were aligned to their corresponding reference genome. Point mutations and short indels were identified using the Quality-based variant detection option in Genomic Workbench 9.0.1. Only loci with a phred score of at least 30 and occurring with a frequency of at least 80% were used for analysis. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) present in the WT in the medium-evolved lineages, or in at least two mutants resistant to different antibiotics from the same strain background, were excluded from further analysis, as they were considered to be present in the starting culture prior to the start of the experiments.

Detection of large deletions.Large deletions were identified in Genomic Workbench 9.0.1 using a previously described workflow (51). Briefly, all genomes were analyzed for large deletions (>300 nucleotides [nt]) using Genomic Workbench. Each genome was assembled de novo, and this assembly was then used as a reference on which to map the WT genome reads. Any WT reads that could not be mapped to the de novo reference were collected and de novo assembled into contigs. The newly assembled unmapped WT reads were considered to contain deleted regions. Only regions with more than 300 nt and greater than 30-fold coverage were used for further analysis.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Eric van der Helm for help assembling the E. faecium genome, Anton Evgrafov for script writing and statistics assistance, Leonie Jahn, Lejla Imamovic, Andreas Porse, and Simone Li for discussion and suggestions, and Anna Koza, Alexandra Hoffmeyer, and Pannipa Pornpitakpong for work on library preparation and genome sequencing.

This work was supported by EU H2020 ERC-20104-STG LimitMDR (638902) and the Danish Council for Independent Research Sapere Aude program DFF-4004-00213. M.O.A.S. acknowledges additional funding from the Novo Nordisk Foundation under grant number NNF10CC1016517 and the Lundbeck Foundation.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 19 June 2020.
    • Returned for modification 22 July 2020.
    • Accepted 6 October 2020.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 26 October 2020.
  • Supplemental material is available online only.

  • Copyright © 2020 Rodriguez de Evgrafov et al.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Rice LB
    . 2008. Federal funding for the study of antimicrobial resistance in nosocomial pathogens: no ESKAPE. J Infect Dis 197:1079–1081. doi:10.1086/533452.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. Teillant A,
    2. Gandra S,
    3. Barter D,
    4. Morgan DJ,
    5. Laxminarayan R
    . 2015. Potential burden of antibiotic resistance on surgery and cancer chemotherapy antibiotic prophylaxis in the USA: a literature review and modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis 15:1429–1437. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00270-4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    World Health Organization. 2011. Report on the burden of endemic health care-associated infection worldwide. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
  4. 4.↵
    1. Årdal C,
    2. Balasegaram M,
    3. Laxminarayan R,
    4. McAdams D,
    5. Outterson K,
    6. Rex JH,
    7. Sumpradit N
    . 2020. Antibiotic development—economic, regulatory and societal challenges. Nat Rev Microbiol 18:267–274. doi:10.1038/s41579-019-0293-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.↵
    1. Urahn SK,
    2. Coukell A,
    3. Jungman E,
    4. Talkington K,
    5. Shore C,
    6. Kothari P
    . 2016. A scientific roadmap for antibiotic discovery. The Pew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia, PA.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Podnecky NL,
    2. Fredheim EGA,
    3. Kloos J,
    4. Sørum V,
    5. Primicerio R,
    6. Roberts AP,
    7. Rozen DE,
    8. Samuelsen Ø,
    9. Johnsen PJ
    . 2018. Conserved collateral antibiotic susceptibility networks in diverse clinical strains of Escherichia coli. Nat Commun 9:3673. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-06143-y.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Szybalski W,
    2. Bryson V
    . 1952. Genetic studies on microbial cross resistance to toxic agents. I. Cross resistance of Escherichia coli to fifteen antibiotics. J Bacteriol 64:489–499. doi:10.1128/JB.64.4.489-499.1952.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Lázár V,
    2. Pal Singh G,
    3. Spohn R,
    4. Nagy I,
    5. Horváth B,
    6. Hrtyan M,
    7. Busa-Fekete R,
    8. Bogos B,
    9. Méhi O,
    10. Csörgő B,
    11. Pósfai G,
    12. Fekete G,
    13. Szappanos B,
    14. Kégl B,
    15. Papp B,
    16. Pál C
    . 2013. Bacterial evolution of antibiotic hypersensitivity. Mol Syst Biol 9:700. doi:10.1038/msb.2013.57.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Imamovic L,
    2. Sommer MOA
    . 2013. Use of collateral sensitivity networks to design drug cycling protocols that avoid resistance development. Sci Transl Med 5:204ra132. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3006609.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Lázár V,
    2. Nagy I,
    3. Spohn R,
    4. Csörgő B,
    5. Györkei Á,
    6. Nyerges Á,
    7. Horváth B,
    8. Vörös A,
    9. Busa-Fekete R,
    10. Hrtyan M,
    11. Bogos B,
    12. Méhi O,
    13. Fekete G,
    14. Szappanos B,
    15. Kégl B,
    16. Papp B,
    17. Pál C
    . 2014. Genome-wide analysis captures the determinants of the antibiotic cross-resistance interaction network. Nat Commun 5:4352. doi:10.1038/ncomms5352.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Munck C,
    2. Gumpert HK,
    3. Wallin AIN,
    4. Wang HH,
    5. Sommer MOA
    . 2014. Prediction of resistance development against drug combinations by collateral responses to component drugs. Sci Transl Med 6:262ra156. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3009940.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Oz T,
    2. Guvenek A,
    3. Yildiz S,
    4. Karaboga E,
    5. Tamer YT,
    6. Mumcuyan N,
    7. Ozan VB,
    8. Senturk GH,
    9. Cokol M,
    10. Yeh P,
    11. Toprak E
    . 2014. Strength of selection pressure is an important parameter contributing to the complexity of antibiotic resistance evolution. Mol Biol Evol 31:2387–2401. doi:10.1093/molbev/msu191.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    1. Gonzales PR,
    2. Pesesky MW,
    3. Bouley R,
    4. Ballard A,
    5. Biddy BA,
    6. Suckow MA,
    7. Wolter WR,
    8. Schroeder VA,
    9. Burnham C-AD,
    10. Mobashery S,
    11. Chang M,
    12. Dantas G
    . 2015. Synergistic, collaterally sensitive β-lactam combinations suppress resistance in MRSA. Nat Chem Biol 11:855–861. doi:10.1038/nchembio.1911.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Jansen G,
    2. Mahrt N,
    3. Tueffers L,
    4. Barbosa C,
    5. Harjes M,
    6. Adolph G,
    7. Friedrichs A,
    8. Krenz-Weinreich A,
    9. Rosenstiel P,
    10. Schulenburg H
    . 2016. Association between clinical antibiotic resistance and susceptibility of Pseudomonas in the cystic fibrosis lung. Evol Med Public Health 2016:182–194. doi:10.1093/emph/eow016.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Barbosa C,
    2. Trebosc V,
    3. Kemmer C,
    4. Rosenstiel P,
    5. Beardmore R,
    6. Schulenburg H,
    7. Jansen G
    . 2017. Alternative evolutionary paths to bacterial antibiotic resistance cause distinct collateral effects. Mol Biol Evol 34:2229–2244. doi:10.1093/molbev/msx158.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Imamovic L,
    2. Ellabaan MMH,
    3. Dantas Machado AM,
    4. Citterio L,
    5. Wulff T,
    6. Molin S,
    7. Krogh Johansen H,
    8. Sommer MOA
    . 2018. Drug-driven phenotypic convergence supports rational treatment strategies of chronic infections. Cell 172:121–134.e14. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2017.12.012.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. Barbosa C,
    2. Beardmore R,
    3. Schulenburg H,
    4. Jansen G
    . 2018. Antibiotic combination efficacy (ACE) networks for a Pseudomonas aeruginosa model. PLoS Biol 16:e2004356. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2004356.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    1. Barbosa C,
    2. Römhild R,
    3. Rosenstiel P,
    4. Schulenburg H
    . 2019. Evolutionary stability of collateral sensitivity to antibiotics in the model pathogen pseudomonas aeruginosa. Elife 8:e51481. doi:10.7554/eLife.51481.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.↵
    1. Maltas J,
    2. Wood KB
    . 2019. Pervasive and diverse collateral sensitivity profiles inform optimal strategies to limit antibiotic resistance. PLoS Biol 17:e3000515. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000515.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.↵
    1. Lozano‐Huntelman NA,
    2. Singh N,
    3. Valencia A,
    4. Mira P,
    5. Sakayan M,
    6. Boucher I,
    7. Tang S,
    8. Brennan K,
    9. Gianvecchio C,
    10. Fitz‐Gibbon S,
    11. Yeh P
    . 2020. Evolution of antibiotic cross‐resistance and collateral sensitivity in Staphylococcus epidermidis using the mutant prevention concentration and the mutant selection window. Evol Appl 13:808–823. doi:10.1111/eva.12903.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21.↵
    1. Apjok G,
    2. Boross G,
    3. Nyerges Á,
    4. Fekete G,
    5. Lázár V,
    6. Papp B,
    7. Pál C,
    8. Csörgő B
    . 2019. Limited evolutionary conservation of the phenotypic effects of antibiotic resistance mutations. Mol Biol Evol 36:1601–1611. doi:10.1093/molbev/msz109.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.↵
    1. Sanders WE,
    2. Sanders CC,
    3. Sanders CC
    . 1997. Enterobacter spp.: pathogens poised to flourish at the turn of the century. Clin Microbiol Rev 10:220–241. doi:10.1128/CMR.10.2.220-241.1997.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Dijkshoorn L,
    2. Nemec A,
    3. Seifert H
    . 2007. An increasing threat in hospitals: multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Nat Rev Microbiol 5:939–951. doi:10.1038/nrmicro1789.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. 24.↵
    1. Keen EF,
    2. Robinson BJ,
    3. Hospenthal DR,
    4. Aldous WK,
    5. Wolf SE,
    6. Chung KK,
    7. Murray CK
    . 2010. Prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms recovered at a military burn center. Burns 36:819–825. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2009.10.013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    1. Tsai A,
    2. Uemura S,
    3. Johansson M,
    4. Puglisi EV,
    5. Marshall RA,
    6. Aitken CE,
    7. Korlach J,
    8. Ehrenberg M,
    9. Puglisi JD
    . 2013. The impact of aminoglycosides on the dynamics of translation elongation. Cell Rep 3:497–508. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2013.01.027.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2013. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2013. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013. Accessed 31 October 2020.
  27. 27.↵
    1. Magill SS,
    2. Edwards JR,
    3. Bamberg W,
    4. Beldavs ZG,
    5. Dumyati G,
    6. Kainer MA,
    7. Lynfield R,
    8. Maloney M,
    9. McAllister-Hollod L,
    10. Nadle J,
    11. Ray SM,
    12. Thompson DL,
    13. Wilson LE,
    14. Fridkin SK
    , Emerging Infections Program Healthcare-Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Use Prevalence Survey Team. 2014. Multistate point-prevalence survey of health care-associated infections. N Engl J Med 370:1198–1208. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1306801.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. 28.↵
    1. Lenhard JR,
    2. Bulman ZP
    . 2019. Inoculum effect of β-lactam antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother 74:2825–2843. doi:10.1093/jac/dkz226.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. 29.↵
    1. Dore MP,
    2. Osato MS,
    3. Realdi G,
    4. Mura I,
    5. Graham DY,
    6. Sepulveda AR
    . 1999. Amoxycillin tolerance in Helicobacter pylori. J Antimicrob Chemother 43:47–54. doi:10.1093/jac/43.1.47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. 30.↵
    1. van Griethuysen A,
    2. van Loo I,
    3. van Belkum A,
    4. Vandenbroucke-Grauls C,
    5. Wannet W,
    6. van Keulen P,
    7. Kluytmans J
    . 2005. Loss of the mecA gene during storage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains. J Clin Microbiol 43:1361–1365. doi:10.1128/JCM.43.3.1361-1365.2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Veguilla W,
    2. Peak KK,
    3. Luna VA,
    4. Roberts JC,
    5. Davis CR,
    6. Cannons AC,
    7. Amuso P,
    8. Cattani J
    . 2008. Two-year study evaluating the potential loss of methicillin resistance in a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus culture collection. J Clin Microbiol 46:3494–3497. doi:10.1128/JCM.00654-08.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Riederer K,
    2. Iyer S,
    3. Shemes S,
    4. Dejaeghere V,
    5. Sharma M,
    6. Szpunar S,
    7. Khatib R
    . 2015. Effects of frozen storage on detection of intermediate vancomycin susceptibility and heteroresistance in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus blood isolates. J Clin Microbiol 53:2392. doi:10.1128/JCM.00599-15.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Brook I
    . 1989. Inoculum effect. Rev Infect Dis 11:361–368. doi:10.1093/clinids/11.3.361.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. 34.↵
    1. Jahn LJ
    . 2019. Characterizing and exploiting genetic trajectories towards antibiotic resistance. Technical University of Denmark, Kongens, Lyngby, Denmark.
  35. 35.↵
    1. Gao Y-G,
    2. Selmer M,
    3. Dunham CM,
    4. Weixlbaumer A,
    5. Kelley AC,
    6. Ramakrishnan V
    . 2009. The structure of the ribosome with elongation factor G trapped in the posttranslocational state. Science 326:694–699. doi:10.1126/science.1179709.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Mogre A,
    2. Sengupta T,
    3. Veetil RT,
    4. Ravi P,
    5. Seshasayee ASN
    . 2014. Genomic analysis reveals distinct concentration-dependent evolutionary trajectories for antibiotic resistance in Escherichia coli. DNA Res 21:711–726. doi:10.1093/dnares/dsu032.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Bolard A,
    2. Plésiat P,
    3. Jeannot K
    . 2017. Mutations in gene fusA1 as a novel mechanism of aminoglycoside resistance in clinical strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 62:e01835-17. doi:10.1128/AAC.01835-17.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Rodriguez De Evgrafov M,
    2. Gumpert H,
    3. Munck C,
    4. Thomsen TT,
    5. Sommer MOA
    . 2015. Collateral resistance and sensitivity modulate evolution of high-level resistance to drug combination treatment in Staphylococcus aureus. Mol Biol Evol 32:1175–1185. doi:10.1093/molbev/msv006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Norström T,
    2. Lannergård J,
    3. Hughes D
    . 2007. Genetic and phenotypic identification of fusidic acid-resistant mutants with the small-colony-variant phenotype in Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 51:4438–4446. doi:10.1128/AAC.00328-07.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Feng Y,
    2. Jonker MJ,
    3. Moustakas I,
    4. Brul S,
    5. Ter Kuile BH
    . 2016. Dynamics of mutations during development of resistance by Pseudomonas aeruginosa against five antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60:4229–4236. doi:10.1128/AAC.00434-16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    1. Yen P,
    2. Papin JA
    . 2017. History of antibiotic adaptation influences microbial evolutionary dynamics during subsequent treatment. PLoS Biol 15:e2001586. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2001586.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.↵
    1. Pena-Miller R,
    2. Laehnemann D,
    3. Jansen G,
    4. Fuentes-Hernandez A,
    5. Rosenstiel P,
    6. Schulenburg H,
    7. Beardmore R
    . 2013. When the most potent combination of antibiotics selects for the greatest bacterial load: the smile-frown transition. PLoS Biol 11:e1001540. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001540.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Rosenfeld N,
    2. Bouchier C,
    3. Courvalin P,
    4. Périchon B
    . 2012. Expression of the resistance-nodulation-cell division pump AdeIJK in Acinetobacter baumannii is regulated by AdeN, a TetR-type regulator. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56:2504–2510. doi:10.1128/AAC.06422-11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Bryan LE,
    2. Van Den Elzen HM
    . 1976. Streptomycin accumulation in susceptible and resistant strains of Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 9:928–938. doi:10.1128/aac.9.6.928.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    1. Mahoney TF,
    2. Silhavy TJ
    . 2013. The Cpx stress response confers resistance to some, but not all, bactericidal antibiotics. J Bacteriol 195:1869–1874. doi:10.1128/JB.02197-12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. Ruiz J
    . 2003. Mechanisms of resistance to quinolones: target alterations, decreased accumulation and DNA gyrase protection. J Antimicrob Chemother 51:1109–1117. doi:10.1093/jac/dkg222.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. 47.↵
    1. Varughese LR,
    2. Rajpoot M,
    3. Goyal S,
    4. Mehra R,
    5. Chhokar V,
    6. Beniwal V
    . 2018. Analytical profiling of mutations in quinolone resistance determining region of gyrA gene among UPEC. PLoS One 13:e0190729. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0190729.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.↵
    1. Gill MJ,
    2. Brenwald NP,
    3. Wise R
    . 1999. Identification of an efflux pump gene, pmrA, associated with fluoroquinolone resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 43:187–189. doi:10.1128/AAC.43.1.187.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    1. Piddock LJV,
    2. Johnson MM,
    3. Simjee S,
    4. Pumbwe L
    . 2002. Expression of efflux pump gene pmrA in fluoroquinolone-resistant and -susceptible clinical isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 46:808–812. doi:10.1128/aac.46.3.808-812.2002.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    1. Lee H,
    2. Hsu FF,
    3. Turk J,
    4. Groisman EA
    . 2004. The PmrA-regulated pmrC gene mediates phosphoethanolamine modification of lipid A and polymyxin resistance in Salmonella enterica. J Bacteriol 186:4124–4133. doi:10.1128/JB.186.13.4124-4133.2004.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 51.↵
    1. Jahn LJ,
    2. Munck C,
    3. Ellabaan MMH,
    4. Sommer MOA
    . 2017. Adaptive laboratory evolution of antibiotic resistance using different selection regimes lead to similar phenotypes and genotypes. Front Microbiol 8:816. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2017.00816.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. 52.↵
    1. Li X-Z,
    2. Zhang L,
    3. Poole K
    . 2000. Interplay between the MexA-MexB-OprM multidrug efflux system and the outer membrane barrier in the multiple antibiotic resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Antimicrob Chemother 45:433–436. doi:10.1093/jac/45.4.433.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  53. 53.↵
    1. Ashburner M,
    2. Ball CA,
    3. Blake JA,
    4. Botstein D,
    5. Butler H,
    6. Cherry JM,
    7. Davis AP,
    8. Dolinski K,
    9. Dwight SS,
    10. Eppig JT,
    11. Harris MA,
    12. Hill DP,
    13. Issel-Tarver L,
    14. Kasarskis A,
    15. Lewis S,
    16. Matese JC,
    17. Richardson JE,
    18. Ringwald M,
    19. Rubin GM,
    20. Sherlock G
    . 2000. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet 25:25–29. doi:10.1038/75556.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  54. 54.↵
    The Gene Ontology Consortium. 2019. The Gene Ontology resource: 20 years and still GOing strong. Nucleic Acids Res 47:D330–D338. doi:10.1093/nar/gky1055.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    UniProt Consortium. 2019. UniProt: a worldwide hub of protein knowledge. Nucleic Acids Res 47:D506–D515. doi:10.1093/nar/gky1049.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Vestergaard M,
    2. Paulander W,
    3. Marvig RL,
    4. Clasen J,
    5. Jochumsen N,
    6. Molin S,
    7. Jelsbak L,
    8. Ingmer H,
    9. Folkesson A
    . 2016. Antibiotic combination therapy can select for broad-spectrum multidrug resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Int J Antimicrob Agents 47:48–55. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2015.09.014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Jochumsen N,
    2. Marvig RL,
    3. Damkiær S,
    4. Jensen RL,
    5. Paulander W,
    6. Molin S,
    7. Jelsbak L,
    8. Folkesson A
    . 2016. The evolution of antimicrobial peptide resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa is shaped by strong epistatic interactions. Nat Commun 7:13002. doi:10.1038/ncomms13002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Sanz-García F,
    2. Hernando-Amado S,
    3. Martínez JL
    . 2018. Mutational evolution of Pseudomonas aeruginosa resistance to ribosome-targeting antibiotics. Front Genet 9:451. doi:10.3389/fgene.2018.00451.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  59. 59.↵
    1. Nicolas I,
    2. Bordeau V,
    3. Bondon A,
    4. Baudy-Floc'h M,
    5. Felden B
    . 2019. Novel antibiotics effective against gram-positive and -negative multi-resistant bacteria with limited resistance. PLoS Biol 17:e3000337. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000337.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. 60.↵
    1. Kim J,
    2. Jo A,
    3. Chukeatirote E,
    4. Ahn J
    . 2016. Assessment of antibiotic resistance in Klebsiella pneumoniae exposed to sequential in vitro antibiotic treatments. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 15:60. doi:10.1186/s12941-016-0173-x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. 61.↵
    1. Santos-Lopez A,
    2. Marshall CW,
    3. Scribner MR,
    4. Snyder DJ,
    5. Cooper VS
    . 2019. Evolutionary pathways to antibiotic resistance are dependent upon environmental structure and bacterial lifestyle. Elife 8:e47612. doi:10.7554/eLife.47612.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. 62.↵
    1. Michiels JE,
    2. Van den Bergh B,
    3. Verstraeten N,
    4. Fauvart M,
    5. Michiels J
    . 2016. In vitro emergence of high persistence upon periodic aminoglycoside challenge in the ESKAPE pathogens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60:4630–4637. doi:10.1128/AAC.00757-16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. 63.↵
    1. Vila J,
    2. Ruiz J,
    3. Marco F,
    4. Barcelo A,
    5. Goni P,
    6. Giralt E,
    7. De Anta TJ
    . 1994. Association between double mutation in gyrA gene of ciprofloxacin-resistant clinical isolates of Escherichia coli and MICs. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 38:2477–2479. doi:10.1128/aac.38.10.2477.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  64. 64.↵
    1. Yamada M,
    2. Yoshida J,
    3. Hatou S,
    4. Yoshida T,
    5. Minagawa Y
    . 2008. Mutations in the quinolone resistance determining region in Staphylococcus epidermidis recovered from conjunctiva and their association with susceptibility to various fluoroquinolones. Br J Ophthalmol 92:848–851. doi:10.1136/bjo.2007.129858.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  65. 65.↵
    1. Trong HN,
    2. Prunier A-L,
    3. Leclercq R
    . 2005. Hypermutable and fluoroquinolone-resistant clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 49:2098–2101. doi:10.1128/AAC.49.5.2098-2101.2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. 66.↵
    1. Vila J,
    2. Ruiz J,
    3. Goñi P,
    4. Goñi G,
    5. Marcos A,
    6. Jimenez T,
    7. Anta DE
    . 1995. Mutation in the gyrA Gene of quinolone-resistant clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 39:1201–1203. doi:10.1128/aac.39.5.1201.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. 67.↵
    1. Nakano M,
    2. Deguchi T,
    3. Kawamura T,
    4. Yasuda M,
    5. Kimura M,
    6. Okano Y,
    7. Kawada Y
    . 1997. Mutations in the gyrA and parC genes in fluoroquinolone-resistant clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 41:2289–2291. doi:10.1128/AAC.41.10.2289.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  68. 68.↵
    1. San Millan A
    . 2018. Evolution of plasmid-mediated antibiotic resistance in the clinical context. Trends Microbiol 26:978–985. doi:10.1016/j.tim.2018.06.007.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  69. 69.↵
    1. Prater AG,
    2. Mehta HH,
    3. Kosgei AJ,
    4. Miller WR,
    5. Tran TT,
    6. Arias CA,
    7. Shamoo Y
    . 2019. Environment shapes the accessible daptomycin resistance mechanisms in Enterococcus faecium. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 63:e00790-19. doi:10.1128/AAC.00790-19.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  70. 70.↵
    1. Hallinen KM,
    2. Karslake J,
    3. Wood KB
    . 2020. Delayed antibiotic exposure induces population collapse in enterococcal communities with drug-resistant subpopulations. Elife 9:e52813. doi:10.7554/eLife.52813.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  71. 71.↵
    1. Alcock BP,
    2. Raphenya AR,
    3. Lau TTY,
    4. Tsang KK,
    5. Bouchard M,
    6. Edalatmand A,
    7. Huynh W,
    8. Nguyen AV,
    9. Cheng AA,
    10. Liu S,
    11. Min SY,
    12. Miroshnichenko A,
    13. Tran HK,
    14. Werfalli RE,
    15. Nasir JA,
    16. Oloni M,
    17. Speicher DJ,
    18. Florescu A,
    19. Singh B,
    20. Faltyn M,
    21. Hernandez-Koutoucheva A,
    22. Sharma AN,
    23. Bordeleau E,
    24. Pawlowski AC,
    25. Zubyk HL,
    26. Dooley D,
    27. Griffiths E,
    28. Maguire F,
    29. Winsor GL,
    30. Beiko RG,
    31. Brinkman FSL,
    32. Hsiao WWL,
    33. Domselaar GV,
    34. McArthur AG
    . 2020. CARD 2020: antibiotic resistome surveillance with the comprehensive antibiotic resistance database. Nucleic Acids Res 48:D517–D525. doi:10.1093/nar/gkz935.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Systematic Investigation of Resistance Evolution to Common Antibiotics Reveals Conserved Collateral Responses across Common Human Pathogens
Mari C. Rodriguez de Evgrafov, Marius Faza, Konstantinos Asimakopoulos, Morten O. A. Sommer
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Dec 2020, 65 (1) e01273-20; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01273-20

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.
Systematic Investigation of Resistance Evolution to Common Antibiotics Reveals Conserved Collateral Responses across Common Human Pathogens
(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
Systematic Investigation of Resistance Evolution to Common Antibiotics Reveals Conserved Collateral Responses across Common Human Pathogens
Mari C. Rodriguez de Evgrafov, Marius Faza, Konstantinos Asimakopoulos, Morten O. A. Sommer
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Dec 2020, 65 (1) e01273-20; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01273-20
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

human pathogens
resistance evolution
antibiotic resistance
collateral sensitivity
cross-resistance
drug resistance evolution

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