44,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Sprache: Englisch
AN AUTHORITATIVE SURVEY OF CURRENT RESEARCH INTO CLINICALLY USEFUL CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL ANTIBIOTIC THERAPEUTICS Pharmaceutically-active antibiotics revolutionized the treatment of infectious diseases, leading to decreased mortality and increased life expectancy. However, recent years have seen an alarming rise in the number and frequency of antibiotic-resistant "Superbugs." The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that over two million antibiotic-resistant infections occur in the United States annually, resulting in approximately 23,000 deaths. Despite the danger to public health, a minimal number of new antibiotic drugs are currently in development or in clinical trials by major pharmaceutical companies. To prevent reverting back to the pre-antibiotic era--when diseases caused by parasites or infections were virtually untreatable and frequently resulted in death--new and innovative approaches are needed to combat the increasing resistance of pathogenic bacteria to antibiotics. Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics - From Molecules to Man examines the current state and future direction of research into developing clinically-useful next-generation novel antibiotics. An internationally-recognized team of experts cover topics including glycopeptide antibiotic resistance, anti-tuberculosis agents, anti-virulence therapies, tetracyclines, the molecular and structural determinants of resistance, and more. * Presents a multidisciplinary approach for the optimization of novel antibiotics for maximum potency, minimal toxicity, and appropriated degradability * Highlights critical aspects that may relieve the problematic medical situation of antibiotic resistance * Includes an overview of the genetic and molecular mechanisms of antibiotic resistance * Addresses contemporary issues of global public health and longevity * Includes full references, author remarks, and color illustrations, graphs, and charts Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics - From Molecules to Man is a valuable source of up-to-date information for medical practitioners, researchers, academics, and professionals in public health, pharmaceuticals, microbiology, and related fields.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 611
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2019
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
List of Contributors
Preface
Foreword
1 Molecular Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance – Part I
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Molecular Mechanisms of Resistance
1.3 Acquisition and Transfer of Resistance
1.4 Summary and Conclusions
References
2 Molecular Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance – Part II
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Summary and Concluding Remarks
References
3 Resistance to Glycopeptide Antibiotics
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Glycopeptides – Structure and Mode of Action
3.3 Molecular Bases of Resistance
3.4 Clinical Impact of Resistance
3.5 Conclusions and Perspectives
References
4 Resistance and Tolerance to Aminoglycosides
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Structure of AGs
4.3 Three Stages of AG Uptake
4.4 Cellular Targets of AGs
4.5 Bacterial Resistance against AGs
4.6 Bacterial Persisters: Small Subpopulations that Can Tolerate AGs
4.7 Overcoming Bacterial Survival Mechanisms
4.8 Summary and Conclusion
Acknowledgments
References
5 Tetracyclines: Mode of Action and their Bacterial Mechanisms of Resistance
5.1 Introduction of Tetracyclines
5.2 Bacterial Resistance
5.3 Mutation
5.4 Tetracycline Resistance Genes
5.5 Efflux
5.6 Ribosomal Protection
5.7 Mosaic
5.8 Enzymatic
5.9 Unknown
5.10 Conclusion
References
6 Fluoroquinolone Resistance
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Mechanism of Action
6.3 Quinolone Resistance: General Aspects
6.4 Quinolone Resistance: Molecular Basis
6.5 Plasmid‐mediated Resistance
6.6 Concluding Remarks
Acknowledgments
References
7 Dihydropteroate Synthase (Sulfonamides) and Dihydrofolate Reductase Inhibitors
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Clinically Used Inhibitors
7.3 Molecular Mechanisms of Drug Resistance
7.4 Clinical Impact of Resistance to Sulfa Drugs and DHFR Inhibitors
7.5 Conclusions
References
8 Anti‐tuberculosis Agents
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Molecular Mechanisms of Drug Resistance
8.3 Clinical Impact of Drug Resistance and Management Strategies
8.4 Conclusions
Acknowledgements
References
9 Multidrug Resistance
9.1 Introduction
9.2 A Permeability Barrier to Decrease Drug Accumulation
9.3 Drug Efflux Pumps
9.4 Moving a Substrate beyond the Cell Envelope
9.5 Potential Drug Design
9.6 Impact of Multidrug Resistance
9.7 Summary
References
10 Anti‐virulence Therapies Through Potentiating ROS in Bacteria
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Weapons of Phagosomes
10.3 ROS Defense Systems as Virulence Factors
10.4 Therapeutic Potential of Oxidant Potentiating Anti‐Virulence Therapies
10.5 Modeling of Bacterial ROS Metabolism
10.6 Modeling Bacterial ROS Production
10.7 Modeling Bacterial ROS Consumption
10.8 Future Prospects for Computational Models of Bacterial Oxidative Stress
10.9 Summary and Conclusions
Acknowledgments
References
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 3
Table 3.1
In vitro
activity of vancomycin, teicoplanin, and telavancin.
Table 3.2 Types of resistance to glycopeptides in enterococci.
Table 3.3 VRSA strains isolated in the United States.
Chapter 5
Table 5.1 Mechanism of resistance for characterized
tet
and
otr
genes.
Table 5.2 Distribution of
tet
resistance genes among Gram‐negative bacteria.
Table 5.3 Distribution of tetracycline resistance genes among Gram‐positive bac...
Chapter 6
Table 6.1 Examples of fluoroquinolone resistance.
Table 6.2 Major fluoroquinolone and quinolone‐like compounds.
Table 6.3 Factors that affect quinolone lethality with little effect on cleaved...
Table 6.4 Distribution of plasmid‐borne resistance.
Table 6.5 Bacterial species carrying fluoroquinolone‐resistance plasmids.
Table 6.6 Effect of Qnr on fluoroquinolone susceptibility.
Table 6.7 Prevalence of plasmids with
qnr
or
aac (6')‐lb‐cr
in ...
Chapter 8
Table 8.1 Mechanisms of drug action and resistance in
Mycobacterium tuberculosi
...
Table 8.2 Promising new TB drug candidates in clinical trials.
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1
Overview of antibiotic resistance mechanisms.
(a) In general, antibi...
Figure 1.2
Multidrug efflux systems.
There are five known classes of multidrug ...
Figure 1.3
Aminoglycoside modifying enzymes.
Aminoglycosides are large molecule...
Figure 1.4
Mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer (HGT).
There are three mecha...
Figure 1.5
Resistance gene capture by integrons.
Integrons are DNA elements tha...
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1 The four mechanistic classes of antibiotic resistance that occur in ...
Figure 2.2
Single amino acid substitutions in the β subunit of RNA polymerase c
...
Figure 2.3
Overproduction of the antibiotic target results in reduced susceptib
...
Figure 2.4
Cfr‐mediated methlyation of 23S rRNA provides resistance to several
...
Figure 2.5
The FusB‐type resistance proteins protect EF‐G from the
...
Figure 2.6
Structural and genetic basis of horizontally‐acquired vancomycin res
...
Figure 2.7
β‐lactams and β‐lactamases. (a)
β‐lactam antib...
Figure 2.8
Examples of antibiotic inactivation mediated by the aminoglycoside m
...
Figure 2.9
Decreased accumulation of antibiotics, mediated by outer membrane (
Figure 2.10
Structure of the archetypal RND efflux transporter, AcrAB–TolC.
...
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1
Structure of glycopeptide antibiotics
. (a) Vancomycin and telavancin...
Figure 3.2
Schematic representation of peptidoglycan biosynthesis and action me
...
Figure 3.3
Binding of vancomycin to the different types of the C‐terminal end o
...
Figure 3.4
Phylogenetic analysis of vancomycin resistance ligases.
The four (Va...
Figure 3.5
Comparison of the
van
gene clusters
(modified from [27])
.
D‐
A...
Figure 3.6
VanA‐type glycopeptide resistance through synthesis of D‐Ala‐D‐Lac m
...
Figure 3.7
VanC‐type glycopeptide resistance through synthesis of
D‐
...
Figure 3.8
Cell wall characteristics of VSSA (a) and molecular determinant for
...
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1
Structures of AGs
. Streptomycin is an example of an AG with a strept...
Figure 4.2
Three stages of AG uptake
. AG uptake is proposed to occur in three s...
Figure 4.3
AG modifications
. Individual AGs can be targeted by multiple AMEs. F...
Figure 4.4
Targets of 16S‐RMTases
. (a) Secondary structure of h44 in the ...
Figure 4.5
Comparing persistence and resistance
. (a) Persistence. (I) Bacterial...
Figure 4.6
Structure and AME susceptibility of plazomicin
. Plazomicin is a deri...
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1
Fluoroquinolone structures.
Representative quinolone‐class agents ar...
Figure 6.2
Overview of quinolone action mechanism.
Gyrase or topoisomerase IV b...
Figure 6.3
Structure of cleaved complexes
. The top part of the figure shows a l...
Figure 6.4
Scheme showing the live‐or‐die stress response pathway envisioned fo
...
Figure 6.5
Stepwise accumulation of fluoroquinolone‐resistant topoisomerase mut
...
Figure 6.6
Factors contributing fluoroquinolone resistance
. A bacterial cell is...
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1 Biosynthesis of THF
5
from dihydropteridine pyrophosphate
1
(see tex...
Figure 7.2 Sulfa drugs in clinical use (
7–11
) and prontosil
6
, the lead m...
Figure 7.3 Chemical structure of the DHFR inhibitor trimethoprim
12
. Its congen...
Figure 7.4 Covalent adduct of DHPP with the sulfa drug sulfathiazole as determi...
Chapter 8
Figure 8.1 Structures of front‐line TB drugs.
Figure 8.2 Structures of commonly used second‐line TB drugs.
Figure 8.3 Structures of new drug candidates in clinical trials.
Chapter 9
Figure 9.1 (a) A representative skeletal formula of an LPS molecule, excluding ...
Figure 9.2 General architecture and relative sizes of the principal classes of ...
Figure 9.3 Substrates, inhibitors, and a non‐substrate of common RND multi‐drug...
Figure 9.4 Exploded view of tripartite complexes. The distance between inner (I...
Figure 9.5 Representative depictions of the bundling (left) and tip‐to‐tip (rig...
Figure 9.6 Model of the tripartite assembly fitted into experimental cryo‐EM el...
Figure 9.7 Cartoon demonstrating the results from Janganan et al. [15]. Light b...
Chapter 10
Figure 10.1
Antimicrobial mechanisms of phagocytes.
During maturation, the pH i...
Figure 10.2
Steady‐state modeling of bacterial ROS production.
Model cons...
Figure 10.3
Dynamic modeling of bacterial ROS detoxification.
Model constructio...
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
iii
iv
vii
viii
ix
x
xi
xiii
xiv
xv
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics – From Molecules to Man
Edited by
Boyan B. Bonev
School of Life SciencesUniversity of NottinghamQueen’s Medical CentreNottingham, UK
Nicholas M. Brown
Consultant Medical MicrobiologistCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustCambridge Biomedical CampusCambridge, UK
This edition first published 2020© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of Boyan B. Bonev and Nicholas M. Brown to be identified as the editors of this editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered OfficesJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USAJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial OfficeThe Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyWhile the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data
Names: Bonev, Boyan B., 1966– editor. | Brown, Nicholas M., 1962– editor.Title: Bacterial resistance to antibiotics – from molecules to man / edited by Boyan B. Bonev, Nicholas M. Brown.Description: Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, 2019. | Includes bibliographical references and index. |Identifiers: LCCN 2019003167 (print) | LCCN 2019003905 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119558200 (Adobe PDF) | ISBN 9781119558224 (ePub) | ISBN 9781119940777 (pbk.)Subjects: | MESH: Drug Resistance, BacterialClassification: LCC RM267 (ebook) | LCC RM267 (print) | NLM QW 45 | DDC 615.7/922–dc23LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019003167
Cover Design: WileyCover Images: © science photo/Shutterstock, © nobeastsofierce/Shutterstock
List of Contributors
Kristin J. AdolfsenDepartment of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
Vassiliy N. BavroSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester, UK
Alison J. BaylayInstitute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
Boyan B. BonevSchool of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
Nicholas M. BrownCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK
Mark P. BrynildsenDepartment of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
Clemente CapassoIstituto di Bioscienze e Biorisorse – CNR, Napoli, Italy
Vincent CattoirInserm Unit U1230, University of Rennes 1, Rennes, FranceDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, Rennes University Hospital, Rennes, FranceNational Reference Center for Antimicrobial Resistance (Lab Enterococci), Rennes, France
Karl DrlicaNew Jersey Medical School, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, Public Health Research Institute, Newark, NJ, USA
Hiroshi HiasaDepartment of Pharmacology, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Robert KernsDivision of Medicinal and Natural Products Chemistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
François LebretonDepartments of Ophthalmology, Microbiology and Immunobiology, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, MA, USA
Muhammad MalikNew Jersey Medical School, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, Public Health Research Institute, Newark, NJ, USA
Robert L. MarshallInstitute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
Wendy W.K. MokDepartment of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
Arkady MustaevNew Jersey Medical School, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, Public Health Research Institute, Newark, NJ, USA
Alex J. O’NeillUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Laura J.V. PiddockInstitute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
Marilyn C. RobertsDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
Liam K.R. SharkeyInstitute of Infection and Immunity, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Claudiu T. SupuranDipartimento di Scienze Farmaceutiche, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Polo Scientifico, Florence, Italy
Mark A. WebberQuadram Institute, Norwich, UK
Ada YonathThe Helen and Milton A. Kimmelman Center for Biomolecular Structure and Assembly, Weizmann Institute, Rehovot, Israel
Ying ZhangDepartment of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
Xilin ZhaoNew Jersey Medical School, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, Public Health Research Institute, Newark, NJ, USAState Key Laboratory of Molecular Vaccinology and Molecular Diagnostics, School of Public Health, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China
Preface
The use of antibiotics alongside aseptic medical procedures, improved hygiene, and vaccination has revolutionized health care and has resulted in a major decline in morbidity and mortality from acute bacterial infections. Wound and post‐surgical complications associated with localized or systemic bacterial infections are now less common and survival rates are high in vulnerable patient populations, such as neonates, and patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy or solid organ transplantation. Infections that were rampant in the past, such as cholera, diphtheria, typhoid fever, plague, and syphilis are now generally manageable, and their frequency has been reduced by many orders of magnitude.
The initial adoption and adaptation of antibiotic compounds for bacterial management has proven successful and resulted in societal and political developments. In the second half of the twentieth century, the widespread use of antibiotic prophylaxis and the use of antibiotics in animals became commonplace and we now appreciate that this seems to have swayed the balance in favor of bacterial adaptations and the subsequent emergence and spread of antibiotic resistance. In the late 1960s, the problem of bacterial infection was considered “solved” and scientific efforts were directed toward other areas, such as cancer. This led to a decline in antibiotic development and we currently have a dearth of concept drugs undergoing development. There are broadly three main reasons for this decline: research – the lack of new leads; regulatory – complex and costly approval routes for antibiotic development; and financial – the high cost of development paralleled by a poor return on investment due to low use of the final product and short treatment regimens.
Antibiotics are comparatively low molecular weight compounds with selective inhibitory activity, which are derived from or synthetically guided by natural microbial products that suppress competing bacteria to secure access to nutrients and to dominate the ecological niche. In turn, natural evolutionary adaptations in competing bacteria subjected to such antibiotic pressures have driven the development of resistance as a survival mechanism and the selection of bacterial populations that have an enhanced tolerance to antibiotics. The evolution of new antimicrobials and bacterial adaptations to such compounds is an ongoing natural process, presently influenced by human intervention through the extensive use of antibiotics.
Adaptations under sustained antibiotic pressure are beginning shift the balance in favor of bacterial pathogens. As a result, bacterial populations refractive to antibiotic management present serious emergent threats including, but not restricted to, carbapenem‐resistant and extended‐spectrum Beta lactamase‐producing Enterobacteriaceae, multiply‐resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae, resistant enteric pathogens (such as Salmonella typhi and Campylobacter sp.), methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin‐resistant enterococci (VRE). These adaptive changes are communicated between bacterial populations and crossing interspecies boundaries with ease. Combined with a globalized societal and economic dynamics, the increased prevalence of resistant bacterial pathogens is rapidly becoming one of the biggest threats to health that humans face now and in the coming decades.
We have compiled this book with the intention that it serves as an introduction to antibiotic action and resistance for advanced undergraduates, graduate students, and clinicians, as well as a reference. Recognizing the complexity of bacterial resistance to antibiotics and its global impact, as well as the need of multidisciplinary and worldwide effort in tackling resistance, we have brought together contributions from experts from diverse fields and complementary expertise that shares a common interest in antimicrobial chemotherapy and in tackling the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics.
The Editors are UK based and met at a British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC) initiative to reboot the Antimicrobial Drug Development and Design pipeline. Boyan B. Bonev is a physical biochemist and structural biologist at the University of Nottingham, UK, with interests in antibiotic mechanisms, resistance, molecular structure, and drug design. Nicholas M. Brown is a consultant microbiologist at Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge, UK, and a former president of BSAC with a career‐long interest in the use of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance. We thank David Turner, a microbiology consultant at Nottingham, who was co‐Editor during the inception of the project. And, thanks to Nick for taking over in his stead.
The book includes contributions from worldwide leaders with complementary expertise and common interest in antimicrobial mechanisms and resistance. Ada Yonath is a structural biologist, Director of the Centre for Biomolecular Structure and Assembly of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, who shares the 2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for solving the structure of the ribosome, an important molecular target for antibiotics. Molecular mechanisms of antibiotic action and resistance are introduced by Laura Piddock, who is a molecular microbiologist at the University of Birmingham, Fellow of the American Academy of Microbiology and a founding Fellow of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases and recently joined the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership (GARDP) as Head of Scientific Affairs; and, by Alex O'Neill, a molecular microbiologist at the University of Leeds working on antibiotic resistance and drug discovery. Glycopeptide resistance is discussed by Vincent Cattoir, a microbiologist and Director of the Centre National de Référence de la Résistance aux Antibiotiques, Rennes, France; resistance to tetracycline antibiotics is introduced by Marilyn Roberts, a microbiologist from the University of Washington, USA; Karl Drlica, an expert in microbiology, biochemistry, and molecular genetics from Rutgers Public Health Research Institute, Newark, USA, offers a detailed description of fluoroquinolones mechanisms and resistance; resistance to dihydrofolate reductase inhibitors is introduced by Claudiu Supuran from the University of Florence, Italy. Tuberculosis is a special challenge and an important case of resistance to anti‐tuberculosis drugs is made by Ying Zhang, a molecular microbiologist and immunologist from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA, with a special interest in antibiotic resistance in mycobacteria. Multidrug resistance, a common mechanism in many bacterial adaptations to antibiotics, is described by Vassiliy Bavro, a structural biologist from the University of Essex, Colchester, UK. Looking into alternative approaches beyond classic antimicrobial chemotherapy, anti‐virulence and other alternative or complementary strategies are discussed by Mark Brynildsen, an expert in host–pathogen interactions, quorum sensing, and bacterial persistence from the Princeton School of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Princeton, USA, who also introduces aminoglycoside resistance.
The scale and magnitude of the antimicrobial resistance problem is created and exacerbated by a globalized and complex society. Managing bacterial infections affects all and tackling antibiotic resistance is a problem of equal measure for molecular scientists, pharmacologists, clinicians, veterinarians, and mathematicians, as it is for individuals, communities, sociologists, economists, and politicians. Ensuring successful management of bacterial infections requires a thorough understanding of bacterial organization and life at the molecular, systemic, and ecological level, of bacterial/host interactions and dynamics, as well as of the flexible and adaptive arsenal of measures used to control and regulate our immediate microbial environment. A global effort in antimicrobial stewardship and surveillance, public awareness, and detailed advice for clinicians will be needed to maintain the high levels of success in the management of bacterial infections along with joint input from governments, regulators, manufacturers, academics, economists, and clinicians.
Boyan B. Bonev and Nicholas M. Brown
ForewordCould a bright outlook for antibiotics usage emerge from the colossal health issue?
Ada Yonath
The Helen and Milton A. Kimmelman Center for Biomolecular Structure and Assembly, Weizmann Institute, Rehovot, Israel
One of the major problems in modern medicine is the increasing resistance of pathogenic bacteria to antibiotics. Since the production of the first pharmaceutically active antibiotics around the mid twentieth century, which revolutionized the treatment of infectious diseases and led to an unforeseen decrease in mortality and an increase in life expectancy, the clinical usage of the currently available antibiotics has suffered from a number of severe problems. These fallouts include (i) the development of resistance to one or several antibiotics (namely, multidrug resistance), caused by pathogens capability of undergoing modifications and mutations that minimize or remove the contacts between the antibiotics and their targets, (ii) the unintentional damage of the microbiome owing to the preference for using broad-spectrum antibiotics alongside the structural similarities of the antibiotics’ binding sites among diverse bacteria, and (iii) the contamination of the environment caused by significant amounts of antibiotic metabolites that enter it. This crucial environmental issue results from the chemical nature of the molecular scaffolds of most currently used antibiotics, which are composed of organic metabolites that cannot be fully digested by humans or animals. These nondigestible, rather toxic compounds are also nonbiodegradable and contaminate the environment. Furthermore, following release into agricultural irrigation systems, these compounds are increasingly being consumed by humans and animals and thereby spreading antibiotic resistance.
Currently, almost all clinically useful antibiotic therapeutics are derived from natural compounds produced by microorganisms for inhibiting the growth of competing bacteria so they can defend themselves. Many of the natural antibiotics that are medically useful have undergone subsequent chemical modifications to improve their effectiveness. In addition to the natural and semisynthetic substances, very few fully synthetic drugs are in use.
Similarly, the various resistance mechanisms are basic natural processes for the survival of microorganisms, regardless of their exposure to modern clinical treatment and/or nutrition, thus suggesting that microbes have long evolved the capability to fight toxins, including antibiotics. Resistance to antibiotics is generally acquired by molecular mechanisms, some of which, such as activation of cellular efflux pumps, are common to almost all antibiotics. In conjunction, many bacteria have developed specific molecular pathways that cause resistance. The prominent frequently used mechanisms of acquiring resistance to a single or several antibiotics (called multidrug resistance) include modifications of the antibiotic binding pockets by mutations; activation of key enzymatic processes, such as methylation; enzymatic inactivation of the antibiotic; removal of the antibiotic drug from its target by cellular components; or disruption of the interactions between cellular components that play key roles in key life processes. Indeed, it seems that combating resistance to antibiotics is unlikely, since bacteria “want” to live and because bacteria are extremely “clever” in terms of survival!
The increasing development of multidrug-resistant bacterial strains, together with the minimal (negligible) number of new antibiotic drugs that are presently undergoing development and/or clinical trials by the major pharmaceutical companies, is becoming a colossal health threat. Thus, the World Health Organization stated that it seems that we will soon revert back to the pre-antibiotic era, during which diseases caused by parasites or by simple (e.g. pneumonia, wounds) or severe infections (such as tuberculosis), were almost untreatable and resulted in frequent deaths. The World Bank estimated that up to 3.8% of the global economy will be lost by 2050 because of resistance to antibiotics and several funding agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health, European Research Council, and the Group of Eight, came up with grants for researching antibiotics resistance. On the other hand, most pharmaceutical companies have stopped developing new antibiotics, owing to the expected development of resistance and to the huge mismatch between the investment needed and the low profit anticipated.
Is there a way out from this depressing and frightening situation? Will longevity decrease to the pre-mid-twentieth century level soon?
Not necessarily. An encouraging initial outcome that may indicate partial winning was recently obtained from investigating the process of protein biosynthesis, which plays a key role in life and is performed by ribosomes in all living cells. In fact, owing to its key role in life, about half of the existing antimicrobial drugs hamper this process. The clinical use of antibiotics is facilitated by the minute differences between the prokaryotic and eukaryotic (human and animal) ribosomes that enable their selectivity toward prokaryotic ribosomes.
Analyses of high resolution molecular structures and sequences of ribosomes from nonpathogenic and multidrug resistant pathogenic bacteria showed that the clinically used antibiotics bind exclusively to ribosomal active sites, mostly located at the ribosome’s core. These analyses also revealed unique structural motifs crucial to protein biosynthesis and specific to each pathogen, which are located mostly on the ribosome periphery and are not involved in the primary ribosomal activity hence, currently no pathogen contains genes for their modification.
Promising preliminary results in designing inhibitors exploiting these unique motifs indicated that these sites may provide specific novel antibiotic binding sites with the potential for minimized resistance alongside preserving the microbiome that is occasionally unintentionally damaged by the broad-spectrum antibiotics used clinically. Applying a multifaceted approach could lead to optimization of the novel antibiotics for maximum potency, minimal toxicity (namely high selectivity, obtained by the location of the potential binding sites on the ribosomal periphery, which is the maximal evolving region), and appropriated degradability. Thus, in addition to the medical advantages, these new antibiotics should reduce the ecological burden caused by the non-degradable cores of many of the currently available antibiotics.
Although there will clearly be resistance to the next-generation of novel antibiotics, a much slower resistance development is predicted as principles for the design of further antibiotics have been identified. This approach represents a revolution in the future arsenal of antibiotics as it combines conventional and nonconventional critical aspects that may relieve, to some extent, the current problematic medical situation.
1Molecular Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance – Part I
Alison J. Baylay1, Laura J.V. Piddock1, and Mark A. Webber 2
1Institute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
2Quadram Institute, Norwich, UK
1.1 Introduction
Since the 1940s, pathogens resistant to antibiotics have emerged and spread around the globe, such that antibacterial resistance is one of the greatest challenges to human health in the twenty‐first century. The mechanisms underpinning this evolution of resistance are complex and include the mutations in genes that either encode the targets of antibiotics or factors that control production of proteins that influence bacterial susceptibility to antibiotics, as well as the transfer of genes between strains and species including nonpathogenic bacteria. In this chapter, we give an overview of the molecular mechanisms by which bacteria can survive exposure to some of the most clinically important antibiotics currently available.
To exert its antimicrobial effect, a drug must reach and successfully bind to its target. Bacteria have evolved multiple and different antibiotic resistance mechanisms. These can be broadly grouped into four categories (summarized in Figure 1.1):
Reducing the concentration of drug able to reach its target, either by preventing its entry or actively removing it from the cell,
Inactivating or modifying the drug before it reaches the target, either extracellularly or intracellularly,
Changing the target so that the drug can no longer bind,
Acquiring an alternative route to carry out the cellular process blocked by the drug.
Figure 1.1Overview of antibiotic resistance mechanisms. (a) In general, antibiotics function by binding to a cellular target such that an important biochemical process is blocked. (b) Bacteria may resist the action of antibiotic by a variety of mechanisms, which are summarized here. These include reduction of the intracellular concentration of the antibiotic by increased efflux or reduced permeability, inactivation of the antibiotic by hydrolysis or modification, modification of the target to prevent antibiotic binding, and metabolic bypass of the cellular process blocked by the antibiotic.
1.2 Molecular Mechanisms of Resistance
1.2.1 Reducing the Intracellular Concentration of a Drug
1.2.1.1 Increased Efflux
All bacterial genomes encode multiple efflux pumps, which extrude a variety of compounds from the cell. Efflux pumps are ancestrally ancient proteins and their original function is often unknown, but some are known to export naturally occurring molecules that are toxic to the cell [1]. In addition, functional efflux pumps have been shown to be important for other cellular processes, such as virulence and biofilm formation in particular [2–5].
Efflux pumps play a major role in determining the intrinsic level of susceptibility of a bacterial species to a particular drug but can also cause further clinically important antibiotic resistance when they are over‐expressed. This can occur via mutations in local or global regulators [6–8], or by acquisition of insertion sequence (IS) elements that act as strong promoters upstream of efflux pump genes [9, 10]. Alternatively, new pump genes can be acquired on mobile genetic elements, for example, the mef and msr genes that encode macrolide transporters in Gram‐positive bacteria [11, 12].
While some efflux pumps have a narrow specificity, such as Tet pumps that confer high level resistance to tetracyclines [13], others known as multidrug efflux systems export a wide range of substrates, often including multiple antibiotics [1]. There are five known families of multidrug efflux pump (Figure 1.2):
Efflux pumps of the
resistance‐nodulation‐division
(
RND
) family are tripartite transporters found in Gram‐negative bacteria, which consist of an inner membrane pump, an outer membrane channel and a periplasmic adaptor protein that connects the two channels. Substrate export is powered by the proton motive force. The best studied example is the AcrAB–TolC pump which was initially discovered in
Escherichia coli
, but close homologs are widely distributed among Gram‐negative bacteria
[14]
.
Major facilitator superfamily
(
MFS
) pumps are the largest group of solute transporters and are responsible for most efflux‐mediated resistance in Gram‐positive bacteria [
15
,
16
], although they are also found in Gram‐negative bacteria
[17]
. They consist of a single polypeptide chain with 12 or 14 membrane spanning domains, with substrate efflux powered by the proton motive force. As an example, several members of this family cause clinically relevant resistance in
Staphylococcus aureus
. NorA confers resistance to fluoroquinolone antibiotics, QacA exports cationic lipophilic drugs, including biocides such as benzalkonium chloride, and LmrS exports a variety of agents such as lincomycin, linezolid, chloramphenicol and trimethoprim [
18
–
20
].
Small multidrug resistance
(
SMR
) transporters are, as the name suggests, small, having 110–120 amino acid proteins with four membrane spanning domains
[15]
. They form functional transporters by oligomerizing in the membrane, where they transport substrates using the proton motive force
[21]
. Examples include QacC from
S. aureus
and EmrA from
E. coli
, both of which transport toxic organic cations such as methyl viologen [
22
,
23
].
Multidrug and toxic compound extrusion
(
MATE
) efflux pumps are commonly found in Gram‐negative bacteria. Unlike RND pumps, they are formed from a single polypeptide chain with 12 membrane spanning domains. They obtain power for efflux using the proton motive force or sodium antiport mechanisms. Examples include VcrM from
Vibrio cholerae
, MepA from
S. aureus
and PmpM from
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
, which transport a variety of substrates including fluoroquinolones and benzalkonium chloride [
24
–
26
].
Some
ATP‐binding cassette
(
ABC
) transporters confer antibiotic resistance, such as PatAB from
Streptococcus pneumoniae
, which transports fluoroquinolones, and MacAB from
E. coli
which exports macrolides [
27
–
30
]. ABC transporters are a very widespread family of transporters found in all three kingdoms of life. They consist of four subunits: two membrane spanning domains and two ATP binding domains. The family of ABC transporters involved in substrate export are usually formed from homo‐ or heterodimers of two half‐transporters, each consisting of one membrane spanning domain and one nucleotide binding domain [
31
,
32
]. Unlike the other classes of multidrug efflux pumps, the ABC pumps are primary transporters, meaning that transport is coupled to ATP hydrolysis instead of ion transport.
Figure 1.2Multidrug efflux systems. There are five known classes of multidrug efflux systems, summarized here. RND, resistance‐nodulation‐division family; MATE, multidrug and toxic compound extrusion family; SMR, small multidrug resistance family; MFS, major facilitator superfamily; ABC, ATP‐binding cassette superfamily.
The molecular mechanisms of transport differ between the families of transporters and most are not well understood. In general, MDR efflux systems bind multiple substrates, transduce potential energy to power transport, and traffic the substrates in a unidirectional manner.
1.2.1.2 Reduced Entry (Permeability)
The intracellular concentration of an antibiotic can be reduced by preventing its entry into the cell. This mechanism is particularly relevant in Gram‐negative bacteria as the outer membrane forms an efficient permeability barrier. Many antibiotics diffuse across the outer membrane via porin proteins, which form relatively large, non‐selective channels allowing solutes to move across the membrane. The major porins in E. coli are OmpC and OmpF. Outer membrane permeability can be reduced, resulting in decreased permeability to antibiotics, by two mechanisms:
reducing expression of porins or replacing them with other porins that form smaller channels,
mutation of porin genes in ways which alter the permeability of the porin channel.
Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a good example of the effect of reduction of outer membrane permeability on antibiotic resistance. This bacterium is intrinsically resistant to many agents as it does not express many general diffusion porins, and instead produces smaller, dedicated porins to allow acquisition of nutrients [33, 34]. OprF, a homolog of OmpF, is expressed at high levels but mostly exists in a closed confirmation, while the open conformation is present at low levels [35]. Other changes in outer membrane protein expression have also been observed, for example, reduction in OprD expression causes resistance to the carbapenem imipenem [36]. Additionally, the MexAB‐OprM efflux pump is co‐regulated with OprD, leading to further imipenem resistance [37].
In E. coli and Salmonella spp. reduction in OmpF and OmpC levels can occur, often in conjunction with de‐repression of the AcrAB‐TolC efflux pump, which causes resistance to multiple antibiotics [38–40]. In Klebsiella pneumoniae, replacement of the major porins OmpK35 and OmpK36 with an alternative porin with a narrower channel, OmpK37, has a similar effect to porin loss [41].
Mutations that change the structure of porins, reducing their permeability to β‐lactam antibiotics have been found in mutation hotspots such as the L3 loop, which forms the constriction zone of OmpC/OmpF‐like porins [42].
Gram‐positive bacteria tend to be less intrinsically tolerant to antibiotics than Gram‐negative bacteria as they do not possess an outer membrane so are less able to control their permeability. However, reduced permeability to some drugs has been documented. For example, vancomycin intermediate S. aureus (VISA) produce a thickened cell wall. As vancomycin functions by binding peptidoglycan precursors and preventing cross‐linking, this thickened cell wall sequesters the vancomycin, increasing the concentration required to permeate through the cell wall and weaken its structure sufficiently to cause cell lysis [43].
1.2.2 Antibiotic Inactivation
Antibiotic resistance mediated by degradation or inactivation of an antibiotic before it reaches its target is achieved by either hydrolysis of a key structural feature of the antibiotic, or modification of the antibiotic structure by transfer of a chemical group.
1.2.2.1 Degradation by Hydrolysis
The main advantage of hydrolysis as a strategy for antibiotic inactivation is that the enzymatic reaction only requires water as a co‐substrate, meaning that degradative enzymes can function outside the cell. This means that enzymes can be extracellularly secreted and destroy antibiotics before they reach the bacterium.
The classic examples of antibiotic degradation by hydrolysis are the β‐lactamases, which inactivate β‐lactam antibiotics such as penicillin by hydrolyzing the key β‐lactam ring.
The β‐lactamase enzymes can be separated into two groups based on their mechanism of hydrolysis. The majority of β‐lactamases carry out hydrolysis by nucleophilic attack of the β‐lactam ring by a key active site serine residue. These enzymes can be further classified into three groups according to the systems of Bush or Ambler [44, 45]. The remaining β‐lactamases, forming class 3 under the Bush classification system and class B under the Ambler classification, are the metallo‐β‐lactamases, which catalyze hydrolysis by activation of a water molecule via a coordinated zinc ion [46].
Of particular current clinical concern is the prevalence of enzymes capable of hydrolyzing cephalosporins and carbapenems, the classes of β‐lactam antibiotics developed to combat the problem of increasing resistance to the penicillins and early cephalosporins. Extended‐spectrum β‐lactamases (ESBLs) that can hydrolyse third and fourth generation cephalosporins were identified in clinical isolates of K. pneumoniae and Serratia marcescens in the mid‐1980s [47–49]. These ESBLs, variants of the TEM‐1/2 and SHV‐1 penicillinases, contain point mutations in the active site that extend the substrate spectrum of the enzyme [48, 50]. Since then, several additional classes of non‐TEM and non‐SHV ESBL have been discovered, such as the widespread CTX‐M (reviewed in [51]) and OXA families [51–57].
Carbapenems are often used to treat infections caused by ESBL‐producing organisms as they are resistant to hydrolysis by most β‐lactamase enzymes. Several families of carbapenemase enzymes have been identified which are able to hydrolyze carbapenems in addition to other β‐lactams. These consist of serine active site enzymes belonging to groups A and D of the Ambler classification, and also metallo‐β‐lactamases belonging to group B. The most prevalent group A carbapenemases are the KPC family, which were initially detected in K. pneumoniae[58], but are often plasmid‐encoded so are widespread in various species of Enterobacteriaciae [59–64]. The class D carbapenemases primarily consist of variants of the OXA type ESBLs that also have weak carbapenem hydrolyzing activity [65]. Worldwide spread of carbapenem resistance caused by Group B enzymes (metallo‐β‐lactamases) in P. aeruginosa and the Enterobacteriaceae is predominantly caused by enzymes belonging to the VIM and IMP classes (reviewed in [66, 67]). Both families are found on class I integrons which facilitate their spread between bacteria. A particularly worrying example of this is the acquisition of the New Delhi metallo‐β‐lactamase 1 (NDM‐1) enzyme, which is able to inactivate all β‐lactam antibiotics except aztreonam, by a class I integron [68]. This element was originally found carried on a plasmid in K. pneumoniae that also carried multiple other resistance determinants, rendering the K. pneumoniae isolate resistant to all antibiotics except colistin and ciprofloxacin [68]. Spread of NDM‐1 onto other plasmids, mediated by the class I integron, has led to an increasing number of cases of disease caused by NDM‐1‐producing Enterobacteriaceae worldwide [69].
Macrolide esterase enzymes provide a further example of antibiotic degradation by hydrolysis. Macrolides are cyclic molecules and the ring structure is closed by an ester bond catalyzed by the thioesterase molecule of the polyketide synthetase [70]. It is this ester bond that is targeted by macrolide esterases. The first of these (ereA) was found in E. coli[71]. Macrolide esterases are not as common as other, ribosome modification macrolide resistance mechanisms (discussed below) but, where present, they result in very high levels of macrolide resistance, as is typical for enzyme‐based resistance [72]. They have been found to be disseminated on a class 2 integron [73], and have been found in Providencia stuartii, S aureus and Pseudomonas spp., as well as E. coli [74–76].
1.2.2.2 Modification by Transfer of a Chemical Group
The structure of antibiotics can be modified by addition of a variety of chemical groups to vulnerable hydroxyls and amines. Addition of these chemical side chains prevents efficient binding of the drugs to their targets. Groups transferred include acyl, nucleotidyl and phosphate groups and, less commonly, ribosyl, glycosyl or thiol groups. The variety of groups that can be transferred makes the group transfer enzymes the most diverse and largest family of antibiotic resistance enzymes known [77].
The aminoglycoside antibiotics provide a good example of the effects of group transfer resistance mechanisms. Aminoglycosides are a diverse class of molecules characterized by an aminocylitol nucleus linked to various amino sugar groups by glycosidic bonds. They function by occupying the A‐site of the ribosome and preventing binding of aminoacyl‐tRNA, which then disrupts protein synthesis [78, 79]. This process relies on specific interactions between key functional groups in the aminoglycoside molecule and residues in the ribosome A‐site. This binding interaction can be easily disrupted by chemical modification of vulnerable hydroxyl and amine groups found both on the aminocylitol nucleus and the sugar moieties. A wide range of aminoglycoside resistance enzymes therefore exist that can catalyze transfer of chemical groups to several different reactive centers within the molecule. Figure 1.3 shows the possible sites of modification of kanamycin as an example [80].
Figure 1.3Aminoglycoside modifying enzymes. Aminoglycosides are large molecules with several hydroxyl and amine groups that are vulnerable to modification by aminoglycoside modifying enzymes. To illustrate this, the possible modification sites of kanamycin are indicated here, along with the class of aminoglycoside modifying enzyme that can recognize each site. AAC, aminoglycoside acetyltransferase; ANT, aminoglycoside nucleotidyltransferase; APH, aminoglycoside phosphotransferase.
There are three types of aminoglycoside modifying enzyme: N‐acetyltransferases, which catalyze transfer of an acetyl group from acetyl‐CoA to an amine group; O‐phosphotransferases, which catalyze phosphorylation of hydroxyl groups; and O‐nucleotidyltransferases, which transfer adenine to hydroxyl groups using ATP as a co‐substrate. These enzymes are further classified, firstly by their stereospecificity, and then by the particular resistance profile they confer. There are four known classes of aminoglycoside acetyltransferase, five classes of aminoglycoside phosphotransferase and seven classes of aminoglycoside nucleotidyltransferase, which are differentiated by the position of the hydroxyl or amine group they modify [80]. New variants with different stereochemistry are generated by mutation of the enzyme active site, and many of these enzymes are encoded on mobile genetic elements allowing them to spread between different bacteria [77, 81].
These group transfer resistance mechanisms are not restricted to the aminoglycosides. For example, chloramphenicol resistance can also be conferred by acyltransferases. Chloramphenicol acetyltransferases are trimeric enzymes with two major types, A and B [82]. Again, this is a very diverse family of enzymes, with at least 16 known subfamilies of class A enzymes distributed throughout both Gram‐positive and Gram‐negative bacteria, and five subfamilies of class B enzymes mostly found in Gram‐negative species. A few macrolide kinases (MPHs) are also known, for example in E. coli [72, 83, 84] and S. aureus[85]. As for macrolide esterases, macrolide kinases are rare compared to ribosome modifying mechanisms but, where present, they confer very high levels of resistance [86]. Lin proteins adenylate lincosamides and clindamycin. Three such enzymes have been described in the Gram‐positive bacteria S. haemolyticus, S. aureus and Enterococcus faecium [87–89].
Acylation, phosphorylation, and adenylation are the most common types of group transfer mechanism conferring antibiotic resistance. However, other modifications do occur. O‐Glycosylation of antibiotic molecules is used as a self‐protection mechanism by antibiotic‐producing species such as Streptomyces lividans [90, 91], but has not been yet found as an antibiotic resistance mechanism in human pathogens. O‐Ribosylation, using NAD as an ADP‐ribosyl donor, is used as a mechanism of rifampin resistance by Mycobacterium smegmatis[92]. Genes encoding a similar system have also been found on class I integrons in Acinetobacter spp. [93]. Finally, thiol transfer is used as a mechanism of resistance to fosfomycin in some bacteria, as it inactivates the antibiotic by opening a key epoxide ring. The FosA fosfomycin resistance metalloenzyme, which catalyzes thiol transfer using glutathione as a co‐substrate, has been found encoded on several Gram‐negative plasmids and on the P. aeruginosa chromosome. An equivalent enzyme, FosB, has been found in Gram‐positive bacteria, encoded on staphylococcal plasmids and the Bacillus subtilis chromosome [94–96]. FosB uses cysteine as a co‐substrate as Gram‐positive bacteria do not produce glutathione [97].
1.2.3 Changes in Antibiotic Target
1.2.3.1 Molecular Modification of Target
Antibiotic targets can be modified either by mutation of the coding sequence or post‐transcriptionally by addition of chemical groups. Alternatively, bacteria can acquire dedicated resistance proteins that protect key intracellular targets. Finally, perhaps uniquely, some bacteria have acquired mechanisms of vancomycin resistance that involve changing the fundamental chemical composition of the cell wall to prevent antibiotic binding.
1.2.3.1.1 Mutational
The development of resistance to an antibiotic through mutation of the gene encoding the target protein is common, particularly for drugs where enzymatic mechanisms of resistance do not exist.
Fluoroquinolones are broad‐spectrum bacteriocidal antibiotics that function by inhibiting the type II topoisomerases DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV. DNA gyrase is a tetrameric enzyme formed from two GyrA and two GyrB subunits, which catalyzes the negative supercoiling of DNA. Topoisomerase II is also a tetrameric enzyme consisting of two ParC and two ParE subunits, which are responsible for decatenation of daughter chromosomes following DNA replication. Fluoroquinolone antibiotics inhibit the religation of double‐stranded breaks in the DNA created by these enzymes by stabilizing the enzyme‐DNA complex, which results in formation of lethal double‐stranded breaks in the DNA (reviewed in [98]). The main mechanism for the development of high‐level fluoroquinolone resistance in most bacteria is mutation within the quinolone‐resistance determining regions in the gyrA subunit of DNA gyrase and/or the parC subunit of topoisomerase II [99, 100]. These mutations alter the fluoroquinolone binding site, while still allowing the enzyme to function.
1.2.3.1.2 Post‐Translational Modification of Target
Modifications preventing antibiotic binding to an intracellular target can also be added post‐translation, often by methylation of the target. Resistance to antibiotics such as macrolides, lincosamides and streptogramin, which all target the 50S ribosomal subunit, can be conferred by methylation of a particular adenine residue in the 23S ribosomal RNA (A2058 in E. coli; [101]). The methylation is catalyzed by the Erm (erythromycin resistance methylase) protein. There are more than thirty known classes of Erm protein, and the erm gene is often found on transferrable elements, making ribosome methylation the predominant mechanism of macrolide resistance.
1.2.3.1.3 Target Protection
As discussed earlier, fluoroquinolone resistance is most commonly caused by chromosomal topoisomerase mutations. However, several plasmid‐mediated mechanisms of quinolone resistance have been discovered in bacteria. One of these mechanisms is conferred by the Qnr proteins. These proteins belong to the pentapeptide repeat protein family, which are characterized by containing several tandem A(D/N)LXX repeats [102]. The first of these, QnrA, was found encoded on a plasmid from a clinical isolate of K. pneumoniae [103, 104]. QnrA binds to DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV early in their catalytic cycle, reducing DNA binding, and it has been suggested that this reduces the number of topoisomerase holoenzyme‐DNA targets available for fluoroquinolones to inhibit [105, 106].
A target protection mechanism conferring tetracycline resistance has also been observed. Tetracyclines inhibit binding of aminoacyl tRNA to the A‐site of the ribosome [107]. Tetracycline resistance can be mediated by acquisition of ribosome protection proteins (RPPs), which catalyze release of tetracycline molecules from the ribosome, allowing protein synthesis to proceed. There are 11 known types of RPP [13], but the best studied are Tet(O) from Campylobacter jejuni and Tet(M) from Streptococcus spp. [108]. RPPs are GTPases in the translation factor superfamily [109] and are similar in structure to ribosomal elongation factors EF‐G and EF‐Tu [110]. In the presence of GTP they dislodge tetracycline from the ribosome, increasing the concentration of tetracycline required for inhibition [111, 112].
1.2.3.1.4 Other Mechanisms of Target Modification
Some Gram‐positive bacteria have developed resistance to glycopeptide antibiotics such as vancomycin by an unusual antibiotic target modification strategy.
Unlike the β‐lactams, which also inhibit cell wall biosynthesis, vancomycin functions by binding to the D‐Ala‐D‐Ala C‐terminus of peptidoglycan pentapeptide precursors, preventing their successful incorporation into the peptidoglycan. This means that the antibiotic does not interact directly with any of the cell wall biosynthesis enzymes, so resistance cannot be conferred simply by amino acid substitutions in a target protein. Instead, vancomycin resistance is conferred by the presence of alternative biosynthetic genes that produce peptidoglycan precursors with altered C‐terminal ends. Six vancomycin resistance systems have been identified to date, but all of these result in production of either D‐Ala‐D‐Lac (VanA, VanB and VanD) or D‐Ala‐D‐Ser (VanC, VanE and VanG) pentapeptide termini [113]. The most common type of vancomycin resistance mechanism is VanA, which was first detected in E. faecium[114]. This is encoded by a nine‐gene operon which is transferred on a Tn1546 ‐like transposon, and it is particularly worrying from a clinical perspective as it causes high level vancomycin resistance and, to date, is the only vancomycin resistance system that has spread into S. aureus, although this remains rare to date [113]. Most of the vancomycin resistance operons are spread by mobile genetic elements and therefore are a system of acquired resistance [114]. However, VanC‐type resistance, which is encoded by a three gene operon that catalyzes formation of D‐Ala‐D‐Ser termini, confers intrinsic, low‐level vancomycin resistance in Enterococcus species [115, 116].
1.2.4 Metabolic Bypass and Titration
The resistance mechanisms described earlier all center around preventing the drug from reaching and binding to its cellular target. An alternative mechanism employed by some bacteria is to find a way to carry out the cellular process normally blocked by the antibiotic, despite binding of the drug to the target. The inhibited step of a metabolic reaction can be bypassed by acquisition of an alternative enzyme that can carry out the required reaction but is not inhibited by the antibiotic. Alternatively, the target enzyme can be overproduced, such that the concentration of drug required for complete inhibition is increased.
A high‐profile example of a metabolic bypass resistance mechanism is seen in β‐lactam resistance in methicillin‐resistant S. aureus (MRSA). The β‐lactam antibiotics act by inhibiting the transpeptidase reaction catalyzed by peptidoglycan cross‐linking enzymes known as penicillin binding proteins (PBPs) (reviewed in [117]). This leads to cell lysis as the bacterium grows and the unlinked cell wall is unable to counter the internal osmotic pressure. As discussed earlier, bacteria often develop resistance to β‐lactams by acquiring genes encoding β‐lactamase enzymes that inactivate the drug extracellularly. However, other bacteria develop β‐lactam resistance by acquisition or evolution of alternative PBPs that can catalyze peptidoglycan cross‐linking but are not inhibited by β‐lactam antibiotics. MRSA have developed resistance to many β‐lactam antibiotics by acquisition of the PBP2A enzyme encoded by the mecA gene carried on the SCCmec mobile genetic element that is characteristic of MRSA [118]. This enzyme consists of a penicillin‐insensitive transpeptidase domain, which can work with the transglycosylase domain of the native PBP2 enzyme to maintain cell wall biosynthesis when the transpeptidase domain of the native enzyme is inhibited [119, 120].
Another example of metabolic bypass is seen in the resistance mechanisms of some bacteria to the sulfonamide class of antibiotics and trimethoprim, which inhibit different stages of the synthesis of the essential nutrient folate. Sulfonamides inhibit dihydropteroate synthase (DHPS), which converts para‐aminobenzoic acid to dihydropteroate [121]. Trimethoprim disrupts a later step in the pathway by competitively inhibiting the bacterial dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR) enzyme, which converts dihydrofolate to tetrahydrofolate [122]. Trimethoprim and the sulfonamide sulfamethoxazole are often used together in a combination called co‐trimoxazole as they have slightly different spectra of action among pathogenic bacteria [123]. Bacterial resistance to both agents occurs primarily through metabolic bypass mechanisms, where bacteria acquire a drug resistant version of the relevant biosynthesis enzyme that allows production of folate despite the presence of the drug. While chromosomal mutations causing drug insensitivity have been observed [124–127], more commonly drug resistant versions of an enzyme, which originated in intrinsically resistant species, are transferred on mobile genetic elements. There are twenty trimethoprim resistant dhfr variants, and two sulfonamide resistant dhps genes (sulI and sulII) that are known to be transferrable (reviewed in [128, 129]). Use of the co‐trimoxazole combination therapy was expected to prevent development of resistance as it inhibits two stages of the folate synthesis pathway. However, this has not entirely prevented resistance as bacteria can acquire resistance to both agents, for example by co‐transfer of trimethoprim and sulfonamide resistance genes on Tn21 transposons [130].
Resistance to trimethoprim can also be conferred by overproduction of the antibiotic target. Chromosomal mutations in the promoter of dhfr have been observed in Haemophilus influenzae, which cause over‐expression of the gene [131]. Overproduction of DHFR increases the number of enzymes available to carry out the reductase reaction, which increases the amount of trimethoprim required to achieve sufficient inhibition of reductase activity to have the desired antibacterial effect.
1.3 Acquisition and Transfer of Resistance
1.3.1 Intrinsic Resistance
Intrinsic resistance (otherwise known as inherent or innate resistance) can be defined as a relatively high tolerance to a specific antibiotic that is common to all members of a particular bacterial species. A bacterial species may be more tolerant to a drug than another species for various reasons. Differences in levels of uptake of drugs between bacterial species can be a general mechanism of tolerance to multiple antibiotic classes. P. aeruginosa, as mentioned earlier, naturally accumulates lower levels of antibiotics intracellularly than other Gram‐negative bacteria due to its low membrane permeability and expression of multidrug efflux pumps [132]. Alternatively, specific classes of antibiotic may be unable to enter certain bacterial species for biochemical reasons. For example, anaerobic bacteria, such as Bacteroides and Clostridium spp., are intrinsically resistant to most aminoglycoside antibiotics as the mechanism of aminoglycoside uptake is dependent on the presence of a functional electron transport chain [133].
In some species the antibiotic target may not be present or may be significantly altered in structure such that the drug is not active. For example, P. aeruginosa is intrinsically resistant to the biocide triclosan that attacks FabI, an enzyme involved in fatty acid biosynthesis, as this species possesses an alternative allele that is drug resistant [134].
Intrinsic antibiotic resistance can also be conferred by the presence of chromosomally encoded resistance mechanisms that are common to all members of a species. There are many examples of this. Some Enterobacter and Citrobacter species express a chromosomally encoded cephalosporinase, AmpC, which causes clinically relevant resistance to some β‐lactams induced in the presence of the drug [135–137]. VanC‐type vancomycin resistance is chromosomally encoded in Enterococcus gallinarum, Enterococcus casseliflavus and Enterococcus flavescens, as discussed above. In a non‐clinical setting antibiotic‐producing bacteria carry genes that confer self‐resistance to the antibiotic that they produce [138], and soil dwelling bacteria often contain determinants causing resistance to antimicrobial compounds produced by other soil organisms such as fungi [139, 140]. Transferrable resistance genes that cause acquired resistance in normally susceptible bacteria can often be traced back to the capture of chromosomal genes from a species with intrinsic drug resistance by a mobile genetic element [141].
1.3.2 Acquired Resistance
1.3.2.1 Mutation
Due to their short generation times, large populations and haploid genome structure, bacteria can rapidly acquire antibiotic resistance through mutation. Mutational resistance to many antibiotics can be easily selected in vitro and has been recorded in most bacteria. It is particularly clinically relevant in bacterial species that do not participate in horizontal gene transfer, such as Mycobacterium tuberculosis[142].
Additionally, mutation is important for the development of clinical resistance to synthetic antibiotics for which there is little or no natural reservoir of resistance genes [137]. For example, mutation of topoisomerase genes is the predominant mechanism of resistance to fluoroquinolones [100], and mutation of 23S rRNA is a frequently reported resistance mechanism for the oxazolidinone antibiotic linezolid [143, 144].
1.3.2.2 Horizontal Gene Transfer
Another way by which bacteria can develop antibiotic resistance is by acquisition of an exogenous resistance gene from the environment or another bacterium in a process called horizontal gene transfer. Resistance elements can come from antibiotic‐producing bacteria [138] or environmental species living in competition with fungi, plants, etc., that produce antibacterial compounds [140].
There are three major mechanisms of gene transfer, which correspond to the three methods by which bacteria acquire exogenous DNA (summarized in Figure 1.4):
Transformation:
Transformation is the uptake of free DNA from the environment, and its subsequent recombination into the genome. This DNA can be in the form of plasmids, or chromosomal DNA from dying cells. About 60 species of bacteria are known to be naturally competent, meaning that they actively take up DNA from their environment
[144]
. It is especially prevalent among bacteria colonizing the upper respiratory tract such as
Streptococcus
spp. and
H. influenzae
[145]
. Resistance to
β
‐lactams in
S. pneumoniae
is typically caused by recombination of the gene encoding the major penicillin binding protein PBPX with homologous DNA from the closely related
Streptococcus
mitis
acquired by transformation. This results in mosaic forms of
pbpX
resulting in an altered protein to which
β
‐lactams cannot bind
[146]
.
Transduction:
