Quinolone Resistance Reversion by Targeting the SOS Response
Díaz Alba, P.
Docobo Pérez, Fernando
Rodríguez Beltrán, Jerónimo
Rodríguez Martínez, José Manuel
|Departamento||Universidad de Sevilla. Departamento de Microbiología|
|Resumen||Suppression of the SOS response has been postulated as a therapeutic strategy for potentiating antimicrobial agents. We aimed to evaluate the impact of its suppression on reversing resistance using a model of isogenic ...
Suppression of the SOS response has been postulated as a therapeutic strategy for potentiating antimicrobial agents. We aimed to evaluate the impact of its suppression on reversing resistance using a model of isogenic strains of Escherichia coli representing multiple levels of quinolone resistance. E. coli mutants exhibiting a spectrum of SOS activity were constructed from isogenic strains carrying quinolone resistance mechanisms with susceptible and resistant phenotypes. Changes in susceptibility were evaluated by static (MICs) and dynamic (killing curves or flow cytometry) methodologies. A peritoneal sepsis murine model was used to evaluate in vivo impact. Suppression of the SOS response was capable of resensitizing mutant strains with genes encoding three or four different resistance mechanisms (up to 15-fold reductions in MICs). Killing curve assays showed a clear disadvantage for survival (Δlog10 CFU per milliliter [CFU/ml] of 8 log units after 24 h), and the in vivo efficacy of ciprofloxacin was significantly enhanced (Δlog10 CFU/g of 1.76 log units) in resistant strains with a suppressed SOS response. This effect was evident even after short periods (60 min) of exposure. Suppression of the SOS response reverses antimicrobial resistance across a range of E. coli phenotypes from reduced susceptibility to highly resistant, playing a significant role in increasing the in vivo efficacy.
|Cita||Recacha, E., Machuca, J., Díaz Alba, P., Docobo Pérez, F.M., Rodríguez Beltrán, J. y Rodríguez Martínez, J.M. (2017). Quinolone Resistance Reversion by Targeting the SOS Response. mBio, 8 (5), 1-17.|