The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2021
In vitro evolution of cefepime/zidebactam (WCK 5222) resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: dynamics, mechanisms, fitness trade-off and impact on in vivo efficacy.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Barceló Isabel, Cabot Gabriel, Palwe Snehal, Joshi Prashant, Takalkar Swapna, Periasamy Hariharan, Cortés-Lara Sara, Zamorano Laura, Sánchez-Diener Irina, Moya Bartolome, Bhagwat Sachin, Patel Mahesh, Oliver Antonio
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To study the dynamics, mechanisms and fitness cost of resistance selection to cefepime, zidebactam and cefepime/zidebactam in Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
METHODS: WT P. aeruginosa PAO1 and its ΔmutS derivative (PAOMS) were exposed to stepwise increasing concentrations of cefepime, zidebactam and cefepime/zidebactam. Selected mutants were characterized for change in susceptibility profiles, acquired mutations, fitness, virulence and in vivo susceptibility to cefepime/zidebactam. Mutations were identified through WGS. In vitro fitness was assessed by measuring growth in minimal medium and human serum-supplemented Mueller-Hinton broth. Virulence was determined in Caenorhabditis elegans and neutropenic mice lung infection models. In vivo susceptibility to a human-simulated regimen (HSR) of cefepime/zidebactam was studied in neutropenic mice lung infection.
RESULTS: Resistance development was lower for the cefepime/zidebactam combination than for the individual components and high-level resistance was only achieved for PAOMS. Cefepime resistance development was associated with mutations leading to the hyperexpression of AmpC or MexXY-OprM, combined with PBP3 mutations and/or large chromosomal deletions involving galU. Zidebactam resistance was mainly associated with mutations in PBP2. On the other hand, resistance to cefepime/zidebactam required multiple mutations in genes encoding MexAB-OprM and its regulators, as well as PBP2 and PBP3. Cumulatively, these mutations inflicted significant fitness cost and cefepime/zidebactam-resistant mutants (MIC = 16-64 mg/L) remained susceptible in vivo to the HSR.
CONCLUSIONS: Development of cefepime/zidebactam resistance in P. aeruginosa required multiple simultaneous mutations that were associated with a significant impairment of fitness and virulence.
METHODS: WT P. aeruginosa PAO1 and its ΔmutS derivative (PAOMS) were exposed to stepwise increasing concentrations of cefepime, zidebactam and cefepime/zidebactam. Selected mutants were characterized for change in susceptibility profiles, acquired mutations, fitness, virulence and in vivo susceptibility to cefepime/zidebactam. Mutations were identified through WGS. In vitro fitness was assessed by measuring growth in minimal medium and human serum-supplemented Mueller-Hinton broth. Virulence was determined in Caenorhabditis elegans and neutropenic mice lung infection models. In vivo susceptibility to a human-simulated regimen (HSR) of cefepime/zidebactam was studied in neutropenic mice lung infection.
RESULTS: Resistance development was lower for the cefepime/zidebactam combination than for the individual components and high-level resistance was only achieved for PAOMS. Cefepime resistance development was associated with mutations leading to the hyperexpression of AmpC or MexXY-OprM, combined with PBP3 mutations and/or large chromosomal deletions involving galU. Zidebactam resistance was mainly associated with mutations in PBP2. On the other hand, resistance to cefepime/zidebactam required multiple mutations in genes encoding MexAB-OprM and its regulators, as well as PBP2 and PBP3. Cumulatively, these mutations inflicted significant fitness cost and cefepime/zidebactam-resistant mutants (MIC = 16-64 mg/L) remained susceptible in vivo to the HSR.
CONCLUSIONS: Development of cefepime/zidebactam resistance in P. aeruginosa required multiple simultaneous mutations that were associated with a significant impairment of fitness and virulence.