Volume 18, Issue 11, Pages (November 2011)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Matthew D. Disney, Peter H. Seeberger  Chemistry & Biology 
Advertisements

John Hines, Michael Groll, Margaret Fahnestock, Craig M. Crews 
Development of Antibiotic Activity Profile Screening for the Classification and Discovery of Natural Product Antibiotics  Weng Ruh Wong, Allen G. Oliver,
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages (January 2014)
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages (January 2014)
Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages (February 2013)
Volume 18, Issue 8, Pages (August 2011)
Volume 23, Issue 2, Pages (February 2016)
Antibiotic tolerance in pneumococci
Casey C. Fowler, Eric D. Brown, Yingfu Li  Chemistry & Biology 
Leigh K. Harris, Julie A. Theriot  Trends in Microbiology 
The Binding of Antibiotics in OmpF Porin
Volume 16, Issue 8, Pages (August 2009)
Volume 125, Issue 4, Pages (May 2006)
Volume 18, Issue 8, Pages (August 2011)
Collapsing the Proton Motive Force to Identify Synergistic Combinations against Staphylococcus aureus  Maya A. Farha, Chris P. Verschoor, Dawn Bowdish,
Volume 20, Issue 12, Pages (December 2013)
Volume 19, Issue 2, Pages (February 2012)
John Hines, Michael Groll, Margaret Fahnestock, Craig M. Crews 
Antibiotic Education: Not Just Another Brick in the Cell Wall
Volume 52, Issue 1, Pages (October 2013)
Volume 22, Issue 10, Pages (October 2015)
Volume 21, Issue 4, Pages (April 2014)
A Revised Pathway Proposed for Staphylococcus aureus Wall Teichoic Acid Biosynthesis Based on In Vitro Reconstitution of the Intracellular Steps  Stephanie.
Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages (February 2013)
Cyclolization of D-Lysergic Acid Alkaloid Peptides
Small Molecule Fluoride Toxicity Agonists
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages (March 2016)
Volume 23, Issue 10, Pages (October 2016)
Volume 1, Issue 2, Pages (August 2015)
Volume 16, Issue 8, Pages (August 2009)
Development of Antibiotic Activity Profile Screening for the Classification and Discovery of Natural Product Antibiotics  Weng Ruh Wong, Allen G. Oliver,
A Metabolomic View of Staphylococcus aureus and Its Ser/Thr Kinase and Phosphatase Deletion Mutants: Involvement in Cell Wall Biosynthesis  Manuel Liebeke,
Structure-Guided Design of Fluorescent S-Adenosylmethionine Analogs for a High- Throughput Screen to Target SAM-I Riboswitch RNAs  Scott F. Hickey, Ming C.
Volume 22, Issue 11, Pages (November 2015)
Volume 18, Issue 11, Pages (November 2011)
Miquel Duran-Frigola, Patrick Aloy  Chemistry & Biology 
Chemical Genomic Approaches to Study Model Microbes
Yoshikazu Kawai, Romain Mercier, Jeff Errington  Current Biology 
Volume 18, Issue 5, Pages (May 2011)
Andy Weiss, Renee M. Fleeman, Lindsey N. Shaw  Cell Chemical Biology 
Control of Cell Morphogenesis in Bacteria
Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages (February 2015)
Johnson Cheung, Michael E.P. Murphy, David E. Heinrichs 
Volume 21, Issue 3, Pages (March 2014)
Volume 24, Issue 8, Pages e4 (August 2017)
Broad-Spectrum Antibiotic Activity of the Arylomycin Natural Products Is Masked by Natural Target Mutations  Peter A. Smith, Tucker C. Roberts, Floyd.
Staphylococcus aureus and Bacillus subtilis W23 Make Polyribitol Wall Teichoic Acids Using Different Enzymatic Pathways  Stephanie Brown, Timothy Meredith,
Volume 16, Issue 5, Pages (May 2009)
Volume 18, Issue 11, Pages (November 2011)
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages (January 2013)
Volume 24, Issue 12, Pages e5 (December 2017)
One Enzyme, Three Metabolites: Shewanella algae Controls Siderophore Production via the Cellular Substrate Pool  Sina Rütschlin, Sandra Gunesch, Thomas.
Toward the Pathway of S. aureus WTA Biosynthesis
Protein Misfolded Oligomers: Experimental Approaches, Mechanism of Formation, and Structure-Toxicity Relationships  Francesco Bemporad, Fabrizio Chiti 
Volume 17, Issue 11, Pages (November 2010)
Leigh K. Harris, Julie A. Theriot  Trends in Microbiology 
Tradeoffs and Optimality in the Evolution of Gene Regulation
Protein Kinase D Inhibitors Uncouple Phosphorylation from Activity by Promoting Agonist-Dependent Activation Loop Phosphorylation  Maya T. Kunkel, Alexandra C.
Volume 18, Issue 12, Pages (December 2011)
Nathan W. Goehring, Jon Beckwith  Current Biology 
Analyzing Fission Yeast Multidrug Resistance Mechanisms to Develop a Genetically Tractable Model System for Chemical Biology  Shigehiro A. Kawashima,
Brandon Ho, Anastasia Baryshnikova, Grant W. Brown  Cell Systems 
Kiyohiko Kawai, Yasuko Osakada, Mamoru Fujitsuka, Tetsuro Majima 
Molecular Similarity Analysis Uncovers Heterogeneous Structure-Activity Relationships and Variable Activity Landscapes  Lisa Peltason, Jürgen Bajorath 
Matthew D. Disney, Peter H. Seeberger  Chemistry & Biology 
Volume 18, Issue 11, Pages (November 2011)
Volume 8, Issue 11, Pages (November 2001)
Matthew D. Disney, Peter H. Seeberger  Chemistry & Biology 
Lateral Opening and Exit Pore Formation Are Required for BamA Function
Presentation transcript:

Volume 18, Issue 11, Pages 1379-1389 (November 2011) Antagonism of Chemical Genetic Interaction Networks Resensitize MRSA to β-Lactam Antibiotics  Sang Ho Lee, Lisa Wang Jarantow, Hao Wang, Susan Sillaots, Henry Cheng, Timothy C. Meredith, John Thompson, Terry Roemer  Chemistry & Biology  Volume 18, Issue 11, Pages 1379-1389 (November 2011) DOI: 10.1016/j.chembiol.2011.08.015 Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Antisense Induction of mecA (Pbp2A) and Restored MRSA COL Susceptibility to Imipenem (A) Schematic of antisense interference and relationship between antisense induction and protein depletion as a function of xylose induction level. (B) Example of restored susceptibility of MRSA COL to imipenem by xylose inducible antisense depletion of mecA. MRSA COL are seeded in agar chambers with varying concentrations of xylose (0 μM, right, to 100 μM, left), and imipenem are spotted horizontally at three concentrations. The increase in xylose concentration results in increasing susceptibility of MRSA COL to imipenem due to depletion of Pbp2A protein by antisense interference. See also Table S1. Chemistry & Biology 2011 18, 1379-1389DOI: (10.1016/j.chembiol.2011.08.015) Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 MRSA COL Chemical Genetic Interaction Map by Antisense Interference (A) MRSA COL chemical genetic interaction map of noncell wall antibiotics. Chemical genetic interactions are depicted as connecting lines between genes (blue circle) and antibiotics (green squares). Lines are colored according to qualitative scores assigned for the level of hypersensitivity between compound and target gene as red (3+, strong), orange (2+, medium), blue (1+, mild), or dashed black (0+, no hypersensitivity despite expectation a phenotype would be observed). Antibiotics tested include levofloxacin (Levo), ciprofloxacin (Cipro), cerulenin (Cer), azithromycin (Azi), trimethoprim (Tri), and linezolid (Lin). (B) Representative hypersensitization phenotypes of members of the noncell wall antibiotic set. COL antisense bearing strains were seeded in LB agar plates supplemented with 50 mM xylose to induce modest antisense expression (top row) or without xylose (bottom row) that serves as negative control for gene-specific hypersusceptibility phenotypes. Representative chemical genetic qualitative scores are shown. (C) COL genetic potentiation map of cell wall antibiotics. Chemical genetic interactions are depicted as described in (A). Antibiotics tested include imipenem (Imi), ertapenem (Ert), cefepime (Cef), ceftazidime (Ceftra), ceftriaxone (Ceftri), piperacillin/tazobactam (PipT), vancomycin (Van), and the SAV1754 inhibitors, DMPI, CDFI, and compound D (CmpdD). (D) Representative qualitative scores for cefepime hypersusceptibility was performed as described in (B), using antisense strains corresponding to the known auxiliary genes reported to contribute to β-lactam susceptibility; fmhB (3+), murE (2+), and glmM (1+). Note, murZ (0+) is used as a negative control based on the presence of a functional paralog, murA, which buffers the effect of a mild depletion of murZ. See also Figures S2, S3, and S4 and Table S1. Chemistry & Biology 2011 18, 1379-1389DOI: (10.1016/j.chembiol.2011.08.015) Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Schematic Representation of Coordinated Cell Wall Biosynthesis and Cell Division in S. Aureus Peptidoglycan synthesis starts in the cytoplasm with the conversion of fructose-6-P to UDP-N-acetyl-glucosamine (UDP-GlcNAc) by GlmS, GlmM, and GlmU enzymes. The final soluble precursor, UDP-MurNAc-pentapeptide (UDP-MurNAc) is produced by the sequential action of the MurA to MurF enzymes. Lipid I (undecaprenylphosphate-MurNAc-pentapeptide) is formed at the membrane by MraY, which transfers the soluble UDP- MurNAc-pentapeptide to undecaprenylphosphate (C55-P). MurG links UDP-GlcNAc to lipid I, producing lipid II (undecaprenylphosphate-GlcNAc-MurNAc-pentapeptide). Lipid II is further modified in S. aureus, by the addition of 5 glycine residues, catalyzed by FemXAB enzymes; such interpeptide bridges occur in most Gram-positive bacteria, but may vary in composition and length. Finally, lipid II is translocated across the membrane by an unknown mechanism, of which both SAV1754 and FtsW have been proposed. Extracellular peptidoglycan units are incorporated into the nascent peptidoglycan network through the activity of PBPs by transglycosylation (TG) and transpeptidation (TP) reactions. Chemistry & Biology 2011 18, 1379-1389DOI: (10.1016/j.chembiol.2011.08.015) Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Representative Hypersusceptibility Phenotypes of Members of the Cell Wall Genetic Potentiation Map (A) PBP hypersusceptibility of antisense bearing strains to pbpA (top left), pbp2 (top right), pbp3 (middle left), and pbp2A (middle right) under partial antisense induction (plus 50 mM xylose) versus the negative control, pbp2-AS (bottom left) assayed identically but without antisense induction (minus xylose). Antibiotics are spotted according to grid coordinates (bottom right). (B) Cell division (Fts) hypersusceptibility of antisense bearing strains to ftsZ (top left), ftsA (top right), and ftsW (bottom left) under partial antisense induction (plus 50 mM xylose) versus the negative control, ftsW-AS assayed identically but without antisense induction (bottom right). (C) Antisense bearing strains corresponding to tarL (top left), SAV1892 (top right), and hu (bottom left) under partial antisense induction (plus 50 mM xylose) versus the negative control, tarL-AS assayed identically but without antisense induction (bottom right). Chemistry & Biology 2011 18, 1379-1389DOI: (10.1016/j.chembiol.2011.08.015) Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 USA300 Genetic Potentiation Map of Cell Wall Antibiotics (A) Chemical genetic interactions are depicted as described in Figure 2. (B) Antisense bearing strains corresponding to ftsZ (top left), tarL (top right), and spsB (bottom left) under partial antisense induction (plus 50 mM xylose) versus the negative control (USA300 maintaining the antisense vector without antisense interference fragment) assayed identically in the presence of optimized xylose concentrations (12.5–50 mM). Chemistry & Biology 2011 18, 1379-1389DOI: (10.1016/j.chembiol.2011.08.015) Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 6 Synergistic Activity between Nva-FMDP and β-Lactam Antibiotics (A) Nva-FMDP (256 μg) and imipenem (3 μg) spotted separately or co-spotted on COL seeded plate reveals potentiation between the two agents. (B) Same as (A) but with 20 mM GlcNAc supplemented to the plate. (C) COL glmS-AS strain under partial antisense induction (20 mM xylose) confers prominent hypersensitivity to Nva-FMDP and imipenem; enhanced potentiation is observed by co-spotting these agents. (D) Same as (C) but with 20 mM GlcNAc supplemented to the plate. (E) Nva-FMDP and imipenem checkerboard assays against COL, USA300, and MRSE. FIC of each antibiotic pair are plotted. Synergism is achieved with combinations of the two agents fully inhibiting growth with individual FIC values yielding a sum FICI of ≤0.5 (indicated by the black diagonal line). USA300 β-lactam susceptibility is inoculum dependent; accordingly checkerboard assays were performed under standard (1×) inoculum cell density and 10× normal cell density. See also Figure S1 and Table S2. Chemistry & Biology 2011 18, 1379-1389DOI: (10.1016/j.chembiol.2011.08.015) Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions