Death Toll to Per­sis­ters

by S. Mar­vin Fried­man

The dis­con­cert­ing abil­ity of bac­te­ria to evade death from treat­ment with an­tibi­otics is achieved with two dis­tinct strate­gies, re­sis­tance and tol­er­ance. Re­sis­tance oc­curs by a va­ri­ety of mech­a­nisms, in­clud­ing drug ef­flux and/or pre­vent­ing the drug from bind­ing by mod­i­fy­ing ei­ther the drug it­self or its tar­get. Tol­er­ance, on the other hand, is a char­ac­ter­is­tic of a sub­pop­u­la­tion of nor­mal cells known as "per­sis­ters." This phe­nom­e­non was first de­scribed by J. W. Big­ger in 1944 who found that some mem­bers of a pop­u­la­tion of Staphy­lo­coc­cus au­reus sur­vived treat­ment with peni­cillin. Path­ways lead­ing to tol­er­ance have been stud­ied ex­ten­sively in Es­cherichia coli, where they have been shown to be highly re­dun­dant and there­fore hard to com­bat. At long last, the work of Lewis and col­lab­o­ra­tors sug­gests that a com­bi­na­tion of an­tibi­otics mat be the an­swer to this mode of bac­te­r­ial de­fense.

Per­sis­tence Counts

Here's how per­sis­ters arise: given that most an­tibi­otics work on grow­ing bac­te­ria, slow­ing down their me­tab­o­lism will make them in­sen­si­tive to the drugs. Nor­mally, a small pro­por­tion of cells in the pop­u­la­tion spon­ta­neously en­ter a state of re­versible dor­mancy. Com­monly, this is thought to take place through the ac­tion of toxin-an­ti­toxin mod­ules. An ex­am­ple of such a mech­a­nism re­lies on the ac­tiv­ity of the HipA toxin, a ki­nase that phos­pho­ry­lates a glu­tamyl-trans­fer RNA syn­thetase. This leads to the over­pro­duc­tion of the sig­nal­ing mol­e­cule ℗ppGpp and the ac­ti­va­tion of the strin­gent re­sponse, which shuts down the syn­the­sis of about 1/3 the genes of the bac­terium and thereby leads to dor­mancy. But there are other dor­mancy path­ways as well and their mul­ti­plic­ity makes find­ing a drug that in­hibits the de­vel­op­ment of per­sis­tence a fu­tile task. Thus, re­searchers have re­cently turned their at­ten­tion to the search for agents that would "cor­rupt" a tar­get in per­sis­tent S. au­reus cells lo­cated within a biofilm.

Fig­ure 1. ADEP‑4, a syn­thetic de­riv­a­tive of the nat­ural acyldep­sipep­tide an­tibi­otic ADEP. Source

Be­fore dis­cussing the pa­per in ques­tion, note that the theme of per­sis­tence has been of­ten linked to that of biofilm for­ma­tion. This is ap­peal­ing be­cause bac­te­ria in biofilms of­ten be­come in­sen­si­tive to an­tibi­otics, ergo can turn into per­sis­ters. Many chronic in­fec­tions have been shown to in­volve biofilms, in­clud­ing os­teomyelitis, en­do­cardi­tis, deep-seated in­fec­tions of soft tis­sues, gin­givi­tis, in­fec­tions of catheters and other in­dwelling de­vices. Par­tic­u­lar at­ten­tion has ben paid to the emer­gence of per­sis­ters in Pseudomonas aerug­i­nosa biofilms.

An­tibi­otics That In­duce Sui­cide

A novel fam­ily of an­tibi­otics known as acyldep­sipep­tides (ADEPs) pro­duced by Strep­to­myces hawai­ien­sis were deemed to be can­di­dates for anti-per­sis­tent ther­apy. The mode of ac­tion of these drugs is quite novel, at least to me. The likely rea­son is that this class of an­tibi­otics has not seen the light of clin­i­cal day be­cause bac­te­ria rapidly be­come re­sis­tant to them. No mat­ter, their mode of ac­tion is unique. They work by open­ing the pore in the mol­e­cule of the nearly ubiq­ui­tous Clp pro­tease. This nor­mally nar­row and se­lec­tive chan­nel in the ClpP sub­unit of the en­zyme per­mits slen­der un­folded pro­tein mol­e­cules to en­ter, lead­ing them to de­struc­tion. En­larg­ing the pore turns the en­zyme into an om­ni­vore that is able to de­grade many pro­teins nor­mally im­per­vi­ous to its ac­tiv­ity, with dire con­se­quences for the bac­terium. Would these drugs work with non-grow­ing bac­te­ria and in­duce them to com­mit sui­cide? The re­searchers in the Lewis lab ex­posed sta­tion­ary phase cells of me­thi­cillin-re­sis­tant S. au­reus (MRSA) to a more po­tent syn­thetic ADEP de­riv­a­tive, ADEP4, for a pro­longed 24 hours and ex­am­ined the re­sult­ing pro­teome. Of 1,712 pro­teins (65% of the pre­dicted open read­ing frames) de­tected in con­trol cells, 417 were de­graded in the treated cells. Among the most fre­quent ca­su­al­ties were ri­bo­so­mal pro­teins, FtsZ (which forms the cell di­vi­sion ring), and en­zymes in­volved in purine me­tab­o­lism, gly­col­y­sis, and aminoa­cyl-tRNA biosyn­the­sis.

Fig­ure 2. Model of biofilm re­sis­tance based on per­sis­ter sur­vival. An ini­tial treat­ment with an­tibi­otic kills plank­tonic cells and the ma­jor­ity of biofilm cells. The im­mune sys­tem kills plank­tonic per­sis­ters, but the biofilm per­sis­ter cells are pro­tected from host de­fenses by the ex­opolysac­cha­ride ma­trix. Af­ter the an­tibi­otic con­cen­tra­tion drops, per­sis­ters res­ur­rect the biofilm and the in­fec­tion re­lapses. Source

These pro­teomic data sug­gest that ADEP4 forces self-di­ges­tion of many of the cell's pro­teins (should we call this bac­te­r­ial au­tophagy?), which is what could lead to the killing of dor­mant cells. Even bet­ter, when ClpP is stim­u­lated by ADEP4, it no longer re­quires ATP for its ac­tiv­ity. This makes it an ideal agent for erad­i­cat­ing per­sis­ters since they have low en­ergy lev­els. But what about re­sis­tance? When ADEP4 was added to a sta­tion­ary cul­ture of S. au­reus, the cul­ture re­cov­ered af­ter 3 days due to a high fre­quency of null clpP mu­tants. This could be over­come by a com­bi­na­tion of ADEP4 and ri­fampicin, which led to the com­plete killing of a sta­tion­ary pop­u­la­tion. Sur­pris­ingly, null clpP mu­tants when in sta­tion­ary phase were found to be ex­tremely sen­si­tive to an­tibi­otics such as ri­fampicin.

Fig­ure 3. The pro­te­olytic sub­unit of Clp, ClpP forms a ring-shaped bar­rel with a small pore (amino acids lin­ing the pore are shown in red). The pore is nor­mally gated by ClpP-as­so­ci­ated AT­Pase en­zymes, which con­trol the en­try of pro­tein sub­strates into the ClpP cham­ber. ADEP mol­e­cules (pur­ple) bind to the AT­Pase dock­ing sites on ClpP, caus­ing a con­for­ma­tional change that widens the pore, lead­ing to dereg­u­lated pro­tein degra­da­tion. Source: (1) and (2).

With these en­cour­ag­ing re­sults with com­bined ther­apy at hand, the team tested a biofilm formed by an S. au­reus strain as­so­ci­ated with os­teomyelitis. ADEP4 showed con­sid­er­able killing ini­tially, al­though the cell counts re­bounded af­ter 72 hours. Once again, a com­bi­na­tion of ADEP4 and ri­fampicin led to the com­plete de­struc­tion of the biofilm, an un­prece­dented re­sult for clin­i­cally fea­si­ble con­cen­tra­tions of drugs.

Yes, But What About In Vivo?

Fig­ure 4. Con­lon et al. show that the com­bi­na­tion of ADEP4 and a con­ven­tional an­tibi­otic kills non-grow­ing per­sis­ter cells—the small, slow-grow­ing pop­u­la­tion of cells that per­sist dur­ing treat­ment with con­ven­tional an­tibi­otics (alone or in com­bi­na­tion). Source

All of the above stud­ies were done in vitro. The re­searchers now fo­cused on a mouse thigh in­fec­tion model. The mouse is first made neu­tropenic with cy­clophos­phamide, then a large dose of the pathogen is de­liv­ered to the site and the in­fec­tion al­lowed to pro­ceed for 24 hours be­fore start­ing ther­apy. This model em­u­lates a dif­fi­cult-to-treat hu­man deep-seated chronic in­fec­tion in im­muno­com­pro­mised in­di­vid­u­als. His­to­log­i­cal cross sec­tions of the in­fected area showed biofilms of S. au­reus ad­her­ing to mus­cle cells. Ad­min­is­tra­tion of van­comycin, ri­fampicin, or a com­bi­na­tion of both, de­creased vi­able counts but did not clear the in­fec­tion. In ad­di­tion, no sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ence was ob­served be­tween mice treated with van­comycin for 24 or 48 hours, sug­gest­ing the sur­vival of a per­sis­ter sub­pop­u­la­tion. A com­bi­na­tion of ADEP4 and ri­fampicin re­sulted in ster­il­iza­tion of the in­fected tis­sue within 24 hours. Fur­ther­more, a hol­low-fiber ex­per­i­ment, which uti­lizes a per­fu­sion biore­ac­tor within which a tis­sue-like mass is sim­u­lated, showed that this com­bined ther­apy led to com­plete elim­i­na­tion of the pathogen.

Fig­ure 5. ADEP4 kills a S. au­reus biofilm and in com­bi­na­tion with ri­fampicin erad­i­cates the pop­u­la­tion. Source

A New Ther­a­peu­tic Strat­egy?

Al­though per­sis­tent bac­te­ria have not re­ceived the at­ten­tion given to an­tibi­otic-re­sis­tant strains, these no­to­ri­ously re­cal­ci­trant cells ham­per our ef­forts to treat chronic in­fec­tions, es­pe­cially those caused by biofilms. CDC es­ti­mates that ap­prox­i­mately 70% of all hu­man in­fec­tions in­volve biofilms, a star­tling sta­tis­tic that high­lights the im­por­tance of the prob­lem. The cur­rent study demon­strates the ef­fi­cacy of "cor­rupt­ing a tar­get" in S. au­reus per­sis­ters as a means of killing these drug-tol­er­ant cells. In this case, ADEP4 ac­ti­vates the pro­tease ClpP and causes it to be­come a more promis­cu­ous en­zyme, re­sult­ing in self-di­ges­tion of the bacteria's pro­teins. Al­though null clpP mu­tants of S. au­reus oc­cur fre­quently and re­sults in re­sis­tance to ADEP4, these cells for­tu­nately ex­hibit en­hanced sen­si­tiv­ity to other an­tibi­otics. There­fore, ad­min­is­tra­tion of ADEP to­gether with ri­fampicin leads to com­plete erad­i­ca­tion of a sta­tion­ary phase pop­u­la­tion or of a biofilm. The ther­a­peu­tic strat­egy em­ployed here can be ex­panded to other tar­gets in dif­fer­ent path­o­genic per­sis­ters, thereby herald­ing a promis­ing new era for the erad­i­ca­tion of these trou­ble­some bugs.

 

Ref­er­ences

Spo­er­ing AL, Lewis K (2001). Biofilms and plank­tonic cells of Pseudomonas aerug­i­nosa have sim­i­lar re­sis­tance to killing by an­timi­cro­bials. Jour­nal of bac­te­ri­ol­ogy, 183 (23), 6746−6751. PMID 11698361

Con­lon BP, Nakayasu ES, Fleck LE, LaFleur MD, Is­abella VM, Cole­man K, Leonard SN, Smith RD, Ad­kins JN, Lewis K (2013). Ac­ti­vated ClpP kills per­sis­ters and erad­i­cates a chronic biofilm in­fec­tion. Na­ture, 503 (7476), 365−370. PMID 24226776

 

S. Marvin Friedman

S. Mar­vin Fried­man is Pro­fes­sor Emer­i­tus, De­part­ment of Bi­o­log­i­cal Sci­ences, Hunter Col­lege of CUNY, New York City and an As­so­ciate Blog­ger for Small Things Con­sid­ered.

 

Other Posts

1 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
12 years ago

Here is my ques­tion– would the in­creased killing abil­ity of this com­bi­na­tion heighten the risk of the neg­a­tive side ef­fects of an­tibi­otics, say, by more ef­fec­tively dis­rupt­ing the healthy mi­cro­biome? If so, what would be the best way to mit­i­gate that... could we rea­son­ably sup­ply one or both of the drugs at/near the site of in­fec­tion, to limit dam­age to the rest of the body, or would post-an­tibi­otic treat­ment with pro­bi­otics of some kind be suf­fi­cient?