Efflux pump gene amplifications bypass necessity of multiple target mutations for resistance against dual-targeting antibiotic
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Antibiotics that have multiple cellular targets theoretically reduce the frequency of resistance evolution, but adaptive trajectories and resistance mechanisms against such antibiotics are understudied. Here we investigate these in methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) using experimental evolution upon exposure to delafloxacin (DLX), a novel fluoroquinolone that targets both DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV. We show that selection for coding sequence mutations and genomic amplifications of the gene encoding a poorly characterized efflux pump, SdrM, leads to high DLX resistance, circumventing the requirement for mutations in both target enzymes. In the evolved populations, sdrM overexpression due to genomic amplifications containing sdrM and two adjacent genes encoding efflux pumps results in high DLX resistance, while the adjacent hitchhiking efflux pumps contribute to streptomycin cross-resistance. Further, lack of sdrM necessitates mutations in both target enzymes to evolve DLX resistance, and sdrM thus increases the frequency of resistance evolution. Finally, sdrM mutations and amplifications are similarly selected in two diverse clinical isolates, indicating the generality of this DLX resistance mechanism. Our study highlights that instead of reduced rates of resistance, evolution of resistance to multi-targeting antibiotics can involve alternate high-frequency evolutionary paths, that may cause unexpected alterations of the fitness landscape, including antibiotic cross-resistance.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 82 · Cited by 44
- Authors
- Silva, K. P. T., Sundar, G., & Khare, A.
- Affiliations
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- Corresponding author
- Khare, Anupama
- ORCID
- Khare, Anupama
- Venue
- Nature Communications
- Published
- 2023-06-09
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3402-3402
- ISSN
- 2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10256781
- OpenAlex
- W4380085817
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 82
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 9.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research.
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Medicine › Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
- Keywords
- methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, gene amplification, DNA gyrase, topoisomerase IV, experimental evolution, antibiotic resistance evolution, fitness landscape, fluoroquinolones
- MeSH terms
- Anti-Bacterial Agents, Gene Amplification, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Mutation, Fluoroquinolones, Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review