Synergy between Efflux Pump CmeABC and Modifications in Ribosomal Proteins L4 and L22 in Conferring Macrolide Resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli
Cédric Cagliero, Christian Mouline, Axel Cloeckaert, Sophie Payot
Cédric Cagliero
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, UR1282 Infectiologie Animale et Santé Publique (IASP-213), 37380 Nouzilly, France
Christian Mouline
Axel Cloeckaert
Sophie Payot
For correspondence: payot@tours.inra.fr
Macrolide-resistant mutants of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli were selected in vitro using erythromycin and tylosin. These mutants exhibited modifications in the ribosomal proteins L4 (G74D) and L22 (insertions at position 86 or 98). A synergy between the CmeABC efflux pump and these modifications in conferring macrolide resistance was observed.
The zoonotic microorganism Campylobacter is a leading cause of human diarrheal disease (9). Macrolides are, with fluoroquinolones, the drugs of choice for treatment of these infections. However, macrolide resistance, although less frequent than fluoroquinolone resistance, was recently reported to increase in clinical strains in several countries (1, 15).
Macrolides and related molecules inhibit protein synthesis by binding to the vicinity of the peptidyl transferase center (14, 17). Three mechanisms of resistance have been described: drug inactivation, active efflux, and modification of the target sites by methylation or mutation (16, 18). Changes in the ribosomal proteins L4 and L22 were associated with clinical resistance to macrolides-lincosamides-streptogramins-ketolides in several bacteria (14, 16).
In Campylobacter, mutations in the 23S rRNA genes and efflux, mediated by the CmeABC pump, were both shown to contribute to macrolide resistance (11). Mutations in L4 and L22 have been investigated recently by Corcoran and coworkers (3) and Gibreel et al. (6), but no macrolide resistance-associated alteration was found in these ribosomal proteins.
In this work, spontaneous macrolide-resistant mutants were obtained by plating bacteria on increasing concentrations of erythromycin and tylosin (0.75- to 4-fold initial MIC of the strain). Two strains were used: Campylobacter jejuni NCTC 11168 and Campylobacter coli C342 (isolated from poultry by the Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments [Ploufragan, France]).
MICs of resistant clones were determined by the agar dilution method as described previously (12) and compared to those of parental strains. MIC breakpoints used were those recommended by the French Antibiogram Committee (available at http://www.sfm.asso.fr/). For the resistant clones, the MICs of erythromycin and tylosin were 8- to 64-fold higher than the initial MICs for the parental strains (Table 1). The MIC of the fluoroquinolone ciprofloxacin was not modified (Table 1), nor were the MICs of chloramphenicol (data not shown).
Phenotypic and genotypic data for the isolates and laboratory-created mutantsc
The sequence of domain V of the 23S rRNA genes was analyzed in the resistant clones using primers described in Table 2. No modification was observed (Table 1). Analysis was extended to the rplD and rplV genes encoding the L4 and L22 ribosomal proteins. The sequences of the specific primers used for PCR amplification are given in Table 2. A G-to-A transition was found at nucleotide 221 of the rplD gene sequence in the macrolide-resistant clones obtained with erythromycin as selecting agent. This led to a Gly-to-Asp modification at position 74 of the L4 protein sequence (Table 1; Fig. 1). No modification of the L4 protein sequence was observed in the mutants selected using tylosin. Instead a 9 (ACTTCACAT)- to 12 (GCAAGAGCTAGA)-base tandem duplication at positions 292 and 256 in the rplV gene was seen for the C342Tyl16 and 11168Tyl48 mutants, respectively. This led to a 3- to 4-amino-acid insertion at position 98 or 86 of the L22 protein sequence (Table 1; Fig. 1).
Comparison of the L4 (A) and L22 (B) protein sequences of Campylobacter and other bacterial species: D. radiodurans, Deinococcus radiodurans R1 (NP_294035 and NP_294039); E. coli, Escherichia coli K-12 (AAC76344 and AAC76340); H. influenzae, Haemophilus influenzae Rd KW20 (NP_438937 and NP_438941); M. pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae M129 (NP_109854 and NP_109858); S. aureus, Staphylococcus aureus MRSA252 (CAG41315 and CAG41311); S. pneumoniae, Streptococcus pneumoniae R6 (AAK98993 and NP_357788); S. pyogenes, Streptococcus pyogenes M1 group A streptococcus (AAK33183 and AAK33187); Cj, Campylobacter jejuni 11168, NCTC 11168 (CAB73692 and CAB73688), RM1221 (YP_179844 and YP_179840), CF93-6 (ZP_01067485 and EAQ57344), 81-176 (ZP_01087492), 260-94 (ZP-01070430), 84-25 (EAQ95418), HB93-13 (ZP_01070671), 87072 (AAY88727), 88375 (AAY88729), CIT-423 (AAY88725), CIT-424 (AAY88726), CIT-428 (AAZ14851); Cc, Campylobacter coli RM2228 (ZP-00370771), 98178 (AAY88728). Accession numbers in parentheses are given respectively for the L4 and L22 protein sequences of each bacterium (or for the L22 protein alone if no sequence of the L4 protein is available). Accession numbers of newly deposited sequences appear in the text. The arrows indicate the modifications occurring in the in vitro-selected mutants. The most conserved residues are underlined. Nucleotide and amino acid alignments were generated using the Vector NTI software Suite 9 (Informax, Frederick, MD). Strains with identical protein sequences appear on the same line.
Primers used for PCR amplification and sequencing
To further analyze the resistance pattern conferred by the L4 and L22 modifications, antibiograms were performed using 14 (erythromycin and clarithromycin)-, 15 (azithromycin)-, and 16 (spiramycin)-membered macrolides as well as a ketolide (telithromycin), lincosamides (lincomycin and clindamycin), and an oxazolidinone (linezolid). Antibiograms were performed using Neo-sensitabs (Eurobio, Les Ulis, France) according to the recommendations of the manufacturer for fastidious bacteria. The 14- and 15-membered macrolides and telithromycin were the most affected molecules compared to the 16-membered spiramycin and lincosamides (with a significant decrease seen only with the TSH insertion in the L22 protein). The inhibitory diameter of linezolid was not affected by the L4 and L22 modifications.
Inactivation of the cmeB multidrug transporter gene in the resistant mutants was obtained by natural transformation of the strains with genomic DNA (1 μg) of an 81176 cmeB::kan mutant using the biphasic method as described previously (2). cmeB inactivation led to a restoration of the susceptibility of the strains whatever their initial level of resistance (Table 1). Efflux thus plays a key role and is needed concomitantly with L4 or L22 alterations to enable resistance of the bacterium. This was also observed in Haemophilus influenzae (13) and is similar to the interplay already described between efflux and 23S rRNA mutations (2).
Transformation experiments using rplD and rplV mutated amplicons were undertaken to confirm that the mutations observed in the in vitro-selected mutants confer macrolide resistance. L4 and L22 modifications were successfully transferred to the NCTC 11168 and C342 susceptible strains. The transformants obtained exhibited resistance levels with MICs of erythromycin and tylosin similar to the MICs of the in vitro-selected mutants whereas the MIC of ciprofloxacin was not affected (Table 1).
Forty-three field strains (5 of C. jejuni and 38 of C. coli) with different levels of resistance to erythromycin were analyzed for the presence of mutations in the rplD and rplV genes by single-strand conformational polymorphism. Primers were designed from nucleotide sequences of the C. jejuni NCTC 11168 and C. coli RM 2228 strains (Table 2). A different pattern of migration was observed in a few strains (data not shown). The corresponding genes (five rplD and four rplV amplicons) were thus amplified, sequenced, and compared to other sequences found in GenBank. All the field strains examined exhibited a T-to-C transition at nucleotide 587 leading to a V196A modification in the L4 sequence. This modification was also found in 13 out of the 18 strains examined by Corcoran et al. (3), in susceptible or resistant strains. One rplD amplicon showed a mutation at nucleotide 238 (leading to a V80I protein modification), and two had a mutation at position 82 (P28S change in the protein sequence). The G74D modification found in the in vitro mutants is located in a large loop (region 55 to 77), conserved among all the L4 proteins examined, which is suggested to be the main anchor of this ribosomal protein to 23S rRNA (7). Many modifications in this loop of the L4 protein have been associated with macrolide resistance in other bacteria (14, 16) (Fig. 1). In contrast, the L22-encoding sequences examined showed more changes particularly in the C-terminal region (amino acids 109 to 142) (Fig. 1). The L22 modifications observed in the in vitro-selected mutants of Campylobacter are located in a highly conserved large loop (region 78 to 98), corresponding to a β-hairpin of constant length in all bacterial species. Insertions and deletions in this loop have been associated with macrolide resistance in many bacteria (4, 8).
This study describes modifications in the L4 and L22 ribosomal proteins acting in synergy with the CmeABC efflux pump to confer macrolide resistance in in vitro-selected mutants of C. jejuni and C. coli. A search of modifications in these ribosomal proteins in field strains could thus give a new insight into the mechanisms of macrolide resistance in Campylobacter.
Nucleotide sequence accession numbers.
The gene sequences determined in this study were deposited in GenBank under accession numbers DQ639754 (strain 3, rplD), DQ639752 and DQ639759 (strain 12, rplD and rplV genes, respectively), DQ639753 and DQ639760 (strain 207, rplD and rplV genes, respectively), DQ639755 and DQ639761 (strain C342, rplD and rplV genes, respectively), DQ639756 and DQ639758 (strain C455, rplD and rplV genes, respectively), and DQ639757 and DQ639762 (strain 2MJL124, rplD and rplV genes, respectively).
We thank Isabelle Kempf and Gwénaëlle Hellard from the Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments (Ploufragan, France) and Catherine Magras from the Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire of Nantes (UMR INRA/ENV 1014 SECALIM, Nantes, France) for providing the strains used in this study. Genomic DNA of the 81176 cmeB::kan mutant was kindly provided by Qijing Zhang (Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Preventive Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames).
Received 19 May 2006.
Returned for modification 21 July 2006.
↵▿ Published ahead of print on 28 August 2006.
Boyanova, L., G. Gergova, Z. Spassova, R. Koumanova, P. Yaneva, I. Mitov, S. Derejian, and Z. Krastev. 2004. Campylobacter infection in 682 Bulgarian patients with acute enterocolitis, inflammatory bowel disease, and other chronic intestinal diseases. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 49:71-74.
Cagliero, C., C. Mouline, S. Payot, and A. Cloeckaert. 2005. Involvement of the CmeABC efflux pump in the macrolide resistance of Campylobacter coli. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 56:948-950.
Corcoran, D., T. Quinn, L. Cotter, and S. Fanning. 2006. An investigation of the molecular mechanisms contributing to high-level erythromycin resistance in Campylobacter. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 27:40-45.
Davydova, N., V. Streltsov, M. Wilce, A. Liljas, and M. Garber. 2002. L22 ribosomal protein and effect of its mutation on ribosome resistance to erythromycin. J. Mol. Biol. 322:635-644.
Fouts, D. E., E. F. Mongodin, R. E. Mandrell, W. G. Miller, D. A. Rasko, J. Ravel, L. M. Brinkac, R. T. DeBoy, C. T. Parker, S. C. Daugherty, R. J. Dodson, A. S. Durkin, R. Madupu, S. A. Sullivan, J. U. Shetty, M. A. Ayodeji, A. Shvartsbeyn, M. C. Schatz, J. H. Badger, C. M. Fraser, and K. E. Nelson. 2005. Major structural differences and novel potential virulence mechanisms from the genomes of multiple Campylobacter species. PLoS Biol. 3:e15.
Gibreel, A., V. N. Kos, M. Keelan, C. A. Trieber, S. Levesque, S. Michaud, and D. E. Taylor. 2005. Macrolide resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli: molecular mechanism and stability of the resistance phenotype. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 49:2753-2759.
Harms, J., F. Schluenzen, R. Zarivach, A. Bashan, S. Gat, I. Agmon, H. Bartels, F. Franceschi, and A. Yonath. 2001. High resolution structure of the large ribosomal subunit from a mesophilic eubacterium. Cell 107:679-688.
Malbruny, B., A. Canu, B. Bozdogan, B. Fantin, V. Zarrouk, S. Dutka-Malen, C. Feger, and R. Leclercq. 2002. Resistance to quinupristin-dalfopristin due to mutation of L22 ribosomal protein in Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 46:2200-2207.
Moore, J. E., D. Corcoran, J. S. G. Dooley, S. Fanning, B. Lucey, M. Matsuda, D. A. McDowell, F. Mégraud, B. C. Millar, R. O'Mahony, L. O'Riordan, M. O'Rourke, J. R. Rao, P. J. Rooney, A. Sails, and P. Whyte. 2005. Campylobacter. Vet. Res. 36:351-382.
Payot, S., J.-M. Bolla, D. Corcoran, S. Fanning, F. Mégraud, and Q. Zhang. 2006. Mechanisms of fluoroquinolone and macrolide resistance in Campylobacter spp. Microbes Infect. 8:1967-1971.
Payot, S., A. Cloeckaert, and E. Chaslus-Dancla. 2002. Selection and characterization of fluoroquinolone-resistant mutants of Campylobacter jejuni using enrofloxacin. Microb. Drug Resist. 8:335-343.
Peric, M., B. Bozdogan, C. Galderisi, D. Krissinger, T. Rager, and P. C. Appelbaum. 2004. Inability of L22 ribosomal protein alteration to increase macrolide MICs in the absence of efflux mechanism in Haemophilus influenzae HMC-S. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 54:393-400.
Poehlsgaard, J., and S. Douthwaite. 2005. The bacterial ribosome as a target for antibiotics. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 3:870-881.
Rao, D., J. R. Rao, E. Crothers, R. McMullan, D. McDowell, A. McMahon, P. J. Rooney, B. C. Millar, and J. E. Moore. 2005. Increased erythromycin resistance in clinical Campylobacter in Northern Ireland—an update. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 55:395-396.
Roberts, M. C. 2004. Resistance to macrolide, lincosamide, streptogramin, ketolide, and oxazolidinone antibiotics. Mol. Biotechnol. 28:47-62.
Tenson, T., and A. Mankin. 2006. Antibiotics and the ribosome. Mol. Microbiol. 59:1664-1677.
Tu, D., G. Blaha, P. B. Moore, and T. A. Steitz. 2005. Structures of MLSBK antibiotics bound to mutated large ribosomal subunits provide a structural explanation for resistance. Cell 121:257-270.
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Oct 2006, 50 (11) 3893-3896; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00616-06
You are going to email the following Synergy between Efflux Pump CmeABC and Modifications in Ribosomal Proteins L4 and L22 in Conferring Macrolide Resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli