4.7 Article

Proteomic response of methicillin-resistant S. aureus to a synergistic antibacterial drug combination: a novel erythromycin derivative and oxacillin

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep19841

关键词

-

资金

  1. Research Grant Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, China [16302614, 16100415]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81273413, 81573329]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of antibacterial drug combinations with synergistic effects is increasingly seen as a critical strategy to combat multi-drug resistant bacteria such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). In this work, the proteome responses in MRSA under the stress of a sub-inhibitory dose of a synergistic drug combination of a novel erythromycin derivative, SIPI-8294, and oxacillin, were studied by label-free quantitative proteomics. Several control treatment groups were designed to isolate proteome responses potentially related to the synergy: (1) the non-synergistic drug combination of erythromycin and oxacillin, (2) SIPI-8294 only, (3) oxacillin only and (4) erythromycin only. Results showed that 200 proteins were differentially expressed in SIPI-8294/oxacillin-treated cells. Among these proteins, the level of penicillin binding protein 2a, the protein mainly responsible for oxacillin resistance in MRSA, was four times lower in the SIPI-8294/oxacillin group than in the erythromycin/oxacillin group, suggesting that SIPI-8294 may interfere with this known oxacillin resistance mechanism. Moreover, hierarchical clustering analysis of differentially expressed proteins under different treatments revealed that SIPI-8294/oxacillin elicits very different responses than the individual drugs or the non-synergistic erythromycin/oxacillin combination. Bioinformatic analysis indicated that the synergistic effect can be further traced to a disruption in oxidation-reduction homeostasis and cell wall biosynthesis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据