4.7 Article

Involvement of the CmeABC efflux pump in the macrolide resistance of Campylobacter coli

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 56, 期 5, 页码 948-950

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dki292

关键词

transporters; gene inactivation; mutations; 23S rRNA; ketolides

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: This study was conducted to examine the role of the CmeABC efflux pump in decreasing the susceptibility of Campylobacter coli to macrolides and ketolides in the context of absence or presence of mutations in the 23S rRNA genes. Methods: The cmeB gene was inactivated in strains of C. coli showing two different patterns of erythromycin resistance (low or high level of resistance) associated with the absence or presence of a A2075G mutation in the 23S rRNA genes. MICs of erythromycin, azithromycin, tylosin, telithromycin and ciprofloxacin were compared for wild-type (with or without efflux pump inhibitor) and mutant strains. Results: The cmeB gene inactivation (or addition of efflux pump inhibitor) led to the restoration of susceptibility of the low-level-resistant strains (no A2075G mutation in the 23S rRNA genes). In the highly resistant strains (A2075G mutation in the 23S rRNA genes), the MICs of erythromycin decreased 128- to 512-fold upon inactivation of the cmeB gene. MICs of azithromycin, tylosin and telithromycin were also affected by both addition of efflux pump inhibitor and cmeB gene inactivation, revealing these molecules as substrates of the CmeABC efflux pump. Compared with azithromycin, MICs of telithromycin drastically decreased upon cmeB gene inactivation even in the presence of a A2075G mutation in 23S rRNA genes. Conclusions: The CmeABC efflux pump acts synergically with 23S rRNA mutations to drastically increase the MICs of erythromycin and tylosin in C. coli. In contrast, azithromycin was less affected by efflux and telithromycin, although being a good substrate for the CmeABC efflux pump, was less affected by an A2075G mutation in 23S rRNA genes.

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