4.7 Article

Linezolid and tiamulin cross-resistance in Staphylococcus aureus mediated by point mutations in the peptidyl transferase center

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 52, 期 5, 页码 1737-1742

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01015-07

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Health [0410009] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oxazolidinone and pleuromutilin antibiotics are currently used in the treatment of staphylococcal infections. Although both antibiotics inhibit protein synthesis and have overlapping binding regions on 23S rRNA, the potential for cross-resistance between the two classes through target site mutations has not been thoroughly examined. Mutants of Staphylococcus aureus resistant to linezolid were selected and found to exhibit cross-resistance to tiamulin, a member of the pleuromutilin class of antibiotics. However, resistance was unidirectional because mutants of S. aureus selected for resistance to tiamulin did not exhibit cross-resistance to linezolid. This contrasts with the recently described PhLOPSA phenotype, which confers resistance to both oxazolidinones and pleuromutilins. The genotypes responsible for the phenotypes we observed were examined. Selection with tiamulin resulted in recovery of mutants with changes in the single-copy rplC gene (Gly155Arg, Ser158Leu, or Arg149Ser), whereas selection with linezolid led to recovery of mutants with changes (G2576U in 23S rRNA) in all five copies of the multicopy operon rrn. In contrast, cross-resistance to linezolid was exhibited by tiamulin-resistant mutants generated in a single-copy rrn knockout strains of Escherichia coli, illustrating that the copy number of 23S rRNA is the limiting factor in the selection of 23S rRNA tiamulin-resistant mutants. The interactions of linezolid and tiamulin with the ribosome were modeled to seek explanations for resistance to both classes in the 23S rRNA mutants and the lack of cross-resistance between tiamulin and linezolid following mutation in rplC.

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