4.7 Article

Ketolide antimicrobial activity persists after disruption of interactions with domain II of 23S rRNA

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 48, 期 10, 页码 3677-3683

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.48.10.3677-3683.2004

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ketolides are the latest derivatives developed from the macrolide erythromycin to improve antimicrobial activity. All macrolides and ketolides bind to the 50S ribosomal subunit, where they come into contact with adenosine 2058 (A2058) within domain V of the 23S rRNA and block protein synthesis. An additional interaction at nucleotide A752 in the rRNA domain 11 is made via the synthetic carbamate-alkyl-aryl substituent in the ketolides HMR3647 (telithromycin) and HMR3004, and this interaction contributes to their improved activities. Only a few macrolides, including tylosin, come into contact with domain 11 of the rRNA and do so via interactions with nucleotides G748 and A752. We have disrupted these macrolide-ketolide interaction sites in the rRNA to assess their relative importance for binding. Base substitutions at A752 were shown to confer low levels of resistance to telithromycin but not to HMR3004, while deletion of A752 confers low levels of resistance to both ketolides. Mutations at position 748 confer no resistance. Substitution of guanine at A2058 gives rise to the MLSB (macrolide, lincosamide, and streptogramin B) phenotype, which confers resistance to all the drugs. However, resistance to ketolides was abolished when the mutation at position 2058 was combined with a mutation in domain 11 of the same rRNA. In contrast, the same dual mutations in rRNAs conferred enhanced resistance to tylosin. Our results show that the domain 11 interactions of telithromycin and HMR3004 differ from each other and from those of tylosin. The data provide no indication that mutations within domain 11, either alone or in combination with an A2058 mutation, can confer significant levels of telithromycin resistance.

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