4.5 Article

Ribosomal and non-ribosomal resistance to oxazolidinones: species-specific idiosyncrasy of ribosomal alterations

期刊

MOLECULAR MICROBIOLOGY
卷 46, 期 5, 页码 1295-1304

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2002.03242.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM59028] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A derivative of Mycobacterium smegmatis, which carries only one functional rRNA (rrn) operon, was used to isolate mutants resistant to the ribosome-targeted antibiotic linezolid. Isolation and characterization of linezolid-resistant clones revealed two classes of mutants. Ribosomes from class I mutants are resistant to oxazolidinones in an in vitro peptidyl transferase assay, indicating that resistance maps to the ribosome component. In contrast, ribosomes from class II mutants show wild-type susceptibility to a linezolid derivative in vitro, pointing to a non-ribosomal mechanism of resistance. Introduction of a wildtype ribosomal RNA operon into linezolid-resistant strains restored linezolid sensitivity in class I mutants, indicating that resistance (i) maps to the rRNA and (ii) is recessive. Sequencing of the entire rrn operon identified a single nucleotide alteration in 23S rRNA of class I mutant strains, 2447G-->T (Escherichia coli numbering). Introduction of mutant rr/2447T into M. smegmatis rrn(-) resulted in a linezolid-resistant phenotype, demonstrating a cause-effect relationship of the 2447G-->T alteration. The 2447G-->T mutation, which renders M. smegmatis linezolid resistant, confers lethality in E coli. This finding is strong evidence of structural and possibly functional differences between the ribosomes of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. In agreement with the results of the in vitro assay, class II mutants show a wild-type sequence of the complete rRNA operon. The lack of cross-resistance of the class II mutants to other antibiotics suggests a resistance mechanism other than activation of a broad-spectrum multidrug transporter.

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

4.5
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