Multi-step vs. single-step resistance evolution under different drugs, pharmacokinetics and treatment regimens

  1. Claudia Igler  Is a corresponding author
  2. Jens Rolff
  3. Roland Regoes  Is a corresponding author
  1. ETH Zurich, Switzerland
  2. Freie Universität Berlin, Germany

Abstract

The success of antimicrobial treatment is threatened by the evolution of drug resistance. Population genetic models are an important tool in mitigating that threat. However, most such models consider resistance emergence via a single mutational step. Here, we assembled experimental evidence that drug resistance evolution follows two patterns: i) a single mutation, which provides a large resistance benefit, or ii) multiple mutations, each conferring a small benefit, which combine to yield high-level resistance. Using stochastic modeling we then investigated the consequences of these two patterns for treatment failure and population diversity under various treatments. We find that resistance evolution is substantially limited if more than two mutations are required and that the extent of this limitation depends on the combination of drug type and pharmacokinetic profile. Further, if multiple mutations are necessary, adaptive treatment, which only suppresses the bacterial population, delays treatment failure due to resistance for a longer time than aggressive treatment, which aims at eradication.

Data availability

All data and code generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source code has been provided for Figures 2-4, as well as S2-S17 in the form of an R package. Source data has been provided for Table 1, Figure 1B and S1.

The following previously published data sets were used
    1. Melnyk A
    2. Wong A
    3. Kassen R
    (2015) The fitness costs of antibiotic resistance mutations
    Dryad Digital Repository: http://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.5rc47.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Claudia Igler

    Theoretical Biology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
    For correspondence
    claudia.igler@env.ethz.ch
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7777-546X
  2. Jens Rolff

    Institute for Biology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1529-5409
  3. Roland Regoes

    Institute of Integrative Biology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
    For correspondence
    roland.regoes@env.ethz.ch
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8319-5293

Funding

Volkswagen Foundation (96517)

  • Claudia Igler
  • Jens Rolff
  • Roland Regoes

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Ben S Cooper, Mahidol University, Thailand

Version history

  1. Received: October 18, 2020
  2. Accepted: May 4, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 18, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: June 7, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2021, Igler et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 4,443
    views
  • 439
    downloads
  • 34
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Claudia Igler
  2. Jens Rolff
  3. Roland Regoes
(2021)
Multi-step vs. single-step resistance evolution under different drugs, pharmacokinetics and treatment regimens
eLife 10:e64116.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64116

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64116

Further reading

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    Isabella Tomanek
    Insight

    Laboratory experiments on a fluorescent protein in E. coli reveal how duplicate genes are rapidly inactivated by mutations during evolution.

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    Maryline Blin, Louis Valay ... Sylvie Rétaux
    Research Article

    Animals are adapted to their natural habitats and lifestyles. Their brains perceive the external world via their sensory systems, compute information together with that of internal states and autonomous activity, and generate appropriate behavioral outputs. However, how do these processes evolve across evolution? Here, focusing on the sense of olfaction, we have studied the evolution in olfactory sensitivity, preferences, and behavioral responses to six different food-related amino acid odors in the two eco-morphs of the fish Astyanax mexicanus. To this end, we have developed a high-throughput behavioral setup and pipeline of quantitative and qualitative behavior analysis, and we have tested 489 six-week-old Astyanax larvae. The blind, dark-adapted morphs of the species showed markedly distinct basal swimming patterns and behavioral responses to odors, higher olfactory sensitivity, and a strong preference for alanine, as compared to their river-dwelling eyed conspecifics. In addition, we discovered that fish have an individual ‘swimming personality’, and that this personality influences their capability to respond efficiently to odors and find the source. Importantly, the personality traits that favored significant responses to odors were different in surface fish and cavefish. Moreover, the responses displayed by second-generation cave × surface F2 hybrids suggested that olfactory-driven behavior and olfactory sensitivity is a quantitative genetic trait. Our findings show that olfactory processing has rapidly evolved in cavefish at several levels: detection threshold, odor preference, and foraging behavior strategy. Cavefish is therefore an outstanding model to understand the genetic, molecular, and neurophysiological basis of sensory specialization in response to environmental change.