Abstract

Colistin is an antibiotic of last resort, but has poor efficacy and resistance is a growing problem. Whilst it is well established that colistin disrupts the bacterial outer membrane by selectively targeting lipopolysaccharide (LPS), it was unclear how this led to bacterial killing. We discovered that MCR-1 mediated colistin resistance in Escherichia coli is due to modified LPS at the cytoplasmic rather than outer membrane. In doing so, we also demonstrated that colistin exerts bactericidal activity by targeting LPS in the cytoplasmic membrane. We then exploited this information to devise a new therapeutic approach. Using the LPS transport inhibitor murepavadin, we were able to cause LPS accumulation in the cytoplasmic membrane of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which resulted in increased susceptibility to colistin in vitro and improved treatment efficacy in vivo. These findings reveal new insight into the mechanism by which colistin kills bacteria, providing the foundations for novel approaches to enhance therapeutic outcomes.

Data availability

Source data for all figures has been deposited at Dryad: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.98sf7m0hh

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Akshay Sabnis

    MRC Centre for Molecular Bacteriology and Infection, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Katheryn L H Hagart

    MRC Centre for Molecular Bacteriology and Infection, Imperial College London, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Anna Klöckner

    MRC Centre for Molecular Bacteriology and Infection, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Michele Becce

    Department of Materials, Department of Bioengineering, Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Lindsay E Evans

    MRC Centre for Molecular Bacteriology and Infection, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. R Christopher D Furniss

    Life Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5806-5099
  7. Despoina A I Mavridou

    Department of Molecular Biosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Ronan Murphy

    National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Molly M Stevens

    Department of Materials, Department of Bioengineering, Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7335-266X
  10. Jane C Davies

    National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Gérald J Larrouy-Maumus

    MRC Centre for Molecular Bacteriology and Infection, Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Thomas B Clarke

    MRC Centre for Molecular Bacteriology and Infection, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Andrew M Edwards

    MRC Centre for Molecular Bacteriology and Infection, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    a.edwards@imperial.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7173-7355

Funding

Medical Research Council (PhD Studentship)

  • Akshay Sabnis

Wellcome Trust

  • Andrew M Edwards

NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre

  • Andrew M Edwards

DFG

  • Anna Klöckner

Horizon 2020

  • Anna Klöckner

Rosetrees Trust

  • Molly M Stevens

Cystic Fibrosis Trust

  • Jane C Davies

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Philip A Cole, Harvard Medical School, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: The use of mice was performed under the authority of the UK Home Office outlined in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 after ethical review by Imperial College London Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body (PPL 70/7969).

Version history

  1. Received: December 16, 2020
  2. Accepted: March 31, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: April 6, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: May 4, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2021, Sabnis 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

  • 15,960
    views
  • 2,058
    downloads
  • 178
    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. Akshay Sabnis
  2. Katheryn L H Hagart
  3. Anna Klöckner
  4. Michele Becce
  5. Lindsay E Evans
  6. R Christopher D Furniss
  7. Despoina A I Mavridou
  8. Ronan Murphy
  9. Molly M Stevens
  10. Jane C Davies
  11. Gérald J Larrouy-Maumus
  12. Thomas B Clarke
  13. Andrew M Edwards
(2021)
Colistin kills bacteria by targeting lipopolysaccharide in the cytoplasmic membrane
eLife 10:e65836.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.65836

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.65836

Further reading

    1. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Michael D Sacco, Lauren R Hammond ... Yu Chen
    Research Article Updated

    In the Firmicutes phylum, GpsB is a membrane associated protein that coordinates peptidoglycan synthesis with cell growth and division. Although GpsB has been studied in several bacteria, the structure, function, and interactome of Staphylococcus aureus GpsB is largely uncharacterized. To address this knowledge gap, we solved the crystal structure of the N-terminal domain of S. aureus GpsB, which adopts an atypical, asymmetric dimer, and demonstrates major conformational flexibility that can be mapped to a hinge region formed by a three-residue insertion exclusive to Staphylococci. When this three-residue insertion is excised, its thermal stability increases, and the mutant no longer produces a previously reported lethal phenotype when overexpressed in Bacillus subtilis. In S. aureus, we show that these hinge mutants are less functional and speculate that the conformational flexibility imparted by the hinge region may serve as a dynamic switch to fine-tune the function of the GpsB complex and/or to promote interaction with its various partners. Furthermore, we provide the first biochemical, biophysical, and crystallographic evidence that the N-terminal domain of GpsB binds not only PBP4, but also FtsZ, through a conserved recognition motif located on their C-termini, thus coupling peptidoglycan synthesis to cell division. Taken together, the unique structure of S. aureus GpsB and its direct interaction with FtsZ/PBP4 provide deeper insight into the central role of GpsB in S. aureus cell division.

    1. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Magdalena Podkowik, Andrew I Perault ... Bo Shopsin
    Research Article

    The agr quorum-sensing system links Staphylococcus aureus metabolism to virulence, in part by increasing bacterial survival during exposure to lethal concentrations of H2O2, a crucial host defense against S. aureus. We now report that protection by agr surprisingly extends beyond post-exponential growth to the exit from stationary phase when the agr system is no longer turned on. Thus, agr can be considered a constitutive protective factor. Deletion of agr resulted in decreased ATP levels and growth, despite increased rates of respiration or fermentation at appropriate oxygen tensions, suggesting that Δagr cells undergo a shift towards a hyperactive metabolic state in response to diminished metabolic efficiency. As expected from increased respiratory gene expression, reactive oxygen species (ROS) accumulated more in the agr mutant than in wild-type cells, thereby explaining elevated susceptibility of Δagr strains to lethal H2O2 doses. Increased survival of wild-type agr cells during H2O2 exposure required sodA, which detoxifies superoxide. Additionally, pretreatment of S. aureus with respiration-reducing menadione protected Δagr cells from killing by H2O2. Thus, genetic deletion and pharmacologic experiments indicate that agr helps control endogenous ROS, thereby providing resilience against exogenous ROS. The long-lived ‘memory’ of agr-mediated protection, which is uncoupled from agr activation kinetics, increased hematogenous dissemination to certain tissues during sepsis in ROS-producing, wild-type mice but not ROS-deficient (Cybb−/−) mice. These results demonstrate the importance of protection that anticipates impending ROS-mediated immune attack. The ubiquity of quorum sensing suggests that it protects many bacterial species from oxidative damage.