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.

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).

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

  • 16,875
    views
  • 2,227
    downloads
  • 198
    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
    Srinivasan Vijay, Nguyen Le Hoai Bao ... Nguyen Thuy Thuong
    Research Article

    Antibiotic tolerance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis reduces bacterial killing, worsens treatment outcomes, and contributes to resistance. We studied rifampicin tolerance in isolates with or without isoniazid resistance (IR). Using a minimum duration of killing assay, we measured rifampicin survival in isoniazid-susceptible (IS, n=119) and resistant (IR, n=84) isolates, correlating tolerance with bacterial growth, rifampicin minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs), and isoniazid-resistant mutations. Longitudinal IR isolates were analyzed for changes in rifampicin tolerance and genetic variant emergence. The median time for rifampicin to reduce the bacterial population by 90% (MDK90) increased from 1.23 days (IS) and 1.31 days (IR) to 2.55 days (IS) and 1.98 days (IR) over 15–60 days of incubation, indicating fast and slow-growing tolerant sub-populations. A 6 log10-fold survival fraction classified tolerance as low, medium, or high, showing that IR is linked to increased tolerance and faster growth (OR = 2.68 for low vs. medium, OR = 4.42 for low vs. high, p-trend = 0.0003). High tolerance in IR isolates was associated with rifampicin treatment in patients and genetic microvariants. These findings suggest that IR tuberculosis should be assessed for high rifampicin tolerance to optimize treatment and prevent the development of multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis.

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Zachary H Williams, Alvaro Dafonte Imedio ... Welkin E Johnson
    Research Article Updated

    HERV-K(HML-2), the youngest clade of human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), includes many intact or nearly intact proviruses, but no replication competent HML-2 proviruses have been identified in humans. HML-2-related proviruses are present in other primates, including rhesus macaques, but the extent and timing of HML-2 activity in macaques remains unclear. We have identified 145 HML-2-like proviruses in rhesus macaques, including a clade of young, rhesus-specific insertions. Age estimates, intact open reading frames, and insertional polymorphism of these insertions are consistent with recent or ongoing infectious activity in macaques. 106 of the proviruses form a clade characterized by an ~750 bp sequence between env and the 3′ long terminal repeat (LTR), derived from an ancient recombination with a HERV-K(HML-8)-related virus. This clade is found in Old World monkeys (OWM), but not great apes, suggesting it originated after the ape/OWM split. We identified similar proviruses in white-cheeked gibbons; the gibbon insertions cluster within the OWM recombinant clade, suggesting interspecies transmission from OWM to gibbons. The LTRs of the youngest proviruses have deletions in U3, which disrupt the Rec Response Element (RcRE), required for nuclear export of unspliced viral RNA. We show that the HML-8-derived region functions as a Rec-independent constitutive transport element (CTE), indicating the ancestral Rec–RcRE export system was replaced by a CTE mechanism.