1. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
Download icon

Colistin kills bacteria by targeting lipopolysaccharide in the cytoplasmic membrane

Research Article
  • Cited 0
  • Views 3,247
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2021;10:e65836 doi: 10.7554/eLife.65836

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).

Reviewing Editor

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

Publication 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

  • 3,247
    Page views
  • 452
    Downloads
  • 0
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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)

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

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

Further reading

    1. Ecology
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Chun-Yang Li et al.
    Research Article

    Dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) is an abundant and ubiquitous organosulfur molecule in marine environments with important roles in global sulfur and nutrient cycling. Diverse DMSP lyases in some algae, bacteria and fungi cleave DMSP to yield gaseous dimethyl sulfide (DMS), an infochemical with important roles in atmospheric chemistry. Here we identified a novel ATP-dependent DMSP lyase, DddX. DddX belongs to the acyl-CoA synthetase superfamily and is distinct from the eight other known DMSP lyases. DddX catalyses the conversion of DMSP to DMS via a two-step reaction: the ligation of DMSP with CoA to form the intermediate DMSP-CoA, which is then cleaved to DMS and acryloyl-CoA. The novel catalytic mechanism was elucidated by structural and biochemical analyses. DddX is found in several Alphaproteobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria and Firmicutes, suggesting that this new DMSP lyase may play an overlooked role in DMSP/DMS cycles.

    1. Immunology and Inflammation
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Marco Jost et al.
    Tools and Resources Updated

    Dendritic cells (DCs) regulate processes ranging from antitumor and antiviral immunity to host-microbe communication at mucosal surfaces. It remains difficult, however, to genetically manipulate human DCs, limiting our ability to probe how DCs elicit specific immune responses. Here, we develop a CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing method for human monocyte-derived DCs (moDCs) that mediates knockouts with a median efficiency of >94% across >300 genes. Using this method, we perform genetic screens in moDCs, identifying mechanisms by which DCs tune responses to lipopolysaccharides from the human microbiome. In addition, we reveal donor-specific responses to lipopolysaccharides, underscoring the importance of assessing immune phenotypes in donor-derived cells, and identify candidate genes that control this specificity, highlighting the potential of our method to pinpoint determinants of inter-individual variation in immunity. Our work sets the stage for a systematic dissection of the immune signaling at the host-microbiome interface and for targeted engineering of DCs for neoantigen vaccination.