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

  • 17,340
    views
  • 2,279
    downloads
  • 210
    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
    Yang Fu, Xiao-Dan Luo ... Wence Wang
    Research Article

    The gut microbiota is implicated in the pathogenesis of hyperuricemia (HUA) and gout. However, it remains unclear whether probiotics residing in the host gut, such as Lactobacillus, can prevent HUA development. Herein, we isolated Lactobacillus plantarum SQ001 from the cecum of HUA geese and conducted in vitro assays on uric acid (UA) and nucleoside co-culture. Metabolomics and genome-wide analyses, revealed that this strain may promote nucleoside uptake and hydrolysis through its nucleoside hydrolase gene. The functional role of iunH gene was confirmed via heterologous expression and gene knockout studies. Oral administration of L. plantarum SQ001 resulted in increased abundance of Lactobacillus species and reduced serum UA levels. Furthermore, it downregulated hepatic xanthine oxidase, a key enzyme involved in UA synthesis, as well as renal reabsorption protein GLUT9, while enhancing the expression of renal excretion protein ABCG2. Our findings suggest that L. plantarum has potential to ameliorate gut microbial dysbiosis with HUA, thereby offering insights into its potential application as a probiotic therapy for individuals with HUA or gout.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Lina Antenucci, Salla Virtanen ... Perttu Permi
    Research Article

    Orchestrated action of peptidoglycan (PG) synthetases and hydrolases is vital for bacterial growth and viability. Although the function of several PG synthetases and hydrolases is well understood, the function, regulation, and mechanism of action of PG hydrolases characterised as lysostaphin-like endopeptidases have remained elusive. Many of these M23 family members can hydrolyse glycyl-glycine peptide bonds and show lytic activity against Staphylococcus aureus whose PG contains a pentaglycine bridge, but their exact substrate specificity and hydrolysed bonds are still vaguely determined. In this work, we have employed NMR spectroscopy to study both the substrate specificity and the bond cleavage of the bactericide lysostaphin and the S. aureus PG hydrolase LytM. Yet, we provide substrate-level evidence for the functional role of these enzymes. Indeed, our results show that the substrate specificities of these structurally highly homologous enzymes are similar, but unlike observed earlier both LytM and lysostaphin prefer the D-Ala-Gly cross-linked part of mature peptidoglycan. However, we show that while lysostaphin is genuinely a glycyl-glycine hydrolase, LytM can also act as a D-alanyl-glycine endopeptidase.