Antibiotic Resistance: A mobile target
Antibiotic resistance – the ability of bacteria to survive even the strongest clinical treatments – continues to be a major public health concern around the world (Antimicrobial Resistance Collaborators, 2022). The overuse of antibiotics in medicine and agriculture is often thought to be the driving force behind the emergence and spread of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics (Cohen, 1992; Levy and Marshall, 2004). Overuse can certainly explain the selection for bacteria with genes for antibiotic resistance in environments that are heavily impacted by human activity (Gaze et al., 2013; Kraemer et al., 2019), but it cannot explain the widespread distribution of genes for resistance to clinically relevant antibiotics well away from hospitals and farms. Indeed, such genes have even been found in environments as remote as the Arctic permafrost (D’Costa et al., 2011; Perron et al., 2015) and Antarctica (Hwengwere et al., 2022; Marcoleta et al., 2022).
Now, in eLife, Léa Pradier and Stéphanie Bedhomme of the University of Montpellier report the results of a study that sheds light on this matter (Pradier and Bedhomme, 2023). Focusing on resistance against aminoglycoside, a widely used family of antibiotics that includes streptomycin (Davies and Wright, 1997), the researchers conducted one of the largest surveys of antibiotic resistance genes to date. They analyzed more than 160,000 bacterial genomes collected from all over the globe, focusing on 27 clusters of genes that code for aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes (also known as AME genes). The bacteria were sampled between 1885–2019, although most were sampled recently, with the first example of a bacterium with an AME gene dating from 1905. In addition to the location and date of sampling, the study also considered the number of antibiotics consumed in each country, commercial trade routes, and human migration. Finally, the samples came from eleven different biomes, representing a range of environments where antibiotic resistance can be found: clinical environments (like hospitals), human habitats, domestic animals, farms, agrosystems, wild plants and animals, freshwater, seawater, sludge and waste, soil, and humans.
The researchers found that the prevalence of genes for aminoglycoside resistance increased between the 1940s and the 1980s, likely following an increase in the use of antibiotics after the discovery of streptomycin in 1943 (Schatz et al., 1944), and then remained at a prevalence of around 30%, despite an overall decrease in consumption. Crucially, they also discovered that around 40% of the resistance genes were potentially mobile, which means they can be easily exchanged between bacteria.
Pradier and Bedhomme also found that antibiotic-resistant bacteria are present in most biomes, and not just in hospitals and farms. Moreover, they found that the prevalence of aminoglycoside resistance genes varied more from biome to biome than it did with human geography or with the quantity of antibiotics used (Figure 1). This means that the antibiotic resistance found in humans in one country is more likely to be related to the antibiotic resistance found in humans in a distant country than it is to the antibiotic resistance found in the soil or animals nearby. Moreover, they also discovered that biomes such as soil and wastewater likely play a key role in spreading the genes for antibiotic resistance across different biomes.
These findings raise important questions about the mechanisms underlying the spread of antibiotic resistance. What factors promote the spread of antibiotic resistance in environments not impacted by human activities? Can we extrapolate these results from the aminoglycosides to all other classes of antibiotics? Is it possible that antibiotic resistance results from interactions with local microbial communities more than exposure to commercial antibiotics? Do the genes for antibiotic resistance spread in the pathogenic bacteria responsible for human and animal infections in the same way as they spread in non-pathogenic bacteria? Given the extent of the selective pressure exerted by human pollution, what limits the spread of antibiotic-resistance genes between biomes, especially given the large proportion of genes on mobile elements?
It may well be that consumption still has a paramount role when it comes to resistance to the antibiotics that are used to treat infection, especially in humans and clinical biomes. Nevertheless, it is clear that we need to pay more attention to the role of the environment when formulating plans to combat antibiotic resistance on a global scale.
References
-
Bacterial resistance to aminoglycoside antibioticsTrends in Microbiology 5:234–240.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-842X(97)01033-0
-
Influence of humans on evolution and mobilization of environmental antibiotic resistomeEmerging Infectious Diseases 19:e120871.https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1907.120871
-
Antibacterial resistance worldwide: causes, challenges and responsesNature Medicine 10:S122–S129.https://doi.org/10.1038/nm1145
-
The highly diverse Antarctic Peninsula soil microbiota as a source of novel resistance genesScience of the Total Environment 810:152003.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152003
-
Streptomycin, a substance exhibiting antibiotic activity against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteriaExperimental Biology and Medicine 55:66–69.https://doi.org/10.3181/00379727-55-14461
Article and author information
Author details
Publication history
- Version of Record published: March 8, 2023 (version 1)
Copyright
© 2023, Oliveira de Santana, Spealman et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 1,812
- Page views
-
- 133
- Downloads
-
- 0
- Citations
Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.
Download links
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)
Further reading
-
- Ecology
Habitat loss and fragmentation per se have been shown to be a major threat to global biodiversity and ecosystem function. However, little is known about how habitat loss and fragmentation per se alters the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem function (BEF relationship) in the natural landscape context. Based on 130 landscapes identified by a stratified random sampling in the agro-pastoral ecotone of northern China, we investigated the effects of landscape context (habitat loss and fragmentation per se) on plant richness, above-ground biomass, and the relationship between them in grassland communities using a structural equation model. We found that habitat loss directly decreased plant richness and hence decreased above-ground biomass, while fragmentation per se directly increased plant richness and hence increased above-ground biomass. Fragmentation per se also directly decreased soil water content and hence decreased above-ground biomass. Meanwhile, habitat loss decreased the magnitude of the positive relationship between plant richness and above-ground biomass by reducing the percentage of grassland specialists in the community, while fragmentation per se had no significant modulating effect on this relationship. These results demonstrate that habitat loss and fragmentation per se have inconsistent effects on BEF, with the BEF relationship being modulated by landscape context. Our findings emphasise that habitat loss rather than fragmentation per se can weaken the positive BEF relationship by decreasing the degree of habitat specialisation of the community.
-
- Ecology
Over two decades ago, an intercropping strategy was developed that received critical acclaim for synergizing food security with ecosystem resilience in smallholder farming. The push-pull strategy reportedly suppresses lepidopteran pests in maize through a combination of a repellent intercrop (push), commonly Desmodium spp., and an attractive, border crop (pull). Key in the system is the intercrop's constitutive release of volatile terpenoids that repel herbivores. However, the earlier described volatiles were not detectable in the headspace of Desmodium, and only minimally upon herbivory. This was independent of soil type, microbiome composition, and whether collections were made in the laboratory or in the field. Further, in oviposition choice tests in a wind tunnel, maize with or without an odor background of Desmodium was equally attractive for the invasive pest Spodoptera frugiperda. In search of an alternative mechanism, we found that neonate larvae strongly preferred Desmodium over maize. However, their development stagnated and no larva survived. In addition, older larvae were frequently seen impaled and immobilized by the dense network of silica-fortified, non-glandular trichomes. Thus, our data suggest that Desmodium may act through intercepting and decimating dispersing larval offspring rather than adult deterrence. As a hallmark of sustainable pest control, maize-Desmodium push-pull intercropping has inspired countless efforts to emulate stimulo-deterrent diversion in other cropping systems. However, detailed knowledge of the actual mechanisms is required to rationally improve the strategy, and translate the concept to other cropping systems.