Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Rapid resistance development to three antistaphylococcal therapies in antibiotic-tolerant staphylococcus aureus bacteremia

  • Christopher R. Miller,

    Roles Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation Department of Pharmacy Practice, Wayne State University College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Detroit, MI, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Jonathan M. Monk,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Software, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Bioengineering, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Richard Szubin,

    Roles Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Bioengineering, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Andrew D. Berti

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

    andrew.berti@wayne.edu

    Affiliations Department of Pharmacy Practice, Wayne State University College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Detroit, MI, United States of America, Department of Biochemistry, Microbiology and Immunology, Wayne State University College of Medicine, Detroit, MI, United States of America

    ⨯

Abstract

Understating how antibiotic tolerance impacts subsequent resistance development in the clinical setting is important to identifying effective therapeutic interventions and prevention measures. This study describes a patient case of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia which rapidly developed resistance to three primary MRSA therapies and identifies genetic and metabolic changes selected in vivo that are associated with rapid resistance evolution. Index blood cultures displayed susceptibility to all (non-beta-lactam) antibiotics with the exception of trimethoprim/ sulfamethoxazole. One month after initial presentation, during the same encounter, blood cultures were again positive for MRSA, now displaying intermediate resistance to vancomycin and ceftaroline and resistance to daptomycin. Two weeks later, blood cultures were positive for a third time, still intermediate resistant to vancomycin and ceftaroline and resistant to daptomycin. Mutations in mprF and vraT were common to all multidrug resistant isolates whereas mutations in tagH, agrB and saeR and secondary mprF mutation emerged sequentially and transiently resulting in distinct in vitro phenotypes. The baseline mutation rate of the patient isolates was unremarkable ruling out the hypermutator phenotype as a contributor to the rapid emergence of resistance. However, the index isolate demonstrated pronounced tolerance to the antibiotic daptomycin, a phenotype that facilitates the subsequent development of resistance during antibiotic exposure. This study exemplifies the capacity of antibiotic-tolerant pathogens to rapidly develop both stable and transient genetic and phenotypic changes, over the course of a single patient encounter.

Citation: Miller CR, Monk JM, Szubin R, Berti AD (2021) Rapid resistance development to three antistaphylococcal therapies in antibiotic-tolerant staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. PLoS ONE 16(10): e0258592. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258592

Editor: Herminia de Lencastre, The Rockefeller University, UNITED STATES

Received: April 15, 2021; Accepted: September 30, 2021; Published: October 20, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Miller et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data used in this study are available from GenBank under the accession number: PRJNA745996 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA745996/).

Funding: This work was supported by departmental funds to ADB from Wayne State University College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Department of Pharmacy Practice. CRM is supported by the Research Scholars program at Wayne State University College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences. JMM and RS were funded through the NIH NIAID grant (1-U01-AI124316-01). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The emergence of antimicrobial resistance is a well-recognized threat to public health. Decades of research on antibiotic resistance have provided insight into resistance development and reinforced the need for proper antimicrobial stewardship. However, the contribution of antibiotic tolerance is less clear in the clinical setting. Given a sufficiently large bacterial population in vitro, some cells enter a distinct, non-dividing metabolic state and are able to survive transient exposure to antibiotics without a corresponding change in the population’s minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) [1]. These tolerant individuals remain genetically identical to the overall population and can replenish a dividing population once antibiotic pressure is removed. Furthermore, a population with a large proportion of antibiotic tolerant bacteria has a proclivity to rapidly develop resistance to antimicrobials in vitro [2] and may be associated with persistent infections in vivo [3]. While there exist clear parallels between the two phenomena, antibiotic tolerance is distinct from the concept of heteroresistance where a small subpopulation of bacteria exhibits a different resistance profile and is able to continue growth in the presence of antibiotics [4].

The idea that tolerance or heterotolerance facilitates resistance development was proposed as early as the 1980s [5]. This theory has subsequently been validated in vitro in a diverse assortment of microorganisms and a diverse variety of antibiotics [6–8]. In addition to maintaining a viable cell reservoir in which mutations can develop, some tolerant microorganisms demonstrate a higher mutation rate which can further drive resistance development [9]. Indeed, a large array of genetic changes can result in an increased prevalence of tolerant microbes within a population, typically by prolonging the “lag phase” of bacterial growth or reducing the exponential growth rate [1]. While this phenomenon has been modeled extensively in both in vitro experiments and mathematical modeling, only one report to date clearly describes tolerance contributing to resistance development in patients [10].

In this study, we first present a patient case of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia in which antibiotic tolerance facilitated the development of resistance to three anti-staphylococcal therapies over a six-week clinical course. We then analyze the genetic and metabolic evolution of an antibiotic-tolerant isolate of MRSA as it acquired multi-drug resistance in vivo.

Patient case

A male patient in his late-60s presented to our hospital in October 2018 with altered mental status and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia. The patient history was significant for end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis, peripheral vascular disease and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Nasal screening for staphylococcal colonization was not performed. The patient was treated for diabetic ketoacidosis in the emergency department and intubated following emergent acute respiratory failure. His intrajugular dialysis catheter was removed. Arteriovenous HeRO grafts were unremarkable on physical exam and negative for fluid accumulation by ultrasound and thus retained. Transesophageal echocardiogram was unremarkable for infective endocarditis. Tagged white blood cell scans failed to identify any foci of infection. He was determined to be a poor surgical candidate for graft revision and managed medically. Initial peripheral blood culture bacteria were MRSA susceptible to ceftaroline (CPT), daptomycin (DAP), linezolid (LZD) and vancomycin (VAN). The patient was treated empirically with cefepime and VAN (hospitalization days 1–3), and subsequently narrowed to CPT and VAN (days 4–13). Blood cultures cleared day 8 and remained clear on subsequent cultures (days 10 and 11). Week two, following concerns for ventilator-associated pneumonia, therapy was escalated to broad-spectrum β-lactam (cefepime) plus DAP (days 14–23) followed by DAP monotherapy (days 23–32). The following month, breakthrough positive cultures were noted on therapy and displayed non-susceptibility (referred to as resistant throughout for ease of presentation) or borderline-resistance to CPT, DAP and VAN. Blood cultures cleared by day 33 and the regimen was switched to CPT plus LZD (days 33–36) and transitioned to CPT plus DAP for the remainder of the encounter (days 36–46). Peripheral blood cultures remained clear until a recurrence day 44. Patient was determined clinically stable for transfer day 46, discharged with positive blood cultures to a skilled nursing facility and lost to follow up. A timeline and characterization of isolates from this patient encounter is provided as Fig 1.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Clinical timeline.

Patient presented to Emergency Department October 2018 and was discharged on hospitalization day 44 to a skilled nursing facility. Symbols indicate days of documented positive blood culture (+), negative blood culture (-) or blood culture not collected (○). Results of susceptibility testing as reported in the patient’s electronic medical record are reproduced below. VAN, vancomycin; FEP, cefepime; CPT, ceftaroline; DAP, daptomycin; LZD, linezolid. †Values determined by E-test.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258592.g001

Results and discussion

Genomic assessment

All isolates from patient BSN14 were confirmed to be isogenic (2,956,388 bp chromosome, Pulse Field type USA300, Multilocus Sequence Type 8 and spa type t064) by whole genome sequencing, ruling out coinfection or superinfection as potential etiologies. Genetic variations between serial isolates are reported in Table 1. No sequence variations were noted between BSN14S1 and BSN14S2. Relative to BSN14S1, BSN14R1 contained sequence variations in mprF (ntC941T, P314L), vraT (ntG451A, A151T) and tagH (ntG115A, A39T). BSN14R2 maintained vraTA151T but reverted to a wild type tagH sequence (T39A). Additionally, BSN14R2 developed a sequence variation in agrB (ntC341G, P114R) and a new frameshift mutation in mprF (nt745delG, G249Gfs14). BSN14RB maintained vraTA151T but reverted to a wild type agrB sequence (R114P) and the intact mprF sequence present in BSN14R1 (P314L). Additionally, BSN14RB developed a 5 amino acid in-frame deletion in saeR (nt135 delGATATCATGGTACTT).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Mutational differences between serial isolates identified by whole-genome sequencing.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258592.t001

Patient isolates have a normal baseline mutation rate

One potential rationale for the rapid development of resistance in BSN14 isolates could be an enhanced baseline mutation rate. Elevated mutation frequencies, observed through spontaneous mutations to rifampin in vitro, have been shown to contribute to a more rapid resistance development to a number of antibiotics in S. aureus, including VAN [11, 12]. The spontaneous rifampin resistance rate of the index isolate from the current encounter (i.e. BSN14S1) was determined and compared to the resistance rate of six contemporaneous isolates collected from separate patients as well as to laboratory strain S. aureus LAC (Fig 2). Strain BSN14S1 had a median of 27 [interquartile range 23–38] rifampin-resistant mutations per 109 cells compared to 34 [22–63] rifampin-resistant mutations in comparator isolates (P = 0.12). These values are consistent with normal baseline mutation frequencies for rifampin resistance in staphylococci (<10−7) and lower than those seen in strains exhibiting a hypermutable phenotype (>10−7) [12–14]. We note that one of the comparator isolates was found to exhibit a hypermutable phenotype and a refinement removing this strain from analysis again demonstrated that the mutation rate in BSN14S1 was unremarkable (31 [21–49] rifampin-resistant mutations in comparator isolates, P = 0.27).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Antimicrobial tolerance.

(A) Increased survival of BSN14S1 in daptomycin exposure assay. Cultures in exponential growth phase were adjusted to 108 CFU/mL and exposed to 10 mg/L daptomycin. Data are the means and standard deviations of three independent replicates. Gray markers (dashed lines), BSN14S1; white marker (dotted line), comparator isolate C4. All other replicates were indistinguishable and represented by solid markers and lines. Detection limit, 100 CFU/mL. (B) Number of spontaneous mutations conferring resistance to rifampin per 109 colony-forming units, median [interquartile range]. †Comparator isolate C2 recovered from an unrelated patient is identified as a hypermutator strain (>100×10−9). *Strain LAC had a significantly shorter doubling time versus comparators (P = 0.007).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258592.g002

Index patient isolate BSN14S1 is antibiotic tolerant

The rapid development of antibiotic resistance in this patient isolate with an unremarkable mutation rate caused us to suspect a high level of tolerance in the population [2]. DAP exhibits a pronounced difference in its rate of bacterial killing against tolerant staphylococci making it an ideal antibiotic for their identification [15, 16]. Isolate BSN14S1, the six comparators described previously and S. aureus LAC were cultivated in liquid culture, exposed to DAP and viability determined at pre-defined intervals. All comparator isolates had a DAP MIC of 0.5 mg/L. Results are provided in Fig 2. Based on standardized definitions, BSN14S1 is antibiotic tolerant at baseline [1]. The fourth comparator isolate (C4) exhibited biphasic killing but only after a 4-log reduction in viability was achieved. Therefore, based on the definitions by Balaban et al, none of the comparator strains were tolerant or heterotolerant. While the doubling time of control strain LAC was significantly shorter than that of clinical isolates (29 ± 0.7 m vs. 34 ± 2.5 m, P = 0.007), there were no significant differences in doubling time between clinical isolates (Table 2, P = 0.344). Therefore, differences in DAP killing were not due to differences in isolate growth rates. Upon further analysis with other anti-MRSA antibiotics, isolate BSN14S1 likewise demonstrated reduced killing by both CPT and VAN at 24 hours compared to MIC-matched comparators (CPT 20 mg/L, 1.0 ± 0.04 vs. 2.2 ± 0.50 log viability reduction, P < 0.001; VAN 35 mg/L, 1.7 ± 0.08 vs. 2.2 ± 0.40 log viability reduction, P = 0.033). Thus, despite a favorable susceptibility profile based on the organism MIC, antimicrobial tolerance could limit the effectiveness of antistaphylococcal antibiotic therapy and promote the development of antimicrobial resistance.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Antimicrobial tolerance.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258592.t002

Recurrent bacteremia isolates contain mutations in mprF and vraT

Antimicrobial therapy was initially successful at clearing the MRSA bloodstream infection. However, within three weeks MRSA were again present in surveillance blood cultures. All isolates collected from the patient after initial presentation in October 2018 were genetically related to the initial isolate but now contained mutations in both mprF and vraT. MprF is a lysylphosphatidylglycerol transferase/flippase that modifies membrane phospholipids with lysine and translocates them to the outer leaflet of the membrane [17]. Mutations in MprF are common in DAP-resistant clinical isolates and result in increased presentation of lysylphosphatidylglycerol on the cell surface and decreased DAP activity [18]. The specific P314L mutation in MprF maps to the flippase domain and was one of the first DAP resistance-conferring mutations identified during the clinical trial resulting in DAP’s approval [19]. VraT is a component of the VraTSR three-component regulatory system responsible for regulating cell wall synthesis [20, 21]. Mutations in this system are common in VAN resistant clinical isolates and contribute to both DAP and VAN resistance while conferring collateral susceptibility to β-lactams [22, 23]. The specific A151T mutation identified in VraT is an established contributor to the VISA phenotype and has been identified in reference VISA strains including NRS283 and NRS79 with VAN MICs of 2 and 4, respectively [24]. Consistent with this, most isolates collected during and after the recurrent bacteremia have elevated MICs to both DAP and VAN and population analysis profile (PAP) analysis confirmed that strains with a VAN MIC of 2 had transitioned from VAN-susceptible S. aureus (VSSA) to heterogeneous VAN-intermediate resistant S. aureus (hVISA).

The first isolate from the recurrence exhibits impaired TagH activity.

The patient’s initial recurrence of bacteremia lasted for four days. In addition to changes to mprF and vraT discussed above, the first isolate from this recurrence, BSN14R1, had developed a mutation in tagH. TagGH/TarGH is a membrane-bound component of the teichoic acid translocation system and the last committed step in wall teichoic acid synthesis. Counterintuitively, decreased TagGH activity can lead to thickened cell walls due to autolysin sequestration [25] but a complete loss of TagGH function is lethal [26]. Thickened cell walls is a common feature of DAP- and VAN-resistant staphylococci [27, 28] resulting from changes to one or more of several global regulators (graRS, vraSR, walKR) or cell wall biosynthetic machinery [29]. In contrast to other potential contributors to cell wall thickening, TagGH activity was specifically associated with the ability of staphylococci to induce biofilm production in the presence of bile components [30]. Therefore, we examined the response of study isolates to biofilm induction with either bovine bile or deoxycholate. Results are presented in Fig 3A. Strain BSN14R1 was unique in its response to challenge, demonstrating no biofilm induction by deoxycholate and a reduction of biofilm in the presence of bile salts. This suggests that the TagHA39T mutation represents a reduction in function. After collection of isolate BSN14R1, the patient’s antimicrobial regimen was transitioned from DAP/VAN-based to CPT/LZD-based therapy. This may have selected for the loss of the tagH mutation in subsequent isolates as reduced TagGH activity is associated with increased susceptibility to beta lactam antibiotics [31].

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. Phenotypic characterization of BSN14 mutants.

(A) tagH mutation present in BSN14R1 alters biofilm production in the presence of bile salts. (B) agrB mutation present in BSN14R2 does not alter hemolytic activity. (C) mprF mutation present in BSN14R2 alters whole-cell binding of cytochrome C (D) saeR mutation present in BSN14RB reduces biofilm production (E) saeR mutation present in BSN14RB impairs whole blood killing. †† P value < 0.01 compared to same isolate in unsupplemented media. ** P < 0.01 compared to isolate BSN14S1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258592.g003

The final isolate from the initial recurrence exhibits impaired MprF activity.

Isolate BSN14R2 was collected on the fourth and final day of the patient’s recurrent bacteremia (hospital day 31). In this isolate, a second mutation had occurred in mprF resulting in a truncated protein and a reversion from hVISA back to VSSA. Interestingly, the timing of this loss-of-function mutation corresponded to a transition from DAP/VAN-based therapy to CPT/LZD-based therapy. In vitro studies suggest that second-site mutations in mprF are selected when exposures are switched from DAP-based to β-lactam-based [32, 33]. The identification of an additional frameshift mutation in mprF for isolate BSN14R2 was unanticipated as the susceptibility report for this isolate in the patient chart was indistinguishable from the isolate collected three days prior. MprF activity is highly linked to changes in DAP susceptibility and a frameshift mutation would be predicted to decrease DAP resistance [34]. Indeed, repeat susceptibility testing of our BSN14R2 isolate demonstrated markedly different DAP minimum inhibitory concentrations than those reported in the patient record. Isolate BSN14R2 lacking functional MprF demonstrated a remarkable drop in DAP MIC from 4 mg/L to 0.25 mg/L. MprF is thought to modulate DAP susceptibility by altering the charge on the bacterial cell surface by modification of membrane phospholipids with cationic lysine [18]. BSN14R2 demonstrates significantly more binding of cationic cytochrome C than other isolates suggestive of a more negatively charged cell envelope (Fig 3C). As mentioned previously, this loss of MprF function may again have been selected by the change in pharmacotherapy from a DAP/VAN-based to a CPT-based regimen [32] and the fitness cost of maintaining DAP resistance [35]. In addition to the changes in mprF, BSN14R2 contains a mutation in agrB. Although AgrB is part of a virulence trait regulon that is frequently mutated in clinical isolates [36–38], the mutation maps to the extracellular interface of a transmembrane alpha helix in a location not thought to be involved in autoinducer binding, processing or transport [39, 40]. Consistent with this, strain BSN14R2 did not exhibit a defect in agr-regulated traits including hemolysis or biofilm production (Fig 3B and 3D) [41].

In order to rationalize the discrepancies between susceptibility values reported in the patient chart and those performed by our group, we repeated CPT, DAP, LZD and VAN MIC testing for all other patient isolates collected. All susceptibility values were within 1 doubling of values reported in the patient chart with the exception of isolate BSN14R2 which consistently demonstrated a low DAP MIC of 0.25 (S2 Table). Our group received a subculture of the isolate used by the clinical lab for susceptibility testing which may not have been representative of the overall population. To assess this, our group identified an investigator that makes similar requests for patient isolates and maintains a separate biorepository of staphylococcal bloodstream isolates. We identified his request for the same isolate, BSN14R2, made on a separate day from our group. Susceptibility testing of this independent sample collected from the patient on the same day demonstrated the same MICs as performed by our group. Furthermore, we identified duplicate subcultures of BSN14S2, BSN14R1 and BSN14RB. Susceptibility testing and whole genome sequencing of these isolates resulted in indistinguishable MICs and sequences, respectively, to those generated from our collection. We conclude that BSN14R2 represented a mixed population of DAP-susceptible and DAP-resistant bacteria and clinical testing selected for a minority subpopulation that retained the original antibiotic resistant phenotype.

The first isolate from the second recurrence exhibits altered SaeR regulation

As before, within two weeks of documented negative blood cultures following the initial recurrence, MRSA were again present in the patient’s surveillance blood cultures. Isolate BSN14RB, collected hospital day 44 during the patient’s second episode of recurrent/relapse bacteremia, contained an internal deletion within the SaeR receiver domain immediately preceding the site of phosphorylation. The SaeR regulon consists of two promoter classes. Class I (high-affinity) promoters regulate factors such as hemolysins and can bind SaeR regardless of phosphorylation status. In contrast, Class II (low-affinity) promoters regulate factors such as coagulase and fibronectin binding protein and require phosphorylated SaeR [42]. As shown in Fig 3B and 3D, BSN14RB has wild-type hemolysin activity but is impaired for biofilm production suggesting its SaeR mutation maintains regulation of Class I promoters but not at Class II. In staphylococci, coagulase production regulated by Class II SaeR promoters decreases survival in human blood [43]. Consistent with this, BSN14RB is uniquely able to survive in heparinated human blood compared to other isolates (Fig 3E). Host factors contribute significantly to the resolution of staphylococcal infection [44]. Staphylococci respond to the presence of neutrophils and defensins by modulating the classical SaeR-regulated production of virulence factors, paradoxically increasing pathogenicity by reducing immune recognition of cytotoxins [45, 46]. Therefore, the five amino acid deletion in SaeR may represent an adaptive trait to promote survival as the organism transitions from an acute to a persistent infection.

Tolerance accelerates in vitro resistance development

The rapid adaptability of BSN14S1 to changing selective pressures supports the body of literature that antibiotic tolerance facilitates the subsequent development of resistance [47]. In order to simulate such selective pressures in vitro we subjected BSN14S1 and comparator strains to serial passage in the presence of increasing concentrations of DAP. Each day of serial passage would assess the ability to grow in double the DAP concentration that supported growth on the previous day as DAP resistance typically occurs by the stepwise acquisition of multiple mutations, each contributing to clinically meaningful resistance [48]. Therefore, the minimum time necessary to observe DAP resistance in serial passage (i.e. growth in 4 mg/L DAP) would be three days. Replicates of patient isolate BSN14S1 took a median of 3 (range: 3–4) days from growth in 0.5 mg/L DAP to support growth in 4 mg/L DAP. In contrast, comparator isolates took a median of 5 days (range: 4–7) to adapt from growth in 0.5 mg/L DAP to growth in 4 mg/L DAP (Fig 4, P = 0.001). Therefore, despite equivalent basal mutation rates, BSN14S1 develops antibiotic resistance more rapidly than comparator isolates in vitro.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 4. Daptomycin serial passage.

Time-to-event analysis of tolerant clinical isolate BSN14S1 versus comparator clinical isolates. Comparator strain C2 was excluded from analysis due to its hypermutator phenotype.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258592.g004

Conclusion

This study links an observed patient case with potential mechanistic understating of how antimicrobial tolerance can facilitate rapid resistance development and adaptation to a new host environment. Further work is warranted to establish the prevalence and significance of antimicrobial tolerant microbes in resistant and recurrent infection.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

This study was approved by the Detroit Medical Center (IRB 14539) and Wayne State University (IRB 014518M1E). Patient history and clinical course were abstracted from the patient’s electronic medical record and patient identifiers removed as outlined in the above IRB approvals. Both review boards provided waivers of informed consent.

Bacterial isolates, antimicrobials and media

Patient isolates were obtained from the Microbiology Core facility at the Detroit Medical Center. All antibiotics used in this study were purchased commercially as the clinical formulation from West-Ward Pharmaceuticals (Eatontown, NJ, USA, Cefazolin) or Mylan (Canonsburg, PA, USA, Daptomycin and Vancomycin). Activity was confirmed by quality control susceptibility testing against S. aureus ATCC 29213 per Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines, version M100 ED29:2019 [49]. Mueller-Hinton Broth II (MHB) (BD, Sparks, MD, USA) supplemented with 25 mg/L calcium (as CaCl2) and 12.5 mg/L magnesium (as MgCl2) was used to grow S. aureus in liquid culture. All DAP assays used MHB with 50 mg/L calcium as recommended [49]. Population analysis profiling to detect hVISA was performed as described previously using strain Mu3 as the reference standard [50].

DNA extraction

Isogenic colonies were grown overnight at 37°C to late exponential phase. The cells were pelleted by centrifugation and resuspended in 500 μL SETS buffer (75 mM NaCl, 25 mM EDTA pH 8, 20 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.5, 25% sucrose). RNAse A (10 mg/mL, 5 μL) and lysozyme (25 mg/mL, 10 μL) were added and the sample was incubated at 37°C for 60 min. Proteinase K (20 mg/mL, 14 μL) and 20% SDS (30 μL) were added, the sample was mixed gently by inversion and incubated at 55°C for 2 h, inverting occasionally. NaCl (5 M, 200 μL) was added and the sample mixed thoroughly by gentle inversion. Chloroform (500 μL) was then added and the sample mixed by gentle inversion for 30 min at room temperature. Following centrifugation for 15 min at 4,500 × g at room temperature, the upper aqueous phase was transferred to new 1.5 mL tube and another round of chloroform extraction was performed. The upper aqueous phase was transferred to new 1.5 mL tube. The volume was measured and 1/10 that volume of 3 M sodium acetate was added to the sample. DNA was precipitated with 0.7 volumes of isopropanol and the sample was placed on a slow rocker for 5 min. The filamentous genomic DNA precipitate was fished out with a Pasteur pipette, formed into a hook and sealed with a flame, and transferred to a series of 3 microcentrifuge tubes containing 1 mL 70% ethanol each. The final tube was centrifuged to pellet the DNA and the ethanol was removed with a pipette. The pellet was air dried for several minutes and resuspended in nuclease-free water. A Nanodrop was used to assess the quality of the genomic DNA prep, Qubit BR assay to check the concentration and Agilent TapeStation to check the size distribution.

Whole genome sequencing

Hybrid assembly of Nanopore MinION and Illumina (150bp PE) reads was performed using Unicycler (v0.4.2) to assemble a complete closed genome. Genomes were annotated using PROKKA (v1.12). Breseq (v0.31.0) was run on BSN14S1 Illumina reads to identify inter-isolate mutations. Default parameters were used for Breseq SNP calling. Sequences have been deposited to GenBank under PRJNA745996.

Antimicrobial tolerance assays

Study bacteria with identical DAP MICs were adjusted to a McFarland Standard of 0.5 in pre-warmed MHB50 and cultivated with shaking (37°C, 180rpm) for 1h resulting in an inoculum of ~1×108 CFU/mL. Following the 1 h recovery, DAP was added to a final concentration of 10 mg/L. Samples were removed for colony enumeration via dilution plating immediately prior to addition of DAP and at set intervals after antibiotic challenge. The minimum durations to 2-log, 3-log and 4-log viability reduction (MDK99, TBA and MDK99.99, respectively) were determined individually per replicate via linear extrapolation between the timepoints immediately preceding and following the indicated log10 unit reduction from baseline. All analyses were performed in triplicate. Between-group differences were assessed by one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Student’s t-test. A significant difference in MDK99 defines “tolerance” whereas a significant difference in MDK99.99 without significantly differing MDK99 defines “heterotolerance” [1].

Mutation rate assays

Seven biological replicates of each strain were cultivated overnight with shaking in 1 mL of Mueller Hinton broth. The number of spontaneously rifampin-resistant colonies were enumerated in triplicate by dilution plating on media containing 25 mg/L rifampin. The number of mutations present per culture were estimated using the Drake formula of the median [51].

Daptomycin resistance development assay

Three biological replicates of each strain were cultivated overnight with shaking in 1 mL of Mueller Hinton broth. Overnight cultures were subcultured 1:100 into tubes containing 0.25 mg/L or 0.5 mg/L DAP and returned to overnight incubation. Each day the tube with the highest concentration that supported growth was subcultured into tubes containing 1× or 2× DAP and returned to overnight incubation. Time to DAP resistance was defined as the number of days from growth in 0.5 mg/L DAP until the first day of growth in 4 mg/L DAP. Pairwise comparisons between BSN14S1 and comparators were calculated using the Mann-Whitney U test. An additional independent passage of three biological replicates was performed for BSN14S1 to assess the reproducibility of the findings.

Phenotypic assays

Bacterial growth rate was determined from serial optical density measurements (600 nm) recorded during exponential growth in Tryptic Soy Broth. Qualitative evaluation of α-, β-, and δ-hemolytic activity was evaluated on Sheep Blood Agar as described previously [41]. S. aureus RN4220 was included as a prototypical β-hemolysin-producing strain. Biofilm polystyrene attachment assay was performed in Trypticase Soy Broth with 0.1% dextrose in tissue culture treated 24 well plates (Costar, Corning, NY, USA) and measured using crystal violet as described previously [52]. Biofilm production media was fortified with bovine bile (0.03%, Sigma-Aldrich) or sodium deoxycholate (100μM, Sigma-Aldrich) as indicated [30]. Bacterial survival in heparinated human blood (Zenbio) was determined by dilution plating following 1h and 3h exposure as described previously [43]. Whole-cell binding of cationic cytochrome C was determined spectrophotometrically at 530nm as described previously [53].

Statistical analysis

DAP MIC results and time-to-event analyses were evaluated using Wilcoxon rank sum test. Two-tailed Student t-test was used for statistical analysis of all other quantitative data. Spearman r was used to determine antibiotic susceptibility correlations. P values of ≤0.05 defined significance.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Population analysis profiling.

Vancomycin concentrations, dilutions tested and interpretations were performed based on the method of Sader et al. [50]. PAP/AUC ratios (test values relative to Mu3) <0.9, 0.9 to 1.3, and >1.3 are defined as VSSA, hVISA and VISA, respectively. Area under the viability-concentration curve (AUC) was determined using Microsoft Excel software and the trapezoidal method.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258592.s001

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Confirmatory susceptibility testing.

Minimum inhibitory concentrations were verified for each clinical isolate alongside identical clinical isolates from another biorepository.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258592.s002

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank the infectious diseases patient care team at the Detroit Medical Center. We also thank Maureen Taylor at the DMC Core Microbiology lab and Dr. Michael Rybak at the Anti-Infective Research Laboratory for their assistance in obtaining patient isolates.

References

  1. 1. Brauner A, Fridman O, Gefen O, Balaban NQ. Distinguishing between resistance, tolerance and persistence to antibiotic treatment. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2016;14: 320–330. pmid:27080241
  2. 2. Berti AD, Hirsch EB. Tolerance to antibiotics affects response. Science. 2020;367: 141–142. pmid:31919206
  3. 3. Britt NS, Patel N, Shireman TI, El Atrouni WI, Horvat RT, Steed ME. Relationship between vancomycin tolerance and clinical outcomes in Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017;72: 535–542. pmid:27999028
  4. 4. Nicoloff H, Hjort K, Levin BR, Andersson DI. The high prevalence of antibiotic heteroresistance in pathogenic bacteria is mainly caused by gene amplification. Nat Microbiol. 2019;4: 504–514. pmid:30742072
  5. 5. Moreillon P, Tomasz A. Penicillin resistance and defective lysis in clinical isolates of pneumococci: evidence for two kinds of antibiotic pressure operating in the clinical environment. J Infect Dis. 1988;157: 1150–1157. pmid:2897398
  6. 6. Levin-Reisman I, Brauner A, Ronin I, Balaban NQ. Epistasis between antibiotic tolerance, persistence, and resistance mutations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116: 14734–14739. pmid:31262806
  7. 7. Santi I, Manfredi P, Maffei E, Egli A, Jenal U. Evolution of Antibiotic Tolerance Shapes Resistance Development in Chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infections. mBio. 2021;12: e03482–20. pmid:33563834
  8. 8. Liu Y, Yang K, Zhang H, Jia Y, Wang Z. Combating Antibiotic Tolerance Through Activating Bacterial Metabolism. Front Microbiol. 2020;11: 577564. pmid:33193198
  9. 9. Windels EM, Michiels JE, Van den Bergh B, Fauvart M, Michiels J. Antibiotics: Combatting Tolerance To Stop Resistance. mBio. 2019;10: e02095–19. pmid:31506315
  10. 10. Liu J, Gefen O, Ronin I, Bar-Meir M, Balaban NQ. Effect of tolerance on the evolution of antibiotic resistance under drug combinations. Science. 2020;367: 200–204. pmid:31919223
  11. 11. Schaaff F, Reipert A, Bierbaum G. An elevated mutation frequency favors development of vancomycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46: 3540–3548. pmid:12384362
  12. 12. Blázquez J. Hypermutation as a factor contributing to the acquisition of antimicrobial resistance. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2003;37: 1201–1209. pmid:14557965
  13. 13. O’Neill AJ, Cove JH, Chopra I. Mutation frequencies for resistance to fusidic acid and rifampicin in Staphylococcus aureus. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2001;47: 647–650. pmid:11328777
  14. 14. Prunier A-L, Malbruny B, Laurans M, Brouard J, Duhamel J-F, Leclercq R. High rate of macrolide resistance in Staphylococcus aureus strains from patients with cystic fibrosis reveals high proportions of hypermutable strains. J Infect Dis. 2003;187: 1709–1716. pmid:12751028
  15. 15. Barros EM, Martin MJ, Selleck EM, Lebreton F, Sampaio JLM, Gilmore MS. Daptomycin Resistance and Tolerance Due to Loss of Function in Staphylococcus aureus dsp1 and asp23. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019;63. pmid:30397055
  16. 16. Berti AD, Harven LT, Bingley V. Distinct Effectiveness of Oritavancin against Tolerance-Induced Staphylococcus aureus. Antibiot Basel Switz. 2020;9. pmid:33171631
  17. 17. Peschel A, Jack RW, Otto M, Collins LV, Staubitz P, Nicholson G, et al. Staphylococcus aureus resistance to human defensins and evasion of neutrophil killing via the novel virulence factor MprF is based on modification of membrane lipids with l-lysine. J Exp Med. 2001;193: 1067–1076. pmid:11342591
  18. 18. Ernst CM, Peschel A. MprF-mediated daptomycin resistance. Int J Med Microbiol IJMM. 2019;309: 359–363. pmid:31182276
  19. 19. Kang K-M, Mishra NN, Park KT, Lee G-Y, Park YH, Bayer AS, et al. Phenotypic and genotypic correlates of daptomycin-resistant methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates. J Microbiol Seoul Korea. 2017;55: 153–159. pmid:28120188
  20. 20. Boyle-Vavra S, Yin S, Jo DS, Montgomery CP, Daum RS. VraT/YvqF is required for methicillin resistance and activation of the VraSR regulon in Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57: 83–95. pmid:23070169
  21. 21. Gardete S, Wu SW, Gill S, Tomasz A. Role of VraSR in antibiotic resistance and antibiotic-induced stress response in Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006;50: 3424–3434. pmid:17005825
  22. 22. Mehta S, Cuirolo AX, Plata KB, Riosa S, Silverman JA, Rubio A, et al. VraSR two-component regulatory system contributes to mprF-mediated decreased susceptibility to daptomycin in in vivo-selected clinical strains of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56: 92–102. pmid:21986832
  23. 23. Castro BE, Berrio M, Vargas ML, Carvajal LP, Millan LV, Rios R, et al. Detection of heterogeneous vancomycin intermediate resistance in MRSA isolates from Latin America. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2020;75: 2424–2431. pmid:32562543
  24. 24. Kato Y, Suzuki T, Ida T, Maebashi K. Genetic changes associated with glycopeptide resistance in Staphylococcus aureus: predominance of amino acid substitutions in YvqF/VraSR. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65: 37–45. pmid:19889788
  25. 25. Tiwari KB, Gatto C, Walker S, Wilkinson BJ. Exposure of Staphylococcus aureus to Targocil Blocks Translocation of the Major Autolysin Atl across the Membrane, Resulting in a Significant Decrease in Autolysis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62. pmid:29735561
  26. 26. D’Elia MA, Pereira MP, Chung YS, Zhao W, Chau A, Kenney TJ, et al. Lesions in teichoic acid biosynthesis in Staphylococcus aureus lead to a lethal gain of function in the otherwise dispensable pathway. J Bacteriol. 2006;188: 4183–4189. pmid:16740924
  27. 27. Cui L, Ma X, Sato K, Okuma K, Tenover FC, Mamizuka EM, et al. Cell wall thickening is a common feature of vancomycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41: 5–14. pmid:12517819
  28. 28. Bertsche U, Weidenmaier C, Kuehner D, Yang S-J, Baur S, Wanner S, et al. Correlation of daptomycin resistance in a clinical Staphylococcus aureus strain with increased cell wall teichoic acid production and D-alanylation. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55: 3922–3928. pmid:21606222
  29. 29. Howden BP, Davies JK, Johnson PDR, Stinear TP, Grayson ML. Reduced vancomycin susceptibility in Staphylococcus aureus, including vancomycin-intermediate and heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate strains: resistance mechanisms, laboratory detection, and clinical implications. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2010;23: 99–139. pmid:20065327
  30. 30. Ulluwishewa D, Wang L, Pereira C, Flynn S, Cain E, Stick S, et al. Dissecting the regulation of bile-induced biofilm formation in Staphylococcus aureus. Microbiol Read Engl. 2016;162: 1398–1406. pmid:27260167
  31. 31. Wang H, Gill CJ, Lee SH, Mann P, Zuck P, Meredith TC, et al. Discovery of wall teichoic acid inhibitors as potential anti-MRSA β-lactam combination agents. Chem Biol. 2013;20: 272–284. pmid:23438756
  32. 32. Jenson RE, Baines SL, Howden BP, Mishra NN, Farah S, Lew C, et al. Prolonged Exposure to β-Lactam Antibiotics Reestablishes Susceptibility of Daptomycin-Nonsusceptible Staphylococcus aureus to Daptomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020;64. pmid:32601160
  33. 33. Yang S-J, Mishra NN, Kang K-M, Lee G-Y, Park J-H, Bayer AS. Impact of Multiple Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms Within mprF on Daptomycin Resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Microb Drug Resist Larchmt N. 2018;24: 1075–1081. pmid:29381428
  34. 34. Bayer AS, Mishra NN, Chen L, Kreiswirth BN, Rubio A, Yang S-J. Frequency and Distribution of Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms within mprF in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Clinical Isolates and Their Role in Cross-Resistance to Daptomycin and Host Defense Antimicrobial Peptides. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59: 4930–4937. pmid:26055370
  35. 35. Roch M, Gagetti P, Davis J, Ceriana P, Errecalde L, Corso A, et al. Daptomycin Resistance in Clinical MRSA Strains Is Associated with a High Biological Fitness Cost. Front Microbiol. 2017;8: 2303. pmid:29259579
  36. 36. Sakoulas G, Eliopoulos GM, Moellering RC, Wennersten C, Venkataraman L, Novick RP, et al. Accessory gene regulator (agr) locus in geographically diverse Staphylococcus aureus isolates with reduced susceptibility to vancomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46: 1492–1502. pmid:11959587
  37. 37. Ferreira FA, Souza RR, de Sousa Moraes B, de Amorim Ferreira AM, Américo MA, Fracalanzza SEL, et al. Impact of agr dysfunction on virulence profiles and infections associated with a novel methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) variant of the lineage ST1-SCCmec IV. BMC Microbiol. 2013;13: 93. pmid:23622558
  38. 38. Novick RP, Geisinger E. Quorum sensing in staphylococci. Annu Rev Genet. 2008;42: 541–564. pmid:18713030
  39. 39. Zhang L, Gray L, Novick RP, Ji G. Transmembrane topology of AgrB, the protein involved in the post-translational modification of AgrD in Staphylococcus aureus. J Biol Chem. 2002;277: 34736–34742. pmid:12122003
  40. 40. Qiu R, Pei W, Zhang L, Lin J, Ji G. Identification of the putative staphylococcal AgrB catalytic residues involving the proteolytic cleavage of AgrD to generate autoinducing peptide. J Biol Chem. 2005;280: 16695–16704. pmid:15734745
  41. 41. Adhikari RP, Arvidson S, Novick RP. A nonsense mutation in agrA accounts for the defect in agr expression and the avirulence of Staphylococcus aureus 8325–4 traP::kan. Infect Immun. 2007;75: 4534–4540. pmid:17606604
  42. 42. Cho H, Jeong D-W, Li C, Bae T. Organizational requirements of the SaeR binding sites for a functional P1 promoter of the sae operon in Staphylococcus aureus. J Bacteriol. 2012;194: 2865–2876. pmid:22447906
  43. 43. Guo H, Hall JW, Yang J, Ji Y. The SaeRS Two-Component System Controls Survival of Staphylococcus aureus in Human Blood through Regulation of Coagulase. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2017;7: 204. pmid:28611950
  44. 44. Berti A, Rose W, Nizet V, Sakoulas G. Antibiotics and Innate Immunity: A Cooperative Effort Toward the Successful Treatment of Infections. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020;7: ofaa302. pmid:32818143
  45. 45. Collins MM, Behera RK, Pallister KB, Evans TJ, Burroughs O, Flack C, et al. The Accessory Gene saeP of the SaeR/S Two-Component Gene Regulatory System Impacts Staphylococcus aureus Virulence During Neutrophil Interaction. Front Microbiol. 2020;11: 561. pmid:32390958
  46. 46. Liu Q, Yeo W-S, Bae T. The SaeRS Two-Component System of Staphylococcus aureus. Genes. 2016;7. pmid:27706107
  47. 47. Levin-Reisman I, Ronin I, Gefen O, Braniss I, Shoresh N, Balaban NQ. Antibiotic tolerance facilitates the evolution of resistance. Science. 2017;355: 826–830. pmid:28183996
  48. 48. Bæk KT, Thøgersen L, Mogenssen RG, Mellergaard M, Thomsen LE, Petersen A, et al. Stepwise decrease in daptomycin susceptibility in clinical Staphylococcus aureus isolates associated with an initial mutation in rpoB and a compensatory inactivation of the clpX gene. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59: 6983–6991. pmid:26324273
  49. 49. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. CLSI document M100-ED29. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA; 2019.
    • 50. Sader HS, Jones RN, Rossi KL, Rybak MJ. Occurrence of vancomycin-tolerant and heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate strains (hVISA) among Staphylococcus aureus causing bloodstream infections in nine USA hospitals. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2009;64: 1024–1028. pmid:19744978
    • 51. Rosche WA, Foster PL. Determining mutation rates in bacterial populations. Methods San Diego Calif. 2000;20: 4–17. pmid:10610800
    • 52. Peeters E, Nelis HJ, Coenye T. Comparison of multiple methods for quantification of microbial biofilms grown in microtiter plates. J Microbiol Methods. 2008;72: 157–165. pmid:18155789
    • 53. Patel D, Husain M, Vidaillac C, Steed ME, Rybak MJ, Seo SM, et al. Mechanisms of in-vitro-selected daptomycin-non-susceptibility in Staphylococcus aureus. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2011;38: 442–446. pmid:21840181