Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Phan MD, Nhu NTK, Achard MES, Forde BM, Hong KW, Chong TM, et al.
    J Antimicrob Chemother, 2017 10 01;72(10):2729-2736.
    PMID: 29091192 DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkx204
    Objectives: Polymyxins remain one of the last-resort drugs to treat infections caused by MDR Gram-negative pathogens. Here, we determined the mechanisms by which chromosomally encoded resistance to colistin and polymyxin B can arise in the MDR uropathogenic Escherichia coli ST131 reference strain EC958.

    Methods: Two complementary approaches, saturated transposon mutagenesis and spontaneous mutation induction with high concentrations of colistin and polymyxin B, were employed to select for mutations associated with resistance to polymyxins. Mutants were identified using transposon-directed insertion-site sequencing or Illumina WGS. A resistance phenotype was confirmed by MIC and further investigated using RT-PCR. Competitive growth assays were used to measure fitness cost.

    Results: A transposon insertion at nucleotide 41 of the pmrB gene (EC958pmrB41-Tn5) enhanced its transcript level, resulting in a 64- and 32-fold increased MIC of colistin and polymyxin B, respectively. Three spontaneous mutations, also located within the pmrB gene, conferred resistance to both colistin and polymyxin B with a corresponding increase in transcription of the pmrCAB genes. All three mutations incurred a fitness cost in the absence of colistin and polymyxin B.

    Conclusions: This study identified the pmrB gene as the main chromosomal target for induction of colistin and polymyxin B resistance in E. coli.

  2. Klionsky DJ, Abdelmohsen K, Abe A, Abedin MJ, Abeliovich H, Acevedo Arozena A, et al.
    Autophagy, 2016;12(1):1-222.
    PMID: 26799652 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356
  3. Klionsky DJ, Abdel-Aziz AK, Abdelfatah S, Abdellatif M, Abdoli A, Abel S, et al.
    Autophagy, 2021 Jan;17(1):1-382.
    PMID: 33634751 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280
    In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links