
==== Front
PLoS Pathog
PLoS Pathog
plos
PLOS Pathogens
1553-7366
1553-7374
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

39186812
10.1371/journal.ppat.1012488
PPATHOGENS-D-24-00478
Research Article
Biology and Life Sciences
Anatomy
Animal Anatomy
Animal Genital Anatomy
Cloaca
Medicine and Health Sciences
Anatomy
Animal Anatomy
Animal Genital Anatomy
Cloaca
Biology and Life Sciences
Zoology
Animal Anatomy
Animal Genital Anatomy
Cloaca
Biology and Life Sciences
Microbiology
Microbial Control
Antimicrobial Resistance
Antibiotic Resistance
Medicine and Health Sciences
Pharmacology
Antimicrobial Resistance
Antibiotic Resistance
Research and Analysis Methods
Animal Studies
Experimental Organism Systems
Model Organisms
Escherichia Coli
Research and Analysis Methods
Model Organisms
Escherichia Coli
Biology and Life Sciences
Microbiology
Medical Microbiology
Microbial Pathogens
Bacterial Pathogens
Escherichia Coli
Medicine and Health Sciences
Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Pathogens
Microbial Pathogens
Bacterial Pathogens
Escherichia Coli
Biology and Life Sciences
Organisms
Bacteria
Enterobacteriaceae
Escherichia
Escherichia Coli
Biology and Life Sciences
Organisms
Bacteria
Gut Bacteria
Escherichia
Escherichia Coli
Research and Analysis Methods
Animal Studies
Experimental Organism Systems
Prokaryotic Models
Escherichia Coli
Biology and Life Sciences
Cell Biology
Cell Processes
Cell Cycle and Cell Division
Biology and Life Sciences
Biochemistry
Enzymology
Enzymes
Proteases
Biology and Life Sciences
Biochemistry
Proteins
Enzymes
Proteases
Medicine and Health Sciences
Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Pathogens
Opportunistic Pathogens
Biology and Life Sciences
Microbiology
Bacteriology
Gram Negative Bacteria
Medicine and Health Sciences
Pharmacology
Drugs
Antimicrobials
Biology and Life Sciences
Microbiology
Microbial Control
Antimicrobials
Multiple resistance factors collectively promote inoculum-dependent dynamic survival during antimicrobial peptide exposure in Enterobacter cloacae
Multiple resistance factors promote inoculum-dependent survival during AMP exposure in E. cloacae
Murtha Andrew N. Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Validation Visualization Writing – original draft 1 2
Kazi Misha I. Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Validation Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1
Kim Eileen Y. Data curation Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Validation Visualization 1
Torres Facundo V. Data curation Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Validation Visualization 1 2
Rosch Kelly M. Data curation Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Validation Visualization 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3283-9161
Dörr Tobias Conceptualization Formal analysis Funding acquisition Investigation Methodology Project administration Resources Supervision Validation Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 2 3 *
1 Weill Institute for Cell and Molecular Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America
2 Department of Microbiology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America
3 Cornell Institute of Host-Microbe Interactions and Disease, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America
Van Tyne Daria Editor
University of Pittsburgh, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

* E-mail: tdoerr@cornell.edu
26 8 2024
8 2024
20 8 e10124886 3 2024
8 8 2024
© 2024 Murtha et al
2024
Murtha et al
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 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.

Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are a promising tool with which to fight rising antibiotic resistance. However, pathogenic bacteria are equipped with several AMP defense mechanisms, whose contributions to AMP resistance are often poorly defined. Here, we evaluate the genetic determinants of resistance to an insect AMP, cecropin B, in the opportunistic pathogen Enterobacter cloacae. Single-cell analysis of E. cloacae’s response to cecropin revealed marked heterogeneity in cell survival, phenotypically reminiscent of heteroresistance (the ability of a subpopulation to grow in the presence of supra-MIC concentration of antimicrobial). The magnitude of this response was highly dependent on initial E. cloacae inoculum. We identified 3 genetic factors which collectively contribute to E. cloacae resistance in response to the AMP cecropin: The PhoPQ-two-component system, OmpT-mediated proteolytic cleavage of cecropin, and Rcs-mediated membrane stress response. Altogether, our data suggest that multiple, independent mechanisms contribute to AMP resistance in E. cloacae.

Author summary

Antibiotics are losing their efficacy at an alarming rate, necessitating the development of novel strategies to combat bacterial infections. Antimicrobial peptides, which are essentially antibiotics produced by most animals, including humans, have been proposed as an alternative pathway to develop new clinical antimicrobials. However, similar to antibiotics, resistance against AMPs is widespread and varied, yet poorly-understood. Here, we have found that three major factors (the PhoPQ and Rcs cell envelope stress systems, and the protease OmpT) contribute to AMP resistance in the bacterium Enterobacter cloacae. We find that resistance is not equally distributed among a population, i.e. some cells are intrinsically more resistant than others. The number of resistant individuals in a population is determined by the three resistance factors we define here. Overall, our work provides new potential targets for the development of antibiotic compounds that may make AMPs work better against dangerous pathogens.

http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000002 National Institutes of Health AI143704 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3283-9161
Dörr Tobias http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100007231 Cornell University Fleming Fellowship Kazi Misha I. This research was in part supported by NIH (https://www.nih.gov) grant R01 AI143704 (TD). MIK is supported by a Fleming Postdoctoral Fellowship (https://wicmb.cornell.edu/fleming/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. PLOS Publication Stagevor-update-to-uncorrected-proof
Publication Update2024-09-06
Data AvailabilityAll relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Bacterial pathogens develop resistance to antibiotics at a remarkable rate, complicating our ability to fight life-threatening bacterial infections. This includes the evolution of multi-drug resistant (MDR) infections for which no currently available antibiotic is effective [1]. This is a particular problem with many Gram-negative pathogens, such as prominent Enterobacterales. Enterobacter cloacae, for example, is an opportunistic, rod-shaped Gram-negative pathogen, which can cause respiratory, soft tissue, and bloodstream infections [2]. While it is a member of our typical gut microflora, MDR E. cloacae have been designated a major public health risk (the genus Enterobacter is the second “E” in the infamous ESKAPE high priority pathogen list [3]), particularly in immunocompromised patients [4]. Similar risks exist for other Enterobacterales, such as Escherichia coli [5] and Klebsiella pneumoniae [5,6]. It is therefore essential to explore and develop alternative antimicrobials capable of eradicating MDR infections.

Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are short, often cationic peptides produced by nearly all domains of life, making up a key component of innate immunity [7–10]. This includes humans, which produce over 100 different AMPs to defend epithelial surfaces and to aid phagocytes in bacterial killing. AMPs also comprise a portion of our initial systemic response to infection [11]. Thousands of structurally unique AMPs have been isolated from other (even extinct) mammals, amphibians, reptiles, fish, birds, arachnids (tarantulas, araneomorph spiders, and scorpions), and mollusks [12–15]. Invertebrates lack adaptive immunity and rely heavily on AMPs to ward off invading microbes [16,17].

Most positively-charged AMPs bind to negatively-charged bacterial membranes [7]. Binding may occur in an orderly, structured manner to create pores in the membrane. This may disrupt the permeability barrier, dissipate ion gradients, or promote entry of other AMPs with intracellular targets, which will result in the death of the bacterial cell [18]. In other cases, AMPs will coat the cell surface. This causes a detergent-like effect, which scrambles the integrity of the cell envelope and results in lysis [19]. Importantly, AMPs tend to kill bacteria more quickly than antibiotics [20] with a more narrow range of concentrations eliciting responses from the bacterial cell [21]. In principle, this means fewer opportunities for a population of bacteria to develop resistance mechanisms to AMPs, at least through mutation.

Due to their natural abundance, diversity, and potent antibacterial activity, AMPs are of high interest as potential alternatives to classical antibiotics [22]. One such example of AMPs being explored for therapeutic purposes are cecropins, a family of linear α-helical AMPs isolated from insects [23,24]. Cecropins display potent antimicrobial activity against several species of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, but predominantly target Gram-negative LPS [25–28]. Cecropin B, for example, is an amphipathic helix-hinge-helix peptide with the sequence KWKVFKKIEKMGRNIRNGIVKAGPAIAVLGEAKAL. It rapidly kills both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, with no observed resistance development [29]. Cecropin B is more potent against Gram-negative bacteria [25,30], and ineffective against Gram-positive spheroplasts [29], suggesting the Gram-negative outer membrane (mainly composed of lipopolysaccharide, LPS) as the major point of attack, though the exact mechanism of action is unknown. Dozens of other AMPs are currently in clinical development [31]. Therefore, it is vital to understand the mechanisms by which pathogens can resist killing by AMPs. This may enable the more rational design of AMPs for future therapeutic use.

The main characterized AMP resistance mechanisms are target (membrane) modification, AMP degradation, efflux and exclusion of AMPs. One of the most well-understood mechanisms for AMP resistance is modification of the outer membrane (OM) [32,33]. For example, addition of amino sugars [34], phosphoethanolamine [35], or other amine-containing residues, or removal of phosphate residues [36], prevents the electrostatic binding of AMPs to normally negatively charged lipopolysaccharide (LPS), the primary component of the bacterial OM [37]. The rigidity of the OM likely also impacts AMP susceptibility; several members of Enterobacterales attach additional acyl chains to their lipid A in response to AMP exposure, modifying the packing and fluidity of LPS molecules [38]. In addition to membrane modification, many bacteria produce proteases capable of degrading AMPs. This includes secreted proteases [39], membrane-bound enzymes [40], or even AMP importers for intracellular cleavage [41,42]. The susceptibility of an AMP to proteolytic cleavage is highly dependent on its structure, and linear AMPs may be more prone to degradation than an AMP with multiple disulfide bonds [43]. Additionally, biofilms can provide an additional layer of protection, hampering the ability of AMPs to reach the bacterial cell envelope. Exopolysaccharides and capsular polysaccharides (CPS) have been shown to confer up to 1000-fold higher AMP resistance in capsulated vs non-capsulated strains of many bacteria [44,45]. In Enterobacterales, production of some CPS is regulated by the envelope stress response system known as the Rcs phosphorelay [46]. More specifically, Rcs positively regulates the production of a colanic acid (CA) capsule, which has been implicated in resistance to antibiotics and antimicrobial peptides [47]. Indeed, induction of colanic acid by sub-MIC antimicrobial peptides can “prime” E. coli for enhanced survival after a second, higher dose [48].

Complicating the study of these resistance mechanisms is so-called “heteroresistance”. In a heteroresistant population of bacteria, a subset of cells within the genetically identical population displays higher resistance to an antibiotic or antimicrobial peptide [49–52]. Distinct from outright resistance, heteroresistance is often not stable and is instead a result of varying temporal levels of gene expression or unstable genetic alterations [53]. As heteroresistance can complicate our ability to diagnose and treat bacterial infections, it is important to investigate the nuanced mechanisms that drive this and other seemingly stochastic phenotypes. Of note, the reason for the stochastic nature of heteroresistance (i.e., the underlying cause of population heterogeneity) is poorly understood.

In this study, we used the opportunistic pathogen Enterobacter cloacae and the insect AMP cecropin B (cecB) as a model system to study mechanisms responsible for AMP resistance in Enterobacterales. We observed inoculum-dependent killing of E. cloacae by cecB, with cells at high inoculum conditions ultimately displaying higher resistance to killing after an initial die-off, than cells at low inoculum. Single-cell analysis revealed this growth was due to “dynamic survival” within the population (a dynamic state of growth and death), uncovering the underlying cause of the inoculum effect against AMPs. We then identified the PhoPQ two-component system, the OM protease OmpT, and Rcs signaling as collective contributors to dynamic survival.

Results

Enterobacter cloacae is resistant to cecB in an inoculum-dependent manner

It has been shown previously that cecropin B (cecB) is effective at killing Gram-negative bacteria [29], but previous experiments have been mostly conducted with well-studied model organisms like E. coli. As part of an ongoing investigation into AMP resistance mechanisms in opportunistic pathogens, we assessed the killing dynamics of Enterobacter cloacae exposed to cecB. We used the well-characterized type strain ATCC 13047 (originally isolated from spinal fluid) as the model of choice. To this end, we treated a high density of cells (10-fold diluted subculture from overnight, about 108 CFU/mL) with cecB in a growth curve assay at 20 μg/mL (2x MIC) (Fig 1A). Despite the cecB concentration above the MIC, E. cloacae eventually grew after a lag phase of 2 hours. This phenotype, however, was highly dependent on initial cell density. At a more dilute, 100-fold subculture, E. cloacae exhibited a longer, but variable apparent lag phase lasting approximately 10 +/- 5 hours (>6 biological replicates; one example shown in Fig 1B), followed by exponential growth (Fig 1B). In contrast, the laboratory E. coli strain DH5α (a strain commonly used in AMP studies [30]) failed to grow in the presence of cecB, despite its MIC being in essential agreement with the E. cloacae MIC. We also tested cecB activity against two multidrug resistant Enterobacter cloacae complex (ECC) strains encoding the carbapenemases NDM-1 or NDM-5. These strains are also resistant to other classes of antibiotics such as aminoglycosides, cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones and rifampicin. We observed a similar trend where both NDM-1 and NDM-5 ECC strains exhibited an extended lag phase (~6 hours) followed by exponential growth (S1A and S1B Fig). This was again dependent on the initial inoculum as 100-fold subcultures of both NDM-1 and NDM-5 ECC strains were susceptible to 20 μg/mL cecB (S1C and S1D Fig). Interestingly, in contrast to ATCC13047, both MDR strains were eradicated at the higher dilution, emphasizing the potential for cecB-like peptides to suppress MDR infections. We next determined viability in cecB-treated cultures. Viable cell counts in the 1:10 dilution dropped up to 10-fold upon exposure to 2x MIC cecB (S1E Fig), before recovering, consistent with our OD600 measurements. In contrast, upon 1:100 back-dilution, viable cell count dropped ~1000 fold after exposure to cecB before recovering to control levels over a 24-hour period (Fig 1C). This was also reflected in MIC measurements where, consistent with previous studies [54–56], we observed a marked inoculum effect, both in LB medium and the standard clinical microbiology medium MHB (Fig 1D). Given this effect, “fold-MIC” always refers to the 1000-fold dilution condition in LB in the following, for simplicity’s sake. Taken together, our data show that E. cloacae exhibits inoculum-dependent killing by an AMP, and a complex dynamic of killing vs. regrowth.

10.1371/journal.ppat.1012488.g001 Fig 1 E. cloacae displays inoculum-dependent dynamic survival in the presence of cecB.

Overnight cultures were diluted (A) 10-fold or (B) 100-fold into fresh LB containing 20 μg/mL cecB, and cells were grown at 37°C for 24 hours. OD600 measurements were taken every 5 minutes. Error bars represent standard deviation (n = 3). (C) Cultures were prepared as in (B), but samples were taken at indicated timepoints to quantify colony forming units (CFU) per mL. Error bars represent standard deviation (n = 3). (D) Inoculum effect in different growth media. MIC assays were conducted at the indicated dilution of an overnight culture of E. cloacae.

Delayed growth is due to dynamic survival within a population

To dissect the intriguing observation of delayed growth at high dilution further, we first asked whether regrowth reflected stable genetic suppressor mutations. To this end, we sampled cultures of E. cloacae that had been exposed to 2x MIC at the endpoint (overnight post-exposure regrowth) and repeated the growth curve experiment at a 100-fold back dilution with another dose of 2x MIC cecropin (S2A Fig). Time to growth was remarkably variable, even across technical replicates of the same biological sample, ranging from 8 to 18 hours. More importantly, however, none of the re-exposed cultures grew immediately upon renewed exposure to cecB, excluding stable resistance as an explanation for the regrowth. Instead, the delayed apparent cecB resistance is transient and stochastic. These phenotypes are reminiscent of “heteroresistance”, which is high and transient resistance of a small subpopulation against clinically used AMPs such as the polymyxins [51,57], and also reminiscent of the phenomenologically similar “dynamic persistence” in response to antibiotics, where apparent population stability is mediated by an equilibrium of growth and death of bacterial subpopulations [58].

To better understand the dynamics of E. cloacae growth in cecB within a population, we turned to single-cell analysis conducted via phase-contrast microscopy. Cells were grown to mid-exponential phase, then placed on 0.8% agarose LB pads containing cecB and incubated at 37°C while images were acquired. At 2x MIC, 39% of cells immediately began dividing, while 61% immediately lysed (Fig 2A and 2B). For comparison, 97% of cells grew when no drug was present. At 1x MIC, 89% of cells immediately divided, and at 20x MIC, 0% of cells divided. Thus, E. cloacae populations contain a phenotypically resistant subpopulation of cells that can survive lower cecB concentrations but are killed at higher concentrations. Note that this is different from classical heteroresistance to the therapeutic AMP colistin, where a subpopulation is transiently resistant to even high concentrations of the antimicrobial [57,59]. To evaluate the concentration-dependence more quantitatively, we next conducted lysis experiments by growing E. cloacae to mid-exponential phase followed by addition of increasing concentrations of cecB. We observed increasingly delayed growth with increasing cecB concentrations, with near complete lack of recovery at the highest concentrations (S2B Fig). Taken together, these data strongly suggest that regrowth observed in our killing experiments is caused by initial cecB dynamic survival/dynamic persistence (cycles of growth and death) but not primarily by hypertolerant persister cells that are refractory to antimicrobial killing independent of compound concentration [60–62]).

10.1371/journal.ppat.1012488.g002 Fig 2 E. cloacae exhibits population heterogeneity in its response to cecropin B.

(A) Cells were grown to mid-exponential phase in liquid medium and then placed on 0.8% agarose pads containing the indicated amounts of cecropin and incubated at 37°C. Representative, cropped frames from a time series are shown. In the 20 μg/mL condition, red arrows indicate examples of lysing cells. (B) Percentage of cells that divided during the time lapse, grouped by drug concentration (0, 10, 20, 200 μg/mL). Cells are binned by birth frame, i.e., the frame of the time lapse during which the cell was first identified by SuperSegger [85]. Blue represents cells that underwent a successful division event throughout the course of the timelapse, red indicates cells which did not divide. Missing bars indicate that the initial population of cells was unable to divide.

We then asked whether regrowth might be caused by a transient physiological adaptation to the AMP, e.g. via induced OM modifications. If so, we would predict that the emerging growing population should be more refractory to subsequent exposure. To test this, we grew E. cloacae to mid-exponential phase and exposed the population to 20 μg/mL cecB (2x MIC) at OD600 = 0.5. As in previous experiments, the culture density decreased at first (indicating lysis), followed by regrowth. We then exposed the culture to the same concentration of cecB again after reaching OD600 = 0.5. Both lysis (S2C Fig) and survival after 1 hour (S2D Fig) were similar at both exposures, suggesting that cells surviving the first cecB exposure were not primed to survive second exposure. Rather, we propose that the cecropin is either degraded by proteases, or sequestered by dead cells at this point in the experiment (see discussion for details).

PhoPQ partially contributes to cecB resistance

To investigate the molecular mechanisms underlying dynamic survival in E. cloacae, we took a targeted genetic approach. The PhoPQ two-component system is well-characterized as a regulator of AMP resistance mechanisms in Enterobacterales and is essential for colistin heteroresistance [57]. In short, the sensor kinase PhoQ autophosphorylates in response to AMPs and other stimuli (Mg2+ deficiency, osmotic stress, pH) [63], resulting in phosphorylation of the response regulator PhoP. Phosphorylated PhoP then upregulates expression of many genes, including those encoding enzymes associated with outer membrane modifications that promote AMP resistance through membrane charge alterations (e.g., the arn operon, which modifies LPS with positively-charged L-amino arabinose in E. cloacae) [57]. To test the role of PhoPQ in cecB dynamic survival, we constructed a ΔphoPQ mutant and tested its resistance to cecB. The ΔphoPQ cecB MIC was in essential agreement (2-fold lower) with WT. We then tested the ΔphoPQ mutant in a growth curve assay at 2x WT MIC. At a 10-fold back dilution, the ΔphoPQ mutant population exhibited delayed growth (preceded by partial lysis) compared to WT (Fig 3A), taking 3 hours to enter exponential growth. At a 100-fold dilution, this difference was exacerbated to 8 hours after WT entered exponential growth (Fig 3B). Complementation of phoPQ via plasmid-based overexpression restored resistance to WT levels (Fig 3A and 3B). Viable cell counts of ΔphoPQ (when diluted 100-fold into 2x WT MIC cecB) indicated more severe killing than WT initially, but the ability to recover by 24 hr was unaffected (S1E Fig), consistent with OD600 measurements (Fig 3B). Interestingly, we observed a marked condition-dependence of survival dynamics in the mutant. While the ΔphoPQ mutant grew at 2x WT MIC after just a few hours delay in a growth curve assay in liquid culture, exposure to 1x WT MIC resulted in complete lack of growth on an agarose pad, with some cells becoming slightly phase light (indicative of cell envelope integrity failures), while others stayed apparently intact, but did not grow (Fig 3C). In either liquid culture or agarose pads, however, the ΔphoPQ mutant was more cecB sensitive than the WT. These results are consistent with the well-established view that PhoPQ acts as an important AMP resistance mechanism.

10.1371/journal.ppat.1012488.g003 Fig 3 PhoPQ partially contributes to cecB resistance.

Overnight cultures were diluted (A) 10-fold or (B) 100-fold into fresh LB containing 20 μg/mL cecB, and cells were grown at 37°C for 24 hours. For the complement strain, expression of phoPQ from pMMB was induced with 200 μM IPTG. OD600 measurements were taken every 5 minutes. Error bars represent standard deviation (n = 3). (C) Mid-exponential phase cells were placed on 0.8% agarose pads containing the indicated amounts of cecropin and incubated at 37°C. Representative, cropped time frames are shown. Red arrow indicates phase-light cell, white arrow indicates a cell that stays intact.

The Rcs phosphorelay partially contributes to AMP resistance

Since we still observed dynamic survival (albeit at a reduced level) in the ΔphoPQ mutant, we explored additional putative AMP resistance factors as the underlying cause of this phenotype. The Rcs (regulator of capsule synthesis) system is a cell envelope stress response system present across Enterobacterales. The system comprises the RcsFCDB phosphorelay, which responds to cell envelope stress and effects its response through the transcriptional regulator RcsB and, as one of its main functions, upregulates capsule synthesis [64]. AMPs induce the Rcs system [65], and the colanic acid capsule that this system positively controls has been implicated in AMP resistance in other bacteria [45], though the extent to which Rcs contributes to AMP resistance is largely unknown. We therefore constructed a ΔrcsB mutant and conducted time-dependent killing experiments with cecB. At 2x WT MIC, the ΔrcsB mutant exhibited reduced survival compared to WT, undergoing initial lysis, followed by growth after 5 hours +/- 2 (10-fold dilution), or 20 hours +/- 4 (100-fold dilution), respectively (Fig 4A and 4B). Once again, viable cell counts were consistent with this observation (S1F Fig). In timelapse microscopy, ΔrcsB was completely unable to grow at 2x WT MIC, a concentration at which 39% of WT cells grow. At 1x WT MIC, 94% of ΔrcsB cells grew (Fig 4C). Taken together, our data suggest that the Rcs phosphorelay contributes substantially to cecB resistance in E. cloacae.

10.1371/journal.ppat.1012488.g004 Fig 4 The Rcs phosphorelay partially contributes to resistance.

Overnight cultures were diluted (A) 10-fold or (B) 100-fold into fresh LB containing 20 μg/mL cecB, and cells were grown at 37°C for 24 hours. OD600 measurements were taken every 5 minutes. Bars at each point represent standard deviation (n = 3). (C) Mid-log cells were placed on 0.8% agarose pads containing indicated amounts of cecropin and incubated at 37°C. Representative, cropped frames from a timelapse movie are shown.

OmpT protease contributes to cecB resistance via proteolytic cleavage

We then turned our attention to proteases, which are well-characterized as a mechanism of resistance against AMPs [66,67]. We first analyzed the E. cloacae genome for homologs of proteases that have been implicated in AMP degradation. We identified homologs of Serratia marcescens prtS (73% AA identity), E. coli ompT (55% AA identity) (S3 Fig), and two homologs of the E. coli Sap system (38% and 36% AA identity). The Sap system, which imports AMPs for cytoplasmic degradation, has been implicated in AMP resistance for various Gram-negative pathogens [41,68]. PrtS is a zinc metalloprotease that cleaves cecropin A [69], while OmpT is a well-characterized E. coli outer membrane protease, which, in addition to housekeeping functions [70], degrades the human AMP LL-37 (cathelicidin) and thereby promotes intestinal colonization [71].

To test the impact of these putative proteases on E. cloacae resistance to cecB, deletion mutants were generated. Of the three single mutants, only deletion of ompT caused increased susceptibility to cecB in liquid culture at 10- and 100-fold dilutions at 2x WT MIC (Figs 5A and S4). The ΔompT mutant underwent lysis before regrowth at 6 hours (+/- 3) at a 10-fold dilution, or 13 hours (+/- 4) at a 100-fold dilution (Fig 5A and 5B). Overexpression of ompT in trans not only complemented the phenotype but resulted in increased resistance compared to WT, suggesting an important role for OmpT in resistance to cecB (Fig 5A and 5B). In single cell analysis at 1x WT MIC, 40% of ΔompT mutant cells grew while the remaining cells in the population lysed. Notably, descendants of cells that initially displayed resistance frequently lysed at later timepoints (Fig 5C), consistent with the notion that cecropin dynamic survival is a transient state and not a defined, homogeneous phenotype across a population.

10.1371/journal.ppat.1012488.g005 Fig 5 OmpT contributes to cecB resistance via proteolytic cleavage of cecB.

Overnight cultures were diluted (A) 10-fold or (B) 100-fold into fresh LB containing 20 μg/mL cecB, and cells were grown at 37°C for 24 hours. Where applicable, expression of ompT from pBAD was induced with 0.1% arabinose. OD600 measurements were taken every 5 minutes. Error bars represent standard deviation (n = 3). (C) Mid-exponential cells were placed on 0.8% agarose pads containing the indicated amounts of cecropin and incubated at 37°C. Representative, cropped frames from a timelapse movie are shown. Red arrow indicates a cell which initially divided, but later succumbed to cecropin and lysed. (D) Effects of OmpT active site mutations were tested using conditions in (A).

We next aimed to disrupt the proteolytic function of OmpT to ask if the predicted active site was required for OmpT-mediated cecB resistance. Four amino acid residues, a His-Asp and Asp-Asp couple, have been implicated in the OmpT active site in E. coli [72]. These residues are conserved in E. cloacae OmpT (D104, D106, D226, and H228). Due to the close proximity of residues, two amino acid substitution mutant strains were created: OmpTD104A/D106A and OmpTD226A/H228A. Disruption of either AA couple abrogated the ability of plasmid-borne OmpT to rescue cecB sensitivity of the ΔompT mutant (Fig 5D), suggesting OmpT proteolytic activity is important for E. cloacae survival in the presence of cecB.

We were intrigued by the involvement of OmpT, since E. coli DH5α encodes an OmpT homolog (50% AA identity) but was not resistant against cecB. We thus tested whether E. cloacae ompT expression conferred cecB resistance to DH5α. OmpTEcl overexpression was sufficient to promote resistance to cecropin in DH5α, which otherwise is completely susceptible to 2x WT MIC levels of cecropin (S5A Fig). We were also curious whether lack of E. coli OmpT proteolytic activity was due to low native expression levels. Overexpression of OmpTDH5⍺ in an E. coli DH5α background provided some resistance against cecB where the cells resumed exponential growth after a long lag phase (S5B Fig). However this was not sufficient to fully restore the resistant phenotype observed with overexpression of OmpTEcl in E. coli DH5α background. This suggests that E. cloacae’s native OmpT cleaves cecB while E. coli OmpT shows limited activity against cecB, even when expressed at higher than native levels.

PhoPQ, Rcs, and OmpT are collectively required for cecB resistance

Individual deletions of phoPQ, rcsB, or ompT resulted in a significant increase in susceptibility to cecB; however, all mutants still exhibited (albeit, reduced) dynamic survival around WT MIC concentrations. Notably, repassaging the resistant mutant populations into fresh cecB resulted in sensitivity comparable to the initial exposure in all mutants, confirming that the populations do not harbor stable genetic mutations and suggesting that cecropin may have been depleted from the media (S6 Fig). To test the additive effect of these deletions, double and triple knockout strains were constructed, starting with a ΔphoPQ background. Upon exposure to 2x WT MIC at a 10-fold or 100-fold dilution, the ΔphoPQ ΔompT double mutant had a more pronounced growth delay than either single mutant (S7A Fig), suggesting these mechanisms independently promote dynamic survival in the presence of cecropin. Similarly, a ΔphoPQ ΔrcsB double mutant had a more pronounced growth delay than either ΔphoPQ or ΔrcsB mutants (S7A Fig). It should be noted that some replicates of ΔphoPQ ΔrcsB failed to grow at all in the presence of cecB, but this was not frequently observed (S7B Fig).

In contrast, deletion of PhoPQ, OmpT, and RcsB (ΔphoPQ ΔompT ΔrcsB, “Δ3”) resulted in near complete eradication by cecropin at both 10-fold and 100-fold back dilution (Fig 6A and 6B), with no full regrowth at least up to 24 hours. In almost all experiments, the triple mutant was completed killed by the AMP (Fig 6C), though we did note a small surviving fraction in one experiment (perhaps indicating that some rare AMP persisters exist [48]). In addition, single cell analysis revealed that Δ3 was completely lysed by cecropin at 1x WT MIC (Fig 6C and 6D), though at this lower concentration, we observed initial attempts at a few divisions on the agarose pad before lysis. Despite this dramatic phenotype, however, we still observed an inoculum effect in MIC measurements for Δ3 (S8 Fig)–while the absolute values for MICs were lower than for WT, the dynamic relationship between inoculum size and MIC was preserved. In aggregate, our data show that all three AMP resistance mechanisms collectively contribute to cecB resistance in E. cloacae and inhibition of all 3 AMP resistance mechanisms could lead to almost total elimination of cecB resistance.

10.1371/journal.ppat.1012488.g006 Fig 6 PhoPQ, Rcs, and OmpT are collectively required for cecB resistance.

Overnight cultures were diluted (A) 10-fold into fresh LB containing 20 μg/mL cecB, and cells were grown at 37°C for 24 hours. OD600 measurements were taken every 5 minutes. Bars at each point represent standard deviation (n = 3). (B) Cultures were diluted 100fold into fresh medium with or without cecropin; samples were taken at indicated timepoints to quantify colony forming units (CFU) per mL. Error bars represent standard deviation (n = 3). (C) Mid-exponential phase cells were placed on 0.8% agarose pads containing indicated amounts of cecropin and incubated at 37°C. Representative, cropped time frames are shown. (D) Percentage of cells that divided during the time lapse, grouped by drug concentration (0, 10, 20, 200 μg/mL). Cells are binned by birth frame, i.e., the frame of the time lapse during which the cell was first identified by SuperSegger [85]. Blue represents cells that underwent a successful division event throughout the course of the timelapse, red indicates cells which did not divide. Missing bars indicate that the initial population of cells was unable to divide.

Discussion

As pathogens continue to develop resistance against antibiotics at an alarming rate, AMPs have come into focus as potentially safe and effective therapeutics with which to treat MDR infections [73–76]. With many AMPs (particularly including cecropins [24,25]) undergoing evaluation as clinically useful antimicrobials, it is imperative to determine how bacteria sense and respond to AMP treatment, potentially enabling the development of pre-emptive measures against inevitable resistance development. While classical antibiotic resistance can often be pinned to a single genetic factor (e.g., target modification [77], drug inactivation [78] and efflux [79]), we demonstrate that AMP resistance can be far more nuanced. In the case of cecropin, we show that multiple resistance strategies are deployed by Enterobacter cloacae–outer membrane modifications, protease production, and membrane stress response collectively maximize E. cloacae’s survival in the presence of cecB (Fig 7A). Thus, E. cloacae is not entirely dependent on any one of these factors to survive cecropin exposure, and, in liquid culture, presence of just one was sufficient to promote resistance. Since cecropin mimics the mechanism of action (LPS disruption) of many human AMPs, it is likely that the resistance mechanisms studied here have broad implications for pathogenesis.

10.1371/journal.ppat.1012488.g007 Fig 7 Model of Enterobacter cloacae cecropin B dynamic survival.

(A) Mechanisms of AMP resistance discussed in this study. 1) OM stress induces the Rcs phosphorelay, which phosphorylates the response regulator RcsB. Among other systems, RcsB upregulates capsule production. 2) AMPs and envelope stress induces the PhoPQ signaling system, which upregulates transcription of enzymes which modify the outer membrane. 3) OmpT, bound in the outer membrane, may be able to cleave AMPs before they act on the cell surface. (B) Model of E. cloacae growth vs concentration of cecB over time. Black line represents hypothetical population density (indicated by OD600), solid red line represents the hypothetical concentration of cecropin in the sample, and the dotted red line represents the hypothetical concentration of cecropin necessary for lysis. In this model, the population must bring the amount of cecropin below the effective killing concentration before all cells in the population are lysed. Factors like initial starting concentration or protease production may modify the rate at which bacteria can reduce cecropin concentration, while other factors like PhoPQ and RcsB may raise the concentration of cecropin necessary for lysis.

We also observed “dynamic survival” (reminiscent of heteroresistance) to cecropin. Resistance was unstable, with populations rapidly reverting to initial cecB sensitivity upon additional doses of drug. One potential explanation for lack of stable cecropin resistance is the formation of unknown tandem gene amplifications, which are intrinsically unstable and thus transient [80]. More likely, the phenotype we observed could be due to stochastic variance of gene expression in cells, even across a genetically identical population. For example, if 50% of cells in the population are expressing an initial “optimal” level of OmpT or PhoPQ-regulated genes, they will survive and divide, while the remaining cells die. Without antimicrobial pressure, heterogeneity of gene expression may return to the population. This is supported by the fact we observed individual cells in populations of E. cloacae displaying seemingly stochastic and divergent outcomes. Regardless of the mechanism, this striking population heterogeneity speaks to the importance of single-cell analysis when investigating bacterial susceptibility to AMPs.

It is also intriguing that even a 10-fold difference in initial inoculum resulted in drastically different outcomes at the population level. An inoculum effect has been demonstrated previously with the conclusion that, as a universal property of AMPs, a certain AMP/cell ratio must be reached for killing to occur [56]. This is particularly important for AMPs compared to classical antibiotics, given that AMPs have a very low range of intermediate efficacy [8]. In other words, AMPs will have little effect on a bacterial cell up until reaching an AMP/cell ratio where complete killing occurs. Given this narrow range, it is plausible that an order of magnitude more cells in a population can afford a tremendous growth advantage to E. cloacae treated with cecropin. The dynamics of this ratio become more complex when considering an actively growing single cell. For instance, as AMPs are binding to a cell and nearing the critical killing threshold, what if the cell completes its division? Suddenly, the AMP/cell ratio has been halved (at least in a simple model; heterogeneous distribution of surface-bound AMPs among daughter cells is also conceivable)–maximal AMP killing may thus be a function of both AMP concentration and bacterial division rate. In this way, the binding kinetics of a particular AMP may be vital in its ability to kill a population of bacteria. Further, dead cells within a population can play a protective role to growing and dividing cells; the membranes of lysed cells can absorb AMPs which could otherwise act on growing bacteria [81,82]. We propose that each of the genetic factors we describe in this study help E. cloacae to raise the AMP/cell ratio necessary to lyse a cell. In WT, for instance, although some cells will initially die, the vast majority of cells in the population will not be bound by enough cecB to lyse, due to degradation of some surface-bound cecB (via OmpT), reduction of target binding (through PhoPQ-mediated OM modifications), and/or delay in binding due to (putatively) capsule production (induced by Rcs). However, even at higher AMP concentrations, all it takes is for a few cells to win the initial race of division vs AMP binding for the population to eventually recover, if the AMP concentration sinks to growth-permissive levels in the meantime. Sequestration by dead cells or slow degradation by another protease therefore likely contributes to allowing regrowth to full density after 24 hours in our experimental stup. We propose a model wherein the eventual survival of an E. cloacae population is dependent on the ability of the population to lower the cecB concentration to beneath its effective killing threshold (Fig 7B). In the case of our Δ3 mutant, the population lyses completely before cecropin levels have been sufficiently lowered. This model would also explain why the resulting population is sensitive to cecropin if exposed again, because no individual cell in the population exhibits outright resistance, and is consistent with our observation that the Δ3 mutant still exhibits an inoculum effect, albeit at lower AMP concentration.

AMPs are incredibly diverse in structure, mode of action, and efficacy against human pathogens [13]. Specific AMP resistance mechanisms may therefore not be equivalent across bacteria. For instance, DH5α encodes its own homologue of OmpT, which appeared to be fairly ineffective in combating cecB compared to E. cloacae’s OmpT, even when overexpressed. Indeed, the surprising diversity of OmpT-mediated AMP degradation, even within the same species, has been noted before in different strains of E. coli [71].

Altogether, this work demonstrates how multiple genetic factors can independently contribute to AMP resistance in an opportunistic pathogen. This supports the notion that transient, stochastic resistance, or “dynamic survival” may have an impact on infection outcomes. Further study will be necessary to parse out the fine mechanisms which govern the ever-evolving battle between host immunity and pathogenic invaders.

Methods

Bacterial strains and growth

All strains, plasmids, and primers used in this study are listed in S1 and S2 Tables. We used the Enterobacter cloacae type strain ATCC13047 and its derivatives for all experiments. All strains were initially grown from freezer stocks on solid Luria-Bertani (LB) agar at 37°C. Isolated colonies were used to inoculate LB at 37°C. Where applicable, kanamycin was used at 50 μg/mL, chloramphenicol at 100 μg/mL, and cecropin B (MedChemExpress, Monmouth Junction, NJ) at 20 μg/mL unless otherwise noted. For complementation experiments, 0.2% arabinose or 200 μM Isopropyl-ß-D-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG) was used to induce plasmid-borne genes. E. cloacae NDM-1 and NDM-5 were obtained from the culture collection of Weill Cornell Medical (S3 Table).

Mutant construction

The ompT, rcsB, sapA, and prtS mutants were constructed using the suicide vector pTOX5 as described in [83]. ~500 bp upstream and downstream flanking homology regions were amplified from ATCC13047 using primers ANM28/29 and ANM30/31 for ompT, ANM78/79 and ANM80/81 for rcsB, ANM16/17 and ANM18/19 for sapA, and ANM42/43 and ANM44/45 for prtS. For a given gene, flanking homology regions were then cloned into pTOX5 digested with EcoRV using isothermal assembly [84]. Successful constructs were then transformed into E. coli donor strain MFDλpir and subsequently conjugated into ATCC13047. Recombinants were selected on LB plates containing 1% glucose and 100 μg/mL chloramphenicol. Upon single colony purification, colonies were directly streaked out on an M9 minimal medium plate containing 0.2% casamino acids and 1% rhamnose, followed by incubation at 37°C for 24 hours. Mutants were then tested with flanking primers for each gene (ompT, ANM26/27; rcsB, ANM86/87; sapA, ANM14/15; and prtS, ANM32/33).

Amino acids substitutions in ompT were generated using the Q5 Site-Directed Mutagenesis Kit (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA). Briefly, primers containing the desired mutations were designed (D104A-D106A, ANM146/147; D226A-H228A, ANM148/149) to anneal to ompT cloned onto the pBAD33 vector and amplify the entire construct. Kinase, Ligase, and DpnI (KLD) reaction mix was then used to phosphorylate the ends of the PCR products and ligate them. The resulting mutant ompT constructs were sequenced using pBAD flanking primers (TC34/35) and electroporated into ΔompT.

Growth curve experiments

Growth curve experiments were conducted using 100-well honeycomb plates in a Bioscreen C growth curve analyzer (Growth Curves USA, Piscataway NJ). Overnight cultures grown at 37°C (shaking 200 rpm) were diluted 10- or 100-fold into fresh LB medium containing cecropin B (20 μg/mL, 2x MIC) and transferred to honeycomb plates (200 μL volume/culture). Cultures were then grown at 37°C OD600 was measured automatically by the plate reader every 10 minutes for 24 hours.

Cecropin killing experiments

Overnight cultures were grown at 37°C shaking (200 rpm). For the experiment, cultures were then diluted 10 or 100-fold into fresh LB medium containing cecropin B (20 μg/mL, 2x MIC) in 1.5 mL microfuge tubes. Subcultures were incubated in a 37°C standing incubator. At indicated timepoints, a 50 μL aliquot was removed from the sample and serially diluted to determine CFU/mL.

MIC assays

Cultures were grown overnight at 37°C shaking, then diluted 1000-fold into fresh LB. Subcultures were grown for 1 hour at 37°C shaking before being diluted 1000-fold again into fresh LB to create a “seed culture”. One-hundred microliters of seed culture was subsequently diluted 2-fold into a 96-well plate containing cecropin B concentrations ranging 0.13–64 μg/mL. Reported values are medians of 4 technical replicates.

Microscopy

Cells were harvested in mid-exponential phase and spotted on a 0.8% agarose pad containing LB and indicated concentrations of cecropin B. Cells were kept at 37°C while being imaged on a Leica Dmi8 inverted microscope. Images were acquired every 10 minutes. Time lapse images were analyzed using SuperSegger [85] and custom R scripts. Errors were excluded from the analysis by manual curation.

Supporting information

S1 Fig PhoPQ, RcsB, and OmpT each promote E. cloacae resistance to cecropin.

Overnight cultures of MDR ECC encoding NDM-1 or NDM-5 were diluted 10-fold (A and B) or 100-fold (C and D) into fresh LB containing 20 μg/mL cecB, and cells were grown at 37°C for 24 hours. OD600 measurements were taken every 10 minutes. Error bars represent standard deviation (n = 6). Overnight cultures of WT and (E) ΔphoPQ (F) ΔrcsB or (G) ΔompT were diluted 10-fold into fresh LB containing 20 μg/mL cecB, and cells were grown at 37°C for 24 hours. Samples were taken at select timepoints to quantify colony forming units (CFU) per mL. Error bars represent standard deviation (n = 3). In (C), individual replicates of ΔompT +cecB are shown due to high variance at the 3-hour timepoint.

(TIF)

S2 Fig (A) WT cells from three independent wells in Fig 1A were sampled after 24 hours of growth in the presence of cecropin, grown overnight in LB, then re-exposed to 20 μg/ml cecB after 100fold dilution. Each of the 3 biological replicates is represented by a different color (black, red, blue), and each color contains 18 technical replicates. (B) Concentration-dependent growth and lysis. Overnight cultures were diluted 100fold into fresh medium containing the indicated concentration of cecB, growth (OD600) was measured in a plate reader. (C) Overnight cultures were diluted 100fold into fresh medium, grown to OD = 0.5, then cec B (2 x MIC) was added. Following regrowth to the same OD, cecB was again added at the same concentration (D) Cultures were treated as described in (C), but plated for CFU/mL after 1 hour of exposure to cecB.

(TIF)

S3 Fig The structure of E. cloacae OmpT is conserved with E. coli OmpT.

The crystal structure of E. coli OmpT (blue), overlaid with an AlphaFold prediction of the homologous OmpT we identified in E. cloacae (red). Pairwise amino acid sequence alignment revealed 50% identity.

(TIF)

S4 Fig Homologues of the Sap system and protease PrtS do not promote cecropin resistance in E. cloacae.

Overnight cultures were diluted 10-fold into fresh LB containing 20 μg/mL cecB, and cells were grown at 37°C for 24 hours. Error bars represent standard deviation (n = 3).

(TIF)

S5 Fig E. cloacae OmpT confers cecropin resistance to DH5α.

Overnight cultures were diluted 10-fold into fresh LB containing 20 μg/mL cecB, and cells were grown at 37°C for 24 hours. Error bars represent standard deviation (n = 3).

(TIF)

S6 Fig CecB resistance in mutant populations is unstable.

ΔphoPQ, ΔrcsB, and ΔompT were grown at 37°C in the presence of 20 μg/mL cecropin. After 24 hours, surviving cells were passaged ON in LB, then diluted 100-fold and re-exposed to 20 μg/mL cecropin. Cells were grown at 37°C for 24 more hours. Error bars represent standard deviation (n = 3).

(TIF)

S7 Fig Deletion of ompT or rcsB in a ΔphoPQ background exacerbates cecropin sensitivity.

Overnight cultures were diluted 10-fold into fresh LB containing 20 μg/mL cecB, and cells were grown at 37°C for 24 hours. Error bars represent standard deviation (n = 3). (A) Representative growth curve of ΔphoPQΔrcsB and ΔphoPQΔompT response to cecB. (B) Example of replicate in which ΔphoPQΔrcsB mutant failed to grow in the presence of cecB.

(TIF)

S8 Fig Inoculum effect in the Δ3 mutant.

MIC assays were conducted at the indicated dilution of an overnight culture of E. cloacae Δ3 mutant.

(TIF)

S1 Table Strains and plasmids used in this study.

(DOCX)

S2 Table Oligonucleotides used in this study.

(DOCX)

S3 Table Clinical isolates.

(XLSX)

S1 Data Raw data used to generate figures.

(XLSX)

We thank Dr. Lars Westblade (Weill Cornell Medical) for E. cloacae MDR strains. We thank John Helmann and Heather Feaga for critical comments on the manuscript.

10.1371/journal.ppat.1012488.r001
Decision Letter 0
Samuels D. Scott Section Editor
Van Tyne Daria Academic Editor
© 2024 Samuels, Van Tyne
2024
Samuels, Van Tyne
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 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.
Submission Version0
12 Jun 2024

Dear Dr. Dörr,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Multiple resistance factors collectively promote inoculum-dependent dynamic survival during antimicrobial peptide exposure in Enterobacter cloacae" for consideration at PLOS Pathogens. Again, we apologize for the delay during the review process. Your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by three independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations (below).

Please address all of the comments from the reviewers, especially the concerns of Reviewer 2 regarding the lack of an MDR strain and the use of cecropin B in your study.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Daria Van Tyne

Academic Editor

PLOS Pathogens

D. Scott Samuels

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************

Reviewer Comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: The manuscript by Murtha et al describes how Enterobacter populations resist killing by the antimicrobial peptide cecB. This study is important for numerous reasons. Antimicrobial peptides are a critical component of the innate immune response and resistance to or evasion of AMPs is necessary for to establish infection. Furthermore, AMPs are being explored as new treatment options, with some currently in clinical trials for the treatment of Gram-negative infection. Here, the authors characterize the response of Enterobacter to cecB and observe initial killing followed by delayed regrowth of the population. Interestingly, this phenomenon and the length of the lag phase following cecB treatment was heavily dependent on populations density and exhibited the hallmarks of heteroresistance. The authors then explored 3 hypotheses to uncover the mechanism of resistance, mutating genes responsible for three different established mechanisms of AMP resistance described in other organisms. Intriguingly, all three systems contributed to survival and regrowth of the population, likely due to heterogenous expression levels of each of the genes resulting in a sub-population exhibiting increased resistance to the AMP. Overall, this is a very well written, thorough and elegant paper that serves as a very useful addition to our knowledge of AMP resistance mechansims in an important pathogen.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript focuses on heteroresistance of E. cloacae to a cationic antimicrobial peptide (AMP) cecropin B. The authors demonstrate heteroresistance with growth curve experiments that show no heritable resistance occurs after challenge with cecropin B. This effect is inoculum dependent. The authors also confirm their data with CFU counts and quantitative microscopy. Then, the authors test 3 known systems in other bacteria that antagonize AMPs, PhoPQ, RcsB, and OmpT, in E. cloacae. The knockout of each of these systems results in reduced heteroresistance, allowing the authors to conclude that heteroresistance to cecropin B in E. cloacae is multifaceted. The work is done carefully with good controls, but I have two concerns about the impact/importance of the results. First, all experiments were done on the type strain of E. cloacae rather than MDR strains with more clinical/health relevance. Second, the authors do not motivate their choice of cecropin B sufficiently. Of all of the AMPs out there, why choose this one? It does not appear to be particularly potent, and it is a linear peptide which will impact its stability (indeed, likely observed in the authors’ OmpT experiments). Besides these overarching questions, there are several further questions/concerns that should be addressed in a revised paper.

1) Introduction: this section should include information about the sequence of cecropin B and its helical structure as well as if anything is known about whether it forms pores in membranes or kills by other mechanisms

2) Line 54: I am intrigued by the statement that AMPs kill faster than antibiotics. Could the authors discuss this more and back it up with numbers?

3) Line 86: while the intro is already on the long side, I would like the authors to add a few more sentence talking about the specifics of how CPS is regulated by Rcs. Up or down-regulated? Which polysaccharides?

4) Line 109: state the values of the “low MICs”

5) Line 114: report the concentration of cecropin B used

6) Line 128: I was confused about referring to the 1000-fold dilution as a standard condition because the paragraph only discusses the 10 and 100-fold dilutions

7) Line 184-185: amino arabinose is not an enzyme. Please correct and also state briefly how this enzyme leads to AMP resistance

8) Line 212: can you define the various components of the capsule, especially if there are aspects of it that are specific to E. cloacae?

9) Line 260: did the authors consider overexpression of the DH5a OmpT in E. cloacae to rule out the possibility that the lack of cleavage in DH5a is just due to lower expression?

10) Line 269: it should be possible to use LC-MS to try to quantify the degradation of cecropin B; was this considered?

Reviewer #3: Review: Murtha et al.

Overall, the experiments we well described, and the data clearly reported. The novelty is diminished by the target gene approach which only looked at known mechanisms, but it was still fruitful. The generalizability was diminished by the focus on just on AMP, and one bacterial strain. I believe there are a there are a few points of clarification, mostly on the interpretation that could make the paper stronger.

1. The justification of investigating this specific AMP is not made. Given the large number of AMPs that could have been chosen. It would have made a more compelling paper I the authors better explained why this AMP is of particular interest.

2. Their interpretation of the population level of heteroresistance assays in the results section is problematic. Specifically, the delayed growth of the population after initial decline. The authors do not address until much later, in the discussion, the clear alternative that the level of cecropin in the media is being depleted in a manner dependent upon the E. cloacae concentration. If this is the case, one could imagine there is no phenotypic heterogeneity among the E. cloacae within the culture, but simply a stochastic killing of cells until the cecropin level drops to a point where the cell can grow again.

-- Similarly, in the single cell microscopic studies, I don’t see that they fully explain why their findings may not be due to stochastic effects, and potentially local heterogeneity in cecropin concentration in the LB pads, which presumable could develop rather quickly if the E. cloacae are inactivating the cercopin.

-- The authors then lean heavily into the model into which cecropin is being depleted in the discussion ( eg line 348. ), which is also consistent with their data, but confusing given the inconsistency with how the data are interpreted in the results section.

-- Overall, I felt the frequent use of the term heteroresistance detracted from the paper, and I see no compelling evidence that heteroresistance (if defined as a phenotypic state the is vertically passed down for at least a few cell division cycles) exists.

3. The genetic studies including identification of the ompTecl with exploration to mutation in the active site was strong and well done.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #1: I have no major criticisms.

Reviewer #2: see above

Reviewer #3: None

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: Can the authors more specifically introduce what is known about the mechanism by which cecropins kill. In the discussion, it may be worthwhile suggesting that the resistance mechanisms uncovered here may play more or less of a role in resistance to other AMPs depending on their mechanism of action.

The impact of population density on the outcome of AMP treatment is striking. Perhaps the authors would care to comment on the implications of this finding for the establishment of infection or for the use of AMPs to as new anti-infectives?

In Figure 7, 2. Membrane Stress/AMPs, consider removing AMPs as that’s already in the figure.

Reviewer #2: see above

Reviewer #3: none

**********

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

10.1371/journal.ppat.1012488.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
26 Jul 2024

Attachment Submitted filename: Murtha_reviewerRebuttal.docx

10.1371/journal.ppat.1012488.r003
Decision Letter 1
Samuels D. Scott Section Editor
Van Tyne Daria Academic Editor
© 2024 Samuels, Van Tyne
2024
Samuels, Van Tyne
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 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.
Submission Version1
8 Aug 2024

Dear Dr. Dörr,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Multiple resistance factors collectively promote inoculum-dependent dynamic survival during antimicrobial peptide exposure in Enterobacter cloacae' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Daria Van Tyne

Academic Editor

PLOS Pathogens

D. Scott Samuels

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************************************************

10.1371/journal.ppat.1012488.r004
Acceptance letter
Samuels D. Scott Section Editor
Van Tyne Daria Academic Editor
© 2024 Samuels, Van Tyne
2024
Samuels, Van Tyne
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 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.
21 Aug 2024

Dear Dr. Dörr,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Multiple resistance factors collectively promote inoculum-dependent dynamic survival during antimicrobial peptide exposure in Enterobacter cloacae," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the pre-publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Pearls, Reviews, Opinions, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript, if you opted to have an early version of your article, will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064
==== Refs
References

1 Livermore DM . The need for new antibiotics. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2004;10 Suppl 4 :1–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-0691.2004.1004.x .15522034
2 Ramirez D , Giron M . Enterobacter Infections. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing Copyright 2023, StatPearls Publishing LLC.; 2023.
3 Rice LB . Federal Funding for the Study of Antimicrobial Resistance in Nosocomial Pathogens: No ESKAPE. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2008;197 (8 ):1079–81. doi: 10.1086/533452 18419525
4 Munoz-Price LS , Poirel L , Bonomo RA , Schwaber MJ , Daikos GL , Cormican M , et al . Clinical epidemiology of the global expansion of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13 (9 ):785–96. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70190-7 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4673667.23969216
5 Bartoloni A , Pallecchi L , Benedetti M , Fernandez C , Vallejos Y , Guzman E , et al . Multidrug-resistant commensal Escherichia coli in children, Peru and Bolivia. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12 (6 ):907–13. doi: 10.3201/eid1206.051258 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3373029.16707045
6 Bassetti M , Righi E , Carnelutti A , Graziano E , Russo A . Multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae: challenges for treatment, prevention and infection control. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2018;16 (10 ):749–61. Epub 20180919. doi: 10.1080/14787210.2018.1522249 .30207815
7 Zasloff M. Antimicrobial peptides of multicellular organisms. Nature. 2002;415 (6870 ):389–95. doi: 10.1038/415389a .11807545
8 Lazzaro BP , Zasloff M , Rolff J . Antimicrobial peptides: Application informed by evolution. Science. 2020;368 (6490). doi: 10.1126/science.aau5480 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8097767.32355003
9 Haney EF , Straus SK , Hancock REW . Reassessing the Host Defense Peptide Landscape. Front Chem. 2019;7 :43. Epub 20190204. doi: 10.3389/fchem.2019.00043 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6369191.30778385
10 Haney EF , Mansour SC , Hancock RE . Antimicrobial Peptides: An Introduction. Methods Mol Biol. 2017;1548 :3–22. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-6737-7_1 .28013493
11 Wang G. Human antimicrobial peptides and proteins. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2014;7 (5 ):545–94. Epub 20140513. doi: 10.3390/ph7050545 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4035769.24828484
12 Maasch J , Torres MDT , Melo MCR , de la Fuente-Nunez C . Molecular de-extinction of ancient antimicrobial peptides enabled by machine learning. Cell Host Microbe. 2023;31 (8 ):1260–74.e6. Epub 2023/07/30. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2023.07.001 .37516110
13 Wang G , Li X , Wang Z . APD3: the antimicrobial peptide database as a tool for research and education. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44 (D1 ):D1087–93. Epub 20151123. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv1278 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4702905.26602694
14 Wang X , Wang G . Insights into Antimicrobial Peptides from Spiders and Scorpions. Protein Pept Lett. 2016;23 (8 ):707–21. doi: 10.2174/0929866523666160511151320 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4967028.27165405
15 Santana FL , Estrada K , Alford MA , Wu BC , Dostert M , Pedraz L , et al . Novel Alligator Cathelicidin As-CATH8 Demonstrates Anti-Infective Activity against Clinically Relevant and Crocodylian Bacterial Pathogens. Antibiotics (Basel). 2022;11 (11 ). Epub 20221111. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics11111603 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9686568.36421248
16 Lemaitre B , Hoffmann J . The host defense of Drosophila melanogaster. Annu Rev Immunol. 2007;25 :697–743. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.25.022106.141615 .17201680
17 Duneau D , Ferdy JB , Revah J , Kondolf H , Ortiz GA , Lazzaro BP , et al . Stochastic variation in the initial phase of bacterial infection predicts the probability of survival in D. melanogaster. Elife. 2017;6 . Epub 20171012. doi: 10.7554/eLife.28298 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5703640.29022878
18 Qian S , Wang W , Yang L , Huang HW . Structure of the alamethicin pore reconstructed by x-ray diffraction analysis. Biophys J. 2008;94 (9 ):3512–22. Epub 20080116. doi: 10.1529/biophysj.107.126474 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2292392.18199659
19 Gazit E , Miller IR , Biggin PC , Sansom MS , Shai Y . Structure and orientation of the mammalian antibacterial peptide cecropin P1 within phospholipid membranes. J Mol Biol. 1996;258 (5 ):860–70. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0293 .8637016
20 Fantner GE , Barbero RJ , Gray DS , Belcher AM . Kinetics of antimicrobial peptide activity measured on individual bacterial cells using high-speed atomic force microscopy. Nat Nanotechnol. 2010;5 (4 ):280–5. Epub 20100314. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2010.29 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3905601.20228787
21 Yu G , Baeder DY , Regoes RR , Rolff J . Combination Effects of Antimicrobial Peptides. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60 (3 ):1717–24. Epub 20160104. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02434-15 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4775937.26729502
22 Czaplewski L , Bax R , Clokie M , Dawson M , Fairhead H , Fischetti VA , et al . Alternatives to antibiotics-a pipeline portfolio review. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16 (2 ):239–51. Epub 20160113. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00466-1 .26795692
23 Boman HG , Faye I , Gudmundsson GH , Lee JY , Lidholm DA . Cell-free immunity in Cecropia. A model system for antibacterial proteins. Eur J Biochem. 1991;201 (1 ):23–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1991.tb16252.x .1915368
24 Kalsy M , Tonk M , Hardt M , Dobrindt U , Zdybicka-Barabas A , Cytrynska M , et al . The insect antimicrobial peptide cecropin A disrupts uropathogenic Escherichia coli biofilms. npj Biofilms and Microbiomes. 2020;6 (1 ):6. doi: 10.1038/s41522-020-0116-3 32051417
25 Brady D , Grapputo A , Romoli O , Sandrelli F . Insect Cecropins, Antimicrobial Peptides with Potential Therapeutic Applications. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20 (23 ). Epub 20191122. doi: 10.3390/ijms20235862 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6929098.31766730
26 De Lucca AJ , Jacks TJ , Brogden KA . Binding between lipopolysaccharide and cecropin A. Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry. 1995;151 (2 ):141–8. doi: 10.1007/BF01322336 8569759
27 Baek M-H , Kamiya M , Kushibiki T , Nakazumi T , Tomisawa S , Abe C , et al . Lipopolysaccharide-bound structure of the antimicrobial peptide cecropin P1 determined by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Journal of Peptide Science. 2016;22 (4 ):214–21. doi: 10.1002/psc.2865 26939541
28 Agrawal A , Weisshaar JC . Effects of alterations of the E. coli lipopolysaccharide layer on membrane permeabilization events induced by Cecropin A. Biochim Biophys Acta Biomembr. 2018;1860 (7 ):1470–9. Epub 20180422. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2018.04.009 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5957292.29684333
29 Moore AJ , Beazley WD , Bibby MC , Devine DA . Antimicrobial activity of cecropins. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 1996;37 (6 ):1077–89. doi: 10.1093/jac/37.6.1077 8836811
30 Wang J , Ma K , Ruan M , Wang Y , Li Y , Fu YV , et al . A novel cecropin B-derived peptide with antibacterial and potential anti-inflammatory properties. PeerJ. 2018;6 :e5369. Epub 20180725. doi: 10.7717/peerj.5369 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6064198.30065898
31 Koo HB , Seo J . Antimicrobial peptides under clinical investigation. Peptide Science. 2019;111 (5 ):e24122. 10.1002/pep2.24122.
32 Cole JN , Nizet V . Bacterial Evasion of Host Antimicrobial Peptide Defenses. Microbiol Spectr. 2016;4 (1 ). doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.VMBF-0006-2015 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4804471.26999396
33 Band VI , Weiss DS . Mechanisms of Antimicrobial Peptide Resistance in Gram-Negative Bacteria. Antibiotics (Basel). 2015;4 (1 ):18–41. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics4010018 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4410734.25927010
34 Gunn JS , Lim KB , Krueger J , Kim K , Guo L , Hackett M , et al . PmrA-PmrB-regulated genes necessary for 4-aminoarabinose lipid A modification and polymyxin resistance. Mol Microbiol. 1998;27 (6 ):1171–82. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.1998.00757.x .9570402
35 Lee H , Hsu FF , Turk J , Groisman EA . The PmrA-regulated pmrC gene mediates phosphoethanolamine modification of lipid A and polymyxin resistance in Salmonella enterica. J Bacteriol. 2004;186 (13 ):4124–33. doi: 10.1128/JB.186.13.4124-4133.2004 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC421605.15205413
36 Bociek K , Ferluga S , Mardirossian M , Benincasa M , Tossi A , Gennaro R , et al . Lipopolysaccharide Phosphorylation by the WaaY Kinase Affects the Susceptibility of Escherichia coli to the Human Antimicrobial Peptide LL-37. J Biol Chem. 2015;290 (32 ):19933–41. Epub 20150622. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M114.634758 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4528152.26100635
37 Whitfield C , Trent MS . Biosynthesis and export of bacterial lipopolysaccharides. Annu Rev Biochem. 2014;83 :99–128. Epub 20140221. doi: 10.1146/annurev-biochem-060713-035600 .24580642
38 Guo L , Lim KB , Poduje CM , Daniel M , Gunn JS , Hackett M , et al . Lipid A acylation and bacterial resistance against vertebrate antimicrobial peptides. Cell. 1998;95 (2 ):189–98. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81750-x .9790526
39 Sieprawska-Lupa M , Mydel P , Krawczyk K , Wójcik K , Puklo M , Lupa B , et al . Degradation of human antimicrobial peptide LL-37 by Staphylococcus aureus-derived proteinases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004;48 (12 ):4673–9. doi: 10.1128/AAC.48.12.4673-4679.2004 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC529204.15561843
40 Stumpe S , Schmid R , Stephens DL , Georgiou G , Bakker EP . Identification of OmpT as the protease that hydrolyzes the antimicrobial peptide protamine before it enters growing cells of Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol. 1998;180 (15 ):4002–6. doi: 10.1128/JB.180.15.4002-4006.1998 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC107389.9683502
41 Parra-Lopez C , Baer MT , Groisman EA . Molecular genetic analysis of a locus required for resistance to antimicrobial peptides in Salmonella typhimurium. Embo j. 1993;12 (11 ):4053–62. doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1993.tb06089.x ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC413698.8223423
42 Shelton CL , Raffel FK , Beatty WL , Johnson SM , Mason KM . Sap Transporter Mediated Import and Subsequent Degradation of Antimicrobial Peptides in Haemophilus. PLOS Pathogens. 2011;7 (11 ):e1002360. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002360 22072973
43 Peschel A , Sahl HG . The co-evolution of host cationic antimicrobial peptides and microbial resistance. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2006;4 (7 ):529–36. Epub 20060612. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro1441 .16778838
44 Mah TF , O’Toole GA . Mechanisms of biofilm resistance to antimicrobial agents. Trends Microbiol. 2001;9 (1 ):34–9. doi: 10.1016/s0966-842x(00)01913-2 .11166241
45 Campos MA , Vargas MA , Regueiro V , Llompart CM , Albertí S , Bengoechea JA . Capsule polysaccharide mediates bacterial resistance to antimicrobial peptides. Infect Immun. 2004;72 (12 ):7107–14. doi: 10.1128/IAI.72.12.7107-7114.2004 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC529140.15557634
46 Meng J , Young G , Chen J . The Rcs System in Enterobacteriaceae: Envelope Stress Responses and Virulence Regulation. Front Microbiol. 2021;12 :627104. Epub 20210215. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.627104 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7917084.33658986
47 Meng J , Young G , Chen J . The Rcs System in Enterobacteriaceae: Envelope Stress Responses and Virulence Regulation. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2021;12 . doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.627104 33658986
48 Rodríguez-Rojas A , Baeder DY , Johnston P , Regoes RR , Rolff J . Bacteria primed by antimicrobial peptides develop tolerance and persist. PLoS Pathog. 2021;17 (3 ):e1009443. Epub 20210331. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009443 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8041211.33788905
49 El-Halfawy OM , Valvano MA . Antimicrobial heteroresistance: an emerging field in need of clarity. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2015;28 (1 ):191–207. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00058-14 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4284305.25567227
50 Napier BA , Band V , Burd EM , Weiss DS . Colistin heteroresistance in Enterobacter cloacae is associated with cross-resistance to the host antimicrobial lysozyme. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58 (9 ):5594–7. Epub 20140630. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02432-14 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4135841.24982068
51 Band VI , Crispell EK , Napier BA , Herrera CM , Tharp GK , Vavikolanu K , et al . Antibiotic failure mediated by a resistant subpopulation in Enterobacter cloacae. Nat Microbiol. 2016;1 (6 ):16053. Epub 20160509. doi: 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.53 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5154748.27572838
52 Band VI , Weiss DS . Heteroresistance to beta-lactam antibiotics may often be a stage in the progression to antibiotic resistance. PLoS Biol. 2021;19 (7 ):e3001346. Epub 20210720. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001346 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8351966.34283833
53 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 (3 ):504–14. Epub 20190211. doi: 10.1038/s41564-018-0342-0 .30742072
54 Bulitta JB , Yang JC , Yohonn L , Ly NS , Brown SV , D’Hondt RE , et al . Attenuation of colistin bactericidal activity by high inoculum of Pseudomonas aeruginosa characterized by a new mechanism-based population pharmacodynamic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54 (5 ):2051–62. Epub 2010/03/10. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00881-09 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2863601.20211900
55 Fantin B , Poujade J , Grégoire N , Chau F , Roujansky A , Kieffer N , et al . The inoculum effect of Escherichia coli expressing mcr-1 or not on colistin activity in a murine model of peritonitis. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019;25 (12 ):1563.e5-.e8. Epub 2019/09/09. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.08.021 .31494253
56 Loffredo MR , Savini F , Bobone S , Casciaro B , Franzyk H , Mangoni ML , et al . Inoculum effect of antimicrobial peptides. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118(21). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2014364118 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8166072.34021080
57 Kang KN , Klein DR , Kazi MI , Guérin F , Cattoir V , Brodbelt JS , et al . Colistin heteroresistance in Enterobacter cloacae is regulated by PhoPQ-dependent 4-amino-4-deoxy-l-arabinose addition to lipid A. Mol Microbiol. 2019;111 (6 ):1604–16. Epub 20190410. doi: 10.1111/mmi.14240 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6561824.30873646
58 Wakamoto Y , Dhar N , Chait R , Schneider K , Signorino-Gelo F , Leibler S , et al . Dynamic persistence of antibiotic-stressed mycobacteria. Science. 2013;339 (6115 ):91–5. doi: 10.1126/science.1229858 .23288538
59 Band VI , Weiss DS . Heteroresistance: A cause of unexplained antibiotic treatment failure? PLOS Pathogens. 2019;15 (6 ):e1007726. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1007726 31170271
60 Balaban NQ , Helaine S , Lewis K , Ackermann M , Aldridge B , Andersson DI , et al . Definitions and guidelines for research on antibiotic persistence. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2019;17 (7 ):441–8. doi: 10.1038/s41579-019-0196-3 30980069
61 Lewis K. Persister cells, dormancy and infectious disease. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2007;5 (1 ):48–56. Epub 20061204. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro1557 .17143318
62 Lewis K. Persister cells. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2010;64 :357–72. doi: 10.1146/annurev.micro.112408.134306 .20528688
63 Groisman EA , Duprey A , Choi J . How the PhoP/PhoQ System Controls Virulence and Mg(2+) Homeostasis: Lessons in Signal Transduction, Pathogenesis, Physiology, and Evolution. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2021;85 (3 ):e0017620. Epub 20210630. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00176-20 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8483708.34191587
64 Wall E , Majdalani N , Gottesman S . The Complex Rcs Regulatory Cascade. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2018;72 :111–39. Epub 20180613. doi: 10.1146/annurev-micro-090817-062640 .29897834
65 Farris C , Sanowar S , Bader MW , Pfuetzner R , Miller SI . Antimicrobial Peptides Activate the Rcs Regulon through the Outer Membrane Lipoprotein RcsF. Journal of Bacteriology. 2010;192 (19 ):4894–903. doi: 10.1128/JB.00505-10 20675476
66 Magana M , Pushpanathan M , Santos AL , Leanse L , Fernandez M , Ioannidis A , et al . The value of antimicrobial peptides in the age of resistance. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2020;20 (9 ):e216–e30. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30327-3 32653070
67 Joo HS , Fu CI , Otto M . Bacterial strategies of resistance to antimicrobial peptides. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016;371 (1695 ). doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0292 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4874390.27160595
68 Mason KM , Bruggeman ME , Munson RS , Bakaletz LO . The non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae Sap transporter provides a mechanism of antimicrobial peptide resistance and SapD-dependent potassium acquisition. Molecular Microbiology. 2006;62 (5 ):1357–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2006.05460.x 17064364
69 Cabral CM , Cherqui A , Pereira A , Simões N . Purification and characterization of two distinct metalloproteases secreted by the entomopathogenic bacterium Photorhabdus sp. strain Az29. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004;70 (7 ):3831–8. doi: 10.1128/AEM.70.7.3831-3838.2004 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC444805.15240252
70 Haiko J , Suomalainen M , Ojala T , Lähteenmäki K , Korhonen TK . Invited review: Breaking barriers—attack on innate immune defences by omptin surface proteases of enterobacterial pathogens. Innate Immun. 2009;15 (2 ):67–80. doi: 10.1177/1753425909102559 .19318417
71 Thomassin JL , Brannon JR , Gibbs BF , Gruenheid S , Le Moual H . OmpT outer membrane proteases of enterohemorrhagic and enteropathogenic Escherichia coli contribute differently to the degradation of human LL-37. Infect Immun. 2012;80 (2 ):483–92. Epub 20111205. doi: 10.1128/IAI.05674-11 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3264287.22144482
72 Vandeputte-Rutten L , Kramer RA , Kroon J , Dekker N , Egmond MR , Gros P . Crystal structure of the outer membrane protease OmpT from Escherichia coli suggests a novel catalytic site. Embo j. 2001;20 (18 ):5033–9. doi: 10.1093/emboj/20.18.5033 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC125623.11566868
73 Rima M , Rima M , Fajloun Z , Sabatier JM , Bechinger B , Naas T . Antimicrobial Peptides: A Potent Alternative to Antibiotics. Antibiotics (Basel). 2021;10 (9 ). Epub 20210910. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics10091095 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8466391.34572678
74 Etayash H , Hancock REW . Host Defense Peptide-Mimicking Polymers and Polymeric-Brush-Tethered Host Defense Peptides: Recent Developments, Limitations, and Potential Success. Pharmaceutics. 2021;13 (11 ). Epub 20211101. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13111820 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8621177.34834239
75 Hancock REW , Alford MA , Haney EF . Antibiofilm activity of host defence peptides: complexity provides opportunities. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2021;19 (12 ):786–97. Epub 20210628. doi: 10.1038/s41579-021-00585-w .34183822
76 Dostert M , Belanger CR , Hancock REW . Design and Assessment of Anti-Biofilm Peptides: Steps Toward Clinical Application. J Innate Immun. 2019;11 (3 ):193–204. Epub 20180822. doi: 10.1159/000491497 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6738209.30134244
77 Reygaert W. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): molecular aspects of antimicrobial resistance and virulence. Clin Lab Sci. 2009;22 (2 ):115–9. .19534446
78 Schwarz S , Kehrenberg C , Doublet B , Cloeckaert A . Molecular basis of bacterial resistance to chloramphenicol and florfenicol. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2004;28 (5 ):519–42. doi: 10.1016/j.femsre.2004.04.001 .15539072
79 Blair JM , Richmond GE , Piddock LJ . Multidrug efflux pumps in Gram-negative bacteria and their role in antibiotic resistance. Future Microbiol. 2014;9 (10 ):1165–77. doi: 10.2217/fmb.14.66 .25405886
80 Hjort K , Nicoloff H , Andersson DI . Unstable tandem gene amplification generates heteroresistance (variation in resistance within a population) to colistin in Salmonella enterica. Mol Microbiol. 2016;102 (2 ):274–89. Epub 20160802. doi: 10.1111/mmi.13459 .27381382
81 Snoussi M , Talledo JP , Del Rosario N-A , Mohammadi S , Ha B-Y , Košmrlj A , et al . Heterogeneous absorption of antimicrobial peptide LL37 in Escherichia coli cells enhances population survivability. eLife. 2018;7 :e38174. doi: 10.7554/eLife.38174 30560784
82 Wu F , Tan C . Dead bacterial absorption of antimicrobial peptides underlies collective tolerance. J R Soc Interface. 2019;16 (151 ):20180701. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2018.0701 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6408340.30958185
83 Lazarus JE , Warr AR , Kuehl CJ , Giorgio RT , Davis BM , Waldor MK . A New Suite of Allelic-Exchange Vectors for the Scarless Modification of Proteobacterial Genomes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2019;85 (16 ). Epub 20190801. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00990-19 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6677854.31201277
84 Gibson DG , Young L , Chuang RY , Venter JC , Hutchison CA 3rd , Smith HO. Enzymatic assembly of DNA molecules up to several hundred kilobases. Nat Methods. 2009;6 (5 ):343–5. Epub 20090412. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1318 .19363495
85 Stylianidou S , Brennan C , Nissen SB , Kuwada NJ , Wiggins PA . SuperSegger: robust image segmentation, analysis and lineage tracking of bacterial cells. Mol Microbiol. 2016;102 (4 ):690–700. Epub 20160923. doi: 10.1111/mmi.13486 .27569113
