Independent education resourceInformation here does not replace care from a qualified health professional.
Peptide Therapy GuideClear peptide education

Educational guide

Resistance Mechanism to Last-Resort Antibiotic Revealed

X-ray crystal structure of the catalytic domain of the MCR-1 protein. [Dr. Phil Hinchliffe/University of Bristol] Understanding how microbes acquire resistance genes and the underlying biochemical mechanisms that ensue from that acquisition is our best approac

Written by Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team
For education only

This guide cannot diagnose a condition or recommend a personal treatment plan. Discuss medical questions with a qualified professional.

X-ray crystal structure of the catalytic domain of the MCR-1 protein. [Dr. Phil Hinchliffe/University of Bristol]

Understanding how microbes acquire resistance genes and the underlying biochemical mechanisms that ensue from that acquisition is our best approach to slowing, reversing, or possibly preventing antibiotic resistance. Last year GEN reported the discovery of a new gene called mcr-1 that was beginning to spread quickly through bacterial populations—leading toward resistance to polymyxin drugs, considered the last line of defense against various strains of pathogenic microbes.

Now, an international group of investigators, led by University of Bristol scientists who discovered the mcr-1 resistance gene, has just provided the first clues to understanding how the mcr-1 gene protects bacteria from colistin—a polymyxin antibiotic used to treat life-threatening bacterial infections that do not respond to other treatment options.

Since the first detection of the mcr-1 gene, it has been detected in common bacteria, such as Escherichia coli, in China, the U.S., and across Europe, first in farm animals and recently—alarmingly—in human patients. The spread of mcr-1 has been linked to the agricultural use of colistin, indicating that transmission between animals and humans may take place. In response to these findings, the Chinese government has now banned the use of colistin in animal feed.

Colistin acts by binding to and disrupting, the outer surface of bacteria. Bacteria carrying the mcr-1 gene make a protein that modifies the bacterial surface to reduce colistin binding, making the organism resistant.

“The importance of understanding colistin resistance can hardly be overstated: it is rapidly emerging threat to public health,” noted study co-author Adrian Mulholland, Ph.D., professor and principal investigator for the BristolBridge initiative, based in the School of Chemistry at the University of Bristol.

In the current study, the researchers used x-ray crystallography to generate detailed pictures of the portion of the MCR-1 protein, which is responsible for the cell-surface modification. With this information in hand, the scientists were able to identify key features that are necessary for it to function. Moreover, they constructed computer models of the chemical reaction that leads to resistance.

The findings from this study were published recently in Scientific Reports in an article entitled “Insights into the Mechanistic Basis of Plasmid-Mediated Colistin Resistance from the Crystal Structure of the Catalytic Domain of MCR-1.”

“Our results illuminate the structural and (for the first time) mechanistic basis of transferable colistin resistance conferred by mcr-1, thanks to the combination of biological, chemical, and computational expertise brought to bear on this project,” Dr. Mulholland explained.

This new data provides the first clues as to how mcr-1 acts within the bacterial cell, as well as information essential toward efforts to identify ways of blocking MCR-1 function that could restore the activity of colistin against bacteria carrying mcr-1.

“We are confident that our findings will drive efforts to understand mcr-1-mediated resistance and ultimately help identify routes toward overcoming MCR-1 activity in harmful bacteria,” Dr. Mulholland concluded.

Connected reading

Helpful context for this guide

Source-derived material selected through this article’s indexed topics.

Related questions

01Undruggable or unscreenable?

Another obstacle to discovering new PPI inhibitors is the lack of libraries designed to hunt for them, points out Philippe Roche, PhD, senior scientist at the Integrative Structural and Chemical Biology team at the Cancer Research Center of Marseilles, France. “If you screen PPIs using libraries that were designed for kinases or GPCRs, that’s why you don’t get a lot of good results,” he says. To that end, his group began assembling a library focused on orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs. The result was 2P2Idb, a hand-curated, structural database cataloguing orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs for which the interface had been 3D characterized. From analyzing these known PPI inhibitors, and what structures they had in common, Roche and his colleagues developed a model to predict whether compounds would likely inhibit PPIs. Using this method, 2P2Idb creates an enriched screening library that dramatically increases the hit rate compared to standard libraries. Having proven their success with a small library of 1600 compounds, they are in the process of expanding the library to 10,000 compounds. Once that’s published, “the idea is to make this library available to labs around the world,” Roche says. “We will provide the library free of charge for people to be able to screen PPI targets.”

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
02How stable is the antibody?

A crucial question often addressed during preclinical development focuses on the in vivo stability of therapeutic antibodies. Increasing the half-life of a therapeutic antibody has several benefits ranging from higher treatment efficacy to increased advantages for the patients who will have a fewer number of therapy sessions and a reduced cost. Given these compelling benefits, following the identification of therapeutic antibodies with the desired specificity, developers usually subject them to a refinement step to increase their stability. This process is often hindered by the lack of reliable experimental tools to predict the half-life of antibodies in patients. The major hurdle of using mouse models to predict antibody stability in the serum lies in the way immunoglobulin proteins are processed by the organism. In mammals, most proteins circulating in the serum undergo constant uptake by endothelial cells and are routed through the endosomes to the lysosomal compartment for degradation. In the endosomes, immunoglobulin G (IgG) proteins are recognized and bound by a transmembrane protein, called the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which mediates their recycling to the plasma membrane and subsequent release back into the serum. As a result, the half-life of IgGs are significantly extended by this mechanism. Since most therapeutic antibodies belong to the IgG class, this recycling system is very relevant for their relative stability in the body. Remarkably, the relative affinity between IgGs and FcRn is extremely disparate between different species, with the mouse receptor showing a much higher affinity than its human counterpart.

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
P

About the author

Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team

Editorial team for Peptide Therapy Guide.

View all articles →