Skip to main content

Testing the mutant selection window hypothesis with Escherichia coli exposed to levofloxacin in a rabbit tissue cage infection model

European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases volume 33, pages 385–389 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to test the mutant selection window (MSW) hypothesis with Escherichia coli exposed to levofloxacin in a rabbit model and to compare in vivo and in vitro exposure thresholds that restrict the selection of fluoroquinolone-resistant mutants. Local infection with E. coli was established in rabbits, and the infected animals were treated orally with various doses of levofloxacin once a day for five consecutive days. Changes in levofloxacin concentration and levofloxacin susceptibility were monitored at the site of infection. The MICs of E. coli increased when levofloxacin concentrations at the site of infection fluctuated between the lower and upper boundaries of the MSW, defined in vitro as the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC99) and the mutant prevention concentration (MPC), respectively. The pharmacodynamic thresholds at which resistant mutants are not selected in vivo was estimated as AUC24/MPC > 20 h or AUC24/MIC > 60 h, where AUC24 is the area under the drug concentration time curve in a 24-h interval. Our finding demonstrated that the MSW existed in vivo. The AUC24/MPC ratio that prevented resistant mutants from being selected estimated in vivo is consistent with that observed in vitro, indicating it might be a reliable index for guiding the optimization of antimicrobial treatment regimens for suppression of the selection of antimicrobial resistance.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Smithson A, Chico C, Ramos J, Netto C, Sanchez M, Ruiz J, Porron R, Bastida MT (2012) Prevalence and risk factors for quinolone resistance among Escherichia coli strains isolated from males with community febrile urinary tract infection. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 31(4):423–430. doi:10.1007/s10096-011-1322-y

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Linde HJ, Lehn N (2004) Mutant prevention concentration of nalidixic acid, ciprofloxacin, clinafloxacin, levofloxacin, norfloxacin, ofloxacin, sparfloxacin or trovafloxacin for Escherichia coli under different growth conditions. J Antimicrob Chemother 53:252–257

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Marcusson LL, Olofsson SK, Komp Lindgren P, Cars O, Hughes D (2005) Mutant prevention concentrations of ciprofloxacin for urinary tract infection isolates of Escherichia coli. J Antimicrob Chemother 55:938–943

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ferran A, Dupouy V, Toutain PL, Bousquet-Mélou A (2007) Influence of inoculum size on the selection of resistant mutants of Escherichia coli in relation to mutant prevention concentrations of marbofloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 51(11):4163–4166

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhao X, Drlica K (2001) Restricting the selection of antibiotic-resistant mutants: a general strategy derived from fluoroquinolone studies. Clin Infect Dis 33(Suppl 3):S147–S156

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Shigemura K, Tanaka K, Yamamichi F, Shirakawa T, Miyake H, Fujisawa M (2012) Does mutation in gyrA and/or parC or efflux pump expression play the main role in fluoroquinolone resistance in Escherichia coli urinary tract infections?: A statistical analysis study. Int J Antimicrob Agents 40:516–520. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2012.07.019

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Olofsson SK, Marcusson LL, Strömbäck A, Hughes D, Cars O (2007) Dose-related selection of fluoroquinolone-resistant Escherichia coli. J Antimicrob Chemother 60:795–801

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Liang B, Bai N, Cai Y, Wang R, Drlica K, Zhao X (2011) Mutant prevention concentration-based pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic indices as dosing targets for suppressing the enrichment of levofloxacin-resistant subpopulations of Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:2409–2412. doi:10.1128/AAC.00975-10

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Homma T, Hori T, Sugimori G, Yamano Y (2007) Pharmacodynamic assessment based on mutant prevention concentrations of fluoroquinolones to prevent the emergence of resistant mutants of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 51(11):3810–3815

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhu YL, Hu LF, Mei Q, Cheng J, Liu YY, Ye Y, Li JB (2012) Testing the mutant selection window in rabbits infected with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus exposed to vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 67:2700–2706. doi:10.1093/jac/dks280

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lu T, Zhao X, Li X, Hansen G, Blondeau J, Drlica K (2003) Effect of chloramphenicol, erythromycin, moxifloxacin, penicillin, and tetracycline concentration on the recovery of resistant mutants of Mycobacterium smegmatis and Staphylococcus aureus. J Antimicrob Chemother 52:61–64

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Xuan D, Zhong M, Mattoes H, Bui KQ, McNabb J, Nicolau DP, Quintiliani R, Nightingale CH (2001) Streptococcus pneumoniae response to repeated moxifloxacin or levofloxacin exposure in a rabbit tissue cage model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 45(3):794–799

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cui J, Liu Y, Wang R, Tong W, Drlica K, Zhao X (2006) The mutant selection window in rabbits infected with Staphylococcus aureus. J Infect Dis 194:1601–1608

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bansal S, Tandon V (2011) Contribution of mutations in DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV genes to ciprofloxacin resistance in Escherichia coli clinical isolates. Int J Antimicrob Agents 37:253–255. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2010.11.022

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Durham LK, Ge M, Cuccia AJ, Quinn JP (2010) Modeling antibiotic resistance to project future rates: quinolone resistance in Escherichia coli. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 29(3):353–356. doi:10.1007/s10096-009-0862-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Demei Z, Wang Fu H, Fupin NY, Jingyong S, Chuanqing W (2012) Bacterial distribution and antimicrobial resistance in urine specimens in China antibiotic resistance surveillance program CHINET 2010. Chin J Infect Chemother 12:242–250

    Google Scholar 

  17. Malik M, Marks KR, Schwanz HA, German N, Drlica K, Kerns RJ (2010) Effect of N-1/c-8 ring fusion and C-7 ring structure on fluoroquinolone lethality. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54:5214–5221. doi:10.1128/AAC.01054-10

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Singh R, Swick MC, Ledesma KR, Yang Z, Hu M, Zechiedrich L, Tam VH (2012) Temporal interplay between efflux pumps and target mutations in development of antibiotic resistance in Escherichia coli. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56(4):1680–1685. doi:10.1128/AAC.05693-11

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Morgan-Linnell SK, Becnel Boyd L, Steffen D, Zechiedrich L (2009) Mechanisms accounting for fluoroquinolone resistance in Escherichia coli clinical isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53:235–241. doi:10.1128/AAC.00665-08

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Conrad S, Oethinger M, Kaifel K, Klotz G, Marre R, Kern WV (1996) gyrA mutations in high-level fluoroquinolone-resistant Escherichia coli clinical isolates. J Antimicrob Chemother 38(3):443–455

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Heisig P (1996) Genetic evidence for a role of parC mutations in development of high-level fluoroquinolone resistance in Escherichia coli. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 40:879–885

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kern WV, Oethinger M, Jellen-Ritter AS, Levy SB (2000) Non-target gene mutations in the development of fluoroquinolone resistance in Escherichia coli. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 44:814–820

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lubenko IY, Vostrov SN, Portnoy YA, Zinner SH, Firsov AA (2002) Bacterial strain-independent AUC/MIC and strain-specific dose–response relationships reflecting comparative fluoroquinolone anti-pseudomonal pharmacodynamics in an in vitro dynamic model. Int J Antimicrob Agents 20(1):44–49

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Leroy B, Uhart M, Maire P, Bourguignon L (2012) Evaluation of fluoroquinolone reduced dosage regimens in elderly patients by using pharmacokinetic modelling and Monte Carlo simulations. J Antimicrob Chemother 67:2207–2212

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zinner SH, Vostrov SN, Alferova IV, Lubenko IY, Portnoy YA, Firsov AA (2004) Comparative pharmacodynamics of the new fluoroquinolone ABT492 and ciprofloxacin with Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in an in vitro dynamic model. Int J Antimicrob Agents 24:173–177

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Zinner SH, Lubenko IY, Gilbert D, Simmons K, Zhao X, Drlica K, Firsov AA (2003) Emergence of resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae in an in vitro dynamic model that simulates moxifloxacin concentrations inside and outside the mutant selection window: related changes in susceptibility, resistance frequency and bacterial killing. J Antimicrob Chemother 52:616–622

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhao X, Drlica K (2008) A unified anti-mutant dosing strategy. J Antimicrob Chemother 62:434–436

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant 30672505).

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Research Animal Care and Use Committee of the PLA General Hospital (No. 2758). All animal procedures were performed in accordance with the institutional guidelines for the humane handling, care and treatment of research animals.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Respiratory Diseases, PLA General Hospital, 28 FuXing Road, Beijing, 100853, China

    W. Ni, X. Song & J. Cui

Authors
  1. W. Ni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. X. Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Cui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Cui.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ni, W., Song, X. & Cui, J. Testing the mutant selection window hypothesis with Escherichia coli exposed to levofloxacin in a rabbit tissue cage infection model. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 33, 385–389 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-013-1968-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-013-1968-8

Keywords

  • Levofloxacin
  • Resistant Mutant
  • Susceptibility Change
  • Mutant Prevention Concentration
  • Urinary Tract Infection Patient