4.7 Article

Weakest-Link Dynamics Predict Apparent Antibiotic Interactions in a Model Cross-Feeding Community

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00465-20

关键词

antibiotic resistance; drug interactions; microbial communities

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada postgraduate scholarship [PGSD2-487305-2016]
  2. National Institutes of Health award [1R01-GM121498]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the growing global threat of antimicrobial resistance, novel strategies are required for combatting resistant pathogens. Combination therapy, in which multiple drugs are used to treat an infection, has proven highly successful in the treatment of cancer and HIV. However, this practice has proven challenging for the treatment of bacterial infections due to difficulties in selecting the correct combinations and dosages. An additional challenge in infection treatment is the polymicrobial nature of many infections, which may respond to antibiotics differently than a monoculture pathogen. This study tests whether patterns of antibiotic interactions (synergy, antagonism, or independence/additivity) in monoculture can be used to predict antibiotic interactions in an obligate cross-feeding coculture. Using our previously described weakest-link hypothesis, we hypothesized antibiotic interactions in coculture based on the interactions we observed in monoculture. We then compared our predictions to observed antibiotic interactions in coculture. We tested the interactions between 10 previously identified antibiotic combinations using checker-board assays. Although our antibiotic combinations interacted differently than predicted in our monocultures, our monoculture results were generally sufficient to predict coculture patterns based solely on the weakest-link hypothesis. These results suggest that combination therapy for cross-feeding multispecies infections may be successfully designed based on antibiotic interaction patterns for their component species.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据