1887

Abstract

Summary

Xanthomonas maltophilia produces two inducible β-lactamases, L1 and L2, and resists the antimicrobial activity of β-lactam antibiotics, including carbapenems. L1 is a zinc-metaloenzyme with carbapenemase activity; L2 is an unusual cephalosporinase. Mutant strains with high-and low-level constitutive expression of these enzymes were derived from three reference strains of X. maltophilia. With a single exception, the mutant strains had altered expression of both enzymes, indicating that these β-lactamases share regulatory components. The exception was a mutant strain that had low-level constitutive (basal) expression of L1 enzyme but remained inducible for L2. A parent strain with low-level β-lactamase inducibility was more susceptible to penicillins, cephalosporins and carbapenems than were those in which higher levels of enzyme activity were inducible. Mutations that caused high-level constitutive β-lactamase expression increased resistance to penicillins and newer cephalosporins. β-Lactamase basal mutant strains, including the one that remained inducible for L2 enzyme, were more susceptible than inducible strains to these drugs. Organisms with inducible or high-level constitutive β-lactamase expression were equally resistant to meropenem and imipenem but basal mutant strains, including the one that remained inducible for L2 enzyme, were more susceptible to meropenem than imipenem. Minimal inhibitory concentrations of meropenem, penicillins and cephalosporins, but not imipenem, were greater on Mueller Hinton agar than on IsoSensitest or Diagnostic Sensitivity Test agars. This behaviour was independent of β-lactamase inducibility, and may reflect permeability differences between cells grown on different media.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-35-4-208
1991-10-01
2022-01-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/35/4/medmicro-35-4-208.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-35-4-208&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Müder RR, Yu VL, Dummer JS, Vinson C, Lumish RM. Infections caused by Pseudomonas maltophilia: expanding clinical spectrum. Arch Intern Med 1987; 147:1672–1674
    [Google Scholar]
  2. von Graevenitz A. Ecology, clinical significance and antimicrobial susceptibility of infrequently encountered glucose-non-fermenting gram-negative rods. Gilardi G. ed Nonfermentative gram-negative rods: laboratory identification and clinical aspects (Microbiology series 16) New York: Marcel Dekker Inc; 1985181–232
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Marshall WF, Keating MR, Anhalt JP, Steckelberg JM. Xanthomonas maltophilia: an emerging nosocomial pathogen. Mayo Clin Proc 1989; 64:1097–1104
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Rolston KVI, Anaissie EA, Bodey GP. In-vitro susceptibility of Pseudomonas species to fifteen antimicrobial agents. J Antimicrob Chemother 1987; 19:193–196
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Saino Y, Kobayashi F, Inoue M, Mitsuhashi S. Purification and properties of inducible penicillin β-lactamases isolated from Pseudomonas maltophilia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1982; 22:564–570
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Saino Y, Inoue M, Mitsuhashi S. Purification and properties of an inducible cephalosporinase from Pseudomonas maltophilia GN12873. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984; 25:362–365
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Mett H, Rosta S, Schacher B, Frei R. Outer membrane permeability and β-lactamases content in Pseudomonas maltophilia clinical isolates and laboratory mutants. Rev Infect Dis 1988; 10:765–769
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bicknell R, Emanuel EL, Gagnon J, Waley SG. The production and molecular properties of the zinc β-lactamases of Pseudomonas maltophilia IID 1275. Biochem J 1985; 229:791–797
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cartwright SJ, Waley SG. Purification of β-lactamases by affinity chromatography on phenylboronic acid-agarose. Biochem J 1984; 221:505–512
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Edwards JR, Turner PJ, Wannop C, Withnell ES, Grindey AJ, Nairn K. In-vitro antibacterial activity of SM-7338, a carbapenem antibiotic with stability to dehydropeptidase I. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989; 33:215–222
    [Google Scholar]
  11. King A, Boothman C, Phillips I. Comparative in-vitro activity of meropenem on clinical isolates from the United Kingdom. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989; 24:Suppl A31–45
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cullmann W, Dalhoff A, Dick W. Nonspecific induction of β-lactamase in Enterobacter cloacae. J Gen Microbiol 1984; 130:1781–1786
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Yang Y, Livermore DM, Williams RJ. Chromosomal β-lactamase expression and antibiotic resistance in Enterobacter cloacae. J Med Microbiol 1988; 25:227–233
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ. Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. J Biol Chem 1951; 193:265–275
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Matthew M, Harris AM, Marshall MJ, Ross GW. The use of analytical isoelectric focusing for detection and identification of β-lactamases. J Gen Microbiol 1975; 88:169–178
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Yang Y. Chromosomal β-lactamases expression and antibiotic resistance in enterobacteria. PhD Thesis University of London: 1990
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dufresne J, Vézina G, Levesque RC. Molecular cloning and expression of the imipenem-hydrolyzing β-lactamases gene from Pseudomonas maltophilia in Escherichia coli. Rev Infect Dis 1988; 10:806–817
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Livermore DM. Clinical significance of beta-lactamase-induc-tion and stable derepression in gram-negative rods. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1987; 6:439–445
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-35-4-208
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-35-4-208
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most cited this month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error