1887

Abstract

Summary

Ultra-thin section transmission electronmicroscopy revealed that two of three glycopeptide-resistant strains of had abnormally thick cell walls, a finding consistent with the view that the reduction in susceptibility may result from the overproduction of glycopeptide binding sites within the cell-wall peptidoglycan. The third resistant strain had a slightly thickened cell wall with an irregular, roughened outline; this strain also underwent autolysis on prolonged incubation on blood agar and the resistance may be associated with abnormal cell-wall synthesis. Sub-MIC concentrations of vancomycin and teicoplanin caused surface damage to a proportion of cocci able to grow in the presence of antibiotic. Exposure to teicoplanin was additionally associated with the formation of filamentous forms and variable amounts of extracellular material. Transmission electron-microscopy showed that both antibiotics exerted effects within the bacterial cytoplasm of the resistant strains that were not seen in an NCTC control strain: Intracellular lamellae and structures resembling mesosomes were observed in the former. These effects were more noticeable in cocci exposed to vancomycin. Bacteria exposed to teicoplanin often showed abnormal septation and, in some preparations, a double-layered cell wall.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-39-3-204
1993-09-01
2022-08-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/39/3/medmicro-39-3-204.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-39-3-204&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Reynolds PE. Structure, biochemistry and mechanism of action of glycopeptide antibiotics. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1989; 8:943–950
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Griffith RS, Peck FB. Vancomycin, a new antibiotic. III. Preliminary clinical and laboratory studies. In: Welch H, Marti-Ibanez F. (eds) Antibiotics annual 1956-1957 New York: Medical Encyclopedia Inc.; 1956619–622
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Johnson AP, Uttley AHC, Woodford N, George RC. Re sistance to vancomycin and teicoplanin: an emerging clinical problem. Clin Microbiol Rev 1990; 3:280–291
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Courvalin P. Resistance of enterococci to glycopeptides. Anti-microb Agents Chemother 1990; 34:2291–2296
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Shlaes DM, Bouvet A, Devine C, Shlaes JH, al-Obeid S, Williamson R. Inducible, transferable resistance to vancomycin in Enterococcus faecalis A256. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989; 33:198–203
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Leclercq R, Derlot E, Weber M, Duval J, Courvalin P. Transferable vancomycin and teicoplanin resistance in Enterococcus faecium. Antimicrob Aqents Chemother 1989; 33:10–15
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Williamson R, al-Obeid S, Shlaes JH, Goldstein FW, Shlaes DM. Inducible resistance to vancomycin in Enterococcus faecium D366. J Infect Dis 1989; 159:1095–1104
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Shlaes DM, Etter L, Gutmann L. Synergistic killing of vancomycin-resistant Enterococci of classes A, B, & C by combinations of vancomycin, penicillin and gentamicin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35:776–779
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Archer GL. Antibiotic resistance in coagulase-negative staphylococci. In: Mardh PA, Schleifer KH. (eds) Co-agulase negative staphylococci Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell International; 198693–101
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Working Party of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemo therapy Diagnosis and management of peritonitis in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Lancet 1987; 1:845–849
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Schwalbe RS, Stapleton JT, Gillingan PH. Emergence of vancomycin resistance in coagulase-negative staphylococci. N Engl J Med 1987; 316:927–931
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Aubert G, Passot S, Lucht F, Dorche G. Selection of vancomycin-and teicoplanin-resistant Staphylococcus hae-molyticus during teicoplanin treatment of S. epidermidis infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 25:491–493
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Veach LA, Pfaller MA, Barrett M, Koontz FP, Wenzel RP. Vancomycin resistance in Staphylococcus haemolyticus causing colonization and bloodstream infection. J Clin Microbiol 1990; 28:2064–2068
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Sanyal D, Johnson AP, George RC, Cookson BD, Williams AJ. Peritonitis due to vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis. Lancet 1991; 337:54
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Greenwood D, Bidgood K, Turner M. A comparison of the responses of staphylococci and streptococci to teicoplanin and vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1987; 20:155–164
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Waterworth PM. Quantitative methods for bacterial sensitivity testing. In: Reeves DS, Phillips I, Williams JD, Wise R. (eds) Laboratory methods in antimicrobial chemotherapy Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 197831–40
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Watson BW, Gauci CL, Blache L, O’Grady F. A simple turbidity cell for continuously monitoring the growth of bacteria. Phys Med Biol 1969; 14:555–558
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Ryter A, Kellenberger E, Birch-Andersen A, Maaloe O. Etude au microscope electronique de plasmas contenant de l’acide desoxyribonucleique. Les nucleosides des bacteries en croissance active. Z Naturforsch 1958; 13:597–599
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Mollenhauer HH. Plastic embedding mixtures for use in electron microscopy. Stain Technol 1964; 39:111–115
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Reynolds ES. The use of lead citrate at high pH as an electron opaque stain in electron microscopy. J Cell Biol 1963; 17:208–213
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Elliott TSJ, Greenwood D. The response of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to azlocillin, ticarcillin and cefsulodin. J Med Microbiol 1983; 16:351–362
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Sanyal D, Johnson AP, George RC, Edwards R, Greenwood D. In-vitro characteristics of glycopeptide resistant strains of Staphylococcus epidermidis isolated from patients on CAPD. J Antimicrob Chemother (in press)
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Schwalbe RS, Stapleton JT, Gilligan PH. Vancomycin-resistant staphylococcus. N Engl J Med 1987; 317:767–768
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Daum RS, Gupta S, Sabbagh R, Milewski WM. Characterization of Staphylococcus aureus isolates with decreased susceptibility to vancomycin and teicoplanin: isolation and purification of a constitutively produced protein associated with decreased susceptibility. J Infect Dis 1992; 166:1066–1072
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Greenwood D, O’Grady F. Antibiotic-induced surface changes in micro-organisms demonstrated by scanning electron microscopy. Science 1969; 163:1076–1077
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Nishino T, Wecke J, Kruger D, Giesbrecht P. Trimethoprim-induced structural alterations in Staphylococcus aureus and the recovery of bacteria in drug-free medium. J Antimicrob Chemother 1987; 19:147–159
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hancock R, Fitz-James PC. Some differences in the action of penicillin, bacitracin and vancomycin on Bacillus mega-terium. J Bacteriol 1964; 87:1044–1050
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Jordan DC, Inniss WE. Selective inhibition of ribonucleic acid synthesis in Staphylococcus aureus by vancomycin. Nature 1959; 184:1894–1895
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-39-3-204
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-39-3-204
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