Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30021593›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2018

Epistasis analysis uncovers hidden antibiotic resistance-associated fitness costs hampering the evolution of MRSA.

Maho Yokoyama, Emily Stevens, Maisem Laabei, Leann Bacon, Kate Heesom, Sion Bayliss, Nicola Ooi, Alex J O'Neill, Ewan Murray, Paul Williams and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Methicillin-sensitiveMicrobial genomics · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Extensive re-modelling of the cell wall during the development ofbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  11. Serving Two Masters: Effect ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Maho YokoyamaMilner Centre for Evolution, Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Emily StevensSchool of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Maisem LaabeiDivision of Medical Protein Chemistry, Department of Translational Medicine, Lund University, S20502, Malmö, Sweden.
Leann BaconSchool of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Kate HeesomUniversity of Bristol Proteomics Facility, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Sion BaylissMilner Centre for Evolution, Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Nicola OoiAntimicrobial Research Centre, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Alex J O'NeillAntimicrobial Research Centre, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Ewan MurrayCentre for Biomolecular Sciences, School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
Paul WilliamsCentre for Biomolecular Sciences, School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
Anneke LubbenChemical Characterisation and Analysis Facility, Faculty of Science, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK.
Shaun ReekstingChemical Characterisation and Analysis Facility, Faculty of Science, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK.
Guillaume MericMilner Centre for Evolution, Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Ben PascoeMilner Centre for Evolution, Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Samuel K SheppardMilner Centre for Evolution, Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Mario ReckerCentre for Mathematics and the Environment, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn, TR10 9FE, UK.
Laurence D HurstMilner Centre for Evolution, Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Ruth C MasseySchool of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. ruth.massey@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8154-4039
University of Bath · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Leeds · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GBLund University · SEUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council DTP studentshipMedical Research Council G0801929Medical Research Council MR/L015080/1Medical Research Council MR/N010477/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFitness costs imposed on bacteria by antibiotic resistance mechanisms are believed to hamper their dissemination. The scale of these costs is highly variable. Some, including resistance of Staphylococcus aureus to the clinically important antibiotic mupirocin, have been reported as being cost-free, which suggests that there are few barriers preventing their global spread. However, this is not supported by surveillance data in healthy communities, which indicate that this resistance mechanism is relatively unsuccessful.

resultsEpistasis analysis on two collections of MRSA provides an explanation for this discord, where the mupirocin resistance-conferring mutation of the ileS gene appears to affect the levels of toxins produced by S. aureus when combined with specific polymorphisms at other loci. Proteomic analysis demonstrates that the activity of the secretory apparatus of the PSM family of toxins is affected by mupirocin resistance. As an energetically costly activity, this reduction in toxicity masks the fitness costs associated with this resistance mutation, a cost that becomes apparent when toxin production becomes necessary. This hidden fitness cost provides a likely explanation for why this mupirocin-resistance mechanism is not more prevalent, given the widespread use of this antibiotic.

conclusionsWith dwindling pools of antibiotics available for use, information on the fitness consequences of the acquisition of resistance may need to be considered when designing antibiotic prescribing policies. However, this study suggests there are levels of depth that we do not understand, and that holistic, surveillance and functional genomics approaches are required to gain this crucial information.

Indexed as

Epistasis, GeneticGenome, BacterialAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial ProteinsBacterial ToxinsDrug Resistance, BacterialEvolution, MolecularGenetic FitnessGenetic LociIsoleucine-tRNA LigaseMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMupirocinMutationProteomicsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial ProteinsBacterial ToxinsIsoleucine-tRNA LigaseMupirocinEpistasisFitness costsGWASMRSAMupirocin resistance

Identifiers

PMID30021593
PMCPMC6052701
OpenAlexW2809994582

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.