Skip to main content
Download PDF

Cefazolin and imipenem enhance AmpC expression and resistance in NagZ-dependent manner in Enterobacter cloacae complex

BMC Microbiology volume 22, Article number: 284 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Enterobacter cloacae complex (ECC) is a common opportunistic pathogen and is responsible for causing various infections in humans. Owing to its inducible chromosomal AmpC β-lactamase (AmpC), ECC is inherently resistant to the 1st- and 2nd- generation cephalosporins. However, whether β-lactams antibiotics enhance ECC resistance remains unclear.

Results

In this study, we found that subinhibitory concentrations (SICs) of cefazolin (CFZ) and imipenem (IMP) can advance the expression of AmpC and enhance its resistance towards β-lactams through NagZ in Enterobacter cloacae (EC). Further, AmpC manifested a substantial upregulation in EC in response to SICs of CFZ and IMP. In nagZ knockout EC (ΔnagZ), the resistance to β-lactam antibiotics was rather weakened and the effect of CFZ and IMP on AmpC induction was completely abrogated. NagZ ectopic expression can rescue the induction effects of CFZ and IMP on AmpC and increase ΔnagZ resistance. More importantly, CFZ and IMP have the potential to induce the expression of AmpR's target genes in a NagZ-dependent manner.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that NagZ is a critical determinant for CFZ and IMP to promote AmpC expression and resistance and that CFZ and IMP should be used with caution since they may aggravate ECC resistance. At the same time, this study further improves our understanding of resistance mechanisms in ECC.

Peer Review reports

Background

Enterobacter cloacae, Enterobacter ludwigii, Enterobacter hormaechei, Enterobacter nimipressuralis, Enterobacter asburiae, and Enterobacter kobei combinedly referred to as Enterobacter cloacae complex (ECC). They are grouped within Enterobacter and have a wide range of prevalence [1, 2]. Among ECC, Enterobacter cloacae is isolated frequently from clinical specimens obtained from humans as well as medical devices, and it has gained clinical significance in intensive care patients, particularly those on mechanical ventilation [1]. Owing to the antibiotic-resistance characteristics of microorganisms, ECC has been a point of focus of quite a large number of publications [2,3,4]. ECC is inherently resistant to amoxicillin, ampicillin, 1st- and 2nd-generation of cephalosporin, and cefoxitin on account of the generation of inducible chromosomes AmpC β-lactamase (AmpC) [5].

NagZ, also known as the β‐N‐ acetylglucosaminidase, is a crucial enzyme that takes part in peptidoglycan recycling and has the potential to cleave GlcNAc‐1,6‐anhydroMurNAc‐peptides into N-acetyl-β-d-glucosamine and 1,6‐anhydroMurNAc‐peptides (anhMurNAc) [6, 7]. NagZ inactivation has been demonstrated to reduce resistance to β-lactam antibiotics in Pseudomonas aeruginosa [8, 9], Stenotrophomonas maltophilia [10], and Yersinia enterocolitica [11]. Moreover, within Neisseria gonorrhoeae, NagZ can also regulate the accumulation of biofilm [12]. In Pseudomonas aeruginosa, anhMurNAc enhances AmpC expression by activating AmpR (a global transcriptional factor responsible for regulating hundreds of genes including ampC) [9, 13]. Despite these promising findings, the precise regulatory mechanism in ECC is still unclear.

ampC gene is frequently found on the chromosomes of non-fermenting bacteria such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and some Enterobacteriaceae such as Enterobacter cloacae, Citrobacter freundii and Enterobacter asburiae [5]. ampC overexpression renders these pathogens resistant to penicillin, the first and second-generation cephalosporins, and β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors [14], as well as carbapenems, especially with porin loss [3, 15]. The overproduction of AmpC is the major cause of ECC's cephalosporin resistance [16]. It is reported that cefoxitin and cefotaxime can induce AmpC expression [17], which consequently results in antibiotic treatment failure, but the potential inducible mechanism is not unclear.

The main objective of the current study is to investigate whether other β-lactam antibiotics (except cefoxitin and cefotaxime) could induce AmpC expression and to explore the induction mechanism. As discovered in this study, NagZ is a key intermediate regulator in the process of AmpC induction expression by CFZ and IMP in ECC. Our findings also suggest that CFZ and IMP should be used with caution, as they have the potential to exacerbate ECC resistance and make therapy more challenging.

Results and discussion

SICs of CFZ and IMP improve the expression of AmpC and enhance resistance to β-lactam in EC clinical isolate

The growing resistance to β-lactam antibiotics, the commonly used antibiotics for treating gram-negative bacterial infections, is a major concern in clinical practice [18]. β-lactamase is an enzyme that cleaves the cyclic amide component of β-lactams, thus rendering them inactive [19]. One type of lactamases that poses serious challenges to the antibiotic treatment is inducible chromosomal AmpC β-lactamase (AmpC), which has broad-spectrum activity against β-lactams [20]. It was reported that cefoxitin and low concentration cefotaxime could improve AmpC expression [17]. To investigate whether other antibiotics can elicit the expression of AmpC, firstly, various antibiotics (including quinolones, β- lactams, and aminoglycosides) were tested for their minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) against EC clinical isolate following the guideline outlined by the Clinical Laboratory Standard Institute (CLSI) [21]. The results are shown in Table S1. Later, the western blot assay was employed for determining whether or not the subinhibitory concentration (SIC, ≤ 1/4 MIC) of antibiotics induce AmpC expression. The findings (Fig. S1) demonstrate that CFZ, IMP, and cefoxitin have a strong induction impact on AmpC, and ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, ceftazidime, and cefepime have a modest induction effect, while other antibiotics, such as aminoglycosides and quinolones, showed no discernible effect on AmpC. Next, we explored the effect of induction of different concentrations CFZ and IMP on AmpC expression at mRNA level by reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and protein level by western blot, respectively. According to our findings (Fig. 1 A-C), CFZ and IMP have a dosage impact on AmpC induction. Finally, the AmpC generated by CFZ and IMP was tested using a nitrocefin hydrolysis assay to see if it had good β-lactamase activity. The results show that CFZ and IMP increase AmpC β-lactamase activity in a dose-dependent manner when compared to the control group (Fig. 1D).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Effects of SICs of CFZ and IMP on AmpC expression and activity in EC clinical isolate. A Analysis of the ampC mRNA expression levels was made using RT-qPCR in EC clinical isolate treated with SICs of CFZ (64 μg/ml and 256 μg/ml) and IMP (0.0625 μg/ml and 0.125 μg/ml). B Western blot (cropped blots) analysis of ampC protein expression in EC clinical isolate treated with SICs of CFZ and IMP. C Quantitative analysis of the western blot results (B) with image J software, DnaK was employed as an internal control. D Determination of the effects of SICs of CFZ and IMP on AmpC activity by nitrocefin hydrolysis assay. ** P < 0.01 suggests the high statistical significance

Full size image

The high expression of AmpC has been reported as one of the main causes for gram-negative bacilli resistance to β-lactams [22, 23], so next, the role of CFZ and IMP in resistance was investigated. The inhibition zone and MICs of aztreonam (ATM), ceftriaxone (CRO), ceftazidime (CAZ), piperacillin (PIP), piperacillin-tazobactam (TZP), and cefoperazone-sulbactam (SCF) against EC clinical isolate treated with or without SICs of CFZ and IMP were estimated by broth microdilution method and disk diffusion technique (Kirby-Bauer method) following the CLSI guideline [21], as indicated in Table 1 and Fig. S2A, inhibition zones of those antibiotics against EC treated with SICs of CFZ and IMP decreased as compared with the control group, and the MICs of TZP, PIP, CRO, SCF, CAZ, and ATM manifested a substantial increase by SICs of CFZ and IMP.

Table 1 MICs for the ECC clinical isolate treated with CFZ and IMP
Full size table

CFZ and IMP are broad-spectrum β-lactam antibiotics used against bacteria, including aerobes and anaerobes. Furthermore, CFZ is a commonly used antibiotic for empiric therapy and postoperative infection prevention [24, 25]. Since CFZ and IMP may exacerbate EC resistance by inducing AmpC expression, our findings imply that they should be used with caution.

The effects of induction of CFZ and IMP on AmpC expression and resistance were abrogated in ΔnagZ

As described above, some β-lactams can induce AmpC expression, but the underlying regulatory mechanism, which is intricately involved in peptidoglycan recycling, remains unclear [26, 27]. NagZ, existing in Gram-negative bacteria and involved in the peptidoglycan recycling pathway, is identified as an exo-N-acetyl-β-glucosaminidase. In some Gram-negative bacteria, NagZ inactivation has been reported to arrest and reverse the resistance to β-lactam antibiotics [28, 29]. As shown in Fig. S2A and Table 1, our data indicate the SICs of CFZ and IMP have the potential to aggravate the resistance of EC, so we speculated that NagZ may have an indispensable part in promoting resistance of EC. In an attempt to confirm the hypothesis, the knockout model of gene nagZ (ΔnagZ) was constructed by employing homologous recombination technology in EC clinical isolate (WT). As shown by RT-qPCR (Fig. 2A) and western blot (Fig. 2B), the nagZ gene was effectively knocked out. Next, we determined the effects of SICs of CFZ and IMP on the expression and activity of AmpC in ΔnagZ. The results, as shown in Fig. 2C-F, depict that the expression of AmpC was significantly downregulated, and the induction of AmpC by SICs of CFZ and IMP was completely abolished in ΔnagZ (Fig. 2C-E). At the same time, knocking down nagZ reduced AmpC's rising β-lactamase activity produced by SICs of CFZ and IMP (Fig. 2F). Furthermore, antibiotic susceptibility tests revealed that EC resistance had been considerably reduced in ΔnagZ, and that CFZ and IMP had little impact on resistance in ΔnagZ (Table 2 and Fig. S2B). Thus, our results indicated that the induction of AmpC by CFZ and IMP was dependent on NagZ.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The role of NagZ in ampC expression and resistance in EC. RT-qPCR (A) and cropped Western Blot (B) verified that nagZ-knockout EC clinical isolate (ΔnagZ) was successfully constructed. C-D RT-qPCR and Western Blot (cropped blots) were employed for the determination of the role of NagZ in the expression of AmpC induced by subinhibitory concentration CFZ (256 μg/ml) and IMP (0.125 μg/ml) in EC clinical isolate (WT), ΔnagZ, ΔnagZ treated with CFZ (ΔnagZ + CFZ) and ΔnagZ treated with IMP (ΔnagZ + IMP). E Western blot Quantitative analysis (D), The internal control employed was DnaK. F Nitrocefin hydrolysis assay in WT, ΔnagZ, ΔnagZ + CFZ, and ΔnagZ + IMP was employed to examine the role of NagZ in AmpC β-lactamase activity. ** P < 0.01 indicates high statistical significance

Full size image
Table 2 The effect of nagZ on MICs for six anbiotics
Full size table

François Guérin and his colleagues found that cefotaxime induced the expression of AmpC in a NagZ-dependent manner, while the induction of AmpC by cefoxitin was independent of NagZ [17]. As we know, CFZ and cefotaxime are cephalosporin, and cefoxitin belongs to cephamycin. We suspect that cephalosporin and carbapenem are dependent on NagZ for the induction of AmpC, while cephamycin is independent of NagZ. Therefore, in the follow-up work, we will explore the induction mechanism of AmpC from the perspective of β-lactam's molecular structure.

Ectopic expression of NagZ rescues induction effect of CFZ and IMP on AmpC expression and resistance in ΔnagZ

To investigate whether NagZ complementation rescues the expression of ampC and enhances resistance in ΔnagZ treated with or without SICs of CFZ and IMP, the nagZ coding sequence (CDS) was cloned into the vector of pBAD33cm-rp4 (pBAD33-nagZ, nagZ overexpression vector). Later, the pBAD33-nagZ and the vector of pBAD33cm-rp4 (pBAD33, as control vector) were transformed into ΔnagZ by electroporator. RT-qPCR and western blot analyses were employed for detecting the availability of the pBAD33-nagZ vector (Fig. 3A, B). Next, the ampC expression was ascertained using western blot and RT-qPCR, the results showed that ampC levels of mRNA (Fig. 3C) and protein (Fig. 3D-E) were rescued by NagZ complementation in ΔnagZ in response to SICs of CFZ and IMP. Furthermore, NagZ was investigated in terms of its influence on the AmpC β-lactamase activity, and the result indicates that reduced activity of β- lactamase resulting from the elimination of nagZ was reversed by NagZ complementing in ΔnagZ (Fig. 3F). Additional confirmation of the significance of NagZ in resistance of ΔnagZ was carried out by measuring the inhibition zones and MICs of TZP, PIP, CRO, ATM, CAZ, and SCF. The findings demonstrate that NagZ overexpression may greatly reduce the inhibition zone and that SICs of CFZ or IMP can further reduce the inhibition zone (Fig. S2C). Consistent with the inhibition zone, NagZ complementation and SICs of CFZ or IMP can evidently increase the MICs (Table 2).

Fig. 3
figure 3

NagZ complementation can rescue induction of AmpC and resistance by subinhibitory concentration CFZ (256 μg/ml) and IMP (0.125 μg/ml) in ΔnagZ. RT-qPCR (A) and cropped western blot (B) verified that the NagZ complementation model was successfully generated. C mRNA expressions of ampC were identified using RT-qPCR in ΔnagZ, ΔnagZ complemented with NagZ (ΔnagZ + NagZ), ΔnagZ + NagZ treated with CFZ (ΔnagZ + NagZ + CFZ) and ΔnagZ + NagZ treated with IMP (ΔnagZ + NagZ + IMP). D Western blot (cropped blots) was employed for the determination of ampC protein expressions in ΔnagZ, ΔnagZ + NagZ, ΔnagZ + NagZ + CFZ, and ΔnagZ + NagZ + IMP strains. E Western blot Quantitative analysis (D), and the internal control employed was DnaK. F Nitrocefin hydrolysis assay in nagZ, ΔnagZ + NagZ, ΔnagZ + NagZ + CFZ and ΔnagZ + NagZ + IMP was used for the analysis of AmpC β-lactamase activity. ** P < 0.01 indicates high statistical significance

Full size image

Briefly, the complementation of NagZ has the potential to rescue β-lactams resistance and the inducible effects of CFZ and IMP to AmpC in the nagZ knockout model. The data further indicate that CFZ and IMP enhance AmpC expression and resistance in a NagZ-dependent manner in EC clinical isolate.

CFZ and IMP promote AmpC expression through the NagZ-AmpR-AmpC pathway

Peptides from peptidoglycan degradation are transported by AmpG permease into the cytoplasm. In the cytoplasm, GlcNAc‐1,6‐anhydroMurNAc‐peptides detach GlcNAc moiety with the help of NagZ and forms 1,6‐anhydroMurNAc‐peptides (anhMurNAc) [30]. Under normal physiological growth, AmpD cleaves anhMurNAc to generate free peptides and then synthesizes UDP-pentapeptides, which suppresses AmpR activity and represses AmpC transcription [5, 26, 31]. However, in the presence of inducers such as β-lactams, AmpD cannot cleave the high anhMurNAc concentration effectively. The accumulating anhMurNAc activates AmpR and increases AmpC transcription, which is also the main mechanistic step responsible for developing resistance to most β -lactams in Pseudomonas aeruginosa [30, 32]. Besides, several studies have shown that AmpR regulates the expression of a multitude of genes and is thus a global transcription factor (the genes regulated by AmpR include oxyR, rsmA, rpoS, phoP, and grpE) in Pseudomonas aeruginosa [32, 33]. Therefore, we hypothesize that, like Pseudomonas aeruginosa, there is a pathway in Enterobacter cloacae complex and that the induction of AmpC by SICs of CFZ and IMP is AmpR dependent. To confirm our hypothesis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacter cloacae were both analyzed for their NagZ and AmpR protein sequence conservations. The AmpR sequences of the two species were identified (Fig. 4A) and the conservation of the NagZ sequence was as high as 67% (Fig. 4B). In addition, a high homology was observed in the -35 bp-0 bp region (generally considered as transcriptional parameter zone of binding) for ampC between Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacter cloacae (Fig. 4C). The highly conserved sequence indicates that these genes function similar roles in vivo. Therefore, we next confirmed if the induction of CFZ and IMP to AmpC is dependent on NagZ-mediated AmpR activation. The effect of CFZ and IMP upon the expression of AmpR target genes in wild type EC and ΔnagZ was measured. The results imply that CFZ and IMP are able to promote the AmpR target genes expression (for instance oxyR, rsmA, grpE, rpoS, and phoP) in wild type EC (Fig. 5A), while in the ΔnagZ strain, CFZ and IMP did not affect the expressions of AmpR target genes (Fig. 5B).

Fig. 4
figure 4

NagZ and AmpR sequence conservative analysis among Enterobacter cloacae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. NagZ (A) and AmpR (B) amino acid sequence alignment among Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacter cloacae, the identical sequences are indicated using hot-pink, those marked by dark blue means the same class of amino acids with respect to their structure or function and marked by white means different types of amino acids. C The transcription binding region nucleotide sequence alignment of AmpC (about -35 bp) among Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacter cloacae, the conservative sequences are marked by hot-pink, the nucleotide sequences with differences between Enterobacter cloacae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa marked in white

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Influence of NagZ upon AmpR target genes expression, including rsmA, oxyR, grpE, rpoS, and phoP. mRNA expression of rsmA, rpoS, oxyR, grpE, and phoP was determined by RT-qPCR in EC (A) and ΔnagZ (B) treated with or without CFZ and IMP. ** P < 0.01 indicates high statistical significance

Full size image

Here, CFZ and IMP have been confirmed to promote AmpC through the NagZ-AmpR pathway. However, it is unclear how NagZ affects AmpR's transcriptional activity (for example, whether NagZ or its hydrolysate anhMurNAc can cause AmpR's conformational change, which is known to activate AmpR's transcriptional activity). Therefore, for future studies, we will collaborate with scientists in the field of protein structure to investigate the effect of NagZ and its hydrolysate anhMurNAc on the structure of AmpR. In addition, the data of only one clinical strain were applied in this study. In fact, in the induction experiment of AmpC by CFZ and IMP, three clinical isolates were randomly used (isolated from blood, urine, and ascites respectively), and the induction effect of CFZ and IMP in the three strains were consistent. We only listed the results of one strain isolated from a patient with sepsis to make the manuscript more understandable. Therefore, due to the limitation of sample size, the conclusions may not apply to a very small number of Enterobacter cloacae complex.

Conclusions

In conclusion, our study confirmed that NagZ is the key factor for CFZ and IMP to induce AmpC expression and enhance resistance in Enterobacter cloacae complex.Thereby providing new prospects for the treatment of multidrug-resistant Enterobacter cloacae complex. These prospects might include the use of NagZ inhibitors and β-lactam antibiotics to treat the infectious diseases caused by Enterobacter cloacae complex. On the other hand, CFZ and IMP must be used carefully because they might aggravate the resistance of Enterobacter cloacae complex.

Methods

Bacterial strains, plasmids, primers, and antibiotics

The comprehensive data of the types of bacterial strains, primers, and plasmids involved in the investigation are presented in Table S2, S3, and S4 of supplementary materials.

Antibiotic susceptibility test

According to the CLSI guidelines [21], antibiotic susceptibility testing was conducted using broth microdilution and disc diffusion. Enterobacter cloacae ATCC 13,047 and Escherichia coli ATCC 25,922 were employed as quality control organisms. All reagents used in antibiotic susceptibility tests were procured by Wenzhou Kangtai (Bio-kont Co. Ltd, Wenzhou, China).

Preparation of anti-NagZ antibody

Anti-NagZ antibodies were prepared by immunizing rabbits as reported previously [34]. Briefly, molecular cloning was used to clone the EC nagZ coding sequence (CDS) into the pET28a vector to form the pET28a-nagZ vector for producing NagZ recombinant protein. The recombinant protein was isolated using Ni-NAT and identified using electrophoresis before being used to immunize New Zealand rabbits (Dashuo. Co. Ltd, Chengdu, China). Finally, the antiserum was purified by the Ni-NAT column coupled with NagZ protein. Western blotting confirmed that this antibody has an excellent specificity. The primers for amplification of nagZ CDS are listed in Table S4.

Assay of AmpC β-lactamase activity

The activity of AmpC β-lactamase was investigated using the nitrocefin hydrolysis technique. The LB medium was utilized to culture the EC isolates overnight at 37 °C/250 rpm as reported earlier [35]. Sub-culturing of the overnight cultured bacterial suspension was carried out in a fresh LB milieu at a concentration of 1:100. When OD600 absorbance reaches 0.8, the organisms were collected, and 1 ml protein lysate (Shanghai Sangguang Biotechnology Co., Ltd., China) was used to suspend the bacterial pellet. The samples were lyzed through sonication using a microprobe and then centrifuged at 10,000 g for 10 min to obtain the supernatant. The protein quantification kit (Beyotime, Biotechnology, Shanghai, China) was used for the determination of protein concentration. For CFZ and IMP treatment assays, the reagents were used at the sub-culture stage. The assay of nitrocefin hydrolysis was carried out in 250 μl phosphate buffer (pH 7.0) with 50 μg/ml nitrocefin (Sigma-Aldrich; Merck-KGaA, St. Louis, Missouri, USA) and 5 μg total protein. The rate of nitrocefin hydrolysis was measured at 486 nm every 5 min at ambient temperature. The nitrocefin extinction coefficient of 20,500 M−1 cm−1 was used for the determination of AmpC- β-lactamase activity.

RNA extraction

EC isolates were cultured as described “AmpC β-lactamase activity assay”. the RNA kit (Sangon Biotech Co. Ltd, Shanghai, China) was used for total RNA extraction following the protocol outlined by the manufacturer. NanoDropTM8000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, Mass, USA) was employed for estimating the total RNA concentration. The total RNA was stored at -70 ℃ for determining genes expression levels. For AmpC induction assay, the SICs of CFZ and IMP were employed at the sub-culture stage.

RT- qPCR Assays

cDNA was synthesized from 500 ng of total RNA using a FastKing gDNA Dispelling RT SuperMix kit (Tiangen Biotech Co., Ltd. Beijing, China). SuperReal PreMix Color (SYBR Green) kit (Tiangen Biotech Co., Ltd. Beijing, China) was employed for Real-time fluorescence quantitative PCR (qPCR) assay following the protocol outlined by the manufacturer. The 16S was used as an internal control in qPCR assays. The final concentration of all primers in each reaction was 0.25 μM and the amplification efficiency of all primers ranged from 91 to 96% (Table S4).

The analysis of protein extraction and western blot

Bacterial culture and total protein preparation as described “AmpC β-lactamase activity assay” and 30 μg total protein was taken for carrying out western blot assay. For CFZ and IMP treatment assays, the reagents were employed at the sub-culture stage. Western blot analysis was carried out using the standard methodology as elaborated earlier [36]. The detailed attributes of antibodies employed in western blot assay are as follows: rabbit anti-NagZ (preparation by ourselves), mouse anti-DnaK (Abcam, Cambridge, MA, USA), rabbit anti-AmpC (Abnova Taipei, Taiwan, China), goat anti-mouse IgG-HRP and goat anti-rabbit IgG-HRP (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc., Santa Cruz, CA, USA). SPOT-CCD camera was used to take images. Software image J was employed for the quantification of the intensity of protein bands and DnaK was used as the internal control.

Construction of nagZ-knockout EC model

Using a homologous recombination method and a suicide vector, the nagZ-knockout EC model was built using a previously reported method [37]. Briefly, PCR was used to amplify two homologous arms DNA fragments of the nagZ gene. The fusion DNA fragment containing two homologous arms was procured through the fusion PCR. The fusion DNA fragment was cloned into the suicide plasmid pLP12 and identified through sequencing and PCR. The recombinant plasmid with fusion DNA fragment was then transformed into Escherichia coli β2163. nagZ-knockout EC organism was finally screened through co-culturing Escherichia coli β2163 with recombinant plasmid and wild-type Enterobacter cloacae. All the reagents and strains used in nagZ-knockout EC preparation were bought from Nuojing Biological Company (Knogen Biotech Co., Ltd, Guangzhou, China).

Preparation of EC models of NagZ complementation

nagZ CDS was cloned into a pBAD33cm-rp4 plasmid, and authenticated by PCR and sequencing. An electroporator was then used to transform the recombinant plasmid containing nagZ gene (pBAD33-nagZ) into Escherichia coli β2163. Ultimately, a conjugation assay was used to transform pBAD33-nagZ into Enterobacter cloacae. nagZ expression of pBAD33-nagZ was induced by 0.05% L-Arabinose (Sangon Biotech Co. Ltd, Shanghai, China). For the antibiotic susceptibility test, L-Arabinose was initially used. While for extraction of RNA, the β-lactamase activity of AmpC, and western blot assays, L-Arabinose was applied at the stage of sub-culture. All plasmids and strains were purchased from Nuojing Biological Company.

Statistical analysis

All data were presented as mean ± standard deviation. Statistical difference analysis between two groups was performed by GraphPad Prism5 using a Two-tailed t-test. P < 0.01(**) was used as statistically highly significant. Each experiment was performed at least 3 times.

Availability of data and materials

Gene expression data involved in the manuscript was deposited in Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) under accession GSE207144 (available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE207144), Sequence data (including DNA and RNA) are available from the GenBank accession mumbers (BankIt2598180 Seq1 ON892738; BankIt2598180 Seq2 ON892739; BankIt2598180 Seq3 ON892740; BankIt2598180 Seq4 ON892741).

Abbreviations

ECC:

Enterobacter cloacae Complex

EC:

Enterobacter cloacae

MIC:

Minimum inhibitory concentration

SIC:

Subinhibitory concentrations

PIP:

Piperacillin

TZP:

Piperacillin-tazobactam

ATM:

Aztreonam

CRO:

Ceftriaxone

CAZ:

Ceftazidime

SCF:

Cefoperazone-sulbactam

CFZ:

Cefazolin

IMP:

Imipenem

ΔnagZ :

nagZ -knockout Enterobacter cloacae

ΔnagZ + CFZ:

ΔnagZ Treated with CFZ

ΔnagZ + IMP:

ΔnagZ Treated with IMP

ΔnagZ + NagZ + CFZ:

ΔnagZ + NagZ treated with CFZ

ΔnagZ + NagZ + IMP:

ΔnagZ + NagZ treated with IMP

References

  1. Mezzatesta ML, Gona F, Stefani S. Enterobacter cloacae complex: clinical impact and emerging antibiotic resistance. Future Microbiol. 2012;7(7):887–902.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Annavajhala MK, Gomez-Simmonds A, Uhlemann AC. Multidrug-resistant enterobacter cloacae complex emerging as a global diversifying threat. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Piotr M, Piotr W, Dominika O, Anna S, Oksana K, Pawe S, Jacek N. El?Bieta T: altered outer membrane transcriptome balance with AmpC overexpression in carbapenem-resistant enterobacter cloacae. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:2054.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ku YH, Lee MF, Chuang YC, Yu WL. Detection of plasmid-mediated beta-lactamase genes and emergence of a novel AmpC (CMH-1) in enterobacter cloacae at a Medical Center in Southern Taiwan. J Clin Med. 2018;8(1):8.

  5. Jacoby GA. AmpC beta-lactamases. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2009;22(1):161–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Votsch W, Templin MF. Characterization of a β- N -acetylglucosaminidase of Escherichia coli and elucidation of its role in muropeptide recycling and β-lactamase induction *. J Biol Chem. 2000;275(50):39032–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cheng Q, Li H, Merdek K, Park JT. Molecular characterization of the β-N-acetylglucosaminidase of escherichia coliand its role in cell wall recycling. J Bacteriol. 2000;182(17):4836–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Asgarali A, Stubbs KA, Oliver A, Vocadlo DJ, Mark BL. Inactivation of the glycoside hydrolase NagZ attenuates antipseudomonal beta-lactam resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53(6):2274–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ho LA, Winogrodzki JL, Debowski AW, Madden Z, Vocadlo DJ, Mark BL, Stubbs KA. A mechanism-based GlcNAc-inspired cyclophellitol inactivator of the peptidoglycan recycling enzyme NagZ reverses resistance to beta-lactams in pseudomonas aeruginosa. Chem Commun (Camb). 2018;54(75):10630–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Huang YW, Hu RM, Lin CW, Chung TC, Yang TC. NagZ-dependent and NagZ-independent mechanisms for beta-lactamase expression in stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(4):1936–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Liu C, Li C, Chen Y, Hao H, Liang J, Duan R, Guo Z, Zhang J, Zhao Z, Jing H, et al. Role of Low-Molecular-Mass Penicillin-Binding Proteins, NagZ and AmpR in AmpC beta-lactamase Regulation of Yersinia enterocolitica. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2017;7:425.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Bhoopalan SV, Piekarowicz A, Lenz JD, Dillard JP, Stein DC. nagZ triggers gonococcal biofilm disassembly. Sci Rep. 2016;6:22372.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dik DA, Fisher JF, Mobashery S. Cell-Wall recycling of the gram-negative bacteria and the nexus to antibiotic resistance. Chem Rev. 2018;118(12):5952–84.

  14. Bastos MDS, Menegucci TC, Moreira RRB, Garcia LB, Cardoso CL, Tognim MCB. A rapid and simple method to detect ESBL in enterobacter cloacae based on MIC of cefepime. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2015;48(2):208–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Quale J, Bratu S, Gupta J, Landman D. Interplay of efflux system, ampC, and oprD expression in carbapenem resistance of pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006;50(5):1633–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Nicolas MH, Honore N, Jarlier V, Philippon A, Cole ST. Molecular genetic analysis of cephalosporinase production and its role in beta-lactam resistance in clinical isolates of Enterobacter cloacae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1987;31(2):295.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Guerin F, Isnard C, Cattoir V, Giard JC. Complex regulation pathways of AmpC-mediated beta-lactam resistance in enterobacter cloacae Complex. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59(12):7753–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Fernandes R, Amador P, Prudêncio C: β-Lactams. Rev Med Microbiol 2013;24(1):7–17.

  19. Bush K. Bench-to-bedside review: The role of β-lactamases in antibiotic-resistant gram-negative infections. Crit Care. 2010;14(3):224.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Bork JT, Heil EL, Johnson JK, D’Angelo RG. Treatment options for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) and AmpC-producing bacteria. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2016;17:953.

  21. Wayne PA. “2019CLSI.performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing,” in CLSI Supplement M100" in CLSI Supplement M100. 29th ed. 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mandal DK, Sah SK, Mishra SK, Sharma S, Kattel HP, Pandit S, Yadav PK, Laghu U, Lama R, Sah NP, et al. Carriage of Extended-Spectrum-beta-Lactamase- and AmpC-beta-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-PE) in healthy community and Outpatient Department (OPD) patients in Nepal. Can J Infect Dis Med. 2020;2020:5154217.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Meini S, Tascini C, Cei M, Sozio E, Rossolini GM. AmpC beta-lactamase-producing enterobacterales: what a clinician should know. Infection. 2019;47(3):363–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Buckley MM, Brogden RN, Barradell LB, Goa KL. Imipenem/Cilastatin. Drugs. 1992;44(3):408–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Turk E, Karagulle E, Serefhanoglu K, Turan H, Moray G. Effect of cefazolin prophylaxis on postoperative infectious complications in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2013;15(7):581–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Johnson JW, Fisher JF, Mobashery S. Bacterial cell-wall recycling. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2013;1277:54–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Dominguez-Gil T, Molina R, Alcorlo M, Hermoso JA. Renew or die: the molecular mechanisms of peptidoglycan recycling and antibiotic resistance in gram-negative pathogens. Drug Resist Updat. 2016;28:91–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zamorano L, Reeve TM, Deng L, Juan C, Moya B, Cabot G, Vocadlo DJ, Mark BL, Oliver A. NagZ inactivation prevents and reverts beta-lactam resistance, driven by AmpD and PBP 4 mutations pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54(9):3557–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Stubbs KA, Bacik JP, Perley-Robertson GE, Whitworth GE, Gloster TM, Vocadlo DJ, Mark BL. The development of selective inhibitors of NagZ: increased susceptibility of Gram-negative bacteria to beta-lactams. Chembiochem. 2013;14(15):1973–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Lodge JM, Minchin SD, Piddock LJV, Busby SJW. Cloning, sequencing and analysis of the structural gene and regulatory region of the pseudomonas aeruginosa chromosomal AmpC beta-lactamase. Biochem J. 1991;272(3):627–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kong KF, Schneper L, Mathee K. Beta-lactam antibiotics: from antibiosis to resistance and bacteriology. APMIS. 2010;118(1):1–36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kong KF, Jayawardena SR, Indulkar SD, Del Puerto A, Koh CL, Hoiby N, Mathee K. Pseudomonas aeruginosa AmpR is a global transcriptional factor that regulates expression of AmpC and PoxB ?-lactamases, proteases, quorum sensing, and other virulence factors. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49(11):4567–75.

  33. Caille O, Zincke D, Merighi M, Balasubramanian D, Kumari H, Kong KF, Silva-Herzog E, Narasimhan G, Schneper L, Lory S. Structural and functional characterization of pseudomonas aeruginosa global regulator AmpR. J Bacteriol. 2014;196(22):3890–902.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Arora S, Ayyar BV, O’Kennedy R. Affinity chromatography for antibody purification. 2014.

  35. Cavallari JF, Lamers RP, Scheurwater EM, Matos AL, Burrows LL. Changes to its peptidoglycan-remodeling enzyme repertoire modulate β-lactam resistance in pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(7):3078–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Yang X, Zeng J, Zhou Q, Yu X, Zhong Y, Wang F, Du H, Nie F, Pang X, Wang D, et al. Elevating NagZ improves resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics via promoting AmpC beta-lactamase in enterobacter cloacae. Front Microbiol. 2020;11: 586729.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Luo P, He X, Liu Q, Hu C. Developing universal genetic tools for rapid and efficient deletion mutation in vibrio species based on suicide T-vectors carrying a novel counterselectable marker, vmi480. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(12).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thanks for technical guidance provided by ChinaPeptides Co., Ltd (Shanghai, China) for antibody preparation and technical guidance provided by Knogen Biotech Co., Ltd (Guangzhou, China) for genetic modification.

Funding

This study was funded by grants provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81802072) and the First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College Program (CYFY2018YB03).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Xianggui Yang, Zhenguo Wang and Mingquan Liu contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Clinical Medical College and the First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

    Xianggui Yang, Mingquan Liu & Ying Xu

  2. Department of Stomatology, Clinical Medical College and the First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

    Zhenguo Wang

  3. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA

    Xuejing Yu

  4. Department of Biotechnology, Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

    Yuanxiu Zhong & Fuying Wang

Authors
  1. Xianggui Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhenguo Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mingquan Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xuejing Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yuanxiu Zhong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fuying Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ying Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

XGY conceived this study and written manuscript. ZW, ML contributed to design experiments and prepared Figs. 1, 2, 3 and figure S1. XY contributed to search literatures and review the manuscript. YZ, FW performed experiments and prepared Figs. 4, 5 and figure S2. YX conceived this study and reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Xianggui Yang or Ying Xu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval and consent were approved by the scientific research ethics committee of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Clinical Medical College and the First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College (Ethics Approval Number: CYFYLL2019-183) prior to the commencement of the study. All authors confirm that the study is reported in accordance with ARRIVE guidelines and the declaration of Helsinki. The clinical strains used in this manuscript were isolated from the clinical specimens of patients. Before the strains were collected, informed consents were written with patients after clearly explaining the nature and purpose of the study. In the process of informed consent, sufficient time is provided for questions and answers.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

 Fig. S1. Western blot analysis of ampC protein expression in ECC clinical isolate treated with SICs of various antibiotics.

Additional file 2:

 Fig. S2. Antibiotic susceptibility tests with Kirby-Bauer method. 

Additional file 3:

 Table S1. MICs and SICs of various antibiotics against EC clinical isolate. 

Additional file 4:

 Table S2. Strains information. 

Additional file 5:

 Table S3. Plasmids information. 

Additional file 6:

 Table S4. Primers information. 

Additional file 7.

 WB raw data.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, X., Wang, Z., Liu, M. et al. Cefazolin and imipenem enhance AmpC expression and resistance in NagZ-dependent manner in Enterobacter cloacae complex. BMC Microbiol 22, 284 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-022-02707-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-022-02707-7

Keywords

BMC Microbiology

ISSN: 1471-2180

Contact us