1 of 1

Uncovering the Evolutionary Pathways Toward Triple-Resistant Bacterial Populations

Benjamin Adkins, Quentin Berry, Ashley Jennings, Shubhangini Shah, and Lindsey McGee

Earlham College | Richmond, IN

Abstract

Phenotypic Results

Phenotype Results

Methods

Conclusions

Antibiotic resistance is a prominent challenge to the treatment of bacterial infections. Phage therapy, a possible treatment alternative, has become a developing topic in the medical world. To gain a better understanding of the evolutionary pathways of E. coli, bacteria (EC-WT and EC-R-WA11) were evolved over ten days in varying conditions: growth, ampicillin, gallium nitrate, and ampicillin/gallium. After ten days, each of the evolved bacteria was tested with a spot assay to determine phage resistance, and the growth fitness of each bacterial population at varying concentrations of ampicillin and gallium nitrate was tested by assay in a 96-well plate. We observed that the bacteria that were selected for in ampicillin conditions gained resistance to ampicillin but not to gallium while the bacteria that was selected in gallium conditions gained resistance to both gallium and ampicillin. All populations that began with the ancestor EC-R-WA11 kept the resistance to phage even though phage resistance was not selected for during the course of this experiment. The sequencing results showed an outline of the mutations that the bacteria gained to have these adaptations that allowed them to survive.

Spot Assays Testing for Phage-Resistance

Figure 2. The spot assay protocol was performed to determine phage resistance in evolved populations. Each population (ECWT, ECWA11) and condition (growth, ampicillin, gallium nitrate, and ampicillin + gallium nitrate) were assayed with a control (LB broth) and phage (WA11) to test phage resistance of evolved bacterial strains. Each assay consisted of 150µL of bacteria and 3µL of each control. Both the control and the WA11 performed in triplicate. Plates were then incubated at 37°C for 24 hours and infections were identified by presence of plaques on the petri plate.

Experimental Evolution Design

Figure 1. An experimental evolution generated adapted bacterial populations to ampicillin conditions, gallium nitrate conditions, conditions alternating daily between ampicillin and gallium nitrate, and growth conditions. Transfers were conducted with E. coli strain C wild-type or E. coli strain C resistant to the bacteriophage WA11. Populations were transferred to fresh flasks every 24 hours for 10 days with their designated selective conditions. Populations were assayed in 96-well plates to determine growth fitness under ampicillin or gallium nitrate exposure.

Growth Fitness of Evolved Populations Treated with Ampicillin and Gallium Nitrate

Figure 3. Growth fitness data over 24 hours at increasing concentrations of ampicillin or gallium nitrate.

Red = adapted to ampicillin, Blue = adapted to gallium nitrate, Purple = adapted to alternating ampicillin and gallium nitrate, and Green = adapted to favorable growth conditions (absence of ampicillin and gallium nitrate.

Ampicillin

�Gallium

Alternating

Growth

Sequencing Results

Increasing Concentrations of

Ampicillin or Gallium Nitrate

  • We hypothesized that combinatorial selective pressures with phage, antibiotics, and heavy metals would deter multi-resistant phenotypes from arising.
  • We assessed how ecological complexity influences the underlying genetic architecture.
  • We found many populations, even those selected for growth only, overcame any constraints of adaptation and resulted in the ability of our populations to evolve multi-treatment resistance.

Boyd, S. M., Rhinehardt, K. L., Ewunkem, A. J., Harrison, S. H., Thomas, M. D., & Graves Jr, J. L. (2022). Experimental Evolution of Copper Resistance in Escherichia coli Produces Evolutionary Trade-Offs in the Antibiotics Chloramphenicol, Bacitracin, and Sulfonamide. Antibiotics, 11(6), 711.

McGee, L. W., Barhoush, Y., Shima, R., & Hennessy, M. (2023). Phage‐resistant mutations impact bacteria susceptibility to future phage infections and antibiotic response. Ecology and Evolution, 13(1), e9712.

Graves Jr, J. L., Ewunkem, A. J., Ward, J., Staley, C., Thomas, M. D., Rhinehardt, K. L., ... & Harrison, S. H. (2019). Experimental evolution of gallium resistance in Escherichia coli. Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health, 2019(1), 169-180.

Jeje, O., Ewunkem, A. J., Jeffers-Francis, L. K., & Graves Jr, J. L. (2023). Serving Two Masters: Effect of Escherichia coli Dual Resistance on Antibiotic Susceptibility. Antibiotics, 12(3), 603.

Funding Sources: National Science Foundation; Stephen and Sylvia Tregidga Burges Endowed Fund for Student Research; Faculty Collaborative Research Matthews Fund; Student Faculty Research in Physics and Biological Science Fund

Maintenance of Phage-Resistance for EC-WA11 Populations

Figure 5. Spot Assay. Clear zones indicate bacteriophage infection for EC-WT. EC-R-WA11 is resistant to WA11 infection. All evolved EC-R-WA11 populations maintained phage resistance throughout the course of the experiments. A) ancestors EC-WT and EC-R-WA11, and B) representative image for evolved populations.

Bacterial Population

Selective Conditions

Nucleotide Position

Nucleotide Substitution

Amino Acid Substitution

Gene

Gene Function

Freq

EC-WT

none

-

-

-

-

-

-

EC-WA11

none

75,889

A→T

H160L

RfaP

lipopolysaccharide core heptose(I) kinase

1.00

EC-WT-A1

ampicillin

4,136,844

C→T

T118I

frdD

fumarate reductase subunit D

1.00

4,322,474

C→T

E69K

rpoB

DNA‑directed RNA polymerase subunit beta'

1.00

EC-WT-A2

ampicillin

3,150,580

A→G

F57F

ISA1

ISAs1 family transposase

0.06

4,136,837

-+T

346/360 nt

frdD

fumarate reductase subunit D

1.00

EC-WT-A3

ampicillin

445,243

C→T

P486L

fusA

elongation factor G

1.00

EC-WT-A4

ampicillin

4,136,844

C→T

T118I

frdD

fumarate reductase subunit D

1.00

EC-WA11-A1

ampicillin

Re-sequence

EC-WA11-A2

ampicillin

368,706

G→A

A10A

YiaN/M

2,3‑diketo‑L‑gulonate TRAP transporter permease

0.93

EC-WA11-A3

ampicillin

2,900,850

Δ39 bp

coding

PhoE

phosphoporin PhoE

0.76

EC-WA11-A4

ampicillin

1,053,145

A→T

pseudogene

RpoS

RNA polymerase sigma factor RpoS

0.11

EC-WT-M1

gallium nitrate

3,039,509

C→T

A17V

yhdW

amino acid ABC transporter substrate‑binding protein

0.3

3,922,989

C→A

R149S

DNA‑binding response regulator

0.17

EC-WT-M2

gallium nitrate

3,923,032

G→A

R163H

DNA‑binding response regulator

0.26

EC-WT-M3

gallium nitrate

445,831

T→G

M682R

fusA

elongation factor G

0.91

EC-WT-M4

gallium nitrate

Re-sequence

EC-WA11-M1

gallium nitrate

2,900,361

A→C

intergenic

PhoE

asparagine‑‑tRNA ligase/phosphoporin PhoE

0.5

EC-WA11-M2

gallium nitrate

443,864

T→G

T26T

fusA

elongation factor G

0.25

4,331,617

T→G

E156D

tufA

translation elongation factor EF‑Tu 2

0.44

EC-WA11-M3

gallium nitrate

1,586,505

A→C

D127A

PhoE

phosphoporin PhoE

0.72

gallium nitrate

3,701,377

C→T

D127A

NlpE

copper homeostasis/adhesion lipoprotein NlpE

0.29

EC-WA11-M4

gallium nitrate

3,150,580

A→G

F57F

ISAs1 family transposase

0.07

EC-WT-AM1

amp + gallium

4,136,844

C→T

T118I

frdD

fumarate reductase subunit D

1.00

4,404,514

G→A

E91K

rcsC

two‑component sensor histidine kinase

1.00

EC-WT-AM2

amp + gallium

2,717,249

G→A

A955T

mfd

transcription‑repair coupling factor

0.15

4,136,844

C→T

T118I

frdD

fumarate reductase subunit D

1.00

EC-WT-AM3

amp + gallium

2,753,849

A→G

I234T

FlgF

flagellar basal body rod protein FlgF

0.07

EC-WT-AM4

amp + gallium

2,469,393

C→T

A73A

autotransporter domain‑containing protein

4,003,696

A→G

N17S

hypothetical protein

0.31

EC-WA11-AM1

amp + gallium

1,970,219

T→G

L133R

MepM

murein DD‑endopeptidase MepM

1.00

EC-WA11-AM2

amp + gallium

869,856

C→A

P184Q

hypothetical protein

0.1

EC-WA11-AM3

amp + gallium

2,205,161

G→C

A642A

RsxC

electron transporter RsxC

0.05

3,150,580

A→G

F57F

ISAs1 family transposase

0.05

EC-WA11-AM4

amp + gallium

1,587,285

C→T

intergenic

PhoE

phosphoporin PhoE

0.12

3,826,984

T→C

N255S

Ftsl

peptidoglycan glycosyltransferase FtsI

0.64

4,404,668

A→C

Q142P

rcsC

two‑component sensor histidine kinase

0.1

EC-WT-G1

growth

1,030,196

G→A

intergenic

FAD‑binding oxidoreductase/MFS transporter

0.08

2,469,393

C→T

A73A

autotransporter domain‑containing protein

0.07

2,807,964

C→T

W325*

putP

sodium/proline symporter

0.09

EC-WT-G2

growth

3,922,740

G→T

A66S

DNA‑binding response regulator

0.57

EC-WT-G3

growth

285,908

G→A

A149T

MdtE

multidrug resistance protein MdtE

0.16

445,765

T→G

L660R

fusA

elongation factor G

0.86

446,358

G→A

P129P

tufA

translation elongation factor EF‑Tu 1

0.27

EC-WT-G4

growth

445,765

T→G

L660R

fusA

elongation factor G

0.89

446,358

G→A

P129P

tufA

translation elongation factor EF‑Tu 1

0.14

EC-WA11-G1

growth

131,768

C→T

V203M

DNA‑binding response regulator

0.1

2,193,652

G→A

intergenic

SlyA

SlyA family transcriptional regulator

0.1

EC-WA11-G2

growth

3,672,988

C→T

R201R

ISAs1 family transposase

0.12

EC-WA11-G3

growth

2,900,850

Δ39 bp

coding

PhoE

phosphoporin PhoE

0.74

3,923,032

G→A

R163H

DNA‑binding response regulator

0.11

EC-WA11-G4

growth

225,056

T→G

Q190P

hypothetical protein

0.56

1,053,145

A→T

pseudogene

RpoS

RNA polymerase sigma factor RpoS

0.12

  1. B.

Figure 4. Growth fitness data at 40 mgL ampicillin or 1500 mg/L gallium nitrate. Populations were compared to the ancestors at a single treatment concentration. Surprisingly, populations selected for growth only fared equally well or better than other selective conditions when exposed to ampicillin or gallium nitrate.

An ANOVA was used to determine the overall effects of bacterial population, treatment concentration, and the interaction on the response variable, optical density (OD600).

Pairwise contrasts were conducted to compare the OD600 of E. coli ancestors to each evolved population of E. coli for each treatment type. Dunnett test corrected for multiple comparisons.

Error bars represent SEM

* represents p<0.05

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*