(Minireview) Antimicrobial Agents Targeting the Ribosome
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 64 (2007) 791 – 795 View metadata,1420-682X/07/070791-5 citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Cellular and Molecular Life Sciencesbrought to you by CORE DOI 10.1007/s00018-007-6431-5 provided by RERO DOC Digital Library Birkhuser Verlag, Basel, 2007 Visions & Reflections (Minireview) Antimicrobial agents targeting the ribosome: the issue of selectivity and toxicity À lessons to be learned E. C. Bçttger Institut fr Medizinische Mikrobiologie, Universitt Zrich, Gloriastrasse 30/32, CH-8006 Zrich (Switzerland), Fax: +41446344906, e-mail: [email protected] Received 28 September 2006; received after revision 15 November 2006; accepted 8 January 2007 Online First 13 February 2007 Keywords. Drugs, ribosome, crystallography, genetics, toxicity. Many of the compounds that are used in clinical two subunits are composed of dozens of different medicine for treatment of infectious diseases interfere proteins, and nucleic acids, termed rRNA. During the with protein synthesis by targeting the ribosome [1], past decades, considerable evidence has accumulated e.g., macrolides, ketolides, lincosamides, oxazolidi- demonstrating that the nucleic acid component of the nones, aminoglycosides, and tetracyclines. In general, ribosome is key to binding many of the ribosomal antibiotics target the ribosome at locations of func- drugs, rather than the numerous ribosomal proteins tional relevance, e.g., decoding, translocation, and [1–3]. Recent data from X-ray crystallography have peptidyl transfer. The increasing incidence of anti- not only confirmed this suggestion but also provided biotic resistance and the toxicity associated with some details of drug-target interactions at the atomic level of the available agents constitute a formidable chal- by revealing how antibiotic binding occurs [4–8]. lenge for further exploitation of the ribosome as a The eukaryotic ribosome comes in two flavors: the drug target. cytoplasmic and the mitochondrial ribosome. The The principle of antimicrobial chemotherapy dates components of the cytoribosome are encoded by back to Paul Ehrlichs concept of selective toxicity. chromosomal genes as are the mitoribosomal pro- The ribosome is a highly conserved structure present teins. However, the rRNA components of the mitor- in all three kingdoms of life: archea, bacteria, and ibosome are encoded by the mitochondrial genome eukaryotes. How can ribosomal inhibitors fulfil the (www.mitomap.org). Although the basis for drug- principle of selective toxicity? Drugs targeting the related toxicity of the ribosomal inhibitors is un- ribosome are characterized by two features: specific- known, several lines of evidence point to mitoribo- ity (see Table 1) and toxicity. Ribosomal inhibitors, somes as the Achilles heel of ribosomal antibiotics, which are used in clinical medicine for treatment of because: (i) mitochondrial ribosomes are more related infectious diseases, exhibit varying degrees of toxicity. to the prokaryotic ribosome than to the eukaryotic Macrolides and lincosamides show very little toxicity, cytoplasmic ribosome; (ii) toxicity in vivo correlates if any, while the therapeutic use of aminoglycosides is with activity in vitro, i.e., those antibiotics which exhibit limited by significant ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity. in vitro activity on mitoribosomes are associated with How to explain these different degrees of toxicity? toxicity in vivo; (iii) familial hypersensitivity to amino- What is the basis for drug selectivity? glycosides (drug-induced deafness) is associated with The ribosome is a complex macromolecular structure specific mutations in mitochondrial rRNA [9]. which consists of a large and a small subunit. These Investigations on and genetic manipulations of ribo- 792 E. C. Bçttger Antimicrobials targeting the ribosome Table 1. Ribosomal specificity of selected antibioticsa ribosome [21]. Central to this hypothesis is the 70S 80S concept of informative sequence positions À i.e., Aminoglycosides Cycloheximide the identification of polymorphic nucleotides as a determinant of ribosomal resistance. The identifica- Macrolides tion of a polymorphic residue as determinant of Ketolides ribosomal resistance provides information about the Lincosamides selectivity of a ribosomal antibiotic, i.e., why a drug Streptogramins affects the prokaryotic as opposed to the eukaryotic Oxazolidinones 70S/80S ribosome (see Table 2). The basis for this hypothesis Spectinomycin Hygromycin was initially established by investigating bacterial Chloramphenicol Sparsomycin alterations within the ribosome mediating resistance Capreomycin to aminoglycosides and macrolides. The conclusion from these studies was that the selectivity of these a 70S=prokaryotic (bacterial) ribosome, 80S=eukaryotic ribo- some agents is largely due to a single nucleotide position within the rRNA, e.g., the identity of the base at 16S rRNA position 1408 determines selectivity of amino- somal nucleic acids are problematic, because most glycosides, while the identity of the base at 23S rRNA eubacteria harbor multiple rRNA operons in their position 2058 determines the selectivity of macrolides chromosome. For many of the antibiotics targeting the [21]. For aminoglycosides, selectivity is due to the ribosome, susceptibility is dominant over resistance natural insensitivity of eukaryotic cytoplasmic ribo- [10]. Thus, a merodiploid strain with a mutant somes conferred by a guanine at 16S rRNA position resistant allele and a wild-type susceptible allele 1408; the toxicity of aminoglycosides (at least irrever- usually exhibits a drug-susceptible phenotype. As sible ototoxicity) is due to the natural susceptibility of the majority of eubacteria are characterized by the mitoribosomes, which carry a susceptible bacterial presence of multiple rRNA (rrn) operons, resistance- adenine at this sequence position. Macrolides are conferring alterations in rrn were initially rarely characterized by the virtual absence of target-related described in clinical pathogens. In the mid 1990s toxicity; both cytoribosomes and mitoribosomes are mutations in rRNAs were first recognized as a naturally resistant to these drugs, with resistance significant cause of acquired drug resistance in major conferred by a guanine at 23S rRNA position 2058 clinical pathogens [11–18]. Subsequently, genetic (Table 2). procedures were developed which permitted the In an effort to challenge this concept, a single rRNA construction of eubacteria carrying a single functional allelic eubacterium was saturated with drug-resist- rRNA operon [15, 19]. These single rRNA allelic ance-conferring mutations by selecting for spontane- microorganisms allow mutagenesis of their ribosomal ous resistance to hygromycin B, a universal inhibitor nucleic acids to result in cells containing homoge- of translation. If a polymorphic rRNA residue had neous populations of mutant ribosomes. Genetic, been found to confer resistance, this would have biochemical, and structural studies have provided a effectively falsified the concept. All of the resistance detailed picture of the importance of specific nucleo- mutations were found to map to the hygromycin- tides for high-affinity binding of ribosomal drugs to binding site within helix 44 of 16S rRNA. Significantly, their respective rRNA target site. analysis of drug-resistance-conferring rRNA muta- Clinically useful ribosomal antibiotics must discrim- tions revealed that these were restricted to universally inate between bacterial and eukaryotic ribosomes. conserved nucleotides [28] (Table 2, Fig. 1). The The high cross-species conservation of functional sites observation that ribosomal alterations mediating within the ribosomal RNA, targeted by ribosomal resistance by hygromycin B exclusively involve uni- drugs, implies limitations with respect to selectivity. In versally conserved nucleotides within rRNA explains the case of aminoglycosides, bacterial and mitochon- the lack of specificity and general toxicity of hygrom- drial ribosomes are susceptible, while eukaryotic ycin B. cytoplasmic ribosomes are insensitive to these drugs. Linezolid is a representative of a new class of anti- In contrast, while bacterial ribosomes are susceptible biotics, the oxazolidinones. These drugs inhibit pro- to macrolide antibiotics, both the mitochondrial and tein synthesis, both in vivo and in vitro, and have the eukaryotic cytoplasmic ribosome are naturally activity against a wide range of Gram-positive and resistant to these agents [20]. Gram-negative bacteria [30]. Linezolid binds to the It has been suggested that the analysis of drug large ribosomal subunit, and its binding site on the 23S resistance mutations in bacteria allows one to under- rRNA overlaps with that of the peptidyl transferase stand the basis of specificity for drugs targeting the inhibitor chloramphenicol [31]. Early on, linezolid Cell. Mol. Life Sci. Vol. 64, 2007 Visions & Reflections (Minireview) 793 Table 2. Bacterial resistance mutations and corresponding eukaryotic sequence positions Drug rRNA Eubacteria Eukaryotes position susceptible resistant mitochondrial cytoplasmic Macrolides 2058 A G [22] G G (e.g., clarithromycin, azithromycin, C [22] erythromycin) U [22] 2059 A G [22] A A C [22] 2057/2611 base pairing disruption of base paring A-U A-U (A-U, G-C) [23] Lincosamides 2058 A G [24] GG (e.g., clindamycin) U [24] Aminoglycosides 1408 A G [15] A G (4,6-deoxy-streptamines with a 6’NH3 group; 1406 U A [25] U U e.g., gentamicin, tobramycin, kanamycin) C [25] 1495 U A [25] U U 1491 G C (low level)