The Complexity of Molecular Targeting by Antibiotics Acting on the Ribosome

Department of Biochemistry, School of Medicine, The University of Patras, Greece

*Corresponding Author:

Dimitrios L Kalpaxis
Department of Biochemistry
School of Medicine, The University of Patras, 6504-Patras, Greece
Tel: +302610996124
E-mail: dimkal@med.upatras.gr

Received date: December 27, 2012; Accepted date: December 27, 2012; Published date: December 29, 2012

Citation: Kalpaxis DL (2012) The Complexity of Molecular Targeting by Antibiotics Acting on the Ribosome. J Community Med Health Educ 2:e114. doi:10.4172/2161-0711.1000e114

Copyright: © 2012 Kalpaxis DL. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Community Medicine & Health Education

Introduction

X-ray crystallography and Cryo-E microscopy have revealed numerous cavities in bacterial ribosomes, not existing in human cytosolic ribosomes [1]. Some of them present features favorable to the binding of antibiotics that disrupt protein synthesis. This is reflected in the large number of ribosome-targeting antibiotics in current clinical use. Nevertheless, the extensive use of antibiotics for over 60 years has led inevitably to the spread of resistant strains. An additional layer of complexity is associated with the high conservation of the structure of functional sites within ribosomal RNA, in particular between prokaryotic and mitochondrial translation machinery, which implies limitations with respect to selectivity and toxicity [2]. Any new strategies to manage antibiotic resistance and reduce side-effects can be addressed through accelerating the development of new drugs and improving safe and appropriate use of antibiotics.

Targeting of Ribosomes by Antibiotics

Binding of antibiotics to the ribosome is a prerequisite for their action. Most of the studies investigating the binding of antibiotics (A) to the ribosome (R) have been based so far on the assumption that this interaction can be expressed by a fast equilibrium of the form R + A â??RA, giving emphasis on the thermodynamic control of the interaction [3,4]. Bacteria have evolved several elegant solutions to ridding the ribosome of antibiotics, e.g., by lowering the intracellular concentration A via pumping out the antibiotics and hindering their uptake [5], or by increasing the dissociation of the RA complex via reprogramming the target structure [6] and destroying the antibiotic warhead [7]. Therefore, the efforts for development of new antibiotics have been often oriented to approaches tending to exploit the thermodynamic control of the antibiotic-ribosome interaction, thus overlooking the kinetic control of the binding process. However, several lines of evidence have increasingly recognized the significance of the binding kinetics, especially the duration that an antibiotic stays in complex with the ribosome [8-10]. When the association and dissociation rate constants are sufficiently small, the interaction between ribosome and antibiotic equilibrates slowly and the degree of translation inhibition is time-dependent [11,12]. As revealed by kinetic studies [13-16], NMR and modeling studies [17,18], and footprinting analysis at discrete time-intervals following mixing the ribosome with the drugs [13,16,19], access of some antibiotics to the ribosome occurs through a two-step mechanism, R + A â?? RA â?? R*A. The first step of the binding process, rapidly established, involves a low-affinity site. Subsequently, slow conformational changes in the target and/or in the ligand cause shifting of the antibiotic into a high-affinity pocket, from which the antibiotic dissociates slowly. Because of the cohesive long-lasting binding of the drug to the ribosome, such antibiotics are less vulnerable to the activity of efflux pumps and exhibit strong post-antibiotic effects (PAE), i.e., persistent antibacterial effects after removal of the inhibitory drug [20], and they are poor inducers of methyltransferases that modify the target site [21].

Another problem, usually met in preclinical studies, is associated with the fact that much of the work toward unveiling the molecular features of the antibiotic-ribosome interaction and the mechanisms of resistance has been performed, using model organisms. Nevertheless, it has been already recognized that conclusions drawn from such organisms cannot safely extrapolated to other pathogenic bacteria; species-specific differences in the drug binding site may dramatically influence the efficacy of an antibiotic [2,22]. Therefore, the application of high-throughput Screening methods for assessing the efficacy of natural or natural-like compounds on clinical isolates of interest should be a major challenge for future work.

Conclusions

Although the need for novel antibacterials has been greater than ever in the face of widespread resistance, since the year 2000 only four new classes of antibiotics have been discovered [23]. The reasons of the decline in antibiotic discovery are mainly non-scientific, but clearly economical; targeting an antibiotic to a resistant organism may not improve the chances of a company, because of the limited market size. If the non-prudent use of antibiotics continues, unfortunately new mechanisms of resistance against novel drugs will be emerging. The incidence of bacterial resistance represents a serious problem not only to patients, but also to global healthcare systems. Health Authorities have to promote surveillance and stewardship networks to educate physicians and the general public in avoiding inappropriate use of antibiotics and reducing transmission of antibiotic resistant strains through effective infection-control systems.

References

1. McCoy LS, Xie Y, Tor Y (2011) Antibiotics that target protein synthesis. Wiley Interdiscip Rev RNA 2: 209-232.
2. Tenson T, Mankin A (2006) Antibiotics and the ribosome. Mol Microbiol 59: 1664-1677.
3. Di Giambattista M, Engelborghs Y, Nyssen E, Cocito C (1987) Kinetics of binding of macrolides, lincosamides, and synergimycins to ribosomes. J Biol Chem 262: 8591-8597.
4. Douthwaite S, Hansen LH, Mauvais P (2000) Macrolide-ketolide inhibition of MLS-resistant ribosomes is improved by alternative drug interaction with domain II of 23S rRNA. Mol Microbiol 36: 183-193.
5. Kumar A, Schweizer HP (2005) Bacterial resistance to antibiotics: active efflux and reduced uptake. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 57: 1486-1513.
6. Lambert PA (2005) Bacterial resistance to antibiotics: modified target sites. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 57: 1471-1485.
7. Wright GD (2005) Bacterial resistance to antibiotics: enzymatic degradation and modification. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 57: 1451-1470.
8. Zhang R, Monsma F (2009) The importance of drug-target residence time. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 12: 488-496.
9. Zhang R, Monsma F (2010) Binding kinetics and mechanism of action: toward the discovery and development of better and best in class drugs. Expert Opin Drug Discov 5: 1023-1029.
10. Guo D, van Dorp EJ, Mulder-Krieger T, van Veldhoven JPD, Brussee J, et al. (2012) Dual-point competition association assay: A fast and high-throughput kinetic screening method for assessing ligand-receptor binding kinetics. J Biomol Screen.
11. Morrison JF, Walsh CT (1988) The behavior and significance of slow-binding enzyme inhibitors. Adv Enzymol Relat Areas Mol Biol 61: 201-301.
12. Kostopoulou ON, Korelis TG, Mamos P, Magoulas GE, Kalpaxis DL (2011) Insights into the chloramphenicol inhibition effect on peptidyl transferase activity, using two new analogs of the drug. Open Enz Inhib J 4: 1-10.
13. Petropoulos AD, Kouvela EC, Dinos GP, Kalpaxis DL (2008) Stepwise binding of tylosin and erythromycin to Escherichia coli ribosomes, characterized by kinetic and footprinting analysis. J Biol Chem 283: 4756-4765.
14. Dinos GP, Kalpaxis DL (2000) Kinetic studies on the interaction between a ribosomal complex active in peptide bond formation and the macrolide antibiotics tylosin and erythromycin. Biochemistry 39: 11621-11628.
15. Dinos GP, Connell SR, Nierhaus KH, Kalpaxis DL (2003) Erythromycin, roxithromycin, and clarithromycin: use of slow-binding kinetics to compare their in vitro interaction with a bacterial ribosomal complex active in peptide bond formation. Mol Pharmacol 63: 617-623.
16. Petropoulos AD, Kouvela EC, Starosta AL, Wilson DN, Dinos GP, et al. (2009) Time-resolved binding of azithromycin to Escherichia coli ribosomes. J Mol Biol 385: 1179-1192.
17. Bertho G, Gharbi-Benarous J, Delaforge M, Girault JP (1998) Transferred nuclear Overhauser effect study of macrolide-ribosome interactions: correlation between antibiotic activities and bound conformations. Bioorg Med Chem 6: 209-221.
18. Novak P, Tatic I, Tepes P, Kostrun S, Barber J (2006) Systematic approach to understanding macrolide-ribosome interactions: NMR and modeling studies of oleandomycin and its derivatives. J Phys Chem A 110: 572-579.
19. Kostopoulou ON, Petropoulos AD, Dinos GP, Choli-Papadopoulou T, Kalpaxis DL (2012) Investigating the entire course of telithromycin binding to Escherichia coli ribosomes. Nucleic Acids Res 40: 5078-5087.
20. Braga PC, Culici M, Dal Sasso M (2004) The post-antibiotic effects of rokitamycin (a 16-membered ring macrolide) on susceptible and erythromycin-resistant strains of Streptococcus pyogenes. Int J Antimicrob Agents 24: 254-260.
21. Gaynor M, Mankin AS (2003) Macrolide antibiotics: binding site, mechanism of action, resistance. Curr Top Med Chem 3: 949-961.
22. Wilson DN, Harms JM, Nierhaus KH, Schlünzen F, Fucini P (2005) Species-specific antibiotic-ribosome interactions: implications for drug development. Biol Chem 386: 1239-1252.
23. Paknikar SS, Narayana S (2012) Newer antibacterials in therapy and clinical trials. N Am J Med Sci 4:537-547.