This Article Full Text (PDF) Supplemental material Other Versions of this Article: AAC.00105-08v1 52/9/3040    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Google Scholar Articles by Lismond, A. Articles by Van Bambeke, F. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lismond, A. Articles by Van Bambeke, F.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. doi:10.1128/AAC.00105-08
Copyright (c) 2008, American Society for Microbiology and/or the Listed Authors/Institutions. All Rights Reserved.

Cooperation between prokaryotic (Lde) and eukaryotic (MRP) efflux transporters in J774 macrophages infected with Listeria monocytogenes. Studies with ciprofloxacin and moxifloxacin

Unité de pharmacologie cellulaire et moléculaire, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium; Unité des Agents Antibactériens, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: francoise.vanbambeke{at}uclouvain.be.

	Abstract

Antibiotic efflux is observed in both eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells, modulating accumulation and resistance. The present study examines whether eukaryotic and prokaryotic fluoroquinolone transporters can cooperate in the context of an intracellular infection. We have used (i) J774 macrophages (comparing a ciprofloxacin-resistant cell line overexpressing an MRP-like transporter with wild-type cells with basal expression); (ii) Listeria monocytogenes (comparing a clinical isolate [CLIP21369] displaying ciprofloxacin resistance associated with overexpression of the Lde efflux system with a wild-type strain [EGD]); (iii) ciprofloxacin (substrate of both Lde and MRP) and moxifloxacin (non-substrate); (iv) probenecid and reserpine (preferential inhibitors of MRP and Lde, respectively). The ciprofloxacin MICs for EGD were unaffected by reserpine while those for CLIP21369 were decreased approximately 4-fold (and made similar to those of EGD). Neither probenecid nor reserpine affected the moxifloxacin MICs against EGD or CLIP21369. In dose-response studies (0.01-100 x MIC) in broth, reserpine fully restored susceptibility of CLIP21369 to ciprofloxacin (no effect on EGD), but did not influence the activity of moxifloxacin. In dose-response studies against intracellular bacteria, reserpine, probenecid, and their combination increased the activity of ciprofloxacin in wild-type and ciprofloxacin-resistant macrophages in parallel to their increase in ciprofloxacin accumulation in macrophages for EGD, and (ii) increase in accumulation and decrease in MIC (in broth) for CLIP21369. Moxifloxacin accumulation and intracellular activity were not consistently affected by the inhibitors. A bacterial efflux pump may thus actively cooperate with a eukaryotic efflux transporter to reduce the activity of a common substrate (ciprofloxacin) towards an intracellular bacterial target.