Skip to main content
eLife logoLink to eLife
. 2024 Nov 20;13:RP96695. doi: 10.7554/eLife.96695

Genetic stability of Mycobacterium smegmatis under the stress of first-line antitubercular agents

Dániel Molnár 1,2,, Éva Viola Surányi 1,, Tamás Trombitás 1, Dóra Füzesi 1,2, Rita Hirmondó 1,, Judit Toth 1,3,
Editors: Musa Ali4, Bavesh D Kana5
PMCID: PMC11578590  PMID: 39565350

Abstract

The sustained success of Mycobacterium tuberculosis as a pathogen arises from its ability to persist within macrophages for extended periods and its limited responsiveness to antibiotics. Furthermore, the high incidence of resistance to the few available antituberculosis drugs is a significant concern, especially since the driving forces of the emergence of drug resistance are not clear. Drug-resistant strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis can emerge through de novo mutations, however, mycobacterial mutation rates are low. To unravel the effects of antibiotic pressure on genome stability, we determined the genetic variability, phenotypic tolerance, DNA repair system activation, and dNTP pool upon treatment with current antibiotics using Mycobacterium smegmatis. Whole-genome sequencing revealed no significant increase in mutation rates after prolonged exposure to first-line antibiotics. However, the phenotypic fluctuation assay indicated rapid adaptation to antibiotics mediated by non-genetic factors. The upregulation of DNA repair genes, measured using qPCR, suggests that genomic integrity may be maintained through the activation of specific DNA repair pathways. Our results, indicating that antibiotic exposure does not result in de novo adaptive mutagenesis under laboratory conditions, do not lend support to the model suggesting antibiotic resistance development through drug pressure-induced microevolution.

Research organism: Other

Introduction

Tuberculosis (TB) continues to be the most challenging, constantly present infectious disease worldwide, with 7.5 million newly reported cases and 1.3 million deaths per year (World Health Organization, 2021). The resurgence of TB due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (World Health Organization, 2023) underscores the interconnected nature of global health and economic issues with TB incidence and control.

The causative agents of TB are members of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M. tuberculosis) complex. These obligate pathogen bacteria can incur a sustained threat to humanity thanks to their long-term latency (Ehrt and Schnappinger, 2009) and their highly unresponsive nature to antibiotics (Hett and Rubin, 2008; Jankute et al., 2015). Understanding the treatment evasion mechanisms and the outstanding stress tolerance of mycobacteria are in the spotlight of TB research (Stallings and Glickman, 2010; Miggiano et al., 2020). Drug tolerance arises when certain bacterial populations are temporarily able to survive antibiotic pressure in the absence of drug resistance-conferring mutations. Upon exposure to bactericidal drugs, tolerant mycobacteria are eliminated at a lower rate than the fully susceptible population (Balaban et al., 2019). Several interconnected biological pathways are involved in the emergence and establishment of a drug-tolerant state (Boshoff et al., 2004; Walter et al., 2015) including metabolic slowdown, metabolic shifting, cell wall thickening, and transcriptional regulation-guided adaptation (Goossens et al., 2020). For example, several efflux pumps are upregulated under antibiotic stress (Louw et al., 2011; Wiuff et al., 2005). In addition to temporary drug tolerance, the occurrence of genotypic resistance against the few useable antituberculotics is also recurrent (Dookie et al., 2018). Interestingly, horizontal gene transfer, which is a major contributor to antibiotic resistance in other species does not appear to function in members of the M. tuberculosis complex (Gray and Derbyshire, 2018; Madacki et al., 2021). Therefore, any resistant genotype can only emerge by de novo mutagenesis.

It is now commonly accepted that the M. tuberculosis population within individual TB patients can be more heterogeneous than was traditionally thought (Hingley-Wilson et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2015). The coexistence of both drug-resistant and drug-sensitive strains in a single patient, or even several drug-resistant strains with discrete drug resistance-conferring mutations has been described in clinical isolates (Asare-Baah et al., 2021; Lozano et al., 2021; Pérez-Lago et al., 2016). Warren et al. found that the occurrence of mixed infections reached 19% of the examined patients in South Africa by using a PCR-based strain classification method (Warren et al., 2004). Mixed infections can result from (i) simultaneously or sequentially acquired infections by different strains or (ii) genomic evolution of a strain under mutagenic pressure within the host (termed microevolution) and consequent coexistence of several populations. Accordingly, the emergence of genetically encoded resistance may either be due to microevolution or to the spreading of already existing variants from polyclonal infections under drug pressure. The difference between these two underlying mechanisms for the emergence of drug resistance is highly relevant to the treatment of TB. The investigation of stress-induced mutagenesis in mycobacteria has been based on fluctuation assays (Ford et al., 2013; Gillespie et al., 2005) besides several indirect evidence from descriptive studies (Al-Hajoj et al., 2010; Navarro et al., 2017; Herranz et al., 2018; Ley et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2012). However, we propose that combining mutation accumulation assays, analyzed through whole-genome sequencing, with phenotypic fluctuation assays is essential for identifying the source of the antibiotic resistance phenotype. Some studies demonstrate the simultaneous presence of several subpopulations within the same host which they interpret as an indication of being prone to microevolution (Navarro et al., 2011; Pérez-Lago et al., 2016). It is also possible that certain strains have intrinsically higher mutability. For example, the lineage 2 strains of the Beijing genotype exhibited a higher mutation rate (Ford et al., 2011). On the other hand, others found stable M. tuberculosis genomes with no or only a few emerging genomic changes over prolonged periods of treatment (Herranz et al., 2018). Genotyping has enabled researchers to describe cases of co-infection by ≥2 different strains (mixed infection) or the coexistence of clonal variants of the same strain (Muwonge et al., 2013; Navarro et al., 2011; Shamputa et al., 2006). Introducing whole genome sequencing into this field still leaves the distinction between mixed infections with multiple similar strains and strains that have arisen by microevolution elusive. Depending on the elapsed time between two sample collections, the stepwise acquisition of mutations might be missed, and the observed diversity may reflect concurrently existing subclones rather than newly emerged mutations (Ley et al., 2019). In addition, a single sputum sample usually does not represent the whole genomic diversity of the infection (Liu et al., 2015; Shamputa et al., 2006). Cell culturing can also lead to additional artefacts (Doyle et al., 2018; Metcalfe et al., 2017). The lack of standardized reporting of genome sequencing analyses also limits our ability to draw conclusions on within-host microevolution (Ley et al., 2019). Therefore, although several factors such as drug pressure and disease severity have been suggested to drive within-host microevolution and diversity (O’Neill et al., 2015; Trauner et al., 2017) and it is now accepted that the M. tuberculosis population within individual patients can be heterogeneous, we could not find any unequivocal proof for explaining the mechanism of emergence of the observed genomic diversity which gives rise to drug resistance.

Therefore, to advance our knowledge on the effect of antibiotics on mycobacterial mutability, we conducted experiments under controlled laboratory conditions. We used Mycobacterium smegmatis (M. smegmatis) for our investigations. This non-pathogenic relative of the medically relevant Mycobacterium species shares most DNA metabolic pathways with the medically relevant strains. Davis and Forse compared the sequences of proteins involved in base excision repair and nucleotide excision repair pathways in E. coli and their homologs in M. smegmatis and M. tuberculosis and found that there is a high degree of conservation between the DNA repair enzymes in M. smegmatis and M. tuberculosis (Davis and Forse, 2009; Kurthkoti and Varshney, 2012). Bioinformatic analyses of completely sequenced mycobacterial genomes, including M. tuberculosis (Camus et al., 2002), M. leprae (Silva et al., 2022), M. bovis (Garnier et al., 2003; Zimpel et al., 2017), M. avium, M. paratuberculosis, and M. smegmatis (Mohan et al., 2015) also demonstrated through the comparison of genes participating in many of the DNA repair/recombination pathways that the basic strategy used to repair DNA lesions is conserved (Singh, 2017; Singh et al., 2010). Durbach et.al, investigated mycobacterial SOS response and showed that the M. tuberculosis, M. smegmatis, and M. leprae LexA proteins are functionally conserved at the level of DNA binding (Durbach et al., 1997). In our earlier paper, we also compared the enzymes of thymidylate biosynthesis in M. tuberculosis and M. smegmatis and found high conservation (Pecsi et al., 2012). Considering M. smegmatis is non-pathogenic and fast-growing, it provides an attainable model to obtain information on genomic changes under drug pressure in M. tuberculosis.

We systematically investigated the effects of currently used TB drugs on genome stability, tolerance/ resistance acquisition, activation of the DNA repair system, and the cellular dNTP pool. We focused particularly on drugs used in the standard treatment of drug-susceptible TB, comprising isoniazid (INH), rifampicin (RIF), ethambutol (EMB), and pyrazinamide (PZA), the so-called first-line antibiotics (Grace et al., 2019). We also used a second-line antibiotic, ciprofloxacin (CIP). We found that following exposure to these antibiotics, the activation of DNA repair pathways maintains genomic integrity, while non-genetic factors convey quick adaptation to stress conditions. Notably, even with prolonged antibiotic exposure exceeding 230 bacterial generations, we observed no significant increase in the mutation rate, suggesting the absence of de novo adaptive mutagenesis.

Results

Adapting stress conditions and assessing their impact on cell viability and morphology

For an efficient TB treatment, first-line antituberculotics are used in combination in the clinics (isoniazid – INH; ethambutol – EMB; rifampicin – RIF; pyrazinamide - PZA) (Trauner et al., 2017). To model this drug pressure in our study, we also combined the four first-line drugs in addition to applying them one by one. We added a second-line antibiotic, CIP. MitomycinC (MMC) and ultraviolet (UV) irradiation were used as positive controls for direct DNA damage (Crowley et al., 2006; O’Sullivan et al., 2008). We optimized the drug concentration for all applied treatments. First- and second-line antituberculosis drugs were used in sublethal concentrations to convey a measurable phenotypic effect while allowing to keep an adequate number of cells for the MA experiments on a plate and for the downstream measurements in liquid culture (Figure 1—figure supplement 1; Figure 1—figure supplement 2 and Table 1). In the first-line combination treatment, a 10-fold reduced concentration of each separately adjusted drug had to be applied in both liquid and agar media to allow the survival of enough cells for the analyses (Table 1). The fact that a lower dose of antibiotics applied in combination resulted in higher CFU reduction indicates the synergistic effect of the first-line antibiotics on M. smegmatis growth inhibition (Table 1). After an 8 hr drug treatment, we determined the viable cell count by CFU measurements (Table 1). The bacteriostatic drugs INH and EMB caused moderate CFU decrease in liquid cultures compared to the control (Table 1, Figure 1—figure supplement 1), consistent with their mechanism of action (Alland et al., 2000). To quantify the phenotypic effect of the applied drug treatments in liquid cultures, we analyzed the cellular dimensions using microscopy (Figure 1 and Table 1). The observed morphological changes provided evidence of the treatments' effectiveness (Figure 1 and Table 1). Specifically, following RIF, CIP, and MMC treatments, we observed cells elongating by more than twofold, whereas INH and EMB treatments led to a reduction in cell length. The combination treatment did not affect the cell size (Figure 1 and Table 1).

Table 1. Summary of the applied drug treatments and their phenotypic consequences.

Treatment Liquid culture experiments Agar plate experiments
Category Long name Abbreviation Mechanism of action Subinhinitory concentration CFU compared to control Cell length [μm] Cell width [μm] Subinhinitory concentration CFU compared to control
First line antibiotics Isoniazid INH Cell wall synthesis inhibitor 150 μg/ml 80% 1.8±0.5 0.41±0.07 2 μg/ml 2.2 %
Ethambutol EMB 100 μg/ml 70% 2.0±0.8 0.55±0.17 0.2 μg/ml 10.5 %
Rifampicin RIF RNA synthesis inhibitor 3 μg/ml 60% 6.6±2.4 0.68±0.09 25 μg/ml 0.00052 %
Combination treatment COMBO WHO first line therapy 10 μg/ml PZA, 15 μg/mL INH, 10 μg/ml EMB, 0.3 μg/mL RIF 6% 2.8±0.7 0.47±005 1 μg/ml PZA, 0.2 μg/mL INH, 0.02 μg/ml EMB, 2.5 μg/mL RIF 0.39 %
Second line antibiotics Ciprofloxacin CIP Gyrase inhibitor 0.3 μg/ml 20% 11.1±4.0 0.59±0.1 0.3 μg/ml 0.00018 %
DNA damage controls Mitomycin-C MMC DNA alkylation 0.01 μg/ml 20% 9.8±4.6 0.68±0.11 0.0005 μg/ml 0.96 %
Ultraviolet radiation UV Pyr dimers, DSBs ND ND ND ND 150 J/m2 11 %
N/A Non-treated Mock N/A N/A 100% 2.8±0.9 0.44±0.08 N/A 100 %

Figure 1. Cell length distribution of M.smegmatis cells treated with different drugs.

Horizontal lines represent the mean of the plotted data points (n=84–212). The inset shows the fold changes in cell length compared to the untreated control on a log2 axis, highlighting the phenotypic effect of each treatment. * indicates data significantly different from the control at p=0.0001. Numerical values and additional statistical parameters are provided in Figure 1—source data 1.

Figure 1—source data 1. Cell dimensions of M. smegmatis treated with different drugs.

Figure 1.

Figure 1—figure supplement 1. Treatment optimization in liquid culture.

Figure 1—figure supplement 1.

Effects of treatment on Mycobacterium smegmatis mc2-155 wild-type liquid cultures during the exponential growth phase. Relative growth inhibition is expressed as the % OD600 ratio between treated and control liquid cultures for isoniazid (INH), ethambutol (EMB), ethambutol (RIF), and pyrazinamide (PZA) (latter grown in pH 5.5 acidic media). For ciprofloxacin (CIP) and mitomycinC (MMC), it is represented as the % ratio of colony-forming units (CFUs) following an 8 hr treatment.
Figure 1—figure supplement 2. Treatment optimization on agar plates.

Figure 1—figure supplement 2.

Relative viability is calculated based on the colony-forming unit (CFU) counting of exponentially growing wild-type M. smegmatis cultures on control and selective plates containing the corresponding antibiotic at different concentrations. Incubation: 60 hr at 37°C.

We also assayed the clinically relevant drug PZA. However, M. smegmatis was reported to exhibit an intrinsic resistance to PZA (Zhang et al., 1999). Indeed, PZA treatment alone, even at high concentrations in acidic conditions, did not affect cell viability in our experiments (Figure 1—figure supplement 1). Regardless of its inefficacy as a monotherapy, we included PZA in the combination treatment, as we could not rule out the possibility that PZA interacts with the other three drugs or that PZA elimination mechanisms are equally active in M. smegmatis under this regimen.

The genome of M. smegmatis remains stable even under antibiotic pressure

16 independent M. smegmatis MC2 155 lineages for each stress treatment condition and 56 lineages for the mock control were initiated and cultured from single colonies. The stress-treated lines and some of the mock lines were maintained through 60 days on agar plates. The rest of the mock lines were maintained through 120 days on agar plates. Drug-treated lineages were maintained for shorter times as more mutations were expected to arise under drug pressure. We measured an average generation time of 6.3±0.35 hr on the plate within the timeframe of a single passage. Therefore, bacteria produced on average 230 generations during the 60 day treatment. Following the treatment on solid plates, we expanded each lineage in a liquid culture without drug pressure and isolated genomic DNA. All lineages were sent to WGS to reveal the mutational events induced by the drug treatments. We set conditions to obtain at least 30–60 x sequencing depth for all positions per independent lineage. The ancestor colony was also sent for sequencing to detect already existing variations compared to the reference genome. According to the WGS results, our M. smegmatis ancestor strain carried 151 various mutations compared to the M. smegmatis reference genome deposited in the GenBank. These mutation hits were also found in all treated and untreated lineages and were omitted from further calculations as these are specific variations of our laboratory strain. We also removed those mutation hits that were found in any other independent lineage at the same position in any depth.

A surprisingly few new mutations were detected after carefully cross-checking the sequencing data. We found that a maximum of one mutation per lineage occurred during the 60 day drug treatments. Also, a maximum of one mutation per lineage was detected during the 60- or 120 day mock treatment (16 newly generated mutations for 56 lineages). We calculated a 1×10–10 mutation rate for our untreated M. smegmatis mc2155 strain. To our great surprise, the mutation rates of all treated lineages fell in one order of magnitude (4×10–11 - 3×10–10) except for the UV treatment used for positive control (Figure 2B).

Figure 2. Mutation accumulation (MA) experiment and the resulting genotypic and phenotypic changes in wild-type M.

Figure 2.

smegmatis mc2155 strains under antibiotic pressure. (A) Experimental design. (B) Mutation rates determined through genome sequencing of the drug-treated cells as an output of the MA process. UV(+) serves as a control reference for DNA damage. Columns represent averages, and error bars indicate the standard deviations of three individually sequenced samples. Statistical significance is marked by an asterisk (*), with a p-value of 0.05. For numerical data see Figure 2—source data 1. (C) Phenotypic drug sensitivity in drug-treated strains. Three individual minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) determinations are presented, with the mean indicated by a horizontal line. For numerical data see Figure 2—source data 2.

Figure 2—source data 1. Numerical data for mutation rates of wild-type M. smegmatis mc2155 strains under antibiotic pressure.
Figure 2—source data 2. Phenotypic drug sensitivity (MIC) in drug- treated strains.

We analyzed each mutation except those obtained following the UV treatment and found no sign of adaptive changes (Table 2). The Excel file containing the positions of all obtained mutations, including those of the UV sample, is provided in the archive deposited for the article (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25028186).

Table 2. Analysis of the genomic changes detected in the mutation accumulation experiment using whole genome sequencing.

Chromosome position Sample Reference Mutation AA mutation Gene code UniProt protein name Gene ontology (GO) Experiment
5214897 cip_b A AG Leu87 frameshift 148stop MSMEG_5116 Uncharacterized protein N/A Mutation accumulation (MA)
3614832 cip_b C T Pro139Leu MSMEG_3554 N5,N10-methylene-tetrahydromethanopterin reductase xidoreductase activity, acting on paired donors, with incorporation or reduction of molecular oxygen [GO:0016705]
2208516 cip_b G GA Leu282 frameshift 283stop MSMEG_2133 Uncharacterized protein N/A
5861538 cip_c G GC Leu168 frameshift MSMEG_5792 UPF0678 fatty acid-binding protein-like protein MSMEG_5792/MSMEI_5639 intracellular transport [GO:0046907]
3415264 cip_c T TC Leu206 frameshift 257stop MSMEG_3338 Oxidoreductase, FAD/FMN-binding FMN binding [GO:0010181]; oxidoreductase activity [GO:0016491]
2033295 cip_c A AG Leu72 frameshift 258stop MSMEG_1954 ABC1 family protein N/A
1988098 cip_c A AG N/A Intergenic region intergenic N/A
1533730 inh_b C CTCG Asp201_INSERTION MSMEG_1431 Cytochrome P450-terp (EC 1.14.-.-) heme binding [GO:0020037]; iron ion binding [GO:0005506]; monooxygenase activity [GO:0004497]; oxidoreductase activity, acting on paired donors, with incorporation or reduction of molecular oxygen [GO:0016705]
994997 inh_C G A N/A intergenic N/A
5777585 inh_C C T Val99Met MSMEG_5688 Regulatory protein, MarR GO:0003700 DNA-binding transcription factor activity; GO:0006355 regulation of DNA-templated transcription
1508883 mmc_a C G Ala300Ala (neutral) MSMEG_1407 N/A N/A
4598387 mmc_a C G Ala371Arg MSMEG_4513 Polyketide synthase transferase activity, transferring acyl groups [GO:0016746]
6786854 mmc_a G A Trp104stop MSMEG_6740 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate deaminase (EC 3.5.99.7) 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate deaminase activity [GO:0008660]; pyridoxal phosphate binding [GO:0030170]; amine catabolic process [GO:0009310]
5313643 mmc_c C T N/A intergenic N/A N/A
1865825 mock_b G GC Ala351 frameshift MSMEG_1780 Natural resistance-associated macrophage protein metal ion transmembrane transporter activity; metal ion transport; membrane;
3722101 mock_b A C Asn185Thr MSMEG_3656 ABC transporter, permease/ATP-binding protein
58213 mock_c T TC N/A MSMEG_0037 tRNA-Leu N/A
4104684 mock_c T C Val70Ala MSMEG_4033 TetR-family protein transcriptional regulator GO:0006350, Sequence-specific dna binding transcription factor activity, Regulation of transcription, dna-dependent
5118524 mock_c C CG Asp89 frameshift 143stop MSMEG_5021 Alcohol dehydrogenase, zinc-containing Oxidoreductase activity, Zinc ion binding, Oxidation-reduction process
5217666 mock_g G A Thr200Thr (neutral) MSMEG_5119 L-glutamate gamma-semialdehyde dehydrogenase Mitochondrial matrix, Oxidation-reduction process, Proline biosynthetic process, 1-pyrroline-5-carboxylate dehydrogenase activity
2970975 mock_i T C Arg155Gly MSMEG_2908 2-Keto-3-deoxy-gluconate kinase kinase activity [GO:0016301]
2970982 mock_i C T Arg153Glu MSMEG_2908 2-Keto-3-deoxy-gluconate kinase kinase activity [GO:0016301]
3306164 mock_i G A Glu1151Glu (neutral) MSMEG_3225 Ferredoxin-dependent glutamate synthase 1 (EC 1.4.7.1) 3 iron, 4 sulfur cluster binding [GO:0051538]; glutamate synthase (ferredoxin) activity [GO:0016041]; metal ion binding [GO:0046872]; glutamate biosynthetic process [GO:0006537]; glutamine metabolic process [GO:0006541] Mutation accumulation (MA)
5805844 mock_i C T Val237Val (neutral) MSMEG_5721 Acetyl-CoA acetyltransferase transferase activity, transferring acyl groups other than amino-acyl groups [GO:0016747]
4987517 mock_j G A Leu30Leu (neutral) MSMEG_4890 Alkyl hydroperoxide reductase AhpD (EC 1.11.1.28) (Alkylhydroperoxidase AhpD) alkyl hydroperoxide reductase activity [GO:0008785]; hydroperoxide reductase activity [GO:0032843]; peroxidase activity [GO:0004601]; peroxiredoxin activity [GO:0051920]; response to oxidative stress [GO:0006979]
6406902 mock_j T TG N/A intergenic N/A N/A
491016 mock_k C T N/A intergenic N/A N/A
2287781 mock_k G A Gly199Asp MSMEG_2207 Beta-ketothiolase transferase activity, transferring acyl groups other than amino-acyl groups [GO:0016747]
3438752 rif_a A AC Arg17 frameshift 175stop MSMEG_3366 Isonitrile hydratase, putative N/A
5773058 rif_a C T Glu67Lys MSMEG_5682 Uncharacterized protein integral component of membrane [GO:0016021]
6220187 CIPB0.3 G T Trp53Cys MSMEG_6151 Alpha/beta hydrolase fold-1 epoxide hydrolase activity [GO:0004301] Fluctuation assay with CIP treatment

We assessed the drug sensitivity of the MA strains by measuring the MIC of each drug on three randomly selected strains from both the mock-treated and stressed MA groups. Contrary to the mutation rate results obtained from genomic sequencing data, the MIC values for the MA strains were higher than those of the mock-treated strains (comparable data in line with Nyinoh, 2019), indicating phenotypic adaptation to the applied drugs (Figure 2C, Figure 2—source data 2). However, for the EMB treatment, we observed no increase in MIC, despite repeating the experiment several times.

The DNA repair system shows a treatment-specific activation pattern

To investigate a possible reason for detecting so few newly generated mutations under antibiotic pressure, we studied whether the DNA repair pathways and other elements of the stress response potentially involved (Romero et al., 2011) were activated under drug pressure. The mycobacterial DNA repair system is highly redundant, many of its enzymes have overlapping functions (Malshetty et al., 2010; Singh, 2017; Srinath et al., 2007). Although canonical mismatch repair proteins are thought to be missing, a recently described protein, NucS is encoded with a similar function (Castañeda-García et al., 2017). We investigated the expression pattern of DNA repair genes in all known DNA repair pathways in mycobacteria including NucS using RT-qPCR, a method suitable to accurately show changes in transcript levels. The measured relative expression levels are presented in Figure 3, grouped by functional relevance, with consistent heatmap coloring across all measurements. Figure 3—figure supplement 3 shows a clustered heatmap without prior functional grouping. Numerical data for expression level changes are provided in Figure 3—source data 1.

Figure 3. Changes in the expression of DNA repair genes upon stress treatments.

Gene expression changes are normalized to the mock-treated control using the SigA and Ffh reference genes. Upregulation is numerically interpreted as fold change; downregulation is interpreted as –1/ (fold change) in the heatmap. *p<0.1; **p<0.05. For raw data see Figure 3—source data 1.

Figure 3—source data 1. Numerical qPCR results.

Figure 3.

Figure 3—figure supplement 1. Stability analysis of reference genes using the geNorm algorithm.

Figure 3—figure supplement 1.

(A) Stability, denoted as 1/ln(M), where M represents the average pair-wise variation among the tested reference genes across all samples (including six treatments and controls, with three biological and three technical replicates each). M values were computed using the BioRad CFX Maestro software. Reference gene stability is considered acceptable within the 0–1 stability range and deemed unstable below 0, as determined by the software. ProC was excluded from the study due to its demonstrated instability. (B) Pairwise comparison of the two accepted reference genes.
Figure 3—figure supplement 2. Specificity assessment of the employed primers.

Figure 3—figure supplement 2.

Melt curve analysis of amplicons generated from target genes in the Mycobacterium smegmatis genome. The sequences of both forward and reverse primers are detailed in Supplementary file 1.
Figure 3—figure supplement 3. Heatmap with clustering for gene expression changes upon treatment.

Figure 3—figure supplement 3.

The color scale is based on the mean relative gene expression changes compared to nontreated controls (fold change for upregulation and –1/fold change for downregulation). The color intensity in this heatmap is relative within each row and is not comparable to the color scale in Figure 3. Hierarchical clustering was performed using the one-minus Pearson correlation metric and the average linkage method. The figure was created using the Morpheus online heatmap generating tool (https://software.broadinstitute.org/morpheus/).

Treatments with the two antibiotics affecting cell wall synthesis (INH and EMB) show similar patterns in the expression levels with an overall downregulation of DNA repair genes. On the contrary, CIP and MMC, drugs directly targeting DNA integrity induce a pattern marked by a moderate to strong overexpression of nucleotide excision and double-strand break (DSB) repair genes, respectively (Figure 3 and Figure 3—figure supplement 3). DNA polymerases DinB2 and DnaE2 involved in these DNA repair pathways are also strongly overexpressed (Figure 3 and Figure 3—figure supplement 3). RIF, the DNA-dependent RNA polymerase inhibitor does not seem to induce any change in the expression pattern of the investigated genes except for the Ahp peroxiredoxin (Figure 3 and Figure 3—figure supplement 3). As a result of the first line combination (COMBO) treatment, 14 out of 38 investigated genes are significantly (p<0.05) upregulated. More than fourfold upregulation can be measured for 5 members of the base excision repair pathway. In addition, the MutT2 dNTP pool sanitization enzyme and the error-prone DNA polymerases are also strongly upregulated. (Figure 3 and Figure 3—figure supplement 3). Interestingly, however, the DSB repair enzymes are exempt from this overall upregulation tendency (Figure 3 and Figure 3—figure supplement 3). The strongest measured effect of all is the 17-fold expression increase of the KatG1 peroxidase (Figure 3). When the first line antibiotics were used one by one, significant expression change could only be observed upon the INH treatment (4/38 genes) and in the opposite direction (downregulation).

All but the combination treatment alters the size and balance of dNTP pools

It was shown that dNTP pools are crucial for genome maintenance and proper DNA synthesis (Kumar et al., 2010; Mathews, 2006; Nordman and Wright, 2008; Yao et al., 2013). Imbalanced or altered levels of dNTPs could cause an increased rate of DNA lesions and, therefore, may play a role in the development of drug resistance. Therefore, we measured cellular dNTP concentrations and ratios in the function of the applied drug treatments using a fluorescent detection-based method optimized in our lab (Szabó et al., 2020). We used MMC treatment as a positive control as this is a generally used positive control for DNA damage (Kurthkoti et al., 2008; O’Sullivan et al., 2008). To calculate cellular concentrations, we used the cellular volumes determined from measured cell dimensions Figure 1—source data 1. Interestingly, we found altered dNTP pools upon most treatments (Figure 4 and Figure 4—source data 1). The CIP treatment resulted in the most remarkable differences in particular for dATP and dTTP concentrations which increased ~ sevenfold accompanied by a decrease in the dGTP concentration (Figure 4F and H). RIF and MMC treatments promoted an increase in the dGTP and dCTP pools (Figure 4D–E). The INH treatment coincided with a decreased concentration of purine nucleotides (Figure 4B), while in EMB-treated cells we could measure very low levels of all dNTPs (Figure 4C and H). In the combination treatment, we could not measure significant differences (Figure 4A). The dGTP pool decreased in both absolute and relative terms across all treatments where dNTP pool changes were observed (Figure 4B–F and G, respectively). A smaller cell size coincides with a lower cellular dNTP concentration, while no clear correlation is observed between drug-induced cell length increase and dNTP pool expansion (Figure 4I).

Figure 4. First-line antituberculotic treatments and DNA damaging agents alter dNTP concentrations in the cell.

Figure 4.

(A–F) Cellular dNTP concentrations in drug-treated M. smegmatis. dNTP levels were measured in cellular extracts and normalized to the average cell volume for each treatment, yielding the concentrations shown. Each drug treatment and dNTP quantification included a corresponding control to account for potential fluctuations in growth and experimental conditions. Note the different scales on the y-axis. Data bars represent the averages of three biological replicates each carried out in three technical replicates; error bars represent SE. The p-values from the t-tests calculated for the measured differences are provided in Figure 1—source data 1, with significance indicated in the figure by asterisks as follows (**) for p<0.04 and (*) for p<0.07. (G) dNTP pool compositions of drug-treated bacteria. The large error bars in the control data arise from the combination of individual controls measured for each treatment. (H) Summed molar concentration of all four dNTPs compared to the control for each treatment. The y-axis is on a log2 scale to equally represent both increases and decreases. (I) Correlation of relative cell size (determined from cell lengths, compared to control cells) to relative total dNTP concentration for each treatment.

Figure 4—source data 1. dNTP concentrations in cellular extracts upon treatment with drugs.

Stress-induced drug tolerance is developed upon pretreatment with the sublethal concentration of CIP

To compare the result of the mutation accumulation experiment to a phenotype-based drug resistance assay, we chose the fluctuation assay generally used in the literature (Krašovec et al., 2019). Mutation rates in these tests are calculated based on the difference in the number of CFU values between cultures grown in regular broth compared to those in selecting broths. These assays assume that the resistance exclusively occurs upon one mutation event. Since the genetic background of a drug-tolerant colony is not confirmed, this presumption potentially leads to a significant misinterpretation of the actual mutation rate. For clarity, we refer to the mutation rate estimations in our phenotype-based resistance assay as the tolerance rate. For a valid comparison with the results of our mutation accumulation assay, we installed similar experimental conditions. Specifically, culturing was done on agar plates, the applied drug concentrations were in the same range as used during the mutation accumulation process, then colonies were washed off and CFU counting plates were streaked from the resuspended bacteria (Figure 5A). We found that the estimated rate of emergence of the tolerance for CIP is three orders of magnitude higher than the mutation rate calculated based on WGS (10–7 vs. 10–10, Figure 2B). Furthermore, following a 24–96 hr exposure to a sublethal 0.3 μg/ml dose of CIP, a phenotypic tolerance appears in a significant portion of the cells to an otherwise lethal 0.5 μg/ml dose (Figure 5B). The tolerant cell population increased with the length of the preincubation time before reaching a maximum (Figure 5B).

Figure 5. Phenotypic ciprofloxacin (CIP) tolerance assay.

(A) Scheme of the fluctuation test used in the study. (B) Development of phenotypic resistance to a selecting CIP concentration following preincubation with a sublethal CIP concentration for various time periods. Data bars represent the averages of three biological replicates each carried out in three technical replicates; error bars represent SE.

Figure 5.

Figure 5—figure supplement 1. Ciprofloxacin (CIP) tolerance of M. smegmatis preincubated for 96 hr on CIP-containing plates sent for Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS).

Figure 5—figure supplement 1.

Wild-type (WT) M. smegmatis colony was cultivated in LEMCO broth to reach OD = 0.4–0.5, then striked onto plates containing 0.5 µg/ml CIP; 0.3 µg/ml CIP or onto non-selecting plates and grown for 4 days at 37 °C. Data bars represent the averages of three biological replicates each carried out in three technical replicates; error bars represent SE.

To confirm that the rapid increase in drug tolerance following short-term exposure to CIP is linked to non-genetic factors, we repeated the experiment using the 96 hr preincubation time for DNA isolation and WGS. After pretreatment, DNA was isolated from colonies on five parallel plates for each of the three biological replicates, followed by WGS (Figure 5A, Figure 5—figure supplement 1). In all measured samples, we detected a single mutation in a gene encoding an uncharacterized protein probably involved in lipid metabolism (MSMEG_6151; Table 2).

We also sequenced the genomes of colonies grown at the higher CIP concentration (0.5 µg/ml) and detected no mutations.

Discussion

One of the reasons TB is still a great medical challenge is the frequent incidence of resistant cases. The main goal of our research was to get a better understanding of the molecular mechanisms of drug resistance development in mycobacteria. We started with the hypothesis that long-term exposure to first-line antitubercular drugs increases mutability.

Drug resistance in M. smegmatis does not arise from increased mutation rates under antibiotic pressure

Measured and estimated mycobacterial mutation rates in the earlier literature are in the order of 10–10 /bp/generation (Ragheb et al., 2013, Kucukyildirim et al., 2016, Ford et al., 2011, Colangeli et al., 2014). This low constitutive mutation rate by itself does not explain the biological diversity observed in clinical isolates (Sun et al., 2012). This diversity might result from an elevated mutagenesis rate or the accumulation of different strains from the environment. We conducted a modelling study in M. smegmatis to investigate whether exposure to first-line antibiotics generates such biological diversity and if yes, by what possible molecular mechanism. We measured the appearance of drug-induced mutations in the genome in a mutation accumulation assay using WGS. We also examined the rapid occurrence of phenotypic tolerance. The difference between the results of the phenotypic and the mutation accumulation studies was surprisingly large. Even without pretreatment, a tolerance rate on the order of 10–7/generation was observed for CIP, consistent with literature data from fluctuation assays (Bergval et al., 2012; David, 1970). However, in the mutation accumulation assay, the number of mutations did not change significantly compared to the untreated control. The mutation rate increase was only significant in the case of the UV treatment serving as a positive control for the experiments (Figure 2B). Previous studies claiming mutation rate increase upon antibiotics treatment assessed mutation rates using fluctuation assays and no direct evidence of the change in the genetic material was shown (Gillespie et al., 2005; Kohanski et al., 2010). However, it should be noted that David’s study, which automatically classified bacteria growing in fluctuation assays as mutants without confirming genetic changes, also suggested that the term ‘acquired resistance’ in tubercle bacilli has only practical meaning and lacks experimental foundation (David, 1970). Our findings imply that the emergence of drug resistance in this study is solely attributed to phenotypic factors. Phenotypic changes upon antibiotic treatment have widely been investigated (Briffotaux et al., 2019) including potential bistability (Dubnau and Losick, 2006) and/or the upregulation of efflux pumps (Calgin et al., 2013; Machado et al., 2012). It is noteworthy that spontaneous mutagenesis is easily induced through UV treatment. Considering that mycobacterial species spread through air droplets, it is conceivable that the exposure of these droplets to environmental UV radiation could potentially lead to the generation of new mutations.

The combination treatment with frontline drugs induces an overall upregulation in the DNA repair pathways aimed at eliminating misincorporations

The intracellular lifestyle of the TB pathogen implies that these bacteria must face various stress conditions and damaging agents including reactive oxygen and nitrogen species inside macrophages. Therefore, stress-induced transcriptional changes in mycobacteria have been studied on genome-wide scales (Briffotaux et al., 2019, Li et al., 2017) and one study found a specific activation of the DNA repair system in response to CIP similar to ours (O’Sullivan et al., 2008). Although M. smegmatis is not an intracellular pathogen, it shares the DNA repair pathways with M. tuberculosis and is often used to study how mycobacteria deal with DNA lesions (Singh, 2017). We focused our investigation on stress-induced transcriptional changes that may account for the protection of genomic integrity under the drug pressure of first-line antituberculotic drugs.

Redox potential change is a well-known and common phenotypic response to INH in mycobacteria (Niki et al., 2012). The downregulation of KatG1 and Nei2 in response to our INH treatment (Figure 3) is in line with this and might indicate a reduced cellular redox potential. KatG1 is the enzyme that activates the prodrug INH (Niki et al., 2012), therefore, the downregulation of this enzyme decreases the active drug concentration and increases the tolerance of M. smegmatis against INH. In the case of the first-line combination treatment, however, KatG1 was highly upregulated, indicating high ROS levels in the cell (Wayne and Diaz, 1986). High ROS levels are known to cause damage to nucleobases and the nucleotide pool is a major effector of oxidative stress-induced genotoxic damage (Rai, 2010). In line with this, we observed upregulation in dNTP pool sanitation, base- and nucleotide-repair pathways which play crucial roles in preventing and repairing DNA damage caused by oxidative stress. The observed synergistic effect clearly results from the combination of first-line drugs, as we did not observe this effect when applying the drugs individually. The observed upregulation of the relevant DNA repair enzymes might account for the low mutation rate even under drug pressure. Notably, error-prone polymerases DinB2 and DnaE2 exhibited significant upregulation without inducing a mutator phenotype. This indicates that error-prone and error-free repair mechanisms are coactivated, predominantly resulting in error-free repairs.

dNTP pool alterations induced by frontline drugs neutralize each other in the combination treatment resulting in normal DNA precursor pools

The building blocks of DNA constitute a critical component within the molecular aspects of mutability. It has been shown that increased or imbalanced dNTP pools induce mutagenesis in prokaryotes Gon et al., 2011 and eukaryotes (Pai and Kearsey, 2017). To assess the impact of drug treatment on dNTP pools and its correlation with genome stability, we quantified the concentrations of dNTPs in cell extracts obtained from the drug-treated cells. When treating the cells with frontline drugs EMB and INH individually, the observed reductions in dNTP pool sizes and cell size (as illustrated in Figure 4H–I) aligned well with the concurrent downregulated transcript levels (Figure 3). Resting states of bacteria have also been characterized by a decrease in cell size and dATP levels (Rittershaus et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2016). These observations thus probably reflect the bacteriostatic effect of these drugs causing metabolic processes to enter a dormant state, accompanied by the downregulation of enzymes involved in dNTP synthesis. The combined treatment yielded the least significant alteration from the untreated control compared to all monotreatments (Figure 4). An elevation in the dNTP pools during cytostatic or cytotoxic treatment is more unexpected and suggests elevated DNA repair activity. This observation, particularly in the case of CIP treatment, aligns with the substantial increase in the expression of DNA repair synthesis genes, as depicted in Figure 3. Among all administered treatments, only the CIP treatment led to a notable dNTP imbalance and a substantial overall rise in dNTP pools, due to elevated levels of dTTP and dATP. This coincides with the largest changes in the expression of DNA repair genes, particularly those associated with the SOS response and homologous recombination (Figure 3). Interestingly, the dGTP level decreased with all drug treatments. This finding suggests that dGTP may play a role in a general stress response. It is noteworthy that not all dNTP imbalances are created equal. Specifically, an excess of dGTP has been identified as a significant contributor to mutations (Martomo and Mathews, 2002; Schmidt et al., 2019). It must be noted that in these (and most) organisms dGTP is the least abundant among dNTPs. However, in mycobacteria, a unique scenario exists where dGTP is the most abundant dNTP species (Pancsa et al., 2022) and mycobacterial genomes are characterized by a high GC content (Andersson and Sharp, 1996). A reduction in dGTP levels in this context may contribute to minimizing DNA lesions by enhancing proofreading efficiency.

Our results do not support drug resistance acquisition through drug-induced microevolution

Our hypothesis that systematic antibiotics treatment induces mutation rate increase in M. smegmatis failed, as we did not observe any significant impact of antibiotics on mutability in laboratory conditions. Only in the case of CIP treatment, a second-line TB drug known for directly inducing DNA damage, could we detect a slightly (but not significantly) elevated mutation rate. The treatment of M. smegmatis with the clinically used combination therapy drugs did not induce a mutator effect, quite the opposite. The observed activation of DNA repair processes likely mitigates mutation pressure, ensuring genome stability. However, to confirm this hypothesis, these investigations should be conducted using genetically modified DNA repair mutant strains.

If there is no indication for a priori drug resistance, TB patients are treated with the combination therapy of first-line antituberculotics. In at least 17% of the treatments, resistance to RIF or RIF+INH (called multidrug resistance) emerges (World Health Organization, 2023). There are two models for the development of drug-resistant TB: acquired and transmitted drug resistance. The acquired drug resistance model suggests that resistance is developed within patients with active TB through microevolution (Ley et al., 2019). Several studies suggest examples of microevolution (Al-Hajoj et al., 2010, Ssengooba et al., 2016) especially those involving the hypermutable Beijing Mtb lineage (Hakamata et al., 2020). However, it is crucial to note that distinguishing between acquired and transmitted resistance is not straightforward based solely on allele variants found in the sputum. In the transmitted resistance model, a patient accumulates a pool of mycobacteria with different genotypes during latent infection. This population mix is essentially clonal, as M. tuberculosis strains possess a highly conserved core genome (Gray and Derbyshire, 2018), but with several genetic allele variants having limited representation. The transition of the disease to an active phase, along with subsequent chemotherapy, leads to adaptive selection from the pre-existing pool of variants. The concept that certain TB cases involve mixed infections has been substantiated in clinical cases using phage typing and whole-genome sequencing (Bates et al., 1976; Boritsch and Brosch, 2017). The transmissibility of resistant variants has been confirmed through strain-specific PCR (Braden et al., 2001), and selective adaptation in a patient during chemotherapy has also been demonstrated (Hingley-Wilson et al., 2013). Furthermore, it has been shown that clonal complexity is reduced by culturing, leading to the underrecognition of polyclonal infections in culture-based diagnosis (Martín et al., 2010). The WHO estimates that a quarter of the world’s population is latently infected by M. tuberculosis, accumulating different TB strains throughout their lives (World Health Organization, 2021). Consequently, patients may harbor high heterogeneity, facilitating the spread and fixation of a genetic variant with some advantage in specific environmental conditions.

We acknowledge the limitations of using M. smegmatis as a model for the intracellular pathogen M. tuberculosis, which is associated with complex pathology. Nevertheless, given the conserved molecular mechanisms of genome maintenance in mycobacteria, we can conclude that the mycobacterial genome is not prone to microevolution upon prolonged exposure to the antibiotics employed in our study and the clinics.

Materials and methods

Key resources table.

Reagent type (species) or resource Designation Source or reference Identifiers Additional information
Strain, strain background (Mycobacterium smegmatis) mc2-155 Snapper et al., 1990 GenBank: NC_008596.1
Other DAPI stain Sigma D9542 10 µg/ml
Chemical compound, drug Isoniazid Sigma I3377
Chemical compound, drug Ethambutol Sigma E4630
Chemical compound, drug Rifampicin Sigma R3501
Chemical compound, drug Pyrazinamide Sigma 40751
Chemical compound, drug Ciprofloxacin Sigma 17850
Chemical compound, drug Mytomicin-C Sigma 10107409001
Commercial assay or kit phenol:chloroform:IAA (25:24:1) Sigma Sigma: 3803 For genomic DNA extraction
Commercial assay or kit Whole genome sequencing Novogene Ltd., Beijing, China Executed on Illumina 1.9 instruments with 600-basepair
fragments as 2 × 150  bp paired-end sequencing
Commercial assay or kit RNeasy Mini kit Qiagen Qiagen: 74524 Used with RNA protect bacteia reagent (Qiagen: 76506)
and DNAse I (Qiagen: 79254)
Commercial assay or kit High-Capacity cDNA Reverse Transcription Kit Applied Biosystems Applied Biosystems: 4374967 95–105 ng total RNA was used for each reaction
Other Mytaq PCR premix Bioline Bioline: 25046 For qPCR measurements
Other EvaGreen VWR VWR: #31000 For qPCR measurements
Software, algorithm NucleoTIDY Szabó et al., 2020;
http://nucleotidy.enzim.ttk.mta.hu
V1.8
Other TEMPase Hot Start DNA Polymerase VWR VWR: 733–1838 For dNTP measurements
Other methanol Sigma For dNTP isolation
Sequence-based reagent NDP-1 Szabó et al., 2020 Primer for dNTP measurement CCGCCTCCACCGCC
Sequence-based reagent FAM-dTTP Szabó et al., 2020 Probe for dTTP measurement 6-FAM/ AGGACCGAG/ZEN/GCAAGAGCGAGCGA /IBFQ
Sequence-based reagent FAM-dATP Szabó et al., 2020 Probe for dTATP measurement 6-FAM/ TGGTCCGTG/ZEN/GCTTGTGCGTGCGT /IBFQ
Sequence-based reagent FAM-dGTP Szabó et al., 2020 Probe for dTGTP measurement 6-FAM/ ACCATTCAC/ZEN/CTCACACTCACTCC /IBFQ
Sequence-based reagent FAM-dCTP Szabó et al., 2020 Probe for dTCTP measurement 6-FAM/ AGGATTGAG/ZEN/GTAAGAGTGAGTGG /IBFQ
Sequence-based reagent dTTP-DT1 Szabó et al., 2020 Template oligo for dTTP measurement TCGCTCGCTCTTGCCTCGGTCCTTTATTTGGCGGTGGAGGCGG
Sequence-based reagent dATP-DT1 Szabó et al., 2020 Template oligo for dATP measurement ACGCACGCACAAGCCACGGACCAAATAAAGGCGGTGGAGGCGG
Sequence-based reagent dCTP-DT1 template Szabó et al., 2020 Template oligo for dCTP measurement CCACTCACTCTTACCTCAATCCTTTGTTTGGCGGTGGAGGCGG
Sequence-based reagent dGTP-DT2 template Szabó et al., 2020 Template oligo for dATP measurement GGAGTGAGTGTGAGGTGAATGGTTTCTTTCTTTGGCGGTGGAGGCGG
Software FastQC Babraham Bioinformatics
https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/
v.0.11.9
Software Trimmomatic Bolger et al., 2014;
http://www.usadellab.org/cms/?page=trimmomatic
Trimmomatic-0.38
Software Bowtie2 Langmead and Salzberg, 2012;
https://bowtie-bio.sourceforge.net/bowtie2/index.shtml
2.5.4
Software Samblaster Faust and Hall, 2014;
https://github.com/GregoryFaust/samblaster
0.1.26
RRID:SCR_000468
Software Samtools Li et al., 2009;
https://www.htslib.org/
1.20
Software Picard https://github.com/broadinstitute/picard 2.23.3
RRID:SCR_006525
Software GATK McKenna et al., 2010;
https://gatk.broadinstitute.org/hc/en-us
4.1.8.1

Bacterial strains, media, and growth conditions

M. smegmatis mc2155 (Snapper et al., 1990) strains were grown in Lemco broth (5 g/l Lab-Lemco, 5 g/l NaCl, 10 g/l Bacto peptone, 0.05% Tween-80) or on solid Lemco plates (6.25 g/l Lab-Lemco, 6.25 g/l NaCl, 12.5 g/l Bacto peptone, 18.75 g/l Bacto agar).

Optimization of stress treatment conditions in liquid cultures and agar plates

The applied concentrations of drugs were optimized using serial dilutions of the compounds. In the case of liquid cultures, we monitored growth on a logarithmic scale by measuring the number of colony-forming units (CFU) or the optical density (OD) at 600 nm (Figure 1—figure supplement 1). The PZA treatments were done in acidic broth (pH = 5.5 set using HCl). For agar plates, we determined the CFU of untreated mid-exponential phase (OD = 0.4–0.5) liquid cultures on both non-selective and drug-containing agar plates (Figure 1—figure supplement 2). We also monitored cell morphology in response to drug treatment. For further experiments, sublethal concentrations of drugs were chosen to obtain an adequate quantity of research material (DNA, RNA, dNTP) for downstream analysis while the effect of the treatment was clearly indicated by a decrease of viability and/or change in cell size and morphology. The concentrations of applied drugs and stress conditions are compiled in Table 1.

Stress treatment in liquid cultures

Cells were grown in 100 ml liquid culture until an OD (600)=0.1±0.02 was reached, then the appropriate quantity of drug (Table 1) was added to half of the cultures. The other half of the same culture was used as a control. We conducted the treatments for 8 hr. The cultures were then centrifuged (20 min, 3220 g, 4 °C) and the resulting pellets were used for downstream analysis. The total CFUs were determined for each culture. The generation time after the treatments was calculated using the formula:

Td=t/log2(Nt/N0),

where Td is the generation time, t is the time interval between measurements, and Nt and N0 are the final and initial population sizes, respectively.

Microscopic analysis of cell morphology upon treatments

For morphological studies, 200–200 µl stress-treated and control cells were retrieved before RNA or dNTP extraction and washed with PBS containing 0.1% Triton X-100. The cells were then fixed in 4% PFA dissolved in PBS for 30 min at 37 °C. Cells were stained with 10 µg/ml DAPI for 30 min at 37 °C, then streaked onto microscopy slides covered with 0.1% low melting agarose (Sigma). Imaging was done using phase-contrast and fluorescent modes on a Leica DM IL LED (Leica) microscope. The cell size and volume were quantified using the automated recognition of the BacStalk software (https://drescherlab.org/data/bacstalk/; Hartmann et al., 2020). The cell length distribution diagram was prepared using OriginPro 2018 (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA, USA.). The sample size, calculated means, and standard deviations are compiled in Figure 1—source data 1.

Mutation accumulation (MA) experiments

Sixteen independent M. smegmatis mc2 155 MA lines were initiated from a single colony for every treatment. The ancestor cell colony was generated by streaking a new single colony from plate to plate five times before the beginning of the treatments to ensure a single common ancestor. Lemco agar medium was used for the MA line transfers. The specific stress treatment conditions are summarized in Table 1. All MA lines were incubated at 37 °C. Every 3 days, a single isolated colony from each MA line was transferred by streaking to a new plate, ensuring that each line regularly passed through a single-cell bottleneck (Kibota and Lynch, 1996). Treatments were performed for 60 days. We calculated 6.3±0.35 hr of generation time on the plate in this experimental setup. Thus, each line passed through ∼230 cell divisions. Some mock treatments were performed for 120 days to ensure a presumably sufficient number of mutational events without stress treatment. Following the MA procedure, a single colony was transferred from all strains to a new plate without stress treatment and grew for another 3 days for expansion. Frozen stocks of all lineages were prepared in 20% glycerol at −80 °C.

Assessment of drug tolerance following MA experiments

The development of tolerance to the applied treatment was assessed by measuring the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of both the mock-treated and stressed MA strains. Three randomly chosen strains from both the mock-treated and stress-treated groups were resuscitated on plates containing the same stress conditions as those used in the MA experiment. Liquid cultures were inoculated and diluted to an OD(600) of 0.001 in sterile, round-bottom 96-well plates (Sarstedt). The wells contained the specific drug in serial dilution for both the stressed strains and control samples. Cells were grown at 37 °C without agitation. Plates were scanned and analyzed, and MIC values were determined based on the last well in which cell growth was observed.

DNA extraction

A single colony was inoculated into 10 ml liquid culture from all lineages, was grown until OD600 = 0.8–1.0, and harvested. For genomic DNA purification, five or six grown cultures of individual lineages from the same treatment with identical estimated cell numbers (based on OD measurements) were pooled before isolation. For cell disruption, the cells were resuspended in 1 ml of 10 mM Tris, pH 7.5, and 0.1 mm glass beads were added to a final volume of 1.5 ml. The cells were disrupted using a cell disruptor (Scientific Industries SI-DD38 Digital Disruptor Genie Cell Disruptor) in a cold room (at 4 °C). After centrifugation for 10 min at 3220 g, and at room temperature, DNA was extracted from the supernatant by phenol:chloroform:IAA (25:24:1) extraction followed by isopropanol precipitation. The quality and quantity of the extracted DNA was evaluated using UV photometry in a Nanodrop-2000 instrument and by agarose gel electrophoresis.

DNA library preparation and whole genome sequencing

The DNA library preparation and whole genome sequencing (WGS) was done at Novogene Ltd., Beijing, China. Sequencing was executed on Illumina 1.9 instruments with 600-basepair (bp) fragments as 2×150  bp paired-end sequencing. An average read depth of 267 was achieved across all samples.

WGS analysis and mutation identification

Three parallel pooled samples were sequenced for every treatment, each contained five or six individually treated MA lineages that add up to a subtotal of 15–18 individual lineages. FastQC was used to analyse the quality of the raw reads. In case if adapters and low-quality bases (Phred score <20) were present in the samples, bases were trimmed with Trimmomatic (Bolger et al., 2014). We mapped our paired-end reads to M. smegmatis mc2 155 reference genome (GenBank accession number: NC_008596.1) by Bowtie2 (Langmead and Salzberg, 2012). PCR duplicates were removed with the use of Samblaster (Faust and Hall, 2014). We converted SAM files to BAM files, and sorted them with SAM tools (Li et al., 2009). Read groups were replaced by the Picard tool. Single nucleotide variations (SNVs), insertions, and deletions were called from each alignment file using the HaplotypeCaller function of the Genome Analysis Toolkit (McKenna et al., 2010). We analyzed the frequency of occurrence (% of all reads of a pooled sample) of each SNV, insertions, and deletions (hits) with our in-house Python scripts and compared it to the frequency of occurrence of the same hits in every other lineage. We considered mutations as spontaneously generated mutations only in case if no other lineages carried that variant in any depth and if hits reached at least 6% frequency of the reads at the corresponding position (theoretically, a spontaneously generated mutation in a pooled sample emerges with 20% or 16.7% frequency when five or six lineages are pooled, respectively, however, we allowed some variety when choosing 6% as a lower limit and 39.9% as an upper limit). Sequencing data are available at European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) with PRJEB71590 project number. Please note that we incorporated some of our additional sequencing data into the analysis, curated under the umbrella project at the ENA along with the present dataset.

RNA isolation and cDNA synthesis

For RNA extraction, cell pellets were resuspended in 2 ml RNA protect bacteria reagent (Qiagen; cat. no.:76506), incubated for 5 min at room temperature, and centrifuged for 20 min at 3220 g and at 4 °C before storage at –80 °C. Total RNA extraction was performed with the Qiagen RNeasy Mini kit (cat. no.: 74524). To disrupt cells, 5×1 min of vortexing with glass beads in the manufacturer’s lysis buffer was performed followed by 1 min poses on ice. DNase digestion was performed on a column with Qiagen DNase I (cat. no.: 79254), for 90 min at room temperature. For quantitative and qualitative RNA analysis, spectrometry by Nanodrop 2000 and non-denaturing 1% agarose gel electrophoresis (50 min/100 V) were performed, respectively. cDNA synthesis was performed using the Applied Biosystems High-Capacity cDNA Reverse Transcription Kit with RNase Inhibitor (cat. no.: 4374967). 95–105 ng total RNA was used for each reaction.

Choosing the reference genes for the study

We tested SigA (MSMEG_2758), Ffh (MSMEG_2430), and ProC (MSMEG_0943) as possible reference gene candidates. SigA is a widely used reference gene in prokaryotes (Hirmondo et al., 2017; Madikonda et al., 2020; Milano et al., 2004) Ffh and ProC genes are shown to be stably expressed in other pathogenes (Gomes et al., 2018). Using GeNorm (Fu et al., 2020; Sundaram et al., 2019) analysis, SigA and Ffh proved to be stably expressed in our experimental system (Figure 3—figure supplement 1).

Gene expression quantification

qPCR measurements were performed on a Bio-Rad CFX96 Touch Real-Time PCR Detection System. Primers were designed using IDT DNA oligo customizer (https://eu.idtdna.com/), and were produced by Sigma Aldrich (for sequences, see Supplementary file 1). The qPCR reaction mixtures contained 7–7 nmoles of forward and reverse primers, 0.25 µl of the cDNA, Bioline Mytaq PCR premix (cat. no.: 25046), and VWR EvaGreen (cat. no.: #31000) in a total reaction volume of 10 µl. The thermal profile was as follows: 95 °C/10 min, 50 x (95 °C/10 s; 62 °C/10 s; 72 °C/10 s). Melting curves were registered between 55 °C and 95 °C with an increment of 0.5 °C (Figure 3—figure supplement 2). The applied primers and their measured efficiencies are compiled in Supplementary file 1. The qPCR data were analyzed using the Bio-Rad CFX Maestro software and numerically shown in Figure 3—source data 1. Non-reverse transcribed controls and no-template controls were used to account for any irrelevant DNA contamination. three technical, and three biological replicates were used for all measurements.

dNTP extraction

dNTP extraction and measurement were performed according to (Szabó et al., 2020). Briefly, the cell pellets were extracted in precooled 0.5 ml 60% methanol overnight at −20 °C. After 5 min of boiling at 95 °C, the cell debris was removed by centrifugation (20 min, 13,400 g, 4 °C). The methanolic supernatant containing the soluble dNTP fraction was vacuum-dried (Eppendorf) at 45 °C. Extracted dNTPs were dissolved in 50 μl nuclease-free water and stored at –20 °C until use.

Determination of the cellular dNTP pool size

Determination of the dNTP pool size in each extract was as follows: 10 pmol template oligo (Sigma), 10 pmol probe (IDT), and 10 pmol NDP1 primer (Sigma) (see sequences in key resources table and Table 3) was present per 25 μl reaction. The concentration of each non-specific dNTP was kept at 100 μM. VWR TEMPase Hot Start DNA Polymerase (VWR) was used at 0.9 unit/reaction in the presence of 2.5 mM MgCl2. To record calibration curves, the reaction was supplied with 0–12 pmol specific dNTP. Fluorescence was recorded at every 13 s in a Bio-Rad CFX96 Touch Real-Time PCR Detection System or in a QuantStudio 1 qPCR instrument. The thermal profile was as follows: 95 °C 15 min, (60 °C 13 s)×260 cycle for dATP measurement, and 95 °C 15 min, (55 °C 13 s)×260 cycle for dTTP, dCTP, and dGTP measurements. Results were analyzed using the nucleoTIDY software (http://nucleotidy.enzim.ttk.mta.hu/; Szabó et al., 2020;). Results were given in molar concentrations for better comparison. To this end, cell volumes were calculated using the BacStalk software based on microscopic images for every treatment. Besides the graphical presentation of the result, numerical data can be found in Figure 4—source data 1.

Table 3. Oligonucleotides used for the dNTP measurements.

Name Sequence (5'→3')
NDP-1 primer CCGCCTCCACCGCC
FAM-dTTP probe 6-FAM/AGGACCGAG/ZEN/GCAAGAGCGAGCGA/IBFQ
FAM-dATP probe 6-FAM/TGGTCCGTG/ZEN/GCTTGTGCGTGCGT/IBFQ
FAM-dGTP probe 6-FAM/ACCATTCAC/ZEN/CTCACACTCACTCC/IBFQ
FAM-dCTP probe 6-FAM/AGGATTGAG/ZEN/GTAAGAGTGAGTGG/IBFQ
dTTP-DT1 template TCGCTCGCTCTTGCCTCGGTCCTTTATTTGGCGGTGGAGGCGG
dATP-DT1 template ACGCACGCACAAGCCACGGACCAAATAAAGGCGGTGGAGGCGG
dCTP-DT1 template CCACTCACTCTTACCTCAATCCTTTGTTTGGCGGTGGAGGCGG
dGTP-DT2 template GGAGTGAGTGTGAGGTGAATGGTTTCTTTCTTTGGCGGTGGAGGCGG

Tolerance assay

We used a modified version of fluctuation assays (Krašovec et al., 2019) for the estimation of the rate of emergence of tolerant cells upon preincubation with a sublethal dose of CIP (0.3 μg/ml). An initial 100 ml culture was grown to OD =0.4–0.5 (three biological replicates), was centrifuged for 30 min at 800 g and at 4 °C, then resuspended in 5 ml Lemco. 100 μL from this stock solution was streaked and cultured on a normal Bacto Agar plate, and Bacto Agar containing 0.3 μg/ml CIP. Parallel plates were incubated for 4, 24, 48, 72, and 96 hr at 37 °C. Colonies were washed off the plate with 6 ml Lemco broth by incubation for 30 min on a rocking shaker. Then CFU was determined on Bacto agar plates containing 0.5 μg/ml CIP, and non-selective Bacto agar plates. Tolerance rates were calculated using the following formula:

tolerancet=CFUres.t-CFUres.0CFUtotalt-CFUtotal0tlog2CFUtotal;tCFUtotal;01generationtimeh
  • t: time of preincubation

  • CFUtotal0: Number of colonies on non-selecting agar plates at reference time point

  • CFUtotalt: Number of colonies on non-selecting agar plates at t hours

  • CFUres.0: Number of colonies on plates containing 0.5 μg/ml CIP at reference time point

  • CFUres.t: Number of colonies on plates containing 0.5 μg/ml CIP at t hours

  • CFUres.tCFUres.0: Number of newly emerging resistant colonies

  • CFUtotaltCFUtotal0: Number of growing colonies

  • tlog2(CFUtotal;tCFUtotal;0): Generation time during pre-treatment

The tolerance assay was repeated on 15 parallel plates for each biological replicate to obtain enough cells for genomic DNA extraction for WGS. Plates containing 0.3 μg/ml CIP were incubated for 96 hr at 37 °C. Colonies were washed off the plates with 6 ml of Lemco broth. Genomic DNA was isolated and sent to WGS. CFU was also determined on Bacto Agar plates containing 0.5 μg/ml CIP and non-selective Bacto Agar plates (Figure 5—figure supplement 1).

Statistics

We used an initial F-test to test the equality of variances of the tested groups. If the F-test hypothesis was accepted (p<0.05), we used the two-way homoscedastic t-probe; if rejected, we used the two-way Welch’s t-probe to assess differences at a significance level p<0.05 if not stated otherwise. F- and t-statistics were counted for the ΔCt values (Yuan et al., 2006) of the qPCR results and for the concentrations normalized to the cell volume in the case of the dNTP measurements. For the statistical analysis of the mutation rates, we used the t-test on the natural logarithm of the obtained mutation rate values.

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude for the assistance provided by Ádám Póti in the analysis of the WGS data. Funding this work was supported by the National Office for Research and Technology, Hungary [grant number OTKA-K115993 and OTKA-K138318 to JT, OTKA-PD128254 to RH]. Funding for open access charge: National Office for Research and Technology, Hungary.

Funding Statement

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Contributor Information

Rita Hirmondó, Email: hirmondo.rita@ttk.hu.

Judit Toth, Email: toth.judit@ttk.hu.

Musa Ali, Hawassa University, Ethiopia.

Bavesh D Kana, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa.

Funding Information

This paper was supported by the following grants:

  • National Office for Research and Technology, Hungary K115993 to Judit Toth.

  • National Office for Research and Technology, Hungary PD128254 to Rita Hirmondó.

  • National Office for Research and Technology, Hungary K138318 to Judit Toth.

Additional information

Competing interests

No competing interests declared.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.

Formal analysis, Investigation.

Formal analysis, Investigation.

Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.

Additional files

Supplementary file 1. Nucleotide sequence and measured efficiency of primers used for the qPCR.
elife-96695-supp1.docx (39KB, docx)
Supplementary file 2. User guide for whole genome sequencing (WGS) data files deposited in the European nucleotide archive (ENA).
elife-96695-supp2.docx (37.6KB, docx)
MDAR checklist

Data availability

The data underlying this article are available in the Figshare repository (DOI:10.6084/m9.figshare.26585884). Sequencing data are available at European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) with accession PRJEB71590.

The following datasets were generated:

ÉV Surányi. 2024. WGS on antibiotics-challenged Mycobacterium smegmatis. Array Express. PRJEB71590

Hirmondó R. 2024. Supplementary datasets for the eLife manuscript "Genetic Stability of Mycobacterium smegmatis under the Stress of First-Line Antitubercular Agents: Assessing Mutagenic Potential". figshare.

References

  1. Al-Hajoj SAM, Akkerman O, Parwati I, al-Gamdi S, Rahim Z, van Soolingen D, van Ingen J, Supply P, van der Zanden AGM. Microevolution of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in a tuberculosis patient. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2010;48:3813–3816. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00556-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alland D, Steyn AJ, Weisbrod T, Aldrich K, Jacobs WR., Jr Characterization of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis iniBAC promoter, a promoter that responds to cell wall biosynthesis inhibition. Journal of Bacteriology. 2000;182:1802–1811. doi: 10.1128/JB.182.7.1802-1811.2000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Andersson SGE, Sharp PM. Codon usage in the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex. Microbiology. 1996;142 ( Pt 4):915–925. doi: 10.1099/00221287-142-4-915. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Asare-Baah M, Séraphin MN, Salmon LAT, Lauzardo M. Effect of mixed strain infections on clinical and epidemiological features of tuberculosis in Florida. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 2021;87:104659. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2020.104659. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Balaban NQ, Helaine S, Lewis K, Ackermann M, Aldridge B, Andersson DI, Brynildsen MP, Bumann D, Camilli A, Collins JJ, Dehio C, Fortune S, Ghigo JM, Hardt WD, Harms A, Heinemann M, Hung DT, Jenal U, Levin BR, Michiels J, Storz G, Tan MW, Tenson T, Van Melderen L, Zinkernagel A. Definitions and guidelines for research on antibiotic persistence. Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 2019;17:441–448. doi: 10.1038/s41579-019-0196-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bates JH, Stead WW, Rado TA. Phage type of tubercle bacilli isolated from patients with two or more sites of organ involvement. The American Review of Respiratory Disease. 1976;114:353–358. doi: 10.1164/arrd.1976.114.2.353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bergval I, Kwok B, Schuitema A, Kremer K, van Soolingen D, Klatser P, Anthony R. Pre-existing isoniazid resistance, but not the genotype of Mycobacterium tuberculosis drives rifampicin resistance codon preference in vitro. PLOS ONE. 2012;7:e29108. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2114–2120. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Boritsch EC, Brosch R. Evolution of mycobacterium tuberculosis: new insights into pathogenicity and drug resistance. Wiley; 2017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Boshoff HIM, Myers TG, Copp BR, McNeil MR, Wilson MA, Barry CE. The transcriptional responses of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to inhibitors of metabolism. Novel Insights into Drug Mechanisms of Action. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:40174–40184. doi: 10.1074/JBC.M406796200/ATTACHMENT/A47C829A-5AA7-4DD3-822B-BE70C577B6D3/MMC2.PDF. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Braden CR, Morlock GP, Woodley CL, Johnson KR, Colombel AC, Cave MD, Yang Z, Valway SE, Onorato IM, Crawford JT. Simultaneous infection with multiple strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2001;33:e42–e47. doi: 10.1086/322635. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Briffotaux J, Liu S, Gicquel B. Genome-wide transcriptional responses of Mycobacterium to antibiotics. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2019;10:249. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Calgin MK, Sahin F, Turegun B, Gerceker D, Atasever M, Koksal D, Karasartova D, Kiyan M. Expression analysis of efflux pump genes among drug-susceptible and multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis clinical isolates and reference strains. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease. 2013;76:291–297. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2013.02.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Camus JC, Pryor MJ, Médigue C, Cole ST. Re-annotation of the genome sequence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv. Microbiology. 2002;148:2967–2973. doi: 10.1099/00221287-148-10-2967. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Castañeda-García A, Prieto AI, Rodríguez-Beltrán J, Alonso N, Cantillon D, Costas C, Pérez-Lago L, Zegeye ED, Herranz M, Plociński P, Tonjum T, García de Viedma D, Paget M, Waddell SJ, Rojas AM, Doherty AJ, Blázquez J. A non-canonical mismatch repair pathway in prokaryotes. Nature Communications. 2017;8:14246. doi: 10.1038/ncomms14246. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Colangeli R, Arcus VL, Cursons RT, Ruthe A, Karalus N, Coley K, Manning SD, Kim S, Marchiano E, Alland D. Whole genome sequencing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis reveals slow growth and low mutation rates during latent infections in humans. PLOS ONE. 2014;9:e91024. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Crowley DJ, Boubriak I, Berquist BR, Clark M, Richard E, Sullivan L, DasSarma S, McCready S. The uvrA, uvrB and uvrC genes are required for repair of ultraviolet light induced DNA photoproducts in Halobacterium sp. NRC-1. Saline Systems. 2006;2:11. doi: 10.1186/1746-1448-2-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. David HL. Probability distribution of drug-resistant mutants in unselected populations of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Applied Microbiology. 1970;20:810–814. doi: 10.1128/am.20.5.810-814.1970. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Davis E, Forse L. In: Mycobacterium: Genomics and Molecular Biology. Parish T, Brown A, editors. Caister Academic Press; 2009. DNA repair: key to survival? pp. 79–117. [Google Scholar]
  20. Dookie N, Rambaran S, Padayatchi N, Mahomed S, Naidoo K. Evolution of drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis: A review on the molecular determinants of resistance and implications for personalized care. The Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2018;73:1138–1151. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkx506. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Doyle RM, Burgess C, Williams R, Gorton R, Booth H, Brown J, Bryant JM, Chan J, Creer D, Holdstock J, Kunst H, Lozewicz S, Platt G, Romero EY, Speight G, Tiberi S, Abubakar I, Lipman M, McHugh TD, Breuer J. Direct whole-genome sequencing of sputum accurately identifies drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis faster than MGIT culture sequencing. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2018;56:666–684. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00666-18/SUPPL_FILE/ZJM999096043S1.PDF. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Dubnau D, Losick R. Bistability in bacteria. Molecular Microbiology. 2006;61:564–572. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2006.05249.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Durbach SI, Andersen SJ, Mizrahi V. SOS induction in mycobacteria: analysis of the DNA-binding activity of a LexA-like repressor and its role in DNA damage induction of the recA gene from Mycobacterium smegmatis. Molecular Microbiology. 1997;26:643–653. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.1997.5731934.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ehrt S, Schnappinger D. Mycobacterial survival strategies in the phagosome: defence against host stresses. Cellular Microbiology. 2009;11:1170–1178. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-5822.2009.01335.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Faust GG, Hall IM. SAMBLASTER: fast duplicate marking and structural variant read extraction. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2503–2505. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Ford CB, Lin PL, Chase MR, Shah RR, Iartchouk O, Galagan J, Mohaideen N, Ioerger TR, Sacchettini JC, Lipsitch M, Flynn JL, Fortune SM. Use of whole genome sequencing to estimate the mutation rate of Mycobacterium tuberculosis during latent infection. Nature Genetics. 2011;43:482–486. doi: 10.1038/ng.811. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Ford CB, Shah RR, Maeda MK, Gagneux S, Murray MB, Cohen T, Johnston JC, Gardy J, Lipsitch M, Fortune SM. Mycobacterium tuberculosis mutation rate estimates from different lineages predict substantial differences in the emergence of drug-resistant tuberculosis. Nature Genetics. 2013;45:784–790. doi: 10.1038/ng.2656. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Fu Y, Yang J, Fan S, Zhao S, Du R, Shah SMA, Akram M, Rong R, Yang Y. Selection and validation of optimal endogenous reference genes for analysis of quantitative PCR in four tissues pathologically associated with Kidney-yang deficiency syndrome following influenza A infection. Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine. 2020;20:244. doi: 10.3892/etm.2020.9374. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Garnier T, Eiglmeier K, Camus JC, Medina N, Mansoor H, Pryor M, Duthoy S, Grondin S, Lacroix C, Monsempe C, Simon S, Harris B, Atkin R, Doggett J, Mayes R, Keating L, Wheeler PR, Parkhill J, Barrell BG, Cole ST, Gordon SV, Hewinson RG. The complete genome sequence of Mycobacterium bovis. PNAS. 2003;100:7877–7882. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1130426100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Gillespie SH, Basu S, Dickens AL, O’Sullivan DM, McHugh TD. Effect of subinhibitory concentrations of ciprofloxacin on Mycobacterium fortuitum mutation rates. The Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2005;56:344–348. doi: 10.1093/jac/dki191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Gomes AÉI, Stuchi LP, Siqueira NMG, Henrique JB, Vicentini R, Ribeiro ML, Darrieux M, Ferraz LFC. Selection and validation of reference genes for gene expression studies in Klebsiella pneumoniae using Reverse Transcription Quantitative real-time PCR. Scientific Reports. 2018;8:9001. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-27420-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Gon S, Napolitano R, Rocha W, Coulon S, Fuchs RP. Increase in dNTP pool size during the DNA damage response plays a key role in spontaneous and induced-mutagenesis in Escherichia coli. PNAS. 2011;108:19311–19316. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1113664108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Goossens SN, Sampson SL, Van Rie A. Mechanisms of drug-induced tolerance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2020;34:1–21. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00141-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Grace AG, Mittal A, Jain S, Tripathy JP, Satyanarayana S, Tharyan P, Kirubakaran R. Shortened treatment regimens versus the standard regimen for drug-sensitive pulmonary tuberculosis. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2019;12:CD012918. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012918.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Gray TA, Derbyshire KM. Blending genomes: distributive conjugal transfer in mycobacteria, a sexier form of HGT. Molecular Microbiology. 2018;108:601–613. doi: 10.1111/mmi.13971. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hakamata M, Takihara H, Iwamoto T, Tamaru A, Hashimoto A, Tanaka T, Kaboso SA, Gebretsadik G, Ilinov A, Yokoyama A, Ozeki Y, Nishiyama A, Tateishi Y, Moro H, Kikuchi T, Okuda S, Matsumoto S. Higher genome mutation rates of Beijing lineage of Mycobacterium tuberculosis during human infection. Scientific Reports. 2020;10:17997. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-75028-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Hartmann R, van Teeseling MCF, Thanbichler M, Drescher K. BacStalk: A comprehensive and interactive image analysis software tool for bacterial cell biology. Molecular Microbiology. 2020;114:140–150. doi: 10.1111/mmi.14501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Herranz M, Pole I, Ozere I, Chiner-Oms Á, Martínez-Lirola M, Pérez-García F, Gijón P, Serrano MJR, Romero LC, Cuevas O, Comas I, Bouza E, Pérez-Lago L, García-de-Viedma D. Mycobacterium tuberculosis acquires limited genetic diversity in prolonged infections, reactivations and transmissions involving multiple hosts. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2018;8:2661. doi: 10.3389/FMICB.2017.02661/FULL. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Hett EC, Rubin EJ. Bacterial growth and cell division: a mycobacterial perspective. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 2008;72:126–156. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00028-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Hingley-Wilson SM, Casey R, Connell D, Bremang S, Evans JT, Hawkey PM, Smith GE, Jepson A, Philip S, Kon OM, Lalvani A. Undetected multidrug-resistant tuberculosis amplified by first-line therapy in mixed infection. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2013;19:1138–1141. doi: 10.3201/eid1907.130313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Hirmondo R, Lopata A, Suranyi EV, Vertessy BG, Toth J. Differential control of dNTP biosynthesis and genome integrity maintenance by the dUTPase superfamily enzymes. Scientific Reports. 2017;7:6043. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-06206-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Jankute M, Cox JAG, Harrison J, Besra GS. Assembly of the mycobacterial cell wall. Annual Review of Microbiology. 2015;69:405–423. doi: 10.1146/annurev-micro-091014-104121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Kibota TT, Lynch M. Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli. Nature. 1996;381:694–696. doi: 10.1038/381694a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Kohanski MA, DePristo MA, Collins JJ. Sublethal antibiotic treatment leads to multidrug resistance via radical-induced mutagenesis. Molecular Cell. 2010;37:311–320. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2010.01.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Krašovec R, Richards H, Gomez G, Gifford DR, Mazoyer A, Knight CG. Measuring microbial mutation rates with the fluctuation assay. Journal of Visualized Experiments. 2019;1:60406. doi: 10.3791/60406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Kucukyildirim S, Long H, Sung W, Miller SF, Doak TG, Lynch M. The rate and spectrum of spontaneous mutations in mycobacterium smegmatis, a bacterium naturally devoid of the postreplicative mismatch repair pathway. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics. 2016;6:2157–2163. doi: 10.1534/g3.116.030130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Kumar D, Viberg J, Nilsson AK, Chabes A. Highly mutagenic and severely imbalanced dNTP pools can escape detection by the S-phase checkpoint. Nucleic Acids Research. 2010;38:3975–3983. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Kurthkoti K, Kumar P, Jain R, Varshney U. Important role of the nucleotide excision repair pathway in Mycobacterium smegmatis in conferring protection against commonly encountered DNA-damaging agents. Microbiology. 2008;154:2776–2785. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.2008/019638-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Kurthkoti K, Varshney U. Distinct mechanisms of DNA repair in mycobacteria and their implications in attenuation of the pathogen growth. Mechanisms of Ageing and Development. 2012;133:138–146. doi: 10.1016/j.mad.2011.09.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Langmead B, Salzberg SL. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nature Methods. 2012;9:357–359. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1923. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Ley SD, de Vos M, Van Rie A, Warren RM. Deciphering within-host microevolution of Mycobacterium tuberculosis through whole-genome sequencing: the phenotypic impact and way forward. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 2019;83:e00062-18. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00062-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J, Homer N, Marth G, Abecasis G, Durbin R, 1000 Genome Project Data Processing Subgroup The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:2078–2079. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Li X, Mei H, Chen F, Tang Q, Yu Z, Cao X, Andongma BT, Chou SH, He J. Transcriptome landscape of Mycobacterium smegmatis. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2017;8:2505. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02505. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Liu Q, Via LE, Luo T, Liang L, Liu X, Wu S, Shen Q, Wei W, Ruan X, Yuan X, Zhang G, Barry CE, Gao Q. Within patient microevolution of Mycobacterium tuberculosis correlates with heterogeneous responses to treatment. Scientific Reports. 2015;5:17507. doi: 10.1038/srep17507. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Louw GE, Warren RM, Gey van Pittius NC, Leon R, Jimenez A, Hernandez-Pando R, McEvoy CRE, Grobbelaar M, Murray M, van Helden PD, Victor TC. Rifampicin reduces susceptibility to ofloxacin in rifampicin-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis through efflux. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2011;184:269–276. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201011-1924OC. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Lozano N, Lanza VF, Suárez-González J, Herranz M, Sola-Campoy PJ, Rodríguez-Grande C, Buenestado-Serrano S, Ruiz-Serrano MJ, Tudó G, Alcaide F, Muñoz P, García de Viedma D, Pérez-Lago L. Detection of minority variants and mixed infections in Mycobacterium tuberculosis by direct whole-genome sequencing on noncultured specimens using a specific-DNA capture strategy. mSphere. 2021;6:e0074421. doi: 10.1128/mSphere.00744-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Machado D, Couto I, Perdigão J, Rodrigues L, Portugal I, Baptista P, Veigas B, Amaral L, Viveiros M. Contribution of efflux to the emergence of isoniazid and multidrug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. PLOS ONE. 2012;7:e34538. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034538. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Madacki J, Orgeur M, Mas Fiol G, Frigui W, Ma L, Brosch R. ESX-1-independent horizontal gene transfer by Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex strains. mBio. 2021;12:e00965-21. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00965-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Madikonda AK, Shaikh A, Khanra S, Yakkala H, Yellaboina S, Lin-Chao S, Siddavattam D. Metabolic remodeling in Escherichia coli MG1655. A prophage e14-encoded small RNA, co293, post-transcriptionally regulates transcription factors HcaR and FadR. The FEBS Journal. 2020;287:4767–4782. doi: 10.1111/febs.15247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Malshetty VS, Jain R, Srinath T, Kurthkoti K, Varshney U. Synergistic effects of UdgB and Ung in mutation prevention and protection against commonly encountered DNA damaging agents in Mycobacterium smegmatis. Microbiology. 2010;156:940–949. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.034363-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Martín A, Herranz M, Ruiz Serrano MJ, Bouza E, García de Viedma D. The clonal composition of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in clinical specimens could be modified by culture. Tuberculosis. 2010;90:201–207. doi: 10.1016/j.tube.2010.03.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Martomo SA, Mathews CK. Effects of biological DNA precursor pool asymmetry upon accuracy of DNA replication in vitro. Mutation Research. 2002;499:197–211. doi: 10.1016/s0027-5107(01)00283-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Mathews CK. DNA precursor metabolism and genomic stability. FASEB Journal. 2006;20:1300–1314. doi: 10.1096/fj.06-5730rev. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. McKenna A, Hanna M, Banks E, Sivachenko A, Cibulskis K, Kernytsky A, Garimella K, Altshuler D, Gabriel S, Daly M, DePristo MA. The Genome Analysis Toolkit: A MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Research. 2010;20:1297–1303. doi: 10.1101/gr.107524.110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Metcalfe JZ, Streicher E, Theron G, Colman RE, Penaloza R, Allender C, Lemmer D, Warren RM, Engelthaler DM. Mycobacterium tuberculosis subculture results in loss of potentially clinically relevant heteroresistance. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2017;61:e00888-17. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00888-17/ASSET/E9C05F19-CAA5-4740-BDCB-462DBB394DE4/ASSETS/GRAPHIC/ZAC0111766600002.JPEG. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Miggiano R, Morrone C, Rossi F, Rizzi M. Targeting genome integrity in Mycobacterium tuberculosis: From nucleotide synthesis to DNA replication and repair. Molecules. 2020;25:1205. doi: 10.3390/molecules25051205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Milano A, Branzoni M, Canneva F, Profumo A, Riccardi G. The Mycobacterium tuberculosis Rv2358-furB operon is induced by zinc. Research in Microbiology. 2004;155:192–200. doi: 10.1016/j.resmic.2003.11.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Mohan A, Padiadpu J, Baloni P, Chandra N. Complete genome sequences of a Mycobacterium smegmatis laboratory strain (MC2 155) and isoniazid-resistant (4XR1/R2) mutant strains. Genome Announcements. 2015;3:e01520-14. doi: 10.1128/genomeA.01520-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Muwonge A, Kankya C, Olea-Popelka F, Biffa D, Ssengooba W, Berit D, Skjerve E, Johansen TB. Molecular investigation of multiple strain infections in patients with tuberculosis in Mubende district, Uganda. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 2013;17:16–22. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2013.03.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Navarro Y, Herranz M, Pérez-Lago L, Martínez Lirola M, INDAL-TB. Ruiz-Serrano MJ, Bouza E, García de Viedma D. Systematic survey of clonal complexity in tuberculosis at a populational level and detailed characterization of the isolates involved. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2011;49:4131–4137. doi: 10.1128/JCM.05203-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Navarro Y, Pérez-Lago L, Herranz M, Sierra O, Comas I, Sicilia J, Bouza E, García de Viedma D. In-depth characterization and functional analysis of clonal variants in a Mycobacterium tuberculosis strain prone to microevolution. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2017;8:694. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00694. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Niki M, Niki M, Tateishi Y, Ozeki Y, Kirikae T, Lewin A, Inoue Y, Matsumoto M, Dahl JL, Ogura H, Kobayashi K, Matsumoto S. A novel mechanism of growth phase-dependent tolerance to isoniazid in mycobacteria. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2012;287:27743–27752. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M111.333385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Nordman J, Wright A. The relationship between dNTP pool levels and mutagenesis in an Escherichia coli NDP kinase mutant. PNAS. 2008;105:10197–10202. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0802816105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Nyinoh IW. Spontaneous mutations conferring antibiotic resistance to antitubercular drugs at a range of concentrations in Mycobacterium smegmatis. Drug Development Research. 2019;80:147–154. doi: 10.1002/ddr.21497. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. O’Neill MB, Mortimer TD, Pepperell CS. Diversity of Mycobacterium tuberculosis across evolutionary scales. PLOS Pathogens. 2015;11:e1005257. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1005257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. O’Sullivan DM, Hinds J, Butcher PD, Gillespie SH, McHugh TD. Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA repair in response to subinhibitory concentrations of ciprofloxacin. The Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2008;62:1199–1202. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkn387. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Pai C-C, Kearsey SE. A critical balance: dNTPs and the maintenance of genome stability. Genes. 2017;8:57. doi: 10.3390/genes8020057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Pancsa R, Fichó E, Molnár D, Surányi ÉV, Trombitás T, Füzesi D, Lóczi H, Szijjártó P, Hirmondó R, Szabó JE, Tóth J. dNTPpoolDB: a manually curated database of experimentally determined dNTP pools and pool changes in biological samples. Nucleic Acids Research. 2022;50:D1508–D1514. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab910. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Pecsi I, Hirmondo R, Brown AC, Lopata A, Parish T, Vertessy BG, Tóth J. The dUTPase enzyme is essential in Mycobacterium smegmatis. PLOS ONE. 2012;7:e37461. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0037461. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Pérez-Lago L, Rodríguez Borlado AI, Comas I, Herranz M, Ruiz-Serrano MJ, Bouza E, García-de-Viedma D. Subtle genotypic changes can be observed soon after diagnosis in Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. International Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2016;306:401–405. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmm.2016.05.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Ragheb MN, Ford CB, Chase MR, Lin PL, Flynn JAL, Fortune SM. The mutation rate of mycobacterial repetitive unit loci in strains of M. tuberculosis from cynomolgus macaque infection. BMC Genomics. 2013;14:145. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-14-145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Rai P. Oxidation in the nucleotide pool, the DNA damage response and cellular senescence: Defective bricks build a defective house. Mutation Research. 2010;703:71–81. doi: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2010.07.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Rittershaus ESC, Baek SH, Sassetti CM. The normalcy of dormancy: common themes in microbial quiescence. Cell Host & Microbe. 2013;13:643–651. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2013.05.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Romero D, Traxler MF, López D, Kolter R. Antibiotics as signal molecules. Chemical Reviews. 2011;111:5492–5505. doi: 10.1021/cr2000509. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Schmidt TT, Sharma S, Reyes GX, Gries K, Gross M, Zhao B, Yuan JH, Wade R, Chabes A, Hombauer H. A genetic screen pinpoints ribonucleotide reductase residues that sustain dNTP homeostasis and specifies A highly mutagenic type of dNTP imbalance. Nucleic Acids Research. 2019;47:237–252. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky1154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Shamputa IC, Jugheli L, Sadradze N, Willery E, Portaels F, Supply P, Rigouts L. Mixed infection and clonal representativeness of a single sputum sample in tuberculosis patients from a penitentiary hospital in Georgia. Respiratory Research. 2006;7:99. doi: 10.1186/1465-9921-7-99. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Silva FJ, Santos-Garcia D, Zheng X, Zhang L, Han XY. Construction and analysis of the complete genome sequence of leprosy agent Mycobacterium lepromatosis. Microbiology Spectrum. 2022;10:e0169221. doi: 10.1128/spectrum.01692-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Singh P, Patil KN, Khanduja JS, Kumar PS, Williams A, Rossi F, Rizzi M, Davis EO, Muniyappa K. Mycobacterium tuberculosis UvrD1 and UvrA proteins suppress DNA strand exchange promoted by cognate and noncognate RecA proteins. Biochemistry. 2010;49:4872–4883. doi: 10.1021/bi902021d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Singh A. Guardians of the mycobacterial genome: A review on DNA repair systems in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Microbiology. 2017;163:1740–1758. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.000578. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Snapper SB, Melton RE, Mustafa S, Kieser T, Jacobs WR., Jr Isolation and characterization of efficient plasmid transformation mutants of Mycobacterium smegmatis. Molecular Microbiology. 1990;4:1911–1919. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.1990.tb02040.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Srinath T, Bharti SK, Varshney U. Substrate specificities and functional characterization of a thermo-tolerant uracil DNA glycosylase (UdgB) from Mycobacterium tuberculosis. DNA Repair. 2007;6:1517–1528. doi: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2007.05.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Ssengooba W, de Jong BC, Joloba ML, Cobelens FG, Meehan CJ. Whole genome sequencing reveals mycobacterial microevolution among concurrent isolates from sputum and blood in HIV infected TB patients. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2016;16:371. doi: 10.1186/s12879-016-1737-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Stallings CL, Glickman MS. Is Mycobacterium tuberculosis stressed out? A critical assessment of the genetic evidence. Microbes and Infection. 2010;12:1091–1101. doi: 10.1016/j.micinf.2010.07.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Sun G, Luo T, Yang C, Dong X, Li J, Zhu Y, Zheng H, Tian W, Wang S, Barry CE, Mei J, Gao Q. Dynamic population changes in Mycobacterium tuberculosis during acquisition and fixation of drug resistance in patients. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2012;206:1724–1733. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jis601. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Sundaram VK, Sampathkumar NK, Massaad C, Grenier J. Optimal use of statistical methods to validate reference gene stability in longitudinal studies. PLOS ONE. 2019;14:e0219440. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Szabó JE, Surányi ÉV, Mébold BS, Trombitás T, Cserepes M, Tóth J. A user-friendly, high-throughput tool for the precise fluorescent quantification of deoxyribonucleoside triphosphates from biological samples. Nucleic Acids Research. 2020;48:e45. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Trauner A, Liu Q, Via LE, Liu X, Ruan X, Liang L, Shi H, Chen Y, Wang Z, Liang R, Zhang W, Wei W, Gao J, Sun G, Brites D, England K, Zhang G, Gagneux S, Barry CE, Gao Q. The within-host population dynamics of Mycobacterium tuberculosis vary with treatment efficacy. Genome Biology. 2017;18:1–17. doi: 10.1186/S13059-017-1196-0/TABLES/1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Walter ND, Dolganov GM, Garcia BJ, Worodria W, Andama A, Musisi E, Ayakaka I, Van TT, Voskuil MI, de Jong BC, Davidson RM, Fingerlin TE, Kechris K, Palmer C, Nahid P, Daley CL, Geraci M, Huang L, Cattamanchi A, Strong M, Schoolnik GK, Davis JL. Transcriptional adaptation of drug-tolerant Mycobacterium tuberculosis during treatment of human tuberculosis. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2015;212:990–998. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiv149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Warren RM, Victor TC, Streicher EM, Richardson M, Beyers N, Gey van Pittius NC, van Helden PD. Patients with active tuberculosis often have different strains in the same sputum specimen. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2004;169:610–614. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200305-714OC. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Wayne LG, Diaz GA. A double staining method for differentiating between two classes of mycobacterial catalase in polyacrylamide electrophoresis gels. Analytical Biochemistry. 1986;157:89–92. doi: 10.1016/0003-2697(86)90200-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Wiuff C, Zappala RM, Regoes RR, Garner KN, Baquero F, Levin BR. Phenotypic tolerance: antibiotic enrichment of noninherited resistance in bacterial populations. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2005;49:1483–1494. doi: 10.1128/AAC.49.4.1483-1494.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. World Health Organization . Global tuberculosis report 2021. Geneva; 2021. [Google Scholar]
  103. World Health Organization . Global tuberculosis report 2023. World Health Organization; 2023. [Google Scholar]
  104. Wu ML, Gengenbacher M, Dick T. Mild nutrient starvation triggers the development of a small-cell survival morphotype in mycobacteria. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2016;7:947. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00947. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Yao NY, Schroeder JW, Yurieva O, Simmons LA, O’Donnell ME. Cost of rNTP/dNTP pool imbalance at the replication fork. PNAS. 2013;110:12942–12947. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1309506110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Yuan JS, Reed A, Chen F, Stewart CN. Statistical analysis of real-time PCR data. BMC Bioinformatics. 2006;7:85. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-7-85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Zhang Y, Scorpio A, Nikaido H, Sun Z. Role of acid pH and deficient efflux of pyrazinoic acid in unique susceptibility of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to pyrazinamide. Journal of Bacteriology. 1999;181:2044–2049. doi: 10.1128/JB.181.7.2044-2049.1999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  108. Zimpel CK, Brandão PE, de Souza Filho AF, de Souza RF, Ikuta CY, Ferreira Neto JS, Camargo NCS, Heinemann MB, Guimarães AMS. Complete genome sequencing of Mycobacterium bovis SP38 and comparative genomics of Mycobacterium bovis and M. tuberculosis strains. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2017;8:1–14. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

eLife Assessment

Musa Ali 1

This useful study reports on the impact of antibiotic pressure on the genomic stability of the mc2155 strain of Mycobacterium smegmatis, a model for Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The findings of the study indicate that exposure to antibiotics did not lead to the development of new adaptive mutations in controlled laboratory environments, challenging the notion that antibiotic resistance arises from drug-induced microevolution. The genomic analysis provides detailed insights into the stability of M. smegmatis following exposure to standard TB treatment antibiotics, and the evidence suggesting that antibiotic pressure does not contribute to the emergence of new adaptive mutations is solid.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Anonymous

Molnar, Suranyi and colleagues have generated a useful dataset characterizing the rate of mutations in Mycobacterium smegmatis - a non-pathogenic model mycobacterial strain, to several antibiotics at sub-lethal dose. The whole genome sequencing approach used is a strength of this study. Overall, the results are consistent with a low rate of mutations, consistent with other reports in Mycobacterium smegmatis and in vitro and clinical studies with Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The data supports phenotypic tolerance rather than genetic mutations as a driver.

The revised manuscript is improved and addresses several concerns raised by the reviewers from the previous rounds. These relate primarily to the presentation of data in the figures, but there is also new data in Figure 2 to show an increased MIC for M. smegmatis under antibiotic pressure. An additional dataset of sequences from ciprofloxacin-treated bacteria has also been generated and made publicly accessible, which will be of interest to the community.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Anonymous

Summary

In this study, the authors evaluate the impact of selective pressure from chemotherapeutic drugs on the development of drug resistance in Mycobacteria, specifically through the acquisition of genetic mutations or phenotypic tolerance. Their findings indicate that treatment with sublethal concentrations of first-line antibiotics does not lead to enhanced mutation rates.

Strengths

The use of the mutation accumulation assay demonstrating low spontaneous mutation rates combined with the display of an increased MIC supports drug resistance as a consequence of phenotypic tolerance. Additionally, the use of the ciprofloxacin tolerance assay in combination with whole genome sequencing demonstrating a lack of mutations provides further support of this. The results now support the authors claims.

Weaknesses

Besides an increase in DNA stress response other underlying tolerance mechanisms were not established - increased efflux pump, thickening of the cell wall, decrease in metabolic processes, rerouting of metabolic processes etc.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Anonymous

Summary:

This manuscript describes how antibiotics influence genetic stability and survival in Mycobacterium smegmatis. Prolonged treatment with first-line antibiotics did not significantly impact mutation rates. Instead, adaptation to these drugs appears to be mediated by upregulation of DNA repair enzymes. While this study offers robust data, findings remain correlative and fall short of providing mechanistic insights.

Strengths:

The strength of this study is the use of genome-wide approaches to address the specific question of whether or not mycobacteria induce mutagenic potential upon antibiotic exposure.

Comments on revised version:

The authors responded adequately to my comments, and I have no further suggestions for the revised manuscript.

eLife. 2024 Nov 20;13:RP96695. doi: 10.7554/eLife.96695.3.sa4

Author response

Dániel Molnár 1, Éva Viola Surányi 2, Tamás Trombitás 3, Dóra Füzesi 4, Rita Hirmondó 5, Judit Toth 6

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Molnar, Suranyi and colleagues have probed the genomic stability of Mycobacterium smegmatis in response to several anti-tuberculosis drugs as monotherapy and in combination. Unlike the study by Nyinoh and McFaddden http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ddr.21497 (which should be cited), the authors use a sub-lethal dose of antibiotic. While this is motivated by sound technical considerations, the biological and therapeutic rationale could be further elaborated.

In the mutation accumulation experiments, we needed to ensure continuous and reproducible growth of a small number of colonies across multiple passages. This technical requirement necessitated the use of sublethal drug concentrations. However, sublethal doses also have biological relevance. Noncompliance with prescribed antibiotic regimens and the presence of antibiotic residues in food due to the extensive use of antibiotics in agricultural mass production are two obvious sources of prolonged exposure to sublethal antibiotics.

The results the authors obtain are in line with papers examining the genomic mutation rate in vitro and from patient samples in Mycobacterium tuberculosis, in vitro in Mycobacterium smegmatis and in vitro in Mycobacterium tuberculosis (although the study by HL David (PMID: 4991927) is not cited). The results are confirmatory of previous studies.

The two cited studies, along with several others, did not distinguish between genetic mutations and phenotypic responses to drug exposure (the fluctuation test alone is not suitable for this). Therefore, their objectives are not comparable to ours, which specifically investigated whether resistant colonies carry adaptive mutations. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the relevance of these studies and have now cited them in the appropriate sections in the text.

It is therefore puzzling why the authors propose the opposite hypothesis in the paper (i.e antibiotic exposure should increase mutation rates) merely to tear it down later. This straw-man style is entirely unnecessary.

The phenomenon of stress-inducible mutagenesis in bacterial evolution remains a topic of heated debate. The emergence of genetically encoded resistance may stem from either microevolution or the dissemination of pre-existing variants from polyclonal infections under drug pressure. We believe that the Introduction presents both of these hypotheses in a balanced manner to elucidate the rationale behind our mutation accumulation investigations.

The results on the nucleotide pools are interesting, but the statistically significant data is difficult to identify as presented, and therefore the new biological insights are unclear.

We now indicate statistical significance in the figure, in addition to the detailed statistical analysis of all dNTP measurements provided in Table S5.

Finally, the authors show that a fluctuation assay generates mutations with higher frequencies that the genetic stability assays, confirming the well-known effect of phenotypic antibiotic resistance.

What we show is that the fluctuation assay generated bacteria that tolerated the applied antibiotic without developing mutations. Conclusions about mutation rates are often drawn from fluctuation assays without confirming genetic-level changes, a discrepancy that persists despite these assays accounting for both phenotypic and genotypic alterations. By combining genome sequencing with fluctuation assays, our approach emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between these changes. While fluctuation assays remain valuable, inexpensive, and simple tools for evaluating the response of bacterial populations to various selective environments, they should not be considered definitive indicators of genetic changes.

Recommendations For The Authors:

The quality of the figures can be significantly improved. In Figure 1, cell lengths can be shown on separate histograms or better still as violin plots to enable better comparisons.

Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the data presentation accordingly.

Details for statistical tests should be provided in the figure legend.

Statistical details are now added in the figure legend.

In Figure 2, the number of data points is not mentioned.

Statistical information is now added to the new Figure 2, which has been revised extensively based on suggestions from all Referees.

The data in Figure 3 would be much easier to comprehend as a heatmap.

The figure we provided is a color gradient table representing different gene expression levels, along with numerical data and statistical significance indicated within the color boxes, expanding the information content of a traditional heatmap. In response to the Referee's suggestion, we also prepared a hierarchical clustering heatmap, demonstrating that the grouping of rows and columns based on functional information in the original figure is consistent with the clustering pattern observed in the heatmap (Figure S5). As the original figure is more informative and better structured, we have included the new figure in the supplementary materials.

No statistical tests are provided for Figure 4.

We now indicate statistical significance in the figure and describe the statistical analysis in the figure legend, as suggested. Additionally, Table S5 is dedicated to the statistical analysis of the dNTP data.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, the authors assess whether selective pressure from drug chemotherapy influences the emergence of drug resistance through the acquisition of genetic mutations or phenotypic tolerance. I commend the authors on their approach of utilizing the mutation accumulation (MA) assay as a means to answer this and whole genome sequencing of clones from the assay convincingly demonstrates low mutation rates in Mycobacteria when exposed to sub-inhibitory concentrations of antibiotics. Also, quantitative PCR highlighted the upregulation of DNA repair genes in Mycobacteria following drug treatment, implying the preservation of genomic integrity via specific repair pathways.

Even though the findings stem from M. smegmatis exposure to antibiotics under in vitro conditions, this is still relevant in the context of the development of drug resistance so I can see where the authors' train of thought was heading in exploring this. However, I think important experiments to perform to more fully support the conclusion that resistance is largely associated with phenotypic rather than genetic factors would have been to either sequence clones from the ciprofloxacin tolerance assay (to show absence/ minimal genetic mutations) or to have tested the MIC of clones from the MA assay (to show an increase in MIC).

Thank you for acknowledging the values of the manuscript and for the insightful suggestions for improvement. We agree on the necessity to directly connect the mutation accumulation experiments with the tolerance assay, and we have performed both suggested additional experiments.

(1) We repeated the ciprofloxacin tolerance assay (Figure S6) using a large number of plates to gather enough cells for genomic DNA extraction and whole genome sequencing. The sequencing confirmed the absence of mutations in bacteria grown in both 0.3 and 0.5 ug/ml ciprofloxacin. We integrated this result in the revised manuscript text, while the sequencing data are available at the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) with PRJEB71590 project number.

(2) We resuscitated three different clones from the MA assays stored at -80°C and tested the MIC of the respective drugs. The results are presented in Figure 2C. Except for EMB, we observed an increase in MIC values across the treatments.

There seems to be a disconnect between making these conclusions from experiments conducted under different conditions, or perhaps the authors can clarify why this was done.

Molecular biology analysis methods are not easily compatible with long-term mutation accumulation experiments, or at least we could not establish the necessary conditions. When DNA or RNA extraction was required, we had to adjust the experimental scale for further analysis, which could be done in liquid culture. We believe that the suggested critical back-and-forth control experiments have significantly improved the comparability of the results.

With regards to the sub-inhibitory drug concentration applied, there is significant variation in the viability as calculated by CFUs following the different treatments and there is evidence that cell death greatly affects the calculation of mutation rate (PMCID: PMC5966242). For instance, the COMBO treatment led to 6% viability whilst the INH treatment led to 80% cell viability. Are there any adjustments made to take this into account?

We agree with and have been aware of the notion that cell death affects the calculation of the mutation rate. We included treatment optimization data on agar plates (Table 1 and Figure S2), which now demonstrate that the applied subinhibitory drug concentrations resulted in ≤10% viability across all treatments in the MA assay. This minimizes the potential discrepancy in the mutation rate calculation caused by variable cell death.

It would also be useful to the reader to include a supplementary table of the SNPs detected from the lineages of each treatment - to determine if at any point rifampicin treatment led to mutations in rpoB, isoniazid to katG mutations, etc.

Overall, while this study is tantalizingly suggestive of phenotypic tolerance playing a leading role in drug resistance (and perhaps genetic mutations a sub-ordinate role) a more substantial link is needed to clarify this.

The SNPs identified from the lineages of each treatment are compiled in the 'unique_muts.xls' file within the Figshare document bundle that was originally enclosed with the manuscript. In response to your suggestion, we have now added a simplified version of this data set in Table S2, listing the detected SNPs. Notably, no confirmed adaptive mutation developed in our experiments; rifampicin treatment did not result in mutations in rpoB, nor did isoniazid lead to mutations in katG.

Recommendations For The Authors:

I would suggest moving Figure 1 to the supplementary - it shows that cell wall targeting drugs cause cell shortening and DNA replication targeting drugs cause cell elongation as would be expected and this is simply a secondary observation, not one that is central to the paper.

We agree that this is not a novel or unexpected observation. However, we used it as an indicator of drug effectiveness, particularly for bacteriostatic cell wall-targeting drugs in liquid culture that induced moderate cell death. Following Reviewer 1's suggestions, we extensively revised the figure to better convey our intended message. We believe the updated version now more clearly demonstrates the drugs' impact, and for this reason, we have opted to keep it in the main text.

Figure 2 and Table 2 show the same data so this can be combined as a paneled figure or one moved to the supplementary. It would be useful to include a diagram of how the MA assay was conducted, similar to the CIP tolerance assay figure.

Thank you for the suggestions. We have added a diagram to Figure 2 explaining the MA assay (Figure 2A), as well as the MIC experiment conducted on the MA cells (Figure 2C). To avoid redundancy, Table 2 has been removed.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript describes how antibiotics influence genetic stability and survival in Mycobacterium smegmatis. Prolonged treatment with first-line antibiotics did not significantly impact mutation rates. Instead, adaptation to these drugs appears to be mediated by upregulation of DNA repair enzymes. While this study offers robust data, findings remain correlative and fall short of providing mechanistic insights.

Strengths:

The strength of this study is the use of genome-wide approaches to address the specific question of whether or not mycobacteria induce mutagenic potential upon antibiotic exposure.

Weaknesses:

The authors suggest that the upregulation of DNA repair enzymes ensures a low mutation rate under drug pressure. However, this suggestion is based on correlative data, and there is no mechanistic validation of their speculations in this study.

Furthermore, as detailed below, some of the statements made by the authors are not substantiated by the data presented in the manuscript.

Finally, some clarifications are needed for the methodologies employed in this study. Most importantly, reduced colony growth should be demonstrated on agar plates to indicate that the drug concentrations calculated from liquid culture growth can be applied to agar surface growth. Without such validations, the lack of induced mutation could simply be due to the fact that the drug concentrations used in this study were insufficient.

Thank you for appreciating the manuscript's merits and for the instructive suggestions. We agree that demonstrating reduced colony growth on agar plates is important to validate the relevance of the drug concentrations used in the study. In response, we have added the treatment optimization data on agar plates in Figure S2 and reorganized Table 1 to show the decrease in CFU achieved with the applied subinhibitory drug concentrations.

We acknowledge that the observed upregulation of DNA repair enzymes and the low mutation rates under drug pressure represent correlative data. We removed the reference to mechanism from the abstract and avoided presenting the qPCR results as a mechanistic explanation in the text. We have only raised the possibility that correlation could be a causal relationship: "The observed upregulation of the relevant DNA repair enzymes might account for the low mutation rate even under drug pressure." We recognize the necessity for a new series of targeted experiments to provide mechanistic explanations. We added the following text to the Discussion:

“The observed activation of DNA repair processes likely mitigates mutation pressure, ensuring genome stability. However, to confirm this hypothesis, these investigations should be conducted using genetically modified DNA repair mutant strains.”

In the current manuscript, we aim to convincingly demonstrate that long-term antibiotic pressure did not induce the occurrence of new adaptive mutations.

Recommendations For The Authors:

Additional specific comments are:

Page 2. Do not italicize "Mycobacteria", which is not considered a scientific name.

Corrected.

Page 4. "Bacto pepcone" is a typo.

Corrected.

Page 6. "Quiagen" is a typo.

Corrected.

Page 9. In Table 1, RIF being described as a protein synthesis inhibitor is misleading.

Corrected.

Page 9. The statement "Specifically, following RIF, CIP, and MMC treatments, we observed cells elongating by more than twofold, whereas INH and EMB treatments led to a reduction in cell length." cannot be justified by Figure 1, as the cell length information is not conveyed in this figure.

Thank you for pointing this out, the revised Figure 1 conveys the cell length information.

Page 10. If the experiment shown in Figure S1 was done in an acidic growth condition, the figure legend should clearly indicate the fact. Additionally, the assay condition should be described in detail in the Methods section.

Thank you, the required information is now included in both the figure legend and the Methods section.

Page 10. If PZA does not work against M. smegmatis, it seems pointless to add it to the COMBO treatment. Please clarify why it was included in the drug combination experiment.

We added the following text to clarify the use of PZA: “Regardless of its inefficacy as a monotherapy, we included PZA in the combination treatment, as we could not rule out the possibility that PZA interacts with the other three drugs or that PZA elimination mechanisms are equally active in M. smegmatis under this regimen.”

Page 10. Generation times calculated from liquid culture cannot be applied to colony growth on an agar plate. The growth behaviors on a solid surface will be totally different from planktonic suspension growth. The numbers of generations indicated here will be inaccurate.

You are absolutely right. We conducted an experiment to calculate the number of generations on plates under the same conditions as used in the MA assay. We found, indeed, a different (doubled) generation time from what was determined in liquid culture. We have adjusted the mutation rates accordingly.

Page 12. Was the experiment shown in Figure 3 done in a liquid culture? If so, the transcriptional profile could be different from the experiment shown in Figure 2, which was done on an agar plate.

Yes, the experiment shown in Figure 3 was conducted in liquid culture. We acknowledge that the transcriptional profile could differ from the experiment shown in Figure 2, which was performed on an agar plate. However, technical limitations required us to use liquid cultures for these experiments.

Page 14. Regarding the statement "INH and EMB coincided with a decreased concentration of these [dCTP and dTTP] nucleotides", by examining Table S5, I do not see any statistical reductions in dCTP and dTTP levels.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have made the necessary corrections to ensure that the text and data are now aligned.

Page 14. Similarly to the comment above, the statement "RIF, CIP and MMC treatments promoted an increase in the dCTP and dTTP pools" is misleading as each drug seems to increase either dCTP or dTTP, not both.

Same as above.

Page 14. The authors state, "a larger overall dNTP pool size coincides with a larger cell size and vice versa (Figure 4H)". Please indicate the unit of the pool size for the graph shown in Figure 4H. According to the legend, I assume that it refers to the concentration. The term "pool size" may be misleading as it implies quantity rather than concentration.

Page 15. Figure 4H is impossible to understand. The left y-axis label looks as if it is a ratio of cell length to volume. There is no point in having these three data on a single graph. Please separate them into individual graphs. Also, what is the spacing between the tick marks? The data also seem inconsistent with the values given in Table S1. For example, the mean volume of COMBO is larger than the control (according to Table S1), and yet the graph in Figure 4H indicates that COMBO's relative length is less than 1.

Thank you for your feedback. We have corrected these and created what we hope is a clearer figure.

Figure S1. Clarify what the gray shade in the graph represents.

The gray shade was unnecessary, so we removed it when recoloring the figure to ensure a more coherent color scheme across the different treatments.

Figure S1. Relative viability cannot be determined by OD600. CFU needs to be determined to assess cell viability.

Thank you. We changed the incorrect term viability to growth inhibition.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Citations

    1. ÉV Surányi. 2024. WGS on antibiotics-challenged Mycobacterium smegmatis. Array Express. PRJEB71590
    2. Hirmondó R. 2024. Supplementary datasets for the eLife manuscript "Genetic Stability of Mycobacterium smegmatis under the Stress of First-Line Antitubercular Agents: Assessing Mutagenic Potential". figshare. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

    Supplementary Materials

    Figure 1—source data 1. Cell dimensions of M. smegmatis treated with different drugs.
    Figure 2—source data 1. Numerical data for mutation rates of wild-type M. smegmatis mc2155 strains under antibiotic pressure.
    Figure 2—source data 2. Phenotypic drug sensitivity (MIC) in drug- treated strains.
    Figure 3—source data 1. Numerical qPCR results.
    Figure 4—source data 1. dNTP concentrations in cellular extracts upon treatment with drugs.
    Supplementary file 1. Nucleotide sequence and measured efficiency of primers used for the qPCR.
    elife-96695-supp1.docx (39KB, docx)
    Supplementary file 2. User guide for whole genome sequencing (WGS) data files deposited in the European nucleotide archive (ENA).
    elife-96695-supp2.docx (37.6KB, docx)
    MDAR checklist

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying this article are available in the Figshare repository (DOI:10.6084/m9.figshare.26585884). Sequencing data are available at European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) with accession PRJEB71590.

    The following datasets were generated:

    ÉV Surányi. 2024. WGS on antibiotics-challenged Mycobacterium smegmatis. Array Express. PRJEB71590

    Hirmondó R. 2024. Supplementary datasets for the eLife manuscript "Genetic Stability of Mycobacterium smegmatis under the Stress of First-Line Antitubercular Agents: Assessing Mutagenic Potential". figshare.


    Articles from eLife are provided here courtesy of eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd

    RESOURCES