Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Jul 8;21(7):e0352997. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0352997

A novel COE-D8-fosfomycin conjugate effectively combats first-line antibiotic-resistant uropathogenic Escherichia coli

Lin Ruan 1,2,#, Cun Fan 1,2,#, Jingjie Chen 1,2,3,#, Yingxia Wang 4, Yuji Ren 5, Wenli Yuan 6, Xiaozhe Xiong 3,*, Chunming Guo 1,2,*
Editor: Vinothkannan Ravichandran7
PMCID: PMC13345249  PMID: 42418411

Abstract

Recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) caused by multidrug-resistant uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) demand novel antimicrobial approaches. This study evaluated the membrane-intercalating conjugated oligoelectrolyte COE-D8 against 93 clinical UPEC isolates. While >75% of isolates exhibited high-level resistance to first-line antibiotics (MIC > 512 μg/mL), 94.6% remained susceptible to COE-D8 at ≤32 μg/mL. COE-D8 eliminated bacteria fourfold faster than standard antibiotics through membrane disruption driven by a dimensional mismatch with the lipid bilayer. To mitigate the inherent cytotoxicity of COE-D8 alone, we developed a synergistic co-administration strategy with fosfomycin. This approach achieved a significant dose-sparing effect, rescuing 7-day murine survival from 40% to 80% in safety models without compromising efficacy. Furthermore, resistance induction studies identified a high barrier to adaptation, with survival primarily mediated by mzrA mutations. These findings establish the COE-D8/fosfomycin combination as a host-friendly, mechanism-driven strategy against refractory UPEC.

Introduction

Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs) are among the most prevalent bacterial infections worldwide and significantly impact patient quality of life, particularly in women [1]. As the second most common infectious disease across all human populations [2,3], UTIs frequently become recurrent, with 30% to 50% of patients experiencing reinfection even after standard antibiotic treatment [4]. Uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) is the primary pathogen responsible for these persistent infections. UPEC invades bladder epithelial cells (BECs) via specialized spindle vesicles [5]. By escaping these vesicles and replicating within the host cytoplasm, UPEC forms intracellular bacterial communities (IBCs) containing over 10,000 bacteria—a strategy that facilitates immune evasion and physical protection against antibiotic penetration, directly driving recurrent infection [6–12].

Fosfomycin represents a globally approved first-line clinical agent for these infections [13–16]. Because of its unique chemical structure and minimal cross-resistance with other antibiotic classes, it has gained increasing interest for treating multidrug-resistant (MDR) UTIs [17–21]. Besides fosfomycin, other guideline-recommended first-line UTI agents include nitrofurantoin, cephalothin, and sulfamethoxazole, while ampicillin, ofloxacin, and kanamycin are also widely used as empirical or secondary therapeutic options. Despite the use of these antibiotics, resistance among UPEC strains has risen continuously and has become a major global clinical challenge. This resistance now extends to nearly all classes of antibiotics, including recently developed β-lactams like oxacillin, flucloxacillin, and dicloxacillin [22].

Worryingly, no new class of antibiotics has been approved for the treatment of Gram-negative bacterial (GNB) infections in over 50 years [23]. Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) can kill bacteria primarily via membrane or cell wall destabilization, a mode of action that mitigates the risk of resistance development [24–26]. However, their inherent host cytotoxicity severely limits their clinical translation [27,28]. To address these dual barriers of antibiotic resistance and host toxicity, co-administration strategies combining novel membrane-active antimicrobials with clinically approved antibiotics have emerged as a promising research direction.

Conjugated oligoelectrolytes (COEs) are a novel class of membrane-active antimicrobial agents with potent antibacterial activity; for example, select COEs exhibit superior in vitro efficacy against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) compared to vancomycin [29]. Structurally, COEs consist of a hydrophobic, linear conjugated backbone with terminal ionic groups, an architecture that closely matches the distribution of charged and hydrophobic domains in lipid bilayers. This structure allows COEs to spontaneously intercalate into cellular membranes [30]. The molecular length of a COE directly determines its functional effects on lipid bilayers after intercalation [31]. As shown in S1 Fig, COE-D8 is a representative and potent antimicrobial molecule, whose activity arises from membrane disruption driven by a dimensional mismatch between the COE-D8 molecular length and the lipid bilayer thickness [32]. Based on this membrane-targeting mechanism, we hypothesized that COE-D8 exerts bactericidal activity against clinical MDR-UPEC via direct cell membrane disruption.

The objectives of this study were to systematically characterize the in vitro antibacterial activity, bactericidal mechanism, and adaptive resistance profiles of COE-D8 against clinical MDR-UPEC isolates. We also evaluated the preclinical safety of a COE-D8 and fosfomycin co-administration strategy in non-infectious animal models to lay a foundational framework for subsequent in vivo evaluation. Here, we report a synergistic interaction between the membrane-disrupting agent COE-D8 and the cell wall synthesis inhibitor fosfomycin. This combination reduces the host cytotoxicity of COE-D8 while enhancing its antimicrobial efficacy against MDR-UPEC, providing a promising preclinical strategy to address recurrent, multidrug-resistant UPEC infections.

Materials and methods

Materials, strains and instruments

The COE-D8 used in this study was synthesized according to previous literature protocols [29,33]. The following drugs were purchased from MCE: colistin, polymyxin B, ampicillin, kanamycin, fosfomycin, cephalothin, sulfamethoxazole, levofloxacin, and nitrofurantoin. Experimental mice were obtained from the Animal Center of Yunnan University, Kunming, China (Ethics approval number: CHSRE20220307). Ninety-three strains of multidrug-resistant Uropathogenic Escherichia coli (MDR-UPEC) were isolated from urine culture plates of patients in the Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University. Mueller-Hinton-Broth (MHB, Solarbio), Lysogeny Broth (LB, Solarbio), and 1 × Phosphate-Buffered Saline (PBS, pH 7.2) were prepared and autoclaved before use. The 3T3 cell line, purchased from Pricella (Wuhan, China), was used as a mammalian cell model in the in vitro cytotoxicity assays. Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained tissue sections were prepared using a paraffin embedding machine (MEDITE TES99), followed by visualization with a Slide Scanning Imaging System (SQS40P/SQS40PRO; Shenzhen Shengqiang Technology Co., Ltd.).

Bacterial isolation, culture and preservation

Primary MDR-UPEC isolates (n = 93) collected from clinical culture plates were divided into two aliquots. Half of the primary cells were directly cryopreserved in 50% glycerol at −80 °C (designated as the “O” series). The remaining cell were expanded in LB at 37 °C for 16 h and subsequently cryopreserved as the working “L” series. For all downstream analyses, “L” series stocks were revived in LB or MHB media. Cultures were subcultured to the mid-logarithmic phase, serially diluted, and plated on LB agar. Three independent single colonies per strain were randomly selected for subsequent experiments.

Method

Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) determination

MIC values were determined using a broth microdilution method. Bacterial cells were cultured in MHB at 37 °C to the mid-log phase (OD600 0.4-0.5) and diluted to a final inoculum of 10^5 CFU/mL. COE-D8 and standard antibiotics (S1 Table) were prepared as 10 mg/mL stock solutions in sterile solvents according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines. Bacterial suspensions (50 μL) were aliquoted into 96-well microtiter plates and mixed with equal volumes of twofold serially diluted antimicrobial agents. Following 16–18 h of incubation at 37 °C (200 rpm), growth inhibition was assessed by measuring the optical density at 600 nm using a TECAN Infinite M200 microplate reader. The MIC was defined as the lowest concentration of the tested compound that completely inhibited visible bacterial growth.

Mammalian cell cytotoxicity assay

Biocompatibility was evaluated using the MTT cell viability assay in 3T3 cells [34]. 3T3 cells were seeded into 96-well plate at an initial cell density of 1 × 10^5 cells per well and incubated with COE-D8 (1–512 μg/mL) at 37 °C for 24 h. Following exposure, the medium was discarded, and cells were washed with 1 × PBS. MTT solution (1 mg/mL) was added to each well, and the plates were incubated for an additional 4 h. The supernatant was then carefully removed, and the resulting formazan crystals were dissolved in 100 μL of DMSO per well with orbital shaking (100 rpm, 15 min). Absorbance was measured at 570 nm using a TECAN Infinite M200 microplate reader.

Time-Kill assay

Bacterial cells were prepared and aliquoted into 96-well plates as described for the MIC assay. The suspensions were challenged with equal volumes (50 μL) of media containing either 4 × MIC COE-D8 or the tested antibiotics for strains 63, 73, 76 and 80, or a combination of 1 × MIC COE-D8 and fosfomycin for strains 73 and 76. Plates were covered with a breathable sealing film and incubated at 37 ℃ with orbital shaking at 200 rpm under aerobic conditions. At predetermined intervals (0, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 h post-inoculation), 20-μl aliquots were sampled, serially diluted in sterile 1 × PBS, and plated onto LB agar plates. Following an 18-h incubation 37 ℃, colonies were counted to determine the CFU/mL at each time point.

Evolution of resistance to COE-D8

In vitro resistance evolution was performed via serial passaging [25]. UPEC isolates (#63, #74, #76 and #80) cultured to the mid-log phase in MHB,were utilized. Initial inocula (1 × 10^7 CFU/mL) were dispensed into 24-well (1 mL/well) containing gradient concentrations of COE-D8 and incubated at 37 ℃. Cultures were passaged every 24 h; specifically, the culture exhibiting visible growth (OD600 ≥ 0.2) at the highest COE-D8 concentration was diluted 1:100 into fresh media containing escalating drug concentrations. Passaging was maintained for 33 days (strains #63 and #76), 19 days (strain #74), or 28 days (strain #80). Endpoint isolates were cryopreserved at −80 °C.

Outer membrane permeability assay

Outer membrane permeability was assessed using the 1-N-phenylnaphthylamine (NPN) uptake assay [35,36]. Overnight cultures of strains #73 and #76 were diluted to an OD600 of 0.01 in fresh MHB and grown to the mid-logarithmic phase (OD600 ≈ 0.5) at 37 °C (200 rpm). Cells were collected by centrifugation at 3,000 × g for 10 min, washed twice, and resuspended to 10^7 CFU/mL in 5 mM HEPES buffer. Bacterial suspensions (100 μL) were mixed with 40 μM NPN (50 μL) in a black 96-well plate (Corning Costar). Following the addition of 50 µL COE-D8 at specified concentrations, fluorescence was immediately recorded (excitation: 350 nm, emission: 420 nm) using a TECAN Infinite F200 microplate reader. Appropriate vehicle and NPN background controls were included.

Animal ethics

All animal experiments were performed in strict compliance with the current animal welfare regulations and guidelines, including the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (NIH Publication no. 85−23, revised 1996). The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Experimental Animal Management and Use Committee (IACUC) of Yunnan University, Kunming, China (Permit No. CHSRE2022030). Mice were obtained from the Animal Center of Yunnan University and housed under controlled environmental conditions (temperature: 22 ± 2 °C; relative humidity: 50 ± 10%; 12-hour light/dark cycle) with ad libitum access to standard laboratory chow and water.

In vivo toxicity assay

Following a 7-day acclimation period, mice were randomly allocated to three experimental groups and three control groups, with n = 5 mice per group. Mice were housed at a density of no more than 5 per cage with adequate space. Baseline body weight was recorded prior to intraperitoneal (i.p.) drug administration (0 h), and body weight was measured daily for a 7-day period. Experimental groups included: (1) 25 mg/kg COE-D8 (dissolved in DMSO), (2) 50 mg/kg fosfomycin (dissolved in PBS), (3) COE-D8 (25 mg/kg) + fosfomycin (50 mg/kg), and solvent control groups (DMSO, PBS, and DMSO + PBS). Humane endpoints were predefined to ensure ethical compliance, mandating immediate euthanasia by CO2 inhalation for animals exhibiting ≥20% baseline weight loss, lethargy, inappetence, or other signs of severe distress. Daily welfare assessments were conducted between 9 a.m. and 12 noon. At the study endpoint, blood samples were collected by retro-orbital puncture under isoflurane anesthesia, and all mice were then euthanasia of by CO2 inhalation. Whole blood samples were storage at 4 °C for 16 hours, then centrifuged at 3,000 rpm for 15 min at 6 °C to isolate serum. Serum levels of ALT, AST, and BUN were measured using an automated biochemical analyzer (Wuhan Servicebio Technology Co., Ltd.).

Tissue preparation and paraffin embedding

Mice were euthanized by CO2 asphyxiation. The kidneys, liver, and spleen were harvested and fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde (4mL) overnight at 4°C. Following fixation, the tissues were dehydrated through a graded ethanol series (75%, 85%, and 95%) and immersed twice in 100% ethanol for 1 h each. Subsequently, the tissues were cleared in xylene twice for 1 h each. The samples were then infiltrated with paraffin wax (two changes, 1 h each) and embedded into paraffin blocks. The embedded tissues were sectioned at a thickness of 5 μm and mounted onto glass slides.

Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) staining

Paraffin sections were baked at 65 °C for 2 h to ensure tissue adhesion. The sections were deparaffinized in deparaffinizing solution(two changes, 10 min each). Tissues were rehydrated through a graded ethanol series (100% twice, 95%, and 75% for 10 min each). The sections were stained with hematoxylin, followed by treatment with differentiation and bluing reagents, and then rinsed three times under running tap water. Counterstaining was performed with eosin for 1 min, and the sections were subsequently dehydrated in 95% and 100% ethanol. The samples were cleared in a clearing agent for 4 min and mounted using a xylene-based mounting medium.

Bioinformatics

Genomic DNA was extracted from isolated E.coli strains and subjected to 150-bp paired-end sequencing on an Illumina NovaSeq 6000 platform (Major Biotechnology, Shanghai, China). Raw sequencing data were quality-filtered and adapter-trimmed using fastp (v0.23.2) [37]. High-quality paired-end reads, along with singleton reads that passed quality control, were assembed de novo using SPAdes (v3.15.5) [38]. Assembly quality was evaluated using QUAST (v5.2.0) [39], and assemblies with an N50 < 200,000 bp were excluded from downstream analyses.

The remaining assemblies, alongside with 46 reference genomes, were annotated using Prokka (v1.14.6) [40] in fast mode to rapidly identify gene features without assigning functional annotation. The annotated nucleotide sequences, including coding region, tRNAs, and non-coding RNAs, were clustered into orthologous groups using the custom pipeline OrthoSLC (v0.2.4) [41,42]. This orthologous clustering also facilitated the identification of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) across strains before and after the resistance evolution assays.Multiple sequence alignment of the clustered core genes were performed using Kalign (v3.3.5) [43] with default parameters, and the aligned clusters were concatenated into a core genome sequence for each strain using a custom script. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic trees were constructed using RAxML (v8.0.2) [44] under GTRCAT substitution model with 1,000 rapid bootstraps replicates [45].

For proteins harboring resistance-associated amino acid substitutions, three dimensional structures were predicted using AlphaFold2. Molecular docking of COE-D8 to these predicted protein structures was performed using Autodock Vina (v1.5.7) with “exhaustiveness=20”. Docking conformations were visualized using PyMol(v3.0.5). Data visualization in this study was was conducted using the ggplot2 (v3.4.3) and ggtree (v3.10.0) packages in R. All sequencing data have been deposited in the China National Center For Bioinformation (CNCB) under accession number PRJCA024060.

COE-D8 synthesis

The synthesis of COE-D8 follows a modular two-step protocol. Briefly, the precursor (E)-1,2-bis(4-(8-iodooctyloxy)phenyl)ethene was first prepared by alkylation of trans-stilbene-4,4’-diol with 1,8-diiodooctane under reflux in acetone using K₂CO₃ as base. Subsequent quaternization with trimethylamine in methanol/THF at 55 °C afforded COE-D8 as an off-white solid in high yield (90%) [32].

Result

COE-D8 outperforms conventional antibiotics against multidrug-resistant clinical UPEC isolates

A total of 93 Uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) isolates were collected between Mar. 2021 and Aug. 2021. Each isolate was derived from an independent patient, ensuring genetic diversity. Whole-genome sequencing and phylogenetic analysis confirmed the distinct lineages of these isolates (S2 Fig). The isolates were obtained from patients across a broad age range (11 days to 93 years) (Fig 1A). Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed for COE-D8 and seven conventional antibiotics used for UTI treatment: nitrofurantoin, fosfomycin, cephalothin, sulfamethoxazole, ofloxacin, kanamycin, and ampicillin (S1 Table). All isolates exhibited resistance to at least two of the antibiotics tested (Fig 1B).

Fig 1. Clinical characteristics and antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of 93 UPEC isolates.

Fig 1

(A) Timeline of sample collection from female patients in the urology department of a hospital in Southwest China. Patient IDs (y-axis) are color-coded by age. (Representative strains labeled as 63O, 73O, 76O, and 80O, selected for subsequent studies, are highlighted in red). (B) Pie chart detailing the distribution of resistance frequencies (number of resisted drugs) among the strains. (C) Proportional breakdown of MIC values for UPEC against COE-D8 and seven conventional antibiotics. (D) Violin plots comparing the MIC distributions of COE-D8 with seven conventional antibiotics (nitrofurantoin, fosfomycin, cephalothin, sulfamethoxazole, ofloxacin, kanamycin, and ampicillin). Statistical significance was determined using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn’s multiple comparisons test (*** P < 0.001 compared to COE-D8). (E) Stacked bar chart detailing the count of MIC values per drug. (F) Proportion of isolates exhibiting an MIC ≥ 512 μg/mL for each tested antibiotic.

The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of COE-D8 against the 93 UPEC isolates predominantly clustered at 16 μg/mL, with only one isolate exhibiting an MIC of 512 μg/mL (Fig 1C). In contrast, the MIC distributions for the other seven conventional antibiotics shifted toward higher concentration ranges (Figs 1C and 1D). Specifically, COE-D8 inhibited 94.6% of the isolates (88/93) at concentrations ≤32 μg/mL (Fig 1E). Conversely, high MICs (≥ 512 μg/mL) were frequently observed for sulfamethoxazole (73.7%), cephalothin (45.3%), and fosfomycin (22.1%)(Fig 1F).

COE-D8 kills phylogenetically diverse UPEC isolates

While MIC assays establish growth inhibition, they do not determine whether the effect is bactericidal. To assess this, we measured the time-kill kinetics of COE-D8 (at 4 × MIC) against four representative UPEC strains from distinct phylogroups (B2: #73, #76; B1: #63; and E: #80). Upon COE-D8 exposure, viable cell counts for strains #73 and #76 decreased below the detection limit (10^0 CFU/mL)—representing a > 5 log10 reduction—within 3 hours. Over the 6-hour observation period, viable cell counts decreased by >3 log10 for strain #80 and approximately 3 log10 for strain #63. In contrast, the time-kill profiles of the seven conventional antibiotics varied across the isolates. While fosfomycin and kanamycin eliminated detectable viable cells for strains #63 and #76 within 3 hours, treatment with the conventional antibiotics otherwise resulted in static viable counts or minor bacterial regrowth (≤1 log10 increase) over the 6-hour period (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Time-kill assays of COE-D8 and various antibiotics at a concentration of 4 × MIC against:

Fig 2

(A) Strain #63; (B) Strain #73; (C) Strain #76; and (D) Strain #80.

COE-D8 exerts bactericidal activity by targeting the cell membrane, driving MzrA-mediated adaptive resistance

Serial passaging of UPEC strains (#63, #74, #76, and #80) in the presence of sub-lethal, escalating concentrations of COE-D8 resulted in increased MICs. After 33 days of passaging, strain #76 exhibited a 128-fold increase in MIC (from 1 to 128 μg/mL). Strain #63 reached a 16-fold increase over 33 days, while strain #74 exhibited a 4-fold increase by day 19 (Figs 3A and 3B). Strain #80 failed to survive after day 28.

Fig 3. Evolution of COE-D8 resistance and the structural basis of MzrA-mediated adaptation.

Fig 3

(A, B) Continuous in vitro evolution of COE-D8 resistance in E. coli strains #63 (black), #74 (pink), and #76 (teal). (A) Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) trajectories over 33 days of serial passaging. (B) Corresponding fold-changes in MIC relative to the original clinical isolates (Day 1). (C, D) Real-time outer membrane permeabilization dynamics assessed by 1-N-phenylnaphthylamine (NPN) uptake. Dose-dependent increases in NPN fluorescence indicate enhanced outer membrane permeability in evolved strains #73 (C) and #76 (D) upon acute COE-D8 exposure (8–1024 μg/mL). (E, F) Structural basis of resistance. Molecular docking of COE-D8 (yellow) to the wild-type (E) and evolved (F) MzrA protein (strain #63 origin). The adaptive P70T substitution is highlighted in red, with key binding pocket residues in blue.

Whole-genome sequencing of the evolved resistant isolates identified distinct nucleotide variations relative to their wild-type ancestors: the derivative of strain #63 harbored 561 base pair (bp) substitutions across 14 genes, #74 contained 432 bp changes across 15 genes, and #76 exhibited 467 bp changes across 27 genes (S2 Table). Phylogenetic analysis confirmed the isogenic relationships between pre- and post-evolution pairs (Fig 4).To functionally validate the membrane-targeting mechanism, 1-N-phenylnaphthylamine (NPN) uptake assays were performed, revealing a dose-dependent increase in outer membrane permeability upon COE-D8 exposure in strains #73 (Fig 3C) and #76 (Fig 3D).

Fig 4. Phylogenetic framework and phylogroup distribution of the evolved COE-D8 resistant E. coli strains.

Fig 4

High-resolution phylogenetic tree constructed from single-copy core genomes of 46 E. coli reference strains (labeled in blue) alongside three paired clinical isolates and their corresponding COE-D8-resistant derivatives (labeled in red). Specifically, C_1, C_2, and C_3 represent the original clinical isolates (#63, #74, and #76, respectively), while C_5, C_6, and C_7 denote their corresponding COE-D8-resistant derivatives. Major clades are background-shaded to delineate the canonical E. coli phylogroups (B1, A, E, D, and B2), with corresponding assignments indicated by the bottom color bar. Bootstrap support values < 95% are displayed at the respective internodes. The scale bar represents 0.004 nucleotide substitutions per site.

Structural modeling of the MzrA protein from the evolved isolate (strain #63 origin) revealed that the adaptive Pro70Thr (P70T) substitution altered a local turn into a β-strand (Figs 3E and 3F). Molecular docking simulations reproducibly positioned COE-D8 adjacent to this newly formed β-strand in the mutant MzrA, yielding a binding affinity of −5.0 kcal/mol, compared to −4.6 kcal/mol for the wild-type (S3 Table).

In vitro and in vivo safety profile and synergistic bactericidal efficacy of COE-D8 combined with fosfomycin

Mammalian cytotoxicity assays in 3T3 cells determined the IC₅₀ of COE-D8 alone to be approximately 6 μg/mL, whereas conventional antibiotics exhibited IC₅₀ values ≥512 μg/mL (Fig 5A). Concurrent exposure of COE-D8 with fosfomycin (512 μg/mL) shifted the IC₅₀ of COE-D8 to >16 μg/mL (Fig 5B).

Fig 5. In vitro and in vivo safety profile and synergistic bactericidal efficacy of COE-D8 combined with fosfomycin.

Fig 5

(A, B) Mammalian cell cytotoxicity profiles against 3T3 cells. (A) Dose-dependent cell viability under COE-D8 monotherapy compared to conventional antibiotics. (B) Dose-dependent cell viability of COE-D8 combined with a fixed high dose (512 μg/mL) of conventional antibiotics. (C, D) In vivo tolerability and survival outcomes. (C) Percentage changes in body weight following intraperitoneal administration of COE-D8 (25 mg/kg), fosfomycin (50 mg/kg), or their combination. Data indicate the mean percentage change (n = 5 mice/group) with standard deviation (SD). The treatment effect was highly significant (Repeated-measures ANOVA with Greenhouse-Geisser correction: F(1.12, 7.82) = 19.01, P = 0.0022, η² = 0.73; Tukey’s post hoc P < 0.05 for all pairwise comparisons). (D) Kaplan-Meier survival curves over the 7-day safety evaluation period following drug administration, revealing no significant differences in mortality across treatment groups (Log-rank Mantel-Cox test: χ² = 5.12, df = 2, P = 0.077). (E-G) Hepatic and renal toxicity biomarkers. Serum levels of (E) blood urea nitrogen (BUN), (F) aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and (G) alanine aminotransferase (ALT) were quantified on Day 0 and Day 7 across six experimental groups (including drug treatments and vehicle controls: PBS+DMSO, PBS, DMSO). Box plots show individual values, means, and SD. Differences between Day 0 and Day 7 across the six conditions (n = 6 paired groups) were not statistically significant (Two-tailed paired t-tests: BUN P = 0.1985, AST P = 0.1367, ALT P = 0.1233). (H) Histopathological evaluation. Representative H&E-stained sections of the liver, kidney, and spleen harvested at Day 7 post-treatment, showing preserved tissue architecture. Scale bar = 200 μm. (I, J) Synergistic time-kill kinetics. Bactericidal curves of COE-D8 (16 μg/mL) combined with escalating concentrations of fosfomycin (256, 512, and 1024 μg/mL) against (I) clinical strains #73 and (J) #76.

In the mouse model, administration of COE-D8 alone (25 mg/kg) resulted in a continuous decrease in body weight (approaching −20% by day 7). In contrast, the COE-D8 and fosfomycin combination group maintained a stable body weight comparable to the fosfomycin-only group (Fig 5C). Over the 7-day observation period, the survival rate was 40% for the group administered COE-D8 alone, compared to 80% for the combination group (Fig 5D). Serum biomarker analysis revealed that blood urea nitrogen (BUN) levels remained stable across all groups (Fig 5E). Furthermore, the elevations in hepatic AST and ALT levels induced by single-agent COE-D8 were visually attenuated in the combination group (Figs 5F and 5G). Histopathological evaluation of the liver, kidney, and spleen at day 7 showed preserved tissue architecture across the evaluated groups (Fig 5H).

In time-kill assays against strains #73 and #76, individual exposure to COE-D8 (16 μg/mL) or fosfomycin (256–1024 μg/mL) either resulted in bacterial regrowth or merely maintained bacteriostatic suppression without complete clearance. Conversely, co-incubation of COE-D8 with fosfomycin demonstrated a dose-dependent synergistic bactericidal effect. Specifically, the combination containing the highest fosfomycin concentration (1024 μg/mL) rapidly decreased viable cell counts below the detection limit (10^0 CFU/mL) within 2 hours for strain #76 and 6 hours for strain #73. When the fosfomycin concentration was reduced to 512 μg/mL, this complete clearance was achieved in strain #76 within 4 hours, whereas viable counts for strain #73 remained slightly above the detection limit at the 6-hour endpoint. The lowest combination dose (256 μg/mL fosfomycin) exhibited enhanced bacterial reduction relative to individual exposures but failed to eradicate either strain (Figs 5I and 5J).

Discussion

The increasing prevalence of multidrug resistance among uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) poses a major clinical management of urinary tract infections (UTIs), driven by the progressive loss of efficacy of conventional first-line antibiotics. For more than 50 years, no new class of antibiotics has been approved for the treatment of Gram-negative bacterial infections associated with UTIs, and the clinical translation of membrane-active antimicrobial agents is largely limited by their inherent cytotoxicity. This gap highlights an urgent unmet need for antimicrobial strategies with optimized safety profiles. In this study, we systematically characterized the in vitro antimicrobial activity and preclinical safety of the conjugated oligoelectrolyte COE-D8 using 93 clinical multidrug-resistant UPEC isolates. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values of COE-D8 predominantly clustered at 16 μg/mL, with 94.6% of these genetically diverse isolates inhibited at concentrations ≤32 μg/mL. By comparison, high-level resistance (MIC ≥ 512 μg/mL) was detected in 22.1% to 86.3% of the same isolate cohort for conventional first-line UTI antibiotics, including fosfomycin, cephalothin, sulfamethoxazole, and ampicillin.

Beyond static growth inhibition, COE-D8 exhibited rapid bactericidal kinetics, achieving bacterial elimination at least fourfold faster than standard antibiotics in vitro. As validated by NPN uptake assays, this potent activity is mechanistically driven by a critical dimensional mismatch between the COE-D8 molecular length and the bacterial outer membrane, which facilitates spontaneous intercalation and irreversible outer membrane disruption. Furthermore, COE-D8 exhibited a relatively high barrier to resistance during long-term sequential passaging in vitro, with UPEC circumventing membrane stress primarily through a specific MzrA-mediated structural adaptation (Pro70Thr mutation), identified via whole-genome sequencing and molecular docking validation.

Crucially, while the inherent mammalian cytotoxicity of standalone COE-D8 restricts its clinical translation, we discovered that its combination with fosfomycin significantly mitigated this host toxicity both in vitro and in non-infectious murine safety evaluation models. This combinatorial regimen not only improved murine survival in acute systemic toxicity assessments, but also maintained a potent synergistic bactericidal effect against UPEC in vitro. Collectively, these findings establish that the COE-D8 and fosfomycin combination is a promising, mechanism-driven candidate, laying a critical preclinical foundation for subsequent in vivo therapeutic evaluation against recurrent multidrug-resistant UPEC infections.

The synergistic bactericidal efficacy observed in our in vitro time-kill assays can be attributed to the complementary mechanisms of action between the two agents. Mechanistically, fosfomycin exerts its antibacterial effect by inhibiting bacterial cell wall synthesis, thereby compromising the structural integrity of the Gram-negative bacterial cell envelope. In vitro, this initial envelope damage lowers the biophysical barrier for COE-D8, facilitating its rapid access to and intercalation into the bacterial outer membrane, where it exerts membrane-disrupting activity via the dimensional mismatch between its molecular length and bilayer thickness. This outer membrane permeabilization effect was directly validated in our NPN uptake assays. Consequently, this combinatorial synergy significantly reduces the effective bactericidal concentration of COE-D8 required for UPEC eradication in vitro. Given that the mammalian cytotoxicity of COE-D8 is strictly dose-dependent, as demonstrated by our 3T3 cell viability assays, this dose-sparing effect provides a critical mechanistic basis for mitigating the host toxicity of COE-D8.

Beyond static growth inhibition, COE-D8 exhibited rapid bactericidal kinetics in vitro, achieving bacterial elimination at least fourfold faster than standard antibiotics. As validated by NPN uptake assays, this bactericidal activity is mechanistically driven by a critical dimensional mismatch between the COE-D8 molecular length and the bacterial outer membrane lipid bilayer, which facilitates spontaneous intercalation and irreversible outer membrane disruption. However, recognizing that standalone membrane-disrupting activity often correlates with host cytotoxicity, we sought to decouple these effects through a combinatorial strategy. We found that co-administration with fosfomycin effectively mitigates this host toxicity while preserving antimicrobial potency. This synergy arises from complementary mechanisms: fosfomycin inhibits bacterial cell wall synthesis, thereby compromising the structural integrity of the Gram-negative bacterial cell envelope. This initial damage lowers the biophysical barrier for COE-D8, allowing it to access and intercalate into the outer membrane more efficiently. This mechanistic synergy facilitates a significant dose-sparing effect; since our 3T3 cell viability assays confirm that COE-D8 cytotoxicity is strictly dose-dependent, reducing its effective bactericidal concentration directly provides a mechanistic basis for improved safety.

This in vitro dose-sparing advantage translated into a direct host-protective effect within our non-infectious murine safety models. At a fixed high dose of COE-D8 (25 mg/kg), concurrent dosing of fosfomycin (50 mg/kg) effectively countered COE-D8-induced systemic toxicity, as evidenced by the stabilization of murine body weight and the suppression of hepatic AST/ALT elevation. Notably, this combinatorial approach resulted in a twofold increase in the 7-day survival rate within safety models, confirming a host-protective effect without interfering with the bactericidal activity. Nevertheless, the residual 20% mortality observed in the combination group underscores the need for further medicinal chemistry optimization. Future rational design should focus on fine-tuning the amphiphilicity and dimensional parameters of the COE backbone to further enhance selective targeting of bacterial envelopes over mammalian membranes.

Parallel to these efficacy and safety evaluations, we comprehensively mapped the adaptive resistance landscape of UPEC to COE-D8. In our in vitro evolution study, UPEC strain #80 developed a 32-fold increase in MIC by day 23 but exhibited a complete loss of viability in drug-free medium after 28 days. This terminal growth defect likely reflects an extreme fitness cost or obligate drug dependence, whereby resistance-associated genes remain functionally inactive in the absence of COE-D8. While strain #80 reached an evolutionary dead-end, analysis of surviving resistant lineages provided more tractable insights into adaptation.

A specific Pro70Thr missense mutation in the MzrA protein emerged as a key candidate determinant of resistance. It should be acknowledged that a limitation of this study is the lack of gene expression analysis of mzrA under COE-D8 exposure. Follow-up experiments are required to determine whether this resistance is conferred exclusively by the structural consequences of the Pro70Thr substitution or involves changes in mzrA gene expression. Nevertheless, the convergence of phenotypic resistance, this specific amino acid alteration, and molecular docking simulations provides multi-faceted evidence supporting the role of mzrA [46] in UPEC adaptation.

Beyond mzrA, genomic analysis identified additional non-synonymous mutations in genes such as nlpD [47], malT [48], and emrE [49]. Although these substitutions did not map to predicted COE-D8 binding pockets, their presence suggests broader, system-level adaptive responses. For instance, altered MalT activity could reduce membrane permeability [50] through downstream regulon modulation, while emrE mutations may alter efflux pump kinetics. Furthermore, variations in ribB might sustain metabolic homeostasis under antibiotic stress [51]. The absence of a single, reproducible genetic signature across all lineages may be attributed to the inherent limitations of short-read sequencing in resolving complex copy number alterations (CNAs) and the stochastic nature of convergent evolution [52]. Collectively, these findings highlight that UPEC employs diverse strategies—encompassing membrane remodeling, active efflux, and metabolic rewiring—that operate independently of direct drug-target physical interactions.

In conclusion, this study systematically characterizes the potent in vitro bactericidal activity of COE-D8, elucidates its membrane-disrupting mechanism, and delineates its adaptive resistance profiles. Crucially, we establish a fosfomycin co-administration strategy that mitigates COE-D8-induced host cytotoxicity in non-infectious murine safety models while retaining full in vitro efficacy. This work establishes the COE-D8 and fosfomycin combinatorial approach as a highly potent, mechanism-driven preclinical candidate co-administration strategy. More broadly, our findings provide an essential preclinical framework for addressing the intractable challenge of recurrent, multidrug-resistant UTIs caused by UPEC.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Structure of COE-D8.

(TIF)

pone.0352997.s001.tif (18.6KB, tif)
S2 Fig. Single-copy core genome based phylogeny of 46 reference and 91 clinical E. coli isolates.

(TIF)

pone.0352997.s002.tif (625.6KB, tif)
S1 Table. Antibacterial activity of COE-D8 and comparative antibiotics against clinical and reference Uropathogenic E. coli(UPEC) strains.

Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC, μg/mL) are presented for 93 clinical isolates and two reference strains(K-12 and UTI89). Abbreviations: NIT: Nitrofurantoin; FOS: Fosfomycin; CEPH: Cephalothin; SUL: Sulfamethoxazole; OFL: Ofloxacin; KM: Kanamycin; AMP: Ampicillin.

(DOCX)

pone.0352997.s003.docx (47.8KB, docx)
S2 Table. Non-synonymous single base substitutions acquired during in vitro resistance evolution.

All single base substitutions were non-synonymous mutations coding for either an amino acid substitution.The last column shows the gene before resistance evolution (left of right arrow) mutate to the gene on the right hand side experiencing corresponding evolution day.

(DOCX)

pone.0352997.s004.docx (16.4KB, docx)
S3 Table. Docking Affinity in Autodock Vina.

The gene of MzrA shows a lower docking energy of −5.0 kcal/mol than docking with the protein before resistance evolution −4.6 kcal/mol. There are no docking energy change before and after resistance evolution among the gene of MalT, EmrE and RibB.

(DOCX)

pone.0352997.s005.docx (16.3KB, docx)
S4 Table. In vivo safety evaluation of COE-D8, fosfomycin, and their combination following intraperitoneal injection in mice.

Data are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) (n = 5 per group). Statistical significance between Day 0 and Day 7 was determined using a two-tailed Student’s t-test (P < 0.05). Reference standard ranges for healthy mice: AST (36.31–235.48 U/L), ALT (10.06–96.47 U/L), and BUN (10.81–34.74 mg/dL). Abbreviations: AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; BUN, blood urea nitrogen. Statistical analysis was performed using Student’s t-test; differences are considered statistically significant with probability P < 0.05.

(DOCX)

pone.0352997.s006.docx (16.6KB, docx)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China No.82460142 to C.M.G., Natural Science Foundation of Yunnan Province of China No.202001BB050005 to C.M.G., the Xingdian talent support program of Yunnan Province to C.M.G., and Guangdong Hybribio Biotech Funding No.H20230314, H20230311 and H20230313 to C.M.G. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Czajkowski K, Broś-Konopielko M, Teliga-Czajkowska J. Urinary tract infection in women. Prz Menopauzalny. 2021;20(1):40–7. doi: 10.5114/pm.2021.105382 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Foxman B. Epidemiology of urinary tract infections: incidence, morbidity, and economic costs. Dis Mon. 2003;49(2):53–70. doi: 10.1067/mda.2003.7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Foxman B. The epidemiology of urinary tract infection. Nat Rev Urol. 2010;7(12):653–60. doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2010.190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kim W-J, Shea AE, Kim J-H, Daaka Y. Uropathogenic Escherichia coli invades bladder epithelial cells by activating kinase networks in host cells. J Biol Chem. 2018;293(42):16518–27. doi: 10.1074/jbc.RA118.003499 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Croxen MA, Finlay BB. Molecular mechanisms of Escherichia coli pathogenicity. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010;8(1):26–38. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2265 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hybiske K, Stephens RS. Exit strategies of intracellular pathogens. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2008;6(2):99–110. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro1821 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Zowawi HM, Harris PNA, Roberts MJ, Tambyah PA, Schembri MA, Pezzani MD, et al. The emerging threat of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in urology. Nat Rev Urol. 2015;12(10):570–84. doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2015.199 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mancuso G, Midiri A, Gerace E, Biondo C. Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance: The Most Critical Pathogens. Pathogens. 2021;10(10):1310. doi: 10.3390/pathogens10101310 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Zhang L, Dhillon P, Yan H, Farmer S, Hancock RE. Interactions of bacterial cationic peptide antibiotics with outer and cytoplasmic membranes of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000;44(12):3317–21. doi: 10.1128/AAC.44.12.3317-3321.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Van Gerven N, Waksman G, Remaut H. Pili and Flagella. Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science. Elsevier; 2011. p. 21–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Haraoka M, Hang L, Frendéus B, Godaly G, Burdick M, Strieter R, et al. Neutrophil recruitment and resistance to urinary tract infection. J Infect Dis. 1999;180(4):1220–9. doi: 10.1086/315006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Blanco M, Blanco JE, Alonso MP, Mora A, Balsalobre C, Muñoa F, et al. Detection of pap, sfa and afa adhesin-encoding operons in uropathogenic Escherichia coli strains: relationship with expression of adhesins and production of toxins. Res Microbiol. 1997;148(9):745–55. doi: 10.1016/s0923-2508(97)82450-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wijma RA, Koch BCP, van Gelder T, Mouton JW. High interindividual variability in urinary fosfomycin concentrations in healthy female volunteers. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2018;24(5):528–32. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2017.08.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wenzler E, Ellis-Grosse EJ, Rodvold KA. Pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of single-dose intravenous (ZTI-01) and oral fosfomycin in healthy volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61:e00775-17. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00775-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wenzler E, Bleasdale SC, Sikka M, Bunnell KL, Finnemeyer M, Rosenkranz SL, et al. Phase I Study To Evaluate the Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Two Dosing Regimens of Oral Fosfomycin Tromethamine in Healthy Adult Participants. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62(8):e00464-18. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00464-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Khawaja A, Khan F, Dar T, Bhat A, Wani M, Wazir B. Fosfomycin tromethamine. Antibiotic of choice in the female patient: A multicenter study. Cent Eur J Urol. 2015;68. doi: 10.5173/ceju.2015.590 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Giancola SE, Mahoney MV, Hogan MD, Raux BR, McCoy C, Hirsch EB. Assessment of fosfomycin for complicated or multidrug-resistant urinary tract infections: patient characteristics and outcomes. Chemotherapy. 2017;62:100–4. doi: 10.1159/000449422 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Seroy JT, Grim SA, Reid GE, Wellington T, Clark NM. Treatment of MDR urinary tract infections with oral fosfomycin: a retrospective analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(9):2563–8. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkw178 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Neuner EA, Sekeres J, Hall GS, van Duin D. Experience with fosfomycin for treatment of urinary tract infections due to multidrug-resistant organisms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(11):5744–8. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00402-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bermudez TA, Brannon JR, Dudipala N, Reasoner S, Morales G, Wiebe M, et al. Raising the alarm: fosfomycin resistance associated with non-susceptible inner colonies imparts no fitness cost to the primary bacterial uropathogen. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2024;68(1):e0080323. doi: 10.1128/aac.00803-23 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kot B. Antibiotic resistance among uropathogenic Escherichia coli. Pol J Microbiol. 2019;68:403–15. doi: 10.33073/pjm-2019-048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Habibi A, Khameneie MK. Antibiotic resistance properties of uropathogenic Escherichia coli isolated from pregnant women with history of recurrent urinary tract infections. Trop J Pharm Res. 2016;15:1745. doi: 10.4314/tjpr.v15i8.21 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Smith PA, Koehler MFT, Girgis HS, Yan D, Chen Y, Chen Y, et al. Optimized arylomycins are a new class of Gram-negative antibiotics. Nature. 2018;561(7722):189–94. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0483-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Si Z, Lim HW, Tay MYF, Du Y, Ruan L, Qiu H, et al. A Glycosylated Cationic Block Poly(β-peptide) Reverses Intrinsic Antibiotic Resistance in All ESKAPE Gram-Negative Bacteria. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2020;59(17):6819–26. doi: 10.1002/anie.201914304 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Zhang Q-Y, Yan Z-B, Meng Y-M, Hong X-Y, Shao G, Ma J-J, et al. Antimicrobial peptides: mechanism of action, activity and clinical potential. Mil Med Res. 2021;8(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s40779-021-00343-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bucataru C, Ciobanasu C. Antimicrobial peptides: Opportunities and challenges in overcoming resistance. Microbiol Res. 2024;286:127822. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2024.127822 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hancock REW, Sahl H-G. Antimicrobial and host-defense peptides as new anti-infective therapeutic strategies. Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24(12):1551–7. doi: 10.1038/nbt1267 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bahar A, Ren D. Antimicrobial Peptides. Pharmaceuticals. 2013;6:1543–75. doi: 10.3390/ph6121543 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bazan EL, Ruan L, Zhou C. Improving the antimicrobial efficacy against resistant Staphylococcus aureus by a combined use of conjugated oligoelectrolytes. PLoS One. 2019;14(11):e0224816. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224816 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Garner LE, Park J, Dyar SM, Chworos A, Sumner JJ, Bazan GC. Modification of the optoelectronic properties of membranes via insertion of amphiphilic phenylenevinylene oligoelectrolytes. J Am Chem Soc. 2010;132(29):10042–52. doi: 10.1021/ja1016156 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Yan H, Rengert ZD, Thomas AW, Rehermann C, Hinks J, Bazan GC. Influence of molecular structure on the antimicrobial function of phenylenevinylene conjugated oligoelectrolytes. Chem Sci. 2016;7(9):5714–22. doi: 10.1039/c6sc00630b [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Zhou C, Chia GWN, Ho JCS, Seviour T, Sailov T, Liedberg B, et al. Informed Molecular Design of Conjugated Oligoelectrolytes To Increase Cell Affinity and Antimicrobial Activity. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2018;57(27):8069–72. doi: 10.1002/anie.201803103 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Zhou C, Chia GWN, Ho JCS, Moreland AS, Seviour T, Liedberg B. A Chain‐Elongated Oligophenylenevinylene Electrolyte Increases Microbial Membrane Stability. Adv Mater. 2019;31:1808021. doi: 10.1002/adma.201808021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Si Z, Li J, Ruan L, Reghu S, Ooi YJ, Li P, et al. Designer co-beta-peptide copolymer selectively targets resistant and biofilm Gram-negative bacteria. Biomaterials. 2023;294:122004. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2023.122004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hancock RE, Wong PG. Compounds which increase the permeability of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa outer membrane. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1984;26(1):48–52. doi: 10.1128/AAC.26.1.48 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hancock RE, Farmer SW, Li ZS, Poole K. Interaction of aminoglycosides with the outer membranes and purified lipopolysaccharide and OmpF porin of Escherichia coli. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991;35(7):1309–14. doi: 10.1128/AAC.35.7.1309 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Chen S, Huang T, Zhou Y, Han Y, Xu M, Gu J. AfterQC: automatic filtering, trimming, error removing and quality control for fastq data. BMC Bioinformatics. 2017;18(Suppl 3):80. doi: 10.1186/s12859-017-1469-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Dvorkin M, Kulikov AS, et al. SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J Comput Biol. 2012;19(5):455–77. doi: 10.1089/cmb.2012.0021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Gurevich A, Saveliev V, Vyahhi N, Tesler G. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics. 2013;29(8):1072–5. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt086 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(14):2068–9. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu153 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Poliseno L, Lanza M, Pandolfi PP. Coding, or non-coding, that is the question. Cell Res. 2024;34(9):609–29. doi: 10.1038/s41422-024-00975-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Chen J, Ma X, He J, Wang Y, Ren Y, Qi L, et al. Intra-genomic genes-to-genes correlation enables genome representation. Bioinformatics. 2024. doi: 10.1101/2024.06.12.598634 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Lassmann T. Kalign 3: multiple sequence alignment of large datasets. Bioinformatics. 2019;36(6):1928–9. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz795 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Stamatakis A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(9):1312–3. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Sharma S, Kumar S. Fast and accurate bootstrap confidence limits on genome-scale phylogenies using little bootstraps. Nat Comput Sci. 2021;1(9):573–7. doi: 10.1038/s43588-021-00129-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gerken H, Charlson ES, Cicirelli EM, Kenney LJ, Misra R. MzrA: a novel modulator of the EnvZ/OmpR two-component regulon. Mol Microbiol. 2009;72(6):1408–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2009.06728.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Tsang M-J, Yakhnina AA, Bernhardt TG. NlpD links cell wall remodeling and outer membrane invagination during cytokinesis in Escherichia coli. PLoS Genet. 2017;13(7):e1006888. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006888 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Richet E, Raibaud O. MalT, the regulatory protein of the Escherichia coli maltose system, is an ATP-dependent transcriptional activator. EMBO J. 1989;8(3):981–7. doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1989.tb03461.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ovchinnikov V, Stone TA, Deber CM, Karplus M. Structure of the EmrE multidrug transporter and its use for inhibitor peptide design. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(34):E7932–41. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1802177115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Rotem D, Schuldiner S. EmrE, a multidrug transporter from Escherichia coli, transports monovalent and divalent substrates with the same stoichiometry. J Biol Chem. 2004;279(47):48787–93. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M408187200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Perez-Gil J, Uros EM, Sauret-Güeto S, Lois LM, Kirby J, Nishimoto M, et al. Mutations in Escherichia coli aceE and ribB genes allow survival of strains defective in the first step of the isoprenoid biosynthesis pathway. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e43775. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043775 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Lv Y, Wang J, Gao H, Wang Z, Dong N, Ma Q, et al. Antimicrobial properties and membrane-active mechanism of a potential α-helical antimicrobial derived from cathelicidin PMAP-36. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e86364. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086364 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Eva Torres-Sangiao

13 Aug 2025

-->PONE-D-25-19542-->-->A Novel COE-D8-Fosfomycin Conjugate Effectively Against First-line Antibiotic Resistant Uropathogenic Escherichia coli -->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ruan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 27 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

-->If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Eva Torres-Sangiao, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China No.32070818 and 82460142 to C.M.G., Natural Science Foundation of Yunnan Province of China [202001BB050005], the Xingdian talent support program of Yunnan Province to C.M.G., and Guangdong Hybribio Biotech Funding No.H20230314, H20230311 and H20230313 to C.M.G.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China No.32070818 and 82460142 to C.M.G., Natural Science Foundation of Yunnan Province of China [202001BB050005], the Xingdian talent support program of Yunnan Province to C.M.G., and Guangdong Hybribio Biotech Funding No.H20230314, H20230311 and H20230313 to C.M.G.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China No.32070818 and 82460142 to C.M.G., Natural Science Foundation of Yunnan Province of China [202001BB050005], the Xingdian talent support program of Yunnan Province to C.M.G., and Guangdong Hybribio Biotech Funding No.H20230314, H20230311 and H20230313 to C.M.G.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Insert text from online submission form here].

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

5. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: Lin Ruan and colleagues investigate the antimicrobial efficacy of a novel membrane-intercalating compound, COE-D8, against multidrug-resistant uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC). They show that COE-D8 exhibits potent bactericidal activity, outperforming several first-line antibiotics, with MICs ≤32 μg/mL for over 90% of 93 clinical UPEC isolates. Mechanistic assays reveal that COE-D8 disrupts bacterial membranes, although its cytotoxicity limits standalone clinical use. To address this, the authors combine COE-D8 with fosfomycin, which significantly reduces cytotoxicity in mammalian cells and improves survival in treated mice. Whole-genome sequencing and molecular docking suggest that mutations in membrane-associated proteins, including MzrA, may contribute to the development of resistance. These findings support the COE-D8/fosfomycin combination as a promising strategy against antibiotic-resistant UPEC.

The manuscript addresses an important medical challenge and is supported by a robust experimental data set, including in vitro assays, in vivo toxicity studies, and genome-wide bioinformatics. However, several revisions are needed to improve the manuscript's clarity and compliance with publication standards.

1/ Language and Grammar

The manuscript contains numerous grammatical, syntactic, and stylistic issues that hinder comprehension.

Please revise overly long or awkward sentences such as:

“The experiment described above did not differentiate whether COE-D8 acts to inhibit bacterial growth or to kill bacteria.”

proposition: “The previous experiment did not determine whether COE-D8 was bacteriostatic or bactericidal.”

Avoid overly cautious phrasing such as:

“This suggests that there is a significant likelihood that patients may not respond…”

proposition: “This suggests that many patients may not respond to treatment.”

2/ Is COE-D8 patented? Has it been approved as a therapeutic agent in any country? This should be clearly stated in the introduction or discussion.

3/ Some figures lack information regarding statistical tests and significance indicators. Please standardize this across all figures and legends, specifying p-values, error bars, and the statistical methods used.

4/ (p13) The study involves animal experimentation. A dedicated ethics sub-section should be added to the Methods section with confirmation that all procedures followed current animal welfare regulations and guidelines.

5/ The term “Luria-Bertani” should be corrected to the more accurate name Lysogeny Broth (see: Bertani, J. Bacteriol. 2004).

6/ (P.20) The Data Availability Statement currently indicates “data available on request.” In accordance with PLOS ONE policy, please deposit all genome sequence data and raw data in a public repository (e.g., NCBI SRA, Dryad, Zenodo) and include accession numbers in the manuscript.

7/ (P.21) Were the 93 UPEC isolates derived from 93 independent patients, or were multiple isolates obtained from the same patient at different time points?

8/ You propose MzrA as a resistance-associated target. Were gene expression levels of mzrA or related pathways assessed following COE-D8 exposure?

Reviewer #2: The authors have taken an innovative approach to addressing antibiotic resistance. While the manuscript is generally sound, a few revisions are necessary to improve readability before it can be finalized.

1.In the abstract, there should not be line break. Please change it according to the journal criteria.

2.At the end of the introduction, the author mentioned their findings in a brief. But it would be better to add the objectives of this study which is missing.

Materials and methods:

3. It is mentioned with the reference of COE-D8 synthesized but add in a brief of this protocol easily understandable.

4. The author did not included statistical analysis part which is supposed to be added with reference software the author used.

5. Please ad relevant references in the materials and methods section. References are missing in bioinformatics section

Result:

6. section 3.1 seems combination of your findings and remarks. However, it is supposed to present only the findings from your study and the conclusion marks should be in the discussion part.

7. Figure 1c is cited in the result section and the legend of the figure consists the statistical description and the test name. But it should be included in the description of the result as well and the outcome of test. Please reduce the statements from the 3.1 section and the test findings with proper figure citation.

8. In 3.2 section, the author described reduction of bacterial concentration but the title is related to phylogeny which is missing in the description in this section.

9. Please chnage the whole result section with just your findings. Remarks should be in the discussion part.

10. Please submit your revised manuscript after following the guidelines given by the journal to arrange the information in systematic waym such as reference style, font, arrangment of table, and others.

Reviewer #3: This manuscript presents a study on the antimicrobial potential of a conjugated oligoelectrolyte, COE-D8, and its synergistic combination with fosfomycin against multidrug-resistant uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC). The authors provide a methodologically sound investigation, including in vitro antibacterial efficacy, cytotoxicity evaluation, resistance evolution, mechanistic insights via docking simulations, and in vivo toxicity assessment. The study is timely, addresses a pressing clinical issue, and could contribute significantly to the development of novel antimicrobial strategies.

However, there are some concerns regarding experimental clarity, data interpretation, and presentation that need to be addressed before publication.

1. The docking simulation showed that the binding energy of COE-D8 to the mutant MzrA protein increased by only 0.4 kcal/mol compared to the wild-type. Given the limited precision of docking tools such as AutoDock Vina, this small energy difference may not be sufficient to substantiate MzrA as a key resistance determinant. The authors should clarify whether this minor difference is biologically meaningful and whether additional evidence supports MzrA’s involvement.

2. Apart from MzrA, other genes listed in Table S2 were also found mutated, but their roles in resistance were not evaluated or discussed in sufficient detail. Could the authors speculate or provide functional predictions regarding how these genes might contribute to COE-D8 resistance? For example, a pathway-based discussion would be valuable.

3. The combination of fosfomycin with COE-D8 significantly reduced cytotoxicity in 3T3 cells. How might fosfomycin mitigate the cytotoxicity of COE-D8? This deserves further explanation in the paper. Moreover, the IC50 of 16 μg/mL is still relatively toxic, especially considering the MIC range for UPEC. Have the authors considered chemical modifications of COE-D8 to improve its selectivity and reduce mammalian toxicity?

4. While the authors assessed the in vivo toxicity of COE-D8, the manuscript lacks evaluation of its in vivo antimicrobial efficacy. Demonstrating bacterial burden reduction in infected animals would greatly strengthen the translational value of the study. Please consider including such data or discussing this limitation explicitly.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes: Sebastien Bontemps-Gallo

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.-->

PLoS One. 2026 Jul 8;21(7):e0352997. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0352997.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


28 Sep 2025

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you very much for your time and for providing valuable and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled ''A Novel COE-D8-Fosfomycin Conjugate Effectively Against First-line Antibiotic Resistant Uropathogenic Escherichia coli ''. We have carefully considered all the suggestions and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

Please find below a summary of our key revisions:

We have addressed all the questions and concerns you raised. Our point-by-point responses are provided in the attached Word document, with all changes highlighted in yellow for your convenience.

All sequencing data have been deposited in a public database, and the relevant accession numbers have been included in the manuscript.

A complete list of all supporting information files has been added to the end of the manuscript.

We have verified that all in-text citations of the supporting information are correct and correspond accurately to the provided files.

We have thoughtfully evaluated the relevant literature you recommended and have cited it where we found it to be directly relevant to our discussion.

The reference list has been thoroughly checked to ensure completeness and strict adherence to the Vancouver style guide.

We have screened the reference list and confirmed that it does not include any retracted articles that are not essential to the study.

As per common practice, the funding information has been moved from the Acknowledgments section to the cover letter.

In short, we are deeply grateful for your valuable guidance, which has greatly strengthened our work and hope that our revisions and responses meet with your approval.

Sincerely,

Ruan Lin

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0352997.s008.docx (23.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Wondwossen Amogne Degu

8 Feb 2026

-->PONE-D-25-19542R1-->-->A Novel COE-D8-Fosfomycin Conjugate Effectively Against First-line Antibiotic Resistant Uropathogenic Escherichia coli -->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Ruan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 25 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

-->If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Wondwossen Amogne Degu, M.D

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: On page 61: mzrA should be italicized in the sentence, “It should be acknowledged that a limitation of this study is the lack of gene expression analysis of mzrA.”

Reviewer #2: The authors have adequately addressed all of my comments and concerns. The revisions have improved the clarity and scientific rigor of the manuscript. I find the responses satisfactory, and the manuscript entitled “A Novel COE-D8-Fosfomycin Conjugate Effectively Against First-Line Antibiotic-Resistant Uropathogenic Escherichia coli” is now acceptable in its current form

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes: Sébastien Bontemps-Gallo

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->

PLoS One. 2026 Jul 8;21(7):e0352997. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0352997.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


30 Mar 2026

Reviewer #1: On page 61: mzrA should be italicized in the sentence, “It should be acknowledged that a limitation of this study is the lack of gene expression analysis of mzrA.”

Author Response: We sincerely appreciate your professional and detailed comment on our manuscript. We have fully revised the manuscript in strict accordance with your suggestion: the gene name mzrA in the corresponding sentence on page 61 has been formatted in italics, which fully complies with the gene nomenclature guidelines of PLOS ONE.Meanwhile, we have highlighted this modification in yellow in the Revised Manuscript with Track Changes for your convenient review and verification. In addition, taking this format requirement as the standard, we have conducted a comprehensive cross-check of the writing format of all gene names and species scientific names throughout the manuscript, to ensure the uniform format of the full text and full compliance with the journal's submission formatting specifications.

Reviewer #2: The authors have adequately addressed all of my comments and concerns. The revisions have improved the clarity and scientific rigor of the manuscript. I find the responses satisfactory, and the manuscript entitled “A Novel COE-D8-Fosfomycin Conjugate Effectively Against First-Line Antibiotic-Resistant Uropathogenic Escherichia coli” is now acceptable in its current form

Author Response: We sincerely thank you for your recognition of our research work, as well as all the professional comments and valuable suggestions you have put forward during the review process. Your suggestions have greatly helped us improve the content of the manuscript, and enhance the clarity of presentation and scientific rigor of this study.We have carefully reviewed all of your review comments, and re-checked the research content, data presentation and narrative expression of the manuscript in an all-round way, to ensure the rigor, standardization and integrity of the manuscript content. We once again sincerely appreciate your valuable time and effort dedicated to the review of our manuscript.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Author Response: We have carefully checked all the review feedback from Reviewer #3, and there are no comments or suggestions requiring revision. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort that Reviewer #3 has dedicated to the review of our manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: 20260325_submit_Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0352997.s009.docx (11.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Vinothkannan Ravichandran

14 Jun 2026

A Novel COE-D8-Fosfomycin Conjugate Effectively Combats First-line Antibiotic Resistant Uropathogenic Escherichia coli

PONE-D-25-19542R2

Dear Dr. Ruan,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Vinothkannan Ravichandran

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors,

The revised manuscript has been carefully evaluated. The authors have made substantial and satisfactory revisions that adequately address the major concerns raised during the previous review.

In its current form, the manuscript demonstrates improved clarity, coherence, and scientific rigor, and is now suitable for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: Although all three reviewers had approved the manuscript, the R2 version contains substantial modifications and rewriting. Would it be possible to revert to the version approved in R1, with the only modification being the gene mzrA in italics?

Reviewer #2: Thank you to all the others. The current format of this paper is now acceptable and scientific. The author has addressed all the comments adequately.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Vinothkannan Ravichandran

PONE-D-25-19542R2

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Guo,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Vinothkannan Ravichandran

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Structure of COE-D8.

    (TIF)

    pone.0352997.s001.tif (18.6KB, tif)
    S2 Fig. Single-copy core genome based phylogeny of 46 reference and 91 clinical E. coli isolates.

    (TIF)

    pone.0352997.s002.tif (625.6KB, tif)
    S1 Table. Antibacterial activity of COE-D8 and comparative antibiotics against clinical and reference Uropathogenic E. coli(UPEC) strains.

    Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC, μg/mL) are presented for 93 clinical isolates and two reference strains(K-12 and UTI89). Abbreviations: NIT: Nitrofurantoin; FOS: Fosfomycin; CEPH: Cephalothin; SUL: Sulfamethoxazole; OFL: Ofloxacin; KM: Kanamycin; AMP: Ampicillin.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0352997.s003.docx (47.8KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Non-synonymous single base substitutions acquired during in vitro resistance evolution.

    All single base substitutions were non-synonymous mutations coding for either an amino acid substitution.The last column shows the gene before resistance evolution (left of right arrow) mutate to the gene on the right hand side experiencing corresponding evolution day.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0352997.s004.docx (16.4KB, docx)
    S3 Table. Docking Affinity in Autodock Vina.

    The gene of MzrA shows a lower docking energy of −5.0 kcal/mol than docking with the protein before resistance evolution −4.6 kcal/mol. There are no docking energy change before and after resistance evolution among the gene of MalT, EmrE and RibB.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0352997.s005.docx (16.3KB, docx)
    S4 Table. In vivo safety evaluation of COE-D8, fosfomycin, and their combination following intraperitoneal injection in mice.

    Data are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) (n = 5 per group). Statistical significance between Day 0 and Day 7 was determined using a two-tailed Student’s t-test (P < 0.05). Reference standard ranges for healthy mice: AST (36.31–235.48 U/L), ALT (10.06–96.47 U/L), and BUN (10.81–34.74 mg/dL). Abbreviations: AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; BUN, blood urea nitrogen. Statistical analysis was performed using Student’s t-test; differences are considered statistically significant with probability P < 0.05.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0352997.s006.docx (16.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0352997.s008.docx (23.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 20260325_submit_Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0352997.s009.docx (11.5KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES