Skip to main content
PLOS Pathogens logoLink to PLOS Pathogens
. 2026 Aug 14;22(8):e1014237. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1014237

Encoded metabolic remodeling amplifies drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis

Abigail M Frey 1, Gregory H Babunovic 2, Peter H Culviner 1, Xin Wang 1, Ella Meirav 2, Mingyu Gan 3, Junhao Zhu 1, D Branch Moody 2, Qingyun Liu 3,4, Sarah M Fortune 1,*
Editor: Marcel A Behr5
PMCID: PMC13497261  PMID: 42599987

Abstract

Antibiotic pressure causes pathogens to evolve many forms of altered drug susceptibility. In addition to target or activator mutations conferring canonical drug resistance, mutations can serve as steppingstones to or enhancers of resistance. In clinical strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb), we find that idsA2, which encodes an isoprenyl pyrophosphate synthase involved in the synthesis of precursors for essential components of the cell wall and electron transport chain, is undergoing diversifying selection in Lineage 4, and that these mutations are associated with the acquisition of first-line antibiotic resistance. By engineering isogenic Mtb strains to express clinically prevalent variants of idsA2, we show that idsA2 variants alter the inhibitory concentrations of first-line drugs, most significantly increasing the inhibitory concentration of ethambutol by two-fold. Targeted lipid analyses reveal that disrupting IdsA2 function redirects limited resources in the isoprenoid synthesis pathway, leading to increased production of decaprenyl phosphate species. This suggests that idsA2 and ubiA mutations share an ethambutol resistance mechanism. Where idsA2 mutations arise after embB mutations, they maintain their multiplicative effect on the inhibitory concentration of ethambutol such that the variants together result in high-level resistance. As a result, identification of idsA2 mutations can be utilized to improve the specificity of genotypic ethambutol susceptibility testing. Together, this work shows how idsA2 mutations remodel bacterial metabolism and augment ethambutol resistance.

Author summary

Tuberculosis is the deadliest infectious disease in the world and becomes more difficult to treat with the acquisition of drug resistance. Defining the mechanisms and genetic basis of drug resistance will allow for improved screening and drug regimen optimization for treatment success. To identify previously unrecognized mechanisms of altered drug susceptibility, we have combined population genomics and experimental genetics approaches, focusing on Mycobacterium tuberculosis genes evolving in clinical strains. We identified idsA2 as a target of frequent mutations that are associated with drug resistance. Experimental data indicate that idsA2 variants decrease the susceptibility of the bacteria to multiple antibiotics through isoprenoid synthesis remodeling, with the strongest effect on ethambutol resistance. IdsA2 mutations often occur after embB mutations to multiplicatively increase ethambutol resistance. These data suggest that inclusion of idsA2 variants in drug resistance testing could improve the specificity of genotypic detection of ethambutol resistance.

Introduction

While traditionally thought of as monomorphic, the importance of the genetic variation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) has become increasingly evident. This variation has evolved over both short and long timescales, resulting in heterogeneity within a single patient as well as distinct phylogenetic lineages of Mtb across the globe [1]. Drug resistance mutations are some of the most prevalent variants in Mtb [2,3], illustrating the strength of antibiotics as a selective pressure on the Mtb genome. Although the best understood mutations selected by antibiotic pressure cause high-level drug resistance, drug pressure also selects for other classes of mutations that give Mtb a fitness advantage during treatment. Drug tolerance mutations allow Mtb to survive longer in the face of drug stress [4]; resilience mutations shorten the period of post-antibiotic growth arrest [2]; and compensatory mutations mitigate the fitness defects caused by high-level resistance mutations [5]. Furthermore, while resistance mutations are typically found in drug activators or targets [6], low-level resistance mutations that indirectly but meaningfully alter antibiotic action have been associated with treatment failure and enable acquisition of additional drug resistance variants [7,8].

The complexity of bacterial evolution under drug pressure can be effectively dissected by coupling population genomic and experimental approaches. Here we leverage this strategy to identify the impact of clinically prevalent mutations in idsA2, a common target of diversifying selection in the Mtb genome with variants that have been associated with drug resistance [9,10]. IdsA2 encodes an isoprenyl pyrophosphate synthase (IdsA2) that catalyzes the synthesis of precursors required for essential processes such as building the cell wall and bacterial energetics [11]. As determined by transposon insertion screening, idsA2 itself is predicted to be nonessential in vitro, putatively due to enzymatic redundancy [12–14]. Isoprenoid synthesis itself is not targeted by any antimycobacterial agents.

In this work, we leverage our Mtb variant dataset derived from over 55,000 clinical strains to show that idsA2 is mutating for loss of function specifically in Lineage 4 Mtb strains, and these variants are associated with drug resistance. When engineered into Mtb, idsA2 variants increase bacterial survival in the face of treatment with both ethambutol and isoniazid as a result of different consequences of isoprenoid synthesis pathway remodeling. Our phylogenomic and experimental analyses suggest that the effect on ethambutol susceptibility is clinically most relevant, where idsA2 mutations combine with embB mutations to multiplicatively contribute to increased ethambutol resistance beyond critical concentrations [15]. The second-step nature of idsA2 mutations could allow them to be utilized clinically on top of embB variants to improve the specificity of ethambutol resistance predictions. In total, we present idsA2 variants as previously unappreciated genetic contributors to first-line drug resistance discovered through large-scale study of Mtb evolution.

Results

idsA2 is under selection for loss of function

Antibiotics are a profound selective force on the Mtb population and many known drug resistance genes are under diversifying selection even over short time frames in a single individual. We previously identified idsA2 as a frequent target of within-host selection [2]. Here we extended this work to determine if idsA2 variants are under diversifying selection at the population scale, leveraging our variant dataset derived from the whole genome sequencing data of ~55,000 clinical isolates (S1 Table); we refer to this dataset going forward as the 55K dataset [3]. Across all strains, the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous mutational events (pN/pS) in idsA2 was 0.99; this was in the top 6% of pN/pS values across the Mtb genome (Fig 1A). While a pN/pS of 1 is usually interpreted as evidence of neutral selection [16], it could also reflect heterogeneous selective pressures across different lineages, which have different mutational backgrounds (S2 Table). Indeed, in Lineage 4, the pN/pS of idsA2 was 1.29 which was within the top 3% of pN/pS values across the genome (Fig 1A). In Lineages 1, 2, and 3, the pN/pS values were closer to the median (S1 Fig), suggesting that the benefit or ability of idsA2 to diversify is unique to Lineage 4.

Fig 1. idsA2 is under selection for loss of function.

Fig 1

(A) Histograms showing the number of genes per pN/pS ratio across the 55K dataset (left) and Lineage 4 (right). Median values indicated by the dotted lines are both 0.69 and idsA2 pN/pS values indicated by the arrows are 0.99 and 1.29. (B) The number of strains per codon from Lineage 4 of the 55K dataset with disruptive in-frame deletions or insertions, frameshift, deleterious or tolerated missense, or nonsense mutations in idsA2. Strains with mutations introduced into H37Rv by recombineering are indicated. (C) Pie chart of the number of strains per idsA2 variant type from Lineage 4 in the 55K dataset. (D) Histogram showing the number of genes per rate of frameshifts and nonsense variants across Lineage 4 of the 55K dataset. The median value indicated by the dotted line is 12.7 mutations/kb and the number of frameshifts and nonsense mutations in idsA2 is 46.3 mutations/kb.

We next sought to predict the effect of idsA2 mutations. In Lineage 4 strains, idsA2 mutations occurred across the gene body, and 61% of strains were predicted to have a deleterious variant in idsA2, annotated as a frameshift, nonsense, or missense mutation computationally predicted to be deleterious based on sequence homology and the physical properties of amino acids (Fig 1B-1C) [17]. To contextualize this genetic signal of loss of function, we compared the burden of nonsense and frameshift mutations in idsA2 to that of other genes in the Mtb genome (S3 Table). IdsA2 was in the top 6% of genes for frequency of frameshift and nonsense mutations (Fig 1D), suggesting that in Lineage 4, idsA2 is under selection for loss of function mutations.

In clinical strains, idsA2 mutations are associated with drug resistance

We then assessed the association between idsA2 mutations and antibiotic sensitivity using data collected by the CRyPTIC Consortium, which performed whole-genome sequencing and measured minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) for first- and second-line drugs across more than 10,000 Mtb strains (S2 Fig) [18]. For each drug, we calculated the average difference in MIC between Lineage 4 strains with idsA2 mutations and their phylogenetic nearest neighbor(s), assessing the significance of this difference through permutation testing. IdsA2 mutational events were significantly associated with increases in the MIC of rifampicin, isoniazid, and ethambutol (Figs 2 and S3). The average difference in MIC was further increased when limited to only predicted-deleterious idsA2 mutational events (S4 Fig). We did not identify a statistically significant association between idsA2 mutational events and increases in the MICs of rifampicin, isoniazid, or ethambutol in Lineages 1, 2, or 3 (S5 Fig). Due to the concurrent use of these drugs for treatment of tuberculosis, mutations altering drug susceptibility are genetically linked (S6 Fig). Therefore, these data demonstrate that idsA2 mutations are associated with first-line drug resistance mutations, but not whether idsA2 mutations themselves shift the MIC of any of these drugs. Thus, we next sought to experimentally define the effect of idsA2 mutations.

Fig 2. idsA2 mutations are associated with drug resistance in clinical strains.

Fig 2

Percent changes in minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of 13 drugs associated with idsA2 mutational events in Lineage 4 data from the CRyPTIC consortium. Each dot represents the MIC difference attributed to an idsA2 mutational event relative to its nearest neighbor strains, normalized using the maximum possible difference in MIC for the drug. The blue line indicates the average MIC difference across all idsA2 mutational events. A permutation test was performed to assess significance of the average difference associated with idsA2, and multiple test correction was performed with an FDR of 1%. ** q < 0.01.

idsA2 mutations alter sensitivity to first-line antibiotics

We used oligo recombineering to introduce clinically identified idsA2 variants into H37Rv, a Lineage 4 reference strain [19]. We chose two variants: the nonsense variant, S115X, representing an overt loss of function of IdsA2, and the missense variant, L204R, which was the most common idsA2 mutation across Lineage 4 in our 55K dataset (Fig 1B). Because the causality of chromosomal single nucleotide variants cannot be established through complementation, we generated multiple independent clones for each allele and used whole genome sequencing to identify potential secondary site mutations. We also isolated recombineered clones without idsA2 variants to use as wildtype controls.

We then assessed the impact of the engineered idsA2 mutations on Mtb fitness in the presence and absence of drug. In standard axenic culture conditions, idsA2 mutant strains had a minor, although statistically significant, growth defect relative to wildtype strains (S7 Fig). The strains’ antibiotic sensitivity was assessed for four first- and second-line antibiotics: ethambutol, isoniazid, rifampicin, and ofloxacin, quantitating the drug concentration at which 90% of bacterial growth was inhibited (IC90). Mutations in idsA2 caused a roughly 2-fold increase in the IC90 of ethambutol, a more modest increase in the IC90 of isoniazid, and a small but consistent decrease in the IC90 of rifampicin (Figs 3 and S7). We validated these results in a growth-based competition assay, which demonstrated that the idsA2 mutant strains have a significant fitness advantage over wildtype Mtb in ethambutol and isoniazid at drug concentrations equivalent to the IC90s of the wildtype strain (S8 Fig). These data also align with data from transposon-insertion and CRISPRi knockdown libraries under drug treatment, again showing that idsA2 mutants have a fitness advantage in ethambutol and isoniazid [20,21]. Mutations in idsA2 did not increase drug tolerance to any of the tested agents as measured by time-kill assays (S9 Fig).

Fig 3. Isogenic idsA2 mutants have altered sensitivity to first-line antibiotics.

Fig 3

(A) Fold change in IC90 of four tuberculosis antibiotics, ethambutol (EMB), isoniazid (INH), rifampicin (RIF), and ofloxacin (OFX), as measured by AlamarBlue reduction assay. IC90 was calculated from nonlinear regression curves for each clone replicate from two experiments. Differences between each mutant and wildtype were tested by performing ordinary one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test on IC90 values (S7 Fig). (B-E) Nonlinear regression curves of growth in varying concentrations of antibiotics. Points come from two independent experiments, and each represents the average of two (wildtype) to three technical replicates for each clone replicate.

IdsA2 loss of function alters isoprenoid synthesis

To increase our confidence in the relationship between idsA2 variants and these subtle but reproducible antibiotic effects, we next sought to define the metabolic consequences of idsA2 disruption. Previous in vitro and structural analyses showed that purified IdsA2 catalyzes short-chain isoprenoid synthesis, subsequently allowing the synthesis of essential components such as cell wall precursors and menaquinone. Specifically, IdsA2 mediates the conversion of dimethylallyl pyrophosphate (DMAPP) through the intermediate molecule geranyl pyrophosphate (E-C10), to farnesyl pyrophosphate (E-C15) (Fig 4A) [11,22]. It is also capable of producing the downstream molecule geranylgeranyl pyrophosphate (E-C20) [23]. At each of these steps however, previous work suggests there is functional redundancy of IdsA2 with other prenyl diphosphate synthases such as GrcC2, IdsA1, and IdsB [23–25]. It was not clear to what extent these enzymes would compensate for IdsA2 disruption.

Fig 4. IdsA2 functionality impacts isoprenoid synthesis and bacterial energetics.

Fig 4

(A) Model of isoprenoid synthesis feeding into menaquinone (MK) production and the electron transport chain [11,26]. Made in BioRender. Frey, AM. (2026) https://BioRender.com/pz1qsl9 [27]. (B) Concentrations of C5 (DMAPP) and E-C20 from wildtype and S115X mutant Mtb as measured by LCMS against standards added quantitatively. Dots are a combination of two clone replicates each with three culture replicates. Different shapes indicate different clone replicates. Differences between S115X and wildtype were measured by Mann-Whitney test for each molecule separately. (C) Total menaquinone as measured by LCMS. Dots are a combination of three clone replicates each with three culture replicates. Different shapes indicate different clone replicates. Differences in menaquinone levels determined by Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparisons test. (D) Ratio of NAD+ to NADH determined by fluorometric assay. Data combines two independent experiments. Differences in NAD+/NADH ratio determined by ordinary one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. (E) Fold change in IC90 of bedaquline (BDQ) and pretomanid (PA-824) as measured by AlamarBlue reduction assay. IC90 was calculated from nonlinear regression curves for each clone replicate from one representative experiment for BDQ. IC90 was calculated from nonlinear regression curves for each clone replicate from two experiments for PA-824. Differences between each mutant and wildtype were tested by performing ordinary one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test on IC90 values (S12 Fig).

To directly assess how idsA2 disruption impacts this pathway, we sought to quantify the steady-state abundance of the predicted substrates and products of IdsA2 in the cell. To this end, we lysed the idsA2 nonsense mutant (S115X) and wildtype strains in acetonitrile, methanol, and water and detected metabolites using liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LCMS). In the mutant strain, DMAPP concentrations were significantly increased and E-C20 concentrations were significantly decreased compared to the wildtype strain (Fig 4B). E-C10 and C15 were not detected, presumably because their previously described rapid turnover prevents their accumulation as detectable pools [11,28]. These data show that loss of IdsA2 activity alters the short-chain isoprenoid synthesis pathway.

Since E-C20 is the precursor to menaquinone, we next used targeted lipid LCMS with collisional mass spectrometry to assess the levels of menaquinone in idsA2 mutant and wildtype strains [29]. We found that total menaquinone levels in the missense mutant strain were significantly decreased compared to the wildtype strain, with the nonsense mutant trending in the same direction (Figs 4C and S10-S11). Since menaquinone and NAD redox are coupled by NADH dehydrogenase activity [26,30,31], we then used a fluorescence assay to measure NAD+ and NADH concentrations and found that the ratio of NAD+ to NADH similarly trended down in both idsA2 mutant strains (Figs 4D and S11). In previous experimental and genomic studies, decreases in NAD+/NADH ratios have been implicated in isoniazid resistance [32–36]. Therefore, the observed alteration in NAD+/NADH redox in the idsA2 mutant strains represents a plausible mechanism for the small increase in the IC90 of isoniazid (Fig 3).

Isoniazid activity is impacted by, but does not directly target, bacterial energetics. However, newer World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended second-line antibiotics such as bedaquiline and pretomanid do. Therefore, we asked whether idsA2 mutations also impact the sensitivity to these drugs. Interestingly, idsA2 mutant strains were significantly more sensitive to bedaquiline, demonstrating the potential for collateral sensitivity caused by these mutations (Figs 4E and S12). The mechanism behind this collateral sensitivity is unclear. In a CRISPRi screen, it was observed that both bedaquiline and rifampicin sensitivity increase in strains with increased permeability [21]. We tested the hypothesis that idsA2 mutants also have increased permeability by measuring calcein accumulation in the bacterial cell. However, our findings were inconsistent between the idsA2 mutant strains (S13 Fig). Further work is required to determine the mechanisms of these sensitivity phenotypes.

idsA2 mutants have increased levels of cell wall precursors

We next asked whether the synthesis of cell wall precursors is also impacted by idsA2 mutation. On this arm of the isoprenoid synthesis pathway, geranyl pyrophosphate (E-C10) is converted by Rv1086 into the Z-isomer of farnesyl pyrophosphate (Z-C15) which is then directly converted into decaprenyl phosphate, a crucial carrier lipid for synthesis of multiple constituents of the mycobacterial cell wall (Fig 5A) [37–39]. Directed analysis of the total abundance of decaprenyl phosphate species in idsA2 mutant and wildtype strains found that steady-state levels of decaprenyl phosphate species were significantly increased in both the idsA2 nonsense and missense mutant strains (Figs 5B and S14). These data suggest a straightforward metabolic rerouting whereby IdsA2 impairment causes increased E-C10, which is converted into Z-C15 – presumably by Rv1086 – and this excess Z-C15 is in turn used for synthesis of decaprenyl phosphate [37,38].

Fig 5. idsA2 mutants have increased synthesis of decaprenyl phosphate species.

Fig 5

(A) Model of isoprenoid synthesis feeding into arabinogalactan and lipoarabinomannan (LAM) synthesis pathway [11,40]. Made in BioRender. Frey, AM. (2026) https://BioRender.com/7o2xeht [41]. (B-C) Total decaprenyl phosphate (DP) species and decaprenylphosphoryl pentose (DPP) as measured by LCMS. Dots are a combination of three clone replicates each with three culture replicates. Different shapes indicate different clone replicates. Differences in DPP levels determined by Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparisons test.

Notably, one decaprenyl phosphate species with significantly increased levels in the idsA2 mutant strains was decaprenylphosphoryl pentose (DPP) (Figs 5C and S14). Previous work has found that mutation or upregulation of the decaprenylphosphoryl-5-phosphoribose (DPPR) synthase, encoded by ubiA, also increased both DPP levels and ethambutol MIC [42–44]. Since DPP is the combined measure of decaprenylphosphoryl arabinose (DPA) – the carrier molecule for arabinose [45,46] – and the precursor to DPA, decaprenylphosphoryl ribose (DPR), it was proposed that the increased quantity of DPA allowed arabinose to outcompete ethambutol for binding to its drug target, the arabinosyltransferase EmbB [44,47,48]. In support of this model, we found that in addition to increased levels of DPP, idsA2 mutants trended towards higher levels of lipoarabinomannan (LAM), reflecting an increase in product abundance downstream of DPA synthesis, and suggesting that proportional changes in DPP are a reasonable readout to estimate proportional changes in DPA levels (S15 Fig). Together, our genomic, functional, and metabolic data support a model in which idsA2 variants increase the inhibitory concentration of ethambutol through increased production of DPA.

idsA2 mutations have multiplicative effects with embB mutations

Since mutation of EmbB, the arabinosyl transferase targeted by ethambutol, is the most common ethambutol resistance mechanism [49], we next sought to determine if idsA2 mutations interact with mutations in embB. Using the Lineage 4 strains in the 55K dataset, we performed phylogenetic reconstruction to assess whether embB mutations occurred before or after idsA2 mutational events. Excluding nodes in which ordering could not be determined, 90% of the time, embB mutations arose before idsA2 mutations (Fig 6A). EmbB mutations arose before predicted-deleterious idsA2 mutations 97% of the time (S16 Fig). This argues that idsA2 variants are not primarily steppingstone mutations for acquisition of embB variants and instead suggests that they confer an additional advantage on top of existing ethambutol resistance.

Fig 6. idsA2 mutations confer multiplicative drug resistance with embB mutations.

Fig 6

(A) Ordering of 216 idsA2 mutational events with embB mutations within Lineage 4 of the 55K dataset. (B) IC90s of ethambutol (EMB) calculated from nonlinear regression curves for each clone replicate from two experiments. (C) Nonlinear regression curves of growth in varying concentrations of ethambutol for each strain group. Points come from two independent experiments, and each represents the average of two (idsA2 wildtype) to three technical replicates for each clone replicate. (D) Growth curves in standard 7H9 media. Differences between mutants and wildtype were tested by performing ordinary one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test for each day. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

To experimentally test the effects of idsA2 variants in combination with embB mutations, we selected for ethambutol resistance mutations in both the idsA2 mutant and control strains. Representative strains from each idsA2 strain background were grown on ethambutol, candidate colonies were whole-genome sequenced, and two independent clones with the ethambutol resistance-associated embB Q497R mutation from each strain background were selected [49]. There were no additional mutations shared between strains (S4 Table). We then assessed the effects of the combined mutations on ethambutol resistance. In the absence of additional ethambutol resistance mutations, idsA2 mutations increased the ethambutol IC90 by 0.5 µg/mL, resulting in an IC90 of 1 µg/mL; this is a two-fold shift from baseline (Figs 3 and 6B-6C). In the presence of embB Q497R, idsA2 mutations increased the ethambutol IC90 by 4 µg/mL, resulting in an IC90 of 8 µg/mL (Fig 6B-6C). Therefore, idsA2 mutations maintained the ability to shift the inhibitory concentration of ethambutol by two-fold, even when starting at a higher baseline ethambutol IC90. An ethambutol IC90 of 8 µg/mL is sufficient for a strain to be considered clinically resistant [50]. Thus, idsA2 mutations can combine with embB mutations to elevate ethambutol resistance to clinically relevant concentrations.

An alternative explanation for embB and idsA2 variant ordering could be that idsA2 variants compensate for a loss of fitness due to embB mutation. However, the growth defect caused by the idsA2 variants was maintained in the presence of the embB mutation, while embB Q497R itself does not alter replicative fitness in axenic culture (Fig 6D). Together, these data demonstrate that idsA2 mutations augment ethambutol resistance.

Presence of idsA2 mutations can increase the specificity of ethambutol susceptibility testing

There is a need to improve genotype-based ethambutol resistance diagnostics [51]. Currently, the only gene with mutations associated with ethambutol resistance according to the WHO is embB, and there remain gaps in both the sensitivity and specificity of WHO-verified embB mutations for detecting phenotypic ethambutol resistance [49]. Knowing the effect of idsA2 mutations on ethambutol resistance, we asked if there is clinical utility in identifying idsA2 mutations for genotypic ethambutol susceptibility testing.

Returning to the CRyPTIC dataset, we first assessed the sensitivity and specificity of predicting ethambutol resistance using only WHO-verified ethambutol resistance mutations in embB. Since lineage typing would not typically occur at diagnosis, we used all strains regardless of lineage for this analysis. EmbB-based diagnosis of ethambutol resistance – here defining resistant strains as having an ethambutol MIC ≥ 4 µg/mL and sensitive strains as having an MIC of ≤2 µg/mL – had a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 95% (Fig 7A). Since idsA2 mutations often arise after embB mutations, inclusion of idsA2 variants was not expected to increase sensitivity. However, specificity is also an important metric for diagnostics, as a high false positive rate can lead to unnecessary escalation to more toxic drug regimens. We hypothesized that checking for the existence of an idsA2 mutation in an embB mutant strain may improve the specificity of detecting ethambutol resistance. Indeed, the specificity of using the combined presence of a WHO-verified embB mutation and an idsA2 mutation for detection of ethambutol resistance was 99.93%, or a less than 1% false positive rate (Fig 7B).

Fig 7. Second-step ethambutol resistance mutations improve diagnostic specificity.

Fig 7

(A) Distribution of ethambutol MICs across all strains in the CRyPTIC dataset with WHO-verified embB mutations in pink. 11% of strains with WHO-verified embB mutations have an MIC ≤ 2 µg/mL meaning they would be false positives for diagnosing ethambutol resistance. (B) Distribution of ethambutol MICs across WHO-verified embB mutant strains with strains with idsA2 mutations labeled in purple. 8% of strains with a WHO-verified embB mutation and mutation in idsA2 have an MIC ≤ 2 µg/mL meaning they would be false positives for diagnosing ethambutol resistance. (C) Distribution of ethambutol MICs across WHO-verified embB mutant strains with second-step mutations in purples. 5% of strains with a WHO-verified embB mutation and a second step mutation in idsA2, ubiA, or embB, have an MIC ≤ 2 µg/mL meaning they would be false positives for diagnosing ethambutol resistance.

Since idsA2 mutations were present in <2% of embB mutant strains in our dataset, we next asked if we could improve the frequency at which this two-step approach would be effective by detecting mutations in other genes representing a second step to ethambutol resistance. Mutations in ubiA and the presence of more than one mutation in embB have both been associated with higher ethambutol MICs [44,52]. Repeating our analysis with these variants, we found that in both cases the specificity was approximately 99.7% for prediction of ethambutol resistance, again indicating a less than 1% false positive rate (S1 Data). Furthermore, approximately 27% of embB mutant strains had additional mutations in at least one of these three genes (Fig 7C). Therefore, 27% of the time, the specificity in diagnosing ethambutol resistance can be improved to over 99% by identifying secondary-site mutations in strains with WHO-verified ethambutol resistance variants.

Discussion

The pleiotropic effects of idsA2 mutation on drug susceptibility

In this study, we demonstrate that idsA2 is under selection in a lineage-specific manner and that, in Lineage 4 Mtb strains, loss of IdsA2 enzymatic function is associated with first-line drug resistance. IdsA2 loss of function remodels the isoprenoid synthesis pathway, resulting in wide-ranging impacts on essential processes from cell wall synthesis to bacterial energetics. This pathway remodeling is also linked to its most clinically relevant effect, amplifying ethambutol resistance after embB mutation.

This work demonstrates the complex ramifications of metabolic rewiring on drug susceptibility and the importance of epistatic interactions on the presentation of those effects. For example, we observed that idsA2 mutations are sufficient to increase the sensitivity of rifampicin in isogenic strains. However, in the clinical strains assayed in the CRyPTIC dataset, idsA2 mutations often co-occur with mutations in rpoB, which cause high-level rifampicin resistance, seemingly abolishing any enhanced susceptibility that the idsA2 variant may have conferred. We note that the mechanistic basis of the changes in rifampicin and bedaquiline susceptibility remain unclear; we considered changes in cell wall permeability which has been previously associated with a similar set of drug phenotypes [21], but did not find consistent evidence of this in a calcein accumulation assay.

In general, evolution favors antibiotic escape. Thus, while the collateral sensitivity to bedaquiline is a clinically encouraging finding, it is more concerning that some new drugs may suffer from collateral resistance. Quabodepistat, a drug that targets DprE1, one of the two essential enzymes involved in the conversion of DPR to DPA, is currently undergoing Phase 3 clinical trials for the treatment of drug-resistant TB as part of a combination therapy [53]. Although not identified in studies of Quabodepistat, studies of other DprE1 inhibitors have identified ubiA mutations as causing low-level resistance [54,55]. Therefore, it is plausible that increased synthesis of DPR could outcompete DprE1 inhibitors from binding to their targets, and that this new drug class could therefore be less effective against strains with ubiA or idsA2 mutations. Additionally, idsA2 mutations spontaneously developed in the presence of a new thieno[2,3-b]pyridin-6(7H)-one derivative [56]. Together, this illustrates the importance of testing new antimycobacterial compounds on strains with existing drug resistance.

Validating IdsA2 functionality in whole-cell assays

In vitro studies of isoprenoid synthesis enzymes were essential to our understanding of this pathway; however, they incompletely account for the complex whole-cell environment. Here, our analysis of the steady-state abundance of isoprene-based molecules in whole-cell lysate from wildtype and idsA2 mutant bacteria allowed us to infer the role of IdsA2 in the context of functionally redundant enzymes and validate previous findings [11]. Aligning with structural evidence [22], the simplest explanation for the significant accumulation of DMAPP in the IdsA2 loss-of-function strain is that IdsA2 uses DMAPP as a substrate in the whole-cell context. Furthermore, although we could not directly detect high turnover intermediates E-C10 or E-C15, we can infer that IdsA2 uses E-C10 as a substrate, as decreased competition for E-C10 would allow for metabolic rerouting and the observed increase in decaprenyl phosphate species in the idsA2 mutant strains. Finally, previous work has found that IdsA2 can synthesize E-C20 in vitro [11,24]. We found that E-C20 levels were decreased in our IdsA2 loss-of-function strain; however, it is unclear whether this is due to loss of IdsA2 as a redundant E-C15 to E-C20 synthesizing enzyme or due to decreased E-C15 substrate availability. Overall, our work confirms previous findings that IdsA2 is a DMAPP/E-C10 to E-C10/E-C15 synthase, with a potential role in E-C20 synthesis.

Selection on the isoprenoid synthesis pathway

Ethambutol is of moderate potency as an antimycobacterial agent, and it is perhaps not surprising that the cell has discovered multiple ways to evade ethambutol pressure. As discussed above, although mutating the drug target embB is the most common way to acquire ethambutol resistance, there is evidence that ubiA mutations also contribute to ethambutol resistance by increasing DPA levels [44]. In this work, we provide evidence that idsA2 mutations contribute to ethambutol resistance through the same mechanism, and we propose that they may not be the only other mutations to do so. Interestingly, published work assessing signals of selection in the Mtb genome across the four major lineages found modest signals of diversifying selection in grcC2 and idsB – genes encoding enzymes with functional redundancy to IdsA2, acting at the DMAPP to E-C10 and E-C15 to E-C20 steps respectively [23,24] – in Lineage 2 [3]. Further work will be required to determine if mutations in these genes or others phenotypically replicate idsA2 mutants.

Further work is also required to understand the reason for these lineage-specific signals of selection. One possibility is that there may be a preference for acquisition of a mutation in one lineage over another due to an epistatic interaction with a lineage-defining mutation. For idsA2, a variant private to Lineage 4 in rv1086, which encodes the protein that converts E-C10 to Z-C15, is a plausible explanation for the Lineage 4-specific idsA2 selection [37]. It should also be noted that, consistent with the literature [1,57], in our datasets there is a higher rate of embB mutations conferring ethambutol resistance in Lineage 2 strains (45% in the 55K dataset) compared to the other lineages (8–15% in the 55K dataset). This could contribute to the observed lineage-specific selective pressure on idsA2 or could be an additional example of epistasis. Overall, while we have established that there is an increased rate of idsA2 mutation in Lineage 4, it remains to be tested whether an idsA2 mutation introduced to a strain from another lineage would recapitulate the phenotypes we observed in Lineage 4.

The challenge of genomically predicting ethambutol resistance

This work shows how both lineage-specific selection and small MIC changes can obfuscate the importance of a variant in drug resistance, especially where genetic interactions may result in larger shifts in MIC than would be predicted by the effects of each genetic variant alone. These issues likely contribute to the challenge of identifying genetic markers of ethambutol resistance, where there remain gaps in both the sensitivity and specificity of known variants to detect phenotypic ethambutol susceptibility [49,58]. These gaps may be due in part to the continuous nature of ethambutol resistance. The field has traditionally sought out single variants to explain and detect high-level drug resistance. This approach is well suited for drugs such as isoniazid where the MICs have a bimodal distribution due to the substantial jump in MIC caused by single variants. However, ethambutol MICs distribute unimodally with a long tail skewing up towards resistance [50]. This and other work show that this is not only due to embB mutations conferring varying levels of resistance, but due to the stepwise increases of MIC on top of embB variants caused by mutations in idsA2, ubiA, and additional embB mutations [44,52]. Importantly, we show that by leveraging an understanding of combinatorial ethambutol resistance, the specificity of predicting ethambutol resistance can be increased. As the field improves modeling for predicting phenotypic drug resistance, lineage and sub-lineage effects as well as multi-step evolution should be considered.

Conclusion

In this work, we show that idsA2 variants have pleiotropic effects on the cell, of which the elevated abundance of decaprenyl phosphate species provides the most direct connection to the ability of idsA2 mutants to grow in higher ethambutol concentrations. Notably, we show that idsA2 mutations also augment resistance on top of embB mutations, elevating resistance to the clinical breakpoint. This adds idsA2 to a group of second-step mutations contributing to ethambutol resistance including mutations in ubiA and second-site mutations in embB. Detection of these second-step mutations can increase the specificity of embB mutation-based ethambutol resistance prediction. These results not only help close the gap in our genotypic understanding of phenotypic drug susceptibility in Mtb, but also emphasize the importance of considering the genetic interactions that might create lineage-specific or combinatorial drug phenotypes that might be relevant to patient care.

Methods

Genomic analyses

The two datasets used in this study are referred to as the 55K dataset and the CRyPTIC dataset. We used a table of pN/pS values calculated from the 55K dataset for previously published work [3], but excluding reversions (S1 Table). Variant calling and tree building for the 55K dataset was performed for a previous study [3]. Resulting phylogenetic trees, ancestral reconstruction, and variant calling were deposited to Mendeley (https://doi.org/10.17632/h9dd6hsvc2.1). The CRyPTIC Consortium has generously made their dataset publicly available. We downloaded the CRyPTIC_reuse_20231208.csv and used the ENA_RUN information to pull whole genome sequences from the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) and perform variant calling using the same pipeline as used for the 55K dataset with H37Rv as a reference [3]. Resulting phylogenetic trees, ancestral reconstruction, and variant calling were deposited to Mendeley (https://doi.org/10.17632/cy4dy352kj.1). Included in this pipeline, annotations and effects for each variant were called with snpeff and sift4g, and ancestral reconstruction was performed using pastml with DOWNPASS parsimony [17,59,60]. Whenever we refer to variants in a specific gene, we mean any variants that are annotated as being within the gene and meeting the following criteria: disruptive inframe deletion or insertion, frameshift, missense, or stop variants. When we refer specifically to predicted-deleterious idsA2 mutations, those were variants annotated as frameshift or stop variants by snpeff or deleterious missense variants by sift4g. tbprofiler was used to assign lineages for each strain; only Lineage 4 strains were used for all analyses with the exception of Figs 1A and 7 [61,62]. Code used for the following analyses is available in the associated Github (https://github.com/abigailmfrey/IdsA2_Paper_Code). All analyses were performed using the Harvard FAS Research Computing (FASRC) cluster.

Variant plotting

Variants within the idsA2 coding region (Gene ID Rv2173) and meeting the variant requirements described above were pulled from the annotated event calls for the whole dataset of interest. Lineage 4 strains with these variants were identified. The number of strains with each variant was calculated, and then variants were grouped by codon per annotation type. Missense variants were designated as deleterious or tolerated by sift4g [17]. Disruptive inframe insertions and deletions were combined, and any combination of annotations including a frameshift was counted as a strain with a frameshift variant. The results were plotted in lollipop form across the gene or in pie chart form to demonstrate abundance of variant type using GraphPad Prism 10.

Loss of function prediction analysis

To compare loss of function signals across the genome, the rate of frameshift and nonsense mutations per kilobase per gene was calculated using the 55K dataset. Frameshift and stop variants were pulled from the event calling, removing variants with a miss rate of 5% or higher. Variants were also removed if they fell in a region of the genome deemed unreliable for variant calling or had more than one reversion [63]. Genes must have had at least 80% of the gene callable and have at least 100 bases. The number of frameshifts and stop variants per gene was then divided by the number of kilobases in the callable region of the gene resulting in events per kilobase.

Variant association with MIC in CRyPTIC dataset

To assess the association of idsA2 variants with MIC changes across the 13 drugs from the CRyPTIC dataset, we sought to determine the difference in MIC between strains resulting from idsA2 mutational events and their nearest neighbors. First, we performed filtering on the MIC data. Only MIC values defined as high quality for the drug being analyzed were used. Due to differences in plate set-up, the extreme values were adjusted to reflect only the values available on both plates [50]. For example, UKMYC5 has an ethambutol range of 0.06-8 mg/L with minimum MIC values labeled as <=0.06 mg/L and maximum >8 mg/L. UKMYC6 has an ethambutol range of 0.25-32 mg/L with minimum MIC values labeled as <=0.25 mg/L and maximum >32 mg/L. For our analysis, all values less than or equal to 0.25 (<=0.06, 0.12, <=0.25, 0.25) from both plates were labeled as 0.25 while all values greater than or equal to 8 (8, > 8, 16, 32, > 32) were labeled as 8.

Next, we calculated the difference in MIC for each strain and node relative to their respective near neighbors on the phylogenetic tree. Variant calling, tree building, annotation, and variant settings are described above. The CRyPTIC tree was pruned using dendropy to include only strains in the lineage of interest with high quality MIC data for the drug of interest [64]. Across the whole tree, we calculated the difference in MIC between each target and sibling set, otherwise referred to as the nearest neighbor(s). By calculating a value for the difference in MIC for each strain and node, we could then use this dataset to both identify nodes with idsA2 mutational events and permute randomly across the tree.

We identified the nodes with idsA2 mutational events using the variant calling per our standard settings coupled with the ancestral reconstruction. Each point plotted in Fig 2 is data from a single idsA2 mutational event. We averaged the differences in MIC across idsA2 events to acquire the associated change in MIC for idsA2 mutational events, visualized by the blue line in Fig 2. There are three instances in which the nearest neighbor strains to an idsA2 event node have an idsA2 mutant strain, however, we chose to retain these events in the dataset for consistency with the permutation test, in which we averaged the calculated differences across the same number of random nodes as idsA2 events in that tree, 10,000 times. Significance was determined by how many times the test returned an average difference greater than the idsA2 events. Multiple testing was corrected by two-stage linear step-up procedure of Benjamini, Krieger and Yekutieli in Graphpad Prism 10 with a 1% false discovery rate.

Mycobacterium tuberculosis isogenic mutant strain construction

IdsA2 point mutants were constructed using oligo-mediated recombineering as previously described [2,19]. Specifically, a strain of H37Rv was transformed with two plasmids, pKM427 (a chromosomal site L5 integrating vector carrying a zeocin resistance cassette and a hygromycin cassette that is inactivated by a premature stop codon) and pKM402 (an episomal vector carrying the phage recT recombinase gene under an ATc inducible promoter). The resulting strain was grown to early log phase, induced with ATc, then transformed with two single-strand DNA oligos. One oligo confers hygromycin resistance, and the other oligo carries the idsA2 mutation of interest (S115X or L204R). The transformants were recovered for 2 days in 7H9 (7H9 salts with 0.2% glycerol, 10% OADC, 0.05% Tween-80) then plated on 7H10 (7H10 media with 0.5% glycerol, 10% OADC, 0.05% Tween-80) containing hygromycin (50 μg/mL). Colonies were screened for idsA2 mutations by Sanger sequencing. Three colonies were retained for each mutant of interest and three hygromycin-resistant colonies with no idsA2 mutations were retained for use as wildtype controls. All strains were cured of the pKM402 plasmid. The resulting strains were whole genome sequenced (200 Mbp Illumina DNA sequencing, SeqCenter). Whole genome sequencing reads have been deposited onto the SRA (BioProject ID PRJNA1356913). Variants relative to H37Rv were identified using breseq [65]. Variants found in all strains, in masked regions, or found to be inconsistently called within our dataset were not included in S4 Table [63]. There were no additional variants shared between clone replicates (S4 Table). However, a single base pair deletion in papA5, a gene involved in PDIM biosynthesis, was found in one L204R clone. Due to the loss of PDIM enhancing bacterial growth rate, this clone was dropped from the study [66]. Unless otherwise indicated, experiments were conducted using three independently derived clones of wildtype and S115X strains, and two independently derived clones of the L204R strain.

Growth curves

Mid-log phase cultures grown in 7H9 at 37°C shaking were diluted to an OD600 0.001 in duplicate in 15 mL 7H9. OD600 was measured on days 3–7. Differences between each mutant and wildtype were tested by performing ordinary one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test. Two independent growth curves were performed.

Antibiotic resistance measurement

Antibiotic resistance against four commonly used anti-tuberculosis drugs (EMB, INH, RIF, and OFX) and two newer second line antibiotics (BDQ and PA824) was assessed using AlamarBlue assays as previously described with the following modifications [2,8]. Strains were grown to mid-log phase in 7H9 and diluted to a final OD600 of 0.0015 in in 200 µL 7H9 media containing antibiotics at indicated concentrations in a 96-well plate. After five days of incubation at 37°C with constant agitation, AlamarBlue reagent was added at 10% of the culture volume. The plates were then incubated at 37°C for one day before measuring absorbance. The amount of AlamarBlue reduction was estimated by subtracting background OD600 from OD570. The percentage of bacterial growth was calculated on a row-by-row basis by subtracting the relative absorbance measure of the highest drug concentration well from the relative absorbance measure of the no-drug control well. Strains were plated in duplicate (WT) or triplicate (mutant) rows. The antibiotic concentration at which growth is inhibited by 90% (IC90) for each clone replicate was approximated by performing nonlinear regression on data from two independent experiments performed with different starting concentrations using GraphPad Prism 10. For bedaquiline, calculations were performed for the two experiments independently and one representative experiment is shown. The three wildtype clones’ IC90s were averaged and used to calculate the IC90 fold-change for each clone of each strain per drug. P-values represent differences between each mutant and wildtype IC90 as tested by performing ordinary one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test. Nonlinear regression curves are shown for data where replicate rows were averaged, and regression was performed for all clone replicates together for visual clarity.

Competition assay

Competition assays in the presence of ethambutol and isoniazid were performed as previously described with the following modifications [8]. Strains were grown to mid-log phase in 7H9. Cultures were normalized to an OD600 of 0.4. Clone replicates were then pooled in equal ratio to reduce any background effect. The wildtype pool was then pooled in a 1:1 ratio with either the S115X pool or the L204R pool. A sample of each input pool was collected and gDNA was extracted to measure technical error. The input pools were then added into fresh 7H9 at final OD600 0.005 in technical triplicate. Drugs were added to the relevant flasks at the wildtype IC90 concentration as determined by the AlamarBlue assays (0.55 µg/mL ethambutol and 0.04 µg/mL isoniazid). Cultures were grown for 5 days shaking at 37°C. On day 5, the OD was taken, and the remaining bacteria was spun down, resuspended in Tris-EDTA-NaCl buffer (10 mM Tris pH 8, 1 mM EDTA, 25 mM NaCl) and gDNA was extracted using phenol:chloroform:isoamyl alcohol (25:24:1) with bead beating. A 656 base pair region of idsA2 was amplified from purified gDNA with the following primers: GACCAGCTGCGGAGGTATTT and CCGAAATGCTCGAAGATGGC. The resulting PCR product was gel purified and Sanger sequenced. The relative proportion of the mutant strain in each sample was determined based on the nucleotide peak heights. P-values represent the differences between the proportion of the mutant strain in the input, ethambutol, and isoniazid conditions compared to the no drug control as tested by performing ordinary one-way ANOVA with Šídák's multiple comparisons test. Experiment was repeated three times with similar results.

Antibiotic tolerance measurement

Antibiotic tolerance against four commonly used anti-tuberculosis drugs (EMB, INH, RIF, and OFX) was assessed using a time-kill assay as previously described with the following modifications [2]. Strains were grown to mid-log phase in 7H9 and diluted to a final OD600 of 0.05 in 10 mL 7H9 media in a 50 mL inkwell. Antibiotics were added to final concentrations of 100x the calculated MIC of our wildtype strain (55, 3, 0.6, and 34 µg/mL respectively). The cultures were then incubated at 37°C with constant agitation and sampled at day 1, day 3, and day 5. On each day, a 1 mL aliquot of each antibiotic-supplemented culture was taken, and the cells were washed and resuspended in 1mL 7H9 without antibiotic. After washing off the antibiotics, a series of dilutions determined by pilot experiments were prepared in a 96-well plate using fresh 7H9 media. 5μL of each dilution was spotted on a 7H10 agar plate with no antibiotics. Colony enumeration was performed at 24 days after plating.

Metabolite extraction

Two clone replicates of wildtype and S115X were grown in technical triplicate to mid-log phase in 7H9. 10 mL of culture was spun down at 3000 rpm for 10 minutes at 4°C then the pellet was resuspended in 1 mL of chilled 2:2:1 acetonitrile:methanol:water. Bacteria were then lysed by bead beating 0.5 min x 6 resting on ice in between cycles. Tubes were then spun down at 14,000 rpm for 10 minutes at 4°C. Supernatant was removed and filtered twice for removal from the BL3.

LC-MS/MS analysis of isoprenoid pyrophosphates

Isoprenoid pyrophosphates were analyzed using an LC–MS/MS system equipped with a Phenomenex Luna C18 column (150 × 2 mm) by the Harvard Center for Mass Spectrometry. Mobile phase A consisted of 10 mM ammonium bicarbonate, and mobile phase B was methanol. Standards were purchased in 1 mg/mL concentrations in methanol from Sigma (D4287, G6772, F6892, G6025) and run at known concentrations to generate a standard curve. 10 µL aliquots of standards and samples were injected for each run. The flow rate was maintained at 0.3 mL/min. The LC gradient program was as follows: 0 min, 0% B; 6 min, 99% B; 10 min, 99% B; 10.1 min, 0% B; 13 min, 0% B. Detection was performed in negative ionization mode using multiple reaction monitoring (MRM). MRM transitions and corresponding parameters for each analyte were as follows:

  • DMAPP (C5): m/z 245 → 78.9 (fragmentor 80 V, CE 17 V, cell voltage 4 V) and m/z 245 → 158.8 (fragmentor 80 V, CE 9 V, cell voltage 4 V)

  • GPP (E-C10): m/z 313.1 → 78.9 (fragmentor 90 V, CE 21 V, cell voltage 5 V) and m/z 313.1 → 294.9 (fragmentor 90 V, CE 4 V, cell voltage 4 V)

  • FPP (C15): m/z 381.1 → 78.9 (fragmentor 110 V, CE 21 V, cell voltage 13 V) and m/z 381.1 → 158.8 (fragmentor 110 V, CE 13 V, cell voltage 4 V)

  • GGPP (E-C20): m/z 449.2 → 79 (fragmentor 140 V, CE 33 V, cell voltage 4 V) and m/z 449.2 → 158.8 (fragmentor 140 V, CE 13 V, cell voltage 4 V)

Source parameters were set as follows: gas temperature, 350 °C; gas flow, 12 L/min; nebulizer pressure, 35 psi; sheath gas temperature, 400 °C; sheath gas flow, 12 L/min.

Concentrations of DMAPP and GGPP were normalized based on protein concentration of the sample as determined by microBCA (Thermo Scientific). Difference between S115X and wildtype were measured by Mann-Whitney test for each molecule separately.

Lipid extraction

Lipid extraction was done as previously described [29]. Cultures were grown in 7H9 to mid-log phase. They were then spun down and washed with detergent-free media then diluted to an OD600 of 0.0075 in 45 mL 7H9 without detergent in triplicate. Cultures were then grown to an OD600 of 0.55-0.7. Cultures were spun at 4000 rpm for 10 minutes and then washed twice with 10 mL Optima LCMS grade water. Pellet was resuspended in 1 mL methanol. Resuspended solution was then added to a glass vial containing 3 mL methanol and 2 mL chloroform creating a final ratio 1:2 chloroform:methanol (C:M). Samples were left for 30 minutes at room temperature to sterilize before removal from the BL3. Samples were then incubated on a rotator for 1 hour at room temperature and then were spun down at 3000 rpm for 10 minutes at room temperature and supernatant was transferred to a new glass vial. Pellet was resuspended in 1:1 C:M and incubated for 1 hour on rotator at room temperature. Spin was repeated and supernatant was collected and added to previous supernatant. Supernatant was then evaporated using Genevac. Dried lipids were resuspended in 4 mL 1:1 C:M. Lipid suspension was sonicated at 60 sonics/minute for 3 minutes, shaken throughout. Samples were again spun down and then supernatant was transferred to a pre-weighed amber glass vial. Lipids were dried using Genevac. Vials were then weighed again to acquire final total lipid mass. All weighing was performed using a Mettler Toledo XP205 analytical balance with an EN 8 SLC deionizing power supply. Lipids were resuspended to 1 mg/mL 1:1 C:M and stored at -20°C.

Lipid LCMS and collisional mass spectrometry

Lipid HPLC-MS and collision-induced dissociation mass spectrometry (CID-MS) were carried out using a reversed phase method [67]. Lipid preparations at 1 mg/mL in 1:1 C:M were evaporated under nitrogen and dissolved to the same volume in solvent A (95:5 methanol:water with 2 mM ammonium formate). 10 μg (10 μL) lipid was injected per sample, using an Agilent 1260 infinity HPLC with an Agilent Poroshell 120 EC-C18 column (1.9 μm particle size, 3.0 x 50 mm, 699675–302), connected to an Agilent 6530 electrospray ionization quantitative time-of-flight (ESI-QTOF) mass spectrometer. A flow rate of 0.15 mL/minute was used, with the following ratios of solvent A to solvent B: 0–4 minutes, 100% A; 4–10 minutes, gradient to 100% B; 10–15 minutes, 100% B; 15–20 minutes, gradient to 100% A; followed by a 5-minute postrun with 100% A. Solvent B was 90:10:0.1 1-propanol:cyclohexane:water with 3 mM ammonium formate. Ionization was maintained at 325°C gas temperature, 8 L/minute flow rate of drying gas, 35 PSI nebulizer pressure, and 3500 V. Spectra were collected at 2 spectra/second from 100 to 3200 m/z, in both the positive and negative ion modes, over separate runs. CID-MS was performed on the same instrument with the same conditions, detecting a 40–3000 m/z range with collision energy of 20–50 V, using a medium (4 m/z) mass window, starting from the chosen ion m/z rounded down to the nearest whole number minus 0.3 (e.g., for ion m/z 909.6378, CID-MS was carried out from 908.7-912.7 m/z).

Lipid measurement

Raw data and analysis files for lipid HPLC-MS can be found in the Zenodo repository, at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21362678. All analysis of lipid mass spectral data was performed using Agilent Masshunter Qualitative Analysis software. Menaquinones were detected in the positive mode, and decaprenyl species in the negative mode, by searching for exact m/z matches. The single ionized adduct with the highest intensity was chosen for each lipid. Individual chromatographic peaks were visualized and structurally validated by CID-MS and integrated in a sample-blinded manner, in profile mode, with a 10 ppm m/z window and no smoothing. Figs 4C and 5B,5C show fold change values calculated for each strain’s clone and culture replicates relative to an average value taken across all wildtype samples. There is significantly more variability within culture replicates than between clone replicates as shown in S14 Fig, allowing us to plot clone and culture replicates together. This unbiased HPLC-MS method for total Mtb lipids cannot distinguish between decaprenylphosphoryl ribose and decaprenylphosphoryl arabinose, nor decaprenylphosphoryl glucose and decaprenylphosphoryl mannose. Therefore, we report detection of decaprenylphosphoryl pentose (putatively a combination of ribose and arabinose) and decaprenylphosphoryl hexose (putatively a combination of glucose and mannose). Total decaprenyl phosphate species values were calculated by summing the intensities of each decaprenyl phosphate species we could detect: decaprenyl phosphate, decaprenylphosphoryl pentose and decaprenylphosphoryl hexose. Similarly, total menaquinone levels were calculated by summing intensities of menaquinones and dihydromenaquinones 8 and 9. P-values were determined by Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparisons test.

NAD+/NADH measurements

NAD+/NADH measurements were performed with the Fluorescent NAD/NADH Detection Kit (Cell Technology). Briefly, cultures were grown to mid-log phase in 7H9, normalized by OD600, and 1 mL or 3 mL of culture were taken for NAD or NADH measurements respectively. Samples were pelleted by centrifugation, washed twice with PBS, and resuspended in extraction buffer. Lysis buffer and bead beating lysed the bacteria and samples were incubated at 60°C for 1.5 hours. On ice, reaction and the opposite extraction buffer were added. The plate setup was performed as described with half the volume and after 1 hour incubation was read at 550 nm excitation and 595 nm emission.

Calcein accumulation assay

Permeability was assessed using Calcein AM (Invitrogen) as previously described [68]. Cultures were grown to mid-log phase. 1.8 mL was pelleted and washed twice in PBST (PBS pH 7.4 with 0.05% Tween-80). Cells were resuspended in PBST to a final OD 0.4 and 100 µL was aliquoted to a black bottom plate in technical triplicate. Plates were incubated at 37°C with shaking for 30 minutes. 1 µg/mL Calcein AM was then added to each well. Plates were incubated at 37°C shaking and read at 488 nm excitation 520 nm emission every minute for 1 hour. RFU/min was estimated by performing a simple linear regression on the data from 20 minutes on, to allow uptake to reach an equilibrium. The data across three experiments was combined and an ordinary one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test determined the difference between strains.

Detection of LAM by western blot

The method for cell glycan extraction was modified from previous work [69]. 15 mL mid-log phase culture was pelleted, spun down, resuspended in 2 mL PBST, and heat killed in 1 mL aliquots. Bacteria were then lysed by bead beating 1.5 min x 5 resting on ice in between cycles. Samples were spun at 20,000 G for 3 minutes and supernatant was removed and set aside. Cells were washed with 400 µL PBST and this was added to the supernatant. Collected supernatant was treated with 1: 2000 DNase benzonase and incubated at 37°C for 30 minutes. A 20 µL aliquot was treated with proteinase K and 10% SDS and incubated at 37°C for another 30 minutes. Samples were then treated as previously described [3]. Samples were incubated for 10 minutes at 95°C in 6X Laemmli SDS-Sample Buffer (Boston BioProducts). SeeBlue Plus2 Pre-stained Protein Standard (Invitrogen) and samples were loaded onto NuPAGE 4–12%, Bis-Tris gels (Invitrogen) and run in NuPAGE MES SDS Running Buffer (Invitrogen) for 30–45 minutes at 170 V. Protein was transferred onto nitrocellulose membranes (Thermo Scientific) using 10X Transfer Buffer (Boston Bioproducts) diluted in methanol and water (1:1:8), on a Trans-Blot Turbo Transfer System (BioRad) for 30 minutes at 25 V and 1 A. Membranes were rinsed with PBS and blocked for two hours at room temperature using Blocking Buffer for Fluorescent Western Blotting (Rockland). Monoclonal Anti-Mycobacterium tuberculosis LAM antibody, Clone CS-35, obtained through BEI Resources (NIAID, NIH: Monoclonal Anti-Mycobacterium tuberculosis LAM, Clone CS-35 (produced in vitro), NR-13811) was diluted 1:1000 in blocking buffer supplemented with 0.1% Tween-20. Membranes were incubated in primary antibody overnight at 4°C. Membranes were washed with PBS with 0.05% Tween-20. IRDye 800CW Goat anti-Mouse IgG Secondary Antibody (LI-COR) was diluted 1:20000 in blocking buffer with 0.1% Tween-20 and 0.0025% SDS. Membranes were incubated in secondary antibody for 1 hour at room temperature. Membranes were washed with PBS with 0.05% Tween-20 and left in PBS before imaging. Images were acquired with LI-COR Odyssey CLx Imager. Blot quantifications were done in Empiria Studio using automatic lane finder and background adjustments and manually adjusted band finding. Display adjustments for figure visualizations were also done in Empiria Studio. Intensities were normalized by protein concentration as determined by microBCA (Thermo Scientific). Fold changes were calculated relative to wildtype separately for each experiment, and then all data was plotted in S15 Fig, with shape fills indicating the different experiments.

Ordering analysis

To determine the phylogenetic order of idsA2 and embB mutations, we utilize the ancestral reconstruction of idsA2 mutational events meeting the indicated variant criteria and occurring in Lineage 4 of the 55K dataset. However, embB repeatedly acquires the same variants making the ancestral reconstruction of embB events more likely to have multiple parsimonious solutions. To avoid this uncertainty, we instead perform a local parsimony analysis for embB around idsA2 mutational events. To do so, at each idsA2 mutation node, we asked which of the strains descending from this event had embB variants. First, if none of the strains had any embB mutation, the event was labeled as having only idsA2. Next, if a certain embB variant was called as a “miss” in all strains under the idsA2 event, indicating poor variant calling, the variant was thrown out for this event. Next, if all strains were found to have the same embB variant, we then went back to the parent node and asked if all strains under that node have the same embB variant indicating that the embB variant happened at the parent node or earlier. If all strains under the parent node had the embB variant, the event was called as embB happening first. If there was any other combination of calls within the parent strains (no variant, variant, and/or misses) the embB event is assumed to occur at the same node as the idsA2 event. Finally, if only some strains resulting from the idsA2 event had an embB variant, this is called as the embB event(s) coming second.

Acquisition of ethambutol resistance mutations

A representative clone for each of our strains of interest (idsA2 WT, S115X, L204R) were grown on ethambutol at 4 or 8 µg/mL. Several colonies were then picked, grown up in 7H9, and gDNA was extracted. WGS was performed (200 Mbp Illumina DNA sequencing, SeqCenter) and reads were mapped to H37Rv using breseq [65]. Two strains from each background with embB Q497R mutations were used for further experiments. There were no additional mutations shared between strains (S4 Table).

Sensitivity and specificity of ethambutol resistance predictions

Analysis was performed using strains of all lineages in the CRyPTIC dataset. Variant calling criteria and MIC handling is described above. Strains were considered sensitive to ethambutol if they had an MIC at ≤2 µg/mL, and resistant if they had an MIC of ≥4 µg/mL. WHO-verified embB mutations are those defined as associated with resistance to ethambutol in the second edition of the drug resistance catalog [49]. After identifying the presence of WHO-verified embB mutations, our variant calling criteria were then used to determine whether each strain had mutations in idsA2, ubiA, or any additional embB mutation. Specificity was calculated for each variant condition of interest.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Distribution of pN/pS ratios for L1, L2, and L3.

Histograms of pN/pS ratios for all genes in Mtb from the Lineages 1, 2, and 3 from the 55K dataset. Median values indicated by dotted line are 0.64, 0.75, and 0.67 respectively. idsA2 pN/pS values indicated are 0.61, 0.81 and 0.87 respectively.

(PDF)

ppat.1014237.s001.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
S2 Fig. IdsA2 variants in the CRyPTIC dataset.

(A) The number of strains per codon from Lineage 4 of the CRyPTIC dataset with disruptive in-frame deletions or insertions, frameshift, deleterious or tolerated missense, or nonsense mutations in idsA2. (B) Pie chart of total percentages of each variant type among Lineage 4 strains in the CRyPTIC dataset.

(PDF)

ppat.1014237.s002.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
S3 Fig. Association between idsA2 mutational event and MIC change in the CRyPTIC dataset.

Difference in MIC of 13 drugs associated with idsA2 mutational events in Lineage 4 data from the CRyPTIC consortium. Each dot represents the MIC difference attributed to an idsA2 mutational event relative to its nearest neighbor strains. The blue line indicates the average MIC difference across all idsA2 mutational events. A permutation test was performed to assess the significance of the average difference associated with idsA2, and a multiple test correction was performed with an FDR of 1%.

(PDF)

ppat.1014237.s003.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
S4 Fig. Association between predicted-deleterious idsA2 mutational event and MIC change in the CRyPTIC dataset.

Difference in MIC of 13 drugs associated with predicted-deleterious idsA2 mutational events in Lineage 4 data from the CRyPTIC consortium. Each dot represents the MIC difference attributed to an idsA2 mutational event relative to its nearest neighbor strains. The blue line indicates the average MIC difference across all idsA2 mutational events. A permutation test was performed to assess the significance of the average difference associated with idsA2, and a multiple test correction was performed with an FDR of 1%.

(PDF)

ppat.1014237.s004.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
S5 Fig. Association between idsA2 mutational event and MIC change in Lineages 1, 2, and 3 of the CRyPTIC dataset.

Difference in MIC of rifampicin (RIF), isoniazid (INH), and ethambutol (EMB) associated with idsA2 mutational events in Lineage 1, 2, and 3 data from the CRyPTIC consortium. Each dot represents the MIC difference attributed to an idsA2 mutational event relative to its nearest neighbor strains. The blue line indicates the average MIC difference across all idsA2 mutational events. A permutation test was performed to assess the significance of the average difference associated with idsA2, and a multiple test correction was performed with an FDR of 1% across each lineage.

(PDF)

ppat.1014237.s005.pdf (4.4MB, pdf)
S6 Fig. MIC distribution and presence of drug resistance mutations in idsA2 mutant strains from the CRyPTIC dataset.

Rifampicin (RIF), isoniazid (INH), and ethambutol (EMB) MICs for idsA2 mutant strains in Lineage 4 data from the CRyPTIC consortium. Each dot is an idsA2 mutant strain. The dot is pink if there is a mutation in the indicated gene associated with drug resistance for the plotted drug (rpoB for RIF, katG for INH, and embB for EMB) in that strain.

(PDF)

ppat.1014237.s006.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
S7 Fig. Growth curve and IC90 statistics.

(A) Growth curves of wildtype and idsA2 mutant strains in standard 7H9 media. Differences between each mutant and wildtype were tested by performing ordinary one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test for each day. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 **** p < 0.0001. (B) Plots of IC90 values for each strain separated by drug: ethambutol (EMB), isoniazid (INH), rifampicin (RIF), and ofloxacin (OFX). Differences between each mutant and wildtype were tested by performing ordinary one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test.

(PDF)

ppat.1014237.s007.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
S8 Fig. Competition assay.

The proportion of mutant DNA in a wildtype to single mutant competition assay either at initial pooling (input), or after 5 days of growth in 7H9 without drug, 0.55 µg/mL ethambutol, or 0.04 µg/mL isoniazid. S115X is shown to the left, L204R is shown to the right. Dotted line at input. Differences between the no drug condition and other conditions were tested by performing ordinary one-way ANOVA with Šídák's multiple comparisons test.

(PDF)

ppat.1014237.s008.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
S9 Fig. Kill curve assay.

(A) Minimum duration to 90% cell death (MDK90) for wildtype and idsA2 mutant strains in four tuberculosis antibiotics: ethambutol (EMB), isoniazid (INH), rifampicin (RIF), and ofloxacin (OFX). The concentration of each drug was 55, 3, 0.6, and 34 µg/mL. MDK90 was calculated using a semilog curve equation determined using the line segment through which Fraction Surviving = 0.01 fell. Differences between each mutant and wildtype for each drug were tested by ordinary one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test. (B-F) Fraction of surviving bacteria over time calculated from colony enumeration.

(PDF)

ppat.1014237.s009.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
S10 Fig. Representative chromatograms and collision spectra for menaquinone species.

Red boxes on extracted ion chromatograms (EICs) indicate peaks with lipid identity confirmed by CID-MS via the highlighted fragments. For each lipid, displayed prenyl stereochemistry and position of saturated groups is assumed from literature patterns and may differ across chromatographic peaks. Blue diamonds in spectra indicate the lowest targeted m/z value for CID-MS.

(PDF)

ppat.1014237.s010.pdf (4.5MB, pdf)
S11 Fig. Supporting data for menaquinone and redox analysis.

(A) Intensity measured in arbitrary units (counts) for measured menaquinone species. (B) The concentrations of NAD+ and NADH as measured by fluorometric assay. Data combines two independent experiments.

(PDF)

ppat.1014237.s011.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
S12 Fig. IC90 statistics and nonlinear regression curves for second-line antibiotics.

(A,C) Plots of IC90 values for each strain separated by drug: bedaquiline (BDQ) and pretomanid (PA-824). Differences between each mutant and wildtype were tested by performing ordinary one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test. (B,D) Nonlinear regression curves of growth in varying concentrations of antibiotics. Points each represents the average of two (wildtype) to three technical replicates for each clone replicate. For BDQ, the plot is representative of two experiments. For PA-824, points come from two independent experiments.

(PDF)

ppat.1014237.s012.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
S13 Fig. Calcein accumulation assay.

(A) Rate of calcein accumulation following 20 minutes of equilibration, as measured by a simple linear regression on the calcein accumulation curve. Data combines three experiments, indicated by shading of the dots while dot shape indicates clone replicates. Differences between each strain are measured by ordinary one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. (B) Representative curves of calcein accumulation over time.

(PDF)

ppat.1014237.s013.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
S14 Fig. Supporting data for polyprenyl analysis.

(A-C) Representative chromatograms and collision spectra for decaprenyl phospholipids. Red boxes on EICs indicate peaks with lipid identity confirmed by CID-MS via the highlighted fragments. For each lipid, displayed prenyl stereochemistry and position of saturated groups is assumed from literature patterns and may differ across chromatographic peaks. Blue diamonds in spectra indicate the lowest targeted m/z value for CID-MS. (D) Intensity measured in arbitrary units (counts) for measured decaprenyl phosphate species. (E) Fold change in DPP levels as measured by LCMS where each bar is a clone, and dots are culture replicates. Different shapes indicate different clone replicates corresponding with Fig 5C. Differences in DPP levels determined by Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparisons test.

(PDF)

ppat.1014237.s014.pdf (4.4MB, pdf)
S15 Fig. Lipoarabinomannan (LAM) measurement by western blot.

(A) Fold change in LAM levels as measured by western blot with anti-LAM CS-35 antibody. Data from two experiments indicated by dot fill while dot shapes indicate clone replicates. Differences in LAM levels determined by Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparisons test. (B) Representative western blot.

(PDF)

ppat.1014237.s015.pdf (4.4MB, pdf)
S16 Fig. Ordering of predicted-deleterious idsA2 mutational events.

Ordering of 158 predicted-deleterious idsA2 mutational events within Lineage 4 of the 55K dataset.

(PDF)

ppat.1014237.s016.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
S1 File. Raw Gel: Raw images for LAM western blot data.

Two western blots were performed. Ladder is SeeBlue Plus2 Pre-stained Protein Standard. Primary antibody is Monoclonal Anti-Mycobacterium tuberculosis LAM antibody, Clone CS-35. Secondary antibody is IRDye 800CW Goat anti-Mouse IgG Secondary Antibody. Images were taken on a LI-COR Odyssey CLx Imager and processed and analyzed using Empiria Studio. Data from both experiments is reported in S15A Fig, and the second blot is shown as a representative image in S15B Fig.

(PDF)

ppat.1014237.s017.pdf (4.6MB, pdf)
S1 Table. pN/pS calculations without reversions.

pN/pS values were generated into a histogram for Figs 1A and S1.

(XLSX)

ppat.1014237.s018.xlsx (692.2KB, xlsx)
S2 Table. Lineage 4-defining variants.

(XLSX)

ppat.1014237.s019.xlsx (24.7KB, xlsx)
S3 Table. Number of nonsense and frameshift events per gene per lineage.

Lineage 4 events per kb were generated into a histogram for Fig 1D.

(XLSX)

ppat.1014237.s020.xlsx (407.1KB, xlsx)
S4 Table. Strain list.

Includes strain names and variants identified by WGS after filtering.

(XLSX)

ppat.1014237.s021.xlsx (12.2KB, xlsx)
S1 Data. Data underlying plots.

Excludes Fig 1A and S1 (S1 Table) and Fig 1D (S3 Table).

(XLSX)

ppat.1014237.s022.xlsx (2.8MB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Michael Chao for his critical reading of this manuscript.

Data Availability

All data are available in the main text or supplementary materials. Sequencing data can be found in the Sequence Read Archive database (Bioproject: PRJNA1356913). Phylogenetic trees, ancestral reconstruction, and variant calling can be found on Mendeley (55k dataset DOI: 10.17632/h9dd6hsvc2.1, CRyPTIC dataset DOI: 10.17632/cy4dy352kj.1). Code can be found at https://github.com/abigailmfrey/IdsA2_Paper_Code. Raw data and analysis files for lipid HPLC-MS can be found in the Zenodo repository, at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21362678.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (https://www.nsf.gov/): DGE 2140743 (AMF), National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (https://www.niaid.nih.gov): Harvard Graduate Program in Tropical Infectious Diseases Training Grant T32 AI049928 (AMF), F32 AI174653 (PHC), U19 AI142793-01 (SMF), P01 AI143575 (SMF), U19 AI162584 (DBM), R01 AI165573 (DBM), and DP2 AI192739 (QL). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Goig GA, Windels EM, Loiseau C, Stritt C, Biru L, Borrell S, et al. Ecology, global diversity and evolutionary mechanisms in the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2025;23(9):602–14. doi: 10.1038/s41579-025-01159-w [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Liu Q, Zhu J, Dulberger CL, Stanley S, Wilson S, Chung ES, et al. Tuberculosis treatment failure associated with evolution of antibiotic resilience. Science. 2022;378(6624):1111–8. doi: 10.1126/science.abq2787 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Culviner PH, Frey AM, Liu Q, Ha DTM, Thai PVK, Thu DDA, et al. Evolution of Mycobacterium tuberculosis transcription regulation is associated with increased transmission and drug resistance. Cell. 2025;188(23):6620-6635.e14. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.09.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Goossens SN, Sampson SL, Van Rie A. Mechanisms of Drug-Induced Tolerance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2020;34(1):e00141-20. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00141-20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Brunner VM, Fowler PW. Compensatory mutations are associated with increased in vitro growth in resistant clinical samples of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Microb Genom. 2024;10(2):001187. doi: 10.1099/mgen.0.001187 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Dookie N, Rambaran S, Padayatchi N, Mahomed S, Naidoo K. Evolution of drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis: a review on the molecular determinants of resistance and implications for personalized care. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018;73(5):1138–51. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkx506 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Colangeli R, Jedrey H, Kim S, Connell R, Ma S, Chippada Venkata UD, et al. Bacterial Factors That Predict Relapse after Tuberculosis Therapy. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(9):823–33. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1715849 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hicks ND, Giffen SR, Culviner PH, Chao MC, Dulberger CL, Liu Q, et al. Mutations in dnaA and a cryptic interaction site increase drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. PLoS Pathog. 2020;16(11):e1009063. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009063 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lai Y-P, Ioerger TR. Exploiting Homoplasy in Genome-Wide Association Studies to Enhance Identification of Antibiotic-Resistance Mutations in Bacterial Genomes. Evol Bioinform Online. 2020;16:1176934320944932. doi: 10.1177/1176934320944932 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Eckartt KA, Delbeau M, Munsamy-Govender V, DeJesus MA, Azadian ZA, Reddy AK, et al. Compensatory evolution in NusG improves fitness of drug-resistant M. tuberculosis. Nature. 2024;628(8006):186–94. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07206-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Abe T, Ozaki S, Ueda D, Sato T. Insight into Isoprenoid Biosynthesis by Functional Analysis of Isoprenyl Diphosphate Synthases from Mycobacterium vanbaalenii and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Chembiochem. 2020;21(20):2931–8. doi: 10.1002/cbic.202000235 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.DeJesus MA, Gerrick ER, Xu W, Park SW, Long JE, Boutte CC, et al. Comprehensive Essentiality Analysis of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis Genome via Saturating Transposon Mutagenesis. mBio. 2017;8(1):e02133-16. doi: 10.1128/mBio.02133-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Griffin JE, Gawronski JD, Dejesus MA, Ioerger TR, Akerley BJ, Sassetti CM. High-resolution phenotypic profiling defines genes essential for mycobacterial growth and cholesterol catabolism. PLoS Pathog. 2011;7(9):e1002251. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002251 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Minato Y, Gohl DM, Thiede JM, Chacón JM, Harcombe WR, Maruyama F, et al. Genomewide Assessment of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Conditionally Essential Metabolic Pathways. mSystems. 2019;4(4):e00070-19. doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00070-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.World Health Organization. Technical Report on critical concentrations for drug susceptibility testing of medicines used in the treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis. 2018. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-CDS-TB-2018.5 [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Michelmore RW, Meyers BC. Clusters of resistance genes in plants evolve by divergent selection and a birth-and-death process. Genome Res. 1998;8(11):1113–30. doi: 10.1101/gr.8.11.1113 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Vaser R, Adusumalli S, Leng SN, Sikic M, Ng PC. SIFT missense predictions for genomes. Nat Protoc. 2016;11(1):1–9. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2015.123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.The CRyPTIC Consortium. A data compendium associating the genomes of 12,289 Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates with quantitative resistance phenotypes to 13 antibiotics. PLoS Biol. 2022;20(8):e3001721. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001721 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Murphy KC, Papavinasasundaram K, Sassetti CM. Mycobacterial recombineering. Methods Mol Biol. 2015;1285:177–99. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-2450-9_10 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Xu W, DeJesus MA, Rücker N, Engelhart CA, Wright MG, Healy C, et al. Chemical Genetic Interaction Profiling Reveals Determinants of Intrinsic Antibiotic Resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(12):e01334-17. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01334-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Li S, Poulton NC, Chang JS, Azadian ZA, DeJesus MA, Ruecker N, et al. CRISPRi chemical genetics and comparative genomics identify genes mediating drug potency in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Nat Microbiol. 2022;7(6):766–79. doi: 10.1038/s41564-022-01130-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Titterington JA, Ho NAT, Beasley CPH, Mann F, Baker EN, Allison TM, et al. Structures of Mycobacterium tuberculosis isoprenyl diphosphate synthase Rv2173 in substrate-bound forms. Acta Crystallogr F Struct Biol Commun. 2025;81(Pt 5):193–200. doi: 10.1107/S2053230X25002298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mann FM, Xu M, Davenport EK, Peters RJ. Functional characterization and evolution of the isotuberculosinol operon in Mycobacterium tuberculosis and related Mycobacteria. Front Microbiol. 2012;3:368. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2012.00368 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Mann FM, Thomas JA, Peters RJ. Rv0989c encodes a novel (E)-geranyl diphosphate synthase facilitating decaprenyl diphosphate biosynthesis in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. FEBS Lett. 2011;585(3):549–54. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2011.01.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dhiman RK, Schulbach MC, Mahapatra S, Baulard AR, Vissa V, Brennan PJ, et al. Identification of a novel class of omega,E,E-farnesyl diphosphate synthase from Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Lipid Res. 2004;45(6):1140–7. doi: 10.1194/jlr.M400047-JLR200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Black PA, Warren RM, Louw GE, van Helden PD, Victor TC, Kana BD. Energy metabolism and drug efflux in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(5):2491–503. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02293-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Frey AM. Fig 4A. 2026. https://BioRender.com/pz1qsl9 [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Crick DC, Schulbach MC, Zink EE, Macchia M, Barontini S, Besra GS, et al. Polyprenyl phosphate biosynthesis in Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Mycobacterium smegmatis. J Bacteriol. 2000;182(20):5771–8. doi: 10.1128/JB.182.20.5771-5778.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Layre E, Sweet L, Hong S, Madigan CA, Desjardins D, Young DC, et al. A comparative lipidomics platform for chemotaxonomic analysis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Chem Biol. 2011;18(12):1537–49. doi: 10.1016/j.chembiol.2011.10.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Yano T, Li L-S, Weinstein E, Teh J-S, Rubin H. Steady-state kinetics and inhibitory action of antitubercular phenothiazines on mycobacterium tuberculosis type-II NADH-menaquinone oxidoreductase (NDH-2). J Biol Chem. 2006;281(17):11456–63. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M508844200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Yano T, Rahimian M, Aneja KK, Schechter NM, Rubin H, Scott CP. Mycobacterium tuberculosis type II NADH-menaquinone oxidoreductase catalyzes electron transfer through a two-site ping-pong mechanism and has two quinone-binding sites. Biochemistry. 2014;53(7):1179–90. doi: 10.1021/bi4013897 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Miesel L, Weisbrod TR, Marcinkeviciene JA, Bittman R, Jacobs WR Jr. NADH dehydrogenase defects confer isoniazid resistance and conditional lethality in Mycobacterium smegmatis. J Bacteriol. 1998;180(9):2459–67. doi: 10.1128/JB.180.9.2459-2467.1998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lee AS, Teo AS, Wong SY. Novel mutations in ndh in isoniazid-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45(7):2157–9. doi: 10.1128/AAC.45.7.2157-2159.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Vilchèze C, Weisbrod TR, Chen B, Kremer L, Hazbón MH, Wang F, et al. Altered NADH/NAD+ ratio mediates coresistance to isoniazid and ethionamide in mycobacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49(2):708–20. doi: 10.1128/AAC.49.2.708-720.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Merker M, Kohl TA, Barilar I, Andres S, Fowler PW, Chryssanthou E, et al. Phylogenetically informative mutations in genes implicated in antibiotic resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex. Genome Med. 2020;12(1):27. doi: 10.1186/s13073-020-00726-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Pandey S, Vilchèze C, Werngren J, Bainomugisa A, Mansjö M, Groenheit R, et al. Loss-of-function mutations in ndh do not confer delamanid, ethionamide, isoniazid, or pretomanid resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2024;68(1):e0109623. doi: 10.1128/aac.01096-23 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Schulbach MC, Mahapatra S, Macchia M, Barontini S, Papi C, Minutolo F, et al. Purification, enzymatic characterization, and inhibition of the Z-farnesyl diphosphate synthase from Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Biol Chem. 2001;276(15):11624–30. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M007168200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Schulbach MC, Brennan PJ, Crick DC. Identification of a short (C15) chain Z-isoprenyl diphosphate synthase and a homologous long (C50) chain isoprenyl diphosphate synthase in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Biol Chem. 2000;275(30):22876–81. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M003194200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kaur D, Brennan PJ, Crick DC. Decaprenyl diphosphate synthesis in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Bacteriol. 2004;186(22):7564–70. doi: 10.1128/JB.186.22.7564-7570.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Batt SM, Burke CE, Moorey AR, Besra GS. Antibiotics and resistance: the two-sided coin of the mycobacterial cell wall. Cell Surf. 2020;6:100044. doi: 10.1016/j.tcsw.2020.100044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Frey AM. Fig 5A. 2026. https://BioRender.com/7o2xeht [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Huang H, Scherman MS, D’Haeze W, Vereecke D, Holsters M, Crick DC. Identification and active expression of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis gene encoding 5-phospho-α-D-ribose-1-diphosphate: decaprenyl-phosphate 5-phosphoribosyltransferase, the first enzyme committed to decaprenylphosphoryl-D-arabinose synthesis. J Biol Chem. 2005;280:24539–43. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M504068200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.He L, Wang X, Cui P, Jin J, Chen J, Zhang W, et al. ubiA (Rv3806c) encoding DPPR synthase involved in cell wall synthesis is associated with ethambutol resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Tuberculosis (Edinb). 2015;95(2):149–54. doi: 10.1016/j.tube.2014.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Safi H, Lingaraju S, Amin A, Kim S, Jones M, Holmes M, et al. Evolution of high-level ethambutol-resistant tuberculosis through interacting mutations in decaprenylphosphoryl-β-D-arabinose biosynthetic and utilization pathway genes. Nat Genet. 2013;45(10):1190–7. doi: 10.1038/ng.2743 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Wolucka BA, McNeil MR, de Hoffmann E, Chojnacki T, Brennan PJ. Recognition of the lipid intermediate for arabinogalactan/arabinomannan biosynthesis and its relation to the mode of action of ethambutol on mycobacteria. J Biol Chem. 1994;269(37):23328–35. doi: 10.1016/s0021-9258(17)31657-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Alderwick LJ, Radmacher E, Seidel M, Gande R, Hitchen PG, Morris HR, et al. Deletion of Cg-emb in corynebacterianeae leads to a novel truncated cell wall arabinogalactan, whereas inactivation of Cg-ubiA results in an arabinan-deficient mutant with a cell wall galactan core. J Biol Chem. 2005;280(37):32362–71. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M506339200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Tan YZ, Rodrigues J, Keener JE, Zheng RB, Brunton R, Kloss B, et al. Cryo-EM structure of arabinosyltransferase EmbB from Mycobacterium smegmatis. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):3396. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-17202-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Zhang L, Zhao Y, Gao Y, Wu L, Gao R, Zhang Q, et al. Structures of cell wall arabinosyltransferases with the anti-tuberculosis drug ethambutol. Science. 2020;368(6496):1211–9. doi: 10.1126/science.aba9102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.World Health Organization. Catalogue of mutations in Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and their association with drug resistance, second edition. World Health Organization. 2023. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/374061 [Google Scholar]
  • 50.The CRyPTIC Consortium. Epidemiological cut-off values for a 96-well broth microdilution plate for high-throughput research antibiotic susceptibility testing of M. tuberculosis. Eur Respir J. 2022;60:2200239. doi: 10.1183/13993003.00239-2022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.World Health Organization. Target product profile for tuberculosis diagnosis and detection of drug resistance. World Health Organization. 2024. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240097698 [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Li M-C, Wang W, Xiao T-Y, Liu H-C, Lin S-Q, Hang H, et al. The implications of mutations in multiple genes associated with ethambutol resistance among multidrug-resistant tuberculosis isolates from China. BMC Microbiol. 2025;25(1):107. doi: 10.1186/s12866-025-03821-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc. A phase 3, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of 4-month and 6-month quabodepistat-containing regimens for rifampicin-resistant/multidrug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis. clinicaltrials.gov. 2026. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07209761 [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Hariguchi N, Chen X, Hayashi Y, Kawano Y, Fujiwara M, Matsuba M. OPC-167832, a novel carbostyril derivative with potent antituberculosis activity as a DprE1 inhibitor. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020;64:e02020-19. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02020-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Yadav VD, Boshoff HI, Trifonov L, Roma JSO, Ioerger TR, Barry CE 3rd, et al. Synthesis and Structure-Activity Relationships of a New Class of Oxadiazoles Targeting DprE1 as Antitubercular Agents. ACS Med Chem Lett. 2023;14(9):1275–83. doi: 10.1021/acsmedchemlett.3c00295 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Zha Q, Liu Z, Li W, Zhou Y, McNeil MB, Cook GM. Development of thieno[2,3-b]pyridin-6(7H)-one derivatives against drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Bioorg Med Chem. 2026;138:118663. doi: 10.1016/j.bmc.2026.118663 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Torres Ortiz A, Coronel J, Vidal JR, Bonilla C, Moore DAJ, Gilman RH, et al. Genomic signatures of pre-resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):7312. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-27616-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.The CRyPTIC Consortium. Prediction of Susceptibility to First-Line Tuberculosis Drugs by DNA Sequencing. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1403–15. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1800474 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Cingolani P, Platts A, Wang LL, Coon M, Nguyen T, Wang L, et al. A program for annotating and predicting the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms, SnpEff: SNPs in the genome of Drosophila melanogaster strain w1118; iso-2; iso-3. Fly (Austin). 2012;6(2):80–92. doi: 10.4161/fly.19695 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Ishikawa SA, Zhukova A, Iwasaki W, Gascuel O. A fast likelihood method to reconstruct and visualize ancestral scenarios. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2019;36:2069–85. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msz131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Phelan JE, O’Sullivan DM, Machado D, Ramos J, Oppong YEA, Campino S, et al. Integrating informatics tools and portable sequencing technology for rapid detection of resistance to anti-tuberculous drugs. Genome Med. 2019;11(1):41. doi: 10.1186/s13073-019-0650-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Coll F, McNerney R, Preston MD, Guerra-Assunção JA, Warry A, Hill-Cawthorne G, et al. Rapid determination of anti-tuberculosis drug resistance from whole-genome sequences. Genome Med. 2015;7(1):51. doi: 10.1186/s13073-015-0164-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Marin M, Vargas R, Harris M, Jeffrey B, Epperson LE, Durbin D, et al. Benchmarking the empirical accuracy of short-read sequencing across the M. tuberculosis genome. Bioinformatics. 2022;38(7):1781–7. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Moreno MA, Holder MT, Sukumaran J. DendroPy 5: a mature Python library for phylogenetic computing. JOSS. 2024;9(101):6943. doi: 10.21105/joss.06943 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Barrick JE, Colburn G, Deatherage DE, Traverse CC, Strand MD, Borges JJ, et al. Identifying structural variation in haploid microbial genomes from short-read resequencing data using breseq. BMC Genomics. 2014;15(1):1039. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-1039 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Domenech P, Reed MB. Rapid and spontaneous loss of phthiocerol dimycocerosate (PDIM) from Mycobacterium tuberculosis grown in vitro: implications for virulence studies. Microbiology (Reading). 2009;155(Pt 11):3532–43. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.029199-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.van ’t Klooster JS, Cheng T-Y, Sikkema HR, Jeucken A, Moody B, Poolman B. Periprotein lipidomes of Saccharomyces cerevisiae provide a flexible environment for conformational changes of membrane proteins. Elife. 2020;9:e57003. doi: 10.7554/eLife.57003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.McGowen K, Funck T, Wang X, Zinga S, Wolf ID, Akusobi C, et al. Efflux pumps and membrane permeability contribute to intrinsic antibiotic resistance in Mycobacterium abscessus. PLoS Pathog. 2025;21(4):e1013027. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1013027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Smelyansky SR, Ma C-W, Marando VM, Babunovic GH, Lee SY, Bryson BD, et al. Exploiting thioether reactivity to label mycobacterial glycans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2025;122(19):e2422185122. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2422185122 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Marcel A Behr, Debra E Bessen

17 Jun 2026

PPATHOGENS-D-26-01095

Encoded metabolic remodeling amplifies drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis

PLOS Pathogens

Dear Dr. Fortune,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Pathogens. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Pathogens'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 Jul 17 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 plospathogens@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/ppathogens/ 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 editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* 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, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Marcel A. Behr

Academic Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Debra Bessen

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0003-2946-9497

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

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.

1) Please send a completed 'Competing Interests' statement, including any COIs declared by your co-authors. If you have no competing interests to declare, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist". Otherwise please declare all competing interests beginning with the statement "I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests:"

2) Thank you for stating "All data are available in main text or supplementary materials. Sequencing data are deposited in the Short Read Archive database (Bioproject: PRJNA1356913). Phylogenetic trees, ancestral reconstruction, and variant calling were deposited to Mendeley (55K dataset DOI: 10.17632/cy4dy352kj.1, CRyPTIC dataset DOI: 10.17632/cy4dy352kj.1). Code: "https://github.com/abigailmfrey/IdsA2_Paper_Code." However, we were unable to access the sequence data using the information provided. Please review and update the Data Availability Statement to ensure that the underlying data are publicly accessible and that all accession numbers, links, or repository details are correct and functional.

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: In this study Frey et al. follow up on their earlier identification of idsA2 as a frequent target of within-host selection and use a combination of genomic, phenotypic, and biochemical analyses to characterize idsA2 loss of function mutations (as identified from human clinical datasets) as contributors to ethambutol resistance. The major strengths of this study include not only the combination of bioinformatic and experimental analyses that lend strong support to their conclusions, but also the extension into potential clinical relevance via assessing the potential of idsA2 variants to improve ethambutol resistance screening. Overall, these qualities make the study of high interest and value to the PLOS Pathogens audience. Detailed comments are largely minor and pertain to questions of rigor, sometimes related to arguably confusing turns of phrase.

Reviewer #2: In brief, Frey et al. report a novel association/ enrichment of mutations in the idsA2 gene for Lineage 4 Mycobacterium tuberculosis clinical strains with the potential to reduce the sensitivity of these strains towards certain anti-TB antibiotics, particularly ethambutol (EMB). In turn, targeted lipid analysis led the authors to demonstrate an effect on isoprene precursor metabolism that may help to explain this reduction in EMB sensitivity. To my mind, highlighting the potential for lineage/ sub-lineage metabolic differences that can impact treatment outcomes is, perhaps, the most important message contained within this manuscript. By extension, this well-executed study may help to point us towards the development and testing of “personalized” lineage-specific regimens in the future, rather than continuing with the one treatment fits-all approach that has been the cornerstone of TB treatment for the past decades.

Reviewer #3: In this original research article, Frey et al. investigate the significance of idsA2 mutations on antimicrobial resistance in the M. tuberculosis complex. IdsA2 had previously been identified to be under directional selection in the authors' previous work to develop a per-gene and per-lineage pN/pS ratio database. The authors first present evidence that this gene is under diversifying selection for loss of function. They then used the CRyPTIC MIC dataset and compared phylogenetic nearest neighbors to test for association between idsA2 mutations and MIC differences, finding associations with rifampin, isoniazid and ethambutol. They then sought to understand two of these mutations using recombineering to place them in an H37Rv background. These idsA2 mutants had a slight growth defect, but higher IC90s to isoniazid and ethambutol and a lower IC90 to rifampin. They then characterize the mutations and their effects on ethambutol binding. Finally, they show that phylogenetically these idsA2 mutations tended to occur after embB mutations, and lead to a combinatorial increase in ethambutol MIC. The consideration of mutations in both genes is then shown to increase the specificity of genotypic ethambutol susceptibility testing.

Overall, I believe this is a well designed, executed and communicated manuscript. I believe the methods are generally appropriate and the results support the authors’ conclusions. I do have some comments and suggestions to further improve the manuscript.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #1: None requested.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The GitHub repository is not currently active to review the details of the nearest-neighbor approach described on lines 477-498. I did not quite understand how exactly this analysis is performed. If the analysis is comparing the MICs of a subtree subtended by a node defined as having an ancestral state with an idsA2 mutation to the nearest neighbor – is there any check to ensure that the nearest neighbor subtree (however defined) does not also contain an idsA2 mutation somewhere within it? Apologies if I have misunderstood the approach, perhaps it can be clarified in the methods text. Could a phylogenetic comparative method also be useful here to address the question?

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: Line 121: “SIFT-predicted deleterious missense mutation” Since SIFT is arguably not a widely familiar tool (vs. e.g., something like BLAST), suggest removing, briefly describing, or referring to methods for clarity.

Line 131: which --> that. Please check overall for correct use of these relative pronouns.

Line 136, Fig. 2 and Line 167, Fig. 3. There appears to be a discrepancy in the RIF sensitivity of idsA2 mutational events as determined from the CRyPTIC dataset (more resistant; Fig. 2) vs. from individual mutants (more sensitive; Fig. 3A, D). Could the authors please comment?

Related, what assay was used to the determine MIC in the CRyPTIC dataset? Could any differences explain the RIF discrepancy? This study used Alamar Blue, which reports on respiration but may not report reliably on viability depending on metabolic state. Given that idsA2 mutations affect energy/metabolic status, did the authors determine MIC, especially for EMB, by an independent assay?

Line 196: “concentrations in metabolite [] from wildtype and…” Word appears to be missing at brackets? Metabolite extracts? Related also to Line 214, which refers to analysis of “whole-cell lysates”. Methods report lysis/extraction in acetonitrile:MeOH:water. Suggest adding/modifying wording for clarity and consistency throughout.

Line 258: Please clarify briefly for non-expert readers why DPP is a combined measure of DPA and DPR and how later conclusions based on inference of DPA levels is valid.

Lines 290-292: The methodology of generating the double mutants is somewhat confusingly worded, as idsA2 mutations were generated by recombination, but the embB mutation by selection and, importantly, sequencing. Please modify for clarity.

Lines 293-296: Would resistance-conferring mutations be expected to increase MICs by a fixed concentration amount, or by fold change? On both backgrounds, addition of idsA2 mutations increase MIC by 2-fold. Please comment and possibly modify the “however” in line 295 accordingly.

Related, line 425: “Most notably, idsA2 mutations have a multiplicative effect with embR variants on [EMB] resistance.” (and similar in abstract, line 35) As noted above, they have a multiplicative effect on WT background also. Please modify/clarify accordingly.

Line 336: “presence of… an idsA2 mutation…” Fig. 7A shows analysis for embB mutant, but not idsA2 mutant. Are the data for this conclusion (lower false positive rate with inclusion of idsA2 mutant alone) shown anywhere? Please clarify.

Line 353: “This pathway remodeling also enables its most clinically relevant effect” The most relevant connection to resistance is the model that increases in DPA compete for ethambutol binding to embB, but this is not directly demonstrated. Suggest modulating wording for correlation vs. causation.

On that note, lines 33-34: “increased production of [DPP], which can compete with ethambutol for binding to arabinosyltransferases” vs. line 262: “it was proposed that… increasing the quantity of DPA allows arabinose to outcompete ethambutol for binding” Is there in fact experimental evidence from any previous study for this competition? If not, suggest modifying abstract accordingly. Also please note and consider resolving the discrepancy/confusion regarding referring to DPP as the actual measure vs. DPA as the specific relevant metabolite (see related comment above).

Line 423: “through the pleiotropic effects of metabolite remodeling” We feel that this wording is reasonable given the data, but confusing in this manuscript due to the previous emphasis in abstract and main text on the inferred contribution of elevated DPA to ethambutol inhibition of the EmbB target. A minor point, but possibly combining these would be most clear—that is, there are pleiotropic effects, of which elevated DPP/DPA provides the most direct connection to EMB mechanism of action. Please consider modifying for consistency and accuracy, with advance thanks for helping especially non-expert readers achieve the clearest possible sense of the conclusions.

Reviewer #2: Suggestions for improving the manuscript:

The abstract should make it clear that the impact of idsA2 mutation(s) on EMB resistance appears restricted to strains within lineage 4. Similarly, the increase in MIC (or more correctly IC90) is relatively small and in the order of 2-fold. Personally, I think the abstract oversells the case for idsA2, particularly with statements such as “Together, this work defines idsA2 as an ethambutol resistance gene”. By itself, idsA2 does not appear to confer EMB resistance. Please temper this statement to more accurately reflect the reality.

Are the frequencies of EMB-R strains comparable between the 4 Mtb lineages that make up the 55K database? Please comment in the text on this.

Regarding the CRyPTIC dataset, 19 lineage 4 strains seem to have a predicted deleterious idsA2 mutation (Figure S4). How many of these also have a canonical mutation in embB? Is it possible to indicate which strains have an embB mutation on the relevant panel of figure S4?

Lines 133-134: “We calculated the average difference in MICs between Lineage 4 strains with idsA2 mutations ….”. What is the result if this same calculation is performed for lineage 1-3 strains?

Unfortunately, aside from the standard fall-back H37Rv lab strain, the authors do not seem to have carried out the in vitro idsA2 recombineering with a non-lineage 4 strain to examine its effect on isoprene metabolism and/ or the EMB IC90. A lack of an effect on isoprene metabolism (with a corresponding lack of EMB MIC shift) would have gone a long way towards supporting the author’s suggestion that the effect is truly lineage specific.

Lines 295-297: In my opinion, this material is written in a somewhat misleading/deceptive manner. The relative increase in IC90 due to the idsA2 mutations is still only 2-fold, regardless of whether they co-occur with a canonical embB mutation(s) responsible for conferring EMB-R. In fact, what has caused the 8-fold shift in IC90 is the embB mutation, ie. 0.5 ug/ml to 4ug ug/ml in the absence of the idsA2 SNP; 1ug/ml to 8ug/ml in the presence of the idsA2 SNP.

Reviewer #3: - The finding of an a decrease in rifampin IC90 in idsA2 mutants is interesting, and discordant with the prediction from the phylogenetic nearest-neighbor comparisons, although as the authors point out, concordant with other work in the field. Do the authors have any hypotheses why this may occur? In particular, a hypothesis for why rifampin MIC would decrease in a idsA2 mutant background specifically, especially given the new mechanistic knowledge generated in this study? Could be worth a mention in the discussion.

- For the ordering of mutation analysis, this approach seems reasonable. However, as I understand the approach, the authors rely on maximum parsimony-based ancestral state reconstruction of the idsA2 mutational state to identify nodes defining the idsA2 mutational event (from the previous work Culviner et al., 2025: I don’t see a note if ACCTRAN or DELTRAN or DOWNPASS parsimony optimization was used, which theoretically could affect this analysis). I think it would be more consistent to use the parsimony ancestral state reconstructions for embB mutations from the same analysis. Although I don’t think it’s critical, it should also be noted this analysis might be affected by phylogenetic uncertainty, which is not taken into account.

- For the analysis of concomitant embB mutations in the background of idsA2 mutations (Lines 289-295), recommend reporting in text that there are no off-target (or even on-target) mutations in addition to the Q497R mutations found (I found it in Table S4)

- Line 460: should define acronym HGVS on first use, but defer to editor if this is common enough to not be required

**********

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

[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.]

Figure resubmission:

While revising your submission, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.

After uploading your figures to PLOS’s NAAS tool - https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis, NAAS will process the files provided and display the results in the "Uploaded Files" section of the page as the processing is complete. If the uploaded figures meet our requirements (or NAAS is able to fix the files to meet our requirements), the figure will be marked as "fixed" above. If NAAS is unable to fix the files, a red "failed" label will appear above. When NAAS has confirmed that the figure files meet our requirements, please download the file via the download option, and include these NAAS processed figure files when submitting your revised manuscript.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Decision Letter 1

Marcel A Behr, Debra E Bessen

4 Aug 2026

Dear Dr. Fortune,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Encoded metabolic remodeling amplifies drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis ' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Marcel A. Behr

Academic Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Debra Bessen

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0003-2946-9497

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #3: In this revised original research article, Frey et al. investigate the significance of idsA2 mutations on antimicrobial resistance in M. tuberculosis complex. The main conclusions of the articles are that idsA2 is found to be under diversifying selection in lineage 4, and that mutations in this gene lead to a modest but detectable increase in MIC to ethambutol, and are found to have evolved after embB mutations leading to higher level resistance. The mechanism is investigated and is argued to be increased production of decaprenyl phosphate species.

In this revision, the authors have addressed the concerns that myself and the other reviewers have raised. Overall, I find the revised article more clear and with a more careful qualification of the conclusions.

Focusing on the issues that I had previously raised:

Nearest-neighbor approach: The expanded description provided by the authors of the approach (and the github scripts) have clarified the approach. I think this is a reasonable approach as explained, and also think the authors have improved the framing of these results around lines 149-152 (marked-up copy).

Other comments:

- The expanded discussion of decreased rifampin MIC in idsA2 mutants in response to my and the other reviewers’ comments, including the new Figure S13 and calcein accumulation assay is appreciated.

- The additional clarity concerning the local parsimony analysis given in lines 820-830 (marked up copy) is also appreciated and I think the justification of the author's approach is sound with respect to the conclusions drawn.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #3: see above

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #3: see above

**********

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 #3: No

Acceptance letter

Marcel A Behr, Debra E Bessen

Dear Dr. Fortune,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Encoded metabolic remodeling amplifies drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis ," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the pre-publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Pearls, Reviews, Opinions, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript, if you opted to have an early version of your article, will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

For Research Articles, 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.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0003-2946-9497

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Distribution of pN/pS ratios for L1, L2, and L3.

    Histograms of pN/pS ratios for all genes in Mtb from the Lineages 1, 2, and 3 from the 55K dataset. Median values indicated by dotted line are 0.64, 0.75, and 0.67 respectively. idsA2 pN/pS values indicated are 0.61, 0.81 and 0.87 respectively.

    (PDF)

    ppat.1014237.s001.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
    S2 Fig. IdsA2 variants in the CRyPTIC dataset.

    (A) The number of strains per codon from Lineage 4 of the CRyPTIC dataset with disruptive in-frame deletions or insertions, frameshift, deleterious or tolerated missense, or nonsense mutations in idsA2. (B) Pie chart of total percentages of each variant type among Lineage 4 strains in the CRyPTIC dataset.

    (PDF)

    ppat.1014237.s002.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
    S3 Fig. Association between idsA2 mutational event and MIC change in the CRyPTIC dataset.

    Difference in MIC of 13 drugs associated with idsA2 mutational events in Lineage 4 data from the CRyPTIC consortium. Each dot represents the MIC difference attributed to an idsA2 mutational event relative to its nearest neighbor strains. The blue line indicates the average MIC difference across all idsA2 mutational events. A permutation test was performed to assess the significance of the average difference associated with idsA2, and a multiple test correction was performed with an FDR of 1%.

    (PDF)

    ppat.1014237.s003.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
    S4 Fig. Association between predicted-deleterious idsA2 mutational event and MIC change in the CRyPTIC dataset.

    Difference in MIC of 13 drugs associated with predicted-deleterious idsA2 mutational events in Lineage 4 data from the CRyPTIC consortium. Each dot represents the MIC difference attributed to an idsA2 mutational event relative to its nearest neighbor strains. The blue line indicates the average MIC difference across all idsA2 mutational events. A permutation test was performed to assess the significance of the average difference associated with idsA2, and a multiple test correction was performed with an FDR of 1%.

    (PDF)

    ppat.1014237.s004.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
    S5 Fig. Association between idsA2 mutational event and MIC change in Lineages 1, 2, and 3 of the CRyPTIC dataset.

    Difference in MIC of rifampicin (RIF), isoniazid (INH), and ethambutol (EMB) associated with idsA2 mutational events in Lineage 1, 2, and 3 data from the CRyPTIC consortium. Each dot represents the MIC difference attributed to an idsA2 mutational event relative to its nearest neighbor strains. The blue line indicates the average MIC difference across all idsA2 mutational events. A permutation test was performed to assess the significance of the average difference associated with idsA2, and a multiple test correction was performed with an FDR of 1% across each lineage.

    (PDF)

    ppat.1014237.s005.pdf (4.4MB, pdf)
    S6 Fig. MIC distribution and presence of drug resistance mutations in idsA2 mutant strains from the CRyPTIC dataset.

    Rifampicin (RIF), isoniazid (INH), and ethambutol (EMB) MICs for idsA2 mutant strains in Lineage 4 data from the CRyPTIC consortium. Each dot is an idsA2 mutant strain. The dot is pink if there is a mutation in the indicated gene associated with drug resistance for the plotted drug (rpoB for RIF, katG for INH, and embB for EMB) in that strain.

    (PDF)

    ppat.1014237.s006.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
    S7 Fig. Growth curve and IC90 statistics.

    (A) Growth curves of wildtype and idsA2 mutant strains in standard 7H9 media. Differences between each mutant and wildtype were tested by performing ordinary one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test for each day. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 **** p < 0.0001. (B) Plots of IC90 values for each strain separated by drug: ethambutol (EMB), isoniazid (INH), rifampicin (RIF), and ofloxacin (OFX). Differences between each mutant and wildtype were tested by performing ordinary one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test.

    (PDF)

    ppat.1014237.s007.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
    S8 Fig. Competition assay.

    The proportion of mutant DNA in a wildtype to single mutant competition assay either at initial pooling (input), or after 5 days of growth in 7H9 without drug, 0.55 µg/mL ethambutol, or 0.04 µg/mL isoniazid. S115X is shown to the left, L204R is shown to the right. Dotted line at input. Differences between the no drug condition and other conditions were tested by performing ordinary one-way ANOVA with Šídák's multiple comparisons test.

    (PDF)

    ppat.1014237.s008.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
    S9 Fig. Kill curve assay.

    (A) Minimum duration to 90% cell death (MDK90) for wildtype and idsA2 mutant strains in four tuberculosis antibiotics: ethambutol (EMB), isoniazid (INH), rifampicin (RIF), and ofloxacin (OFX). The concentration of each drug was 55, 3, 0.6, and 34 µg/mL. MDK90 was calculated using a semilog curve equation determined using the line segment through which Fraction Surviving = 0.01 fell. Differences between each mutant and wildtype for each drug were tested by ordinary one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test. (B-F) Fraction of surviving bacteria over time calculated from colony enumeration.

    (PDF)

    ppat.1014237.s009.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
    S10 Fig. Representative chromatograms and collision spectra for menaquinone species.

    Red boxes on extracted ion chromatograms (EICs) indicate peaks with lipid identity confirmed by CID-MS via the highlighted fragments. For each lipid, displayed prenyl stereochemistry and position of saturated groups is assumed from literature patterns and may differ across chromatographic peaks. Blue diamonds in spectra indicate the lowest targeted m/z value for CID-MS.

    (PDF)

    ppat.1014237.s010.pdf (4.5MB, pdf)
    S11 Fig. Supporting data for menaquinone and redox analysis.

    (A) Intensity measured in arbitrary units (counts) for measured menaquinone species. (B) The concentrations of NAD+ and NADH as measured by fluorometric assay. Data combines two independent experiments.

    (PDF)

    ppat.1014237.s011.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
    S12 Fig. IC90 statistics and nonlinear regression curves for second-line antibiotics.

    (A,C) Plots of IC90 values for each strain separated by drug: bedaquiline (BDQ) and pretomanid (PA-824). Differences between each mutant and wildtype were tested by performing ordinary one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test. (B,D) Nonlinear regression curves of growth in varying concentrations of antibiotics. Points each represents the average of two (wildtype) to three technical replicates for each clone replicate. For BDQ, the plot is representative of two experiments. For PA-824, points come from two independent experiments.

    (PDF)

    ppat.1014237.s012.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
    S13 Fig. Calcein accumulation assay.

    (A) Rate of calcein accumulation following 20 minutes of equilibration, as measured by a simple linear regression on the calcein accumulation curve. Data combines three experiments, indicated by shading of the dots while dot shape indicates clone replicates. Differences between each strain are measured by ordinary one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. (B) Representative curves of calcein accumulation over time.

    (PDF)

    ppat.1014237.s013.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
    S14 Fig. Supporting data for polyprenyl analysis.

    (A-C) Representative chromatograms and collision spectra for decaprenyl phospholipids. Red boxes on EICs indicate peaks with lipid identity confirmed by CID-MS via the highlighted fragments. For each lipid, displayed prenyl stereochemistry and position of saturated groups is assumed from literature patterns and may differ across chromatographic peaks. Blue diamonds in spectra indicate the lowest targeted m/z value for CID-MS. (D) Intensity measured in arbitrary units (counts) for measured decaprenyl phosphate species. (E) Fold change in DPP levels as measured by LCMS where each bar is a clone, and dots are culture replicates. Different shapes indicate different clone replicates corresponding with Fig 5C. Differences in DPP levels determined by Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparisons test.

    (PDF)

    ppat.1014237.s014.pdf (4.4MB, pdf)
    S15 Fig. Lipoarabinomannan (LAM) measurement by western blot.

    (A) Fold change in LAM levels as measured by western blot with anti-LAM CS-35 antibody. Data from two experiments indicated by dot fill while dot shapes indicate clone replicates. Differences in LAM levels determined by Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparisons test. (B) Representative western blot.

    (PDF)

    ppat.1014237.s015.pdf (4.4MB, pdf)
    S16 Fig. Ordering of predicted-deleterious idsA2 mutational events.

    Ordering of 158 predicted-deleterious idsA2 mutational events within Lineage 4 of the 55K dataset.

    (PDF)

    ppat.1014237.s016.pdf (4.3MB, pdf)
    S1 File. Raw Gel: Raw images for LAM western blot data.

    Two western blots were performed. Ladder is SeeBlue Plus2 Pre-stained Protein Standard. Primary antibody is Monoclonal Anti-Mycobacterium tuberculosis LAM antibody, Clone CS-35. Secondary antibody is IRDye 800CW Goat anti-Mouse IgG Secondary Antibody. Images were taken on a LI-COR Odyssey CLx Imager and processed and analyzed using Empiria Studio. Data from both experiments is reported in S15A Fig, and the second blot is shown as a representative image in S15B Fig.

    (PDF)

    ppat.1014237.s017.pdf (4.6MB, pdf)
    S1 Table. pN/pS calculations without reversions.

    pN/pS values were generated into a histogram for Figs 1A and S1.

    (XLSX)

    ppat.1014237.s018.xlsx (692.2KB, xlsx)
    S2 Table. Lineage 4-defining variants.

    (XLSX)

    ppat.1014237.s019.xlsx (24.7KB, xlsx)
    S3 Table. Number of nonsense and frameshift events per gene per lineage.

    Lineage 4 events per kb were generated into a histogram for Fig 1D.

    (XLSX)

    ppat.1014237.s020.xlsx (407.1KB, xlsx)
    S4 Table. Strain list.

    Includes strain names and variants identified by WGS after filtering.

    (XLSX)

    ppat.1014237.s021.xlsx (12.2KB, xlsx)
    S1 Data. Data underlying plots.

    Excludes Fig 1A and S1 (S1 Table) and Fig 1D (S3 Table).

    (XLSX)

    ppat.1014237.s022.xlsx (2.8MB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    ppat.1014237.s024.docx (1,017.4KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All data are available in the main text or supplementary materials. Sequencing data can be found in the Sequence Read Archive database (Bioproject: PRJNA1356913). Phylogenetic trees, ancestral reconstruction, and variant calling can be found on Mendeley (55k dataset DOI: 10.17632/h9dd6hsvc2.1, CRyPTIC dataset DOI: 10.17632/cy4dy352kj.1). Code can be found at https://github.com/abigailmfrey/IdsA2_Paper_Code. Raw data and analysis files for lipid HPLC-MS can be found in the Zenodo repository, at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21362678.


    Articles from PLOS Pathogens are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES