Skip to main content
Clinical Microbiology Reviews logoLink to Clinical Microbiology Reviews
. 2017 Nov 29;31(1):e00071-17. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00071-17

Recombinant Endolysins as Potential Therapeutics against Antibiotic-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Current Status of Research and Novel Delivery Strategies

Hamed Haddad Kashani a, Mathias Schmelcher b,, Hamed Sabzalipoor c, Elahe Seyed Hosseini a, Rezvan Moniri a,d,
PMCID: PMC5740972  PMID: 29187396

SUMMARY

Staphylococcus aureus is one of the most common pathogens of humans and animals, where it frequently colonizes skin and mucosal membranes. It is of major clinical importance as a nosocomial pathogen and causative agent of a wide array of diseases. Multidrug-resistant strains have become increasingly prevalent and represent a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. For this reason, novel strategies to combat multidrug-resistant pathogens are urgently needed. Bacteriophage-derived enzymes, so-called endolysins, and other peptidoglycan hydrolases with the ability to disrupt cell walls represent possible alternatives to conventional antibiotics. These lytic enzymes confer a high degree of host specificity and could potentially replace or be utilized in combination with antibiotics, with the aim to specifically treat infections caused by Gram-positive drug-resistant bacterial pathogens such as methicillin-resistant S. aureus. LysK is one of the best-characterized endolysins with activity against multiple staphylococcal species. Various approaches to further enhance the antibacterial efficacy and applicability of endolysins have been demonstrated. These approaches include the construction of recombinant endolysin derivatives and the development of novel delivery strategies for various applications, such as the production of endolysins in lactic acid bacteria and their conjugation to nanoparticles. These novel strategies are a major focus of this review.

KEYWORDS: antibiotic resistance, endolysin, Staphylococcus aureus, probiotic bacteria, nanoparticles, infectious diseases

INTRODUCTION

Staphylococcus aureus is a coccoid Gram-positive bacterium with a thick peptidoglycan layer (1), also known as a murein layer (Fig. 1). This murein layer consists of long ionic polymers comprising the alternating amino sugars N-acetylglucosamine and N-acetylmuramic acid that make up the glycan chains and peptide linkers connecting these glycan chains to a three-dimensional network. In the case of S. aureus, these peptide linkers consist of conserved stem peptides, which are interconnected through five consecutive glycines, the so-called pentaglycine bridge (2). Another characteristic feature of S. aureus peptidoglycan is O-acetylation at the C6-OH position of muramic acid, rendering the bacterium resistant to lysozyme (3). Teichoic acids covalently linked to the peptidoglycan function as regulators of cell growth, as phage receptors, epitopes, for attracting cations, and as tools for pathogens to communicate with the environment (1, 4).

FIG 1.

FIG 1

The cell wall structure of Gram-positive bacteria contains a thick layer of peptidoglycan that resides beyond the cytoplasmic membrane.

S. aureus is known to be a part of the normal microflora. This bacterium resides primarily on the nares, skin, and mucosal membranes of humans and animals and poses no threat to the host species under normal circumstances (5). The colonization rate in healthy adults is between 5 and 30%, and 10 to 20% of individuals exhibit permanent colonization (6). Conversely, bacteria from healthy individuals can pose a risk of transmission to the immunocompromised population, yielding detrimental effects on those infected (7, 8). A variety of diseases can be caused by staphylococcal strains, ranging from rather harmless localized skin infections to systemic infections upon the entry of bacteria into the blood as well as acute and chronic infections of various organs such as heart, bones, and lungs (9, 10). Sepsis, endocarditis, and toxic shock syndrome are examples of life-threatening diseases caused by S. aureus (11). One of the critical risk factors for the development of hospital-acquired (HA) and community-acquired (CA) infections is S. aureus nasal carriage (12). Increased colonization rates have been reported to lead to increased infection rates in the community and hospitals (13, 14).

ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE IN STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS

Drug resistance in S. aureus can be acquired by different mechanisms, including horizontal gene transfer via plasmids or other mobile genetic elements as well as spontaneous mutations and selection (15, 16). This led to the emergence of multiple strains that demonstrate resistance to one or a combination of antibiotics, such as methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant S. aureus (VRSA), and multiple-drug-resistant S. aureus (MDRSA) (6). Over the past 20 years, there have been fluctuations in the prevalence of MRSA. Although overall rates of S. aureus infections may have stabilized (8) and the prevalence of MRSA is slightly decreasing in some Western countries, numbers are still alarmingly high on a worldwide scale. According to U.S. and Dutch prevalence data, between 2 million and 53 million people are conservatively estimated to carry MRSA worldwide (17).

Although comparison of epidemiological data has proven difficult because of differences in populations sampled and study designs, countries in North and South America and Asia as well as Malta have been reported to have the highest MRSA rates, exceeding 50%. Exceptionally high rates have been reported for Sri Lanka (86.5%), South Korea (77.6%), Vietnam (74.1%), and Taiwan (65.0%). In contrast, India and the Philippines have much lower rates of 22.6% and 38.1%, respectively. China, Australia, African countries, and some Southern and Eastern European countries, such as Portugal, Greece, Italy, and Romania, have intermediate rates ranging from 25 to 50%. MRSA is generally less prevalent in many Western and Northern European countries, including The Netherlands and Scandinavian countries (18).

Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance

Beta-lactams, aminoglycosides, macrolides, tetracyclines, and glycopeptide antibiotics lyse or inhibit the growth of antibiotic-susceptible staphylococcal cells by disturbing peptidoglycan synthesis or other vital functions of the cell. Penicillin and its analogues act by recognizing and binding to penicillin-binding protein (PBP), thereby inhibiting the cross-linking of pentaglycine chains (19). Macrolides, aminoglycosides, and tetracyclines inhibit bacterial protein synthesis by binding to and inhibiting ribosome function (20). By binding to the C-terminal d-alanyl–d-alanine of the peptidoglycan stem peptides, glycopeptides such as dalbavancin, oritavancin, teicoplanin, telavancin, and vancomycin inhibit the transpeptidation of S. aureus peptidoglycan (21, 22). The rapid evolution of antibiotic-resistant microbes became apparent when resistant strains of S. aureus emerged only 2 years after the discovery of penicillin in 1940 (23). A plasmid-encoded penicillinase (beta-lactamase) was responsible for this resistant phenotype (24). The development of penicillinase-resistant methicillin was a response to penicillin-resistant S. aureus in 1961, but certain strains showed resistance to methicillin shortly thereafter, which led to the identification of the methicillin resistance gene mecA (25). By the genomic integration of this gene, S. aureus became resistant to a broader range of beta-lactams. mecA encodes a mutated PBP, termed PBP2′ (26), which displays a low binding affinity for beta-lactams, and as a consequence, peptidoglycan cross-linking is no longer affected by methicillin and related agents (27). After methicillin, vancomycin emerged as the new antibiotic of last resort to treat the infections by S. aureus (28). Vancomycin acts by binding to the terminal d-alanyl–d-alanine moieties of N-acetylmuramic acid and N-acetylglucosamine peptide monomers, thereby preventing peptidoglycan cross-linking and proper cell wall synthesis (29). However, the overprescription of vancomycin led to either complete or partial disruption of vancomycin susceptibility of S. aureus strains, termed VRSA and vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (VISA), respectively (28). VISA was first identified from a clinical specimen in Japan in 1997 (30), while the first VRSA strain was identified 5 years later in the United States (31). Some isolates of VRSA were also resistant to beta-lactam antibiotics, thus making these isolates multidrug resistant (31). VISA strains were since identified to harbor mutations in several regulatory loci, i.e., the walRK, clpP, graRS, and vraSR genes (32). The graRS and vraSR genes encode cell wall synthesis-regulatory proteins that confer intermediate vancomycin resistance to VRSA strains (33). The synthesis of the peptidoglycan is upregulated following mutations of the clpP, walRK, vraSR, and graRS genes to produce an abnormally thick cell wall, thereby hindering effective vancomycin penetration into the cell (21). Foreign genetic material containing the vanA gene has also been revealed by genetic studies of VRSA; the presence of this gene results in an alteration within the peptidoglycan, replacing the terminal d-alanyl–d-alanine with d-alanyl–d-lactate, and consequently results in the abrogation of vancomycin binding (31).

General Antibiotic Therapies for S. aureus

The antibiotic of choice for the treatment of S. aureus infections initially was penicillin; however, penicillin resistance is extremely common in most countries (34). As a result, a penicillinase-resistant β-lactam antibiotic such as flucloxacillin or oxacillin is commonly used for first-line therapy; these antibiotics have the same mechanism of action as penicillin (35, 36). S. aureus strains that are methicillin resistant are also resistant to other β-lactam antibiotics, including penicillins (penicillin V, penicillin G, ampicillin, oxacillin, carbenicillin, and amoxicillin), carbapenems (imipenem-cilastatin [Primaxin]), cephalosporins (cephalothin), and monobactams (37).

Treatment of serious infections may utilize combination therapy with various antibiotics; however, because this strategy bears a high risk of damage to the kidneys, its use is controversial (38). Therefore, aiming to combat MRSA, vancomycin, which is a glycopeptide antibiotic, is commonly used. However, some treatment failures with vancomycin have been reported, even in patients infected with vancomycin-susceptible MRSA (39, 40). Linezolid, which belongs to the oxazolidinone class of drugs, has been reported to have bacteriostatic activity against S. aureus. This antibiotic is approved to treat complicated soft tissue and skin infections and also pneumonia in children and adults. It has oral and parenteral formulations, and its oral bioavailability is good (41), but S. aureus strains that are resistant to this antibiotic have been reported as well (42).

The antibiotic daptomycin, belonging to the new class of cyclic lipopeptides, shows activity against MRSA and methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA). This antibiotic is a powerful bactericidal agent against S. aureus in vitro, and it has received approval for the treatment of adults with complicated soft tissue and skin infections (43, 44). Although some clinics have reported daptomycin resistance, the use of high concentrations of the antibiotic is still effective against S. aureus (45).

One promising class of broad-spectrum antibiotics is quinolones, assuming a critical role in the treatment of hospital-acquired infections caused by strains that are resistant to older antibacterial classes. For example, JNJ-Q2 and delafloxacin, both of which are quinolone derivatives, are now undergoing clinical trials (46). Fluoroquinolones, the most commonly used subclass of quinolones in hospitals, can be effective against MRSA (47). However, as for the above-mentioned antibiotics, resistance to fluoroquinolones has also been observed in S. aureus (48), and this class of antibiotics is associated with an increased risk of MRSA colonization, for which reason its use is discouraged (49). There are additional antibacterial compounds that have entered clinical development, but the majority of these candidate drugs have failed to reach the market (50).

Treatment Costs of Staphylococcus aureus Infections

Based on the drug susceptibility of the infecting S. aureus strain, the costs of treatment can vary considerably. In the United States, a 6-month treatment regimen for a methicillin-sensitive S. aureus infection may cost approximately $16,000; however, costs for an otherwise identical MRSA infection treatment amount to nearly $36,000 (51). In addition to the increase in treatment costs, antimicrobial resistance has led to prolonged hospital stays and increases in morbidity and mortality rates. There are currently very few antibacterial agents present on the market for a number of common antibiotic-resistant strains (52). As some strains show resistance to multiple common antibiotics, there are few therapeutic options left to treat these multidrug-resistant infections, and those options that are available tend to be expensive, toxic to the patient, and/or less effective in treatment (53, 54).

BACTERIOPHAGE

History of Phage Therapy

Bacteriophages are considered the most abundant biological replicating entities on earth (55). As viruses with the ability to infect and lyse bacteria, bacteriophages were discovered separately by Frederick Twort and Félix d'Herelle (56, 57). Soon after this discovery, d'Herelle realized the potential of using bacteriophages to treat human and animal bacterial infections (58). In 1919, a phage cocktail was prepared for the treatment of a child suffering from dysentery, and after its safety was tested by administering it to several healthy individuals, it was administered to the child. The boy recovered after a single administration of the phage preparation. Three more patients were treated in the same way, and all of them recovered soon after administration; however, these results were not published (59). Phage therapy was soon abandoned by western countries due to the discovery of antibiotics, but in the former Soviet Union, bacteriophages were used from 1920 to 1940 for treating open wounds and intestinal Salmonella and Shigella infections. Maintenance of phages in the body 3 to 10 days after their administration was used as prophylaxis in regions where infections could spread rapidly (60). In 1921, bacteriophages were used by Joseph Maisin and Richard Bruynoghe for the treatment of staphylococcal skin infections, which resulted in improvement within 24 to 48 h of administration (61). Several similar studies were carried out, and phages were used to treat cholera and bubonic plague in several Asian countries (62, 63). Besides phage therapy, bacteriophages have found a number of applications in different fields, such as for sterilizing processed food, treating crops, diagnosing infections, typing bacteria, and developing molecular biology assays (6467). However, there is still some reticence in using a biological replicating entity for human phage therapy (68).

Bacteriophage-Derived Lytic Proteins

Many bacteriophages encode tail spike proteins that bind to receptors on the host cell surface. The tail spikes often include enzymatic components (virion-associated peptidoglycan hydrolases, also termed lytic structural proteins), which locally degrade the peptidoglycan in the bacterial cell wall, thereby facilitating the injection of phage DNA at the beginning of the infection process (58, 69). At the end of the phage lytic cycle, progeny virions escape from the host cell by the help of another type of phage-encoded peptidoglycan hydrolase, so-called endolysins. These enzymes, which are not part of the phage virion, accumulate in the cytoplasm, from where they gain access to the peptidoglycan through the action of a second phage protein, named holin, in a highly time-controlled process (70). When the holin concentration reaches a certain threshold, these initially monomeric transmembrane proteins are assembled into pore-forming oligomers in the cytoplasmic membrane. As a result, the membrane is depolarized, and the endolysins are allowed to diffuse through the membrane and degrade their peptidoglycan target. Destabilization of the peptidoglycan sacculus in combination with the internal turgor present in bacterial cells consequently results in lysis and cell death (“lysis from within”). In the case of the exogenous application of endolysins to Gram-positive pathogens, which do not have a protective outer membrane, rapid and effective “lysis from without” is caused by these enzymes, which makes endolysins interesting as potential antimicrobial agents (71, 72). The structure and function as well as the application of phage endolysins as therapeutics are discussed below.

ENDOLYSINS

Endolysin Structure and Function

Endolysins are categorized by their catalytic specificity, i.e., their target bonds within the peptidoglycan substrate. The bonds between N-acetylmuramic acid and N-acetylglucosamine in the sugar strands of the peptidoglycan are the targets for glucosaminidases, muramidases, and lytic transglycosylases. The same bond is cleaved by lytic transglycosylases and muramidases, but their cleavage mechanisms are different (nonhydrolytic and hydrolytic, respectively). In contrast, endopeptidases cleave various bonds within the peptide portion of the peptidoglycan, and amidases hydrolyze amide bonds that link the sugar and peptide moieties in the peptidoglycan layer (71).

In the case of endolysins acting against Gram-negative bacteria, the catalytic function is usually located within one single globular domain (73). In contrast, endolysins from a Gram-positive background typically show a modular design in which catalytic function and specific cell wall recognition are separated in two or more functional domains. In the simplest (and most frequent) case, they are composed of one N-terminal enzymatically active domain (EAD) and one C-terminal cell wall-binding domain (CBD), both of which are usually connected by a short linker region. However, there are more complex architectures, featuring multiple EADs and/or CBDs in different positions (65, 7476). Most endolysins derived from staphylococcal phages, which are described in more detail below, consist of a C-terminal SH3b-type CBD, an amidase in a central location, and an N-terminal endopeptidase (Fig. 2) (77, 78). Also, endolysins derived from a streptococcal phage, such as the B30 and lambda SA2 endolysins, feature a dual-EAD architecture with muramidase and endopeptidase domains, in addition to one or several CBDs (79). However, it has been shown for several dual-EAD endolysins by deletion analysis and site-directed mutagenesis that one of these EADs is virtually inactive, whereas the other one is dominant and exhibits high lytic activity in a lysis-from-without scenario (74, 78). While the lytic activity of some endolysins depends strictly on the presence of a CBD (77, 80, 81), this is not always the case. There are other examples of endolysins whose activity is not compromised or is even increased after the removal of the CBD (65, 74). The answer to the question of whether a CBD is required or not has been suggested to depend on both the assay used to determine the activity and the net charge of the EAD, with positively charged catalytic domains being less dependent on a CBD (82). Among all endolysins described to date, the lysin PlyC from streptococcal phage C1 is particularly unique, because its structure is multimeric, consisting of two separate gene products, named PlyCA and PlyCB, of 50 kDa and 8 kDa, respectively. These gene products self-assemble into a complex consisting of 1 PlyCA subunit and 8 PlyCB subunits (83). Although rare, there are a few examples of modular endolysins from phages infecting Gram-negative bacteria, such as the two-domain lysin KZ144 from a Pseudomonas phage (73).

FIG 2.

FIG 2

The modular structure of the LysK endolysin, consisting of 2 enzymatically active domains (CHAP and amidase-2) and one bacterial SH3 (SH3b) cell wall-binding domain.

Several studies have elucidated the crystal structures of both globular and modular endolysins as well as individual functional domains thereof. Examples include the T7 lysin (84), the T4 lysin (85), the streptococcal phage lysins Cpl-1 (86) and PlyC (87), the Bacillus phage lysins PlyL (88) and PlyB (89), the Listeria phage endolysin PlyPSA (90), and the staphylococcal phage endolysin PlyGH15 (91). The crystal structure of Cpl-1 has been investigated in both free and choline-bound states, suggesting that the choline-binding CBD helps the N-terminal catalytic domain to be correctly positioned (86, 92). It should be noted that the inherent flexibility of modular endolysins (afforded by the flexible linker regions connecting the individual domains) often prevents the crystallization of full-length enzymes, for which reason the majority of reported endolysin crystal structures comprise only single domains (65).

Endolysins as Potential Antimicrobials

As the treatment of bacterial infections proves to be increasingly difficult with the growing incidence of antibiotic-resistant strains, phage endolysins have been suggested as promising alternative antibacterial therapeutics (93, 94, 228). These phage-based enzymes have proven effective in various animal models of bacterial infection as well as in the decolonization of mucosal membranes (summarized in Table 1).

TABLE 1.

Selection of antimicrobial applications of endolysins and engineered derivativesa

Target pathogen(s) Endolysin(s) and/or derivative(s) Model type (animal[s]) Delivery method(s) Description and/or outcome Reference
Streptococcus pyogenes, MRSA PlySs2 In vivo (mouse) Intraperitoneal Protection of 92% of mice from S. pyogenes and MRSA bacteremia 201
Streptococcus suis PlySs2 In vivo (mouse) Intranasal High killing activity against multiple serotypes and strains of S. suis and survival of mice 202
S. pyogenes PlyPy In vivo (mouse) Intraperitoneal Protection of mice from death (90–95%) in a bacteremia model 203
S. pyogenes PlyC In vivo (mouse) Oral, nasal Elimination of the pathogen in orally colonized mice 204
S. aureus CHAPK In vivo (mouse) Intranasal Truncated endolysin construct eliminates S. aureus in the nares of mice 144
Streptococcus agalactiae PlySK1249 In vivo (mouse) Intraperitoneal Protection of 80% of mice from systemic infection 205
S. agalactiae, S. dysgalactiae, S. uberis B30, λSA2 In vivo (mouse) Intramammary Reduction of intramammary bacterial loads (1.5–4.5 logs) in a mouse model of bovine mastitis 127
Streptococcus pneumoniae Cpl-1 In vivo (mouse) Aerosol Reduction in mice mortality due to pneumonia by 80% 206
S. pneumoniae Cpl-1 In vivo (mouse) Intravenous, nasal, oral Reduction of bacterial loads in nasopharyngeal and bacteremia models; longer survival of animals 207
S. pneumoniae Cpl-1 In vivo (mouse) Intraperitoneal Total protection of mice from pneumonia when endolysin was administered within 24 h postinfection; reduced protection with delayed treatment (42% survival) 208
S. pneumoniae Cpl-1 In vivo (rat) Intravenous Elimination of pneumococci causing endocarditis from blood within 30 min with high-dose treatment 209
MRSA PlyGH15 In vivo (mouse) Intraperitoneal Protection of mice from bacteremia 145
MRSA SAL-1 In vivo (mouse) Intravenous Increased survival rate of mice and reduction of bacterial counts in the bloodstream 137
MRSA MV-L In vivo (mouse) Intraperitoneal, nasal Elimination of MRSA from nares of mice and protection against death from systemic infection 125
MRSA 8 different endolysins and lysostaphin In vivo (mouse) Intraperitoneal 100% protection from death by the majority of the tested enzymes; no clinical signs of disease at the end of the treatment 78
B. anthracis PlyG In vivo (mouse) Intraperitoneal Rescue of mice from fatal septicemia 210
MRSA SAL-1 In vivo (rat, dog) Intravenous Absence of adverse effects upon administration of endolysin 146
MRSA ClyH In vivo (mouse) Intraperitoneal 100% protection of mice from death 211
MRSA ClyS In vivo (mouse) Intraperitoneal Protection of mice from death with synergy between the endolysin and oxacillin 121
S. aureus ClyS In vivo (mouse) Topical Better performance (3-log CFU reduction on skin) than that of the antibiotic mupirocin 126
S. aureus λ SA2-E-Lyso-SH3b, λ SA2-E-LysK-SH3b In vivo (mouse) Intramammary Reduction of 3.36 log CFU with combined treatment with lysostaphin in a mouse model of bovine mastitis 101
S. aureus Several chimeric peptidoglycan hydrolases In vivo (mouse, rat) Intranasal, intramammary, intramuscular Better activity than that of the parental protein in models of nasal infection, mastitis, and osteomyelitis 114
S. pneumoniae, S. pyogenes Cpl-7 In vivo (zebrafish embryos) Immersion Increased survival rate of 95–99% of animals; combination with carvacrol was effective at killing Gram-negative bacteria 212
Pseudomonas aeruginosa Artilysin In vivo (Caenorhabditis elegans) Immersion Improved survival of nematodes treated with an artilysin (63%) active against the Gram-negative pathogen compared to the native endolysin (40%) 213
MRSA MR-10 In vivo (mouse) Subcutaneous Combined application with minocycline effectively reduced bacterial burdens in localized and systemic burn wound infections 214
S. aureus PlyGRCS In vivo (mouse) Intravenous PlyGRCS was effective at rescuing 30% of mice from death induced by S. aureus bacteremia after 3.5 days 120
MRSA, MSSA LysGH15 In vivo (mouse) Subcutaneous LysGH15 did not induce resistance in MRSA, and its in vitro and in vivo efficacy was not compromised in the presence of antibodies generated against the endolysin 215
MRSA SAL200 (SAL-1) In vivo (monkey) Intravenous Repeated SAL200 injections over a period of <1 wk or single high-dose injections were well tolerated 138
MRSA SAL200 (SAL-1) In vivo (human) Intravenous Phase 1 clinical study evaluating pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and tolerance of SAL200 in humans; no serious adverse effects were observed 140
MRSA Trx-SA1 In vivo (cow) Intramammary Significant reductions in pathogen levels and somatic cell counts in milk from udder quarters with mild clinical S. aureus-induced mastitis 216
MSSA, MRSA SA.100 In vivo (human) Topical Case report describing successful treatment of 3 different S. aureus-related dermatoses by topical application of the endolysin-based therapeutic Staphefekt SA.100 217
S. pyogenes PlyC In vitro NA PlyC is able to cross epithelial cell membranes, making it a promising agent to control intracellular streptococci 218
S. suis LySMP In vitro NA Efficacy against biofilms 219
Streptococcus equi PlyC In vitro NA 1,000-fold-higher activity against the causative agent of equine strangles than the commercial disinfectant Virkon-S 220
Streptococcus sp. Ply700 In vitro NA Activity against S. uberis in milk 221
MRSA CHAPK In vitro NA Thermally triggered release of a synergistic staphylolytic cocktail consisting of lysostaphin and CHAPK from poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) nanoparticles 222
E. coli Bacteriophage T5 endolysin In vitro NA Synergistic effect of T5 endolysin in combination with membrane-permeabilizing compounds against Gram-negative bacteria 223
MSSA, MRSA, and ceftaroline-ceftobiprole- and borderline oxacillin-resistant staphylococcal isolates HY-133 In vitro NA Activity of a chimeric endolysin construct against a collection of African staphylococcal strains 133
Multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii ABgp46 In vitro NA Activity of the novel ABgp46 endolysin against Acinetobacter and other Gram-negative bacteria is enhanced by citric and maleic acids 224
S. aureus, S. epidermidis LysH5 In vitro NA Activity in milk against S. aureus 225
S. aureus LysH5 In vitro NA Expression and secretion of an active staphylococcal endolysin in lactic acid bacteria 157
L. monocytogenes Ply511 In vitro NA Expression and secretion of an active endolysin by lactic acid bacteria 111
A. baumannii LysAB2 In vitro NA LysAB2 exhibited broad bacteriolytic activity against a number of Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria 226
S. aureus SAL-2 In vitro NA Activity against planktonic bacteria and biofilms 227
a

NA, not applicable.

Although endolysins with broad-range lytic activity have been identified (95), most phage endolysins show near species specificity, and this is believed to be one of their most advantageous properties in this age of broad-range antibiotic resistance, by avoiding selective pressure on commensal populations (65). Furthermore, the development of resistance against endolysins is unlikely for several other reasons. Since the phage and the host bacteria are coevolving, endolysins have evolved to bind to and cleave highly conserved structures in the cell wall, the modification of which is believed to be detrimental to the host organism (96, 97). In addition, by being applied externally and acting on the cell wall, without having to enter the bacterial cell, endolysins used therapeutically avoid a majority of the possible resistance mechanisms (e.g., active efflux from the cell or decreased membrane permeability) that play a role in resistance to most conventional antibiotics (98, 99). Several endolysins also possess two catalytic domains that hydrolyze different bonds in the peptidoglycan, which is also believed to further reduce the chance of resistance development (1).

Finally, to enhance their therapeutic activity and to avoid the development of resistance, multiple endolysins may be used in combination with antibiotics to treat bacterial infections (1, 100). Synergistic effects among endolysins and between endolysins and other antimicrobial agents have been reported (101103). Other topics related to the systemic application of endolysins, such as immunogenicity, toxicity, and serum half-life, have been discussed elsewhere (65) and are not a focus of this review.

Engineering of Endolysins

The modular structure of endolysins provides a unique opportunity for protein engineering in order to modify bacteriolytic activity, specificity, solubility, and other physicochemical properties of these enzymes. One prime example of an engineered enzyme with increased lytic activity is Ply187AN-KSH3b, a fusion of the endopeptidase domain of the staphylococcal Ply187 lysin (Ply187AN) with the SH3b CBD of another staphylococcal phage endolysin, LysK. The fusion construct displayed >10-fold-higher staphylolytic than that of Ply187AN and was also more active than LysK in multiple activity assays (104). Similarly, the chimeric enzyme ClyH has been created by the fusion of a non-SH3b CBD from phiNM3, another S. aureus phage, with the endopeptidase domain of Ply187, resulting in a 14-fold improvement in staphylolytic activity against the tested strains. In addition, a broader spectrum of activity has been shown for ClyH, including some staphylococcal strains that were not susceptible to native Ply187 (105). Changes in specificity, such as an expansion of the lytic spectrum of an endolysin, can be achieved by the exchange or addition of CBDs outside the native endolysin's serovar, species, or even genus specificity. Fusion of the endopeptidase domain of the streptococcal LambdaSa2 phage endolysin with the SH3b CBDs from either the staphylococcal phage endolysin LysK or lysostaphin drastically increased the staphylolytic activity of the chimeric enzyme, while the parental streptolytic activity was maintained (74, 106). The peptidoglycan hydrolase lysostaphin is a bacteriocin produced by S. simulans that exhibits lytic activity against S. aureus (107). It features a modular architecture similar to that of a bacteriophage endolysin, consisting of an N-terminal catalytic domain and a C-terminal binding module. However, as opposed to endolysins, lysostaphin targets the weakly conserved pentaglycine bridge of staphylococcal peptidoglycan. Consequently, mutant strains featuring modifications within this portion of the peptidoglycan and showing resistance to lysostaphin have been reported (108). For this reason, it is not recommended that lysostaphin be used as a single antimicrobial agent. However, combined applications with endolysin-derived proteins, which exploit synergistic effects due to the different peptidoglycan cleavage sites of these enzymes, have been reported and may represent a feasible strategy to decrease the chance of resistance (102, 109). Furthermore, components of lysostaphin have been used for the construction of chimeric peptidoglycan hydrolases (74, 109). The spectrum of specificity of an enzyme can also be extended by a combination of two heterologous CBDs; this has been shown by fusions of CBDs from Listeria phage endolysins with different binding specificities that were fluorescently tagged (110). Although the full lytic activity of most endolysins depends on a CBD, there are various examples where the deletion of a binding module resulted in enzymes with advantageous properties. When the CBD of the Bacillus anthracis prophage endolysin PlyL was deleted, the species specificity of the parental enzyme was abolished, and its lytic activity was broadened to include a wider spectrum of Bacillus species (88). In some cases, the removal of the CBD may even increase endolysin potency. A truncated version of the Listeria phage endolysin Ply511 lacking a part of its CBD caused enhanced lysis zones compared to those with the full-length parental enzyme in a soft agar overlay assay, which was attributed to a more efficient diffusion of the truncated construct through this semisolid matrix (111). Similarly, truncation of the Clostridium difficile phage endolysin CD27L to its N-terminal domain (i.e., removal of its putative CBD) improved bacteriolytic activity and led to a broadened lytic range of the deletion construct (112). Besides CBDs, the removal of low-activity EADs may also improve the potency of an enzyme. The streptococcal prophage LambdaSa2 endolysin contains two enzymatically active domains, a C-terminal glycosidase that is poorly active and a highly active endopeptidase, in addition to 2 centrally located Cpl-7 CBDs (113). The removal of the entire glycosidase domain while retaining the CBDs led to an increased streptolytic activity of the truncated enzyme compared to that of the parental endolysin (106). Another significant report recently described the construction of artificial staphylococcal peptidoglycan hydrolases that combine three unique catalytic activities into single fusion proteins, thereby effectively avoiding the development of resistant strains. Additional modification of these constructs with so-called protein transduction domains enhanced their efficacy against staphylococcal biofilms and rendered them active against intracellular staphylococci, as demonstrated in cultured mammary gland epithelial cells and a mastitis mouse model (114). Besides the above-mentioned examples, molecular engineering of endolysins led to constructs with an increased binding affinity for the cell wall (110), enhanced solubility (115), and an altered ionic strength optimum (110).

Endolysins with Activity against S. aureus

In the light of the above-mentioned resistance problem, S. aureus has become a prime target for endolysin technology in recent years. Numerous studies describing cloning, recombinant production, and characterization of native and engineered staphylococcal peptidoglycan hydrolases in vitro and in animal models have been reported during the past decade (65, 116).

The vast majority of these enzymes feature a unique 3-domain architecture, with two EADs (one at the N terminus and a second one located centrally) and one C-terminal SH3b-type CBD (Fig. 2). In most cases, the N-terminal EAD is a cysteine-, histidine-dependent amidohydrolase/peptidase (CHAP), which cleaves the bond between d-Ala of the stem peptide and the pentaglycine bridge of the staphylococcal peptidoglycan. The centrally located EAD displays amidase activity (amidase 2 or amidase 3), cutting between the sugar strands and the stem peptide (78, 100, 117). The SH3b domain is known to require an intact pentaglycine bridge for full binding activity, which has been shown for the SH3b-like cell wall-targeting domain of the bacteriocin lysostaphin (118). There are exceptions to this conserved architecture, such as the 2638A endolysin, which harbors an M23 endopeptidase domain instead of a CHAP domain at its N terminus (119), as well as the P68 (115) and PlyGRCS (120) endolysins, which feature 2-domain architectures. A few staphylococcal endolysins containing a CBD unrelated to the common SH3b domain have been reported as well (121). For most of the dual-EAD staphylococcal endolysins, lytic activity relies mostly on the N-terminal CHAP endopeptidase domain (116, 122, 123), whereas the amidase domain is virtually inactive when applied externally. One exception is the 2638A endolysin, which features a highly active amidase domain (119).

Despite the highly similar modular design of the SH3b-containing enzymes, which form by far the largest subgroup among the staphylococcal phage endolysins, they can differ considerably at the amino acid sequence level. Becker et al. reported that these proteins fall into 5 homology groups that show more than 90% sequence identity within each group but less than 50% identity between groups. Six “stand-alone” proteins could not be assigned to any of the groups. It is noteworthy that SH3b domains share the highest degree of conservation between the different groups and stand-alone enzymes (74). The remarkable diversity found among this group of endolysins at the sequence level is also reflected in the diverse enzymatic and antibacterial properties of these enzymes. This became apparent when representative peptidoglycan hydrolases from each of the above-mentioned homology groups were comparatively characterized (78). The 9 investigated enzymes (8 phage endolysins and the bacteriocin lysostaphin) differed in their lytic activities against live S. aureus cells, their optimum ionic strengths, their spectra of susceptible strains, and their efficacies against S. aureus biofilms. The endolysin with the highest staphylolytic activity in this study was LysK, which is derived from S. aureus phage K (124) and, at the same time, is one of the best-characterized staphylococcal peptidoglycan hydrolases described to date. Therefore, a separate section of this review is dedicated to LysK and its close homologues.

The first staphylococcal phage endolysin tested in animal models was MV-L, which is derived from phage ΦMR11 and is able to kill various strains of S. aureus, including VISA, MRSA, and VRSA variants. Conversely, MV-L is harmless to several other commensal species that have been tested, such as Staphylococcus epidermidis, which is an inhabitant of skin and mucus membranes that is able to competitively inhibit S. aureus colonization (125). The nasal cavity in humans and animals is considered a primary site of colonization by S. aureus. Intranasal treatment using MV-L was shown to effectively eliminate S. aureus from artificially inoculated nares of mice (125). Nasal decolonization ability has since also been demonstrated for engineered endolysin constructs such as ClyS, a fusion protein consisting of the CHAP domain of the phage Twort endolysin and the non-SH3b CBD of the phiNM3 endolysin. This chimera effectively decreased the numbers of bacteria of an MRSA strain by 2 logs within 1 h, 24 h after inoculation in the nasal passage (121). When applied in a murine skin infection model, a topical ointment containing ClyS was demonstrated to be more effective than mupirocin, the commonly prescribed antibiotic for topical application against S. aureus infections (126). Besides nasal decolonization and topical applications on the skin, some staphylococcal endolysins have also been shown to be effective against systemic S. aureus infections in animal models. The survival of mice intraperitoneally infected with MRSA was improved by 100% after a single 0.05-mg (∼2-mg/kg of body weight) intraperitoneal injection of MV-L within 30 min after infection. However, when the same treatment was delayed by 1 h, mouse survival decreased by 40% or more when the treatment was further postponed. In addition, MV-L was not able to eradicate all S. aureus bacteria from the bloodstream (125).

More recently, the above-mentioned 9 unique peptidoglycan hydrolases were compared for their efficacies at rescuing mice from MRSA-induced bacteremia, with the antibiotics vancomycin and oxacillin being used as controls (78). Mice were infected intraperitoneally with MRSA together with an immunosuppressant. A total of 0.2 mg of the enzymes (∼8 mg/kg) was administered via the same route 30 min later. Within 2 days, 75% of the infected and buffer-treated control mice died in this model. In contrast, the endolysins phi11, LysK, 80α, WMY, and 2638A were able to save 100% of the mice, similarly to vancomycin and lysostaphin. Mice treated with these agents temporarily developed clinical signs indicative of slight to moderate illness but completely recovered within 40 h postinfection. The endolysins phiSH2 and Twort rescued only about 60% of the animals, while no protection was offered by the endolysin P68, likely due to solubility issues (78).

Not only do endolysins hold promise as individually applied antibacterials, they also have been reported to act synergistically when used in combination with each other (i.e., two endolysins with different cleavage specificities) or with other antimicrobial agents (127). The efficacy of less efficient or overused antibiotics can even be revived by utilizing a combination of endolysins and antibiotics. For instance, intraperitoneal administration of the fusion enzyme ClyS alone (0.96 mg [∼38.4 mg/kg]) increased survival rates of MRSA-infected mice to 88% (121). However, when used in combination with 100 μg of oxacillin (a dose that, when individually administered, saved only 40% of the animals), a similar efficacy (∼80% survival) could be achieved with a reduced dose of ClyS of only 0.17 mg (∼6.8 mg/kg). This synergistic effect has been attributed to the enhanced production of staphylococcal autolysins in the presence of oxacillin, an inhibitor of peptidoglycan cross-linking. These autolytic enzymes may be responsible for the observed synergy (121).

While the above-mentioned intraperitoneal infection and treatment studies may be valid as important first steps toward evaluating the in vivo efficacy of endolysins, they inadequately model localized infections such as endocarditis or osteomyelitis, which involve deeper tissue penetration and the formation of abscesses (6). However, there are a few studies that have also described the efficacy of (engineered) endolysins in more specific animal models of S. aureus infection. One example is the treatment of S. aureus-induced endophthalmitis using the chimeric staphylococcal endolysin Ply187AN-KSH3b, and also, the possibility of using other endolysins for the treatment of bacterial eye infections has been reported (128, 129). S. aureus represents the leading cause of this disease, which is characterized as a vision-threatening complication of ocular trauma. Intravitreal injection of Ply187AN-KSH3b into the eyes of mice that had been infected with S. aureus 6 to 12 h prior to treatment significantly reduced bacterial burdens in the eye and improved the clinical outcome, preserving retinal function.

Another example is the treatment of S. aureus-induced mammary gland infections in a mouse model of bovine mastitis by chimeric phage endolysins in combination with lysostaphin (101). The combination treatment reduced the numbers of intramammary bacteria by >3 log units and markedly decreased inflammation, as measured by tumor necrosis factor alpha concentrations and mammary gland wet weights.

Of note, a first series of staphylococcal phage endolysin-based antibacterial products is already available on the market. These products include Staphefekt XDR.300, a solution that is active against S. aureus (including MRSA) on human skin, and the Gladskin series of skin care products for the treatment of various skin conditions with an infectious component, such as acne, eczema, rosacea, and skin irritation. Both products contain the active ingredient Staphefekt and are marketed by Micreos Human Health BV (The Netherlands).

LysK AND ITS HOMOLOGUES

Structure, Function, and Physicochemical Properties

The endolysin LysK is derived from bacteriophage K, a virulent broad-range phage from the family of Myoviridae whose genome length is 127,395 bp. Interestingly, LysK, a 54-kDa protein of 495 amino acids, is encoded by two open reading frames interrupted by an intron, and the mature endolysin is created from these two separated parts through a splicing reaction (130). The modular architecture of LysK is that of a typical 3-domain staphylococcal phage endolysin as described above, i.e., featuring a CHAP domain, an amidase-2 domain, and an SH3b domain (Fig. 2) (130, 131, 229). The cleavage sites of the CHAP and amidase-2 domains within the staphylococcal peptidoglycan (d-Ala–Gly endopeptidase and MurNAc–l-Ala amidase, respectively) have been elucidated by mass spectrometry analysis of peptidoglycan digestion products (100) and are identical to those reported for other staphylococcal phage endolysins (78, 117) (depicted in Fig. 3). While the mere presence of amidase activity was demonstrated in those experiments, several studies predict that the midprotein amidase-2 domain contributes little to the overall staphylolytic activity of the endolysin and is dispensable in a lysis-from-without setting (131, 132).

FIG 3.

FIG 3

Schematic representation of S. aureus peptidoglycan and LysK cleavage sites. The peptidoglycan is made up of sugar strands consisting of two alternating units (N-acetylmuramic acid and N-acetylglucosamine) and peptide linkers connecting these strands. Five units of glycine (Gly) act as a cross-bridge between stem peptides.

Deletion studies showed that upon the removal of the amidase-2 and SH3 domains, the construct retaining only the CHAP domain of LysK (termed CHAPK), comprising the first 165 amino acids, remained highly active and in addition showed increased solubility compared to that of the parental full-length endolysin (131). Similarly, Becker et al. generated a series of LysK deletion constructs and compared their in vitro activities against S. aureus. As opposed to CHAPK, a CHAP-only construct produced in that study (termed LysK221, comprising the first 221 amino acids) retained only marginal activity, possibly due to improper folding at the C-terminal end. However, another deletion construct consisting of the CHAP and SH3b domains (i.e., a deletion of the amidase domain) exhibited staphylolytic activity similar to that of the full-length enzyme (100). Another construct, named HY-133 (owned by Hyglos GmbH, Germany), and its progenitor, PRF-119, which consist of the CHAP domain of LysK and the SH3b domain of lysostaphin, were reported to display pronounced bactericidal activity against multiple staphylococcal strains (132, 133).

Since LysK has been identified as an endolysin, researchers have conducted several studies to determine its physicochemical properties. The biological stability of an enzyme being considered for antimicrobial applications is particularly important, as stability directly affects the efficacy of the enzyme. The stability of LysK was found to be increased 100-fold by the addition of sucrose, glycerol, or other low-molecular-weight additives to the storage buffer. The addition of such low-molecular-weight additives enables LysK to maintain 100% of its activity for up to a month at room temperature, which is remarkable and very uncommon for most enzymes. The addition of divalent cations such as Ca2+ also increased the stability of LysK. At temperatures over 40°C, a dramatic loss in stability was observed and attributed to secondary-structure changes, as measured by circular dichroism spectroscopy (134). The same group reported that LysK displayed increased stability in complexes with polycationic polymers (poly-l-lysines [PLLs]) and block copolymers of these PLLs with polyethylene glycol (135).

LysK was also one of the first staphylococcal endolysins for which structural information was available. Sanz-Gaitero et al. solved the crystal structure of CHAPK, which showed a papain-like topology with the catalytic triad located inside a hydrophobic cleft. Two metal ions were found to be associated with the structure: a structural calcium ion and a zinc ion within the active site (122, 136). Shortly before that, the structure of all three functional domains of the LysGH15 endolysin was reported (91). Of note, LysGH15 is almost identical to LysK, differing in only 4 amino acids. Accordingly, structural features described for the CHAP domain of LysGH15 are in agreement with the CHAPK structure. In addition, those authors reported that the calcium ion-binding site of the CHAP domain is located in a so-called “EF hand-like” motif in close proximity to the active-site cleft and that the presence of the calcium ion is critical for the lytic activity of the enzyme. The addition of calcium to the EDTA-inactivated CHAP domain completely restored enzymatic activity, whereas other divalent metal cations (including zinc) failed to do so. The amidase domain of LysGH15 was found to feature a shallow groove on its surface, which would support the accommodation and cleavage of the highly cross-linked peptidoglycan structure. A zinc ion is bound at the center of the groove in an arrangement typical of zinc-dependent metalloenzymes. The important role of the zinc ion is supported by the finding that mutation of all zinc-binding residues abolished the activity of the amidase domain. The SH3b domain of LysGH15 was found to be structurally very similar to that of the lysostaphin homologue ALE-1. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) titration experiments using the peptide “AGGGGG,” mimicking the pentaglycine bridge of staphylococcal peptidoglycan, revealed the interaction of this peptide with residues of the presumptive peptidoglycan-binding groove of the SH3b domain albeit at a relatively low affinity. Mutation of the respective residues abolished the binding of the CBD to S. aureus peptidoglycan (91). Besides LysGH15, another LysK homologue, named SAL-1, was recently described and extensively characterized (137139). This endolysin differs from LysK in only 3 amino acids; however, it was claimed by those authors to exhibit higher activity against multiple S. aureus strains than LysK (139). SAL-1 is the first endolysin that has been intravenously administered to humans (140), which is discussed in more detail below.

In Vivo Studies with LysK and Its Derivatives and Homologues

Although quantitative comparison of results between different laboratories is difficult, LysK and its homologues are among the most potent staphylococcal phage endolysins described to date. In direct comparison with 7 endolysins from different homology groups, LysK revealed the highest staphylolytic activity, as determined by turbidity reduction assays, and also proved most effective at removing S. aureus biofilms from polystyrene surfaces (78). Furthermore, this endolysin has a broad spectrum of activity, killing a variety of S. aureus strains, including MRSA, VRSA, and teicoplanin-resistant strains; surface mutant strains; as well as coagulase-negative staphylococci (78, 124, 141). In addition, LysK has been demonstrated to exhibit strong synergy when applied in combination with lysostaphin, presumably due to the different peptidoglycan cleavage sites of these two enzymes (102). All these properties make LysK and its derivatives and close homologues highly interesting as potential antistaphylococcal therapeutics and have led researchers to investigate their efficacy in various in vivo models.

In a mouse model of systemic MRSA infection, which was part of the above-mentioned comparative endolysin characterization, LysK (injected intraperitoneally 30 min after infection at 200 μg/mouse) was one of the most effective enzymes, saving 100% of the animals from death. MRSA was not detected in the blood of any of the LysK-treated mice at the conclusion of the experiment, but 67% of control animals surviving after 48 h tested positive for bacteremia, with an average concentration in the blood of 2.48 log CFU/ml (78).

Besides full-length LysK, the truncated construct CHAPK has also been shown to be a potent antimicrobial both in vitro and in vivo. Its lytic spectrum is even broader than that of LysK and, besides numerous species of Staphylococcus, includes members of the genera Streptococcus, Micrococcus, Arthrobacter, Nesterenkonia, Carnobacterium, and Leuconostoc. The active pH range of the enzyme is 6 to 11, with optimum activity at pH 9, and it shows activity at temperatures between 5 and 40°C, suggesting potential applications in various fields such as medicine and food production (142). CHAPK also proved effective at preventing S. aureus biofilm formation and removing preformed biofilms from artificial surfaces (143). Biofilms play an important role in bacterial infections of both humans and animals and as a source of contamination in food production and processing. Finally, nasal and oral administration of CHAPK to mice that had been inoculated in the nostrils with S. aureus caused an effective reduction in bacterial concentrations by 2 logs (144).

Similar to the full-length LysK endolysin, its close homologue LysGH15 has also been evaluated in a mouse model of systemic MRSA infection. Mice infected intraperitoneally with two times the minimum lethal dose of an MRSA strain were treated with different concentrations of the endolysin injected via the same route at various time points after infection. One hundred percent protection of the mice was achieved when the protein was administered at 1 h postinfection at a concentration of 50 μg/mouse. Numbers of MRSA bacteria in the blood of mice treated with this dose were decreased by 2 log units within 2.5 h, whereas those of control mice were increased to >107 CFU/ml (145). Besides its in vivo efficacy, LysGH15 was found to exhibit higher average in vitro activity against a tested set of MRSA strains than against a selection of MSSA strains. Those authors hypothesized that this could be due to a tighter binding of LysGH15 to cell wall structures predominantly present in strains with methicillin resistance (145).

SAL-1, the second well-characterized homologue of LysK, is derived from the Staphylococcus phage SAP-1 (139). In an effort to develop this enzyme as a therapeutic agent for human application, those authors demonstrated that a stabilizing formulation containing poloxamer 188 and Ca ions increased its lytic activity against S. aureus planktonic cells, encapsulated forms, and biofilms in vitro. The intravenous administration of this preformulation, which was designated SAL200, to mice once a day for 3 days after infection with MRSA significantly reduced the mortality of the animals. Furthermore, no bacteria were recovered from blood and splenic tissue of SAL200-treated mice, whereas concentrations between 105 and 107 CFU/ml were found in the control groups (137). SAL200 is the first endolysin-based therapeutic that underwent a good laboratory practice (GLP)-compliant safety evaluation, including single- and repeated-dose toxicity studies and central nervous system, respiratory, and cardiovascular function tests in rats and dogs (146). Rats tolerated repeated doses of 100 mg/kg over 4 weeks, and no signs of abnormal behavior or toxicity were observed. Two weeks of repeated dosing showed no changes related to the treatment in dogs, including changes in food consumption, body weight, electrocardiography, ophthalmology, hematology, urinalysis, organ weight, or serum biochemistry. However, mild and transient (i.e., lasting for 30 min to 1 h after injection) clinical signs such as irregular respiration, subdued behavior, and vomiting were observed in dogs starting after 10 days of repeated administration. Upon further investigation, an immune response was elicited after repeated exposure to the enzyme for 14 and 28 days in dogs and rats, respectively, as measured by the presence of anti-SAL-1 antibodies. The exposed dogs also showed a reduction in the level of blood C3 complement, considered representative of the complement system (146). It is unclear whether this response was due to the enzyme itself or due to residual lipopolysaccharide endotoxin in the protein preparation. Nonetheless, after the injection of SAL200, the symptoms were observed only transiently and were considered mild (146). In a further safety and pharmacokinetic study conducted in monkeys, SAL200 was well tolerated and did not cause any adverse effects when injected as a single dose (up to 80 mg/kg body weight) or as multiple doses, up to 40 mg/kg per day (138). Most recently, SAL200 became the first endolysin-based drug applied to humans by intravenous infusion as part of a phase 1 clinical trial (140). Single ascending doses (up to 10 mg/kg) were applied to healthy male volunteers, and pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and tolerance of the drug candidate were evaluated. No serious adverse effects or clinically significant values were observed for any of the participants as a consequence of administration up to the highest tested dose. Mild and temporarily observed effects included fatigue, headache, rigors, and myalgia.

ENDOLYSIN PRODUCTION IN LACTIC ACID BACTERIA FOR FOOD SAFETY APPLICATIONS

Besides its role as an infectious agent, S. aureus is also an important foodborne pathogen. It causes food poisoning through the production of heat-stable enterotoxins during growth in contaminated food products. When ingested, even in the absence of the bacterium, these toxins cause classical symptoms of foodborne intoxication such as vomiting and diarrhea (147, 148). The addition of purified endolysins to certain high-risk food products is being discussed as one possibility to prevent the growth of pathogenic organisms and thereby the production of toxins in food. An alternative approach is the use of starter organisms used in the production of fermented food for the expression and secretion of active endolysins into the product (93). Lactic acid bacteria have been utilized for years in different food preservation and fermentation processes (149). Both lactococci and lactobacilli have been characterized as probiotic bacteria, based on their “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) status, and they have been exploited for heterologous protein production (150, 151). Furthermore, lactococci are found as commensals in the gastrointestinal tract, oral cavity, and female reproductive tract. Lactococcus lactis in particular is a nonpathogenic, Gram-positive, spherical bacterium that has been widely used by the food industry, e.g., in the production of fermented dairy products (152). Also, biotechnology has widely used this bacterium as an expression system in order to produce heterologous proteins on a large scale (153, 154). The Listeria phage endolysins Ply118 and Ply511, which are an l-alanoyl–d-glutamate peptidase and an N-acetylmuramoyl–l-alanine amidase, respectively, were the first endolysins successfully produced and secreted by L. lactis. That study was conducted in an effort to develop dairy starter strains with biopreservation properties for enhanced food safety (111). Similarly, Ply511 and lysostaphin were produced and secreted in various different lactic acid bacteria, one of which (a Lactobacillus plantarum strain secreting lysostaphin) was able to reduce numbers of S. aureus bacteria by >7 log units in a coculture study (155).

O'Flaherty and colleagues were the first ones to produce a staphylococcal phage endolysin (LysK) in L. lactis (124), using a nisin-inducible expression system (Fig. 4) (156), in order to overcome solubility problems encountered when attempting expression in Escherichia coli at that time. In this case, the active endolysin was not secreted, but its staphylolytic activity was detected in lysates of the L. lactis culture (124). The crude lysates caused a 99% reduction in numbers of MRSA bacteria within 1 h, demonstrating that recombinantly produced LysK in L. lactis is able to eradicate live cells of pathogenic staphylococci (124).

FIG 4.

FIG 4

Protein secretion pathway in the nisin-controlled gene expression system in L. lactis. After nisin is detected by the sensor histidine kinase protein located in the membrane (NisK), autophosphorylation of this protein occurs, followed by the transfer of its phosphatase group to the cytoplasmic response regulator NisR. NisR, which is now activated, then activates transcription via the PnisA promoter, followed by the production of a target protein, which in this case is a recombinant endolysin. Depending on the presence or absence of a specific signal peptide, the protein either is secreted into the external medium or accumulates in the cytoplasm.

More recently, the same expression system was used for the production of the staphylococcal phage endolysin LysH5 in L. lactis (157). In addition to the PnisA promoter, various other constitutive and inducible lactococcal promoters were tested in order to optimize production. As opposed to the previous study with LysK, a signal peptide was fused to the LysH5 endolysin, which resulted in its secretion into the culture supernatant (Fig. 4). However, secretion was found to occur with low efficiency, and most of the protein was still found in the cellular fraction. In conclusion, the production and secretion of recombinant endolysins in lactic acid bacteria could be a viable method to deliver the enzymes into food products, but the efficiency of the expression and secretion systems still needs to be improved.

NANOTECHNOLOGY AS A NEW STRATEGY FOR ENDOLYSIN DELIVERY

Considering the continuous evolution of resistance mechanisms against multiple commercial antibiotics, regimes of traditional therapies need to be overhauled and developed into novel strategies (158). Nanoparticles (NPs) are now being used extensively for the delivery of therapeutic agents such as anticancer drugs to eukaryotic cells (159, 160), and they also offer possibilities to effectively target bacterial cells (161, 162). Since surfaces of various NPs can be modified to allow conjugation with biological molecules via different functional groups, these particles can be utilized as efficient vehicles that are able to deliver a predetermined amount of antibiotic molecules to the target pathogens (163, 164).

Several research groups are now investigating nanotechnology-based methods to design delivery vehicles for antibiotics and other antimicrobial compounds (159, 160). Similarly, there are possibilities for engineering surfaces or interiors of NPs with fluorophores in order to achieve quantitative detection (165). By utilizing these properties in combination, NPs could be capable of improving diagnostics and the treatment of bacterial infections at the same time (166, 167).

Aiming to increase therapeutic efficacy, one or several morphological and antibacterial features of NPs can be exploited. This includes the application of NPs as (i) membrane-penetrating agents in order to effectively transduce antimicrobials into bacterial cells (168171), (ii) drug-concentrating agents enabling polyvalent effects through tight packing of antimicrobials on the NP surface (172, 173), and (iii) attacking agents that are able to specifically act against biological targets, either through inherent antimicrobial properties or through coupling with antimicrobial agents (174176).

Some NPs, such as those consisting of copper, silver, and selenium, have intrinsic antimicrobial properties, which could possibly be further enhanced by combining or coating them with more specific antibacterial agents, taking advantage of synergistic effects (177, 178). For example, several reports described enhanced antimicrobial effects of antibiotics against various bacterial pathogens, including S. aureus, when used in combination with silver NPs (Fig. 5) (179181). Besides NPs with intrinsic antimicrobial properties, there are other types of NPs that can be used in therapeutic applications that do not exhibit any antimicrobial effect themselves but are able to enhance the effect of other therapeutic agents or approaches. Gold nanoparticles (Au-NPs), for instance, are employed in several antimicrobial applications and have been reported to enhance the killing efficacy of antimycobacterial peptides (182).

FIG 5.

FIG 5

Schematic structure of an antibiotic-nanoparticle conjugate reacting with receptors within the cytoplasmic membrane. Ag-NP, silver nanoparticle; ABX, any kind of natural, synthetic, or recombinant antibiotic.

There are various examples in the literature describing the conjugation or combined application of phage endolysins or individual domains thereof with different types of nanoparticles. The Listeria phage endolysin Ply500 is a reportedly strong antimicrobial agent that is active against strains of the foodborne pathogen Listeria monocytogenes (183). A conjugate of Ply500 with silica nanoparticles (SNPs) retained the activity of the endolysin and was able to reduce numbers of Listeria bacteria in suspension by almost 5 log units within 24 h. A complete eradication (∼4-log reduction) of Listeria bacteria was achieved on iceberg lettuce (184). Surprisingly, the conjugation of SNPs with Ply500 significantly enhanced the stability of the endolysin. When incubated at 25°C for 15 days, the Ply500-SNP conjugates retained >90% of their activity, whereas the unconjugated enzyme was completely inactivated over the same period of time (184). In that same study, Ply500 was immobilized on edible cross-linked starch NPs via maltose-binding protein (MBP). Both engineered Ply500-MBP fusion proteins alone and the Ply500-MBP-NP conjugates caused a >2.5-log reduction of the number of Listeria bacteria in suspension. These results demonstrate that the immobilization of lytic enzymes on NPs can enhance protein stability and thereby the efficacy of the enzymes in food applications, where lytic activity during extended periods of storage is desired. Similarly, the conjugation of SNPs with LysK or other S. aureus-specific endolysins could improve the efficacy of these enzymes in certain niche applications.

Other nanotechnology-based approaches employ certain polymers as controlled drug release vehicles, which are able to initiate a “burst response” triggered by certain host- or pathogen-produced stimuli. These stimuli may include temperature or pH changes; consequences of a host immune response, such as increased cytokine concentrations (185, 186); and molecules released from infecting bacteria, such as enzymes, secreted toxins, and signaling molecules (187189). Various polymers have been studied as potential drug release vehicles for research and clinical purposes, including poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) (PNIPAM) (190), chitosan (CS) (191, 192), fucoidan (F) (192), PLLs (193), and poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) (194). PNIPAM is a thermostatic polymer that is able to reversibly undergo a phase transition at its lower critical solution temperature (LCST), which leads to water expulsion, followed by a polymer volume change. By controlling the polymer concentration as well as surfactant and copolymer concentrations, the LCST of PNIPAM and the structures derived from this polymer (NPs, nanogels, and micelles, etc.) can be manipulated and adjusted to a clinically relevant temperature, resulting in a wide range of possible biomedical applications, such as wound healing, cell cultivation, bioscaffolding, and cancer therapy (195197). NPs of PNIPAM copolymerized with allylamine have been used for the controlled release of bacteriophage K as an active antistaphylococcal agent, in which NP collapse was thermally controlled (198).

More recently, that same group used PNIPAM NPs for the coadministration of the endolysin construct CHAPK and lysostaphin via a thermally triggered release event. Aiming to develop this system for the treatment of S. aureus skin infections, the temperature at which the controlled expulsion of CHAPK and lysostaphin from the polymer occurs was adjusted to 37°C, corresponding to the threshold temperature of an infected wound in the skin. While no bacterial lysis in the presence of the NPs occurred at 32°C (the temperature of healthy skin), numbers of S. aureus bacteria were reduced by >4 log units when the temperature was increased to 37°C, owing to the release of the active enzyme mix. CHAPK and lysostaphin were chosen for these experiments due to their demonstrated synergistic effect when used in combination (199).

The generation of complexes consisting of endolysins and cationic polymers (PLLs) has also been reported as a possible way to produce antimicrobial agents with high activity against the target bacteria and enhanced stability at both storage and physiological temperatures. The stability of LysK in complexes with PLLs and their block copolymers with polyethylene glycol (PEG) was improved by both hydrophobic and electrostatic mechanisms (193). The stabilizing effect was attributed to enhanced structural ordering and breaking of aggregates due to electrostatic interactions. In addition, the lytic activity of LysK increased 3- to 3.5-fold when complexed with cationic polymers compared to the free form (193).

Another interesting NP-based approach relies on the thermal ablation of pathogens by Au-NPs functionalized with CBDs from endolysins instead of the antimicrobial properties of the endolysins themselves. The CBDs immobilized on the surface of the Au-NPs ensure their specific binding to the surface of the target pathogens. Once in the proximity of the bacteria, the NPs can be heated to high temperatures by infrared (IR) irradiation to kill the organisms. This principle was successfully demonstrated with Au-NPs functionalized with the CBD of PlyC, PlyCB, which reduced numbers of streptococci by several log units upon IR irradiation, while irradiation alone had only a minor effect (200). This approach may also be extended to other bacterial genera such as staphylococci by using CBDs specific for the target pathogen.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Strains of pathogenic bacteria that are resistant to one or multiple antibiotics are increasingly prevalent, and since this has become a problem of global significance, alternative solutions are urgently needed. Endolysins show great potential as a possible replacement for or an addition to conventional antibiotics. Their high antibacterial activity and specificity and the low chance of resistance development make them promising candidates as antimicrobials against multiple bacterial pathogens and for various fields of application, including medicine, food safety, and agriculture. Most staphylococcal phage endolysins show a broad activity spectrum for the genus Staphylococcus. After the first in vitro characterization of a purified staphylococcal phage endolysin in the 1990s and the first in vivo studies 1 decade ago, research on these potent enzymes has intensified, and most recently, the first clinical study in humans was reported.

LysK and its close homologues LysGH15 and SAL-1 are among the best-studied staphylococcal phage endolysins to date. Several attributes of these enzymes, including their high staphylolytic activity; the presence of 2 catalytic domains, which further reduces the chance of resistance formation; and the finding that they act synergistically with other antimicrobials support their further exploitation as valuable and robust antibacterial agents for the treatment of S. aureus infections. Moreover, enzymatic activity and stability may be increased by the addition of low-cost additives such as glycerol and calcium ions, and novel delivery strategies may further enhance the efficacy of these endolysins in various types of applications. The ability of lactic acid bacteria to express and secrete functional endolysins opens new possibilities for applications in food production and processing.

Furthermore, researchers have recently focused on the development of novel nanotechnology-based delivery vehicles for antimicrobial agents, including phage endolysins. Controlled-release systems, which allow the delivery of endolysins to infection sites depending on parameters indicative of inflammation, may be of particular interest for future developments.

In conclusion, staphylococcal phage endolysins such as LysK and its derivatives hold great promise for being used as novel therapeutic agents against infections by S. aureus in the future, presenting several important advantages over traditional antibiotics. The first endolysin-based products have already hit the market, and in the light of ongoing clinical trials, more developments can be expected in the near future.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This review paper is part of the Ph.D. thesis of Hamed Haddad Kashani.

The present work was financially supported by grant no. 94127 from the Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran, and grant no. 95821732 from the Iran National Science Foundation. We also thank the Deputy of Research and Technology, Ministry of Health and Medical Education of Iran, for research grant support.

We declare no conflicts of interest.

Biographies

graphic file with name zcm0011826160006.jpg

Hamed Haddad Kashani obtained his Biochemistry (M.Sc.) degree from JH University of New Delhi, India, in 2007. Between 2008 and 2012, he worked as a researcher in several research centers in different fields of molecular biology, including the production of vaccines, natural drugs, and recombinant proteins. Since 2012, he has been a Ph.D. student of the Anatomical Sciences Research Center, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran, in the field of Biotechnology under the supervision of Prof. Rezvan Moniri, where he has focused on the development of endolysin-based therapeutics against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). During the Ph.D. program, he has published several research papers related to the recombinant endolysins.

graphic file with name zcm0011826160007.jpg

Mathias Schmelcher studied Biology at the Technical University of Munich, Germany, and obtained his Ph.D. from ETH Zurich, Switzerland, in 2008, working on the engineering of bacteriophage endolysins for detection and control of the foodborne pathogen Listeria monocytogenes. Between 2009 and 2012, he was employed at the Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, in Beltsville, MD, as a postdoctoral associate, where he focused on the development of endolysin-based therapeutics for treatment of bovine mastitis. After his return to ETH Zurich as a senior scientist and lecturer, he has continued research on endolysins and their possible applications against bacterial pathogens in medicine, food safety, and agriculture, with a strong focus on Staphylococcus aureus.

graphic file with name zcm0011826160008.jpg

Hamed Sabzalipoor obtained his biotechnology (M.Sc.) degree from the department of biotechnology at Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran, in 2014 and specializes in genetic engineering in crop plants. He is currently a Ph.D. student of Nanobiotechnology, at the same university, working on designing and fabrication of optical biosensors under the supervision of Dr. Maryam Nikkhah. His current research interests have focused on the development and application of metal-enhanced fluorescence-based nanobiosensors for the detection of breast cancer biomarkers, particularly trace amounts of microRNAs, which can predict the aggressiveness of the disease and drive better treatment decisions.

graphic file with name zcm0011826160009.jpg

Elahe Seyed Hosseini obtained her biotechnology (M.Sc.) degree from the Biotechnology Research Center at Tehran, Iran, in 2013, where she focused on photoprotein purification by a self-cleavage method. Since 2014, she has been a Ph.D. student of molecular biotechnology at the Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran, under the supervision of Prof. Hossein Nikzad. Her current focused area of research is on the effect of dendrosomal nanocurcumin on apoptosis induction and expression of MEG3, H19, and HOTAIR long noncoding RNAs in SKOV3 and OVCAR3 ovarian cancer cell lines.

graphic file with name zcm0011826160010.jpg

Rezvan Moniri is a professor of medical microbiology. She received a doctorate degree in Veterinary Medicine from the School of Veterinary Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. She was awarded a Ph.D. in Medical Microbiology from the Tehran University of Medical Sciences for her studies on the comparison of different methods for diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection with Dr. Parviz Adibfar. She received a postdoctoral fellow in Virology from the laboratory of Dr. Chetankumar Tailor in 2003 at Sick Kids Hospital, Toronto, Canada. Since 2010, she has joined the Anatomical Sciences Research Center, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran, as a Molecular Biology Researcher. She has continued her research on endolysins against methicillin-resistant S. aureus. Dr. Moniri was member of the Iranian Ministry of Health and the Medical Education Board of Medical Virology from 2005 to 2011, and she has been a member of the Board of Medical Microbiology since 2014.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Szweda P, Schielmann M, Kotlowski R, Gorczyca G, Zalewska M, Milewski S. 2012. Peptidoglycan hydrolases—potential weapons against Staphylococcus aureus. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 96:1157–1174. doi: 10.1007/s00253-012-4484-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Schleifer KH, Kandler O. 1972. Peptidoglycan types of bacterial cell walls and their taxonomic implications. Bacteriol Rev 36:407–477. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bera A, Herbert S, Jakob A, Vollmer W, Götz F. 2005. Why are pathogenic staphylococci so lysozyme resistant? The peptidoglycan O-acetyltransferase OatA is the major determinant for lysozyme resistance of Staphylococcus aureus. Mol Microbiol 55:778–787. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2004.04446.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Navarre WW, Schneewind O. 1999. Surface proteins of gram-positive bacteria and mechanisms of their targeting to the cell wall envelope. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 63:174–229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kluytmans J, Van Belkum A, Verbrugh H. 1997. Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: epidemiology, underlying mechanisms, and associated risks. Clin Microbiol Rev 10:505–520. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lowy FD. 1998. Staphylococcus aureus infections. N Engl J Med 339:520–532. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199808203390806. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Denisuik AJ, Lagacé-Wiens PR, Pitout JD, Mulvey MR, Simner PJ, Tailor F, Karlowsky JA, Hoban DJ, Adam HJ, Zhanel GG. 2013. Molecular epidemiology of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-, AmpC β-lactamase- and carbapenemase-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated from Canadian hospitals over a 5 year period: CANWARD 2007-11. J Antimicrob Chemother 68:i57–i65. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkt027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tong SY, Davis JS, Eichenberger E, Holland TL, Fowler VG. 2015. Staphylococcus aureus infections: epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, and management. Clin Microbiol Rev 28:603–661. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00134-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kiedrowski MR, Horswill AR. 2011. New approaches for treating staphylococcal biofilm infections. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1241:104–121. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06281.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mootz JM, Malone CL, Shaw LN, Horswill AR. 2013. Staphopains modulate Staphylococcus aureus biofilm integrity. Infect Immun 81:3227–3238. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00377-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wertheim HF, Melles DC, Vos MC, van Leeuwen W, van Belkum A, Verbrugh HA, Nouwen JL. 2005. The role of nasal carriage in Staphylococcus aureus infections. Lancet Infect Dis 5:751–762. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(05)70295-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Reusch M, Ghosh P, Ham C, Klotchko A, Singapuri S, Everett G. 2008. Prevalence of MRSA colonization in peripartum mothers and their newborn infants. Scand J Infect Dis 40:667–671. doi: 10.1080/00365540801946520. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Stevens AM, Hennessy T, Baggett HC, Bruden D, Parks D, Klejka J. 2010. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriage and risk factors for skin infections, Southwestern Alaska, USA. Emerg Infect Dis 16:797–803. doi: 10.3201/eid1605.091851. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Naimi TS, LeDell KH, Como-Sabetti K, Borchardt SM, Boxrud DJ, Etienne J, Johnson SK, Vandenesch F, Fridkin S, O'Boyle C. 2003. Comparison of community- and health care-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. JAMA 290:2976–2984. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.22.2976. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Pantosti A, Sanchini A, Monaco M. 2007. Mechanisms of antibiotic resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Future Microbiol 2:323–334. doi: 10.2217/17460913.2.3.323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Keeling PJ, Palmer JD. 2008. Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotic evolution. Nat Rev Genet 9:605–618. doi: 10.1038/nrg2386. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gleeson A, Larkin P, Walsh C, O'Sullivan N. 2016. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: prevalence, incidence, risk factors, and effects on survival of patients in a specialist palliative care unit. A prospective observational study. Palliat Med 30:374–381. doi: 10.1177/0269216315595158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Stefani S, Chung DR, Lindsay JA, Friedrich AW, Kearns AM, Westh H, MacKenzie FM. 2012. Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): global epidemiology and harmonisation of typing methods. Int J Antimicrob Agents 39:273–282. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2011.09.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Tenover FC. 2006. Mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria. Am J Med 119:S3–S10. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.03.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hancock RE. 2005. Mechanisms of action of newer antibiotics for Gram-positive pathogens. Lancet Infect Dis 5:209–218. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(05)70051-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hiramatsu K. 2001. Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a new model of antibiotic resistance. Lancet Infect Dis 1:147–155. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(01)00091-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Cui L, Ma X, Sato K, Okuma K, Tenover FC, Mamizuka EM, Gemmell CG, Kim M-N, Ploy M-C, El Solh N, Ferraz V, Hiramatsu K. 2003. Cell wall thickening is a common feature of vancomycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Microbiol 41:5–14. doi: 10.1128/JCM.41.1.5-14.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Skinner D, Keefer CS. 1941. Significance of bacteremia caused by Staphylococcus aureus: a study of one hundred and twenty-two cases and a review of the literature concerned with experimental infection in animals. Arch Intern Med 68:851–875. doi: 10.1001/archinte.1941.00200110003001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lowy FD. 2003. Antimicrobial resistance: the example of Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Invest 111:1265–1273. doi: 10.1172/JCI18535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chambers HF, DeLeo FR. 2009. Waves of resistance: Staphylococcus aureus in the antibiotic era. Nat Rev Microbiol 7:629–641. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ito T, Katayama Y, Hiramatsu K. 1999. Cloning and nucleotide sequence determination of the entire mec DNA of pre-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus N315. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 43:1449–1458. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hartman BJ, Tomasz A. 1984. Low-affinity penicillin-binding protein associated with beta-lactam resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. J Bacteriol 158:513–516. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ruef C. 2004. Epidemiology and clinical impact of glycopeptide resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Infection 32:315–327. doi: 10.1007/s15010-004-4124-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hammes WP, Neuhaus FC. 1974. On the mechanism of action of vancomycin: inhibition of peptidoglycan synthesis in Gaffkya homari. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 6:722–728. doi: 10.1128/AAC.6.6.722. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Chang S, Sievert DM, Hageman JC, Boulton ML, Tenover FC, Downes FP, Shah S, Rudrik JT, Pupp GR, Brown WJ. 2003. Infection with vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus containing the vanA resistance gene. N Engl J Med 348:1342–1347. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa025025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Weigel LM, Clewell DB, Gill SR, Clark NC, McDougal LK, Flannagan SE, Kolonay JF, Shetty J, Killgore GE, Tenover FC. 2003. Genetic analysis of a high-level vancomycin-resistant isolate of Staphylococcus aureus. Science 302:1569–1571. doi: 10.1126/science.1090956. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Shoji M, Cui L, Iizuka R, Komoto A, Neoh H, Watanabe Y, Hishinuma T, Hiramatsu K. 2011. walK and clpP mutations confer reduced vancomycin susceptibility in Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:3870–3881. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01563-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hiramatsu K, Cui L, Kuroda M, Ito T. 2001. The emergence and evolution of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Trends Microbiol 9:486–493. doi: 10.1016/S0966-842X(01)02175-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Levy SB, Marshall B. 2004. Antibacterial resistance worldwide: causes, challenges and responses. Nat Med 10:S122–S129. doi: 10.1038/nm1145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Alanis AJ. 2005. Resistance to antibiotics: are we in the post-antibiotic era? Arch Med Res 36:697–705. doi: 10.1016/j.arcmed.2005.06.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Tang SS, Apisarnthanarak A, Hsu LY. 2014. Mechanisms of β-lactam antimicrobial resistance and epidemiology of major community- and healthcare-associated multidrug-resistant bacteria. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 78:3–13. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2014.08.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Rayner C, Munckhof WJ. 2005. Antibiotics currently used in the treatment of infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus. Intern Med J 35:S3–S16. doi: 10.1111/j.1444-0903.2005.00976.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Cosgrove SE, Vigliani GA, Campion M, Fowler VG, Abrutyn E, Corey GR, Levine DP, Rupp ME, Chambers HF, Karchmer AW. 2009. Initial low-dose gentamicin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and endocarditis is nephrotoxic. Clin Infect Dis 48:713–721. doi: 10.1086/597031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Gardete S, Tomasz A. 2014. Mechanisms of vancomycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Invest 124:2836–2840. doi: 10.1172/JCI68834. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Loomba PS, Taneja J, Mishra B. 2010. Methicillin and vancomycin resistant S. aureus in hospitalized patients. J Glob Infect Dis 2:275–283. doi: 10.4103/0974-777X.68535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Stevens DL, Herr D, Lampiris H, Hunt JL, Batts DH, Hafkin B. 2002. Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Clin Infect Dis 34:1481–1490. doi: 10.1086/340353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Gu B, Kelesidis T, Tsiodras S, Hindler J, Humphries RM. 2012. The emerging problem of linezolid-resistant Staphylococcus. J Antimicrob Chemother 68:4–11. doi: 10.1093/jac/dks354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Silverman JA, Perlmutter NG, Shapiro HM. 2003. Correlation of daptomycin bactericidal activity and membrane depolarization in Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 47:2538–2544. doi: 10.1128/AAC.47.8.2538-2544.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Straus SK, Hancock RE. 2006. Mode of action of the new antibiotic for Gram-positive pathogens daptomycin: comparison with cationic antimicrobial peptides and lipopeptides. Biochim Biophys Acta 1758:1215–1223. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2006.02.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Bayer AS, Schneider T, Sahl HG. 2013. Mechanisms of daptomycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus: role of the cell membrane and cell wall. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1277:139–158. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2012.06819.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Siala W, Mingeot-Leclercq M-P, Tulkens PM, Hallin M, Denis O, Van Bambeke F. 2014. Comparison of the antibiotic activities of daptomycin, vancomycin, and the investigational fluoroquinolone delafloxacin against biofilms from Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:6385–6397. doi: 10.1128/AAC.03482-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Haas W, Pillar CM, Zurenko GE, Lee JC, Brunner LS, Morris TW. 2009. Besifloxacin, a novel fluoroquinolone, has broad-spectrum in vitro activity against aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53:3552–3560. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00418-09. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Redgrave LS, Sutton SB, Webber MA, Piddock LJ. 2014. Fluoroquinolone resistance: mechanisms, impact on bacteria, and role in evolutionary success. Trends Microbiol 22:438–445. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2014.04.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Tacconelli E, De Angelis G, Cataldo MA, Pozzi E, Cauda R. 2007. Does antibiotic exposure increase the risk of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolation? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother 61:26–38. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkm416. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Boucher HW, Talbot GH, Bradley JS, Edwards JE, Gilbert D, Rice LB, Scheld M, Spellberg B, Bartlett J. 2009. Bad bugs, no drugs: no ESKAPE! An update from the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 48:1–12. doi: 10.1086/595011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Filice GA, Nyman JA, Lexau C, Lees CH, Bockstedt LA, Como-Sabetti K, Lesher LJ, Lynfield R. 2010. Excess costs and utilization associated with methicillin resistance for patients with Staphylococcus aureus infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 31:365–373. doi: 10.1086/651094. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Laxminarayan R, Duse A, Wattal C, Zaidi AK, Wertheim HF, Sumpradit N, Vlieghe E, Hara GL, Gould IM, Goossens H, Greko C, So AD, Bigdeli M, Tomson G, Woodhouse W, Ombaka E, Peralta AQ, Qamar FN, Mir F, Kariuki S, Bhutta ZA, Coates A, Bergstrom R, Wright GD, Brown ED, Cars O. 2013. Antibiotic resistance—the need for global solutions. Lancet Infect Dis 13:1057–1098. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70318-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Fernandes P. 2006. Antibacterial discovery and development—the failure of success? Nat Biotechnol 24:1497–1503. doi: 10.1038/nbt1206-1497. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Papich MG. 2012. Selection of antibiotics for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius: time to revisit some old drugs? Vet Dermatol 23:352–364. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3164.2011.01030.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Seed KD, Lazinski DW, Calderwood SB, Camilli A. 2013. A bacteriophage encodes its own CRISPR/Cas adaptive response to evade host innate immunity. Nature 494:489–491. doi: 10.1038/nature11927. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Pires DP, Boas DV, Sillankorva S, Azeredo J. 2015. Phage therapy: a step forward in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. J Virol 89:7449–7456. doi: 10.1128/JVI.00385-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Twort FW. 1915. An investigation on the nature of ultra-microscopic viruses. Lancet 186:1241–1243. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)20383-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Salmond GP, Fineran PC. 2015. A century of the phage: past, present and future. Nat Rev Microbiol 13:777–786. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3564. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Summers WC. 2001. Bacteriophage therapy. Annu Rev Microbiol 55:437–451. doi: 10.1146/annurev.micro.55.1.437. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Hanlon GW. 2007. Bacteriophages: an appraisal of their role in the treatment of bacterial infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 30:118–128. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2007.04.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Lavigne R, Robben J. 2012. Professor Dr. Richard Bruynoghe: a 1951 overview of his bacteriophage research spanning three decades, vol 2, p 1–4. Taylor & Francis, London, United Kingdom. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Atterbury R. 2009. Bacteriophage biocontrol in animals and meat products. Microb Biotechnol 2:601–612. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7915.2009.00089.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Nelson EJ, Harris JB, Morris JG Jr, Calderwood SB, Camilli A. 2009. Cholera transmission: the host, pathogen and bacteriophage dynamic. Nat Rev Microbiol 7:693–702. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2204. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Endersen L, O'Mahony J, Hill C, Ross RP, McAuliffe O, Coffey A. 2014. Phage therapy in the food industry. Annu Rev Food Sci Technol 5:327–349. doi: 10.1146/annurev-food-030713-092415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Schmelcher M, Donovan DM, Loessner MJ. 2012. Bacteriophage endolysins as novel antimicrobials. Future Microbiol 7:1147–1171. doi: 10.2217/fmb.12.97. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Garcia P, Rodriguez L, Rodriguez A, Martinez B. 2010. Food biopreservation: promising strategies using bacteriocins, bacteriophages and endolysins. Trends Food Sci Technol 21:373–382. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2010.04.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Clark JR, March JB. 2006. Bacteriophages and biotechnology: vaccines, gene therapy and antibacterials. Trends Biotechnol 24:212–218. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2006.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Lu TK, Koeris MS. 2011. The next generation of bacteriophage therapy. Curr Opin Microbiol 14:524–531. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2011.07.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Rodríguez-Rubio L, Martínez B, Donovan DM, Rodríguez A, García P. 2013. Bacteriophage virion-associated peptidoglycan hydrolases: potential new enzybiotics. Crit Rev Microbiol 39:427–434. doi: 10.3109/1040841X.2012.723675. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Young R. 2013. Phage lysis: do we have the hole story yet? Curr Opin Microbiol 16:790–797. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2013.08.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Fischetti VA. 2010. Bacteriophage endolysins: a novel anti-infective to control Gram-positive pathogens. Int J Med Microbiol 300:357–362. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmm.2010.04.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Loessner MJ. 2005. Bacteriophage endolysins—current state of research and applications. Curr Opin Microbiol 8:480–487. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2005.06.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Briers Y, Schmelcher M, Loessner MJ, Hendrix J, Engelborghs Y, Volckaert G, Lavigne R. 2009. The high-affinity peptidoglycan binding domain of Pseudomonas phage endolysin KZ144. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 383:187–191. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2009.03.161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Becker SC, Foster-Frey J, Stodola AJ, Anacker D, Donovan DM. 2009. Differentially conserved staphylococcal SH3b_5 cell wall binding domains confer increased staphylolytic and streptolytic activity to a streptococcal prophage endolysin domain. Gene 443:32–41. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2009.04.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Donovan DM, Foster-Frey J, Dong S, Rousseau GM, Moineau S, Pritchard DG. 2006. The cell lysis activity of the Streptococcus agalactiae bacteriophage B30 endolysin relies on the cysteine, histidine-dependent amidohydrolase/peptidase domain. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:5108–5112. doi: 10.1128/AEM.03065-05. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Fernandes S, Proença D, Cantante C, Silva FA, Leandro C, Lourenço S, Milheiriço C, de Lencastre H, Cavaco-Silva P, Pimentel M. 2012. Novel chimerical endolysins with broad antimicrobial activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Microb Drug Resist 18:333–343. doi: 10.1089/mdr.2012.0025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Sass P, Bierbaum G. 2007. Lytic activity of recombinant bacteriophage φ11 and φ12 endolysins on whole cells and biofilms of Staphylococcus aureus. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:347–352. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01616-06. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Schmelcher M, Shen Y, Nelson DC, Eugster MR, Eichenseher F, Hanke DC, Loessner MJ, Dong S, Pritchard DG, Lee JC. 2015. Evolutionarily distinct bacteriophage endolysins featuring conserved peptidoglycan cleavage sites protect mice from MRSA infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 70:1453–1465. doi: 10.1093/jac/dku552. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Pritchard DG, Dong S, Baker JR, Engler JA. 2004. The bifunctional peptidoglycan lysin of Streptococcus agalactiae bacteriophage B30. Microbiology 150:2079–2087. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.27063-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Loessner MJ, Kramer K, Ebel F, Scherer S. 2002. C-terminal domains of Listeria monocytogenes bacteriophage murein hydrolases determine specific recognition and high-affinity binding to bacterial cell wall carbohydrates. Mol Microbiol 44:335–349. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2002.02889.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Zimmer M, Vukov N, Scherer S, Loessner MJ. 2002. The murein hydrolase of the bacteriophage φ3626 dual lysis system is active against all tested Clostridium perfringens strains. Appl Environ Microbiol 68:5311–5317. doi: 10.1128/AEM.68.11.5311-5317.2002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Low LY, Yang C, Perego M, Osterman A, Liddington R. 2011. Role of net charge on catalytic domain and influence of cell wall binding domain on bactericidal activity, specificity, and host range of phage lysins. J Biol Chem 286:34391–34403. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M111.244160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Nelson D, Schuch R, Chahales P, Zhu S, Fischetti VA. 2006. PlyC: a multimeric bacteriophage lysin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:10765–10770. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0604521103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Cheng X, Zhang X, Pflugrath JW, Studier FW. 1994. The structure of bacteriophage T7 lysozyme, a zinc amidase and an inhibitor of T7 RNA polymerase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 91:4034–4038. doi: 10.1073/pnas.91.9.4034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Sagermann M, Matthews BW. 2002. Crystal structures of a T4-lysozyme duplication-extension mutant demonstrate that the highly conserved β-sheet region has low intrinsic folding propensity. J Mol Biol 316:931–940. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.2001.5376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Resch G, Moreillon P, Fischetti VA. 2011. A stable phage lysin (Cpl-1) dimer with increased antipneumococcal activity and decreased plasma clearance. Int J Antimicrob Agents 38:516–521. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2011.08.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.McGowan S, Buckle AM, Mitchell MS, Hoopes JT, Gallagher DT, Heselpoth RD, Shen Y, Reboul CF, Law RH, Fischetti VA. 2012. X-ray crystal structure of the streptococcal specific phage lysin PlyC. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:12752–12757. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1208424109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Low LY, Yang C, Perego M, Osterman A, Liddington RC. 2005. Structure and lytic activity of a Bacillus anthracis prophage endolysin. J Biol Chem 280:35433–35439. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M502723200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Porter CJ, Schuch R, Pelzek AJ, Buckle AM, McGowan S, Wilce MC, Rossjohn J, Russell R, Nelson D, Fischetti VA. 2007. The 1.6 Å crystal structure of the catalytic domain of PlyB, a bacteriophage lysin active against Bacillus anthracis. J Mol Biol 366:540–550. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2006.11.056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Korndörfer IP, Danzer J, Schmelcher M, Zimmer M, Skerra A, Loessner MJ. 2006. The crystal structure of the bacteriophage PSA endolysin reveals a unique fold responsible for specific recognition of Listeria cell walls. J Mol Biol 364:678–689. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2006.08.069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Gu J, Feng Y, Feng X, Sun C, Lei L, Ding W, Niu F, Jiao L, Yang M, Li Y. 2014. Structural and biochemical characterization reveals LysGH15 as an unprecedented “EF-hand-like” calcium-binding phage lysin. PLoS Pathog 10:e1004109. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1004109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Hermoso JA, Monterroso B, Albert A, Galán B, Ahrazem O, García P, Martínez-Ripoll M, García JL, Menéndez M. 2003. Structural basis for selective recognition of pneumococcal cell wall by modular endolysin from phage Cp-1. Structure 11:1239–1249. doi: 10.1016/j.str.2003.09.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Schmelcher M, Loessner MJ. 2016. Bacteriophage endolysins: applications for food safety. Curr Opin Biotechnol 37:76–87. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2015.10.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Ajuebor J, McAuliffe O, O'Mahony J, Ross RP, Hill C, Coffey A. 2016. Bacteriophage endolysins and their applications. Sci Prog 99:183–199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Fischetti VA. 2005. Bacteriophage lytic enzymes: novel anti-infectives. Trends Microbiol 13:491–496. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2005.08.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Borysowski J, Weber-Dąbrowska B, Górski A. 2006. Bacteriophage endolysins as a novel class of antibacterial agents. Exp Biol Med (Maywood) 231:366–377. doi: 10.1177/153537020623100402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Kusuma C, Jadanova A, Chanturiya T, Kokai-Kun JF. 2007. Lysostaphin-resistant variants of Staphylococcus aureus demonstrate reduced fitness in vitro and in vivo. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 51:475–482. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00786-06. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Viertel TM, Ritter K, Horz H-P. 2014. Viruses versus bacteria—novel approaches to phage therapy as a tool against multidrug-resistant pathogens. J Antimicrob Chemother 69:2326–2336. doi: 10.1093/jac/dku173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Spratt BG. 1994. Resistance to antibiotics mediated by target alterations. Science 264(5157):388–393. doi: 10.1126/science.8153626. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Becker SC, Dong S, Baker JR, Foster-Frey J, Pritchard DG, Donovan DM. 2009. LysK CHAP endopeptidase domain is required for lysis of live staphylococcal cells. FEMS Microbiol Lett 294:52–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2009.01541.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Schmelcher M, Powell AM, Becker SC, Camp MJ, Donovan DM. 2012. Chimeric phage lysins act synergistically with lysostaphin to kill mastitis-causing Staphylococcus aureus in murine mammary glands. Appl Environ Microbiol 78:2297–2305. doi: 10.1128/AEM.07050-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Becker SC, Foster-Frey J, Donovan DM. 2008. The phage K lytic enzyme LysK and lysostaphin act synergistically to kill MRSA. FEMS Microbiol Lett 287:185–191. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2008.01308.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Haddad Kashani H, Fahimi H, Goli YD, Moniri R. 2017. A novel chimeric endolysin with antibacterial activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 7:290. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2017.00290. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Mao J, Schmelcher M, Harty WJ, Foster-Frey J, Donovan DM. 2013. Chimeric Ply187 endolysin kills Staphylococcus aureus more effectively than the parental enzyme. FEMS Microbiol Lett 342:30–36. doi: 10.1111/1574-6968.12104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Yang H, Yu J, Wei H. 2014. Engineered bacteriophage lysins as novel anti-infectives. Front Microbiol 5:542. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00542. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Donovan DM, Foster-Frey J. 2008. LambdaSa2 prophage endolysin requires Cpl-7-binding domains and amidase-5 domain for antimicrobial lysis of streptococci. FEMS Microbiol Lett 287:22–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2008.01287.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Schindler CA, Schuhardt V. 1964. Lysostaphin: a new bacteriolytic agent for the Staphylococcus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 51:414–421. doi: 10.1073/pnas.51.3.414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Gründling A, Missiakas DM, Schneewind O. 2006. Staphylococcus aureus mutants with increased lysostaphin resistance. J Bacteriol 188:6286–6297. doi: 10.1128/JB.00457-06. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Verbree CT, Dätwyler SM, Meile S, Eichenseher F, Donovan DM, Loessner MJ, Schmelcher M. 2017. Identification of peptidoglycan hydrolase constructs with synergistic staphylolytic activity in cow's milk. Appl Environ Microbiol 83:e03445-16. doi: 10.1128/AEM.03445-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
  • 110.Schmelcher M, Tchang VS, Loessner MJ. 2011. Domain shuffling and module engineering of Listeria phage endolysins for enhanced lytic activity and binding affinity. Microb Biotechnol 4:651–662. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7915.2011.00263.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Gaeng S, Scherer S, Neve H, Loessner MJ. 2000. Gene cloning and expression and secretion of Listeria monocytogenes bacteriophage-lytic enzymes in Lactococcus lactis. Appl Environ Microbiol 66:2951–2958. doi: 10.1128/AEM.66.7.2951-2958.2000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Mayer MJ, Garefalaki V, Spoerl R, Narbad A, Meijers R. 2011. Structure-based modification of a Clostridium difficile-targeting endolysin affects activity and host range. J Bacteriol 193:5477–5486. doi: 10.1128/JB.00439-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Pritchard DG, Dong S, Kirk MC, Cartee RT, Baker JR. 2007. LambdaSa1 and LambdaSa2 prophage lysins of Streptococcus agalactiae. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:7150–7154. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01783-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Becker SC, Roach DR, Chauhan VS, Shen Y, Foster-Frey J, Powell AM, Bauchan G, Lease RA, Mohammadi H, Harty WJ. 2016. Triple-acting lytic enzyme treatment of drug-resistant and intracellular Staphylococcus aureus. Sci Rep 6:25063. doi: 10.1038/srep25063. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Manoharadas S, Witte A, Bläsi U. 2009. Antimicrobial activity of a chimeric enzybiotic towards Staphylococcus aureus. J Biotechnol 139:118–123. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2008.09.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Roach DR, Donovan DM. 2015. Antimicrobial bacteriophage-derived proteins and therapeutic applications. Bacteriophage 5:e1062590. doi: 10.1080/21597081.2015.1062590. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Navarre WW, Ton-That H, Faull KF, Schneewind O. 1999. Multiple enzymatic activities of the murein hydrolase from staphylococcal phage φ11: identification of a d-alanyl-glycine endopeptidase activity. J Biol Chem 274:15847–15856. doi: 10.1074/jbc.274.22.15847. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Gründling A, Schneewind O. 2006. Cross-linked peptidoglycan mediates lysostaphin binding to the cell wall envelope of Staphylococcus aureus. J Bacteriol 188:2463–2472. doi: 10.1128/JB.188.7.2463-2472.2006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Abaev I, Foster-Frey J, Korobova O, Shishkova N, Kiseleva N, Kopylov P, Pryamchuk S, Schmelcher M, Becker SC, Donovan DM. 2013. Staphylococcal phage 2638A endolysin is lytic for Staphylococcus aureus and harbors an inter-lytic-domain secondary translational start site. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 97:3449–3456. doi: 10.1007/s00253-012-4252-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Linden SB, Zhang H, Heselpoth RD, Shen Y, Schmelcher M, Eichenseher F, Nelson DC. 2015. Biochemical and biophysical characterization of PlyGRCS, a bacteriophage endolysin active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99:741–752. doi: 10.1007/s00253-014-5930-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Daniel A, Euler C, Collin M, Chahales P, Gorelick KJ, Fischetti VA. 2010. Synergism between a novel chimeric lysin and oxacillin protects against infection by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54:1603–1612. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01625-09. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Sanz-Gaitero M, Keary R, Garcia-Doval C, Coffey A, van Raaij MJ. 2014. Crystal structure of the lytic CHAP K domain of the endolysin LysK from Staphylococcus aureus bacteriophage K. Virol J 11:133. doi: 10.1186/1743-422X-11-133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Becker SC, Swift S, Korobova O, Schischkova N, Kopylov P, Donovan DM, Abaev I. 2015. Lytic activity of the staphylolytic Twort phage endolysin CHAP domain is enhanced by the SH3b cell wall binding domain. FEMS Microbiol Lett 362:1–8. doi: 10.1093/femsle/fnu019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.O'Flaherty S, Coffey A, Meaney W, Fitzgerald G, Ross R. 2005. The recombinant phage lysin LysK has a broad spectrum of lytic activity against clinically relevant staphylococci, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Bacteriol 187:7161–7164. doi: 10.1128/JB.187.20.7161-7164.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Rashel M, Uchiyama J, Ujihara T, Uehara Y, Kuramoto S, Sugihara S, Yagyu K-I, Muraoka A, Sugai M, Hiramatsu K. 2007. Efficient elimination of multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus by cloned lysin derived from bacteriophage ϕMR11. J Infect Dis 196:1237–1247. doi: 10.1086/521305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Pastagia M, Euler C, Chahales P, Fuentes-Duculan J, Krueger JG, Fischetti VA. 2011. A novel chimeric lysin shows superiority to mupirocin for skin decolonization of methicillin-resistant and -sensitive Staphylococcus aureus strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:738–744. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00890-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Schmelcher M, Powell AM, Camp MJ, Pohl CS, Donovan DM. 2015. Synergistic streptococcal phage λSA2 and B30 endolysins kill streptococci in cow milk and in a mouse model of mastitis. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99:8475–8486. doi: 10.1007/s00253-015-6579-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Singh PK, Donovan DM, Kumar A. 2014. Intravitreal injection of the chimeric phage endolysin Ply187 protects mice from Staphylococcus aureus endophthalmitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:4621–4629. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00126-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Fischetti V, Loomis L. April 2005. Method for the treatment of bacterial eye infections. US patent 10/135,824.
  • 130.O'Flaherty S, Coffey A, Edwards R, Meaney W, Fitzgerald G, Ross R. 2004. Genome of staphylococcal phage K: a new lineage of Myoviridae infecting gram-positive bacteria with a low G+C content. J Bacteriol 186:2862–2871. doi: 10.1128/JB.186.9.2862-2871.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Horgan M, O'Flynn G, Garry J, Cooney J, Coffey A, Fitzgerald GF, Ross RP, McAuliffe O. 2009. Phage lysin LysK can be truncated to its CHAP domain and retain lytic activity against live antibiotic-resistant staphylococci. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:872–874. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01831-08. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 132.Idelevich EA, von Eiff C, Friedrich AW, Iannelli D, Xia G, Peters G, Peschel A, Wanninger I, Becker K. 2011. In vitro activity against Staphylococcus aureus of a novel antimicrobial agent, PRF-119, a recombinant chimeric bacteriophage endolysin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:4416–4419. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00217-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Idelevich EA, Schaumburg F, Knaack D, Scherzinger AS, Mutter W, Peters G, Peschel A, Becker K. 2016. The recombinant bacteriophage endolysin HY-133 exhibits in vitro activity against different African clonal lineages of the Staphylococcus aureus complex, including Staphylococcus schweitzeri. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60:2551–2553. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02859-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Filatova LY, Becker SC, Donovan DM, Gladilin AK, Klyachko NL. 2010. LysK, the enzyme lysing Staphylococcus aureus cells: specific kinetic features and approaches towards stabilization. Biochimie 92:507–513. doi: 10.1016/j.biochi.2010.01.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Filatova LY, Donovan DM, Foster-Frey J, Pugachev VG, Dmitrieva NF, Chubar TA, Klyachko NL, Kabanov AV. 2015. Bacteriophage phi11 lysin: physicochemical characterization and comparison with phage phi80α lysin. Enzyme Microb Technol 73:51–58. doi: 10.1016/j.enzmictec.2015.03.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Sanz-Gaitero M, Keary R, Garcia-Doval C, Coffey A, van Raaij MJ. 2013. Crystallization of the CHAP domain of the endolysin from Staphylococcus aureus bacteriophage K. Acta Crystallogr Sect F Struct Biol Cryst Commun 69:1393–1396. doi: 10.1107/S1744309113030133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Jun SY, Jung GM, Yoon SJ, Oh M-D, Choi Y-J, Lee WJ, Kong J-C, Seol JG, Kang SH. 2013. Antibacterial properties of a pre-formulated recombinant phage endolysin, SAL-1. Int J Antimicrob Agents 41:156–161. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2012.10.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Jun SY, Jung GM, Yoon SJ, Youm SY, Han HY, Lee JH, Kang SH. 2016. Pharmacokinetics of the phage endolysin-based candidate drug SAL200 in monkeys and its appropriate intravenous dosing period. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 43:1013–1016. doi: 10.1111/1440-1681.12613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 139.Jun SY, Jung GM, Son J-S, Yoon SJ, Choi Y-J, Kang SH. 2011. Comparison of the antibacterial properties of phage endolysins SAL-1 and LysK. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:1764–1767. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01097-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140.Jun SY, Jang IJ, Yoon S, Jang K, Yu K-S, Cho JY, Seong M-W, Jung GM, Yoon SJ, Kang SH. 2017. Pharmacokinetics and tolerance of the phage endolysin-based candidate drug SAL200 after a single intravenous administration among healthy volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 61:e02629-16. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02629-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 141.O'Flaherty S, Ross R, Meaney W, Fitzgerald G, Elbreki M, Coffey A. 2005. Potential of the polyvalent anti-Staphylococcus bacteriophage K for control of antibiotic-resistant staphylococci from hospitals. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:1836–1842. doi: 10.1128/AEM.71.4.1836-1842.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 142.Fenton M, Ross R, McAuliffe O, O'Mahony J, Coffey A. 2011. Characterization of the staphylococcal bacteriophage lysin CHAPK. J Appl Microbiol 111:1025–1035. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2011.05119.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 143.Fenton M, Keary R, McAuliffe O, Ross RP, O'Mahony J, Coffey A. 2013. Bacteriophage-derived peptidase eliminates and prevents staphylococcal biofilms. Int J Microbiol 2013:625341. doi: 10.1155/2013/625341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 144.Fenton M, Casey PG, Hill C, Gahan CG, McAuliffe O, O'Mahony J, Maher F, Coffey A. 2010. The truncated phage lysin CHAPk eliminates Staphylococcus aureus in the nares of mice. Bioeng Bugs 1:404–407. doi: 10.4161/bbug.1.6.13422. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 145.Gu J, Lu R, Liu X, Han W, Lei L, Gao Y, Zhao H, Li Y, Diao Y. 2011. LysGH15B, the SH3b domain of staphylococcal phage endolysin LysGH15, retains high affinity to staphylococci. Curr Microbiol 63:538–542. doi: 10.1007/s00284-011-0018-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 146.Jun SY, Jung GM, Yoon SJ, Choi Y-J, Koh WS, Moon KS, Kang SH. 2014. Preclinical safety evaluation of intravenously administered SAL200 containing the recombinant phage endolysin SAL-1 as a pharmaceutical ingredient. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:2084–2088. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02232-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 147.Hennekinne J-A, De Buyser M-L, Dragacci S. 2012. Staphylococcus aureus and its food poisoning toxins: characterization and outbreak investigation. FEMS Microbiol Rev 36:815–836. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2011.00311.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 148.Iwamoto M, Ayers T, Mahon BE, Swerdlow DL. 2010. Epidemiology of seafood-associated infections in the United States. Clin Microbiol Rev 23:399–411. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00059-09. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 149.Reddy G, Altaf M, Naveena B, Venkateshwar M, Kumar EV. 2008. Amylolytic bacterial lactic acid fermentation—a review. Biotechnol Adv 26:22–34. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2007.07.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 150.Wegmann U, O'Connell-Motherway M, Zomer A, Buist G, Shearman C, Canchaya C, Ventura M, Goesmann A, Gasson MJ, Kuipers OP. 2007. Complete genome sequence of the prototype lactic acid bacterium Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris MG1363. J Bacteriol 189:3256–3270. doi: 10.1128/JB.01768-06. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 151.Le Loir Y, Azevedo V, Oliveira SC, Freitas DA, Miyoshi A, Bermúdez-Humarán LG, Nouaille S, Ribeiro LA, Leclercq S, Gabriel JE. 2005. Protein secretion in Lactococcus lactis: an efficient way to increase the overall heterologous protein production. Microb Cell Fact 4:2. doi: 10.1186/1475-2859-4-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 152.Mierau I, Kleerebezem M. 2005. 10 years of the nisin-controlled gene expression system (NICE) in Lactococcus lactis. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 68:705–717. doi: 10.1007/s00253-005-0107-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 153.Jørgensen CM, Vrang A, Madsen SM. 2014. Recombinant protein expression in Lactococcus lactis using the P170 expression system. FEMS Microbiol Lett 351:170–178. doi: 10.1111/1574-6968.12351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 154.Morello E, Bermudez-Humaran L, Llull D, Sole V, Miraglio N, Langella P, Poquet I. 2008. Lactococcus lactis, an efficient cell factory for recombinant protein production and secretion. J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol 14:48–58. doi: 10.1159/000106082. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 155.Turner MS, Waldherr F, Loessner MJ, Giffard PM. 2007. Antimicrobial activity of lysostaphin and a Listeria monocytogenes bacteriophage endolysin produced and secreted by lactic acid bacteria. Syst Appl Microbiol 30:58–67. doi: 10.1016/j.syapm.2006.01.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 156.De Ruyter P, Kuipers OP, De Vos WM. 1996. Controlled gene expression systems for Lactococcus lactis with the food-grade inducer nisin. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:3662–3667. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 157.Rodríguez-Rubio L, Gutiérrez D, Martínez B, Rodríguez A, García P. 2012. Lytic activity of LysH5 endolysin secreted by Lactococcus lactis using the secretion signal sequence of bacteriocin Lcn972. Appl Environ Microbiol 78:3469–3472. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00018-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 158.Huang WC, Tsai PJ, Chen YC. 2009. Multifunctional Fe3O4@Au nanoeggs as photothermal agents for selective killing of nosocomial and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Small 5:51–56. doi: 10.1002/smll.200801042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 159.Steiniger SC, Kreuter J, Khalansky AS, Skidan IN, Bobruskin AI, Smirnova ZS, Severin SE, Uhl R, Kock M, Geiger KD. 2004. Chemotherapy of glioblastoma in rats using doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles. Int J Cancer 109:759–767. doi: 10.1002/ijc.20048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 160.Liong M, Lu J, Kovochich M, Xia T, Ruehm SG, Nel AE, Tamanoi F, Zink JI. 2008. Multifunctional inorganic nanoparticles for imaging, targeting, and drug delivery. ACS Nano 2:889–896. doi: 10.1021/nn800072t. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 161.Choi K-H, Lee H-J, Park BJ, Wang K-K, Shin EP, Park J-C, Kim YK, Oh M-K, Kim Y-R. 2012. Photosensitizer and vancomycin-conjugated novel multifunctional magnetic particles as photoinactivation agents for selective killing of pathogenic bacteria. Chem Commun (Camb) 48:4591–4593. doi: 10.1039/c2cc17766h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 162.Kell AJ, Stewart G, Ryan S, Peytavi R, Boissinot M, Huletsky A, Bergeron MG, Simard B. 2008. Vancomycin-modified nanoparticles for efficient targeting and preconcentration of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. ACS Nano 2:1777–1788. doi: 10.1021/nn700183g. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 163.Li J, Wang L, Benicewicz BC. 2013. Synthesis of Janus nanoparticles via a combination of the reversible click reaction and “grafting to” strategies. Langmuir 29:11547–11553. doi: 10.1021/la401990d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 164.Li Y, Krentz TM, Wang L, Benicewicz BC, Schadler LS. 2014. Ligand engineering of polymer nanocomposites: from the simple to the complex. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 6:6005–6021. doi: 10.1021/am405332a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 165.Wang X, Zhu S, Liu L, Li L. 2017. Flexible antibacterial film based on conjugated polyelectrolyte/silver nanocomposites. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 9:9051–9058. doi: 10.1021/acsami.7b00885. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 166.Wang L, Chen YP, Miller KP, Cash BM, Jones S, Glenn S, Benicewicz BC, Decho AW. 2014. Functionalised nanoparticles complexed with antibiotic efficiently kill MRSA and other bacteria. Chem Commun (Camb) 50:12030–12033. doi: 10.1039/C4CC04936E. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 167.Miller KP, Wang L, Chen Y-P, Pellechia PJ, Benicewicz BC, Decho AW. 2015. Engineering nanoparticles to silence bacterial communication. Front Microbiol 6:189. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 168.Cho EC, Au L, Zhang Q, Xia Y. 2010. The effects of size, shape, and surface functional group of gold nanostructures on their adsorption and internalization by cells. Small 6:517–522. doi: 10.1002/smll.200901622. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 169.Rosemary M, MacLaren I, Pradeep T. 2006. Investigations of the antibacterial properties of ciprofloxacin@SiO2. Langmuir 22:10125–10129. doi: 10.1021/la061411h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 170.Rosi NL, Giljohann DA, Thaxton CS, Lytton-Jean AK, Han MS, Mirkin CA. 2006. Oligonucleotide-modified gold nanoparticles for intracellular gene regulation. Science 312:1027–1030. doi: 10.1126/science.1125559. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 171.Thomas M, Klibanov AM. 2003. Conjugation to gold nanoparticles enhances polyethylenimine's transfer of plasmid DNA into mammalian cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:9138–9143. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1233634100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 172.Bowman M-C, Ballard TE, Ackerson CJ, Feldheim DL, Margolis DM, Melander C. 2008. Inhibition of HIV fusion with multivalent gold nanoparticles. J Am Chem Soc 130:6896–6897. doi: 10.1021/ja710321g. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 173.Yavuz MS, Cheng Y, Chen J, Cobley CM, Zhang Q, Rycenga M, Xie J, Kim C, Schwartz AG, Wang LV. 2009. Gold nanocages covered by smart polymers for controlled release with near-infrared light. Nat Mater 8:935–939. doi: 10.1038/nmat2564. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 174.Hyland RM, Beck P, Mulvey GL, Kitov PI, Armstrong GD. 2006. N-Acetyllactosamine conjugated to gold nanoparticles inhibits enteropathogenic Escherichia coli colonization of the epithelium in human intestinal biopsy specimens. Infect Immun 74:5419–5421. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00739-06. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 175.Hyland RM, Griener TP, Mulvey GL, Kitov PI, Srivastava OP, Marcato P, Armstrong GD. 2006. Basis for N-acetyllactosamine-mediated inhibition of enteropathogenic Escherichia coli localized adherence. J Med Microbiol 55:669–675. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.46344-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 176.Rao J. 2008. Shedding light on tumors using nanoparticles. ACS Nano 2:1984–1986. doi: 10.1021/nn800669n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 177.Natan M, Banin E. 2017. From nano to micro: using nanotechnology to combat microorganisms and their multidrug resistance. FEMS Microbiol Rev 41:302–322. doi: 10.1093/femsre/fux003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 178.Xu P, Liang J, Cao X, Tang J, Gao J, Wang L, Shao W, Gao Q, Teng Z. 2016. Facile synthesis of monodisperse of hollow mesoporous SiO2 nanoparticles and in-situ growth of Ag nanoparticles for antibacterial. J Colloid Interface Sci 474:114–118. doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2016.04.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 179.Fayaz AM, Balaji K, Girilal M, Yadav R, Kalaichelvan PT, Venketesan R. 2010. Biogenic synthesis of silver nanoparticles and their synergistic effect with antibiotics: a study against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. Nanomedicine (Lond) 6:103–109. doi: 10.1016/j.nano.2009.04.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 180.Manikprabhu D, Lingappa K. 2013. Antibacterial activity of silver nanoparticles against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus synthesized using model Streptomyces sp. pigment by photo-irradiation method. J Pharm Res 6:255–260. [Google Scholar]
  • 181.Shahverdi AR, Fakhimi A, Shahverdi HR, Minaian S. 2007. Synthesis and effect of silver nanoparticles on the antibacterial activity of different antibiotics against Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli. Nanomedicine (Lond) 3:168–171. doi: 10.1016/j.nano.2007.02.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 182.Teng T, Liu J, Wei H. 2015. Anti-mycobacterial peptides: from human to phage. Cell Physiol Biochem 35:452–466. doi: 10.1159/000369711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 183.Schmelcher M, Waldherr F, Loessner MJ. 2012. Listeria bacteriophage peptidoglycan hydrolases feature high thermoresistance and reveal increased activity after divalent metal cation substitution. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 93:633–643. doi: 10.1007/s00253-011-3372-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 184.Solanki K, Grover N, Downs P, Paskaleva EE, Mehta KK, Lee L, Schadler LS, Kane RS, Dordick JS. 2013. Enzyme-based listericidal nanocomposites. Sci Rep 3:1584. doi: 10.1038/srep01584. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 185.Pavlukhina S, Lu Y, Patimetha A, Libera M, Sukhishvili S. 2010. Polymer multilayers with pH-triggered release of antibacterial agents. Biomacromolecules 11:3448–3456. doi: 10.1021/bm100975w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 186.McCoy CP, Brady C, Cowley JF, McGlinchey SM, McGoldrick N, Kinnear DJ, Andrews GP, Jones DS. 2010. Triggered drug delivery from biomaterials. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 7:605–616. doi: 10.1517/17425241003677731. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 187.Pornpattananangkul D, Zhang L, Olson S, Aryal S, Obonyo M, Vecchio K, Huang C-M, Zhang L. 2011. Bacterial toxin-triggered drug release from gold nanoparticle-stabilized liposomes for the treatment of bacterial infection. J Am Chem Soc 133:4132–4139. doi: 10.1021/ja111110e. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 188.Bean JE, Alves DR, Laabei M, Esteban PP, Thet NT, Enright MC, Jenkins ATA. 2014. Triggered release of bacteriophage K from agarose/hyaluronan hydrogel matrixes by Staphylococcus aureus virulence factors. Chem Mater 26:7201–7208. doi: 10.1021/cm503974g. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 189.Komnatnyy VV, Chiang WC, Tolker-Nielsen T, Givskov M, Nielsen TE. 2014. Bacteria-triggered release of antimicrobial agents. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 53:439–441. doi: 10.1002/anie.201307975. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 190.Ashraf S, Park H-K, Park H, Lee S-H. 2016. Snapshot of phase transition in thermoresponsive hydrogel PNIPAM: role in drug delivery and tissue engineering. Macromol Res 24:297–304. doi: 10.1007/s13233-016-4052-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 191.Ji J, Hao S, Wu D, Huang R, Xu Y. 2011. Preparation, characterization and in vitro release of chitosan nanoparticles loaded with gentamicin and salicylic acid. Carbohydr Polym 85:803–808. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.03.051. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 192.Huang Y-C, Li R-Y, Chen J-Y, Chen J-K. 2016. Biphasic release of gentamicin from chitosan/fucoidan nanoparticles for pulmonary delivery. Carbohydr Polym 138:114–122. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.11.072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 193.Filatova LY, Donovan DM, Becker SC, Lebedev DN, Priyma AD, Koudriachova HV, Kabanov AV, Klyachko NL. 2013. Physicochemical characterization of the staphylolytic LysK enzyme in complexes with polycationic polymers as a potent antimicrobial. Biochimie 95:1689–1696. doi: 10.1016/j.biochi.2013.04.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 194.Chaisri W, Ghassemi AH, Hennink WE, Okonogi S. 2011. Enhanced gentamicin loading and release of PLGA and PLHMGA microspheres by varying the formulation parameters. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 84:508–514. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2011.02.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 195.Nash ME, Carroll WM, Velasco D, Gomez J, Gorelov AV, Elezov D, Gallardo A, Rochev YA, Elvira C. 2013. Synthesis and characterization of a novel thermoresponsive copolymer series and their application in cell and cell sheet regeneration. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 24:253–268. doi: 10.1080/09205063.2012.690274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 196.Zhou M, Liu S, Jiang Y, Ma H, Shi M, Wang Q, Zhong W, Liao W, Xing MM. 2015. Doxorubicin-loaded single wall nanotube thermo-sensitive hydrogel for gastric cancer chemo-photothermal therapy. Adv Funct Mater 25:4730–4739. doi: 10.1002/adfm.201501434. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 197.Pawar MD, Rathna G, Agrawal S, Kuchekar BS. 2015. Bioactive thermoresponsive polyblend nanofiber formulations for wound healing. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 48:126–137. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2014.11.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 198.Hathaway H, Alves DR, Bean J, Esteban PP, Ouadi K, Sutton JM, Jenkins ATA. 2015. Poly(N-isopropylacrylamide-co-allylamine) (PNIPAM-co-ALA) nanospheres for the thermally triggered release of bacteriophage K. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 96:437–441. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2015.09.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 199.Hathaway H, Ajuebor J, Stephens L, Coffey A, Potter U, Sutton JM, Jenkins ATA. 2017. Thermally triggered release of the bacteriophage endolysin CHAP K and the bacteriocin lysostaphin for the control of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). J Control Release 245:108–115. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.11.030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 200.Nelson D. 2012. Noninvasive thermal ablation of osteomyelitis-causing bacteria using functionalized nanoparticles, accession number ADA562458. University of Maryland, College Park, MD. [Google Scholar]
  • 201.Gilmer DB, Schmitz JE, Euler CW, Fischetti VA. 2013. Novel bacteriophage lysin with broad lytic activity protects against mixed infection by Streptococcus pyogenes and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57:2743–2750. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02526-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 202.Gilmer DB, Schmitz JE, Thandar M, Euler CW, Fischetti VA. 2017. The phage lysin PlySs2 decolonizes Streptococcus suis from murine intranasal mucosa. PLoS One 12:e0169180. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169180. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 203.Lood R, Raz A, Molina H, Euler CW, Fischetti VA. 2014. A highly active and negatively charged Streptococcus pyogenes lysin with a rare d-alanyl-l-alanine endopeptidase activity protects mice against streptococcal bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:3073–3084. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00115-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 204.Nelson D, Loomis L, Fischetti VA. 2001. Prevention and elimination of upper respiratory colonization of mice by group A streptococci by using a bacteriophage lytic enzyme. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:4107–4112. doi: 10.1073/pnas.061038398. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 205.Oechslin F, Daraspe J, Giddey M, Moreillon P, Resch G. 2013. In vitro characterization of PlySK1249, a novel phage lysin, and assessment of its antibacterial activity in a mouse model of Streptococcus agalactiae bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57:6276–6283. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01701-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 206.Doehn JM, Fischer K, Reppe K, Gutbier B, Tschernig T, Hocke AC, Fischetti VA, Löffler J, Suttorp N, Hippenstiel S. 2013. Delivery of the endolysin Cpl-1 by inhalation rescues mice with fatal pneumococcal pneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother 68:2111–2117. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkt131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 207.Loeffler JM, Nelson D, Fischetti VA. 2001. Rapid killing of Streptococcus pneumoniae with a bacteriophage cell wall hydrolase. Science 294:2170–2172. doi: 10.1126/science.1066869. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 208.Witzenrath M, Schmeck B, Doehn JM, Tschernig T, Zahlten J, Loeffler JM, Zemlin M, Müller H, Gutbier B, Schütte H. 2009. Systemic use of the endolysin Cpl-1 rescues mice with fatal pneumococcal pneumonia. Crit Care Med 37:642–649. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31819586a6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 209.Entenza J, Loeffler J, Grandgirard D, Fischetti V, Moreillon P. 2005. Therapeutic effects of bacteriophage Cpl-1 lysin against Streptococcus pneumoniae endocarditis in rats. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 49:4789–4792. doi: 10.1128/AAC.49.11.4789-4792.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 210.Schuch R, Nelson D, Fischetti VA. 2002. A bacteriolytic agent that detects and kills Bacillus anthracis. Nature 418:884–889. doi: 10.1038/nature01026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 211.Yang H, Zhang Y, Yu J, Huang Y, Zhang X-E, Wei H. 2014. Novel chimeric lysin with high-level antimicrobial activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in vitro and in vivo. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:536–542. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01793-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 212.Díez-Martínez R, de Paz H, Bustamante N, García E, Menéndez M, García P. 2013. Improving the lethal effect of Cpl-7, a pneumococcal phage lysozyme with broad bactericidal activity, by inverting the net charge of its cell wall-binding module. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57:5355–5365. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01372-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 213.Briers Y, Lavigne R. 2015. Breaking barriers: expansion of the use of endolysins as novel antibacterials against Gram-negative bacteria. Future Microbiol 10:377–390. doi: 10.2217/fmb.15.8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 214.Chopra S, Harjai K, Chhibber S. 2016. Potential of combination therapy of endolysin MR-10 and minocycline in treating MRSA induced systemic and localized burn wound infections in mice. Int J Med Microbiol 306:707–716. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmm.2016.08.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 215.Zhang L, Li D, Li X, Hu L, Cheng M, Xia F, Gong P, Wang B, Ge J, Zhang H. 2016. LysGH15 kills Staphylococcus aureus without being affected by the humoral immune response or inducing inflammation. Sci Rep 6:29344. doi: 10.1038/srep29344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 216.Fan J, Zeng Z, Mai K, Yang Y, Feng J, Bai Y, Sun B, Xie Q, Tong Y, Ma J. 2016. Preliminary treatment of bovine mastitis caused by Staphylococcus aureus, with trx-SA1, recombinant endolysin of S. aureus bacteriophage IME-SA1. Vet Microbiol 191:65–71. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2016.06.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 217.Totté JE, van Doorn MB, Pasmans SG. 2017. Successful treatment of chronic Staphylococcus aureus-related dermatoses with the topical endolysin Staphefekt SA.100: a report of 3 cases. Case Rep Dermatol 9:19–25. doi: 10.1159/000473872. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 218.Shen Y, Barros M, Vennemann T, Gallagher DT, Yin Y, Linden SB, Heselpoth RD, Spencer DJ, Donovan DM, Moult J. 2016. A bacteriophage endolysin that eliminates intracellular streptococci. eLife 5:e13152. doi: 10.7554/eLife.13152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 219.Meng X, Shi Y, Ji W, Meng X, Zhang J, Wang H, Lu C, Sun J, Yan Y. 2011. Application of a bacteriophage lysin to disrupt biofilms formed by the animal pathogen Streptococcus suis. Appl Environ Microbiol 77:8272–8279. doi: 10.1128/AEM.05151-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 220.Hoopes JT, Stark CJ, Kim HA, Sussman DJ, Donovan DM, Nelson DC. 2009. Use of a bacteriophage lysin, PlyC, as an enzyme disinfectant against Streptococcus equi. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:1388–1394. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02195-08. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 221.Celia LK, Nelson D, Kerr DE. 2008. Characterization of a bacteriophage lysin (Ply700) from Streptococcus uberis. Vet Microbiol 130:107–117. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2007.12.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 222.Hathaway H, Milo S, Sutton JM, Jenkins TA. 2017. Recent advances in therapeutic delivery systems of bacteriophage and bacteriophage-encoded endolysins. Ther Deliv 8:543–556. doi: 10.4155/tde-2017-0040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 223.Shavrina MS, Zimin AA, Molochkov NV, Chernyshov SV, Machulin AV, Mikoulinskaia GV. 2016. In vitro study of the antibacterial effect of the bacteriophage T5 thermostable endolysin on Escherichia coli cells. J Appl Microbiol 121:1282–1290. doi: 10.1111/jam.13251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 224.Oliveira H, Boas DV, Mesnage S, Kluskens LD, Lavigne R, Sillankorva S, Secundo F, Azeredo J. 2016. Structural and enzymatic characterization of ABgp46, a novel phage endolysin with broad anti-gram-negative bacterial activity. Front Microbiol 7:208. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 225.Obeso JM, Martínez B, Rodríguez A, García P. 2008. Lytic activity of the recombinant staphylococcal bacteriophage ΦH5 endolysin active against Staphylococcus aureus in milk. Int J Food Microbiol 128:212–218. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.08.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 226.Lai M-J, Lin N-T, Hu A, Soo P-C, Chen L-K, Chen L-H, Chang K-C. 2011. Antibacterial activity of Acinetobacter baumannii phage ϕAB2 endolysin (LysAB2) against both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 90:529–539. doi: 10.1007/s00253-011-3104-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 227.Son J-S, Lee S-J, Jun SY, Yoon SJ, Kang SH, Paik HR, Kang JO, Choi Y-J. 2010. Antibacterial and biofilm removal activity of a podoviridae Staphylococcus aureus bacteriophage SAP-2 and a derived recombinant cell-wall-degrading enzyme. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 86:1439–1449. doi: 10.1007/s00253-009-2386-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 228.Seyed Hosseini E, Moniri R, Goli YD, Haddad Kashani H. 2016. Purification of antibacterial CHAPK protein using a self-cleaving fusion tag and its activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 8:202–210. doi: 10.1007/s12602-016-9236-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 229.Haddad Kashani H, Moniri R. 2015. Expression of recombinant pET22b-LysK-cysteine/histidine-dependent amidohydrolase/peptidase bacteriophage therapeutic protein in Escherichia coli BL21 (DE3). Osong Public Health Res Perspect 6:256–260. doi: 10.1016/j.phrp.2015.08.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Clinical Microbiology Reviews are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES