Drug screening to identify compounds to act as co-therapies for the treatment of Burkholderia species

Sam Barker; Sarah V Harding; David Gray; Mark I Richards; Helen S Atkins; Nicholas J Harmer

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0248119

. 2021 Mar 25;16(3):e0248119. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248119

Drug screening to identify compounds to act as co-therapies for the treatment of Burkholderia species

Sam Barker ^1,^¤, Sarah V Harding ², David Gray ³, Mark I Richards ², Helen S Atkins ^1,², Nicholas J Harmer ^1,^4,^*

Editor: R Mark Wooten⁵

PMCID: PMC7993816 PMID: 33764972

Abstract

Burkholderia pseudomallei is a soil-dwelling organism present throughout the tropics. It is the causative agent of melioidosis, a disease that is believed to kill 89,000 people per year. It is naturally resistant to many antibiotics, requiring at least two weeks of intravenous treatment with ceftazidime, imipenem or meropenem followed by 6 months of orally delivered co-trimoxazole. This places a large treatment burden on the predominantly middle-income nations where the majority of disease occurs. We have established a high-throughput assay for compounds that could be used as a co-therapy to potentiate the effect of ceftazidime, using the related non-pathogenic bacterium Burkholderia thailandensis as a surrogate. Optimization of the assay gave a Z’ factor of 0.68. We screened a library of 61,250 compounds and identified 29 compounds with a pIC₅₀ (-log₁₀(IC₅₀)) greater than five. Detailed investigation allowed us to down select to six “best in class” compounds, which included the licensed drug chloroxine. Co-treatment of B. thailandensis with ceftazidime and chloroxine reduced culturable cell numbers by two orders of magnitude over 48 hours, compared to treatment with ceftazidime alone. Hit expansion around chloroxine was performed using commercially available compounds. Minor modifications to the structure abolished activity, suggesting that chloroxine likely acts against a specific target. Finally, an initial study demonstrates the utility of chloroxine to act as a co-therapy to potentiate the effect of ceftazidime against B. pseudomallei. This approach successfully identified potential co-therapies for a recalcitrant Gram-negative bacterial species. Our assay could be used more widely to aid in chemotherapy to treat infections caused by these bacteria.

Introduction

Burkholderia pseudomallei is the causative agent of melioidosis, a disease endemic to many regions across the tropics [1]. It is believed to cause approximately 89,000 deaths per annum worldwide [2,3], with the large majority of the burden falling on less developed or lower middle income countries. Melioidosis can present in many ways, which significantly complicates diagnosis [4]. Clinical presentations include skin infections, suppurative parotitis, genitourinary infections, and pneumonia [5]. The most serious infections can develop to sepsis, and abscesses on internal organs are common [1,6]. In the absence of treatment, mortality from acute infections is high; even with treatment, mortality approaches 40% in many affected areas [7]. Patients with access to adequate diagnostic and treatment facilities have reduced mortality rates [8] and are treated with an intensive treatment phase of intravenously delivered ceftazidime, imipenem or meropenem for at least 14 days [9–11], followed by oral eradication therapy with co-trimoxazole lasting between 3 and 6 months [1,12,13]. The cost of this treatment regime is high and the burden of disease in the least developed countries (e.g. Cambodia) may prevent those in need from being treated [14,15]. In many lower income settings alternative eradication regimes are used that have increased disease relapse rates [16].

B. pseudomallei is found in soil and water, preferring anthrosol and acrisol soil types [2,3]. Like many Burkholderia, it is an opportunistic pathogen of humans, and most patients have at least one pre-disposing risk factor (with diabetes mellitus the most common) [17]. In the host, B. pseudomallei generally adopts an intracellular lifestyle, and can invade and replicate in a range of cell types [18]. The intracellular location also makes antibiotic chemotherapy more challenging as compounds must cross an additional biological membrane.

B. pseudomallei is naturally resistant to many clinically used antibiotics, including some of the more recently developed antibiotics [1,9,10,19]. When cultured to stationary phase or in hypoxic conditions, most Burkholderia species show a high subpopulation that are recalcitrant to antibiotic treatment [20]. This observation is believed to mimic behavior in vivo, with B. pseudomallei surviving in biofilms or intracellular niches where cellular conditions promote antibiotic tolerance [21–23]. This can then lead to recurrent or latent forms of the disease and the relapse of infections in humans where longer term antibiotic treatment is not administered [24]. Although significant progress has been made towards a melioidosis vaccine, candidates are yet to enter clinical trials [25,26].

This presents an urgent unmet need for affordable novel drugs that supplement current effective therapeutics to reduce the cost and duration of treatment and to prevent relapse of infection [11,27]. We hypothesized that small molecules could act as co-therapies that could be administered alongside front-line treatments with the aim of reducing the rates of recurrent infection. We aimed to develop an assay that would allow rapid screening of a compound library to identify and validate such compounds, as a step towards a potential therapy. As B. pseudomallei is a Containment Level 3 bacterium, Burkholderia thailandensis was selected for this study. This is a close relative of the pathogenic B. pseudomallei with over 85% gene conservation [28]. As B. thailandensis does not cause disease in immunocompetent humans [28–30], it is commonly used as a surrogate for B. pseudomallei. Previous studies have shown that approximately 0.1% of B. thailandensis cells survive for 24 hours following treatment with 100X MIC (minimum inhibitory concentration; the lowest concentration of an antibiotic required to prevent observable growth of the bacterium; c.f. 5–10% of B. pseudomallei survive such treatment) of the front-line antibiotic ceftazidime in vitro [20].

A phenotypic assay using the cell viability reagent PrestoBlue™ was used to screen compounds from a diversity library containing nearly 5,000 core fragments [31] at the Drug Discovery Unit (DDU) in Dundee. Preliminary screening identified six compounds that were active as co-therapies and potentiated the effect of ceftazidime against B. thailandensis. Following hit confirmation and potency determination, we identified chloroxine, which had an IC₅₀ (concentration at which 50% of the maximal growth inhibition is observed) value lower than 10 μM, as the most promising compound. Chloroxine was able to reduce the proportion of cells surviving ceftazidime treatment by at least two orders of magnitude. Evaluation of structurally similar compounds suggested that chloroxine has a specific effect. This study suggests that chloroxine has strong potential for further development as a ceftazidime co-therapy for melioidosis.

Materials and methods

Bacterial strain and culture conditions

B. thailandensis strain E264 (ATCC; strain 700388) was grown in high salt (10 g/L) Lysogeny broth (LB) at 37°C with aeration at 200 rpm. For experiments investigating the activity of the combination therapy, B. thailandensis was grown to stationary phase in LB broth and cells harvested by centrifugation. Cell pellets were resuspended in M9 minimal media [32] supplemented with 730 μM/400 μg/ml ceftazidime hydrate (Melford Laboratories, #C5920; hereafter referred to as ceftazidime). Initial cell counts were determined from the absorbance at 600 nm. An OD₆₀₀ of 0.2 corresponds to 2x10⁸ cfu (Claudia Hemsley, University of Exeter, personal communication). For growth of B. pseudomallei strain K96243 (S. Songsivilai, Siriraj Hospital), bacteria were plated onto low salt (5 g/L) LB-agar. Single colonies were picked into 100 ml low salt LB broth and grown at 37°C for 20 hours with orbital shaking. Cells were harvested by centrifugation and pellets resuspended in M9 minimal media. Ceftazidime was prepared from a stock at 73 mM active component in 0.1 M sodium hydroxide. Chloroxine (Sigma-Aldrich, #D64600) was prepared from a stock at 10–100 mg/ml active component in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO).

Cell viability assay

Detection of cell viability with PrestoBlue™ (Life Technologies, #A13261) was performed in 96 and 384 well, black walled assay plates (Corning, #3904 and #3573 respectively) by adding 10% PrestoBlue (v/v) to each bacterial culture. Following the addition of PrestoBlue, plates were incubated at room temperature for one hour and fluorescence was read at ex 540/em 590 nm by an Envision plate reader (PerkinElmer), or an Infinite M200 Pro (Tecan). All liquid handling in the primary screen and hit expansion was automated.

An assay was developed to discriminate two-fold changes in cell numbers. A bacterial culture was prepared as described above and serially diluted in an equal volume of M9 media to produce two-fold dilutions. A positive control (cells resuspended in M9 media without ceftazidime) and a negative control (cells heat killed at 90°C for 2 minutes) were included in these assays. Plates were incubated at 37°C overnight before addition of PrestoBlue reagent and the reading of fluorescence as described previously.

High throughput screening

A library of 61,250 compounds was prepared as stock solutions in DMSO at a concentration of 10 mM and supplied in 384-well Echo plates (Labcyte, #P-05525) for use in this screen. 45 μl of a culture resuspended in M9 media supplemented with 730 μM ceftazidime to an OD_{600 nm} of 0.8 (equivalent to late log phase growth, equivalent to 8x10⁸ cfu/mL) was added to give a final compound concentration of 30 μM. Plates were covered with AeraSeal film (Sigma-Aldrich, #A9224) before incubation for 24 hours at 28°C. A single point (SP) screen of all compounds was performed.

309 compounds from the diversity library were tested for potency using a standard ten point half logarithm concentration response protocol [33]. Selected hits were dispensed into 384 well Echo plates using a Biomek FX automated liquid handling workstation (Beckman Coulter); two-fold serial dilutions of each compound in DMSO was performed using an Echo 550 liquid handler (Labcyte).

Our specifications for assay design stipulated a Z factor > 0.5 [34,35].

Z F a c t o r = 1 - \frac{3 (σ p + σ n)}{| μ p - μ n |}

(1)

Where μp and σp are the mean and standard deviation of cells treated with ceftazidime, and μn and σn are the mean and standard deviation of the negative controls. A worked example calculation is available in the legend to S1 Fig.

Data processing and analysis

Data analysis was performed within ActivityBase (IDBS) and report creation was undertaken using Vortex (Dotmatics). All IC₅₀ curve fitting was undertaken within Activity Base XE utilizing the underlying ‘MATH IQ’ engine of XLfit version 5.1.0.0 from IDBS. Curve fitting was carried out using the following 4 parameter logistic equation:

y = A + \frac{(B - A)}{1 + {(\frac{10^{C}}{x})}^{D}}

(2)

where A = % inhibition at bottom, B = % inhibition at top, C = 50% effect concentration (IC₅₀), D = slope, x = inhibitor concentration and y = % inhibition. As IC₅₀ values are Log normally distributed, fitted IC₅₀ values are stated as the pIC₅₀ (-log₁₀[IC₅₀]).

Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC)

These were determined following the CLSI recommended protocol for antimicrobial susceptibility testing via micro dilution method [36,37]. Experiments were initiated with an inoculum of approximately 1 x10⁵ cfu of B. thailandensis, and evaluated a concentration range from 0–1000 μM. Growth was detected by absorbance at 600 nm using an Infinity M200 Pro plate reader (Tecan). Synergistic interactions of chloroxine and ceftazidime were tested by mixing equal volumes of media prepared using the micro dilution method, to test concentrations of each antibiotic from 0–32 μg/ml. Samples were then treated as above.

IC₅₀ determination

90 μL of a culture prepared as above and resuspended in M9 media supplemented with 730 μM ceftazidime to an OD_{600 nm} of 0.8 was treated with two-fold dilutions of compounds in DMSO (in a final DMSO concentration of 0.016% (v/v)). Samples were incubated in a 96 well black walled plate covered with AeraSeal film (SigmaAldrich) at 28°C for 24 hours before quantification of viable cells with PrestoBlue as above. IC₅₀ values were fitted to Eq (2) using Graphpad Prism version 6.0.1.

Time dependent killing

A stationary phase culture of B. thailandensis was centrifuged and resuspended in 10 ml LB to an OD_{600 nm} of 0.4 (equivalent to 4 x10⁸ cfu/mL). Samples were treated with 730 μM ceftazidime hydrate, 30 μM chloroxine in DMSO, or both. Samples were incubated at 37°C with shaking. 1 mL samples were taken at time intervals over a 48 hour period (0, 4, 8, 24, 48 hr), cells harvested and resuspended in LB before serial dilution and plating on agar. Colonies were counted following 24 hours incubation at 37°C. All samples contained DMSO at 0.083% (v/v).

Results

Assay development

The aim of this study was to identify compounds that may have use as co-therapies for the treatment of infection with B. pseudomallei. We aimed to develop an assay that would identify compounds that reduced the proportion of B. thailandensis cells that remained viable when delivered in combination with ceftazidime (730 μM; 400 μg/ml; this is equivalent to the peak blood concentration given for melioidosis septicemia; c.f. MIC of 2–6 μg/ml for common B. pseudomallei isolates [38–40]). We evaluated the effectiveness of our assays using the Z’ statistic [34], commonly used for high-throughput screening (HTS) [41]. The requirement of this initial assay was to distinguish a ceftazidime treated culture from heat killed cells (negative control) with a Z’ score greater than 0.4. We investigated a range of absorbance, fluorescence, luminescence, and qPCR-based assays for correlates of cell viability (S1 File). A phenotypic cell viability assay using the resazurin-based reagent PrestoBlue met our criterion, showing a greater Z’ score than the alternative assays (Fig 1). This cell viability assay offered high throughput screening that was convenient and affordable, with good discrimination in the reduction of surviving B. thailandensis cells. The assay conditions (incubation temperature, volume, and sealing) were then optimized for use in 384 well plates with automated dispensing of reagents. The final assay quality was determined, comparing B. thailandensis at the optimized cell density in M9 media supplemented with ceftazidime, to media without bacteria. The final assay resulted in a Z’ score of 0.68 (S1 Fig), which is consistent with the HTS requirement for a score of 0.5–0.7. Assay quality was maintained throughout the HTS.

Fig 1 — A B. *thailandensis* culture was harvested, resuspended, and diluted in M9 media supplemented with 730 μM ceftazidime, to provide a series of cell densities at two-fold intervals. Samples were incubated statically at 28°C in 96 well plates. PrestoBlue was added following 20 hours of incubation and the fluorescence read gain optimized for the highest bacterial concentration. The results show reliable discrimination of two-fold differences in cell numbers when compared to a heat killed cell negative control. * All show Z’ > 0.5 when compared to the controls. Positive control: Cells resuspended in M9 media without ceftazidime. Data shows biological triplicates, whiskers indicate the minimum and maximum results, the box the 25^th to 75^th percentiles and the central line indicates the median.

High throughput screening

Primary single point screening took place for the 61,250 compounds comprising the DDU’s Diversity screening library [31]. As expected, the majority of the compounds were inactive (Fig 2), with some compounds showing compound effects on the assay (indicated by the tail of compounds showing >150% of the mean fluorescence). Using the median percentage effect plus three standard deviations, a cut-off of 34.3% inhibition was determined. This identified 2,127 unique compounds as ‘hits’, which exceeded the capability for downstream analysis. As a result, a pragmatic cut off of 45% inhibition was selected (Fig 2, red arrow), resulting in 345 unique compounds. Some of these were excluded due to known promiscuity issues. We selected 309 compounds for detailed screening: these included some near analogues to hits from within the DDU collection that showed good activity and physiochemical properties. For these 309 compounds, a ten point, 2-fold, concentration response assay was performed in duplicate (S2 Fig) with criteria for a positive hit set at greater than 50% inhibition at the highest concentration tested (100 μM). Acceptable concentration response relationships were returned for 58 compounds, of which 29 showed a pIC₅₀ (-log₁₀(IC₅₀)) values > 5, indicating 50% activity at 10 μM and a potential “hit”.

Fig 2 — A B. *thailandensis* culture was harvested and resuspended in M9 media supplemented with 730 μM ceftazidime and 30 μM of each of the compounds. Cells were grown at 28°C for 20 h, and PrestoBlue added. Inhibition was calculated by comparisons to the controls. The distribution shows the percentage inhibition grouped in 5% windows for the HTS of 61,250 compounds. The median activity is 5.3%. The standard deviation of the positive tail is 9.65%, giving a statistical cut-off for activity of 34.3%. The red arrow indicates the selected pragmatic threshold at 45%. 345 compounds were identified as ‘hits’ according to this criterion.

Down selecting compounds. Concentration dependent killing assays were repeated for the 29 compounds selected using newly sourced stocks of the same compounds and performed in triplicate over a larger range of concentrations. pIC₅₀, hillslope and maximal effect were used to further down select to six compounds (A-F), all of which displayed a pIC₅₀ > 5 in either the primary assay (Fig 3A, Table 1), the secondary assay (S3 Fig, S1 Table) or both. One of these compounds (compound A, 5,7-dichloroquinolin-8-ol, also known as chloroxine; Fig 3B), is a currently licensed antimicrobial. Our further investigations focused on chloroxine.

Table 1. Analysis of the concentration dependent killing data shown in Fig 3.

Compound	Top/RFU	Bottom/RFU	Hill Slope	pIC₅₀ (IC₅₀ in M)	R Square	Number of Points Analysed
A	37600	10700	1.7	5.5	0.98	42
B	33400	11900	3.8	4.6	0.95	45
C	48000	25500	1.1	7.2	0.96	48
D	32000	36000	0.7	4.6	0.22	48
E	25000	37200	1.5	5.2	0.75	48
F	12000	29000	2.2	5.1	0.72	48

Open in a new tab

Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC). The experiments described above highlighted that chloroxine had activity on cells that had survived following ceftazidime treatment. Our hypothesis was that chloroxine either potentiated the effects of ceftazidime or was toxic to cells in a metabolic state that rendered them insensitive to ceftazidime. We reasoned chloroxine might be acting as an antibiotic in its own right, as so determined its MIC. Chloroxine demonstrated antimicrobial activity, with an MIC of 4 μg/mL (compared with 4–8 μg/mL for ceftazidime). This was not unexpected, as chloroxine is known to be an effective antimicrobial with activity described against a range of Gram-positive bacteria and fungi. Chloroxine and ceftazidime showed no evidence of synergistic effects on MIC (S4 Fig), suggesting that the effects observed reflected the potentiation of the ceftazidime effect on tolerant cells.

Time dependent killing. A time dependent killing assay was performed to demonstrate that the effect of chloroxine was complementary to ceftazidime. Stationary phase cells were resuspended in fresh media supplemented with ceftazidime (100X MIC), with or without 30 μM of chloroxine. Bacterial counts were determined over 48 hours of incubation. Chloroxine significantly reduced the number of viable cells following incubation for 24 hours when compared to treatment with ceftazidime or chloroxine (p < 0.05, and p < 0.005 respectively), with a reduction in cell number by nearly two orders of magnitude at 48 hours (Fig 4). This validated the antimicrobial activity of chloroxine. We also performed a cytotoxicity assay that demonstrated that chloroxine was not toxic to mammalian cells (S5 Fig).

Fig 4 — A culture of B. *thailandensis* was treated with 730 μM ceftazidime hydrate, 30 μM **chloroxine**, both, or neither. Samples were incubated at 37°C with shaking. Samples were taken at time intervals, cells harvested and resuspended in LB broth before serial dilution and enumerating on agar. Error indicates standard error of serial dilution and CFU count. n = 6. Differences between the ceftazidime alone, **chloroxine** alone, and ceftazidime and **chloroxine** samples were analyzed using a Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn post-hoc comparison using Graphpad v. 7.03. *—p < 0.01 between **chloroxine** alone, and ceftazidime with **chloroxine**. **—p < 0.05 between both **chloroxine** alone and ceftazidime alone, and both compounds.

Hit expansion. One possibility was that chloroxine was acting non-specifically as an oxidizing agent. Hit expansion using similar commercially available compounds was performed to gain insight into the structure-activity relationship. This would also assist in the future development of this compound from hit to lead.

Chloroxine (Fig 3B) is a small synthetic compound with limited scope for improvement. The pIC₅₀ was determined as 5.5 using the PrestoBlue assay (Fig 3A). A total of eleven similar compounds were commercially available and were used for this screen. None of these demonstrated increased potency in the assay (Fig 5). However, the pattern of loss of potency provides clear insights into how chloroxine could be further modified. It was clear that the identity of the substituent at the 7-position was important. Replacement of this with an amino group significantly reduced activity (pIC₅₀ reducing to 3.4; Fig 5A). Similarly, addition of a methyl group at the 2-position was poorly tolerated, leading to a loss of detectable activity at the concentrations tested (Fig 5B). The halogens in the compound could also be altered to some extent. Replacement of the chlorine atom with bromine at the 7-position was tolerated, but only if the chlorine in the 5-position was also removed (reduction in pIC₅₀ from 5.5 to 5.1, Fig 5C). Two alternative structures with bromine were not active (S2 Table). Iodide ions were also tolerated in place of the chlorines, again with a small loss of activity (S2 Table). More extensive alterations to the structure of chloroxine resulted in the loss of at least one order of magnitude of activity (S2 Table).

Fig 5 — A B. *thailandensis* culture was harvested and resuspended to a concentration of 8x10⁸ CFU/mL in M9 media supplemented with 730 μM ceftazidime. This was added to a 96 well plate containing two-fold dilutions of compounds in DMSO from a starting concentration of 1 mM. Plates were incubated for 24 hours at 37°C before addition of the PrestoBlue cell viability reagent and the fluorescence read. Results show three biological replicates with error bars indicating standard deviation. These experiments are equivalent to those in Fig 3 and can be compared to chloroxine in Fig 3. 7-amino-5-chloro-8-quinolinol differs to chloroxine through substitution of an amino group for a chlorine at position 7 (A). This modification causes a significant decrease in this compound’s activity as a co-treatment with ceftazidime, with a pIC50 ≈ 3.4. 5,7-dichloro-2-methyl-8-quinolinol differs from chloroxine by addition of a methyl group in the 2-position (B). This addition abolishes this compound’s activity as a co-treatment with ceftazidime at the concentrations tested. 7-Bromo-8-quinolinol differs from chloroxine by the removal of chlorine at the 5-position, and replacement of chlorine by bromine at the 7-position (C). This compound retains activity as a co-treatment with ceftazidime that is comparable with the parent compound (pIC50 = 5.1, 5.5 for chloroxine).

Finally, to validate the use of B. thailandensis as a proxy for B. pseudomallei, we repeated the original PrestoBlue assay with ceftazidime and chloroxine against B. pseudomallei. The fluorescent signal seen for B. pseudomallei was approximately double the B. thailandensis signal; this is unlikely to be significant as the level of fluorescence is known to vary between species with this reagent [42]. Chloroxine demonstrated a similar level of activity against B. pseudomallei to that seen against B. thailandensis (Fig 6; IC₅₀ for B. thailandensis 2.0 μM (95% CIs 1.7–2.2 μM); IC₅₀ for B. pseudomallei 9.2 μM (95% CIs 7.2 to 12 μM). This result suggests that our assay could be used with B. pseudomallei.

Fig 6 — B. *thailandensis* and B. *pseudomallei* cultures were harvested and resuspended to a concentration of 8x10⁸ CFU/mL in M9 media supplemented with 730 μM ceftazidime. These were added to a 96 well plate containing two-fold dilutions of chloroxine in DMSO. Plates were incubated for 24 hours at 37°C before the addition of the PrestoBlue cell viability reagent and determination of fluorescence. Results show three biological replicates with error bars indicating standard deviation. pIC₅₀ for B. *thailandensis* = 5.7; pIC₅₀ for B. *pseudomallei* = 5.0.

Discussion

This study aimed to identify compounds that were effective in reducing the proportion of Burkholderia cells that survive following treatment with ceftazidime at concentrations much higher than the MIC. Ceftazidime is a front-line therapy for the acute phase of the disease melioidosis [1]. Ceftazidime specifically targets penicillin-binding protein 3 in B. pseudomallei [23,43]; the B. thailandensis orthologue shows 97% identity at the amino acid level. Ceftazidime treatment at sub-MIC concentrations induces filamentation of B. pseudomallei, whilst ceftazidime is lytic at higher concentrations [44]. Our study aimed to identify compounds that could be developed to be administered alongside front-line treatments, with the aim of reducing the rates of recurrent infection. This may then allow the duration and cost of the treatment to be reduced.

We decided that the use of a whole cell, phenotypic assay was advantageous for this application. Cells in the low metabolic state that provide resistance to antibiotics such as ceftazidime are heterogeneous [45], and cover a range of phenotypes. As such, a phenotypic assay focusing on the reductive state of the cell was preferred over a target-based assay for identifying tractable hit compounds. In addition, phenotypic screening is regaining popularity over target-based screening. The principal reasons for this are that compounds with the physiological ability to penetrate Gram-negative cells, function in vivo and avoid efflux pumps are identified [46,47]. Consequently, the compound series obtained are likely to have significant advantages for downstream optimization and development. The use of cell viability reagents, allowing the assessment of cells at a population or individual level, offered the opportunity to identify viable cells in a variety of states, and was considered more relevant for this work. Resazurin based assays have previously been shown to identify all viable cells, and not just the less abundant “persister” cells [48]. Other phenotypic assays that have identified co-therapies against other organisms have exploited colony counting [49,50], DNA binding dyes [51] and Live/Dead reagents [52]. The PrestoBlue resazurin-based assay proved effective, in Burkholderia, at identifying compounds that were active at concentrations below 10 μM, validating the approach. Primary screening with the DDU’s diversity library identified 2,127 compounds that showed a significant effect as a co-therapy with ceftazidime, based on an activity threshold of 34.3% inhibition. The preliminary hit rate was 3.5%, which is in the expected range for an effective assay.

Chloroxine was identified as a potential co-therapy to treat infection with B. thailandensis. This compound demonstrated strong activity in the primary assay (IC₅₀ = 2 μM) and resulted in a significant reduction in the number of culturable bacterial cells following 24–48 hours treatment, in combination with ceftazidime (>100-fold reduction). This is similar to the level of efficacy that has been previously observed with compounds targeting E. coli [51]. It is hypothesized that chloroxine would reduce the proportion of cells surviving ceftazidime treatment, and so reduce the intensive treatment phase in patients with melioidosis. Chloroxine has known bacteriostatic, fungistatic and antiprotozoal properties [53] and has previously been shown to have synergistic effects with minocycline against Pseudomonas aeruginosa [54]. Consistent with this, administration of chloroxine alongside the frontline treatment for melioidosis, ceftazidime, demonstrated improved activity than the compounds evaluated as sole therapies. This suggests that the compounds have complementary effects when treating B. thailandensis. Bactericidal effects were observed at concentrations below the chloroxine MIC (Figs 3A and S4). This study demonstrates evidence for the concept of use of chloroxine as a complementary agent to ceftazidime against B. thailandensis.

Hit expansion was carried out for chloroxine. Only a limited range of compounds around the chloroxine structure were available. None of the compounds evaluated demonstrated improved activity compared to the parent compound (S2 Table). However, it became evident that only limited substitutions at the chlorine positions were tolerated, only compounds with other halides in these positions showed comparable activity to chloroxine. Furthermore, addition of a methyl group in the 2-position was sufficient to abolish activity at the concentrations evaluated (Fig 5). These data strongly suggest that chloroxine has some specificity, and it is not a consequence of its suggested oxidative activity. The addition of a methyl group would not be expected to reduce the oxidative capability of chloroxine, yet this abolishes activity. Furthermore, the iodo-equivalent of chloroxine retains similar activity to chloroxine and is considerably less oxidizing. This hit expansion validates the hypothesis that chloroxine acts specifically to potentiate the effect of ceftazidime.

B. thailandensis was used in the preliminary experiments as a surrogate for B. pseudomallei. Evaluation of chloroxine against B. pseudomallei showed that chloroxine is effective as a co-therapy for ceftazidime at druggable concentrations (Fig 6). Although activity is reduced compared to that observed against B. thailandensis, these results validate the use of B. thailandensis as a surrogate in this study. In the context of ongoing treatment for cutaneous melioidosis, chloroxine is currently licensed for topical treatment of skin infections. It may become a useful addition to the existing portfolio of treatments for cutaneous melioidosis due to its low cost and activity against B. pseudomallei. Determining the efficacy against a wider range of strains of B. pseudomallei would provide further confidence to this proposed use. Development of co-therapies suitable for systemic treatment would require significant chemical modification to optimize activity and bioavailability. Chloroxine is soluble to 644 μM in water, and the peak ceftazidime concentration in serum is 130 μM [55]. Furthermore, B. pseudomallei invades and multiplies in phagocytic cells [56], so modification for penetration of these cells would be necessary. A wider range of starting lead scaffolds would likely be necessary for such optimization.

Conclusions

Our study has demonstrated that a phenotypic assay can identify compounds that act as co-therapies for frontline antibiotics in Burkholderia. A high throughput screen of 61,250 compounds identified six compounds that demonstrated activity at concentrations of less than 10 μM. One of these compounds, 5,7-dichloro-8-quinolinol (chloroxine), is currently licensed for other indications. Although hit expansion with commercially available compounds did not identify any neighbors with improved activity, chloroxine significantly reduced the number of surviving cells over 48 hours. Our data suggest that similar approaches could be highly efficacious in identifying useful compounds for use with other bacteria with similar clinical challenges.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. A checkboard of microbial culture to show positional plate effects.

A B. thailandensis culture was harvested and resuspended to a concentration of 8x10⁸ CFU/mL in M9 media supplemented with 730 μM ceftazidime. 45 μl of this suspension (green) and a heat killed control (red) were added to each well in quarters of a 384 well plate. Samples were incubated statically at 28°C. After 20 hours, PrestoBlue was added and the fluorescence read. Intensity of colour indicates the signal strength. Maximum signal variance was 11.2%CV, with Z’ = 0.68 (Calculation: Mean of positive wells = 204,371, SD = 15,179; mean of negative wells = 37,339, SD = 2,532). Relative fluorescence units (RFU) are given for all wells showing significantly decreased fluorescence in edge and corner wells compared to central wells (p = 0.011). Calculation of derived Z (as a worked example of all such calculations in the manuscript):

Positive wells: Mean (μ_p) = 204371, standard deviation (σ_p) = 15179.

Negative wells: Mean (μ_n) = 37339, standard deviation (σ_n) = 2532.

Difference of means: μ_p—μ_n = 204371–37339 = 167032.

Sum of standard deviations: σ_p + σ_n = 15179 + 2532 = 17711.

Z F a c t o r = 1 - \frac{3 (σ p + σ n)}{| μ p - μ n |}

Z = 1 –(3 * 17711/167032)

Z = 1–0.318

Z = 0.68.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(557.1KB, tif)}

S2 Fig. A B. thailandensis culture was harvested and resuspended to a concentration of 8x10⁸ CFU/mL in M9 media supplemented with 730 μM ceftazidime.

This was added to a 96 well plate containing a concentration response assay performed in duplicate two-fold dilutions of compounds in DMSO. Plates were incubated for 24 hours at 37°C before addition of PrestoBlue and the fluorescence read. The criterion for a positive hit was set as greater than 50% inhibition at the highest concentration tested (100 μM).

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(3.9MB, tiff)}

S3 Fig. pIC₅₀ determination from compounds B-F using SYTO9.

The Live/Dead reagent SYTO9 was used to quantify viability as a function of the membrane integrity of the cell. A B. thailandensis culture was harvested and resuspended to a concentration of 8x10⁸ CFU/mL in M9 media supplemented with 730 μM ceftazidime. This was added to a 96 well plate containing two-fold dilutions of compounds in DMSO. Plates were incubated for 24 hours at 37°C before addition of the Live/Dead cell viability reagents and the fluorescence read. Results show three biological replicates with error bars indicating standard error. The derived IC₅₀ values are shown in S1 Table.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(152.6KB, tiff)}

S4 Fig. Synergistic effect study.

A B. thailandensis culture was diluted to an OD₆₀₀ of 0.004 in Muller-Hinton broth (MHB; Sigma). Solutions of ceftazidime and chloroxine at 4X final concentration in MHB were prepared by serial dilution from a master stock. Stocks were mixed one part chloroxine stock, one part ceftazidime stock, and two parts B. thailandensis culture (giving an inoculum of ~5 x 10⁵ cfu) in a 96 well plate. Samples were sealed and grown at 37°C statically for 20 hr, following which absorbance at 600 nm was read using a plate reader. Values were corrected for non-inoculated controls. Wells that showed growth (OD₆₀₀ > 0.1, corresponding with the results of visual inspection; no antibiotic controls showed an OD₆₀₀ of 0.88 ± 0.1, n = 8) are highlighted in red. The plate reader results were in correspondence with visual inspection.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(240.9KB, tiff)}

S5 Fig. Chloroxine does not show cytotoxic effects.

Chloroxine was tested to determine whether it had any cytotoxicity against mammalian cells. Neuroblastoma cells were selected as a representative mammalian cell line that is robust and unaffected by DMSO at concentrations up to 1% (v/v). Cells were plated at 20,000 cells/well in 100 μl Dulbecco’s media. 300 μM chloroxine in 0.5% (v/v) DMSO, or 0.5% (v/v) DMSO (carrier) was added, and the plate incubated for 4 or 24 hours. Cytotoxicity was determined using an LDH cytotoxicity assay kit (Thermo Scientific #88953). Briefly, 10 μl of lysis solution (to indicate 100% lysis) or water (control) was added to untreated wells, and these incubated at 37°C for 45 min. 50 μl of supernatant from each well was added to 50 μl of room temperature assay solution in a 96 well plate (Greiner Bio-One #655201). Samples were incubated at room temperature in the dark for 30 min, and 50 μl of assay stop solution added. Absorbance at 490 nm and 680 nm was read in a M200 Pro plate reader (Tecan), with the difference between these representing LDH activity. % cytotoxicity was determined on a linear scale between the measurements for 100% lysis and water only control. No significant difference was observed between treated and control cells (two-way ANOVA testing for effect of compound or time gives p > 0.5 for each effect). n = 6; image shows means with error bars showing SEM.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(51.6KB, tiff)}

S1 Table. Activities of the six most promising compounds.

The structures, derived IC₅₀ values from the resazurin and SYTO9 based assays and the MIC values are provided for each compound. 95% confidence intervals are shown in parenthesis. IC₅₀ values and confidence intervals were calculated using Graphpad v. 8.3. MIC values were determined as the lowest concentration not showing significant growth.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(35.3KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Hit expansion structures and activity for chloroxine.

Each compound was tested using the PrestoBlue assay. A B. thailandensis culture was harvested, and resuspended to a concentration of 8x10⁸ CFU/mL in M9 media supplemented with 730 μM ceftazidime. This was added to a 96 well plate containing two-fold dilutions of compounds in DMSO. Plates were incubated for 24 hours at 37°C before the addition of PrestoBlue and the fluorescence read. Results show three biological replicates with error bars indicating standard deviation. All modifications resulted in reduced activity when compared to chloroxine. In cases where the data did not fit to the model used (where no activity is demonstrated at the concentrations used), pIC₅₀ is recorded as N/A.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(139.4KB, docx)}

S1 File. Supplementary results.

A series of approaches were trialed to identify an effective assay for determining the level of B. thailandensis cells surviving following 24 hours of exposure to 730 μM ceftazidime. The PrestoBlue approach that was eventually selected is described in detail in the main paper. The criteria used for selection was the ability to identify a four-fold difference in initial cell numbers with clear statistical significance; affordability of reagents for over 60,000 test samples; and ease of use in a high throughput setting.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(179.5KB, pdf)}

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Claudia Hemsley and Professor Rick Titball (University of Exeter, UK) for advice and assistance during the development of these assays, and Dr. Akshay Bhinge (University of Exeter, UK), for assistance with the cytotoxicity assay.

Data Availability

Data underpinning this work are available through Open Research Exeter at https://doi.org/10.24378/exe.2963.

Funding Statement

The authors note that author SB was employed by Phoremost Ltd and Midatech Plc after completing his work on this manuscript, but before the final manuscript was completed. These companies provided his salary but did not have any influence on the text or data of the manuscript, or the decision to publish. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. The authors declare no other competing interests. This work was funded by grant Dstlx-1000060221 from Dstl to NJH.

References

1.Wiersinga WJ, Currie BJ, Peacock SJ. Melioidosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(11):1035–44. 10.1056/NEJMra1204699 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Currie BJ, Kaestli M. Epidemiology: A global picture of melioidosis. Nature. 2016;529(7586):290–1. 10.1038/529290a . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Limmathurotsakul D, Golding N, Dance DA, Messina JP, Pigott DM, Moyes CL, et al. Predicted global distribution of Burkholderia pseudomallei and burden of melioidosis. Nat Microbiol. 2016;1:15008. 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2015.8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Wiersinga WJ, van der Poll T, White NJ, Day NP, Peacock SJ. Melioidosis: insights into the pathogenicity of Burkholderia pseudomallei. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2006;4(4):272–82. 10.1038/nrmicro1385 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Cheng AC, Currie BJ. Melioidosis: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2005;18(2):383–416. 10.1128/CMR.18.2.383-416.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Cheng AC, Currie BJ, Dance DA, Funnell SG, Limmathurotsakul D, Simpson AJ, et al. Clinical definitions of melioidosis. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013;88(3):411–3. 10.4269/ajtmh.12-0555 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.White NJ. Melioidosis. Lancet. 2003;361(9370):1715–22. 10.1016/s0140-6736(03)13374-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Pitman MC, Luck T, Marshall CS, Anstey NM, Ward L, Currie BJ. Intravenous therapy duration and outcomes in melioidosis: a new treatment paradigm. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(3):e0003586. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003586 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Bennett JE, Dolin R, Blaser MJ. Mandell, douglas, and bennett’s principles and practice of infectious diseases. 9. ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2019. volumes cm p. [Google Scholar]
10.Sanford JP, Gilbert DN, Sande MA. The Sanford guide to antimicrobial therapy. Pocket sized ed. Dallas, TX Sperryville, VA: Antimicrobial Therapy. p. volumes. [Google Scholar]
11.Sarovich DS, Ward L, Price EP, Mayo M, Pitman MC, Baird RW, et al. Recurrent melioidosis in the Darwin Prospective Melioidosis Study: improving therapies mean that relapse cases are now rare. J Clin Microbiol. 2014;52(2):650–3. 10.1128/JCM.02239-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Currie BJ. Melioidosis: evolving concepts in epidemiology, pathogenesis, and treatment. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;36(1):111–25. 10.1055/s-0034-1398389 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.McLeod C, Morris PS, Bauert PA, Kilburn CJ, Ward LM, Baird RW, et al. Clinical presentation and medical management of melioidosis in children: a 24-year prospective study in the Northern Territory of Australia and review of the literature. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60(1):21–6. 10.1093/cid/ciu733 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Rammaert B, Beaute J, Borand L, Hem S, Buchy P, Goyet S, et al. Pulmonary melioidosis in Cambodia: a prospective study. BMC Infect Dis. 2011;11:126. 10.1186/1471-2334-11-126 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Vlieghe E, Kruy L, De Smet B, Kham C, Veng CH, Phe T, et al. Melioidosis, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17(7):1289–92. 10.3201/eid1707.101069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Chetchotisakd P, Chierakul W, Chaowagul W, Anunnatsiri S, Phimda K, Mootsikapun P, et al. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus doxycycline as oral eradicative treatment for melioidosis (MERTH): a multicentre, double-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;383(9919):807–14. 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61951-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Limmathurotsakul D, Peacock SJ. Melioidosis: a clinical overview. Br Med Bull. 2011;99:125–39. 10.1093/bmb/ldr007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Willcocks SJ, Denman CC, Atkins HS, Wren BW. Intracellular replication of the well-armed pathogen Burkholderia pseudomallei. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2016;29:94–103. 10.1016/j.mib.2015.11.007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Harris P, Engler C, Norton R. Comparative in vitro susceptibility of Burkholderia pseudomallei to doripenem, ertapenem, tigecycline and moxifloxacin. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2011;37(6):547–9. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2011.02.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Hemsley CM, Luo JX, Andreae CA, Butler CS, Soyer OS, Titball RW. Bacterial drug tolerance under clinical conditions is governed by anaerobic adaptation but not anaerobic respiration. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(10):5775–83. 10.1128/AAC.02793-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Jones-Carson J, Zweifel AE, Tapscott T, Austin C, Brown JM, Jones KL, et al. Nitric oxide from IFNgamma-primed macrophages modulates the antimicrobial activity of beta-lactams against the intracellular pathogens Burkholderia pseudomallei and Nontyphoidal Salmonella. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8(8):e3079. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003079 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Sawasdidoln C, Taweechaisupapong S, Sermswan RW, Tattawasart U, Tungpradabkul S, Wongratanacheewin S. Growing Burkholderia pseudomallei in biofilm stimulating conditions significantly induces antimicrobial resistance. PLoS One. 2010;5(2):e9196. 10.1371/journal.pone.0009196 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Schweizer HP. Mechanisms of antibiotic resistance in Burkholderia pseudomallei: implications for treatment of melioidosis. Future Microbiol. 2012;7(12):1389–99. 10.2217/fmb.12.116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Hamad MA, Austin CR, Stewart AL, Higgins M, Vazquez-Torres A, Voskuil MI. Adaptation and antibiotic tolerance of anaerobic Burkholderia pseudomallei. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55(7):3313–23. 10.1128/AAC.00953-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Hatcher CL, Muruato LA, Torres AG. Recent Advances in Burkholderia mallei and B. pseudomallei Research. Curr Trop Med Rep. 2015;2(2):62–9. 10.1007/s40475-015-0042-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Titball RW, Burtnick MN, Bancroft GJ, Brett P. Burkholderia pseudomallei and Burkholderia mallei vaccines: Are we close to clinical trials? Vaccine. 2017. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.03.022 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Lipsitz R, Garges S, Aurigemma R, Baccam P, Blaney DD, Cheng AC, et al. Workshop on treatment of and postexposure prophylaxis for Burkholderia pseudomallei and B. mallei Infection, 2010. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012;18(12):e2. 10.3201/eid1812.120638 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Brett PJ, Deshazer D, Woods DE. Characterization of Burkholderia pseudomallei and Burkholderia pseudomallei-like strains. Epidemiol Infect. 1997;118(2):137–48. 10.1017/s095026889600739x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Haraga A, West TE, Brittnacher MJ, Skerrett SJ, Miller SI. Burkholderia thailandensis as a model system for the study of the virulence-associated type III secretion system of Burkholderia pseudomallei. Infect Immun. 2008;76(11):5402–11. 10.1128/IAI.00626-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Brett PJ, DeShazer D, Woods DE. Burkholderia thailandensis sp. nov., a Burkholderia pseudomallei-like species. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1998;48 Pt 1:317–20. 10.1099/00207713-48-1-317 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Brenk R, Schipani A, James D, Krasowski A, Gilbert IH, Frearson J, et al. Lessons learnt from assembling screening libraries for drug discovery for neglected diseases. ChemMedChem. 2008;3(3):435–44. 10.1002/cmdc.200700139 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Harwood C. R. CSM. Chemically defined growth media and supplements. Harwood C. R. CSM, editor. Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley; 1990. 1990. [Google Scholar]
33.Sebaugh JL. Guidelines for accurate EC50/IC50 estimation. Pharm Stat. 2011;10(2):128–34. 10.1002/pst.426 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Zhang JH, Chung TD, Oldenburg KR. A Simple Statistical Parameter for Use in Evaluation and Validation of High Throughput Screening Assays. J Biomol Screen. 1999;4(2):67–73. 10.1177/108705719900400206 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Abraham Y, Zhang X, Parker CN. Multiparametric Analysis of Screening Data: Growing Beyond the Single Dimension to Infinity and Beyond. J Biomol Screen. 2014;19(5):628–39. 10.1177/1087057114524987 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Pearson RD, Steigbigel RT, Davis HT, Chapman SW. Method of reliable determination of minimal lethal antibiotic concentrations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1980;18(5):699–708. 10.1128/aac.18.5.699 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Taylor PC, Schoenknecht FD, Sherris JC, Linner EC. Determination of minimum bactericidal concentrations of oxacillin for Staphylococcus aureus: influence and significance of technical factors. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1983;23(1):142–50. 10.1128/aac.23.1.142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Dutta S, Haq S, Hasan MR, Haq JA. Antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of clinical isolates of Burkholderia pseudomallei in Bangladesh. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(1):299. Epub 2017/07/22. 10.1186/s13104-017-2626-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Khosravi Y, Vellasamy KM, Mariappan V, Ng SL, Vadivelu J. Antimicrobial susceptibility and genetic characterisation of Burkholderia pseudomallei isolated from Malaysian patients. ScientificWorldJournal. 2014;2014:132971. Epub 2014/11/08. 10.1155/2014/132971 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Ross BN, Myers JN, Muruato LA, Tapia D, Torres AG. Evaluating New Compounds to Treat Burkholderia pseudomallei Infections. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2018;8:210. Epub 2018/07/18. 10.3389/fcimb.2018.00210 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Walters WP, Namchuk M. Designing screens: how to make your hits a hit. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2003;2(4):259–66. 10.1038/nrd1063 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Lall N, Henley-Smith CJ, De Canha MN, Oosthuizen CB, Berrington D. Viability Reagent, PrestoBlue, in Comparison with Other Available Reagents, Utilized in Cytotoxicity and Antimicrobial Assays. Int J Microbiol. 2013;2013:420601. 10.1155/2013/420601 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Chantratita N, Rholl DA, Sim B, Wuthiekanun V, Limmathurotsakul D, Amornchai P, et al. Antimicrobial resistance to ceftazidime involving loss of penicillin-binding protein 3 in Burkholderia pseudomallei. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(41):17165–70. 10.1073/pnas.1111020108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Chen K, Sun GW, Chua KL, Gan YH. Modified virulence of antibiotic-induced Burkholderia pseudomallei filaments. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49(3):1002–9. 10.1128/AAC.49.3.1002-1009.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Allison KR, Brynildsen MP, Collins JJ. Heterogeneous bacterial persisters and engineering approaches to eliminate them. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2011;14(5):593–8. 10.1016/j.mib.2011.09.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Gilbert IH. Drug discovery for neglected diseases: molecular target-based and phenotypic approaches. J Med Chem. 2013;56(20):7719–26. 10.1021/jm400362b [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.Swinney DC, Anthony J. How were new medicines discovered? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10(7):507–19. 10.1038/nrd3480 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Orman MA, Brynildsen MP. Establishment of a method to rapidly assay bacterial persister metabolism. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(9):4398–409. 10.1128/AAC.00372-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Lee JH, Kim YG, Gwon G, Wood TK, Lee J. Halogenated indoles eradicate bacterial persister cells and biofilms. AMB Express. 2016;6(1):123. 10.1186/s13568-016-0297-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Niu H, Cui P, Shi W, Zhang S, Feng J, Wang Y, et al. Identification of Anti-Persister Activity against Uropathogenic Escherichia coli from a Clinical Drug Library. Antibiotics (Basel). 2015;4(2):179–87. 10.3390/antibiotics4020179 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Kim JS, Heo P, Yang TJ, Lee KS, Cho DH, Kim BT, et al. Selective killing of bacterial persisters by a single chemical compound without affecting normal antibiotic-sensitive cells. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55(11):5380–3. 10.1128/AAC.00708-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52.Feng J, Wang T, Shi W, Zhang S, Sullivan D, Auwaerter PG, et al. Identification of novel activity against Borrelia burgdorferi persisters using an FDA approved drug library. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2014;3(7):e49. 10.1038/emi.2014.53 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53.Caglic D, Krutein MC, Bompiani KM, Barlow DJ, Benoni G, Pelletier JC, et al. Identification of clinically viable quinolinol inhibitors of botulinum neurotoxin A light chain. J Med Chem. 2014;57(3):669–76. 10.1021/jm4012164 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54.Ejim L, Farha MA, Falconer SB, Wildenhain J, Coombes BK, Tyers M, et al. Combinations of antibiotics and nonantibiotic drugs enhance antimicrobial efficacy. Nat Chem Biol. 2011;7(6):348–50. Epub 2011/04/26. 10.1038/nchembio.559 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55.Carroll KC, Pfaller MA, Landry ML, McAdam AJ, Patel R, Richter SS, et al. Manual of clinical microbiology. 12th edition. ed. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2019. 2 volumes p. [Google Scholar]
56.Gassiep I, Armstrong M, Norton R. Human Melioidosis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2020;33(2). Epub 2020/03/13. 10.1128/CMR.00006-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 25;16(3):e0248119. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248119.r001

Author response to previous submission

10 Sep 2020

Attachment

Submitted filename: Barker et al Response to reviewers 0920.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(26.4KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248119.r002

Decision Letter 0

R Mark Wooten

15 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-28523

Drug screening to identify compounds to act as co-therapies for the treatment of Burkholderia species

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Harmer,

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

Both reviewers agreed that this version was greatly improved from the initial version. However, there are just a few questions that still need to be addressed, which have been listed clearly from Reviewer 1.

Please submit your revised manuscript by December 24. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

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

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

R. Mark Wooten, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Phoremost Ltd.

2.1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2.2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: I am Reviewer #2 from the prior submission. I have read and appreciate the responses made by the authors to my comments and concerns. I have also read the insightful comments and concerns of Reviewer #1 from the prior submission and I am generally satisfied that the authors have addressed those points. The thoughtful discussion contributions made by both parties are very much appreciated.

It is my view that the text of the paper alone reads well at present. It is quite straightforward and I believe that the current version is better than the last.

However, I am frustrated about the way the Figures and Tables (including those that are Supplementary) are integrated with one another and the text. In order to follow along, one must open the Results section of the text and open the corresponding (in-text) Figures/Tables and also have the Supplementary Figures/Tables open as well as the Experimental Procedures section of the text to gather all of the information needed to understand a given result. This frustration has been mentioned by other, prior Reviewers (see discussions pertinent to readability and sequence of data presentation). This frustration seems to extend beyond the routine and expected awkwardness of navigating a manuscript before it has been accepted and transformed into the final publication format. It makes me wonder if a full re-working of the manuscript is necessary rather than merely updating it piecemeal to satisfy the comments garnered in each additional round of review. No doubt the document has been reviewed and updated many times.

A key concern I have is that the authors seem to refer to elements of figures (particularly Supplementary Figures), which I cannot find. This makes me wonder if I am looking at the same version of the Supplementary Figures as the authors are looking at. Please see below for line-by-line examples.

I thus conclude that from a scientific standpoint, I am satisfied that my concerns have been addressed. However, I’d encourage the authors to sit with the paper and take a very careful look at all of the references to in-text / Supplementary Figures and Tables to make sure that everything is coherent.

Line-by-line Comments

Lines 95-99: “Previous studies have shown that approximately 0.1% of B. thailandensis cells survive for 24 hours following treatment with 100X MIC.” Likewise, can you quote a survival percentage for B.P. from the literature – if available?

Line 166-169: “pIC50, hillslope and maximal effect were used to further down select to six compounds (A-F), all of which displayed a pIC50 > 5 (Figure 3A, Table 1, Supplementary Figure 8, Supplemental Table 1)”. Firstly, it is tremendously confusing to make a statement and then provide substantiation of the statement by referring to an in-text figure, an in-text table, a supplementary figure and a supplementary table. It is almost enough to cause the reader to give up on trying to independently review points of evidence for the claim. There must be a better way to convey which parts of the claim are substantiated by evidence in which in-text figures and tables and in which Supplementary figures and tables. Secondly, I don’t see the structures for Compounds A-F in Supplementary Table 1. Are they supposed to be here or elsewhere – for example in one of the other tables or figures? Moreover, which letter (A-F) is chloroxine in each figure/table?

Line 179-180: The text suggests that there is a depiction of chloroxine’s antimicrobial activity with an MIC of 4 ug/mL in Supplementary Table 2. I do not see any information regarding this in Supplementary Table 2. Yet again, there is discussion of Reviewer #1’s comments included in the information for the authors from the 2nd submission of this manuscript to PLOS ONE. Here, it sounds like the authors are directing Reviewer #1 to see Supplemental Table 1. I don’t see this information there either. Please address.

Figure 1: Please state what the positive control is in the figure legend. Otherwise one must dig and look in the Experimental Procedures section to find it.

Response to Reviewer#2 Comment from Prior Submission: Previously, I requested an example of how the ‘Z’ factor is calculated. In your response, you indicated that you have included one and I was eager to take a look at that. However, I cannot find an example in the legend of Supplementary Figure 1, which is where I was directed to look. This makes me question if you have perhaps submitted the wrong version of the Supplementary Figures and that I am consequently now looking at the wrong version (?). Perhaps I am not looking at the final draft of your updates to the Supplementary Figures (?). This could account for my ongoing confusion. For context, this is what I see:

Supplementary Figure 1: Assay development using Bactiter Glo to measure ATP levels.

ATP levels in an untreated culture of B. thailandensis was quantified with Bactiter Glo reagent, in a series of two-fold dilutions with media. Signal from the Bactiter Glo was converted to an ATP concentration using an ATP standard curve in the same media. Results are the mean of three replicates. Error indicates 95% confidence intervals. Z’ for 0.8 to 0.4 = 0.61.

Thank you for your careful consideration to these matters.

Reviewer #2: This reviewer acknowledges that the author and colleagues have addressed all the comments and concerns posed in the review, included pertinent data, added missing information and corrected typographical errors.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 25;16(3):e0248119. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248119.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 0

17 Dec 2020

Editor comments:

1. The manuscript has been amended to meet PLOS ONE's style requirements.

2.1 An amended funding statement has been provided below. This was also supplied in the cover letter.

“The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Following the conclusion of his experimental and writing work on this manuscript, author SB was employed by Phoremost Ltd (2015-2020) and Midatech Pharma Plc (2020). The funder provided support in the form of salaries for author SB but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section."

2.2 We provide an amended Competing Interests Statement, which was also provided in the cover letter.

“The authors note that author SB was employed by Phoremost Ltd and Midatech Plc after completing his work on this manuscript, but before the final manuscript was completed. These companies provided his salary but did not have any influence on the text or data of the manuscript, or the decision to publish. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. The authors declare no other competing interests.”

3. The data have already been submitted to our institutional repository and been checked and approved. Once the manuscript is accepted (i.e. once it is clear that no further changes are required), a doi and URL will be generated which I will communicate so that the data availability statement can be updated.

4. I have provided captions for the supporting information and figures as separate files in accordance with journal policy.

Response to reviewers (also available as a marked up document):

We thank the reviewers for their careful reading of the manuscript, and for the additional suggestions for further improvement. We have revised the manuscript to meet all of these comments.

We have also revised the manuscript as requested by PLoS One to meet the PLoS style.

It is my view that the text of the paper alone reads well at present. It is quite straightforward and I believe that the current version is better than the last.

We thank the reviewer for these comments. It was our hope that the text would read well.

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment about careful checking of the figures and tables, especially in the light of the well-made line by line comments. We have given the manuscript thorough checking to make sure that each reference to figures, tables and supplementary material is correct.

Line-by-line Comments

These data are available in the literature, and we have added this to this section (revision – line 101).

We appreciate the reviewer’s point about the challenge of viewing these data. To address this, we have broken these data into two, highlighting the primary assay for Fig 3 and Table 1, and the secondary assay in the Supplementary figure/table. [Revision – line 293.]

We have added the structures of compounds A-F to Table S1 as the reviewer suggested.

Chloroxine is compound A – we have clarified this in the text at the point that the reviewer noted, which is a good idea. [Revision – line 294-5.]

We apologise for the lack of clarity here. The CLSI method calls for visual inspection of wells, which does not lend itself well to representation except as a determined MIC. The determined values are listed in Table S1. We have removed the reference to table S2 which was in error. The results shown in Fig S4 are consistent with the determined MIC, providing a further validation of the MIC result.

Figure 1: Please state what the positive control is in the figure legend. Otherwise one must dig and look in the Experimental Procedures section to find it.

This is an excellent suggestion and we have added this to the figure legend. [Revision: lines 251-2.]

Supplementary Figure 1: Assay development using Bactiter Glo to measure ATP levels.

Thank you for your careful consideration to these matters.

We apologise here, as we unfortunately misunderstood the reviewer’s previous request. We have included a sample calculation in Fig S1, which is the ideal place for a detailed example.

We thank the reviewer for their comments.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.pdf

Click here for additional data file.^{(141.3KB, pdf)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248119.r004

Decision Letter 1

R Mark Wooten

22 Feb 2021

Drug screening to identify compounds to act as co-therapies for the treatment of Burkholderia species

PONE-D-20-28523R1

Dear Dr. Harmer,

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

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

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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

Kind regards,

R. Mark Wooten, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248119.r005

Acceptance letter

R Mark Wooten

17 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-28523R1

Drug screening to identify compounds to act as co-therapies for the treatment of Burkholderia species

Dear Dr. Harmer:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

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

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

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. R. Mark Wooten

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

S1 Fig. A checkboard of microbial culture to show positional plate effects.

Positive wells: Mean (μ_p) = 204371, standard deviation (σ_p) = 15179.

Negative wells: Mean (μ_n) = 37339, standard deviation (σ_n) = 2532.

Difference of means: μ_p—μ_n = 204371–37339 = 167032.

Sum of standard deviations: σ_p + σ_n = 15179 + 2532 = 17711.

Z F a c t o r = 1 - \frac{3 (σ p + σ n)}{| μ p - μ n |}

Z = 1 –(3 * 17711/167032)

Z = 1–0.318

Z = 0.68.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(557.1KB, tif)}

S2 Fig. A B. thailandensis culture was harvested and resuspended to a concentration of 8x10⁸ CFU/mL in M9 media supplemented with 730 μM ceftazidime.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(3.9MB, tiff)}

S3 Fig. pIC₅₀ determination from compounds B-F using SYTO9.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(152.6KB, tiff)}

S4 Fig. Synergistic effect study.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(240.9KB, tiff)}

S5 Fig. Chloroxine does not show cytotoxic effects.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(51.6KB, tiff)}

S1 Table. Activities of the six most promising compounds.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(35.3KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Hit expansion structures and activity for chloroxine.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(139.4KB, docx)}

S1 File. Supplementary results.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(179.5KB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Barker et al Response to reviewers 0920.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(26.4KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.pdf

Click here for additional data file.^{(141.3KB, pdf)}

Data Availability Statement

Data underpinning this work are available through Open Research Exeter at https://doi.org/10.24378/exe.2963.

[pone.0248119.ref001] 1.Wiersinga WJ, Currie BJ, Peacock SJ. Melioidosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(11):1035–44. 10.1056/NEJMra1204699 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref002] 2.Currie BJ, Kaestli M. Epidemiology: A global picture of melioidosis. Nature. 2016;529(7586):290–1. 10.1038/529290a . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref003] 3.Limmathurotsakul D, Golding N, Dance DA, Messina JP, Pigott DM, Moyes CL, et al. Predicted global distribution of Burkholderia pseudomallei and burden of melioidosis. Nat Microbiol. 2016;1:15008. 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2015.8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref004] 4.Wiersinga WJ, van der Poll T, White NJ, Day NP, Peacock SJ. Melioidosis: insights into the pathogenicity of Burkholderia pseudomallei. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2006;4(4):272–82. 10.1038/nrmicro1385 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref005] 5.Cheng AC, Currie BJ. Melioidosis: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2005;18(2):383–416. 10.1128/CMR.18.2.383-416.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref006] 6.Cheng AC, Currie BJ, Dance DA, Funnell SG, Limmathurotsakul D, Simpson AJ, et al. Clinical definitions of melioidosis. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013;88(3):411–3. 10.4269/ajtmh.12-0555 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref007] 7.White NJ. Melioidosis. Lancet. 2003;361(9370):1715–22. 10.1016/s0140-6736(03)13374-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref008] 8.Pitman MC, Luck T, Marshall CS, Anstey NM, Ward L, Currie BJ. Intravenous therapy duration and outcomes in melioidosis: a new treatment paradigm. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(3):e0003586. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003586 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref009] 9.Bennett JE, Dolin R, Blaser MJ. Mandell, douglas, and bennett’s principles and practice of infectious diseases. 9. ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2019. volumes cm p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref010] 10.Sanford JP, Gilbert DN, Sande MA. The Sanford guide to antimicrobial therapy. Pocket sized ed. Dallas, TX Sperryville, VA: Antimicrobial Therapy. p. volumes. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref011] 11.Sarovich DS, Ward L, Price EP, Mayo M, Pitman MC, Baird RW, et al. Recurrent melioidosis in the Darwin Prospective Melioidosis Study: improving therapies mean that relapse cases are now rare. J Clin Microbiol. 2014;52(2):650–3. 10.1128/JCM.02239-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref012] 12.Currie BJ. Melioidosis: evolving concepts in epidemiology, pathogenesis, and treatment. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;36(1):111–25. 10.1055/s-0034-1398389 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref013] 13.McLeod C, Morris PS, Bauert PA, Kilburn CJ, Ward LM, Baird RW, et al. Clinical presentation and medical management of melioidosis in children: a 24-year prospective study in the Northern Territory of Australia and review of the literature. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60(1):21–6. 10.1093/cid/ciu733 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref014] 14.Rammaert B, Beaute J, Borand L, Hem S, Buchy P, Goyet S, et al. Pulmonary melioidosis in Cambodia: a prospective study. BMC Infect Dis. 2011;11:126. 10.1186/1471-2334-11-126 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref015] 15.Vlieghe E, Kruy L, De Smet B, Kham C, Veng CH, Phe T, et al. Melioidosis, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17(7):1289–92. 10.3201/eid1707.101069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref016] 16.Chetchotisakd P, Chierakul W, Chaowagul W, Anunnatsiri S, Phimda K, Mootsikapun P, et al. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus doxycycline as oral eradicative treatment for melioidosis (MERTH): a multicentre, double-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;383(9919):807–14. 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61951-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref017] 17.Limmathurotsakul D, Peacock SJ. Melioidosis: a clinical overview. Br Med Bull. 2011;99:125–39. 10.1093/bmb/ldr007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref018] 18.Willcocks SJ, Denman CC, Atkins HS, Wren BW. Intracellular replication of the well-armed pathogen Burkholderia pseudomallei. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2016;29:94–103. 10.1016/j.mib.2015.11.007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref019] 19.Harris P, Engler C, Norton R. Comparative in vitro susceptibility of Burkholderia pseudomallei to doripenem, ertapenem, tigecycline and moxifloxacin. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2011;37(6):547–9. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2011.02.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref020] 20.Hemsley CM, Luo JX, Andreae CA, Butler CS, Soyer OS, Titball RW. Bacterial drug tolerance under clinical conditions is governed by anaerobic adaptation but not anaerobic respiration. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(10):5775–83. 10.1128/AAC.02793-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref021] 21.Jones-Carson J, Zweifel AE, Tapscott T, Austin C, Brown JM, Jones KL, et al. Nitric oxide from IFNgamma-primed macrophages modulates the antimicrobial activity of beta-lactams against the intracellular pathogens Burkholderia pseudomallei and Nontyphoidal Salmonella. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8(8):e3079. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003079 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref022] 22.Sawasdidoln C, Taweechaisupapong S, Sermswan RW, Tattawasart U, Tungpradabkul S, Wongratanacheewin S. Growing Burkholderia pseudomallei in biofilm stimulating conditions significantly induces antimicrobial resistance. PLoS One. 2010;5(2):e9196. 10.1371/journal.pone.0009196 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref023] 23.Schweizer HP. Mechanisms of antibiotic resistance in Burkholderia pseudomallei: implications for treatment of melioidosis. Future Microbiol. 2012;7(12):1389–99. 10.2217/fmb.12.116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref024] 24.Hamad MA, Austin CR, Stewart AL, Higgins M, Vazquez-Torres A, Voskuil MI. Adaptation and antibiotic tolerance of anaerobic Burkholderia pseudomallei. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55(7):3313–23. 10.1128/AAC.00953-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref025] 25.Hatcher CL, Muruato LA, Torres AG. Recent Advances in Burkholderia mallei and B. pseudomallei Research. Curr Trop Med Rep. 2015;2(2):62–9. 10.1007/s40475-015-0042-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref026] 26.Titball RW, Burtnick MN, Bancroft GJ, Brett P. Burkholderia pseudomallei and Burkholderia mallei vaccines: Are we close to clinical trials? Vaccine. 2017. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.03.022 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref027] 27.Lipsitz R, Garges S, Aurigemma R, Baccam P, Blaney DD, Cheng AC, et al. Workshop on treatment of and postexposure prophylaxis for Burkholderia pseudomallei and B. mallei Infection, 2010. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012;18(12):e2. 10.3201/eid1812.120638 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref028] 28.Brett PJ, Deshazer D, Woods DE. Characterization of Burkholderia pseudomallei and Burkholderia pseudomallei-like strains. Epidemiol Infect. 1997;118(2):137–48. 10.1017/s095026889600739x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref029] 29.Haraga A, West TE, Brittnacher MJ, Skerrett SJ, Miller SI. Burkholderia thailandensis as a model system for the study of the virulence-associated type III secretion system of Burkholderia pseudomallei. Infect Immun. 2008;76(11):5402–11. 10.1128/IAI.00626-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref030] 30.Brett PJ, DeShazer D, Woods DE. Burkholderia thailandensis sp. nov., a Burkholderia pseudomallei-like species. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1998;48 Pt 1:317–20. 10.1099/00207713-48-1-317 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref031] 31.Brenk R, Schipani A, James D, Krasowski A, Gilbert IH, Frearson J, et al. Lessons learnt from assembling screening libraries for drug discovery for neglected diseases. ChemMedChem. 2008;3(3):435–44. 10.1002/cmdc.200700139 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref032] 32.Harwood C. R. CSM. Chemically defined growth media and supplements. Harwood C. R. CSM, editor. Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley; 1990. 1990. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref033] 33.Sebaugh JL. Guidelines for accurate EC50/IC50 estimation. Pharm Stat. 2011;10(2):128–34. 10.1002/pst.426 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref034] 34.Zhang JH, Chung TD, Oldenburg KR. A Simple Statistical Parameter for Use in Evaluation and Validation of High Throughput Screening Assays. J Biomol Screen. 1999;4(2):67–73. 10.1177/108705719900400206 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref035] 35.Abraham Y, Zhang X, Parker CN. Multiparametric Analysis of Screening Data: Growing Beyond the Single Dimension to Infinity and Beyond. J Biomol Screen. 2014;19(5):628–39. 10.1177/1087057114524987 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref036] 36.Pearson RD, Steigbigel RT, Davis HT, Chapman SW. Method of reliable determination of minimal lethal antibiotic concentrations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1980;18(5):699–708. 10.1128/aac.18.5.699 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref037] 37.Taylor PC, Schoenknecht FD, Sherris JC, Linner EC. Determination of minimum bactericidal concentrations of oxacillin for Staphylococcus aureus: influence and significance of technical factors. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1983;23(1):142–50. 10.1128/aac.23.1.142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref038] 38.Dutta S, Haq S, Hasan MR, Haq JA. Antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of clinical isolates of Burkholderia pseudomallei in Bangladesh. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(1):299. Epub 2017/07/22. 10.1186/s13104-017-2626-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref039] 39.Khosravi Y, Vellasamy KM, Mariappan V, Ng SL, Vadivelu J. Antimicrobial susceptibility and genetic characterisation of Burkholderia pseudomallei isolated from Malaysian patients. ScientificWorldJournal. 2014;2014:132971. Epub 2014/11/08. 10.1155/2014/132971 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref040] 40.Ross BN, Myers JN, Muruato LA, Tapia D, Torres AG. Evaluating New Compounds to Treat Burkholderia pseudomallei Infections. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2018;8:210. Epub 2018/07/18. 10.3389/fcimb.2018.00210 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref041] 41.Walters WP, Namchuk M. Designing screens: how to make your hits a hit. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2003;2(4):259–66. 10.1038/nrd1063 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref042] 42.Lall N, Henley-Smith CJ, De Canha MN, Oosthuizen CB, Berrington D. Viability Reagent, PrestoBlue, in Comparison with Other Available Reagents, Utilized in Cytotoxicity and Antimicrobial Assays. Int J Microbiol. 2013;2013:420601. 10.1155/2013/420601 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref043] 43.Chantratita N, Rholl DA, Sim B, Wuthiekanun V, Limmathurotsakul D, Amornchai P, et al. Antimicrobial resistance to ceftazidime involving loss of penicillin-binding protein 3 in Burkholderia pseudomallei. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(41):17165–70. 10.1073/pnas.1111020108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref044] 44.Chen K, Sun GW, Chua KL, Gan YH. Modified virulence of antibiotic-induced Burkholderia pseudomallei filaments. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49(3):1002–9. 10.1128/AAC.49.3.1002-1009.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref045] 45.Allison KR, Brynildsen MP, Collins JJ. Heterogeneous bacterial persisters and engineering approaches to eliminate them. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2011;14(5):593–8. 10.1016/j.mib.2011.09.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref046] 46.Gilbert IH. Drug discovery for neglected diseases: molecular target-based and phenotypic approaches. J Med Chem. 2013;56(20):7719–26. 10.1021/jm400362b [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref047] 47.Swinney DC, Anthony J. How were new medicines discovered? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10(7):507–19. 10.1038/nrd3480 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref048] 48.Orman MA, Brynildsen MP. Establishment of a method to rapidly assay bacterial persister metabolism. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(9):4398–409. 10.1128/AAC.00372-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref049] 49.Lee JH, Kim YG, Gwon G, Wood TK, Lee J. Halogenated indoles eradicate bacterial persister cells and biofilms. AMB Express. 2016;6(1):123. 10.1186/s13568-016-0297-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref050] 50.Niu H, Cui P, Shi W, Zhang S, Feng J, Wang Y, et al. Identification of Anti-Persister Activity against Uropathogenic Escherichia coli from a Clinical Drug Library. Antibiotics (Basel). 2015;4(2):179–87. 10.3390/antibiotics4020179 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref051] 51.Kim JS, Heo P, Yang TJ, Lee KS, Cho DH, Kim BT, et al. Selective killing of bacterial persisters by a single chemical compound without affecting normal antibiotic-sensitive cells. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55(11):5380–3. 10.1128/AAC.00708-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref052] 52.Feng J, Wang T, Shi W, Zhang S, Sullivan D, Auwaerter PG, et al. Identification of novel activity against Borrelia burgdorferi persisters using an FDA approved drug library. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2014;3(7):e49. 10.1038/emi.2014.53 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref053] 53.Caglic D, Krutein MC, Bompiani KM, Barlow DJ, Benoni G, Pelletier JC, et al. Identification of clinically viable quinolinol inhibitors of botulinum neurotoxin A light chain. J Med Chem. 2014;57(3):669–76. 10.1021/jm4012164 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref054] 54.Ejim L, Farha MA, Falconer SB, Wildenhain J, Coombes BK, Tyers M, et al. Combinations of antibiotics and nonantibiotic drugs enhance antimicrobial efficacy. Nat Chem Biol. 2011;7(6):348–50. Epub 2011/04/26. 10.1038/nchembio.559 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref055] 55.Carroll KC, Pfaller MA, Landry ML, McAdam AJ, Patel R, Richter SS, et al. Manual of clinical microbiology. 12th edition. ed. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2019. 2 volumes p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248119.ref056] 56.Gassiep I, Armstrong M, Norton R. Human Melioidosis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2020;33(2). Epub 2020/03/13. 10.1128/CMR.00006-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Drug screening to identify compounds to act as co-therapies for the treatment of Burkholderia species

Sam Barker

Sarah V Harding

David Gray

Mark I Richards

Helen S Atkins

Nicholas J Harmer

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Bacterial strain and culture conditions

Cell viability assay

High throughput screening

Data processing and analysis

Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC)

IC50 determination

Time dependent killing

Results

Assay development

Fig 1. The PrestoBlue assay shows discrimination between the numbers of surviving cells.

High throughput screening

Fig 2. Inhibitory activity of test compounds screened with a phenotypic assay.

Fig 3. pIC50 determination of six candidate compounds using the PrestoBlue cell viability assay.

Table 1. Analysis of the concentration dependent killing data shown in Fig 3.

Fig 4. A secondary assay evaluating the number of culturable cells remaining following treatment with ceftazidime and chloroxine.

Fig 5. Hit expansion around chloroxine.

Fig 6. pIC50 determination using the PrestoBlue cell viability assay to compare the concentration dependent killing for ceftazidime used in combination with chloroxine to treat B. thailandensis and B. pseudomallei.

Discussion

Conclusions

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Author response to previous submission

Decision Letter 0

R Mark Wooten

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

R Mark Wooten

Roles

Acceptance letter

R Mark Wooten

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases

IC₅₀ determination

Fig 3. pIC₅₀ determination of six candidate compounds using the PrestoBlue cell viability assay.

Fig 6. pIC₅₀ determination using the PrestoBlue cell viability assay to compare the concentration dependent killing for ceftazidime used in combination with chloroxine to treat B. thailandensis and B. pseudomallei.