Applying fluorescent dye assays to discriminate Escherichia coli chlorhexidine resistance phenotypes from porin and mlaA deletions and efflux pumps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bacterial resistance to the antiseptic chlorhexidine (CHX), is a growing problem, recently shown to be caused by deleterious mutations to the phospholipid transport system component (mlaA) as well as efflux pump overexpression. Comparisons of CHX resistance mechanisms, such as porin deletions (ompCF), and over-expressed efflux pumps (acrB, qacE, aceI), are lacking and may be distinguishable using antiseptic rapid fluorescent dye testing assays. Using E. coli K-12 CHX adapted isolates (CHXR1), gene deletion mutants, and over-expressed transformants the phenotypes of these CHX resistance genes were compared using antimicrobial susceptibility tests (AST), rapid fluorescent propidium iodide dye-based membrane integrity assays (RFDMIA), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). AST findings showed CHXR1, ΔacrB, ΔompCF, and transformants pCA24N-aceI and pCA24N-mlaA conferred greater (two to fourfold) MIC changes when compared to matched controls. Examination of these mutants/transformants using CHX RFDMIA showed that porin dual-deletions (ΔompCF) and mlaA alterations (ΔmlaA; pCA24N-mlaA, CHXR1) were distinguishable from controls. Results for over-expressed (pMS119EH-aceI) and deleted (ΔacrB) efflux pump RFDMIA could not be distinguished with propidium iodide, only with ethidium bromide, suggesting propidium iodide is better suited for detecting porin and mlaA associated CHX resistance mechanisms. SEM of CHXR1 and unadapted E. coli cells exposed to increasing CHX concentrations revealed that CHX does not visibly damage cell envelope integrity at any tested concentration but did identify elongated CHXR1 cells. ΔmlaA confers similar levels of CHX resistance as efflux overexpression and porin deletions, however, only outer membrane-altering porin and mlaA deletions can be reliably distinguished using RFDMIA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".