Unpredictability of the Fitness Effects of Antimicrobial Resistance Mutations Across Environments in <i>Escherichia coli</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolution of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in bacteria is a major public health concern, and antibiotic restriction is often implemented to reduce the spread of resistance. These measures rely on the existence of deleterious fitness effects (i.e. costs) imposed by AMR mutations during growth in the absence of antibiotics. According to this assumption, resistant strains will be outcompeted by susceptible strains that do not pay the cost during the period of restriction. The fitness effects of AMR mutations are generally studied in laboratory reference strains grown in standard growth environments; however, the genetic and environmental context can influence the magnitude and direction of a mutation's fitness effects. In this study, we measure how three sources of variation impact the fitness effects of Escherichia coli AMR mutations: the type of resistance mutation, the genetic background of the host, and the growth environment. We demonstrate that while AMR mutations are generally costly in antibiotic-free environments, their fitness effects vary widely and depend on complex interactions between the mutation, genetic background, and environment. We test the ability of the Rough Mount Fuji fitness landscape model to reproduce the empirical data in simulation. We identify model parameters that reasonably capture the variation in fitness effects due to genetic variation. However, the model fails to accommodate the observed variation when considering multiple growth environments. Overall, this study reveals a wealth of variation in the fitness effects of resistance mutations owing to genetic background and environmental conditions, which will ultimately impact their persistence in natural populations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".