It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Understanding mechanisms of antibiotic failure is foundational to combating the growing threat of multidrug‐resistant bacteria. Prodrugs—which are converted into a pharmacologically active compound after administration—represent a growing class of therapeutics for treating bacterial infections but are understudied in the context of antibiotic failure. We hypothesize that strategies that rely on pathogen‐specific pathways for prodrug conversion are susceptible to competing rates of prodrug activation and bacterial replication, which could lead to treatment escape and failure. Here, we construct a mathematical model of prodrug kinetics to predict rate‐dependent conditions under which bacteria escape prodrug treatment. From this model, we derive a dimensionless parameter we call the Bacterial Advantage Heuristic (BAH) that predicts the transition between prodrug escape and successful treatment across a range of time scales (1–104 h), bacterial carrying capacities (5 × 104–105 CFU/µl), and Michaelis constants (KM = 0.747–7.47 mM). To verify these predictions in vitro, we use two models of bacteria‐prodrug competition: (i) an antimicrobial peptide hairpin that is enzymatically activated by bacterial surface proteases and (ii) a thiomaltose‐conjugated trimethoprim that is internalized by bacterial maltodextrin transporters and hydrolyzed by free thiols. We observe that prodrug failure occurs at BAH values above the same critical threshold predicted by the model. Furthermore, we demonstrate two examples of how failing prodrugs can be rescued by decreasing the BAH below the critical threshold via (i) substrate design and (ii) nutrient control. We envision such dimensionless parameters serving as supportive pharmacokinetic quantities that guide the design and administration of prodrug therapeutics.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details




1 Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Tech College of Engineering and Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
2 Department of Bioengineering, Innovative Genomics Institute, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
3 Institute of Advanced Synthesis, School of Chemistry and Molecular Engineering, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing, China
4 Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Tech College of Engineering and Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA; Parker H. Petit Institute of Bioengineering and Bioscience, Atlanta, GA, USA; Institute for Electronics and Nanotechnology, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA, USA; Integrated Cancer Research Center, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA, USA; Georgia ImmunoEngineering Consortium, Georgia Tech and Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA; Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA; Emory Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta, GA, USA