Identifying resistance genes in tuberculosis

Newly published in PLOS Biology is our work identifying genes that confer resistance to common and last-resort antibiotics in bacteria that cause tuberculosis. Resistance to these drugs contributes to mortality and sickness on a pandemic scale every year, and disproportionately affects the poorest people in the world.

This new article is one of a series presenting results generated by more than 100 scientists across 23 countries across 5+ years as part of a collaboration called CRyPTIC.

Our role in CRyPTIC was the discovery of genes and mutations likely to cause drug resistance by applying a tool known as a genome-wide association study (GWAS), an approach we helped adapt to bacteria.

Using GWAS, we identified previously uncatalogued genes and mutations underlying resistance to every one of the 13 drugs we investigated. These include new and repurposed drugs, as well as the first- and second-line drugs more often used to treat tuberculosis.

Thanks to its generous funders, CRyPTIC dedicated scale (10,000+ genomes) and technical innovation (new high-throughput MIC assays) to help decode the DNA blueprint of antibiotic resistance. Pushing these boundaries has yielded a steep increase of up to 36% in the variation in resistance attributable to the genome for the important and previously understudied new and repurposed drugs.

Science at this scale can produce a seemingly overwhelming wealth of new information. We avoided the temptation to over-emphasize any individual result for the sake of simple narrative. Instead, we highlighted discoveries of uncatalogued genes or genetic variants that we found for every drug investigated:

The amidase AmiA2 and GTPase Era for bedaquiline.

The cytochrome P450 enzyme Cyp142 for clofazimine.

The serine/threonine protein kinase PknH for delaminid.

The antitoxin VapB20 for linezolid.

The PPE-motif family outer membrane protein PPE42 for amikacin and kanamycin.

The antibiotic-induced transcriptional regulator WhiB7 for ethionamide.

The rRNA methylase TlyA for levofloxacin.

The DNA gyrase subunit B GyrB for moxifloxacin.

The putative rhodaneses CysA2 and CysA3 for rifabutin.

The tRNA/rRNA methylase SpoU for ethambutol and rifampicin.

The multidrug efflux transport system repressor Rv1219 for isoniazid.

All these hits passed stringent evidence thresholds that take into account the large amount of data crunched. For each hit, we identified possible relationships between gene functions, such as they are known, and the mechanism of action of the antibiotics.

Beyond the biological discoveries of primary interest, this new paper unveils methodological advances in bacterial GWAS. We introduced a systematic, whole-genome approach to analysing not just short DNA sequences (so called oligonucleotide or “kmer”-based approaches), but also short sequences of the proteins that the DNA codes for (an oligopeptide-based approach). We have released our software on an open-source GitHub repository.

We also discovered a relationship that may help disentangle a technical issue in bacterial GWAS where the co-occurence of traits can trick us into thinking that a gene influences one trait when it influences another instead. For antimicrobial resistance, this issue is known as artefactual cross resistance. We observed that true associations tended to produce larger associations (as measured by the 'coefficient', rather than the p-value), providing a possible way to prioritize signals in the future.

This paper was published alongside the CRyPTIC Data Compendium in PLOS Biology, in which we released our data open source to the community, with resources provided by the European Bioinformatics Institute.

Some of the results of CRyPTIC have already been rushed into service by the World Health Organization on the grounds of exceptional importance based on a candidate gene approach; this includes the DNA gyrase subunit B – moxifloxacin association spotlighted above (Walker et al 2022). However, the new results go beyond a candidate gene approach, detecting a range of previously uncatalogued genes via its agnostic, whole-genome strategy.

Unpicking the genetics of antimicrobial resistance is a priority for improving rapid susceptibility tests for individual patients, selecting drug regimens that inhibit the evolution of multidrug resistance, and developing improved treatment options. The need is particularly great in M. tuberculosis, which killed 1.4 million people in 2019, owing to the slow (6-12 week) turnaround of traditional susceptibility testing, and the alarming threat of multidrug resistant tuberculosis. The discovery of many new candidate resistance variants therefore represents an advance that we hope will contribute to progress in reducing the burden of disease.

CRyPTIC: rapid diagnosis of drug resistance in TB

The Modernising Medical Microbiology consortium has announced a new worldwide collaboration called CRyPTIC to speed up diagnosis of antibiotic resistant tuberculosis (TB).

TB infects nearly 10 million people each year and kills 1.5 million, making it one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Almost half a million people each year develop multidrug-resistant (MDR) TB, which defies common TB treatments. Time consuming tests must be run to identify MDR-TB and which drugs will work or fail. This delays diagnosis and creates uncertainty about the best drugs to prescribe to individual patients.

CRyPTIC aims to hasten the identification of MDR-TB using whole genome sequencing to identify genetic variants that give resistance to particular drugs. The project is funded by a $2.2m grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and a £4m grant from the Wellcome Trust and MRC Newton Fund.

CRyPTIC aims to collect and analyse 100,000 TB cases from across the world, providing a database of MDR-TB that will underpin diagnosis using WGS. Samples from across Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas will be collected by teams at more than a dozen centres They will conduct drug resistance testing and much of the genome sequencing. Read more information here.

Technology vs Poverty

Image courtesy of Carl Parkes

Image courtesy of Carl Parkes

Technology and poverty seem to be intrinsically at odds with one another. Technology is a luxury, right? While the “smartphone” has been hugely influential in wealthy nations, simple pay as you go cell phones have also transformed poor, rural areas and they are being used to monitor market prices of crops via text messages. This critical information can help a farmer decide what to bring to market and where, to get the best prices. The stripped down basic cell phone could greatly improve a farmer’s income. It’s possible that science and technology could be key components in alleviating poverty all over the world.

India, which is home to 1/3 of the world’ poor, is trying to use science and technology to improve the quality of life in a variety of ways. To make their education system more competitive globally, they are challenging electronics companies to develop prototypes of a $50 tablet so that the government can provide 5 million tablets to improve student’s learning. The National Knowledge Network is establishing the infrastructure for high-speed internet to link all villages in India. These basic technologies will broaden the reach of education and improve the prospects for employment for all.

Other projects use science to address very basic needs. Scientists are improving access to drinking water by analyzing underground flow with monitored isotopes. This helps villagers establish wells at the most optimal position. Other scientists are hard at work developing vaccines that are affordable and targeted to diseases that thrive in impoverished areas with poor sanitation like hepatitis B and rotavirus.

Jairam Ramesh, the leader of the Ministry of Rural Development, has a conservative view of the role that science plays in bringing Indians out of poverty. He says that while science can solve some problems, there are deeper issues in the diffusion of knowledge and societal barriers to change. It’s important to use technology to provide what help it can, but there will need to be a social and policy component to the attack on poverty.

How can we encourage scientists to work on issues critical to poverty vs. those issues that will garner a Cell, Science or Nature paper? Why aren’t those issues one and the same? Some institutions, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, are tackling these issues and beginning to see return on their investment. Hopefully, researchers and inventors will continue to increase their investment in technologies that can alleviate the detriments of poverty.