Lapatinib Acts against Biofilm Formation and the Hemolytic Activity of Staphylococcus aureus

Biofilm formation and hemolytic activity are closely related to the pathogenesis of Staphylococcus aureus infections. Herein, we show that lapatinib (12.5 μM) significantly inhibits biofilm formation and hemolytic activity of both methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA) and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) isolates. Using quantitative reverse transcription PCR, we found that the RNA levels of transcriptional regulatory genes (RNAIII, agrA, agrC, saeR, and saeS), biofilm-formation-related genes (atl, cidA, clfA, clfB, and icaA), and virulence-related genes (cap5A, hla, hld, hlg, lukDE, lukpvl-S, staphopain B, alpha-3 PSM, beta PSM, and delta PSM) of S. aureus decreased after 6 h treatment with lapatinib. Wild-type S. aureus isolates were continuously cultured in vitro in the presence of increasing concentrations of lapatinib for about 140 days. Subsequently, S. aureus isolates with reduced susceptibility to lapatinib (the inhibitory effect of lapatinib on the biofilm formation of these S. aureus isolates was significantly weakened) were selected. Mutations in the genomes of S. aureus isolates with reduced susceptibility to lapatinib were detected by whole-genome sequencing. We identified four genes with mutations: three genes with known functions (membrane protein, pyrrolidone-carboxylate peptidase, and sensor histidine kinase LytS, respectively) and one gene with unknown function (hypothetical protein). In conclusion, this study indicates that lapatinib significantly inhibits biofilm formation and the hemolytic activity of S. aureus.

[1]  D. Qu,et al.  Diclazuril Inhibits Biofilm Formation and Hemolysis of Staphylococcus aureus. , 2021, ACS infectious diseases.

[2]  L. Lei,et al.  Two-component signaling pathways modulate drug resistance of Staphylococcus aureus (Review) , 2020, Biomedical reports.

[3]  D. Qu,et al.  Staphylococcus aureus PhoU Homologs Regulate Persister Formation and Virulence , 2020, Frontiers in Microbiology.

[4]  A. van Belkum,et al.  The global prevalence of Daptomycin, Tigecycline, Quinupristin/Dalfopristin, and Linezolid-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase–negative staphylococci strains: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2020, Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control.

[5]  D. Qu,et al.  In vitro activities of telithromycin against Staphylococcus aureus biofilms compared with azithromycin, clindamycin, vancomycin and daptomycin. , 2020, Journal of medical microbiology.

[6]  B. Kuster,et al.  Repurposing human kinase inhibitors to create an antibiotic active against drug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, persisters and biofilms , 2019, Nature Chemistry.

[7]  A. Al-Chalabi,et al.  Quantitative analysis of human endogenous retrovirus-K transcripts in postmortem premotor cortex fails to confirm elevated expression of HERV-K RNA in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis , 2019, Acta Neuropathologica Communications.

[8]  Maneesha K. Suresh,et al.  An update on recent developments in the prevention and treatment of Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. , 2019, International journal of medical microbiology : IJMM.

[9]  Jin-xin Zheng,et al.  Biofilm formation in erythromycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and the relationship with antimicrobial susceptibility and molecular characteristics. , 2018, Microbial pathogenesis.

[10]  M. Simões,et al.  Staphylococcus aureus Toxins and Their Molecular Activity in Infectious Diseases , 2018, Toxins.

[11]  S. Harbarth,et al.  Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus , 2018, Nature Reviews Disease Primers.

[12]  M. Ghahremani,et al.  Emergence of vancomycin-intermediate and -resistant Staphylococcus aureus among methicillin-resistant S. aureus isolated from clinical specimens in the northwest of Iran. , 2018, Journal of global antimicrobial resistance.

[13]  D. Qu,et al.  Characteristics of and Virulence Factors Associated with Biofilm Formation in Clinical Enterococcus faecalis Isolates in China , 2017, Front. Microbiol..

[14]  D. Barh,et al.  Two-Component Signal Transduction Systems of Pathogenic Bacteria As Targets for Antimicrobial Therapy: An Overview , 2017, Front. Microbiol..

[15]  K. Bayles,et al.  Staphylococcus aureus biofilm: a complex developmental organism , 2017, Molecular microbiology.

[16]  C. Shiau,et al.  In vitro and in vivo activity of a novel sorafenib derivative SC5005 against MRSA. , 2016, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[17]  Scott N. Dean,et al.  Screen of FDA-approved drug library identifies maprotiline, an antibiofilm and antivirulence compound with QseC sensor-kinase dependent activity in Francisella novicida , 2015, Virulence.

[18]  T. Foster,et al.  Protein-based biofilm matrices in Staphylococci , 2014, Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol..

[19]  Anne E Carpenter,et al.  Identification of Host-Targeted Small Molecules That Restrict Intracellular Mycobacterium tuberculosis Growth , 2014, PLoS pathogens.

[20]  E. Yi,et al.  Phosphoproteomic analysis identifies activated MET-axis PI3K/AKT and MAPK/ERK in lapatinib-resistant cancer cell line , 2013, Experimental & Molecular Medicine.

[21]  D. Germano,et al.  Lapatinib in breast cancer. , 2007, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[22]  H. Monteil,et al.  Regulation of virulence determinants in Staphylococcus aureus: complexity and applications. , 2004, FEMS microbiology reviews.

[23]  W. V. van Wamel,et al.  Characterization of RAT, an autolysis regulator in Staphylococcus aureus , 2003, Molecular microbiology.

[24]  M. Lindberg,et al.  Virulence of Staphylococcus aureus in a mouse mastitis model: studies of alpha hemolysin, coagulase, and protein A as possible virulence determinants with protoplast fusion and gene cloning , 1985, Infection and immunity.

[25]  S. Iordanescu,et al.  Two restriction and modification systems in Staphylococcus aureus NCTC8325. , 1976, Journal of general microbiology.