Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup

Review 1: "Ribosome Phenotypes Enable Rapid Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing in Escherichia Coli"

Reviewers found the study reliable to strong. Reviewers highlighted the novelty of the method, commending the use of phenotype to determine antimicrobial susceptibility, instead of genotype as most tests currently do.

Published onAug 14, 2024
Review 1: "Ribosome Phenotypes Enable Rapid Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing in Escherichia Coli"
1 of 2
key-enterThis Pub is a Review of
Ribosome Phenotypes Enable Rapid Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing in Escherichia coli
Ribosome Phenotypes Enable Rapid Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing in Escherichia coli
Description

Abstract Rapid antibiotic susceptibility tests (ASTs) are an increasingly important part of clinical care as antimicrobial resistance (AMR) becomes more common in bacterial infections. Here, we use the spatial distribution of fluorescently labelled ribosomes to detect intracellular changes associated with antibiotic susceptibility in single E. coli cells using a convolutional neural network (CNN). By using ribosome-targeting probes, a single fluorescence cell image provides data for cell segmentation and susceptibility phenotyping. Using 50,722 images of cells from an antibiotic-susceptible laboratory strain of E. coli, we showed that antibiotics with different mechanisms of action result in distinct ribosome phenotypes, which can be identified by a CNN with high accuracy (99%, 96%, and 91% for ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, and chloramphenicol). With 6 E. coli strains isolated from bloodstream infections, we used 34,205 images of ribosome phenotypes to train a CNN that could classify susceptible cells with 92% accuracy and resistant cells with 99% accuracy. Such accuracies correspond to the ability to differentiate susceptible and resistant samples with 99% confidence with just 2 cells, meaning that this method could eliminate lengthy sample culturing steps and could determine in vitro susceptibility with 30 minutes of antibiotic treatment. Our ribosome phenotype method should also be able to identify phenotypes in other strains and species.

RR:C19 Evidence Scale rating by reviewer:

  • Reliable. The main study claims are generally justified by its methods and data. The results and conclusions are likely to be similar to the hypothetical ideal study. There are some minor caveats or limitations, but they would/do not change the major claims of the study. The study provides sufficient strength of evidence on its own that its main claims should be considered actionable, with some room for future revision.

***************************************

Review: The authors of this manuscript describe a method driven by microscopy and machine learning to classify E. coli as resistant or susceptible to 3 antibiotics. The choice of antibiotics is not fully justified, but is likely due to their mechanism of action in regards to interacting with the ribosome. The authors claim that their approach will work with other antibiotics and bacteria, but this seems unjustified based on their limited study. The results definitely present an interesting proof of concept, but it is unclear how this approach would replace growth based testing in a clinical laboratory.

Overall, this paper presents an interesting idea that is backed up by solid results. The choice of antibiotics is not thoroughly justified and they were likely chosen based on the likelihood of a result. For clinical infections, including bloodstream infections by E. coli, these drugs would not be used. As a proof of concept, this paper adds to the field, but does not represent a feasible, alternative workflow for AST than the methods that are currently used. Expanding this analysis out to other drugs, including those used to treat serious infections, would help convince the reader that this approach is meaningful for those infections where resistance could be life threatening. It was not clear from the text that the sequence data had been submitted for the clinical isolates, but this would also be helpful for readers to investigate. Some additional minor comments include:

Abstract:

  • I would use "antimicrobial" in AST as that seems to be standard in the field

Introduction:

  • I would use "bacteria" instead of "microbes"

  • P2: When the authors list out methods for single-cell response, some are separated by commas and others by semi-colons. I would make this consistent

Methods:

  • What is the justification for growing the control strain and clinical strains in different media?

Comments
0
comment
No comments here
Why not start the discussion?