Back

Microbiome impact of ibezapolstat and other Clostridioides difficile infection relevant antibiotics using humanized mice

Wolfe, T. M.; Jo, J.; Pinkham, N.; Garey, K. W.; Walk, S. T.

2024-11-07 microbiology
10.1101/2024.11.06.622322 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundIbezapolstat (IBZ) is a competitive inhibitor of the bacterial Pol IIIC enzyme in clinical development for treatment of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). Previous studies demonstrated IBZ carries a favorable microbiome diversity profile compared to vancomycin (VAN). However, head-to-head comparisons with other CDI antibiotics have not been done. The purpose of this study was to compare microbiome changes associated with IBZ to other clinically used CDI antibiotics. MethodsGroups of germ-free (GF) mice received a fecal microbiota transplant from one of two healthy human donors and were subsequently exposed to either IBZ, VAN, fidaxomicin (FDX), metronidazole (MET), or no antibiotic (control). 16S rRNA encoding gene sequencing of temporally collected stool samples was used to compare gut microbiome perturbation between treatment and no-drug control groups. ResultsAmong the tested antibiotics, the most significant change in microbiome diversity was observed in MET-treated mice. Each antibiotic had a unique effect, but changes in alpha and beta diversity following FDX- and IBZ-treated groups were less pronounced compared to those observed in VAN-or MET-treated groups. By the end of therapy, both IBZ and FDZ increased the relative abundance of Bacteroidota (phylum), with IBZ additionally increasing the relative abundance of Actinomycetota (phylum). ConclusionIn microbiome-humanized mice, IBZ and FDX had smaller effects on gut microbiome diversity compared to VAN and MET. Notable differences were observed between the microbiome of IBZ- and FDX-treated groups, which may allow for differentiation of these two antibiotics in future studies.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.