Back

Cross-Resistance Limits the Ability of Antimicrobial Peptide Combinations to Delay Resistance Evolution

Maron, B.; Mor, S.; Friedman, J.; Hayouka, Z.

2026-07-06 microbiology
10.64898/2026.07.05.736553 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Aims: Antimicrobial peptide (AMP) combinations have been proposed to delay resistance evolution, but it remains unclear what properties of a peptide pair determine whether a combination reduces resistance evolution relative to its component AMPs used alone. One suggested factor is mode of action, yet this has rarely been tested experimentally. In the current study we have asked whether mode of action or physicochemical similarity between peptides better predicts which combinations delay resistance. Methods: We evolved Staphylococcus aureus with six AMPs with reported membrane-targeting and intracellular-targeting activity, individually and in all 15 pairwise combinations. We quantified resistance evolution, cross-resistance and fitness costs across the full AMP panel, and performed whole-genome sequencing on 126 evolved lineages. Results: Resistance varied across AMPs and correlated with peptide chain length, not mode of action. Cross-resistance was associated with physicochemical similarity, and similar peptides selected for overlapping mutations. Most combinations reduced resistance relative to single-AMP treatment, but those whose components shared cross-resistance were less effective, channeling evolution into convergent trajectories that resolve both selective pressures at once. Notably, mode of action did not predict combination outcome. Conclusions: Cross-resistance, not mode of action, is a key factor in determining AMP combination efficacy. Physicochemical distance between peptides may serve as a practical predictor for cross-resistance, enabling selection of AMP combinations that are more likely to constrain resistance evolution.

Matching journals

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

1
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 4%
15.2%
2
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
72 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.8%
3
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 2%
12.0%
4
PLOS Pathogens
820 papers in training set
Top 3%
6.3%
5
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 28%
5.2%
50% of probability mass above
6
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 30%
3.4%
7
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.3%
8
mBio
833 papers in training set
Top 6%
2.8%
9
Microbiology
65 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.4%
10
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
187 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
11
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 48%
1.7%
12
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
13
Molecular Biology and Evolution
542 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
14
The Lancet Microbe
44 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
15
Molecular Microbiology
77 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
16
Frontiers in Microbiology
427 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.1%
17
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 17%
1.1%
18
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
393 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
19
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
339 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
20
Microbiology Spectrum
469 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.0%
21
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 30%
0.8%
22
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 29%
0.8%
23
Nature Ecology & Evolution
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
24
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
202 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
25
Cell Reports
1498 papers in training set
Top 29%
0.6%
26
PLOS Genetics
862 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.6%
27
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
46 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
28
mSystems
394 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%
29
Journal of Bacteriology
212 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
30
Nature Microbiology
155 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%