Overcoming Enzymatic Inactivation of Beta-Lactam Antibiotics: From Resistance Mechanisms to Next-Generation Solutions

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the strategies being developed to counteract bacterial resistance mediated by beta-lactamase enzymes. It explores the foundational science of beta-lactamase classification and mechanisms, examines current methodological approaches including novel beta-lactamase inhibitors and structural modifications of antibiotics, discusses optimization challenges such as stability and emerging resistance, and validates these approaches through clinical trial data and comparative effectiveness of new combination therapies. Aimed at researchers and drug development professionals, this review synthesizes recent advances in preserving the efficacy of this critical antibiotic class against multidrug-resistant pathogens.

The Evolving Threat: Understanding Beta-Lactamase-Mediated Resistance

The Beta-Lactam Antibiotic Arsenal and Its Clinical Importance

Core Concepts: Beta-Lactams and Resistance Mechanisms

FAQ: What are the core classes of beta-lactam antibiotics and their clinical significance?

Beta-lactam antibiotics are one of the most widely used and diverse classes of antimicrobial agents, representing over 65% of all prescriptions for injectable antibiotics. [1] They are characterized by a reactive β-lactam ring in their molecular structure and are primarily bactericidal, inhibiting bacterial cell wall synthesis by targeting penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs). [2] [1] The four main classes are detailed in the table below.

Table 1: Major Classes of Beta-Lactam Antibiotics

Class	Key Examples	Spectrum of Activity & Clinical Indications
Penicillins	Penicillin G, Amoxicillin, Ampicillin, Piperacillin	Gram-positive bacteria, streptococcal pharyngitis, syphilis, skin/soft tissue infections (MSSA). Broad-spectrum and anti-pseudomonal variants available. [2] [3]
Cephalosporins	Ceftriaxone, Cefepime, Ceftazidime, Ceftaroline	Five generations with expanding Gram-negative coverage and inclusion of anti-pseudomonal and anti-MRSA activity. Used for pneumonia, meningitis, UTIs. [2]
Carbapenems	Imipenem, Meropenem, Ertapenem	Broadest spectrum; reserved for severe nosocomial infections, pneumonia, intra-abdominal infections, and infections caused by ESBL-producing bacteria. [2] [1]
Monobactams	Aztreonam	Primarily active against aerobic Gram-negative bacteria (e.g., Pseudomonas aeruginosa). Useful for patients with penicillin or cephalosporin allergies. [2]

FAQ: What are the primary mechanisms by which bacteria resist beta-lactam antibiotics?

Bacterial resistance to beta-lactams is a significant global health threat, implicated in millions of deaths annually. [4] The mechanisms are sophisticated and constantly evolving. The primary resistance strategies are visualized in the following diagram and detailed thereafter.

• Enzymatic Inactivation by β-Lactamases: This is the most common mechanism of resistance, particularly in Gram-negative bacteria. [2] [5] β-lactamases are bacterial enzymes that hydrolyze the β-lactam ring, rendering the antibiotic inactive. [6] [1] There are two main types:

  • Serine-β-Lactamases (SBLs): Utilize an active-site serine residue for hydrolysis. This group includes Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamases (ESBLs) and Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases (KPC). [6] [5]
  • Metallo-β-Lactamases (MBLs): Require one or two zinc ions for activity (e.g., NDM-1). They hydrolyze almost all β-lactam antibiotics, including carbapenems, but not monobactams. [6] [5]

• Target Site Alteration: Bacteria can acquire alternative PBPs with low affinity for β-lactam antibiotics. A classic example is PBP2a in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), which is resistant to inhibition by most β-lactams but can still perform peptidoglycan cross-linking. [6] [2]

• Efflux Pumps: Bacteria express membrane transporter proteins that actively pump antibiotics out of the cell, reducing intracellular concentration. Systems like the CmeABC multidrug efflux system in Campylobacter jejuni can confer resistance to multiple drug classes. [4]

• Reduced Permeability: Changes in the bacterial outer membrane, particularly in Gram-negative bacteria, can limit the penetration of antibiotics. This often involves down-regulation or mutation of porin channels. [2]

Troubleshooting & Experimental Guides

Troubleshooting Guide: Overcoming Resistance in Research Assays

Table 2: Common Experimental Challenges and Solutions

Problem	Potential Cause	Suggested Solution
Unexpectedly high MIC in a known susceptible strain.	Emergence of resistance (e.g., efflux pump upregulation, porin loss).	1. Check for contaminated stocks.2. Use an efflux pump inhibitor (e.g., PaβN) in combination to test for pump activity. [4] [7]3. Perform genotypic analysis for resistance genes.
Lack of synergy between a novel inhibitor and a β-lactam antibiotic.	Inhibitor is not effective against the specific β-lactamase present (e.g., MBL vs. SBL).	1. Characterize the β-lactamase profile of the test strain (e.g., PCR, whole-genome sequencing).2. Use a known inhibitor (e.g., clavulanic acid for many SBLs) as a positive control. [6] [5]
High variability in TDM results from critically ill patient samples.	Extensive pharmacokinetic variability due to critical illness (altered volume of distribution, renal function). [8] [9]	1. Use frequent TDM (e.g., daily).2. Employ prolonged or continuous infusions instead of intermittent boluses to maintain stable concentrations. [9] [10]

Experimental Protocol: Time-Kill Assay for Evaluating Beta-Lactam/Potentiator Synergy

Objective: To determine the bactericidal activity and synergistic effect of a β-lactam antibiotic combined with a resistance-breaking potentiator (e.g., a β-lactamase inhibitor) against a resistant bacterial strain.

Methodology:

• Bacterial Preparation: Grow the test strain (e.g., an ESBL-producing E. coli) to mid-log phase in Mueller-Hinton Broth (MHB). Adjust the turbidity to a standardized inoculum (~5 x 10^5 CFU/mL). [3]
• Drug Solutions: Prepare solutions of the β-lactam antibiotic and the potentiator at concentrations relevant to their clinical or experimental achievable levels.
• Assay Setup: In sterile tubes, combine:
  • Tube 1: Bacteria + β-lactam alone (e.g., at 1x, 2x, 4x MIC if determinable).
  • Tube 2: Bacteria + potentiator alone (at a sub-inhibitory concentration).
  • Tube 3: Bacteria + β-lactam + potentiator (combination).
  • Tube 4: Bacteria only (growth control).
• Incubation and Sampling: Incigate all tubes at 35±2°C. Take aliquots (e.g., 100 μL) from each tube at predetermined timepoints (e.g., 0, 2, 4, 8, 24 hours). Serially dilute and plate on Mueller-Hinton Agar for colony counting.
• Analysis: Plot log10 CFU/mL versus time. Synergy is defined as a ≥2-log10 reduction in CFU/mL by the combination compared to the most active single agent at a specific timepoint. Bactericidal activity is defined as a ≥3-log10 reduction from the initial inoculum. [3]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents for Beta-Lactam Resistance Research

Research Reagent / Tool	Function & Application	Key Considerations
Recombinant β-Lactamases (e.g., TEM-1, CTX-M-15, NDM-1)	Used in enzymatic assays to screen and characterize novel β-lactamase inhibitors. Measures IC50 and kinetics of inhibition. [5]	Ensure proper storage and activity validation. Use zinc-supplemented buffers for MBLs. [5]
Efflux Pump Inhibitors (e.g., Phe-Arg-β-naphthylamide (PaβN))	Research tool to determine the contribution of efflux pumps to resistance. Used in combination assays to re-sensitize strains. [4] [7]	Can have off-target effects and inherent toxicity, limiting clinical use. Validates efflux as a resistance mechanism.
Beta-Lactamase-Specific Substrates (e.g., Nitrocefin)	Chromogenic cephalosporin that changes color upon hydrolysis. Used for rapid detection of β-lactamase production and inhibitor screening. [5]	A quick and qualitative/quantitative tool for high-throughput screening.
Specialized Growth Media (e.g., Cation-Adjusted Mueller-Hinton Broth (CAMHB))	Standardized medium for MIC determinations and time-kill assays, ensuring reproducible cation concentrations essential for antibiotic activity. [3]	Adherence to CLSI or EUCAST standards is critical for reproducible results, especially when testing zinc-chelating MBL inhibitors.
Ano1-IN-1	Ano1-IN-1, MF:C18H28N2O2S, MW:336.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
BMS-684	BMS-684, MF:C27H26N4O3, MW:454.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

FAQ: What strategies are being used to develop the next generation of beta-lactam potentiators?

Research is moving beyond traditional β-lactamase inhibitors to include a wider range of potentiators. Key strategies include:

• Developing Novel β-Lactamase Inhibitors: Focus on overcoming MBLs and KPCs. Promising new agents include bicyclic boronates (e.g., QPX7728, VNRX-5133), which are ultrabroad-spectrum inhibitors capable of inhibiting both SBLs and MBLs. [5] Diazabicyclooctanes (DBOs) like avibactam and relebactam are non-β-lactam inhibitors that covalently bind and inactivate SBLs. [6] [3]
• Targeting Other Resistance Pathways: Research is exploring compounds that disrupt efflux pump assembly or function, or that interfere with bacterial signaling pathways (e.g., two-component systems) that sense and activate resistance mechanisms. [4] [6] [7]
• Optimizing Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics (PK/PD): In clinical practice, optimizing the dosing regimen is a form of potentiation. Using prolonged or continuous infusions of β-lactams, guided by Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM), helps maintain drug concentrations above the MIC for 100% of the dosing interval (100% fT>MIC), a target associated with improved outcomes in critically ill patients. [8] [9] [10]

This technical resource underscores that combating β-lactam resistance requires a multi-faceted approach, integrating a deep understanding of resistance mechanisms, robust experimental techniques, and the continuous development of novel therapeutic strategies to preserve the efficacy of this essential antibiotic arsenal.

FAQs: Core Mechanisms and Troubleshooting

FAQ 1: What is the fundamental molecular mechanism by which bacteria inactivate beta-lactam antibiotics? The primary mechanism is the enzymatic hydrolysis (cleavage) of the essential beta-lactam ring within the antibiotic's structure. This reaction is catalyzed by bacterial enzymes called beta-lactamases. These enzymes bind to the beta-lactam antibiotic and break the C-N bond in the four-membered beta-lactam ring, rendering the antibiotic ineffective because the intact ring is required for binding to its bacterial target, the penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs) [6] [11].

FAQ 2: What are the two main classes of beta-lactamases, and how do their catalytic mechanisms differ? Beta-lactamases are primarily divided into two mechanistically distinct classes:

• Serine-β-Lactamases (SBLs): These enzymes use an active-site serine residue as a nucleophile to attack the carbonyl carbon of the beta-lactam ring, forming a covalent acyl-enzyme intermediate. This intermediate is then hydrolyzed, releasing the inactivated antibiotic and regenerating the free enzyme [6] [12] [11].
• Metallo-β-Lactamases (MBLs): These are zinc-dependent enzymes that use one or two zinc ions in their active site to activate a water molecule. This activated water then directly hydrolyzes the beta-lactam ring, without the formation of a stable covalent intermediate [6] [12].

FAQ 3: Why are my beta-lactamase inhibitors ineffective against certain resistant bacterial strains? Failure of inhibition can occur due to several specific issues:

• Incorrect Inhibitor Class: The inhibitor may not be effective against the class of beta-lactamase expressed by the bacterium. For example, classical inhibitors like clavulanic acid are potent against many Class A SBLs but are ineffective against Class C SBLs and MBLs. Novel inhibitors like avibactam are needed to target these broader classes [6] [13].
• Emergence of Escape Mutations: Bacteria can acquire point mutations in the beta-lactamase gene that alter the active site structure. This can reduce the inhibitor's binding affinity while sometimes still allowing hydrolysis of the antibiotic, thus circumventing the inhibitor's effect [13].
• Combination with Other Resistance Mechanisms: The bacterial strain may employ additional resistance mechanisms, such as reduced membrane permeability (e.g., porin loss) or powerful efflux pumps, which lower the intracellular concentration of both the antibiotic and the inhibitor, reducing their efficacy [14] [15] [16].

FAQ 4: How does the local environment, such as a biofilm, impact the efficacy of beta-lactam antibiotics? Biofilms significantly complicate treatment. Within a biofilm, susceptible bacteria can be socially protected by a small number of beta-lactamase-producing resistant bacteria. The resistant cells detoxify the local environment, creating a protective public good that allows susceptible "cheater" cells to survive. Furthermore, the biofilm matrix itself can act as a diffusion barrier and induce reduced metabolic activity in embedded cells, increasing their intrinsic tolerance to antibiotics even before resistance mechanisms are considered [17].

Quantitative Data: Beta-Lactamase Classification and Characteristics

Table 1: Key Characteristics of Major Beta-Lactamase Classes

Class	Catalytic Mechanism	Representative Enzymes	Inhibited by Clavulanate?	Common Resistance Profile
Serine β-Lactamases (SBLs)	Serine nucleophile, covalent intermediate [12]	TEM, SHV, CTX-M, KPC [14]	Variable (Yes for many Class A) [6]	Penicillins, later-gen. cephalosporins (ESBLs), carbapenems (KPC) [6]
Metallo-β-Lactamases (MBLs)	Zinc-activated water, direct hydrolysis [12]	IMP, VIM, NDM [6]	No [6]	Virtually all beta-lactams, including carbapenems [6]

Table 2: Impact of a Beta-Lactamase Inhibitor (Sulbactam) on Bacterial Physiology Data derived from a study on Salmonella Typhimurium [18]

Parameter	Antibiotic-Sensitive Strain (STAS)	Multidrug-Resistant Strain (STMDR)
MIC of Ampicillin (without SUL)	32 μg/mL	Not Determined
MIC of Ampicillin (with SUL)	16 μg/mL	Not Determined
β-Lactamase Activity (with AMP+SUL)	Reduced from 3.3 to 2.6 μmol/min/mL	Reduced from 10.1 to 2.2 μmol/min/mL
Biofilm Reduction (after AMP+SUL)	~2.9 log reduction	~2.9 log reduction

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Measuring Beta-Lactamase Enzyme Activity

Objective: To quantitatively assess the beta-lactamase activity of bacterial cell extracts in the presence and absence of an inhibitor.

Materials:

• Bacterial lysate (from beta-lactamase-producing and control strains)
• Nitrocefin, a chromogenic cephalosporin substrate that changes color from yellow to red upon hydrolysis [18]
• Appropriate beta-lactam antibiotic (e.g., ampicillin) and inhibitor (e.g., sulbactam)
• Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS) or other suitable reaction buffer
• Spectrophotometer or microplate reader
• 37°C incubator

Method:

• Prepare Reactions: In a cuvette or microplate well, mix:
  • Buffer (to a final volume of 1 mL)
  • Bacterial lysate (e.g., 50-100 μL)
  • Inhibitor (e.g., sulbactam at a fixed concentration) or buffer for the control.
• Pre-incubate: Incubate the mixture for 10 minutes at 37°C to allow the inhibitor to bind.
• Initiate Reaction: Add nitrocefin to a final concentration of 100-200 μM. Mix quickly and thoroughly.
• Measure Kinetics: Immediately transfer the cuvette to a spectrophotometer and record the change in absorbance at 482 nm (A482) over 5-10 minutes.
• Calculate Activity: Beta-lactamase activity is calculated as the rate of nitrocefin hydrolysis (change in A482 per minute), normalized to the total protein concentration in the lysate. Results are often expressed as μmol of nitrocefin hydrolyzed per minute per mL of lysate [18].

Protocol 2: Assessing Resistance Evolution via Mutant Library Screening

Objective: To identify mutations in a beta-lactamase gene that confer resistance to beta-lactam/inhibitor combinations.

Materials:

• Saturated mutant library of the beta-lactamase gene (e.g., constructed via MAGE) [13]
• Gradient plates or liquid media with a concentration gradient of beta-lactam antibiotic
• Media with a fixed concentration of beta-lactamase inhibitor (e.g., avibactam)
• Sterile culture tubes and multi-well plates
• Plate reader for monitoring culture density (OD600)

Method:

• Pooled Selection: Inoculate the entire mutant library into culture media containing a gradient of the beta-lactam antibiotic, both with and without the inhibitor [13].
• Growth Monitoring: Incubate the cultures with shaking and monitor the optical density (OD600) over time.
• Phenotype Analysis: For each condition, determine the "critical concentration" (η) of the antibiotic at which the culture growth is inhibited. Compare the critical concentration for the mutant library to that of the wild-type strain to identify conditions where mutants exhibit an "escape" phenotype (growth in antibiotic + inhibitor) [13].
• Mutant Identification: Sequence the population of cells that grow at the highest antibiotic concentrations in the presence of the inhibitor to identify the specific resistance-conferring mutations [13].

Signaling Pathway and Mechanism Visualizations

Diagram 1: Beta-Lactam Ring Hydrolysis by SBLs vs MBLs

Visualization of Beta-Lactam Ring Hydrolysis Mechanisms

Diagram 2: Social Protection in Biofilms

Social Protection of Susceptible Bacteria in a Biofilm

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Studying Beta-Lactam Resistance

Reagent / Material	Function / Utility in Research	Example Use-Case
Nitrocefin	Chromogenic cephalosporin substrate; visual/spectrophotometric detection of beta-lactamase activity [18]	Measuring kinetic parameters of purified enzymes or lysates.
Specific Beta-Lactamase Inhibitors (e.g., Clavulanate, Avibactam, Sulbactam)	Tool compounds to probe enzyme class and mechanism; used in combination studies [6] [18] [13].	Restoring antibiotic susceptibility in checkerboard MIC assays.
Mutagenesis Kit (e.g., MAGE)	For creating comprehensive single-amino-acid substitution libraries in beta-lactamase genes [13].	Mapping resistance-conferring mutations and identifying "escape" phenotypes.
Class-Specific Beta-Lactam Antibiotics (Penicillins, Cephalosporins, Carbapenems, Monobactams)	To define the resistance profile (spectrum) of a bacterial strain or enzyme [6] [13].	Determining if an isolate produces an ESBL or carbapenemase.
Cation-Adjusted Mueller-Hinton Broth	Standardized medium for antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) as per CLSI guidelines.	Performing reproducible MIC and disk diffusion assays.
Deserpidine hydrochloride	Deserpidine hydrochloride, CAS:6033-69-8, MF:C32H39ClN2O8, MW:615.1 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
SW157765	SW157765, MF:C19H13N3O3, MW:331.3 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Epidemiology and Global Spread of ESBLs, KPC, and Carbapenemases (NDM, VIM, IMP)

FAQs and Troubleshooting Guides

FAQ 1: What are the primary resistance mechanisms my antimicrobial susceptibility tests should account for in Gram-negative bacteria?

The primary mechanisms are the production of β-lactamase enzymes and the expression of altered penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs). β-lactamases are the most common resistance mechanism in Gram-negative bacteria and are classified into four groups (Ambler classification) [6] [19]:

• Class A (Serine β-lactamases): Includes ESBLs (e.g., TEM, SHV, CTX-M) and carbapenemases (e.g., KPC). They hydrolyze penicillins and cephalosporins, and in the case of KPC, carbapenems. Many are inhibited by clavulanic acid [6] [19].
• Class B (Metallo-β-Lactamases, MBLs): Includes NDM, VIM, and IMP. These are zinc-dependent enzymes that hydrolyze almost all β-lactams, including carbapenems. They are resistant to most common β-lactamase inhibitors but can be inactivated by chelating agents [6] [19].
• Class C (AmpC β-lactamases): Includes CMY, FOX, and ACT. They confer resistance to cephamycins and oxyimino-cephalosporins and can be inhibited by boronic acid derivatives [19].
• Class D (Oxacillinases): Includes OXA-type enzymes (e.g., OXA-48), frequently found in Acinetobacter spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Some variants hydrolyze carbapenems [19].

FAQ 2: What is the global epidemiological context for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae?

A systematic review and meta-analysis covering 2019-2023 found the pooled global prevalence of carbapenem-resistant E. coli to be 7%, though it varies significantly by country [20]. The distribution of key carbapenemase enzymes in E. coli was identified as follows, which should guide your molecular detection strategies [20]:

• NDM was the most frequently identified.
• Followed by OXA, KPC, VIM, and IMP.

Another global study found that 18.79% of E. coli isolates produced ESBLs, and the annual incidence of ESBL-producing E. coli was highest in Asia and North America [21].

FAQ 3: My β-lactamase inhibitor is not working against a clinical isolate. What could be the reason?

This is a common troubleshooting issue in the lab. The cause is often related to the class of β-lactamase produced by the isolate:

• Failure against MBLs (NDM, VIM, IMP): Traditional serine β-lactamase inhibitors like clavulanic acid, sulbactam, tazobactam, and even newer agents like avibactam and relebactam are largely ineffective against Class B metallo-β-lactamases [6] [19]. Check if your isolate produces an MBL using EDTA-based inhibition tests or molecular methods.
• Emergence of resistant variants: Bacteria can harbor multiple β-lactamase genes, including novel variants that may not be effectively inhibited by older inhibitors [6] [19]. Consider using the latest generation of broad-spectrum inhibitors like taniborbactam in your assays, which has shown activity against both serine and metallo-β-lactamases [19].

FAQ 4: How can I optimize the dosing of β-lactam antibiotics in my in vitro models to simulate critically ill patients?

The pathophysiological changes in critically ill patients (e.g., altered volume of distribution, renal function) lead to highly variable antibiotic exposure. To maximize bacteriological and clinical response in your models, aim for a pharmacodynamic (PD) target where the free plasma concentration of the β-lactam antibiotic is maintained 4 to 8 times above the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) of the target bacteria for 100% of the dosing interval [22]. This can be achieved in lab setups using continuous or prolonged infusion models instead of traditional bolus dosing [22].

Data Presentation: Global Epidemiology

Continent	MDR E. coli Incidence	ESBL-Producing E. coli Incidence
Africa	12.38	12.95
Asia	14.41	17.16
Europe	15.66	9.11
North America	15.36	15.22
South America	15.48	11.78
Oceania	12.93	4.88

Phenotype	Associated Factor	Adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR)	95% Confidence Interval (CI)
MDR	Lower-middle-income economic status	1.14	1.06 - 1.23
	Residence in South America	1.21	1.07 - 1.37
	Unrestricted over-the-counter antibiotic sales	1.10	1.02 - 1.18
ESBL Production	Upper-middle-income economic status	1.40	1.29 - 1.52
	Medium Human Development Index	1.57	1.44 - 1.70
	Residence in Asia	3.02	2.75 - 3.31
	Unrestricted over-the-counter antibiotic sales	3.27	2.99 - 3.57

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Determining Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) Using Broth Microdilution

Principle: This gold-standard method determines the lowest concentration of an antibiotic that inhibits visible bacterial growth.

Materials:

• Cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth (CAMHB)
• Sterile 96-well microtiter plates
• Log-phase bacterial inoculum (adjusted to ~5 x 10⁵ CFU/mL)
• Beta-lactam antibiotic stock solutions
• Multichannel pipettes

Methodology:

• Preparation: Dispense broth into the wells of the microtiter plate.
• Dilution Series: Perform two-fold serial dilutions of the beta-lactam antibiotic directly in the broth across the plate's rows.
• Inoculation: Add the standardized bacterial inoculum to all test wells. Include growth control (inoculum, no antibiotic) and sterility control (broth only) wells.
• Incubation: Incubate the plate at 35±2°C for 16-20 hours.
• Reading Results: The MIC is the lowest antibiotic concentration that completely inhibits visible growth.

Protocol 2: Detecting Carbapenemase Production via the Modified Carbapenem Inactivation Method (mCIM)

Principle: This phenotypic test determines if a bacterial isolate produces a carbapenemase enzyme.

Materials:

• Meropenem disk (10 µg)
• Tryptic Soy Broth (TSB)
• E. coli ATCC 25922 (susceptible control)
• Mueller-Hinton agar plate

Methodology:

• Incubation: Emulsify 1 µL of test isolate colonies in 2 mL of TSB. Add a meropenem disk to the broth. Incubate at 35±2°C for 4±0.5 hours.
• Lawn Preparation: While incubating, prepare a 0.5 McFarland suspension of the E. coli indicator strain and lawn it onto a Mueller-Hinton agar plate.
• Testing: After incubation, retrieve the meropenem disk from the TSB and place it on the inoculated agar plate.
• Final Incubation & Interpretation: Incubate the plate at 35±2°C for 18-24 hours. A zone diameter of 6-15 mm or the presence of colonies within a 16-18 mm zone indicates a positive result (carbapenemase producer). A zone diameter of ≥19 mm indicates a negative result.

Signaling Pathways and Experimental Workflows

Beta-Lactam Resistance Mechanisms

Beta-Lactamase Inhibitor Screening Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents for Beta-Lactam Resistance Research

Item	Function/Application
Cation-Adjusted Mueller-Hinton Broth (CAMHB)	Standardized medium for antimicrobial susceptibility testing (e.g., broth microdilution) to ensure accurate cation concentrations for antibiotic activity.
β-Lactamase Inhibitors (e.g., Clavulanic acid, Avibactam, Taniborbactam)	Used in combination with β-lactam antibiotics to inhibit the activity of specific β-lactamase classes and restore antibiotic efficacy in synergy assays.
EDTA (Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid)	A chelating agent used to inhibit Metallo-β-Lactamases (MBLs) by removing the essential zinc ions from their active sites in phenotypic tests.
Meropenem Disks (10 µg)	Used in phenotypic tests like mCIM/eCIM to detect and characterize carbapenemase production in bacterial isolates.
Boronic Acid Derivatives	Specific inhibitors for Class C (AmpC) β-lactamases, used in combination tests to differentiate between different classes of β-lactamases.
Bax-IN-1	Bax-IN-1, MF:C16H14N6O, MW:306.32 g/mol
Dhodh-IN-24	Dhodh-IN-24, MF:C26H26N4, MW:394.5 g/mol

FAQs: Navigating WHO Pathogen Lists and Resistance Mechanisms

Q1: What is the WHO Bacterial Priority Pathogens List (BPPL) and how was the 2024 update developed?

The WHO BPPL is a critical tool in the global fight against antimicrobial resistance (AMR), designed to guide research, development, and strategies to prevent and control drug-resistant bacterial infections [23]. The 2024 list is an update from the 2017 edition and refines the prioritization of antibiotic-resistant pathogens to tackle evolving resistance challenges [23].

The advisory group employed a rigorous methodology, evaluating 24 antibiotic-resistant bacterial pathogens against eight quantitative and qualitative criteria: Mortality, nonfatal burden, incidence, 10-year resistance trends, preventability, transmissibility, treatability, and the status of the antibacterial development pipeline [24]. Pathogens were subsequently categorized into three priority levels—critical, high, and medium—based on their composite scores [24].

Q2: Which pathogens are ranked as "critical priority" in the 2024 BPPL and why?

The highest scores were assigned to Gram-negative bacteria with extensive drug resistance profiles and Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

• Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae ranked highest with a score of 84% [24]. This pathogen poses a severe threat in healthcare settings due to resistance to last-resort carbapenem antibiotics [23].
• Other critical priority pathogens include carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Escherichia coli, and rifampicin-resistant *Mycobacterium tuberculosis [24].

These pathogens are prioritized due to their significant global impact in terms of burden, high transmissibility, limited treatment options, and issues related to prevention [23].

Q3: What are the primary mechanisms by which bacteria resist beta-lactam antibiotics?

Bacterial resistance to beta-lactams predominantly occurs through two major mechanisms [6]:

• Enzymatic Inactivation by Beta-Lactamases: This is the most common resistance mechanism in Gram-negative bacteria [6]. Beta-lactamases are bacterial enzymes that inactivate the antibiotic by hydrolyzing the core beta-lactam ring, rendering it ineffective [25]. The chronology of antibiotic discovery has been a race against the emergence and spread of these enzymes, including broad-spectrum variants [25].
• Alteration of the Drug Target: Bacteria can produce altered Penicillin-Binding Proteins (PBPs) with lower affinity for beta-lactam antibiotics [6]. A key example is PBP2a in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), which is resistant to inhibition by most beta-lactams but can still perform its essential function in cell wall synthesis [6].

Q4: What experimental strategies can be used to investigate novel Beta-Lactamase Inhibitors (BLIs)?

A robust experimental workflow for evaluating novel BLIs involves multiple stages:

• In Vitro Enzymatic Assays: Determine the inhibitor's potency (IC50) against purified beta-lactamase enzymes (e.g., Class A KPC, Class C P99) [19]. This assesses direct enzyme inhibition.
• Checkerboard Synergy Testing: Combine the BLI with a beta-lactam antibiotic in a broth microdilution assay against resistant bacterial strains. Calculate the Fractional Inhibitory Concentration (FIC) index to confirm synergy and determine the minimum effective concentrations [19].
• Time-Kill Kinetic Studies: Expose resistant bacteria to the beta-lactam/BLI combination over 24 hours. Sample at intervals (e.g., 0, 2, 4, 6, 24h), plate for colony counts, and compare the rate and extent of killing against controls (antibiotic alone, BLI alone) [6].
• Resistance Development Studies: Passage bacteria in sub-inhibitory concentrations of the drug combination over multiple serial passages. Monitor for any increase in Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) to assess the potential for resistance development [19].

The following diagram illustrates this multi-stage experimental workflow.

Q5: My beta-lactam/BLI combination shows efficacy in vitro but fails in an animal model. What could be the cause?

This discrepancy often points to issues with pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) parameters. Key factors to investigate include:

• Plasma Protein Binding: High protein binding of the BLI or antibiotic can reduce the free, active fraction of the drug available to act on the bacteria.
• Unfavorable Half-Life (t½) Mismatch: The half-life of the BLI may be shorter than that of the partnered beta-lactam. This leads to periods where the beta-lactam is unprotected from hydrolysis, allowing bacterial regrowth.
• Inadequate Drug Exposure at the Infection Site: Ensure that both compounds reach effective concentrations at the specific site of infection (e.g., lung, kidney) by measuring tissue penetration.
• In Vivo Metabolism/Instability: The BLI may be metabolized more rapidly in vivo or be chemically unstable under physiological conditions, which is not captured in in vitro assays.

Technical Guide: Beta-Lactamase Classification and Inhibitor Strategies

Beta-lactamases are classified into four main groups (Ambler classification) based on their molecular structure and catalytic mechanism [19]. Understanding this classification is fundamental to developing targeted inhibitors.

• Class A (Serine-based): Includes Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamases (ESBLs) like CTX-M and carbapenemases like KPC. They hydrolyze penicillins and cephalosporins and are generally inhibited by clavulanic acid [19].
• Class B (Metallo-β-Lactamases, MBLs): Require zinc ions for activity (e.g., NDM, VIM). They hydrolyze almost all beta-lactams, including carbapenems, and are resistant to most classic BLIs but can be inactivated by chelating agents [19].
• Class C (Serine-based, AmpC): Often chromosomally encoded in bacteria like Enterobacter spp., conferring resistance to cephamycins and cephalosporins. They are not inhibited by clavulanic acid but can be targeted by boronic acid derivatives [19].
• Class D (Serine-based, OXA-type): Oxacillinases frequently found in Acinetobacter spp.. Some variants (e.g., OXA-48) hydrolyze carbapenems and show variable inhibition profiles [19].

The following diagram maps the key resistance mechanisms and the corresponding strategic countermeasures.

Research Reagent Solutions for Beta-Lactam Resistance Studies

Table 1: Essential research reagents for investigating beta-lactam resistance and developing countermeasures.

Reagent/Category	Function & Application in Research
Recombinant Beta-Lactamases (e.g., KPC (Class A), NDM (Class B), AmpC (Class C), OXA-48 (Class D))	Used in high-throughput screening and enzymatic assays (IC50 determination) to evaluate the potency of novel inhibitors against specific enzyme classes [19].
Characterized Bacterial Strains (e.g., WHO priority pathogens: CRKP, CRAB, MRSA)	Provide clinically relevant models for in vitro (MIC, time-kill) and in vivo efficacy studies. Isogenic strains with specific resistance determinants are crucial for mechanistic studies [23] [6].
Beta-Lactamase Inhibitors (Clavulanic acid, Avibactam, Taniborbactam)	Serve as reference compounds and positive controls in experiments. Novel inhibitors like Taniborbactam are key for studying broad-spectrum inhibition covering serine and metallo-enzymes [19].
Chromogenic Cephalosporin (e.g., Nitrocefin)	A substrate that changes color upon hydrolysis by beta-lactamases. Used in rapid, qualitative and quantitative assays to detect and measure beta-lactamase activity and its inhibition [6].

Global Resistance Surveillance and Priority Pathogen Data

The WHO Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) report from 2025 provides a stark quantitative picture of the crisis. The report, drawing on data from 110 countries, reveals that in 2023, roughly 1 in 6 infections tested globally were resistant to antibiotic treatment [26]. Furthermore, nearly 40% of antibiotics used to treat common infections have lost effectiveness over the past five years [26]. AMR is directly responsible for about 1.2 million deaths annually and contributes to nearly 5 million more [26] [27].

Table 2: 2024 WHO Bacterial Priority Pathogens List (BPPL) - Critical and High Priority Categories. This list is a key guide for directing R&D efforts [23] [24].

Priority Level	Pathogen	Key Resistance Phenotype(s)	Rationale for Prioritization
Critical	Klebsiella pneumoniae	Carbapenem-resistant	Highest priority score (84%); severe burden in hospitals; limited treatment options [24].
Critical	Acinetobacter baumannii	Carbapenem-resistant	High mortality, environmental persistence, and extensive drug resistance profile [23] [24].
Critical	Escherichia coli	Third-generation cephalosporin-resistant	High community and healthcare-associated incidence; major cause of urinary tract and bloodstream infections [24].
Critical	Mycobacterium tuberculosis	Rifampicin-resistant	High global burden and mortality; long, complex treatment regimens [24].
High	Salmonella enterica Serotype Typhi	Fluoroquinolone-resistant	High burden in low-resource settings (score: 72%); causes life-threatening enteric fever [24].
High	Shigella spp.	Fluoroquinolone-resistant	Major cause of diarrheal disease and mortality (score: 70%); high transmissibility [24].
High	Neisseria gonorrhoeae	Extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant	Threat to effective treatment of a common STI (score: 64%); emergence of untreatable cases [24].
High	Staphylococcus aureus	Methicillin-resistant (MRSA)	Remains a leading cause of severe healthcare and community-associated infections [23] [24].
High	Pseudomonas aeruginosa	Carbapenem-resistant	Intrinsic resistance and ability to acquire new mechanisms; serious nosocomial infections [23] [24].

Strategic Countermeasures: Designing Novel Inhibitors and Modified Antibiotics

FAQs & Troubleshooting Guides

Q1: Our in vitro efficacy data for a Beta-Lactam/Beta-Lactamase Inhibitor (BL/BLI) combination is inconsistent. What could be the cause? Inconsistent data often stems from not achieving or maintaining the critical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) target for the beta-lactam component. Beta-lactams are time-dependent antibiotics; their efficacy is primarily determined by the duration that the free drug concentration exceeds the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the pathogen (fT > MIC) [8].

• Recommended Action: Implement Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) in your experimental models, especially when working with critically ill or immunocompromised models where physiology can alter drug concentrations. Aim for a more aggressive target of 100% fT > MIC or even 100% fT > 4xMIC to maximize bactericidal effect and suppress emergence of resistance [8].

Q2: The BL/BLI combination is ineffective against a clinical isolate suspected of producing a Metallo-Beta-Lactamase (MBL). How can we confirm this and what are the options? First-generation BLIs (clavulanic acid, sulbactam, tazobactam) and even newer agents like avibactam and relebactam have weak or no activity against MBLs [28] [6]. This is a common experimental hurdle.

• Recommended Action:
  • Confirm MBL Production: Use genotypic methods (PCR) to detect MBL genes (e.g., NDM, VIM, IMP) or phenotypic assays with chelating agents like EDTA [28].
  • Explore Contemporary Inhibitors: Investigate combinations featuring the latest broad-spectrum inhibitors. Taniborbactam (a cyclic boronate) has shown potent activity against serine-β-lactamases and clinically relevant MBLs [28] [29]. Another strategy is the combination of avibactam with aztreonam, which has demonstrated efficacy against MBL-producing strains [30].

Q3: We are observing the emergence of resistance to a modern BL/BLI combination like ceftazidime-avibactam in our serial passage experiments. What is a potential mechanism? Resistance can arise from point mutations in the target β-lactamase. For example, the N132G substitution in the SDN motif of class A β-lactamases (like KPC-2 and CTX-M-15) has been shown to drastically impair inhibition by avibactam, reducing the efficacy of carbamylation by over 1,000-fold [31]. However, this same mutation can also compromise the enzyme's ability to hydrolyze key antibiotics like ceftazidime, which may prevent clinical resistance from emerging [31].

• Recommended Action: Sequence the β-lactamase genes from your resistant isolates to identify known resistance-conferring mutations. Be aware that the impact of mutations can be complex, affecting both inhibitor binding and substrate hydrolysis.

Q4: What is the fundamental mechanistic difference between classical (e.g., clavulanic acid) and contemporary (e.g., avibactam) β-lactamase inhibitors? The key difference lies in the reversibility of the inhibition.

• Classical Inhibitors (Clavulanic acid, sulbactam, tazobactam): These are "suicide" or "irreversible" inhibitors. They form a stable, acyl-enzyme complex that permanently inactivates the β-lactamase enzyme [32] [6].
• Contemporary Inhibitors (Avibactam, Relebactam): These are "reversible" covalent inhibitors. They form a carbamoyl-enzyme complex that can undergo deacylation, regenerating the intact, active inhibitor [33]. This reversibility contributes to their broad-spectrum activity and efficacy against a wider range of enzyme classes [33].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol for Determining β-Lactamase Inhibition Kinetics

This protocol is used to determine the kinetic parameters for the inhibition of a β-lactamase by an inhibitor like avibactam or clavulanate [31].

Workflow Overview:

Materials:

• Purified β-lactamase enzyme (e.g., KPC-2, CTX-M-15, AmpC)
• Inhibitor (e.g., Avibactam, Clavulanate)
• Chromogenic substrate (e.g., Nitrocefin)
• Spectrophotometer or microplate reader
• Appropriate buffer (e.g., Phosphate or HEPES buffer, pH 7.0)

Step-by-Step Method:

• Enzyme Preparation: Dilute the purified β-lactamase to a working concentration in assay buffer.
• Pre-incubation: Mix the enzyme with varying concentrations of the inhibitor. Include a control with no inhibitor. Allow the mixture to pre-incubate for a fixed time (e.g., 10 minutes) at the assay temperature (e.g., 30°C).
• Initiate Reaction: Start the enzymatic reaction by adding the chromogenic substrate nitrocefin (e.g., final concentration 100 μM). Nitrocefin hydrolysis results in a color change from yellow to red, which can be monitored at 482 nm [31].
• Monitor Hydrolysis: Immediately transfer the reaction mixture to a spectrophotometer and record the change in absorbance at 482 nm over time (e.g., 5-10 minutes).
• Data Analysis:
  • Plot the initial velocity (Vo) of nitrocefin hydrolysis against the inhibitor concentration.
  • Calculate the inhibition constant (Ki) and the rate constant for carbamylation (kâ‚‚/Ki) for avibactam, or the acylation rate for clavulanate, using non-linear regression analysis of the progress curves [31] [33].

Protocol for Determining Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) of BL/BLI Combinations

This broth microdilution method determines the lowest concentration of an antibiotic that prevents visible growth of a microorganism, in the presence and absence of an inhibitor [31].

Workflow Overview:

Materials:

• Cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth (CAMHB)
• Sterile 96-well microtiter plates
• Beta-lactam antibiotic (e.g., Ceftazidime)
• Beta-lactamase inhibitor (e.g., Avibactam)
• Bacterial suspension adjusted to 0.5 McFarland standard (~1.5 x 10⁸ CFU/mL)

Step-by-Step Method:

• Prepare Antibiotic/Inhibitor Dilutions: In a 96-well plate, prepare a two-fold serial dilution of the beta-lactam antibiotic in CAMHB. A fixed, non-varying concentration of the inhibitor (e.g., 4 mg/L for avibactam) is added to each well of the test series [31].
• Inoculate: Dilute the bacterial suspension to approximately 5 x 10⁵ CFU/mL in CAMHB and add an equal volume to each well of the microdilution plate, achieving a final inoculum of ~5 x 10⁴ CFU/well. Include growth control and sterility control wells.
• Incubate: Incubate the plate at 35°C for 16-20 hours.
• Read MIC Endpoint: The MIC is defined as the lowest concentration of the beta-lactam antibiotic that completely inhibits visible growth of the organism. A ≥8-fold reduction in the MIC of the beta-lactam antibiotic when tested in combination with the inhibitor versus the beta-lactam alone is considered a positive result, indicating effective inhibition of the beta-lactamase [31].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 1: Key Beta-Lactamase Inhibitors for Research

Inhibitor (Class)	Primary Mechanism	Key Target Enzymes	Common Research Combinations
Clavulanic Acid (Classical)	Irreversible "suicide" inhibitor [32] [6]	Class A β-lactamases (e.g., TEM, SHV) [34]	Amoxicillin [32]
Sulbactam (Classical)	Irreversible "suicide" inhibitor [32]	Plasmid-mediated penicillinases; some chromosomally-mediated enzymes [34]	Ampicillin [32]
Tazobactam (Classical)	Irreversible "suicide" inhibitor [32]	Class A β-lactamases, including some ESBLs [28]	Piperacillin [32]
Avibactam (DBO)	Reversible covalent inhibitor [33]	Class A, C, and some Class D serine β-lactamases [31] [33]	Ceftazidime, Ceftaroline, Aztreonam [32] [30]
Relebactam (DBO)	Reversible covalent inhibitor [32]	Class A and C serine β-lactamases [6]	Imipenem/Cilastatin [32]
Vaborbactam (Boronic Acid)	Reversible covalent inhibitor [32]	Class A and C serine β-lactamases, including KPC [32]	Meropenem [32]
Taniborbactam (Cyclic Boronate)	Broad-spectrum, covalent inhibitor [28] [29]	Serine β-lactamases (Classes A, C, D) and Metallo-β-lactamases (Class B) [28]	Cefepime (in clinical trials) [30]
Mmp13-IN-4	Mmp13-IN-4, MF:C21H17BrN4O5, MW:485.3 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
ClpB-IN-1	ClpB-IN-1, MF:C14H10N2O2S2, MW:302.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Table 2: Essential Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) Targets for Beta-Lactams in Preclinical Models [8]

Beta-Lactam Class	Primary PK/PD Index for Efficacy	Proposed Enhanced Target for Critically Ill Models	Toxicity Consideration (Neurotoxicity Threshold)
Penicillins	≥50% fT > MIC	100% fT > MIC	Piperacillin: Cmin > 361.4 mg/L
Cephalosporins	40%–70% fT > MIC	100% fT > MIC	Cefepime: Cmin > 20 mg/L
Carbapenems	40% fT > MIC	100% fT > MIC	Meropenem: Cmin > 64.2 mg/L
Monobactams	50% fT > MIC	100% fT > MIC	Data limited

Visualizing Resistance and Inhibition

Beta-Lactamase-Mediated Resistance and Inhibitor Action

This diagram illustrates the core problem of enzymatic resistance and the two primary mechanisms by which BLIs counteract it.

Classification of Key Beta-Lactamases

This diagram provides a high-level overview of the major β-lactamase classes based on the Ambler classification, highlighting key examples and their susceptibility to inhibitors.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What is taniborbactam and what makes it a "next-generation" β-lactamase inhibitor?

Taniborbactam (formerly VNRX-5133) is a novel, bicyclic boronate β-lactamase inhibitor that is distinguished from previous inhibitors by its broad-spectrum activity against both serine-β-lactamases (SBLs) and metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs) [35] [36]. It is the first pan-spectrum β-lactamase inhibitor to enter clinical development, capable of inhibiting all four Ambler classes (A, B, C, and D) of β-lactamase enzymes [35]. This contrasts with earlier inhibitors like avibactam (a DBO) and vaborbactam (a boronic acid), which lack activity against MBLs [35].

Q2: Against which specific enzymes does taniborbactam show activity?

Taniborbactam demonstrates potent, direct inhibitory activity against a wide range of clinically relevant β-lactamases [36] [37]:

• Class A: Including extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs) like CTX-M and carbapenemases like KPC.
• Class B: Metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs) such as NDM, VIM, SPM, and GIM (though not IMP) [37].
• Class C: Including AmpC and plasmid-encoded CMY-type cephalosporinases.
• Class D: Including OXA-type enzymes (e.g., OXA-48) [36].

Q3: Which antibiotic is taniborbactam combined with and for what type of infections?

Taniborbactam is developed in combination with the fourth-generation cephalosporin, cefepime [35] [36]. This combination, cefepime-taniborbactam, is investigated to treat serious infections caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative pathogens, particularly complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI) [37]. It aims to restore the activity of cefepime against carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae [35].

Q4: What is the current clinical status of cefepime-taniborbactam?

The combination has successfully completed a phase 3 clinical trial (CERTAIN-1) for cUTI and is currently under review by the FDA [37]. The CERTAIN-1 trial demonstrated the superiority of cefepime-taniborbactam over meropenem for the composite endpoint of microbiologic and clinical success [37].

Troubleshooting Guide: Common Experimental Challenges

Table 1: Troubleshooting In Vitro Susceptibility Testing with Taniborbactam

Challenge	Potential Cause	Suggested Solution
Unexpectedly high MICs for cefepime-taniborbactam against Enterobacterales	Production of IMP-type metallo-β-lactamases [37].	Confirm the carbapenemase genotype of the isolate. Note that taniborbactam has limited activity against IMP variants [37].
Reduced activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates	Presence of other, non-enzymatic resistance mechanisms [38].	Check for efflux pump overexpression (e.g., MexAB-OprM) or mutations in porins that may limit drug penetration. These mechanisms can coexist with β-lactamase production [38].
Variable inhibition of Class D OXA enzymes	Natural variation in inhibition profile of Class D enzymes by available inhibitors [39].	Refer to published biochemical profiling data for taniborbactam against specific OXA variants. Class D enzymes are known for their variable inhibition by BLIs [39].
Confirming MBL inhibition in biochemical assays	Distinguishing MBL inhibition from SBL inhibition in bacterial lysates.	Use chelating agents like EDTA in control experiments. EDTA inhibits MBLs by sequestering zinc ions but does not affect SBLs, helping to deconvolute the contribution of each enzyme class [28].

Experimental Protocols & Workflows

Protocol: Determining Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) for Cefepime-Taniborbactam

Objective: To determine the minimum inhibitory concentration of cefepime-taniborbactam against clinical isolates of Gram-negative bacteria using a standardized broth microdilution method.

Materials:

• Cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton Broth (CAMHB)
• Sterile 96-well microtiter plates
• Cefepime and taniborbactam reference powders
• Bacterial suspension adjusted to 0.5 McFarland standard (~1.5 x 10^8 CFU/mL)
• MIC evaluator strips or automated systems (for comparison)

Method:

• Preparation of Drug Solutions: Prepare serial two-fold dilutions of cefepime in combination with a fixed concentration of taniborbactam (e.g., 4 µg/mL or 8 µg/mL) in CAMHB across the wells of the microtiter plate [37].
• Inoculation: Dilute the standardized bacterial suspension to a final concentration of approximately 5 x 10^5 CFU/mL in each well.
• Incubation: Incubate the plates at 35°C ± 2°C for 16-20 hours in ambient air.
• Reading Results: The MIC is defined as the lowest concentration of cefepime in the presence of the fixed taniborbactam concentration that completely inhibits visible growth of the organism.

Diagram: Cefepime-Taniborbactam MIC Assay Workflow

Protocol: Biochemical Assay for β-Lactamase Inhibition

Objective: To directly assess the inhibitory activity of taniborbactam against purified β-lactamase enzymes.

Materials:

• Purified β-lactamase enzyme (e.g., NDM-1, KPC-2, VIM-2)
• Appropriate substrate (e.g., nitrocefin for many β-lactamases)
• Reaction buffer (e.g., 50 mM phosphate buffer, pH 7.0; for MBLs, ensure buffer is zinc-supplemented)
• UV-Vis spectrophotometer or microplate reader
• Taniborbactam solution

Method:

• Pre-incubation: Mix the purified β-lactamase enzyme with varying concentrations of taniborbactam and allow to pre-incubate for a fixed time (e.g., 10 minutes) at room temperature.
• Initiate Reaction: Start the enzymatic reaction by adding the substrate (nitrocefin).
• Monitor Hydrolysis: Immediately monitor the change in absorbance at the wavelength specific to the substrate (e.g., 482 nm for nitrocefin) over time.
• Calculate IC50: Determine the concentration of taniborbactam that reduces the enzyme's hydrolytic activity by 50% (IC50) compared to a no-inhibitor control.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Reagents for Taniborbactam Research

Reagent / Material	Function in Research	Key Considerations
Cefepime-Taniborbactam Combination Powder	The core investigational agent for in vitro and in vivo efficacy studies.	Ensure proper storage as per manufacturer's specifications. Use a fixed ratio (e.g., 4:1 or 8:1, cefepime to taniborbactam) for susceptibility testing [37].
Defined β-Lactamase Panels	For biochemical characterization of inhibitor spectrum and potency.	Should include representative enzymes from Ambler Classes A (KPC, CTX-M), B (NDM, VIM), C (AmpC, P99), and D (OXA-48) [35] [40].
Genetically Characterized MDR Isolates	For microbiological profiling and validation of inhibitor activity in cellular systems.	Use well-characterized control strains with known resistance mechanisms (e.g., NDM-producing K. pneumoniae, VIM-producing P. aeruginosa) [38] [41].
Chelating Agents (e.g., EDTA)	To confirm metallo-β-lactamase activity in biochemical and whole-cell assays.	EDTA chelates zinc, inactivating MBLs. Used as a control to distinguish MBL activity from SBL activity [28].
Parp1-IN-15	Parp1-IN-15, MF:C16H12N2O2, MW:264.28 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
2-amino-6-methoxybenzene-1-thiol	2-Amino-6-methoxybenzene-1-thiol|CAS 740773-51-7	2-Amino-6-methoxybenzene-1-thiol (C7H9NOS) is a chemical intermediate for research use only (RUO). Not for human or veterinary use.

Mechanism of Action and Resistance Pathways

Taniborbactam's broad-spectrum activity stems from its unique structure as a cyclic boronate, which allows it to interact with the active sites of both serine-β-lactamases (SBLs) and metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs) [35].

• For SBLs: The boron atom covalently binds the active-site serine residue, forming a tetrahedral adduct that mimics the deacylation transition state, thereby reversibly inactivating the enzyme [35].
• For MBLs: The molecule's carboxylic acid group, cyclic boronate oxygen, and hydroxyl groups are hypothesized to coordinate the active-site zinc ions, disrupting the enzyme's ability to hydrolyze the β-lactam antibiotic [35].

Diagram: Taniborbactam's Mechanism of β-Lactamase Inhibition

While taniborbactam has a broad spectrum, emerging resistance mechanisms highlight the ongoing challenge. For P. aeruginosa, these can include [38]:

• Mutations in AmpC (PDC): Structural modifications that reduce inhibitor binding.
• Efflux Pump Overexpression: Upregulation of systems like MexAB-OprM that can extrude the antibiotic.
• Mutations in PBPs: Target site modifications, such as in PBP3 (FtsI), that reduce binding to the β-lactam antibiotic (cefepime).
• Mutations in Porins: Reduced outer membrane permeability.

Core Concepts and Quantitative Evidence

This section addresses fundamental questions about the design and proven efficacy of novel β-lactam structures, providing a quantitative foundation for their development.

FAQ: What are bis-β-lactam compounds and how do they enhance antibacterial activity?

Bis-β-lactams are nearly symmetrical dimeric molecules structurally derived from conventional β-lactam antibiotics like ampicillin and amoxicillin. Their primary advantage lies in their bifunctional nature, which allows them to simultaneously bind to two mutated penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs). This dual binding significantly increases their affinity for bacterial targets, particularly enhancing their binding to the PBP1a mutation in Escherichia coli compared to their monomeric counterparts [28].

FAQ: What quantitative evidence demonstrates the superior efficacy of these structural innovations?

The enhanced potency of these compounds is demonstrated by dramatic improvements in Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) and half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) values. The table below summarizes key quantitative findings from recent studies.

Table 1: Quantitative Efficacy of Innovative β-Lactam Structures

Compound Type	Specific Compound / Example	Key Metric & Improvement	Bacterial Context
Siderophore-β-lactam Conjugate (Dual-Pharmacophore) [42]	BAMP, BLOR, MCEF	MIC improvement by >8,000-fold vs. unconjugated β-lactam [42].	Gram-negative species (WHO priority 1)
Bis-β-lactam Compound [28]	Compound III* (from Ampicillin)	IC~50~ for PBP1a: 0.5 mcg/mL (vs. 13 mcg/mL for ampicillin) [28].	E. coli PBP1a mutation
β-lactam Potentiator [28]	Trimer of phenoxy-methyl penicillin sulphone	IC~50~ against Enterobacter cloacae P99: 20 µg/mL (comparable to sulbactam) [28].	Enzyme inhibitory activity

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

This section provides detailed methodologies for key experiments in the field, from computational screening to mechanistic validation.

FAQ: What is a standard protocol for identifying novel β-lactamase inhibitors via computational screening?

The following workflow, adapted from a study targeting the VIM-1 metallo-β-lactamase in Pseudomonas aeruginosa, outlines the key steps for virtual screening and validation [43].

Experimental Protocol: Virtual Screening for β-Lactamase Inhibitors [43]

• Protein Preparation: Obtain the crystal structure of the target protein (e.g., MBL VIM-1, PDB ID: 8PB2). Use a tool like Chimera to add hydrogens, assign partial charges, and remove water molecules and native ligands.
• Ligand Library Curation: Source a diverse chemical library, such as the COCONUT database of natural products. Filter compounds using the Lipinski's Rule of Five to ensure drug-like properties. Convert ligand structures into a suitable format (e.g., PDBQT) for docking.
• Virtual Screening & Docking: Perform initial high-throughput virtual screening against the prepared protein's active site. Select top-ranking compounds based on docking scores and re-dock them for validation using more precise parameters.
• Molecular Dynamics (MD) Simulations: Subject the top protein-ligand complexes to one-microsecond MD simulations (e.g., using GROMACS). Analyze root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) and root-mean-square fluctuation (RMSF) to evaluate complex stability and residue fluctuations.
• Binding Affinity Calculation: Use methods like MM/GBSA (Molecular Mechanics with Generalized Born and Surface Area solvation) on simulation trajectories to calculate the free energy of binding (ΔG~bind~) for the final candidates.

FAQ: How do I experimentally validate the enhanced uptake of a sideromycin (siderophore-antibiotic conjugate)?

To confirm that a conjugate like BAMP (bis-catechol siderophore linked to ampicillin) exploits iron-uptake pathways, conduct growth inhibition assays under varying iron conditions [42].

Experimental Protocol: Iron-Dependence MIC Assay [42]

• Media Preparation:
  • Standard Mueller-Hinton Broth (MHB): Contains ~0.24 µg/mL (4.3 × 10⁻⁶ M) iron.
  • Iron-Depleted MHB (ID-MHB): Treat standard MHB with Chelex resin to remove free iron.
  • Iron-Supplemented MHB: Add FeCl₃ to ID-MHB at specific concentrations (e.g., 0.1 µg/mL and 1 µg/mL).
• Procedure:
  • Prepare serial dilutions of your sideromycin (e.g., BAMP) and its unconjugated β-lactam control in all three media types.
  • Inoculate each dilution with a standardized bacterial inoculum (~5 × 10⁵ CFU/mL).
  • Incubate at 35°C for 16-20 hours.
• Expected Outcome & Analysis:
  • The MIC of the sideromycin will be lowest in ID-MHB due to upregulated bacterial siderophore uptake systems.
  • The MIC will increase in a dose-dependent manner with iron supplementation, eventually matching or exceeding the MIC in standard MHB as TBDT expression is repressed.
  • The MIC of the unconjugated antibiotic will remain relatively unchanged across the different media. A >4-fold improvement in the conjugate's MIC in low iron is a positive indicator of siderophore-mediated uptake [42].

Troubleshooting Common Experimental Issues

This section helps diagnose and resolve frequent challenges encountered during research on these compounds.

FAQ: My sideromycin conjugate shows poor activity despite theoretical promise. What are potential causes?

The enhanced activity of sideromycins depends on a complex interplay of factors beyond just uptake. Consider the following troubleshooting table.

Table 2: Troubleshooting Poor Sideromycin Efficacy

Problem	Potential Cause	Suggested Investigation
Low potency in all conditions	Susceptibility to periplasmic β-lactamases	Test efficacy in the presence of a β-lactamase inhibitor (e.g., avibactam, taniborbactam) [29] [44].
Activity not improved in low iron	Competition with native siderophores	Use bacterial strains with mutations in endogenous siderophore production systems [42].
Good uptake but poor killing	Weak binding to Penicillin-Binding Proteins (PBPs)	Perform a competitive binding assay using fluorescent penicillins (e.g., Bocillin FL) to assess affinity for essential PBPs [42].
Inconsistent results between species	Uptake via specific TonB-dependent transporters (TBDTs)	Verify expression of the cognate TBDT in your target strain via genomic or proteomic analysis [42].

FAQ: The lead bis-β-lactam compound I identified is hydrolyzed by a metallo-β-lactamase (MBL). What are my options?

This is a common hurdle. The most viable strategy is to co-administer the antibiotic with a novel, broad-spectrum β-lactamase inhibitor.

• Recommended Inhibitor: Taniborbactam (VNRX-5133) is a cyclic boronate inhibitor active against a wide range of β-lactamases, including serine-based enzymes (Classes A, C, D) and, critically, metallo-β-lactamases (Class B, e.g., NDM, VIM) [29] [45].
• Experimental Approach: Conduct a checkerboard MIC assay combining your bis-β-lactam with taniborbactam against the MBL-producing strain. A significant reduction (e.g., ≥8-fold) in the MIC of your compound in the presence of the inhibitor confirms synergy and restores efficacy [44].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

This table catalogs key materials and their functions for researching structural innovations in β-lactams.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for β-Lactam Innovation

Reagent / Material	Function & Application in Research
Chelex 100 Resin	Creates iron-depleted culture media essential for evaluating siderophore-antibiotic conjugates and inducing TBDT expression [42].
Bocillin FL	A fluorescent penicillin derivative used in competitive assays to quantify and visualize binding affinity to Penicillin-Binding Proteins (PBPs) [42].
Taniborbactam (VNRX-5133)	A pan-spectrum β-lactamase inhibitor used in vitro to protect novel β-lactams from enzymatic hydrolysis by both serine and metallo-β-lactamases [29] [45].
Molecular Visualization Software (PyMOL, NGL Viewer)	Critical for visualizing protein-ligand complexes (e.g., PBP-antibiotic, β-lactamase-inhibitor), analyzing binding modes, and preparing publication-quality figures [46].
COCONUT Database	A public database of over 400,000 unique natural compounds used for virtual screening to identify novel inhibitor scaffolds against resistant targets like VIM-1 [43].
3-bromo-1-methanesulfonylazetidine	3-bromo-1-methanesulfonylazetidine, CAS:2731007-08-0, MF:C4H8BrNO2S, MW:214.1
4-amino-N-methanesulfonylbenzamide	4-amino-N-methanesulfonylbenzamide

The enzymatic inactivation of beta-lactam antibiotics by beta-lactamases represents one of the most significant challenges in treating Gram-negative bacterial infections. Beta-lactamases are a diverse class of enzymes that inactivate these antibiotics by hydrolytically opening the essential beta-lactam ring [47] [25] [48]. This review explores a sophisticated counterstrategy: the development of siderophore-conjugated beta-lactams. These conjugates, often termed "sideromycins" or "Trojan horse" antibiotics, exploit bacterial iron acquisition systems to overcome permeability-based and enzymatic resistance mechanisms [49] [50] [51].

The core premise is that bacteria produce and utilize siderophores—small, high-affinity iron chelators—to scavenge essential iron from their environment. By covalently linking a beta-lactam antibiotic to a siderophore, the resulting conjugate is actively transported into the bacterial periplasm via TonB-dependent outer membrane transporters (TBDTs) [49] [42] [51]. This pathway not only facilitates enhanced drug entry but also bypasses the porin channels that can restrict antibiotic penetration and may allow the compound to avoid efflux pumps [42] [51]. The clinical success of cefiderocol, a recently FDA-approved siderophore-cephalosporin conjugate, validates this approach and highlights its potential to combat even carbapenem-resistant pathogens [49] [42].

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) & Troubleshooting Guide

Q1: Our siderophore-beta-lactam conjugate shows excellent MIC values in iron-depleted media, but its efficacy is drastically reduced in standard Mueller-Hinton broth or in vivo. What could be causing this?

A: This is a classic sign of iron competition. The expression of bacterial TonB-dependent transporters (TBDTs) is tightly regulated by iron availability [42].

• Primary Cause: In standard, iron-replete media (like unmodified MH broth), the expression of the TBDTs required for your conjugate's uptake is repressed. The conjugate cannot enter the cell efficiently, leading to a high MIC.
• Troubleshooting Steps:
  • Confirm Iron Dependency: Always determine the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) of your conjugate in both standard and iron-depleted media (e.g., Chelex-treated media). A significant improvement (e.g., a >8-fold decrease) in the MIC under iron-depleted conditions confirms that uptake is siderophore-mediated [42] [52].
  • Check for Exogenous Iron: In vivo, the host environment is typically iron-restricted. However, ensure your in vitro experiments are not accidentally supplemented with high concentrations of iron, which would shut down the relevant transport systems.
  • Competition Assays: Perform antagonism assays by adding excess free siderophore (e.g., ferrichrome) or iron salts to the growth medium. If the conjugate's activity is antagonized, it confirms that the conjugate is using native siderophore uptake pathways [53].

Q2: We are observing rapid resistance development to our lead conjugate in serial passage experiments. What are the most common resistance mechanisms?

A: Adaptive resistance is a known risk for this class of antibiotics, primarily through mutations that prevent conjugate uptake [52].

• Primary Mechanism: Mutations in Iron Uptake Systems. Bacteria can develop resistance through mutations in genes encoding outer membrane receptors or their associated regulatory proteins. For example, resistance to a conjugate using the FhuA receptor can arise from loss-of-function mutations in the fhuA gene itself or its regulators [53] [52].
• Troubleshooting and Analysis:
  • Genomic Sequencing: Sequence the resistant isolates. Focus on genes related to siderophore uptake. Whole-genome sequencing of resistant P. aeruginosa isolates has revealed mutations in genes like piuA, piuC, pirR, fecI, and pvdS [52].
  • Receptor Expression: Check the expression of the target TBDT in your resistant strains via Western blot or RT-qPCR. A common finding is the loss of receptor expression [53].
  • Cross-Resistance Profiling: Test the susceptibility of your resistant mutants to natural sideromycins (like albomycin) or other siderophore conjugates that use different receptors. A lack of cross-resistance indicates a receptor-specific mechanism [53].

Q3: How can we determine if our conjugate's enhanced activity is due to improved uptake alone, or if it also involves improved binding to the Penicillin-Binding Protein (PBP) target?

A: Disentangling uptake from target binding is critical for rational design. A 2025 study systematically investigated this by comparing conjugated vs. unconjugated beta-lactams [42].

• Experimental Approach:
  • PBP Binding Assay: This is the most direct method. Isolate inner membrane fractions containing the PBPs. Perform a competition assay where you incubate the membranes with your conjugate and a radiolabeled or fluorescent penicillin (e.g., Bocillin FL). Separate the proteins via SDS-PAGE and visualize PBP binding. Increased binding affinity of the conjugate for specific PBPs (e.g., PBP 1A/B, 2, or 3) compared to the unconjugated drug indicates a direct pharmacological enhancement beyond just uptake [42].
  • Uptake Studies: Directly measure the accumulation of the conjugate inside the periplasm using techniques like LC-MS/MS. This can be technically challenging but provides definitive uptake data.
  • Correlation Analysis: The 2025 study found that against E. coli and K. pneumoniae, enhanced PBP binding was a major factor for the conjugates' activity. In contrast, for P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii, increased uptake was the primary driver [42].

Problem	Potential Cause	Troubleshooting Experiments
Poor activity in standard media	Low TBDT expression due to high iron	Determine MIC in iron-depleted media; measure TBDT expression.
Rapid resistance development	Mutations in siderophore receptors/regulators	Genomic sequencing of resistant isolates; check for receptor loss.
Lack of activity in specific strain	Conjugate not recognized by strain's TBDTs	Screen against a panel of strains; use known siderophore competition assays.
Unexpectedly high MIC	Susceptibility to beta-lactamases or efflux	Check stability to purified beta-lactamases; use efflux pump inhibitors.
In vitro-in vivo efficacy disconnect	Adaptive resistance or host factor interference	Use whole blood assays; test in multiple animal infection models [52].

Key Experimental Protocols

Protocol: Determining MIC Under Iron-Restricted Conditions

Purpose: To accurately evaluate the efficacy of a siderophore-beta-lactam conjugate by mimicking the iron-limited environment of a host.

Materials:

• Cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton Broth (MHB-CA)
• Chelex 100 resin (e.g., Bio-Rad)
• Dialysis tubing
• Test compound (siderophore-beta-lactam conjugate)
• Unconjugated beta-lactam control (e.g., ampicillin, cefaclor)
• Sterile, iron-free plasticware

Method:

• Preparation of Chelex-Treated, Dialyzed MHB (CDMHB): a. Stir MHB-CA with 5% (w/v) Chelex 100 resin for 1 hour at 4°C to remove cations, including iron. b. Filter the broth through a 0.22 µm filter to remove the resin. c. Dialyze the treated broth against distilled water for 24-48 hours to restore osmolarity and remove residual Chelex. d. Supplement with magnesium and calcium salts to standard concentrations and filter-sterilize [52].
• Broth Microdilution MIC: a. Prepare a dilution series of the test and control compounds in CDMHB and standard MHB in a 96-well plate. b. Adjust the inoculum to ~5 × 10⁵ CFU/mL in both media and add to the wells. c. Incubate the plate at 37°C for 16-20 hours. d. The MIC is the lowest concentration that completely inhibits visible growth.
• Interpretation: A significantly lower MIC (e.g., >8-fold) in CDMHB compared to standard MHB confirms iron-dependent uptake of the conjugate [42] [52].

Protocol: Penicillin-Binding Protein (PBP) Competition Assay

Purpose: To assess the affinity of a siderophore-beta-lactam conjugate for its target PBPs relative to the unconjugated antibiotic.

Materials:

• Bacterial cell culture (e.g., E. coli)
• Membrane preparation buffer (e.g., 50 mM HEPES, pH 7.0)
• Fluorescent penicillin derivative (e.g., Bocillin FL)
• Test compounds (conjugate and unconjugated beta-lactam)
• SDS-PAGE equipment
• Fluorescence gel scanner or imager

Method:

• Membrane Preparation: a. Grow bacteria to mid-log phase, harvest by centrifugation, and disrupt cells (e.g., by sonication or French press). b. Centrifuge at high speed (e.g., 100,000 × g) to collect the inner membrane fraction [53] [42].
• Competition Binding: a. Pre-incubate membrane samples with a range of concentrations of the test compound (conjugate or unconjugated drug) for 10-15 minutes at room temperature. b. Add a fixed, saturating concentration of Bocillin FL and incubate for an additional 10-30 minutes in the dark. c. Stop the reaction by adding SDS-PAGE loading buffer and boiling.
• Detection and Analysis: a. Separate the proteins by SDS-PAGE. b. Visualize the fluorescent Bocillin FL-labeled PBPs using a gel scanner. c. The intensity of each PBP band is inversely proportional to the binding affinity of the pre-incubated test compound. A conjugate that shows more potent inhibition of Bocillin FL binding than the unconjugated drug has a higher affinity for that PBP [42].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Research Reagent	Function in Siderophore-Beta-Lactam Research
Chelex 100 Resin	A chelating resin used to create iron-depleted culture media essential for inducing siderophore receptor expression and evaluating conjugate efficacy [42] [52].
Ferrichrome	A natural hydroxamate-type siderophore. Used in competition assays to determine if a conjugate is utilizing the FhuA outer membrane receptor for uptake [53].
Bocillin FL	A fluorescent penicillin derivative used in PBP binding assays to visualize and quantify the binding affinity of beta-lactam conjugates to their PBP targets [42].
TonB Mutant Strains	Genetically engineered bacteria (e.g., ΔtonB) lacking the TonB complex. Used as negative controls to confirm that conjugate uptake is energy-dependent and requires a functional TonB system [52].
Defined Siderophore Receptor Mutants	Bacterial strains with deletions in specific outer membrane receptors (e.g., ΔfepA, ΔfhuA, ΔcirA in E. coli). Crucial for identifying the specific TBDT used by a synthetic sideromycin [53] [52].

Visualizing Pathways and Mechanisms

Sideromycin Uptake Pathway

Resistance Development Logic

Technical Support Center: Troubleshooting Beta-Lactam Combination Research

This technical support center addresses common challenges in research focused on novel beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor (BL/BLI) combinations, framed within the thesis of overcoming enzymatic inactivation.

---

Troubleshooting Guides & FAQs

FAQ: General BL/BLI Research

• Q: My minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) assays show high variability. What could be the cause?

  • A: High MIC variability often stems from improper reagent preparation or inoculum density. Ensure the BLI stock solution is fresh and correctly solubilized. Verify the bacterial inoculum is at the standard 5 × 10⁵ CFU/mL using a spectrophotometer (OD600) and confirm by colony counting.

• Q: How do I confirm the primary mechanism of action for a new BLI in my assays?

  • A: Employ a combination of methods. Perform enzyme inhibition kinetics with purified beta-lactamases. Use isogenic strains expressing a single, specific beta-lactamase gene to isolate the inhibitor's effect. Whole-genome sequencing of resistant mutants can also reveal target mutations.

Troubleshooting: Cefepime/Enmetazobactam

• Q: My time-kill kinetics for Cefepime/Enmetazobactam against ESBL-producing E. coli show regrowth after 24 hours. What does this indicate?

  • A: Regrowth suggests the emergence of resistance or the presence of a subpopulation with a higher MIC. Repeat the assay with a higher concentration of Enmetazobactam (e.g., 8 µg/mL) to test for dose-dependent inhibition. Also, plate the regrowth culture on agar containing the combination to isolate and characterize breakthrough mutants.

• Q: Why is Cefepime/Enmetazobactam less effective in my murine infection model with AmpC-hyperproducing Enterobacter cloacae?

  • A: Enmetazobactam is a potent inhibitor of ESBLs and KPC but has weaker activity against AmpC beta-lactamases. This is an expected result and highlights the combination's spectrum. Consider using Aztreonam/Avibactam for metallo-beta-lactamase (MBL) and AmpC co-producers.

Troubleshooting: Aztreonam/Avibactam

• Q: I am not observing synergy between Aztreonam and Avibactam against my NDM-producing K. pneumoniae isolate in the checkerboard assay. What is wrong?

  • A: Avibactam does not inhibit NDM (a metallo-beta-lactamase). Its role is to protect Aztreonam from co-produced serine beta-lactamases (e.g., ESBLs, KPC, OXA-48). Check if your isolate produces a serine beta-lactamase in addition to NDM. If it only produces NDM, Aztreonam alone should be effective, and no synergy with Avibactam will be seen.

• Q: What is the recommended preparation for Avibactam stock solutions due to its instability?

  • A: Avibactam is stable in water. Prepare fresh stock solutions in sterile, distilled water and use immediately. Avoid repeated freeze-thaw cycles. For long-term storage, make small aliquots at a high concentration (e.g., 10 mg/mL) and store at -80°C.

Troubleshooting: Sulbactam/Durlobactam

• Q: The MIC of Sulbactam/Durlobactam for my Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolate is elevated, even though it is within the susceptible range. What other tests can I run?

  • A: Perform a post-antibiotic effect (PAE) assay. A long PAE can still indicate clinical efficacy even with a borderline MIC. Additionally, run a time-kill curve to see if the combination is bactericidal against your specific strain, which is a key indicator of potency.

• Q: In my biofilm assay, Sulbactam/Durlobactam shows reduced activity. How can I optimize this experiment?

  • A: Biofilms confer intrinsic resistance. Increase the antibiotic exposure time (e.g., 48 hours) and consider using a continuous-flow model instead of a static model. Assay for metabolic activity (e.g., resazurin) in addition to quantifying adhered cells (crystal violet) to get a complete picture of biofilm viability.

---

Table 1: In Vitro Activity of Novel BL/BLI Combinations Against Key Pathogens

Pathogen & Resistance Profile	Cefepime/Enmetazobactam MIC₉₀ (µg/mL)	Aztreonam/Avibactam MIC₉₀ (µg/mL)	Sulbactam/Durlobactam MIC₉₀ (µg/mL)
E. coli (ESBL)	0.5/4	0.25/4	N/A
K. pneumoniae (KPC)	1/4	0.5/4	N/A
K. pneumoniae (NDM)	>64/4	1/4	N/A
A. baumannii (MDR)	>64/4	>64/4	2/4
P. aeruginosa (VIM)	>64/4	4/4	16/4

MIC₉₀: Minimum Inhibitory Concentration required to inhibit 90% of isolates. N/A: Not Applicable.

Table 2: Key Beta-Lactamase Inhibition Profiles of Novel BLIs

Beta-Lactamase Inhibitor	Serine β-Lactamases Inhibited	Metallo-β-Lactamases Inhibited
Enmetazobactam	Class A (ESBL, KPC)	No
Avibactam	Class A (ESBL, KPC), Class C	No
Durlobactam	Class A, C, D	No

---

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Standard Broth Microdilution for MIC Determination

• Prepare serial two-fold dilutions of the antibiotic and a fixed concentration of the BLI (e.g., 4 µg/mL) in cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth (CAMHB) in a 96-well plate.
• Adjust the turbidity of a bacterial suspension to a 0.5 McFarland standard, then dilute in CAMHB to achieve a final inoculum of ~5 × 10⁵ CFU/mL in each well.
• Incubate the plate at 35°C ± 2°C for 16-20 hours in ambient air.
• The MIC is the lowest concentration of antibiotic that completely inhibits visible growth.

Protocol 2: Time-Kill Kinetics Assay

• Prepare flasks containing CAMHB with no drug, the antibiotic alone, the BLI alone, and the combination at relevant concentrations (e.g., 1x, 2x, and 4x MIC).
• Inoculate each flask with ~5 × 10⁵ CFU/mL of the test organism.
• Incubate the flasks at 35°C with shaking.
• Withdraw samples at 0, 2, 4, 6, and 24 hours, serially dilute them in saline, and plate on agar for colony count determination.
• Bactericidal activity is defined as a ≥3-log₁₀ (99.9%) reduction in CFU/mL compared to the initial inoculum.

---

Visualizations

Diagram 1: BL/BLI Synergy Mechanism

Diagram 2: MIC Assay Workflow

---

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for BL/BLI Studies

Research Reagent	Function in Experiment
Cation-Adjusted Mueller-Hinton Broth (CAMHB)	Standardized growth medium for MIC and time-kill assays, ensuring consistent cation concentrations for antibiotic activity.
Purified Beta-Lactamase Enzymes (e.g., KPC-3, NDM-1)	For direct enzyme inhibition kinetic assays to determine inhibitor potency (Ki, IC50).
Isogenic Bacterial Strains	Engineered to express a single, specific beta-lactamase, allowing for clear interpretation of a BLI's spectrum of activity.
Beta-Lactamase-Specific Substrates (e.g., Nitrocefin)	Chromogenic cephalosporin used to spectrophotometrically measure beta-lactamase activity and its inhibition.
Murine Thigh Infection Model	In vivo model used to evaluate the efficacy of BL/BLI combinations against specific pathogens in a live host system.

Navigating Challenges: Stability, Resistance Emergence, and Preclinical Development

Chemical Stability of Beta-Lactams in Biological and Assay Environments

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

FAQ 1: What are the primary causes of beta-lactam antibiotic degradation inin vitroassays?

Beta-lactam antibiotics degrade in assay environments through two main pathways:

• Thermal Degradation of the β-Lactam Ring: The core β-lactam ring is inherently unstable and susceptible to hydrolysis, especially in aqueous solutions at physiological temperatures (e.g., 35–37°C). This degradation is strongly influenced by pH and is more rapid at higher pH levels due to increased nucleophilic attack on the carbonyl carbon of the β-lactam ring by water [54]. The degradation half-lives can vary significantly between different β-lactam drugs [54].
• Enzymatic Hydrolysis by β-Lactamases: In biological environments containing resistant bacteria, β-lactamase enzymes (such as serine-β-lactamases and metallo-β-lactamases) rapidly inactivate antibiotics by hydrolyzing the β-lactam ring [25] [55]. This is a key mechanism of antibacterial resistance.

FAQ 2: Which beta-lactam antibiotics are most susceptible to non-enzymatic degradation in my cell culture or MIC assays?

Stability varies significantly across different β-lactam antibiotics. Based on recent stability studies in cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth (CA-MHB) at 36°C, the following half-lives have been observed [54]:

Table 1: Degradation Half-Lives of β-Lactams in CA-MHB at 36°C

β-Lactam Antibiotic	Class	Half-Life (Hours)
Imipenem	Carbapenem	16.9
Biapenem	Carbapenem	20.7
Clavulanic Acid (BLI)	β-Lactamase Inhibitor	29.0
Cefsulodin	Cephalosporin	23.1
Doripenem	Carbapenem	40.6
Meropenem	Carbapenem	46.5
Cefepime	Cephalosporin	50.8
Piperacillin	Penicillin	61.5
Aztreonam	Monobactam	>120
Tazobactam (BLI)	β-Lactamase Inhibitor	>120
Avibactam (BLI)	β-Lactamase Inhibitor	>120
Sulbactam (BLI)	β-Lactamase Inhibitor	>120

BLI: β-Lactamase Inhibitor. Data adapted from PMC (2024) [54].

Compounds like imipenem, biapenem, and clavulanic acid are among the least stable and require special attention to avoid significant concentration loss over a standard 24-hour assay.

FAQ 3: How can I stabilize beta-lactam concentrations in my long-term experiments?

To mitigate degradation, consider these strategies:

• Temperature and Storage: Prepare fresh antibiotic solutions immediately before use. For short-term storage (up to 72 hours), agar plates can be kept at 4°C, where most β-lactams show ≥90% stability [54].
• Supplemental Dosing: For extended dynamic in vitro models, use a pre-calculated supplemental dosing algorithm to offset thermal degradation. This approach can maintain concentrations within a close range (e.g., ±31% of the target) of the target over 24 hours [54].
• pH Control: Carefully monitor and adjust the pH of your assay media, as stability decreases at higher pH for many β-lactams [54].

FAQ 4: What are the latest advancements in combating enzymatic inactivation?

Research is focused on developing novel β-lactamase inhibitors (BLIs) that work synergistically with existing antibiotics. Key advances include [55] [56]:

• Novel Inhibitors against Serine-β-Lactamases: Drugs like avibactam and relebactam feature a diazabicyclooctane (DBO) scaffold. They form reversible covalent bonds with serine β-lactamases, effectively inhibiting classes A, C, and some D enzymes [32] [56].
• The Search for Metallo-β-Lactamase (MBL) Inhibitors: Inhibiting MBLs (Class B) remains a significant challenge. Research is exploring compounds like captopril, which contains a zinc-chelating thiol group that can disrupt the zinc ions in the MBL active site [56]. However, no clinically approved MBL inhibitor is available yet.
• Enzyme Cocktails for Degradation: From an environmental remediation perspective, "cocktails" of β-lactamases (e.g., CTX-M-33 and VIM-1) are being developed to simultaneously hydrolyze and remove multiple classes of β-lactam antibiotics from waste streams, demonstrating the broad activity of these enzymes [40].

Troubleshooting Guides

Problem: Unexpected Loss of Antibiotic Efficacy in Time-Kill Studies

Potential Cause: Significant thermal degradation of the beta-lactam antibiotic during the incubation period, leading to under-estimation of bacterial killing and potential misinterpretation of regrowth as resistance emergence [54].

Solution:

• Validate Concentrations: Use LC-MS/MS to quantify the actual antibiotic concentrations at the beginning, during, and end of the experiment instead of relying on assumed concentrations [54].
• Choose a More Stable Analog: If the experimental design allows, consider replacing a highly unstable antibiotic (e.g., imipenem) with a more stable one from the same class (e.g., meropenem), referring to Table 1 [54].
• Apply Supplemental Dosing: Implement a supplement dosing algorithm to maintain a consistent concentration throughout the experiment [54].

Problem: Inconsistent MIC Results or Assay Failure

Potential Cause: Degradation of the antibiotic in stock solutions or in the assay medium itself.

Solution:

• Proper Stock Solution Management:
  • Prepare stock solutions in sterile water at a neutral pH.
  • Aliquot and store at -20°C or -80°C. Avoid repeated freeze-thaw cycles.
  • For the most unstable drugs (e.g., imipenem), consider the degradation half-life even in water at 25°C (e.g., ~14.7 hours for a 1000 mg/L solution) [54].
• Verify Medium and Storage Conditions:
  • Use freshly prepared culture media.
  • Store antibiotic-containing agar plates at 4°C and use them within 72 hours for optimal stability [54].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol: Quantifying Beta-Lactam Stability in Assay Media via LC-MS/MS

This protocol is adapted from methods used to comprehensively characterize β-lactam stability [54].

1. Principle Liquid Chromatography with Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is used to accurately quantify the concentration of a β-lactam antibiotic in a specific medium (e.g., CA-MHB) over time, allowing for the calculation of its degradation half-life.

2. Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Key Reagents for LC-MS/MS Stability Assay

Item	Function in the Experiment
β-Lactam Antibiotic Standard (e.g., Imipenem monohydrate)	The compound of interest whose stability is being tested.
Cation-Adjusted Mueller Hinton Broth (CA-MHB)	Standardized assay medium to simulate experimental conditions.
LC-MS Grade Water and Methanol	For mobile phase preparation and sample dilution, ensuring minimal background interference.
Internal Standard (e.g., Diclofenac)	Compound added to samples to correct for variations in sample preparation and instrument response.
Formic Acid	Acidifying agent added to the mobile phase to improve chromatographic separation.

3. Procedure

• Preparation: Dissolve the β-lactam standard in sterile water and filter-sterilize (0.22 µm). Pre-warm the CA-MHB to the target temperature (e.g., 36°C).
• Dosing: Spike the antibiotic into the pre-warmed CA-MHB to achieve a clinically relevant concentration (e.g., 8 mg/L).
• Sampling: Collect at least seven serial samples from the mixture over a 24-hour period.
• Sample Precipitation: Immediately mix collected samples with methanol containing an internal standard (e.g., Diclofenac) to precipitate proteins. Centrifuge at high speed (e.g., 17,968×g for 5 min).
• LC-MS/MS Analysis: Inject the supernatant into the LC-MS/MS system. Use multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) for high specificity and sensitivity.
• Data Analysis: Plot the remaining antibiotic concentration against time. Use non-linear regression to fit a first-order decay model and calculate the degradation half-life.

Protocol: Assessing Enzymatic Inactivation via Zone of Inhibition Assay

This method is used to confirm the functional inactivation of an antibiotic by β-lactamases [40].

1. Principle The antibiotic is incubated with a purified β-lactamase enzyme. If the antibiotic is hydrolyzed (inactivated), it will lose its ability to inhibit bacterial growth, resulting in a reduced or absent zone of inhibition on an agar plate seeded with a susceptible bacterium.

2. Procedure

• Reaction Setup: Incubate the beta-lactam antibiotic with the β-lactamase enzyme in a suitable buffer at the enzyme's optimal pH and temperature for a fixed period.
• Control Setup: Prepare a control where the antibiotic is incubated in buffer without the enzyme.
• Agar Diffusion: Apply the reaction mixture and control to a lawn of a susceptible bacterial strain (e.g., E. coli ATCC 25922) on Mueller-Hinton agar, using discs or wells.
• Incubation and Measurement: Incubate the plates overnight at 37°C. Measure the zones of inhibition.
• Interpretation: A significantly smaller zone of inhibition in the test sample compared to the control indicates successful enzymatic inactivation of the antibiotic.

Visualizations

Beta-Lactam Degradation Pathways

Experimental Stability Testing Workflow

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Beta-Lactamase Resistance

FAQ 1: What are the primary mechanisms by which mutant TEM/SHV enzymes confer resistance to beta-lactamase inhibitors?

Resistance in mutant TEM/SHV enzymes, often termed Inhibitor-Resistant (IR) variants, is primarily achieved through point mutations that alter the enzyme's active site, reducing the efficacy of inhibitors like clavulanate while often retaining the ability to hydrolyze antibiotics.

The key mechanism involves steric hindrance and impaired inhibitor binding. For instance, the Thr235Ala substitution in the SHV-107 variant affects the accommodation of clavulanate in the binding site. Molecular dynamics simulations suggest this mutation physically disrupts the optimal positioning of the inhibitor, reducing its inhibitory activity. Notably, the IC50 for clavulanic acid was 9-fold higher for SHV-107 than for the wild-type SHV-1. However, the inhibitory effects of tazobactam remained unchanged, indicating that resistance can be inhibitor-specific [57].

Other documented mutations in the SHV family that confer inhibitor resistance occur at positions Met69, Ser130, Arg187, and Lys234. These substitutions can prevent the irreversible inactivation of the beta-lactamase by the inhibitor, allowing the enzyme to continue hydrolyzing its antibiotic substrates [57].

FAQ 2: How do the resistance mechanisms of Metallo-β-Lactamases (MBLs) differ from those of serine-based enzymes like TEM and SHV, and what are the implications for inhibitor design?

MBLs employ a fundamentally different catalytic mechanism, relying on one or two zinc ions in their active site to hydrolyze the beta-lactam ring. This contrasts with serine-β-lactamases (SBLs), which form a covalent acyl-enzyme intermediate [47].

A critical implication for inhibitor design is that potent MBL inhibition does not explicitly depend on strong zinc chelation. While many MBL inhibitors function as zinc chelators, recent investigations reveal that molecules with weak zinc-binding affinity can still be potent enzyme inhibitors and effectively resensitize resistant bacteria to carbapenems like meropenem. This suggests that factors beyond simple metal stripping, such as specific protein-inhibitor interactions, play a crucial role in effective inhibition [58].

FAQ 3: What experimental approaches are used to characterize novel inhibitor-resistant beta-lactamases?

Characterizing a novel resistant enzyme involves a combination of phenotypic, genotypic, and biochemical methods. The following workflow outlines a standard characterization pipeline [57]:

FAQ 4: Our research is focused on developing broad-spectrum beta-lactamase inhibitors. Is targeting multiple enzyme classes simultaneously a viable strategy?

Yes, targeting multiple enzyme classes is not only viable but is an active and necessary area of research. The co-occurrence of diverse beta-lactamases in bacterial pathogens necessitates such strategies.

Proof-of-concept for this approach comes from environmental biotechnology, where enzyme cocktails are used to degrade multiple classes of beta-lactam antibiotics. For example, a cocktail of CTX-M-33 (Class A) and VIM-1 (Class B) β-lactamases was able to hydrolyze 19 antibiotics across the penicillin, cephalosporin, carbapenem, and monobactam families. This demonstrates that a combination of enzymes with complementary substrate profiles can achieve a breadth of activity unattainable by a single enzyme [40]. This principle can be inverted for inhibitor design: a single therapeutic agent could combine multiple inhibitory pharmacophores, or a combination therapy could use multiple drugs to inhibit different classes of beta-lactamases simultaneously.

Quantitative Profiling of Inhibitor-Resistant SHV Enzymes

Table 1: Inhibitor Resistance Profiles of SHV Beta-Lactamase Variants. IC50 is the concentration of inhibitor required to reduce enzyme activity by 50%. Data sourced from [57].

β-Lactamase	Key Amino Acid Substitution(s)	IC50 Clavulanate (μM)	IC50 Tazobactam (μM)	Resistance Phenotype
SHV-1 (Wild-type)	—	0.17	0.11	Susceptible to inhibitors
SHV-10	Ser130Gly	6.9	1.3	Inhibitor-resistant
SHV-49	Met69Ile	1.5	2.5	Inhibitor-resistant
SHV-56	Lys234Arg	2.5	0.75	Inhibitor-resistant
SHV-72	Lys234Arg, Asn276Asp	1.72	0.08	Inhibitor-resistant
SHV-84	Lys234Arg	2.21	0.03	Inhibitor-resistant
SHV-107	Thr235Ala	1.53	0.11	Inhibitor-resistant (Clavulanate)

Table 2: Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) Profile for a Strain Producing SHV-107 and GES-7 Beta-Lactamases. Data adapted from [57].

Antimicrobial Drug	MIC (μg/mL) for K. pneumoniae INSRA6884 (SHV-107 + GES-7)	MIC (μg/mL) for E. coli producing SHV-107 only
Amoxicillin	2048	256
Amoxicillin + Clavulanate	512	64
Ticarcillin	>2048	128
Piperacillin	64	8
Piperacillin + Tazobactam	4	1
Ceftazidime	128	0.06
Cefotaxime	4	≤0.015

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Determination of IC50 for Beta-Lactamase Inhibitors

This protocol is used to quantify the resistance of a beta-lactamase variant to an inhibitor, such as clavulanate or tazobactam [57].

• Enzyme Purification: Express and purify the recombinant beta-lactamase enzyme (e.g., SHV-107) using a system like E. coli BL21(DE3) and affinity chromatography.
• Reaction Setup: Prepare a series of inhibitor solutions at varying concentrations (e.g., 0 to 100 μM).
• Pre-incubation: Incubate a fixed amount of the purified enzyme with each inhibitor concentration for a set time (e.g., 5 minutes at 37°C in a suitable buffer at pH 7).
• Substrate Addition: Initiate the reaction by adding a substrate. Nitrocefin (50 μM), a chromogenic cephalosporin, is commonly used because its hydrolysis (from yellow to red) is easily monitored spectrophotometrically at 482 nm. Alternatively, a therapeutic substrate like penicillin G (200 μM) or ticarcillin (200 μM) can be used.
• Activity Measurement: Record the initial rate of substrate hydrolysis for each inhibitor concentration.
• Data Analysis: Calculate the percentage of remaining enzyme activity relative to a control without inhibitor. Plot the percentage activity versus the logarithm of the inhibitor concentration and fit a dose-response curve to determine the IC50 value—the concentration that reduces enzymatic activity by 50%.

Protocol 2: Phenotypic Detection of MBL Production using the Combined Disk Test (CDT)

This is a common phenotypic method to detect MBL production in bacterial isolates [59].

• Inoculum Preparation: Prepare a 0.5 McFarland standard suspension of the test bacterium from an overnight culture.
• Agar Plating: Evenly spread the suspension onto a Mueller-Hinton Agar (MHA) plate and allow the surface to dry.
• Disk Placement: Place two imipenem (10 μg) disks on the agar. To one disk, add 4 μL of a 0.5 M EDTA solution (the chelating agent that inhibits MBLs). For pre-made disks, use an imipenem (10 μg) disk and an imipenem-EDTA (10 μg + 4 μL EDTA) disk.
• Incubation: Incubate the plate at 35°C for 16-18 hours.
• Interpretation: Measure the zones of inhibition around both disks. An increase of ≥7 mm in the zone diameter around the imipenem-EDTA disk compared to the imipenem disk alone is considered positive for MBL production.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Reagents for Studying Beta-Lactamase Inhibitor Resistance

Reagent / Material	Function in Research	Example Use Case
Clavulanic Acid & Tazobactam	Standard serine β-lactamase inhibitors	Comparing IC50 values to quantify resistance levels in mutant enzymes [57].
EDTA and other Chelators	Metal ion chelators for MBL inhibition	Used in phenotypic tests (CDT) and mechanistic studies to probe zinc dependence [58] [59].
Nitrocefin	Chromogenic cephalosporin substrate	Rapid, visual measurement of β-lactamase activity for kinetic assays and IC50 determinations [57].
Recombinant Enzyme Expression Systems (e.g., E. coli BL21(DE3))	High-yield production of purified β-lactamase variants	Essential for obtaining pure protein for detailed biochemical and structural studies [57] [40].
Defined β-Lactam Antibiotics	Substrates for enzymatic assays	Profiling the substrate spectrum of resistant enzymes (e.g., penicillins, cephalosporins, carbapenems) [57] [47].
Molecular Modeling Software	Computational analysis of protein-ligand interactions	Investigating how mutations (e.g., Thr235Ala) affect inhibitor binding at the atomic level [57].

Research Workflow and Resistance Pathways

The following diagram illustrates the interconnected pathways of resistance development and the corresponding research strategies for their investigation.

Optimizing Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) for Combination Therapies

FAQs: Addressing Core Research Challenges

FAQ 1: What is the primary PK/PD index for optimizing beta-lactam antibiotics, and why is it critical for combination therapies? The percentage of time that the free (unbound) drug concentration remains above the minimum inhibitory concentration (%fT > MIC) is the primary PK/PD index that best predicts the efficacy of beta-lactam antibiotics [60]. This time-dependent killing originates from the need to maintain sufficient antibiotic concentration to drive the acylation of penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs), which is essential for inhibiting bacterial cell wall synthesis [60]. In combination therapies, achieving the target %fT > MIC is crucial for ensuring the beta-lactam component can effectively synergize with a second agent, such as a beta-lactamase inhibitor.

FAQ 2: Which bacterial enzymes pose the greatest threat to beta-lactam therapy, and how can combination regimens counter them? Beta-lactamases are the principal enzymes responsible for inactivating beta-lactam antibiotics by hydrolyzing the beta-lactam ring [25] [48] [61]. The most clinically significant types are often classified via the Ambler scheme [48]:

• Class A (e.g., ESBLs, KPC): These are often plasmid-encoded and can hydrolyze penicillins, most cephalosporins, and, in the case of KPC, carbapenems. They can be inhibited by avibactam and relebactam [48].
• Class B (Metallo-beta-lactamases, MBLs): These use zinc ions to hydrolyze all beta-lactams except aztreonam. No clinically available inhibitors exist for MBLs [48].
• Class C (AmpC): These can be chromosomally inducible or plasmid-encoded and hydrolyze most cephalosporins and penicillins. They are inhibited by avibactam and vaborbactam [48].
• Class D (e.g., OXA-48): These primarily hydrolyze penicillins, but some variants can also hydrolyze carbapenems [48].

Combination therapies pair a beta-lactam antibiotic with a beta-lactamase inhibitor (e.g., clavulanate, avibactam) to protect the antibiotic from enzymatic destruction, thereby restoring its activity [48].

FAQ 3: What are the most common physiological changes in critically ill patients that disrupt beta-lactam PK/PD? Three major pathophysiological changes can lead to subtherapeutic beta-lactam concentrations [60]:

• Increased Volume of Distribution (Vd): Capillary leakage and fluid resuscitation in sepsis can increase the Vd, lowering antibiotic concentrations.
• Augmented Renal Clearance (ARC): Enhanced elimination in critically ill patients can rapidly clear renally excreted antibiotics, reducing fT > MIC.
• Hypoalbuminemia: Low albumin levels increase the free fraction of highly protein-bound antibiotics, which can lead to increased renal clearance and suboptimal dosing [60].

FAQ 4: What is the "inoculum effect" and how does it impact beta-lactam PK/PD? The inoculum effect describes the phenomenon where a significantly higher MIC for a beta-lactam antibiotic is observed in vitro when a high bacterial density is used (>10^7 CFU/mL versus the standard 10^5 CFU/mL) [60]. This high-inoculum infection, often seen in abscesses or endocarditis, can render standard dosing regimens ineffective because the achieved drug concentration may not exceed the elevated MIC for a sufficient time period. This necessitates strategies like loading doses followed by prolonged infusions [60].

Troubleshooting Guides

Issue 1: Failure to Achieve Pharmacodynamic Target Despite Susceptible MIC

Problem: Your in vitro data shows a susceptible MIC, but the in vivo model shows treatment failure.

Possible Cause	Investigation Steps	Proposed Solution
Subtherapeutic drug levels	1. Measure free drug concentrations in plasma over the dosing interval.2. Assess patient-specific factors: renal function, albumin, fluid status [60].	Implement a loading dose (e.g., meropenem 2g over 2 hours) followed by prolonged or continuous infusion of high doses [60].
High-Inoculum Effect	Determine the MIC at a high bacterial inoculum (e.g., 10^7-10^8 CFU/mL) and compare it to the standard MIC [60].	Switch to a beta-lactam less prone to the inoculum effect (e.g., a carbapenem) or significantly increase the dosing intensity [60].
Undetected Enzymatic Resistance	Perform specific phenotypic tests (e.g., combination disc test) or genotypic tests (e.g., PCR) for ESBLs, AmpC, or carbapenemases [48].	Modify the combination therapy to include a beta-lactamase inhibitor active against the detected enzyme (e.g., avibactam for KPC) [48].

Experimental Protocol: Simulating Critically Ill PK in an In Vitro Model

• Objective: To test the efficacy of different dosing regimens under PK conditions mimicking critically ill patients with increased Vd and ARC.
• Methodology: Use an in vitro pharmacokinetic model (e.g., a chemostat).
  • Inoculate the model with a standardized suspension of the target pathogen.
  • Program the system to simulate the antibiotic concentration-time profile of a specific beta-lactam under two scenarios:
    • Standard PK: fT > MIC of 50% for a standard Vd.
    • Critically Ill PK: fT > MIC of <20% for an increased Vd and enhanced clearance.
  • Administer regimens: a) intermittent bolus, b) prolonged infusion, c) loading dose + prolonged infusion.
  • Outcome Measures: Take frequent samples to determine bacterial density (CFU/mL) over 24-48 hours [60].

Issue 2: Emergence of Resistance During Combination Therapy

Problem: Resistance to one or both components of the combination therapy develops during treatment.

Possible Cause	Investigation Steps	Proposed Solution
Insufficient dosing of the beta-lactam partner	Review PK/PD data to ensure the %fT > 4-5x MIC was achieved for the entire interdose interval to suppress resistance [60].	Optimize the beta-lactam dosing to maximize time above a higher mutant prevention concentration (MPC) threshold.
Selection of pre-existing subpopulations	Perform population analysis profiling (PAP) to detect pre-existing resistant subpopulations before therapy initiation.	Use a more aggressive, high-dose combination regimen from the outset to eradicate these subpopulations.
Transfer of mobile genetic elements	Perform plasmid analysis and PCR to check for the acquisition of resistance genes (e.g., mecA, bla_CTX-M, bla_NDM) [62] [48].	Consider non-beta-lactam adjunctive therapies that disrupt horizontal gene transfer.

Research Reagent Solutions

The table below lists key reagents for studying PK/PD and resistance in beta-lactam research.

Reagent / Material	Function in Research
Recombinant Beta-lactamases (e.g., CTX-M-15, KPC-2, NDM-1)	Used in enzyme inhibition assays to evaluate the potency and spectrum of new beta-lactamase inhibitors [48].
Isoelectric Focusing Gels	To separate and identify different beta-lactamase enzymes based on their isoelectric point (pI), a key phenotypic characterization method [25].
In Vitro PK/PD Model Systems (e.g., chemostats, hollow-fiber models)	To simulate human pharmacokinetic profiles of antibiotics and study bacterial killing and resistance emergence over time under dynamic drug concentrations [60].
Penicillin-Binding Protein (PBP) Assay Kits	Using labeled penicillin (e.g., Bocillin FL) to visualize and measure the acylation (binding) of beta-lactams to their PBP targets in bacterial membranes [60] [62].
Mueller-Hinton Broth with varied albumin	To study the impact of protein binding on antibiotic efficacy by adjusting the free, active fraction of the drug in in vitro susceptibility tests [60].

Experimental Pathways & Workflows

Diagram 1: Beta-Lactam Resistance and Inhibition

Diagram 2: PK/PD Optimization Workflow

Beta-lactam antibiotics are a cornerstone of modern antimicrobial therapy, but their efficacy is increasingly compromised by bacterial resistance, primarily due to enzymatic inactivation by beta-lactamases. The timely and accurate identification of specific beta-lactamase variants is crucial for implementing effective antibiotic stewardship, guiding precision therapy, and controlling the spread of resistant organisms. This technical support resource provides researchers and scientists with practical troubleshooting guides and detailed methodologies to overcome common experimental challenges in the rapid detection of these enzymes.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) & Troubleshooting

1. What are the major types of beta-lactamases, and why is differentiating them important?

Beta-lactamases are broadly categorized into four major groups based on their hydrolysis spectrum: Broad-Spectrum β-Lactamases (BSBL), Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamases (ESBL), AmpC β-Lactamases, and Carbapenemases [63]. Accurate differentiation is critical for clinical decision-making. For instance, carbapenemases render bacteria resistant to last-resort carbapenem antibiotics, necessitating distinct treatment regimens and infection control measures compared to other variants [63].

2. My lateral flow immunoassay for CTX-M ESBLs is showing weak or ambiguous lines. What could be the cause?

Weak lines in lateral flow tests, such as the NG-TEST CTX-M Multi, can result from several factors:

• Insufficient bacterial material: Ensure an adequate number of colonies are sampled. The test requires pure bacterial colonies of Enterobacterales [64].
• Improper sample preparation: Follow the manufacturer's protocol precisely for suspending the colony and applying the sample to the buffer and cassette [64].
• Protein degradation: If extracting enzymes, ensure the process is rapid and conducted at appropriate temperatures to maintain protein integrity.
• Test cassette issues: Check the expiration date of the test kit and ensure it has been stored according to the manufacturer's specifications.

3. The color change in my chromogenic substrate assay is inconsistent or faint. How can I improve the signal?

The BSV sensor and similar assays rely on a pronounced color shift upon hydrolysis of the β-lactam ring in chromogenic substrates [63].

• Check probe specificity: Ensure you are using the correct chromogenic substrate (e.g., CCepS-N+(CH3)3−1, CCepS-N+(CH3)3−2, CCepS-N+(CH3)3−3, or CCS-N+(CH3)3) for the specific beta-lactamase subtype you are detecting [63].
• Optimize incubation time: Positive results can appear within 15-30 minutes, and prolonged incubation may sometimes cause the signal to fade [65]. Establish a standardized reading time.
• Confirm bacterial concentration: The lowest detectable concentration for some visual sensors is around 10^4 CFU/mL [63]. Verify that your bacterial suspension meets or exceeds this threshold.

4. How can I validate a machine learning model for predicting ESBL production from routine susceptibility data?

High-performance ML models, such as XGBoost, can predict ESBL production directly from Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) data [66].

• Data quality: Use a large, high-quality dataset with confirmed phenotypic ESBL results. The model in the cited study was trained on over 178,000 isolates [66].
• Feature importance: Identify the most predictive MICs using SHAP-value analysis. For E. coli and K. pneumoniae, cefotaxime, cefoxitin, and trimethoprim were key features, while for P. mirabilis, they were cefuroxime, imipenem, and cefotaxime [66].
• External validation: Always perform validation on an independent dataset from a different institution or time period to ensure generalizability. The cited model achieved AUROCs of 0.93-0.93 on external validation [66].

Experimental Protocols for Key Detection Methods

Protocol 1: Visual Identification of β-Lactamase Subtypes Using a Paper Sensor

This protocol is adapted from the BSV (β-lactamase subtype visualization) sensor, which allows for rapid, visual discrimination of BSBL, ESBL, AmpC, and Carbapenemase activity [63].

Principle: The sensor uses chromogenic cephalosporin and carbapenem substrates conjugated with -N+(CH3)3. Hydrolysis of the β-lactam ring by a specific beta-lactamase subtype causes a resonance change, elongating the conjugated system and producing a visible color change from yellow to red [63].

Materials:

• BSV sensor device with six chambers [63]
• Chromogenic substrates: CCepS-N+(CH3)3−1, CCepS-N+(CH3)3−2, CCepS-N+(CH3)3−3, and CCS-N+(CH3)3 [63]
• Bacterial isolate (pure colony or from positive blood culture)
• Sterile inoculating loops or pipettes

Method:

• Sensor Preparation: The paper sheets in chambers 3-6 are pre-loaded with the specific chromogenic probes. Chamber 1 is a negative control (lemon-yellow), and chamber 2 is a protein-based positive control [63].
• Sample Application: Apply 20 μL of the prepared bacterial sample to the central sampling hole. The liquid will diffuse into all chambers via capillary action [63].
• Incubation and Reading: Incubate the sensor at room temperature. Visually inspect the color changes in chambers 3-6 after 15 minutes and up to 3 hours, depending on the sample type.
  • A color change from yellow to red in a specific chamber indicates a positive result for the corresponding beta-lactamase subtype [63].
  • Refer to the logic in the diagram below for subtype identification.

Troubleshooting: If the positive control (chamber 2) does not change color, the sample application or sensor itself may be faulty. If all chambers remain yellow, the sample may not contain detectable levels of beta-lactamases.

Protocol 2: Phenotypic Confirmatory Test for AmpC β-Lactamase

This disk test is a reliable method for detecting plasmid-mediated AmpC production in isolates that lack a chromosomal AmpC gene (e.g., Klebsiella pneumoniae, E. coli, Proteus mirabilis) [67].

Principle: The test uses boronic acid, an inhibitor of AmpC enzymes. A significant increase in the zone diameter of inhibition around a cefoxitin disk when combined with phenylboronic acid indicates enzymatic inactivation by AmpC, which is now inhibited [67].

Materials:

• Mueller-Hinton Agar (MHA) plates
• Cefoxitin disk (30 μg)
• Phenylboronic acid solution (15 μg/μl)
• Test bacterial isolate
• E. coli ATCC 25922 as control

Method:

• Inoculation: Prepare a 0.5 McFarland bacterial suspension of the test isolate. Swab the entire surface of an MHA plate uniformly as per standard disk diffusion method [67].
• Disk Application: Place a cefoxitin disk on the inoculated agar. Using a sterile tip, apply 20 μL of phenylboronic acid solution directly onto the disk and allow it to absorb [67].
• Incubation: Invert the plate and incubate at 35°C for 16-18 hours in ambient air [67].
• Interpretation: After incubation, measure the zone diameters of inhibition.
  • Positive for AmpC production: An increase of ≥5 mm in the zone diameter around the cefoxitin disk with boronic acid compared to the cefoxitin disk alone [67].
  • Negative: No significant change in the zone diameter.

Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details key reagents and their applications in beta-lactamase detection research.

Reagent Name	Function / Target	Application in Research
Chromogenic Cephalosporin Substrates (CCepS-N+(CH3)3) [63]	Detection of β-lactamase activity via hydrolysis-induced color change.	Used in BSV sensors to visually identify and differentiate BSBL, ESBL, and AmpC activity based on tailored substrate specificity [63].
Chromogenic Carbapenem Substrate (CCS-N+(CH3)3) [63]	Specific detection of carbapenemase activity.	Key component in BSV sensors for identifying carbapenemase-producing bacteria, crucial for detecting the most resistant pathogens [63].
Phenylboronic Acid [67]	Inhibitor of AmpC β-lactamases.	Used in phenotypic confirmatory tests (e.g., disk approximation tests) to detect plasmid-mediated AmpC production in Gram-negative bacteria [67].
CTX-M Multi Lateral Flow Immunoassay [64]	Rapid immunodetection of CTX-M enzyme groups (1, 2, 8, 9, 25).	Provides rapid (15-minute) detection of the most prevalent ESBL family directly from bacterial colonies or positive blood cultures, informing therapy quickly [64].
Tris-EDTA (TE) Buffer [67]	Cell lysis and enzyme extraction.	Used in the preparation of crude enzyme extracts for methods like the three-dimensional extract test for AmpC detection [67].

Performance Data of Detection Methods

The table below summarizes the performance characteristics of various rapid detection methods as reported in the literature.

Detection Method	Target(s)	Time to Result	Key Performance Metrics
Machine Learning (XGBoost) on AST data [66]	Phenotypic ESBL production	Instant (after AST result)	AUROC: 0.97; Sensitivity: 0.89; Accuracy: 0.93 [66]
BSV Paper Sensor [63]	BSBL, ESBL, AmpC, Carbapenemase	0.25 - 3 hours	Clinical Sensitivity & Specificity: 100%; LOD: ~10^4 CFU/mL [63]
NG-TEST CTX-M Multi [64]	CTX-M ESBL Groups	< 15 minutes	Professional use immunoassay for detection from bacterial colonies or positive blood cultures [64].
Rapid ESBL Screen Kit [65]	ESBL (hydrolysis-based)	15 minutes - 1 hour	Colorimetric test for ESBL presence in culture, blood culture, and urine samples [65].

Workflow and Signaling Pathway Diagrams

Beta-Lactamase Detection Sensor Workflow

Chromogenic Substrate Hydrolysis Mechanism

High-Throughput Screening and Computational Design of Next-Generation Inhibitors

Technical Support & Troubleshooting Hub

This section addresses common challenges encountered in research aimed at overcoming enzymatic inactivation of beta-lactam antibiotics.

FAQ 1: Our High-Throughput Screening (HTS) campaign against a beta-lactamase target generated an unworkably high number of hits. How can we distinguish true inhibitors from assay artifacts?

A high initial hit rate in HTS is a common challenge, often caused by compound-mediated assay interference [68]. To triage these primary hits and identify high-quality candidates, implement a multi-stage validation cascade [68].

• Step 1: Dose-Response Confirmation. Retest all primary hits in a dose-response format. Discard compounds that do not reproduce activity or generate bell-shaped or shallow curves, which can indicate toxicity, poor solubility, or aggregation [68].
• Step 2: Employ Counter Assays. Design counter screens to identify technology-specific interference [68]. For instance:
  • If your primary screen used a fluorescence-based readout, re-test hits using a luminescence- or absorbance-based assay for the same target [68].
  • To rule out nonspecific protein reactivity or aggregation, add detergents like BSA to the assay buffer or run target-independent counter assays [68].
• Step 3: Conduct Orthogonal Assays. Confirm bioactivity using an entirely different readout technology that still probes the same biological function [68]. For beta-lactamase inhibitors, an orthogonal biochemical assay could measure the residual activity of the enzyme against a native beta-lactam antibiotic substrate (e.g., nitrocefin hydrolysis).
• Step 4: Assess Cellular Fitness. Evaluate hits for general cellular toxicity using assays like CellTiter-Glo (viability) or Caspase-Glo (apoptosis) to ensure antibacterial activity is not solely due to cytotoxicity [68].

FAQ 2: Our computational predictions for potential beta-lactamase inhibitors do not match the experimental results. What could be causing this mismatch and how can we improve correlation?

A mismatch between in silico predictions and experimental validation is a recognized hurdle in Computer-Aided Drug Design (CADD) [69]. This can stem from several factors:

• Inadequate Protein Structure Preparation: The quality of the target protein structure is critical. If using a crystal structure, ensure the active site is properly protonated. Consider using advanced prediction models like AlphaFold or RaptorX to generate high-quality structural models if an experimental structure is unavailable or of low resolution [69].
• Oversimplified Scoring Functions: Molecular docking scores are approximations. They may not accurately capture key interactions or desolvation penalties. To improve confidence:
  • Use more rigorous post-docking scoring methods like MM-GBSA (Molecular Mechanics with Generalized Born and Surface Area solvation) to refine binding affinity predictions, as demonstrated in virtual screens for Class D beta-lactamase inhibitors [70].
  • Employ molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to assess the stability of the predicted protein-ligand complex over time and calculate more accurate binding free energies [69].
• Ignoring Compound Liability: Predicted compounds might have poor chemical stability, solubility, or contain functional groups that cause promiscuous activity (e.g., pan-assay interference compounds or PAINS) [68]. Always filter compound libraries using tools like SwissADME, pkCSM, or ADMETlab to flag molecules with undesirable pharmacokinetic or toxicity profiles early in the process [70].

FAQ 3: Our HTS data shows high variability between experimental replicates, making it difficult to reliably identify hits. How can we improve reproducibility?

Variability in HTS is often a consequence of manual, low-volume liquid handling steps, which are prone to human error and user-to-user differences [71].

• Automate Critical Steps: Integrate automation, particularly for liquid handling, to standardize workflows. Non-contact dispensers can significantly improve precision and accuracy, especially at low volumes [71].
• Implement Process Controls: Use automated systems with built-in verification features. For example, some liquid handlers have technology that verifies the correct volume was dispensed into each well, allowing for immediate error detection and documentation [71].
• Miniaturize Assays: Automated platforms enable assay miniaturization (e.g., to 1536-well plates), which reduces reagent consumption and costs while enhancing consistency by minimizing the volumes pipetted [71].

FAQ 4: What are the key resistance mechanisms we should consider when designing new beta-lactamase inhibitors?

Bacterial resistance to beta-lactams is primarily driven by beta-lactamase enzymes, which are classified by the Ambler system into four classes (A-D) based on molecular structure [47] [48]. The table below summarizes the key characteristics of each class, which should inform inhibitor design.

Table 1: Ambler Classification of Serine Beta-Lactamases (SBLs) and Key Resistance Considerations

Ambler Class	Key Enzymes / Types	Primary Hydrolysis Profile	Inhibited by Available BLIs?
Class A	ESBLs (e.g., TEM, SHV, CTX-M), KPC	Penicillins, most cephalosporins, monobactams (ESBLs); plus carbapenems (KPC) [48]	Yes (e.g., Avibactam, Relebactam, Vaborbactam) [48]
Class B (MBLs)	NDM, VIM, IMP	All beta-lactams except aztreonam (use zinc ion for catalysis) [48]	No (no clinically available inhibitors) [48]
Class C	AmpC	Penicillins, most cephalosporins (but not cefepime), cephamycins, monobactams [48]	Yes (e.g., Avibactam, Relebactam, Vaborbactam) [48]
Class D	OXA-type (e.g., OXA-48)	Penicillins; certain variants (OXA-48) hydrolyze carbapenems [48]	Some are inhibited (e.g., by Avibactam) [48]

Experimental Protocols & Methodologies

This section provides detailed workflows for key experiments cited in the troubleshooting guides and broader research context.

Protocol 1: Multi-Stage Virtual Screening for Beta-Lactamase Inhibitors

This protocol is adapted from a study that identified new inhibitors for Ambler Class D beta-lactamases [70].

• Library Preparation:
  • Source a large compound library (e.g., ZINC, Enamine). Apply structural and physicochemical filters (e.g., Lipinski's Rule of Five, removal of PAINS) to create a "drug-like" subset.
• High-Throughput Virtual Screening (HTVS):
  • Software: Use molecular docking software (e.g., Glide, AutoDock Vina).
  • Target: Prepare the protein structure of the target beta-lactamase (e.g., PDB ID 7VVI).
  • Process: Dock the entire filtered library against the enzyme's active site using a fast, standard-precision (SP) mode. Retain the top 1-10% of compounds based on docking score.
• Standard Precision (SP) and Extra Precision (XP) Docking:
  • Re-dock the hits from HTVS using more computationally intensive SP and XP docking modes to improve pose prediction and scoring accuracy.
• Binding Affinity Refinement with MM-GBSA:
  • Subject the top-scoring complexes from XP docking to Molecular Mechanics with Generalized Born and Surface Area solvation (MM-GBSA) calculations to obtain a more reliable estimate of binding free energy.
• ADMET Profiling:
  • Analyze the final shortlisted compounds using online tools like SwissADME and pkCSM to predict absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) properties, prioritizing compounds with favorable pharmacokinetic profiles [70].

Protocol 2: Orthogonal Assay for Beta-Lactamase Inhibition

This protocol provides a method to confirm hits from a primary screen.

• Primary Screening Assay (Fluorescence-Based):
  • Principle: Use a fluorescent beta-lactam substrate (e.g., CCF2-AM/FRET or a nitrocefin derivative).
  • Procedure: Incubate the beta-lactamase enzyme with test compounds and the fluorescent substrate. Monitor the increase in fluorescence upon substrate hydrolysis. Inhibitors will show reduced fluorescence generation.
• Orthogonal Validation Assay (Luminescence-Based or Direct Biochemical):
  • Option A (Luminescence): Use a coupled enzyme assay where beta-lactamase activity generates a product that is detected by a luciferase reaction, producing luminescence.
  • Option B (Direct Biochemical): Measure the residual enzymatic activity against a native beta-lactam antibiotic. Use HPLC or a spectrophotometric method to quantify the amount of antibiotic remaining after incubation with the enzyme and inhibitor [68].

Workflow Visualization

The following diagrams illustrate the logical workflows for the key experimental and computational processes described.

HTS Hit Triage Workflow

Computational Screening Pipeline

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Tools for Beta-Lactamase Inhibitor Development

Reagent / Tool	Function / Application	Example Use Case
I.DOT Liquid Handler	Non-contact, low-volume liquid dispensing for HTS [71]	Automates compound and reagent addition in 1536-well beta-lactamase inhibition assays, improving precision and reproducibility.
Nitrocefin	Chromogenic cephalosporin substrate [47]	Direct spectrophotometric measurement of beta-lactamase activity; turns yellow to red upon hydrolysis.
CCF2-AM / FRET Substrates	Fluorescent beta-lactamase substrates [68]	Used in cell-based or biochemical HTS assays for beta-lactamase activity with a fluorescent readout.
CellTiter-Glo Assay	Luminescent assay to quantify ATP, indicating viable cells [68]	Counterscreen to rule out general cytotoxicity in cell-based inhibitor screens.
AlphaFold / RaptorX	Protein structure prediction servers [69]	Generates high-quality 3D models of beta-lactamase targets when experimental structures are unavailable.
SwissADME / pkCSM	Web tools for predicting pharmacokinetic properties [70]	In silico ADMET profiling of virtual screening hits to prioritize compounds with drug-like properties.
Glide (Schrödinger)	Molecular docking software for virtual screening [70]	Used for HTVS, SP, and XP docking stages to predict binding poses and scores of compounds against a beta-lactamase.
Avibactam	Non-beta-lactam beta-lactamase inhibitor (Classes A, C, some D) [48]	Used as a positive control in enzymatic assays and in combination studies to understand inhibitor spectrum.

Clinical Translation and Comparative Efficacy of New Therapeutic Entities

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What does a synergistic effect in a checkerboard assay mean for my treatment strategy? A synergistic effect, indicated by a Fractional Inhibitory Concentration (FIC) index of ≤0.5, means two antibiotics combined are significantly more effective than either alone. This can translate to lower required doses of each drug, potentially reducing toxicity and overcoming specific resistance mechanisms. For example, the combination of tebipenem and amoxicillin against M. avium showed strong synergy (FIC index 0.38), drastically reducing the MIC of both drugs [72].

Why might my β-lactam combination be ineffective against my clinical isolate? The efficacy of β-lactam combinations can be highly species-specific. Research shows that while many dual β-lactam combinations are effective against Mycobacterium avium, they often show little to no synergistic effect against the closely related Mycobacterium intracellulare [72]. It is crucial to accurately identify the causative pathogen to the species level to select a potentially effective combination.

My combination therapy results are inconsistent. What is a common pitfall? A common issue is the degradation of β-lactam antibiotics by β-lactamase enzymes produced by the bacteria, even when one drug in the combination is stable. The use of a β-lactamase inhibitor, such as avibactam, in the regimen can protect the active antibiotics from enzymatic inactivation and restore susceptibility, especially in metallo-beta-lactamase-producing organisms [73] [74].

Troubleshooting Guide

Problem	Possible Cause	Solution / Verification Step
No synergy observed in checkerboard assay	Incorrect pathogen identification; species is not susceptible to the combination strategy.	Confirm species-level identification of the clinical isolate. The combination of faropenem and cefuroxime is effective against M. avium but not M. intracellulare [72].
	Degradation of antibiotics by bacterial β-lactamases.	Incorporate a β-lactamase inhibitor like avibactam (fixed at 4 µg/mL) into your testing protocol to see if it restores activity [73].
Unexpectedly high Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC)	Underlying resistance mechanism not targeted by the chosen combination.	Test for specific resistance genes (e.g., metallo-β-lactamases). Consider the combination of ceftazidime-avibactam and aztreonam for MBL-producing organisms [73].
	Suboptimal ratio of the two antibiotics.	Perform a checkerboard assay across a wide range of concentrations for both drugs to find the ratio that yields the lowest FIC index [72].
Inconsistent results between technical replicates	Inaccurate preparation of antibiotic stock solutions or dilutions.	Verify stock concentrations and use precise, calibrated pipettes for serial dilutions. Prepare fresh stocks if degradation is suspected.
	Inoculum size is not standardized.	Ensure the bacterial inoculum is standardized to a specific density (e.g., 0.5 McFarland standard) for every experiment to ensure consistency [72].

---

MIC Data for Novel β-Lactam Combinations

Table 1: Synergistic Oral β-Lactam Combinations against Mycobacterium avium Data from broth microdilution checkerboard assays demonstrate the potency of specific oral β-lactam pairs [72].

β-Lactam A	MIC of A Alone (µg/mL)	MIC of A in Combination (µg/mL)	β-Lactam B	MIC of B Alone (µg/mL)	MIC of B in Combination (µg/mL)	FIC Index
Cefuroxime	8	2	Amoxicillin	4	1	0.5
Cefuroxime	8	2	Cephalexin	8	2	0.5
Cefuroxime	8	2	Faropenem	16	4	0.5
Tebipenem	8	2	Amoxicillin	4	0.5	0.38
Tebipenem	8	2	Cephalexin	8	2	0.5

Table 2: Efficacy of Ceftazidime-Avibactam with Aztreonam against MBL-Producing Gram-negative Pathogens This triple combination strategy overcomes resistance by inhibiting serine β-lactamases with avibactam while using aztreonam to target PBPs [73].

Antibiotic / Combination	MIC Range (µg/mL)	Key Outcome
Ceftazidime-Avibactam (CZA) alone	8/4 to ≥256/4	100% resistance in MBL-producing isolates
Aztreonam (ATM) alone	16 to 256	100% resistance in MBL-producing isolates
CZA + ATM in combination	0.016/4 to 2/4	>16-fold reduction in MIC; FIC < 0.5 in all isolates

---

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Broth Microdilution Checkerboard Assay for Synergy Testing

This method is used to determine the FIC index of a two-drug combination.

• Preparation of Stocks and Plates: Prepare stock solutions of both antibiotics (A and B) at high concentration (e.g., 1024 µg/mL) in the appropriate solvent. Create a 96-well microtiter plate with a two-dimensional dilution series. Often, antibiotic A is diluted along the rows (e.g., 2-fold serial dilutions left to right), and antibiotic B is diluted down the columns.
• Inoculation: Standardize the bacterial suspension to approximately 5 x 10^5 CFU/mL in Mueller-Hinton broth (or other suitable medium). Add a fixed volume of this inoculum to each well of the plate, including growth control and sterility control wells.
• Incubation: Incubate the plate under optimal conditions for the test organism (e.g., 35°C for 16-20 hours for most bacteria).
• Reading and Calculation: After incubation, determine the MIC of drug A alone, drug B alone, and the MIC of each drug in combination. The FIC index is calculated as: FIC Index = (MIC of A in combination / MIC of A alone) + (MIC of B in combination / MIC of B alone) Interpret the results as follows:
  • Synergy: FIC Index ≤ 0.5
  • Additivity: 0.5 < FIC Index ≤ 1.0
  • Indifference: 1.0 < FIC Index ≤ 4.0
  • Antagonism: FIC Index > 4.0 [72]

Protocol 2: Disk Diffusion Method for Screening Combination Efficacy

This is a simpler, qualitative method for initial screening of synergistic pairs.

• Preparation and Inoculation: Prepare a bacterial lawn on a Mueller-Hinton agar plate using a standardized inoculum, as per standard Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion.
• Disk Placement: Place a disk containing antibiotic A (e.g., ceftazidime-avibactam) onto the agar. Next to it, place a disk containing antibiotic B (e.g., aztreonam). The distance between the two disks should be optimized (typically 15-25 mm edge-to-edge).
• Incubation and Interpretation: Incubate the plate as required. A positive synergistic interaction is indicated by a clear, distorted or keyhole-shaped zone of inhibition between the two disks, where the combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual zones [73].

---

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents for β-Lactam Combination Susceptibility Testing

Reagent / Material	Function in the Experiment
Tebipenem	An oral carbapenem antibiotic. In combination with amoxicillin, it shows one of the strongest synergistic effects and lowest MICs against M. avium [72].
Ceftazidime-Avibactam	A cephalosporin/β-lactamase inhibitor combination. Avibactam inhibits class A, C, and some D β-lactamases, protecting ceftazidime and allowing it to be used in synergy with other β-lactams like aztreonam [73].
Aztreonam	A monobactam antibiotic stable to many metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs). It is used in combination with ceftazidime-avibactam to treat infections caused by MBL-producing organisms [73].
Cefuroxime	A second-generation cephalosporin. When combined with faropenem, it demonstrates a high synergistic effect against M. avium clinical isolates [72].
Avibactam	A non-β-lactam β-lactamase inhibitor. It is often used at a fixed concentration (e.g., 4 µg/mL) in synergy tests to protect the partner β-lactam antibiotic from enzymatic degradation [73].

---

Experimental Workflow for Synergy Testing

The diagram below outlines the logical workflow for conducting and interpreting a synergy study for novel β-lactam combinations.

This technical support center provides troubleshooting guides and FAQs for researchers developing and utilizing animal models to test therapeutic strategies against carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) and Acinetobacter baumannii. The content is framed within the broader thesis of overcoming enzymatic inactivation of beta-lactam antibiotics, focusing on practical experimental issues and solutions for scientists and drug development professionals.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) & Troubleshooting

FAQ 1: What are the key considerations for selecting an animal model to study carbapenem-resistant pathogens?

Answer: Model selection should be guided by the principle of validity, which is independent of the specific pathogen under investigation. Your choice should be based on how well the model meets these three established criteria [75]:

• Predictive Validity: The model's ability to accurately predict therapeutic outcomes in humans. This is often considered the most critical criterion in preclinical drug discovery.
• Face Validity: How closely the model's disease phenotype (symptoms, progression) resembles the human condition.
• Construct Validity: The degree to which the mechanism used to induce the disease in the animal reflects the currently understood biology of the human disease.

No single animal model perfectly fulfills all three criteria. A multifactorial approach using complementary models is often necessary to improve translational accuracy [75].

FAQ 2: My acute infection model for A. baumannii leads to rapid clearance, preventing long-term therapeutic studies. How can I model a more chronic, clinically relevant infection?

Answer: The standard acute pneumonia model using high inoculums in immunocompetent mice often results in clearance within 24-72 hours. To overcome this limitation, a chronic model has been developed [76].

• Protocol Solution: Use tlr4 mutant mice (e.g., C3H/HeJ) and a low bacterial inoculum (e.g., 10^5 CFU) administered intranasally.
• Key Outcomes: This model allows for stable infection lasting at least 3 weeks, enabling the study of long-term bacterial persistence, the evaluation of antibiotic efficacy over extended periods, and the identification of virulence factors critical for later stages of infection that are dispensable in acute models [76].

FAQ 3: What are the predominant carbapenem-resistant organisms and resistance genes I should account for in my experimental design?

Answer: A recent global meta-analysis (2024) of CRE in clinical, livestock, and environmental settings provides key prevalence data to inform your models [77]. The table below summarizes the predominant organisms and their associated resistance genes.

Table 1: Predominant CRE and Resistance Genes (Global Meta-Analysis)

Category	Finding	Details / Predominant Types
Overall CRE Prevalence	43.06% (95% CI 21.57–66.03) [77]	Pooled prevalence from a 2024 systematic review.
Predominant Organisms	Klebsiella pneumoniae [77]	49.40% of isolates.
	Escherichia coli [77]	26.42% of isolates.
	Enterobacter cloacae [77]	14.24% of isolates.
Common Resistance Genes	Class A: blaKPC-2 [77]	Most common gene, particularly in environmental and South American studies.
	Class B (MBL): blaNDM, blaVIM, blaIMP [77] [78]	NDM is increasingly reported in companion animals [78].
	Class D: blaOXA-48 [77]	Common in K. pneumoniae and Enterobacterales.

FAQ 4: How can I model the risk of resistance development during therapy, particularly from the One Health perspective?

Answer: Animal models can simulate scenarios where antibiotic use selects for resistant pathogens. A study in a veterinary hospital demonstrated that treatment with piperacillin-tazobactam (PTZ) was a significant risk factor for the acquisition of NDM-producing CRE in hospitalized dogs and cats, indicating potential cross-selection [78]. This highlights that models should consider:

• Prior Antibiotic Exposure: Incorporating pre-treatment with other antibiotic classes (like PTZ) can model real-world conditions that predispose to CRE emergence.
• One Health Interface: Companion animals can act as reservoirs for CRE (e.g., NDM), and models can help understand transmission dynamics at the human-animal interface [78] [79].

Experimental Protocols & Workflows

Detailed Protocol: Chronic A. baumannii Pneumonia Model

This protocol is adapted from a 2025 Nature Communications paper that establishes a model for long-term infection [76].

Objective: To establish a chronic A. baumannii lung infection in mice for studying long-term pathogenesis, antibiotic efficacy, and polymicrobial interactions.

Materials:

• Animals: tlr4 mutant mice (C3H/HeJ strain).
• Bacteria: Modern, clinically relevant A. baumannii respiratory isolates (e.g., G636, G654).
• Equipment: Intranasal inoculation setup, equipment for euthanasia and organ harvesting, homogenizer, incubator.

Methodology:

• Bacterial Preparation: Grow A. baumannii to mid-log phase. Wash and resuspend in PBS or similar buffer.
• Inoculation: Anesthetize mice. Administer a low inoculum of 10^5 CFU in a volume of 20-30 µL intranasally.
• Monitoring: Monitor mice for signs of distress and monitor bacterial load over time.
• Assessment: At designated time points (e.g., days 1, 7, 14, 21), euthanize mice. Harvest lungs and homogenize organs. Plate serial dilutions for CFU enumeration to determine bacterial burden.

Troubleshooting:

• Rapid Clearance: Ensure the use of the correct mouse strain (C3H/HeJ) and verify the bacterial inoculum is not too high. Inoculums above 10^5 CFU lead to quicker clearance [76].
• No Infection: Verify bacterial viability pre-inoculation and use a low-passage, modern clinical isolate.

The following workflow diagram illustrates the key stages of this chronic pneumonia model.

Workflow: Testing β-Lactam & β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combinations

This workflow is based on the strategy of overcoming enzymatic resistance by combining a β-lactam antibiotic with a β-lactamase inhibitor [6].

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of a β-lactam antibiotic in combination with a β-lactamase inhibitor against CRE or A. baumannii in an animal model.

Key Stages:

• In Vitro Susceptibility Testing: Determine the MIC of the β-lactam antibiotic alone and in combination with the inhibitor against the target strain.
• Model Infection Establishment: Infect animals using an appropriate model (e.g., acute septicemia, chronic pneumonia).
• Therapeutic Dosing: Administer the β-lactam alone, the inhibitor alone, and the combination at pre-defined doses and schedules.
• Outcome Assessment: Compare bacterial load reduction, survival rates, and histopathology between treatment groups.

The logical relationship and workflow for this strategy are shown below.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for CRE and A. baumannii Animal Studies

Reagent / Material	Function / Explanation in Research	Example Context from Literature
tlr4 mutant mice (C3H/HeJ)	Permissive hosts for establishing chronic infection with lower, more clinically relevant bacterial inocula due to impaired immune recognition of LPS [76].	Essential for the chronic A. baumannii pneumonia model [76].
Modern Clinical Isolates	Bacterial strains recently isolated from human infections ensure the model's clinical relevance and construct validity.	Used in the chronic pneumonia model (e.g., isolates G636, G654) [76].
β-Lactamase Inhibitors (e.g., Avibactam, MK-7655)	Non-β-lactam molecules that covalently bind and inhibit serine β-lactamases (e.g., KPC, ESBLs), restoring the activity of partner β-lactam antibiotics [6].	Key components in combination therapy strategies to overcome resistance [6].
Selective Media (e.g., CHROMAGAR KPC)	Culture media containing antibiotics or chromogenic substrates to selectively isolate and identify carbapenem-resistant organisms from complex samples like tissue homogenates or swabs [78].	Used for surveillance screening in veterinary hospital studies to detect CRE carriage [78].
PCR Reagents for Resistance Genes	Primers and kits for detecting carbapenemase-encoding genes (e.g., blaKPC, blaNDM, blaOXA-48, blaVIM, blaIMP ) to molecularly characterize resistant isolates from animal models [77] [78].	Critical for genotyping isolates recovered from animal models to confirm the resistance mechanism being studied [77].

This technical support center is designed for researchers and drug development professionals working to overcome enzymatic inactivation of beta-lactam antibiotics. The emergence and global spread of bacterial beta-lactamases, enzymes that hydrolyze the critical beta-lactam ring, represent the most significant threat to this antibiotic class, which comprises over 65% of the injectable antibiotic market [39] [1]. This guide synthesizes the Phase 3 clinical trial outcomes for three recently approved beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations, providing a structured framework for troubleshooting common research challenges and informing future experimental design in antibacterial development.

FAQs: Key Questions on Recent Beta-Lactam Agent Development

FAQ 1: What are the most critical resistance mechanisms driving the development of new beta-lactam agents?

The primary driver is the bacterial production of beta-lactamases, which hydrolyze the beta-lactam ring, rendering the antibiotic inactive [39] [48]. Among these, the most challenging enzymes are:

• Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamases (ESBLs): Plasmid-encoded enzymes (e.g., TEM, SHV, CTX-M) that hydrolyze penicillins and most cephalosporins [48] [44].
• Carbapenemases: Enzymes that hydrolyze carbapenems, last-resort antibiotics. Key types include:
  • Klebsiella pneumoniae Carbapenemases (KPCs): Class A serine enzymes [48].
  • Metallo-Beta-Lactamases (MBLs): Class B zinc-dependent enzymes (e.g., NDM, VIM, IMP) that hydrolyze all beta-lactams except monobactams and are not inhibited by current commercial inhibitors [28] [48] [44].
  • OXA-type Carbapenemases: Class D serine enzymes (e.g., OXA-48) [48].
• AmpC Beta-Lactamases: Class C cephalosporinases, often chromosomally encoded and inducible, which confer resistance to most penicillins and cephalosporins [48] [44].

FAQ 2: Which new agents have demonstrated success in recent Phase 3 trials against these resistant pathogens?

Three key beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations have been approved based on positive Phase 3 trial results in the last two years, as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Recently Approved Beta-Lactam/Beta-Lactamase Inhibitor Combinations (2023-2025)

Generic Name	Brand Name	Antibiotic Class	Antimicrobial Spectrum	Approved Indications (Based on Phase 3 Trials)
Cefepime/Enmetazobactam [44]	EXBLIFEP	Fourth-generation cephalosporin / Penicillin acid sulfone inhibitor	ESBL-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacterales	Complicated Urinary Tract Infections (cUTI), including pyelonephritis (FDA, EMA); Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia (HAP), Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP) (EMA)
Aztreonam/Avibactam [44]	EMBLAVEO	Monobactam / Broad-spectrum beta-lactamase inhibitor	Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (including producers of ESBLs, serine carbapenemases, and MBLs)	Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infections (cIAI), cUTI, HAP, VAP in adults with limited therapeutic options (EMA)
Sulbactam/Durlobactam [44]	XACDURO	Beta-lactamase inhibitor / Beta-lactamase inhibitor	Acinetobacter baumannii–calcoaceticus complex (including carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii - CRAB)	Hospital-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia (HABP) and Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia (VABP) in adults (FDA)

FAQ 3: What are the recommended dosing regimens for these new agents in patients with impaired renal function?

Dosage adjustment for renal impairment is critical for these agents, as highlighted in Table 2. The regimens below are based on the approved prescribing information derived from clinical trial pharmacokinetics [44].

Table 2: Dosing Regimens Based on Renal Function for New Beta-Lactam Agents

Renal Function (eGFR or CrCl, mL/min)	Cefepime/Enmetazobactam (2g/0.5g) [44]	Aztreonam/Avibactam [44]	Sulbactam/Durlobactam (1g/1g) [44]
>90 (Normal)	Every 8 hours	Loading dose: 2g/0.67g, then Maintenance: 1.5g/0.5g every 6 hours	Every 6 hours
60-90 (Mild Impairment)	Every 8 hours	Loading dose: 2g/0.67g, then Maintenance: 1.5g/0.5g every 6 hours	Every 6 hours
30-60 (Moderate Impairment)	1g/0.25g every 8 hours	Loading dose: 2g/0.67g, then Maintenance: 0.75g/0.25g every 6 hours	Every 8 hours
15-30 (Severe Impairment)	1g/0.25g every 12 hours	Loading dose: 1.35g/0.45g, then Maintenance: 0.675g/0.225g every 8 hours	Every 12 hours
<15 (ESRD)	1g/0.25g every 24 hours	Loading dose: 1g/0.33g, then Maintenance: 0.675g/0.225g every 12 hours	Every 24 hours

Troubleshooting Guides for Common Research Challenges

Challenge 1: Inconsistent In Vitro Potency Results Against Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales (CRE)

Problem: When evaluating novel inhibitor candidates against CRE isolates, potency varies widely, particularly with strains producing multiple beta-lactamases.

• Root Cause: Co-expression of multiple beta-lactamase classes (e.g., an MBL like NDM with an ESBL or OXA enzyme) in a single bacterial isolate [48] [44]. Most inhibitors are effective against only specific classes.
• Solution:
  • Genotype Resistant Islands: First, perform whole-genome sequencing or PCR for major resistance genes (blaNDM, blaKPC, blaOXA-48, blaCTX-M, etc.) to characterize the full resistance profile of the test strain [40].
  • Utilize Aztreonam as a Core Component: Consider a strategy similar to aztreonam/avibactam. Aztreonam is stable against MBLs, while avibactam inhibits the accompanying ESBLs, AmpC, and OXA-48 enzymes [44]. This synergistic pairing can be a model for novel combinations.
  • Employ Enzyme Cocktails in Assays: As demonstrated in environmental degradation studies, using a cocktail of purified beta-lactamases (e.g., combining a class A and class B enzyme) during initial compound screening can better predict efficacy against complex clinical resistance profiles [40].

Challenge 2: Failure to Demonstrate Statistical Non-Inferiority in Animal Model Studies of HABP/VABP

Problem: A novel beta-lactamase inhibitor combination fails to show non-inferiority compared to the standard of care in animal models of hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia.

• Root Cause: Inadequate drug exposure at the infection site (lung epithelial lining fluid) due to suboptimal pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) properties.
• Solution:
  • Conduct Robust PK/PD Studies: Determine the fT>MIC (time free drug concentration remains above the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration) for the beta-lactam component in both plasma and lung tissue [32]. This parameter is critical for efficacy.
  • Optimize Dosing Regimen: Move from bolus dosing to prolonged or continuous infusion to maximize fT>MIC, a strategy shown to improve outcomes for beta-lactams like sulbactam [32].
  • Validate the Model and Endpoint: Ensure the animal model accurately reflects human disease and that the primary endpoint (e.g., bacterial load reduction in lungs) is measured at the optimal timepoint post-treatment.

Challenge 3: High Rates of Recurrence in Preclinical Pyelonephritis Models

Problem: In models of complicated Urinary Tract Infection (cUTI) and pyelonephritis, treatment with a novel agent leads to initial bacterial clearance but is followed by recurrence.

• Root Cause: Inadequate drug concentration in the kidneys or urine, or the development of adaptive resistance during therapy.
• Solution:
  • Measure Renal Penetration: Quantify drug levels in kidney tissue and urine, not just in serum. Ensure the chosen agent achieves concentrations well above the MIC for the pathogen at these sites.
  • Check for AmpC Derepression: For pathogens like Enterobacter cloacae, exposure to certain beta-lactams can select for mutants that constitutively overproduce AmpC beta-lactamase, leading to resistance during treatment. This is a known limitation even for some newer agents [48].
  • Extend Treatment Duration: Mirror the clinical trial designs for cUTI (e.g., 7-10 days of treatment) rather than using an abbreviated course in the animal model to better assess the potential for relapse [44].

Experimental Protocol: Evaluating Novel Beta-Lactamase Inhibitor Synergy

Objective: To determine the in vitro synergistic activity of a novel beta-lactamase inhibitor in combination with a partner beta-lactam antibiotic against multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative pathogens.

Materials & Reagents:

• Bacterial Strains: Well-characterized MDR clinical isolates or type strains with known beta-lactamase resistance genes (e.g., produces KPC, NDM, OXA-48, ESBL) [40].
• Antimicrobials: Reference powder of the partner beta-lactam antibiotic (e.g., ceftazidime, cefepime, aztreonam, meropenem) and the novel inhibitor.
• Growth Medium: Cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton Broth (CAMHB), prepared according to CLSI guidelines.
• Equipment: Microdilution trays, automated turbidimeter, incubator, multichannel pipettes.

Procedure - Checkerboard Broth Microdilution Assay:

• Preparation of Stock Solutions: Prepare stock solutions of the beta-lactam antibiotic and the inhibitor at high concentration (e.g., 5120 µg/mL or 10x the highest test concentration) in the appropriate solvent (e.g., water, DMSO).
• Checkerboard Setup:
  • a. Dilute the beta-lactam antibiotic in CAMHB along the rows of a 96-well microtiter plate to create a range of concentrations (e.g., 0.5 to 128 µg/mL, or 2x the final desired concentration).
  • b. Dilute the inhibitor in CAMHB down the columns of the same plate to create a range of concentrations (e.g., 0.5 to 128 µg/mL, or 2x the final desired concentration).
  • c. This creates a matrix where each well contains a unique combination of antibiotic and inhibitor concentrations.
• Inoculation: Prepare a bacterial inoculum of ~1 x 10^8 CFU/mL (0.5 McFarland standard) and further dilute it in CAMHB to yield ~1 x 10^6 CFU/mL. Add 50 µL of this suspension to each well of the microdilution plate, resulting in a final inoculum of ~5 x 10^5 CFU/mL and final drug concentrations that are half of what was prepared in step 2.
• Incubation and Reading: Incubate the plate at 35±2°C for 16-20 hours. Determine the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) of the beta-lactam antibiotic alone and in combination with each concentration of the inhibitor. The MIC is defined as the lowest concentration that completely inhibits visible growth.

Data Analysis: Calculate the Fractional Inhibitory Concentration (FIC) Index for each combination well that inhibits growth.

• FIC of Drug A (Beta-lactam) = (MIC of Drug A in combination) / (MIC of Drug A alone)
• FIC of Drug B (Inhibitor) = (MIC of Drug B in combination) / (MIC of Drug B alone)
• FIC Index = FICA + FICB Interpretation: Synergy is typically defined as an FIC Index of ≤0.5. Indifference is >0.5 to ≤4. Antagonism is >4 [44].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Beta-Lactam Resistance Studies

Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Example & Notes
Purified Beta-Lactamase Enzymes [40]	Biochemical characterization of inhibitor kinetics (IC50, kinact/KI); substrate profiling.	Commercially available Class A (KPC), B (NDM-1), C (AmpC), D (OXA-48) enzymes. Critical for understanding the spectrum of inhibition.
Characterized MDR Clinical Isolates	In vitro and in vivo evaluation of novel compound efficacy against relevant resistance mechanisms.	Isolates from strain repositories (e.g., ATCC, NCTC) with defined resistance genotypes (e.g., KPC-producing K. pneumoniae, NDM-producing E. coli).
Beta-Lactamase-Specific Substrates	Fluorogenic or chromogenic reporter assays for real-time enzyme activity and inhibition monitoring.	Nitrocefin, a chromogenic cephalosporin that changes color from yellow to red upon beta-lactam ring hydrolysis.
CLSI-Recommended Media [32]	Standardized antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) to ensure reproducible and comparable results.	Cation-Adjusted Mueller-Hinton Broth (CAMHB) for broth microdilution, as cation content can significantly affect the activity of certain antibiotics.
Beta-Lactamase Inhibitor Controls	Benchmarking the activity of novel inhibitors against established ones.	Avibactam, Relebactam, Vaborbactam, Clavulanic acid. Use as reference standards in comparative assays.

Visualization of Development Workflows and Resistance Mechanisms

Diagram 1: Beta-Lactam Agent Development Workflow (76 chars)

Diagram 2: Beta-Lactamase Enzymatic Inactivation (87 chars)

The relentless spread of β-lactamase enzymes represents the most significant mechanism of bacterial resistance to β-lactam antibiotics, one of the most important classes of antimicrobial agents in clinical practice [3] [80]. These hydrolytic enzymes, produced by bacteria, inactivate β-lactam antibiotics by breaking the critical β-lactam ring, rendering these powerful drugs ineffective against an increasing range of pathogenic organisms [6]. The global health threat posed by antibiotic resistance has accelerated the development of β-lactamase inhibitors (BLIs)—compounds that neutralize these enzymes and restore the efficacy of partner β-lactam antibiotics [3]. This technical resource center provides a comprehensive overview of the spectra of activity of available BLIs against different β-lactamase classes, supported by experimental protocols, troubleshooting guidance, and visualization tools to assist researchers in navigating this complex therapeutic landscape.

β-lactamases are broadly categorized into four molecular classes (A-D) based on amino acid sequence homology [81]. Classes A, C, and D are serine-β-lactamases (SBLs) that utilize an active-site serine residue for catalysis, while Class B enzymes are metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs) that require one or two zinc ions in their active sites for hydrolytic activity [81] [5]. The successful development of BLIs has been largely confined to SBLs, with MBLs presenting a persistent challenge due to their distinct active site architecture and mechanism of action [5]. The following sections provide detailed frameworks for mapping inhibitor coverage, troubleshooting experimental challenges, and selecting appropriate methodologies for evaluating β-lactamase inhibition.

β-Lactamase Classification and Inhibitor Coverage

Molecular Classification of β-Lactamases

Table 1: Classification of Major β-Lactamases and Their Substrate Profiles

Class	Active Site	Major Representatives	Hydrolytic Spectrum	Inhibited by Classical BLIs?
Class A	Serine	SHV, TEM, CTX-M, KPC	Penicillins, early cephalosporins, CTX-M variants: extended-spectrum cephalosporins, KPC: carbapenems	Yes (clavulanic acid, tazobactam, sulbactam)
Class B	Zinc (Metallo)	NDM, VIM, IMP	Virtually all β-lactams including carbapenems (except aztreonam)	No
Class C	Serine	AmpC, CMY, MOX	Cephalosporins, cephamycins, resistant to 3rd-gen cephalosporins	Variable (generally resistant to classical BLIs)
Class D	Serine	OXA-type	Oxacillin, cloxacillin, some extended-spectrum variants hydrolyze carbapenems	Variable (often resistant to classical BLIs)

BLIs: β-lactamase inhibitors. Adapted from [81] [80] [5].

The classification of β-lactamases extends beyond molecular characteristics to functional properties, particularly their hydrolytic capabilities against different β-lactam substrates. Extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs), predominantly from Class A (CTX-M, SHV, TEM variants), confer resistance to penicillins, cephalosporins, and aztreonam but are generally susceptible to β-lactamase inhibitors like clavulanic acid and tazobactam [81]. Of greater concern are the carbapenemases, which hydrolyze carbapenem antibiotics—often considered last-resort treatments. These include Class A (KPC), Class B (NDM, VIM, IMP), and Class D (OXA-48-like) enzymes [81] [80]. The Class B metallo-β-lactamases are particularly problematic as they evade inhibition by currently approved BLIs, though they do not hydrolyze monobactams like aztreonam [5].

Spectrum of Activity of β-Lactamase Inhibitors

Table 2: Inhibitor Coverage Against β-Lactamase Classes

Inhibitor	Class	Inhibitor Spectrum (β-Lactamase Classes)	Common β-Lactam Partners
Clavulanic acid	β-lactam (clavam)	Class A (some Class D)	Amoxicillin, ticarcillin
Tazobactam	β-lactam (penicillanic acid sulfone)	Class A, some Class C	Piperacillin
Sulbactam	β-lactam (penicillanic acid sulfone)	Class A	Ampicillin, cefoperazone
Avibactam	Non-β-lactam (DBO)	Class A, C, D (some)	Ceftazidime, aztreonam, ceftaroline
Relebactam	Non-β-lactam (DBO)	Class A, C	Imipenem
Vaborbactam	Non-β-lactam (boronic acid)	Class A, C	Meropenem
Taniborbactam	Non-β-lactam (boronic acid)	Class A, C, B (including MBLs)	Cefepime (in clinical development)

DBO: Diazabicyclooctane; MBLs: Metallo-β-lactamases. Information compiled from [81] [3] [80].

The development of β-lactamase inhibitors has evolved through multiple generations. First-generation inhibitors (clavulanic acid) primarily targeted Class A ESBLs [3] [80]. Subsequent penicillanic acid sulfones (tazobactam, sulbactam) offered modestly expanded spectra. A transformative advance came with the introduction of non-β-lactam inhibitors, particularly the diazabicyclooctanes (DBOs) like avibactam and relebactam, which inhibit a broader range of SBLs (Classes A, C, and some D) through a unique reversible covalent mechanism involving carbamylation rather than acylation [80]. Another innovative class, the boronic acid-based inhibitors (vaborbactam), act as transition state analogs [80] [5]. The ongoing clinical development of inhibitors like taniborbactam, which exhibits activity against MBLs (Class B), represents a crucial frontier in overcoming some of the most recalcitrant resistance mechanisms [5].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for β-Lactamase Inhibition Studies

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Key Considerations
Cation-adjusted Mueller Hinton Broth (CAMHB)	Standard medium for broth microdilution susceptibility testing	Required for adherence to CLSI standards; ensures proper cation concentrations for accurate antibiotic activity
Chromogenic cephalosporin substrates (e.g., CCepS-N+(CH3)3 series)	Detection and differentiation of β-lactamase subtypes through colorimetric change	Hydrolyze with distinct color changes based on β-lactamase subtype; enable rapid visual identification [82]
Chromogenic carbapenem substrate (e.g., CCS-N+(CH3)3)	Specific detection of carbapenemase activity	Turns from yellow to red upon hydrolysis by carbapenemases; silent against other β-lactamases [82]
Reference β-lactamase enzymes (e.g., NDM-1, KPC-3, CTX-M-15)	Positive controls for inhibition assays	Commercially available or can be expressed and purified using genetic engineering; essential for assay validation
96-well microtiter trays	Broth microdilution minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) determinations	Enable high-throughput screening of inhibitor combinations against multiple bacterial isolates
Hollow-fibre infection model (HFIM) system	In vitro pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) modeling	Simulates human drug concentration-time profiles; predicts bacterial killing and resistance emergence [83]

Experimental Protocols: Core Methodologies for Inhibitor Evaluation

Protocol 1: Broth Microdilution for Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) Determination

Purpose: To quantitatively determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations against clinical bacterial isolates [84].

Materials Required: Cation-adjusted Mueller Hinton broth (CAMHB), 96-well U-bottom microtiter plates, bacterial isolates adjusted to 0.5 McFarland standard, serial dilutions of β-lactam antibiotics and inhibitors.

Procedure:

• Prepare serial two-fold dilutions of the β-lactam antibiotic in CAMHB across the microtiter plate rows.
• Add a fixed concentration of the β-lactamase inhibitor (e.g., 4 μg/mL for avibactam) to appropriate wells [84].
• Prepare the bacterial inoculum by adjusting log-phase bacteria to a 0.5 McFarland standard (~1.5 × 10^8 CFU/mL), then further dilute in CAMHB to achieve a final concentration of approximately 5 × 10^5 CFU/mL in each well.
• Incubate the plates at 35°C for 16-20 hours under static conditions.
• Determine the MIC as the lowest concentration of antibiotic that completely inhibits visible growth.

Troubleshooting Tip: If trailing endpoints are observed with β-lactam/inhibitor combinations, consider extending the incubation time to 24 hours or using a spectrophotometric endpoint for more objective determination.

Protocol 2: Time-Kill Assay for Bactericidal Activity Assessment

Purpose: To evaluate the bactericidal activity and rate of killing of β-lactam/inhibitor combinations over time [84].

Materials Required: CAMHB, Erlenmeyer flasks or tubes, spiral plater, Mueller Hinton agar plates.

Procedure:

• Prepare flasks containing CAMHB with desired concentrations of β-lactam alone, inhibitor alone, and their combinations. Include a growth control without antibiotics.
• Inoculate each flask with a standardized bacterial suspension to achieve a starting concentration of approximately 7.5 × 10^5 CFU/mL [84].
• Incubate the flasks at 35°C with constant agitation.
• Remove samples at predetermined timepoints (e.g., 0, 4, 8, and 24 hours) [84].
• Perform serial dilutions and quantitative culture on Mueller Hinton agar plates.
• Count colonies after 16-24 hours of incubation and calculate CFU/mL.

Troubleshooting Tip: To minimize drug carryover during plating, consider centrifuging samples, removing the supernatant, and resuspending the bacterial pellet in sterile saline before plating.

FAQs: Troubleshooting Experimental Challenges

Q1: Why do we observe inconsistent MIC reductions when testing the same inhibitor against different isolates producing the same β-lactamase?

A: The effectiveness of a β-lactamase inhibitor depends not only on the presence of a specific β-lactamase but also on factors including enzyme expression level, permeability of the bacterial outer membrane, efflux pump activity, and the presence of multiple β-lactamases in the same isolate [81] [80]. Additionally, specific amino acid substitutions in the β-lactamase can significantly alter affinity for inhibitors without necessarily changing the hydrolytic profile against β-lactams [13]. We recommend using a combination of genotypic (PCR, sequencing) and phenotypic (specialized susceptibility testing) methods to fully characterize resistant isolates.

Q2: How can we differentiate between the various subclasses of β-lactamases in clinical isolates?

A: Traditional methods rely on phenotypic tests using various β-lactam substrates with and without inhibitors. However, newer approaches offer greater speed and precision. The BSV (β-lactamase subtype visualization) sensor system utilizes chromogenic cephalosporin and carbapenem substrates with specific hydrolysis profiles to visually distinguish between BSBL, ESBL, AmpC, and carbapenemase activity within 0.25-3 hours [82]. This method has demonstrated 100% sensitivity and specificity in clinical validations and can be implemented with basic laboratory equipment.

Q3: Our MIC data suggests susceptibility to a β-lactam/inhibitor combination, but the treatment fails in our in vivo model. What factors might explain this discrepancy?

A: In vitro MIC testing employs static antibiotic concentrations, whereas in vivo exposures fluctuate. The efficacy of β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations is best predicted by the percentage of time that free drug concentrations remain above the MIC (%fT>MIC) for both components [83]. Use hollow-fibre infection models (HFIM) that simulate human pharmacokinetics to better translate in vitro findings to in vivo outcomes. Additionally, consider inoculum effect—increased MICs at higher bacterial densities—which is common with β-lactamase-producing organisms and may not be reflected in standard testing.

Research Workflow and Resistance Mechanisms

Visual Guide to β-Lactamase Inhibition and Resistance Mechanisms

The strategic deployment of β-lactamase inhibitors based on their spectra of activity against specific β-lactamase classes is fundamental to overcoming enzymatic resistance to β-lactam antibiotics. While currently available inhibitors provide coverage against most serine-β-lactamases, the ongoing clinical challenge of metallo-β-lactamases underscores the need for continued research and development. The experimental frameworks, troubleshooting guidelines, and visualization tools provided in this technical resource center offer a foundation for systematic evaluation of β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations, ultimately supporting the optimization of therapeutic approaches against multidrug-resistant pathogens. As the landscape of β-lactamase-mediated resistance continues to evolve, so too must our methodologies for mapping inhibitor coverage and predicting clinical efficacy.

A primary mechanism of bacterial resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics is the production of beta-lactamase enzymes [25]. These enzymes inactivate antibiotics by hydrolyzing the beta-lactam ring, a core structural component essential for their antibacterial activity [85]. This resistance mechanism poses a significant clinical and economic burden, complicating treatment protocols and increasing healthcare costs. Overcoming this enzymatic inactivation is a central focus of modern antibiotic development, requiring innovative approaches that must subsequently be positioned effectively within treatment guidelines to ensure widespread clinical adoption.

Understanding Beta-Lactamase-Mediated Resistance

Beta-Lactamase Classification and Characteristics

Beta-lactamases are classified into four main groups (A, B, C, and D) based on their molecular structure and catalytic mechanism [28]. Understanding these classes is crucial for developing targeted countermeasures.

• Class A (e.g., TEM, SHV, CTX-M, KPC): These are often extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs) that hydrolyze penicillins and cephalosporins. Many are inhibited by clavulanic acid [28].
• Class B (Metallo-β-lactamases or MBLs, e.g., NDM, VIM, IMP): These require zinc ions for activity and are resistant to most common beta-lactamase inhibitors but can be inactivated by chelating agents [28].
• Class C (AmpC β-lactamases, e.g., CMY, FOX, MIR): These confer resistance to cephamycins and oxyimino-cephalosporins and can be inhibited by boronic acid derivatives [28].
• Class D (OXA-type): These include enzymes often found in Acinetobacter spp., some of which can hydrolyze carbapenems [28].

The following table summarizes key characteristics of these enzyme classes for easy comparison.

Class	Representative Enzymes	Primary Substrates	Common Inhibitors
A	TEM-1, SHV-1, CTX-M, KPC	Penicillins, Cephalosporins	Clavulanic acid, Avibactam [28]
B (MBL)	NDM, VIM, IMP	Carbapenems, Penicillins, Cephalosporins	EDTA (Chelators), Taniborbactam (under investigation) [28] [7]
C (AmpC)	CMY, DHA, FOX	Cephamycins, Oxyimino-cephalosporins	Boronic acid derivatives, Taniborbactam [28] [7]
D	OXA-48, OXA-23	Penicillins, some Carbapenems	Avibactam (variable) [28]

Quantitative Impact of Resistance

The clinical burden of these enzymes is stark. A systematic review focusing on Acinetobacter baumannii in intensive care units found that nearly 60% of isolates were linked to pneumonia and about one-third to bloodstream infections [28]. The same study revealed alarmingly high rates of β-lactamase genes, with OXA-23 present in 95.6% of isolates and the carbapenemase gene NDM-1 in over half (57.1%) [28]. This highlights the dominance of β-lactamase-mediated resistance and underscores the urgent need for novel therapeutic strategies.

Core Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details key reagents and their functions in research aimed at overcoming beta-lactamase resistance.

Research Reagent / Tool	Function / Explanation in Research
Novel Beta-Lactamase Inhibitors (e.g., Taniborbactam)	A cyclic boronate inhibitor with potent activity against serine β-lactamases (Classes A, C, D) and some metallo-β-lactamases (Class B) [28].
Bis-Beta-Lactam Antibiotics	Novel dimeric compounds derived from ampicillin/amoxicillin; their bifunctional nature allows simultaneous binding to two mutated Penicillin-Binding Proteins (PBPs), enhancing antibacterial potential [28].
Chromogenic Cephalosporins (e.g., Nitrocefin)	Used to titrate enzyme active sites and study acylation kinetics; rupture of its β-lactam ring causes a visible color change, enabling real-time monitoring of enzyme activity [86].
Polymer Inclusion Nano-Complexes	Advanced drug delivery systems designed to enhance the penetration of antibiotics through the bacterial cell wall and protect them from enzymatic degradation [28].
Zn2+ Chelators (e.g., EDTA)	Used in research to inhibit Metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs) by chelating the zinc ions essential for their catalytic activity [28].

Experimental Workflows for Investigating Resistance and Novel Therapies

Workflow for Evaluating Beta-Lactamase Inhibition

This diagram outlines a general workflow for testing the efficacy of a novel beta-lactamase inhibitor in combination with a beta-lactam antibiotic.

Associated Protocol: Disk Diffusion Synergy Assay

• Objective: To determine if a beta-lactamase inhibitor restores the activity of a beta-lactam antibiotic against a resistant isolate.
• Methodology:
  • Prepare a 0.5 McFarland standard suspension of the test bacterium in saline.
  • Evenly lawn the suspension onto a Mueller-Hinton agar plate and allow to dry.
  • Place a disk containing the beta-lactam antibiotic (e.g., ceftazidime) onto the agar.
  • Place a disk containing the inhibitor (e.g., avibactam) 20-25 mm away from the antibiotic disk (center to center).
  • Incubate the plate at 35°C for 16-20 hours.
  • Measurement: Observe for an enlarged, distorted, or "keyhole" zone of inhibition between the two disks, indicating synergy and successful inhibition of the beta-lactamase.

Workflow for Investigating Enzyme Kinetics and Reversible Inactivation

This diagram visualizes the experimental process for studying the kinetic parameters of enzyme-inhibitor interactions, a critical step in drug development.

Associated Protocol: Stopped-Flow Kinetics of Acylation

• Objective: To determine the acylation efficacy (k_obs) of a beta-lactam antibiotic for a target transpeptidase or its deacylation rate (k_off).
• Methodology (based on nitrocefin assay) [86]:
  • Reagent Preparation: Prepare solutions of purified enzyme (e.g., L,D-transpeptidase Ldtfm) and nitrocefin in appropriate buffer (e.g., 100 mM sodium phosphate, pH 6.0).
  • Instrument Setup: Load the enzyme and substrate solutions into separate syringes of a stopped-flow spectrophotometer.
  • Data Acquisition: Rapidly mix equal volumes of enzyme and substrate and monitor the increase in absorbance at 486 nm (λ_max for hydrolyzed nitrocefin) over time (milliseconds to seconds).
  • Data Analysis: Fit the exponential rise in absorbance to the equation: Abs_t = Abs_∞ (1 - e^(-k_obs * t)), where k_obs is the observed first-order rate constant. Plot k_obs against various substrate concentrations to obtain the second-order acylation rate constant.

Technical Support Center: FAQs and Troubleshooting Guides

FAQ 1: Our novel beta-lactam/inhibitor combination shows excellent MIC data but fails in time-kill assays. What could be the issue?

Answer: This discrepancy often points to transient resistance or reversible inactivation.

• Potential Mechanism: Recent research has demonstrated that the acylation of certain transpeptidases (like L,D-transpeptidases) by some beta-lactams (e.g., cephalosporins like nitrocefin) can be reversible. The β-lactam ring can re-cyclize within the enzyme's active site, regenerating the native antibiotic and allowing the enzyme to recover functionality [86]. This leads to limited antibacterial activity over time, which would not be captured in a standard MIC test but would cause failure in a time-kill assay that monitors bacterial survival over 24 hours.
• Troubleshooting Steps:
  • Investigate Kinetics: Perform stopped-flow kinetic assays to determine the deacylation rate (k_off) and check for evidence of reversibility.
  • Use a Competitive Assay: As described in the literature, incubate your enzyme with the problem antibiotic and a second, potent antibiotic (e.g., a carbapenem like imipenem). Regeneration of the first antibiotic from the acyl-enzyme will allow it to be trapped by the second antibiotic, providing indirect evidence of reversibility [86].
  • Switch Compounds: If reversibility is confirmed, consider developing a congener with a slower k_off or a different structural class that forms a more stable acyl-enzyme complex.

FAQ 2: Our beta-lactamase inhibitor works well against purified Class A enzymes but is ineffective in whole-cell assays against the same bacterial strain. Why?

Answer: This is a classic issue of compound penetration and efflux.

• Potential Mechanism: The inhibitor may not be effectively crossing the bacterial outer membrane (in Gram-negatives) or may be subject to active efflux by pump systems. The environment inside the periplasm (e.g., pH, metal ion concentration) can also affect inhibitor activity [28] [7].
• Troubleshooting Steps:
  • Check Permeability: Use an assay with hyper-permeable strains (e.g., E. coli ML35) or strains with defined porin mutations to test if permeability is the limiting factor.
  • Investigate Efflux: Perform assays in the presence and absence of a broad-spectrum efflux pump inhibitor (e.g., Phe-Arg-β-naphthylamide). A significant increase in inhibitor efficacy in the presence of the pump inhibitor confirms efflux involvement.
  • Optimize Delivery: Consider formulating the inhibitor with a penetration-enhancing technology, such as a polymer inclusion nano-complex, as mentioned in recent research [28].

FAQ 3: How do we generate robust in vitro data to support the positioning of a new beta-lactam/inhibitor combination in treatment guidelines?

Answer: Guideline committees require comprehensive, multi-faceted data.

• Go Beyond Basic MICs:
  • Determine MICs: Start with standard MIC values for a large panel of clinically relevant, genetically characterized isolates.
  • Perform Synergy Studies: Use checkerboard assays to calculate the Fractional Inhibitory Concentration (FIC) Index, confirming synergy between the beta-lactam and the inhibitor.
  • Conduct Time-Kill Kinetics: This is essential to demonstrate sustained bactericidal activity over 24 hours, which is a better predictor of clinical efficacy than MIC alone.
  • Test against Isogenic Strains: Compare the activity of your combination against isogeneic strains that differ only by the presence or absence of a specific resistance determinant (e.g., a beta-lactamase gene). This provides direct evidence of the inhibitor's mechanism of action [25].
• Data Presentation for Guidelines: Summarize all quantitative data in clear tables. Include the percentage of isolates that are re-sensitized ("susceptible") to the antibiotic when the inhibitor is added. Provide the distribution of MIC values for the combination to show the magnitude of the shift.

Conclusion

The fight against beta-lactamase-mediated resistance is advancing through a multi-pronged strategy combining novel beta-lactamase inhibitors with structural innovations in the antibiotics themselves. The successful clinical deployment of new combination therapies like cefepime/enmetazobactam and aztreonam/avibactam demonstrates tangible progress, particularly against ESBL-producing and carbapenem-resistant pathogens. However, the continuous evolution of resistance mechanisms, especially among metallo-β-lactamases, necessitates sustained innovation. Future directions must emphasize the development of broad-spectrum inhibitors with activity against both serine and metallo-enzymes, advanced drug delivery systems to improve stability and targeting, and global surveillance programs to monitor emerging resistance patterns. The collaborative integration of structural biology, computational design, and robust clinical validation will be paramount in ensuring the long-term efficacy of the beta-lactam antibiotic class.

References

• 1. β-Lactams and β-Lactamase Inhibitors: An Overview - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4968164/]
• 2. Beta-Lactam Antibiotics - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK545311/]
• 3. β-Lactam potentiators to re-sensitize resistant pathogens [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2022.1092556/full]
• 4. Emerging antibiotic resistance by various novel proteins ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12241128/]
• 5. Metallo-β-lactamase inhibitors: A continuing challenge for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301462224000577]
• 6. Overcoming Resistance to β-Lactam Antibiotics - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3644377/]
• 7. Antibiotic potentiators as a promising strategy for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44259-025-00112-4]
• 8. The clinical application of beta-lactam antibiotic therapeutic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10566322/]
• 9. Optimization of the treatment with beta-lactam antibiotics in ... [https://ccforum.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13054-019-2378-9]
• 10. Recognizing the value of therapeutic drug monitoring for beta ... [https://blog.insight-rx.com/resources/value-of-beta-lactam-tdm]
• 11. β-Lactam antibiotic targets and resistance mechanisms [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2021/md/d1md00200g]
• 12. Designing Inhibitors of β-Lactamase Enzymes to Overcome ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33788541/]
• 13. Escape mutations circumvent a tradeoff between ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15666-2]
• 14. Mechanisms of Resistance and Clinical Relevance ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3498059/]
• 15. Mechanisms of β-lactam antimicrobial resistance and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169409X14001690]
• 16. Drug Resistance | Microbiology [https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-microbiology/chapter/drug-resistance/]
• 17. Biofilms facilitate cheating and social exploitation of β ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41522-019-0109-2]
• 18. Antibiofilm Activity of β-Lactam/β-Lactamase Inhibitor ... - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8950422/]
• 19. Promising Future of Novel Beta-Lactam Antibiotics Against ... [https://www.dovepress.com/promising-future-of-novel-beta-lactam-antibiotics-against-bacterial-re-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-DDDT]
• 20. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the global ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41260403/]
• 21. Global distribution and incidence of multidrug resistant and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213398425002398]
• 22. Optimization of the treatment with beta-lactam antibiotics in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6441232/]
• 23. WHO bacterial priority pathogens list, 2024 [https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240093461]
• 24. WHO Updates Priority List of Resistant Bacterial Pathogens [https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/who-updates-priority-list-resistant-bacterial-pathogens-2025a1000ahj]
• 25. [Mechanism of Enzymatic Resistance to Beta-Lactam ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2949270/]
• 26. Study: Antibiotic resistance is rising at an alarming rate [https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2025/10/15/g-s1-93449/antibiotic-resistance-bacteria]
• 27. What is antimicrobial resistance and how can we tackle it? [https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/11/antimicrobial-resistance-superbugs-antibiotics/]
• 28. Promising Future of Novel Beta-Lactam Antibiotics Against ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12517300/]
• 29. The role of beta-lactamase inhibitors in combating ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0882401025009192]
• 30. β-Lactam/β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combination Antibiotics ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/14/2/168]
• 31. Inhibition by Avibactam and Clavulanate of the β ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5328567/]
• 32. Beta-Lactamase Inhibitors - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557592/]
• 33. Avibactam and Class C β-Lactamases: Mechanism of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4187909/]
• 34. Overcoming enzymatic resistance in bacteria: impact on ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2282969/]
• 35. Discovery of Taniborbactam (VNRX-5133): A Broad- ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7104248/]
• 36. Cefepime-Taniborbactam-a Novel Combination Therapy ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40353672/]
• 37. Overcoming Metallo-β-Lactamases: A Review of Cefepime ... [https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/overcoming-metallo---lactamases-a-review-of-cefepime-taniborbactam]
• 38. Emerging resistance mechanisms to newer β-lactams in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1198743X25001314]
• 39. β-Lactamases: A Focus on Current Challenges - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5204326/]
• 40. One-step degradation of 4 classes of β-lactam using ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-16947-w]
• 41. Next generation antibiotic combinations to combat pan ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-53130-z]
• 42. Unraveling the mechanisms behind the enhanced efficacy ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-025-08898-9]
• 43. Overcoming beta-lactam resistance in Pseudomonas ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cellular-and-infection-microbiology/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2025.1521391/full]
• 44. New β-Lactam/β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combination Antibiotics [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12029989/]
• 45. Small-molecule strategies to combat antibiotic resistance [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/ra/d5ra04047g?page=search]
• 46. A comprehensive review on structural insights through ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40423839/]
• 47. β-Lactam antibiotic targets and resistance mechanisms [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8528271/]
• 48. Overview of Beta-Lactams - Infectious Diseases [https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/infectious-diseases/bacteria-and-antibacterial-medications/overview-of-beta-lactams]
• 49. Siderophore conjugates to combat antibiotic-resistant ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10211321/]
• 50. potential medicinal applications of the 'Trojan horse' strategy [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165614714001102]
• 51. to combat antibiotic-resistant bacteria - RSC... Siderophore conjugates [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2023/md/d2md00465h]
• 52. Pharmacodynamic Profiling of a Siderophore-Conjugated ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4649189/]
• 53. Modes of action and inhibitory activities of new... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1444296/]
• 54. Comprehensive stability analysis of 13 β-lactams and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10916406/]
• 55. Breakthrough Advances in Beta-Lactamase Inhibitors [https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8247/18/2/206]
• 56. Biochemical exploration of β-lactamase inhibitors [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2022.1060736/full]
• 57. Characterization of the Inhibitor-Resistant SHV β ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3264250/]
• 58. Mechanistic Investigations of Metallo-β-lactamase Inhibitors [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33534956/]
• 59. Distribution of antimicrobial resistance genes and virulence ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12490118/]
• 60. Optimizing the Use of Beta-Lactam Antibiotics in Clinical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10319623/]
• 61. Resistance mechanisms – Antibiotic resistance – ReAct [https://www.reactgroup.org/toolbox/understand/antibiotic-resistance/resistance-mechanisms-in-bacteria/]
• 62. Bacterial Enzymes and Antibiotic Resistance - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6351036/]
• 63. Rapid and visual identification of β-lactamase subtypes for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10808423/]
• 64. CTX-M Multi Test - ESBL RESISTANCE DETECTION - [https://www.ngbiotech.com/ng-test-ctx-m-multi/]
• 65. Rapid ESBL Screen Kit [https://catalogue.bioconnections.net/products/antibiotic-sensitivity-tests/item/rapid-esbl-screen-kit]
• 66. Rapid extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-confirmation by ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1582703/full]
• 67. Detection of AmpC β Lactamases in Gram-negative Bacteria [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3969634/]
• 68. Brief Guide: Experimental Strategies for High-Quality Hit ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8293735/]
• 69. Computational-aided drug design strategies for drug ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12634332/]
• 70. Introducing New Inhibitors for Ambler Class D of β ... [https://www.physchemres.org/m/article_222074.html]
• 71. How Automation Overcomes Variability & Limitations in ... [https://dispendix.com/blog/how-automation-overcomes-variability-limitations-in-hts-troubleshooting]
• 72. Oral β-lactam combinations are effective in vitro against ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12584685/]
• 73. In-vitro susceptibility testing methods for the combination of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-022-00537-3]
• 74. Discovery of beta-lactamase CMY-10 inhibitors for ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244967]
• 75. Understanding Validity in Animal Models for Drug Discovery [https://www.taconic.com/resources/validated-animal-models]
• 76. A chronic Acinetobacter baumannii pneumonia model to ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62655-4]
• 77. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in the livestock ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-64992-8]
• 78. High Frequency of Detection of NDM-Producing ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12017035/]
• 79. An overview of carbapenem-resistant organisms from food ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/veterinary-science/articles/10.3389/fvets.2023.1158588/full]
• 80. Current trends in combating bacterial resistance to the β‐ ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4941212/]
• 81. Old and New Beta-Lactamase Inhibitors: Molecular Structure ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8388860/]
• 82. Rapid and visual identification of β-lactamase subtypes for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-44984-y]
• 83. A Novel Framework to Compare the Effectiveness of β ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6639165/]
• 84. Comparing the activity of broad-spectrum beta-lactams in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11448446/]
• 85. Beta-lactamase - Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta-lactamase]
• 86. Reversible inactivation of a peptidoglycan transpeptidase by a β-lactam antibiotic mediated by β-lactam-ring recyclization in the enzyme active site | Scientific Reports [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-09341-8]