The chloramphenicol/H+ antiporter CraA of Acinetobacter baumannii AYE reveals a broad substrate specificity.

<bold>Objectives: </bold>To identify major facilitator superfamily (MFS)-type chloramphenicol transporters of Acinetobacter baumannii AYE, to characterize its substrate specificity and identify CraA substrate and H+ binding sites.<bold>Methods: </bold>Five ORFs predicted to encode chloramphenicol transporters were heterologously expressed in Escherichia coli and their substrate specificity was determined by drug susceptibility assays on solid agar medium. CraA transport properties were determined via whole cell fluorescence experiments using ethidium and dequalinium. ACMA quenching was used to characterize the H+/drug antiport process in everted membrane vesicles. The function of CraA in A. baumannii was determined by drug susceptibility assay using A. baumannii ATCC 19606 ΔcraA.<bold>Results: </bold>CraA, ABAYE0913 and CmlA5 are functionally active when overproduced in E. coli. ABAYE0913 conferred resistance to florfenicol and benzalkonium, CmlA5 conferred resistance to chloramphenicol and thiamphenicol, and craA expression resulted in resistance to chloramphenicol, thiamphenicol, florfenicol, ethidium, dequalinium, chlorhexidine, benzalkonium, mitomycin C and TPP+. Cell expressing craA_E38A showed no resistance to all tested drugs, implying that Glu-38 is involved in the binding of drugs and/or protons. Functional assays indicated that substitution of Asp-46 to Ala resulted in severe susceptibility to cationic drugs, chloramphenicol and thiamphenicol. In contrast, Glu-338 is important for the recognition of chloramphenicol, florfenicol, chlorhexidine and dequalinium.<bold>Conclusions: </bold>This study suggests that CraA has a broad substrate specificity, similar to that of E. coli MdfA. However, due to the presence of three charged residues in the transmembrane region conferring different susceptibility profiles upon substitution to Ala, we postulate that CraA has a different substrate recognition mode compared with MdfA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]