The recommended weeks-long combination therapy of human brucellosis fails in 5–15% of cases, and relapses are typically not explained by genetic antibiotic resistance. A dual-reporter macrophage infection model demonstrated that Brucella abortus resides in a protective intracellular niche (10- to 50-fold elevated intracellular MICs) and forms bona fide intracellular antibiotic persisters that are metabolically active, regrow after antibiotic removal, and regenerate a fully infectious population. Later work has established that one research group has identified the (p)ppGpp synthetase Rsh as promoting Brucella persister formation in vitro and in RAW264.7 macrophages, acting through the type II toxin–antitoxin module mbcTA and through CysI-mediated sulfur metabolism; an independent mouse study showed a hidden-latent reservoir that reactivates in 100% of animals despite tissue antibiotic levels above 4x MIC. However, the molecular mechanism of persister formation inside the host cell (including what the Brucella-containing vacuole environment contributes versus bacterium-intrinsic stress programs), the single-cell physiological state of intracellular persisters, their occurrence in host-cell types beyond the RAW264.7 macrophage line, their demonstration in human clinical samples, and any persister-directed therapy against Brucella (ADEP4 and lassomycin remain untested) are unresolved. The problem — establish the mechanistic basis and clinical relevance of intracellular Brucella persisters and how to eradicate them — remains open.

Background

Brucellosis, caused mainly by the facultative intracellular pathogens Brucella melitensis, B. abortus and B. suis, is the most common zoonotic bacterial disease worldwide. Human treatment follows WHO recommendations — doxycycline plus streptomycin or rifampicin for six weeks or more — yet relapses or therapeutic failures occur in roughly 5–15% of patients, usually within six months of completing therapy, and are typically not associated with stable genetic resistance. After uptake into host cells such as macrophages, Brucella survives in a membrane-bound compartment, the Brucella-containing vacuole (BCV), which limits fusion with degradative lysosomes and matures into a replicative niche continuous with the endoplasmic reticulum (ER); this intracellular lifestyle shields the bacteria from antibiotics and from immune effectors. 'Persisters' are a transient, phenotypically antibiotic-tolerant subpopulation of a genetically susceptible bacterial clone: they survive lethal antibiotic exposure and regrow a normal population when the drug is removed. Prior to 2022, Brucella persister formation had been shown only in broth, with upregulation of type II toxin–antitoxin (TA) system genes — stress-responsive modules in which a stable 'toxin' protein halts growth and a labile 'antitoxin' neutralizes it — reported under lethal antibiotic exposure (Amraei et al. 2020). Mode et al. (2022) established an in cellulo model (infection inside cultured host cells): B. abortus carrying a constitutive and an inducible fluorescent reporter inside RAW264.7 murine macrophages, quantified by automated microscopy and CFU (colony-forming unit) plating. They showed that all recommended single and dual therapies failed to stop intracellular replication or reach sterility; comparing extracellular and intracellular MICs (minimal inhibitory concentrations), the intracellular state conferred roughly 10-fold protection for rifampicin and about 50-fold for ciprofloxacin and doxycycline, with most intracellular MICs above physiologically achievable serum levels. They further demonstrated bona fide intracellular persisters — surviving bacteria that remained metabolically active (the inducible reporter continued to be expressed), possibly formed de novo during intracellular replication, and that regenerated a fully infectious, fully susceptible population upon regrowth. These persisters are therefore a plausible reservoir for relapse. The study left open, as its central future direction, the mechanistic and translational understanding of this subpopulation: what molecular programs (toxin–antitoxin systems, stress responses such as the Rsh-mediated stringent response — the (p)ppGpp alarmone cascade that rewires bacterial transcription under stress — or metabolic shutdown) form persisters during macrophage infection; what their physiological state is at the single-cell and omics level; what factors of the BCV itself (pH, nutrient limitation, host factors) confer tolerance; whether the phenomenon occurs in other host cell types and in the tissue microenvironments encountered in vivo (spleen, liver, bone marrow); whether persisters exist in clinical samples from human brucellosis patients; and how they might be eradicated — the anti-persister compounds ADEP4 and lassomycin, which hyperactivate the ClpP protease (an ATP-dependent bacterial proteolytic subunit) to kill persisters of Staphylococcus aureus and Mycobacterium tuberculosis, having never been tested against Brucella.

Problem Statement

As posed by Mode et al. (2022), the problem is to establish — mechanistically and translationally — whether and how the intracellular antibiotic-tolerant persister subpopulation of Brucella abortus drives treatment failure and relapse of brucellosis, and how it can be eliminated. All components serve this single objective and are scientifically linked; resolving it requires jointly addressing all five sub-questions below, each of which is independently researchable. Specifically: (1) identify the molecular mechanisms underlying persister formation during macrophage infection — the bacterial programs involved (toxin–antitoxin systems, stress responses such as the Rsh/(p)ppGpp stringent response, metabolic shutdown), whether internalization and intracellular replication trigger or merely enrich persisters, and which factors of the Brucella-containing vacuole (pH, nutrient limitation, host factors) contribute to antibiotic tolerance versus bacterium-intrinsic programs; (2) characterize the physiological state of intracellular persisters (growth rate, dormancy, metabolic alterations) at the single-cell and omics level inside infected host cells; (3) determine whether the phenomenon extends beyond the RAW264.7 macrophage model to other host cell types (e.g., dendritic cells, epithelial cells) and to the tissue microenvironments encountered in vivo (spleen, liver, bone marrow), and whether intracellular persisters are the reservoir that reactivates after apparently curative treatment; (4) investigate the existence and relevance of persisters in clinical samples from human brucellosis patients, closing the gap between the in cellulo model and clinical reality; and (5) develop anti-persister interventions for brucellosis, including compounds that specifically kill or sensitize the intracellular persister subpopulation. Progress after 2022 (the Rsh–mbcTA and Rsh–CysI axes; mouse hidden-latent reactivation) addresses parts of (1) and (3) but leaves the intracellular mechanism, single-cell physiology, niche-factor decomposition, clinical demonstration, and therapeutic targeting open.

References

  1. Mode S, Ketterer M, Québatte M, Dehio C (2022) Antibiotic persistence of intracellular Brucella abortus. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 16(7): e0010635. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0010635, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0010635
  2. Mode S, Ketterer M, Québatte M, Dehio C (2022) Antibiotic persistence of Brucella abortus in its protective intracellular niche. bioRxiv preprint. doi:10.1101/2022.04.07.487436, https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.04.07.487436
  3. Liu X, Wang P, Shi Y, Cui Y, Li S, Wu Dong G, Li J, Hao M, Zhai Y, Zhou D, Liu W, Wang A, Jin Y (2023) (P)ppGpp synthetase Rsh participates in rifampicin tolerance of persister cells in Brucella abortus in vitro. Microbial Pathogenesis 183: 106310. doi:10.1016/j.micpath.2023.106310, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2023.106310
  4. Liu X, Wang P, Yuan N, Zhai Y, Yang Y, Hao M, Zhang M, Zhou D, Liu W, Jin Y, Wang A (2024) The (p)ppGpp synthetase Rsh promotes rifampicin tolerant persister cell formation in Brucella abortus by regulating the type II toxin-antitoxin module mbcTA. Frontiers in Microbiology 15: 1395504. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2024.1395504, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1395504
  5. Liu X, Cui C, Wang P, Wang H, Zhai Y, Yang Y, Chen J, Liu W, Dong Z, Zhou D, Jin Y, Wang A (2026) (P)ppGpp synthase Rsh promotes persister cells formation by regulating sulfur metabolism mediated by sulfate reductase CysI in Brucella abortus. Veterinary Microbiology 315: 110949. doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2026.110949, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2026.110949
  6. Sancho-Sánchez E, García-Arteaga K, Granados-Chinchilla F, Artavia G, Alfaro-Alarcón A, Villalobos-Villalobos A, Bouza-Mora L, Suárez-Esquivel M, Chacón-Díaz C, Guzmán-Verri C, Moreno E, Barquero-Calvo E (2025) Reactivation of hidden-latent Brucella infection after doxycycline and streptomycin treatment in mice. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 69(2): e01302-24. doi:10.1128/aac.01302-24, https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.01302-24
  7. Sun D, Liu Y, Peng X, Dong H, Jiang H, Fan X, Feng Y, Sun J, Han K, Gao Q, Niu J, Ding J (2023) ClpP protease modulates bacterial growth, stress response, and bacterial virulence in Brucella abortus. Veterinary Research 54(1): 68. doi:10.1186/s13567-023-01200-x, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-023-01200-x
  8. Amraei F, Narimisa N, Sadeghi Kalani B, Lohrasbi V, Masjedian Jazi F (2020) Persister cells formation and expression of type II Toxin-Antitoxin system genes in Brucella melitensis (16M) and Brucella abortus (B19). Iranian Journal of Pathology 15(2): 127–133. doi:10.30699/ijp.2020.118902.2294, https://doi.org/10.30699/ijp.2020.118902.2294
  9. Jacob J (2024) Evidence of a Viable but Nonculturable (VBNC) Phase in B. abortus S19 under Oxidative Stress (H2O2, -Fe2+, Bleach) and under Non-Oxidative Inhibitory Conditions (Isopropanol, Erythritol, Selenite). Microorganisms 12(3): 491. doi:10.3390/microorganisms12030491, https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12030491
  10. Dadole I, Blaha D, Personnic N (2024) The macrophage–bacterium mismatch in persister formation. Trends in Microbiology 32(10): 944–956. doi:10.1016/j.tim.2024.02.009, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2024.02.009
  11. Asadollahi P, Sadeghifard N, Kazemian H, Pakzad I, Sadeghi Kalani B (2023) In silico Study of the Proteins Involved in the Persistence of Brucella spp. Current Drug Discovery Technologies 20(1): e050822207324. doi:10.2174/1570163819666220805161821, https://doi.org/10.2174/1570163819666220805161821