Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Additivity of inhibitory effects in multidrug combinations

Nature Microbiology volume 3, pages 1339–1345 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

From natural ecology1,2,3,4 to clinical therapy5,6,7,8, cells are often exposed to mixtures of multiple drugs. Two competing null models are used to predict the combined effect of drugs: response additivity (Bliss) and dosage additivity (Loewe)9,10,11. Here, noting that these models diverge with increased number of drugs, we contrast their predictions with growth measurements of four phylogenetically distant microorganisms including Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis and Saccharomyces cerevisiae, under combinations of up to ten different drugs. In all species, as the number of drugs increases, Bliss maintains accuracy while Loewe systematically loses its predictive power. The total dosage required for growth inhibition, which Loewe predicts should be fixed, steadily increases with the number of drugs, following a square-root scaling. This scaling is explained by an approximation to Bliss where, inspired by R. A. Fisher’s classical geometric model12, dosages of independent drugs add up as orthogonal vectors rather than linearly. This dose-orthogonality approximation provides results similar to Bliss, yet uses the dosage language as in Loewe and is hence easier to implement and intuit. The rejection of dosage additivity in favour of effect additivity and dosage orthogonality provides a framework for understanding how multiple drugs and stressors add up in nature and the clinic.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Schematic depiction of effect additivity (Bliss) and dosage additivity (Loewe).
Fig. 2: Pairwise measurements do not resolve the Bliss and Loewe models of additivity.
Fig. 3: The Loewe model of additivity loses its predictive power with increased number of combined drugs.
Fig. 4: A square-root scaling law of inhibitory total dosage with effective number of drugs is explained by a simple dosage-orthogonality model.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data sets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Ueda, K. et al. Wide distribution of interspecific stimulatory events on antibiotic production and sporulation among Streptomyces species. J. Antibiot. 53, 979–982 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Clardy, J., Fischbach, M. A. & Currie, C. R. The natural history of antibiotics. Curr. Biol. 19, R437–R441 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Vetsigian, K., Jajoo, R. & Kishony, R. Structure and evolution of Streptomyces interaction networks in soil and in silico. PLoS Biol. 9, e1001184 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Chait, R., Vetsigian, K. & Kishony, R. What counters antibiotic resistance in nature? Nat. Chem. Biol. 8, 2–5 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Blumberg, H. M. et al. American Thoracic Society/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Infectious Diseases Society of America: treatment of tuberculosis. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 167, 603–662 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Keith, C. T., Borisy, A. A. & Stockwell, B. R. Multicomponent therapeutics for networked systems. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 4, 71–78 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Fitzgerald, J. B., Schoeberl, B., Nielsen, U. B. & Sorger, P. K. Systems biology and combination therapy in the quest for clinical efficacy. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2, 458–466 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Palmer, A. C. & Sorger, P. K. Combination cancer therapy can confer benefit via patient-to-patient variability without drug additivity or synergy. Cell 171, 1678–1691.e13 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Loewe, S. & Muischnek, H. Über kombinationswirkungen. Archiv f. experiment. Pathol. u. Pharmakol. 114, 313–326 (1926).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bliss, C. I. The toxicity of poisons applied jointly. Ann. Appl. Biol. 26, 585–615 (1939).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Loewe, S. The problem of synergism and antagonism of combined drugs. Arzneimittelforschung 3, 285–290 (1953).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fisher, R. A. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1930).

  13. Chait, R., Craney, A. & Kishony, R. Antibiotic interactions that select against resistance. Nature 446, 668–671 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Michel, J.-B. et al. Drug interactions modulate the potential for evolution of resistance. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 14918–14923 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Imamovic, L. & Sommer, M. O. A. Use of collateral sensitivity networks to design drug cycling protocols that avoid resistance development. Sci. Transl. Med. 5, 204ra132 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pál, C., Papp, B. & Lázár, V. Collateral sensitivity of antibiotic-resistant microbes. Trends Microbiol. 23, 401–407 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Baym, M., Stone, L. K. & Kishony, R. Multidrug evolutionary strategies to reverse antibiotic resistance. Science 351, aad3292 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Zimmermann, G. R., Lehár, J. & Keith, C. T. Multi-target therapeutics: when the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Drug Discov. Today 12, 34–42 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bayat Mokhtari, R. et al. Combination therapy in combating cancer. Oncotarget 8, 38022–38043 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lehár, J. et al. Synergistic drug combinations tend to improve therapeutically relevant selectivity. Nat. Biotechnol. 27, 659–666 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cokol, M. et al. Systematic exploration of synergistic drug pairs. Mol. Syst. Biol. 7, 544 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chandrasekaran, S. et al. Chemogenomics and orthology-based design of antibiotic combination therapies. Mol. Syst. Biol. 12, 872 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hegreness, M., Shoresh, N., Damian, D., Hartl, D. & Kishony, R. Accelerated evolution of resistance in multidrug environments. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 13977–13981 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Chou, T. C. & Talalay, P. Quantitative analysis of dose–effect relationships: the combined effects of multiple drugs or enzyme inhibitors. Adv. Enzyme Regul. 22, 27–55 (1984).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Greco, W. R., Bravo, G. & Parsons, J. C. The search for synergy: a critical review from a response surface perspective. Pharmacol. Rev. 47, 331–385 (1995).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Berenbaum, M. C. The expected effect of a combination of agents: the general solution. J. Theor. Biol. 114, 413–431 (1985).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Tang, J., Wennerberg, K. & Aittokallio, T. What is synergy? The Saariselkä agreement revisited. Front. Pharmacol. 6, 181 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Yeh, P. J., Hegreness, M. J., Aiden, A. P. & Kishony, R. Drug interactions and the evolution of antibiotic resistance. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 7, 460–466 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhao, W. et al. A new bliss independence model to analyze drug combination data. J. Biomol. Screen. 19, 817–821 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Boucher, A. N. & Tam, V. H. Mathematical formulation of additivity for antimicrobial agents. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 55, 319–325 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Baeder, D. Y., Yu, G., Hozé, N., Rolff, J. & Regoes, R. R. Antimicrobial combinations: Bliss independence and Loewe additivity derived from mechanistic multi-hit models. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 371, 20150294 (2016).

  32. Foucquier, J. & Guedj, M. Analysis of drug combinations: current methodological landscape. Pharmacol. Res. Perspect. 3, e00149 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Drescher, K. & Boedeker, W. Assessment of the combined effects of substances: the relationship between concentration addition and independent action. Biometrics 51, 716–730 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Goldoni, M. & Johansson, C. A mathematical approach to study combined effects of toxicants in vitro: evaluation of the Bliss independence criterion and the Loewe additivity model. Toxicol. In Vitro 21, 759–769 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Lee, S. I. Drug interaction: focusing on response surface models. Korean J. Anesthesiol. 58, 421–434 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Wood, K., Nishida, S., Sontag, E. D. & Cluzel, P. Mechanism-independent method for predicting response to multidrug combinations in bacteria. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 12254–12259 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Zimmer, A., Katzir, I., Dekel, E., Mayo, A. E. & Alon, U. Prediction of multidimensional drug dose responses based on measurements of drug pairs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 10442–10447 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Cokol, M., Kuru, N., Bicak, E., Larkins-Ford, J. & Aldridge, B. B. Efficient measurement and factorization of high-order drug interactions in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Sci. Adv. 3, e1701881 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tekin, E. et al. Prevalence and patterns of higher-order interactions in Escherichia coli. NPJ Syst. Biol. Appl. 4, 31 (2017).

  40. Wagner, J. G. Kinetics of pharmacologic response I. Proposed relationships between response and drug concentration in the intact animal and man. J. Theor. Biol. 20, 173–201 (1968).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Bollenbach, T., Quan, S., Chait, R. & Kishony, R. Nonoptimal microbial response to antibiotics underlies suppressive drug interactions. Cell 139, 707–718 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. How, S. J., Hobson, D., Hart, C. A. & Webster, R. E. An in-vitro investigation of synergy and antagonism between antimicrobials against Chlamydia trachomatis. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 15, 533–538 (1985).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Yeh, P., Tschumi, A. I. & Kishony, R. Functional classification of drugs by properties of their pairwise interactions. Nat. Genet. 38, 489–494 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Kahm, M., Hasenbrink, G., Lichtenberg-Fraté, H., Ludwig, J. & Kschischo, M. grofit: fitting biological growth curves with R. J. Stat. Softw. 33, 1–21 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank U. Alon and I. Katzir for thoughtful discussions and suggestions, Y. Arava for strains, and members of the Kishony lab, especially M. Datta, E. Tamar, I. Yelin and N. Yin, for experimental support and comments on the manuscript. This work was supported in part by the US National Institutes of Health grant R01-GM081617, the Israeli Centers of Research Excellence I-CORE Program ISF grant 152/11 and the European Research Council FP7 ERC Grant 281891 (to R.K.).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Biology, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

    D. Russ & R. Kishony

  2. Faculty of Computer Science, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

    R. Kishony

Authors
  1. D. Russ
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Kishony
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Kishony.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Notes, Supplementary Figures 1–13 and Supplementary Tables 1–8.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Table 9

Dose response of all drug combinations.

Supplementary Table 10

Measured and predicted potencies of drug combinations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Russ, D., Kishony, R. Additivity of inhibitory effects in multidrug combinations. Nat Microbiol 3, 1339–1345 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-018-0252-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-018-0252-1

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing