solver.press
RefutedBiologyMathematicsMedicine

Evolutionary Traps in WHO Priority Pathogen Collateral Sensitivity Networks: A Graph-Theoretic Hypothesis and Experimental Validation Design

John Goodman — OceanSparx Pty LtdJun 14, 2026

Abstract

REFUTED 20 August 2026. The hypothesis was that the directed collateral sensitivity graph for WHO priority pathogens contains strongly connected components of size ≥3 defining closed evolutionary traps — resistance cycles with no viable single-step escape — which sequential cycling therapy could exploit to hold a pathogen susceptible indefinitely. It was tested against 104,337 susceptibility records from BV-BRC and a candidate was found: a 3-node component in K. pneumoniae linking imipenem, meropenem and tetracycline. It does not survive stratification by clonal lineage. Within MLST sequence types the association is absent (pooled odds ratios 0.93 and 0.95, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel p = 0.73 and 0.80, confidence intervals excluding the unadjusted estimates), and the two dominant lineages pull in opposite directions (ST307, 1.26; ST258, 0.67). Carbapenem-resistant and tetracycline-resistant phenotypes co-occur because they are carried by different successful clones, not because resistance to one induces susceptibility to the other. The manuscript reporting the positive finding was withdrawn from journal review, and the experimental validation package below is withdrawn with it: an isogenic experiment is a within-lineage comparison by construction, so the prediction it would have tested has already been evaluated across 473 co-tested isolates and is not supported. The earlier claim of 50,000–200,000 deaths averted per year was conditional on confirmation and does not stand. What survives is methodological, and is reported separately: none of the checks that made this signal convincing — FDR correction, permutation significance, drug-class specificity, temporal stability — distinguishes a trade-off from linkage within a clone, and the controls that do are inexpensive.

Hypotheses

0/3 confirmed · 2 withdrawn

For at least one WHO critical-priority pathogen (K. pneumoniae, A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, or E. coli), the directed collateral sensitivity graph G constructed from GLASS WGS data contains at least one SCC of size ≥3 where every directed edge (A → B) represents OR > 2.0 (p < 0.05, BH-corrected) for susceptibility to drug B conditioned on resistance to drug A.

Result: A qualifying 3-node component was detected in K. pneumoniae (imipenem, meropenem, tetracycline; permutation p = 0.001, edges at OR 1.81–1.82, q < 0.002, >850 co-tested isolates each) and does not survive stratification by clonal lineage. Pooled within-lineage odds ratios are 0.93 (95% CI 0.63–1.37) and 0.95 (0.65–1.40), CMH p = 0.73 and 0.80. Permuting sequence-type labels 300 times with stratum sizes preserved leaves the odds ratio at a median of 1.76, so the collapse is specific to lineage and not an artefact of stratifying. The E. coli colistin–cefotaxime edge is not pursued: 87 co-tested isolates, and it fails at the corrected threshold if a single isolate is reassigned.
H₂Not tested — withdrawnsource discovery →

No single-step resistance mutation accessible from any node in the SCC (frequency > 10⁻⁷) confers simultaneous clinical resistance (MIC > EUCAST breakpoint) to all drugs in the SCC.

Result: Never tested. H₁ failed, so there is no evolutionary trap for an escape mutation to escape from.
H₃Not tested — withdrawnsource discovery →

A sequential cycling protocol following the SCC edge order maintains pathogen MIC below clinical resistance breakpoints in ≥75% of experimental replicates through passage 30, compared to ≤50% of monotherapy controls reaching resistance by passage 15.

Result: Never tested, and will not be. A cycling protocol built on the SCC edge order would be built on an association that is absent within lineage.

Key Findings

  • 1REFUTED: the candidate SCC in K. pneumoniae is confounded by clonal lineage and is absent within MLST sequence types (pooled OR 0.93 and 0.95; CMH p = 0.73 and 0.80)
  • 2The two dominant lineages pull in opposite directions (ST307, OR 1.26; ST258, 0.67) — the crude association comes from contrasting clones, not from any within-lineage trade-off
  • 3Size-matched random partitions leave the odds ratio at 1.76 against a crude 1.81, so the collapse is lineage-specific rather than an artefact of stratification (0 of 300 permutations reached the observed value)
  • 4The drug-class specificity offered as evidence against a clonal explanation weakens under the same stratification — mechanistic plausibility constrains which confounded associations arise, it does not establish that one is unconfounded
  • 5Transferable result: FDR correction, permutation significance, class specificity and temporal stability are safeguards against chance, and clonal confounding is not chance. Lineage stratification plus a size-matched permutation control detects it and costs nothing

Source Discoveries

Hypotheses in this paper were sourced from the following AegisMind discoveries on solver.press.

Experimental Validation Package
Status: WITHDRAWN 20 August 2026. This programme should not be run on the basis of this dataset. Phase 3 and Phase 4 are within-lineage comparisons by construction, and that comparison has already been made across 473 co-tested isolates in the two dominant sequence types: the association is absent. The Phase 1 Go/No-Go would in fact have passed — a qualifying component was found — which is the point worth keeping. It was the lineage control, not the go/no-go gate, that caught this, and running the gate without the control would have committed roughly $185k–$620k and 252 days to testing a prediction the data already answer.

252 days

Timeline

1,200

GPU hours

2,800

CPU hours

512 GB

Memory

$185k

Budget (min)

$620k

Budget (full)

Required Datasets

  • GLASS WGS database (≥50,000 isolates, 6 WHO critical-priority pathogens)
  • 47 published collateral sensitivity studies (standardized to EUCAST 2024 breakpoints)
  • Deep mutational scanning (DMS) datasets for key resistance genes (GyrA, OmpF, PBP2, RpoB, OXA family)
  • Sequential clinical isolate pairs from GLASS for Phase 5 retrospective analysis
  • Isogenic reference strains: PA14 and ATCC clinical references for Phase 4 CRISPR validation

Experimental Protocol

Phase 1 (Weeks 1–8): Mine GLASS WGS database; logistic regression edge estimation with BH correction; phylogenetic confounding via ≥10 PCs; Tarjan's SCC detection; 1,000-permutation null model significance testing. Go/No-Go: ≥1 SCC size ≥3 with p < 0.05.

Phase 2 (Weeks 6–12): Single-step mutation enumeration within 2 steps of each SCC node; QSAR-model frequency estimation. Go/No-Go: no escape variant at frequency > 10⁻⁷.

Phase 3 (Weeks 10–24): Four arms (SCC cycling, monotherapy, random cycling, no treatment), 12 replicates each, 30 serial passages at 10⁶ CFU/mL CAMHB. MIC every 5 passages; WGS at passages 0, 5, 10, 20, 30 (1,440 libraries at 50× coverage). Log-rank test: time-to-resistance Arm A vs. Arm B.

Phase 4 (Weeks 20–30): CRISPR-Cas9 introduction of resistance mutations in top 3 SCC edges; isogenic PA14 or ATCC backgrounds; MIC confirmation.

Phase 5 (Weeks 24–36): Retrospective Cox proportional hazards on GLASS sequential isolate pairs; HR ≤ 0.7 (95% CI excludes 1.0) for SCC-approximating treatment sequences.

Success Criteria

  • Phase 1: ≥1 SCC size ≥3, all edges OR > 2.0, empirical p < 0.05
  • Phase 2: No simultaneous resistance variant at frequency > 10⁻⁷
  • Phase 3: ≥75% replicates susceptible at passage 30 vs. ≤50% monotherapy reaching resistance by passage 15 (log-rank p < 0.01)
  • Phase 4: ≥2/3 CRISPR-validated edges produce predicted collateral sensitivity (p < 0.05)
  • Phase 5: HR ≤ 0.7, 95% CI excludes 1.0

Failure Criteria

  • Phase 1 Go/No-Go fails: no SCC ≥3 identified in GLASS data at OR > 2.0 threshold
  • SCC cycling fails to outperform random cycling (log-rank p > 0.10)
  • WGS reveals escape mutations in > 30% of lineages by passage 20
  • CRISPR validation fails all 3 edges

Abort Checkpoints

  • Phase 1 Week 8: Abort if no SCC ≥3 found (empirical p > 0.10)
  • Phase 2 Week 12: Abort if escape variant identified at frequency > 10⁻⁵
  • Phase 3 Week 16: Abort if no difference in resistance emergence between Arm A and Arm B at passage 15
  • Phase 4 Week 26: Scope down to retrospective analysis only if CRISPR efficiency < 30%

Commercial ROI

Withdrawn. This rested on the cycling framework being real; it is not supported by this dataset.

Research ROI

Withdrawn as stated — the 50,000–200,000 deaths-averted figure was conditional on confirmation and does not stand. What the work did yield is methodological and is reported separately: a lineage-stratification and permutation control that distinguishes a genuine collateral-sensitivity trade-off from linkage within a successful clone, at no cost beyond the analysis already being run.

Aggregated EVP Package

This paper is part of the AMR Evolutionary Trap EVP cluster. The aggregated EVP combines evidence from multiple papers targeting related mechanisms, enabling shared experimental infrastructure and compounded validation.

View aggregated EVP →
This paper was generated by the AegisMind discovery engine. Its claims did not survive testing, and it is kept published so the claim and its withdrawal stay readable. Access the full engine at aegismind.app