| Literature DB >> 22294679 |
Gena D Tribble1, Todd W Rigney, Doan-Hieu V Dao, Cindy T Wong, Jennifer E Kerr, Brendan E Taylor, Sara Pacha, Heidi B Kaplan.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Porphyromonas gingivalis is a Gram-negative anaerobe that resides exclusively in the human oral cavity. Long-term colonization by P. gingivalis requires the bacteria to evade host immune responses while adapting to the changing host physiology and alterations in the composition of the oral microflora. The genetic diversity of P. gingivalis appears to reflect the variability of its habitat; however, little is known about the molecular mechanisms generating this diversity. Previously, our research group established that chromosomal DNA transfer occurs between P. gingivalis strains. In this study, we examine the role of putative DNA transfer genes in conjugation and transformation and demonstrate that natural competence mediated by comF is the dominant form of chromosomal DNA transfer, with transfer by a conjugation-like mechanism playing a minor role. Our results reveal that natural competence mechanisms are present in multiple strains of P. gingivalis, and DNA uptake is not sensitive to DNA source or modification status. Furthermore, extracellular DNA was observed for the first time in P. gingivalis biofilms and is predicted to be the major DNA source for horizontal transfer and allelic exchange between strains. We propose that exchange of DNA in plaque biofilms by a transformation-like process is of major ecological importance in the survival and persistence of P. gingivalis in the challenging oral environment. IMPORTANCE: P. gingivalis colonizes the oral cavities of humans worldwide. The long-term persistence of these bacteria can lead to the development of chronic periodontitis and host morbidity associated with tooth loss. P. gingivalis is a genetically diverse species, and this variability is believed to contribute to its successful colonization and survival in diverse human hosts, as well as evasion of host immune defenses and immunization strategies. We establish here that natural competence is the major driving force behind P. gingivalis DNA exchange and that conjugative DNA transfer plays a minor role. Furthermore, we reveal for the first time the presence of extracellular DNA in P. gingivalis biofilms, which is most likely the source of DNA exchanged between strains within dental plaque. These studies expand our understanding of the mechanisms used by this important member of the human oral flora to transition its relationship with the host from a commensal to a pathogenic relationship.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22294679 PMCID: PMC3268665 DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00231-11
Source DB: PubMed Journal: MBio Impact factor: 7.867
Bacterial strains used in this study
| Strain | Genomic | Mutation | Strain | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| W83 | ATCC BAA-308 | ||
|
| ATCC 33277 | ATCC 33277 | ||
|
| ATCC 53977 | ATCC 53977 | ||
|
| Rifr | W83 Rifr | This study | |
|
|
| W83 Tetr | This study | |
|
|
|
| W83 Tetr Δ | This study |
|
| Rifr |
| W83 Rifr Δ | This study |
|
|
|
| W83 Tetr Δ | This study |
|
| Rifr |
| W83 Rifr Δ | This study |
|
| Rifr | ATCC 33277 Rifr | This study | |
|
|
| ATCC 33277 Tetr | This study | |
|
| Rifr | ATCC 53977 Rifr | This study | |
|
|
| ATCC 53977 Tetr | This study |
DNA transfer assays with live strains
| Strain 1 (W83) phenotype and genotype | Strain 2 (W83) phenotype and genotype | DNA transfer efficiency | SD |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rifr | Tetr | 6.73 × 10−5 | 4.65 × 10−5 | 10 |
| Rifr Δ | Tetr Δ | 2.02 × 10−5 | 6.83 × 10−6 | 8 |
| Rifr | Tetr (DNase I) | 7.81 × 10−6 | 7.45 × 10−6 | 5 |
| Rifr Δ | Tetr | 9.74 × 10−6 | 9.08 × 10−6 | 3 |
| Rifr Δ | Tetr Δ | 4.22 × 10−7 | 3.11 × 10−8 | 3 |
| Rifr Δ | Tetr Δ | 7.81 × 10−6 | 7.45 × 10−6 | 4 |
| Rifr Δ | Tetr Δ | 4.43 × 10−7 | 1.21 × 10−7 | 4 |
DNA transfer efficiency is calculated as the total number of Tetr and Rifr offspring divided by the number of input recipient cells.
n is the number of replicates of each experiment.
DNA transfer assays with dead donor strains
| Live recipient (W83) phenotype and genotype | Dead donor (W83) phenotype and genotype | DNA transfer efficiency | SD |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rifr | Tetr | 3.17 × 10−4 | 2.61 × 10−4 | 10 |
| Rifr | Tetr (DNase I) | 7.30 × 10−8 | 1.41 × 10−8 | 3 |
| Rifr Δ | Tetr | <10−8 | 8 | |
| Rifr | Tetr Δ | 2.02 × 10−4 | 5.42 × 10−5 | 4 |
| Rifr Δ | Tetr | 1.92 × 10−4 | 5.61 × 10−5 | 5 |
| Tetr | Rifr Δ | 1.61 × 10−4 | 4.23 × 10−5 | 4 |
DNA transfer efficiency is calculated as the total number of Tetr and Rifr offspring divided by the number of input recipient cells.
n is the number of replicates of each experiment.
FIG 1 DNA transfer efficiency with dead donors. The DNA uptake efficiencies of experiments with three live recipient P. gingivalis strains each mixed with the same three dead donor strains are shown. Transformation efficiencies are shown on the y axis and are calculated as the number of recovered transformants (Rifr Tetr) divided by the number of input recipient cells. All recipient strains (x axis) were rifampin resistant, and all dead donor strains contained the genomic insertion PG1244 ΩtetQ.
DNA transfer efficiency after electroporation and transformation with a DNA fragment
| Recipient | Transfer efficiency | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| After electroporation | In a biofilm | In a biofilm with a cell lysate | In a biofilm treated with DNase I | |
| W83 | 1.04 × 10−6 (±4.9 × 10−7) | 1.81 × 10−4 (±5.2 × 10−5) | 2.66 × 10−4 (±4.8 × 10−5) | <10−8 |
| W83 Δ | <10−8 | <10−8 | ND | ND |
The DNA source was a 3.2-kb PCR product containing the PG1244 ΩtetQ gene. Standard deviations are shown in parentheses. ND, not determined.
FIG 2 Fluorescence microscopy of P. gingivalis biofilm eDNA. P. gingivalis static biofilms were grown for 24 h and then stained and imaged with a fluorescence microscope. GelGreen-labeled extracellular DNA (diffuse green), propidium iodide-labeled dead bacterial cells (punctate red), and DAPI-labeled live cells (punctate blue). (A) Merged three-color image of a representative 24-h biofilm at 40× magnification. (B) The white boxed area in panel A is magnified here. (C) The blue, red, and green channels used in panel B are shown separately. The images shown are representative of three independent experiments.