| Literature DB >> 26500638 |
Guanghong Zeng1, Brian S Vad1, Morten S Dueholm2, Gunna Christiansen3, Martin Nilsson4, Tim Tolker-Nielsen4, Per H Nielsen2, Rikke L Meyer1, Daniel E Otzen1.
Abstract
The success of Pseudomonas species as opportunistic pathogens derives in great part from their ability to form stable biofilms that offer protection against chemical and mechanical attack. The extracellular matrix of biofilms contains numerous biomolecules, and it has recently been discovered that in Pseudomonas one of the components includes β-sheet rich amyloid fibrils (functional amyloid) produced by the fap operon. However, the role of the functional amyloid within the biofilm has not yet been investigated in detail. Here we investigate how the fap-based amyloid produced by Pseudomonas affects biofilm hydrophobicity and mechanical properties. Using atomic force microscopy imaging and force spectroscopy, we show that the amyloid renders individual cells more resistant to drying and alters their interactions with hydrophobic probes. Importantly, amyloid makes Pseudomonas more hydrophobic and increases biofilm stiffness 20-fold. Deletion of any one of the individual members of in the fap operon (except the putative chaperone FapA) abolishes this ability to increase biofilm stiffness and correlates with the loss of amyloid. We conclude that amyloid makes major contributions to biofilm mechanical robustness.Entities:
Keywords: AFM; Pseudomonas; Young's modulus; amyloid; biofilm; contact angle; force spectroscopy
Year: 2015 PMID: 26500638 PMCID: PMC4595789 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01099
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Bacteria, plasmids and primers used in this study.
| Mach1 | Used for rutine subcloning | Invitrogen |
| S17-1 | Simon et al., | |
| WT | Wildtype | Dueholm et al., |
| Δ | This study | |
| pVC | Δ | This study |
| pFap | Δ | This study |
| pFapΔA | Δ | This study |
| pFapΔB | Δ | This study |
| pFapΔC | Δ | This study |
| pFapΔD | Δ | This study |
| pFapΔE | Δ | This study |
| pFapΔF | Δ | This study |
| pMMB190Tc | pMMB190 Δ | Dueholm et al., |
| pMMB190Tc-UK4 | pMMB190Tc containing the complete UK4 | Dueholm et al., |
| pMMB190Tc-UK4 | pMMB190Tc-UK4 | This study |
| pMMB190Tc-UK4 | pMMB190Tc-UK4 | This study |
| pMMB190Tc-UK4 | pMMB190Tc-UK4 | This study |
| pMMB190Tc-UK4 | pMMB190Tc-UK4 | This study |
| pMMB190Tc-UK4 | pMMB190Tc-UK4 | This study |
| pMMB190Tc-UK4 | pMMB190Tc-UK4 | This study |
| pDONR221 | Gateway donor vector; Km | Invitrogen |
| pEX18ApGW | Gateway compatible gene replacement vector; Suc | Choi and Schweizer, |
| pPS856 | 0.83 kb blunt-ended SacI fragment from pUCGM ligated into the EcoRV site of pPS854; Amp | Hoang et al., |
| pDONR221-ΔUK4 | This study | |
| pEX18ApGW-ΔUK4 | UK4 | This study |
| UK | 5′-TACAAAAAAGCAGGCTAAGATCA GCCATGACCGCG | This study |
| UK | 5′- TCAGAGCGCTTTTGAAGCTAA TTCGTGAGAGTCGCCACGGCAG | This study |
| UK | 5′-AGGAACTTCAAGATCCCCAATT CGCATTACCTACGCGCGCTATGA | This study |
| UK | 5′- TACAAGAAAGCTGGGTAGGCT GAAGGTGAAGTCGGG | This study |
| Gm-F | 5′- CGAATTAGCTTCAAAAGCGCT CTGA | Choi and Schweizer, |
| Gm-R | 5′- CGAATTGGGGATCTTGAAGTT CCT | Choi and Schweizer, |
| GW- | 5′- GGGGACAAGTTTGTACAAAAA AGCAGGCT | Choi and Schweizer, |
| GW- | 5′- GGGGACCACTTTGTACAAGAA AGCTGGGT | Choi and Schweizer, |
| pMMB190-UpF | 5′-ACACAGGAAACTAGGCAC | This study |
| pMMB190-DnR | 5′- AAATCTTCTCTCATCCGCC | This study |
| LmarkR-UK4fapA-UpR | 5′-AGGAACTTCAAGATCCCCAATT CGAGCCTTGGTTGAGAGTCG | This study |
| LmarkR-UK4fapB-UpR | 5′-AGGAACTTCAAGATCCCCAATT CGAGCAGCCAAGAACGGTGA | This study |
| LmarkR-UK4fapC-UpR | 5′-AGGAACTTCAAGATCCCCAATT CGGGTTTGAGAGCCATTGTAG | This study |
| LmarkR-UK4fapD-UpR | 5′-AGGAACTTCAAGATCCCCAATT CGCTGGAAATAAAAAGGGCCT | This study |
| LmarkR-UK4fapE-UpR | 5′-AGGAACTTCAAGATCCCCAATT CGAACGGGAAGTGTTCATCAT | This study |
| LmarkR-UK4fapF-UpR | 5′-AGGAACTTCAAGATCCCCAATT CGTTAAACAGACAACGGCACG | This study |
| LmarkF-UK4fapA-DnF | 5′-CGAATTGGGGATCTTGAAGTT CCTTGGCACCGTTGAATAACA | This study |
| LmarkF-UK4fapB-DnF | 5′-CGAATTGGGGATCTTGAAGTT CCTGAACCGCATGGCTAACAC | This study |
| LmarkF-UK4fapC-DnF | 5′-CGAATTGGGGATCTTGAAGTT CCTGCAAAGCAACACCCTCAC | This study |
| LmarkF-UK4fapD-DnF | 5′-CGAATTGGGGATCTTGAAGTT CCTCGCCAAGACCAAAATGAAC | This study |
| LmarkF-UK4fapE-DnF | 5′-CGAATTGGGGATCTTGAAGTT CCTACTGCAATCTGGATCAACT | This study |
| LmarkF-UK4fapF-DnF | 5′-CGAATTGGGGATCTTGAAGTT CCTACCTGACAATTGTGCCCA | This study |
| EcoRI-UK4 | 5′-CACTGAATTCGCTTCTGCT CTATTCCTCAC | Dueholm et al., |
| HindIII-UK4 | 5′-CACTAAGCTTGCGCAGCGGT TTTAGAAGT | Dueholm et al., |
Figure 1Identification of amyloid production by staining. Bacterial colonies of WT (A), Δfap (B), and pFap (C) grown on Congo red-CFA agar plates. Fluorescent images of liquid cultures of WT (D), Δfap (E), and pFap (F) stained with ThT, scale bar = 10 μm. Insets: side-views of liquid cultures grown in flasks.
Figure 2AFM images of single cells and cell aggregates. Height images of WT (A, height scale = 104 nm), Δfap (B, height scale = 122 nm), and pFap (C, height scale = 213 nm) cells, scale bar = 1 μm. Error images of WT (D) and pFap (E) aggregates. Corresponding height images of WT (F) and pFap (G) aggregates, scale bar = 1 μm, and line profiles of WT (H) and pFap (I) height images marked by dashed lines.
Figure 3AFM force curves of colloids with different surface properties on single cells. (A) Hydrophilic surface on WT; (B) Hydrophobic surface on WT; (C) Hydrophilic surface on pFap; (D) Hydrophobic surface on pFap. Only retraction parts of the force curves are shown.
Maximal adhesion force and final rupture length of WT and pFap cells on hydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces.
| Hydrophilic | 0.61 ± 0.32 | 1.07 ± 0.45 | 0.30 ± 0.17 | 1.38 ± 0.76 |
| Hydrophobic | 0.32 ± 0.17 | 0.70 ± 0.47 | 0.50 ± 0.26 | 1.40 ± 0.82 |
Based on data shown in Figure .
Figure 4AFM force curves of colloids with different surface properties on cell aggregates. (A) Hydrophilic surface on WT; (B) Hydrophobic surface on WT; (C) Max. adhesion force vs. final rupture length of the force curves on WT; (D) Hydrophilic surface on pFap; (E) Hydrophobic surface on pFap; (F) Max. adhesion force vs. final rupture length of the force curves on pFap. Only retraction parts of the force curves are shown.
Maximal adhesion force and final rupture length of WT and pFap cell aggregates on hydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces.
| Hydrophilic | 0.707 ± 0.616 | 0.653 ± 0.368 | 0.473 ± 0.365 | 5.430 ± 1.762 |
| Hydrophobic | 0.524 ± 0.566 | 0.822 ± 0.863 | 2.891 ± 0.819 | 8.486 ± 1.007 |
Based on data shown in Figure .
Figure 5Video snapshots from contact angle measurements of (A) WT and (B) pFap.
Figure 6AFM Nanoindentation of biofilm. Approach-retraction force curves on WT (A) and pFap (B) biofilm illustrating contact point, indentation depth, and plastic deformation (A1) and elastic recovery (A2). Indentation curves (approach part of the force curves, solid lines) and fit to Hertz model (dashed lines) for WT (C) and pFap (D).
Figure 7Analysis of the effect of removing individual genes from the . Δfap was transformed with the empty plasmid (pVC), a plasmid containing the complete fap operon (pFap) or plasmids containing the fap operon with the individual fap genes deleted. (A) Congo Red binding. Cells were grown on CFA agar plates containing Congo Red. A dark red color indicates amyloid formation. (B) Transmission electron microscopy images of cells taken from cell cultures at stationary phase. (C) Indentation experiments showing the value of Young's modulus for biofilms grown with the different mutants.