| Literature DB >> 26895713 |
Hans P Steenackers1, Ilse Parijs2, Akanksha Dubey, Kevin R Foster3, Jozef Vanderleyden2.
Abstract
Biofilms are a major form of microbial life in which cells form dense surface associated communities that can persist for many generations. The long-life of biofilm communities means that they can be strongly shaped by evolutionary processes. Here, we review the experimental study of evolution in biofilm communities. We first provide an overview of the different experimental models used to study biofilm evolution and their associated advantages and disadvantages. We then illustrate the vast amount of diversification observed during biofilm evolution, and we discuss (i) potential ecological and evolutionary processes behind the observed diversification, (ii) recent insights into the genetics of adaptive diversification, (iii) the striking degree of parallelism between evolution experiments and real-life biofilms and (iv) potential consequences of diversification. In the second part, we discuss the insights provided by evolution experiments in how biofilm growth and structure can promote cooperative phenotypes. Overall, our analysis points to an important role of biofilm diversification and cooperation in bacterial survival and productivity. Deeper understanding of both processes is of key importance to design improved antimicrobial strategies and diagnostic techniques. © FEMS 2016.Entities:
Keywords: adaptive diversification; biofilm; cooperation; experimental evoultion
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26895713 PMCID: PMC4852284 DOI: 10.1093/femsre/fuw002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: FEMS Microbiol Rev ISSN: 0168-6445 Impact factor: 16.408
Overview of experimental models used to study evolution in biofilms.
| Model | Description of model | Focus of studies using the model |
|---|---|---|
| Static microcosm of | Non-shaking test tube, in which a biofilm mat forms at the broth–air interface | Effect of ecological opportunity on diversification (Rainey and Travisano |
| Bead transfer model of | In slowly rotating test tubes, biofilms are formed on plastic beads, which are regularly transferred to new test tubes. Cells must disperse and colonize a new bead in order to be transferred | Long-term evolution and diversification of |
| Spotting on solid agar plates | Agar plates with different compositions, in some cases complemented with disks | Separate studies have used different agar compositions to investigate:
diversification of the effect of population structure on diversification (Habets genotypic segregation and drift (Hallatschek the effect of founder cell density on cooperation (van Gestel competition between evolved variants (Kim Additionally, growth media that mimic |
| Non-shaking microtiter plate | Biofilms are grown on the bottom or on discs on the bottom of the wells | Analysis of the evolved variants in |
| Flow models | Biofilms experience flow conditions. Nutrients are continuously provided and dispersed, allowing unlimited growth | Various reactor devices evolved variants of evolved interactions between the effect of mutator phenotypes (Lujan public goods and cooperation (Drescher antibiotic resistance (Zhang |
|
| Mathematical modeling of biofilms | Evolution and stabilization of cooperation (Xavier and Foster |
|
| Biofilm isolates from CF patients | Evolution in patient isolates of |
See Table S1(Supporting Information) for more detailed information about the referred studies.
Figure 1.Illustration of biofilm models. (A) ‘Static models’: (a) The static microcosm model consists of a non-shaking test tube in which a biofilm mat like structure forms at the air–liquid interphase (Adapted from Rainey and Travisano 1998, also used by e.g. Kassen and Rainey 2004; Fukami et al. 2007; Kassen 2009; Spiers 2014). (b) Colonies on agar plates are considered to be suitable biofilm models due to the presence of gradients, an increased mutation rate and a structured environment (Adapted from Kim et al. 2014, also used by e.g. Korona et al. 1994; Perfeito et al. 2008; Koch et al. 2014; Saint-Ruf et al. 2014; van Gestel et al. 2014). (B) ‘Flow models’: (a) In the bead transfer model, plastic beads are put into slowly rotating test tubes. Biofilms grow on the beads and experience flow conditions due to the rotation of the test tubes. In every transfer cycle, the colonized beads are put in a new tube with new beads, without adding new bacteria (Adapted from Poltak and Cooper 2011, also used by e.g. Poltak and Cooper 2011; Traverse et al. 2012; Ellis et al. 2015; O'Rourke et al. 2015). (b) In flow cells, biofilms can grow in the presence of unlimited nutrients and dispersion (Adapted from Kirisits et al. 2005, also used by e.g. Boles, Thoendel and Singh 2004; Hansen et al. 2007; Koh et al. 2007; Yarwood et al. 2007; Lujan et al. 2011; Tyerman et al. 2013; McElroy et al. 2014; Penterman et al. 2014; Udall et al. 2015). (C) ‘In silico models’: agent-based in silico models consist of single dividing cells (the agents) that are programed to grow until a certain radius and then divide. Different parameters can be easily included and adapted (Adapted from Mitri, Xavier and Foster 2011, also used by e.g. Xavier and Foster 2007; Nadell et al. 2008; Nadell, Foster and Xavier 2010; Kim et al. 2014; van Gestel et al. 2014; Schluter et al. 2015).
Figure 2.Overview of the causes of diversification. (A) ‘Ecological opportunity’: spatial structure and gradients present in a biofilm provide ecological opportunity in the form of vacant niches, which are unused or underutilized by the initially existing genotype(s) and are available to novel genotypes. (a) In a static microcosm, three morphological variants of P. fluorescens each occupy a preferred niche: the ancestral SM variant colonizes the broth, the WS variant forms a biofilm mat at the broth–air interphase and the FS seems to occupy the anoxic zone at the bottom of the microcosm (Rainey and Travisano 1998). (b) GFP-tagged MV emerge at the surface when introduced in a wild-type P. fluorescens colony. Consistently, MV's that spontaneously arise in P. fluorescens colonies push their way to the surface and dominate the colony (Kim et al. 2014). (B) ‘Ecological interaction’: genotypic variants may alter their environment and consequently create new niches. Ecological succession of the (Studded) S, (Ruffled) R and (Wrinkly) W variants of B. cenocepacia is enabled by this process of niche construction. A confocal image of the biofilm structure is shown, in which the entire biofilm is projected in blue, the W morphotype fluoresces red, and the R morphotype fluoresces green. The three endpoint morphotypes were found to partition biofilm space in such a way that the strong biofilm formers R (appearing in yellow) and W (appearing in purple) tightly associate with the beads in heterogeneous clumps and enhance the space available to S, which inhabits a unique layer at the outside of the biofilm on top of R and W (Poltak and Cooper 2011). This spatial segregation was less pronounced at earlier points in evolution (at 350 generations) at which S was found to constitute still a high proportion of the heterogeneous clumps near the bead surface. Thus, the S type appears to have evolved physical displacement from the other types in the biofilms. (C) ‘Population structure and drift’: population fragmentation enhances the influence of genetic drift. Drift can be further amplified because often only cells on the expanding edge of the biofilm can grow, which further reduces effective population size. This genetic drift at the expanding frontiers also drives strong population sectoring which can promote the maintenance of diversity. (a) A fluorescent image of a bacterial colony, grown from a mixture of CFP- and YFP-labeled cells reveals spatial segregation of these neutral genetic markers. Only a very thin active layer of growing cells at the boundary of the colony is able to pass on their genes to the next layer of outwardly growing cells, causing a continual bottleneck. The resulting reduction in effective population size promotes a quick segregation of mutants into monoclonal domains (Hallatschek et al. 2007). (b) A simulation of surface growth that started with a 1:1 mixture of red and blue cells under low growth substrate conditions. Cell color served as a neutral marker for the lineage segregation in space (Nadell, Foster and Xavier 2010). (D) ‘Gradients of stress factors (e.g. antibiotics)’: provide stepping stones that, along with speeding up evolution, also might increase diversification. Indeed, small increases in resistance against the stress factor might be caused by a diversity of mutations of small effect, possibly resulting in a variety of combinations of mutations. Gradients in this biofilm are visualized by imaging the diffusion of the red fluorescent dye rhodamine B into the interior of cell clusters (Rani, Pitts and Stewart 2005; Stewart and Franklin 2008). A movie of the entire sequence can be viewed at https://www.biofilm.montana.edu/resources/movies/2005/2005m01.html. (E) ‘Clonal interference’: competition between simultaneous beneficial mutations is expected to lead to longer fixation times and as a consequence to temporally higher diversity. Mutational dynamics within and among niches are shown over time for three evolving morphotypes. Each color transition represents a new haplotype and clonal interference is observed in the case of haplotypes cooccurring within the same niche, for example the haplotypes of the R morphotype (green) (Traverse et al. 2012). (F) ‘Mutation rate’: mutations are the source of genetic variation for diversifying selection and drift to act on and increased mutation rate enhances the potential for clonal interference, and thus diversity. Mutation frequency in P. aeruginosa biofilms is observed using fluorescence (GFP) inducing reversion mutations and clusters of GFP cells within microcolonies are shown (Conibear, Collins and Webb 2009).
Figure 3.Overview of mechanisms that stabilize cooperation in biofilms. There are two general types of mechanisms: the spatial separation of producers and cheaters (A–D) and reduction of distance over which the benefit of cooperation acts (E and F). (A) ‘Drift in expanding growth front’: random drift in the thin active growth layers causes lineage segregation (Nadell, Foster and Xavier 2010). (B) ‘Low founder density’: at low founder cell density, the cells are initially more separated from each other at the surface, allowing more cell divisions before the growing cell clusters get into contact and as such increasing lineage segregation (van Gestel et al. 2014). (C) ‘Benefits to descendants only’: polymer production causes the descendants of the producers to be pushed up to areas with an increased oxygen availability, while non-producers are being suffocated (Nadell and Bassler 2011). (D) ‘Social insulation’: at high-nutrient conditions, the addition of another species causes the producers and non-producers to be separated from each other (Mitri, Xavier and Foster 2011). (E) ‘Biofilm thickness’: producers of chitinase (yellow), an enzyme to degrade chitin (blue) to usable GlcNAc, are located at places with a high biofilm density. Due to the thick biofilm, diffusion is low and non-producers (red) are not able take advantage of the GlcNAc as it will be depleted by neighboring producers cells before it can reach the non-producers (Drescher et al. 2014). (F) ‘Biofilm flow’: under static conditions, the GlcNAc produced from chitin (blue) by chitinase producers (yellow) can also be used by non-producers (red). However, under flow conditions, the GlcNAc will be transported away from the biofilm surface, causing only neighboring producers cells to benefit from the GlcNAc (Drescher et al. 2014).