| Literature DB >> 28131954 |
Diane Esson1, Srishti Gupta1, David Bailey2, Paul Wigley3, Amy Wedley3, Alison E Mather4, Guillaume Méric5, Pietro Mastroeni1, Samuel K Sheppard5, Nicholas R Thomson6, Julian Parkhill4, Duncan J Maskell1, Graham Christie2, Andrew J Grant7.
Abstract
Campylobacter jejuni is the leading cause of bacterial food borne illness. While helical cell shape is considered important for C. jejuni pathogenesis, this bacterium is capable of adopting other morphologies. To better understand how helical-shaped C. jejuni maintain their shape and thus any associated colonisation, pathogenicity or other advantage, it is first important to identify the genes and proteins involved. So far, two peptidoglycan modifying enzymes Pgp1 and Pgp2 have been shown to be required for C. jejuni helical cell shape. We performed a visual screen of ∼2000 transposon mutants of C. jejuni for cell shape mutants. Whole genome sequence data of the mutants with altered cell shape, directed mutants, wild type stocks and isolated helical and rod-shaped 'wild type' C. jejuni, identified a number of different mutations in pgp1 and pgp2, which result in a change in helical to rod bacterial cell shape. We also identified an isolate with a loss of curvature. In this study, we have identified the genomic change in this isolate, and found that targeted deletion of the gene with the change resulted in bacteria with loss of curvature. Helical cell shape was restored by supplying the gene in trans. We examined the effect of loss of the gene on bacterial motility, adhesion and invasion of tissue culture cells and chicken colonisation, as well as the effect on the muropeptide profile of the peptidoglycan sacculus. Our work identifies another factor involved in helical cell shape.Entities:
Keywords: Campylobacter jejuni; Cell shape
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28131954 PMCID: PMC5335918 DOI: 10.1016/j.micpath.2017.01.042
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Pathog ISSN: 0882-4010 Impact factor: 3.738
Bacterial strains and plasmids used in this study.
| Strain or plasmid | Relevant genotype or description | Source and/or reference |
|---|---|---|
| Chicken and human clinical isolate | Diane Newell, | |
| M1 Helical | Helical M1 wild type (M1 isolate, bacteria confirmed to be helical) | This study |
| M1 Rod | Rod M1 wild type (INDEL in | This study |
| Human clinical isolate, hyperinvasive | ||
| 81176_KR | 81-176 wild type with loss of curvature | This study |
| 81-176 Helical | Helical 81–176 wild type (81–176 isolate, bacteria confirmed to be helical) | This study |
| 81-176 Rod | Rod 81–176 wild type (INDEL in | This study |
| Helical 81–176 background, | This study | |
| This study | ||
| Helical M1 background, | This study | |
| This study | ||
| Subcloning Efficiency™ DH5α™ Competent Cells. F− Φ80 | Thermo Scientific | |
| pUC19 | New England Biolabs, | |
| pCE107/70 | ||
| pRY111 | Source of | |
| pSV009 | ||
| pDARE12 | pUC19 derivative encoding | This study |
| pDARE14 | pCE107/70 derivative encoding | This study |
| pSV009-pgp3c | pSV009 derivative encoding | This study |
Abbreviations for antibiotics: Cm, Chloramphenicol; Km, Kanamycin; Ap, Ampicillin.
Primer sequences used in this study.
| Primer | Target | Sequence (5′ – 3′) |
|---|---|---|
| dare008 | gaattc | |
| dare009 | gcatgc | |
| dare010 | gcatgc | |
| dare011 | agtact | |
| dare_1001 | cccggg | |
| dare_1002 | tctaga | |
| dare_1003 | gtcgac | |
| dare_1004 | gttaac | |
| darec_F | gtcgac | |
| darec_R | agtact | |
| dare_ck1 | GGCTATGCTTGATAAATTTCA | |
| dare_ck2 | AGTTCCATTAAAGCGACCGCC | |
| pSV009_GCamplif_FW1 | Genetic complementation region | TAATAGAAATTTCCCCAAGTCCCA |
| pSV009_GCamplif_RV1 | Genetic complementation region | CTATTGCCATAGTAGCTCTTAGTGG |
| pSV009_seq_FW1 | Sequencing genetic complementation insert | GGAGACATTCCTTCCGTATCT |
| pSV009_seq_RV1 | Sequencing genetic complementation insert | AGCGAGACAAAAACACTGAGC |
Upper-case indicates homology to target sequence. Restriction enzyme sites are underlined and preceded by an arbitrary 6-bp sequence.
Fig. 1Scanning electron micrographs of helical and loss of curvature morphologies of C. jejuni 81–176. (a) 81–176 helical isolate and (b) isolate 81176_KR from the WT C. jejuni 81–176 laboratory frozen stock. Scale bars represent 2.5 μm.
Fig. 2Gene locus and targeted deletion of CJJ81176_1105 (81–176) and CJM1_1064 (M1). (a) A targeted deletion of CJJ81176_1105 was generated in the 81–176 and M1 (CJM1_1064) backgrounds by exchanging the gene with a cat cassette (CmR). The cat cassette along with the flanking regions indicated (CJM1_1064), was cloned into the suicide vector pUC19 (pDARE10, M1 derivative and pDARE12, 81–176 derivative, CmR). A complementing plasmid (pDARE14, M1 derivative, and pSV009-CJJ81176_1105, 81–176 derivative, KmR) was generated by cloning M1 CJM1_1064 into pCE107/70, a kanamycin-resistant shuttle vector. (b) CJM1_1064 and CJJ81176_1105 displayed loss of curvature, complementation with pDARE14 (M1) or pSV009- CJJ81176_1105c (81–176) (supplying CJJ81176_1105 in trans), strains CJM1_1064comp and CJJ81176_1105comp, rescued the morphology back to helical.
Fig. 3Average motility of helical and rod WT C. jejuni M1 isolates, CJJ81176_1105 and CJM1_1064 mutants and complemented strains in 0.4%, 0.6%, 0.8% and 1.0% (w/v) select agar in two different C. jejuni backgrounds (a) M1, and (b) 81–176. Statistical differences at each agar concentration were determined using an unpaired t-test correcting for multiple comparisons using a Šídák-Bonferroni method (* = p < 0.005). Data shown is mean and SD (n = 4).
Fig. 4Adhesion (a) to, and invasion (b) of Caco-2 cells by C. jejuni M1 and 81–176 rod and helical isolates, CJJ81176_1105 and CJM1_1064 mutants and complemented strains. Data is represented as percentage of wild-type (n ≥ 3) and plotted as means and SEM. Statistical significance was calculated using a Mann-Whitney test where * P < 0.05 and **P < 0.005.
Fig. 5Chicken colonisation of C. jejuni M1 WT-helical isolate and CJM1_1064 mutant. Chickens were orally infected with 0.3 ml of a MH broth culture containing 2 × 109 CFU/ml of the C. jejuni isolates. Viable counts from serial dilutions of the cecal contents of chickens show that the WT and mutant colonised to similar levels.
Fig. 6Muropeptide profiles of C. jejuni M1 and 81–176 helical WT strains and CJJ81176_1105 and CJM1_1064 mutants. HPLC chromatograms of mutanolysin digested PG purified from C. jejuni strain (a) WT M1, (b) M1 CJM1_1064, (c) WT 81–176, and (d) 81–176 CJJ81176_1105. The muropeptide profiles are very similar between the respective WT and pgp3 mutant strains. Muropeptide peaks have been putatively numbered and identified according to published muropeptide profiles of strain 81-176 [5].