| Literature DB >> 28696423 |
Freya Harrison1,2, Alan McNally3, Ana C da Silva2, Stephan Heeb2, Stephen P Diggle2.
Abstract
The potential for siderophore mutants of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to attenuate virulence during infection, and the possibility of exploiting this for clinical ends, have attracted much discussion. This has largely been based on the results of in vitro experiments conducted in iron-limited growth medium, in which siderophore mutants act as social 'cheats:' increasing in frequency at the expense of the wild type to result in low-productivity, low-virulence populations dominated by mutants. We show that insights from in vitro experiments cannot necessarily be transferred to infection contexts. First, most published experiments use an undefined siderophore mutant. Whole-genome sequencing of this strain revealed a range of mutations affecting phenotypes other than siderophore production. Second, iron-limited medium provides a very different environment from that encountered in chronic infections. We conducted cheating assays using defined siderophore deletion mutants, in conditions designed to model infected fluids and tissue in cystic fibrosis lung infection and non-healing wounds. Depending on the environment, siderophore loss led to cheating, simple fitness defects, or no fitness effect at all. Our results show that it is crucial to develop defined in vitro models in order to predict whether siderophores are social, cheatable and suitable for clinical exploitation in specific infection contexts.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28696423 PMCID: PMC5649161 DOI: 10.1038/ismej.2017.103
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ISME J ISSN: 1751-7362 Impact factor: 10.302
Results of a review of the empirical literature on P. aeruginosa siderophore mutants and cheating
| ATCC 15692 (PAO1) | PA06609 (PAO9) | CAA+apotransferrin | Yes | Text | 0.5 | Variable | Cheating was concluded on the basis of differences in density of pure vs mixed culture, relative fitness not reported. | |
| ATCC 15692 (PAO1) | PA06609 (PAO9) | Waxworm | Yes | 0.03–0.9 | No | Highest reported cheat relative fitness is 1, at start frequencies⩽0.01 | ||
| ATCC 15692 (PAO1) | PA06609 (PAO9) | CAA+apotransferrin | Yes | 0.001–0.99 | Variable | Cheating observed at starting frequencies⩽0.1; total population density only affected at lowest start frequency | ||
| ATCC 15692 (PAO1) | PAO1 Δ | CAA+apotransferrin | Yes | 0.001–0.99 | Variable | Cheating observed at starting frequencies of 0.001, but no effect on total population density. This mutant gains less fitness benefit from co-culture than PAO9 does | ||
| UCBPP-PA14 (clinical) | Spontaneous mutant | CAA+apotransferrin | Yes | 0.001–0.99 | Variable | Cheating observed at start frequencies⩽0.1, but no effects on total population density. This mutant gains less fitness benefit from co-culture than PAO9 does | ||
| PAO985 | CAA+apotransferrin/iron,± | No | 0 | |||||
| ATCC 15692 (PAO1) | PA06609 (PAO9) | M9 minimal salts+CAA+apotransferrin | No, but raw data available | 0.5 | Yes | Cheat relative fitness in mixed culture decreases as more resources are supplied to the media (CAA concentration manipulated to alter carbohydrate and amino acid supply) | ||
| ATCC 15692 (PAO1) | PA06609 (PAO9) | CAA+apotransferrin | Yes | Text | 0.33 | Yes | ||
| ATCC 15692 (PAO1) | PAO1 Δ | CAA+apotransferrin | No | |||||
| ATCC 15692 (PAO1) | PAO1 Δ | CAA+apotransferrin | Yes | 0.17–0.83 | Yes | Cheat is always fitter than the wild type, even when competed at a starting frequency of 0.83. | ||
| ATCC 15692 (PAO1) | PA06609 (PAO9) | CAA+apotransferrin | Yes | 0.33 | Variable | Cheating is time dependent | ||
| ATCC 15692 (PAO1) | CAA+apotransferrin | No, but raw data available | Raw data | 0.5 | No | Re-analysis of raw data reveals this mutant is less fit then the wild type in mixtures with a starting frequency of 0.5 in planktonic and biofilm culture. | ||
| ATCC 15692 (PAO1) | Clones evolved from PAO6049 | CAA+apotransferrin | No | Raw data | 0.5 | No | Mutants outcompete the wild type in planktonic mixed culture, but so does their siderophore-pruducing ancestor & they are lab adapted, growing as well as PAO1 in pure culture. | |
| ATCC 15692 (PAO1) | PA06609 (PAO9) | CAA+apotransferrin | Yes | 0.09 | No | |||
| ATCC 15692 (PAO1) | PAO1 Δ | CAA+apotransferrin | Yes | 0.09 | Variable | Cheating observed at high cell density only. | ||
| UCBPP-PA14 (clinical isolate) | Spontaneous mutant | CAA+apotransferrin | Yes | 0.09 | Variable | Cheating observed at high cell density only. | ||
| ATCC 15692 (PAO1) | PA06609 (PAO9) | CAA+apotransferrin | Yes | Text | 0.5 | Yes | ||
| ATCC 15692 (PAO1) | PAO1 Δ | CAA+apotransferrin | Yes | 0.5 | Yes | |||
| PAO6049 | PA06609 (PAO9) | CAA+apotransferrin | No | |||||
| Environmental isolate | Spontaneous mutant | CAA+apotransferrin | Yes | 0.5 | Yes | |||
| ATCC 15692 (PAO1) | PAO1 Δ | CAA+apotransferrin | Yes | 0.09 | Yes | |||
| ATCC 15692 (PAO1) | PAO1 Δ | CAA+apotransferrin | No | 0.09 | ||||
| ATCC 15692 (PAO1) | PAO1 Δ | CAA+apotransferrin | No | 0.09 | ||||
| 11 various isolates | Spontaneous mutants | CAA+apotransferrin | Yes | 0.09 | Variable | Cheating observed for 8/11mutants. Three non-cheats (with high pyoverdin production) may be driving the reported trend. | ||
| PAO6049 | Evolved clones | CAA+apotransferrin | Yes | 0.05, 0.5 | Variable | Cheating observed at low starting frequencies for a minority of mutants (mean relative fitness=1) | ||
| PAO1 Δ | Evolved clones | CAA+apotransferrin | Yes | 0.05, 0.5 | Variable | Cheating observed at low starting frequencies only for a majority of mutants, but some can cheat from a starting frequency of 0.5. | ||
| ATCC 15692 (PAO1) | Evolved clones | CAA+apotransferrin | No | 0 | Pyoverdine-deficient clones evolved, but their presence did not consistently reduce population growth—some were associated with increased growth. | |||
| ATCC 15692 (PAO1) | PAO1 Δ | CAA+apotransferrin | No | Three-strain mix, each strain at 0.33 | Carbon source, pH and temperature determine the relative growth advantage conferred by siderophores in monoculture. In acidic pH, Δ | |||
| Cystic fibrosis isolate | 2x spontaneous mutants | CAA | Yes | 0.1 | Yes | Mutant with reduced pyoverdine production cheats on parent strain, and is cheated on by a second spontaneous mutant with even lower pyoverdine production. | ||
| PAO1 Δ | PAO1 Δ | CAA+apotransferrin | Yes | 0.2 | Yes | This experiment competed a double pyoverdine/pyochelin knockouts against a single pyoverdine knockout. | ||
| PAO1 Δ | PAO1 Δ | CAA+apotransferrin | Yes | 0.2 | Yes | This experiment competed a double pyoverdine/pyochelin knockouts against a single pyochelin knockout. | ||
| ATC 15692 (PAO1) | PAO1 Δ | CAA+apotransferrin | No, but can be inferred from data supplied | 0.5 | Yes | There is a coevolutionary arms race, whereby producers become less exploitable and non-producers become better cheats. Non-producer frequency is negatively correlated with population growth. Non-producers grow less well than producers in monoculture, and contemporary pairs show relative fitness of non-producers is >1 (though graphs suggest this effect is small). | ||
| Cystic fibrosis isolates | CF isolates | No culture | No | Text | Cheating inferred by sequence of mutations affecting pyoverdine production and uptake. Very few mutations reported in pyoverdine biosynthetic loci and none pyochelin loci. Most mutations are in pvdS. | |||
| ATCC 15692 (PA01) | PA06609 (PAO9) | CAA+apotransferrin | Yes | 0.02–0.10 | Variable | Mutant cheats only if added to producer cultures before the onset of stationary phase. | ||
| ATCC 15692 (PA01)+eGFP tag | PAO1 Δ | CAA±apotransferrin | Yes | 0.1, 0.5, 0.9 | Yes | Mutant was fitter than the wild type in shaken liquid medium (no spatial structure) and as fit as the wild type in static medium or medium solidified with agar (spatial structure present) when apotransferrin was added, regardless of starting frequency. No cheating observed when apotransferrin was not added. | ||
| ATCC 15692 (PA01) | PAO1 Δ | CAA+apotransferrin | Yes | 0.15, 0.45, 0.75 | Yes | When progressively higher concentrations of gentamicin are added to the medium, mutants lose their growth disadvanatge in monoculture but gain a larger benefit from co-culture with the wild type. |
Abbreviation: CAA, casamino acids medium.
Figure 1Location of one deletion and 90 SNPs in the genome of PAO6609 (a.k.a. PAO9), mapped against a PAO1 reference sequence (NC_002516.2). SNPs are colour coded by functional class of the locus affected. 11 SNPs that that result in amino acid substitution and which seem most likely to affect growth and virulence are highlighted and the gene name given.
Figure 2(a, b) Relative fitness of ΔpvdD and ΔpvdDΔpchEF mutants in pure culture (grey bars) and in mixed culture with an isogenic wild type (white bars) in ASM after (a) 24 and (b) 48 h of growth. After eliminating variation due to experimental block, we found significant effects on 24-h fitness of mutant genotype (ANOVA: F1,33=6.96, P=0.012), presence/absence of the wild type (F1,33=26.8, P<0.001) and their interaction (F1,33=4.49, P<0.042). Neither mutant had a relative fitness significantly different from 1 when grown in pure culture (post hoc t-tests, P⩾0.17). ΔpvdD mutant fitness was unaffected by the wild type (relative fitness in mixed culture not significantly different from 1; post hoc t-test, P=0.074), but the ΔpvdDΔpchEF mutant was outcompeted in mixed culture (post hoc t-test, P<0.001). The only significant determinant of 48-h fitnes was genotype (ANOVA eliminating experimental block: genotype F1,35=8.34, P=0.007; presence/absence of the wild type: F1,33=0.277, P=0.602; interaction term: F1,33=3.62, P=0.065). Post hoc t-tests showed that the ΔpvdD mutant was less fit than the wild type when grown in pure culture (P=0.018) but as fit as the wild type in mixed culture (P=0.279). The ΔpvdDΔpchEF mutant had a relative fitness <1 in both pure and mixed culture (P⩽0.001). (c) Cheating by ΔpvdD over 48 h of co-culture results in mixed wild-type+mutant cultures showing the same reduction in total population density as pure mutant cultures (ANOVA eliminating experimental block, F2,26=12.6, P<0.001; Dunnett’s test for mutant/mixed populations versus wild type: P=0.009 and <0.001, respectively; post hoc t-test for mutant versus mixed populations, P=0.159). In all panels, bars show means of 9–10 replicates split across two replica experiments, with associated 95% confidence interval. In both panels, results of post hoc tests for relative fitness=1 are shown with *=P<0.02; n.s.=not significant.
Figure 3Relative fitness of ΔpvdD and ΔpvdDΔpchEF mutants in pure culture (grey bars) and in mixed culture with an isogenic wild type (white bars) in ex vivo pig lung+ASM after 96 h of growth. Bars show means of eight replicates spread across two replica experiments, with associated 95% confidence interval. (ANOVA eliminating experimental block: genotype F1,27=2.24, P=0.146; presence/absence of the wild type: F1,27=10.7, P=0.003; interaction term: F1,27=0.137, P=0.714). Neither strain had a relative fitness signficantly different from 1 in pure culture (post hoc t-tests, P=0.074 for ΔpvdD, P=0.472 for ΔpvdDΔpchEF). In co-culture, relative fitness was not significantly different from 1 for ΔpvdD (P=0.074), but <1 for ΔpvdDΔpchEF (P=0.007). In both panels, results of post hoc tests for relative fitness=1 are shown with *=P=0.007; n.s.=not significant.
Figure 4Relative fitness of ΔpvdD and ΔpvdDΔpchEF mutants in pure culture (grey bars) and in mixed culture with an isogenic wild type (white bars) in SWF after (a) 24 and (b) 48 h of growth. Bars show means of 10 replicates split across two replica experiments, with associated 95% confidence interval. Twenty-four hour fitnss was detemrined only by the presence/absnece of the wild type (ANOVA eliminating experimental block: genotype F1,35=0.621, P=0.436; presence/absence of wild type: F1,35=35.2, P<0.001; interaction term: F1,35=2.82, P=0.102); The ΔpvdD mutant’s relative fitness was not significantly different from 1 in pure culture (post hoc t-test, P=0.051), and the ΔpvdDΔpchEF mutant slightly and significantly >1 (P=0.006), but both were less fit than the wild type in mixed culture (P=0.032 and <0.001, respectively). Forty-eight-hour fitness was not affected by genotype or co-culture (ANOVA eliminating experimental block: genotype: F1,35=0.045, P=0.833; presence/absence of wild type: F1,35=1.34, P=0.255; interaction term: F1,35=0.078, P=0.781): both mutants had a relative fitness of 1 regardless of wild type presence (post hoc t-tests, P⩾0.104). In both panels, results of post hoc tests for relative fitness=1 are shown with *=P<0.02; n.s.=not significant. Confidence intervals and P-values in (b) are taken from a model that excluded two outliers where relative fitness was zero (indicated by open diamonds): including these outliers in the analysis did not change any of the conclusions given in the text.
Figure 5Relative fitness of ΔpvdD and ΔpvdDΔpchEF mutants in pure culture (grey bars) and in mixed culture with an isogenic wild type (white bars) in synthetic wounds after 48 h of growth. Relative fitness was unaffected by genotype or culture condition (ANOVA eliminating experimental block: genotype F1,35=0.055, P=0.817; presence/absence of wild type: F1,35=0.113, P=0.739; interaction term: F1,35=2.32, P=0.137; post hoc t-tests for relative fitness=1, P⩾0.270). Bars show means of 10 replicates split across two replica experiments, with associated 95% confidence interval and result of post hoc tests (all n.s.).