| Literature DB >> 29371496 |
Isabel Valsecchi1,2, Vincent Dupres3, Emmanuel Stephen-Victor4,5, J Iñaki Guijarro6, John Gibbons7, Rémi Beau8, Jagadeesh Bayry9,10, Jean-Yves Coppee11, Frank Lafont12, Jean-Paul Latgé13, Anne Beauvais14.
Abstract
Resistance of Aspergillus fumigatus conidia to desiccation and their capacity to reach the alveoli are partly due to the presence of a hydrophobic layer composed of a protein from the hydrophobin family, called RodA, which covers the conidial surface. In A. fumigatus there are seven hydrophobins (RodA-RodG) belonging to class I and III. Most of them have never been studied. We constructed single and multiple hydrophobin-deletion mutants until the generation of a hydrophobin-free mutant. The phenotype, immunogenicity, and virulence of the mutants were studied. RODA is the most expressed hydrophobin in sporulating cultures, whereas RODB is upregulated in biofilm conditions and in vivo Only RodA, however, is responsible for rodlet formation, sporulation, conidial hydrophobicity, resistance to physical insult or anionic dyes, and immunological inertia of the conidia. None of the hydrophobin plays a role in biofilm formation or its hydrophobicity. RodA is the only needed hydrophobin in A. fumigatus, conditioning the structure, permeability, hydrophobicity, and immune-inertia of the cell wall surface in conidia. Moreover, the defect of rodlets on the conidial cell wall surface impacts on the drug sensitivity of the fungus.Entities:
Keywords: Aspergillus; cell wall; hydrophobin; rodlet
Year: 2017 PMID: 29371496 PMCID: PMC5872305 DOI: 10.3390/jof4010002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Fungi (Basel) ISSN: 2309-608X
Figure 1Alignment of A. fumigatus hydrophobins: (a) sequence; (b) hydrophobicity profiles; (c): amyloidogenicity predicted with amylpred2 (Tsolis et al., 2013). Alignments include only the regions with the hydrophobin idiosyncratic Cys-residues motif. The positions of hydrophobin Cys-residues are labeled in their order of appearance from 1 to 8 throughout this work. The disulfide topology is shown in grey. In (a), the alignment position is shown on top and sequence numbering on the right; the intensity of the blue color reflects the degree of identity. In (b,c), the positions of the three extra Cys-residues in RodE are marked with a blue line.
Figure 2Expression of the different hydrophobin genes under different conditions.
Figure 3Localization of RodA and RodC. Immunofluorescence localization of RodA on conidia (a) and biofilm (b) cell walls; and on phialides (c) of ku80 (∆rodA was used as a negative control) using the anti-recombinant RodA polyclonal antiserum; Immunoblotting localization of formic acid-soluble material of RodC-Flag and ku80 (negative control) conidia using an anti-Flag monoclonal antibody (d).
Figure 4Conidiation of hydrophobin mutants. Sporulation of ku80 and hydrophobin mutants, quantification of the amount of conidia was conducted from three different malt agar slants (a); morphology of RODA deleted conidia, showing some conidia with an oval shape (arrow) (b).
Figure 5Structure of the conidial cell wall surface of ku80, ∆rodA, and ∆rodBCDEFG conidia. AFM images show the presence of rodlets on the surface of ku80 and ∆rodBCDEFG, whereas the surface of conidia deleted in RODA is amorphous (a); box plots showing the distance between two rodlets on ku80 and ∆rodBCDEFG conidia (n = 20 in both cases) (b); and adherence to polystyrene plates of hydrophobin mutant and parental strain conidia (c). NS: not significant, * p < 0.05.
Figure 6Resistance and permeability of the ∆rodA conidial cell wall. After physical disruption of conidia by 0.17 mm beads for 1 min, conidial survival was estimated by CFU, * p < 0.05 (a); FITC labeling of ∆rodA and ku80 conidia showing a modification of the cell wall permeability seen by the intracellular staining of many ∆rodA conidia (b).
CMI values of hydrophobin mutants and the parental strain ku80 incubated in presence of congo red or calcofluor white for 48 h at 37 °C in MM medium. No statistically significant difference was found in the CMIs for each drug.
| Strains | ku80 | Δ | Δ | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | >300 | 100 | >300 | |
| 80 | 150 | 80 | 150 |
Figure 7Virulence of hydrophobin mutant conidia. Effect on the maturation of human DCs (a); control represents non-stimulated DCs; infection of immunocompromised mice (b). *** p < 0.001; NS: non-significant.