| Literature DB >> 29488359 |
Esther Frohnmeyer1, Paulina Deptula1, Tuula A Nyman2, Pia K S Laine3, Helena Vihinen4, Lars Paulin3, Petri Auvinen3, Eija Jokitalo4, Vieno Piironen1, Pekka Varmanen1, Kirsi Savijoki1.
Abstract
This study compared the secretomes (proteins exported out of the cell) of Propionibacterium freudenreichii of different origin to identify plausible adaptation factors. Phylosecretomics indicated strain-specific variation in secretion of adhesins/invasins (SlpA, InlA), cell-wall hydrolysing (NlpC60 peptidase, transglycosylase), protective (RpfB) and moonlighting (DnaK, GroEL, GaPDH, IDH, ENO, ClpB) enzymes and/or proteins. Detailed secretome comparison suggested that one of the cereal strains (JS14) released a tip fimbrillin (FimB) in to the extracellular milieu, which was in line with the electron microscopy and genomic analyses, indicating the lack of surface-associated fimbrial-like structures, predicting a mutated type-2 fimbrial gene cluster (fimB-fimA-srtC2) and production of anchorless FimB. Instead, the cereal strain produced high amounts of SlpB that tentatively mediated adherent growth on hydrophilic surface and adherence to hydrophobic material. One of the dairy strains (JS22), producing non-covalently bound surface-proteins (LspA, ClpB, AraI) and releasing SlpA and InlA into the culture medium, was found to form clumps under physiological conditions. The JS22 strain lacked SlpB and displayed a non-clumping and biofilm-forming phenotype only under conditions of increased ionic strength (300 mM NaCl). However, this strain cultured under the same conditions was not adherent to hydrophobic support, which supports the contributory role of SlpB in mediating hydrophobic interactions. Thus, this study reports significant secretome variation in P. freudenreichii and suggests that strain-specific differences in protein export, modification and protein-protein interactions have been the driving forces behind the adaptation of this bacterial species.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29488359 PMCID: PMC5902329 DOI: 10.1111/1751-7915.13254
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Biotechnol ISSN: 1751-7915 Impact factor: 5.813
Figure 1Silver‐stained 1‐DE images representing the secretomes of P. freudenreichii and Acidipropionibacterium (A). Proteins were isolated and purified from mid‐exponential cultures (18–48 hpi), separated using TGX Precast (12%) PAGE gels and visualized by silver staining. STD, a molecular weight marker (250–10 kDa) (New England BioLabs). The indicated protein bands were cut out for in‐gel tryptic digestion and LC‐MS/MS identification. Protein identifications with relevant details are shown in Table S2. Jaccard (UPGMA) dendrogram based on the silver‐stained 1‐DE secretomes (B). P. freudenreichii cereal (red), dairy, (black), Acidipropionibacterium (blue) and type strains (green) are indicated. Horizontal clustering with the Jaccard (UPGMA) coefficient relies on the number of matching bands.
Figure 2The 2‐DE secretomes of JS14 and JS22 at the mid‐exponential growth stage after Sypro Orange (A) and silver staining (B, C). Purple spots correspond to JS14 and green spots to JS22. Differentially expressed spots selected for LC‐MS/MS identification (fold change ≥ 2; P < 0.05) are marked.
Identification of the 2‐DE secretome changes between the selected Propionibacterium freudenreichii cereal (JS14) and dairy (JS22) strains
| Spot | Protein | Locus_Tag | More in | Fold‐change | Mw (Da) | pI | [ms] ID score ( | Seq. cov. (%) | No. pept. | PP | Sig. pept. | TMD | NC‐Secr. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||||
| 1–4 | Surface‐anchored fimbrial subunit (FimB) | PFR_JS14_352 | JS14 | 3.1, 6.7, 6.9, 2.3 | 98 347 | 5.8 | 258, 247, 432, 186 | 8.5, 8.5, 12, 8.8 | 7, 7, 9, 6 | Yes | No | 1 | Yes |
| 5, 6, 8, 9, 12 | Internalin A (InlA, fragment; LRRs, no SLHs) | PFR_JS22_1_2260 | JS22 | 3.1, 6.7, 8.9, 3.5 | 61 422 | 5.2 | 1199, 2960, 481, 5294, 833 | 22.1, 29, 12, 36, 12.5 | 18, 80, 9, 104, 10 | Yes | Yes | 1 | No |
| 8, 9 | Surface layer protein A (SIpA; SLH domain) | PFR_JS22_1_534 | JS22 | 8.9, 3.5 | 58 552 | 4.7 | 2369, 2642 | 35, 44 | 48, 68 | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| 8 | SIpA (SLH domain) | PFR_JS22_1_535 | JS22 | 8.9 | 50 562 | 4.8 | 150 | 6 | 6 | No | No | No | Yes |
| 27 | S‐layer domain protein (SLH) | PFR_JS14_687 | JS14 | 2.2 | 23 620 | 8.4 | 267 | 28.3 | 11 | No | Yes | No | No |
| 12–14, 17 | S‐layer domain protein (SLH; no evolutionary counterpart in JS14) | PFR_JS22_1_537 | JS22 | 3.5, 15.3, 6.6, 3.2 | 32 959 | 5.0 | 170, 3348, 851, 270 | 12, 25, 17, 15.5 | 3, 76, 20, 3 | Yes | Yes | 1 | No |
| 12 | Hypothetical secreted protein (YkuD superfamily domain) | PFR_JS22‐1_1900 | JS22 | 3.5 | 30 445 | 4.9 | 93 | 9.4 | 3 | No | Yes | 1 | No |
| 10 |
| PFR_JS22‐1_347 | JS22 | 3.9 | 41 835 | 4.7 | 1283 | 22.8 | 30 | Yes | Yes | 1 | No |
| 10 | Peptidase M23B family/metalloendo‐peptidase | PFR_JS22‐1_759 | JS22 | 3.9 | 39 104 | 5.2 | 121 | 5.9 | 2 | No | Yes | 1 | No |
| 11 |
| PFR_JS14_299 | JS14 | 5.2 | 41 835 | 5.0 | 1383 | 22.8 | 34 | Yes | Yes | 1 | No |
| 11 | Peptidase M23B family/metalloendo‐peptidase | PFR_JS14_718 | JS14 | 5.2 | 39 104 | 5.2 | 107 | 5.9 | 2 | No | Yes | 1 | No |
|
| |||||||||||||
| 17, 24 | RpfB | PFR_JS22_1_1666 | JS22 | 3.2, 2.4 | 37 701 | 5.3 | 1445, 400, 134 | 48.8, 29.9 | 39, 7 | Yes | Yes | 1 | No |
| 15, 18–20, 22, 23, 26 | Resuscitation‐promoting factor RpfB | PFR_JS14_1610 | JS14 | 4.6, 3.2, 4.7, 3.3, 2.9, 5.4, 3.4 | 37 701 | 5.27 | 2232, 444, 562, 597, 557, 3122, 134, 3077 | 36, 29.6, 23.3, 24.4,35, 30.7, 18 | 59,10, 13, 19, 12, 76, 75, 4 | Yes | Yes | 1 | No |
| 8, 9 | NlpC/P60 family secreted peptidase | PFR_JS22‐1_1785 | JS22 | 8.9, 3.5 | 59 700 | 4.8 | 423, 475 | 17, 17 | 8, 8 | No | Yes | No | No |
| 12 | ABC‐type amino acid transport system, secreted component | PFR_JS22‐1_90 | JS22 | 3.5 | 31 672 | 4.8 | 149 | 42 620 | 2 | No | Yes | No | No |
| 6 | Oligopeptide‐binding protein OppA | PFR_JS22‐1_1684 | JS22 | 6.7 | 61 589 | 5.1 | 79 | 5.4 | 2 | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| 7 | Oligopeptide‐binding protein OppA | PFR_JS14_1627 | JS14 | 2.1 | 61 589 | 5.7 | 1200 | 32 | 31 | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| 21 | Putative peptidoglycan‐binding protein, cell‐wall catabolism | PFR_JS22‐1_2177 | JS22 | 2.6 | 20 157 | 4.8 | 511 | 51 | 7 | No | Yes | No | No |
|
| |||||||||||||
| 5 | 60 kDa chaperonin 1 (GroEL) | PFR_JS22‐1_1630 | JS22 | 3.1 | 56 169 | 4.7 | 2544 | 48.9 | 60 | Yes | No | No | Yes |
| 16 | Hypothetical protein (Big2 family) | PFR_JS22‐1_26 | JS22 | 5.7 | 30 145 | 4.7 | 375 | 42 607 | 9 | No | No | No | Yes |
| 21 | Protein of hypothetical function DUF162 | PFR_JS22‐1_517 | JS22 | 2.6 | 23 227 | 4.7 | 292 | 39 | 6 | No | No | No | No |
| Putative electron transfer flavoprotein FixA | PFR_JS22‐1_2035 | JS22 | 2.6 | 25 770 | 4.7 | 136 | 17 | 3 | No | No | No | No | |
Spot numbers correspond to those in Fig. 5. In some cases, several proteins were identified in one spot; thus, the change in average volume ratio is linked to one or combination of the identified proteins.
The spots displaying > 2.0‐fold change (P < 0.05) in spot volume values in each four replicate 2‐DE gels within both test groups were picked for LC‐MS/MS identification.
Theoretical Mw (kDa) and pI values obtained from MASCOT search results.
Mascot identification scores (P < 0.05) derived from Mascot search. No. pept., number of matched peptides. Seq. cov., sequence coverage.
PP, Presence of phosphorylated peptides; Sig. pept., presence of signal peptide; TMD, presence of transmembrane domain(s), NC‐Secr., non‐classically secreted protein. SignalP4.1 (http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/SignalP-4.1/) was used to indicate proteins that are exported out of the cells via the Sec‐ (Petersen et al., 2011) or TatP‐ (http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/TatP/) dependent pathways (Bendtsen et al., 2005). secretomep 2.0 (http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/SecretomeP/) was used to predict proteins (moonlighting proteins) that are exported out of the cells via signal‐peptide‐independent or non‐classical secretion mechanisms (Bendtsen et al., 2005). TMHMM (http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/TMHMM/) (Krogh et al., 2001) was used to indicate the number of probable trans‐membrane‐helices/domains (TMD).
Figure 5Schematic diagram of the gene clusters encoding proteins involved in the biogenesis of fimbriae in JS14 and JS22. Genes encoding fimbrial shaft protein (FimA) and tip fimbrillin (FimB) subunits, and a fimbria‐specific sortase (SrtC) are shown. Conserved features required for fimbriae (E‐box, LXET; pilin motif, YPKN) (Persson et al., 2012) are found in FimA or FimB. The LPxTG‐motif required for sortase‐mediated protein ligation was found in small ORFs following FimA (JS22 and JS14) or the truncated FimB‐encoding genes (JS14). SrtC was characterized by the presence of a C‐terminal hydrophobic membrane anchoring domain.
Figure 3Biofilm formation and adherence of JS14 and JS22 to different surfaces. (A) Biofilm formation of JS14, JS22 and the non‐biofilm‐forming L. lactis control. After 3 days of incubation at 30°C, the washed biofilms were stained with crystal violet and quantified using an ELISA reader. The error bar indicates standard deviation (SD) for three biological and eight technical replicates. (B) Adhesion of JS14 and JS22 to porcine mucus, BSA and PolySorp (hydrophobic surface). Adherence of the cells was quantified using the crystal violet staining method as described above. The error bars indicate SD for three independent tests, each with sixteen technical replicates. (C) Growth of JS22 with or without NaCl. The test tubes represent JS22 cells cultured in PPA with and without 300 mM NaCl for 72 h under microaerophilic conditions at 30°C. Arrows indicate the formed clumps.
Figure 4Electron microscopic and surface analyses of JS14 and JS22. (A) Representative SEM micrographs of JS14 and JS22. SEM analyses revealed the absence of fimbrial adhesins at the cell surface of the indicated cells. Representative TEM micrographs of JS14 and JS22 cells cultured in the absence (B) and presence (C) of 300 mM NaCl. JS14 showed fluffier cell surface compared to JS22 that presented rough and smooth surfaces when cells were propagated in the absence and presence of NaCl respectively. Arrows, potential surface‐associated proteinaceous structures. Circles, released surface‐proteins and the presence of a possible MV. The sizes of scale bars are marked in the images. (D) 1‐DE image of non‐covalently attached surface‐proteins released from JS14 and JS22. The indicated protein bands were identified by in‐gel tryptic digestion and LC‐MS/MS. Proteins with the highest Mascot identification score (P < 0.05) from each protein band are indicated. STD, a molecular weight marker (250–10 kDa) (New England BioLabs).