| Literature DB >> 30410109 |
Wolfram Pönisch1,2, Kelly B Eckenrode3,4, Khaled Alzurqa3, Hadi Nasrollahi3, Christoph Weber1, Vasily Zaburdaev5,6, Nicolas Biais7,8.
Abstract
Microcolonies are aggregates of a few dozen to a few thousand cells exhibited by many bacteria. The formation of microcolonies is a crucial step towards the formation of more mature bacterial communities known as biofilms, but also marks a significant change in bacterial physiology. Within a microcolony, bacteria forgo a single cell lifestyle for a communal lifestyle hallmarked by high cell density and physical interactions between cells potentially altering their behaviour. It is thus crucial to understand how initially identical single cells start to behave differently while assembling in these tight communities. Here we show that cells in the microcolonies formed by the human pathogen Neisseria gonorrhoeae (Ng) present differential motility behaviors within an hour upon colony formation. Observation of merging microcolonies and tracking of single cells within microcolonies reveal a heterogeneous motility behavior: cells close to the surface of the microcolony exhibit a much higher motility compared to cells towards the center. Numerical simulations of a biophysical model for the microcolonies at the single cell level suggest that the emergence of differential behavior within a multicellular microcolony of otherwise identical cells is of mechanical origin. It could suggest a route toward further bacterial differentiation and ultimately mature biofilms.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30410109 PMCID: PMC6224386 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-34754-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Tfp mediated microcolony mergers are a common mode of microcolony formation. (a) DIC micrographs of a timeseries showing two microcolonies merging among many interacting bacteria. See also Supplementary Movie S1. Scale bar = 8 µm. (b) Scanning Electron Micrograph of two merging microcolonies. Scale bar = 8 µm. (c) Scanning Electron Micrograph of the bridge formed between two merging microcolonies. Scale bar = 4 µm.
Figure 2Merging of Ng Microcolonies. (a) Merger of Ng microcolonies recorded with a DIC microscope (Scale bar = 10 µm). The red line highlights the detected edges. (b) In order to estimate the time scales of the merging of two colonies the time-dependent bridge height and the symmetry axis ratio of a fitted ellipse were measured from the binary images. By fitting a function of the form to the bridge height we were able to estimate the first time scale corresponding to the initial approach of the two colonies and the time scale characterizing the closure of the bridge. The third time scale resulted from a fit to the aspect ratio of the short axis and the long axis of the ellipse and corresponds to the relaxation of the ellipsoidal colony to a spherical shape. (c) Merger of two fluorescently labeled microcolonies. See also Supplementary Movie S2.
Figure 3Motility of single cells inside a microcolony. (a) Representation of the detection of fluorescently labeled cells. The left image highlights the detection the fluorescently labeled cells. The right image shows the position of individual cells relative to microcolony. Scale bar = 10 µm. (b) In order to be able to reduce the effect of rotations of the microcolonies on the trajectories of single cells, we computed the mean squared relative distance of cell pairs. Both cells were defined to be a pair if they could be found in a similar region, defined by their distance from the surface. (c,d) Diffusion coefficient D from the experimental data as a function of the distance R from the surface and MSRD as a function of time. (e,f) Diffusion coefficient D from the simulation data as a function of the distance R from the surface and MSRD as a function of time.
Figure 4Demixing of Ng Microcolonies. (a) DIC and fluorescence images allowed to detect the positions of the WT cells (right) and the ΔpilT mutants (center). (b) Intensity profile of fluorescently labeled WT (YFP) and ΔpilT mutant (mCherry) cells along a line in the midplane going through the center of the colony (a–c) Simulated assembly of a mixture of WT and ΔpilT mutant cells. The inset shows the midplane of a colony. The green cells are WT cells, the red cells are ΔpilT mutants. (d–f) Same data as a-c for a mixture of differently labeled WT cells.
Figure 5Heterogeneous genetic expression within a microcolony. (a) Brightfield (left), fluorescence (center) and overlayed image (right) of a Ng PpilE-mCherry microcolony after 3 hours of formation. (Scale bar = 10 µm.) (b) Brightfield (left), fluorescence (center) and overlayed image (right) of a Ng PpilE-mCherry microcolony after 7 hours of formation. (Scale bar = 10 µm.) Note that (a,b) represent two microcolonies imaged in the same conditions showing the spatial heterogeneity of expression in (b) and not in (a,c) Forces as a function of the distance of the center (COM) of an in-silico colony.F are the excluded volume force acting on a cell due to neighboring cells (blue) and the absolute values of pili forces acting on one cell (red) and where i and j are pili indices.
|
|
|
|
|
| WT MS11 | None | None | [ |
| WT YFP | YFP under a consensus promoter | Chloramphenicol |
|
| WT mCherry | mCherry under a consensus promoter | Chloramphenicol |
|
| WT tdTomato | tdTomato under a consensus promoter | Chloramphenicol |
|
| ΔpilT mCherry | mCherry under a consensus promoter | Chloramphenicol and Kanamycin |
|
| WT PpilE-mCherry | mCherry under the pilE promoter | Kanamycin |
|