| Literature DB >> 34014955 |
Hannah Laeverenz Schlogelhofer1, François J Peaudecerf2, Freddy Bunbury3, Martin J Whitehouse4, Rachel A Foster5, Alison G Smith3, Ottavio A Croze1.
Abstract
Microbial communities are of considerable significance for biogeochemical processes, for the health of both animals and plants, and for biotechnological purposes. A key feature of microbial interactions is the exchange of nutrients between cells. Isotope labelling followed by analysis with secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) can identify nutrient fluxes and heterogeneity of substrate utilisation on a single cell level. Here we present a novel approach that combines SIMS experiments with mechanistic modelling to reveal otherwise inaccessible nutrient kinetics. The method is applied to study the onset of a synthetic mutualistic partnership between a vitamin B12-dependent mutant of the alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii and the B12-producing, heterotrophic bacterium Mesorhizobium japonicum, which is supported by algal photosynthesis. Results suggest that an initial pool of fixed carbon delays the onset of mutualistic cross-feeding; significantly, our approach allows the first quantification of this expected delay. Our method is widely applicable to other microbial systems, and will contribute to furthering a mechanistic understanding of microbial interactions.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34014955 PMCID: PMC8136852 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251643
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Schematic to illustrate the nutrient kinetics included in the algal-bacterial co-culture model.
Vitamin B12 is released by bacteria and required for algal growth. Bacterial growth is dependent on DOC produced by algae. Also considered are: algal photosynthesis, carbon storage, and DOC exudation from excess photosynthesis; bacterial respiration and DIC uptake.
Model parameters and initial conditions.
| Algal carrying capacity | 2.3×106 | - | 2.3×106
| ||
| Bacterial carrying capacity | - | 1.3×109
| 1.14×109
| ||
| B12 half-saturation concentration | 2.6×10−14
| - | 2.6×10−14 | ||
| DOC half-saturation concentration | - | 1.5×10−6
| 6.3×10−7 | ||
| Maximum bacterial growth rate | - | 0.15 | 0.42 | ||
| Maximum algal growth rate | 0.21 | - | 0.21 | ||
| Algal B12 yield | 1.13×1019
| - | 1.13×1019
| ||
| Algal carbon yield | 4×1012 | - | 4×1012
| ||
| Bacterial carbon yield | - | 5×1014 [f] | 5×1014
| ||
| B12 release rate | - | - | 2×10−23
| ||
| DOC production parameter | - | - | 5.4×10−15
| ||
| Fraction of storage | 0.87 | - | 0.9 | ||
| Maximum BGE | - | 0.51, 0.15, 0.39, 0.63 [ | 0.51 | ||
| DIC uptake fraction | - | 0.046, 0.042, 0.022, 0.009 [ | 0.015 | ||
| Algal cell density | 0.0032 | 0 | 0.005 | ||
| Bacterial cell density | 0 | 8.8×106, 1.6×107, 1.8×107, 1.3×107 [c,k] | 0.017 | ||
| DOC concentration | 0 | 4×10−5, 4×10−6, 4×10−7, 1.7×10−7 [c,k] | 0.0014 | ||
| B12 concentration | 0.374 | 0 | 0 | ||
| DIC concentration | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Algal atomic fraction | 0.0108 | - | 0.59 | ||
| Photosynthetically-active atomic fraction | 0.0108 | - | 0.65 | ||
| Bacterial atomic fraction | - | 0.0108 | 0.0108 | ||
| DOC atomic fraction | 0.0108 | 0.0108 | 0.64 | ||
| DIC atomic fraction | 0.65 [i] | 0.65 [i] | 0.65 |
[a] Obtained from fitting a simplified co-culture model (i.e. ϕ = 0, η′ = 1 and X = 0) to population growth and B12 concentration data.
[b] From fitting a logistic growth equation to data obtained by [40] for M. japonicum grown axenically with 0.1% glycerol.
[c] From a global parameter optimisation performed for the four axenic cultures of M. japonicum grown with different concentrations of glycerol, i.e. the growth and isotope data from all for cultures were fit simultaneously. The residual sum of squares for this global parameter optimisation was 0.58, whereas when respiration was not included in the model it was 2.24.
[d] From the definition , with non-dimensional parameter k = 3.6 obtained from [a].
[e] From the definition with non-dimensional parameter k = 7.8 obtained from [a].
[f] From dry mass measurements and EA-IRMS analysis.
[g] From the definition , with non-dimensional parameter s = 4.2 obtained from [a].
[h] From the definition , with non-dimensional parameter s = 0.047 obtained from [l].
[i] Parameter optimisation results from fitting the model to the axenic, pre-labelling culture of C. reinhardtii metE7. The residual sum of squares for this global parameter optimisation result was 0.313.
[j] Estimated using parameter optimisation results for the axenic cultures.
[k] For the 0.1%, 0.01%, 0.001% and no glycerol cultures respectively. See S7 Table for details.
[l] Parameter optimisation results from fitting the model to co-culture growth and SIMS data, i.e. fit 1 in S8 Table.
[m] Estimated using the model results for the axenic, pre-labelling culture of algae.
The model parameter values obtained from model parameterisations for C. reinhardtii metE7 and M. japonicum grown both axenically and in co-culture. See Supplementary Methods in S1 Text for details of the parameterisation methods and S6 Table for details of the non-dimensional model parameters.
Fig 2Inorganic carbon acquisition by axenic bacteria.
(A) Example images of the atomic fraction of 13C, f, obtained by SIMS analysis of bacterial cells sampled after 24 h of axenic cultures grown with different concentrations of unlabelled glycerol and 5 mM NaH13CO3. The colour map shows the scale, starting at natural abundance. (B) The mean atomic fraction of 13C, f, for dilution-corrected SIMS measurements (for the 0–0.01% glycerol cultures on the left and 0.1% glycerol culture on the right) demonstrate inorganic carbon acquisition by the bacteria. Error bars correspond to standard errors. (C) Bacterial growth measured using viable counts, plotted on a logarithmic scale as the mean of two measurements (with standard error shown as error bars), shows an increase in the exponential growth rate and carrying capacity for higher initial concentration of glycerol (0–0.01% glycerol cultures shown on the left and 0.1% glycerol culture on the right). Red crosses indicate points that were unexpectedly high (approximately 1×1012 cfu mL−1) and therefore considered outliers and not included in the parameter optimisation. The results of fitting the model to both the growth and SIMS data, with parameters and their units as specified in Table 1, are also plotted for the (B) atomic fraction f and (C) cell density b. For the 0.1% glycerol culture, shown separately on the right, results from two different parameter optimisations are compared. For the fit including respiration (solid line), i.e. with η as a free parameter, the results are given in Table 1. For the fit neglecting respiration (dotted line), i.e. η′ = 1, the parameter optimisation results are K = 6.6×10−6 molC mL−1, μ = 0.15 h−1 and for the 0.1% glycerol culture b(0) = 1.2×107 cells mL−1 and X = 0.025.
Fig 3The algal-bacterial co-culture.
(A) Example images of the atomic fraction of 13C, f, obtained by SIMS analysis of algal and bacterial cells sampled from the co-culture. The colour maps show the scale, starting at natural abundance. (B) The mean atomic fraction of 13C, f and f for algae and bacteria respectively, calculated from the dilution-corrected SIMS measurements for at least 5 algal cells and 100 bacterial cells per time-point (circles). Error bars correspond to standard errors. (C) Algal and bacterial growth measured using viable counts, plotted as the mean (with standard error shown as error bars) of two viable count measurements (circles). The results of fitting the model to both the growth and SIMS data are also plotted. Fit 1 fixed the initial f(0) = 0.64, estimated using results for the pre-labelling culture of algae, whereas fit 2 included f(0) as a free parameter. The parameter values and initial conditions are as specified in Table 1 and S8 Table. Although fit 2 fits the data better, it gives a low initial atomic fraction for the DOC f(0) and high initial DOC concentration c(0).
Fig 4Nutrient kinetics in the co-culture predicted by the model.
Concentrations of (A) B12 and (B) DOC in the co-culture predicted by the nutrient-explicit co-culture model using the parameter optimisation results obtained from fit 1 (Table 1). (C) Isotope labelling rate calculated using Eq (18).
Fig 5Comparison of single cell heterogeneity predicted by the model and measured experimentally with SIMS.
The dilution-corrected results for the mean atomic fraction f obtained using SIMS (circles with error bars indicating standard deviations of single cell values). Solid lines indicate the model fit results, while shaded regions indicate predicted ranges of f values, when a range in a specific model parameter is considered. (A) The range of X values considered for 0.1%, 0.01%, 0.001% and no glycerol cultures of axenic bacteria were X∈[0.034,0.058], X∈[0.031,0.053], X∈[0.016,0.028] and X∈[0.007,0.011] respectively. For the co-culture the range considered was X∈[0.011,0.019]. (B) The range of η values considered for 0.1%, 0.01%, 0.001% and no glycerol cultures of axenic bacteria were η∈[0.21,0.81], η∈[0.05,0.25], η∈[0.09,0.69] and η∈[0.33,0.93] respectively. For the co-culture the range considered was η∈[0.11,0.91]. (C) For axenic cultures of bacteria μ∈[0.11,0.19] and for the co-culture μ∈[0.34,0.50] in units of h−1. Variation in X best accounts for the observed temporal trends in the standard deviations of the single cell data for the axenic cultures, whereas variation in μ best accounts for the co-culture results.
Summary of how to apply our method to other microbial systems.
[a] We suggest that it could be advantageous to first perform bulk isotope analysis like EA-IRMS for parameter optimisation and studying axenic cultures in different conditions (e.g. nutrient concentrations, light intensity, temperature). Further investigation of more intricate nutrient dynamics could then be performed using SIMS, which has the advantage of more easily studying multiple time points from the same culture (because smaller sample volumes are required compared to EA-IRMS) and can reveal single cell heterogeneity.