| Literature DB >> 34150671 |
Eleanor M Townsend1, Lucy Kelly1, George Muscatt1, Joshua D Box1, Nicole Hargraves1, Daniel Lilley2, Eleanor Jameson1.
Abstract
The investigation of the microbial populations of the human body, known as the microbiome, has led to a revolutionary field of science, and understanding of its impacts on human development and health. The majority of microbiome research to date has focussed on bacteria and other kingdoms of life, such as fungi. Trailing behind these is the interrogation of the gut viruses, specifically the phageome. Bacteriophages, viruses that infect bacterial hosts, are known to dictate the dynamics and diversity of bacterial populations in a number of ecosystems. However, the phageome of the human gut, while of apparent importance, remains an area of many unknowns. In this paper we discuss the role of bacteriophages within the human gut microbiome. We examine the methods used to study bacteriophage populations, how this evolved over time and what we now understand about the phageome. We review the phageome development in infancy, and factors that may influence phage populations in adult life. The role and action of the phageome is then discussed at both a biological-level, and in the broader context of human health and disease.Entities:
Keywords: bacteriophages; biofilm; diet; disease; gut microbiome; isolation; metagenomics; phage
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34150671 PMCID: PMC8213399 DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.643214
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol ISSN: 2235-2988 Impact factor: 5.293
Figure 1Timeline of methodological discoveries. A summarised timeline including the invention of key tools for the study of phages, from their discovery in 1921 to recent modern metagenomic sequencing technologies. Adapted from Mokili et al. (2012).
Figure 2Schematic of the human gut, indicating unknown inputs to the gut phageome from diet and the environment, highlighting the largely unknown phage composition of the ileum and colon and indicating the relative proportions of phages in the best understood samples: faeces. Circle size provides a rough guide to the relative abundance of phage particles observed in different gut compartments (Zoetendal et al., 2012; Hoyles et al., 2014; Shkoporov and Hill, 2019), but current understanding is still lacking. Most research activity has focused on faecal samples, represented in the lowest pie chart, depicting the relative proportions of different phage groups identified through metagenome analysis, based on Shkoporov and Hill (2019).
Microscopy techniques used to study the gut phageome, including the major advantages and limitations of each technique.
| Technique | Example gut discoveries | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| TEM | Tailed phages were the most abundant VLPs in human faeces ( | Visualisation of phage morphology. | Biased towards identifying tailed phages due to potential loss of tail structures in sample preparation ( |
| Faecal samples from patients were found to share no VLPs ( | Limited to observations of morphologies. | ||
| Time-consuming. | |||
| EFM | Up to 5.58 x 109 VLPs were observed per gram of faeces ( | Enumeration of VLPs in samples. | VLP counts are conservative estimates of true viral abundances, given the imprecision of visualising single fluorescent dots. |
| Can validate viral purification procedures. | Loss of VLPs during preparation and filtration of samples, e.g. large VLPs of the order | ||
| Greater accuracy and speed compared to TEM. | Viability of the VLP to infect and lyse bacterial cells is unknown. | ||
| VLPs may be membrane vesicles, gene transfer agents or cell debris containing nucleic acids ( | |||
| phageFISH | The viability of VLPs can be determined through single cell dynamic measurements, as shown with marine phages ( | PhageFISH is the only non-genetic method to implicate lytic, lysogenic, and chronic phage infection modes ( | |
| CLSM | The complex microenvironment and spatiotemporal succession can be studied in multispecies biofilms, as shown with non-phage viruses ( | Non-destructive sampling. Can be used to visualise the biofilm infection over time. | Limited to biofilms of bacterial species which can be fluorescently labelled. |
| CryoEM | Phage capsids of | Very high resolution. | Destructive sampling. |
Summary of molecular biology techniques used to study the gut phageome, including the major advantages and limitations of each technique.
| Technique | Example gut discoveries | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Electrophoresis | SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis on a CsCl fraction of human faeces isolated CrAss-like phages for subsequent mass spectrometry ( | Multiple viral populations can be separated from multispecies samples due to their differing capsid sizes. | No taxonomic information can be determined by electrophoresis alone. |
| Recombinant protein gene expression | Toxin-antitoxin systems were identified within prophages of | Proteins can be overexpressed to obtain high titres for subsequent analysis. | Cloning of viral genes into heterologous host systems can be difficult given that viral genomes often encode modified nucleotides ( |
| Expressed proteins may not be functional due to misfolding and incorrect modifications in expression host. | |||
| Microarrays | The new-born infant gut viral community was found to be dynamic ( | High-throughput. | Incompatible with novel viral genomes as |
| 50% of the strain-specific DNA in | Viral DNA amplification steps prior to microarray analysis can introduce bias, making relative abundances no longer reflect that of the sample studied. | ||
| Single-cell DNA sequencing | Sequencing of commensal gut bacteria can facilitate the identification of integrated prophages ( | Facilitates taxonomic investigation. | Requires isolation and cultivation of lytic phages and hosts of temperate phages. |
| Can assemble viral genomes for viruses excluded from metagenomic approaches ( | No community-wide view. | ||
| qPCR | 77% of faecal samples contained phages carrying at least one antibiotic resistance gene ( | Detection and quantification of specific genes in real time. | Sequence of target gene is required |
| Longitudinal tracking of phage and bacterial hosts in the faeces of a mouse model system facilitated the study of predator-prey dynamics ( | Nonspecific binding of template can lead to amplification of off-target genes. | ||
| Viral tagging & flow cytometry | 363 unique phage-host pairings were predicted, including many uncharacterised phages ( | Infer phage-host relationships. | Direct evidence of successful phage infection is not provided by attachment of phage and host cell. |
| Culture-independent. | Different assay conditions can bias the phage-host pairings observed from the community. | ||
| Flow cytometry has the facility to sort individual phage-host pairs for downstream sequencing etc. |
Bioinformatic tools used to study the gut phageome, including techniques, research questions they may address and name of the software.
| Technique | Research questions | Tools | Examples in publication |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annotate genomes | Do the phage genomes encode auxiliary metabolic genes (AMGs)? | Prodigal ( | |
| Do the phage genomes encode viral taxon-specific genes? | Prokka ( | ||
| Are the phages temperate or virulent? | Hmmscan ( | ( | |
| Is there a global phage gene pool? | Phyre2 ( | ||
| DRAM-v to predict putative AMGs associated with metabolism ( | |||
| Phage prediction | Are the genomes assembled phage genomes? | De-novo prediction of phages using tools such as VirFinder/ DeepVirFinder ( | |
| Confirmation of viral genome completeness with CheckV ( | |||
| How diverse are the phages? | Alignment to hallmark taxon-specific marker genes. | ( | |
| Are any known viral taxa predicted? | BLAST ( | ( | |
| Comparison to gut viral databases, e.g. Gut Virome Database (GVD) ( | |||
| How similar are they to phages in other ecosystems? | Single protein phylogenies with alignment of core phage genes, e.g. using MAFFT ( | ||
| De-novo classification with vConTACT2 ( | |||
| Phage-host relationships | Which gut hosts do the phages infect? | Genetic homology of integration sites and CRISPR spacer sequences between phage and host. | ( |
| Is phage predation species or strain specific? | Phage genome signature-based recovery. | ( | |
| Identification of integrated prophage. | |||
| Abundance profiles. | ( | ||
| De-novo relationships with WIsH ( |
Figure 3Changes in the gut phageome over the human lifetime. Pie charts represent the observed ratios of different phage groups at discrete sampling times, from birth where no endemic phages were observed to adults, while the humped line describes changes in phage diversity and abundance over time, which both peak in the weeks after birth (Breitbart et al., 2008; Reyes et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2011; Lim et al., 2015; McCann et al., 2018).
Phage products approved for use in food manufacturing. These phage products have the opportunity to enter the GI tract and impact the gut phageome.
| Manufacturer | Product | Applications |
|---|---|---|
| Intralyx Inc. (MD, USA) | ListShield™ | Targets |
| EcoShield™ | Targets Escherichia coli, and Shiga toxin producing | |
| SalmoFresh PX™ | Targets contamination with selected, highly pathogenic | |
| ShigaShield™ | Targets contamination with | |
| APS Biocontrol (Dundee, UK) | Biolyse®-PB | Targets bacteria that cause soft rot on potatoes mainly, |
| Proteon Pharmaceitocals | BAFASAL® | Targets human-pathogenic |
| BAFADOR® |
| |
| Elanco (IN, USA) | Finalyse™ | Pre-slaughter hide wash applied to live cattle, targeting |
| Micreos Food Safety, (The Hague, NL) | PhageGuard Listex™ | Surface treatment targeting |
| PhageGuard S™ | Targets | |
| PhageGuard E™ | Targets | |
| OmniLytics (UT, USA) | Agriphage™ | Targets |
Summary of bacteria-encoded phage defence mechanisms.
| Mechanism | Infection stage disrupted | Example references | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Modification of phage receptors | Phage attachment and adsorption | ( | |
| Masking of phage receptors | with protein | Phage attachment and adsorption |
|
|
| |||
| with polysaccharides |
| ||
| Phase variation of phage receptors | Phage attachment and adsorption |
| |
| Production of competitive inhibitors to phage receptors | Phage attachment and adsorption |
| |
| Superinfection exclusion (Sie) systems, often encoded for by prophage. | Block phage DNA entry into cell. |
| |
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Bacteriophage exclusion (BREX) | Prevents phage DNA replication. |
| |
| Restriction-modification systems | Degrade phage DNA. |
| |
|
| |||
| Defence island system associated with restriction–modification (DISARM) | Degrade phage DNA. Type of R-M system. |
| |
| CRISPR/ | Result in degradation of phage nucleic acids. |
| |
| Abortive infection (Abi) | Prevent phage multiplication (replication, transcription, or translation). Result in death of infected host cell. |
| |
|
| |||
| Toxin-antitoxin | Leads to abortive infection. |
| |
|
| |||
Figure 4Diagram of the gut and bacterial and phage concentrations in the lumen, mucosa and epithelial cells. In the human gut, multiple different host-prey dynamics are theorised to occur dependent on the proximity to the gut mucosa. At the top of the mucosa, viruses take a lysogenic strategy or “piggyback-the-winner” as hosts are abundant here. Deeper within the mucosa, the viruses switch to a lytic or “kill-the-winner” strategy as at this point the bacteria are less abundant (Silveira and Rohwer, 2016). (Right) Some phages encode Ig-like domains that allow them to bind to the mucosa and evade the immune system, (Left) Phages can undergo transcytosis and be engulfed and transported through epithelial cells.
Summary of changes to the gut phageome in different disease states.
| Disease | Bacteriophage Richness | Bacteriophage Diversity | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crohn’s disease | + | + | ( |
| + | + | ( | |
| + | ( | ||
| – | ( | ||
| + | ( | ||
| Ulcerative colitis | + | ( | |
| + | – | ( | |
| + | ( | ||
| Type 1 diabetes | – | ( | |
| + | ( | ||
| Type 2 diabetes | + | ( | |
| Human Immuno Virus | + | ( | |
| Cardiovascular disease | +/- | ( | |
| + | ( |