No Free Lunch for Cheaters

by S. Mar­vin Fried­man

Bac­te­ria en­gage in a va­ri­ety of be­hav­iors that re­quire co­or­di­nated gene ex­pres­sion, such as bi­o­lu­mi­nes­cence, biofilm for­ma­tion, pro­duc­tion of vir­u­lence fac­tors, and an­tibi­otic re­sis­tance. In these sit­u­a­tions, gene ex­pres­sion re­quires a crit­i­cal num­ber of cells. In its ab­sence, the ex­er­cise would be in vain, some­thing like two or three peo­ple at­tempt­ing a flash mob in Grand Cen­tral Sta­tion — clearly a waste of re­sources. Bac­te­ria co­or­di­nate their flash mobs via a form of cell-cell com­mu­ni­ca­tion known as quo­rum sens­ing, in which sig­nal­ing mol­e­cules ac­ti­vate gene ex­pres­sion, but only when the pop­u­la­tion reaches a crit­i­cal den­sity. How­ever, among the crit­i­cal mass of co­op­er­a­tors are the in­evitable moochers who en­joy the ben­e­fits of the group out­put with­out them­selves con­tribut­ing any ef­fort. Unchecked, such cheaters could over­whelm the pop­u­la­tion. What keeps them in check? Wang and cowork­ers re­veal one way that moochers are po­liced in pop­u­la­tions of the gram-neg­a­tive bac­terium Pseudomonas aerug­i­nosa.

Fig­ure 1. The Card­sharps, by Michelan­gelo Car­avag­gio (ca. 1594). Source

P. aerug­i­nosa is an op­por­tunis­tic pathogen in hu­mans who are im­muno-com­pro­mised, such as pa­tients with cys­tic fi­bro­sis, can­cer, and AIDS. It can also col­o­nize healthy in­di­vid­u­als, caus­ing hot-tub rash and in­fec­tions orig­i­nat­ing from con­t­a­m­i­nated catheters and other med­ical de­vices. P. aerug­i­nosa uses two linked quo­rum-sens­ing sys­tems known as the LasR-LasI sys­tem and the RhlR-RhlI sys­tem. LasI cat­alyzes the syn­the­sis of the sig­nal­ing mol­e­cule N‑3-oxo-do­de­canoyl-ho­moser­ine lac­tone. When this mol­e­cule has built up in suf­fi­cient amounts — in­di­cat­ing a quo­rum of bugs — it binds to the tran­scrip­tion fac­tor LasR. LasR then ac­ti­vates about 300 genes, in­clud­ing those en­cod­ing ex­tra­cel­lu­lar pro­teases such as elas­tase, plus the rhlI and rhlR genes.  In turn, RhlI cat­alyzes the pro­duc­tion of an­other au­toin­ducer, bu­tyryl-ho­moser­ine lac­tone. When enough of this 2nd sig­nal­ing mol­e­cule is present — again, in­di­cat­ing a quo­rum of bugs — it binds to the tran­scrip­tion fac­tor RhlR.  RhlR in turn ac­ti­vates a set of genes that par­tially over­laps that ac­ti­vated by LasR.

So how does this seem­ingly con­vo­luted sys­tem work? One prod­uct of quo­rum sens­ing in P. aerug­i­nosa is a (LasR en­coded) se­creted pro­tease that is re­quired to break down ca­sein into the amino acids and pep­tides needed for growth in me­dia where ca­sein is the sole source of car­bon and en­ergy. When grown on skim milk agar plates, a zone of clear­ance sur­rounds colonies that se­crete the pro­tease, in­di­cat­ing ca­sein break­down. How­ever, af­ter 2 − 3 weeks of daily trans­fer in ca­sein broth and plat­ing on agar, some colonies emerge that have no zone of clear­ance. These con­sist of "cheaters" with a mu­ta­tion in lasR that pre­vents tran­scrip­tion of the pro­tease gene. In me­dia broth, these cheaters can mooch off their more com­mu­nity-minded brethren that make the pro­tease. Most telling is that the pop­u­la­tion does not col­lapse un­der these con­di­tions but even­tu­ally reaches equi­lib­rium be­tween cheaters and co­op­er­a­tors, sug­gest­ing that the co­op­er­a­tors (LasR+) must some­how be polic­ing the cheaters (LasR). The au­thors hy­poth­e­sized that the polic­ing agent may be a toxic prod­uct un­der the con­trol of RhlR, lead­ing to the pre­dic­tion that a pop­u­la­tion of rhlR mu­tants will be in­ef­fec­tive at polic­ing cheaters. Even­tu­ally, there will be too many cheaters and not enough co­op­er­a­tors, and the pop­u­la­tion will col­lapse. Thus, the cheaters have sui­ci­dal ten­den­cies.

Fig­ure 2. Emer­gence of LasR so­cial cheaters from co­op­er­a­tors grow­ing in ca­sein broth. Y‑axis: % pro­te­ase-neg­a­tive cheaters. Six rep­re­sen­ta­tive ex­per­i­ments with a RhlR co­op­er­a­tor (solid sym­bols) are shown. In four of the ex­per­i­ments with the RhlR mu­tant, cheaters emerged (col­ored sym­bols), and their ab­und­ance rose rapidly. The ex­per­i­ments ter­mi­nated when there was no growth af­ter trans­fer. The con­trol re­sults with a RhlR+ wild-type P. aerug­i­nosa PAO1 co­op­er­a­tor show three in­di­vid­ual ex­per­i­ments where cheaters (□,○,△) come to equi­lib­rium with the co­op­er­a­tor at ap­prox­i­mately 30% of to­tal as ex­pected from pre­vi­ous re­ports. Source

To test this idea, they car­ried out nine lab­o­ra­tory evo­lu­tion ex­per­i­ments in min­i­mal ca­sein broth with an RhlR mu­tant. This strain is a co­op­er­a­tor in that it is still able to pro­duce pro­tease, but it won't be able to ac­ti­vate the RhlR-con­trolled fac­tor that is the sus­pected "billy club". As ex­pected, cheaters emerged at var­i­ous times in six cul­tures, then pro­lif­er­ated rapidly (Fig. 2).  Se­quenc­ing of five of the cheater cul­tures re­vealed that they were mu­tated in lasR, and thus in­ca­pable of ac­ti­vat­ing the RhlI/RhlR sys­tem.

To con­firm that polic­ing by RhlR con­tributes a fit­ness ad­van­tage to P. aerug­i­nosa in ca­sein broth, wild-type (LasR+RhlR+) or po­lice-de­fi­cient co­op­er­a­tors (LasR+RhlR) were com­peted against each of the two cheater strains (LasRRhlR and LasRRhlR+). The wild-type co­op­er­a­tor strain was able to hold the LasRRhlR+-cheater at bay, with the fre­quency of cheaters rel­a­tively con­stant af­ter five days of pas­sage. But the po­lice-de­fi­cient co­op­er­a­tors were un­able to con­trol ei­ther of the cheater strains, which took over and crashed the pop­u­la­tions within three days. In­ter­est­ingly, it ap­pears that cheaters also suf­fer a com­pet­i­tive dis­ad­van­tage when RhlR is mu­tated: the LasRRhlR-cheater was trounced by the wild-type co­op­er­a­tor strain, rais­ing the pos­si­bil­ity that RhlR-con­trolled genes in­clude both the polic­ing agent and the an­ti­dote.

So what is the billy club wielded by the polic­ing strains of P. aerug­i­nosa? The re­searchers sus­pected cyanide for a cou­ple of rea­sons: RhlR con­trols the tran­scrip­tion of the genes that make cyanide and, as im­por­tantly, it also me­di­ates in­creased ex­pres­sion of a cy­tochrome ox­i­dase, which in the­ory could aid in cyanide re­sis­tance. An RhlR-con­trolled mech­a­nism of cyanide re­sis­tance would al­low the polic­ing bugs to avoid suc­cumb­ing to friendly fire. To test the the­ory that cyanide is the billy club, the re­searchers com­peted a cyanide syn­thase-de­fi­cient co­op­er­a­tor (LasR+HcnC) against a cyanide-de­fi­cient cheater (LasRHcnC-mu­tant) in ca­sein broth. The mu­tant cheater strain hand­ily out­com­peted the mu­tant co­op­er­a­tor strain, which even­tu­ally col­lapsed at a cheater ini­tial fre­quency as low as 1%.

Fig­ure 3. RhlR-me­di­ated polic­ing and cyanide produc­tion. A Com­pe­ti­tion be­tween cyanide-de­fi­cient coopera­tors (LasR+, HcnC)and cyanide-de­fi­cient cheaters (LasR, HcnC). The start­ing cheater fre­quency was 1% (▼,▲,◆) or 10% (□,○,△). In all six ex­per­i­ments, a col­lapse oc­curred within 8 d. (■) dur­ing the course of this ex­per­i­ment. B Pro­duc­tion of hy­dro­gen cyanide im­parts a cost on co­operators. HcnC co­op­er­a­tors (■ red) grow to a higher den­sity than wild-type co­operators (○) in ca­sein medium. Source

Fur­ther con­fir­ma­tion of cyanide as a polic­ing agent comes from ex­per­i­ments based upon its be­ing a low mol­e­c­u­lar weight, dif­fusible com­pound. Grow­ing in a dial­y­sis bag sur­rounded by a cul­ture of wild type bac­te­ria, RhlR-mu­tants or wild-type bac­te­ria showed a two-log re­duc­tion in num­ber. Sim­i­lar yields were found when the HcnC- mu­tant was out­side and an RhlR-mu­tant was in­side the bag. Thus, a dif­fusible fac­tor is re­spon­si­ble for wild-type sup­pres­sion of RhlR-mu­tant growth.  These re­sults also show that co­op­er­a­tors are more re­sis­tant to cyanide than are cheaters.

One may ex­pect that a mu­ta­tion that con­fers a fit­ness ad­van­tage in the spe­cific case of ca­sein broth may in­cur a cost un­der more plush con­di­tions. That is, grow­ing alone, the HcnC-mu­tant co­op­er­a­tor (pro­duces pro­tease but not cyanide) should do bet­ter than the wild-type strain that pro­duces cyanide. Sure enough, cell yields of the co­op­er­a­tor cyanide-de­fi­cient mu­tant were higher than that of wild-type bac­te­ria (Fig­ure 3, right panel). But the ben­e­fit is well worth this price.

The prac­tice of polic­ing in or­der to en­hance the fit­ness of a pop­u­la­tion is preva­lent among an­i­mals. To cite but one ex­am­ple, ants po­lice the re­pro­duc­tion of work­ers to in­crease the re­pro­duc­tive ef­fi­ciency of the colony. The re­search re­ported here clearly es­tab­lishes that P. aerug­i­nosa co­op­er­a­tors pun­ish so­cial cheaters via RhlR-me­di­ated cyanide pro­duc­tion. Key to this sys­tem is a quo­rum-sens­ing cas­cade: LasR-de­pen­dent con­trol of the pub­lic good (the ex­tra­cel­lu­lar pro­tease) is co­or­di­nated with RhlR-de­pen­dent polic­ing (cyanide pro­duc­tion). It was shown that also co­op­er­a­tors don't have a free lunch — polic­ing comes at the ex­pense of im­paired growth yield.  In ad­di­tion, it is in­ter­est­ing to note that cheaters emerged in only six of nine evo­lu­tion ex­per­i­ments, spurring the ques­tion:  What al­ter­na­tive evo­lu­tion­ary path is in play? Stay tuned for an­swers to be re­vealed some­time in the near fu­ture, but only when a suf­fi­cient quo­rum is sensed.

Ref­er­ence

Wang M, Scha­ef­fer AKL, Dan­dekar AA, and Green­berg EP. 2015. Quo­rum sens­ing and polic­ing of Pseudomonas aerug­i­nosa so­cial cheaters. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 112, 2187 − 2191 PMID 25646454

 

S. Marvin Friedman

S. Mar­vin Fried­man is Pro­fes­sor Emer­i­tus, De­part­ment of Bi­o­log­i­cal Sci­ences, Hunter Col­lege of CUNY, New York City and an As­so­ciate Blog­ger for Small Things Con­sid­ered.

 

Other Posts