Un Tour d'Horizon (3/3)

by Christoph

If bi­ol­ogy would have to rely solely on ho­mol­ogy stud­ies to un­der­stand HGT (as de­scribed in the first two parts of this se­ries ) even the most star­tling cases could be dis­missed as just-so sto­ries, as highly im­prob­a­ble 'ac­cidents' in the past, or even as flaws of sta­tis­ti­cal analy­ses (for ex­am­ple by faulty pa­ra­me­ter set­tings ). For­tu­nately, HGT can be – and ac­tu­ally is – stud­ied via ex­per­i­ments. When Mc­Carthy et al. in­oc­u­lated the skin of gno­to­bi­otic piglets with a co‑culture of hu­man-adap­ted (HA) and pig-adap­ted (PA) strains of a Staphy­lo­coc­cus au­reus lin­eage they found ex­change of plas­mids and propha­ges as early as 4 h af­ter in­fec­tion (see Sean Kearney's ear­lier piggy-post in STC here ). The re­sear­chers mon­i­tored the co-evo­lu­tion of both strains dur­ing col­o­niza­tion over a pe­riod of 16 d by ge­nomic se­quencing and found a pre­ferred di­rec­tion of trans­mis­sion, from the PA strain to the HA strain. The two prophages of the PA strain were found ei­ther in­de­pen­dently or jointly in iso­lates of the HA strain at their cog­nate po­si­tions and, in ad­di­tion, at novel po­si­tions. Al­so in sev­eral cases, the prophage genomes had un­der­gone re­com­bi­na­tion with each other (phage genomes are no­torious for their mo­saicism, so this is a per­fect 'live' ex­am­ple for when and how this works ). Al­though the study of Mc­Carthy et al. al­lows for a rough es­ti­mate of the ex­tent to which HGT is in­volved in adap­ta­tion of bac­te­r­ial strains dur­ing co‑colonization of a novel niche, and to which ex­tent phages play a cru­cial role in adap­ta­tion, the ac­tual mech­a­nism of how trans­duc­tion 'wor­ked' in this case had not been re­solved.

HGT as it hap­pens

Fig­ure 1. Haemol­y­sis phe­no­type of parental strains 8325‑S (lyso­gen), 8325–4 (non-lyso­gen) car­ry­ing SaPI, plas­mid or chro­mo­so­mal mar­kers, and dou­ble re­sis­tant colonies ob­tained from co-cul­tures (scale bar, 10 mm). Source

En­ter Haaber et al. who ad­dressed ex­actly this lat­ter ques­tion in a re­cent study. They asked, which an­tibi­otic re­sis­tan­ces would be ex­changed be­tween dif­fer­ently 'tagged' Staphy­lo­coc­cus au­reus strain pairs upon co-cul­ti­va­tion for 24 h in liq­uid medium. One strain, des­ig­nated 8325‑S, was a triple-lyso­gen (φ11, φ12, φ13), re­sis­tant to strep­to­mycin (rpsL=StrR), and phe­no­typ­i­cally non-haemolytic (due to up-reg­u­lated SigB and SarS ac­tiv­i­ties ). The other strains were strep­to­mycin-sen­si­tive (rpsL+=StrS) de­ri­va­tives of 8325‑S that were non‑lysogenic (cured for the prophages ), and car­ried ei­ther a chro­mo­so­ma­lly en­cod­ed re­sis­tance to ery­thromycin (EryR, 8325‑4chrom), or car­ried a non-con­juga­tive plas­mid con­fer­ring chlor­am­phe­ni­col re­sis­tance in (CamR, 8325–4plasmid), or car­ried a tetra­cy­cline re­sis­tance within the eas­ily mo­bi­liz­able pa­tho­ge­ni­ci­ty is­land SaPIbov1 (TetR, 8325‑4SaPI). To al­low for dis­crim­i­na­tion of the strains in plate as­says fol­low­ing the co‑cultivation step, the 8325‑4 strains had the wild-­type haemolytic phe­no­type (nor­mal SigB and SarS lev­els ) and could thus be eas­ily dis­crim­i­nated from 8325‑S. In this setup, gene trans­fer was de­tectable af­ter co-cul­ti­va­tion of the strains by the pres­ence of two an­tibi­otic re­sis­tances in a clone. In­deed, Haaber et al. found such dou­ble-re­­sis­­tant clones at high rates: 10‒3 for TetRStrR, 10‒4 for CamRStrR, and 10‒6 for EryRStrR. Sur­pris­ingly, all dou­bly-re­sis­tant clones had a non-haemolytic phe­no­type, mean­ing they were 8325‑S cells that had taken up the re­sis­tance-con­fer­ring genes (Fig­ure 1).

This re­sult in­di­cated that gene trans­fer oc­curred al­most ex­clu­sively from the non-lyso­genic 8325–4 strains to the lyso­gen 8325‑S (within the limit of de­tec­tion, which was a safe 10‒9 in their case ). Al­though vary­ing in ef­fi­ciency, all three re­sis­tance genes in dif­fer­ent ge­nomic con­texts (chro­mo­some vs. mo­bilome ) in the 8325‑4 de­riv­a­tives could ob­vi­ously be trans­ferred. They ap­plied a bat­tery of con­trols to make sure their re­sults were in fact due to phage-me­di­ated gen­er­al­ized trans­duc­tion. Suf­fice it to say here that they did not ob­serve gene trans­fer to a re­com­bi­na­tion-de­fi­cient (recA‒) 8325‑S strain, and not when the Ca2+ ions in the growth medium (re­quired for ef­fi­cient phage in­fec­tion ) were masked by adding cit­rate dur­ing co‑cultivation. Ad­di­tion of DNase to the growth me­dium had, on the other hand, no ad­verse ef­fect on gene trans­fer. This ex­cluded the pos­si­bil­ity that DNA re­leased from the phage-sen­si­tive 8325–4 cells af­ter be­ing lysed by phages re­leased from the lyso­genic strain 8325‑S was taken up via nat­ural com­pe­tence by non-in­duced 8325‑S cells.

Fig­ure 2. Auto-trans­duc­tion (AT) oc­curs in an in vivo in­fec­tion model. AT fre­quen­cies recorded over time dur­ing coin­fec­tion of G. mel­lonella lar­vae with 8325-SR and 8325–4 SaPI. At each ti­me point, 20 lar­vae were sam­pled and to­tal CFU and triple-re­sis­tant colonies were de­ter­mined from the haemolymph. The cal­cu­lated fre­quen­cies are shown for the lar­vae in which AT was ob­served. Filled and open sym­bols rep­re­sent liv­ing and dead lar­vae, re­spec­tively. No AT was ob­served in the in­ocu­lum used for in­fec­tion; when lyso­genic bac­te­ria were sub­sti­tuted with a phage-cured de­riv­a­tive (JH978); when the non-lyso­genic strain was sub­sti­tuted with 8325–4 not car­ry­ing an an­tibi­otic re­sis­tance marker or when lar­vae were in­jected with a PBS con­trol (de­tec­tion limit = 2x10‒9). Source

Haaber at al. wished to see whether their highly ar­ti­fi­cial 'test-tube sys­tem' for gene trans­fer in­volv­ing phage trans­duction could have any rel­e­vance in a more re­al­is­tic set­ting. For this, they in­fected Gal­le­ria mel­lonella wax moth lar­vae, a com­monly used vir­u­lence model for S. au­reus, with a 1:1 mix of 8325-SR (StrRRifR) and 8325–4 SaPI (TetR). They mon­i­tored the num­bers of bac­te­ria in in­di­vid­ual lar­vae, (many of the lar­vae were killed by the in­fec­tion ), over a pe­riod of 48 h, and de­ter­mined the frac­tion of triple‑resistant S. au­reus clones aris­ing from gene trans­fer. They found such triple-re­sis­tant clones as early as 1 h af­ter in­fec­tion in 2 of the 20 lar­vae sam­pled, and at 24 h their num­bers and fre­quen­cies in 13 (!) of the 20 sam­pled lar­vae came close to the 'test tube' ex­per­i­ments (Fig­ure 2). They con­clude that "phages can me­di­ate the ex­ten­sive trans­fer of ge­netic ma­te­r­ial be­tween such closely re­lated S. au­reus strains dur­ing in vivo col­o­niza­tion and this adap­­­ta­bility is key to S. au­reus' suc­cess as a col­o­nizer".

To ex­plain the mech­a­nism by which the di­rec­tional gene trans­fer oc­curred in their ex­per­i­ments from the non-ly­­so­ge­nic strains to the lyso­genic strain (which is rather coun­ter­intuitive, even for phage afi­ciona­dos ac­cus­tomed to hair‑raising sur­prises ), Haaber et al. pro­pose an el­e­gant model that they call 'au­to­trans­duc­tion' (Fig­ure 3). Here is how it works. In a cul­ture of a lyso­genic strain there is al­ways a low per­cent­age of cells in which the prophage is in­duced (en­ters the lytic path­way ), ei­ther sto­chas­ti­cally or by some in­duc­ing agent (gen­eral cell stress ac­ti­vat­ing LexA, H2O2 for Stx phages, ad­di­tion of mit­o­mycin C by ex­per­i­menters, UV light ). 'In­duced' cells lyse and each one re­leases 50 – 100 viri­ons (the in­fec­tious phage prog­eny, num­bers vary with phage type and growth con­ditions ) into the medium. The re­leased viri­ons can­not pro­duc­tively in­fect other cells of the ly­so­ge­nic strain in the cul­ture (su­per-in­fec­tion im­mu­nity, see be­low ) but can in­fect any co-cul­­tured non‑ly­sogenic cells that ex­press the cog­nate phage re­cep­tor (usu­ally the case when co‑cul­tur­ing closely re­lated strains ). An aside: no di­rect cell-to-cell con­tact is in­volved here as dur­ing con­jugation. Upon in­fec­tion, these non-lyso­genic cells (now 'host' cells, lit­er­ally ) are ei­ther con­verted into lyso­gens them­selves (phage in­te­gra­tion at the chro­mo­so­mal att site me­di­ated by the phage‑en­coded in­te­gra­se, site-di­rected re­com­bi­na­tion ) or doomed when the phage en­ters the lytic path­way. Phage prop­a­ga­tion in the lytic path­way is a neatly or­ches­trated yet not er­ror-free process: in a very small num­ber of cases, it is not the phage DNA that is pack­aged into pre-formed phage cap­sids (marked red in Fig. 3 ) but frag­ments of host chro­mo­so­mal or plas­mid DNA (marked green in Fig. 3 ). Af­ter ly­sis of the host cell, viri­ons and such 'trans­duc­ing par­ti­cles' can ei­ther in­fect other non-lyso­genic cells in the cul­ture (back to square one... ) or any of the lyso­genic cells due to the pres­ence of the cog­na­te phage re­cep­tor (those are the cells where the phages started their 'jour­ney', af­ter all! ). Al­though the phage DNA en­ters the lyso­genic 'host' cell it can­not repli­cate due to the pres­ence of the re­pres­sor of the res­i­dent prophage in the cell's cy­to­plasm ('su­per­in­fec­tion im­munity' was ex­plained in more de­tail here ). Also, the 'trans­duc­ing' DNA en­ters the lyso­genic 'host' cell via the cog­nate phage re­cep­tor and can be sta­bly main­tained in the host if it car­ries a rep­li­ca­tion ori­gin (in case of plas­mid DNA ). Non-replica­tive 'trans­duc­ing' DNA can only be sta­bly main­tain­ed – here the story comes full cir­cle – if it is in­te­grated into the host chro­mo­some by re­com­bi­na­tion (most ef­fi­ciently by RecA-de­pen­dent ho­mol­o­gous re­com­bi­na­tion but that's not the only way ). Isn't this a good ex­am­ple for 'bac­te­r­ial al­tru­ism': one lyso­genic cell sac­ri­fices it­self to pro­duce phages, which, af­ter the lytic in­fec­tion of a neigh­bor­ing non-lyso­genic cell, lead to the ac­cu­mu­la­tion of small num­bers of 'trans­duc­ing par­ti­cles' that "bring home" an an­tibi­otic re­sis­tance gene to the res­cue of its lyso­genic sib­lings ?

Fig­ure 3. Auto-trans­duc­tion model. A Spon­ta­ne­ous pha­ge induc­tion me­di­ated by RecA*-sti­mu­la­ted cleav­age of the CI phage re­pres­sor from a sub­pop­u­la­tion of a lyso­genic bac­te­r­ial po­pu­la­tion al­lows the phage to in­fect a sus­cep­ti­ble co­ex­ist­ing bac­te­r­ial pop­u­la­tion. B Prop­a­ga­tion on the sus­cep­ti­ble pop­u­la­tion and sub­sequent ly­sis re­leases phage prog­eny along with low num­bers of trans­duc­ing par­ti­cles. C Ow­ing to im­mu­ni­ty to its own phages, the lyso­genic pop­u­la­tion can 'fil­ter out' the in­fec­tive phage prog­eny and al­low the oc­casional trans­duc­ing par­ti­cle to de­li­ver its DNA to the lyso­genic pop­u­la­tion by au­to-trans­duc­tion. Source (mod­i­fied)

The pro­posed mech­a­nism of HGT by au­to­trans­duc­tion is one path­way that al­lows S. au­reus – and prob­a­bly most other bac­te­ria – to ac­cess the mul­ti­tude of so-called 'ac­cessory' genes (also called 'vari­able genome' ) of its pan­genome. In­ter­est­ingly, Mc­Carthy et al. found in their stu­dy of co-col­o­niza­tion of piglet skin by two closely re­lated S. au­reus strains (see above ) ef­fi­cient hor­i­zon­tal trans­fer of plas­mids and phages but no in­di­ca­tion for ex­changes of parts of the 'core genomes' (an­a­lyzed by SNPs in the genome se­quences ). Sim­i­larly, Haaber et al. ob­served a sig­nif­i­cantly higher au­to­trans­duc­tion rate for their plas­mid and path­o­genic­ity is­land mark­ers, CamR and TetR, as com­pared to the rate for the chro­mo­so­mal marker, EryR. On the other hand, ge­neti­cists work­ing with E. coli have used gen­er­al­ized trans­duc­tion for strain con­struc­tions, mostly φP1 trans­duc­tion, for decades with­out hav­ing ever ob­served no­table dif­fer­ences in "trans­ducibilty" for genes of the 'core genome' and 'ac­ces­sory genes' (ex­cept for the known de­crease of marker co-trans­duc­tion fre­quen­cies among strains that carry phe­no­typ­i­cally in­con­spi­cuous ge­nomic in­ver­sions or larger in­dels ). These ob­viously con­tra­dic­tory find­ings need to be ad­dressed in fu­ture stud­ies. Not all that bi­ol­o­gists would like to know about HGT is known, far from that !

Here the Tour d'Horizon ends, well, al­most. Hav­ing just read about the very ef­fi­cient, al­most ram­pant, HGT among closely re­lated S. au­reus strains, you may con­clude that this cor­re­lates pretty well with the al­most im­pen­e­tra­ble thicket of HGT events in the as­ton­ish­ing trees for the 181 bac­te­ria an­a­lyzed by Da­gan et al. (part 1, Fig­ure 2 ). Not so! Here's a back-to-the-en­ve­lope cal­cu­la­tion: as­sum­ing that the 181 genomes en­code for 3,000 pro­teins, on av­er­age, and that 80% of the genes have a 'HGT back­story', you come up with 434,000 HGT events. As­sum­ing, in ad­di­tion, that these HGT events were spread evenly over the 3 bil­lion years of bac­te­r­ial evo­lu­tion, you end up with one HGT event every 7,000 years for one of the 181 genomes. That's not ac­tu­ally "ram­pant". So, when com­par­ing or cor­re­lat­ing find­ings it's al­ways a good idea to mind the scales. This said, I thank you for your com­pany dur­ing this long de­scent from the peaks of the­ory…

 

Other Posts

  • The World Is Pleiotropic

    by Elio — So there! By this rash as­ser­tion I mean that in the bi­o­log­i­cal world al­most every macro­mol­e­c­u­lar con­stituent is likely to func­tion in more than just one way, that is, is pleiotropic. One and the same pro­tein may be en­zy­matic, reg­u­la­tory, and struc­tural...

  • Fla­gel­lar Mo­tors: How a Bac­terium...

    ...Shakes its Groove Thing
    by Mike Del­mont — Many things in our lives are so com­mon that we take them for granted, for­get­ting their re­mark­able com­plex­ity. These can range from the so­cial mi­cro­bi­ol­ogy in­volved in cheese mak­ing, to the physics be­hind the in­ter­nal com­bus­tion en­gine, or the anato­my/physiology be­hind tak­ing a cou­ple of steps...

  • On your marks, get set, go!

    by Christoph —When did you first hear about the "ge­netic code"? In high school? Or in col­lege, in an un­der­grad­u­ate course in mol­e­c­u­lar bi­ol­ogy and/or ge­net­ics? In ei­ther case you were cer­tainly shown the fa­mous codon ta­ble that spec­i­fies which of the 64 pos­si­ble triplets in mes­sen­ger RNA (mRNA) are trans­lated into one of the 20 canon­i­cal...

  • Mak­ing Genes from Scratch? Prokary­otes do too, af­ter all

    by Christoph — When bac­te­ria add new genes to their 'fex­i­ble genome' by in­te­gra­tion of a tem­per­ate phage they find them­selves in the pre­car­i­ous sit­u­a­tion of 'shared own­er­ship'. Be­cause, at any time or un­der stress­ful con­di­tions, the phage can en­ter the lytic cy­cle. The phage then 're­claims own­er­ship' of its genes...

  • Space-tol­er­ant Mi­cro­nauts

    by Alise Muok and Ar­i­ane Briegel — Try to imag­ine a crea­ture that can sur­vive from the heat of 150°C (300°F) to the cold of –270°C (–454°F), in the ab­sence of oxy­gen, af­ter com­plete de­hy­dra­tion, at 1,000× at­mos­pheric pres­sure, and af­ter the ra­di­a­tion and vac­uum of space. Who might such space trav­el­ers be?