Even More An­tibi­otics In The Nurs­ery!

by Christoph

We had learned ear­lier that Phil­an­thus tri­an­gu­lum bee­wolves – soli­tary dig­ger wasps that prey on bees, hence their name – em­ploy a "cock­tail" of nine dif­fer­ent an­tibi­otics to pro­tect their off­spring from detri­men­tal fun­gal in­fec­tions. The an­tibi­otics are pro­duced – I re­peat from the ear­lier post – by a bac­te­r­ial sym­biont, 'Can­di­da­tus Strep­to­myces phil­an­thi' (Fig­ure 1), which the fe­males cul­ti­vate in an­ten­nal glands and se­crete into the brood cells prior to ovipo­si­tion (=egg-lay­ing). They are ta­ken up by the lar­vae and in­cor­po­rated into their co­coons, thereby pro­tect­ing them against fun­gal in­fec­tions. Weeks or, af­ter hi­ber­na­tion, months later, eclos­ing adult fe­males ac­quire the bac­te­ria from the cocoon's sur­faces, thus com­plet­ing the ver­ti­cal trans­mis­sion of the sym­biont.

Fig­ure 1. Strep­to­myces bac­te­ria from the anten­nae of a fe­male bee­wolf (Phil­an­thus tri­an­gu­lum ) (false col­ors). Front­page: male bee­wolf (Phi­lan­thus pul­cher­rimus ) on a perch in its ter­ri­tory. Credit: M. Kaltenpoth, MPI for Chem­i­cal Eco­lo­gy, Jena, Ger­many. Source

A re­cent study by the Kaltenpoth lab at the In­sti­tute of Mo­lecular Bi­ol­ogy in Mainz, Ger­many, re­vealed that the Strep­to­myces phil­an­thi sym­bionts of 25 stud­ied bee­wolf species pro­duce a stun­ningly rich as­sort­ment of altoge­th­er 49 com­pounds be­long­ing to three classes of an­tibi­otics. How is this di­ver­sity of an­timi­cro­bial com­pounds gene­ra­ted at the mol­e­c­u­lar level? Can syn­er­gis­tic or an­tag­o­nis­tic in­ter­ac­tions of com­pounds present in the mix­ture af­fect their ac­tiv­ity against po­ten­tial pathogens? An­swers to these two ques­tions would al­low the re­searchers to ad­dress an even more in­ter­est­ing topic: how did the anti­biotic mix­ture change over evo­lu­tion­ary timescales and to what ex­tent do the pat­terns re­flect phy­lo­ge­netic con­straints and eco­log­i­cal adap­ta­tions? But first things first...

Stock­ing-up a phar­macy (eco­nom­i­cally) 

There are 130+ de­scribed Phil­an­thus species that hunt bees – some pre­fer bum­ble­bees – on all con­ti­nents. Yet, an ear­lier study had shown that each of 28 an­a­lyzed Phil­an­thus species har­bor one strain, or lin­eage, of the Strep­to­myces phil­antri sym­biont. To as­sess the full spec­trum of anti­biotics syn­the­sized by the var­i­ous S. phil­antri lin­eages when sym­bios­ing with "their" bee­wolf spe­cies, Engl et al. col­lected co­coons and fe­males from var­i­ous lo­ca­tions in the Amer­i­cas, Africa and Eu­rope, de­ter­mined 25 species, and an­a­lyzed ex­tracts by mass spec­trom­e­try. State-of-the-art mass spec­trom­e­ters can de­tect minute amounts of vir­tu­ally any chem­i­cal sub­stance in com­plex mix­tures, qual­i­ta­tively and quan­ti­ta­tively. But as­sign­ing peaks in mass spec­tra to par­tic­u­lar com­pounds still re­quires de­tec­tive skills and, of course, ac­cess to ex­ten­sive ref­er­ence spec­tra li­braries. In sev­eral in­stances, the re­searchers had to ac­tu­ally count the ions to de­ter­mine con­cen­tra­tions be­cause ref­er­ence sub­stances for cal­i­bra­tion weren't com­mer­cially avail­able.

Fig­ure 2. Known de­riv­a­tives of Pie­ri­cidin A. Source

They found, in to­tal, 49 sym­biont-pro­duced (pu­ta­tively bioac­tive) com­pounds, 9 of which had been found pre­viously in other strep­to­mycetes, 9 al­ready iden­ti­fied in Phil­an­thus tri­an­gu­lum, and 31 newly iden­ti­fied. Of these com­pounds, 45 were pie­ri­cidin de­riv­a­tives, 3 strep­to­chlo­rin de­riv­a­tives, and one was nigericin. The as­ton­ish­ingly var­ied "bou­quet" of pie­ri­cidin de­riv­a­tives prompted the re­searchers to com­pare, at the se­quence level, the pieri­cidin biosyn­thetic gene clus­ter (PKS) of Phil­an­thus tri­an­gulum with cor­re­spond­ing gene clus­ters of other Strep­to­mycetes that had been stud­ied for pie­ri­cidin syn­the­sis. They found a per­fect match of gene or­der, and pro­tein sim­i­lar­i­ties in the 65% range. This sug­gested to them that the S. phil­antri pie­ri­cidin syn­the­sis ma­chin­ery works in a more re­laxed fash­ion, with the de­riv­a­tives brought about by va­ri­a­tions of the "nor­mal" path­way. Such 'vari­a­tions' could in­clude in­cor­po­ra­tion of dif­fer­ent pre­curs­ors (for bio­chem­istry ex­perts: methyl­malonyl-CoA and/or mal­onyl-CoA) in the ini­ti­a­tion step as well as in the elon­ga­tion steps of the lin­ear polyke­tide chain, or skip­ping some steps en­tirely, and, lastly, vari­a­tions in the post-PKS 'tai­lor­ing steps' of ami­da­tion, cy­cliza­tion, hy­dra­tion, and methyl­a­tion of the polyke­tide chain (Fig­ure 2). That's clearly a more eco­nomic ap­proach to stock‑up a phar­macy's as­sort­ment than run­ning a sep­a­rate pro­duc­tion pipeline for each drug! In­ter­est­ingly, the bee­wolves' phar­ma­cies are not equally well stocked: while the re­searchers de­tected 46 com­pounds in the Phil­an­thus tri­an­gu­lum subsp. tri­an­gu­lum sam­ple, there were only 6 in the Phil­an­thus albo­pilosus sam­ple. How­ever, most sam­ples con­tained be­tween 10 and 20 com­pounds at vary­ing con­centrations. In con­clu­sion: the com­pound mix­tures were sim­i­lar but no ex­actly alike, each spe­cific for a sin­gle bee­wolf–S. phil­an­thri  sym­bio­sis rather.

The art of mix­ing an­tibi­otics

Fig­ure 3. Bioac­tiv­ity of dif­fer­ent com­bi­na­tions of pie­ri­cidin A1 (PA) and B1 (PB) and streptochlo­rin (SC) in agar dif­fu­sion as­says against AM. guil­liermondii, B Y. lipoly­t­ica, and C A. oryzae. Anta­gonistic ef­fects (i.e., sig­nif­i­cantly lower in­­hi­bi­tion zones of mix­tures than one of the sin­gle sub­stances) are high­lighted by ma­genta box­es (ac­cord­ing to ANOVA and Tukey HSD post hoc tests; *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001). Source

Not only the num­ber of com­pounds and their amounts af­fect a mixture's bi­o­log­i­cal ac­tiv­ity but also their syn­er­gis­tic and/or an­tag­o­nis­tic in­ter­ac­tions. To learn more about such in­ter­ac­tions, Engl et al. per­formed agar dif­fusion as­says with com­bi­na­tions of the three most ab­undant in­gre­di­ents, pie­ri­cidin A1, B1, and strep­tochlo­rin, against three dif­fer­ent fungi, As­pergillus oryzae, and the yeasts Yarrowia lipoly­t­ica and Meyerozyma guillier­mon­dii. Pie­ri­cidin B1 did not in­flu­ence the ac­tiv­ity of pie­ri­cidin A1, but it en­hanced in­hi­bi­tion of strep­tochlo­rin against Y. lipoly­t­ica, and de­creased the com­bined ac­tiv­ity of pieri­ci­din A1 and strep­tochlo­rin against M. guil­lier­mondii. Strep­tochlorin, on the other hand, gen­er­ally in­creased the ac­tivity of pie­ri­cidin B1 but re­duced the in­hi­bi­tion of yeasts in mix­tures con­tain­ing pie­ri­cidin A1 (Fig­ure 3). Al­though they used just three fungi as proxy for the un­known na­ture of the fun­gal mi­cro­biota at the sam­ple sites and tested them with only 3 of the 40+ com­pounds in com­bi­na­tions, the au­thors found both syn­er­gis­tic and an­tag­o­nis­tic in­ter­ac­tions. They can thus safely 'ex­trap­o­late' that even sub­tle chan­ges in the com­po­si­tion of the an­timi­cro­bial mix­ture are likely to dif­fer­en­tially af­fect op­por­tunis­tic pathogens, and may al­low for fine-tun­ing the an­timi­cro­bial de­fense to lo­cal pathogen com­mu­ni­ties. Also – and this may partly ex­plain why the beewolf–Streptomyces sym­bio­sis has not not run into an 'An­tibi­otic Re­sis­tance Cri­sis' dur­ing the past ~70 mil­lion years: a com­bi­na­tion of an­tibi­otics can slow down the evo­lu­tion of re­sis­tance in po­ten­tial pathogens for two main (known) rea­sons. First, if at least two com­pounds in a mix­ture act an­tag­o­nis­ti­cally, a mi­croor­gan­ism that evolves re­sistance to one of the com­pounds ex­pe­ri­ences a higher ef­fec­tive in­hi­bi­tion by the re­main­ing com­pound and thus has a de­creased fit­ness com­pared with non­re­sis­tant cells. Syn­er­gis­ti­cally act­ing com­pounds, on the other hand, fa­vor a faster evo­lu­tion of re­sis­tance be­cause any aris­ing re­sis­tance mu­ta­tion against one com­pound quenches the syn­er­gis­tic in­hi­bi­tion. Sec­ond, in­trin­si­cally non­toxic com­pounds in a mix­ture can boost the ac­tiv­ity of in­hibitory com­pounds by neu­tral­iz­ing re­sis­tance mech­a­nisms (a well known ex­am­ple: the non-an­tibi­otic β‑lactam ana­log clavu­lanic acid in­hibits cer­tain β‑lactamases).

Evo­lu­tion of a phar­macy

Fig­ure 4. Phy­lo­ge­netic and geo­graphic in­flu­ence on rich­ness (num­ber of com­pounds) and even­ness (Shannon's E, roughly: pro­por­tional dis­tri­b­u­tion of the com­po­nents in a mix­ture) of the bee­wolf sym­biont-pro­duced an­tibiotic mix­ture. A Sym­biont phy­logeny (CaSp: 'Can­di­da­tus Strep­to­myces phil­an­thri'), B host phy­logeny, and C den­dro­gram based on a lo­ga­rithmic dis­tance ma­trix of sam­pling lo­ca­tions, all in com­par­i­son with heat maps dis­play­ing com­pound rich­ness and even­ness. Species are color-coded by sam­pling lo­ca­tion (pur­ple, North Amer­ica; blue, South Amer­ica; or­ange, Europe/ Africa). Rich­ness and even­ness heat maps are pre­sented in color if a sig­nif­i­cant phy­lo­ge­netic (Blomberg's K) or ge­o­graphic (PGLS) in­flu­ence was de­tected; oth­er­wise, they are pre­sented in gray. Branch num­bers in the phy­lo­ge­nies are Bayesian pos­te­rior prob­a­bil­ity val­ues. Source

By mol­e­c­u­lar phy­lo­ge­net­ics, Kaltenpohl et al. had traced the ori­gin of the bee­wolf–S. phil­an­thri sym­bio­sis and its co­evo­lu­tion back to an an­ces­tor of the Phil­an­thini tribe some 70 mil­lion years ago (and had, by the way, ob­tained in­di­ca­tions for rare hor­i­zon­tal sym­biont ex­change among dif­fer­ent bee­wolf species). This al­lowed Engl et al. to as­sess the in­trigu­ing ques­tions: how did the sym­biont-pro­­duced an­tibi­otic mix­ture change over evo­lu­tion­ary time­scales and to what ex­tent do the pat­terns re­flect phy­lo­geny con­straints and eco­log­i­cal adap­ta­tions? Such ques­tions can be tack­led by ap­ply­ing a bat­tery of sta­tis­ti­cal meth­ods that pull out sig­nif­i­cant cor­re­la­tions in multi­va­ri­ate data ta­bles, that is, dis­tance ma­tri­ces. One of the dis­tance ma­tri­ces rep­re­sented the Phil­an­thini phy­logeny, the sec­ond the phy­logeny of the sym­bionts, and the third the sam­ple sites (ex­pressed as log­a­rith­mic dis­tances of the sam­pling lo­ca­tions). The an­tibi­otic mix­tures were con­verted into dis­tance ma­tri­ces to ac­count for the dif­fer­ent num­bers of com­pounds (rich­ness) and their pro­por­tional abun­dance (even­ness). They found that while the num­ber of com­pounds (rich­ness) was in­flu­enced by the phyl­oge­ne­tic back­ground of the sym­biont (Fig­ure 4 A), the even­ness of the mix­ture was sig­nif­i­cantly in­flu­enced by geo­graphic lo­ca­tion, sug­gest­ing an adap­ta­tion to the lo­cal en­vironment (Fig­ure 4 C). The au­thors sum­ma­rize: "The first find­ing is con­sis­tent with evo­lu­tion­ary changes in the ge­netic ba­sis of sec­ondary metabo­lite biosyn­the­sis that limit or ex­pand the num­ber of pro­duced com­pounds. The sec­ond find­ing sug­gests an en­vi­ron­men­tal in­flu­ence on the quan­ti­ta­tive ex­pres­sion of com­pound biosyn­the­sis. Such ex­pres­sion changes pre­sum­ably al­low for rapid adap­ta­tions to the lo­cal en­vi­ron­ment (tem­per­a­ture, hu­mid­ity, soil mi­cro­bial com­mu­nity) by quan­ti­tatively ad­just­ing the com­po­si­tion of the an­tibi­otic mix­ture."

Bee­wolves et al.: 'de­fen­sive sym­bioses'

Fig­ure 5. Clado­gram of selec­ted an­i­mal groups high­light­ing those with de­scribed de­fen­sive mi­cro­bial sym­bionts and the cor­re­spond­ing sym­biont taxa. Col­ored cir­cles rep­re­sent the ma­jor biosyn­thetic path­ways re­ported for sym­biont-pro­duced com­pounds. Branch lengths are not to scale and branch or­der is adapted from pre­vi­ous phy­lo­ge­netic ana­lyses for the deep branches, hexa­pods and all other bi­la­te­ri­ans. Com­mon names in brack­ets de­note se­lected groups within the re­spec­tive taxon that har­bor known de­fen­sive sym­bionts. PKS, polyke­tide syn­thase gene(s); NRPS, non-ri­bo­so­mal pep­tide syn­thetase gene(s). Source

The term 'de­fen­sive sym­bio­sis' was not coined in con­trast to 'nu­tri­tional sym­bio­sis' (for ex­am­ple, the aphid–Buch­n­era sym­bio­sis), but rather to em­pha­size a some­what dif­fer­ent "goal." The bee­wolf–Strep­to­myces sym­biosis is an ex­am­ple for such a 'de­fen­sive sym­bio­sis' among Eu­kary­otes and Bac­te­ria, in which a cock­tail of com­pounds pro­duced by a sin­gle sym­bi­otic bac­te­r­ial strain is ca­pa­ble of pro­vid­ing ef­fi­cient pro­tec­tion for the eu­kary­otic host against an ar­ray of op­por­tunis­tic bac­te­rial and fun­gal pathogens. But this is not a unique evo­lu­tionary som­er­sault. Flórez et al. re­viewed in 2015 the then known 'de­fen­sive sym­bioses' – 19 and count­ing – and point to an in­ter­est­ing fea­ture found re­peat­edly among animal–microbe pro­tec­tive as­so­ci­a­tions: the si­multaneous em­ploy­ment of mul­ti­ple de­fen­sive che­mi­cals, pro­duced by ei­ther a sin­gle or sev­eral sym­bi­otic part­ners (Fig­ure 5). Call this 'com­bi­na­tion pro­phy­laxis',  an ap­proach that starkly con­trasts with the con­ven­tional pro­phy­lac­tic ap­proach to pre­vent in­fec­tions in surgery pa­tients by us­ing a sin­gle broad sprec­trum an­tibi­otic.

And there is an­other, more ap­pli­ca­tion-ori­ented as­pect that Flórez et al. men­tion: "Animal–microbe de­fen­sive sym­bioses ... are a promis­ing re­search tar­get for the field of nat­ural prod­ucts dis­cov­ery, due to their im­mense che­mi­cal po­ten­tial and the ad­van­tages of study­ing the mi­cro­bial pro­duc­ers di­rectly em­bed­ded in an eco­log­i­cal con­text (i.e. ful­fill­ing a role for their eu­kary­otic host), as op­posed to free-liv­ing mi­croor­gan­isms. Fur­ther­more, dis­cov­ered nat­ural prod­ucts are more likely to be ap­plic­a­ble in med­ical con­texts, since they have been nat­u­rally tested for side ef­fects on, at least some, eu­kary­otes." Which is, in my opin­ion, a pretty good ar­gu­ment when it comes to de­ve­loping promis­ing strate­gies to tackle the an­tibi­otic re­sis­tance cri­sis (see here and here for a fairly re­cent two-part 'sit­u­a­tion re­port').

 

Other Posts