Pore Hop­ping

by Christoph

To study bac­te­r­ial ecol­ogy, Roberto said in his re­cent post, "you'd want a setup whose scale cor­re­sponds to the size of the bac­te­ria in ques­tion." He was pleased to learn of a study ad­dress­ing bac­te­r­ial chem­i­cal ecol­ogy within a very small ecosys­tem, namely the hair fol­li­cles of hu­man skin, where Cutibac­terium ac­nes con­tend with Staphy­lo­cocci. Here now, it's again about C. ac­nes, but this time about sev­eral strains com­pet­ing for growth in hu­man hair fol­licles, col­lo­quial pores. An eco­log­i­cal fam­ily af­fair, so to speak.

Fig­ure 1. C. ac­nes bio­geog­ra­phy at high spa­tial reso­lu­tion and high ge­netic res­o­lu­tion. (A) We col­lected C. ac­nes colonies from se­ba­ceous skin re­gions (fore­head, nose, right cheek, left cheek, chin, shoul­der, back) from 16 healthy adult sub­jects. Sam­ples were ac­quired at coarse spa­tial res­o­lu­tion with a tooth­pick (scrapes; N=155) and fine spa­tial res­o­lu­tion (pore ex­tracts and pore strips; N=145). This ap­proach en­abled us to ex­am­ine C. ac­nes bio­geog­ra­phy with spa­tial res­o­lu­tion down to a sin­gle pore (se­ba­ceous fol­li­cle). (B) To un­der­stand how these sam­ples were re­lated to each other, we per­formed whole gen­ome se­quenc­ing on 947 colonies (1–15 per sam­ple), each of which rep­re­sents the ge­netic con­tent of a sin­gle cell that orig­i­nated on the skin of one of our sub­jects. This ap­proach en­abled us to ex­am­ine C. ac­nes bio­geog­ra­phy with ge­netic res­o­lu­tion down to a sin­gle nu­cleotide vari­ant (SNV). Source. Fronti­spiece: Pro­pi­oni­bac­terium ac­nes. SEM im­age Matthias Mörgelin, Lund Uni­ver­sity, SE. Source

A whiff of tax­on­omy. Cutibac­terium ac­nes, a slow-grow­ing, aero­tol­er­ant anaer­o­bic, non-spore form­ing Gram‑positive rod-shaped bac­terium, had been known among micro­bio­lo­gists as Bacil­lus ac­nes since 1900, and was re‑named Pro­pi­oni­bac­terium ac­nes in 1946. Scholz & Kil­ian (2016), through a com­pre­hen­sive genome analy­sis of 162 whole‑gen­ome se­quences of strains rep­re­sent­ing species of the fam­ily Pro­pi­oni­bac­te­ri­aceae (phy­lum Actin­o­myce­tota), found that the com­monly used 16S RNA phy­logeny had too low a re­solution and that re‑classification to a new genus, Cutibac­terium, was war­ranted (see fron­tispiece).

The species kept its "ac­nes" name, but it re­mains un­clear to what ex­tent it is in­volved in the eti­ol­ogy of acne (med. acne vul­garis). "Cutis" is Latin for skin, and in­deed C. ac­nes is a highly abun­dant bac­terium in the skin mi­cro­biota of al­most all hu­mans. It pre­dom­i­nates in invagi­nations of oily skin sites such the face and back, the fol­li­cles, which are anoxic and en­riched in se­bum. "Highly abun­dant" mean­ing that Clae­sen et al. (2020) es­ti­mated that in­di­vi­dual pores con­tain up to 108 colony-form­ing units (CFU) of C. ac­nes (av­er­age 105 CFU). In­di­vi­duals are typ­i­cally col­o­nized by sev­eral C. ac­nes strains that co­ex­ist over time and at dif­ferent body sites. How­ever, it is un­clear whether co­ex­ist­ing strains oc­cupy dis­tinct eco­log­i­cal niches on the skin sur­face and within skin sub­struc­tures, such as pores, and why unique sets of C. ac­nes strains in in­di­vid­u­als are so ro­bust to change. That is, it was un­clear un­til now.

Fig­ure 2. C. ac­nes dom­i­nates within-pore bac­te­r­ial po­pu­lations. A sub­set of sam­ples from two sub­jects was ana­lyzed for com­mu­nity com­po­si­tion via 16S rRNA am­pli­con se­quenc­ing, in ad­di­tion to colony-based C. ac­nes whole-genome se­quenc­ing. Each species is col­ored in if its mean rel­a­tive abun­dance across samp­les is >5% and each genus is col­ored if its max rel­a­tive abun­dance across sam­ples is >33%; every­thing else is catego­rized as "Other". Actin­o­myce­tota: C. ac­nes, Law­sonella sp., Corynebac­terium sp.; Bacil­lota: Staphy­lo­coc­cus sp., Anae­ro­coc­cus sp., Pep­toniphilus sp.; Pseudomon­adota: Delf­tia sp.. Sam­ples are cate­go­rized by col­lec­tion me­thod and sub­ject. Source

A bit of back­ground on why mi­cro­bi­ol­o­gists find the last point so in­trigu­ing: with pro­longed pas­sages of a bac­te­r­ial species in shake flasks un­der con­stant growth con­di­tions − such as in Richard Lenski's LTEE − mu­tants al­ways pre­vail in the pop­u­la­tion that have in­creased fit­ness com­pared to the par­ent strain. So, why are unique sets of C. ac­nes strains in in­di­vi­duals so ro­bust to change?

En­ter Con­will et al. (2022) from Tami Lieber­man's lab at MIT-CEE, Cam­bridge MA, USA. They col­lected C. ac­nes from se­ba­ceous skin re­gions from 16 healthy adults (=sub­jects). Sam­pling was done with tooth­picks and, for fine spa­tial res­o­lu­tion, as pore ex­tracts and with pore strips (Fig­ure 1A). To un­der­stand how these sam­ples were re­lated to each other, they per­formed whole gen­ome se­quenc­ing on 947 colonies (1−15 per sam­ple), each of which re­presents the ge­netic con­tent of a sin­gle cell that orig­i­nated on the skin of one of their sub­jects. This ap­proach led them to ex­am­ine C. ac­nes bio­geog­ra­phy with spa­tial res­o­lu­tion down to a sin­gle pore (se­ba­ceous fol­li­cle) (Fig­ure 1B). And they could thus cap­ture in­ter­strain and in­trastrain di­ver­sity at a sin­gle-nu­cleotide vari­ant (SNV) level. They as­signed each iso­late a strain type, and, by us­ing ge­netic dis­tance-based clus­ter­ing, they grouped the iso­lates into lin­eages de­fined by <100 mu­ta­tion dis­tance.

Fig­ure 3. C. ac­nes lin­eages from dis­tinct col­o­niza­tion sour­ces co­ex­ist on in­di­vid­u­als. © The phy­lo­ge­netic rela­­tion­ship of the 53 C. ac­nes lin­eages de­tected across all sub­jects is shown and col­ored by C. ac­nes strain-type. All six dis­tinct co­ex­ist­ing lin­eages found on Sub­ject 1 are high­lighted. (D) A zoom-in of strain-type C il­lustrates that lin­eages within a strain-type are separa­ted by large ge­netic dis­tances rel­a­tive to intra­lineage di­ver­sity. The heights of tri­an­gles are pro­por­tional to the num­ber of colonies in each lin­eage and their widths rep­re­sent the ex­tent of in­tra­lin­eage ge­netic di­ver­gence. Lin­eages are named by sub­ject num­ber and then in­dexed by size within each sub­ject us­ing low­er­case let­ters. Source

Across all sam­ples, C. ac­nes largely dom­i­nated within-pore bac­te­r­ial pop­u­la­tions (Fig­ure 2). They dis­en­tan­gled the phy­lo­ge­netic rela­tion­ship of the 53 C. ac­nes lin­eages de­tect­ed across all sub­jects and I show here, as ex­am­ple, the re­sults for the six dis­tinct co­ex­ist­ing lin­eages found on Sub­ject 1 (Fig­ure 3). In Fig­ure 3D, a zoom-in of strain-type C il­lus­trates that lin­eages within a strain-type are sep­a­rated by large ge­netic dis­tances rel­a­tive to intra­lineage di­ver­sity.

This di­ver­si­fi­ca­tion of the C. ac­nes lin­eages found by Con­will et al. (2022), that is, their on­go­ing evo­lu­tion in the sense of adap­ta­tion, is not ex­cep­tional but well de­scribed, for ex­am­ple, for the within‑host adap­ta­tion of Pseudo­mo­nas aerug­i­nosa in pa­tients with cys­tic fi­bro­sis (see here). An aside, and a point not ad­dressed by the re­searchers: this type of analy­sis may al­low a more re­al­is­tic es­ti­mate of mu­ta­tion rates than the most com­monly used method based on differ­ences in 16S RNA se­quences.

In­ter­est­ingly, this co­ex­is­tence was not ex­plained by niche speci­ficity, be­cause the au­thors did not ob­serve strain-type ex­clu­siv­ity to the skin sur­face or skin pores, nor did they ob­serve strain-type pref­er­ences for body site (for ex­am­ple, fore­head ver­sus back). These find­ings im­plicate neu­tral, rather than se­lec­tive, ef­fects to ex­plain C. ac­nes strain type lo­cal­iza­tion on skin. They found that al­though in­di­vid­ual sub­jects har­bored mul­ti­ple lin­eages, im­ply­ing mul­ti­ple co­lonization events, in­di­vid­ual pores within sub­jects were each dom­i­nated by an in­di­vid­ual lin­eage (Fig­ure 4). Even within lin­eages, the au­thors found a lack of C. ac­nes in­tra­pore di­ver­sity at an SNV level.

Fig­ure 4. C. ac­nes lin­eages are spa­tially seg­re­gated into dif­fer­ent pores de­spite co­ex­is­tence on skin re­gions. A pore strip from Sub­ject 3 (left cheek sec­tion) il­lus­trates how pores hous­ing dif­fer­ent lin­eages can be in close vicin­ity to each other. Each black cir­cle rep­re­sents a sin­gle pore sam­ple, and each in­te­rior sym­bol repre­sents a colony from that fol­li­cle. Sym­bol col­ors in­di­cate strain-type and sym­bol shapes in­di­cate lin­eage mem­ber­ship. Source

Con­will et al. (2022) con­clude from the re­sults of their spa­tially-re­solved se­quenc­ing that most likely C. ac­nes pop­u­la­tions within each pore typ­i­cally de­scend from a sin­gle an­ces­tral geno­type in­tro­duced sto­chas­ti­cally. The spe­cial anatomy and phys­i­ol­ogy of the pores then leads to lin­eage co­ex­is­tence on in­di­vid­u­als (the­o­ret­i­cal ter­mi­nol­ogy: neu­tral bot­tle­neck­ing). Se­bum flow out of the pore, the en­vi­ron­men­tal gra­di­ent along the length of the pore, and phys­i­cal crowd­ing may make it more dif­fi­cult for a cell to col­o­nize a pore be­fore a res­i­dent bacteri­um pro­lif­er­ates (Fig­ure 5A). Thus, bot­tle­neck­ing at the level of in­di­vid­ual pores re­duces compe­tition be­tween lin­eages by spa­tially seg­re­gat­ing popula­tions with dif­fer­ent geno­types. The skin sur­face al­lows for lit­tle growth of the aero­tol­er­ant C. ac­nes and thus lim­its, in ad­di­tion, oppor­tunities for com­pe­ti­tion even among strains/lineages that have dif­fer­ent growth rates in lab ex­per­i­ments (Fig­ure 5B).

Fig­ure 5. Pore phys­i­ol­ogy may con­tribute to neu­tral bot­tle­neck­ing and to lin­eage co­ex­is­tence. (A) Se­bum flow out of the pore, the en­vi­ron­men­tal gra­di­ent along the length of the pore, and phys­i­cal crowd­ing may make it more dif­fi­cult for a cell to col­o­nize a pore be­fore a res­i­dent bac­terium pro­lif­er­ates. (B) Bottlen­ecking at the level of in­di­vid­ual pores re­duces com­pe­ti­tion be­tween lin­eages by spa­tially seg­re­gat­ing popula­tions with dif­fer­ent geno­types. The skin sur­face al­lows for lit­tle growth and thus lim­its op­por­tu­ni­ties for com­petition. Source

Learn­ing from the study by Con­will et al. (2022) that var­i­ous strains of one bac­te­r­ial species can well co­ex­ist un­der iden­ti­cal eco­log­i­cal con­di­tions if their spa­tial sep­a­ra­tion is pos­si­ble at the mi­cro-scale, I re­mem­bered "One Grain of Sand," a piece I wrote for STC years ago. Pro­bandt et al. (2018) went from study­ing bac­te­r­ial di­ver­sity in ma­rine sed­i­ment to their study on in­di­vid­ual sand grains. Bac­te­ria gather as clus­ters in in­dents and cav­i­ties of sub-mil­lime­ter-sized sand grains, while avoid­ing ex­posed con­vex ar­eas. They found that "the 10 most se­quence-abun­dant fam­ily-level clades were the same on all sand grains, and not grossly dif­fer­ent from those in bulk sedi­ment sam­ples," and that "each sand grain investi­gated in this study was the habi­tat for around 105 cells rep­re­sent­ing sev­eral thou­sand species." They did not go so far as to iden­tify in­di­vid­ual species and strains in their study, but it is rea­son­able to sus­pect that the amaz­ing di­ver­sity of closely re­lated or­gan­isms and their co­ex­is­tence un­der iden­ti­cal eco­log­i­cal con­ditions is due to, well, "grain hop­ping."

Do you want to com­ment on this post? We would be happy about it! Please com­ment on Mastodon, or on Bluesky.

Other Posts