Aggregative Adherence and Intestinal Colonization by Enteroaggregative Escherichia coli Are Produced by Interactions among Multiple Surface Factors

Blanton, Laura V.; Wang, Lawrence T.; Hofmann, Jennifer; DuBow, Joshua; Lafrance, Alexander E.; Kwak, Stephen J.; Bowers, Levi; Levine, Mandara A.; Hale, Charles O.; Meneely, Philip; Okeke, Iruka N.

doi:10.1128/msphere.00078-18

Cited by 14 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regulation can be transcriptional, post-transcriptional or even arise from interactions among different surface factors [ 35 ]. Adhesins, particularly short ones like integral outer membrane proteins and autotransporters can be masked or shielded by exopolysaccharides (EPS), fimbriae and even secreted proteins [ 23 , 35–38 , 39 19].…”

Section: Modulation Of Autoaggregationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bacteria autoaggregation: how and why bacteria stick together

Nwoko

Okeke

2021

Biochemical Society Transactions

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Autoaggregation, adherence between identical bacterial cells, is important for colonization, kin and kind recognition, and survival of bacteria. It is directly mediated by specific interactions between proteins or organelles on the surfaces of interacting cells or indirectly by the presence of secreted macromolecules such as eDNA and exopolysaccharides. Some autoaggregation effectors are self-associating and present interesting paradigms for protein interaction. Autoaggregation can be beneficial or deleterious at specific times and niches. It is, therefore, typically regulated through transcriptional or post-transcriptional mechanisms or epigenetically by phase variation. Autoaggregation can contribute to bacterial adherence, biofilm formation or other higher-level functions. However, autoaggregation is only required for these phenotypes in some bacteria. Thus, autoaggregation should be detected, studied and measured independently using both qualitative and quantitative in vitro and ex vivo methods. If better understood, autoaggregation holds the potential for the discovery of new therapeutic targets that could be cost-effectively exploited.

show abstract

Section: Modulation Of Autoaggregationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bacteria autoaggregation: how and why bacteria stick together

Nwoko

Okeke

2021

Biochemical Society Transactions

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…fibronectin and the transmembrane mucin MUC1, were proposed to be solely based on electrostatic interactions and therefore rather unspecific [ 39 ]. Furthermore, dispersin was originally suggested to counteract the hyperaggregative phenotype of aap -negative bacteria by preventing the collapse of the positively charged fimbriae on the negatively charged bacterial surface [ 40 ]. Such electrostatic interactions of the heterologously expressed fimbriae with the cell surface of the AAF-negative isogenic strain were therefore anticipated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Superior Adherence Phenotype of E. coli O104:H4 is Directly Mediated by the Aggregative Adherence Fimbriae Type I

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whereas the O104:H4 enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) outbreak strain from 2011 expresses aggregative adherence fimbriae of subtype I (AAF/I), its close relative, the O104:H4 enteroaggregative Escherichia coli (EAEC) strain 55989, encodes AAF of subtype III. Tight adherence mediated by AAF/I in combination with Shiga toxin 2 production has been suggested to result in the outbreak strain’s exceptional pathogenicity. Furthermore, the O104:H4 outbreak strain adheres significantly better to cultured epithelial cells than archetypal EAEC strains expressing different AAF subtypes. To test whether AAF/I expression is associated with the different virulence phenotypes of the outbreak strain, we heterologously expressed AAF subtypes I, III, IV, and V in an AAF-negative EAEC 55989 mutant and compared AAF-mediated phenotypes, incl. autoaggregation, biofilm formation, as well as bacterial adherence to HEp-2 cells. We observed that the expression of all four AAF subtypes promoted bacterial autoaggregation, though with different kinetics. Disturbance of AAF interaction on the bacterial surface via addition of α-AAF antibodies impeded autoaggregation. Biofilm formation was enhanced upon heterologous expression of AAF variants and inversely correlated with the autoaggregation phenotype. Co-cultivation of bacteria expressing different AAF subtypes resulted in mixed bacterial aggregates. Interestingly, bacteria expressing AAF/I formed the largest bacterial clusters on HEp-2 cells, indicating a stronger host cell adherence similar to the EHEC O104:H4 outbreak strain. Our findings show that, compared to the closely related O104:H4 EAEC strain 55989, not only the acquisition of the Shiga toxin phage, but also the acquisition of the AAF/I subtype might have contributed to the increased EHEC O104:H4 pathogenicity.

show abstract

“…However, micro-imaging of colon tissues revealed that EF-Tu-beads were aggregated on the mucosal surface. For intestinal bacteria, cell-surface protein-mediated bacterial aggregation has been considered to provide a colonization advantage 42 – 44 . Actually, since non-adhesion BSA-beads also persisted in the GI tract compared with control-beads, the spatial localization of the microbeads may depend on the immobilized protein and may involve a complex process including hydrophobic and/or electrical forces.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new approach for analyzing an adhesive bacterial protein in the mouse gastrointestinal tract using optical tissue clearing

Nishiyama

Sugiyama

Yamada

et al. 2019

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several bacterial moonlighting proteins act as adhesion factors, which are important for bacterial colonization of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. However, little is known about the adherence properties of moonlighting proteins in the GI tract. Here, we describe a new approach for visualizing the localization of moonlighting protein-coated fluorescent microbeads in the whole GI tract by using a tissue optical clearing method, using elongation factor Tu (EF-Tu) as an example. As a bacterial cell surface-localized protein mimic, recombinant EF-Tu from Lactobacillus reuteri was immobilized on microbeads. EF-Tu-coating promoted the interaction of the microbeads with a Caco-2 cell monolayer. Next, the microbeads were orally administered to mice. GI whole tissues were cleared in aqueous fructose solutions of increasing concentrations. At 1 h after administration, the microbeads were diffused from the stomach up to the cecum, and after 3 h, they were diffused throughout the intestinal tract. In the lower digestive tract, EF-Tu-beads were significantly more abundant than non-coated control beads, suggesting that EF-Tu plays an important role in the persistence of the microbeads in the GI tract. The new approach will help in evaluating how moonlighting proteins mediate bacterial colonization.

show abstract

Aggregative Adherence and Intestinal Colonization by Enteroaggregative Escherichia coli Are Produced by Interactions among Multiple Surface Factors

Cited by 14 publications

References 49 publications

Bacteria autoaggregation: how and why bacteria stick together

Bacteria autoaggregation: how and why bacteria stick together

The Superior Adherence Phenotype of E. coli O104:H4 is Directly Mediated by the Aggregative Adherence Fimbriae Type I

A new approach for analyzing an adhesive bacterial protein in the mouse gastrointestinal tract using optical tissue clearing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About