Coaggregation properties of trimeric autotransporter adhesins

Khalil, Hawzeen S.; Øgaard, Jonas; Leo, Jack C.

doi:10.1002/mbo3.1109

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 72 publications

(98 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Prominent among Enterobacteriales adhesins are the type V secreted proteins, otherwise referred to as autotransporters. These include, but are not limited to, the Veillonella monomeric autotransporters A-C [ 19 ]; the Serine Protease Autotransporters of Enterobacteriaceae (SPATEs) such as the tandem autotransporter B and C (TagB and TagC), the serine-protease hemagglutinin autotransporter sha [ 20 ]; the E. coli Antigen 43 (Ag43 or Flu) [ 21 ] and trimeric autotransporter adhesins such as EibC, EibD, Yersinia adhesin A (YadA) of enteropathogenic Yersiniae enterocolitica (YeYadA) and Y. pseudotuberculosis (YpYadA) [ 22 ] and the Veillonella trimeric autotransporters A-I [ 19 ]. Integral β-barrel proteins can also confer autoaggregation [ 23 ].…”

Section: Autoaggregation Effectorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarities and differences among adhesins, or alleles of the same adhesin, serve as discrimination cues for preferential kin/self-interaction (autoaggregation) or mixed interaction (coaggregation) between strains [ 15 ]. Autoaggregation mediated kin-recognition has been observed in Vibro cholerae strains via specific preferential PilA–PilA interaction [ 15 ] and Escherichia coli strains via specific immunoglobulin-binding Eib autotransporters or Ag43 subclass association [ 21 , 22 ].…”

Section: Evolutionary Benefits Of Autoaggregation To Bacteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In co-culture, YeYadA and YpYadA isogenic mutants preferentially autoaggregated (excluding the other), rather than coaggregated, suggesting that the YpYadA uptake region is a structural discriminating cue for coaggregation (inclusion) between YeYadA and YpYadA mutants strains. This structural difference between their respective YadAs and consequent other-exclusion has been hypothesized to be responsible for the rarity of Y. enterocolitica and Y. pseudotuberculosis co-infection even in prevalent areas [ 22 ].…”

Section: Evolutionary Benefits Of Autoaggregation To Bacteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Bacteria autoaggregation: how and why bacteria stick together

Nwoko

Okeke

2021

Biochemical Society Transactions

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: Autoaggregation Effectorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Evolutionary Benefits Of Autoaggregation To Bacteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Evolutionary Benefits Of Autoaggregation To Bacteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bacteria autoaggregation: how and why bacteria stick together

Nwoko

Okeke

2021

Biochemical Society Transactions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although all these cell surface appendages participate in kin recognition, they might trigger different transcriptional responses upon aggregation. Alternatively, exploring transcriptomic changes upon co-aggregation, which refers to interactions between genetically distinct bacteria (Kumar et al, 2019; Ochiai et al, 1993), that can be mediated via heterotypic interactions between SAATs or TAAs in closely related E. coli (Ageorges et al, 2019; Khalil et al, 2020; Klemm et al, 2006), may show different changes compared to auto-aggregation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Escherichia coliaggregates mediated by native or synthetic adhesins exhibit both core and adhesin-specific transcriptional responses

Chekli

Stevick

Kornobis

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bacteria can rapidly tune their physiology and metabolism to adapt to environmental fluctuations. In particular, they can adapt their lifestyle to the close proximity of other bacteria or presence of different surfaces. However, whether these interactions trigger transcriptomic responses is poorly understood. We used a specific set up of E. coli strains expressing native or synthetic adhesins mediating bacterial aggregation to study the transcriptomic changes of aggregated compared to non-aggregated bacteria. Our results show that following aggregation, bacteria exhibit a core response independent of the adhesin type, with differential expression of 56.9% of the coding genome, including genes involved in stress response and anaerobic lifestyle. Moreover, when aggregates were formed via a naturally expressed E. coli adhesin (Antigen 43), the transcriptomic response of the bacteria was more exaggerated compared to aggregates formed via a synthetic adhesin. This suggests that the response to aggregation induced by native E. coli adhesins could have been finely tuned during bacterial evolution. Our study therefore provides insights on the effect of self-interaction in bacteria and allows a better understanding of why bacterial aggregates exhibit increased stress tolerance.

show abstract

“…8 The evaluation of microbial resistance to gastrointestinal juice, auto-aggregation, co-aggregation, surface hydrophobicity, and adherence to intestinal epithelial cell lines (Caco-2 and HT-29 cells) has been used as an in vitro method to screen strains with probiotic potential, and many papers describe this. 9,10 Microorganisms not only have the ability to adhere to intestinal epithelial cells and co-polymerize with other microorganisms but many bacteria have the ability to bind to themselves, which is termed auto-aggregation or auto-agglutination. 11 Auto-aggregation is accompanied by surface colonization in the first steps of biofilm formation, and is generally mediated by self-recognizing surface structures, such as proteins, 12,13 ex-polysaccharides.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genes encoding bile salt hydrolase differentially affect adhesion of Lactiplantibacillus plantarumAR113

Wang

Tang

et al. 2021

J Sci Food Agric

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Adhesion is considered important for Lactiplantibacillus to persist in the human gut and for it to exert probiotic effects. Lactiplantibacillus plantarum contains a considerable number and variety of genes encoding bile salt hydrolases (bsh), but their effects on microbial adhesion remain poorly understood. To clarify the effects of four bsh on adhesion, we tried to knock out bsh (Δbsh) of L. plantarum AR113 using the CRISPR-Cas9 method, and compared the growth, auto-aggregation (R AA ), coaggregation (R CA ), surface hydrophobicity (A HC ) of AR113 wild-type and Δbsh strains and their adhesion abilities to HT29 cells. RESULTS: We first obtained the AR113 Δbsh1,3,2,4 strain with four bsh knocked out. Their growth was significantly slower than the wild-type strain cultured in De Man, Rogosa, and Sharpe medium (MRS) with 3.0 g L −1 glyco-or tauro-conjugated bile acid. Bsh had no significant effect on the growth of ten strains cultured in MRS, but Δbsh1 inhibited their growth when cultured in MRS containing 3.0 g L −1 sodium glycocholate, whereas Δbsh4 instead promoted their growth in MRS with 3.0 g L −1 sodium glycocholate and sodium taurocholate. R CA and R AA were linearly positive for all strains except AR113 Δbsh2,4, and A HC and R AA were negatively correlated for most strains excluding AR113 Δbsh2, with R AA = 6.38-25.05%, R CA = 5.17-9.22%, and A CH = 3.22-47.71%. The adhesion ability of ten strains cultured in MRS was higher than that of strains cultured in MRS with 3.0 g L −1 bovine bile, and it was related to bsh2.CONCLUSION: Bsh differentially affected the adhesion of AR113 series strains. This adds to the available information about substrate-gene-performance, and provides new information to enable engineering to regulate the colonization of Lactiplantibacillus.

show abstract

Coaggregation properties of trimeric autotransporter adhesins

Cited by 6 publications

References 72 publications

Bacteria autoaggregation: how and why bacteria stick together

Bacteria autoaggregation: how and why bacteria stick together

Escherichia coliaggregates mediated by native or synthetic adhesins exhibit both core and adhesin-specific transcriptional responses

Genes encoding bile salt hydrolase differentially affect adhesion of Lactiplantibacillus plantarumAR113

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About