Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access

Single cell analysis of Vibrio harveyi uncovers functional heterogeneity in response to quorum sensing signals

BMC Microbiology201212:209

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-12-209

©  Anetzberger et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

  • Received: 20 July 2012
  • Accepted: 13 September 2012
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

Vibrio harveyi and closely related species are important pathogens in aquaculture. A complex quorum sensing cascade involving three autoinducers controls bioluminescence and several genes encoding virulence factors. Single cell analysis of a V. harveyi population has already indicated intercellular heterogeneity in the production of bioluminescence. This study was undertaken to analyze the expression of various autoinducer-dependent genes in individual cells.

Results

Here we used reporter strains bearing promoter::gfp fusions to monitor the induction/repression of three autoinducer-regulated genes in wild type conjugates at the single cell level. Two genes involved in pathogenesis - vhp and vscP, which code for an exoprotease and a component of the type III secretion system, respectively, and luxC (the first gene in the lux operon) were chosen for analysis. The lux operon and the exoprotease gene are induced, while vscP is repressed at high cell density. As controls luxS and recA, whose expression is not dependent on autoinducers, were examined. The responses of the promoter::gfp fusions in individual cells from the same culture ranged from no to high induction. Importantly, simultaneous analysis of two autoinducer induced phenotypes, bioluminescence (light detection) and exoproteolytic activity (fluorescence of a promoter::gfp fusion), in single cells provided evidence for functional heterogeneity within a V. harveyi population.

Conclusions

Autoinducers are not only an indicator for cell density, but play a pivotal role in the coordination of physiological activities within the population.

Keywords

  • Bioluminescence
  • Exoprotease
  • Type III secretion
  • Autoinducer
  • Division of labor
  • Subpopulation

Background

Populations of genetically identical bacteria are conventionally regarded as being phenotypically homogeneous. Over the past decade however, it has become apparent that bacterial cell clones are not necessarily functionally homogeneous. For example, heterogeneity within clonal Bacillus sp. populations has been extensively investigated [1, 2]. We previously observed heterogeneous behavior of quorum sensing (QS) regulated bioluminescence in a V. harveyi population [3]. Even at high cell densities, the population was found to comprise two subpopulations: two-thirds of all cells exhibited luminescence, while the rest remained dark.

QS is a form of cell to cell communication, which involves production, excretion and sensing of signaling molecules, the autoinducers (AIs) (see [4] for review). The Gram-negative marine bacterium V. harveyi (recently reclassified as Vibrio campbellii[5]) produces three different AIs. HAI-1 belongs to the group of acylhomoserine lactones used by many Gram-negative species [6]. CAI-1, a long-chain ketone, is the main AI in V. cholerae, whereas it seems to be less important in V. harveyi[7]. AI-2, a furanosyl borate diester derived from 4,5-dihydroxy-2,3-pentandione, is widespread in the bacterial world [8, 9]. The three AIs are recognized by three hybrid sensor kinases located in the cytoplasmic membrane (Figure 1): HAI-1 by LuxN, AI-2 by LuxQ (in concert with its binding protein LuxP) and CAI-1 by CqsS [7, 8, 10–12]. Information is transduced via phosphorelay to LuxU and further to the response regulator LuxO [13]. A recently described new circuit consisting of the NO-sensing H-NOX and the soluble histidine kinase HqsK also feeds its information to the QS network at the level of LuxU [14]. Phosphorylated LuxO activates the transcription of five small regulatory RNAs (Qrr 1-5). Four of these, acting together with the chaperone Hfq, destabilize the transcript that encodes the master regulator LuxR [15, 16]. LuxR is both an activator and a repressor of a large number (> 100) of genes [17, 18]. Several feedback loops regulate the level of LuxR in the cell. These involve the autorepression of luxR[19], the induction of qrr2 4 transcription by LuxR [20], the autorepression of luxO[21], the down-regulation of the translation of luxO and luxMN by qrr sRNAs [21, 22], and the direct repression by AphA, an antagonist of LuxR [23].
Figure 1
Figure 1

The QS signaling cascade of Vibrio harveyi . (A) In V. harveyi the AIs HAI-1, CAI-1 and AI-2 are synthesized by LuxM, CqsA and LuxS respectively, and are detected by the hybrid sensor kinases LuxN, CqsS and LuxQ (with its binding protein LuxP). The higher the AI concentration, the lower the autophosphorylation activity of the kinases [24]. Dashed lines marked with a ‘P’ indicate phosphotransfer reactions. H (histidine) and D (aspartate) denote phosphorylation sites. CM, cytoplasmic membrane; CP, cytoplasm; PP, periplasm. (B) In the absence of AIs, the phosphoryl group is transferred by phosphorelay via the histidine phosphotransfer protein LuxU to the σ54-dependent transcriptional activator LuxO. Phosphorylated LuxO activates transcription of five regulatory sRNAs (Qrr1-5), four of which, together with the chaperone Hfq, destabilize the mRNA for the master regulator LuxR. (C) In the presence of AIs, LuxO is dephosphorylated, and LuxR is produced. LuxR activates genes responsible for bioluminescence, biofilm formation and exoproteolytic activity, and represses genes involved in type III secretion and siderophore production

V. harveyi is an opportunistic pathogen mainly for shrimps, but also for fish, squids and lobsters [25–27] and causes major losses in shrimp aquaculture [28]. The response to QS signals is of interest in this context, because genes regulated by QS encode proteins required for biofilm formation [3] and virulence factors, such as siderophores [29], type III secretion (e.g. vscP) [30] and exoproteolytic activity (e.g. vhp) [17, 31], in addition to bioluminescence (using the lux system) [32].

Here we focused on the single cell analysis of fluorescent reporter strains bearing plasmids containing promoter::gfp fusions, which allowed us to simultaneously monitor the expression of two AI-regulated genes in single cells.

Results

AI-regulated bioluminescence correlates well with the activity of the corresponding promoter::gfp fusion

To expand our previous findings on heterogeneous behavior of a V. harveyi population found for bioluminescence [3] to other AI-regulated genes, we decided to construct promoter::gfp fusions. It was important to use a wild type genetic background to monitor bioluminescence as a marker for an intact QS cascade in each strain. Therefore, all promoter::gfp fusions are plasmid based. To set up the reporter system we tested first a plasmid containing a promoter::gfp fusion of the constitutively expressed housekeeping gene recA to estimate the degree of heterogeneity in the expression of this gene [33]. Wild type cells conjugated with this plasmid were grown to the exponential growth phase, stained with propidium iodide to identify dead cells (about 5%), and single cells in the same field of view were analyzed in phase contrast and fluorescence modes. Images were analyzed using ImageJ. Luminescence and fluorescence intensities of each living cell are expressed as intensity values per cell after normalization to the same cell size. All living cells were fluorescent, indicating expression of recA in all cells. Fluorescence intensities were determined in about 1,400 cells. The average fluorescence intensity was calculated to be 1,017 a.u./cell [(a.u.) arbitrary units] with a standard deviation of 9.9% (data not shown). For comparison all living cells of strain BB120gfp containing a chromosomal encoded gfp were fluorescent and showed an average fluorescence intensity of 1,085 a.u./cell with a standard deviation of 10.5% (data not shown). Testing for statistical significance (with Δμ > 1σ proving a significant difference) revealed that these two fusions were not significantly different, with Δμ = 0.45 σ. These results indicated that plasmid and chromosomal encoded genes exhibit a comparable expression pattern at the single cell level. Furthermore, promoter::gfp fusions of constitutively expressed genes result in fluorescence of all living cells.

After that, a plasmid containing a promoter::gfp fusion for the lux operon in addition to the intact luxCDABE operon was constructed to test whether bioluminescence in single cells correlated with the fluorescence intensity of the corresponding P luxC ::gfp fusion. The wild type strain conjugated with a plasmid encoding a P luxC ::gfp fusion was grown to the mid-exponential growth phase, and single cells in the same field of view were analyzed in phase contrast (Figure 2A left), bioluminescence (Figure 2A middle) and fluorescence (Figure 2A right) modes. Intensity data for 450 living bacteria were acquired and depicted in a correlation plot, with each dot representing a single cell (Figure 2B). There was a strong correlation between bioluminescence and fluorescence (r = 0.84, p < 0.001) (Figure 2B), indicating that the P luxC ::gfp fusion reliably mirrors natural bioluminescence induction.
Figure 2
Figure 2

Characterization of AI-regulated gene activity in V. harveyi strains containing promoter:: gfp reporter fusions. V. harveyi strains containing P luxC ::gfp (A, B) and P vhp ::gfp (C, D) reporter fusions were grown to the mid-exponential growth phase (OD600 = 0.2), and single cell analysis was performed. 450 (P luxC ::gfp) and 300 (P vhp ::gfp) cells were individually analyzed using ImageJ. In panels B and D, fluorescence and bioluminescence levels (normalized for cell size and expressed in arbitrary units) are plotted for individual cells bearing the reporter fusions indicated. The correlation coefficient r and the p-value are indicated. A regression line could be drawn only for strain P luxC ::gfp (red). Panels A and C show phase-contrast (left), bioluminescence (middle) and fluorescence (right) views of cells expressing promoter::gfp fusions for luxC and vhp, respectively. The images in each row show the same field of view. Note the tight correlation between luminescence and luxC reporter expression in panel A. White arrows indicate two cells displaying signals of equal intensity in the bioluminescence and fluorescence channels. In panel C red arrows point to cells that exhibit high bioluminescence and low fluorescence or vice versa. Scale bar = 2.5 μm.

We analyzed the third construct, which contains a P vhp ::gfp fusion. vhp encodes an exoprotease. Bacteria were cultivated as described above, and 300 living cells were quantitatively analyzed with respect to bioluminescence and fluorescence intensities (Figure 2C, D). Here, single cell analysis revealed no correlation between bioluminescence and fluorescence (r = 0.06, p = 0.28) (Figure 2D). This is reflected in the fact that luminescent cells were not necessarily fluorescent and vice versa (Figure 2D). In addition, the culture contained a larger fraction of luminescent than fluorescent cells. This finding is in agreement with our observation that exoproteolytic activity does not coincide with bioluminescence during growth of V. harveyi (unpublished observation). Overall, these data indicate that promoter::gfp fusions provide a reliable mean to monitor AI-regulated gene expression at the single cell level in V. harveyi.

Expression of various AI-regulated genes is heterogeneous

Next we analyzed the time-dependent expression of three AI-regulated genes and two AI-independent genes at the single cell level. In addition to the P luxC ::gfp, the P vhp ::gfp and the P recA ::gfp strains described above, strains with P vscP ::gfp and P luxS ::gfp fusions were generated. The vscP gene encodes a translocation protein of the type III secretion system and the product of luxS is involved in the synthesis of AI-2. Our preliminary experiments and a microarray study indicated that luxS expression is not dependent on AIs (unpublished observation; [34]). For all experiments, wild type cells (conjugated with one of the plasmids containing promoter::gfp fusions for luxC, vhp, vscP, luxS, or recA) from an overnight culture were diluted about 10,000-fold into fresh medium, effectively returning the cells to an environment without extracellular AIs (time 0). Cultures were then grown until the end of the exponential or into the early stationary growth phase (12 or 15 hours). When a suitable cell number was reached (usually after 8 hours of growth = early exponential growth phase), cells were collected and analyzed by microscopy as described above. First, the average fluorescence per cell was determined for each of the five fusions (Figure 3A) as well as for the BB120 strain without any fusion to determine the autofluorescence of V. harveyi (about 100 a.u./cell background fluorescence) (data not shown). As expected the mean values of cells containing P luxS ::gfp or P recA ::gfp did not change significantly over time (Figure 3A). In contrast, the measurements revealed induction of luxC and vhp, and repression of vscP over time (Figure 3A). The luxC promoter was induced up to 100-fold (10.000 a.u./cell compared to 100 a.u./cell) during the exponential growth phase. The vhp promoter was maximally induced (40-fold) in the early stationary phase. Conversely, the vscP promoter was repressed 8-fold over the course of the exponential growth phase.
Figure 3
Figure 3

Growth-dependent analysis of the expression of AI-regulated genes at the single cell level. V. harveyi conjugants that carried one of the plasmids pCA2, pCA3, pCA4, pCA5, and pCA1 containing a promoter::gfp fusion driven by the luxC (blue), vhp (green), vscP (red), luxS (grey), or recA (dark grey) promoter, respectively, were cultivated, and at the indicated times the optical density (OD600) was determined (A) and single cell analysis was performed (B-F). At each time point the average fluorescence of the population was determined (A). The activity of luxC (B), vhp (C), vscP (D), luxS (E), and recA (F) promoters was followed in a growing population over time. Fluorescence levels were normalized for cell size and expressed in arbitrary units.

At the single cell level we found that luxC was induced in a subpopulation during the early exponential growth phase (Figure 3B). Over time more and more cells induced luxC, but a substantial fraction of the population (about 20%) did not activate the luxC promoter at all (Figure 3B).

Promoter activity of P vhp ::gfp was detected only in a minority of the population (20%) at early times (8 hours) (Figure 3C). The percentage of fluorescent cells increased slowly over the exponential growth phase. Therefore, we decided to analyze this promoter also during early stationary growth. By the time the population had entered the stationary growth phase (15 hours) 80% of the cells had initiated transcription of vhp. In the remaining 20% the promoter was silent.

Single cell analysis of the population containing P vscP ::gfp in the early exponential phase (8-9 hours) revealed two distinct subpopulations exhibiting high (about 50% of the population) and low fluorescence (Figure 3D). As the cell density further increased, the signal level in the former decreased, so that the two subpopulations eventually fused into one, which was characterized by low fluorescence. In parallel, we investigated the promoter activity of the two QS-independent genes luxS and recA at the single cell level. Although fluorescence was detectable in all cells of the strain containing the P luxS ::gfp fusion, we observed that a small fraction (< 10%) of the population expressed luxS at a constant low level (Figure 3E). The reason for this phenomenon is unknown. Moreover, all living cells of the strain containing the P recA ::gfp fusion showed comparable fluorescence intensity, which resulted in one peak independent of the growth phase of the population (Figure 3F).

Overall, these data show that all the AI-regulated promoters tested are expressed heterogeneously within expanding populations of V. harveyi (Figure 3). Strikingly, this heterogeneity of expression was observed for both AI-induced genes and an AI-repressed gene.

The deletion of luxO causes an AI-independent expression of all QS-regulated genes [13]. Thus, V. harveyi JAF78 (ΔluxO) is characterized by an all-bright phenotype [3]. We conjugated this strain with plasmids containing promoter::gfp fusions for luxC, vhp, or vscP and analyzed single cell expression at the mid-exponential growth phase. All living cells of JAF78 conjugated with either of the plasmids containing a P luxC ::gfp or a P vhp ::gfp fusion showed fluorescence, whereas no fluorescence was detectable in JAF78 conjugated with the plasmid encoding P vscP ::gfp (data not shown). Moreover, average intensities of the P luxC ::gfp and the P vhp ::gfp fusions were significantly higher and the standard deviation was lower in the JAF78 strain compared to the BB120 strain (Table 1). These data are consistent with the luminescence behavior of JAF78 versus BB120 cells at the single cell level [3]. These results indicate that heterogeneous promoter activity is dependent on AIs.
Table 1

Characterization of the constitutive QS-active V. harveyi mutant JAF78 containing promoter:: gfp reporter fusions

Promoter fusion

Average fluorescence [a.u./cell]

Standard deviation σ [a.u./cell] (%)

 

JAF78

BB120

JAF78

BB120

P luxC ::gfp

4490

3370

1347 (30)

3033 (90)

P vhp ::gfp

730

620

226 (31)

614 (99)

V. harveyi JAF78 (ΔluxO) cells were grown to the mid-exponential growth phase, analyzed at the single cell level as described in Figure 3, and compared with the wild type BB120.

Simultaneous analysis of two AI-induced genes reveals division of labor

Next we analyzed the induction of two AI-induced genes in cells of the same reporter strain. For this study we used cells containing the P vhp ::gfp fusion and monitored the induction of both fluorescence and bioluminescence in 1,150 cells simultaneously. Cells were grown to the transition from exponential into early stationary growth to ensure that both genes are readily expressed (see Figure 3). Different types of response were found among cells in the same field of view. Some cells exhibited high levels of bioluminescence and medium or no fluorescence (Figure 4A-C, cyan circle). Cells expressing the converse pattern were also observed (Figure 4A-C, green circle), as were others that showed medium-intensity signals in both channels (Figure 4A-C, yellow circle). While the majority of bacteria simultaneously expressed both phenotypes at different levels, some of the population produced neither fluorescence nor bioluminescence (Figure 4A-C, red circle). Very few cells were found to exhibit high-intensity signals in both channels.
Figure 4
Figure 4

Simultaneous monitoring of AI-regulated bioluminescence and induction of P vhp :: gfp . The P vhp ::gfp reporter strain enables simultaneous measurement of two AI-dependent phenotypes, bioluminescence and exoproteolysis. Cells were cultivated, and single cell analysis was performed at the transition to the stationary phase. Panels A-C show a representative set of images of the same field viewed by phase contrast (A), luminescence (B), and fluorescence (C) microscopy. The yellow circle marks a cell with medium luminescence and fluorescence intensity. The blue circle indicates a cell with high luminescence intensity and no fluorescence. The green circle surrounds a cell with high fluorescence intensity and no luminescence. The red circle marks a dark cell (no fluorescence, no luminescence). The bar is 2.5 μm. Luminescence and fluorescence intensities (in a.u./cell) were quantitatively analyzed for 1,150 cells. For each channel the cells were grouped according to their signal intensity in no, medium, or high. (The separation in these groups is described in detail in the results part). Panel D shows the distribution of the various intensity classes plotted as percentage of the total number of cells analyzed.

To compare induction of bioluminescence and fluorescence (P vhp ::gfp), the intensities of each were calculated for every single living cell and evaluated in two histograms. Subsequently, cells were grouped in “no”, “medium”, or “high signal intensity”. The borderline between the two peaks in each histogram (fluorescent or luminescent; similarly to Figure 3) was used to classify between “no intensity” and “bright intensity”. Moreover, the bright cells were classified into “medium” and “high intensity”. Therefore, the 0.9 quantile was chosen to distinguish between cells with truly high intensity (10%) and cells with medium intensity (90%). Based on these groups for bioluminescence and fluorescence, six types of intensity classes were defined (Figure 4D). Some of the cells (12.7%) showed no fluorescence and luminescence. Both medium fluorescence and luminescence were found in 32.4% of the cells. The majority of Vibrios (54.4%) showed an unequal behavior, such as high fluorescence and no luminescence and vice versa (3.0%), medium fluorescence and no luminescence and vice versa (42.5%), and high fluorescence and medium luminescence and vice versa (8.9%). Only 0.5% of the population exhibited both high fluorescence and high luminescence intensities. These data indicate that individual cells are essentially unable to induce the lux operon and the gene encoding the protease simultaneously at high levels. The heterogeneous response of AI-dependent genes gives rise to a division of labor in a genetically homogenous population of V. harveyi.

Discussion

Here we show that several AI-regulated genes are heterogeneously expressed in populations of V. harveyi wild type cells. We found that the promoters of luxC, vscP and vhp – genes that are important for bioluminescence, type III secretion and exoproteolysis, all show wide intercellular variation in their responses to AIs. In contrast, luxS, an AI-independent gene, is expressed in an essentially homogeneous manner. Homogenous promoter activities for luxC, vscP and vhp were found after conjugation of V. harveyi mutant JAF78, which expresses QS-regulated genes in an AI-independent manner, with the corresponding plasmids. These findings extend our original observations on the heterogeneous induction of bioluminescence, the canonical readout of QS in V. harveyi[3].

Based on these results, we hypothesize that AIs act to drive phenotypic diversification in a clonal population. A heterogeneous response to AIs has also been described for the bioluminescent phenotype of individual Aliivibrio fischeri cells [35, 36]. In addition, single cell analysis of Listeria monocytogenes has indicated that the Agr QS system induces heterogeneity within the population and does not primarily sense cell density [37]. In Salmonella enterica promoters that show a high level of phenotypic noise have been identified [38]. The genes concerned are involved in flagella biosynthesis or associated with virulence and host-pathogen interactions. Single cell analysis revealed heterogeneous expression of the cardinal virulence factor of S. enterica, the type III secretion system, which is crucial for host manipulation and elicitation of the disease [39]. The fraction of type III secretion-positive cells increased from < 10% to 60% during the late exponential growth phase. In V. harveyi we found a decrease from 60% to < 20% of cells that express vscP. Even though the regulation clearly differs, a fractionation of the population into producing and non-producing cells was found in both organisms. Proteases also play important roles in pathogenesis, e.g. in Pseudomonas aeruginosa[40], Legionella pneumophila[41], and V. harveyi[42]. Our results indicate a fractionation of the population into cells with and without exoproteolytic activity, suggesting an advantage for the whole population to produce ‘public goods’ only in a subpopulation.

Moreover, we simultaneously examined the expression of two AI-dependent phenotypes in one reporter strain. Based on the very good correlation between luminescence and fluorescence (P luxC ::gfp fusion) for the lux promoter (see Figure 2) we used bioluminescence (lux operon) and fluorescence (P vhp ::gfp) as read-outs. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that bioluminescence is the result of an enzymatic reaction, which might be affected by other factors. The strain was cultivated until the early stationary phase when both genes were readily expressed (Figure 3A). Only 32.4% of these cells were characterized by equal fluorescence and luminescence intensity, whereas 12.7% did neither induce fluorescence nor luminescence. These apparently non-responding cells might express other AI-regulated phenotypes. Surprisingly, very few cells (0.5% of the 1,150 cells examined) activated both luxC and vhp at high levels. In the majority of cells (54.4%), transcriptional levels of the two genes clearly differed. High-level induction of both of these AI-induced genes at the same time seems to be excluded in the wild type. Previous results with V. harveyi mutant JAF78 (AI-independent gene expression), indicated that all living cells were bright, but biofilm formation was significantly (2-fold) reduced compared to the wild type (70% bioluminescent cells). Moreover, the artificial increase of the AIs concentration within the wild type population resulted in the same phenotype (98% bioluminescent cells, 2-fold reduction in biofilm formation) [3]. Overall, these data suggest division of labor in AI-regulated processes in the non-differentiating bacterium V. harveyi. This conclusion is in line with earlier suggestions according to which AI-dependent gene regulation seems to support the evolution of cooperation among bacteria [43, 44]. AI-regulated cooperation could be viewed as a superimposition of and interaction between two cooperative behaviors, namely a cooperative communication system that coordinates cooperative behavior to produce ‘public goods’, such as exoenzymes, exopolysaccharides, and siderophores.

Conclusions

Our results reveal heterogeneous expression of three AI-regulated genes in V. harveyi. Furthermore, simultaneous analysis of bioluminescence and exoproteolysis in single cells by transcriptional analysis of a corresponding promoter::gfp fusion provided evidence for a division of labor. Based on these results, it is suggested that AIs not only serve as indicators for cell density but also play a pivotal role in the diversification of the population, and the coordination of QS-regulated processes.

Methods

Bacterial strains and culture conditions

Strains and their genotypes are listed in Table 2. V. harveyi strains BB120 and JAF78 after conjugation with plasmids were used throughout this study. Escherichia coli BW29427 was used for conjugation and was cultivated in lysogenic broth (LB) [45] supplemented with diaminopimelic acid (1 mM) at 37°C with aeration. For conjugation, V. harveyi was grown in autoinducer bioassay (AB) medium [46] with aeration at 30°C. Biparental mating of V. harveyi, either BB120 or JAF78, and E. coli BW29427 was performed on agar plates (1.5% w/v) containing Luria marine (LM) medium (1% w/v tryptone, 2% w/v NaCl, 0.5% w/v yeast extract) supplemented with diaminiopimelic acid (1 mM) at 30°C. Fluorescent reporter strains were cultivated in LM medium supplemented with tetracycline (12 μg*mL-1) at 30°C with aeration.
Table 2

Strains and plasmids used in this study

Strain or plasmid

Relevant genotype or description

Reference

Escherichia coli BW29427

thrB1004 pro thi rpsL hsdS lacZ ΔM15 RP4-1360 Δ(araBAD) 567 ΔdapA1341::[erm pir (wt)]

[47]

Vibrio harveyi BB120

wild type, ATCC BAA-1116 [reclassified as Vibrio campbellii]

[5, 48]

Vibrio harveyi JAF78

ΔluxO-CamR

[13]

pLAFRII

cosmid vector, TetR

[49]

pBK-miniTn7-gfp3

mini-Tn7 transposon delivery plasmid

[50]

pBAD24

pBR322 ori, AmpR

[51]

pBAD24gfp

pBAD24 carrying gfpmut3

[52]

pBAD24gfptetR

pBAD24 carrying gfpmut3, TetR

This work

pCA1

pBAD24 carrying P recA ::gfpmut3, TetR

This work

pCA2

pBAD24 carrying P luxC ::gfpmut3, TetR

This work

pCA3

pBAD24 carrying P vhp ::gfpmut3, TetR

This work

pCA4

pBAD24 carrying P vscP ::gfpmut3, TetR

This work

pCA5

pBAD24 carrying P luxS ::gfpmut3, TetR

This work

Plasmid construction

DNA manipulations were performed using standard procedures [53, 54].

Deoxyribonucleoside triphosphates, restriction endonucleases, alkaline phosphatase and T4 DNA ligase were obtained from New England BioLabs. Phusion DNA polymerase (Finnzymes) and Taq polymerase (Roche) were used for PCR cloning reactions and control PCRs, respectively. DNA extraction and purification kits were provided by Südlabor (for plasmids) and by MO BIO Laboratories (for genomic DNA). Primer sequences are available upon request. Plasmids pCA2, pCA3, and pCA5 were constructed using two-step PCRs [55] to link 500 bp of the upstream flanking regions of the corresponding genes (including the native promoter) with gfptet R . Plasmids pCA1 and pCA4 were constructed by amplification of gfptet R and 500 bp of the upstream regions of vscP and recA (including the native promoter), and generating a PstI recognition site between the two amplificates. EcoRI (or XbaI) and HindIII (or SphI) recognition sites were introduced upstream and downstream of the constructs, respectively. Upstream flanking regions were amplified from the genomic DNA of V. harveyi BB120. gfptet R was amplified from pBAD24gfptet R (constructed for this work by fusing the promoter-less gfpmut3[56] from pBAD24gfp[52] to tet R with a constitutive promoter amplified from pLAFRII [57], in pBAD24). In all plasmids the start codon of gfp replaced the start codon of the original gene. All PCR fragments were restricted with suitable restriction enzymes and ligated into the similarly treated vector pBAD24. Plasmid structures were verified by sequencing prior to transformation of E. coli BW29427. The transformants were then used for mating.

Construction of fluorescent Vibrio harveyi strains

To introduce the plasmids containing promoter::gfp fusions driven by the recA, luxC, vscP, luxS and vhp promoters into V. harveyi, a modified protocol for conjugation of V. harveyi[7] based on biparental filter mating was used. Mating was achieved by mixing stationary phase cultures (diluted to OD600 = 0.6) of E. coli BW29427, carrying the tra genes (for conjugation) on the genome and one of the donor plasmids pCA1, pCA2, pCA3, pCA4, and pCA5 with the recipient V. harveyi BB120 (or JAF78) at a ratio of 1:4 (donor to recipient). The mixtures (500 μl volume) were incubated on micropore (45 μm) filters (Millipore) on LM agar plates supplemented with diaminopimelic acid (1 mM) at 30°C for three days. The mixed cultures were then resuspended in 1 ml of LM medium supplemented with tetracycline (12 μg*mL-1) and incubated at 30°C with aeration for 1 h. Selection of transconjugant V. harveyi cells was carried out on LM plates containing tetracycline (12 μg*mL-1) and polymyxin B (10 μg*mL-1) at 30°C overnight. Polymyxin B was added to prevent growth of E. coli cells.

A chromosomal inserted gfp fusion was generated in strain BB120 using the mini-Tn7 transposon system (using plasmid pBK-miniTn7 gfp3), which leads to an insertion downstream of glmS (encoding a glucosamine-6-phosphate activated ribozyme) via homologous recombination [50]. The insertion was verified by control PCR and subsequent sequencing.

Single cell fluorescence and bioluminescence microscopy

To measure promoter activity of P luxC ::gfp, P luxS ::gfp, P vscP ::gfp, P vhp ::gfp, and P recA ::gfp in individual cells, V. harveyi BB120 (or JAF78) cells conjugated with one of the donor plasmids were cultivated in LM medium supplemented with tetracycline (12 μg*mL-1) in Erlenmeyer flasks on a rotary shaker at 30°C overnight. Cultures were then diluted 10,000-fold in LM supplemented with tetracycline and incubated on a rotary shaker (to ensure sufficient aeration as well as homogenous AI distribution) at 30°C. At the indicated times about 105 cells were collected by centrifugation (5,000 × g for 10 min). At least 1 mL of the cell-free culture fluid was saved, air-saturated and stored on ice until use. The cell pellet was resuspended in a small volume of the corresponding culture fluid. Propidium iodide (5 mM, dissolved in phosphate-buffered saline) was added to 20 μL of this cell suspension to stain dead cells (red fluorescence), and the suspension was immediately transferred onto a coverslip and incubated in the dark for 20 min to allow cells to adhere. All coverslips were pretreated with poly L-lysine (0.05 g*L-1) to fix the cells on the surface. Subsequently, cells were washed twice with the corresponding air-saturated culture fluid directly on the coverslip to remove non-adherent cells. Phase contrast and fluorescence images were taken at room temperature using a customized inverted Leica DMI 6000 B microscope, an oil-immersion objective and a high-sensitivity iXON CCD camera (Andor). Fluorescence microscopy was performed using the bandpass filters BP546/12 (red) and BP470/40 (green) and the emission filters 605/75 (red) and 525/50 (green). Luminescent cells were identified by bioluminescence microscopy without any filter in a Pecon flow chamber to ensure sufficient oxygen supply [3]. The exposure time for imaging of luminescent cells with the cooled (-80°C) CCD camera was set to 240 s. Phase-contrast, bioluminescence and/or fluorescence images were obtained from the same fields of view.

Single cell analysis

Images were analyzed using ImageJ 1.37c (National Institute of Health http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij). A screen depicting the contours of the cells was created from the phase contrast image using the self-programmed PlugIn CellEvaluator (Prof. Dr. J. Rädler, LMU Munich). This screen was superimposed on the background-corrected fluorescence and bioluminescence images. Intensities were determined for each cell and normalized by cell size. The correlation coefficient r is defined as the covariance of two variables (here fluorescence and luminescence) divided by the product of their standard deviations. A value of |r| = 1 indicates 100% correlation. The p-value is a measure of the probability that the correlation is due to chance. Time-lapse histograms were generated using Matplotlib (http://matplotlib.sourceforge.net).

Abbreviations

AI: 

Autoinducer

QS: 

Quorum sensing

a.u: 

Arbitrary units.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

This work was financially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Exc114/1) and (Ju270/9-1) and the BMBF (ChemBiofilm). We are indebted to Joachim Rädler for access to the PlugIn CellEvaluator and to Judith Mergerle and Georg Fritz for instruction in its use. We are grateful to Kolja Prothmann for assistance in preparing the illustrations using Matplotlib and to Laure Plener for helpful discussions during the preparation of the manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Munich Center for integrated Protein Science (CiPSM) at the Department of Biology I, Microbiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich, Großhaderner Str. 2-4, 82152 Martinsried, Germany
(2)
Present address: Max von Pettenkofer Institut, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich, Pettenkoferstr. 9a, 80336 Munich, Germany

References

  1. Chai Y, Chu F, Kolter R, Losick R: Bistability and biofilm formation in Bacillus subtilis. Mol Microbiol. 2008, 67: 254-263.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Kearns DB, Losick R: Cell population heterogeneity during growth of Bacillus subtilis. Genes Dev. 2005, 19: 3083-3094. 10.1101/gad.1373905.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Anetzberger C, Pirch T, Jung K: Heterogeneity in quorum sensing-regulated bioluminescence of Vibrio harveyi. Mol Microbiol. 2009, 73: 267-277. 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2009.06768.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Waters CM, Bassler BL: Quorum sensing: Cell-to-cell communication in bacteria. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2005, 21: 319-346. 10.1146/annurev.cellbio.21.012704.131001.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Lin B, Wang Z, Malanoski AP, O'Grady EA, Wimpee CF, Vuddhakul V, Alvers N, Thompson FL, Gomez-Gil B, Vora GJ: Comparative genomic analysis identify the Vibrio harveyi genome sequenced strains BAA-1116 and HY01 as Vibrio campbellii. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2010, 2: 81-89.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Cao JG, Meighen EA: Purification and structural identification of an autoinducer for the luminescence system of Vibrio harveyi. J Biol Chem. 1989, 264: 21670-21676.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Henke JM, Bassler BL: Three parallel quorum-sensing systems regulate gene expression in Vibrio harveyi. J Bacteriol. 2004, 186: 6902-6914. 10.1128/JB.186.20.6902-6914.2004.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen X, Schauder S, Potier N, Van DA, Pelczer I, Bassler BL, Hughson FM: Structural identification of a bacterial quorum-sensing signal containing boron. Nature. 2002, 415: 545-549. 10.1038/415545a.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Sun J, Daniel R, Wagner-Dobler I, Zeng AP: Is autoinducer-2 a universal signal for interspecies communication: a comparative genomic and phylogenetic analysis of the synthesis and signal transduction pathways. BMC Evol Biol. 2004, 4: 36-10.1186/1471-2148-4-36.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Freeman JA, Lilley BN, Bassler BL: A genetic analysis of the functions of LuxN: a two-component hybrid sensor kinase that regulates quorum sensing in Vibrio harveyi. Mol Microbiol. 2000, 35: 139-149. 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2000.01684.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Neiditch MB, Federle MJ, Miller ST, Bassler BL, Hughson FM: Regulation of LuxPQ receptor activity by the quorum-sensing signal autoinducer-2. Mol Cell. 2005, 18: 507-518. 10.1016/j.molcel.2005.04.020.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Ng WL, Wei Y, Perez LJ, Cong J, Long T, Koch M, Semmelhack MF, Wingreen NS, Bassler BL: Probing bacterial transmembrane histidine kinase receptor-ligand interactions with natural and synthetic molecules. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010, 107: 5575-5580. 10.1073/pnas.1001392107.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Freeman JA, Bassler BL: A genetic analysis of the function of LuxO, a two-component response regulator involved in quorum sensing in Vibrio harveyi. Mol Microbiol. 1999, 31: 665-677. 10.1046/j.1365-2958.1999.01208.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Henares BM, Higgins KE, Boon EM: Discovery of a Nitric Oxide Responsive Quorum Sensing Circuit in Vibrio harveyi. ACS Chem Biol. 2012, 7: 1331-1336. 10.1021/cb300215t.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Tu KC, Bassler BL: Multiple small RNAs act additively to integrate sensory information and control quorum sensing in Vibrio harveyi. Genes Dev. 2007, 21: 221-233. 10.1101/gad.1502407.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Lenz DH, Mok KC, Lilley BN, Kulkarni RV, Wingreen NS, Bassler BL: The small RNA chaperone Hfq and multiple small RNAs control quorum sensing in Vibrio harveyi and Vibrio cholerae. Cell. 2004, 118: 69-82. 10.1016/j.cell.2004.06.009.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Mok KC, Wingreen NS, Bassler BL: Vibrio harveyi quorum sensing: a coincidence detector for two autoinducers controls gene expression. EMBO J. 2003, 22: 870-881. 10.1093/emboj/cdg085.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Pompeani AJ, Irgon JJ, Berger MF, Bulyk ML, Wingreen NS, Bassler BL: The Vibrio harveyi master quorum-sensing regulator, LuxR, a TetR-type protein is both an activator and a repressor: DNA recognition and binding specificity at target promoters. Mol Microbiol. 2008, 70: 76-88. 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2008.06389.x.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Chatterjee J, Miyamoto CM, Meighen EA: Autoregulation of luxR: the Vibrio harveyi lux-operon activator functions as a repressor. Mol Microbiol. 1996, 20: 415-425. 10.1111/j.1365-2958.1996.tb02628.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Tu KC, Waters CM, Svenningsen SL, Bassler BL: A small-RNA-mediated negative feedback loop controls quorum-sensing dynamics in Vibrio harveyi. Mol Microbiol. 2008, 70: 896-907.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Tu KC, Long T, Svenningsen SL, Wingreen NS, Bassler BL: Negative feedback loops involving small regulatory RNAs precisely control the Vibrio harveyi quorum-sensing response. Mol Cell. 2010, 37: 567-579. 10.1016/j.molcel.2010.01.022.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Teng SW, Schaffer JN, Tu KC, Mehta P, Lu W, Ong MP, Bassler BL, Wingreen NS: Active regulation of receptor ratios controls integration of quorum-sensing signals in Vibrio harveyi. Mol Syst Biol. 2011, 7: 491-PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Rutherford ST, van Kessel JC, Shao Y, Bassler BL: AphA and LuxR/HapR reciprocally control quorum sensing in vibrios. Genes Dev. 2011, 25: 397-408. 10.1101/gad.2015011.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Timmen M, Bassler BL, Jung K: AI-1 influences the kinase activity but not the phosphatase activity of LuxN of Vibrio harveyi. J Biol Chem. 2006, 281: 24398-24404. 10.1074/jbc.M604108200.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Austin B, Pride AC, Rhodie GA: Association of a bacteriophage with virulence in Vibrio harveyi. J Fish Dis. 2003, 26: 55-58. 10.1046/j.1365-2761.2003.00413.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Austin B, Zhang XH: Vibrio harveyi: a significant pathogen of marine vertebrates and invertebrates. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2006, 43: 119-124. 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2006.01989.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Diggles BK, Moss GA, Carson J, Anderson CD: Luminous vibriosis in rock lobster Jasus verreauxi (Decapoda: Palinuridae) phyllosoma larvae associated with infection by Vibrio harveyi. Dis Aquat Organ. 2000, 43: 127-137.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Lavilla-Pitogo CR, Leano EM, Paner MG: Mortalities of pond-cultured juvenile shrimp, Penaeus monodon, associated with dominance of luminescent vibrios in the rearing environment. Aquaculture. 1998, 164: 337-349. 10.1016/S0044-8486(98)00198-7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang Q, Liu Q, Ma Y, Rui H, Zhang Y: LuxO controls extracellular protease, haemolytic activities and siderophore production in fish pathogen Vibrio alginolyticus. J Appl Microbiol. 2007, 103: 1525-1534. 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03380.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Henke JM, Bassler BL: Quorum sensing regulates type III secretion in Vibrio harveyi and Vibrio parahaemolyticus. J Bacteriol. 2004, 186: 3794-3805. 10.1128/JB.186.12.3794-3805.2004.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Ruwandeepika HAD, Defoirdt T, Bhowmick PP, Karunsagar I, Karunsagar I, Bossier P: In vitro and in vivo expression of virulence genes in Vibrio isolates belonging to the Harveyi clade in relation to their virulence towards gnotobiotic brine shrimp (Artemia franciscana). Environ Microbiol. 2011, 13: 506-517. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2010.02354.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Bassler BL, Wright M, Silverman MR: Multiple signalling systems controlling expression of luminescence in Vibrio harveyi: sequence and function of genes encoding a second sensory pathway. Mol Microbiol. 1994, 13: 273-286. 10.1111/j.1365-2958.1994.tb00422.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Urbanczyk H, Ast JC, Kaeding AJ, Oliver JD, Dunlap PV: Phylogenetic analysis of the incidence of lux gene horizontal transfer in Vibrionaceae. J Bacteriol. 2008, 190: 3494-3504. 10.1128/JB.00101-08.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Vora GJ, Meador CE, Bird MM, Bopp CA, Andreadis JD, Stenger DA: Microarray-based detection of genetic heterogeneity, antimicrobial resistance, and the viable but nonculturable state in human pathogenic Vibrio spp. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005, 102: 19109-19114. 10.1073/pnas.0505033102.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Perez PD, Hagen SJ: Heterogeneous response to a quorum-sensing signal in the luminescence of individual Vibrio fischeri. PLoS One. 2010, 5: e15473-10.1371/journal.pone.0015473.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Milton DL: Quorum sensing in vibrios: complexity for diversification. Int J Med Microbiol. 2006, 296: 61-71. 10.1016/j.ijmm.2006.01.044.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Garmyn D, Gal L, Briandet R, Guilbaud M, Lemaitre JP, Hartmann A, Piveteau P: Evidence of autoinduction heterogeneity via expression of the Agr system of Listeria monocytogenes at the single-cell level. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011, 77: 6286-6289. 10.1128/AEM.02891-10.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Freed NE, Silander OK, Stecher B, Bohm A, Hardt WD, Ackermann M: A simple screen to identify promoters conferring high levels of phenotypic noise. PLoS Genet. 2008, 4: e1000307-10.1371/journal.pgen.1000307.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Sturm A, Heinemann M, Arnoldini M, Benecke A, Ackermann M, Benz M, Dormann J, Hardt WD: The cost of virulence: retarded growth of Salmonella typhimurium cells expressing type III secretion system 1. PLoS Pathog. 2011, 7: e1002143-10.1371/journal.ppat.1002143.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Kida Y, Higashimoto Y, Inoue H, Shimizu T, Kuwano K: A novel secreted protease from Pseudomonas aeruginosa activates NF-kappaB through protease-activated receptors. Cell Microbiol. 2008, 10: 1491-1504. 10.1111/j.1462-5822.2008.01142.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Dowling JN, Saha AK, Glew RH: Virulence factors of the family Legionellaceae. Microbiol Rev. 1992, 56: 32-60.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Cheng S, Zhang WW, Zhang M, Sun L: Evaluation of the vaccine potential of a cytotoxic protease and a protective immunogen from a pathogenic Vibrio harveyi strain. Vaccine. 2010, 28: 1041-1047. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.10.122.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Diggle SP, Griffin AS, Campbell GS, West SA: Cooperation and conflict in quorum-sensing bacterial populations. Nature. 2007, 450: 411-414. 10.1038/nature06279.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Czaran T, Hoekstra RF: Microbial communication, cooperation and cheating: quorum sensing drives the evolution of cooperation in bacteria. PLoS One. 2009, 4: e6655-10.1371/journal.pone.0006655.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Miller JH: Experiments in molecular genetics. 1972, Cold Spring Harbor: Cold Spring Habor Laboratory PressGoogle Scholar
  46. Greenberg EP, Hastings JW, Ultizur S: Induction of luciferase synthesis in Beneckea harveyi by other marine bacteria. Arch Microbiol. 1979, 120: 87-91. 10.1007/BF00409093.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Pollithy A, Romer T, Lang C, Muller FD, Helma J, Leonhardt H, Rothbauer U, Schuler D: Magnetosome expression of functional camelid antibody fragments (nanobodies) in Magnetospirillum gryphiswaldense. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011, 77: 6165-6171. 10.1128/AEM.05282-11.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Bassler BL, Greenberg EP, Stevens AM: Cross-species induction of luminescence in the quorum-sensing bacterium Vibrio harveyi. J Bacteriol. 1997, 179: 4043-4045.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Guvener ZT, McCarter LL: Multiple regulators control capsular polysaccharide production in Vibrio parahaemolyticus. J Bacteriol. 2003, 185: 5431-5441. 10.1128/JB.185.18.5431-5441.2003.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Lambertsen L, Sternberg C, Molin S: Mini-Tn7 transposons for site-specific tagging of bacteria with fluorescent proteins. Environ Microbiol. 2004, 6: 726-732. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2004.00605.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Guzman LM, Belin D, Carson MJ, Beckwith J: Tight regulation, modulation, and high-level expression by vectors containing the arabinose PBAD promoter. J Bacteriol. 1995, 177: 4121-4130.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Megerle JA, Fritz G, Gerland U, Jung K, Rädler JO: Timing and dynamics of single cell gene expression in the arabinose utilization system. Biophys J. 2008, 95: 2103-2115. 10.1529/biophysj.107.127191.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Ausubel FM, Brent R, Kingston RE, Moore DD, Seidman JG, Smith JA, Struhl K: Current protocols in Molecular Biology. 1987, New York: Green Publishing Associates and Wiley InterscienceGoogle Scholar
  54. Maniatis T, Fritsch ET, Sambrook J: Molecular Cloning. A Laboratory Manual. 1982, Cold Spring Habor: Cold Spring Habor Laboratory PressGoogle Scholar
  55. Jayaraman K, Puccini CJ: A PCR-mediated gene synthesis strategy involving the assembly of oligonucleotides representing only one of the strands. Biotechniques. 1992, 12: 392-398.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Cormack BP, Valdivia RH, Falkow S: FACS-optimized mutants of the green fluorescent protein (GFP). Gene. 1996, 173: 33-38. 10.1016/0378-1119(95)00685-0.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Friedman AM, Long SR, Brown SE, Buikema WJ, Ausubel FM: Construction of a broad host range cosmid cloning vector and its use in the genetic analysis of Rhizobium mutants. Gene. 1982, 18: 289-296. 10.1016/0378-1119(82)90167-6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Anetzberger et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement

BMC Microbiology

ISSN: 1471-2180

Contact us