MicrobiologyBytes

Iron is a highly abundant metal on earth and is vital for virtually all organisms. Despite its abundance, iron deficiency is the most prevalent nutrition disorder worldwide. It mostly affects infants, young children and women in developing countries. Iron deficiency has major health consequences such as infection, poor pregnancy outcome, and impaired physical and cognitive development. Several trials have shown that iron deficiency can be effectively controlled by both iron supplementation and fortification programmes. However, safety of iron supplementation has been questioned and there is evidence suggesting that untargeted oral iron supplementation in regions with high prevalence of malaria transmission and infectious diseases can cause an increase in infections, hospital admission and mortality in young children. This might be at least partly ascribed to iron also being an essential requirement for the growth of most bacterial species. Importantly, iron availability is frequently involved in the expression of virulence-associated properties in pathogenic bacteria:

Iron Availability Increases the Pathogenic Potential of Salmonella Typhimurium and Other Enteric Pathogens at the Intestinal Epithelial Interface. (2012) PLoS ONE 7(1): e29968. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029968
Recent trials have questioned the safety of untargeted oral iron supplementation in developing regions. Excess of luminal iron could select for enteric pathogens at the expense of beneficial commensals in the human gut microflora, thereby increasing the incidence of infectious diseases. The objective of the current study was to determine the effect of high iron availability on virulence traits of prevalent enteric pathogens at the host-microbe interface. A panel of enteric bacteria was cultured under iron-limiting conditions and in the presence of increasing concentrations of ferric citrate to assess the effect on bacterial growth, epithelial adhesion, invasion, translocation and epithelial damage in vitro. Translocation and epithelial integrity experiments were performed using a transwell system in which Caco-2 cells were allowed to differentiate to a tight epithelial monolayer mimicking the intestinal epithelial barrier. Growth of Salmonella typhimurium and other enteric pathogens was increased in response to iron. Adhesion of S. typhimurium to epithelial cells markedly increased when these bacteria were pre-incubated with increasing iron concentration), whereas this was not the case for the non-pathogenic Lactobacillus plantarum. Cellular invasion and epithelial translocation of S. typhimurium followed the trend of increased adhesion. Epithelial damage was increased upon incubation with S. typhimurium or Citrobacter freundii that were pre-incubated under iron-rich conditions. In conclusion, our data fit with the consensus that oral iron supplementation is not without risk as iron could, in addition to inducing pathogenic overgrowth, also increase the virulence of prevalent enteric pathogens.

Tweet

First it was foot and mouth virus.
Then it was bluetongue virus.
Now it is Schmallenberg virus.
So here’s 10 things you didn’t know about Schmallenberg virus:

1. Schmallenberg virus was first isolated in Schmallenberg, Germany, in November 2011.
2. Schmallenberg virus is a Bunyavirus, one of a large group of of negative-stranded RNA viruses.
3. Why should I care? In cows, Schmallenberg virus causes fever and a drastic reduction in milk production. In sheep it causes congenital malformations and stillborn lambs (also stillborn calves in cows).
4. Schmallenberg virus was first identifed in the UK on 23rd January 2012.
5. Like Bluetongue, Schmallenberg virus is transmitted by midges (Culicoides spp.), which means we will be unlikely to be able to eradicate it – vaccination of anaimals is the only likely effective response.
6. Where did Schmallenberg virus come from? The virus genome is most closely related to sequences of a different Orthobunyavirus called Shamonda virus which belongs to the so-called Simbu serogroup known to infect ruminants and be transmitted by midges. In other words, it has form. But whether it is newly evolved (unlikely) or just newly discovered we don’t yet know.
7. How did Schmallenberg virus reach the UK? We don’t know. It could have been due to animal movements, but since it was first identifed in eastern England, it’s possible that it arrived in midges travelling under their own steam.
8. Is Schmallenberg virus going to spread to other parts of the UK and other countries? Yes, you can bet on that (just like bluetongue did).
9. Can I catch Schmallenberg virus? Honest answer: We don’t know. Possibly, but there have been no reports of human illness from areas where the virus is known to exist, so I wouldn’t worry too much.
10. Where can I find the latest news about Schmallenberg virus? Right here.
11. OK, one last time, why should I care? Because Schmallenberg virus is going to cost European and probably worldwide ecomonies millions of pounds. And that will affect you.

Tweet

Staphylococcus aureus is responsible for the vast majority of bacterial skin infections in humans. The propensity for S. aureus to infect skin involves a balance between cutaneous immune defense mechanisms and virulence factors of the pathogen. The tissue architecture of the skin is different from other epithelia especially since it possesses a corneal layer, which is an important barrier that protects against the pathogenic microorganisms in the environment. The skin surface, epidermis, and dermis all contribute to host defense against S. aureus. Conversely, S. aureus utilizes various mechanisms to evade these host defenses to promote colonization and infection of the skin.

This review focuses on host-pathogen interactions at the skin interface during the pathogenesis of S. aureus colonization and infection.

Host-pathogen interactions between the skin and Staphylococcus aureus. Curr Opin Microbiol. 01 Dec 2011

Tweet

Regulons are the basic units of cellular response systems in bacterial cells, and represent a most basic concept in bacterial studies. A bacterial regulon is a group of operons that are transcriptionally co-regulated by the same regulatory machinery, consisting of trans regulators (transcription factors or simply TFs) and cis regulatory binding elements in the promoters of the operons they regulate. Operationally, a regulon contains operons regulated by one same transcription factor. Since the term regulon was first proposed in 1964, 173 regulons have been fully or partially identified in E. coli K12 and many more in other bacteria e.g. B. subtilis.

Loosely speaking, regulons can be categorized into two classes: local and global regulons, with the former corresponding to regulons consisting of only a few component operons and the latter having a relatively large number of operons. While the functionalities of the known regulons have been well studied, very little is known about how regulons are organized in a bacterial genome.

This paper examines the organizational principles of regulons in bacterial genomes, looking at E. coli K12 and Bacillus subtilis. The key findings are (1) operons of each regulon tend to form a few closely located clusters along with genome; (2) TFs are under stronger evolutionary constraints than their TGs; and (3) the global arrangement of the component operons of all the (known) regulons in a genome tend to minimize a simple scoring function.

Genomic Arrangement of Regulons in Bacterial Genomes. (2012) PLoS ONE 7(1): e29496. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029496
Regulons, as groups of transcriptionally co-regulated operons, are the basic units of cellular response systems in bacterial cells. While the concept has been long and widely used in bacterial studies since it was first proposed in 1964, very little is known about how its component operons are arranged in a bacterial genome. We present a computational study to elucidate of the organizational principles of regulons in a bacterial genome, based on the experimentally validated regulons of E. coli and B. subtilis. Our results indicate that (1) genomic locations of transcriptional factors (TFs) are under stronger evolutionary constraints than those of the operons they regulate so changing a TF’s genomic location will have larger impact to the bacterium than changing the genomic position of any of its target operons; (2) operons of regulons are generally not uniformly distributed in the genome but tend to form a few closely located clusters, which generally consist of genes working in the same metabolic pathways; and (3) the global arrangement of the component operons of all the regulons in a genome tends to minimize a simple scoring function, indicating that the global arrangement of regulons follows simple organizational principles. Tweet

Traditional approaches to phage therapy rely on the ability of viruses to kill their bacterial prey. However, the narrow host range or most bacteriophages and the ability of bacteria to become resistant to infection mean that in practice, using phage to simply replace antibiotics is not feasible. We need smarter approaches, which is where a recent paper comes in. Using phages to engineer sensitivity to antibiotics is a promising approach, but whether this proof-of-principle experiment ever makes it to the clinic is another matter.

Reversing bacterial resistance to antibiotics by phage-mediated delivery of dominant sensitive genes. (2011)Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 23 Nov 2011 doi: 10.1128/AEM.05741-11
Pathogen resistance to antibiotics is a rapidly growing problem, leading to an urgent need for novel antimicrobial agents. Unfortunately, development of new antibiotics faces numerous obstacles, and a method that will resensitize pathogens to approved antibiotics therefore holds key advantages. We present a proof-of-principle for a system that restores antibiotic efficiency by reversing pathogen resistance. This system uses temperate phages to introduce, by lysogenization, genes rpsL and gyrA conferring sensitivity in a dominant fashion to two antibiotics, streptomycin and nalidixic acid, respectively. Unique selective pressure is generated to enrich for bacteria that harbor the phages encoding the sensitizing constructs. This selection pressure is based on a toxic compound, tellurite, and therefore does not forfeit any antibiotic for the sensitization procedure. We further demonstrate a possible way of reducing undesirable recombination events by synthesizing dominant sensitive genes with major barriers to homologous recombination. Such synthesis does not significantly reduce the gene’s sensitization ability. Unlike conventional bacteriophage therapy, the system does not rely on the phage’s ability to kill pathogens in the infected host, but instead, to deliver genetic constructs into the bacteria, and thus render them sensitive to antibiotics prior to host infection. We believe that transfer of the sensitizing cassette by the constructed phages will significantly enrich for antibiotic-treatable pathogens on hospital surfaces. Broad usage of the proposed system, in contrast to antibiotics and phage therapy, will potentially change the nature of nosocomial infections toward being more susceptible to antibiotics rather than more resistant.

Tweet

It was my priveledge to work with Brian Mahy many years ago. Brian has just retired as long-serving Editor of Virus Research, and his swansong is an excellent special issue on negative strand RNA viruses – an important read for all virologists and an even more impirtant one for all aspiring virologists.

Virus Research: Negative Strand RNA Viruses Special Issue

• Insights on influenza pathogenesis from the grave
• Taming influenza viruses
• Induction and evasion of type I interferon responses by influenza viruses
• Immune responses to influenza virus infection
• Novel vaccines against influenza viruses
• Prospects for controlling future pandemics of influenza
• New concepts in measles virus replication: Getting in and out in vivo and modulating the host cell environment
• Recombinant vaccines against the mononegaviruses—What we have learned from animal disease controls
• Biological feasibility of measles eradication
• Progress in understanding and controlling respiratory syncytial virus: Still crazy after all these years
• An unconventional pathway of mRNA cap formation by vesiculoviruses
• Rhabdovirus accessory genes
• Structural insights into the rhabdovirus transcription/replication complex
• Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome
• Progress in recombinant DNA-derived vaccines for Lassa virus and filoviruses
• Borna disease virus – Fact and fantasy
• A review of Nipah and Hendra viruses with an historical aside
• Negative-strand RNA viruses: The plant-infecting counterparts
• Quasispecies as a matter of fact: Viruses and beyond

Tweet

The structural complexities of bacteria are becoming increasingly apparent. Gram-negative bacteria can be divided into several subcellular compartments. There are two aqueous compartments called the cytoplasm and the periplasm. The cytoplasm is enclosed by a phospholipid bilayer called the inner membrane (IM), which is itself surrounded by an asymmetric bilayer called the outer membrane (OM). The periplasm lies in the space between the IM and OM, and is home to the peptidoglycan cell wall (CW). Present throughout these compartments are proteins with diverse and important biological functions. Some of these proteins are membrane-embedded and allow the transfer of molecules between compartments. Others are soluble enzymes involved in metabolic reactions. Much work has been devoted toward understanding how each of these compartments is formed and maintained. This review focuses on a particular aspect of OM biogenesis, namely the assembly of integral outer membrane proteins (OMPs).

Making a beta-barrel: assembly of outer membrane proteins in Gram-negative bacteria. Curr Opin Microbiol. 03 Jan 2012
The outer membrane (OM) of Gram-negative bacteria is an essential organelle that serves as a selective permeability barrier by keeping toxic compounds out of the cell while allowing vital nutrients in. How the OM and its constituent lipid and protein components are assembled remains an area of active research. In this review, we describe our current understanding of how outer membrane proteins (OMPs) are delivered to and then assembled in the OM of the model Gram-negative organism Escherichia coli.

Tweet

Cystic fibrosis is caused by mutations in the CFTR gene leading to a disrupted chloride channel. It is well established that the greatest contributor to patient morbidity and mortality is chronic lung disease, caused by a constant cycle of infection and inflammation throughout the patient’s life. The CFTR mutation leads to defective regulation of chloride and sodium, resulting in increased water absorption, depletion of airway surface liquid and dehydrated mucous. Consequently, the purulent sputum and mucus plugs together with an ineffective inflammatory response, all contribute to the chronic infections that are central to CF lung disease. From early childhood, CF patients experience recurrent pulmonary infections from a range of pathogens.

In spite of intensive antibiotic therapy, certain organisms persist, leading to pulmonary exacerbations, hospitalizations and patient death. These include Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc) and Achromobacter xylosoxidans, with Bcc being the most problematic. It was recently demonstrated that chronic colonisation by Bcc resulted in a greater lung function decline than by the other two pathogens. CF patients are also susceptible to colonisation by other pathogens, including Staphylococcus aureus (both methicillin-resistant and sensitive), genus Pandoraea, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and non-tuberculous Mycobacteria, although the role of these latter four pathogens in CF lung disease is unclear. Furthermore, the identification of high levels of anaerobic organisms in CF sputum has added to the complex microbial population in the CF lung. These CF-associated anaerobes were not susceptible to antibiotics with known efficacy against anaerobes and the clinical significance of anaerobes in CF is not yet fully understood.

Bacterial host interactions in cystic fibrosis. Curr Opin Microbiol. Dec 1 2011
Chronic infection is a hallmark of cystic fibrosis (CF) and the main contributor to morbidity. Microbial infection in CF is complex, due to the number of different species that colonise the CF lung. Their colonisation is facilitated by a host response that is impaired or compromised by highly viscous mucous, zones of hypoxia and the lack of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane regulator (CFTR). Successful dominant CF pathogens combine an effective arsenal to establish infection and counter-attack the host response, together with an ability to adapt readily to an unfavourable environment. Hypermutability is common among CF pathogens facilitating adaptation and as the host response persists, progressive destruction of the normal architecture of lung tissue ensues with catastrophic consequences for the host.

Tweet

I recently wrote about the top 10 plant viruses in molecular plant pathology. Well Ed didn’t like that list, so he’s published his own:

1. Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV)
2. Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV)
3. Tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV)
4. Cucumber mosaic virus (CMV)
5. Potato virus Y (PVY)
6. Cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV)
7. African cassava mosaic virus (ACMV)
8. Plum pox virus (PPV)
9. Brome mosaic virus (BMV)
10. Potato virus X (PVX)

“I see only ONE virus in the major list – African cassava mosaic begomovirus (ACMV) – that infects and causes severe losses in one of the four major food crops grown on this planet: all the rest, excepting viruses infecting the also-ran potato, are pathogens of fruits, vegetables or horticulturally-important plants. Or hardly pathogenic at all, as in the case of BMV – and before anyone argues, I probably have the best collection of African (and other) isolates of the virus in the world, and a lot of experience of it in the field.”

I have a feeling this could go on for some time :-)