1887

Journal of Medical Microbiology logo

Volume 73, Issue 9

Relationship of Typhimurium 14028 strain and its and mutants with gut microbiota dysbiosis in rats No Access

Abstract

Disruptions in gut microbiota, known as dysbiosis, have been increasingly linked to pathogenic infections, with Typhimurium being a notable contributor to these disturbances.

We hypothesize that the . Typhimurium 14028 WT strain induces significant dysbiosis in the rat gut microbiota and that the and genes play crucial roles in this process.

. In this study, it was aimed at investigating the dysbiotic activity of the . Typhimurium 14028 WT strain on the rat gut microbiota and the roles of and genes on this activity.

Changes in the rat gut microbiota were determined by examining the anal swap samples taken from the experimental groups of these animals using 16S rRNA high-throughput sequencing technology.

In the experimental groups, the dominant phyla were determined to be and (<0.05). However, while the rate of was significantly reduced in those treated with the WT and mutants, no significant difference was observed in the mutant compared to the control group (<0.05). In all experimental animals, the dominant species was determined to be , regardless of the experiment time and application. The analysis results of the samples taken on the third day from the rat groups infected with the Typhimurium 14028 WT strain (W2) presented the most striking data of this study.

Through distance analysis, we demonstrated that a successful infection completely changes the composition of the microbiota, dramatically reduces species diversity and richness in the microbiota and encourages the growth of opportunistic pathogens.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): dam , microbiota , rat , S. Typhimurium , seqA and sequencing
© 2024 The Authors
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001893
2024-09-26
2024-10-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Tsolis RM, Townsend SM, Miao EA, Miller SI, Ficht TA et al. Identification of a putative Salmonella enterica serotype typhimurium host range factor with homology to IpaH and YopM by signature-tagged mutagenesis. Infect Immun 1999; 67:6385–6393 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Burnett SL, Beuchat LR. Human pathogens associated with raw produce and unpasteurized juices, and difficulties in decontamination. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 2001; 27:104–110 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Zadernowska A, Chajck W. Detection of Salmonella spp. Presence in food. In Salmonella - A Dangerous Foodborne Pathogen InTech; 2012 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Wei S, Morrison M, Yu Z. Bacterial census of poultry intestinal microbiome. Poult Sci 2013; 92:671–683 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Naughton PJ, Grant G, Spencer RJ, Bardocz S, Pusztai A. A rat model of infection by Salmonella typhimurium or Salm. enteritidis. J Appl Bacteriol 1996; 81:651–656 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Santos RL, Zhang S, Tsolis RM, Kingsley RA, Adams LG et al. Animal models of Salmonella infections: enteritis versus typhoid fever. Microbes Infect 2001; 3:1335–1344 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Stecher B, Robbiani R, Walker AW, Westendorf AM, Barthel M et al. Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium exploits inflammation to compete with the intestinal microbiota. PLoS Biol 2007; 5:2177–2189 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Agbaje M, Begum RH, Oyekunle MA, Ojo OE, Adenubi OT. Evolution of Salmonella nomenclature: a critical note. Folia Microbiol 2011; 56:497–503 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Stecher B, Hardt WD. Mechanisms controlling pathogen colonization of the gut. Curr Opin Microbiol 2011; 14:82–91 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Prax N, Wagner S, Schardt J, Neuhaus K, Clavel T et al. A diet-specific microbiota drives Salmonella Typhimurium to adapt its in vivo response to plant-derived substrates. Anim Microbiome 2021; 3:24 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Prouty AM, Schwesinger WH, Gunn JS. Biofilm formation and interaction with the surfaces of gallstones by Salmonella spp. Infect Immun 2002; 70:2640–2649 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Shirtliff ME, Mader JT, Camper AK. Molecular interactions in biofilms. Chem Biol 2002; 9:859–871 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Wolfe AJ, Chang D-E, Walker JD, Seitz-Partridge JE, Vidaurri MD et al. Evidence that acetyl phosphate functions as a global signal during biofilm development. Mol Microbiol 2003; 48:977–988 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Kleessen B, Blaut M. Modulation of gut mucosal biofilms. Br J Nutr 2005; 93 Suppl 1:S35–S40 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Dubnau D, Losick R. Bistability in bacteria. Mol Microbiol 2006; 61:564–572 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Casadesús J, Low DA. Programmed heterogeneity: epigenetic mechanisms in bacteria. J Biol Chem 2013; 288:13929–13935 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Campbell JL, Kleckner N. E. coli oriC and the dnaA gene promoter are sequestered from dam methyltransferase following the passage of the chromosomal replication fork. Cell 1990; 62:967–979 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Slater S, Wold S, Lu M, Boye E, Skarstad K et al. E. coli SeqA protein binds oriC in two different methyl-modulated reactions appropriate to its roles in DNA replication initiation and origin sequestration. Cell 1995; 82:927–936 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Espeli O, Mercier R, Boccard F. DNA dynamics vary according to macrodomain topography in the E. coli chromosome. Mol Microbiol 2008; 68:1418–1427 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Oshima T, Wada C, Kawagoe Y, Ara T, Maeda M et al. Genome-wide analysis of deoxyadenosine methyltransferase-mediated control of gene expression in Escherichia coli. . Mol Microbiol 2002; 45:673–695 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Løbner-Olesen A, Marinus MG, Hansen FG. Role of SeqA and Dam in Escherichia coli gene expression: a global/microarray analysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003; 100:4672–4677 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Riva A, Delorme M-O, Chevalier T, Guilhot N, Hénaut C et al. Characterization of the GATC regulatory network in E. coli. . BMC Genomics 2004; 5:48 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Chatti A, Daghfous D, Landoulsi A. Effect of repeated in vivo passage (in mice) on Salmonella typhimurium dam mutant virulence and fitness. Pathol Biol 2008; 56:121–124 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Jakomin M, Chessa D, Bäumler AJ, Casadesús J. Regulation of the Salmonella enterica std fimbrial operon by DNA adenine methylation, SeqA, and HdfR. J Bacteriol 2008; 190:7406–7413 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Giacomodonato MN, Sarnacki SH, Llana MN, Cerquetti MC. Dam and its role in pathogenicity of Salmonella enterica. J Infect Dev Ctries 2009; 3:484–490 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Aloui A, Mihoub M, Sethom MM, Chatti A, Feki M et al. Effects of dam and/or seqA mutations on the fatty acid and phospholipid membrane composition of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2010; 7:573–583 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Chatti A, Aloui M, Tagourti J, Mihoub M, Landoulsi A. Novobiocin sensitivity of Salmonella typhimurium dam and/or seqA mutants. Pol J Microbiol 2014; 63:51–56 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Uğur S, Akçelik N, Yüksel FN, Taşkale Karatuğ N, Akçelik M. Effects of dam and seqA genes on biofilm and pellicle formation in Salmonella. Pathog Glob Health 2018; 112:368–377 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Akçelik N, Akçelik M. Characteristics and regulation of biofilm formation in Salmonella. Adv Microbiol 2021; 60:113–119
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Has EG, Akçelik N, Akçelik M. Comparative global gene expression analysis of biofilm forms of Salmonella Typhimurium ATCC 14028 and its seqA mutant. Gene 2023; 853:147094 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Keçeli Oğuz S, Has EG, Akçelik N, Akçelik M. Phenotypic impacts and genetic regulation characteristics of the DNA adenine methylase gene (dam) in Salmonella Typhimurium biofilm forms. Res Microbiol 2023; 174:103991 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Brown AP, Dinger N, Levine BS. Stress produced by gavage administration in the rat. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci 2000; 39:17–21 [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Chao A, Lee SM, Jeng SL. Estimating population size for capture-recapture data when capture probabilities vary by time and individual animal. Biometrics 1992; 48:201–216 [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Di Gioia D, Bozzi Cionci N, Baffoni L, Amoruso A, Pane M et al. A prospective longitudinal study on the microbiota composition in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. BMC Med 2020; 18:153 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods 2010; 7:335–336 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Cole JR. The Ribosomal Database Project (RDP-II): sequences and tools for high-throughput rRNA analysis. Nucleic Acids Res 2004; 33:D294–D296 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Edgar RC. UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat Methods 2013; 10:996–998 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Dewhirst FE, Chen T, Izard J, Paster BJ, Tanner ACR et al. The human oral microbiome. J Bacteriol 2010; 192:5002–5017 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Schloss PD, Handelsman J. Introducing DOTUR, a computer program for defining operational taxonomic units and estimating species richness. Appl Environ Microbiol 2005; 71:1501–1506 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Liu X, Mao B, Gu J, Wu J, Cui S et al. Blautia-a new functional genus with potential probiotic properties?. Gut Microbes 2021; 13:1–21 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Sears CL, Garrett WS. Microbes, microbiota, and colon cancer. Cell Host Microbe 2014; 15:317–328 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Johnson JS, Spakowicz DJ, Hong B-Y, Petersen LM, Demkowicz P et al. Evaluation of 16S rRNA gene sequencing for species and strain-level microbiome analysis. Nat Commun 2019; 10:5029 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Xia T, Yao Y, Wang C, Dong M, Wu Y. Seasonal dynamics of gut microbiota in a cohort of wild Tibetan macaques (Macaca thibetana) in western China. Glob Ecol Conserv 2021; 25:e01409 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Wang H-L, Zhao Y, Wang F-J, Sun X-J, Zhu J-Q et al. Diet composition and selection of Père David’s deer in Hubei Shishou Milu National Nature Reserve, China. Ecol Evol 2023; 13:e9702 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Bassis CM, Moore NM, Lolans K, Seekatz AM, Weinstein RA et al. Comparison of stool versus rectal swab samples and storage conditions on bacterial community profiles. BMC Microbiol 2017; 17:78 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Reyman M, van Houten MA, Arp K, Sanders EAM, Bogaert D. Rectal swabs are a reliable proxy for faecal samples in infant gut microbiota research based on 16S-rRNA sequencing. Sci Rep 2019; 9:16072 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Schlebusch S, Graham RMA, Jennison AV, Lassig-Smith MM, Harris PNA et al. Standard rectal swabs as a surrogate sample for gut microbiome monitoring in intensive care. BMC Microbiol 2022; 22:99 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Radhakrishnan ST, Gallagher KI, Mullish BH, Serrano-Contreras JI, Alexander JL et al. Rectal swabs as a viable alternative to faecal sampling for the analysis of gut microbiota functionality and composition. Sci Rep 2023; 13:493 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Ley RE, Lozupone CA, Hamady M, Knight R, Gordon JI. Worlds within worlds: evolution of the vertebrate gut microbiota. Nat Rev Microbiol 2008; 6:776–788 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Nakatsu G, Li X, Zhou H, Sheng J, Wong SH et al. Gut mucosal microbiome across stages of colorectal carcinogenesis. Nat Commun 2015; 6:8727 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Khan I, Azhar EI, Abbas AT, Kumosani T, Barbour EK et al. Metagenomic analysis of antibiotic-induced changes in gut microbiota in a pregnant rat model. Front Pharmacol 2016; 7:104 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  52. La Reau AJ, Meier-Kolthoff JP, Suen G. Sequence-based analysis of the genus Ruminococcus resolves its phylogeny and reveals strong host association. Microb Genom 2016; 2:e000099 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Moraïs S, Ben David Y, Bensoussan L, Duncan SH, Koropatkin NM et al. Enzymatic profiling of cellulosomal enzymes from the human gut bacterium, Ruminococcus champanellensis, reveals a fine-tuned system for cohesin-dockerin recognition. Environ Microbiol 2016; 18:542–556 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Ze X, Ben David Y, Laverde-Gomez JA, Dassa B, Sheridan PO et al. Unique organization of extracellular amylases into amylosomes in the resistant starch-utilizing human colonic firmicutes bacterium Ruminococcus bromii. mBio 2015; 6:e01058-15 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Yan Y, Zhou X, Guo K, Zhou F, Yang H. Chlorogenic acid protects against indomethacin-induced inflammation and mucosa damage by decreasing Bacteroides-derived LPS. Front Immunol 2020; 11:1125 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Sun Y, Zhang S, Nie Q, He H, Tan H et al. Gut firmicutes: relationship with dietary fiber and role in host homeostasis. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2022; 12:1–16 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Gulhane M, Murray L, Lourie R, Tong H, Sheng YH et al. High fat diets induce colonic epithelial cell stress and inflammation that is reversed by IL-22. Sci Rep 2016; 6:28990 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Stojanov S, Berlec A, Štrukelj B. The influence of probiotics on the Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio in the treatment of obesity and inflammatory bowel disease. Microorganisms 2020; 8:1715 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Li Y, Luan Y, Yue X, Xiang F, Mao D et al. Effects of Codonopis bulleynana forest ex diels on Deferribacteres in constipation predominant intestine tumor: differential analysis. Saudi J Biol Sci 2019; 26:395–401 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Hills RD, Pontefract BA, Mishcon HR, Black CA, Sutton SC et al. Gut microbiome: profound implications for diet and disease. Nutrients 2019; 11:1613 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Romaní-Pérez M, López-Almela I, Bullich-Vilarrubias C, Rueda-Ruzafa L, Gómez Del Pulgar EM et al. Holdemanella biformis improves glucose tolerance and regulates GLP-1 signaling in obese mice. FASEB J 2021; 35:e21734 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Crost EH, Tailford LE, Monestier M, Swarbreck D, Henrissat B et al. The mucin-degradation strategy of Ruminococcus gnavus: the importance of intramolecular trans-sialidases. Gut Microbes 2016; 7:302–312 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Chua H-H, Chou H-C, Tung Y-L, Chiang B-L, Liao C-C et al. Intestinal dysbiosis featuring abundance of Ruminococcus gnavus associates with allergic diseases in infants. Gastroenterology 2018; 154:154–167 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Britton RA, Irwin R, Quach D, Schaefer L, Zhang J et al. Probiotic L. reuteri treatment prevents bone loss in a menopausal ovariectomized mouse model. J Cell Physiol 2014; 229:1822–1830 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Sanders ME, Huis in’t Veld J. Bringing a probiotic-containing functional food to the market: microbiological, product, regulatory and labeling issues. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 1999; 76:293–315 [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Bezkorovainy A. Probiotics: determinants of survival and growth in the gut. Am J Clin Nutr 2001; 73:399S–405S [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  67. De Keersmaecker SCJ, Verhoeven TLA, Desair J, Marchal K, Vanderleyden J et al. Strong antimicrobial activity of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG against Salmonella typhimurium is due to accumulation of lactic acid. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2006; 259:89–96 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Huang I-F, Lin I-C, Liu P-F, Cheng M-F, Liu Y-C et al. Lactobacillus acidophilus attenuates Salmonella-induced intestinal inflammation via TGF-β signaling. BMC Microbiol 2015; 15:203 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Rolim FRL, Oliveira CJB, de Freitas Neto OC, Dos Santos KMO, Guerra GCB et al. Microbiological, immunological, and histological changes in the gut of salmonella Enteritidis-challenged rats fed goat cheese containing Lactobacillus rhamnosus EM1107. J Dairy Sci 2021; 104:179–197 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Prieto AI, Jakomin M, Segura I, Pucciarelli MG, Ramos-Morales F et al. The GATC-binding protein SeqA is required for bile resistance and virulence in Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium. J Bacteriol 2007; 189:8496–8502 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Low DA, Casadesús J. Clocks and switches: bacterial gene regulation by DNA adenine methylation. Curr Opin Microbiol 2008; 11:106–112 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001893
Loading
Relationship of Salmonella Typhimurium 14028 strain and its dam and seqA mutants with gut microbiota dysbiosis in rats
J. Med. Microbiol. 73, 001893 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.001893
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001893
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001893
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error