1887

Abstract

Model bacterial biofilm systems suggest that bacteria produce one type of biofilm, which is then modified by environmental and physiological factors, although the diversification of developing populations might result in the appearance of adaptive mutants producing altered structures with improved fitness advantage. Here we compare the air–liquid (A–L) interface viscous mass (VM) biofilm produced by SBW25 and the wrinkly spreader (WS) and complementary biofilm-forming strain (CBFS) biofilm types produced by adaptive SBW25 mutants in order to better understand the link between these physical structures and the fitness advantage they provide in experimental microcosms. WS, CBFS and VM biofilms can be differentiated by strength, attachment levels and rheology, as well as by strain characteristics associated with biofilm formation. Competitive fitness assays demonstrate that they provide similar advantages under static growth conditions but respond differently to increasing levels of physical disturbance. Pairwise competitions between biofilms suggest that these strains must be competing for at least two growth-limiting resources at the A–L interface, most probably O and nutrients, although VM and CBFS cells located lower down in the liquid column might provide an additional fitness advantage through the colonization of a less competitive zone below the biofilm. Our comparison of different SBW25 biofilm types illustrates more generally how varied biofilm characteristics and fitness advantage could become among adaptive mutants arising from an ancestral biofilm–forming strain and raises the question of how significant these changes might be in a range of medical, biotechnological and industrial contexts where diversification and change may be problematic.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.000938
2020-06-10
2020-09-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Flemming H-C, Wingender J, Szewzyk U, Steinberg P, Rice SA et al. Biofilms: an emergent form of bacterial life. Nat Rev Microbiol 2016; 14:563–575 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Nadell CD, Drescher K, Foster KR, structure S. Cooperation and competition in biofilms. Nat Rev Microbiol 2016; 14:589–600
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Steenackers HP, Parijs I, Dubey A, Foster KR, Vanderleyden J. Experimental evolution in biofilm populations. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2016; 40:373–397 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Spiers AJ. A mechanistic explanation linking adaptive mutation, niche change, and fitness advantage for the wrinkly spreader. Int J Evol Biol 2014; 2014:Article ID 67543210 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Koza A, Kuśmierska A, McLaughlin K, Moshynets O, Spiers AJ. Adaptive radiation of Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25 in experimental microcosms provides an understanding of the evolutionary ecology and molecular biology of A-L interface biofilm formation. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2017; 364:fnx109 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Koza A, Moshynets O, Otten W, Spiers AJ. Environmental modification and niche construction: developing O2 gradients drive the evolution of the wrinkly spreader. ISME J 2011; 5:665–673 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Yoder JB, Clancey E, Des Roches S, Eastman JM, Gentry L et al. Ecological opportunity and the origin of adaptive radiations. J Evol Biol 2010; 23:1581–1596 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Kuśmierska A, Spiers AJ. New insights into the effects of several environmental parameters on the relative fitness of a numerically dominant class of evolved niche specialist. Int J Evol Biol 2016; 2016:484656510 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Jerdan R, Kuśmierska A, Petric M, Spiers AJ. Penetrating the air-liquid interface is the key to colonization and wrinkly spreader fitness. Microbiology 2019; 165:1061–1074 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Rainey PB, Travisano M. Adaptive radiation in a heterogeneous environment. Nature 1998; 394:69–72 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Spiers AJ, Kahn SG, Bohannon J, Travisano M, Rainey PB. Adaptive divergence in experimental populations of Pseudomonas fluorescens. I. Genetic and phenotypic bases of wrinkly spreader fitness. Genetics 2002; 161:33–46[PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Spiers AJ, Bohannon J, Gehrig SM, Rainey PB. Biofilm formation at the air-liquid interface by the Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25 wrinkly spreader requires an acetylated form of cellulose. Mol Microbiol 2003; 50:15–27 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Spiers AJ, Rainey PB. The Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25 wrinkly spreader biofilm requires attachment factor, cellulose fibre and LPS interactions to maintain strength and integrity. Microbiology 2005; 151:2829–2839 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bantinaki E, Kassen R, Knight CG, Robinson Z, Spiers AJ et al. Adaptive divergence in experimental populations of Pseudomonas fluorescens. III. Mutational origins of wrinkly spreader diversity. Genetics 2007; 176:441–453 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Lind PA, Farr AD, Rainey PB. Evolutionary convergence in experimental Pseudomonas populations. ISME J 2017; 11:589–600 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Spiers AJ, Arnold DL, Moon CD, Timms-Wilson TM. A survey of A-L biofilm formation and cellulose expression amongst soil and plant-associated Pseudomonas isolates. In Bailey MJ, Lilley AK, Timms-Wilson TM. (editors) Microbial Ecology of Aerial Plant Surfaces Wallingford: CABI; 2006 pp 121–132
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Koza A, Hallett PD, Moon CD, Spiers AJ. Characterisation of a novel air–liquid interface biofilm of Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25. Microbiology 2009; 2009:1397–1406
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Green JH, Koza A, Moshynets O, Pajor R, Ritchie MR et al. Evolution in a test tube: rise of the wrinkly spreaders. J Biol Educ 2011; 45:54–59 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Römling U, Galperin MY. Bacterial cellulose biosynthesis: diversity of operons, subunits, products, and functions. Trends Microbiol 2015; 23:545–557 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Remigi P, Ferguson GC, McConnell E, De Monte S, Rogers DW et al. Ribosome provisioning activates a bistable switch coupled to fast exit from stationary phase. Mol Biol Evol 2019; 36:1056–1070 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ude S, Arnold DL, Moon CD, Timms-Wilson T, Spiers AJ. Biofilm formation and cellulose expression among diverse environmental Pseudomonas isolates. Environ Microbiol 2006; 8:1997–2011 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gjermansen M, Ragas P, Tolker-Nielsen T. Proteins with GGDEF and EAL domains regulate Pseudomonas putida biofilm formation and dispersal. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2006; 265:215–224 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Nielsen L, Li X, Halverson LJ. Cell-Cell and cell-surface interactions mediated by cellulose and a novel exopolysaccharide contribute to Pseudomonas putida biofilm formation and fitness under water-limiting conditions. Environ Microbiol 2011; 13:1342–1356 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Robertson M, Hapca SM, Moshynets O, Spiers AJ. Air-Liquid interface biofilm formation by psychrotrophic pseudomonads recovered from spoilt meat. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 2013; 103:251–259 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Farias GA, Olmedilla A, Gallegos M-T. Visualization and characterization of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 pellicles. Microb Biotechnol 2019; 12:688–702 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Dragoš A, Lakshmanan N, Martin M, Horváth B, Maróti G et al. Evolution of exploitative interactions during diversification in Bacillus subtilis biofilms. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2018; 94:fix155 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Boles BR, Thoendel M, Singh PK. Self-generated diversity produces "insurance effects" in biofilm communities. PNAS (USA) 2004; 101:16630–16635 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Flynn KM, Dowell G, Johnson TM, Koestler BJ, Waters CM et al. Evolution of ecological diversity in biofilms of Pseudomonas aeruginosa by altered cyclic diguanylate signaling. J Bacteriol 2016; 198:2608–2618 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Bridier A, Piard JC, Briandet R, Bouchez T. Emergence of a synergistic diversity as a response to competition in Pseudomonas putida biofilms. Microb Ecol 2019; 17: [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Ferguson GC, Bertels F, Rainey PB. Adaptive divergence in experimental populations of Pseudomonas fluorescens. V. Insight into the niche specialist fuzzy spreader compels revision of the model Pseudomonas radiation. Genetics 2013; 195:1319–1335 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gehrig SM. Adaptation of Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25 to the air-liquid interface: a study in evolutionary genetics. DPhil Thesis University of Oxford: Oxford; 2005
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Koza A. Adaptation and Niche Construction by Pseudomonas Fluorescens SBW25. DPhil Thesis Abertay University: Dundee; 2011
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Bailey MJ, Thompson IP. Detection systems for phyllosphere Pseudomonads. In Wellington EMR, van Elsas JD. (editors) Genetic Interactions Between Microorganisms in the Natural Environment Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1992 pp 127–141
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Rainey PB, Bailey MJ. Physical and genetic map of the Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25 chromosome. Mol Microbiol 1996; 19:521–533 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Rosenberg M. Bacterial adherence to hydrocarbons: a useful technique for studying cell surface hydrophobicity. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1984; 22:289–295 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Lenski RE, Rose MR, Simpson SC, Tadler SC. Long-Term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. Am Nat 1991; 138:1315–1341 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Wu C, Lim JY, Fuller GG, Cegelski L. Quantitative analysis of amyloid-integrated biofilms formed by uropathogenic Escherichia coli at the air-liquid interface. Biophys J 2012; 103:464–471 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Rühs PA, Böni L, Fuller GG, Inglis RF, Fischer P. In-situ quantification of the interfacial rheological response of bacterial biofilms to environmental stimuli. PLoS One 2013; 8:e78524 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Peterson BW, He Y, Ren Y, Zerdoum A, Libera MR et al. Viscoelasticity of biofilms and their recalcitrance to mechanical and chemical challenges. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2015; 39:234–245 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Alsohim AS, Taylor TB, Barrett GA, Gallie J, Zhang X-X et al. The biosurfactant viscosin produced by Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25 aids spreading motility and plant growth promotion. Environ Microbiol 2014; 16:2267–2281 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Spiers AJ. Wrinkly-Spreader fitness in the two-dimensional agar plate microcosm: maladaptation, compensation and ecological success. PLoS One 2007; 2:e740 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Udall YC, Deeni Y, Hapca SM, Raikes D, Spiers AJ. The evolution of biofilm-forming wrinkly Spreaders in static microcosms and drip-fed columns selects for subtle differences in wrinkleality and fitness. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2015; 91:fiv057 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Fang HHP, Chan K-Y, Xu L-C. Quantification of bacterial adhesion forces using atomic force microscopy (AFM). J Microbiol Methods 2000; 40:89–97 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Tsuneda S, Aikawa H, Hayashi H, Yuasa A, Hirata A. Extracellular polymeric substances responsible for bacterial adhesion onto solid surface. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2003; 223:287–292 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Vanhaecke E, Remon JP, Moors M, Raes F, De Rudder D et al. Kinetics of Pseudomonas aeruginosa adhesion to 304 and 316-L stainless steel: role of cell surface hydrophobicity. Appl Environ Microbiol 1990; 56:788–795 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Stoimenova E, Vasileva-Tonkova E, Sotirova A, Galabova D, Lalchev Z. Evaluation of different carbon sources for growth and biosurfactant production by Pseudomonas fluorescens isolated from wastewaters. Z Naturforsch C J Biosci 2009; 64:96–102 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  47. de Bruijn I, de Kock MJD, Yang M, de Waard P, van Beek TA et al. Genome-based discovery, structure prediction and functional analysis of cyclic lipopeptide antibiotics in Pseudomonas species. Mol Microbiol 2007; 63:417–428 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  48. McDonald MJ, Gehrig SM, Meintjes PL, Zhang X-X, Rainey PB. Adaptive divergence in experimental populations of Pseudomonas fluorescens. IV. Genetic constraints guide evolutionary trajectories in a parallel adaptive radiation. Genetics 2009; 183:1041–1053 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Lind PA, Farr AD, Rainey PB. Experimental evolution reveals hidden diversity in evolutionary pathways. Elife 2015; 4:e07074 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Arendt J, Reznick D. Convergence and parallelism reconsidered: what have we learned about the genetics of adaptation?. Trends Ecol Evol 2008; 23:26–32 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.000938
Loading
/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.000938
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF
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