Skip to main content
PLOS Pathogens logoLink to PLOS Pathogens
. 2023 Aug 4;19(8):e1011509. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1011509

Effects of Capsular Polysaccharide amount on Pneumococcal-Host interactions

Jiaqi Zhu 1,, Annie R Abruzzo 1,, Cindy Wu 1, Gavyn Chern Wei Bee 1, Alejandro Pironti 1,2, Gregory Putzel 1,2, Surya D Aggarwal 1, Hannes Eichner 1,3, Jeffrey N Weiser 1,*
Editor: John M Leong4
PMCID: PMC10431664  PMID: 37540710

Abstract

Among the many oral streptococci, Streptococcus pneumoniae (Spn) stands out for the capacity of encapsulated strains to cause invasive infection. Spread beyond upper airways, however, is a biological dead end for the organism, raising the question of the benefits of expending energy to coat its surface in a thick layer of capsular polysaccharide (CPS). In this study, we compare mutants of two serotypes expressing different amounts of CPS and test these in murine models of colonization, invasion infection and transmission. Our analysis of the effect of CPS amount shows that Spn expresses a capsule of sufficient thickness to shield its surface from the deposition of complement and binding of antibody to underlying epitopes. While effective shielding is permissive for invasive infection, its primary contribution to the organism appears to be in the dynamics of colonization. A thicker capsule increases bacterial retention in the nasopharynx, the first event in colonization, and also impedes IL-17-dependent clearance during late colonization. Enhanced colonization is associated with increased opportunity for host-to-host transmission. Additionally, we document substantial differences in CPS amount among clinical isolates of three common serotypes. Together, our findings show that CPS amount is highly variable among Spn and could be an independent determinant affecting host interactions.

Author summary

Many leading bacterial pathogens are coated by a thick layer of polysaccharide, which is referred to as a capsule. This capsular layer shields the underlying surface of the organism from recognition by host factors like antibodies that would otherwise facilitate clearance during invasive infection. Pathogens with capsules such as Streptococcus pneumoniae, however, generally reside on mucosal surfaces (colonization) without causing disease. Thus, the benefit to the organism of expressing a thick capsule is unclear. This study uses genetically-modified strains of S. pneumoniae to test how capsule thickness (measured by the amount of capsular polysaccharide) affects host-pathogen interactions using infant mouse models. We show that thickness sufficient to protect the organism during invasive infection also benefits the organism during colonization. This effect is attributed to increased retention of the organism when it first encounters the mucosal surface of the upper respiratory tract. Additionally, we demonstrate that capsule thickness is a highly variable trait among S. pneumoniae clinical isolates. Taken together, our findings could account for differences in the ability of S. pneumoniae isolates to both colonize the host upper respiratory tract and cause invasive infection.

Introduction

Streptococcus pneumoniae (Spn, the pneumococcus) is the leading bacterial pathogen associated with deaths in children less than five years of age worldwide [1]. Virulent Spn are covered by a thick layer of capsular polysaccharide (CPS) [2]. In the absence of this layer, the organism is unable to cause the main invasive infections (pneumonia, sepsis, meningitis) responsible for its burden on public health [3]. The species expresses at least 100 ‘types’ of structurally and immunologically distinct CPSs. While CPS is the basis of all currently licensed Spn vaccines, only limited CPS types are included as antigens. Thus, the heterogeneity of Spn capsule limits the effectiveness of current prevention strategies.

Because of its importance as a determinant of virulence and vaccine antigen, there has been much focus on understanding the contribution of CPS to the biology of the pneumococcus [4]. These studies have emphasized the role of capsule during invasive infections. Capsules are generally considered to be antiphagocytic, since they inhibit the deposition of opsonizing complement and antibody onto the bacterial surface [5]. For Spn, different CPS types vary in their ability to block opsonophagocytic clearance, which is facilitated once CPS type-specific antibody is generated [6]. Invasive infection, however, is a biological ‘dead end’ for Spn, whose lifecycle depends on colonization of the upper respiratory tract (URT) of humans (the carrier state) and transmission from one carrier to another.

The biosynthesis of a thick capsule coat would be expected to confer a substantial metabolic burden in proportion to the amount of CPS expressed, which must be offset by a biological advantage. In vivo studies suggest that capsules enhance Spn retention along the URT epithelium by limiting bacterial binding to mucus and, thereby, preventing mechanical clearance via mucociliary flow [7]. However, many isolates of Spn and other members of the diverse Streptococcus mitis group are nonencapsulated [8], yet successfully colonize the upper respiratory tract (URT) as commensals [911]. Capsule also inhibits Spn adherence to epithelial cells cultured in vitro, raising the question of how encapsulated organisms persist on mucosal surfaces [1215].

It has been suggested that many encapsulated species deal with these potential advantages and disadvantages of capsule by variation between forms with high and low levels of CPS expression. For many Spn, this variation may be observed as on-off switching or phase variation between opaque and transparent colony forms, which express thick and thin capsules, respectively, and differ both in their abilities to colonize and cause invasive infection [16]. A molecular switch involving spontaneous recombination events affecting genome-wide methylation is now known to control Spn phase variation [1719]. However, because this mechanism affects many bacterial characteristics besides CPS amount, phase variation in opacity is not a specific means to determine the consequences of CPS amount diversity. There is also evidence that capsule expression is dynamic within the respiratory tract [13] and that it may shed in response to the epithelium [20].

The purpose of this study is to use defined mutants differing only in the amount of CPS to reassess the specific contributions of capsule in Spn-host interactions. These are tested in an infant mouse model that recapitulates key aspects of early childhood infection, including prolonged carriage, direct transit from the mucosal surface of the URT to bloodstream (occult bacteremia), bacteremic infection, and host-to-host transmission.

Results

Characterization of strains expressing different amounts of CPS

A type 6A clinical isolate (P376) was screened to identify spontaneous mutants expressing different amounts of CPS based on altered colony morphology (Table 1). Two candidates, P384 and P385, previously shown to express ~45% and ~40%, respectively, of WT levels of type 6A CPS using a quantitative capture ELISA were further analyzed by whole genome sequencing [21]. In comparison to the parental strain, both strains contained a missense mutation in the cps sugar transferase gene cpsE. In addition, both strains contained a second point missense mutation in an unrelated locus. To confirm that only the former mutation was responsible for altered CPS expression, the WT cps region was used to correct the cpsE point mutation in T6A40%, resulting in a corrected mutant (T6ACM), identified among transformants by screening for WT colony morphology and validated by sequencing. After confirming restoration of full CPS expression by immunoblotting (Fig 1A), a functional assay was used to compare the relative ability of the strains to shield the bacterial surface from antibody binding to a conserved epitope underlying the capsule. As expected, strains with higher CPS expression were more protected from the binding of mAb TEPC-15 to phosphorylcholine, a feature of Spn teichoic acids, as measured by flow cytometry (Fig 1C). Differences in surface shielding between T6A100% and T6A40% were similar when grown in vitro or obtained from URT lavages of colonized pups and analyzed ex vivo.

Table 1. Bacterial strains.

Strain Designation Strain number Description Reference
T4SmR P2406 Streptomycin resistant derivative of TIGR4 (T4 WT) [42]
T40% P2422 P2406 with Sweet Janus cassette replacing cps locus [22]
T4100% P2438 P2422 transformed with P2406 genomic DNA to restore capsule expression [22]
T420% P2492 P2406 mutated to carry heterologous cps promoter. Expresses ~20% of WT levels of T4 CPS. [22]
T450% P2480 P2406 with pCAT mutation in the cps promoter. Expresses ~50% of WT levels of T4 CPS [22]
T6A100% P376 T6A clinical isolate [21]
T6A45% P384 Spontaneous variant of P376. Expresses ~45% of WT levels of T6A CPS. Contains two missense mutations: CiaRAsp10Glu and CpsEVal211Asp. [21]
T6A40% P385 Spontaneous variant of P376. Expresses ~40% of WT levels of T6A CPS. Contains two missense mutations: CpsEPhe297Ile and YqfRVal314Ile This study
T6ACM P2752 Corrected mutant of P385 by transformation of the T6A cps locus to restore the WT cpsE This study
- P592 Clinical isolate, type 6A Collection of R. Austrian
- P2797 Variant of P592 containing CpsEThr321Ala This study

Fig 1. Characterization of Spn strains expressing different amounts of capsular polysaccharide phosphorylcholine.

Fig 1

Immunoblots of Spn lysates of serotype (A) T6A or (B) T4 strains with serotype-specific anti-capsule antibody. (C-F) Shielding effect of the capsule evaluated using quantification by flow cytometry. Binding of mAb TEPC-15 to phosphorylcholine on (C) T6A or (D) T4 strains. Deposition of complement (C3b) from normal mouse serum using anti-mouse C3 antibody on (E) T6A or (F) T4 strains. Statistical significance based on the percentage of Spn cells in which antibody binding was detected was determined using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn’s correction. Corrected mutant (CM).

Our analysis also included a previously described set of strains expressing different amounts of the type 4 CPS [22]. An unencapsulated mutant (P2422) containing the Sweet Janus cassette inserted in cps was used as recipient to restore the WT locus and to generate constructs with modified cps protomer regions expressing ~20% or ~50% of WT levels of type 4 CPS. We confirmed differences in type 4 CPS expression by immunoblotting (Fig 1B) and then compared their ability to shield the bacterial surface from binding of mAb TEPC-15. Strains expressing 0% or 20% of CPS exhibited no shielding, whereas strains expressing 50% or 100% were equivalently shielded (Fig 1D). This suggests a threshold for effective shielding between 20% and 50% of WT levels of T4 CPS.

Role of CPS amount in invasive infection

The virulence of the strains was then compared following intraperitoneal (IP) challenge of a low dose (100 CFU) in 10-day old mice. For the type 6A strains, the humane endpoint was reached by 24 h post-inoculation (p.i.) for all pups given T6A100% or T6ACM and blood cultures showed high levels of bacteremia (Fig 2A). In contrast, none of the pups challenged with the mutants expressing T6A40% appeared septic or had detectable bacteremia. For the type 4 constructs, bacteremia was only detected in pups challenged with the fully encapsulated strain (Fig 2B). These results demonstrate the contribution of capsule to virulence in this model and show a relationship between amounts of CPS and the capacity to sustain bloodstream infection.

Fig 2. Effect of differences in CPS amount on invasive infection.

Fig 2

(A-B) 10-day-old pups were challenged intraperitoneally with Spn (~102 CFU) of (A) T6A or (B) T4 strains and sacrificed 24 hrs later when blood was collected for quantitative culture to determine bacterial burden in the bloodstream. Statistical significance was determined using a Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn’s correction. (C-D) Pups were pretreated with either cobra venom factor (CVF) or vehicle control (PBS). Limit of detection (LOD). Statistical significance was determined using the Mann-Whitney test.

Because mice are naïve hosts and lack naturally-acquired anti-Spn antibodies, complement is the main serum opsonin. Complement deposition by the strains was compared using flow cytometry by detection of C3b bound to the bacterial surface following incubation with normal mouse serum. Similar to the binding of mAb TEPC-15, lower CPS expression (e.g. T6A40% and T6A45%) was associated with increased C3b deposition (Fig 1E). (Subsequently, further analysis of T6A45% was discontinued due to the established in vivo role of ciaR and the potential confounding effects of the point mutation in this gene [23]) The pattern of C3b deposition for the type 4 constructs paralleled mAb TEPC-15 binding with a threshold between 20% and 50% of WT levels of CPS (Fig 1F). Thus, the amount of CPS correlated with inhibition of both cell surface antibody binding and complement deposition.

To confirm that complement deposition was responsible for the attenuated virulence of mutants with lower amounts of CPS, the IP challenge was repeated in pups in which serum complement was depleted by prior treatment with cobra venom factor. In pups lacking complement activity, strains T6A40% and T450% were able to cause high level bacteremia unlike in complement-sufficient mice (Fig 2C and 2D). Together these findings demonstrate that only by the expression of high levels of CPS is Spn able to shield its surface from opsonins that would otherwise promote its clearance during bloodstream infection.

Role of CPS amount in colonization dynamics

We then considered how amounts of CPS affect colonization. Mice at 10 (type 6A) or 4 (type 4) days of life were given an intranasal (IN) inoculum (102 CFU), and the numbers of colonizing Spn were assessed in quantitative cultures of nasal lavages over a 28-day period (Fig 3A). At the initial time point (day 1 p.i.), the density of colonizing Spn was significantly lower for the T6A40% compared to both the parent and corrected mutant. This difference was maintained throughout the 28-day time course, by the end of which most mice cleared the less encapsulated mutant. For the type 4 constructs, colonization density generally correlated with amounts of CPS over the time course and was significantly reduced for the strains expressing 0% and 20% of WT levels of CPS (Fig 3C). Only these two constructs were completely cleared by the final time point.

Fig 3. Effect of differences in CPS amount on colonization dynamics.

Fig 3

(A) 10-day-old pups (C57BL6) were challenged intranasally (IN) with T6A strains (~102 CFU) and sacrificed at 1 day, 3 days, 14 days, or 28 days post-infection. Upper respiratory tract (URT) lavages were collected for quantification of colonization density. Statistical significance was determined using a Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn’s correction. (B) IL17ra-/- pups at 10 days of age were challenged IN with T6A strains (~102 CFU) and sacrificed at 1 day or 28 days post-infection. URT lavages were collected for quantification of colonization density. Statistical significance was determined using the Mann-Whitney test. (C) C57BL6 pups at 4 days of age were challenged IN with T4 strains (~102 CFU) and sacrificed at 1 day, 3 days, 14 days, or 28 days post-infection. URT lavages were collected for quantification of colonization densities. Statistical significance was determined using a Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn’s correction. Limit of detection (LOD).

The dynamics of colonization density, therefore, showed two distinct effects of CPS amount for both type 6A and 4 strains. In the early phase (day 1), differences in colonization density correlated with CPS amount, and this effect persisted through 14 days p.i. In later phase, there was a more precipitous decline in colonization density from 14-day p.i. for the T6A and T4 strains expressing less CPS that ultimately led to clearance.

To further examine the early effect, we measured colonization density at 4 hrs p.i. Prior studies established that this timepoint is before bacterial replication becomes the main factor driving bacterial numbers, and, therefore, CFU counts largely reflect the retention of the inoculum in the URT [24]. Retention correlated with the amount of CPS and was significantly impaired for the T6A40% and T40% mutants compared to more fully encapsulated strains of the same type (Fig 4A and 4B). To control for potential host-related differences, the 4-hour retention assay was repeated in a competitive assay in which equivalent numbers of T6A100% or T6ACM competed with T6A40% were delivered to the same pup (Fig 4C). Both fully encapsulated strains outcompeted the point mutant expressing less CPS. These results demonstrate that the amount of CPS affects initial interaction of Spn and the host.

Fig 4. Effect of differences in CPS amount on retention of the inoculum.

Fig 4

Pups at 10 (T6A) or 5 (T4) days of age were challenged intranasally with Spn (~102−3 CFU) strains (A) T6A or (B) T4. The pups were sacrificed 4 hours after infection to obtain URT lavages for quantitative culture. Limit of detection (LOD). Statistical significance was determined using Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn’s correction. (C) Competition assay of T6A strains. Pups at 5–10 days of age were challenged IN (~102−3 CFU/strain) with an equal mixture of the two strains indicated below and sacrificed 4 hours later. URT lavages were collected for quantitative culture with strains distinguished by colony morphology. Values represent the ratio of strains in the lavage (output) over the ratio in the inoculum (input) for each pup. Statistical significance was determined using the Mann-Whitney test in comparison to a hypothetical value of 1 (representing no competition).

To further examine the later effect, we considered host pathways known to mediate clearance of colonization. Prior studies showed this requires IL-17-dependent recruitment of professional phagocytes, as mice lacking the common receptor for IL-17 cytokines exhibit impaired phagocyte recruitment and delayed clearance [25, 26]. The more accelerated clearance in WT mice of T6A40% was absent in IL-17ra-/- mice (Fig 3B). This observation shows that amounts of CPS affect IL-17-dependent clearance mechanisms.

Role of CPS amount in other host interactions

The type 6A isolate used in this study is capable of causing bacteremia and sepsis following URT colonization (occult bacteremia) [27]. Thus, by comparing survival following IN challenge, we could assess the overall effects of amounts of CPS, since this outcome involves the steps of 1) retention of Spn in the URT, 2) establishment of colonization, 3) transit from the mucosal surface to bloodstream, and 4) proliferation in the bloodstream. When tested in 10-day old mice, the humane endpoint was reached beginning 2 days p.i. (Fig 5). The point mutant expressing less CPS (T6A40%) was avirulent and contrasted with the parent and corrected mutant, both of which caused sepsis in about half the mice.

Fig 5. CPS amount affects sepsis following colonization.

Fig 5

10-day-old pups were challenged intranasally with T6A strains (~102 CFU) and survival monitored for 14 days. Statistical significance was determined using the Kaplan-Meier test followed by Dunn’s correction. n = 22-41/group.

We then analyzed the effect of CPS amount on the rate of intra-litter pup-to-pup transmission. This was carried out in the setting of influenza A co-infection administered to all pups in order to increase the frequency of transmission, thus allowing for meaningful comparisons [28]. Acquisition of infection by contact pups from Spn colonized index pups was proportional to the amount of CPS (Table 2). Transmission rates were significantly reduced for type 6A (40%) and type 4 (0 and 20%) mutants compared to strains expressing higher levels of CPS.

Table 2. Effect of capsule polysaccharide amount on transmission.

Strain Total Contacts Colonized Contacts # Transmission (%) P-value (vs T6A100%)*
T6A100% 14 13 93 -
T6A40% 17 9 53 0.0207
T6ACM 15 14 93 >0.9999
Strain Total Contacts Colonized contacts # Transmission (%) P-value (vs T4100%)*
T4100% 12 11 92 -
T450% 12 10 83 >0.9999
T420% 13 1 8 <0.0001
T40% 11 0 0 <0.0001

#Colonization was assessed 7 days (T6A strains) or 9-10 days (T4 strains) post-pneumococcal inoculation of index pups.

*Fisher’s Exact Test

Comparison of CPS amount in clinical isolates

Lastly, we used immunoblotting to compare CPS amount among clinical isolates of the same type, but differing in date, site and location of collection. Nine type 6A isolates, including P376 analyzed above, varied by as much as 65-fold in the amount of CPS under standard growth conditions (Fig 6). For illustration purposes, both opaque (O) and transparent (T) forms of P461 were included and showed the expected difference of ~10-fold. These differences in CPS expression were not limited to type 6A. Isolates of two other common Spn types 6B (n = 11) and 23F (n = 10) also showed 35- and 6.6-fold variation, respectively, in amounts of CPS within a given type. This limited survey demonstrates that CPS amount is a highly variable feature of Spn.

Fig 6. Variation in CPS amount among clinical isolates.

Fig 6

Clinical isolates from our collection (labelled by strain P#) of three CPS types (6A, 6B, 23F) were grown to mid-log phase and a lysate adjusted for equal loading was applied to a nitrocellulose membrane. CPS was detected with type-specific antisera and relative binding compared in relation to a standard curve generated using purified CPS of the same type (shown boxed with amount loaded indicated) and quantified by densitometry. The level of CPS of each isolate is expressed relative to the strain of the same type with the least CPS (1x). An unencapsulated mutant served as negative control (Δcps).

To further explore effects of capsule amount during infection, one of the type 6A clinical isolates expressing a relatively low amount of capsule was selected. P592 was unable to cause bacteremia following IP inoculation at a low dose (102 CFU) as expected (Fig 7A). Following IP challenge with a high dose (107 CFU), a variant P2797, with a colony phenotype of increased opacity, was obtained from blood culture of a single pup (Table 1). In contrast to its parent, P2797 was able to cause bacteremia following challenge at a low dose (102 CFU). Immunoblotting showed that P2797 expressed 11-fold more CPS relative to its parent (Fig 7B). Whole genome sequencing and comparison to P592 revealed that these changes were associated with acquisition of a Thr321Ala missense mutation in CpsE of P2797. P592 colonized pups at relatively low levels (Fig 7C). The selection for this mutation that increased CPS expression in P2797 allowed for more robust colonization. Together, these observations add to the evidence that capsule amounts permissive for invasive infection enhance colonization.

Fig 7. Analysis of a clinical isolate.

Fig 7

(A)10-day-old pups were challenged intraperitoneally (102 CFU) and sacrificed 24 hrs later when blood was collected for quantitative culture. Strains included the clinical isolate P592 and P2797, an opaque variant obtained from the bloodstream of a pup challenged with P592 at a high dose. (B) Immunoblots of lysates with serotype 6A-specific anti-capsule antibody. Comparison to a standard curve generated using type 6A CPS was used to compare the relative amount of CPS in P2797 compared to the parent P592. (C) Pups at 10 days of age were challenged IN with 102−3 CFU of the strain indicated. URT lavages were collected at 3 days post-infection for quantification of colonization density. Statistical significance was determined using the Mann-Whitney test.

Discussion

This study examined the effects of differences in amounts of the major virulence determinant of a leading pathogen. Defined, isogenic mutants carrying a single spontaneous mutation in the cps locus (T6A) or strains with changes to the cps promoter region (T4) were compared. Amounts of CPS per bacterial cell based on immunological assays with type-specific antibodies were used as a proxy for capsule thickness. Results confirm that thick capsules are required to inhibit i) binding of antibodies to underlying conserved surface antigens and ii) deposition of serum complement. These characteristics correlated with the capacity to evade opsonization, sustain bacteremic infection, and cause sepsis following invasion from the URT. However, the characteristics promoting invasive infection would not explain why Spn expresses thick capsule, as it is a ‘dead end’ for the organism. Thus, we investigated how CPS amount factors into the critical aspects of its commensal lifestyle; establishment in the URT (retention), stable colonization (density and duration), and transmission from host-to-host. CPS amount alone was shown to be important for each step in the dynamics of Spn colonization (retention, density and duration), which in turn impacts the chances of successful transmission. Although our study focused exclusively on infant models, our findings could be relevant to infection at later ages, including in the elderly, who also have a high burden of Spn infection.

Several aspects of the mechanism involved in these observations merit further comment. WT T6A and T4 strains expressed amounts of CPS that effectively shielded the bacterial surface from potential opsonins and were permissive for bacteremic infection. Threshold amounts of CPS associated with these characteristics, however, appeared to differ between the two serotypes tested (>45% for T6A and <50% for T4). Thus, the relative importance of amounts of CPS must be considered separately for any given Spn type, since the physical properties and chemical composition of CPSs vary. In this regard, Magee and Yother previously examined the requirement for capsule during murine colonization and invasive infection [29]. They concluded that isolates producing reduced levels of capsule remain capable of colonization and causing invasive infection. Their study, however, depended on type 3 strains, which are unusual among pneumococci because they produce highly mucoid colonies. While type 3 strains, which express very thick capsules compared to other types, retain fitness in vivo with ~20% of WT levels of CPS, the findings here suggest this is generally not the case.

Additionally, we previously showed that unencapsulated Spn demonstrate an impaired ability to escape mucus binding within the loose mucus layer during the first minutes after arrival in the URT [7]. This finding indicated that capsule could inhibit initial clearance which occurs by the mechanical removal of particles embedded in loose mucus by mucociliary flow. Entrapment in mucus, which is also facilitated by the agglutinating effect of specific mucosal antibody, prevents establishment along the epithelial surface where stable colonization occurs [30]. Results in this report show that similar to unencapsulated mutants, strains expressing reduced amounts of CPS are also more susceptible to rapid removal, as seen with decreased initial retention in the URT [7]. This effect correlates with previous findings using the T4 strains analyzed here showing that mucus binding in a plate assay inversely correlates with amounts CPS–a result that could be explained by repulsive hydrostatic and charge properties of CPS [22]. A thicker capsule containing more CPS, therefore, appears to enhance mucus evasion and could explain why it is advantageous despite the metabolic cost for its biosynthesis. This also suggests that CPS-mediated evasion of mucus offsets any negative effects of capsule in adhering to host cells as seen in tissue culture models [13].

Early success in establishment on the URT mucosal surface has several consequences for the organism. We have shown that the Spn that initially colonize their niche have a substantial competitive advantage over those arriving later due to the early production of quorum sensing-dependent anti-Spn fratricidal effectors [24]. Additionally, when comparing isogenic constructs of different serotypes (capsule-switch mutants), we observed that a competitive success during the first hours of establishment in the host correlated with colonization duration over many weeks [26].

Similarly, the effect of increased CPS amount in facilitating initial success in the URT correlated with long term persistence. The effect of CPS amount on sustaining high colonization density and in prolonging colonization duration was shown here to be dependent on IL-17 signaling. This could be explained by IL-17-dependent recruitment of professional phagocytes [25]. Thicker capsules could inhibit the non-opsonic uptake by immune cells by macrophage scavenger receptors such as MARCO during colonization [31]. It should also be noted that in mouse studies neither complement nor specific antibodies generated during colonization appear to contribute to URT clearance once colonization is established [32,33]. This provides further evidence that the capsule-mediated shielding against the deposition of opsonins may not be the capsule’s primary function during commensal host interactions. This is in contrast to invasive infection, where the effect of capsule amount in blocking the deposition of complement correlated with Spn’s ability to survive in the bloodstream. For those pneumococcal types cleared from the bloodstream in a complement-independent manner, it would be interesting to examine the effect of capsule amount on their direct interaction with phagocytes, including liver-resident macrophage Kupffer cells [34].

Increased CPS amount also correlated with the rate of transmission from pup-to-pup. We previously showed that more CPS per strain enhances T4 Spn shedding, a rate limiting step for transmission in this model [22]. Shedding was not considered separately in this report, since colonization density was affected by capsule amount and is a main determinant of the number of shed Spn. Transmission also requires robust colonization. Since CPS amount affected colonization density over the time period during which contact and index pups were together, we cannot distinguish an independent effect on transmission apart from that on colonization. Also, because of differences in colonization dynamics, we could not distinguish whether differences in transmission were due to altered shedding from the index pups or acquisition and retention by contact pups.

The isogenic mutants tested here varied up to 5-fold (20% to 100%) of WT amounts of CPS. When clinical isolates of three serotypes were compared, we observed a far greater range of CPS amounts (up to 65-fold). Some of these differences could be due to opacity phase variation, which previously was reported to account for up to a 5.6-fold difference in capsule amount [21]. Many of the type 6A clinical isolates expressed less than 40% of the level CPS of P376 (T6A100%), which in the animal model was well below the threshold amount required for invasive infection, robust colonization, and efficient transmission. This wide range of variation was not unexpected considering variations in colony morphology, ranging from rough to mucoid, among different isolates. It is now clear that multiple factors contribute to the variation in CPS expression among isolates, including opacity phase variation, differences in cps promoter strength, a cis-acting regulatory element, multiple transcriptional factors, translational control by environmental conditions such as temperature, and post-translational control by tyrosine phosphorylation of CpsD [21,3539]. As the current report shows that much smaller differences in CPS amounts (<5-fold) affect each aspect of Spn host interactions, variation in this bacterial factor should be taken into account when comparing the pathogenicity of different isolates.

Finally, since many of the bacterial species found on mucosal surfaces express encapsulated forms, our findings demonstrating how CPS amount affects colonization and transmission dynamics may be relevant to other species.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

All animal experiments followed the guidelines summarized by the National Science Foundation Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the Public Health Service Policy on the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) at New York University Grossman School of Medicine oversees the welfare, well-being, proper care and use of all animals, and they have approved the protocol used in this study (IA16-00538).

C57BL/6J WT mice were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, ME) and congenic IL17ra-/- knock-out mice were acquired from Amgen Inc. Mice were bred and housed in a conventional animal facility. Pups were maintained with their dam until weaning at age 3 wk. Weaned mice were fed ad lib the PicoLab Rodent Diet 20, a 20% protein diet formulation, and were given acidified water for consumption. Additionally, the animals were kept on a light-cycle of 12 hours on, 12 hours off with a temperature in the animal facility of 70°F (±2°F). Pups were monitored daily for signs of sepsis.

Bacterial culture and strain construction

Types 4 and 6A strains used in the study are described in Table 1. Clinical isolates were confirmed as Spn by sensitivity to ethylhydrocupreine hydrochloride (optochin) and typed using specific antisera (Statens Serum Institute). Pneumococci were grown statically in tryptic soy (TS) broth (Becton, Dickinson) at 37°C. Upon reaching the desired OD620nm of ~1.0, cells were washed and diluted in sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) for inoculation. For quantitative culture, serial dilutions were plated on TS broth agar supplemented with an appropriate antibiotic and either 5% sheep blood or catalase (6,300 U/plate; Worthington Biochemical Corporation) and incubated overnight at 37°C with 5% CO2.

Colonies expressing different amounts of CPS were selected by visual screening using microscopy with oblique, transmitted illumination as described [16]. Mutants were confirmed by whole-genome sequencing. A corrected mutant (P2752) of the cpsE mutation in P385 was constructed by transforming P385 as previously described [26] with the cps PCR product of P376 using primers 5’- ACC ATT GTC TCT ACC TCT CAC -3’ and 5’- CGG AAT TCC TGT AAT TGA TGT CAT -3’. The transformation was verified using sequencing primer 5’- GAA GAT TCT CCT ACT TAC AGC AAC -3.

Whole-genome sequencing and genomic analysis

DNA libraries for strains P376, P384, and P385 were sequenced on an Illumina NovaSeq 6000 instrument to a coverage of at least 560x, producing 150 bp paired reads. The software fastp v0.20.1 was used with default settings to trim low-quality bases, remove adapters, and filter out low-quality reads [40]. The resulting trimmed, filtered reads of each isolate were aligned to an annotated genome assembly of Spn strain 6A-10 (RefSeq accession number: GCF_013047165.1) using Snippy v4.6.0 (https://github.com/tseemann/snippy/). The Snippy command snippy-core was used to compute a core-genome alignment and to call single-nucleotide variants (SNVs). The resulting core genome alignment had 2,007,997 positions, of which 3,072 were variable.

Accession number(s): The sequencing reads generated for this study are available in NCBI under BioProject PRJNA930766.

Immunoblotting

To visualize the differences in CPS expression, strains were grown to OD620nm of 1.0 and an aliquot saved for total protein determination. 1 mL of culture was collected and then resuspended in PBS before lysis with 0.2% Triton-X 100 at RT. To 180 μL of lysed cells, 2 μL of proteinase K (50ug/ul) and 28 μL of 1X PBS were added to degrade cellular proteins at 65°C for 15 min. The samples were then diluted 1:100 in 1X PBS and sonicated for homogenization at 60 Hz for 6x10 seconds. To perform the blot, a vacuum-slot blot device was used with sample loading adjusted based on bacterial density or total protein as indicated. Samples were loaded onto a nitrocellulose membrane alongside a purified CPS standard (Merck) of the same Spn serotype. The membrane was blocked in 5% milk in PBST for 30 min and then incubated with type-specific rabbit antiserum (Statens Serum Institute, 1:8000 to 40000) for 1 hr at RT. An unencapsulated strain, P2422, was incubated with type-specific antiserum to absorb out non-CPS specific binding. After washing the membrane, it was incubated with HRP-conjugated IgG goat anti-rabbit antibody (1:5000) for 1 hr at RT. The membrane was then developed with Thermo Femto Super sensitivity substrate and imaged using the iBright imaging system. Chemifluorescence readings were processed and densitometry area-under-the-curve analysis were performed in FIJI.

Bacteremia model

10-day-old pups of both sexes were given an IP inoculation containing 102 CFU of Spn suspended in 40 μl of PBS, as described previously [27]. Pups were euthanized 24 hrs post-inoculation, and blood was collected via cardiac puncture and cultured to assess for bacteremia. To select for a variant expressing increased CPS, the inoculum was increased to 107 CFU. To verify its importance in invasive infection, complement was depleted in 9-day-old pups of both sexes by IP administration of 20 ug of cobra venom factor (or PBS as a vehicle control) (Sigma-Aldrich) in 20 μL in PBS. The pups were then inoculated with Spn in the same manner as described above 24 hrs later. At 24 hrs post-inoculation, the pups were euthanized to perform blood collection and culture.

Colonization model

Pups of both sexes were given an intranasal inoculation without anesthesia containing 102 CFU of Spn suspended in 3 μl of PBS, as described previously [41] at either 4 days of age (T4 strains) or 10 days of age (T6A strains). To measure colonization density, pups were euthanized at the indicated time point by CO2 asphyxiation followed by cardiac puncture. The URT was lavaged with 250–500 μl of sterile PBS from a needle inserted into the trachea, and fluid was collected from the nares for quantitative culture. For strains not resistant to streptomycin (200 ug/ml), neomycin (5 ug/ml) was used to select against contaminants.

To assess Spn retention, pups were euthanized at 4 hrs post-infection following an inoculum of 102−3 CFU. To evaluate in vivo competition at 4 hrs, pups were co-infected with two strains expressing different amounts of CPS (~102−3 CFU per strain). Pups were euthanized at 4 hrs post-infection, and URT lavages were collected and plated on TS agar plates with catalase and appropriate antibiotics. Numbers of each strain were obtained based on morphological differences in colonies. Competition indices were calculated as the ratio of strains in the output divided by the ratio of strains in the inoculum.

To compare invasive infection following intranasal challenge, pups were inoculated intranasally at the dose and age described above. Pups were monitored daily for survival or moribund endpoint for 14 days following inoculation.

Comparison of surface shielding

Bacterial strains grown in TS broth at 37°C to an OD620nm of 1.0 were washed and diluted in 1% PBS-BSA to a final concentration of 106 CFU in 100 μL. Bacteria were stained with the mAb to phosphorylcholine, TEPC-15 (Sigma-Aldrich, 1:5000 dilution) followed by a FITC-labeled antibody to murine IgA. Reactions were carried out at 4° C for 30 mins without spin or wash steps in between. After staining, samples were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA), washed once with PBS, and resuspended in PBS. The surface shielding assay was also performed using ex vivo samples of bacteria collected from colonized mice. T6A strains P376 or P385 were administered IN to 10-day-old pups at a dose of 106 CFU in 3 μL. Two hours post-inoculation, pups were euthanized, and URT lavages collected. Lavages were pooled from at least 6 pups, pelleted and resuspended in 100 μL and treated as described above. Samples were analyzed by flow cytometry using the LSRII flow cytometer (BD Biosciences) and analyzed using FlowJo software (Tree Star).

Comparison of complement binding

Bacterial strains grown in TS broth at 37°C to an OD of 1.0 at 620nm were washed and resuspended in 1X PBS. 2.5x106 CFU of Spn in 25 μL were incubated with an equal volume of fresh normal mouse serum at 37 °C for 30 min. For negative controls, serum was pre-treated at 57°C for 30 min to heat-inactivate complement. The incubation was ended by adding 50 μL of 20 mM EDTA in 1X PBS. Cells were pelleted, resuspended, and then stained with FITC-conjugated anti-mouse C3 antibody (MP Biomedicals) at 4°C for 30 min. Cells were then fixed in 4% PFA and resuspended in 20 mM EDTA in 1x PBS. Samples were analyzed by flow cytometry using the LSRII flow cytometer (BD Biosciences) and analyzed using FlowJo software (Tree Star).

Transmission model

The pneumococcal transmission model with influenza A (IAV) co-infection was described in previous studies [42]. Briefly, one in four to five pups in the litter was randomly selected and, at an age of 4 days, infected with Spn (index mice) and then returned to cage containing the dam and the other uninfected pups (contact mice). For experiments involving type 6A strains, all pups in the litter were inoculated intranasally with 3 μl IAV/HKx31 containing 250 plaque-forming units three days after Spn infection. For experiments with type 4 strains, all pups were inoculated with IAV four days after Spn infection. Then, all pups were euthanized and nasal lavages were collected either four days after IAV infection (T6A strains) or six days after IAV infection (T4 strains). Lavages were cultured to detect bacterial transmission from the index to contact pups.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism 9.2.0 (GraphPad Software, Inc., San Diego, CA).

Dryad DOI

https://datadryad.org/stash/share/jpNBGQpWrHUawsaKV3Gen_3qFoVifuW5JqxMX-1xVd8 [43].

Data Availability

The link to our data Dryad provided is: https://datadryad.org/stash/share/jpNBGQpWrHUawsaKV3Gen_3qFoVifuW5JqxMX-1xVd8. Nucleotide sequencing data has been uploaded to NCBI under BioProject PRJNA930766.

Funding Statement

This manuscript was supported by NIH grants awarded to JNW (RO1 AI50893, R37 AI38446 and R21 AI50867).The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. No authors received a salary from any funders.

References

  • 1.Collaborators AR. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis. Lancet. 2022;399:629–55. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02724-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Weiser J, Ferreira D, Paton J. Streptococcus pneumoniae: transmission, colonization and invasion. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018;16:355–67. doi: 10.1038/s41579-018-0001-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Watson D, Musher D. Interruption of capsule production in Streptococcus pneumonia serotype 3 by insertion of transposon Tn916. Infect Immun. 1990;58:3135–8. doi: 10.1128/iai.58.9.3135-3138.1990 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Paton J, Trappetti C. Streptococcus pneumoniae Capsular Polysaccharide. Microbiol Spectr. 2019;7: doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.GPP3-0019-2018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hyams C, Camberlein E, Cohen J, Bax K, Brown J. The Streptococcus pneumoniae capsule inhibits complement activity and neutrophil phagocytosis by multiple mechanisms. Infect Immun. 2010;78(704–715). doi: 10.1128/IAI.00881-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hyams C, Yuste J, Bax K, Camberlein E, Weiser J, JS B. Streptococcus pneumoniae resistance to complement-mediated immunity is dependent on capsular serotype. Infect Immun. 2010;78:716–25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nelson A, Roche A, Gould J, Chim K, Ratner A, Weiser J. Capsule enhances pneumococcal colonization by limiting mucus-mediated clearance. Infect Immun. 2007;75:83–90. doi: 10.1128/IAI.01475-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Keller L, Robinson D, McDaniel L. Nonencapsulated Streptococcus pneumoniae: Emergence and Pathogenesis. Mbio. 2016;7:e01792. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01792-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Gertz RJ, Pimenta F, Chochua S, Larson S, Venero A, Bigogo G, et al. Nonpneumococcal Strains Recently Recovered from Carriage Specimens and Expressing Capsular Serotypes Highly Related or Identical to Pneumococcal Serotypes 2, 4, 9A, 13, and 23A. MBio. 2021;12:e01037–21. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01037-21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kilian M, Riley D, Jensen, Brüggemann H, Tettelin H. Parallel evolution of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Streptococcus mitis to pathogenic and mutualistic lifestyles. MBio. 2014;5:e01490–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Skov Sørensen U, Yao K, Yang, Tettelin H, Kilian M. Capsular Polysaccharide Expression in Commensal Streptococcus Species: Genetic and Antigenic Similarities to Streptococcus pneumoniae. Mbio. 2016;7:e01844–16. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01844-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Schaffner T, Hinds J, Gould K, Wüthrich D, Bruggmann R, Küffer M, et al. A point mutation in cpsE renders Streptococcus pneumoniae nonencapsulated and enhances its growth, adherence and competence. BMC Microbiol. 2014;14:210. doi: 10.1186/s12866-014-0210-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hammerschmidt S, Wolff S, Hocke A, Rosseau S, Müller E, Rohde M. Illustration of pneumococcal polysaccharide capsule during adherence and invasion of epithelial cells. Infect Immun. 2005;73:4653–67. doi: 10.1128/IAI.73.8.4653-4667.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chun Y, Tan K, Yu L, Pang M, Wong M, Nakamoto R, et al. Influence of glycan structure on the colonization of Streptococcus pneumoniae on human respiratory epithelial cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023;120:e2213584120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2213584120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Shainheit M, Valentino M, Gilmore M, Camilli A. Mutations in pneumococcal cpsE generated via in vitro serial passaging reveal a potential mechanism of reduced encapsulation utilized by a conjunctival isolate. J Bacteriol. 2015;197:1781–91. doi: 10.1128/JB.02602-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Weiser JN, Austrian R, Sreenivasan PK, Masure HR. Phase variation in pneumococcal opacity: relationship between colonial morphology and nasopharyngeal colonization. Infect Immun. 1994;62(6):2582–9. doi: 10.1128/iai.62.6.2582-2589.1994 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wang J, Li J, Li J, Huang Y, Wang S, Zhang J. Regulation of pneumococcal epigenetic and colony phases by multiple two-component regulatory systems. PLoS Pathog. 2020;16:e1008417. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1008417 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Manso A, Chai M, Atack J, Furi L, De Ste Croix M, Haigh R, et al. A random six-phase switch regulates pneumococcal virulence via global epigenetic changes. Nat Commun. 2014;5:5055. doi: 10.1038/ncomms6055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Li J, Li J, Feng Z, Wang J, An H, Liu Y, et al. Epigenetic switch driven by DNA inversions dictates phase variation in Streptococcus pneumoniae. PLoS Pathog. 2016;12:e1005762. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1005762 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kietzman C, Gao G, Mann B, Myers L, Tuomanen E. Dynamic capsule restructuring by the main pneumococcal autolysin LytA in response to the epithelium. Nat Commun. 2016;7:10859. doi: 10.1038/ncomms10859 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kim JO, Weiser JN. Association of intrastrain phase variation in quantity of capsular polysaccharide and teichoic acid with the virulence of Streptococcus pneumoniae. J Infect Dis. 1998;177:368–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Zafar M, Hamaguchi S, Zangari T, Cammer M, Weiser J. Capsule type and amount affect shedding and transmission of Streptococcus pneumoniae. MBio. 2017;8:e00989–17. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00989-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hentrich K, Löfling J, Pathak A, Nizet V, Varki A, Henriques-Normark B. Streptococcus pneumoniae Senses a Human-like Sialic Acid Profile via the Response Regulator CiaR. Cell Host Microbe. 2016;20:307–17. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2016.07.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Shen, Lees J, Bee G, Brown S, Weiser J. Pneumococcal quorum sensing drives an asymmetric owner-intruder competitive strategy during carriage via the competence regulon. Nat Microbiol. 2019;4:198–208. doi: 10.1038/s41564-018-0314-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Zhang Z, Clarke T, Weiser J. Cellular effectors mediating Th17-dependent clearance of pneumococcal colonization in mice. J Clin Invest. 2009;119:1899–909. doi: 10.1172/JCI36731 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Abruzzo A, Aggarwal S, Sharp M, Bee G, Weiser J. Serotype-Dependent Effects on the Dynamics of Pneumococcal Colonization and Implications for Transmission. mBio. 2022;13:e0015822. doi: 10.1128/mbio.00158-22 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kono M, Zafar M, Zuniga M, Roche A, Hamaguchi S, Weiser J. Single cell bottlenecks in the pathogenesis of Streptococcus pneumoniae. PLoS Pathog. 2016;12:e1005887. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1005887 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Richard A, Siegel S, Erikson J, Weiser J. TLR2 signaling decreases transmission of Streptococcus pneumoniae by limiting bacterial shedding in an infant mouse influenza A co-infection model. PLoS Pathog. 2014;10:e1004339. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1004339 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Magee A, Yother J. Requirement for capsule in colonization by Streptococcus pneumoniae. Infect Immun. 2001;69:3755–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Binsker U, Lees J, Hammond A, Weiser J. Immune exclusion by naturally acquired secretory IgA against pneumococcal pilus-1. I Clin Invest. 2020;130:927–41. doi: 10.1172/JCI132005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Dorrington M, Roche A, Chauvin S, Tu Z, Mossman K, Weiser J, et al. MARCO Is Required for TLR2- and Nod2-Mediated Responses to Streptococcus pneumoniae and Clearance of Pneumococcal Colonization in the Murine Nasopharynx. J Immunol. 2013;190:250–8. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1202113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Bogaert D, Thompson C, Trzcinski K, Malley R, Lipsitch M. The role of complement in innate and adaptive immunity to pneumococcal colonization and sepsis in a murine model. Vaccine. 2010;28:681–5. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.10.085 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.McCool T, Weiser J. Limited role of antibody in clearance of Streptococcus pneumoniae in a murine model of colonization. Infect Immun. 2004;72:5807–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.An H, Qian C, Huang Y, Li J, Tian X, Feng J, et al. Functional vulnerability of liver macrophages to capsules defines virulence of blood-borne bacteria. J Exp Med. 2022;219:e20212032. doi: 10.1084/jem.20212032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Morona J, Paton J, Miller D, Morona R. Tyrosine phosphorylation of CpsD negatively regulates capsular polysaccharide biosynthesis in Streptococcus pneumoniae. Mol Microbiol. 2000;35:1431–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Eichner H, Karlsson J, Spelmink L, Pathak A, Sham L, Henriques-Normark B, et al. RNA thermosensors facilitate Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae immune evasion. PLoS Pathog. 2021;17:e1009513. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009513 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Wen Z, Liu Y, Qu F, Zhang J. Allelic Variation of the Capsule Promoter Diversifies Encapsulation and Virulence In Streptococcus pneumoniae. Sci Rep. 2016;6:30176. doi: 10.1038/srep30176 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Glanville D, Gazioglu O, Marra M, Tokars V, Kushnir T, Habtom M, et al. Pneumococcal capsule expression is controlled through a conserved, distal cis-regulatory element during infection. PLoS Pathog. 2023;19:e1011035. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1011035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Wu K, Xu H, Zheng Y, Wang L, Zhang X, Yin Y. CpsR, a GntR family regulator, transcriptionally regulates capsular polysaccharide biosynthesis and governs bacterial virulence in Streptococcus pneumoniae. Sci Rep. 2016;6:29255. doi: 10.1038/srep29255 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Chen S, Zhou Y, Chen Y, Gu J. fastp: an ultra-fast all-in-one FASTQ preprocessor. Bioinformatics. 2018;34:i884–i90. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty560 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Zafar MA, Kono M, Wang Y, Zangari T, Weiser JN. Infant mouse model for the study of shedding and transmission during Streptococcus pneumoniae monoinfection. Infect Immun. 2016;84(9):2714–22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Zafar M, Kono M, Wang Y, Zangari T, Weiser J. An infant mouse model for studying shedding and transmission during Streptococcus pneumoniae mono-infection. Infect Immun. 2016;84:2714–22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Zhu J, Abruzzo A, Wu C, Bee G, Pironti A, Putzel G, et al. Effects of Capsular Polysaccharide Amount on Pneumococcal-Host Interactions. Dryad Digital Respository. 2023: https://datadryad.org/stash/share/jpNBGQpWrHUawsaKV3Gen_3qFoVifuW5JqxMX-1xVd8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Decision Letter 0

John M Leong, Marcel A Behr

16 Apr 2023

Dear Jeff,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Effects of Capsular Polysaccharide Amount on Pneumococcal-Host Interactions" for consideration at PLOS Pathogens. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you address the review recommendations. For example, reviewer 3 suggested that insight into or comment on possible mechanism(s) by which capsule might promote colonization (beyond counteracting an IL-17-dependent mechanism) or bacteremia (beyond counteracting complement; e.g., see Kupffer cell interaction, PMID 35258522) would strengthen this interesting manuscript. Please also note that since the submission of this manuscript, an analysis of different capsular serotypes has been published, PMID 36943879, that may be appropriate to include in your comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

John

John M Leong

Pearls Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Marcel Behr

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: This is a well written, concise manuscript examining the functional impact of variations in capsule thickness on steps in pathogenesis. The question is clearly posed in the context of opposing benefits in sites such as nasopharynx and blood. More capsule is believed to decrease interactions with host cells which impairs colonization and invasion but at the same time aid colonization and invasion by preventing phagocytosis, complement deposition and mucous clearance. This study has answers to this conundrum and indicates that capsule amount has a clear cutoff of benefit in each of several steps in pathogenesis.

The shielding assay is an excellent readout for capsule function.

Each assay is clearly explained and graphs show distinct differences.

The final graphs provide a nice peak into the clinical realm for relevance.

Reviewer #2: Streptococcus pneumoniae, part of the normal human nasopharyngeal microflora, is also a major pathogen whose capacity to cause invasive disease is critically dependent on production of a polysaccharide capsule, of which multiple serotypes exist. Invasive disease is invariably preceded by colonization of the upper respiratory tract, and such colonization also acts as a reservoir for transmission to new hosts. The critical role of the capsule in invasive disease is well understood, but its contribution to colonization and transmission has received only minimal attention to date. These early events are of fundamental importance to the host-pathogen interaction, particularly given that progression to invasive disease is an evolutionary dead end. The total amount of capsule presented on the pneumococcal surface impacts the degree of exposure of other surface components important for colonisation (e.g. adhesins), and the pneumococcus is known to be capable of regulating capsular expression by a variety of mechanisms. The generally held view has been that capsule might be less important in the nasopharynx than in the blood, where the invading organism is subject to highly efficient reticuloendothelial clearance mechanisms.

The present study turns this assumption on its head, providing convincing evidence that capacity to both colonise the nasopharynx in infant mice and to transmit to new hosts depends on maximal capsule expression. The authors use mutants in 2 different serotype backgrounds (4 and 6A) with reduced cps expression (due to point mutations in cpsE) and a genetically repaired fully encapsulated strain, to demonstrate that strains with <50% of the wild type level of cps expression exhibit poorer bacterial retention in the nasopharynx as well as more efficient clearance later in colonisation. This correlated with reduced transmission to new hosts. The strains with reduced cps expression exhibited greater accessibility of deeper cell wall structures to exogenous antibody and greater C3 deposition on the cell surface when exposed to normal mouse serum. Interestingly, differences in colonization were not seen in IL-17ra-/- mice, implying an important role for innate signalling in recruitment of neutrophils to facilitate bacterial clearance. The study provides important new insights into these critical events in the host-pathogen interaction, that are potentially applicable to a wider range of bacterial pathogens. The experiments are well planned and executed and the data are presented in a clear and logical fashion.

Reviewer #3: Strength

This paper describes the impact of pneumococcal capsule on colonization, transmission and invasive infection. The strengths include: 1) the importance of understanding the biology of capsule in pneumococcal carriage and invasive infection; 2) impact of capsule in shielding bacterial surface features; 3) using isogenic strains from two strain backgrounds for studying capsule.

Weakness

The paper is mostly descriptive in the nature of investigation from capsule amount, bacteremia in invasive infection, colonization, transmission and capsule thickness in wild strains. It lacks sufficient amount of data to explain how the amount of capsule makes those differences in various aspects of bacterial life/infection. In addition, the statement that the blood is the “dead end” for S. pneumoniae, and therefore thick capsule is meaningless for bacterial life and evolution seems to be too strong because bacteria in the blood may enhance bacterial transmission once being seeded into the lung environment from the circulation during bacteremic pneumonia. Moreover, the authors mostly cited their own work but did not make necessary connection to the previous studies in capsule function (see below).

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: NIL

Reviewer #3: Major experiments

1. How does capsule thickness impact invasive infection? Can this be due to the impaired resistance of partial capsule to Kupffer cell capture in the liver? Bacterial burden in the blood, liver and spleen at various time points post ip inoculation should be very revealing.

2. Fig. 2B shows the importance of capsule in dealing with Th17-based immunity during colonization, how could this happen?

3. Fig. 4 shows variable thickness of capsule in wild strains. Can these variations impact pneumococcal colonization, transmission and invasive infection?

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: Suggestions:

In view of the emphasis on amount of capsule, one area would be beneficial to further discuss. The spontaneous mutants are depicted as having a set amount of capsule. Yet it is likely that they still undergo processes such as phase variation and capsule shedding. Is this the case or are these more like the phase locked mutants developed in this lab? Either way, do the authors think that a 40% decrease in capsule is in the same ballpark as the changes invoked by phase variation or shedding? Or are the physiologic processes much less impactful on capsule amounts overall and represent just fine tuning? This might be assessed using the shielding assay.

Note: It would be helpful to define CM in the first Figure legend.

Reviewer #2: A minor irritation is the fact that the authors cite a couple of figure panels out of sequence (e.g. 1B cited after 1C, and 2E cited after figs 3 and 4). This may have been done to economise on the number of figures overall, but it doesn't help the flow of the paper. Perhaps the authors could consider whether some reorganisation (either text or figures) is in order at the revision stage.

Table 2 and lines 189-192: The reduced transmission to new hosts in the cps mutant immediately raises the question as to whether this is a consequence of reduced shedding by the index pups, or reduced establishment of colonization by the contact pups, or both. If the authors have data on levels of shedding then it would be good to present it. The point is raised later in the Discussion (lines 266-269), but perhaps it could be addressed at the first opportunity. It would also be helpful to have the time at which contacts were tested for colonisation to be specified in a footnote to Table 2, rather than having to refer to the Methods.

Line 474: there is a typo in the CFU/strain dose.

Reviewer #3: Page 19 line 383, assessment of surface shielding with TEPC-15 should cite a reference or provide justification for the method.

Page 19 line 388, full spelling of PFA should be provided.

Page 19 line 385, 391, “100uL” and “3uL” should be corrected with a space between number and unit; Greek letter should be used for micro.

Some importance literature needs to be cited to connect this work to the rest of the world, such as Magee et al. (doi: 10.1128/IAI.69.6.3755-3761.2001) has described pneumococcal strain expressing ~20% of the WT capsule is sufficient for nasal colonization; An et al. (doi: 10.1084/jem.20212032) report the importance of pneumococcal capsule in evading Kupffer cell capture in the liver in the context of invasive infection.

Figure 2, labeling of Y axis needs to be consistent across AB (bacterial burden) and CD (Bacteremia) if the two panels are talking about blood bacteria. Were blood bacteria in CD collected 24 hr post infection as in AB?

Being consistent with the expression of the same things across the paper, such as 100 CFU vs 102 CFU in Fig 2 and other figures.

Many more typo errors in the text, figure legends and references should be carefully corrected.

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Elaine Tuomanen

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Decision Letter 1

John M Leong, Marcel A Behr

24 Jun 2023

Dear Dr. Weiser,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Effects of Capsular Polysaccharide Amount on Pneumococcal-Host Interactions' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

John M Leong

Pearls Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Marcel Behr

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: My suggestions were addressed.

Reviewer #2: See previous report

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #1: I had none

Reviewer #2: Nil

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: Addressed

Reviewer #2: The authors have satisfactorily addressed the minor concerns I had with the original version of this interesting and important manuscript.

Reviewer #3: No

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Elaine Tuomanen

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Acceptance letter

John M Leong, Marcel A Behr

1 Aug 2023

Dear Dr. Weiser,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Effects of Capsular Polysaccharide Amount on Pneumococcal-Host Interactions," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the pre-publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Pearls, Reviews, Opinions, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript, if you opted to have an early version of your article, will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_PPATHOGENS-D-23-00361_5_15.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The link to our data Dryad provided is: https://datadryad.org/stash/share/jpNBGQpWrHUawsaKV3Gen_3qFoVifuW5JqxMX-1xVd8. Nucleotide sequencing data has been uploaded to NCBI under BioProject PRJNA930766.


    Articles from PLOS Pathogens are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES