Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Oct 24;18(10):e0289334. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289334

Host-pathogen interaction: Enterobacter cloacae exerts different adhesion and invasion capacities against different host cell types

Elisabet Frutos-Grilo 1,¤, Vanessa Kreling 2, Andreas Hensel 2,*, Susana Campoy 1
Editor: Kwame Kumi Asare3
PMCID: PMC10597508  PMID: 37874837

Abstract

New antibiotics are urgently needed due to the huge increase of multidrug-resistant bacteria. The underexplored gram-negative bacterium Enterobacter cloacae is known to cause severe urinary tract and lung infections (UTIs). The pathogenicity of E. cloacae in UTI has only been studied at the bioinformatic level, but until now not within systematic in vitro investigations. The present study assesses different human cell lines for monitoring the early steps of host-pathogen interaction regarding bacterial adhesion to and invasion into different host cells by flow cytometric adhesion assay, classical cell counting assay, gentamicin invasion assay, and confocal laser scanning microscopy. To our knowledge, this is the first report in which E. cloacae has been investigated for its interaction with human bladder, kidney, skin, and lung cell lines under in vitro conditions. Data indicate that E. cloacae exerts strong adhesion to urinary tract (bladder and kidney) and lung cells, a finding which correlates with the clinical relevance of the bacterium for induction of urinary tract and lung infections. Furthermore, E. cloacae ATCC 13047 barely adheres to skin cells (A-431) and shows no relevant interaction with intestinal cells (Caco-2, HT-29), even in the presence of mucin (HT29 MTX). In contrast, invasion assays and confocal laser scanning microscopy demonstrate that E. cloacae internalizes in all tested host cells, but to a different extent. Especially, bladder and kidney cells are being invaded to the highest extent. Defective mutants of fimH and fimA abolished the adhesion of E. cloacae to T24 cells, while csgA deletion had no influence on adhesion. These results indicate that E. cloacae has different pattern for adhesion and invasion depending on the target tissue, which again correlates with the clinical relevance of the pathogen. For detailed investigation of the early host-pathogen interaction T24 bladder cells comprise a suitable assay system for evaluation the bacterial adhesion and invasion.

Introduction

Enterobacter species, mostly E. cloacae and E. aerogenes, are responsible for causing many opportunistic nosocomial infections, and less commonly, community-acquired infections [1]. The clinical manifestations associated with Enterobacter spp. are diverse and often not distinguishable from those caused by other pathogens. Thus, Enterobacter spp. may cause urinary tract infections (UTIs), bacteraemia, lower respiratory tract infections or surgical site infections, and it also can colonize intravascular devices and among others [2].

In 1997, Sanders & Sanders started to highlight the incidence of E. cloacae in nosocomial infections and the appearance of multidrug-resistant strains [3]. Generally, these infections are of endogenous origin, occurring mostly in immunocompromised patients. However, the pathogen is naturally resistant to ampicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, cephamycin and the 1st and 2nd generation of cephalosporins owing to chromosomally encoded ampC β-lactamase [4]. Recently surveillance studies demonstrate also an increase of carbapenem-resistant E. cloacae isolates [5, 6]. Thus, multidrug-resistant E. cloacae are becoming an emerging threat to public health [7], representing a serious economic and public health issue for clinical healthcare [8, 9]. Despite being catalogued as a critical priority pathogen, the pathogenicity and virulence of this bacterium persist without being deeply studied, especially when looking at UTI [10, 11].

One of the first steps in host-pathogen interaction is the specific recognition of the host cell by the bacterium, followed by physical interaction of bacterial adhesins–mostly proteins, LPS, or glycosylated compounds from the outer membrane–with complementary binding partners from the host cell and subsequent invasion into the cell by membrane fusion or endosomal uptake [12]. The ability to adhere to host cell surfaces, such as epithelial tissues, is required for successful colonization and establishment of the infection. Therefore, it is a widespread attribute of gram-negative bacteria to express adherence factors responsible for recognizing and binding to specific receptors of the host cell, thus enabling the bacteria to invade the host cells and colonize the respective tissue [12]. For the majority of bacterial pathogens, one of the essential strategies to achieve and to initiate virulence and infection is the specific recognition and adhesion to epithelial tissues, which is prerequisite for the subsequent invasion into the host cell [13]. This host-pathogen interaction can be studied by use of in vitro models, using host cells and bacteria in a coincubation system, as in the case of the uropathogenic Escherichia coli [14]. Additionally, since several years, bacterial adhesion has been recognized as a valuable target for combating infections by use of the so-called antiadhesive drug compounds, inhibiting the early host-pathogen interaction [1518].

Thus, the screening for optimized lead compounds comprises promising projects. On the other side, it has to be kept in mind that different bacteria use different adhesion strategies. In this context, antiadhesive compounds have been recognized to be developed specifically against a specific bacterium, and they cannot be developed as a general tool against a broad range of pathogens. Therefore, in vitro drug screening for anti-adhesive or anti-invasive compounds against E. cloacae needs the development and validation of the respective cell-based assay systems. Nonetheless, in vitro cell culture protocols, measuring Enterobacter adhesion or invasion abilities have been conducted only in a low variety of cell lines, such as Caco-2, HEp-2, and HeLa [13, 19], any of them related to urinary tract or pulmonary tissue, which are clearly targets of Enterobacter infections [2]. Therefore, the present work compares the interaction of E. cloacae with cell lines originating from the urinary tract with that of other human epithelial tissues. This aims to supply evidence of our consistent in vitro model to broaden the knowledge of E. cloacae in UTIs. Furthermore, the herein obtained data indicate wide specificity of E. cloacae against the different cell types, not only regarding the bacterial adhesion but also concerning the internalization into the eukaryotic cells. Using these data sets, human T24 bladder and A-498 kidney cells are described for the first time as suitable in vitro models for adhesion and anti-adhesion studies of E. cloacae.

Material and methods

Bacterial strains, eukaryotic strains, and growth conditions

All strains used in this work are listed in Table 1. E. cloacae ATCC 13047 (NCBI: txid716541) was used as type strain [13, 20]. E. cloacae strains were grown for 16 h at 37°C/10% CO2 in Luria Bertuni (LB) 1.7% agar plates. When needed, antibiotics were added into the LB agar plates at suitable concentrations (e.g., chloramphenicol 34 μg/mL (Roche), kanamycin 50 μg/mL (Applichem) and gentamicin 20 μg/mL (Applichem).

Table 1. Bacterial and eukaryotic cells and plasmids.

Strain or plasmid Relevant characteristic(s) Source or reference
Bacterial strains
DH5α E. coli supE4 ΔlacU169 (φ80 ΔlacZ ΔM15) hsdR17, recA1, endA1, gyrA96, thi-1, relA1 Clontech
ATCC 13047 E. cloacae subs. cloacae (Jordan) wild type strain, AmpR ATCC
UA1953 E. cloacae ΔfimA, AmpR, GmR This work
UA1954 E. cloacae ΔfimH, AmpR, GmR This work
UA1955 E. cloacae ΔcsgA, AmpR, GmR This work
UA1956 E. cloacae ΔfimA pUA1108(Kan)::fimA, AmpR, GmR, KanR This work
UA1957 E. cloacae ΔfimH pUA1108(Kan)::fimA, AmpR, GmR, KanR This work
UA1958 E. cloacae ΔcsgA pUA1108(Kan):: csgA, AmpR, GmR, KanR This work
Eukaryotic strains
ATCC T24 (HTB-4) Epithelial human urinary bladder cells isolated from a transitional carcinoma Generous gift of Prof. Straube
ATCC A-498 (HTB-44) Epithelial human urinary kidney cells isolated from a carcinoma Generous gift of Dr. M. Hilgruber
ATCC A-431 (CRL-1555) Epithelial human epidermic skin cells isolated from an epidermoid carcinoma Generous gift of Prof. J. Jose
ATCC A-549 (CCL-185) Epithelial human lung cells isolated from a carcinoma Generous gift of Prof. S. Ludwig
ATCC Caco-2 (HTB-37) Epithelial human colon cells isolated from a colorectal adenocarcinoma. Knowing that E. cloacae is present in the gut microbiome and the fact that this cell line has been used in other works, colon tissue cells were selected European Collection of Authenticated Cell Cultures
HT29 (HTB-38) Epithelial human colon cells isolated from a colorectal adenocarcinoma. Adenocarcinoma colorectal, ATCC
HT29-MTX-E12 Mucus-secreting subclones derived from HT29 treated with methotrexate. Generous gift from Prof. K. Langer Haga clic o pulse aquí para escribir texto.
Plasmids
pKOBEG Vector containing the λ Red recombinase system, CmR, temperature sensitive Generous gift of Prof. G. M. Ghigo Haga clic o pulse aquí para escribir texto.
pVRL1 Vector carrying a gentamicin cassette, GmR Generous gift of Prof. P. Visca Haga clic o pulse aquí para escribir texto.
pKD4 Vector carrying FRT-Kan construction, AmpR, KanR [21]
pUA1108 pGEX 4T-1 derivative plasmid carrying without the GST fusion tag, carrying only the Ptac IPTG-inducible promoter and the lacIq gene; AmpR [22]
pUA1149 pUA1108 derivative plasmid containing the native E. cloacae fimA gene under the control of the Ptac promoter, KanR [pUA1108(Kan)::fimA] This work
pUA1150 pUA1108 derivative plasmid containing the native E. cloacae fimH gene under the control of the Ptac promoter, KanR [pUA1108(Kan)::fimH] This work
pUA1151 pUA1108 derivative plasmid containing the native E. cloacae csgA gene under the control of the Ptac promoter, KanR [pUA1108(Kan)::csgA] This work

Cell culture

All cell lines used in this work are described in Table 1. Different human cell lines were chosen for the adhesion assays, reflecting different organs, which can be targeted according to E. cloacae infections.

Cell lines used in this work were routinely cultured with DMEM 4.5 g/L glucose, with stable glutamine, without sodium pyruvate and 3.7 g/L NaHCO3 media (PAN Biotech), supplemented with 1% (v/v) fetal calf serum (FCS) (Merck), and 0.5% (v/v) penicillin-streptomycin (Merck) at 37°C and 5% CO2 (for T24, A-431, A-498 and A-549) or 10% CO2 (Caco-2, HT29, HT29 MTX). For experiments, passages #68–80 for T24, #32–54 for Caco-2, #35–46 for HT29, #42–53 for HT29-MTX, #22–33 for A-431, #48–59 for A-498, and #21–32 for A-549 were used. Prior to each in vitro experiment, cells were inspected under inverted light microscope to ensure confluence and the absence of any anomaly.

Adhesion assay

The assay for quantifying bacterial adhesion to eucaryotic host cells was performed as described recently for uropathogenic E. coli and H. pylori [23, 24], with some modifications to adapt it to E. cloacae particularities.

For the assay, 5 ×105 eukaryotic cells/wells were seeded into 12-well plates and incubated at 37°C (CO2 content in the atmosphere according to the respective cell line) for 48 h in DMEM, supplemented with 10% FCS and 0.5% pen/strep, up to 90 to 100% of confluence. The medium was removed, cells were washed 1 × with PBS and incubated together with 900 μL of DMEM/FCS. A bacterial cell suspension was prepared by diluting 16-hours LB plate grown E. cloacae in DMEM/FCS and an OD640 nm of 4 (after appropriate dilution to enter a valid photometric range). In cases where flow cytometry was used for quantification, the bacteria were stained with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC, Sigma). The labelling was performed by resuspending the bacteria in sterile saline solution (NaCl 150 mM, Na2CO3 100 mM, pH 8.0) to an OD640nm of 8 (after appropriate dilution to enter a valid photometric range), corresponding to 2 ×109 CFU/mL. 900 μL of this suspension were incubated for 60 min at 37°C together with 100 μL of a FITC solution (10 mg/mL). FITC-labelled bacteria were washed 3 × with PBS (8 g/L NaCl, 0.2 g/L KCl, 1.44 g Na2HPO4 and 0.1 g KH2PO4) and resuspended in DMEM/FCS, adjusting the solution to an OD640nm of 4. All further steps with FITC-labelled E. cloacae were performed under light protection. The bacterial concentration was confirmed by serial dilutions and plating on LB agar plates, thus calculating the colony forming units (CFU)/mL.

In all cases, bacteria were added into the wells to allow their contact with the eukaryotic cells for 1 h at 37°C/5-10% CO2. For these experiments, different bacteria/eukaryotic cell ratios (BCR) and CO2 concentrations (from 5–10%) were used. Uninfected control groups were used by investigating host cell lines without addition of any bacteria. Following the incubation, non-adhered bacteria were removed by washing 3 × with PBS and those remaining were quantified.

For flow cytometric quantification, cells were detached by addition of 500 μL of trypsin/EDTA (Merck). Trypsinization was stopped after 5 min by addition of 500 μL of FCS. Cells were pelleted for 4 min at 350 × g and resuspended in 500 μL of DMEM/FCS. Fluorescence of the cell suspension was measured immediately by flow cytometry (CytoFLEX, Beckman Coulter, λ = 488 nm / 540 nm). For each replicate, at least 10.000 counts per sample from viable cell gate replica were performed. The mean relative fluorescence intensity (median, M) of each sample population was determined. Thus, the increased value of the median represents a higher number of FITC-labelled bacteria attached to a host cell. The relative adhesion was calculated from the measured median of the infected cells compared to that of the control without bacteria.

For classical adhesion assays [19, 25], after washing steps, cells were recovered by disrupting the host cells by 5 min of incubation in the presence of Triton X-100 (0.1% in PBS) with shaking at 400 rpm and vortexing some seconds every minute. The membrane disruption was ensured by visualizing the samples under the light field inverted microscope. After homogenization, the lysates containing total cell-associated bacteria were serially diluted in PBS and plated onto LB agar plates to enumerate adherent bacteria. To determine the bacterial adhesion, the recovered E. cloacae were compared with the initially added bacteria, giving rise to the number of adhered bacteria.

Data results from at least three independent experiments (different cell line passages, and different bacterial passages and different day).

Invasion assay

The ability of E. cloacae to invade into the cell was determined using a gentamicin-protective assay [26, 27]. In this experiment, 5 ×105 eukaryotic cells/well were seeded into 12-well plates and incubated at 37°C/5-10% CO2 for approximately 48 h in DMEM, supplemented with 10% FCS and 0.5% pen/strep until confluence of 90 to 100% was reached. The medium was removed, cells were washed 1 × with PBS and incubated with 900 μL of DMEM, supplemented with 10% FCS. The bacterial suspension [OD640 nm = 4 (after appropriate dilution to enter a valid photometric range).] had been prepared from diluting 16 h LB plate grown E. cloacae in DMEM/FCS. For all cell lines investigated, a BCR of 100:1 was used. Following a 3 h coincubation at 37°C/5-10% CO2, eukaryotic cells were washed 1 × and incubated for 1 h at 37°C/5-10% CO2 together with a gentamicin solution (100 μg/mL, Applichem) in DMEM/FCS to remove free and adhered bacteria, thus conserving intracellular bacteria. Subsequently, the gentamicin-treated cells were incubated for 5 min with Triton X-100 (0.1% in PBS) by shaking at 400 rpm and vortexing some seconds every minute. Membrane disruption and cell lysis was controlled by visualizing the samples under the light field inverted microscope. The bacteria concentration of the so obtained suspension was determined by plating on LB agar plates. As control, cells incubated without bacteria (non-infected control) was included.

The activity of gentamicin in effective killing the E. cloacae under the described conditions has been validated in pre-experiments (S1 Fig in S1 Data). Further, it has been previously shown that gentamicin has no effect in the viability of human cells and thus has been used within invasion assays [2832]. All experiments were performed in triplicate.

For the posterior data evaluation, the median from the determined CFU/mL, obtained from the cell lysate from three independent experiments (different cell passages, different bacterial passages and different experimental day) was calculated.

Visualization of adhered and internalized E. cloacae in T24 cells by confocal laser scanning microscopy

For visualization of the adhesion and invasion of FITC-labelled E. cloacae by confocal laser scanning microscopy, a glass coverslip (⌀ 13 mm, VWR) inside a 12-well plate was treated with 200 μL of a solution of collagen I from rat tail (ChemCruz) (4 mg/mL in acetic acid 0.02 mol/L) for 1 h under UV light exposure (approximately 254 nm). Subsequently, the coverslips were air-dried. Afterwards, 5 ×105 T24 cells/wells were seeded into the 12-well plates with the coverslips and incubated at 37°C/5% CO2 for 48 h until 90 to 100% confluency. Cells were washed 1 × with PBS. After incubation with 1 mL of AlexaFluor™ 594 conjugated to wheat germ agglutinin (WGA, Invitrogen) (25 μg/200 μL in PBS, staining with 50 μL) and DAPI (Carl Roth (0.35 Mol/L in PBS, staining with 200 μL) for 20 min at 37°C/5-10% CO2 under light protection, cells were washed 3 × with PBS and incubated with 1 mL of DMEM/FCS and the FITC-labelled E. cloacae at a BCR of 100:1.

For monitoring bacterial adhesion 1 h of incubation was used, for invasion assay a 3 h period plus a 1 h of incubation with gentamicin solution (100 μg/mL) was used. Subsequently, supernatants were removed, the cells were washed 3 × with PBS, fixated for 15 min by use of paraformaldehyde 4%, and washed 1 × with PBS and 1 × with water and mounted onto slides using Fluoromount-G™ (Invitrogen) Samples were visualized under the confocal microscope LSM800 Axio Observer Z1 (Carl Zeiss) using AF568 (λDetection 575–700 nm), FITC (λDetection 505–575 nm) and DAPI (λDetection 400–505 nm) channels and z-stacking of 15 slices per image. Micrographs were treated with ImageJ software [33] and analyzed by the Cross Section Viewer plugin [34]. Non-infected controls were prepared in a similar way, but without addition of bacteria to the cells; as expected, no FITC fluorescence was observed.

For statistical evaluation, the experiments were independently repeated with at least 3 biological experiments at different days using different biological passages.

Construction of E. cloacae knock-mutants and complemented strains

E. cloacae ΔfimA, ΔfimH and ΔcsgA strains were constructed according to the λRed recombinase-based gene replacement method [21]. Gentamycin cassette were obtained by PCR from pVRL1 vector [35] using suitable oligonucleotides (S1 Table in S1 Data). The oligonucleotides incorporate the homology regions of the E. cloacae target gene (S1 Table in S1 Data). The PCR products were transformed into the corresponding E. cloacae cells containing the pKOBEG plasmid [36] (Table 1).

Plasmids harboring the corresponding tagged genes were constructed using the HiFi DNA assembly cloning kit (NEB) and the appropriate oligonucleotides (S1 Table in S1 Data). All PCR products were purified, cloned into the pUA1108 overexpression vector [22, 37] and transformed into E. coli DH5α (Table 1) [21]. Then, bla gene were disrupted using ScaI restriction enzyme (NEB) and kanamycin cassette from pKD4 vector were cloned in that space. In all cases, gene substitution and plasmid constructions were confirmed by PCR and sequencing (Macrogen, Madrid).

Statistical analysis

Results from three independent assays performed in each described experiments were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Dunnett’s posttest (compare all pairs of columns) for statistical analysis by GraphPad Prism 7 (GraphPad Software, Inc.). In all cases, first column was taken as control to compare the other columns. P < 0.05 was determined as statistically significant (*) and p < 0.01 as highly significant (**).

Results

E. cloacae ATCC 13047 adheres efficiently to urinary tract and lung cell tissues, but not to intestinal and skin cells

To investigate the potential of E. cloacae ATCC 13047T24 to adhere to different human cell types, representing different organs, bladder cells (T24), kidney cells (A-498), intestinal cells (Caco-2), lung cells (A-549) and cells from skin epidermis (A-431) were incubated at BCR 100:1 with FITC-labeled bacteria for 60 min, followed by flow cytometric quantification of host cells with adhering bacteria [16, 23]. Alternatively, classical quantification of bacterial adhesion was performed by CFU counting of the bacterial load [19, 25]. Using this kind of protocol, fluorescence staining of the bacteria is not required. However, the here described use of flow cytometry provides additional information on the status of the eukaryotic cells, such as cell death rate, discernment of cells with different number of adhered bacteria, or even cell differentiation determination [38].

Using this protocol, strong interaction of FITC-labelled E. cloacae with T-24 bladder cells, A-498 kidney cells, and A-549 lung cells was observed at BCR 100:1. A-431 and Caco-2 cells turned out to have no or only limited binding capacity against the bacterial treatment under these conditions and no adhesion or docking of the bacteria is observed (Fig 1A). Additionally, it got obvious that lower titers of E. cloacae load (BCR of 10:1) were not enough to initiate relevant bacterial adhesion to T-24, A-498 and A-549 cells (Fig 1B). This could be because either a certain amount of bacteria is needed to infect the host cells or it is simply due to a very low fluorescence intensity as only a low amount of bacteria has been used in this protocol. Considering that E. cloacae displayed only low interaction with Caco-2 and A-431 cells at BCR 100:1, also BCR 500:1 was also employed for the adhesion assays with these cell lines (Fig 1C). However, this only results in a slight increase in fluorescence intensity, indicating that also increased bacteria level will not lead to more adhesion to Caco-2 and A-431 cells.

Fig 1. Relative adhesion of FITC-labeled E. cloacae at different bacteria cell ratios (BCR) on cell lines from different tissues (T24 bladder cells, A-498 kidney cells, Caco-2 colon cells, A-431 epidermal cells and A-549 lung cells) as determined by flow cytometry.

Fig 1

A: BCR 100:1; B: BCR 10:1; C: 500:1. Relative data indicate the fluorescence related to uninfected cells. Values represent the mean ± SD from three independent assays and X-bar begins at Y = 1. *: p < 0.05, related to the relative adhesion of bacteria to T-24 cells.

For validation of these results, it had to be ensured that the bacterial adhesion of E. cloacae to the host cells is not disturbed by exotoxin secretion of the bacteria. For that, filtered media of E. cloacae cultures were tested on T24, Caco-2, A-431, A-498 and A549 cells to assess potential cytotoxicity by MTT assay. Briefly, different cell free supernatants (CFS) were accomplished using different OD inoculations (0.2, 1.0 and 4.0) and times of growth (0, 30 min, 1 h, 3 h and 5 h) and incubated together with the cell lines over 48 h. As shown in S2 Fig in S1 Data no relevant influence of the test solutions on the cellular viability was observed. This indicates that the effects observed within the adhesion assay are due to the direct contact of E. cloacae with the host cells, as the filtered supernatants from E. cloacae cultures did not induce any significant cytotoxic effects against the different cell lines.

To confirm the results of the adhesion assay, the interaction of E. cloacae to the cell surface of the T24 cells at BCR 100:1 after 60 min of incubation was affirmed by confocal laser scanning microscopy (Fig 2). Location of FITC-labelled bacteria can clearly be assigned to occur on the outer side of the host cells. Internalization of the bacteria inside the cell was not observed within this protocol, indicating that bacterial invasion needs prolonged incubation times.

Fig 2. Confocal laser scanning microscopy of T24 bladder cells infected with E. cloacae at BCR 100:1.

Fig 2

Different z-stack sections reveal representative (A) top, (B) middle, and (C) below sections of T24 cells. The cross section in y axis view from the yellow line in A, B, and C images is represented in (D). E. cloacae cells are displayed in green after staining with FITC, cell nuclei of T24 cells (blue) are stained with DAPI, and wheat germ agglutinin stain host cell membranes with AlexaFluor™ 594 (red).

As mentioned above, E. cloacae is a commensal microbe from the gut, so we were surprised by the low bacterial adhesion observed to Caco-2 cells. Based on this finding other colonic cell lines, such as HT29 and HT29-MTX were integrated into this study, also to assess the possibility that the presence of mucin could prompt the adhesion. Mucin MUC-2 is produced only at very low levels low quantities by HT29 cells, while HT29-MTX cells are strong mucin producing cells after cell differentiation (approximately at day 21) [39, 40].

Every 2 to 3 days the media of Caco-2, HT29 and HT29-MTX cells were renewed to ensure optimal conditions and mucin droplet formation from HT29-MTX cells was confirmed by microscopic observations. The Enterobacter adhesion ability to these cell lines was tested. Additionally, the study was performed at different cultivation times of the host cells to ensure that potential phenotypic changes during cultivation could be investigated for their putative influence on bacterial adhesion. As shown in Fig 3, E. cloacae exhibits lower adhesion onto HT29 and HT29-MTX than to Caco-2 cells. This corroborates the low interaction of E. cloacae to intestinal cells and demonstrates that mucin secretion seems to have no influence on the adhesion of Enterobacter.

Fig 3. Relative adhesion of FITC-labeled E. cloacae at BCR 500:1 to Caco-2, HT29 and HT29-MTX at different days of post-seeding (2, 10, and 25).

Fig 3

Relative data indicate the fluorescence related to uninfected cells and has been calculated from the median of the infected cells compared to that of the control without bacteria. Values represent the mean ± SD from three independent assays and X-bar begins at Y = 1.

Cells from the urinary tract tissues, especially bladder cells, are more susceptible to E. cloacae internalization

It is not known whether E. cloacae is capable of invading urinary or respiratory cells. Therefore, and considering that adhesion is a necessary initial step to develop invasion, in vitro invasion assays were performed to investigate susceptibility of T24 bladder cells for E. cloacae invasion. Furthermore, Caco-2, A-431, A-498 and A-549 cell were also analyzed. For invasion assay, incubation of the host cells with E. cloacae was performed for a contact time of 3 h, followed by the removal of non-invasive bacteria by gentamicin treatment. Internalized bacteria were released and seeded onto plates for quantification. Interestingly, E. cloacae was able to get internalized into all cell types, but to a different extent (Fig 4). T-24 bladder cells turned out to be most susceptible for invasion (1.7 ×106 ± 2.5 ×105 CFU/mL), followed closely by A-498 kidney cells (1.2 ×106 ± 2.2×105 CFU/mL), while A-431, Caco-2 and A-549 cells were invaded to a lower extent´ (5.9 ×105 ± 2.6×105 CFU/mL, 2.3 ×105 ± 1.1×105 CFU/mL, 5.1 ×103 ± 2.2×103 CFU/mL, respectively).

Fig 4. E. cloacae load isolated from the different cell lines after invasion assay at BCR 100:1.

Fig 4

Data indicate the CFU/mL isolated from T24, Caco-2, A431, A498, or A-549 cells. Values represent the mean ± SD from three independent assays. One-way ANOVA and Dunnett’s multiple comparison test (comparing all columns with T24) were used for statistical analysis. P < 0.05 was determined as statistically significant (*) and p < 0.01 as highly significant (**) compared to the bacterial invasion determined for T24 cells.

Within the next step, confocal laser scanning microscopy was performed for specific monitoring of the internalization of the FITC-labelled E. cloacae into T24 cells, indicating strong accumulation of the bacteria inside the host cells (Fig 5).

Fig 5. Confocal laser scanning microscopy of T24 bladder cells infected with E. cloacae at BCR 100:1 for monitoring bacterial invasion into host cells.

Fig 5

Different z-stack sections reveal representative (A) top, (B) middle, and (C) below sections of T24 cells. The cross section in y axis view from the yellow line in A, B, and C images is represented in (D). E. cloacae cells are displayed in green after staining with FITC, cell nuclei of T24 cells (blue) are stained with DAPI, and wheat germ agglutinin stains host cell membranes with AlexaFluor™ 594 (red).

Type I pilus fimbriae, but not curli fimbriae, is required for the adhesion of E. cloacae onto bladder cells

For more detailed investigation of potential adhesive strategies of E. cloacae to interact with T24 bladder cells and to determine their virulence capability, different mutants were constructed and used for adhesion testing. For practical reasons quantification of bacterial adhesion was not performed by flowcytometric evaluation, but by use of classical adhesion assay, using cell counting. For preparation of mutants, the following genes were selected: fimH and fimA, which are regarded to be the major adhesin and the major subunit of type 1 pili respectively [41], and csgA, encoding for the major structural subunit of curli fimbriae [42].

The role of all these genes in the attachment to bladder cells has been clearly demonstrated for E. coli UPEC strains [43, 44]. Nevertheless, the association of either fimH, fimA, or csgA has never been determined in E. cloacae. Thus, to assay their implication on adhesion and to further validate T24 adhesion assay as a E. cloacae adhesion model, defective mutants for each gene were constructed by λRed system [19, 21]. Their adhesion activity to T24 cells was confirmed and it is shown in Fig 6. Interestingly, the deletion of both, fimA and fimH prompts out the absence of adhesion, as happens in E. coli UPEC, strains while no change with respect to that of the wild-type strain was observed in the absence of CsgA.

Fig 6. Relative adhesion of E. cloacae to T-24 bladder cells (BCR 100:1, 60 min) observed in absence of fimA, fimH, or csgA genes, and complemented derivatives.

Fig 6

Data indicate the percentage of adhered bacteria in relation to the total bacterial count added to each sample (CFU/mL bacteria isolated after adhesion assay × 100 / CFU/mL bacteria added to each sample). NC: negative control (non-infected T-24 cells). Values represent the mean ± SD of three independent assays. **: p < 0.01, related to wild type bacteria.

To further confirm these results, the ΔfimA and ΔfimH derivative strains were complemented using a plasmid carrying the corresponding deleted gene (Table 1, S4 in S1 Data). As shown in Fig 6, the presence of the plasmid carrying a copy of the deleted gene restores completely adhesion ability of the mutant strains, confirming unequivocally that FimA and FimH are needed for Enterobacter adhesion.

Discussion

Bacteria must colonize host cells for the effective development of an infection. In this context, specific recognition and physical adhesion by protein-protein, protein-carbohydrate or carbohydrate-carbohydrate interaction is the first step prior to the invasion and/or secretion of toxins, thus it is a key event to be studied in bacterial pathogenesis [45]. For a better comparison and discussion, the results of the different adhesion and invasion assays obtained for the different cell lines have been summarized and relativized to T-24 cell as heat-map in Fig 7. Data from the present study provide information of adhesion and invasion properties of E. cloacae to different epithelial cell types, indicating strong preference of the bacterium towards cells of the urinary tract and bronchial tract (Fig 7). The described effects are assessed to be due to the direct contact of E. cloacae with the host cells, as the bacterium was shown not to induce significant cytotoxic effects against the different cell lines (S2 Fig in S1 Data).

Fig 7. Relative adhesion and invasion results [%] of E. cloacae ATCC 13047 at BCR 100:1 against different cell lines, characterizing different tissue types.

Fig 7

Relative data are normalized against the interaction with T-24 bladder cells (= 100%). The degree of adhesion and invasion is colored by the heat map as displayed by the color bar legend. Identities closer to 0% are shown in red, and those higher than 100% in green.

Results visualized in Fig 7 clearly pointed out that the selection of the correct cell line is crucial for the development of cell-surface adhesion and invasion by E. cloacae. Overall, the obtained results indicate that the ability of E. cloacae to adhere to and invade into epithelial tissues is remarkably wide. For instance, T-24 and A-498 cells, both originating from the urinary tract, and A-549 from alveolar tissue, show the highest degree of interaction with E. cloacae at a BCR of 100:1. Additionally, a BCR of 10:1 was not enough to allow the adherence of higher amounts of bacteria to the host surface. The differences in the obtained results for these three tissues using the BCR of 10:1 and 100:1 were not proportional, demonstrating that a minimal load of inoculum might be required, where quorum sensing could be discussed for this phenomenon. UTIs represent the most common bacterial infections worldwide [46]. In fact, results obtained in this work point out that the main target for E. cloacae is indeed those tissues associated with the urinary tract (bladder and kidney). This is also in good correlation of epidemiological data sets for Enterobacter, responsible mainly for UTI and bronchial infections [47]. As intestinal cells are less infected by E. cloacae seems not surprising, as the gut is the normal habitat in humans for this organism. Also, infections of the skin by E. cloacae have been reported only very rarely [47].

However, due to the urinary tract anatomy and the acquisition of infection via the urethra, the risk of lower UTI progressing to pyelonephritis is low [46]. Considering this statement and the obtained data, the use of the herein T24 bladder cells described model to follow up studies on the different virulence factors of E. cloacae and its strategies for infecting cells might be interesting. In fact, and regarding the evaluation of the adhesion strategies using T24 model, our investigations of knock-out mutants strongly indicate that the absence of fimA, fimH genes significantly decreased the adhesion ability of E. cloacae to the host cells. Interestingly, the bacterial adhesion of these mutants was at a very low level, which might indicate that the products of fimA and fimH seem to be important adhesins of E. cloacae and that other adhesins are either not expressed or do not contribute to a higher extent to the specific interaction with the bladder cells. These in vitro finding should be investigated in further studies also within in vivo infections studies. As the fimbrial adhesins from UPEC are typical mannose-binding proteins, we hypothetise that the interaction of E. cloacae with T-24 bladder cells is due to a recognition of highly mannosylated uroplakin Ia and IIIa of the bladder cells, known to be the binding partner of the lectin-like domain of FimH from UPEC [48].

It must be noted that Pili type 1 (PT-I) are involved in binding to collagen type I and biofilm formation [49, 50], and, in contrast to PT-III, PT-I are present on E. cloacae ATCC 13047 proteome (S1 File in S1 Data). In that context, the deficiency of fimA or fimH genes, both needed for the correct assembly of PT-I [41], showed a strong reduction of the ability to adhere onto the T24 bladder cells. That result is not surprising because these genes are also crucial for other bacterial strains, but it is the first time observed in E. cloacae. Furthermore, the herein constructed ΔfimA and ΔfimH mutants are perfect controls for adhesion studies using T24 bladder cells as a cell line model.

On the other hand, curli fimbria is known to be associated to the adhesion related with human UPEC-induced cystitis, for instance over HTB-9 [42] and HTB-5 [43]. On the contrary, our results clearly provided evidence that they are not associated with E. cloacae adhesion to T24 since the ΔcsgA mutant display the same adhesion phenotype than the wild-type strain, and as shown by qPCR the strain ATCC13047 expresses curli under the test condition (S5 Fig in S1 Data). These contrary results can be explained in cases where we understand the phenotypic differences between cell lines even originating from the same organ (e.g., from the bladder epithelium), but from different human transitional carcinoma stages (e.g., grade I for T24, grade II for HTB-9 and grade IV for HTB-5) [51]. These differences can be correlated to different expression of bacteria-binding proteins, different TLRs or different glycosylation pattern of the cell matrix. Unfortunately, no further information on the proteome and glycome of the different cell types is available at the moment for a deeper discussion.

With respect to A-549 cell line-adenocarcinomic human alveolar basal epithelial cells, it displayed a highly sensitive ability to adhesion by E. cloacae (Fig 1). Alternatively, invasiveness is surprisingly insignificant (Fig 4), demonstrating once more a cell-dependent adhesion and/or invasion ability by E. cloacae. Pneumoniae caused by E. cloacae has been reported and discussed in detail [52, 53] and especially the high mortality rate due to manyfold and strong complications leads to hospitalization of most patients in intensive care units. It might be discussed for pneumonia, that E. cloacae may prefer to expand through the inner-alveolar surface, elevating the load of bacteria and precluding the correct CO2/O2 interchange within the lungs.

In contrast to T24, A498 and A-549 epithelial cells, the adhesion results onto A-431 and, specially, Caco-2 cells, displayed the lowest interaction values. The results of Caco-2 cells seem surprising due to the usage of these cell line in former adhesion studies with other Enterobacter species [54]. Also, other intestinal cells (HT29 from colorectal adenocarcinoma and the mucin-secreting cell line HT29-MTX) are not sensitive to adhesion of E. cloacae.

For that reason, we expected a higher degree of adhesion to intestinal cells Caco-2 cells, and the results were not improved using other mucin-producer cell lines such as HT29 and HT29-MTX, as shown in Fig 3. It has to be kept in mind that E. cloacae is part of the normal microbiota of the gut of 40 to 80% of the population and is also found in a high proportion of sewage samples, at concentrations up to 107 organisms per gram [55, 56]. The essential part of the intestinal barrier function, the mucin, has been described to help the colonization of different strains such as Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Streptococcus gallolyticus and Clostrydium butyricum [5759]. Nonetheless, the present results also demonstrated that MUC-2, the major gel-forming mucin present on colonic mucus [60], did not affect the adhesion values of E. cloacae. Pilus type 3 (PT-III) is required for binding to colonic mucus [58], which is not present in that strain. However, despite the low adhesion values (but existing) onto the colonic cells, E. cloacae is able to properly invade them although to a much lower extent compared to uroepithelial tested cells. Hence, its capacity to invade Caco-2 cells with a low previous adhesion may exhort a rapid and easy translocation of bacteria into these host cells. Nonetheless, further work is needed to understand the molecular mechanisms that allow this Enterobacter translocation inside the eukaryotic cells.

Overall, our results demonstrated that a high surface adhesion does not strictly means a good translocation into the colonized cell, and neither does a tissue with a high density of internalized bacteria means they were well attached to those eukaryotic cells. However, our results support strong evidence that T24 bladder cell line is a suitable model for adhesion and invasion studies for an improved understanding of the claimed pathogenicity of this bacterium in UTIs. In addition, the herein constructed E. cloacae fimA or fimH defective strains can be used as negative controls for adhesion assays. Further work is needed to increase the understanding of the pathogenicity of E. cloacae in more complex in vitro procedures, such as in organoids or organ-on-a-chips, which also give the advantage of methods without animal management.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We want to thank Gabriela Ortiz and Pau Conill for their technical support.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

SC: grants from the Fundació La Marató de TV3 (PI616163 TV3-201806-10) and Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (PID2020-117708GB-I00). EF-G: EMBO-award Short-Term Fellowship and finance its stay at University of Münster (no grant number available).

References

  • 1.Grimont F, Grimont PAD. The Genus Enterobacter. In: The Prokaryotes. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2006. 197–214. doi: 10.1007/0-387-30746-X_9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ramirez D, Giron M. Enterobacter infections. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing. 2021. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sanders WE, Sanders CC. Enterobacter spp.: pathogens poised to flourish at the turn of the Century. 1997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hoffmann H, Stindl S, Ludwig W, et al. Enterobacter hormaechei subsp. oharae subsp. nov., E. hormaechei subsp. hormaechei comb. nov., and E. hormaechei subsp. steigerwaltii subsp. nov., three new subspecies of clinical importance. J Clin Microbiol 2005;43:3297–303. doi: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wilson BM, el Chakhtoura NG, Patel S, et al. Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacter cloacae in patients from the US veterans health administration, 2006–2015. Emerg Infect Dis 2017;23:878–80. doi: 10.3201/eid2305.162034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Chen J, Tian S, Nian H, et al. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacter cloacae complex in a tertiary hospital in northeast China, 2010–2019. BMC Infect Dis 2021;21:611. doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-06250-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Davin-Regli A, Lavigne JP, Pagès JM. Enterobacter spp.: update on taxonomy, clinical aspects, and emerging antimicrobial resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2019;32. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00002-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gajdács M, Urbán E. Resistance trends and epidemiology of Citrobacter-Enterobacter-Serratia in urinary tract infections of inpatients and outpatients (RECESUTI): A 10-year survey. Medicina (Lithuania) 2019;55. doi: 10.3390/medicina55060285 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Zhang Y, Wang Q, Yin Y, et al. Epidemiology of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Infections: Report from the China CRE Network EPIDEMIOLOGY AND SURVEILLANCE crossm Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Published Online First: 2018.https://journals.asm.org/journal/aac [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.M Campos JCD, Antunes LCM, Ferreira RBR. Global priority pathogens: Virulence, antimicrobial resistance and prospective treatment options. Future Microbiol. 2020;15. doi: 10.2217/fmb-2019-0333 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.World Health Organization (WHO). Global priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to guide research, discovery, and development of new antibiotics. 2017. http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/ [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Stones DH, Krachler AM. Against the tide: the role of bacterial adhesion in host colonization. Biochem Soc Trans 2016;44:1571–80. doi: 10.1042/BST20160186 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mange JP, Stephan R, Borel N, Wild P, Kim KS, Pospischil A, et al. Adhesive properties of Enterobacter sakazakii to human epithelial and brain microvascular endothelial cells. BMC microbiology. 2006;6:58. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-6-58 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Valiatti TB, Santos FF, Santos ACM, et al. Genetic and virulence characteristics of a hybrid atypical enteropathogenic and uropathogenic Escherichia coli (aEPEC/UPEC) Strain. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2020;10. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2020.00492 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Scharf B, Schmidt TJ, Rabbani S, et al. Antiadhesive natural products against uropathogenic E. coli: What can we learn from cranberry extract? J Ethnopharmacol 2020;257:112889. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2020.112889 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Deipenbrock M, Sendker J, Hensel A. Aqueous root extract from Ononis spinosa exerts anti-adhesive activity against uropathogenic Escherichia coli. Planta Med 2020;86:247–54. doi: 10.1055/a-1089-8645 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Thöle C, Brandt S, Ahmed N, et al. Acetylated rhamnogalacturonans from immature fruits of Abelmoschus esculentus inhibit the adhesion of Helicobacter pylori to human gastric cells by interaction with outer membrane proteins. Molecules 2015;20:16770–87. doi: 10.3390/molecules200916770 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gottesmann M, Paraskevopoulou V, Mohammed A, et al. BabA and LPS inhibitors against Helicobacter pylori: pectins and pectin-like rhamnogalacturonans as adhesion blockers. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2020;104:351–63. doi: 10.1007/s00253-019-10234-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Soria-Bustos J, Ares MA, Gómez-Aldapa CA, et al. Two type VI secretion systems of Enterobacter cloacae are required for bacterial competition, cell adherence, and intestinal colonization. Front Microbiol 2020;11. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.560488 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Guérin F, Lallement C, Goudergues B, et al. Landscape of in vivo fitness-associated genes of Enterobacter cloacae complex. Front Microbiol 2020;11. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.01609 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Datsenko KA, Wanner BL. One-step inactivation of chromosomal genes in Escherichia coli K-12 using PCR products. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2000;97:6640–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.120163297 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mayola A, Irazoki O, Martínez IA, et al. RecA protein plays a role in the chemotactic response and chemoreceptor clustering of Salmonella enterica. PLoS One 2014;9. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105578 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mo B, Sendker J, Herrmann F, et al. Aqueous extract from Equisetum arvense stimulates the secretion of Tamm-Horsfall protein in human urine after oral intake. Phytomedicine 2022;104:154302. doi: 10.1016/j.phymed.2022.154302 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Marcial G, Sendker J, Brandt S, et al. Gastroprotection as an example: Antiadhesion against Helicobacter pylori, anti-inflammatory and antioxidant activities of aqueous extracts from the aerial parts of Lippia integrifolia Hieron. J Ethnopharmacol 2014;155:1125–33. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2014.06.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kim K-P, Loessner MJ. Enterobacter sakazakii invasion in human intestinal Caco-2 cells requires the host cell cytoskeleton and is enhanced by disruption of tight junction. Infect Immun 2008;76:562–70. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00937-07 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Vaudaux P, Waldvogel FA. Gentamicin antibacterial activity in the presence of human polymorphonuclear leukocytes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1979;16:743–9. doi: 10.1128/AAC.16.6.743 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mandell GL. Interaction of intraleukocytic bacteria and antibiotics. J Clin Invest 1973;52:1673–9. doi: 10.1172/JCI107348 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Oelschlaeger TA, Barrett TJ, Kopecko DJ. Some structures and processes of human epithelial cells involved in uptake of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7 strains. Infect Immun 1994;62:5142–50. doi: 10.1128/iai.62.11.5142-5150.1994 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Louwen R, van Neerven RJJ. Milk modulates Campylobacter invasion into Caco-2 intestinal epithelial cells. Eur J Microbiol Immunol (Bp) 2015;5:181–7. doi: 10.1556/1886.2015.00019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Du Ying, Lenz Jonathan, Arvidson Cindy Grove. Global gene expression and the role of sigma factors in Neisseria gonorrhoeae in Interactions with epithelial cells. American Society for Microbiology 2005;:4834–45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Elsinghorst EA, Kopecko DJ. Molecular cloning of epithelial cell invasion determinants from enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli. Infect Immun 1992;60:2409–17. doi: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Cieri M v., Mayer-Hamblett N, Griffith A, et al. Correlation between an in vitro invasion assay and a murine model of Burkholderia cepacia lung infection. Infect Immun 2002;70:1081–6. doi: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 2012;9:671–5. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Laboratory for Morphogenetic Signaling (Hayashi Lab.) from RC for BDR. ImageJ Plugins. 2016.https://signaling.riken.jp/en/en-tools/imagej/ (accessed 6 May 2022).
  • 35.Lucidi M, Runci F, Rampioni G, et al. New shuttle vectors for gene cloning and expression in multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter species. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2018;62. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02480-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Chaveroche M-K, Ghigo J-M, D’enfert C. A rapid method for efficient gene replacement in the filamentous fungus Aspergillus nidulans. 2000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Frutos-Grilo E, Marsal M, Irazoki O, et al. The interaction of RecA with both CheA and CheW is required for chemotaxis. Front Microbiol 2020;11. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00583 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Darzynkiewicz Z, Bedner E, Smolewski P. Flow cytometry in analysis of cell cycle and apoptosis. Semin Hematol 2001;38:179–93. doi: 10.1016/s0037-1963(01)90051-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Lesuffleur T, Porchet N, Aubert JP, et al. Differential expression of the human mucin genes MUC1 to MUC5 in relation to growth and differentiation of different mucus-secreting HT-29 cell subpopulations. J Cell Sci 1993;106:771–83. doi: 10.1242/jcs.106.3.771 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Gouyer V, Wiede A, Buisine M-P, et al. Specific secretion of gel-forming mucins and TFF peptides in HT-29 cells of mucin-secreting phenotype. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)—Molecular Cell Research 2001;1539:71–84. doi: 10.1016/s0167-4889(01)00092-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Jones CH, Pinkner JS, Rotht R, et al. FimH adhesin of type 1 pili is assembled into a fibrillar tip structure in the Enterobacteriaceae. 1995. doi: 10.1073/pnas.92.6.2081 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Cordeiro MA, Werle CH, Milanez GP, et al. Curli fimbria: An Escherichia coli adhesin associated with human cystitis. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology 2016;47:414–6. doi: 10.1016/j.bjm.2016.01.024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Luna-Pineda VM, Moreno-Fierros L, Cázares-Domínguez V, et al. Curli of uropathogenic Escherichia coli enhance urinary tract colonization as a fitness factor. Front Microbiol 2019;10. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02063 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Martinez JJ. Type 1 pilus-mediated bacterial invasion of bladder epithelial cells. EMBO J 2000;19:2803–12. doi: 10.1093/emboj/19.12.2803 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Letourneau J, Levesque C, Berthiaume F, et al. Assay of bacterial adhesion onto mammalian epithelial cells. Journal of Visualized Experiments Published Online First: 16 May 2011. doi: 10.3791/2783 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Foxman B. The epidemiology of urinary tract infection. Nat Rev Urol. 2010;7:653–60. doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2010.190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.European centre for disease prevention and control. Healthcare-associated infections acquired in intensive care units. 2019. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/healthcare-associated-infections-acquired-intensive-care-units
  • 48.Sauer MM, Jakob RP, Luber T, et al. Binding of the Bacterial Adhesin FimH to Its Natural, Multivalent High-Mannose Type Glycan Targets. J Am Chem Soc 2019;141:936–44. doi: 10.1021/jacs.8b10736 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Pouttu R, Puustinen T, Virkola R, et al. Amino acid residue Ala-62 in the FimH fimbrial adhesin is critical for the adhesiveness of meningitis-associated Escherichia coli to collagens. Mol Microbiol 1999;31:1747–57. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.1999.01311.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Pratt LA, Kolter R. Genetic analysis of Escherichia coli biofilm formation: roles of flagella, motility, chemotaxis and type I pili. Mol Microbiol 1998;30:285–93. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.1998.01061.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Kamat AM, Dehaven JI, Lamm DL. Quinolone antibiotics: a potential adjunct to intravesical chemotherapy for bladder cancer. 1999. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(99)00064-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Hennigs JK, Baumann HJ, Schmiedel S, et al. Characterization of Enterobacter cloacae pneumonia: A single-center retrospective analysis. Lung 2011;189:475–83. doi: 10.1007/s00408-011-9323-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Boyer A, Amadeo B, Vargas F, et al. Severe community-acquired Enterobacter pneumonia: A plea for greater awareness of the concept of health-care-associated pneumonia. BMC Infect Dis 2011;11. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-11-120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Townsend S, Hurrell E, Forsythe S. Virulence studies of Enterobacter sakazakii isolates associated with a neonatal intensive care unit outbreak. BMC Microbiol 2008;8. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-8-64 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Keller R, Pedroso MZ, Ritchmann R, et al. Occurrence of virulence-associated properties in Enterobacter cloacae. Infect Immun 1998;66:645–9. doi: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Gaston MA. Enterobacter: an emerging nosocomial pathogen. 1988. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Nishiyama K, Nakamata K, Ueno S, et al. Adhesion properties of Lactobacillus rhamnosus mucus-binding factor to mucin and extracellular matrix proteins. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 2015;79:271–9. doi: 10.1080/09168451.2014.972325 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Martins M, Aymeric L, du Merle L, et al. Streptococcus gallolyticus Pil3 pilus is required for adhesion to colonic mucus and for colonization of mouse distal colon. Journal of Infectious Diseases 2015;212:1646–55. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiv307 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Lili Q, Xiaohui L, Haiguang M, et al. Clostridium butyricum induces the production and glycosylation of mucins in HT-29 Cells. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2021;11. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.668766 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Pelaseyed T, Hansson GC. Membrane mucins of the intestine at a glance. J Cell Sci 2020;133. doi: 10.1242/jcs.240929 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Kwame Kumi Asare

30 Mar 2023

PONE-D-23-05465Host-pathogen interaction: Enterobacter cloacae exerts different adhesion and invasion capacities against different host cell typesPLOS ONE

Dear Prof. Dr. Hensel,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 14 April 2023; 11.00 pm. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kwame Kumi Asare, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and previous work in the [introduction, conclusion, etc.].

We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications.

Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work.

[If the overlap is with the authors’ own works: Moreover, upon submission, authors must confirm that the manuscript, or any related manuscript, is not currently under consideration or accepted elsewhere. If related work has been submitted to PLOS ONE or elsewhere, authors must include a copy with the submitted article. Reviewers will be asked to comment on the overlap between related submissions (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-related-manuscripts).]

We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission and further consideration of the manuscript is dependent on the text overlap being addressed in full. Please ensure that your revision is thorough as failure to address the concerns to our satisfaction may result in your submission not being considered further

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

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.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors investigated the adhesion of Enterobacter cloacae isolate ATCC 13047 to different epithelical cell lines, incl. different urinary tract, intestinal tract, lung and skin cell lines using FITC labelled bacteria followed by FACS-based quantification of eukaryotic cell-associated fluorescence signals. They describe that the tested E. cloacae isolate adhered better to cell lines derived from the urinary tract and bronchial tract than to intestinal epithelial cells or a skin-derived cell line. This is interesting, because E. cloacae is known as an intestinal colonizer, but also as a pathogen causing urinary tract infection as well as respiratory tract infection. E. cloacae did not only adhere better to T-24 and A-498 cells, but also displayed a more pronounced invasive phenotype into these two urinary tract cell lines relative to cell lines from other parts of the body. Comparison of the adhesion of the wild type strain versus defined deletion mutants lacking fimH, fimA or csgA, the authors provide evidence that direct interaction between the bacteria and the cell line mediated by type 1 fimbriae, but not curli fimbriae is required for E. cloacae adherence.

This study is interesting in that there is no published data on the possible tissue tropism of E. cloacae or the importance of type 1 or curli fimbriae for the interaction between E. cloacae and host cells.

l. 245-259, Fig. 1 as well as l. 399-400: This reviewer does not think the wording is correct here. The disadvantage of the FACS-based method for quantifying bacterial adherence is that unfortunately no absolute numbers of adherent bacteria are obtained. This would have been more helpful here. This reviewer believes that the relative adherence determined with an MOI of 10:1 does fit the data obtained with an MOI of 100:1. Just because fewer bacteria were used does not mean they are better at binding. The relative adherence seems to be proportional to that obtained for the 100:1 MOI. The binding of E. cloacae to T24 and A-498 cells is thus significantly better than to Caco-2 and A-549 cells and about twice as good as to A-549 cells. The data would be even more convincing if the authors would, as a proof of principle, exemplarily quantify the number of adherent bacteria by CFU determination according to the quantification of the invasive bacteria. This reviewer is not convinced that a minimal load of inoculum or quorum sensing is required here.

l. 367-371, Fig. 6: The authors describe that subcloning of fimA, fimH and csgA in trans can restore the bacterial adherence phenotype to T-24 cells. The data presented looks nice, but it would be even nicer if the authors could provide additional evidence (SDS Page, ELISA, …) that indeed the subcloned gene results in expression of the corresponding gene product.

l. 423-430: The authors should phrase this sentence more carefully. According to the genome sequence, isolate ATCC 13047 has several fimbrial determinants. What do the authors know about the expression of different adhesins under the conditions that they have used? Can they prove that other fimbriae than type 1 fimbriae are not involved in bacterial adherence to T-24 or A-498 cells?

l. 432-434: Please phrase more carefully. Can the authors show that strain ATCC 13047 expresses curli under the test conditions?

The study would benefit from more careful visualization of adherent bacteria by electron microscopy or atomic force microscopy.

Another convincing proof that indeed adhesion mediated by type 1 fimbriae would be to demonstrate that bacterial adherence can be blocked by prior pre-incubation of the bacteria with e.g. methyl-α-D-mannopyranoside.

It would be interesting to see if the fimA, fimH and csgA mutants differ from the wild type strain in their ability to form biofilms.

**********

6. 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: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment 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. Registration is free. 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Oct 24;18(10):e0289334. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289334.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


6 Jun 2023

Response to Reviewers

Dear Editor,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to revise our manuscript based on the valuable feedback from the reviewer. We appreciate the time and effort that the reviewer has taken to carefully evaluate our work.

We have addressed all the concerns in the revised manuscript. Below this text, we provide a detailed response to each of the points raised, in bold. We hope that these revisions meet with the satisfaction of the reviewers and the editorial board. Once again, we thank the reviewers and the editor for their valuable feedback and guidance, which have helped to improve the quality of our work.

Sincerely,

Andreas Hnsel in behalf of all authors

Journal requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

We have changed the file naming and other issues in order to ensure the PLOS ONE’s style requirements.

2. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and previous work in the [introduction, conclusion, etc.].

We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications.

Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work.

[If the overlap is with the authors’ own works: Moreover, upon submission, authors must confirm that the manuscript, or any related manuscript, is not currently under consideration or accepted elsewhere. If related work has been submitted to PLOS ONE or elsewhere, authors must include a copy with the submitted article. Reviewers will be asked to comment on the overlap between related submissions (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-related-manuscripts).]

We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission and further consideration of the manuscript is dependent on the text overlap being addressed in full. Please ensure that your revision is thorough as failure to address the concerns to our satisfaction may result in your submission not being considered further.

All text has been carefully read to identify duplications using plagiarism checker servers (duplichecker.com and plagiarismdetector.net), trying to minimize the overlapping text with other works despite being referenced. We have realized an unreferenced and duplicated sentence, hence we have rephased it and referenced (LINE 70-72). However, we have not found any other sentence suspected to be duplicated. We would appreciate if you detect any other concerning sentence, let us know.

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

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.

The included “Data not shown” has been eliminated from the manuscript but we described the results (LINES 211 AND 297) which reads now as follows: Non-infected controls were prepared in a similar way, but without addition of bacteria to the cells; as expected, no FITC fluorescence was observed.

Reviewers’ comments:

I. 245-259, Fig. 1 as well as l. 399-400: This reviewer does not think the wording is correct here. The disadvantage of the FACS-based method for quantifying bacterial adherence is that unfortunately no absolute numbers of adherent bacteria are obtained. This would have been more helpful here. This reviewer believes that the relative adherence determined with an MOI of 10:1 does fit the data obtained with an MOI of 100:1. Just because fewer bacteria were used does not mean they are better at binding. The relative adherence seems to be proportional to that obtained for the 100:1 MOI. The binding of E. cloacae to T24 and A-498 cells is thus significantly better than to Caco-2 and A-549 cells and about twice as good as to A-549 cells. The data would be even more convincing if the authors would, as a proof of principle, exemplarily quantify the number of adherent bacteria by CFU determination according to the quantification of the invasive bacteria.

This is a very interesting issue, thanks for this comment. The experiments indicated different sensitivity of the different cell lines. While T24, A-498 and A-549 cells were strongly infected by the bacteria at BCR 100:1 nearly no interaction has been shown for Caco-2 and A-431 cells (Fig. 1A). We have increased the BCR to 500:1 for Caco-2 and A-431 and again we do not find relevant fluorescence intensity (Fig. 1C). From these data we can clearly conclude that these cell lines are much less sensitive to E. cloacae compared to the bladder, kidney and lung cells. For the sensitive cell lines we used also a lower BCR of 10:1 but in this experimental set up we detect only very low intensity (Fig. 1B). This might have two reasons: Either a certain bacteria density if needed for infection or the fluorescence intensity is very low, as only 10% of the labelled bacteria load has been used in this experiment. We have inserted these both points into the text – our impression is that we are working in this protocol at the analytical limit of qunatitatioin in the FACS assay. Alternatively CFU counting could be performed, which normally works very well, but at this low BCR standard deviations are so high that a clear and statistical evaluation cannot be done. Concenring the advantages and disadvantages of the FACS assay raised by the referee, we have the feeling that flow cytometric data are getting pretty good results for adhesion assays, as this protocol has been established for quantitative evaluation of new adhesion and invasion blockers since some years, leading to less standard deviations as we normally see in CFU counting.

The respective section in the MS reads now as follows: “….Using this protocol, strong interaction of FITC-labelled E. cloacae with T-24 bladder cells, A-498 kidney cells, and A-549 lung cells was observed at BCR 100:1. A-431 and Caco-2 cells turned out to be not sensitive against the bacterial treatment under these conditions (Figure 1A). Additionally, it got obvious that lower titers of E. cloacae load (BCR of 10:1) were not enough to initiate relevant bacterial adhesion to T-24, A-498 and A-549 cells, which (Figure 1B). This could be because either a certain amount of bacteria is needed to infect the host cells or it is simply due to a very low fluorescence intensity as only a low amount of bacteria has been used in this protocol. Considering that E. cloacae displayed only low interaction with Caco-2 and A-431 cells at BCR 100:1, also BCR 500:1 was also employed for the adhesion assays with these cell lines (Figure 1C). However, this only results in a slight increase in fluorescence intensity, indicating that also increased bacteria level will not leed to more adhesion to Caco-2 and A-431 cells.”

This reviewer is not convinced that a minimal load of inoculum or quorum sensing is required here.

We are totally agree with the reviewer’s opinion and we have removed the sentence “The differences in the obtained results for these three tissues using the BCR of 10:1 and 100:1 were not proportional, demonstrating that a minimal load of inoculum is required, where quorum sensing could be discussed for this phenomenon.” in order to avoid to talk about non demonstrated facts.

II. 367-371, Fig. 6: The authors describe that subcloning of fimA, fimH and csgA in trans can restore the bacterial adherence phenotype to T-24 cells. The data presented looks nice, but it would be even nicer if the authors could provide additional evidence (SDS Page, ELISA, …) that indeed the subcloned gene results in expression of the corresponding gene product.

We provide RT-PCR assays showing the expression of the fimA, fimH, and csgA genes. As is shown in the new Suppl. File S4, in all mutant strains, and as expected, no RNA of the deleted gene (csgA, fimA, or fimH) is detected. However, the expression of these genes is only detected when the pUA1108 (kan) plasmid carrying the corresponding wild-type gene is incorporated into the mutant strain. These results, together with those in Figure 6 of the manuscript unequivocally indicate that the presence of the corresponding plasmid restores the expression of each deleted gene.

III. 423-430: The authors should phrase this sentence more carefully. According to the genome sequence, isolate ATCC 13047 has several fimbrial determinants. What do the authors know about the expression of different adhesins under the conditions that they have used? Can they prove that other fimbriae than type 1 fimbriae are not involved in bacterial adherence to T-24 or A-498 cells?

We don’t know about the expression of other adhesins present in the strain, for this reason we recommend further studies in order to investigate it. We rephrase the sentence: “As the fimbrial adhesins from UPEC are typical mannose-binding proteins, we hypothetise that the interaction of E. cloacae with T-24 bladder cells is due to a recognition of highly mannosylated uroplakin Ia and IIIa of the bladder cells, known to be the binding partner of the lectin-like domain of FimH from UPEC [54].”

Instead of:

“As the fimbrial adhesins from UPEC are typical mannose-binding proteins, we assume that the interaction of E. cloacae with T-24 bladder cells is due to a recognition of highly mannosylated uroplakin Ia and IIIa of the bladder cells, known to be the binding partner of the lectin-like domain of FimH from UPEC [54].”

IV. 432-434: Please phrase more carefully. Can the authors show that strain ATCC 13047 expresses curli under the test conditions?

In order to demonstrate that E. cloacae ATCC13047 expresses curli under the test conditions, we provide a RT-qPCR results in S5 Figure of the Suppl. Data.

The study would benefit from more careful visualization of adherent bacteria by electron microscopy or atomic force microscopy.

We concur with the reviewer's viewpoint and the study would benefit from more careful visualization of adherent bacteria by electron microscopy or atomic force microscopy. However, bacterial adhesion and invasion has been proven using confocal images, as we do, in different publications (1 doi.org/10.1016/S0076-6879(95)53016-9; 2 10.1038/s41598-020-63714-0; 3 10.1128/AEM.03323-12). Moreover, with the confocal images we have a 3D representation of the adhesion and invasion events (as presented in the Figures 2 and 5 of the present MS).

Another convincing proof that indeed adhesion mediated by type 1 fimbriae would be to demonstrate that bacterial adherence can be blocked by prior pre-incubation of the bacteria with e.g. methyl-α-D-mannopyranoside.

This is of course a good positive control, which definitely will be integrated into future investigations.

It would be interesting to see if the fimA, fimH and csgA mutants differ from the wild type strain in their ability to form biofilms.

We agree with the reviewer interests and we add biofilm results of the ability of fimA, fimH and csgA mutants to form biofilm. The image has been added to the Supplementary Data S3) into the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers Version 2 ELISA_SC 05062023.docx

Decision Letter 1

Kwame Kumi Asare

12 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-05465R1Host-pathogen interaction: Enterobacter cloacae exerts different adhesion and invasion capacities against different host cell typesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hensel,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 26-7-23; 23;59. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kwame Kumi Asare, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The article entitled ‘Host-pathogen interaction…..’ by Hensel et al. describes mechanism of pathogenicity of E. cloacae using different cell lines. Despite work on several pathogens, the pathogenicity of E. cloacae, a member of ESKAPE organisms, is still under-explored. This work investigates the adhesion and invasion of E. cloacae in cell lines which is important for understanding the pathogenicity of nosocomial pathogens. The work is well designed and executed. The authors have also incorporated the suggestions of other reviewers. However, I have few minor concerns which can be corrected or addressed.

Abstract

Line 35-36: Correct ‘extend’ to extent. Do the same across the text wherever it applies.

Line 126, 169: O.D of 4 or 0.4. Please confirm. 4 O.D seems too high.

Line 128: is it 8 or 0.8 OD?

Line 269: How do you rule out the possibility of T6SS-mediated cytotoxicity as you have used CFS? E. cloacae is known to possess T6SS, which causes contact-dependent cytotoxicity.

Fig 3: What is on Y axis

Line 430: Italicize species name.

Reviewer #3: I am seeing this manuscript for the first time (after it has already been revised, obviously). Overall, this is robust work and the previous referee comments have been addressed satisfactorily. I have some smaller comments to manuscript organisation and to phrasing/language:

1) Manuscript Organisation: supplementary material. I find it porblematic to "hide" normal figures in the supplementary material in an online journal that has no restriction on the number of figures for the main text. I feel that in PLOS ONE and comparable journals, supplementary material should be restricted to large datasets, movies, etc that cannot be displayed in a PDF properly. All other data can only fall into two categories: (A) important - then show it in the main manuscript and reference/discuss it. Or (B) not important: then do not show it and do not talk about it in the manuscript.

2) phrasing: I ma not very happy with the wording related to the binding/interaction data between cells and bacteria. It feels a bit "off" to me to say "A-431 and Caco-2 cells turned out to be not sensitive against the bacterial treatment" - what do you mean by "sensitive"? What you are observing is bacteria binding to cells, not cells 'reacting' to the bacteria, correct? I suggest to find a better way to describe the physical interaction (or non-interaction) that is observed here. This might apply to other sections of the text too.

**********

7. 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 #2: Yes: Prabhat Nath Jha

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment 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. Registration is free. 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Oct 24;18(10):e0289334. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289334.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


14 Jul 2023

Referees comments and action of the authors

Comment of reviewer Action of authors

Reviewer #2: The article entitled ‘Host-pathogen interaction…..’ by Hensel et al. describes mechanism of pathogenicity of E. cloacae using different cell lines. Despite work on several pathogens, the pathogenicity of E. cloacae, a member of ESKAPE organisms, is still under-explored. This work investigates the adhesion and invasion of E. cloacae in cell lines which is important for understanding the pathogenicity of nosocomial pathogens. The work is well designed and executed. The authors have also incorporated the suggestions of other reviewers. However, I have few minor concerns which can be corrected or addressed. ´

Thanks for the positive evaluation!

Abstract

Line 35-36: Correct ‘extend’ to extent. Do the same across the text wherever it applies.

Has been changed as requested (also over the MS, 5 �)

Line 126, 169: O.D of 4 or 0.4. Please confirm. 4 O.D seems too high.

Line 128: is it 8 or 0.8 OD? The OD values of the cultures have been determined after appropriate dilution to enter a valid photometric range, but a given then for the undiluted text sample.

Line 269: How do you rule out the possibility of T6SS-mediated cytotoxicity as you have used CFS? E. cloacae is known to possess T6SS, which causes contact-dependent cytotoxicity. Thanks for this advice. In this experiment we have shown that the bacterial adhesion of E. cloacae to the different host cells is not disturbed by soluble exotoxin secretion by using cell free and filtered culture supernatants of the bacteria at different ODs. This experiments did not show any influence on the different host cells, indicating that no soluble bacterial toxins disturb the assay. Unfortunately we wrote in the old version the phrase “… to show that the adhesion of E. cloacae to the host cells is not disturbed by contact associated cytotoxicitry or by exotoxin secretion”. The reviewer is absolutely right, T6SS would be a problem in the cell systems, but as we used in this experiment soluble cell free systems this secretion system is not part of the test solutions. We have changed the respective paragraph and deleted “by contact-associated cytotoxicity”.

Fig 3: What is on Y axis Y axis described the relative adhesion of FITC-labeled bacteria at BCR 500:1 to different host cells at different days. The Relative data indicate the fluorescence related to uninfected cells, which is stated in the legend.

As mentioned in the corresponding Material and Methods “The relative adhesion was calculated from the measured median of the infected cells compared to that of the control without bacteria“, we have divided the given fluorescence of the infected cells, by that from the non infected control. So we have X times more fluorescence when we are adding the bacteria because it is adhered onto the epithelial cells.

We have added this to the legend of Fig. 3, which now reads as follows:

“Fig 3. Relative adhesion of FITC-labeled E. cloacae at BCR 500:1 to Caco-2, HT29 and HT29-MTX at different days of post-seeding (2, 10, and 25). Relative data indicate the fluorescence related to uninfected cells and has been calculated from the median of the infected cells compared to that of the control without bacteria. Values represent the mean ± SD from three independent assays and X-bar begins at Y = 1.”

Line 430: Italicize species name. Has been changed as requested

Reviewer #3: I am seeing this manuscript for the first time (after it has already been revised, obviously). Overall, this is robust work and the previous referee comments have been addressed satisfactorily. I have some smaller comments to manuscript organisation and to phrasing/language:

Thanks for the positive comments!

1) Manuscript Organisation: supplementary material. I find it porblematic to "hide" normal figures in the supplementary material in an online journal that has no restriction on the number of figures for the main text. I feel that in PLOS ONE and comparable journals, supplementary material should be restricted to large datasets, movies, etc that cannot be displayed in a PDF properly. All other data can only fall into two categories: (A) important - then show it in the main manuscript and reference/discuss it. Or (B) not important: then do not show it and do not talk about it in the manuscript.

This is a difficult question which should be decided by the editor or by the journals management. From our point of view, the Suppl Material provides access of data to the reader of the MS, which is not absolutely essential to know, but prove and validate experimental data which again validate the main experiments and results (e.g. pre-experiments, validation studies, dose finding). Or they simply get access to some very special features of the materials used (in our cases detailed description of the E. cloacae mutants) or similar data, which are essential for good science but only interesting for a reader f he really wants to go in the lab experiments or wants to repeat experiments in his own lab. From our point of view the Suppl. Data provide a nice help for interesting scientists in the daily lab routine.

Of course we easily can insert all our Suppl Data into the main MS, but we have the feeling that then the text could be overloaded and the main messages might be difficult to access.

If the editor wants us to do this, we are happy to revise, but according to our feeling and experience in publishing > 300 papers it could be clearer to have a separation into the main data set and a Suppl. Data File. However, we are very open to potential improvements.

2) phrasing: I ma not very happy with the wording related to the binding/interaction data between cells and bacteria. It feels a bit "off" to me to say "A-431 and Caco-2 cells turned out to be not sensitive against the bacterial treatment" - what do you mean by "sensitive"? What you are observing is bacteria binding to cells, not cells 'reacting' to the bacteria, correct? I suggest to find a better way to describe the physical interaction (or non-interaction) that is observed here. This might apply to other sections of the text too. Thanks for this advice, this is true.

We have changed the text accordingly, which reads now as follows:

“….Using this protocol, strong interaction of FITC-labelled E. cloacae with T-24 bladder cells, A-498 kidney cells, and A-549 lung cells was observed at BCR 100:1. A-431 and Caco-2 cells turned out to have no or only limited binding capacity against the bacterial treatment under these conditions and no adhesion or docking of the bacteria is observed (Fig 1A).”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Referees comments and action of the authors.docx

Decision Letter 2

Kwame Kumi Asare

18 Jul 2023

Host-pathogen interaction: Enterobacter cloacae exerts different adhesion and invasion capacities against different host cell types

PONE-D-23-05465R2

Dear Dr. Hensel,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Kwame Kumi Asare, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: I already have reviewed the previous version of manuscript and given my response related to the questions mentioned above. The authors have clarified the concerns raised in my review.

Reviewer #3: all comments are addressed - please note that the editor should make a decision about the use of supplementary material.

**********

7. 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 #2: Yes: Prabhat Nath Jha

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Kwame Kumi Asare

21 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-05465R2

Host-pathogen interaction: Enterobacter cloacae exerts different adhesion and invasion capacities against different host cell types.

Dear Dr. Hensel:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Kwame Kumi Asare

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers Version 2 ELISA_SC 05062023.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Referees comments and action of the authors.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES