ABSTRACT
Porphyromonas gingivalis strains exhibit different phenotypes in vitro, different virulence potential in animal models, and different associations with human diseases, with strains classified as virulent/more virulent (e.g., A7436 and W83) or as less virulent/avirulent (e.g., ATCC 33277). In this study, we comparatively analyzed the A7436 and ATCC 33277 strains to better understand their variability. Global gene expression analysis in response to heme and iron limitation revealed more pronounced differences in the A7436 than in the ATCC 33277 strain; however, in both strains, the largest changes were observed in genes encoding hypothetical proteins, genes whose products participate in energy metabolism, and in genes encoding proteins engaged in transport and binding proteins. Our results confirmed that variability between P. gingivalis strains is due to differences in the arrangement of their genomes. Analysis of gene expression of heme acquisition systems demonstrated that not only the availability of iron and heme in the external environment but also the ability to store iron intracellularly can influence the P. gingivalis phenotype. Therefore, we assume that differences in virulence potential may also be due to differences in the production of systems involved in iron and heme acquisition, mainly the Hmu system. In addition, our study showed that hemoglobin, in a concentration-dependent manner, differentially influences the virulence potential of P. gingivalis strains. We conclude that iron and heme homeostasis may add to the variability observed between P. gingivalis strains.
IMPORTANCE
Periodontitis belongs to a group of multifactorial diseases, characterized by inflammation and destruction of tooth-supporting tissues. P. gingivalis is one of the most important microbial factors involved in the initiation and progression of periodontitis. To survive in the host, the bacterium must acquire heme as a source of iron and protoporphyrin IX. P. gingivalis strains respond differently to changing iron and heme concentrations, which may be due to differences in the expression of systems involved in iron and heme acquisition. The ability to accumulate iron intracellularly, being different in more and less virulent P. gingivalis strains, may influence their phenotypes, production of virulence factors (including proteins engaged in heme acquisition), and virulence potential of this bacterium.
KEYWORDS: Porphyromonas gingivalis, strain variation, HmuY, IhtB, gingipain, heme, iron, hemoglobin, heme acquisition, virulence
INTRODUCTION
Periodontal diseases belong to a group of multifactorial diseases, initiated by an ecological shift in the composition of oral biofilm and an exaggerated host immune response, which results in inflammation and destruction of tooth-supporting tissues, and often in tooth loss (1–5). Several articles have reported that a significant percentage of the human population is characterized either by a moderate or a severe form of periodontitis (6–13). Porphyromonas gingivalis is considered the main etiological agent and keystone pathogen responsible for dysbiosis in the oral microbiome, subsequent development of periodontitis, and contribution to systemic diseases (1, 14–16). Although the bacterium resides in the oral cavity of healthy individuals (10%–25%), it has been found in increased numbers in individuals with periodontitis (79-90%) (17–20).
Many studies have shown that P. gingivalis strains exhibit different phenotypes and pathogenicity, which are caused mainly by variations in capsular polysaccharides, the major and minor fimbriae, adhesion domains of lysine-specific gingipain (Kgp) and hemagglutinin A (HagA) (21–43). Although low sequence divergence within genes encoding catalytic domains of gingipains has been found (21), P. gingivalis clinical isolates exhibited different rates and distribution of Kgp and arginine-specific gingipain (RgpA and RgpB) activities (23). Sequencing of several P. gingivalis genomes revealed that the bacterium can exchange chromosomal DNA by specific gene rearrangements and allelic exchange through horizontal gene transfer using natural transformation and conjugation (20, 21, 44–46). Importantly, the spontaneous generation of phenotypically different sub-strains, caused in part by differences in genes encoding hemagglutinin domains of Kgp and HagA, can also occur, resulting in significant attenuation in a mouse virulence model (47–50). On the other hand, many genes are highly conserved in P. gingivalis strains and located in the core genome (22), including genes encoding heme acquisition Hmu and Iht systems (22, 51–53). The best characterized, and important for P. gingivalis virulence, is a heme uptake (Hmu) system composed of HmuY (a heme-binding hemophore-like protein), HmuR (a typical TonB-dependent receptor transporting heme through the outer membrane), and four proteins with unknown functions (HmuSTUV) (52, 54, 55). The Hmu system works in synergy with gingipains and their production is correlated (55–57). Apart from nutrient acquisition for this asaccharolytic pathogen and for avoiding the host immune response (58), gingipains participate in heme acquisition by RgpA-dependent oxidation of oxyhemoglobin to methemoglobin, allowing direct heme sequestration by HmuY (57) or heme release by proteolytic digestion of methemoglobin, the latter activity carried out mainly by Kgp (58, 59). Another P. gingivalis system that is considered to be an alternative one involved in heme and/or iron uptake is the Iht system (53); however, it is hardly characterized. The Iht system comprises the TonB-dependent outer membrane receptor (IhtA), putative heme-binding lipoprotein (IhtB), periplasmic binding protein (IhtC), permease (IhtD), and cytoplasmic ATP binding protein (IhtE). Due to IhtB homology to CbiK chelatase, it is thought that IhtB could remove iron from heme and transfer it to the IhtA protein for subsequent iron transfer to the periplasm. Iron transport to the cytoplasm could be performed by IhtC-E proteins (55, 60).
P. gingivalis does not synthesize heme de novo, and consequently it produces numerous heme acquisition systems, allowing this bacterium to efficiently take up heme, as a source of both iron and protoporphyrin IX (PPIX), to survive inside the host and initiate the pathogenic process. Interestingly, it has been shown that P. gingivalis strains respond differently to changing iron and heme concentrations in the external environment (61). Therefore, we believe that differences in the virulence potential of P. gingivalis strains selected in this study may also be due to differences in the expression of systems involved in iron and heme acquisition. To analyze differences between P. gingivalis strains in their phenotypes and response to iron and heme starvation, we comparatively examined the less virulent, non-capsulated, highly fimbriated ATCC 33277 (33277) strain and more virulent, capsulated, poorly fimbriated A7436 and W83 strains.
RESULTS
Differences in genome organization of P. gingivalis strains
Analysis of known P. gingivalis genomes revealed significant differences among laboratory strains and clinical isolates. According to the NCBI database (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov; as of June 26, 2023), over 90 P. gingivalis genomes have been fully or partially sequenced, and some examples of representative genomes are listed in Table 1; Fig. 1A. To perform a detailed analysis, we chose laboratory strains used in our previous studies (A7436 and 33277), and in addition, in some experiments, a reference W83 strain was employed. First, we constructed a phylogenetic tree based on nucleotide sequences of the hmu operon of selected strains (Fig. 1A). In contrast to the high homology of the hmuY gene, other genes of the hmu operon exhibited lower homology (Fig. 1B), thus confirming the high significance of HmuY protein. Furthermore, we analyzed the location of selected genes responsible for iron and heme uptake, gene regulation, and replication. Differences in their location in respective strains (Fig. 1C) might result from chromosome inversions and insertions (Fig. 1D). Moreover, our comparative analysis of A7436, 33277, and W83 genomes showed differences in the hmu operon location in relation to other genes (Fig. 1C and D), which might result mostly from chromosome rearrangements.
TABLE 1.
Genome and hmu operon access IDs of selected P. gingivalis strains
| Strain | GenBank sequence ID | hmu operon locus ID (hmuY-hmuV) |
|---|---|---|
| 381 | CP012889.1 | PGF_00005370 – PGF_00005320 |
| 11A | FUFE01000003.1 | B0490_RS00365 – B0490_RS00390 |
| 7BTORR | FUFD01000063.1 | PGIN_7BTORR_01725 – PGIN_7BTORR_01720 |
| A7436 | CP011995.1 | PGA7_RS02055 – PGA7_RS02030 |
| A7A1-28 | CP013131.1 | PGS_00005310 – PGS_00005360 |
| AJW4 | CP011996.1 | PGJ_00004400 – PGJ_00004350 |
| Ando | BCBV01000036.1 | PGANDO_0790 – PGANDO_0795 |
| ATCC 33277 | CP025930.1 | PGN_0558 – PGN_0553 |
| CP3 | SGBA01000005.1 | EW639_02390 – EW639_02415 |
| HG66 | CP007756.1 | EG14_03640 – EG14_03615 |
| JCVI SC001 | APMB01000180.1 | A343_2305 – A343_2311 |
| KCOM 2798 | CP024598.1 | CS374_01645 – CS374_01670 |
| KCOM 2799 | CP024601.1 | CS387_10190 – CS387_10165 |
| KCOM 2800 | CP024599.1 | CS388_02390 – CS388_02415 |
| KCOM 2801 | CP024600.1 | CS543_09515 – CS543_09540 |
| KCOM 2803 | CP024592.1 | CS545_07860 – CS545_07885 |
| KCOM 2805 | CP024594.1 | CS548_03395 – CS548_03370 |
| KCOM 3001 | CP024595.1 | CS550_06815 – CS550_06840 |
| KCOM 3131 | CP024596.1 | CS549_07880 – CS549_07905 |
| SJD11 | ASYO01000134.1 | SJDPG11_09125 – SJDPG11_09100 |
| SJD5 | ASYN01000124.1 | SJDPG5_04955 – SJDPG5_04930 |
| SU60 | FUFI01000019.1 | PGIN_YH522_00859 – PGIN_YH522_00864 |
| TDC60 | CP025931.1 | CF002_0748 – CF002_0743 |
| W4087 | KI260273.1 | HMPREF1990_02097 – HMPREF1990_02102 |
| W50 | CP092048.1 | MCS25_07005 – MCS25_07030 |
| W83 | AE015924.1 | PG1551 – PG1556 |
| WW2096 | NSLX01000036.1 | CLI72_08345 – CLI72_0837 |
Fig 1.
Comparative analysis of selected genomes of P. gingivalis strains. (A) A phylogenetic tree was constructed based on nucleotide sequences of the hmu operon present in strains listed in Table 1. Sequence for P. gulae (DSM15663 strain) was used as an out-group. (B) A heat map was constructed based on nucleotide sequences of the hmuY gene and nucleotide sequences of the entire hmu operon. The color gradient from green to red shows the percentage of identity from lowest (green) to highest (red). (C) Linearized genome maps of P. gingivalis A7436, ATCC 33277, and W83 strains demonstrating the location of selected genes. The genomes were visualized with Proksee (https://proksee.ca/). (D) Graphical presentation of the arrangement of genes in pairs of selected genomes. The hmu operon location is marked on the graphs as a reference. The changes in the slope of the curve represent the inversion of chromosome fragments of the strain indicated at the Y-axis in comparison to the reference strain at the X-axis.
Response to iron and heme limitation varies in P. gingivalis A7436 and 33277 strains
First, global gene expression analysis was carried out in P. gingivalis A7436 and 33277 strains. Relative differences in gene expression in bacteria grown in iron- and heme-depleted conditions (DIP medium) in relation to iron- and heme-replete conditions (Hm medium) were examined using microarray analysis. In the A7436 strain, the expression of 117 genes was up-regulated and the expression of 128 genes was down-regulated, whereas in the 33277 strain changes in gene expression of the lower number of genes were observed (43 and 66 genes, respectively). The most pronounced differences were found in genes belonging to the group of hypothetical proteins, in genes whose products participate in energy metabolism, and in genes encoding proteins engaged in transport and binding (Fig. 2). Proteins ascribed to those groups are listed in Tables S1 and S2. It is also worth noting here that although the microarray analysis was designed based on the A7436 genome, which could result in no detection of changes in the expression of genes specific to the 33277 strain only, genes important for P. gingivalis virulence are located in the core genome (22). Although the expression of a different number of genes was changed in A7436 and 33277 strains, the expression of the same 40 genes was up-regulated under iron and heme starvation in both examined strains (Fig. 2). Among them are genes encoding proteins responsible for iron and heme uptake and their homeostasis (e.g., Hmu system, FeoB, Dps), oxidative stress response (e.g., AhpC, AhpF, flavodoxin), transport (e.g., TonB-dependent receptors, ABC transporters, metal transporters, TolC-like protein), regulation and signal transduction (e.g., FeoA, PorX, LuxR, SigH) (Table S1). Interestingly, changes in the expression of many genes were strain specific but less pronounced (Fig. 2; Table S1). In the A7436 strain cultured under iron and heme starvation, increased expression of genes encoding some proteases, including rgpB (FC ~2.5×), PG1788 (FC ~2.2×), PG1855 (FC ~2.7×), and PG2029 (FC ~2.1×) genes, as well as genes encoding proteins involved in transport, including membrane-associated heme-binding protein HBP35 (FC ~2.5×), type IX secretion system (T9SS) protein PorS (FC ~3.3×), putative sulfur exporter (PG2004; FC ~2.6×), and CorA family protein (FC ~3.2×), was detected. Surprisingly, only in the A7436 strain was an expression of the gene encoding HmuT protein changed (FC ~57.1×), while the expression of the rest of the genes of the hmu operon increased in both strains. Genes whose expression increased only in the 33277 strain include mostly ones encoding hypothetical proteins and ribosomal proteins (e.g., rsmH, rprR, rpmI genes).
Fig 2.
General summary of microarray data of gene expression in P. gingivalis A7436 and ATCC 33277 strains grown in iron- and heme-depleted conditions (DIP medium) in comparison to iron- and heme-replete conditions (Hm medium). Data are shown from three independent biological replicates. Up- and down-regulated genes are grouped according to their function. The inset shows the Venn diagram showing either the number of genes whose expression changed in both tested strains or the number of genes whose expression is strain-specific.
Greater discrepancies between A7436 and 33277 strains in gene expression were detected in genes whose expression decreased when bacteria were grown under iron and heme starvation (Table S2). Only 26 genes are common to tested strains whose expression decreased, being ~20% and ~60% of total genes whose expression decreased in A7436 and 33277 strains, respectively. They include mainly genes encoding proteins involved in energy metabolism (e.g., oxidoreductases, ferredoxin, electron transport complex proteins). The greatest decrease in gene expression, especially in the 33277 strain (FC ~−13.3× and ~ −61.2× in A7436 and 33277 strains, respectively), was observed for a gene encoding a protein from the rubrerythrin family (PG0195), which is employed in the response to oxidative stress (62, 63). Decreased gene expression only for the A7436 strain included genes encoding proteins involved in energy metabolism (e.g., cytochrome c biogenesis proteins, IspH, TpiA), transport (e.g., HusA, HusB, PorT), and cell envelope and virulence (e.g., WecC, PG0109, PG0411—hemagglutinin, LptC, FimA, FimB). On the other hand, the expression of only a few genes changed specifically in the 33277 strain under iron and heme starvation, including genes encoding hemolysin secretion protein D (PG0093; FC ~−2.1×), ferredoxin (FC ~−3.0×), HemG (FC ~−2.8×), and GltA (FC ~−2.9×). In addition, the expression of two genes (PG2038 and PG2040) decreased (FC for both ~−2.2×) and increased (FC for both ~2.5×) in A7436 and 33277 strains, respectively, in response to iron and heme limitation (Tables S1 and S2). The two genes seem to be co-transcribed and encode N-acetylmuramoyl-L-alanine amidase and histidinol phosphate phosphatase.
To validate the results obtained by microarray analysis, we examined the expression of selected genes using RT-qPCR in bacteria cultured for 24 hours (early stationary growth phase) under iron and heme starvation in comparison to iron- and heme-replete conditions (DIP medium vs Hm medium). Moreover, to understand in more detail the expression pattern of genes involved in iron and heme uptake, we also analyzed gene expression in bacteria cultured for 10 hours (late exponential growth phase). As shown in Table 2, the results obtained with RT-qPCR are in general consistent with the results obtained with microarray analysis. As our previous studies have shown (52, 64, 65), expression of the hmuY gene in the A7436 strain increased under iron and heme starvation. Furthermore, our analysis showed that the expression of hmuY and hmuR genes increased during prolonged growth in both A7436 and 33277 strains. A similar effect was observed for the feoB genes (PG1043 and PG1294), whose products are engaged in ferrous iron/manganese transport (66–69). In addition, the feoB gene (PG1043), encoded close to the feoA gene (PG1044), was shown to be engaged in protection from oxidative stress (67, 68). Expression of ihtB, rgpA, rgpB, and kgp genes changed throughout the culture time, with a decrease after 10 hours and an increase after 24 hours in the DIP medium in comparison to the Hm medium. Although the changes were more evident in the A7436 strain, they were not statistically significant for both examined strains.
TABLE 2.
Gene expression analyzed using RT-qPCR. Relative transcript levels were determined in bacteria grown in iron- and heme-depleted conditions (DIP medium) in comparison to iron- and heme-replete conditions (Hm medium)
| Gene name | W83 | A7436 | 33277 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Locus ID | Locus ID | Fold change | Locus ID | Fold change | |||
| 10 hours | 24 hours | 10 hours | 24 hours | ||||
| hmuY | PG1551 | PGA7_RS02055 | 90.38 ± 52.06 | 260.31 ± 189.67 | PGN_0558 | 5.34 ± 0.75 | 125.37 ± 27.10 |
| hmuR | PG1552 | PGA7_RS02050 | 69.94 ± 35.30 | 266.43 ± 142.74 | PGN_0557 | 4.43 ± 0.24 | 243.28 ± 75.77 |
| husA | PG2227 | PGA7_RS10010 | −1.42 ± 0.17 | −2.09 ± 0.57 | PGN_2091 | 1.08 ± 0.27 | 1.26 ± 0.18 |
| ihtB | PG0669 | PGA7_RS06060 | −2.18 ± 0.62 | 2.06 ± 0.37 | PGN_0705 | −1.16 ± 0.13 | 1.66 ± 0.06 |
| feoB | PG1043 | PGA7_RS04380 | 1.93 ± 1.03 | 3.53 ± 0.71 | PGN_1309 | 1.90 ± 0.80 | 3.47 ± 0.54 |
| hagA | PG1837 | PGA7_RS08180 | 1.28 ± 0.54 | −1.09 ± 0.37 | PGN_1733 | 1.27 ± 0.45 | 1.51 ± 0.63 |
| kgp | PG1844 | PGA7_RS08195 | −1.69 ± 1.32 | 3.90 ± 0.95 | PGN_1728 | 1.16 ± 0.26 | 2.79 ± 0.83 |
| rgpA | PG2024 | PGA7_RS09040 | −1.26 ± 0.71 | 4.24 ± 1.72 | PGN_1970 | −1.14 ± 0.25 | 4.52 ± 1.17 |
| rgpB | PG0506 | PGA7_RS06770 | −1.90 ± 0.90 | 5.87 ± 4.37 | PGN_1466 | −1.35 ± 0.57 | 2.69 ± 0.49 |
Main heme acquisition systems are expressed differently in A7436 and 33277 strains
Genetic differences and different responses to iron and heme starvation between A7436 and 33277 strains have led us to compare the production of selected proteins involved in iron and heme uptake by P. gingivalis. First, we determined the expression of hmuY and ihtB genes in bacteria grown in different conditions (Fig. 3A). As expected, the transcript encoding the HmuY protein significantly increased during incubation in both A7436 and 33277 strains. Although expression of the ihtB gene was higher in the 33277 strain in the DIP medium and after 24 hours in the Hm medium, the observed differences were not statistically significant. Then, we compared transcript levels of hmuY and ihtB genes in the 33277 strain in comparison to the A7436 strain (Fig. 3B). We observed ~100× higher hmuY transcript production in the 33277 strain, as compared to the A7436 strain, after 10 hours in bacteria grown in iron- and heme-replete conditions (Hm medium). After 24 hours, expression of the hmuY gene did not differ significantly between the strains in bacteria cultured in both conditions (Hm and DIP media).
Fig 3.
Analysis of production of selected proteins engaged in heme acquisition in P. gingivalis. RT-qPCR was used to determine differences in the expression of hmuY and ihtB genes during late exponential (10 hours; 10 h) and early stationary (24 hours; 24 h) growth phases. Results are shown as relative hmuY or ihtB mRNA levels in comparison to the 16S rRNA gene (hmuY/16S rRNA or ihtB/16S rRNA) (A) or as expression fold change in the ATCC 33277 strain in comparison to the A7436 strain (33277 vs A7436) (B). Comparative analysis of cell-associated HmuY, IhtB, and RgpB proteins in P. gingivalis cultured in liquid media (C) and on anaerobic blood agar (ABA) plates (D) using Western blotting and densitometric analysis. Results were normalized to the A7436 strain grown in a liquid medium supplemented with iron and heme (C) or results are shown as relative protein production fold change in the ATCC 33277 strain in comparison to the A7436 strain (D). The results are shown as mean ± standard error (mean ± SE). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ****P < 0.0001.
Next, using Western blotting with anti-HmuY and anti-IhtB antibodies, we analyzed the production of HmuY and IhtB proteins (Fig. 3C; Fig. S1). We showed that HmuY protein production was ~6× higher in the 33277 strain in comparison to the A7436 strain when culturing bacteria in iron-/heme-replete conditions, whereas the production of HmuY protein in the DIP medium was the same in both tested strains. The amount of IhtB protein was ~2× higher in the A7436 strain when bacteria were grown in the DIP medium, which is consistent with ihtB transcript production after 24 hours (Table 2). On the other hand, we did not observe differences in IhtB protein production in the 33277 strain between DIP and Hm media. However, we found ~2–6× higher IhtB protein production in the 33277 strain in comparison to the A7436 strain (Fig. 3C; Fig. S1).
Using microarray analysis, we detected an increase in rgpB expression (Table S1) in the A7436 strain when bacteria had been starved of iron and heme. Moreover, we found that expression of all genes encoding gingipains increased after 24 hours in iron- and heme-depleted conditions (Table 2). No differences in both conditions and between the examined strains were found in the expression of the hagA, the gene encoding the main hemagglutinin A (HagA), of which hemagglutinin/adhesion domains are present in RgpA and RgpB (Table 2). Therefore, we decided to analyze rgpB gene expression at the protein level. Expression of the cell-associated RgpB (70, 71), gingipain produced without hemagglutinin/adhesion domains, was similar in both examined strains (Fig. 3C and D; Fig. S1 and S2). However, some differences could be observed in the case of pro-RgpB protein associated with the outer membrane (Fig. 3C, D, and 4C), although neither rgpB gene length, amino acid sequence, nor theoretical RgpB molecular weight significantly differed in the examined strains (Fig. 4A and B).
Fig 4.
Comparison of RgpB produced by P. gingivalis A7436, 33277, and W83 strains. (A) Amino acid sequence alignment. (B) Gene length analysis. The whole DNA sequence of the rgpB gene was amplified using genomic DNA of A7436, 33277, or W83 strains and primers listed in Table S4. (C) Differences in RgpB molecular weight were examined in whole cell lysates by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and Western blotting using anti-RgpB antibody. (D) Differences in the production of glycans were examined using reactivity with JACALIN (the lectin preferentially recognizes galactose linked with β−1,3 linkage to N-acetylgalactosamine and mono- or di-sialylated form of this structure).
To present in more detail differences in the production of HmuY, IhtB, and RgpB proteins in A7436 and 33277 strains, we tested protein levels in bacteria cultured on blood agar (ABA) plates, containing hemoglobin as the main heme source, and serum heme-binding proteins, mainly albumin. These conditions also allow P. gingivalis to deposit excess heme on the cell surface, providing the bacterium with the ability to maintain iron and heme homeostasis, similar to that found in the natural environment in advanced stages of the disease. As shown in Fig. 3D; Fig. S2, HmuY protein production was ~3× higher in the 33277 strain in comparison to the A7436 strain, whereas production of both IhtB and RgpB did not differ between examined strains. Our data demonstrate that production of the main components of heme acquisition systems may vary depending on the strain, therefore revealing bases of additional differences between P. gingivalis strains.
Intracellular iron content influences P. gingivalis phenotype
Phenotypic characterization of P. gingivalis growth in liquid culture media in iron- and heme-depleted or iron- and heme-replete conditions confirmed that the A7436 strain grew faster and its growth resulted in higher biomass production, as compared to the 33277 strain (Fig. 5A; Table S3). This result is not surprising because differences in the growth rate, including W83 and A7436 strains, have also been observed by others (72), suggesting that even strains belonging to the same group may phenotypically differ. When bacteria had been starved of iron and heme, subsequent growth in the presence of heme (DIP + Hm) or hemoglobin (DIP + Hb) was more efficient in the case of the A7436 strain as compared to the 33277 strain, the latter often being unable to recover and proliferate (Fig. 5B; Table S3). These results may indicate that the 33277 strain is less resistant to iron and heme starvation due to disturbed iron uptake and/or homeostasis. To explain this phenomenon, we determined intracellular iron content. The 33277 strain contained ~25% less intracellular iron than the A7436 strain (Fig. 5C). When P. gingivalis was grown on ABA plates, no significant differences in the formed pigment were observed (data not shown). The only difference was ~50% higher hemolysis caused by the 33277 strain in comparison to the A7436 strain (Fig. 5D). To find the bases for this phenotypic difference, we analyzed gingipain activity. Neither Rgp nor Kgp activity differed significantly when bacteria were grown either in iron- and heme-replete or in iron- and heme-depleted conditions (Fig. 5E), confirming that gingipain activity does not depend on iron and heme availability but rather on growth phase and bacterial density (73). The Rgp activity was similar in both tested strains; however, the 33277 strain exhibited two times higher Kgp activity than the A7436 strain in the two tested conditions (Fig. 5E). Since mainly Kgp is responsible for hemoglobin degradation, these results may explain the higher hemolytic activity of the 33277 strain.
Fig 5.
Phenotypic analysis of P. gingivalis A7436 and ATCC 33277 (33277) strains. (A) Growth of bacteria in liquid culture media containing iron and heme (iron- and heme-replete conditions, Hm medium) or without heme and supplemented with the iron chelator 2,2-dipyridyl (iron- and heme-depleted conditions, DIP medium). (B) Recovery of bacteria after prior heme and iron starvation. Bacteria were cultured for two passages in a DIP medium and then transferred to a fresh DIP medium supplemented with heme (DIP + Hm) or hemoglobin (DIP + Hb). Growth without an iron source was used as a control (DIP medium). Bacterial growth was monitored over time by measuring the optical density at 600 nm (statistical analysis is presented in Table S3). (C) The intracellular amount of iron was measured using a ferrozine-based assay. (D) Hemolytic activity was examined on anaerobic blood agar (ABA) plates after 5 days by visual inspection, semi-quantitatively evaluated by densitometric analysis, and shown as the relative hemolytic activity in the 33277 strain in relation to the A7436 strain (the latter set as 1.0). To better visualize and analyze hemolysis, bacterial colonies were removed. BM medium was used as a negative hemolysis control. (E) Gingipain activities of whole P. gingivalis cultures were measured using arginine-specific (Rgp) and lysine-specific (Kgp) substrates. Enzymatic activity was determined as an increase in absorbance at 405 nm per 1 minute per 1 µL of bacterial culture of optical density at 600 nm equal to 1. (F) Heme-binding ability by P. gingivalis cells. (G) Biofilm formation on the abiotic surface was examined using crystal violet staining and absorbance measurement at 570 nm. Insets in the graphs show a relative increase in heme binding (F) or biofilm formation (G) in iron- and heme-depleted conditions (DIP medium) in comparison to iron and heme-replete conditions (Hm medium). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001.
Production of some P. gingivalis proteins, including outer membrane virulence factors (such as HmuY), is dependent on iron and heme availability (55). We observed that the 33277 strain, compared to the A7436 strain, bound more heme when cultured in iron- and heme-replete conditions (Fig. 5F). When both strains were cultured in iron- and heme-depleted conditions, although the general amount of bound heme was higher in 33277 than A7436 strain, the differences were not statistically significant (Fig. 5F).
In addition, we performed a comparative analysis of A7436 and 33277 strains in terms of their ability to form biofilm. Generally, biofilm formation by P. gingivalis is enhanced when bacteria are grown with reduced iron and heme content in the external environment. As expected (74), the more fimbriated 33277 strain formed larger biofilm structures, as compared to the A7436 strain (Fig. 5G). Moreover, both strains formed larger biofilm structures when bacteria had been starved of iron and heme; however, relative biofilm formation ability increased by ~2.25× for the A7436 strain and only ~1.45× for the 33277 strain (Fig. 5G). Although the results are not that profound, it is worth noting that we observed a higher increase in heme-binding ability caused by culturing the A7436 strain in iron- and heme-depleted conditions (~1.35× increase) as compared to iron- and heme-rich conditions, while for the 33277 strain, the increase was only ~1.2×. Moreover, these results can explain, at least in part, the differences in HmuY levels. Relative HmuY production in the DIP medium was ~35× and ~6× higher in A7436 and 33277 strains, respectively, in comparison to the Hm medium (Fig. 3C; Fig. S1). Altogether, this shows that iron and heme depletion has a greater impact on the phenotype presented by the A7436 strain than the 33277 strain. Therefore, our results suggest that not only the availability of iron and heme in the external environment but also the ability to store iron intracellularly can influence the P. gingivalis gene expression and phenotype.
Hemoglobin influences the interaction of A7436 and 33277 strains with keratinocytes differently
The availability of hemoglobin, as the main source of iron and PPIX, varies at different stages of periodontitis, being highly available in advanced stages of the disease (55, 56). Therefore, in this study, we not only compared the interaction of A7436 and 33277 strains with human gingival keratinocytes but also examined the influence of hemoglobin concentration on the adhesion to and invasion of keratinocytes. Also for this experiment, we used the reference W83 strain. The general interaction ability of all strains with keratinocytes was as follows: 33277 > W83 > A7436 (Fig. 6A through C). Increasing concentration of hemoglobin increased the interaction ability of more virulent A7436 and W83 strains. In the case of A7436, hemoglobin increased its invasion ability, and in the case of the W83 strain both adhesion and invasion abilities (Fig. 6A and B). The addition of 2 µM and 5 µM hemoglobin resulted in an increase in the growth of A7436 and W83 strains in the presence of keratinocytes by ~25% and ~50%, respectively (Fig. 6D). Conversely, increasing the concentration of hemoglobin decreased the growth, adhesion, and invasion abilities of the 33277 strain by ~50% (Fig. 6C and D). This finding was quite surprising in light of higher hemolytic and Kgp activities presented by the 33277 strain (Fig. 5D). As a control, we supplemented P. gingivalis-keratinocyte co-cultures with purified apo-SgGAPDH protein. However, we did not observe any significant changes in this case (Fig. 6D). Overall, our results showed that hemoglobin availability may influence the adhesion to and invasion of keratinocytes of some P. gingivalis strains in a concentration-dependent manner.
Fig 6.
Influence of hemoglobin on interaction with host cells of P. gingivalis A7436 (A), W83 (B), and ATCC 33277 (C) strains. The ability to interact with, adhere to, and invade host cells was analyzed using a P. gingivalis-gingival keratinocytes co-culture model. The number of viable bacteria was shown as the number of colony-forming units (CFU) per mL of the culture medium. Adhesion—live bacteria attached to keratinocytes; invasion—live bacteria that invaded keratinocytes; interaction—the total number of live bacteria that adhered to and invaded keratinocytes. (D) Summary of the correlation between hemoglobin concentration and P. gingivalis interaction with human keratinocytes. The average interaction of P. gingivalis with keratinocytes in samples without hemoglobin was set as 100% for each tested strain. As a protein control, purified apo-SgGAPDH protein instead of hemoglobin was used. Results are shown as mean ± SD (A through C) or as mean ± SE (D). Hb—hemoglobin; SgGAPDH—glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase from Streptococcus gordonii. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ****P < 0.0001.
DISCUSSION
P. gingivalis is one of the most important microbial agents involved in the initiation and progression of periodontitis (1, 14–17). The bacterium produces numerous virulence factors, enabling it to survive in different niches of the human body and infect host cells (55). However, it has been shown that P. gingivalis can also be present in healthy humans (e.g., 28, 30, 32, 42), which may suggest that not all P. gingivalis strains are pathogenic or their contribution to this process is of minor importance (75). Indeed, it has been shown that during evolution P. gingivalis strains may have diverged into groups varying in their genotypes and phenotypes, resulting in different virulence potentials (e.g., 28–30, 32–35, 40–43, 76, 77). The diversity of P. gingivalis strains results from their genetic variability caused mainly by the rearrangement of the bacterial chromosome. This seems to be possible because P. gingivalis encodes many transposon sequences that are responsible for this process and their number differs between strains (29). Moreover, recent studies showed that clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR) and CRISPR-associated genes (Cas) (CRISPR-Cas) can influence virulence due to their engagement in transcription regulation or biofilm formation (44, 78–81).
In general, P. gingivalis strains are classified as virulent/more virulent (e.g., A7436, W83, W50) or as less virulent/avirulent (e.g., ATCC 33277, 381, HG66). The most studied, more virulent A7436 and W83 strains, belong to encapsulated strains, whereas the less virulent ATCC 33277 strain does not produce a capsule (22, 28, 33, 36–39, 82, 83). P. gingivalis produces major and minor fimbriae, the main components of which, the FimA and Mfa1 proteins, respectively, differ significantly in their structures (24, 30, 31, 39, 83–87). Moreover, different types of fimbriae are produced by P. gingivalis strains, which is often correlated with pathogenicity (87, 88). The bacterium also produces different LPS isoforms with significant structural variations of lipid A and O-antigen moieties that can affect its pro-inflammatory potential (89–91).
While the genomes of the A7436 and W83 strains are similar, significant differences between them and the 33277 genome were reported (44, 82, 83, 92, 93). For example, in comparison to the 33277 strain, both A7436 and W83 strains can survive much longer intracellularly after entering human endothelial cells in vitro (28). However, in contrast to the W83 strain, the A7436 strain traffics through different intracellular pathways and is not able to induce autophagy (26). Also increased colonization of rat tissues caused by the A7436 strain, as compared to the 33277 or W83 strain, has been reported (94, 95). Although W83 and A7436 genomes are quite similar, the strains exhibit some differences in the observed phenotypes and virulence potential (26).
Heme is a limiting factor for P. gingivalis growth and is essential for its survival. It is worth mentioning here that heme availability changes during the disease progress. Moreover, the source of heme depends on the niche occupied by the bacterium (55, 56). In addition, different heme concentrations affect various P. gingivalis strains differently, resulting in different tolerance to heme (61). To date, several studies have documented the influence of iron and heme availability on gene expression in P. gingivalis (e.g., 96, 97). Our additional analyses, including the A7436 strain, not previously studied in this aspect, showed that iron and heme may contribute differently to gene expression in P. gingivalis strains (Tables S1 and S2; Table 2). Some of the genes only partially overlapped (Fig. 2), which may indicate different mechanisms leading to the adaptation of different P. gingivalis strains due to the changing availability of iron and heme.
Heme uptake systems play a key role in the adaptation of P. gingivalis to the niche it occupies. Interestingly, the genetic variation in these systems is negligible between P. gingivalis strains, showing that they are crucial for the bacterium. Our phenotypic characterization of examined strains grown in iron- and heme-replete or in iron and heme-depleted conditions showed that expression of the Hmu system in both tested strains is highly dependent on iron and heme availability, whereas expression of other P. gingivalis putative heme uptake systems, such as Iht and Hus systems, is not iron- and heme-dependent (Fig. 3). Iron-dependent regulation in bacteria is typically mediated by a ferric uptake regulator (Fur). Although we have shown that a P. gingivalis Fur homolog (PgFur) does not function like the classic Fur protein, it regulates the production of HmuY protein (98, 99). Moreover, we observed that PgFur has a different effect on the regulation of virulence factors in 33277 and A7436 strains (100). It seems that the 33277 strain exhibits a lower ability to accumulate iron intracellularly (Fig. 5C), which may directly affect its susceptibility to starvation from this element, and the production of proteins whose regulation is dependent on this ion. One example is the HmuY protein, the production of which is directly related to the availability of iron, being produced in higher amounts after iron and heme starvation (55). We found that in iron- and heme-replete conditions production of HmuY is higher in the 33277 strain as compared to the A7436 strain (Fig. 3). Such an effect might be caused by the lower amount of intracellular iron in the 33277 strain, which stimulates the bacterial cell to produce proteins responsible for iron acquisition, including higher expression of the HmuY protein. This might result, at least in part, in the higher adsorption of heme on the surface of the 33277 strain grown in iron- and heme-rich conditions (Fig. 5F). We observed a similar effect for the IhtB protein, production of which is in general higher in the 33277 strain than in the A7436 strain (Fig. 3). However, in contrast to HmuY, IhtB production is not regulated by PgFur (98). An additional potential explanation of the differences observed between the examined strains in iron and heme homeostasis and their influence on the phenotype is the lack of the complete two-component regulatory system (HaeSR) in the 33277 strain, which is engaged in other strains in the regulation of expression of the hmu and iht operons, as well as in the regulation of expression of genes encoding gingipains (101).
The interaction of P. gingivalis with other bacteria and host cells is essential for an efficient virulence process, often dependent on the proteins that are components of the outer membrane, for example, fimbriae, hemagglutinins, and gingipains. In general, P. gingivalis tends to form higher biofilm structures under iron and heme starvation in comparison to conditions of iron and heme excess (74), a feature also confirmed in this study. Moreover, we also found that iron and heme starvation leads to a greater increase in biofilm formation by the A7436 strain in comparison to the 33277 strain. We think that differences in iron and heme homeostasis play an additional role in different P. gingivalis strains’ phenotypes. Moreover, the ability of the A7436 strain to accumulate more iron intracellularly may provide it with a greater capacity to adapt to changing environmental conditions, including stress conditions, such as iron and heme deficiency. Consequently, it could lead to quantitative and qualitative differences in the composition of the outer membrane of particular strains, thus influencing the ability to interact with host cells differently. In the advanced stage of periodontitis, the main source of heme for P. gingivalis is hemoglobin, which is present in large amounts after lysis of erythrocytes. Therefore, its concentration may affect the expression of heme-dependent genes in P. gingivalis. The presence of many proteins, including gingipains, hemagglutinins, HmuY, and HmuR, affects the binding of heme and hemoglobin on the surface of the P. gingivalis cell. Our data showed that the interaction with host cells of the strains can vary depending on the amount of free hemoglobin in the external environment. We noted an increase in the adhesion to and invasion of keratinocytes of A7436 and W83 strains with an increasing hemoglobin concentration but the opposite effect for the 33277 strain (Fig. 6). Another explanation of this effect could be the lower resistance of the 33277 strain, as compared to the A7436 strain, to oxidative stress (102). The addition of hemoglobin under aerobic conditions used in our study may generate an increase in reactive oxygen species, which might affect the survival of bacteria. This may prove the better adaptation ability of the A7436 strain to the changing conditions of the external environment, as compared to the 33277 strain.
We found that the 33277 strain produced a higher amount of HmuY in iron- and heme-replete conditions, and generally produced higher amounts of IhtB, as well as Kgp. The influence of the latter protein, besides higher Kgp enzymatic activity, could also be responsible for the increased hemagglutinating activity. Therefore, a higher amount of heme- and hemoglobin-binding proteins on the surface of the 33277 strain may result in higher heme and hemoglobin binding, thus preventing adhesion to host cells and subsequent entry into keratinocytes. Moreover, besides proteinaceous components of the outer membrane, differences in LPS structures, mainly in lipid A, might be responsible for strains’ variability (89, 101–104). It was reported that differences in both fimbriae and LPS between P. gingivalis strains can result in different hydrophobicity of strains, which may cause various recognition of molecules produced by cohabitating bacteria, different co-aggregation abilities, and different capacities for biofilm formation, and possibly differences in heme and hemoglobin binding by outer membrane molecules (103–108). Gingipains are modified by the APS (58, 90, 91, 109, 110). Therefore, we assumed that differences in molecular weight observed for pro-RgpB (Fig. 3 and 4C) could be due to the changes in LPS structures. Both A7436 and 33277 strains differ in glycosylation (100), which could, at least in part, explain the effect observed in the examined strains (Fig. 3C, D, and 4C,D).
In conclusion, accumulating evidence demonstrates that P. gingivalis strains exhibit different phenotypes in vitro, different virulence potential in animal models, and different associations with human diseases. We also observed that the less virulent 33277 strain and more virulent A7436 strain exhibit different phenotypes in regard to iron and heme acquisition, which may be caused by their genetic divergence. We think that the ability to accumulate iron intracellularly, and resistance to iron and heme starvation being different in the examined P. gingivalis strains, may exert a significant impact on their observed phenotypes, influencing the production of virulence factors and the virulence potential of P. gingivalis strains. We believe that the results presented in this study shed new light on differences between P. gingivalis strains and their virulence potential to cause dysbiosis in the oral cavity.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Bacterial strains and growth conditions
Porphyromonas gingivalis wild-type A7436, ATCC 33277 (33277) and W83 strains were maintained on Schaedler blood agar (ABA) plates (Biomaxima, Lublin, Poland) in anaerobic conditions (80% N2, 10% H2, and 10% CO2) (Whitley A35 anaerobic workstation; Bingley, UK) at 37°C for 3–5 days. Then, bacteria were inoculated into liquid basal medium (BM) prepared from 3% trypticase soy broth (Becton Dickinson, Sparks, MD, USA) and 0.5% yeast extract (Biomaxima), supplemented with 3.6 mM L-cysteine hydrochloride (Carl Roth, Karlsruhe, Germany), 0.5 mg/L menadione (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA), and 7.7 µM hemin chloride (Fluka, Munich, Germany) (Hm medium). To examine the influence of iron and heme on gene expression, bacteria were grown in two types of liquid media. To imitate bleeding occurring in individuals with an advanced stage of periodontitis (characterized by high concentrations of iron and heme in the oral cavity), bacteria were grown in Hm medium. To imitate the conditions of a healthy oral cavity (characterized by trace amounts of iron and heme), 160 µM of the iron chelator 2,2-dipyridyl (Sigma-Aldrich) (DIP medium) was used instead of hemin chloride. To monitor P. gingivalis growth, bacteria were inoculated into Hm or DIP medium with a starting optical density at 600 nm (OD600) equal to 0.2. P. gingivalis growth was monitored using a Stratus plate reader (Cerillo, Charlottesville, VA, USA) as described previously (56).
Biofilm formation
To compare the biofilm-forming capacity of P. gingivalis 33277 and A7436 strains, a sterile 96-well plate (Corning, New York, US) was inoculated with 200 µL of bacterial cultures in Hm or DIP medium per well at starting OD600 equal to 0.2. Bacteria were cultured at 37°C under anaerobic conditions for 24 hours. Then, wells were washed three times with 20 mM sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.4, containing 140 mM NaCl (phosphate-buffered saline, PBS) to remove unattached bacteria. The biofilm was stained with 1% crystal violet (Carl Roth, Karlsruhe, Germany) for 10 minutes, then washed five times with PBS and de-stained with 99.8% ethanol. Absorbance at 570 nm (A570) was measured using a GloMax Discover plate reader (Promega, Madison, WI, USA). The obtained values were normalized to the OD600 of the liquid bacterial cultures equal to 1.
Microarray analysis of gene expression
P. gingivalis A7436 and 33277 strains were grown in three biological replicates in Hm and DIP media for 20 hours as described above. The microarray analysis was performed in IMGM laboratories (Martinsried, Germany) as described previously (99). Briefly, the online tool eArray (http://earray.chem.agilent.com/; Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) was used to design an Agilent Custom Porphyromonas gingivalis A7436 Gene Expression Microarray (8 × 15K format). Probes were prepared based on P. gingivalis transcriptome information derived from the NCBI reference sequence NZ_CP011995.1. Total RNA isolation, RNA quantity, and quality were determined as described previously (99). For internal labeling control, the total RNA was spiked with in vitro synthesized polyadenylated transcripts (One-Color RNA Spike-In Mix; Agilent Technologies). Subsequently, samples were reverse transcribed into cDNA and then converted into cyanine-3-labeled complementary RNA (cRNA) with Low Input Quick-Amp Labeling Kit One-Color (Agilent Technologies). For microarray hybridization, a Gene Expression Hybridization Kit (Agilent Technologies) was used. Labeled cRNA was hybridized for 17 hours at 65°C on Agilent Custom GE 8 × 15K Microarrays, washed according to the manufacturer’s protocol, and dried with acetonitrile (Sigma-Aldrich). The fluorescence of samples was detected with Scan Control A.8.4.1 software (Agilent Technologies) on the Agilent DNA Microarray Scanner (Agilent Technologies) and extracted from the images using Feature Extraction 10.7.3.1 software (Agilent Technologies). For data analysis, Feature Extraction 10.7.3.1 (Agilent Technologies), GeneSpring GX 13.1.1 (Agilent Technologies), and Excel 2010 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) were used. For statistical analysis, Welch’s approximate t-test was used. Differences in gene expression are shown as fold change values (FC). The average was calculated from the normalized signal values and they were transformed from the log2 to the linear scale. Increases and decreases in gene expression are shown as positive and negative numbers, respectively. The fold change in gene expression was considered significant for FC ≥ 2 or FC ≤ −2 and P-value ≤ 0.05.
Gene expression analysis examined using reverse transcriptase-quantitative polymerase chain reaction
P. gingivalis strains were maintained for 10 or 24 hours in Hm and DIP media. Total RNA was isolated with the Total RNA Mini Kit (A&A Biotechnology, Gdańsk, Poland), followed by the Clean-up RNA concentrator Kit (A&A Biotechnology). cDNA was obtained by reverse transcription using a LunaScript RT SuperMix Kit (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA, USA). For PCR, the SensiFAST SYBR no-ROX Kit (Bioline, London, UK) and LightCycler 96 (Roche, Basel, Switzerland) were used. The PCR program consisted of initial denaturation at 95°C for 120 seconds, 40 cycles of denaturation at 95°C for 5 seconds, primer annealing at 60°C for 10 seconds, and extension at 72°C for 15 seconds. For PCR product quality, the melting curves were generated and analyzed. All samples were examined in triplicate. Fold change in gene expression was calculated with LightCycler 96 software (Roche). All primers used in this study are listed in Table S4, including the P. gingivalis 16S rRNA gene used as the reference gene.
IhtB protein purification and anti-IhtB antibody production
To generate anti-IhtB antibodies, the recombinant IhtB protein (GenBank accession number AKV64486), lacking the predicted signal peptide (MKKLILATLGLMAIAMLSCS), was purified. Briefly, the ihtB gene was PCR amplified using primers listed in Table S4. The PCR product was cloned into XcmI and BamHI restriction sites of a pTriEx-4 plasmid (Sigma-Aldrich) using NEBuilder HiFi DNA Assembly (New England Biolabs), enabling IhtB protein production with the 6×His tag fused to the N-terminus with the possibility to be removed with Xa factor. IhtB protein was overexpressed using Escherichia coli BL21-CodonPlus (DE3)-RIL strain (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) and purified from the soluble E. coli cell lysate using TALON Superflow resin according to the manufacturer’s protocol (Sigma-Aldrich). Subsequently, the 6×His-tag was cut off using the Xa factor according to the manufacturer’s protocol (New England Biolabs) and removed by washing and protein concentration using Amicon Ultra-4 Centrifugal Ultracel-10KDa filter units (Millipore).
Anti-IhtB antibodies were produced in rabbits using purified IhtB protein as an antigen, according to the company’s protocol (ProteoGenix, Schiltigheim, France).
Sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, Western blotting, and lectin assay
Sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) samples were prepared using bacteria grown in liquid and on solid media as reported previously (56). Bacterial lysates were separated on 12% polyacrylamide gels using SDS-PAGE, transferred onto nitrocellulose membranes (Millipore, Billerica, MA, USA), and subsequently probed with rabbit antibodies raised against HmuY (1:10,000; GenScript USA Inc.), IhtB (1:10,000; ProteoGenix), or the RgpB catalytic domain (1 µg/mL; Cusabio; Houston, TX, USA). Then, goat anti-rabbit IgG antibodies conjugated with horseradish peroxidase (1:20,000; Sigma-Aldrich) were used.
To analyze potential differences in glycosylation of macromolecules, a lectin assay was performed as reported previously (100). Briefly, whole cell lysates were separated by SDS-PAGE, transferred onto nitrocellulose membranes, and probed with JACALIN lectin (1:5,000) specific to galactose linked with β−1,3 linkage to N-acetylgalactosamine and mono- or di-sialylated form of this structure (Vector Laboratories, Newark, CA, USA). Lectin binding was detected using avidin D conjugated with horseradish peroxidase (1:10,000; Vector Laboratories). Equal loading of proteins was visualized on nitrocellulose membranes by staining with Ponceau S (data not shown).
Western blotting and lectin assay signals were visualized using chemiluminescence staining (Perkin Elmer, Waltham, MA, USA) and a ChemiDoc Imaging System (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA). Densitometric analysis (relative quantification) was performed using Image Lab 6.0.1 software (Bio-Rad).
Determination of intracellular iron content
Intracellular iron concentration was determined using the ferrozine-based method as described previously (56). Briefly, aliquots of overnight bacterial cultures (BM + Hm; 20 mL) were centrifuged and washed with PBS, and bacterial suspensions (4 mL) at OD600 equal to 2.0 were sonicated. Samples were then treated according to the procedure reported by Ceriotti and Ceriotti (111). The absorbance of the supernatants was measured at 562 nm. The iron content was determined from a standard curve prepared similarly to bacterial samples using FeCl3 (Sigma Aldrich).
Heme binding by the whole P. gingivalis cells
The ability of heme binding to whole P. gingivalis cells was performed as described previously (56). Briefly, aliquots of overnight bacterial cultures (BM + Hm or BM + DIP; 20 mL) were centrifuged and washed with PBS, and bacterial suspensions (0.8 mL) at OD600 equal to 1.25 were mixed with 0.2 mL of hemin chloride in PBS (50 µg/mL). After incubation for 1 h at 37°C, the samples were centrifuged and the absorbance of the supernatant was measured at 385 nm. Control samples contained all components except bacteria. The amount of heme bound to bacterial cells was determined from the difference in absorbance between the control and bacterial samples.
Determination of gingipain activity
Gingipain activity was measured as reported by others (112) with minor modifications. Briefly, to 150 µL of the reaction buffer (20 mM TRIS pH 7.5, supplemented with 150 mM NaCl, 0.05% Tween 20, 5 mM CaCl2, and 10 mM L-cysteine hydrochloride, neutralized with NaOH), 10 µL of P. gingivalis cultures was added and samples were incubated for 15 minutes at 37°C. The reaction was started by addition of 50 µL of reaction buffer, supplemented with 2 mM N-(p-tosyl)-Gly-Pro-Lys 4-nitroanilide acetate salt (Sigma-Aldrich) for determination of the Kgp activity or 2 mM Nα-benzoyl-DL-arginine p-nitroanilide hydrochloride (BApNA; Sigma-Aldrich) for determination of the Rgp activity. The samples were incubated for 2 hours at 37°C and the reaction was monitored by measuring the increase of absorbance at 405 nm (A405) over time using a GloMax Discover plate reader (Promega). Rgp or Kgp activities are shown as an increase in absorbance at 405 nm (A405) per minute per 1 µL of the bacterial culture at an optical density at 600 nm (OD600) equal to 1 (mOD/min/μL).
Hemolytic activity
Aliquots of 25 µL of overnight liquid bacterial cultures (BM + Hm) at OD600 equal to 2 were applied on ABA plates in spots of ~1 cm diameter and cultured for 5 days. Bacteria were removed from plates and relative hemolytic activity was determined with the ChemiDoc Imaging System (Bio-Rad) using densitometric analysis (relative quantification) with the Image Lab 6.0.1 software (Bio-Rad).
Interaction with host cells
Immortalized human gingival keratinocytes (Gie-No3B11; ABM, Richmond, British Columbia, CA, USA) were used as a host cell model. Keratinocytes and bacteria were grown as described previously (56, 113). Keratinocytes were seeded (1.0 × 104 cells per well) in 24-well plates (Corning, New York, US) and grown for 24 hours in TM-040 medium (ABM), supplemented with 2% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS, Cytogen, Zgierz, Poland), 100 U/mL penicillin (Sigma-Aldrich) and 100 µg/mL streptomycin (Cytogen) at 37°C in an atmosphere of 5% CO2.
To determine the influence of hemoglobin on P. gingivalis interaction with keratinocytes, human hemoglobin (Sigma-Aldrich) was used. As a control, another heme-binding protein, namely Streptococcus gordonii glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (SgGAPDH), was used in its apo form. SgGAPDH was overexpressed and purified as described previously (114). To remove endotoxins, Detoxi-Gel Endotoxin Removing Columns were used according to the manufacturer’s protocol (Thermo Scientific).
P. gingivalis was grown to the early stationary phase in Hm medium, centrifuged (4,000 × g, 20 minutes, 4°C), and washed twice with PBS. Keratinocytes were washed three times with PBS and a fresh DMEM medium (Sigma-Aldrich) or DMEM medium supplemented with a sterile solution of human hemoglobin or SgGAPDH at the final concentration of 2 µM or 5 µM. The cells were treated with P. gingivalis with the multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 100 and incubated for 4 hours at 37°C in an atmosphere of 5% CO2. Then, the wells were washed three times with PBS. To determine the bacteria present inside the cells and attached to them, a fresh DMEM medium was added. To kill the external bacteria and to determine only live bacteria inside the cells, DMEM medium supplemented with 300 µg/mL gentamicin (Sigma-Aldrich) and 200 µg/mL metronidazole (Sigma-Aldrich) was added. After 1 hour, the wells were washed three times with PBS, and lysed with sterile distilled water. The cell lysates were used to prepare serial dilutions, which were plated on ABA plates. The plates were incubated for 7 days at 37°C in anaerobic conditions to determine colony-forming units (CFU).
Bioinformatics analyses
The sequences used for comparisons were retrieved from the GenBank database. To analyze the sequences’ homology, Clustal Omega (115) was used. Genome IDs and operon hmu loci IDs for P. gingivalis are listed in Table 1, and for Porphyromonas gulae GenBank sequence ID (KB899153.1) and hmu operon locus ID (F452_RS0103495 – F452_RS0103470) were used for DSM 15663 strain. To analyze RgpB protein, the amino acid sequences were obtained for A7436 (ID: AKV64625), W83 (ID: AAQ65700), and ATCC 33277 (ID: AUR49078) strains and compared with sequences’ alignment using Clustal Omega and Jalview (116). To visualize the phylogenetic tree, The EvolView server was used (117). P. gingivalis ATCC 33277, A7436, and W83 genomes were visualized using Proksee (https://proksee.ca/).
Statistical analyses
Except for microarray analysis, all statistical analyses were performed with GraphPad software (GraphPad Prism 8.0 Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) using the unpaired Student’s t-test or one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test with post hoc Tukey’s test. All experiments were conducted at least three times with at least two biological replicates and collected data are shown as mean ± standard deviation (mean ± SD) or as mean ± standard error (mean ± SE).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was supported by the grants 2016/23/B/NZ6/00080 (to T.O.), 2019/33/B/NZ6/00292 (to T.O.), 2021/41/B/NZ6/00702 (to M.Ś.) from National Science Center (NCN, Narodowe Centrum Nauki, Kraków, Poland).
Contributor Information
Michał Śmiga, Email: michal.smiga@uwr.edu.pl.
John M. Atack, Griffith University - Gold Coast Campus, Australia
DATA AVAILABILITY
Microarray data are available at Zenodo (accession no: 10118417)
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
The following material is available online at https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.02865-23.
Supplementary data.
Supplementary data.
ASM does not own the copyrights to Supplemental Material that may be linked to, or accessed through, an article. The authors have granted ASM a non-exclusive, world-wide license to publish the Supplemental Material files. Please contact the corresponding author directly for reuse.
REFERENCES
- 1. Hajishengallis G, Diaz PI. 2020. Porphyromonas gingivalis: immune subversion activities and role in periodontal dysbiosis. Curr Oral Health Rep 7:12–21. doi: 10.1007/s40496-020-00249-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Hajishengallis G, Lamont RJ. 2012. Beyond the red complex and into more complexity: the polymicrobial synergy and dysbiosis (PSD) model of periodontal disease etiology. Mol Oral Microbiol 27:409–419. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-1014.2012.00663.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Holt SC, Ebersole JL. 2005. Porphyromonas gingivalis, Treponema denticola, and Tannerella forsythia: the “red complex”, a prototype polybacterial pathogenic consortium in periodontitis”. Periodontol 2000 38:72–122. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.2005.00113.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Deng ZL, Szafrański SP, Jarek M, Bhuju S, Wagner-Döbler I. 2017. Dysbiosis in chronic periodontitis: key microbial players and interactions with the human host. Sci Rep 7:3703. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-03804-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Deng ZL, Sztajer H, Jarek M, Bhuju S, Wagner-Döbler I. 2018. Worlds apart – transcriptome profiles of key oral microbes in the periodontal pocket compared to single laboratory culture reflect synergistic interactions. Front Microbiol 9:124. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00124 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Eke PI, Thornton-Evans GO, Wei L, Borgnakke WS, Dye BA, Genco RJ. 2018. Periodontitis in US adults: national health and nutrition examination survey 2009-2018. J Am Dent Assoc 149:576–588. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2018.04.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Eke PI, Wei L, Borgnakke WS, Thornton-Evans G, Zhang X, Lu H, McGuire LC, Genco RJ. 2016. Periodontitis prevalence in adults ≥ 65 years of age, in the USA. Periodontol 2000 72:76–95. doi: 10.1111/prd.12145 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Kassebaum NJ, Bernabé E, Dahiya M, Bhandari B, Murray CJL, Marcenes W. 2014. Global burden of severe periodontitis in 1990-2010: a systematic review and meta-regression. J Dent Res 93:1045–1053. doi: 10.1177/0022034514552491 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Holde GE, Oscarson N, Trovik TA, Tillberg A, Jönsson B. 2017. Periodontitis prevalence and severity in adults: a cross-sectional study in Norwegian circumpolar communities. J Periodontol 88:1012–1022. doi: 10.1902/jop.2017.170164 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Bongo A-K, Brustad M, Oscarson N, Jönsson B. 2020. Periodontal health in an indigenous SAMI population in northern Norway: a cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health 20:104. doi: 10.1186/s12903-020-01098-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Stodle IH, Verket A, Høvik H, Sen A, Koldsland OC. 2021. Prevalence of periodontitis based on the 2017 classification in a Norwegian population: The HUNT study. J Clin Periodontol 48:1189–1199. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13507 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Kwon T, Lamster IB, Levin L. 2021. Current concepts in the management of periodontitis. Int Dent J 71:462–476. doi: 10.1111/idj.12630 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Frencken JE, Sharma P, Stenhouse L, Green D, Laverty D, Dietrich T. 2017. Global epidemiology of dental caries and severe periodontitis – a comprehensive review. J Clin Periodontol 44 Suppl 18:S94–S105. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12677 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Bostanci N, Belibasakis GN. 2012. Porphyromonas gingivalis: an invasive and evasive opportunistic oral pathogen. FEMS Microbiol Lett 333:1–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2012.02579.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Darveau RP, Hajishengallis G, Curtis MA. 2012. Porphyromonas gingivalis as a potential community activist for disease. J Dent Res 91:816–820. doi: 10.1177/0022034512453589 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Mei F, Xie M, Huang X, Long Y, Lu X, Wang X, Chen L. 2020. Porphyromonas gingivalis and its systemic impact: current status. Pathogens 9:944. doi: 10.3390/pathogens9110944 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Griffen AL, Becker MR, Lyons SR, Moeschberger ML, Leys EJ. 1998. Prevalence of7 Porphyromonas gingivalis and periodontal health status. J Clin Microbiol 36:3239–3242. doi: 10.1128/JCM.36.11.3239-3242.1998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Klein MI, Gonçalves RB. 2003. Detection of Tannerella forsythensis (Bacteroides forsythus) and Porphyromonas gingivalis by polymerase chain reaction in subjects with different periodontal status. J Periodontol 74:798–802. doi: 10.1902/jop.2003.74.6.798 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Hajishengallis G, Liang S, Payne MA, Hashim A, Jotwani R, Eskan MA, McIntosh ML, Alsam A, Kirkwood KL, Lambris JD, Darveau RP, Curtis MA. 2011. Low-abundance biofilm species orchestrates inflammatory periodontal disease through the commensal microbiota and complement. Cell Host Microbe 10:497–506. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2011.10.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Payne MA, Hashim A, Alsam A, Joseph S, Aduse-Opoku J, Wade WG, Curtis MA. 2019. Horizontal and vertical transfer of oral microbial dysbiosis and periodontal disease. J Dent Res 98:1503–1510. doi: 10.1177/0022034519877150 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Dashper SG, Mitchell HL, Seers CA, Gladman SL, Seemann T, Bulach DM, Chandry PS, Cross KJ, Cleal SM, Reynolds EC. 2017. Porphyromonas gingivalis uses specific domain rearrangements and allelic exchange to generate diversity in surface virulence factors. Front Microbiol 8:48. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Brunner J, Wittink FRA, Jonker MJ, de Jong M, Breit TM, Laine ML, de Soet JJ, Crielaard W. 2010. The core genome of the anaerobic oral pathogenic bacterium Porphyromonas gingivalis. BMC Microbiol 10:252. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-10-252 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Seers CA, Mahmud ASM, Huq NL, Cross KJ, Reynolds EC. 2020. Porphyromonas gingivalis laboratory strains and clinical isolates exhibit different distribution of cell surface and secreted gingipains. J Oral Microbiol 13:1858001. doi: 10.1080/20002297.2020.1858001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Sakae K, Nagano K, Furuhashi M, Hasegawa Y. 2021. Diversity analysis of genes encoding Mfa1 fimbrial components in Porphyromonas gingivalis strains. PLoS ONE 16:e0255111. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Coats SR, Kantrong N, To TT, Jain S, Genco CA, McLean JS, Darveau RP, Whiteley M. 2019. The distinct immune-stimulatory capacities of Porphyromonas gingivalis strains 381 and ATCC 33277 are determined by the fimB allele and gingipain activity. Infect Immun 87:e00319-19. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00319-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Rodrigues PH, Reyes L, Chadda AS, Bélanger M, Wallet SM, Akin D, Dunn W, Progulske-Fox A. 2012. Porphyromonas gingivalis strain specific interactions with human coronary artery endothelial cells: a comparative study. PLoS ONE 7:e52606. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052606 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Wang M, Liang S, Hosur KB, Domon H, Yoshimura F, Amano A, Hajishengallis G. 2009. Differential virulence and innate immune interactions of type I and II fimbrial genotypes of Porphyromonas gingivalis. Oral Microbiol Immunol 24:478–484. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-302X.2009.00545.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Mendez KN, Hoare A, Soto C, Bugueño I, Olivera M, Meneses C, Pérez-Donoso JM, Castro-Nallar E, Bravo D. 2019. Variability in genomic and virulent properties of Porphyromonas gingivalis strains isolated from healthy and severe chronic periodontitis individuals. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 9:246. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2019.00246 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Olsen I, Chen T, Tribble GD. 2018. Genetic exchange and reassignment in Porphyromonas gingivalis. J Oral Microbiol 10:1457373. doi: 10.1080/20002297.2018.1457373 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Amano A, Kuboniwa M, Nakagawa I, Akiyama S, Morisaki I, Hamada S. 2000. Prevalence of specific genotypes of Porphyromonas gingivalis fimA and periodontal health status. J Dent Res 79:1664–1668. doi: 10.1177/00220345000790090501 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Amano A, Nakagawa I, Kataoka K, Morisaki I, Hamada S. 1999. Distribution of Porphyromonas gingivalis strains with fimA genotypes in periodontitis patients. J Clin Microbiol 37:1426–1430. doi: 10.1128/JCM.37.5.1426-1430.1999 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Griffen AL, Lyons SR, Becker MR, Moeschberger ML, Leys EJ. 1999. Porphyromonas gingivalis strain variability and periodontitis. J Clin Microbiol 37:4028–4033. doi: 10.1128/JCM.37.12.4028-4033.1999 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Laine ML, van Winkelhoff AJ. 1998. Virulence of six capsular serotypes of Porphyromonas gingivalis in a mouse model. Oral Microbiol Immunol 13:322–325. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-302x.1998.tb00714.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Dorn BR, Burks JN, Seifert KN, Progulske-Fox A. 2000. Invasion of endothelial and epithelial cells by strains of Porphyromonas gingivalis. FEMS Microbiol Lett 187:139–144. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2000.tb09150.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Yoshino T, Laine ML, van Winkelhoff AJ, Dahlén G. 2007. Genotype variation and capsular serotypes of Porphyromonas gingivalis from chronic periodontitis and periodontal abscesses. FEMS Microbiol Lett 270:75–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2007.00651.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Aduse-Opoku J, Slaney JM, Hashim A, Gallagher A, Gallagher RP, Rangarajan M, Boutaga K, Laine ML, Van Winkelhoff AJ, Curtis MA. 2006. Identification and characterization of the capsular, polysaccharide (K-antigen) locus of Porphyromonas gingivalis. Infect Immun 74:449–460. doi: 10.1128/IAI.74.1.449-460.2006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Enersen M. 2011. Porphyromonas gingivalis: a clonal pathogen? diversities in housekeeping genes and the major fimbriae gene. J Oral Microbiol 3:8487. doi: 10.3402/jom.v3i0.8487 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Amano A. 2010. Bacterial adhesions to host components in periodontitis. Periodontol 2000 52:12–37. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.2009.00307.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Nagano K, Hasegawa Y, Abiko Y, Yoshida Y, Murakami Y, Yoshimura F. 2012. Porphyromonas gingivalis fimA fimbriae: fimbrial assembly by fimA alone in the fim gene cluster and differential antigenicity among fimA genotypes. PLoS ONE 7:e43722. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043722 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Grenier D, Goulet V, Mayrand D. 2001. The capacity of Porphyromonas gingivalis to multiply under iron-limiting conditions correlates with its pathogenicity in an animal model. J Dent Res 80:1678–1682. doi: 10.1177/00220345010800071501 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Ozmeriç N, Preus NR, Olsen I. 2000. Genetic diversity of Porphyromonas gingivalis and its possible importance to pathogenicity. Acta Odontol Scand 58:183–187. doi: 10.1080/000163500429190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Ingalagi P, Kotrashetti V, Bhat K, Kugaji M. 2020. Comparison of cluster analysis of Porphyromonas gingivalis by arbitrarily primed-polymerase chain reaction between healthy and chronic periodontitis subjects. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol 24:251–257. doi: 10.4103/jomfp.JOMFP_3_20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Boyer E, Leroyer P, Malherbe L, Fong SB, Loréal O, Bonnaure Mallet M, Meuric V. 2020. Oral dysbiosis induced by Porphyromonas gingivalis is strain-dependent in mice. J Oral Microbiol 12:1832837. doi: 10.1080/20002297.2020.1832837 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Naito M, Hirakawa H, Yamashita A, Ohara N, Shoji M, Yukitake H, Nakayama K, Toh H, Yoshimura F, Kuhara S, Hattori M, Hayashi T, Nakayama K. 2008. Determination of the genome sequence of Porphyromonas gingivalis strain ATCC 33277 and genomic comparison with strain W83 revealed extensive genome rearrangements in P. gingivalis. DNA Res 15:215–225. doi: 10.1093/dnares/dsn013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Tribble GD, Lamont GJ, Progulske-Fox A, Lamont RJ. 2007. Conjugal transfer of chromosomal DNA contributes to genetic variation in the oral pathogen Porphyromonas gingivalis. J Bacteriol 189:6382–6388. doi: 10.1128/JB.00460-07 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Xie G, Chastain-Gross RP, Bélanger M, Kumar D, Whitlock JA, Liu L, Raines SM, Farmerie WG, Daligault HE, Han CS, Brettin TS, Progulske-Fox A. 2017. Genome sequence of Porphyromonas gingivalis strain A7A1-28. Genome Announc 5:e01467-16. doi: 10.1128/genomeA.01467-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. McKee AS, McDermid AS, Wait R, Baskerville A, Marsh PD. 1988. Isolation of colonial variants of Bacteroides gingivalis W50 with reduced virulence. J Med Microbiol 27:59–64. doi: 10.1099/00222615-27-1-59 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Collinson LM, Rangarajan M, Curtis MA. 1998. Altered expression and modification of proteases from an avirulent mutant of Porphyromonas gingivalis W50 (W50/BE1). Microbiology (Reading, England) 144 ( Pt 9):2487–2496. doi: 10.1099/00221287-144-9-2487 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Slaney JM, Gallagher A, Aduse-Opoku J, Pell K, Curtis MA. 2006. Mechanisms of resistance of Porphyromonas gingivalis to killing by serum complement. Infect Immun 74:5352–5361. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00304-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Aduse-Opoku J, Joseph S, Devine DA, Marsh PD, Curtis MA. 2022. Molecular basis for avirulence of spontaneous variants of Porphyromonas gingivalis: genomic analysis of strains W50, BE1 and BR1. Mol Oral Microbiol 37:122–132. doi: 10.1111/omi.12373 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Gmiterek A, Wójtowicz H, Mackiewicz P, Radwan-Oczko M, Kantorowicz M, Chomyszyn-Gajewska M, Frąszczak M, Bielecki M, Olczak M, Olczak T. 2013. The unique hmuY gene sequence as a specific marker of Porphyromonas gingivalis. PLoS ONE 8:e67719. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067719 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Olczak T, Sroka A, Potempa J, Olczak M. 2008. Porphyromonas gingivalis HmuY and HmuR: further characterization of a novel mechanism of heme utilization. Arch Microbiol 189:197–210. doi: 10.1007/s00203-007-0309-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Dashper SG, Hendtlass A, Slakeski N, Jackson C, Cross KJ, Brownfield L, Hamilton R, Barr I, Reynolds EC. 2000. Characterization of a novel outer membrane hemin-binding protein of Porphyromonas gingivalis. J Bacteriol 182:6456–6462. doi: 10.1128/JB.182.22.6456-6462.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Olczak T, Sosicka P, Olczak M. 2015. HmuY is an important virulence factor for Porphyromonas gingivalis growth in the heme-limited host environment and infection of macrophages. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 467:748–753. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.10.070 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Smalley JW, Olczak T. 2017. Heme acquisition mechanisms of Porphyromonas gingivalis - strategies used in a polymicrobial community in a heme-limited host environment. Mol Oral Microbiol 32:1–23. doi: 10.1111/omi.12149 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Śmiga M, Ślęzak P, Wagner M, Olczak T. 2023. Interplay between Porphyromonas gingivalis hemophore-like protein HmuY and Kgp/RgA gingipains plays a superior role in heme supply. Microbiol Spectr 11:e0459322. doi: 10.1128/spectrum.04593-22 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Smalley JW, Byrne DP, Birss AJ, Wojtowicz H, Sroka A, Potempa J, Olczak T. 2011. HmuY haemophore and gingipain proteases constitute a unique syntrophic system of haem acquisition by Porphyromonas gingivalis. PLoS ONE 6:e17182. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Potempa J, Sroka A, Imamura T, Travis J. 2003. Gingipains, the major cysteine proteinases and virulence factors of Porphyromonas gingivalis: structure, function and assembly of multidomain protein complexes. Curr Protein Pept Sci 4:397–407. doi: 10.2174/1389203033487036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Smalley JW, Birss AJ, Szmigielski B, Potempa J. 2008. Mechanism of methaemoglobin breakdown by the lysine-specific gingipain of the periodontal pathogen porphyromonas gingivalis. Biol Chem 389:1235–1238. doi: 10.1515/BC.2008.140 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Yukitake H, Naito M, Sato K, Shoji M, Ohara N, Yoshimura M, Sakai E, Nakayama K. 2011. Effects of non-iron metalloporphyrins on growth and gene expression of Porphyromonas gingivalis. Microbiol Immunol 55:141–153. doi: 10.1111/j.1348-0421.2010.00299.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Ohya M, Cueno ME, Tamura M, Ochiai K. 2016. Varying hemin concentrations affect Porphyromonas gingivalis strains differently. Microb Pathog 94:54–59. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2015.10.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Sztukowska M, Bugno M, Potempa J, Travis J, Kurtz DM. 2002. Role of rubrerythrin in the oxidative stress response of Porphyromonas gingivalis. Mol Microbiol 44:479–488. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2002.02892.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Mydel P, Takahashi Y, Yumoto H, Sztukowska M, Kubica M, Gibson FC, Kurtz DM, Travis J, Collins LV, Nguyen K-A, Genco CA, Potempa J, Portnoy D. 2006. Roles of the host oxidative immune response and bacterial antioxidant rubrerythrin during Porphyromonas gingivalis infection. PLoS Pathog 2:e76. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.0020076 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Bielecki M, Antonyuk S, Strange RW, Siemińska K, Smalley JW, Mackiewicz P, Śmiga M, Cowan M, Capper MJ, Ślęzak P, Olczak M, Olczak T. 2020. Prevotella intermedia produces two proteins homologous to Porphyromonas gingivalis HmuY but with different heme coordination mode. Biochem J 477:381–405. doi: 10.1042/BCJ20190607 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. Bielecki M, Antonyuk S, Strange RW, Smalley JW, Mackiewicz P, Śmiga M, Stępień P, Olczak M, Olczak T. 2018. Tannerella forsythia Tfo belongs to Porphyromonas gingivalis HmuY-like family of proteins but differs in heme-binding properties. Biosci Rep 38:BSR20181325. doi: 10.1042/BSR20181325 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. He J, Miyazaki H, Anaya C, Yu F, Yeudall WA, Lewis JP. 2006. Role of Porphyromonas gingivalis Feob2 in metal uptake and oxidative stress protection. Infect Immun 74:4214–4223. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00014-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Lewis JP. 2010. Metal uptake in host-pathogen interactions: role of iron in Porphyromonas gingivalis interactions with host organisms. Periodontol 2000 52:94–116. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.2009.00329.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Anaya-Bergman C, He J, Jones K, Miyazaki H, Yeudall A, Lewis JP. 2010. Porphyromonas gingivalis ferrous iron transporter FeoB1 influences sensitivity to oxidative stress. Infect Immun 78:688–696. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00108-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Dashper SG, Butler CA, Lissel JP, Paolini RA, Hoffmann B, Veith PD, O’Brien-Simpson NM, Snelgrove SL, Tsiros JT, Reynolds EC. 2005. A novel Porphyromonas gingivalis FeoB plays a role in manganese accumulation. J Biol Chem 280:28095–28102. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M503896200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Veillard F, Sztukowska M, Nowakowska Z, Mizgalska D, Thøgersen IB, Enghild JJ, Bogyo M, Potempa B, Nguyen KA, Potempa J. 2019. Proteolytic processing and activation of gingipain zymogens secreted by T9Ss of Porphyromonas gingivalis. Biochimie 166:161–172. doi: 10.1016/j.biochi.2019.06.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Madej M, Nowakowska Z, Ksiazek M, Lasica AM, Mizgalska D, Nowak M, Jacula A, Bzowska M, Scavenius C, Enghild JJ, Aduse-Opoku J, Curtis MA, Gomis-Rüth FX, Potempa J, Whiteley M. 2021. Porz, as essential component of the type IX secretion system of Porphyromonas gingivalis, delivers anionic lipopolysaccharide to the poru sortase for transpeptidase processing of T9SS cargo proteins. mBio 12:e02262–21. doi: 10.1128/mBio.02262-20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Ghods S, Moradali MF, Duryea D, Walker AR, Davey ME. 2023. Growth of Porphyromonas gingivalis on human serum albumin triggers programmed cell death. J Oral Microbiol 15:2161182. doi: 10.1080/20002297.2022.2161182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. Liu X, Sroka A, Potempa J, Genco CA. 2004. Coordinate expression of the Porphyromonas gingivalis lysine-specific gingipain proteinase, Kgp, arginine-specific gingipain proteinase, RgpA, and the Heme/hemoglobin receptor, HmuR. Biol Chem 385:1049–1057. doi: 10.1515/BC.2004.136 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Olczak T, Wójtowicz H, Ciuraszkiewicz J, Olczak M. 2010. Species specificity, surface exposure, protein expression, immunogenicity, and participation in biofilm formation of Porphyromonas gingivalis HmuY. BMC Microbiol 10:134. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-10-134 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75. Kulkarni MR, Bhat KG, Thomas BS, Bhat GS, Kulkarni RD. 2018. Identification of multiple strains of Porphyromonas gingivalis using heteroduplex polymerase chain reaction in varying severity of chronic periodontitis. Indian J Med Microbiol 36:81–86. doi: 10.4103/ijmm.IJMM_17_434 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Chen T, Siddiqui H, Olsen I. 2017. In silico comparison of 19 Porphyromonas gingivalis strains in genomics, phylogenetics, phylogenomics and functional genomics. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 7:28. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2017.00028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Frandsen EV, Poulsen K, Curtis MA, Kilian M. 2001. Evidence of recombination in Porphyromonas gingivalis and random distribution of putative virulence markers. Infect Immun 69:4479–4485. doi: 10.1128/IAI.69.7.4479-4485.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Jorth P, Whiteley M. 2012. An evolutionary link between natural transformation and CRISPR adaptive immunity. mBio 3:e00309-12. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00309-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79. Solbiati J, Duran-Pinedo A, Rocha FG, Gibson FC, Frias-Lopez J, Bik H. 2020. Virulence of the pathogen Porphyromonas gingivalis is controlled by the CRISPR-CAS protein Cas3. mSystems 5:e00852-20. doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00852-20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Watanabe T, Shibasaki M, Maruyama F, Sekizaki T, Nakagawa I. 2017. Investigation of potential targets of Porphyromonas CRISPRs among the genomes of Porphyromonas species. PLoS ONE 12:e0183752. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183752 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. McLean JS, Lombardo MJ, Ziegler MG, Novotny M, Yee-Greenbaum J, Badger JH, Tesler G, Nurk S, Lesin V, Brami D, Hall AP, Edlund A, Allen LZ, Durkin S, Reed S, Torriani F, Nealson KH, Pevzner PA, Friedman R, Venter JC, Lasken RS. 2013. Genome of the pathogen Porphyromonas gingivalis recovered from a biofilm in a hospital sink using a high-throughput single-cell genomics platform. Genome Res 23:867–877. doi: 10.1101/gr.150433.112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Nelson KE, Fleischmann RD, DeBoy RT, Paulsen IT, Fouts DE, Eisen JA, Daugherty SC, Dodson RJ, Durkin AS, Gwinn M, Haft DH, Kolonay JF, Nelson WC, Mason T, Tallon L, Gray J, Granger D, Tettelin H, Dong H, Galvin JL, Duncan MJ, Dewhirst FE, Fraser CM. 2003. Complete genome sequence of the oral pathogenic bacterium Porphyromonas gingivalis strain W83. J Bacteriol 185:5591–5601. doi: 10.1128/JB.185.18.5591-5601.2003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. Chastain-Gross RP, Xie G, Bélanger M, Kumar D, Whitlock JA, Liu L, Farmerie WG, Daligault HE, Han CS, Brettin TS, Progulske-Fox A. 2015. Genome sequence of Porphyromonas gingivalis strain A7436. Genome Announc 3:e00927–15. doi: 10.1128/genomeA.01304-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84. Meyer HL, Abdelbary MMH, Buhl EM, Kuppe C, Conrads G. 2023. Exploring the genetic and functional diversity of Porphyromonas gingivalis long fimbriae. Mol Oral Microbiol 38:408–423. doi: 10.1111/omi.12433 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85. Wang H, Zhang W, Wang W, Zhang L, Kielbassa AM. 2020. The prevalence of fimA genotypes of Porphyromonas gingivalis in patients with chronic periodontitis: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 15:e0240251. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240251 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86. Kuboniwa M, Inaba H, Amano A. 2010. Genotyping to distinguish microbial pathogenicity in periodontitis. Periodontol 2000 54:136–159. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.2010.00352.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87. Nagano K, Abiko Y, Yoshida Y, Yoshimura F. 2013. Genetic and antigenic analyses of Porphyromonas gingivalis fima fimbriae. Mol Oral Microbiol 28:392–403. doi: 10.1111/omi.12032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88. Kuboniwa M, Amano A, Hashino E, Yamamoto Y, Inaba H, Hamada N, Nakayama K, Tribble GD, Lamont RJ, Shizukuishi S. 2009. Distinct roles of long/short fimbriae and gingipains in homotypic biofilm development by Porphyromonas gingivalis. BMC Microbiol 9:105. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-9-105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89. Olsen I, Singhrao SK. 2018. Importance of heterogeneity in Porphyromonas gingivalis lipopolysaccharide lipid A in tissue specific inflammatory signalling. J Oral Microbiol 10:1440128. doi: 10.1080/20002297.2018.1440128 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90. Zaric SS, Lappin MJ, Fulton CR, Lundy FT, Coulter WA, Irwin CR. 2017. Sialylation of Porphyromonas gingivalis and its effect on bacterial-host interactions. Innate Immun 23:319–326. doi: 10.1177/1753425917694245 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91. Jain S, Darveau RP. 2010. Contribution of Porphyromonas gingivalis lipopolysaccharide to periodontitis. Periodontol 2000 54:53–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.2009.00333.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92. Igboin CO, Griffen AL, Leys EJ. 2009. Porphyromonas gingivalis strain diversity. J Clin Microbiol 47:3073–3081. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00569-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93. Chen T, Hosogi Y, Nishikawa K, Abbey K, Fleischmann RD, Walling J, Duncan MJ. 2004. Comparative whole-genome analysis of virulent and avirulent strains of Porphyromonas gingivalis. J Bacteriol 186:5473–5479. doi: 10.1128/JB.186.16.5473-5479.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94. Bélanger M, Reyes L, von Deneen K, Reinhard MK, Progulske-Fox A, Brown MB. 2008. Colonization of maternal and fetal tissues by Porphyromonas gingvalis is strain-dependent in a rodent animal model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:86. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.11.067 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95. Al-Qutub MN, Braham PH, Karimi-Naser LM, Liu X, Genco CA, Darveau RP. 2006. Hemin-dependent modulation of the lipid A structure of Porphyromonas gingivalis lipopolysaccharide. Infect Immun 74:4474–4485. doi: 10.1128/IAI.01924-05 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96. Anaya-Bergman C, Rosato A, Lewis JP. 2015. Iron- and hemin-dependent gene expression of Porphyromonas gingivalis. Mol Oral Microbiol 30:39–61. doi: 10.1111/omi.12066 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97. Dashper SG, Ang CS, Veith PD, Mitchell HL, Lo AWH, Seers CA, Walsh KA, Slakeski N, Chen D, Lissel JP, Butler CA, O’Brien-Simpson NM, Barr IG, Reynolds EC. 2009. Response of Porphyromonas gingivalis to heme limitation in continuous culture. J Bacteriol 191:1044–1055. doi: 10.1128/JB.01270-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98. Smiga M, Bielecki M, Olczak M, Olczak T. 2019. Porphyromonas gingivalis PgFur is a member of a novel fur subfamily with non-canonical function. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 9:233. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2019.00233 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99. Ciuraszkiewicz J, Smiga M, Mackiewicz P, Gmiterek A, Bielecki M, Olczak M, Olczak T. 2014. Fur homolog regulates Porphyromonas gingivalis virulence under low-iron/Heme conditions through a complex regulatory network. Mol Oral Microbiol 29:333–353. doi: 10.1111/omi.12077 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100. Śmiga M, Stępień P, Olczak M, Olczak T. 2019. Pgfur participates differentially in expression of virulence factors in more virulent A7436 and less virulent ATCC 33277 Porphyromonas gingivalis strains. BMC Microbiol 19:127. doi: 10.1186/s12866-019-1511-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101. Scott JC, Klein BA, Duran-Pinedo A, Hu L, Duncan MJ, Cascales E. 2013. A two-component system regulates hemin acquisition in Porphyromonas gingivalis. PLoS ONE 8:e73351. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073351 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102. Shoji M, Nakayama K. 2016. Glycobiology of the oral pathogen Porphyromonas gingivalis and related species. Microb Pathog 94:35–41. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2015.09.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103. Díaz L, Hoare A, Soto C, Bugueño I, Silva N, Dutzan N, Venegas D, Salinas D, Pérez-Donoso JM, Gamonal J, Bravo D. 2015. Changes in lipopolysaccharide profile of Porphyromonas gingivalis clinical isolates correlate with changes in colony morphology and polymyxin B resistance. Anaerobe 33:25–32. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2015.01.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104. Paramonov N, Bailey D, Rangarajan M, Hashim A, Kelly G, Curtis MA, Hounsell EF. 2001. Structural analysis of the polysaccharide from the lipopolysaccharide of Porphyromonas gingivalis strain W50. Eur J Biochem 268:4698–4707. doi: 10.1046/j.1432-1327.2001.02397.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105. Naito Y, Tohda H, Okuda K, Takazoe I. 1993. Adherence and hydrophobicity of invasive and noninvasive strains of Porphyromonas gingivalis. Oral Microbiol Immunol 8:195–202. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-302x.1993.tb00559.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106. Shoji M, Yukitake H, Sato K, Shibata Y, Naito M, Aduse-Opoku J, Abiko Y, Curtis MA, Nakayama K. 2013. Identification of an O-antigen chain length regulator, WzzP, in Porphyromonas gingivalis. Microbiologyopen 2:383–401. doi: 10.1002/mbo3.84 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107. Davey ME, Duncan MJ. 2006. Enhanced biofilm formation and loss of capsule synthesis: deletion of a putative glycosyltransferase in Porphyromonas gingivalis. J Bacteriol 188:5510–5523. doi: 10.1128/JB.01685-05 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108. Barbosa GM, Colombo AV, Rodrigues PH, Simionato MRL. 2015. Intraspecies variability affects heterotypic biofilms of Porphyromonas gingivalis and Prevotella intermedia: evidences of strain-dependence biofilm modulation by physical contact and by released soluble factors. PLoS ONE 10:e0143903. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143903 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109. Paramonov N, Rangarajan M, Hashim A, Gallagher A, Aduse-Opoku J, Slaney JM, Hounsell E, Curtis MA. 2005. Structural analysis of a novel anionic polysaccharide from Porphyromonas gingivalis strain W50 related to Arg-gingipain glycans. Mol Microbiol 58:847–863. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2005.04871.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110. Nguyen KH, Travis J, Potempa J. 2007. Does the importance of the C-terminal residues in the maturation of RgpB from Porphyromonas gingivalis reveal a novel mechanism for protein export in a subgroup of gram-negative bacteria. J Bacteriol 189:833–843. doi: 10.1128/JB.01530-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111. Ceriotti F, Ceriotti G. 1980. Improved direct specific determination of serum iron and total iron binding capacity. Clin Chem 26:327–331. doi: 10.1093/clinchem/26.2.327 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112. Pomowski A, Usón I, Nowakowska Z, Veillard F, Sztukowska MN, Guevara T, Goulas T, Mizgalska D, Nowak M, Potempa B, Huntington JA, Potempa J, Gomis-Rüth FX. 2017. Structural insights unravel the zymogenic mechanism of the virulence factor gingipain K from Porphyromonas gingivalis, a causative agent of gum disease from the human oral microbiome. J Biol Chem 292:5724–5735. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M117.776724 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113. Śmiga M, Smalley JW, Ślęzak P, Brown JL, Siemińska K, Jenkins RE, Yates EA, Olczak T. 2021. Glycation of host proteins increases pathogenic potential of Porphyromonas gingivalis. Int J Mol Sci 22:12084. doi: 10.3390/ijms222112084 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114. Ślęzak P, Śmiga M, Smalley JW, Siemińska K, Olczak T. 2020. Porphyromonas gingivalis HmuY and Streptococcus gordonii GAPDH – novel heme acquisition strategy in the oral microbiome. Int J Mol Sci 21:4150. doi: 10.3390/ijms21114150 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 115. Madeira F, Pearce M, Tivey ARN, Basutkar P, Lee J, Edbali O, Madhusoodanan N, Kolesnikov A, Lopez R. 2022. Search and sequence analysis tools services from EMBL-EBI in 2022. Nucleic Acids Res 50:W276–W279. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkac240 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116. Waterhouse AM, Procter JB, Martin DMA, Clamp M, Barton GJ. 2009. Jalview version 2 - a multiple sequence alignment editor and analysis workbench. Bioinformatics 25:1189–1191. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117. He Z, Zhang H, Gao S, Lercher MJ, Chen W-H, Hu S. 2016. Evolview v2: an online visualization and management tool for customized and annotated phylogenetic trees. Nucleic Acids Res 44:W236–41. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw370doi:27131786 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary data.
Supplementary data.
Data Availability Statement
Microarray data are available at Zenodo (accession no: 10118417)






