Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Jun 29;21(6):e0351161. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0351161

An integrative multi-omics approach points to membrane composition as a key factor in E. coli persistence

Silvia J Cañas-Duarte 1,2,¤a,*, Lei Sun 2, María Isabel Pérez-López 1,¤b, Cornelia Herrfurth 3, Lina M Contreras 1, Ivo Feussner 3, Chad Leidy 4, Johan Paulsson 2, Diego M Riaño-Pachón 5, Juan M Pedraza 4,*, Silvia Restrepo 1,¤c,*
Editor: Bashir Sajo Mienda6
PMCID: PMC13313352  PMID: 42371925

Abstract

Many diverse bacteria can enter non- or slow-growing states where they are transiently tolerant to antibiotics. Despite its medical importance, the genetic mechanisms underlying this ‘persistence’ remain largely unknown, especially for spontaneous (type II) persistence that arises during exponential growth. To address this challenge, here we combine genomic, transcriptomic, and lipidomic analysis to explore the persistence mechanisms. We first analyzed the genome of the high-persistence mutant Escherichia coli DS1 (hipQ) to identify candidate genes for the high-persistence phenotype. We then compared the gene expression profile of these isolated persisters to that of normally growing cells with RNA-Seq and found that the activation of stress response mechanisms is likely not important in the entrance into hipQ-driven spontaneous persistence during exponential growth. Transcriptomic results also suggest that modifications in the cell membrane are closely linked to persistence, as further corroborated by lipidomic profiles showing a higher level of unsaturated fatty acids in persisters compared to normally growing cells. Taken together, our results indicate that changing membrane composition is associated with persistence, and further our understanding of spontaneous persister cells from the DS1 (hipQ) context.

Introduction

Clonal populations of bacteria can stochastically generate subpopulations of slow- or non-growing cells [1–4] that are transiently tolerant to multiple antibiotics. Such ‘persister’ cells have been implicated in a wide range of chronic bacterial infections [2,3]. Persister cells have also been associated with the recalcitrance of biofilms [5,6], protected from the immune system by exopolymer matrices [7]. This combination of drug-tolerance and immune-evasion prevents the complete eradication of bacterial infections. Furthermore, persisters may extend infections long enough for genetic resistances to emerge [7,8]. The persistence phenomena are widespread among pathogens, including Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis [2,9,10], and therefore of high public health priority.

From an ecological perspective, creating small subpopulations that survive otherwise bactericidal treatments may serve as an adaptive, bet-hedging strategy against catastrophic events [1,11] for the population as a whole. In support of this hypothesis, some Toxin-Antitoxin (TA) loci such as hipAB and istR/tisB, and stress response mechanisms have both been implicated in the generation of persister cells [12–20]. Another proposed pathway for induction of persistence is through TolC efflux pumps [21], which also display great heterogeneity across populations [22]. These findings illustrate both how external signals can influence the transition to persistence and the variety of factors that determine the state. They also have in common an important connection with the membrane. Despite these advances, the specific mechanisms of multitolerance remain largely unknown [22,23]. The variety of insults that they can survive includes not only different types of antibiotics, but also alkaline and enzymatic lysis [24]. Furthermore, dormancy alone is not necessary or sufficient to provide persistence [25]. This indicates that there is still much to be discovered about the persistence state itself and how it results in multitolerance.

Persisters have been phenotypically classified as triggered (type I) or spontaneous (type II), depending on whether they are directly caused by stress or arise in growing populations without any known external trigger. These two persister types indeed correspond to distinctly different cell states in E. coli [1,4] and seemingly involve different sets of mechanisms (Fig 1). However, either type has been hard to study because the persister state is extremely rare. Many studies have therefore relied on specific mutants that increase the persister frequency, hoping that they do not distort their wild-type counterpart in other ways. Specifically, for triggered persisters, mutant strain hipA7 (TH1269) [1,4,17,26,27] has successfully helped to identify the involvement of TA modules and stress response mechanisms [2,8,17,23,28].

Fig 1. Schematic of the differences between triggered and spontaneous persisters.

Fig 1

Triggered persisters are generated in bacterial populations upon the occurrence of a trigger event (i.e., starvation, antibiotics, acid stress, etc.) and are characteristically non-growing while in the persister state. Spontaneous persisters stochastically appear in bacterial populations. In DS1, spontaneous persisters exhibit slow growth in the presence of antibiotics [1].

For spontaneous persisters, the high-persistence strain E. coli DS1 was isolated via mutagenesis of the parent E. coli strain KL16 [1,4,29]. By first using conjugative mapping and later transducing wild-type genome fragments via P1vir into DS1 to check for the loss of high-persistence, it was found that a hipQ locus near the leu operon at the 2 min position of the DS1 chromosome was necessary for the high-persistence phenotype of this strain [27]. However, attempts to transduce the hipQ phenotype to a wild-type background failed, which suggests this locus is not sufficient and that additional unidentified mutations present in DS1 genome are required [27]. Using microfluidics and microscopy, spontaneous persisters from the DS1 strain were later visualized as slow-growing cells (~160 + /- 30 min doubling-time) that arise spontaneously from an exponentially growing bacterial population [1,24]. Entrance into this slow-growth state seems independent of antibiotics and cells showed division both before, during and after a transient antibiotic treatment [1,24]. A recent study [30] presented a mutation in the ydcI gene (at 32 min chromosomal location) as solely responsible for the hipQ persister phenotype. Interestingly, these two studies contradict each other both in the gene location and number of mutations required. In addition, due to the higher difficulty in isolating spontaneous persisters [24], their overall persistence mechanism remains largely unknown.

Using our previously-published protocol capable of selectively enriching triggered versus spontaneous persisters from bacterial populations [24], we performed comprehensive genomic, transcriptomic and lipidomic analyses on hipQ exponential-phase persisters. Genomically, we identified 59 novel missense and nonsense SNP mutations in the DS1 genome that we propose as candidates responsible for its high spontaneous persistence phenotype. Notably, we found that ydcI has no mutation in this strain. Furthermore, there is no DS1 strain-specific mutation near the leu operon where the hipQ-locus was proposed to be located [27]. By assessing the persister frequencies of the relevant mutants, we show that the mutations responsible for the hipQ phenotype of the DS1 have not yet been identified, despite previous reports. Transcriptomically, we tested whether the previously reported genetic mechanisms of persistence induction, such as stress response mechanisms, are also involved in the generation of exponential phase persister cells from the strain E. coli DS1 (hipQ) [2,23]. Additionally, the transcriptomic analysis of these persister cells showed no evidence of SOS response activation, contrary to several reports [12,13,16,23]. Finally, our lipidomic data suggests that modifications in the physicochemical properties of the cell membrane could be related to the formation of persister cells and contribute to their multitolerance to bactericidal agents. We believe these results not only broadly add to the characterization of the persister states, but also serve as a springboard for future mechanistic analyses.

Results

Novel SNPs identified in E. coli DS1 genome

To identify the genetic mechanisms related to the high spontaneous persistence phenotype of E. coli DS1, we first sequenced the DS1 genome, obtaining 2.5 million clean reads with a minimum length of 60 bp. The average coverage in the de novo genome assembly was 82.85 × , with a maximum coverage of 358 × , estimated using Tablet [31]. Following the de novo assembly, we obtained a single pseudo-molecule of 4,567,805 bp with 47 gaps and 531 N’s (Table 1). After the annotation step, 4,554 genes were predicted (Fig 2).

Table 1. Metrics of the E. coli DS1 genome assembly.

Total number of scaffolds 1
Sum (bp) 4,567,805
Total number of N’s 531
Number of GAP’s 47
Sum (bp) no N’s 4,567,274

Assembly of the DS1 genome was performed de novo using CLC, obtaining initially 104 contigs. The scaffolding process was performed using first SSPACE [32] with clean PE reads from the sequencing of both the genome and transcriptome to obtain 58 scaffolds. The genome of E. coli MG1655 was used to refine the assembly using the PAGIT pipeline [33]. Finally, Gapfiller [34] was used to close gaps. The RAST [35] annotation server was used to predict and annotate genes in the DS1 genome.

Fig 2. Circular representation of the novel genome assembly and annotation of E. coli DS1.

Fig 2

Circular plot of the annotated DS1 genome was created using DNAplotter [36]. The tracks from the outside represent: (1) CDS forward; (2) CDS reverse; (3) pseudogenes; (4) miscellaneous features; (5) genes; (6) %GC plot; (7) GC skew [(GC)/(G + C)]. For the %GC and GC skew plots, a window size of 10,000 bp and a step size of 200 bp were used.

The E. coli DS1 strain was evolved from the KL16 [37] parent strain. To our knowledge, the only publicly available KL16 genome sequence is that of KLY, namely KL16 with an integrated YFP segmentation marker (GenBank: CP008801.1). The comparison of KLY, MG1655 and DH10B to reference genomes revealed a total of 153, 255 and 349 SNPs (including small indels), respectively (Table 2). As none of the reference strains show a high persistence phenotype, we only considered the 112 novel SNPs that were detected against all three reference genomes for further analyses (S1 File). The genomic analysis performed also showed the presence of the F plasmid integrated into the chromosome [27,29]. No large insertions/deletions or genomic arrangements were detected with respect to the KLY genome.

Table 2. Analysis of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) detected in the genome of E. coli DS1.

Type Strain Count Percent/ (Total SNPs)
MISSENSE MG1655 132 43.40%
KLY 58 37.90%
DH10B 122 73.05%
NONSENSE MG1655 3 1.57%
KLY 1 0.65%
DH10B 3 1.80%
SILENT MG1655 109 52.60%
KLY 89 58.17%
DH10B 224 64.20%

The genomes of the KLY (KL16 with YFP) parental strain, the wild-type strain MG1655, and the DH10B strain were used as references; we detected a total of 153, 255, and 349 SNPs, respectively.

As its parent strain KL16, E. coli DS1 encodes the relA1 and spoT1 mutations, along with several other polymorphisms when compared to the MG1655 strain. It has been previously reported that strains with relA1 and spoT1 mutations have deficient stringent response [38]. The wild-type persistence levels of the KL16 strain and the fact that the hipQ phenotype of DS1 is most relevant during exponential phase and conditions free of external stressors, strongly indicate that these mutations are not directly involved in the hipQ phenotype.

Some of the identified polymorphisms appear in genes whose functions were previously reported to be related to persistence, such as stress response mechanisms, DNA replication, and catabolic processes of amino acids and carbon sources [8,17]. We found a novel mutation in the hipA locus (A242V) different from the previously characterized hipA7 mutation known to confer a high persistence phenotype [17]. However, this mutation, although not generally considered a conservative change, does not appear to generate any significant conformational change in the protein (S2 File), although it is located near the active site of this kinase. We also identified various mutations in genes involved in the metabolism and transport of lipids such as fadD, ytfN (tamA) and ytfM (tamB); cell wall homeostasis such as murB, yceG (mltG) and amiB; and transmembrane transport such as ompF and ompN. As discussed in the next section, these results suggest the existence of modifications in cell envelope physicochemical properties in persister cells, as several components related to the cell envelope were found to be overrepresented amongst the set of genes in which novel mutations were identified for DS1 (Table 3). As noted above, our genomic analysis found no mutations in the gene ydcI, recently reported as the gene responsible for the high spontaneous persistence phenotype [30].

Table 3. Overrepresentation analysis of the cellular components represented in the set of genes with novel SNPs in DS1.

Go term

(Cell component)
Count p-value Fold enrichment Fisher Exact test
Cell envelope 18 1.1E-03 2.3 4.3E-04
Outer membrane-bounded periplasmic space 11 1.8E-02 2.3 7.5E-03
Intracellular organelle lumen 3 2.5E-02 11.7 1.8E-03
Organelle lumen 3 2.5E-02 11.7 1.8E-03
Membrane-enclosed lumen 3 2.5E-02 11.7 1.8E-03
Membrane 45 3.0E-02 1.2 2.3E-02
Periplasmic space 12 3.2E-02 2 1.5E-02
Intracellular membrane-bounded organelle 4 4.2E-02 5 7.5E-03
Membrane-bounded organelle 4 4.5E-02 4.9 8.3E-03
2-iminoacetate synthase complex 2 4.6E-02 42.8 5.4E-04
TAM protein secretion complex 2 4.6E-02 42.8 5.4E-04
Pore complex 3 7.0E-02 6.8 9.1E-03
Cell outer membrane 7 8.2E-02 2.3 3.3E-02
Outer membrane 7 9.9E-02 2.2 4.2E-02

To analyze which cellular components were significantly overrepresented amongst the set of mutated genes in DS1, PANTHER [39,40] was used to map the genes to UniProt accession numbers. DAVID [41,42] was then used to test for overrepresentation of cellular components, using as reference the complete genome of E. coli K-12.

To further corroborate this, we designed specific primers for the ydcI gene and performed Sanger sequencing. Again, no mutations were detected. Furthermore, we tested the persister frequency to ampicillin of a ΔydcI strain generated by P1 transduction from the KEIO collection [43] into MG1655. According to the previous report [30], the MG1655 ΔydcI strain should show a similarly high persister frequency as that of the DS1. Our results, however, show this is not the case, with this strain having persister levels close to that of the MG1655 wild-type (Fig 3 and S11 File). In addition, we searched for mutations located within ~100 kb from the leu operon, the proposed site of the hipQ locus [27]. To our surprise, DS1 has no strain-specific point mutations in the said region. Instead, it contains two SNPs inherited from its KL16 parent strain: creC R77P and aceE A20T. To assess whether these two mutations contribute to high-persistence, we restored each of these mutations independently with P1 transduction using the respective wild-type gene from the MG1655 strain and moved it into the DS1 strain and then tested the persister frequency to ampicillin. For both the DS1 creC and DS1 aceE restored strains, we found no significant changes in their persister frequencies when compared to the original DS1 strain, indicating that these mutations inherited from KL16 have no effect on the hipQ phenotype (Fig 3 and S11 File). So far, our results suggest that all previous findings on the hipQ genetics are likely incorrect. Therefore, we conclude that the genetic mechanism of hipQ is not yet determined and remains an open question.

Fig 3. Comparison of persister frequencies of previously reported hipQ related mutations in the wild-type strains (KL16 and MG1655) and the hipQ (DS1) strain.

Fig 3

Persister frequencies were determined by ampicillin treatment for 3 hours, as described previously [1]. Ampicillin (100 µg/mL) was added to the growing culture when it reached an OD600 = 0.4. Time 0 (before addition of antibiotic) and t = 3 hours were serially diluted and plated on LB agar to determine CFUs. Values represent the average of 3 biological replicates. Two-sample t-tests were performed to determine if the differences between the persister frequencies of the indicated pairs of strains are significant (p-value < 0.05).

Differentially expressed genes in DS1 persisters were distinct from previously reported transcriptomes of persister cells

Due to the large number of SNPs detected, pinpointing the mechanism with genome alone is challenging, especially since multiple mutations are likely involved [27]. Therefore, we carried out transcriptomic analysis. Previously, persisters have been routinely isolated by antibiotic treatments that last a few hours [1,8,10,16]. Alternatively, triggered persisters have been enriched using flow cytometry with fluorescent reporters of ribosomal genes like rrnbP1 [44]. Depending on the choice of antibiotics, cell physiology could be differentially affected during persister isolation [16,45]. Since spontaneous persisters emerge independently of antibiotic treatment, and to avoid antibiotic-induced biases, we used a previously published lysis protocol that isolates persisters in under 30 min [24] (S3 File). To reduce the probability of carry-over triggered persisters from the stationary phase starting culture, a sufficiently large dilution was performed before persister isolation in early exponential phase [4]. Critically, persisters enriched in DS1 during exponential phase maintained both their viability and characteristic slow growth dynamics for DS1 spontaneous persisters (S4 File) [24]. As shown previously using time-lapse microscopy, the fraction of isolated cells that don’t exhibit growth within a 2-hour window is negligible [24]. As this key phenotype is preserved, the associated experimental alterations to the cellular components are likely minimal. From the isolated DS1 persisters, we performed transcriptomic analysis and compared it to the transcriptome of exponentially growing, regular cells of DS1.

Utilizing the paired-end and strand-specific reads obtained during the RNA-Seq analysis, we assembled a complete gene catalog of expressed genes of E. coli DS1 persister cells and exponential phase cells using 27,525,259 and 40,130,287 paired-end reads, respectively, with an average length of 78 bp. For DS1 persister cells, we assembled and annotated 5,768 transcripts; 5,748 of these transcripts displayed BLAST hits, whereas the number of transcripts was 4,393 for the exponentially growing cells.

A total of 301 statistically significant differentially expressed genes (DEG) were detected. Of these, 217 were found to be down-regulated and the remaining 84 up-regulated. In the list of up-regulated genes, we noticed the overall absence of genes related to stress response mechanisms that were previously reported to be involved in the generation of persister cells [8,22,28]. Notably, genes participating in the SOS mechanism did not display differential regulation. Several genes related to other stress-response mechanisms were found in the list of down-regulated genes (S5 File).

Seven genes involved in lipid metabolism and modifications were found to be differentially regulated, such as FadB, along with genes involved in the regulation of other cell envelope components such peptidoglycan and LPS. This is consistent with the identification of 9 novel mutations in genes related to lipid pathways in the DS1 genome. 16 genes from TA modules were found to be differentially expressed during this type of persistence. But their behavior varied across TA modules: some were down-regulated, such as, hipB, dinJ and relB, whereas others, such as pspB, were up-regulated. In particular, we found that the tisB toxin was down-regulated.

Lipid metabolism is associated with DS1- persistence

We analyzed genes that were differentially expressed to detect whether some biological functions were significantly over- or underrepresented in this cluster. We found that genes related to regulation of translation, regulation of protein metabolic processes, several macromolecules biosynthetic processes, response to stimuli and response to stress were significantly overrepresented in the differentially expressed gene cluster, highlighting the importance of the regulation of these functions in DS1 exponential-phase persister cells.

We separately analyzed the clusters of up-regulated and down-regulated genes to identify the biological functions and processes related to spontaneous persistence in E. coli DS1. In the down-regulated gene cluster during DS1 exponential-phase persistence, we found that genes related to cell division, responses to stimulus and stressful conditions, synthesis of macromolecules, translation and overall homeostasis-related processes were significantly overrepresented (Fig 4B).

Fig 4. Biological processes significantly overrepresented during DS1 persistence.

Fig 4

To analyze which biological processes were significantly regulated during spontaneous persistence in DS1, Blast2GO [46] was used to map all the genes from the subsets of upregulated and downregulated DEGs. DAVID [41,42] was then used to test for overrepresentation of biological functions in the subsets of (A) up-regulated and (B) down-regulated. As noted, several processes involving both DNA and RNA binding and metabolism of proteins are overrepresented in the set of down-regulated genes in DS1 persister cells, whereas the metabolism of cell envelope components is overall overrepresented in both the up-regulated and the down-regulated clusters, indicating strong regulation of this function during spontaneous persistence. Only biological functions found to be overrepresented with a Bonferroni score < 0.005 are shown and an FDR < 0.0005.

When analyzing the cluster of up-regulated genes, we found that functions related to the intake of carbon sources, polyamine metabolism, and general catabolic processes were overrepresented. Biological functions related to lipid metabolic processes were significantly overrepresented (i.e., ethanolamine catabolic process), suggesting that modifications in the cell membrane composition and physicochemical properties are important during spontaneous persistence (Fig 4A).

RT-qPCR validates all tested differentially expressed genes predicted by our RNA-Seq analysis

We selected a subset of 12 genes (S6 File) out of 301 total genes found to be differentially expressed with the RNA-Seq analysis for validation: 4 and 8 from the up- and down-regulated cluster, respectively. Besides the differential expression, the selection criteria for this subset of genes included biological functions and their relationship with mechanisms previously related to the persistence phenomenon [8,22,28].

To select appropriate reference genes for the RT-qPCR experiments, the expression profile of previously reported housekeeping genes in the RNA-Seq dataset was analyzed. The expression of the genes opgH and dxs appeared to be suitable as RT-qPCR reference genes, whereas other commonly used housekeeping genes in E. coli, such as recA and mdh, showed variations in their abundances when comparing the E. coli DS1 strain during its spontaneous physiological state to its exponential growth.

All tested genes displayed similar expression profiles in the qPCR analysis, as reported by our RNA-Seq analysis (S7 File, including the housekeeping genes opgH and dxs).

Identification of genes with non-synonymous mutations related to gene expression changes in E. coli DS1 persisters potentially responsible for its high persistence phenotype

Firstly, we identified 19 SNPs directly related to the differential expression of genes during persistence (S8 File). Amongst these differentially expressed genes a non-synonymous mutation in narZ, which encodes for the nitrate reductase Z subunit α, is related with the up-regulation of the narZWY operon. Significantly, we found that a non-synonymous mutation in the transcriptional terminator Rho correlates with the differential expression of at least 16 genes from the putative Rho-dependent termination regulon [47]. The remaining 17 mutations identified exhibit correlations between regulators like SoxR and the mutated genes.

We then decided to directly assess the transcriptomic expression profiles of the genes found to be mutated in the DS1 genome. For this, we started by focusing on the cluster of 57 unique genes in which at least one non-synonymous SNP was detected. From this cluster, we identified 28 genes with a log2 Fold change >+/- 1 in gene expression from the differential expression analysis of DS1 exponential-phase persisters compared to non-persisters (Table 4). We then analyzed each of the mutated genes in terms of biological function, and assessed their possible relevance to persistence by combining their gene expression changes in persister cells with several reported factors involved in persistence such as stress response mechanisms, DNA replication and cell division and catabolic processes of amino acids and carbon sources [8,17,28]. With this functional analysis, we selected 10 additional genes carrying non-synonymous mutations that we consider might be potentially involved in hipQ-high persistence but that do not exhibit large expression changes (Table 4), whose functions we discuss in the Discussion section below.

Table 4. E. coli DS1 genes with novel non-synonymous mutations potentially involved in hipQ-driven persistence.

Gene SNP Effect Log2FC Effect Group Function
rhsA Truncation −2.90 Down 1 Hydrophilic protein of unknown function [48]
ydiM Substitution 2.21 Up 1 Multidrug transporter [49]
paaD Substitution 1.83 Up 1 Predicted subunit of a phenylacetate-CoA oxygenase [50]
ydbD Substitution 1.74 Up 1 Possibly involved in detoxification of methylglyoxal (MG) [51]
ompN Substitution 1.72 Up 1 Outer membrane porin [52]
orn Substitution −1.67 Down 1 Oligoribonuclease [53]
treB Substitution −1.62 Down 1 Trehalose-specific PTS enzyme IIBC component [54]
narZ Substitution 1.61 Up 1 α subunit of nitrate reductase Z [54]
ynbC Substitution 1.48 Up 1 Putative hydrolase/methyltransferase [55]
yncE Substitution −1.41 Down 1 Possibly involved in iron uptake [56]
yeaI Substitution 1.41 Up 1 c-di-GMP binding protein CdgI [57]
citG Substitution 1.40 Up 1 Triphosphoribosyl-dephospho-CoA synthase [58]
ydhV Substitution 1.32 Up 1 Putative oxidoreductase [59]
mgtA Substitution 1.26 Up 1 Mg2 + importing P-type ATPase [60]
flhA Substitution −1.15 Down 1 Component of the flagellar export apparatus [61]
yjhC Substitution −1.06 Down 1 KpLE2 phage-like element NanY [62]
yjaA Substitution −1.05 Down 1 Involved in the cellular response to hydrogen peroxide and acid stress [63]
rhsD Substitution 1.03 Up 1 Hydrophilic protein of unknown function [48]
yceG Substitution 0.91 Up 2 Endolytic murein transglycosylase MltG [64]
katE Substitution 0.89 Up 2 Monofunctional catalase HPII [65]
hflX Substitution −0.73 Down 2 Ribosome rescue factor HflX [66]
pgi Substitution −0.69 Down 2 Glucose-6-phosphate isomerase [67]
hipA Substitution −0.66 Down 2 Serine/threonine-protein kinase, TA module [26]
rsxG Substitution −0.51 Down 2 SoxR [2Fe-2S] reducing system protein RsxG [68]
rho Substitution −0.34 Down 2 Transcription termination factor Rho [69]
ompF Frame Shift −0.04 Down 2 Outer membrane porin [70]
rseB Substitution −0.02 Down 2 Anti-sigmaE factor [71]
rpoB Substitution −0.01 Down 2 RNA polymerase subunit β [72,73]

18 genes were selected with changes in expression > 2-fold in persisters compared to the exponentially growing cells from which they emerged (Group 1); 10 additional genes were selected based on their biological function having been linked to persistence but with smaller or undetected changes in expression (Group 2).

Analysis of fatty acid profiles validates the occurrence of significant membrane modifications in persister cells

The results of our RNA-Seq analysis of DS1 persisters isolated during exponential growth show that genes involved in lipid metabolism, normally involved in the modulation of fatty acid chemical structure, become differentially expressed, indicating a possible role of lipid composition of the membrane during persistence.

Overall, significant differences were found when comparing the fatty acid profiles of persister cells with non-persister cells during both the exponential growth and stationary phases (Fig 5 and S9 File). In contrast to the triggered persisters, spontaneous or Type-II persisters in DS1 have been shown to be dividing, albeit with a prolonged division time of ~160 ± 30 min [1,24]. Whether spontaneous persisters in other strains or species exhibit slow growth, complete arrest, or other behavior remains an open question. Interestingly, persisters isolated from DS1 during exponential growth increase the proportion of unsaturated fatty acids in their membrane, from an average of 41% in non-persisters to more than 58% in persisters, suggesting an overall increase in membrane fluidity in spontaneous persistence. No changes in the average fatty acid chain length were observed (Fig 6)

Fig 5. Fatty acid chain profiles evidence the occurrence of membrane modifications in persisters.

Fig 5

The lipid composition of persister cells is markedly different from that of the cells in the physiological state in which they are generated. The membranes of DS1 persisters, generated during exponential growth, are highly enriched in unsaturated lipids, consistent with an overall increase in the fluidity (decrease in lipid packing) of the cell membrane in persister cells, compared with exponentially and stationary phase cells.

Fig 6. The fatty acid chain-length profiles of persisters are distinct from normally growing cells.

Fig 6

DS1 persisters isolated during exponential growth are enriched in 18 carbon chains compared with cells in exponential growth, which is consistent with an increase in the unsaturated 18:1Δ9 species. The average chain does not exhibit a significant change compared to normally growing cells.

Discussion

Despite a great and long-standing interest in bacterial persistence, much is still unknown about the underlying biochemical and molecular mechanisms by which they are generated as persister cells are too infrequent and their transient nature makes them difficult to study. Recent consensus has categorized persisters largely into two types: triggered and spontaneous, previously known as type I and type II [4]. Persistence could also arise from other mechanisms such as balanced division and deaths under antibiotic treatment [74]. Furthermore, host tissues could cause phenotypic variations of bacterial pathogens and contribute to persistence [75].

For induced persisters, a great deal has been learned from the high persistence strain hipA7, mutated in the gene for the HipA toxin. For spontaneous persisters, hipQ has played a similar role in phenotypic analyses, as the only published mutant to our knowledge that substantially increased spontaneous persistence frequency. However, as opposed to hipA, the hipQ designation does not refer to any identified gene. A major early attempt using conjugative mapping [27] failed to identify specific genes, and though a recent paper suggested a gene [30], that polymorphism does not appear to exist in the DS1 hipQ strain. We here present a multi-omic approach of the classic hipQ persister strain, and for the first time identify not only key polymorphisms, but also expression profiles and lipid modifications.

Our analysis of the complete E. coli DS1 genome identified 121 polymorphisms unique to this strain, including a cluster of 57 genes with non-synonymous mutations potentially involved in the generation of persister cells. One notable mutation found in the DS1 genome is a novel polymorphism in the coding sequence of the HipA toxin gene, a single point mutation changing Alanine for Valine (A242V). This mutation is distinct from the HipA7 mutation (G22S+D291A) responsible for the hip phenotype of hipA7 strain [17,26,76]. However, we do not expect the A242V mutation to cause significant conformational changes to the HipA protein, since alanine and valine are structurally and functionally very similar. Several mutations occurred in genes previously implicated in persistence in E. coli cells, such as genes related to stress response mechanisms, biofilm formation, quorum sensing and catabolic processes [6,8,10,13,17,28,77,78]. Notably, the analysis of the DS1 genome supported the hypothesis that modifications to the lipids composing the cell membrane might influence multitolerance.

We further sequenced the complete transcriptome of E. coli DS1 exponential-phase persisters using exponentially growing cells as a control. A total of 180 genes were differentially expressed: 64% were down-regulated, and 36% were up-regulated. Many genes related to carbohydrate metabolism were up-regulated, whereas genes encoding for cell division, protein synthesis and cell homeostasis processes were down-regulated. This regulation contradicts the idea that the mechanism of multitolerance is primarily because of metabolic inactivity [2,23]. Genes in Toxin-Antitoxin modules were also differentially regulated during persistence, but some were upregulated while others were down-regulated. For example, the TisB toxin was down-regulated, despite the fact that it has been shown that TisB can play a role in antibiotic-induced persistence [2,13].

Several genes related to stress response mechanisms were down-regulated, whereas only two stress-related genes, zraP and pspD, were up-regulated. This regulation was contrary to previous studies on triggered persistence [2,8,23,28]. Notably, all genes related to the SOS response showed no transcriptomic change in expression or were beyond our resolution power. This particular and striking difference between the current expression profile of DS1 persisters and all previous transcriptomic studies performed on persisters could be caused by the inherent differences between both persister types. Notably, previous studies routinely isolate persisters by using antibiotics, e.g., fluoroquinolones that induce the SOS response. The induction of the SOS response by antibiotics during the isolation of persister cells in all previous studies is likely to have caused significant alterations to the expression profiles of the isolated persisters. Similarly, the activation of the stringent response, through the accumulation of the alarmone guanosine tetra/penta-phosphate ((p)ppGpp) has been recently reported to play a role in the formation of all persisters types in the Gram-positive Bacillus subtilis [79]. Despite taking great care to deplete starvation-induced persisters for their spontaneous persister assays, the antibiotic treatments for isolation could have led to transcriptional changes or antibiotic induced persister formation in these assays. Further, as no measurements were made of the growth dynamics of the isolated Bacillus persisters, in order to verify if they have the characteristic slow-growth [1] of spontaneous persisters, it is not possible to know if the role of (p)ppGpp extends to spontaneous persistence in general. Our findings suggest that the induction of stress mechanisms, such as the stringent response and oxidative stress, only become a significant trigger to induce persistence formation if the SOS response has been previously induced, as suggested by the absence of these mechanisms in the set of upregulated genes in DS1 persisters. Importantly, we, however, do not discount the possibility that global regulators like RpoS or (p)ppGpp could have a significant role in the ability of spontaneous persisters to survive antibiotics, downstream of the entrance into this state.

Gene expression information could significantly aid in the discovery of the genes responsible for the high persistence phenotype of DS1. However, expression patterns can be hard to interpret, as they might be causative, responsive, or independent of persistence. But by correlating the discovered SNPs in the genome of E. coli DS1 with transcriptome data, we propose 28 candidate genes that may be involved somehow in persistence (Table 4). For example, the outer membrane porin ompF, which is known to mediate the entry of various antibiotics [80,81] was found to have suffered a deletion which resulted in a predicted frame shift, which might severely affect the functionality of this porin. Another interesting candidate mutation was found in the MltG protein (formerly yceG). MltG is an inner membrane enzyme with endolytic murein transglycosylase activity which has been proposed to terminate nascent peptidoglycan synthesis [64] and its deletion has been reported to reduce sensitivity to ampicillin [82]. Additionally, the non-synonymous mutations found in the genes rho, rpoB, rseB, hflX and rsxG could broadly affect gene expression via alteration of transcription factor activity, translation regulation and mRNA stability, which could also increase noise in gene expression favoring the entrance into alternate phenotypic states.

A notable result of our transcriptomics analysis was the overrepresentation of genes related to fatty acid metabolism and lipid modifications among the biological functions strongly up-regulated among DS1 persisters. These results not only correlate with some of the mutations found in the DS1 genome but also support previous findings about differences in the cell membrane of persister cells [24]. The chemical structure of fatty acids determines the level of lipid packing and influences the biophysical properties of bacterial membranes [83]. We therefore analyzed the fatty acid composition of persister cells and compared the composition with normally growing cells. The fatty acid composition of persisters differed significantly from that of the normal cells. Specifically, persisters isolated during exponential growth phase appear to increase their membrane fluidity. However, it is important to note that although the lytic protocol used to isolated persisters in this study acts in < 15 minutes and has been shown to reproduce both the published persister frequencies and growth phenotypes in both wild type E. coli and in the hip (hipA7 and hipQ) strains [24], we cannot fully discount the possibility that this method might add a selectivity for cells with modified membrane properties or for other cell types that are non-persisters, such as viable but non-culturable (VBNC) cells.

The regulation of the physicochemical properties of the cell membrane is a known bacterial strategy to survive challenging environments [83]. Previous studies have also shown a relationship between membrane fluidity and tolerance to certain antibiotic agents [84]. Therefore, alterations in membrane composition and fluidity emerge as strongly associated with the multitolerant state.

Conclusions

In summary, we combined multi-omics methods to characterize the high persistence strain DS1 hipQ in terms of polymorphisms as well as broad changes in the transcriptome and lipid composition. This revealed many striking changes, excluded previously proposed genes and locus claimed to cause persistence, and identified a set of new candidate genes. Finally, we noted differences in the membrane lipid composition between persister and non-persister cells, thus opening a new avenue of research on the biochemical mechanism of multitolerance.

Methods

Bacterial strains and growth conditions.

The bacterial strains used in this work and their relevant characteristics are described in Table 5. Bacterial cultures were grown in Luria-Bertani (LB) medium at 37°C and 200 rpm unless otherwise specified. For exponential growth, samples were taken at OD600 = 0.4. The morphological characteristics of strains DS1, KL16 and MG1655 were analyzed at this point and are depicted in S10 File.

Table 5. Escherichia coli strains used in this study.

Strains Relevant features Source or reference
TH1268 MG1655 zde264::Tn10 Korch et al, 2003
TH1269 MG1655 hipA7 zde264::Tn10 Korch et al, 2003
DS1 hipQ Wolfson et al, 1990
DSY hipQ with yfp-Cam cassette Fridman et al., 2014
KL16 K-12 λ-, e14-, relA1, spoT1, thiE1 Low B., 1968
MG1655 MG1655 6300
MG1655 ΔydcI MG1655 6300 ΔydcI This study

Escherichia coli DS1 genome sequencing, assembly and annotation.

Total DNA was purified from a stationary phase culture of E. coli DS1 using the GenElute Bacterial Genome Extraction Kit (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) according to the manufacturer’s protocols. The DS1 genome was sequenced on an Illumina HiSeq 2000 instrument using the 2 × 90 paired-end technology with a 500 bp insert size at BGI Genomics (Shenzhen, China).

FastQC (Babraham Bioinformatics, Cambridge, United Kingdom) was utilized to visually inspect quality metrics of the raw reads. Reads were clipped, quality trimmed and quality filtered (with a minimum read length of 60 bps and a quality threshold of 20) using Flexbar [85].

Clean reads were then de novo assembled using the CLC Assembly Cell (CLC Bio, Aarhus, Denmark). PET scaffolding was performed using the SSAKE-based Scaffolding of Pre-Assembled Contigs after Extension (SSPACE) v2.0 [34]. The PAGIT (Post Assembly Genome Improvement Toolkit) [33] was utilized for reference-guided contig extension using ABACAS [86], PET gap closing was performed using IMAGE [87] and the quality assessment of the assembly was made using iCORN [88]. Finally, Gapfiller was used [34] to close the majority of the remaining gaps. DS1 genome annotation was performed using the Rapid Annotations using Subsystems Technology program [35]. For visualization, a circular representation of the DS1 genome was created using DNAplotter [36].

Whole genome SNP detection

SNP calling was performed as described by the BROAD GATK Best practices guidelines (v3) using both E. coli MG1655 and DH10B genomes as references. Briefly, the sequenced small reads were mapped against each reference genome using the Burrows-Wheeler Aligner (BWA) [89], and the coverage depth was analyzed using the Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK) [90], obtaining a 94 × coverage for each genome. Next, duplicates were marked using Picard [http://picard.sourceforge.net] before performing local re-alignments. For the base quality recalibration step, we built a database of polymorphic sites in E. coli using the genomes of strains BL21, S88, 0127:H6 E2348/69, O42, ETEC H10407, DH10B and MG1655, employing progressive Mauve [91] for the multiple sequences alignment. Finally, SNPs and small indels in the genome of E. coli DS1 were called against each reference genome with GATK [92].

Analysis of overrepresented GO terms in the set of genes encoding novel mutations in E. coli DS1

The set of genes identified to have novel mutations, with respect to the three reference strains, was singularly mapped to UniProt accession identifiers using PANTHER [39,40]. The 95 unique entries were then analyzed for overrepresentation of Cellular component GO terms using DAVID 6.7 [41,42] with Fisher’s exact test, with a false discovery rate (FDR) correction to account for multiple testing.

RNA-Seq analysis of persister cells from exponentially growing E. coli DS1

To obtain enough RNA from persister cells for the RNA-Seq analysis, 6 replicate flasks, each containing 300 mL of LB media, were individually inoculated with 10 μL of an overnight culture of E. coli DS1 and incubated at 37°C and 200 rpm until the culture reached an OD of 0.4. After reaching the desired OD, the bacterial cultures were pelleted, immediately frozen and stored at −30°C. This was repeated until a total of 9.3 liters of exponentially grown cultures was processed for each of the two biological replicates.

To extract total RNA from exponential-phase persister cells, persisters were first isolated by employing the lysis protocol (S3 File) described in [24], and the RNA from the lysed non-persister cells was completely degraded using RNAse A (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) before proceeding with the total RNA extraction. The complete degradation of the RNA from the non-persister cells was determined with a gel electrophoresis of RNA extractions of the supernatant. Prior to the extraction of the total RNA from persisters, the pellets were washed three times.

Phenol-chloroform RNA extractions were performed in duplicate for both exponentially growing cells and DS1-(hipQ)-strain exponential-phase persisters from a pellet equivalent to an initial culture of 150 mL and 4.5 L for each biological replicate, respectively.

DNA degradation and total RNA purification were performed with a Qiagen RNeasy kit according to the manufacturer’s protocols (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). RNA-Seq on each sample was performed at BGI Genomics on an Illumina HiSeq 2000 instrument using 2 × 101 paired-end tags and strand-specific chemistry. Raw reads were processed as indicated above.

Transcriptome assembly, annotation, and analysis

For exponential-phase persisters and exponentially growing normal cells from the DS1 strain, we assembled the complete transcriptome using Trinity [93] for both de novo and genome-guided assemblies. Each transcriptome was then used for protein prediction and annotation of genes using Trinotate [93]. The Trinotate pipeline includes a homology search to known sequence data using blastx and blastp [94], the identification of protein domains using HMMER v3.0 [95], a prediction of signal peptides with SignalP [96] and tmHMM [97], and several comparisons to curated annotation databases, such as EMBL, UniProt, KEGG [98], eggNOG [99], and Gene Ontology [100].

TopHat2 was employed to map all PET reads to the reference genome [101]. Expression levels were presented as Fragments per Kilobase of exon per Million reads (FPKMs), and differential gene expression analyses were performed using both CuffDiff2 [102,103] and NOISeq [104] using the cutoffs of a p-value of 0.05 and a q of 0.9, respectively.

Analysis of overrepresented GO terms in differentially expressed genes during persistence

To analyze the biological processes that are significantly regulated during spontaneous persistence, we performed a Blast2GO [46] analysis over the complete E. coli deduced proteome. We then tested for significant overrepresentation of GO terms in the groups of differentially expressed, overexpressed, and underexpressed genes derived from CuffDiff [102] and NOISeq [104] analyses performed between E. coli DS1 exponentially growing cells and exponential-phase persisters. The overrepresentation analysis was performed using DAVID 6.7 and Fisher’s exact test, with a false discovery rate (FDR) correction to account for multiple testing (Benjamini-Hochberg test) and a Bonferroni score threshold of < 0.005.

RT-qPCR validation of detected differentially expressed genes

From the group of differentially expressed genes, the expression profiles of 14 genes were chosen to be validated with RT-qPCR. The selection of these genes accounted for their biological function and the existence of previous reports of their relevance to triggered persistence [2,8,28]. The housekeeping genes dxs and opgH were used to normalize the data. For this analysis, a sample of the identical RNA that was sequenced and the RNA from a biological replica for each condition were converted to cDNA using random hexamers prior to the qPCR. The cDNA synthesis and qPCR were performed with the DyNAmo SYBR Green 2-Step qRT-PCR Kit (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, USA).

The validation of the differentially expressed genes through qPCR was performed using the relative quantification method with a standard curve on a 7500 Fast qPCR Instrument (Applied Biosystems, Life Technologies, California, USA). The statistical analysis of the obtained data was done with REST [105] using the Pair Wise Fixed Reallocation Randomization Test method [105].

Determination of total fatty acids

Lipids were extracted from E. coli DS1 during exponential growth and stationary phase. Exponential-phase persisters were isolated from an exponential phase culture of E. coli DS1 using a published protocol [24], which enriches for cells with phenotypes corresponding to spontaneous persisters in this strain.

For each of the above-mentioned samples, lipids were extracted by pelleting 60 mL of each culture (or its equivalent in cell population persister samples after the isolation protocol); the pellets were then frozen at −20°C for 2 hours. Frozen pellets were then lyophilized overnight to remove any residual water. Afterwards, samples were dispersed in a chloroform/methanol/water (3:1:1 v/v) mixture and then vortexed every 15 minutes for 4 hours. After two days, three separate phases are visually identified, where the top phase is an aqueous phase, the middle phase is a protein-rich phase, and the lower phase is the organic phase enriched in total lipids. The lower organic phase was drawn off by aspiration and collected into a clean glass tube. All glassware was cleaned using a piranha (sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide) protocol to remove all organic residues. Chloroform was then evaporated with a steady stream of gaseous N2 to form a thin film at the bottom of the test tube, and the lipids were then stored at −20°C. Extracted lipids were analyzed by gas chromatography.

Preparation of methyl esters of fatty acids (FAMEs) for analysis by gas chromatography/flame ionization detection (GC/FID) was performed as already described [106]. For acidic hydrolysis, 1 mL methanol/toluene (2:1, v/v) containing 2.75% (v/v) H2SO4 (95−97%) and 2% (v/v) dimethoxypropan was added to the dry sample material. For later quantification of the fatty acids, 20 µg triheptadecanoate (Tri-17:0) were added and the sample was incubated for 1 h at 80°C. To extract the resulting FAMEs, 200 µL of saturated aqueous NaCl solution and 2 mL of hexane were added. The hexane phase was dried under streaming nitrogen and re-dissolved with equal volumes of water and hexane. The hexane phase was filtrated with cotton wool soaked with NaSO4 and dried under streaming nitrogen. Finally, the sample was re-dissolved in 10 µL acetonitrile for GC analysis performed with an Agilent (Waldbronn, Germany) 6890 gas chromatograph fitted with a capillary DB-23 column (30 m x 0.25 mm; 0.25 µm coating thickness; J&W Scientific, Agilent). Helium was used as carrier gas at a flow rate of 1 mL/min. The temperature gradient was 150°C for 1 min, 150–200°C at 8 K/min, 200–250°C at 25 K/min and 250°C for 6 min. For verification of the peak identities, an aliquot of the sample was analysed by GC/mass spectrometric detection (GC/MS) using an Agilent 5973 Network mass selective detector connected to the gas chromatograph as described above. The injection temperature was 220°C. The temperature gradient as well as the carrier gas was carried out as described for the GC analysis. Electron energy of 70 eV, an ion source temperature of 230°C, and a temperature of 350°C for the transfer line were used. Mass detection was performed in scan mode in an m/z range of 50–650. Lipid extraction and analysis were performed for each of the above-described samples with three biological replicates.

Supporting information

S1 File. Novel SNPs detected in E. coli DS1.

Set of 112 SNPs detected in the genome of E. coli DS1 against all three reference genomes.

(XLSX)

pone.0351161.s001.xlsx (16.7KB, xlsx)
S2 File. Prediction of E. coli DS1 HipA protein aligned to the crystal structure of HipA of MG1655.

AlphaFold2 prediction made using ColabFold v1.5.2 of the HipA protein carrying the novel A242V mutation identified in the genome of E. coli DS1. The resultant structure (silver) was aligned to the crystal structure of HipA from MG1655 (blue) using the Pairwise Structure Alignment tool from RCSB PDB. The model for DS1’s HipA is depicted in silver, and MG1655 HipA is depicted in blue. A zoomed in view into the region of residue 242 is shown as an inset.

(PDF)

pone.0351161.s002.pdf (4.5MB, pdf)
S3 File. Schematic of persister isolation protocol using antibiotics or the lysis protocol.

Traditional antibiotic-based protocols typically involve a short pre-growth phase (e.g., 2 hours for 100x diluted stationary cultures) in order to efficiently kill stationary phase cells, which is followed by an extended antibiotic treatment (3–5 hours). This prolonged treatment may induce stress in spontaneous persisters, potentially altering their cellular components. Additionally, it may trigger normal cells to transition into triggered persisters. In contrast, our lysis-based protocol incorporates an extended pre-growth phase followed by rapid lysis-based isolation, mitigating these confounding variables.

(PDF)

pone.0351161.s003.pdf (813.4KB, pdf)
S4 File. FOV of isolated persisters from a stationary culture of E. coli DS1.

Illustrative DIC images of the sample of spontaneous persisters isolated from a stationary phase culture of the E. coli DS1 (hipQ) strain using the lysis protocol, at 7 minutes and 120 minutes post treatment. This figure was generated from images published as File S2 from Cañas-Duarte SJ et al, 2014 (PMID 24586365).

(PDF)

pone.0351161.s004.pdf (202KB, pdf)
S5 File. Transcriptome of E. coli DS1 persisters.

Complete transcriptome results for exponential-phase persisters of the DS1 (hipQ) strain. File includes all FPKM values for all mapped genes and the classification lists of Up/Down regulated clusters.

(XLSX)

pone.0351161.s005.xlsx (351.7KB, xlsx)
S6 File. Set of differentially expressed genes for RT-qPCR validation.

Set of genes found to be differentially expressed in the hipQ exponential-phase persisters that were chosen for validation.

(XLSX)

pone.0351161.s006.xlsx (11.9KB, xlsx)
S7 File. RT-qPCR validation results.

Normalized and non-normalized calculations of the relative expression of the 12 differentially expressed genes chosen for validation.

(PDF)

pone.0351161.s007.pdf (44.6KB, pdf)
S8 File. SNPs directly related to the differential expression of genes in persistence.

Description of data: List of genes found to contain at least one SNP that appear correlated with genes found to be differentially expressed in exponential-phase persisters in E. coli DS1.

(XLSX)

pone.0351161.s008.xlsx (10.6KB, xlsx)
S9 File. Complete fatty acid profile results for E. coli strains in different physiological conditions.

Fatty acid analyses results for E. coli cells in exponential and stationary phase and of triggered and spontaneous persisters.

(XLSX)

pone.0351161.s009.xlsx (31.1KB, xlsx)
S10 File. Morphological characteristics of exponentially growing E. coli strains DS1, KL16 and MG1655 at OD600 = 0.4.

Cultures were grown in 50 mL of LB at 37°C in 250 mL flasks until they reached an OD600 of 0.4. Samples were spotted on 1.5% LB-agarose pads and imaged using a 100 × Ph3 objective on a Nikon Ti2 inverted microscope at 37°C. Supersegger-Omnipose was used to segment the cells and an in-house Matlab code was used to analyze the extracted features.

(PDF)

pone.0351161.s010.pdf (171.8KB, pdf)
S11 File. Raw CFU counts for persister frequency quantifications.

Persister frequencies were determined as described on Figure 3. Raw CFU counts are indicated for t = 0 and t = 3 hours for all reported strains.

(XLSX)

pone.0351161.s011.xlsx (12.3KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We thank the laboratory of D. C. Hooper for retrieving the E. coli DS1 (hipQ) strain. We also thank Dr. Thomas M. Hill for sending us strains TH1268 and TH1269. We further thank the Laboratory of Nathalie Balaban for sending us the strains DSY and KLY.

Data Availability

All the genomic sequencing data generated for the E. coli DS1 (hipQ) strain has been submitted to the SRA as the BioProject PRJNA252455 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA252455). The assembled and annotated genome can be accessed in GenBank as entry CP022466, (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/CP022466). All the data from the transcriptomic analyses of triggered (type I) and spontaneous (type II) persisters has also been submitted to SRA with accession numbers PRJNA253803 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/?term=PRJNA253803) and PRJNA252678 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA252678). Microscopy images of E. coli strains KL16, DS1 and MG1655 has been submitted to the BioImage Archive with accession number S-BIAD3502 (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/bioimages/studies/S-BIAD3502).

Funding Statement

Colciencias grant 120465843511 and Convocatoria de Programas de Investigación 2012 of Universidad de los Andes (SJCD, JMP, SR) Early Postdoc Mobility fellowship from the Swiss National Science Foundation with grant number P2EZP3_184252 and P400PB_199262 (LS). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Balaban NQ, Merrin J, Chait R, Kowalik L, Leibler S. Bacterial persistence as a phenotypic switch. Science. 2004;305(5690):1622–5. doi: 10.1126/science.1099390 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lewis K. Persister cells. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2010;64:357–72. doi: 10.1146/annurev.micro.112408.134306 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hansen S, Vulić M, Min J, Yen T-J, Schumacher MA, Brennan RG, et al. Regulation of the Escherichia coli HipBA toxin-antitoxin system by proteolysis. PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e39185. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039185 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Balaban NQ, Helaine S, Lewis K, Ackermann M, Aldridge B, Andersson DI, et al. Definitions and guidelines for research on antibiotic persistence. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2019;17(7):441–8. doi: 10.1038/s41579-019-0196-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lewis K. Riddle of Biofilm Resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45(4):999–1007. doi: 10.1128/aac.45.4.999-1007.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Spoering AL, Lewis K. Biofilms and planktonic cells of Pseudomonas aeruginosa have similar resistance to killing by antimicrobials. J Bacteriol. 2001;183(23):6746–51. doi: 10.1128/JB.183.23.6746-6751.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lewis K. Persister cells, dormancy and infectious disease. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2007;5(1):48–56. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro1557 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Keren I, Shah D, Spoering A, Kaldalu N, Lewis K. Specialized persister cells and the mechanism of multidrug tolerance in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol. 2004;186(24):8172–80. doi: 10.1128/JB.186.24.8172-8180.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Dhar N, McKinney JD. Microbial phenotypic heterogeneity and antibiotic tolerance. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2007;10(1):30–8. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2006.12.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Keren I, Minami S, Rubin E, Lewis K. Characterization and transcriptome analysis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis persisters. mBio. 2011;2(3):e00100–11. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00100-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gefen O, Balaban NQ. The importance of being persistent: heterogeneity of bacterial populations under antibiotic stress. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2009;33(4):704–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2008.00156.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Gurnev PA, Ortenberg R, Dörr T, Lewis K, Bezrukov SM. Persister-promoting bacterial toxin TisB produces anion-selective pores in planar lipid bilayers. FEBS Lett. 2012;586(16):2529–34. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2012.06.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Dörr T, Vulić M, Lewis K. Ciprofloxacin causes persister formation by inducing the TisB toxin in Escherichia coli. PLoS Biol. 2010;8(2):e1000317. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000317 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Unoson C, Wagner EGH. A small SOS-induced toxin is targeted against the inner membrane in Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol. 2008;70(1):258–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2008.06416.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Miller C, Thomsen LE, Gaggero C, Mosseri R, Ingmer H, Cohen SN. SOS response induction by beta-lactams and bacterial defense against antibiotic lethality. Science. 2004;305(5690):1629–31. doi: 10.1126/science.1101630 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Dörr T, Lewis K, Vulić M. SOS response induces persistence to fluoroquinolones in Escherichia coli. PLoS Genet. 2009;5(12):e1000760. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000760 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Korch SB, Henderson TA, Hill TM. Characterization of the hipA7 allele of Escherichia coli and evidence that high persistence is governed by (p)ppGpp synthesis. Mol Microbiol. 2003;50(4):1199–213. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2003.03779.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Schumacher MA, Piro KM, Xu W, Hansen S, Lewis K, Brennan RG. Molecular mechanisms of HipA-mediated multidrug tolerance and its neutralization by HipB. Science. 2009;323(5912):396–401. doi: 10.1126/science.1163806 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Germain E, Castro-Roa D, Zenkin N, Gerdes K. Molecular mechanism of bacterial persistence by HipA. Mol Cell. 2013;52(2):248–54. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2013.08.045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Germain E, Roghanian M, Gerdes K, Maisonneuve E. Stochastic induction of persister cells by HipA through (p)ppGpp-mediated activation of mRNA endonucleases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(16):5171–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1423536112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
  • 21.Pu Y, Zhao Z, Li Y, Zou J, Ma Q, Zhao Y, et al. Enhanced Efflux Activity Facilitates Drug Tolerance in Dormant Bacterial Cells. Mol Cell. 2016;62(2):284–94. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.03.035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hong SH, Wang X, O’Connor HF, Benedik MJ, Wood TK. Bacterial persistence increases as environmental fitness decreases. Microb Biotechnol. 2012;5(4):509–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7915.2011.00327.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kint CI, Verstraeten N, Fauvart M, Michiels J. New-found fundamentals of bacterial persistence. Trends Microbiol. 2012;20(12):577–85. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2012.08.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Cañas-Duarte SJ, Restrepo S, Pedraza JM. Novel protocol for persister cells isolation. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e88660. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088660 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Orman MA, Brynildsen MP. Dormancy is not necessary or sufficient for bacterial persistence. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(7):3230–9. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00243-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Moyed HS, Bertrand KP. hipA, a newly recognized gene of Escherichia coli K-12 that affects frequency of persistence after inhibition of murein synthesis. J Bacteriol. 1983;155(2):768–75. doi: 10.1128/jb.155.2.768-775.1983 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Wolfson JS, Hooper DC, McHugh GL, Bozza MA, Swartz MN. Mutants of Escherichia coli K-12 exhibiting reduced killing by both quinolone and beta-lactam antimicrobial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990;34(10):1938–43. doi: 10.1128/AAC.34.10.1938 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Shah D, Zhang Z, Khodursky A, Kaldalu N, Kurg K, Lewis K. Persisters: a distinct physiological state of E. coli. BMC Microbiol. 2006;6:53. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-6-53 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wolfson JS, Hooper DC, Shih DJ, McHugh GL, Swartz MN. Isolation and characterization of an Escherichia coli strain exhibiting partial tolerance to quinolones. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989;33(5):705–9. doi: 10.1128/AAC.33.5.705 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hingley-Wilson SM, Ma N, Hu Y, Casey R, Bramming A, Curry RJ, et al. Loss of phenotypic inheritance associated with ydcI mutation leads to increased frequency of small, slow persisters in Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(8):4152–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1914741117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Milne I, Stephen G, Bayer M, Cock PJA, Pritchard L, Cardle L, et al. Using Tablet for visual exploration of second-generation sequencing data. Brief Bioinform. 2013;14(2):193–202. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbs012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Boetzer M, Henkel CV, Jansen HJ, Butler D, Pirovano W. Scaffolding pre-assembled contigs using SSPACE. Bioinformatics. 2011;27(4):578–9. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq683 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Swain MT, Tsai IJ, Assefa SA, Newbold C, Berriman M, Otto TD. A post-assembly genome-improvement toolkit (PAGIT) to obtain annotated genomes from contigs. Nat Protoc. 2012;7(7):1260–84. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2012.068 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Boetzer M, Pirovano W. Toward almost closed genomes with GapFiller. Genome Biol. 2012;13(6):R56. doi: 10.1186/gb-2012-13-6-r56 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Aziz RK, Bartels D, Best AA, DeJongh M, Disz T, Edwards RA, et al. The RAST Server: rapid annotations using subsystems technology. BMC Genomics. 2008;9:75. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-9-75 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Carver T, Thomson N, Bleasby A, Berriman M, Parkhill J. DNAPlotter: circular and linear interactive genome visualization. Bioinformatics. 2009;25(1):119–20. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btn578 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Low B. Formation of merodiploids in matings with a class of Rec- recipient strains of Escherichia coli K12. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1968;60(1):160–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.60.1.160 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Metzger S, Schreiber G, Aizenman E, Cashel M, Glaser G. Characterization of the relA1 mutation and a comparison of relA1 with new relA null alleles in Escherichia coli. J Biol Chem. 1989;264(35):21146–52. doi: 10.1016/s0021-9258(19)30059-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Mi H, Muruganujan A, Huang X, Ebert D, Mills C, Guo X, et al. Protocol Update for large-scale genome and gene function analysis with the PANTHER classification system (v.14.0). Nat Protoc. 2019;14(3):703–21. doi: 10.1038/s41596-019-0128-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Thomas PD, Ebert D, Muruganujan A, Mushayahama T, Albou L-P, Mi H. PANTHER: Making genome-scale phylogenetics accessible to all. Protein Sci. 2022;31(1):8–22. doi: 10.1002/pro.4218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Huang DW, Sherman BT, Lempicki RA. Bioinformatics enrichment tools: paths toward the comprehensive functional analysis of large gene lists. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37(1):1–13. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkn923 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Huang DW, Sherman BT, Lempicki RA. Systematic and integrative analysis of large gene lists using DAVID bioinformatics resources. Nat Protoc. 2009;4(1):44–57. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2008.211 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Baba T, Ara T, Hasegawa M, Takai Y, Okumura Y, Baba M, et al. Construction of Escherichia coli K-12 in-frame, single-gene knockout mutants: the Keio collection. Mol Syst Biol. 2006;2:2006.0008. doi: 10.1038/msb4100050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Shan Y, Brown Gandt A, Rowe SE, Deisinger JP, Conlon BP, Lewis K. ATP-Dependent Persister Formation in Escherichia coli. mBio. 2017;8:e02267–16. doi: 10.1128/mBio.02267-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Barrett TC, Mok WWK, Murawski AM, Brynildsen MP. Enhanced antibiotic resistance development from fluoroquinolone persisters after a single exposure to antibiotic. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):1177. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-09058-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Conesa A, Götz S, García-Gómez JM, Terol J, Talón M, Robles M. Blast2GO: a universal tool for annotation, visualization and analysis in functional genomics research. Bioinformatics. 2005;21(18):3674–6. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti610 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Peters JM, Mooney RA, Kuan PF, Rowland JL, Keles S, Landick R. Rho directs widespread termination of intragenic and stable RNA transcription. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(36):15406–11. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0903846106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Sadosky AB, Davidson A, Lin RJ, Hill CW. rhs gene family of Escherichia coli K-12. J Bacteriol. 1989;171(2):636–42. doi: 10.1128/jb.171.2.636-642.1989 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Goetz JA, Kuehfuss NM, Botschner AJ, Zhu S, Thompson LK, Cox G. Exploring functional interplay amongst Escherichia coli efflux pumps. Microbiology (Reading). 2022;168(11). doi: 10.1099/mic.0.001261 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ismail W, El-Said Mohamed M, Wanner BL, Datsenko KA, Eisenreich W, Rohdich F, et al. Functional genomics by NMR spectroscopy. Phenylacetate catabolism in Escherichia coli. Eur J Biochem. 2003;270(14):3047–54. doi: 10.1046/j.1432-1033.2003.03683.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Kim I, Kim J, Min B, Lee C, Park C. Screening of genes related to methylglyoxal susceptibility. J Microbiol. 2007;45(4):339–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Prilipov A, Phale PS, Koebnik R, Widmer C, Rosenbusch JP. Identification and characterization of two quiescent porin genes, nmpC and ompN, in Escherichia coli BE. J Bacteriol. 1998;180(13):3388–92. doi: 10.1128/JB.180.13.3388-3392.1998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Niyogi SK, Datta AK. A novel oligoribonuclease of Escherichia coli. I. Isolation and properties. J Biol Chem. 1975;250(18):7307–12. doi: 10.1016/s0021-9258(19)40945-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Klein W, Horlacher R, Boos W. Molecular analysis of treB encoding the Escherichia coli enzyme II specific for trehalose. J Bacteriol. 1995;177(14):4043–52. doi: 10.1128/jb.177.14.4043-4052.1995 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Zhao J, Niu W, Yao J, Mohr S, Marcotte EM, Lambowitz AM. Group II intron protein localization and insertion sites are affected by polyphosphate. PLoS Biol. 2008;6(6):e150. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060150 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.McHugh JP, Rodríguez-Quinoñes F, Abdul-Tehrani H, Svistunenko DA, Poole RK, Cooper CE, et al. Global iron-dependent gene regulation in Escherichia coli. A new mechanism for iron homeostasis. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(32):29478–86. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M303381200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Daley DO, Rapp M, Granseth E, Melén K, Drew D, von Heijne G. Global topology analysis of the Escherichia coli inner membrane proteome. Science. 2005;308(5726):1321–3. doi: 10.1126/science.1109730 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Schneider K, Dimroth P, Bott M. Identification of triphosphoribosyl-dephospho-CoA as precursor of the citrate lyase prosthetic group. FEBS Lett. 2000;483(2–3):165–8. doi: 10.1016/s0014-5793(00)02105-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Partridge JD, Browning DF, Xu M, Newnham LJ, Scott C, Roberts RE, et al. Characterization of the Escherichia coli K-12 ydhYVWXUT operon: regulation by FNR, NarL and NarP. Microbiology (Reading). 2008;154(Pt 2):608–18. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.2007/012146-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Snavely MD, Florer JB, Miller CG, Maguire ME. Magnesium transport in Salmonella typhimurium: 28Mg2+ transport by the CorA, MgtA, and MgtB systems. J Bacteriol. 1989;171(9):4761–6. doi: 10.1128/jb.171.9.4761-4766.1989 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Kutsukake K, Minamino T, Yokoseki T. Isolation and characterization of FliK-independent flagellation mutants from Salmonella typhimurium. J Bacteriol. 1994;176(24):7625–9. doi: 10.1128/jb.176.24.7625-7629.1994 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Kentache T, Thabault L, Peracchi A, Frédérick R, Bommer GT, Van Schaftingen E. The putative Escherichia coli dehydrogenase YjhC metabolises two dehydrated forms of N-acetylneuraminate produced by some sialidases. Biosci Rep. 2020;40(6):BSR20200927. doi: 10.1042/BSR20200927 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Lee J, Hiibel SR, Reardon KF, Wood TK. Identification of stress-related proteins in Escherichia coli using the pollutant cis-dichloroethylene. J Appl Microbiol. 2010;108(6):2088–102. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04611.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Yunck R, Cho H, Bernhardt TG. Identification of MltG as a potential terminase for peptidoglycan polymerization in bacteria. Mol Microbiol. 2016;99(4):700–18. doi: 10.1111/mmi.13258 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Loewen PC, Switala J. Purification and characterization of catalase HPII from Escherichia coli K12. Biochem Cell Biol. 1986;64(7):638–46. doi: 10.1139/o86-088 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Dutta D, Bandyopadhyay K, Datta AB, Sardesai AA, Parrack P. Properties of HflX, an enigmatic protein from Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol. 2009;191(7):2307–14. doi: 10.1128/JB.01353-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Fraenkel DG, Levisohn SR. Glucose and gluconate metabolism in an Escherichia coli mutant lacking phosphoglucose isomerase. J Bacteriol. 1967;93(5):1571–8. doi: 10.1128/jb.93.5.1571-1578.1967 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Koo M-S, Lee J-H, Rah S-Y, Yeo W-S, Lee J-W, Lee K-L, et al. A reducing system of the superoxide sensor SoxR in Escherichia coli. EMBO J. 2003;22(11):2614–22. doi: 10.1093/emboj/cdg252 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Roberts JW. Termination factor for RNA synthesis. Nature. 1969;224(5225):1168–74. doi: 10.1038/2241168a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Lugtenberg B, Peters R, Bernheimer H, Berendsen W. Influence of cultural conditions and mutations on the composition of the outer membrane proteins of Escherichia coli. Mol Gen Genet. 1976;147(3):251–62. doi: 10.1007/BF00582876 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Missiakas D, Mayer MP, Lemaire M, Georgopoulos C, Raina S. Modulation of the Escherichia coli sigmaE (RpoE) heat-shock transcription-factor activity by the RseA, RseB and RseC proteins. Mol Microbiol. 1997;24(2):355–71. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.1997.3601713.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Simpson RB. The molecular topography of RNA polymerase-promoter interaction. Cell. 1979;18(2):277–85. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(79)90047-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Landick R, Stewart J, Lee DN. Amino acid changes in conserved regions of the beta-subunit of Escherichia coli RNA polymerase alter transcription pausing and termination. Genes Dev. 1990;4(9):1623–36. doi: 10.1101/gad.4.9.1623 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Wakamoto Y, Dhar N, Chait R, Schneider K, Signorino-Gelo F, Leibler S, et al. Dynamic persistence of antibiotic-stressed mycobacteria. Science. 2013;339(6115):91–5. doi: 10.1126/science.1229858 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Claudi B, Spröte P, Chirkova A, Personnic N, Zankl J, Schürmann N, et al. Phenotypic variation of Salmonella in host tissues delays eradication by antimicrobial chemotherapy. Cell. 2014;158(4):722–33. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.06.045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Korch SB, Hill TM. Ectopic overexpression of wild-type and mutant hipA genes in Escherichia coli: effects on macromolecular synthesis and persister formation. J Bacteriol. 2006;188(11):3826–36. doi: 10.1128/JB.01740-05 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Hansen S, Lewis K, Vulić M. Role of global regulators and nucleotide metabolism in antibiotic tolerance in Escherichia coli. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52(8):2718–26. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00144-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Lewis K. Multidrug tolerance of biofilms and persister cells. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2008;322:107–31. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-75418-3_6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Fung DK, Barra JT, Yang J, Schroeder JW, She F, Young M, et al. A shared alarmone-GTP switch controls persister formation in bacteria. Nat Microbiol. 2025;10(7):1617–29. doi: 10.1038/s41564-025-02015-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Cohen SP, McMurry LM, Levy SB. marA locus causes decreased expression of OmpF porin in multiple-antibiotic-resistant (Mar) mutants of Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol. 1988;170(12):5416–22. doi: 10.1128/jb.170.12.5416-5422.1988 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Ghai I, Bajaj H, Arun Bafna J, El Damrany Hussein HA, Winterhalter M, Wagner R. Ampicillin permeation across OmpF, the major outer-membrane channel in Escherichia coli. J Biol Chem. 2018;293(18):7030–7. doi: 10.1074/jbc.RA117.000705 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Babu M, Díaz-Mejía JJ, Vlasblom J, Gagarinova A, Phanse S, Graham C, et al. Genetic interaction maps in Escherichia coli reveal functional crosstalk among cell envelope biogenesis pathways. PLoS Genet. 2011;7(11):e1002377. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002377 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Zhang YM, Rock CO. Membrane lipid homeostasis in bacteria. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2008;6:222–33. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro1839 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Parsons JB, Rock CO. Bacterial lipids: metabolism and membrane homeostasis. Prog Lipid Res. 2013;52(3):249–76. doi: 10.1016/j.plipres.2013.02.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Dodt M, Roehr J, Ahmed R, Dieterich C. FLEXBAR—Flexible Barcode and Adapter Processing for Next-Generation Sequencing Platforms. Biology (Basel). 2012;1:895–905. doi: 10.3390/biology1030895 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Assefa S, Keane TM, Otto TD, Newbold C, Berriman M. ABACAS: algorithm-based automatic contiguation of assembled sequences. Bioinformatics. 2009;25(15):1968–9. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp347 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Tsai IJ, Otto TD, Berriman M. Improving draft assemblies by iterative mapping and assembly of short reads to eliminate gaps. Genome Biol. 2010;11(4):R41. doi: 10.1186/gb-2010-11-4-r41 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Otto TD, Sanders M, Berriman M, Newbold C. Iterative Correction of Reference Nucleotides (iCORN) using second generation sequencing technology. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(14):1704–7. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq269 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Li H, Durbin R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics. 2009;25(14):1754–60. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.McKenna A, Hanna M, Banks E, Sivachenko A, Cibulskis K, Kernytsky A, et al. The Genome Analysis Toolkit: a MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res. 2010;20(9):1297–303. doi: 10.1101/gr.107524.110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Darling AE, Mau B, Perna NT. progressiveMauve: multiple genome alignment with gene gain, loss and rearrangement. PLoS One. 2010;5(6):e11147. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.DePristo MA, Banks E, Poplin R, Garimella KV, Maguire JR, Hartl C, et al. A framework for variation discovery and genotyping using next-generation DNA sequencing data. Nat Genet. 2011;43(5):491–8. doi: 10.1038/ng.806 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Grabherr MG, Haas BJ, Yassour M, Levin JZ, Thompson DA, Amit I, et al. Full-length transcriptome assembly from RNA-Seq data without a reference genome. Nat Biotechnol. 2011;29(7):644–52. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1883 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215(3):403–10. doi: 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Finn RD, Clements J, Eddy SR. HMMER web server: interactive sequence similarity searching. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39(Web Server issue):W29–37. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr367 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Petersen TN, Brunak S, von Heijne G, Nielsen H. SignalP 4.0: discriminating signal peptides from transmembrane regions. Nat Methods. 2011;8(10):785–6. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1701 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Krogh A, Larsson B, von Heijne G, Sonnhammer EL. Predicting transmembrane protein topology with a hidden Markov model: application to complete genomes. J Mol Biol. 2001;305(3):567–80. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.2000.4315 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Kanehisa M, Goto S, Sato Y, Furumichi M, Tanabe M. KEGG for integration and interpretation of large-scale molecular data sets. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(Database issue):D109–14. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr988 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Powell S, Szklarczyk D, Trachana K, Roth A, Kuhn M, Muller J, et al. eggNOG v3.0: orthologous groups covering 1133 organisms at 41 different taxonomic ranges. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(Database issue):D284–9. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr1060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet. 2000;25:25–9. doi: 10.1038/75556 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Kim D, Pertea G, Trapnell C, Pimentel H, Kelley R, Salzberg SL. TopHat2: accurate alignment of transcriptomes in the presence of insertions, deletions and gene fusions. Genome Biol. 2013;14(4):R36. doi: 10.1186/gb-2013-14-4-r36 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Trapnell C, Williams BA, Pertea G, Mortazavi A, Kwan G, van Baren MJ, et al. Transcript assembly and quantification by RNA-Seq reveals unannotated transcripts and isoform switching during cell differentiation. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28(5):511–5. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1621 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Trapnell C, Hendrickson DG, Sauvageau M, Goff L, Rinn JL, Pachter L. Differential analysis of gene regulation at transcript resolution with RNA-seq. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31(1):46–53. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2450 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Tarazona S, García-Alcalde F, Dopazo J, Ferrer A, Conesa A. Differential expression in RNA-seq: a matter of depth. Genome Res. 2011;21(12):2213–23. doi: 10.1101/gr.124321.111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Pfaffl MW, Horgan GW, Dempfle L. Relative expression software tool (REST) for group-wise comparison and statistical analysis of relative expression results in real-time PCR. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002;30(9):e36. doi: 10.1093/nar/30.9.e36 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Miquel M, Browse J. Arabidopsis mutants deficient in polyunsaturated fatty acid synthesis. Biochemical and genetic characterization of a plant oleoyl-phosphatidylcholine desaturase. J Biol Chem. 1992;267(3):1502–9. doi: 10.1016/s0021-9258(18)45974-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Bashir Sajo Mienda

17 Oct 2025

-->PONE-D-25-43801-->-->An integrative multi-omics approach points to membrane composition as a key factor in E. coli persistence-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Canas-Duarte,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 01 2025 11:59PM. I f you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bashir Sajo Mienda, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

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

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Colciencias grant 120465843511 and Convocatoria de Programas de Investigación 2012 of Universidad de los Andes (SJCD, JMP, SR)

Early Postdoc Mobility fellowship from the Swiss National Science Foundation with grant number P2EZP3_184252 and P400PB_199262 (LS).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

“We acknowledge funding from Colciencias through grant 120465843511 and Convocatoria de Programas de Investigación 2012 of Universidad de los Andes. One of the co-authors, Lei Sun, is funded by an Early Postdoc Mobility fellowship from the Swiss National Science Foundation with grant number P2EZP3_184252 and P400PB_199262.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“Colciencias grant 120465843511 and Convocatoria de Programas de Investigación 2012 of Universidad de los Andes (SJCD, JMP, SR)

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing a direct link to access each database. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable.

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

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, the authors use a multi-omics approach to study so-called triggered and spontaneous persisters in E. coli, focusing on genome sequencing of the DS1 mutant, transcriptomic comparisons between exponential-phase survivors of their chemical lysis protocol and non-persisters, and lipidomic profiling across different strains and growth conditions. They conclude that membrane remodeling, rather than canonical stress responses, underlies persistence and contributes to multitolerance. I have some major comments as follows:

1. The manuscript needs substantial rewording and clarification regarding the use of the terms “spontaneous” and “triggered” persisters. Although the hipQ (DS1) and hipA7 mutants are well-known high-persistence strains, it is not clear that they can be definitively classified into these two categories. In the exponential-phase hipQ cultures analyzed here, the surviving population is likely to be highly heterogeneous... some persisters may indeed form stochastically as slow growers, but others may represent carryover from overnight cultures. These possibilities are not examined, and spontaneous persister formation is not clearly verified in the present study. The frequently cited study by Balaban et al. relied on microscopy, which by its nature tracks only a limited number of cells and therefore cannot capture the full complexity of persister heterogeneity. Rather than framing the work around a strict division between “spontaneous” and “triggered” persisters, the authors should align their terminology more closely with their experimental approach, for example by describing “persisters obtained from DS1 in exponential phase” or “persisters arising from stationary-phase hipA7.” I also recommend removing Figure 1, which presents an overly simplified view of a complex and heterogeneous phenomenon. Persisters can arise through multiple routes, including carryover from stationary phase, formation during overnight culture, stochastic events in exponential growth, or responses to stresses, and this complexity should be acknowledged rather than reduced to two categories.

2. It is surprising that the genomic analysis is restricted to SNPs. Whole genome sequencing, particularly with the Illumina HiSeq platform and the analysis tools described, is also capable of identifying small insertions/deletions and in some cases larger chromosomal rearrangements or structural abnormalities. The authors do not explain why these classes of variation were not analyzed or reported. They should clarify whether such variants were detected and, if so, provide a rationale for why they were excluded from the study. If they did not identify them, then they should explain the limitations of their pipeline.

3. The authors compare exponential-phase DS1 cultures without treatment to the subpopulation of cells that survived their previously described chemical lysis protocol. I find this approach problematic. The chemical treatment does not necessarily select for bona fide persisters; rather, it may enrich for cells with altered membranes that resist lysis, or it may artificially induce dormancy and thereby confer antibiotic tolerance. The RNA-seq results presented by the authors in fact suggest that this possibility cannot be excluded. A stronger and more convincing approach would have been to directly treat exponential-phase cultures with ampicillin and perform transcriptomic analysis on the surviving unlysed cells. In doing so, the authors should avoid prolonged overnight cultures, as these can increase the frequency of VBNC cells. If exponential-phase cultures are free of VBNC, then antibiotic treatment should mainly enrich for persisters. This can be validated by quantifying survivors with flow cytometry and comparing those results with CFU measurements; matching values would confirm the persister enrichment, whereas discrepancies would indicate VBNC contamination. In addition, the possibility that VBNC cells are being isolated by the lysis method should be explicitly addressed, and the authors should provide verification that VBNC populations are not confounding their transcriptomic analyses.

4. The study does not go beyond descriptive transcriptomics. The authors did not perform any genetic manipulations (such as deletion of downregulated genes or overexpression of upregulated genes) to test whether these changes causally influence persistence. Such validation would be essential to move from correlation to mechanism.

5. The lipidomics study design is problematic because the authors use different strains and growth conditions, which makes direct comparisons difficult to interpret. According to their methods, lipids were extracted from E. coli MG1655 and DS1 during both exponential and stationary phase, while “triggered” and “spontaneous” persister cells were isolated from a stationary-phase culture of E. coli TH1269 and an exponential-phase culture of E. coli DS1, respectively. These conditions are not equivalent and introduce multiple variables, such as strain background, growth phase, and isolation protocol, that complicate the attribution of lipidomic differences specifically to persister physiology. I would have expected the authors to use consistent conditions and treatments across all three strains to allow for clearer and more meaningful comparisons.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2026 Jun 29;21(6):e0351161. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0351161.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


15 Jan 2026

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, the authors use a multi-omics approach to study so-called triggered and spontaneous persisters in E. coli, focusing on genome sequencing of the DS1 mutant, transcriptomic comparisons between exponential-phase survivors of their chemical lysis protocol and non-persisters, and lipidomic profiling across different strains and growth conditions. They conclude that membrane remodeling, rather than canonical stress responses, underlies persistence and contributes to multitolerance. I have some major comments as follows:

We thank the reviewer for its comments and their thoughtful consideration of our study.

1. The manuscript needs substantial rewording and clarification regarding the use of the terms “spontaneous” and “triggered” persisters. Although the hipQ (DS1) and hipA7 mutants are well-known high-persistence strains, it is not clear that they can be definitively classified into these two categories. In the exponential-phase hipQ cultures analyzed here, the surviving population is likely to be highly heterogeneous... some persisters may indeed form stochastically as slow growers, but others may represent carryover from overnight cultures. These possibilities are not examined, and spontaneous persister formation is not clearly verified in the present study. The frequently cited study by Balaban et al. relied on microscopy, which by its nature tracks only a limited number of cells and therefore cannot capture the full complexity of persister heterogeneity. Rather than framing the work around a strict division between “spontaneous” and “triggered” persisters, the authors should align their terminology more closely with their experimental approach, for example by describing “persisters obtained from DS1 in exponential phase” or “persisters arising from stationary-phase hipA7.” I also recommend removing Figure 1, which presents an overly simplified view of a complex and heterogeneous phenomenon. Persisters can arise through multiple routes, including carryover from stationary phase, formation during overnight culture, stochastic events in exponential growth, or responses to stresses, and this complexity should be acknowledged rather than reduced to two categories.

We appreciate the suggestion for more carefully wording our findings and have edited the text accordingly. Regarding the classification of the two strains, we are using that of the main type of persistence for which they are known for. As shown in our previous work, we acknowledge that persisters of both types can (and do) coexist under different conditions in not only the wild type E. coli strain but also on the DS1 and HipA7 strains. To diminish the influence of this complexity, we made sure to use a high dilution from (>1:30000) in all our exponential experiments to minimize the carryover of triggered persisters from the preceding stationary phase culture. As shown in Fig 6 and the supplementary photos from the protocol paper (PMID: 24586365), the isolated spontaneous persisters from the hipQ (DS1) strain exhibit the continuous and slow growth characteristic of their type, and < 5% of the spotted aliquot after persister isolation are yet to resume growth after 2 hours indicating a potentially low contamination with potential VBNCs even in stationary phase.

Overall, while we agree that the isolated persister population is likely heterogeneous, in the context of DS1/hipQ with approximately 100-fold higher spontaneous persister frequency, available data suggests the isolates are overwhelmingly dominated by spontaneous persisters, just as intended.

2. It is surprising that the genomic analysis is restricted to SNPs. Whole genome sequencing, particularly with the Illumina HiSeq platform and the analysis tools described, is also capable of identifying small insertions/deletions and in some cases larger chromosomal rearrangements or structural abnormalities. The authors do not explain why these classes of variation were not analyzed or reported. They should clarify whether such variants were detected and, if so, provide a rationale for why they were excluded from the study. If they did not identify them, then they should explain the limitations of their pipeline.

We apologize for the confusion. The analysis we performed included detection of small indels (insertions/deletions), as well as the whole assembly and annotation of the genome of the DS1 strain. We have modified the text to make it clearer. Whole genome alignment performed using progressiveMauve between the DS1 and KLY genomes also failed to reveal any indications of genome rearrangements or large-scale structural changes.

3. The authors compare exponential-phase DS1 cultures without treatment to the subpopulation of cells that survived their previously described chemical lysis protocol. I find this approach problematic. The chemical treatment does not necessarily select for bona fide persisters; rather, it may enrich for cells with altered membranes that resist lysis, or it may artificially induce dormancy and thereby confer antibiotic tolerance. The RNA-seq results presented by the authors in fact suggest that this possibility cannot be excluded. A stronger and more convincing approach would have been to directly treat exponential-phase cultures with ampicillin and perform transcriptomic analysis on the surviving unlysed cells. In doing so, the authors should avoid prolonged overnight cultures, as these can increase the frequency of VBNC cells. If exponential-phase cultures are free of VBNC, then antibiotic treatment should mainly enrich for persisters. This can be validated by quantifying survivors with flow cytometry and comparing those results with CFU measurements; matching values would confirm the persister enrichment, whereas discrepancies would indicate VBNC contamination. In addition, the possibility that VBNC cells are being isolated by the lysis method should be explicitly addressed, and the authors should provide verification that VBNC populations are not confounding their transcriptomic analyses.

We understand the concerns raised by the reviewer regarding the nature of the isolated cells and their identity as persisters. As previously published, the protocol used isolates cells that phenotypically exhibit the characteristics of each persister type (as shown by microscopy) in addition to corresponding to a similar fraction of the population as of that of the antibiotic isolated persisters published by other studies.

For example, in the previous published methods paper, when isolating spontaneous persisters in DS1/hipQ strain, >95% of the isolated cells exhibited slow growth with division rates characteristic of the DS1 spontaneous persisters. As a comparison, we also isolated persisters in the hipA7 strain, which is known to contain an elevated fraction of triggered persisters with extended dormancy before resuming regular, fast growth. In the hipA7 isolates, none of the enriched cells displayed the uniformly slow growth as was shown after isolating persisters in DS1/hipQ. But we did observe isolated hipA7 cells that suddenly resumed fast growth after extended dormancy (as expected for triggered persisters), which were not present for DS1/hipQ post-enrichment. To summarize these observations, available evidence suggests that the protocol most likely works as intended, it is unlikely that the protocol isolated something else that also happen to have the identical characteristics for both persister types.

Since the choice of our protocol raised so many questions, we decided to include some microscopic images in the supplementary section for explanatory purposes.

Although we would agree with the proposed post-treatment with ampicillin after isolation, the length of the antibiotic treatment allows for persisters to stocastically exit the persister state, significantly reducing the already limiting amount of persisters that could be analyzed. Further, as antibiotics are known to induce stress response, especially with such a lengthy treatment period, we worried it might generate further confounding factors.

In terms of preventing the accumulation of VBNCs, as noted before, we not only used a high dilution ratio for our exponential cultures, but also only used short stationary (<16 hours) cultures as started cultures. Although it is highly possible that a small fraction of VBNCs are present in the enriched samples of spontaneous persisters, as shown in the microscopy images of the protocol article (Fig 6 and SI) this fraction is likely negligible (< 5%).

4. The study does not go beyond descriptive transcriptomics. The authors did not perform any genetic manipulations (such as deletion of downregulated genes or overexpression of upregulated genes) to test whether these changes causally influence persistence. Such validation would be essential to move from correlation to mechanism.

This is correct, this study’s scope has aimed to help elucidate potential contributing mechanisms to spontaneous persisters as well as to help narrow down which mutations could be responsible for the hipQ phenotype of DS1. Further testing on a mechanistic cause is the subject of our next study.

5. The lipidomics study design is problematic because the authors use different strains and growth conditions, which makes direct comparisons difficult to interpret. According to their methods, lipids were extracted from E. coli MG1655 and DS1 during both exponential and stationary phase, while “triggered” and “spontaneous” persister cells were isolated from a stationary-phase culture of E. coli TH1269 and an exponential-phase culture of E. coli DS1, respectively. These conditions are not equivalent and introduce multiple variables, such as strain background, growth phase, and isolation protocol, that complicate the attribution of lipidomic differences specifically to persister physiology. I would have expected the authors to use consistent conditions and treatments across all three strains to allow for clearer and more meaningful comparisons.

We thank the reviewer for this comment and apologize for the confusion. We have now removed the lipidomic results relating to the triggered persisters, which we understand now were generating confusion. However, we would like to explain our rationale for the experimental design used. Our design was focused on separately observing the changes in each persister type compared to the strain from which they were generated both in exponential and in stationary phase. For example, for DS1 spontaneous persisters that are generated in exponential phase, we compared their lipid profiles to those of DS1 exponentially growing cells and DS1 stationary phase cells. Similarly, for the triggered persisters, we isolated persisters from MG1655 hipA7 (TH1269) in stationary phase and compared those profiles to those of MG1655 in exponential and stationary phase. As TH1629 only differs from MG1655 in a point mutation on the HipA protein, we used the MG1655 background more cleanly to observe the stationary phase profiles, given the high frequency of triggered persisters present on these conditions.

Our intent was to observe the normal range of change in the fatty acid profiles between exponential and stationary phase for each strain separately and noted how the change was more drastic when comparing each persister state to their respective “background”. However, as this seems to generate confusion, we have removed the lipidomic analysis of triggered persisters from the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal_PloSOne_20260115.docx

pone.0351161.s012.docx (19.7KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Bashir Sajo Mienda

16 Mar 2026

<div>PONE-D-25-43801R1-->-->An integrative multi-omics approach points to membrane composition as a key factor in E. coli persistence-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Canas-Duarte,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 30 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bashir Sajo Mienda, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: While I appreciate the authors’ detailed responses, several concerns remain at the level of framing and language rather than experimental design (I am not requesting additional experiments at this point). However, I strongly recommend further editing of the manuscript text to better align conclusions with what is directly supported by the data:

1) The manuscript continues to rely on a strict “spontaneous vs triggered” classification and frequently refers to the isolated DS1 population as spontaneous persisters. Given the heterogeneity acknowledged by the authors and the nature of the isolation protocol, the text should consistently use more descriptive language such as “persisters isolated from DS1 during exponential phase” rather than categorical labels, including in the Abstract and Discussion.

2) Statements implying that spontaneous persisters are uniformly slow-growing should be corrected. Spontaneous persisters do not have to be slow-growing; they can also be non-growing, and cells can stochastically enter non-growing states during exponential growth. The text as well as Figure 1 should reflect this broader and more established view of persister physiology.

3) The manuscript repeatedly implies a causal or mechanistic role for membrane composition in persister formation, although the data support only association. The text should be revised throughout to remove causal/mechanistic implications and instead describe membrane changes as correlated with or associated with persistence.

4) The Discussion should explicitly acknowledge that the chemical lysis-based enrichment could preferentially select for cells with altered membrane properties or other non-persister cells.

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->

PLoS One. 2026 Jun 29;21(6):e0351161. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0351161.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


29 Apr 2026

1) The manuscript continues to rely on a strict “spontaneous vs triggered” classification and frequently refers to the isolated DS1 population as spontaneous persisters. Given the heterogeneity acknowledged by the authors and the nature of the isolation protocol, the text should consistently use more descriptive language such as “persisters isolated from DS1 during exponential phase” rather than categorical labels, including in the Abstract and Discussion.

Response: We thank the reviewer for their comments and thoughtful consideration of our study. We appreciate the suggestion for more careful wording throughout the text, and we have used the recommended description where appropriate.

We understand that the concern here is that although DS1 is widely acknowledged as a model organism for spontaneous persistence, the isolated population after the enrichment protocol is not guaranteed to be 100% pure. To address this, the use of “spontaneous persisters” is now largely limited to conceptual context. We have also included an explicit description of the precautions taken to minimize the fraction of non-spontaneous persisters in the isolated samples analyzed.

2) Statements implying that spontaneous persisters are uniformly slow-growing should be corrected. Spontaneous persisters do not have to be slow-growing; they can also be non-growing, and cells can stochastically enter non-growing states during exponential growth. The text as well as Figure 1 should reflect this broader and more established view of persister physiology.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion. We agree that the growth dynamics (or lack thereof) of spontaneous persisters may not be universally slow-growing outside of the E. coli strains for which this growth phenotype has been described. As such, we have revised the text and the Figure 1 legend accordingly to constrain this description to the DS1 strain.

We would like, however, to provide some context for our original intention. The characterization of spontaneous (Type II) persisters as slow-growing is based on the seminal work by Balaban and coauthors in 2004 with the DS1 (hipQ) strain, the canonical model in which this persister type was discovered and observed to continue growing and dividing slowly during antibiotic treatment (PMIDs: 15308767, 24586365). We recognize, however, that the growth behavior of spontaneous persisters in other strains or species has simply not been investigated in detail. This slow-growth phenotype may be specific to the few E. coli strains for which this type of data has been reported. The 2019 joint review by Balaban et al. (PMID: 30980069), which represents the current consensus definition of persister types, notably does not specify any particular growth trait for spontaneous persisters. Interestingly, we recently had a chat with Prof. Dan Andersson, a co-author of that review. He was surprised to hear that spontaneous persisters in DS1/hipQ actually exhibit growth. This is a strong sign that this nuance is not widely appreciated in the field.

In the revised manuscript, we have therefore kept the description that spontaneous persisters in DS1 are slow-growing, but also carefully rephrased the general description to be open to the possibility that spontaneous persisters in other strains or species could display different growth characteristics, including non-growth. We hope this now accurately reflects both the original observations and the broader perspective raised by the reviewer.

3) The manuscript repeatedly implies a causal or mechanistic role for membrane composition in persister formation, although the data support only association. The text should be revised throughout to remove causal/mechanistic implications and instead describe membrane changes as correlated with or associated with persistence.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment and have modified the text accordingly. Specifically, we have changed the language referring to the potential role of the membrane in persistence to indicate correlation and involvement rather than causality.

4) The Discussion should explicitly acknowledge that the chemical lysis-based enrichment could preferentially select for cells with altered membrane properties or other non-persister cells.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and have now added this acknowledgement in the discussion.

Attachment

Submitted filename: ResponseToReviewers_20260425.docx

pone.0351161.s013.docx (17.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Bashir Sajo Mienda

24 May 2026

An integrative multi-omics approach points to membrane composition as a key factor in E. coli persistence

PONE-D-25-43801R2

Dear Dr. CANAS-DUARTE,

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

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

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

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

Kind regards,

Bashir Sajo Mienda, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Bashir Sajo Mienda

PONE-D-25-43801R2

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Canas-Duarte,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

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

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

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

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Bashir Sajo Mienda

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Novel SNPs detected in E. coli DS1.

    Set of 112 SNPs detected in the genome of E. coli DS1 against all three reference genomes.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0351161.s001.xlsx (16.7KB, xlsx)
    S2 File. Prediction of E. coli DS1 HipA protein aligned to the crystal structure of HipA of MG1655.

    AlphaFold2 prediction made using ColabFold v1.5.2 of the HipA protein carrying the novel A242V mutation identified in the genome of E. coli DS1. The resultant structure (silver) was aligned to the crystal structure of HipA from MG1655 (blue) using the Pairwise Structure Alignment tool from RCSB PDB. The model for DS1’s HipA is depicted in silver, and MG1655 HipA is depicted in blue. A zoomed in view into the region of residue 242 is shown as an inset.

    (PDF)

    pone.0351161.s002.pdf (4.5MB, pdf)
    S3 File. Schematic of persister isolation protocol using antibiotics or the lysis protocol.

    Traditional antibiotic-based protocols typically involve a short pre-growth phase (e.g., 2 hours for 100x diluted stationary cultures) in order to efficiently kill stationary phase cells, which is followed by an extended antibiotic treatment (3–5 hours). This prolonged treatment may induce stress in spontaneous persisters, potentially altering their cellular components. Additionally, it may trigger normal cells to transition into triggered persisters. In contrast, our lysis-based protocol incorporates an extended pre-growth phase followed by rapid lysis-based isolation, mitigating these confounding variables.

    (PDF)

    pone.0351161.s003.pdf (813.4KB, pdf)
    S4 File. FOV of isolated persisters from a stationary culture of E. coli DS1.

    Illustrative DIC images of the sample of spontaneous persisters isolated from a stationary phase culture of the E. coli DS1 (hipQ) strain using the lysis protocol, at 7 minutes and 120 minutes post treatment. This figure was generated from images published as File S2 from Cañas-Duarte SJ et al, 2014 (PMID 24586365).

    (PDF)

    pone.0351161.s004.pdf (202KB, pdf)
    S5 File. Transcriptome of E. coli DS1 persisters.

    Complete transcriptome results for exponential-phase persisters of the DS1 (hipQ) strain. File includes all FPKM values for all mapped genes and the classification lists of Up/Down regulated clusters.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0351161.s005.xlsx (351.7KB, xlsx)
    S6 File. Set of differentially expressed genes for RT-qPCR validation.

    Set of genes found to be differentially expressed in the hipQ exponential-phase persisters that were chosen for validation.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0351161.s006.xlsx (11.9KB, xlsx)
    S7 File. RT-qPCR validation results.

    Normalized and non-normalized calculations of the relative expression of the 12 differentially expressed genes chosen for validation.

    (PDF)

    pone.0351161.s007.pdf (44.6KB, pdf)
    S8 File. SNPs directly related to the differential expression of genes in persistence.

    Description of data: List of genes found to contain at least one SNP that appear correlated with genes found to be differentially expressed in exponential-phase persisters in E. coli DS1.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0351161.s008.xlsx (10.6KB, xlsx)
    S9 File. Complete fatty acid profile results for E. coli strains in different physiological conditions.

    Fatty acid analyses results for E. coli cells in exponential and stationary phase and of triggered and spontaneous persisters.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0351161.s009.xlsx (31.1KB, xlsx)
    S10 File. Morphological characteristics of exponentially growing E. coli strains DS1, KL16 and MG1655 at OD600 = 0.4.

    Cultures were grown in 50 mL of LB at 37°C in 250 mL flasks until they reached an OD600 of 0.4. Samples were spotted on 1.5% LB-agarose pads and imaged using a 100 × Ph3 objective on a Nikon Ti2 inverted microscope at 37°C. Supersegger-Omnipose was used to segment the cells and an in-house Matlab code was used to analyze the extracted features.

    (PDF)

    pone.0351161.s010.pdf (171.8KB, pdf)
    S11 File. Raw CFU counts for persister frequency quantifications.

    Persister frequencies were determined as described on Figure 3. Raw CFU counts are indicated for t = 0 and t = 3 hours for all reported strains.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0351161.s011.xlsx (12.3KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal_PloSOne_20260115.docx

    pone.0351161.s012.docx (19.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ResponseToReviewers_20260425.docx

    pone.0351161.s013.docx (17.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All the genomic sequencing data generated for the E. coli DS1 (hipQ) strain has been submitted to the SRA as the BioProject PRJNA252455 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA252455). The assembled and annotated genome can be accessed in GenBank as entry CP022466, (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/CP022466). All the data from the transcriptomic analyses of triggered (type I) and spontaneous (type II) persisters has also been submitted to SRA with accession numbers PRJNA253803 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/?term=PRJNA253803) and PRJNA252678 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA252678). Microscopy images of E. coli strains KL16, DS1 and MG1655 has been submitted to the BioImage Archive with accession number S-BIAD3502 (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/bioimages/studies/S-BIAD3502).


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES