Skip to main content
Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology logoLink to Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology
. 2010 Jun 13;2010:781365. doi: 10.1155/2010/781365

Transcriptome Analysis of the Phytobacterium Xylella fastidiosa Growing under Xylem-Based Chemical Conditions

Maristela Boaceff Ciraulo 1, Daiene Souza Santos 1, Ana Claudia de Freitas Oliveira Rodrigues 1, Marcus Vinícius de Oliveira 1, Tiago Rodrigues 2, Regina Costa de Oliveira 1, Luiz R Nunes 1,*
PMCID: PMC2896883  PMID: 20625415

Abstract

Xylella fastidiosa is a xylem-limited bacterium responsible for important plant diseases, like citrus-variegated chlorosis (CVC) and grapevine Pierce's disease (PD). Interestingly, in vitro growth of X. fastidiosa in chemically defined media that resemble xylem fluid has been achieved, allowing studies of metabolic processes used by xylem-dwelling bacteria to thrive in such nutrient-poor conditions. Thus, we performed microarray hybridizations to compare transcriptomes of X. fastidiosa cells grown in 3G10-R, a medium that resembles grape sap, and in Periwinkle Wilt (PW), the complex medium traditionally used to cultivate X. fastidiosa. We identified 299 transcripts modulated in response to growth in these media. Some 3G10R-overexpressed genes have been shown to be upregulated in cells directly isolated from infected plants and may be involved in plant colonization, virulence and environmental competition. In contrast, cells cultivated in PW show a metabolic switch associated with increased aerobic respiration and enhanced bacterial growth rates.

1. Introduction

The phytobacterium Xylella fastidiosa was described by Wells et al. [1] and has been found to be associated with the development of a wide variety of plant diseases, such as Citrus-Variegated Chlorosis (CVC) in orange trees, Pierce's disease (PD) in vineyards, Phony Peach disease (PP), Periwinkle Wilt and leaf scorch diseases in plum, elm, maple, pecan, oak, sycamore, and coffee ([2, 3], reviewed in [4]). Due to the presence of economically important crops in this list, X. fastidiosa has been the subject of intensive research over the past years [5, 6] and the genome sequencing of four different strains has been accomplished: the 9a5c isolate (causative agent of CVC) was the first phytopathogenic bacterium completely sequenced in 2000 [7]. A few years later, two strains isolated from oleander and almond trees had their genomes partially sequenced and annotated [8]. Finally, a fourth strain, Temecula 1, isolated from grapevines and responsible for PD in California has also been sequenced to completion [9].

The elucidation of the complete genomic sequence of X. fastidiosa strains was followed by an extensive in silico evaluation of the bacterium's presumed proteome, allowing the formulation of a virtual metabolome that provided a comprehensive view of the major biochemical processes that occur in this microorganism [7]. Nonetheless, the exact mechanism(s) involved in the process of host infection and colonization, as well as with the onset of CVC, are yet to be identified and characterized in the X. fastidiosa genome [7]. Important information regarding the functionality of different gene products and pathogenicity mechanisms in X. fastidiosa could be obtained through the evaluation of differential gene expression using cells submitted to variable culturing conditions, especially those that resemble the environment found inside the plant. Xylem-inhabiting microorganisms normally display a fastidious nature and cannot be cultured in conventional bacteriological media. Thus, a series of specially formulated media were developed for their axenic cultivation. The most widely employed, such as PD2 [10], PW [11], SPW [12], PYE, GYE [13] and BCYE [14], are complex media, which include peptone, tryptone, soytone, and yeast extract from various sources, as well as hemin chloride or ferric pyrophosphate (as iron sources), aminoacids, inorganic salts, citrate, succinate, starch, BSA, or activated charcoal. However, given the general characteristics of plant sap, xylem-dwelling endophytes are likely to thrive in nutrient-limiting conditions and must be able to adapt accordingly [15]. A few years ago, Leite et al. [16] have described the development of a xylem-based, chemically defined medium (called 3G10R), which supports in vitro growth of X. fastidiosa strains. Moreover, X. fastidiosa cells grown in this medium present some important characteristics that may be associated with colonization and pathogenicity, such as increased aggregation capacity and biofilm formation. This medium provided a new tool that may allow the in vitro study of some important characteristics presented by the bacteria during the infection process in planta.

Thus, we have employed competitive hybridizations on microarrays to evaluate the global transcriptional profile of X. fastidiosa cells grown in 3G10R, when compared to cells grown in PW, the standard complex medium used to cultivate this bacterium under laboratory conditions. These experiments allowed the identification of 299 genes that displayed statistically significant transcription modulation in response to growth in the two media. Some 3G10R-upregulated genes had their expression profiles confirmed by Real-Time qPCR and are likely to be relevant to bacterial adaptation to the plant xylem, such as adhesion to the substrate and competition with other microorganisms. Incidentally, independent studies have confirmed the specific upregulation of some of these genes in X. fastidiosa cells that display increased infective capacity and in bacteria directly isolated from plants, reinforcing the idea that the chemical characteristics of 3G10R are likely to induce genes that are naturally expressed by X. fastidiosa during the process of xylem colonization [17]. Other transcriptional alterations seem to correlate with significant changes in the cell's overall energetic metabolism and growth rate, as a reduction in the respiratory activity is observed when cells are grown in 3G10R.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Culturing X.  fastidiosa Cells

PW and 3G10R liquid media have been prepared essentially as described by Davis et al. [11] and Leite et al. [16], respectively. Cells of X. fastidiosa 9a5c have been routinely kept in our laboratory, for over a year, in 20 ml of liquid cultures, which were incubated in an orbital shaker at 28°C and 100 rpm. One-milliliter (1 ml) aliquots were transferred to 19 ml of fresh media every 4-5 days.

To evaluate the behavior of X. fastidiosa cells under xylem-based chemistry conditions, bacterial cultures were grown in PW for 3 days, until an OD600 = 0.25 (late phase of exponential growth) was reached. A one milliliter-aliquot (1 ml) of this culture was used to inoculate 19 ml of liquid 3G10R and PW media. Bacterial growth in both cultures was monitored on a daily basis, through OD600 measurements, providing a direct comparison between X. fastidiosa growth patterns observed in 3G10R and standard PW medium.

2.2. Microarray Fabrication

X. fastidiosa microarrays have been constructed as previously described [18, 19]. Representative sequences from approximately 2200 ORFs from the X. fastidiosa genome (>90% coverage) were PCR amplified, purified, and spotted onto CMT-GAPS silane-coated slides (Corning), using an Affymetrix 427 arrayer, according to the manufacturer's instructions.

2.3. RNA Extraction, cDNA Labeling, and Hybridization

To evaluate and compare the bacterial transcriptome profiles in these two media, 200-ml bacterial cultures were prepared as described above and cells were harvested for total RNA extraction at day 3 (PW) and day 13 (3G10R), which allowed us to compare bacterial cultures at their maximum growth rates. The RNA samples were extracted and purified with aid of the RNAeasy kit (Qiagen), labeled by incorporation of Cy3- or Cy5-dCTP and hybridized to the microarrays, as previously described [18, 19].

2.4. Image Acquisition and Analysis

Images were analyzed with the TIGR Spotfinder program (v.2.2.4). All spots with median values lower than the median local background plus two Standard Deviations have been flagged and excluded from further analyses. Replicated experiments were performed with two independent RNA preparations from cells cultivated in each medium. For each pair of RNA preparations, two independent hybridizations were performed, with dye swaps within each pair. Since each microarray carries two complete copies of the X. fastidiosa genome, replicated hybridizations resulted in a series of 8 independent readings for each probe spotted in the microarrays.

The results from each hybridization were submitted to a series of mathematical transformations with the aid of the software TIGR MIDAS v.2.19. These included filtering out all spots whose integrated intensities were below 10,000 a/d units, normalization between the two channels with the aid of the Lowess algorithm and SD regularization of the Cy5/Cy3 ratios across all sectors (blocks) of the array. Finally, the results from each individual experiment were loaded into the software TIGR Multi-Experiment Viewer (TMEV), v.3.01. Experiments were then normalized and genes that displayed statistically significant modulation were identified with the aid of the one-class mode of the Significance Analysis of Microarrays (SAMs) test, described by Tusher et al. [20]. The δ factor of the SAM test was adjusted to 0.69, resulting in a Median False Discovery Rate (FDR) = 0.163. For details regarding the use of the TIGR microarray software suite (TM4), see Saeed et al. [21]. Raw and normalized data from all microarray hybridizations, as well as the microarray complete annotation file have been submitted to NCBI's Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) and can be accessed through Series number GSE 6619. A Tab-delimited file containing the Significant Genes List and their mean expression ratios can also be accessed through this GEO Series number.

2.5. Real-Time qPCR

All the Real-Time qPCR and RT-PCR reactions were performed using an ABI Prism 7500 Sequence Detection System (Applied Biosystem, USA). Taq-Man EZ RT-PCR kits (Applied Biosystems, USA) were used for RT-PCR reactions, according to the manufacturer's instructions, using 2–5 μg of total X. fastidiosa RNA and 1 μl of random nonamers (4 μg/μl). The thermocycling conditions comprised an initial step at 50°C for 2 minutes, followed by 30 minutes at 60°C for reverse transcription. Taq-Man PCR Reagent kits then were used for PCR reactions using 100–200 ng of the resulting cDNA. The thermocycling conditions comprised an initial step at 50°C for 2 minutes, followed by 10 minutes at 95°C, and 40 cycles at 95°C for 15 seconds and 60°C for 1 minute. ORF Xf1311, which encodes a rod-shaped determining protein (MreD) has been used as an endogenous control for experimental normalization, since the microarray hybridization experiments showed that this ORF is constitutively expressed in both PW and 3G10R. Primers and probes were synthesized through the Applied Biosystems Assay-by-Design service and all reactions were prepared essentially as recommended by the manufacturer.

2.6. Evaluation of Respiratory Rates

X. fastidiosa cells were grown into middle exponential phase in PW and subsequently transferred (in a 1 : 20 proportion) into fresh PW and 3G10R cultures. Bacterial growth in both cultures was monitored through OD600 measurements until both cultures reached stationary phase. Aliquots were taken from each culture to evaluate O2 consumption on a daily basis, until day 7 (in PW) and day 13 (in 3G10R). We defined the respiratory rate for each culture as the ratio between O2 consumption rate (ΔO2/Δmin) and the respective OD600 value obtained at each time point.

Oxymetric measurements were monitored polarographically by an oxygraph equipped with a Clark-type oxygen electrode (Gilson Medical Electronics, Middleton, WI, USA) in intact cells. After measurement of the optical density, 2.0 ml of PW or 3G10R media containing bacteria were incubated at 30°C and the state 4 respiration was initiated by addition of 10 mM malate plus 10 mM glutamate. Basal respiratory rates were calculated by ΔO2/Δmin ratio and the values were normalized by the optical density values.

3. Results

3.1. X. fastidiosa Cells Growing in PW and 3G10R Display Distinct Growth Patterns and Different Transcriptome Profiles

To evaluate the behavior of X. fastidiosa cells under xylem-based chemistry conditions, bacterial cultures were monitored in both 3G10R and PW, the complex medium traditionally used to cultivate this bacterium in the laboratory. As observed in Figure 1, PW cultures reached higher cellular densities (OD600 ~ 0.3) in a shorter period of time (4 days) when compared to cells grown in 3G10R, which had to be cultivated for a period of 14 days in order to reach a similar cellular density (OD600 ~ 0.25). Moreover, although 3G10R cultures exhibited continuous growth over the course of the experiment, they failed to display the typical profile of a bacterial growth curve, as observed in PW cultures. Such lack of an exponential growth phase in 3G10R cultures is typically observed in bacteria growing in nutrient-restricted environments, a situation that is likely to resemble xylem conditions [2226]. Recently, Zaini et al. [27] showed that X. fastidiosa cells grown in pure xylem sap rapidly reach stationary phase without a detectable exponential growth, probably due to nutrient limitation.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Xylella fastidiosa growth patterns in PW and 3G10R media. Both cultures have been made with a 1 : 20 ml inoculum of X. fastidiosa 9a5c cells grown into late exponential phase in PW (OD600 = 0.25). Cultures were then incubated in an orbital shaker at 28°C and 100 rpm. One milliliter (1 ml) aliquots were taken from each culture, on a daily basis, to monitor bacterial growth through OD600 readings. Measurements were performed in triplicate and graphic shows the average values and their respective standard deviations.

To evaluate and compare the bacterial transcriptome profiles in PW and 3G10R, samples from the resulting RNAs were used in competitive hybridizations against X. fastidiosa microarrays, as described by Nunes et al. [19]. Replicated experiments were performed with two independent RNA preparations from cells cultivated in each medium, which resulted in a series of 8 independent readings for each probe spotted in the microarrays, as described in the materials and methods. Statistical analysis of such results revealed a total of 132 genes that displayed overexpression in cells grown in 3G10R, while 167 genes were upregulated in cells grown in PW. These genes, as well as their respective changes in expression ratio are shown in Table 1. More detailed information about these genes can be obtained through the Gene expression Omnibus (GEO) webpage, through Series number GSE 6619 (see http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo). In order to access the overall reliability of these data, we have confirmed gene expression variation of several genes using an alternative approach. Thus, we performed Real-Time qPCR experiments with the same RNA samples used in the microarray hybridizations, aiming at double-checking the changes in expression of 16 genes present in Table 1 (~5% of all modulated genes). These genes have been randomly chosen from different functional categories and all displayed average expression ratios that correlate with the microarray results (see Figure 2).

Table 1.

List of genes that displayed statistically significant variation in gene expression. Genes with positive Log2 ratio are overexpressed in 3G10R, while genes with negative Log2 ratio are overexpressed in PW.

Functional Group ORF Gene Gene Product Log2
Number Name (3G10R/PW)
Intermediary Metabolism
Energy metabolism, carbon—Aerobic respiration Xf0308 nuoD NADH-ubiquinone oxidoreductase, NQO4 subunit −0.93
Xf0310 nuoF NADH-ubiquinone oxidoreductase, NQO1 subunit −1.08
Xf0311 nuoG NADH-ubiquinone oxidoreductase, NQO3 subunit −1.14
Xf0317 nuoM NADH-ubiquinone oxidoreductase, NQO13 subunit −1.03
Xf0347 dld1 D-Lactate dehydrogenase 1.18
Energy metabolism, carbon—Glycolysis Xf0303 tpiA OR tpi Triosephosphate isomerase −0.89
Energy metabolism, carbon—TCA cycle Xf2548 sucD Succinyl-CoA synthetase, alpha subunit −1.67
Xf1554 fumC Fumarate hydratase −1.47
Xf1554 fumC Fumarate hydratase −1.36
Energy metabolism, carbon—Electron Transport Xf1990 yneN Thioredoxin −1.14
Xf0620 dsbD c-Type cytochrome biogenesis protein (Copper Tolerance) −0.83
Degradation—Degradation of Small Molecules Xf1250 rocF Arginine deaminase −2.00
Xf1740 yliI Glucose dehydrogenase B 1.45
Xf2395 axeA Acetylxylan esterase 1.75
Xf2432 gtaB UTP-glucose-1-phosphate uridylyl transferase −1.14
Xf0610 galE UDP-glucose 4-epimerase −1.44
Xf2210 Dioxygenase 1.00
Regulatory Functions Xf1354 yybA Transcriptional regulator (MARR Family) 1.27
Xf1354 yybA Transcriptional regulator (MARR Family) 1.55
Xf1254 araL Transcriptional regulator (ARAC Family) −1.10
Xf2344 fur Transcriptional regulator (FUR Family) 1.19
Xf2336 colR Two-component system regulatory protein 1.32
Xf2534 colR Two-component system regulatory protein −0.95
Xf1752 Transcriptional regulator (LYSR Family) 1.64
Xf1733 AF0343 Tryptophan repressor binding protein 1.13
Xf1749 opdE Transcriptional regulator 1.65
Xf1730 yafC Transcriptional regulator (LYSR Family) 1.97
Sugar-Nucleotide Biosynthesis, Conversions Xf0260 xanA Phosphoglucomutase/ Phosphomannomutase 0.92
Central Intermediary Metabolism—Pool, Multipourpose Conversions Xf0880 yadF Carbonic anhydrase −1.30
Xf2255 acs Acetyl coenzyme A synthetase −1.37
Central Intermediary Metabolism—Amino Sugars Xf2355 Exo II n-acetyl-beta-glucosaminidase 1.44

Biosynthesis of Small Molecules
Amino Acids Biosynthesis—Aspartate family, pyruvate family Xf2272 metE 5-methyltetrahydro pteroyltriglutamate–homocysteine methyltransferase 1.44
Xf1121 metF OR AQ_1429 5,10-methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase 0.92
Xf2223 thrC Threonine synthase 1.00
Xf0863 met2 Homoserine O-acetyltransferase 1.25
Amino Acids Biosynthesis—Aromatic Amino Acid Family Xf0624 aroE Shikimate 5-dehydrogenase 1.64
Nucleotides Biosynthesis—Salvage of Nucleosides and Nucleotides Xf2150 apaH Diadenosine tetraphosphatase 1.14
Xf2354 hpt Hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyl transferase 1.08
Nucleotides Biosynthesis – 2′ Deoxyribonucleotides Xf0580 PH1695 Thymidylate kinase −0.93
Xf1196 nrdA OR TP1008 Ribonucleoside-diphosphate reductase alpha chain 1.10
Nucleotides Biosynthesis—Purine Ribonucleotides Xf1503 gmk OR spoR Guanylate kinase 0.86
Nucleotides Biosynthesis—Pyrimidine Ribonucleotides Xf1107 carB OR pyrA Carbamoyl-phosphate synthase large chain −0.99
Xf1106 carA Carbamoyl-phosphate synthase small chain −0.96
Cofactors, Prosthetic Groups, Carriers Biosynthesis—Menaquinone, Ubiquinone Xf1487 ubiE Ubiquinone menaquinone transferase −1.64
Cofactors, Prosthetic Groups, Carriers Biosynthesis—Pantothenate Xf0229 panB 3-Methyl-2-oxobutanoate hydroxy methyltransferase −1.50
Cofactors, Prosthetic Groups, Carriers Biosynthesis—Thiamin Xf0783 thiG Thiamine biosynthesis protein −0.87
Cofactors, Prosthetic Groups, Carriers Biosynthesis—Riboflavin Xf1748 MJ0671 5-amino-6-(5-phospho ribosylamino) uracil reductase 1.05
Cofactors, Prosthetic Groups, Carriers Biosynthesis—Biotin Xf2477 bioD Dethiobiotin synthetase 1.08
Cofactors, Prosthetic Groups, Carriers Biosynthesis—Others Xf1916 AF1671 Coenzime F390 synthetase 1.21
Fatty Acid and Phosphatidic Acid Biosynthesis Xf2269 DRB0080 3-alpha-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase −0.93
Xf0572 fabA Beta-hydroxydecanoyl-ACP dehydratase 1.18

Macromolecule Metabolism
DNA metabolism—Replication Xf0001 dnaA Chromosomal replication initiator −1.02
Xf0002 dnaN DNA polymerase III, beta chain −1.39
Xf0002 dnaN DNA polymerase III, beta chain −1.15
Xfa0003 topA OR supX Topoisomerase I −1.60
Xf1353 parC Topoisomerase subunit 0.98
DNA metabolism—Recombination Xf0425 recD Exodeoxyribonuclease V alpha chain −0.96
Xf0425 recD Exodeoxyribonuclease V alpha chain −1.02
Xf0423 ecb OR rorA Exodeoxyribonuclease V beta chain 1.30
DNA metabolism—Repair Xf1902 ruvB OR HL0312 Holliday junction binding protein, DNA helicase −1.20
Xf2692 ung Uracil-DNA glycosylase −1.18
DNA Metabolism—Restriction, Modification Xf0935 LLAIIA Methyltransferase −0.83
Xf1804 SPHIM Site-specific DNA-methyltransferase 1.12
Xf1774 hpaIIM DNA methyltransferase −0.81
DNA Metabolism—Structural DNA Binding Proteins Xf0446 bbh3 DNA-binding protein −1.19
Xf1644 ssb Single-stranded DNA binding protein 1.05
RNA Metabolism—Ribosomes—Maturation and Modification Xf0441 rimI Ribosomal-protein-alanine acetyl transferase 1.87
Xf0939 rluD OR sfhB Ridosomal large subunit pseudoeridine synthase D −1.02
RNA Metabolism—Ribosomal Proteins Xf1164 rplE OR rpl5 OR HI0790 50S ribosomal protein L5 −0.91
Xf0238 rpsO OR secC 30S ribosomal protein S15 −1.23
Xf1166 rpsH OR rps8 OR HI0792 30S ribosomal protein S8 −1.4
Xf1169 rpsE OR spc 30S ribosomal protein S5 −1.14
RNA Metabolism—RNA Synthesis, Modification, DNA Transcription Xf1108 greA Transcriptional elongation factor −1.73
Xf0227 pcnB Polynucleotide adenyltransferase −1.31
Xf2632 rpoC OR tabB RNA polymerase beta subunit 1.09
Xf2606 rluC Pseudourylate synthase −1.08
RNA Metabolism—Aminoacyl tRNA Synthetases, tRNA Modification Xf0428 TM0492 Tryptophanyl-tRNA synthetase −1.89
Xf0445 proS OR drpA Prolyl-tRNA synthetase −1.08
Xf0134 valS OR HI1391 Valyl-tRNA synthetase −0.96
Xf0169 tyrS OR HI1610 Tyrosyl-tRNA synthetase 1.93
Xf1314 queA S-Adenosylmethionine tRNA ribosyltransferase-isomerase −1.00
Xf0736 thrS Threonyl-tRNA synthetase −1.08
RNA Metabolism—RNA Degradation Xf1505 rph Ribonuclease PH −0.74
Xf1041 rnhB Ribonuclease HII −1.00
Xf2615 rnaSA3 Ribonuclease 1.00
Protein Metabolism—Translation and Modification Xf0644 mip Peptidyl-propyl cis-trans isomerase −1.11
Xf2629 fusA Elongation factor G −0.90
Protein Metabolism—Protein Degradation Xf0220 pepQ Proline dipeptidase −1.13
Xf0453 hflC OR HI0150 Integral membrane proteinase 1.65
Xf2241 mucD Periplasmic protease −0.87
Xf1479 ptrB OR tlp Peptidase −0.82
Xf2330 slpD Proteinase −0.85

Cell Structure
Murein Sacculus, Peptidoglycan Xf0416 vacJ Lipoprotein precursor −0.78
Xf0799 ddlB OR ddl D-Alanine-D-alanine ligase B −1.69
Xf0276 mpl UDP-N-acetylmuramate- L-alanine ligase −0.88
Surface Structures Xf0487 Fimbrillin 1.07
Xf2539 Fimbrial protein −1.02
Xf2544 pilB Pilus biogenesis protein −0.79
Chemotaxis and Mobility—Surface Polysaccharides, Lipopolysaccharides and Antigens Xf1289 kdsA 2-dehydro-3-deoxy phosphooctonate aldolase −0.90
Xf1419 lpxD OR firA OR omsA Acetyltransferase 1.05
Xf1646 lpxD OR firA UDP-3-O-(R-3-hydroxy myristoyl)-glucosamine N-acyltransferase −0.75
Xf1638 Dolichyl-phosphate mannose synthase related protein −1.02
Xf0879 rfbU Lipopolysaccharide biosynthesis protein −0.74
Xf2154 opsX Saccharide biosynthesis regulatory protein −1.00
Xf0105 kdtA OR waaA 3-deoxy-D-manno-octulosonic acid trasnferase 1.50
Membrane Components—Outer Membrane Constituents Xf1024 Outer membrane protein H.8 precursor −1.19

Cellular Processes
Transport—Cations Xf1903 kup OR trkD Potassium uptake protein 1.01
Xf1903 kup OR trkD Potassium uptake protein 1.40
Xf0599 ybiL TONB-dependent receptor for iron transport 1.46
Xf0395 bfr Bacterioferritin −1.22
Transport—Amino Acids, Amines Xf1937 gltP Proton glutamate symport protein −1.00
Transport—Protein, Peptide Secretion Xf2685 sppA Protease IV −0.88
Xf2261 HI0561 560 Oligopeptide transporter −1.12
Transport—Carbohydrates, Organic Acids, Alchohols Xf0976 dctA C4-dicarboxylate transport protein −1.10
Cell Division Xf2281 DR0012 Chromosomepartitioning protein −1.08
Other Xf2251 ppa Solute Na+ symporter −1.64
Xf1728 F451 Transport protein 1.11
Xf1604 btuE ABC transporter vitamin B12 uptake permease −1.48
Xf1409 HI1148 ABC transporter ATP-binding protein 0.84

Mobile Genetic Elements
Transposon- and Intron-Related Functions Xf1775 IS629 Reverse transcriptase 1.06
Xf0535 Transposase ORFA −0.80
Phage-Related Functions and Prophages Xf2522 Phage-related protein 1.52
Xf2522 Phage-related protein 1.02
Xfa0040 trbI Conjugal transfer protein −0.98
Xf2291 Phage-related protein 0.95
Xf0513 lycV Phage-related endolysin −1.52
Xf1786 Phage-related protein 1.32
Xf1706 GP37 Phage-related tail fiber protein 1.31
Xf0685 Phage-related protein 0.86
Xf0704 Phage-related protein 1.18
Xf1875 Phage-related protein 1.44
Plasmid-Related Functions Xfa0006 traA OR virB3 Conjugal transfer protein −1.13
Xfa0013 traAO OR virB9 Conjugal transfer protein −1.37
Xfa0008 traAC OR virB5 Conjugal transfer protein −1.54

Pathogenicity,Virulence, and Adaptation
Toxin production and detoxification Xf0262 cvaC Colicin V precursor 7.29
Xf0263 cvaC Colicin V precursor 1.70
Xf1011 frpC Hemolysin-type calcium binding protein −1.45
Xf1827 ohr Organic hydroperoxide resistance protein −1.43
Xf2614 sodA OR sod Superoxide dismutase (MN) −1.47
Xf1210 gst OR HI0111 Glutathione S-transferase −1.00
Xf1890 gpo Glutathione peroxidase-like protein 0.86
Xf2135 frnE Polyketide synthase (PKS) 1.80
Xf1897 tolB TOLB protein precursor −1.30
Xf1729 DR1890 Phenylacetaldehyde dehydrogenase 0.91

Host Cell Wall Degradation Xf0818 engXCA Endo-1,4-beta-glucanase −0.89

Adaptation Atypical Condition Xf2682 mdoG Periplasmic glucan biosynthesis protein −0.80
Xf2622 tapB Temperature acclimation protein B −1.30

Surface Proteins Xf1516 uspA1 Surface-exposed outer membrane protein −1.28

Exopolysaccharydes Xf2360 gumM Gumm protein −1.08
Other Xf1529 hsf Surface protein 1.96
Xf1532 oxyR Oxidative stress transcriptional regulator 0.96
Xf2121 vapE Virulence-associated protein E 1.24
Xf1987 vacB VACB protein −1.35
Xf1114 rpfC Regulator of pathogenicity factors −0.87

ORFs with Undefined Category
Xf1723 yrpG Sugar-phosphate dehydrogenase 1.30
Xf0088 hflX GTP-binding protein 1.36

Hypothetical Proteins
Xf1287 Hypothetical protein 1.40
Xf0493 Hypothetical protein 0.94
Xf0037 Hypothetical protein −1.11
Xf1655 Hypothetical protein 0.82
Xf0726 Hypothetical protein −1.17
Xf1835 Hypothetical protein −0.85
Xfa0031 Hypothetical protein −1.60
Xf2413 Hypothetical protein 0.96
Xf0871 Hypothetical protein 1.69
Xf2454 Hypothetical protein −0.97
Xf1769 Hypothetical protein −0.80
Xf1803 Hypothetical protein −2.00
Xf0512 Hypothetical protein −0.93
Xf0531 Hypothetical protein −1.72
Xf1868 Hypothetical protein 1.11
Xf1881 Hypothetical protein 1.18
Xf0917 Hypothetical protein 1.25
Xf1738 Hypothetical protein 1.37
Xf0242 Hypothetical protein 1.27
Xf1228 Hypothetical protein 1.01
Xf1279 Hypothetical protein 1.11
Xf1575 Hypothetical protein 1.14
Xf2597 Hypothetical protein −0.94
Xf0516 Hypothetical protein 1.16
Xf2017 Hypothetical protein −1.51
Xf1989 Hypothetical protein −0.94
Xf2410 Hypothetical protein −1.60
Xf2304 Hypothetical protein −1.26
Xf0959 Hypothetical protein 1.24
Xf2115 Hypothetical protein 1.23
Xf1100 Hypothetical protein 1.04
Xf1704 Hypothetical protein 0.95
Xf0974 Hypothetical protein −1.26
Xf0491 Hypothetical protein 1.31
Xf1060 Hypothetical protein 1.77
Xf2151 Hypothetical protein 1.73
Xf2449 Hypothetical protein −1.01
Xf2305 Hypothetical protein −0.77
Xf1721 Hypothetical protein 1.14
Xf0626 Hypothetical protein −1.39
Xf2411 Hypothetical protein 1.01
Xf1770 Hypothetical protein −0.87
Xf1364 Hypothetical protein −0.85
Xf1710 Hypothetical protein 0.90
Xf1761 Hypothetical protein 1.44
Xf1787 Hypothetical protein 1.38
Xf0540 Hypothetical protein −1.30
Xf1788 Hypothetical protein 1.06
Xf0646 Hypothetical protein 1.03
Xf2543 Hypothetical protein −0.98
Xf0914 Hypothetical protein −1.33
Xf2702 Hypothetical protein −1.52
Xf0492 Hypothetical protein 1.55
Xf1239 Hypothetical protein 1.01
Xf0074 Hypothetical protein −1.07
Xfa0004 Hypothetical protein −1.78
Xf1687 Hypothetical protein 1.32
Xf0388 Hypothetical protein −0.86
Xf0025 Hypothetical protein −1.23
Xf1434 Hypothetical protein −1.24
Xf2125 Hypothetical protein 0.89
Xf1513 Hypothetical protein 1.18
Xf2711 Hypothetical protein 1.23
Xf0035 Hypothetical protein 1.31
Xf1441 Hypothetical protein −1.41
Xf2514 Hypothetical protein 1.71
Xf2626 Hypothetical protein 1.44
Xf0687 Hypothetical protein 1.07
Xf1917 Hypothetical protein 1.90
Xf2271 Hypothetical protein 1.50
Xf1036 Hypothetical protein −0.99
Xfa0017 Hypothetical protein −1.98
Xf0529 Hypothetical protein 1.09
Xf2103 Hypothetical protein −1.05
Xf1986 Hypothetical protein −1.05
Xf1700 Hypothetical protein 1.12
Xf1719 Hypothetical protein 1.08
Xf1753 Hypothetical protein 1.44
Xf0019 Hypothetical protein 0.85
Xf0293 Hypothetical protein −1.15
Xf0300 Hypothetical protein 1.67
Xf0279 Hypothetical protein 1.79
Xf0735 Hypothetical protein −0.94
Xf1010 Hypothetical protein −0.97
Xf1580 Hypothetical protein 0.80
Xf2021 Hypothetical protein 1.21
Xf2738 Hypothetical protein 1.49
Xf0877 Hypothetical protein 1.28
Xf2270 Hypothetical protein 1.13
Xf0488 Hypothetical protein 1.50
Xf0264 Hypothetical protein 4.10
Xf2701 Hypothetical protein −1.68
Xf2768 Hypothetical protein 1.35
Xf0688 Hypothetical protein 0.96
Xf0898 Hypothetical protein 1.15
Xf0426 Hypothetical protein −1.23
Xf0443 Hypothetical protein −1.06
Xf1421 Hypothetical protein −1.40
Xf2193 Hypothetical protein −2.17
Xf2390 Hypothetical protein 1.24
Xf1128 Hypothetical protein −1.16
Xf2116 Hypothetical protein 1.52
Xf0467 Hypothetical protein −1.18
Xf1193 Hypothetical protein −0.80
Xf1032 Hypothetical protein −1.33
Xf2262 Hypothetical protein −1.60

Conserved Hypothetical Proteins
Xfa0045 Conserved hypothetical protein −2.22
Xf2450 Conserved hypothetical protein −1.22
Xf2609 Conserved hypothetical protein −0.87
Xf1754 Conserved hypothetical protein 1.83
Xf0805 Conserved hypothetical protein −0.81
Xf2493 Conserved hypothetical protein 1.13
Xf2088 Conserved hypothetical protein 1.26
Xf0196 Conserved hypothetical protein −1.95
Xf1750 Conserved hypothetical protein 1.36
Xf1745 Conserved hypothetical protein 1.24
Xf2647 Conserved hypothetical protein 1.13
Xf2252 Conserved hypothetical protein −2.81
Xf2010 Conserved hypothetical protein −1.06
Xf2237 Conserved hypothetical protein −0.85
Xfa0032 SCJ21.16 Conserved hypothetical protein −1.06
Xf0758 yjeE Conserved hypothetical protein −1.40
Xf0407 yccW Conserved hypothetical protein 0.98
Xf0552 yraL Conserved hypothetical protein −0.92
Xf2651 ycbY Conserved hypothetical protein −1.19
Xf2575 DR0386 Conserved hypothetical protein −0.86
Xf0363 yiaD Conserved hypothetical protein −1.78
Xf0066 ylbK Conserved hypothetical protein 1.10
Xf2179 ybeN Conserved hypothetical protein 1.29
Xf2153 HI0260.1 Conserved hypothetical protein −1.14
Xf0553 HI1655 Conserved hypothetical protein −1.29
Xf2014 DR0566 Conserved hypothetical protein 1.14
Xf0139 yjgP Conserved hypothetical protein 1.15
Xf2474 yjeK Conserved hypothetical protein −0.79
Xf2096 MTH1196 Conserved hypothetical protein −1.93
Xf1054 TM1087 Conserved hypothetical protein −0.91
Xf0554 yraN Conserved hypothetical protein −0.85
Xf0339 btuB OR bfe OR cer Conserved hypothetical protein −0.91
Xf1272 RV1827 OR MTCY1A11.16C Conserved hypothetical protein −1.02
Xf1405 yhbJ Conserved hypothetical protein −0.88
Xf1808 ybaB Conserved hypothetical protein −1.19
Xf1829 RP471 Conserved hypothetical protein −1.05
Xf0941 yuxK Conserved hypothetical protein −0.80

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Evaluation of transcriptional modulation of selected genes by Real-Time qPCR. In order to confirm the reliability of the microarray experiments, 16 genes have been randomly selected and their transcription modulation was verified by Real-Time qPCR. The same RNA samples used in the microarray hybridizations were converted to cDNA and the relative expression ratios (RQ) of these genes have been measured with the aid of specific Taq-Man probes. ORF Xf1311, which encodes a rod-shaped determining protein (MreD), has been used as an endogenous control for experimental normalization, since the microarray hybridization experiments showed that this ORF is constitutively expressed in both PW and 3G10R. Variations in transcriptional modulation were calculated having the expression levels in PW as a reference and are represented by the log2 ratio of the relative quantifications (RQ). Experiments were performed in triplicate and graphic shows the average values and their respective standard deviations.

Interestingly, we were able to verify that several genes directly associated with pathogenicity, virulence and adaptation had their transcription modulated in response to growth in xylem-based chemical conditions. This group includes genes associated with adaptation to atypical conditions (such as the temperature acclimatation protein TAPB (ORF Xf2622) and the oxidative stress transcriptional regulator OxyR (ORF Xf1532)); surface proteins (including adhesion factors, such as the outer membrane protein Hsf (ORF Xf1529)), and genes involved in toxin production and/or detoxification (such as the colicin precursors encoded by ORFs Xf0262 and Xf0263), among others (see Table 1 for details).

The lack of aminoacids in 3G10R also seems to lead to overexpression of at least four genes directly involved in the biosynthesis of such molecules (represented by ORFs Xf0624, Xf0863, Xf1121, Xf2223 and Xf2272). On the other hand, cells that are grown on the peptide-based diet provided by PW display an increased production of proteolytic enzymes, such as MucD (ORF Xf2241), PtrB (ORF Xf1479) and PepQ peptidase (ORF Xf0220), which has been shown to play a major role in lactic acid bacteria, providing the cells with amino acids derived from extracellular protein sources during milk fermentation [28].

The transcriptome results also show that the elevated growth rate of X. fastidiosa cells kept in PW is associated with the upregulation of several genes involved in a series of metabolic pathways and processes that are important to sustain continued bacterial growth [29]. These include ORFs associated with DNA replication, recombination and repair, such as dnaA (the chromosomal replication initiator, encoded by ORF Xf0001), dnaN (the β chain of DNA polymerase III, encoded by ORF Xf0002), recD (the alpha chain of exodeoxyribonuclease V, encoded by ORF Xf0425), ruvB (a Holiday junction-associated helicase, encoded by ORF Xf1902) and ung (an uracil-DNA glycosilase, encoded by ORF Xf2692).

However, since elevated growth rates establish a higher demand for energy consumption, they can only be maintained if ATP production is increased. Thus, it is interesting to verify that growth in PW is associated with overexpression of several genes involved in all major steps of the central metabolic pathway, such as triose phosphate isomerase (Xf0303) (glycolytic pathway); succinyl-coA synthase (Xf2548) and fumarate hydratase C (Xf1554) (Krebs cycle), as well as genes from the nuo operon (represented by ORFs Xf0308, Xf0310, Xf0311 and Xf0317, resp.). Genes from this operon encode subunits of the NADH Dehydrogenase I complex, the first component of the respiratory electron transport chain. Interestingly, coordinated overexpression of such genes has already been shown to occur in E. coli cells submitted to differing culture conditions [30, 31].

3.2. Increased Growth Rate in PW Is Associated with Upregulation of Genes from the Electron Transport Chain and Consequent Enhancement of Respiratory Activity

As mentioned before, PW is the most commonly used medium to cultivate Xylella fastidiosa under laboratory conditions, since this formulation has been shown to sustain efficient growth of all isolates of this phytobacterium [11]. Thus, the positive modulation of genes directly involved in oxidative phosphorylation, might lead to increased aerobic respiratory activity and consequent ATP production, which seems to greatly improve on the fastidious nature of this bacterium. Thus, we decided to verify O2 consumption in PW-grown cells as a way to indirectly estimate the activation of aerobic respiration in X. fastidiosa. This experiment allowed us to verify not only the activation of the aerobic respiration, but also to obtain biological confirmation of a major metabolic change originally predicted solely on the transcriptome data.

As shown in Figure 3, X. fastidiosa cells transferred from PW to 3G10R displayed a continued decrease in the respiratory rate, which is unaffected in cells transferred to fresh PW medium. A direct comparison between the results observed for the PW culture, at day 3, and the 3G10R culture, at day 13, (the same time points used for transcriptome comparisons) shows that cells grown in PW display overexpression of several genes involved in all major steps of the central metabolic pathway, as well as a respiratory rate that is about five times greater than that observed with cells grown in 3G10R. Thus, the results from this experiment confirmed that there is a significant increase in oxidative phosphorylation when X. fastidiosa cells are grown in PW (as previously inferred from the analysis of transcriptome data), which helps to explain the effectiveness of this culture medium in sustaining continued and vigorous growth of X. fastidiosa strains.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Evaluation of respiratory rates in Xylella fastidiosa cells growing in PW and 3G10R. X. fastidiosa cells were grown into middle exponential phase in PW and subsequently transferred (in a 1 : 20 proportion) into fresh PW and 3G10R cultures. Bacterial growth in both cultures was monitored through OD600 measurements and aliquots were taken from each culture to evaluate O2 consumption with the aid of an oxygraph in intact cells. Respiratory rate for each culture was calculated as the ratio between O2 consumption and the respective OD600 value obtained at each time point. Measurements were taken until day 7 (in PW) and day 13 (in 3G10R). Experiments were performed in triplicate and graphic shows the average values and their respective standard deviations.

4. Discussion

The recent development of xylem-based chemistry media, such as 3G10R, has provided an interesting instrument to study several aspects of X. fastidiosa behavior under laboratory conditions, where this phytopathogen is typically grown in complex media, such as PW [11]. Interestingly, both PW and 3G10R are capable of sustaining growth of X. fastidiosa cells in vitro, although significant differences have been observed in the bacterial growth rates.

Nonetheless, when growing in PW, where X. fastidiosa cells have been shown to display an increased respiratory rate, as well as an enhanced growth profile, we can observe coordinated upregulation of enzymes from the central metabolic pathway, particularly of the NADH Dehydrogenase I complex, a phenomenon also observed to occur in E. coli grown in different media [30, 31]. This results in strong activation of the aerobic respiratory metabolism, providing the cells with the necessary energy for increased bacterial replication. However, at this point, we do not know the exact mechanism(s) that might be responsible to trigger such a respiratory activation, nor if it plays any role during plant colonization or onset of disease, when the endophytic population of X. fastidiosa seems to increase dramatically inside xylem vessels [32, 33]. It seems unlikely, however, that this metabolic switch occurs only on the account of oxygen concentration, since both cultures were kept under the same aeration conditions during all experimental steps described throughout this work.

Incidentally, this situation seems to resemble the fermentative-to-respiratory shift observed in Lactococus lactis, a gram-positive, microaerophilic bacterium, with a fermentative metabolism that produces mainly L-lactate from carbohydrates [34, 35]. L. lactis, as well as other members of the Streptococcaceae family, such as Streptococcus agalactiae and Enterococcus fecalis, multiply mainly via a fermentative metabolism, even in the presence of oxygen. Curiously, in spite of the fact that these bacteria carry all genes and enzymes necessary to undergo aerobic respiration, prolonged aeration of L. lactis cultures can lead to growth inhibition, DNA degradation and cell death, probably due to the formation of hydrogen peroxide and hydroxyl radicals during aerobic respiration, associated with an incomplete set of oxidative stress-resistance enzymes [36]. However, if exogenous haem is provided during aerated growth, L. lactis cells can undergo a metabolic shunt towards respiratory metabolism, leading to increased ATP production, improved growth and a dramatic increase in long-term survival, when compared to growth in standard fermentation conditions [35]. Further details regarding the fermentation-respiration shift in L. lactis are not completely understood, but it has been documented that the process depends on cytochrome BD (encoded by the cyaBD genes) and is controled by the Catabolite Control Protein (CcpA) [37]. Although more direct evidence is still needed to further clarify this issue, it is tempting to speculate if the presence of hemin chloride in PW might be acting as an exogenous source of haem and activating an analogous mechanism in X. fastidiosa cells that would lead to an increase in aerobic respiration.

The observed modulation of triose phosphate isomerase (Xf0303) is also noteworthy, since preliminary studies failed to detect specific activity of several genes from the Glycolytic pathway in bacterial crude extracts, such as aldolase, glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase and enolase [38]. On the other hand, the activity of glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase was detected in these same extracts, leading the authors to suggest that X. fastidiosa cells do not use the glycolytic pathway to oxidize glucose, which would be preferably metabolized by the Entner-Dudoroff pathway [38]. In X. fastidiosa, all genes of the Entner-Dudoroff pathway are encoded by a single operon, which encompasses ORFs Xf1061 to Xf1065, but we did not observe overexpression of any such genes in either of the media, even in 3G10R, which has glucose as the sole carbon source.

The difference in carbon source also seems to be important in determining the expression of genes associated with other aspects of the cellular metabolism, such as aminoacid biosynthesis (in 3G10R), as opposed to proteolytic enzymes (in PW). Interestingly, the coordinated upregulation of proteolytic enzymes is indicative that X. fastidiosa cells, like lactic acid bacteria, have developed an efficient mechanism dedicated to process extra cellular proteins as a major way to obtain amino acids from exogenous sources [39]. This idea is also consistent with the elevated growth rates observed with cells grown in PW, a significantly rich medium, which is based on relatively high concentrations of protein hydrolisates, such as tryptone and peptone [11].

In spite of providing more adequate nutritional conditions to sustain continued growth of fastidious microorganisms, complex media are not likely to resemble the harsh nutritional conditions found in xylem sap. Since 3G10R does not receive nutrients from any complex source, it is likely to be much more restricted in nutrient availability [16]. Moreover, this formulation incorporates a few important chemical characteristics that resemble xylem composition of plants known to be infected by X. fastidiosa, such as the use of glucose as a major carbon source [2224] and the presence of L-glutamine, which is the most abundant amino acid detected in the sap of grapevines [25, 26] and seems to be essential for in vitro growth of X. fastidiosa cells [11, 40]. The antioxidant tripeptide glutathione (GSH) has also been detected in the composition of xylem fluid of poplar and spruce trees [41, 42] and is present in the composition of 3G10R at a similar concentration [16].

The presence of glucose seems to be an important characteristic of 3G10R in resembling xylem, since this metabolite has already been identified in the chemistry composition of xylem fluid from many plant species, such as grapevine [22], maize [43], cabbage [44], poplar [24] and oak [23], among others [45]. However, the exact glucose concentration found in the xylem sap of different plants has been shown to vary significantly, depending on the species, genotype, season, time of day, age of plants and nutritional status. In poplar trees, such concentration has been shown to range from 0.2 to 15 mM [24], although there have been reports of this nutrient at <50 μM concentration in the xylem of grapevines (a typical X. fastidiosa host) [16]. Thus, the ~10 mM glucose concentration present in 3G10R might be higher than the concentration typically encountered by X. fastidiosa cells during the process of plant infection and colonization.

Although glucose is generally viewed as an energy source for growing microorganisms, this substance has also been shown to act as a precursor for the biosynthesis of several bacterial cell wall components and exopolysaccharides (EPSs), which have been proposed to act as virulence factors in X. fastidiosa and many other pathogenic bacteria ([4648], reviewed in [4]). Moreover, increased production of EPS is one major characteristic of X. fastidiosa cells freshly isolated from infected plants and such primarily isolated cells have been shown to be more effective in the process of plant colonization, when compared to cells submitted to continued growth in PW [49]. Coincidentally, while growing in 3G10R, X. fastidiosa cells have also been shown to synthesize increased amounts of EPS, leading to more intense biofilm formation [16]. It has even been proposed that the preferential use of glucose to drive EPS synthesis could be an explanation to the fastidious growth of X. fastidiosa cells, especially in 3G10R, where these molecules are expected to act as the major source of energy as well [16]. Interestingly, when X. fastidiosa cells are grown in this medium, we observed increased expression of xanA (ORF Xf0260), which encodes a phosphoglucomutase that converts glucose 6-P into glucose 1-P, which in turn, acts as a precursor of UDP-Glucose and UDP-Galactose, which are involved in the biosynthesis of different types of EPS [50]. Moreover, it has already been shown that increased expression of phosphoglucomutase can lead to an increase in the production of EPS in Lactococus lactis [51].

EPS production is one of the most important aspects of biofilm formation, which is believed to be an important pathogenicity factor in X. fastidiosa cells [52]. Other adhesion factors have been detected as preferentially expressed in 3G10R, which might be directly correlated with the more intense cellular aggregation and biofilm formation observed in this medium [16]. One of these putative adhesion factors is represented by ORF Xf0487, which encodes a 20 kDa fimbrillin subunit of bacterial fimbreae, and may be involved in bacterial adherence and invasion [53]. Pili and fimbreae have been implicated in plant infection and migration via a twitching motility mechanism that seems to be of paramount importance to the colonization process of X. fastidiosa [54]. Another important component of the cellular outer membrane structure that has been shown to be upregulated in 3G10R is the hsf gene (ORF Xf1529), which encodes a surface fibril that belongs to a family of high molecular weight autotransporter adhesins [55]. This protein has been originally characterized as an important virulence factor from Haemophilus influenzae type b, which causes meningitis and other serious invasive human diseases. In this bacterium, the Hsf protein has been shown to form trimeric fiber-like structures on the bacterial surface that mediate adhesion to epithelial cells [56]. Hsf is also suspected to act as a virulence factor in X. fastidiosa, since overexpression of this protein occurs in X. fastidiosa cells that display higher infective capacity, as well as in bacteria directly isolated from infected plants [17, 49].

Three bacteriocin genes (Xf0262, Xf0263 and Xf0264) have been found to be overexpressed in 3G10R-cultivated cells, suggesting that increased production of such molecules might be important to X. fastidiosa cells in competing with other endophytic bacteria within the xylem [57]. These molecules belong to a class of structurally related proteins that kill target cells by membrane permeabilization. Some of them have been known to kill different types of bacteria, constituting a strategic advantage for microorganisms that colonize highly competitive environments [58]. Although little is known about the X. fastidiosa bacteriocins so far, it is interesting to verify that the bacteriocin encoded by Xf0263 has also been identified as overexpressed in X. fastidiosa cells that display higher infective capacity, as well as in bacteria directly isolated from infected plants [17, 49], while the proteins encoded by Xf0262 and Xf0264 are induced in response to glucose [59].

Although we are aware that defined media, like 3G10R, do not constitute a perfect simulation of the environment inhabited by xylem-dwelling endophytes, this formulation has clearly incorporated some important chemical aspects of xylem fluid composition, which induce transcriptional activation of some putative pathogenicity-associated genes in X. fastidiosa cells. Moreover, some of these genes have also been shown to be specifically upregulated in cells directly isolated from infected plants, as well as in freshly isolated X. fastidiosa cultures, which are known to display a higher infective capacity. The dependence of aggregation and biofilm formation on the nutrient composition of xylem fluid suggests that xylem chemistry is important in resistance/susceptibility to disease [27, 60, 61]. Thus, the transcriptome profile of X. fastidiosa cells grown in xylem-based chemistry media is more likely to represent the metabolome of X. fastidiosa cells in planta, reinforcing the idea that such media formulations should be preferred for metabolic studies of this phytopathogen.

References

  • 1.Wells JM, Raju BC, Hung HY, Weisburg WG, Mandelco-Paul L, Brenner DJ. Xylella fastidiosa gen nov sp nov: gram-negative, xylem-limited, fastidious plant bacteria related to Xanthomonas spp. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology. 1987;37:136–143. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hopkins DL. Xylella fastidiosa: xylem-limited bacterial pathogen of plants. Annual Review of Phytopathology. 1989:271–290. doi: 10.1146/annurev.phyto.34.1.131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Purcell AH, Hopkins DL. Fastidious xylem-limited bacterial plant pathogens. Annual Review of Phytopathology. 1996;34:131–151. doi: 10.1146/annurev.phyto.34.1.131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chatterjee S, Almeida RPP, Lindow S. Living in two worlds: the plant and insect lifestyles of Xylella fastidiosa. Annual Review of Phytopathology. 2008;46:243–271. doi: 10.1146/annurev.phyto.45.062806.094342. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.da Silva VS, Shida CS, Rodrigues FB, et al. Comparative genomic characterization of citrus-associated Xylella fastidiosa strains. BMC Genomics. 2007;8, article 474 doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-8-474. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Moreira LM, de Souza RF, Almeida NF, Jr., et al. Comparative genomics analyses of citrus-associated bacteria. Annual Review of Phytopathology. 2004;42:163–184. doi: 10.1146/annurev.phyto.42.040803.140310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Simpson AJ, Reinach FC, Arruda P, et al. The genome sequence of the plant pathogen Xylella fastidiosa. The Xylella fastidiosa Consortium of the Organization for Nucleotide Sequencing and Analysis. Nature. 2000;406(6792):151–159. doi: 10.1038/35018003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bhattacharyya A, Stilwagen S, Ivanova N, et al. Whole-genome comparative analysis of three phytopathogenic Xylella fastidiosa strains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2002;99(19):12403–12408. doi: 10.1073/pnas.132393999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Van Sluys MA, de Oliveira MC, Monteiro-Vitorello CB, et al. Comparative analyses of the complete genome sequences of Pierce’s disease and citrus variegated chlorosis strains of Xylella fastidiosa. Journal of Bacteriology. 2003;185(3):1018–1026. doi: 10.1128/JB.185.3.1018-1026.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Davis MJ, Purcell AH, Thomson SV. Isolation media for the Pierce’s disease bacterium. Phytopathology. 1980;70:425–429. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Davis MJ, French WJ, Schaad NW. Axenic culture of the bacteria associated with phony disease of peach and plum leaf scald. Current Microbiology. 1981;6(5):309–314. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hartung JS, Beretta J, Brlansky RH, Spisso J, Lee RF. Citrus variegated chlorosis bacterium: axenic culture, pathogenicity, and serological relationships with other strains of Xylella fastidiosa. Phytopathology. 1994;84(6):591–597. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Campanharo JC, Lemos MVF, de Macedo Lemos EG. Growth optimization procedures for the phytopathogen Xylella fastidiosa. Current Microbiology. 2003;46(2):99–102. doi: 10.1007/s00284-002-3829-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wells JM, Raju BC, Nyland G, Lowe SK. Medium for the isolation and growth of the bacteria associated with plum leaf scald and phony peach disease. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1981;42:357–363. doi: 10.1128/aem.42.2.357-363.1981. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Selosse M-A, Baudoin E, Vandenkoornhuyse P. Symbiotic microorganisms, a key for ecological success and protection of plants. Comptes Rendus Biologies. 2004;327(7):639–648. doi: 10.1016/j.crvi.2003.12.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Leite B, Andersen PC, Ishida ML. Colony aggregation and biofilm formation in xylem chemistry-based media for Xylella fastidiosa. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 2004;230(2):283–290. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1097(03)00917-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.de Souza AA, Takita MA, Pereira EO, Coletta-Filho HD, Machado MA. Expression of pathogenicity-related genes of Xylella fastidiosa in vitro and in planta. Current Microbiology. 2005;50(4):223–228. doi: 10.1007/s00284-004-4447-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Costa de Oliveira R, Yanai GM, Muto NH, et al. Competitive hybridization on spotted microarrays as a tool to conduct comparative genomic analyses of Xylella fastidiosa strains. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 2002;216(1):15–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2002.tb11408.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Nunes LR, Rosato YB, Muto NH, et al. Microarray analyses of Xylella fasfidiosa provide evidence of coordinated transcription control of laterally transferred elements. Genome Research. 2003;13(4):570–578. doi: 10.1101/gr.930803. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Tusher VG, Tibshirani R, Chu G. Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2001;98(9):5116–5121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.091062498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Saeed AI, Bhagabati NK, Braisted JC, et al. TM4 microarray software suite. Methods in Enzymology. 2006;411:134–193. doi: 10.1016/S0076-6879(06)11009-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Andersen PC, Brodbeck BV, Mizell RF. Water stress- and nutrient solution-mediated changes in water relations and amino acids, organic acids, and sugars in xylem fluid of Prunus salicina and Lagerstroemia indica. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science. 1995;120(1):36–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kreuzwieser J, Graus M, Wisthaler A, Hansel A, Rennenberg H, Schnitzler J-P. Xylem-transported glucose as an additional carbon source for leaf isoprene formation in Quercus robur. New Phytologist. 2002;156(2):171–178. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00516.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Mayrhofer S, Heizmann U, Magel E, et al. Carbon balance in leaves of young poplar trees. Plant Biology. 2004;6(6):730–739. doi: 10.1055/s-2004-821268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Andersen PC, Brodbeck BV. Diurnal and temporal changes in the chemical profile of xylem exudates from Vitis rotundifoli. Physiologia Plantarum. 1989;75:63–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Andersen PC, Brodbeck BV. Influence of fertilization on xylem fluid chemistry of Vitis rotundifolia Noble and Vitis hybrid Suwannee. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture. 1991;42:245–251. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Zaini PA, De La Fuente L, Hoch HC, Burr TJ. Grapevine xylem sap enhances biofilm development by Xylella fastidiosa. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 2009;295(1):129–134. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2009.01597.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Morel F, Frot-Coutaz J, Aubel D, Portalier R, Atlan D. Characterization of a prolidase from Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus CNRZ 397 with an unusual regulation of biosynthesis. Microbiology. 1999;145(2):437–446. doi: 10.1099/13500872-145-2-437. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Harry E, Monahan L, Thompson L. Bacterial cell division: the mechanism and its precison. International Review of Cytology. 2006;253:27–94. doi: 10.1016/S0074-7696(06)53002-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hua Q, Yang C, Oshima T, Mori H, Shimizu K. Analysis of gene expression in Escherichia coli in response to changes of growth-limiting nutrient in chemostat cultures. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2004;70(4):2354–2366. doi: 10.1128/AEM.70.4.2354-2366.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Tao H, Bausch C, Richmond C, Blattner FR, Conway T. Functional genomics: expression analysis of Escherichia coli growing on minimal and rich media. Journal of Bacteriology. 1999;181(20):6425–6440. doi: 10.1128/jb.181.20.6425-6440.1999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Newman KL, Almeida RPP, Purcell AH, Lindow SE. Use of a green fluorescent strain for the analysis of Xylella fastidiosa colonization of Vitis vinifera. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2003;69(12):7319–7327. doi: 10.1128/AEM.69.12.7319-7327.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Alves E, Marucci CR, Lopes JRS, Leite B. Leaf symptoms on plum, coffee and citrus and the relationship with the extent of xylem vessels colonized by Xylella fastidiosa. Journal of Phytopathology. 2004;152(5):291–297. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Sijpesteijn AK. Induction of cytochrome formation and stimulation of oxidative dissimilation by hemin in Streptococcus lactis and Leuconostoc mesenteroides. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. 1970;36(1):335–348. doi: 10.1007/BF02069035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Duwat P, Sourice S, Cesselin B, et al. Respiration capacity of the fermenting bacterium Lactococcus lactis and its positive effects on growth and survival. Journal of Bacteriology. 2001;183(15):4509–4516. doi: 10.1128/JB.183.15.4509-4516.2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Duwat P, de Oliveira R, Ehrlich D, Boiteux S. Repair of oxidative DNA damage in grampositive bacteria: the Lactococcus lactis Fpg protein. Microbiology. 1995;141(2):411–417. doi: 10.1099/13500872-141-2-411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Gaudu P, Lamberet G, Poncet S, Gruss A. CcpA regulation of aerobic and respiration growth in Lactococcus lactis. Molecular Microbiology. 2003;50(1):183–192. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2003.03700.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Facincani AP, Ferro JA, Pizauro JM, Jr., et al. Carbohydrate metabolism of Xylella fastidiosa: detection of glycolytic and pentose phosphate pathway enzymes and cloning and expression of the enolase gene. Genetics and Molecular Biology. 2003;26(2):203–211. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Guédon E, Renault P, Ehrlich SD, Delorme C. Transcriptional pattern of genes coding for the proteolytic system of Lactococcus lactis and evidence for coordinated regulation of key enzymes by peptide supply. Journal of Bacteriology. 2001;183(12):3614–3622. doi: 10.1128/JB.183.12.3614-3622.2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Chang CJ, Donaldson RC. Xylella fastidiosa: cultivation in chemically defined medium. Phytopathology. 1993;83(2):192–194. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Schneider A, Kreuzwieser J, Schupp R, Sauter JJ, Rennenberg H. Thiol and amino acid composition of the xylem sap of poplar trees (Populus x canadensis ’robusta’) Canadian Journal of Botany. 1994;72(3):347–351. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Köstner B, Schupp R, Schulze E-D, Rennenberg H. Organic and inorganic sulfur transport in the xylem sap and the sulfur budget of Picea abies trees. Tree Physiology. 1998;18(1):1–9. doi: 10.1093/treephys/18.1.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Mäkelä P, McLaughlin JE, Boyer JS. Imaging and quantifying carbohydrate transport to the developing ovaries of maize. Annals of Botany. 2005;96(5):939–949. doi: 10.1093/aob/mci246. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Onda Y, Ito K. Changes in the composition of xylem sap during development of the spadix of skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus) Bioscience, Biotechnology and Biochemistry. 2005;69(6):1156–1161. doi: 10.1271/bbb.69.1156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Heizmann U, Kreuzwieser J, Schnitzler J-P, Brüggemann N, Rennenberg H. Assimilate transport in the xylem sap of pedunculate oak (Quercus robur) saplings. Plant Biology. 2001;3(2):132–138. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.He Y-W, Wang C, Zhou L, Song H, Dow JM, Zhang L-H. Dual signaling functions of the hybrid sensor kinase RpfC of Xanthomonas campestris involve either phosphorelay or receiver domain-protein interaction. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2006;281(44):33414–33421. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M606571200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Liaw S-J, Lai H-C, Wang W-B. Modulation of swarming and virulence by fatty acids through the RsbA protein in Proteus mirabilis. Infection and Immunity. 2004;72(12):6836–6845. doi: 10.1128/IAI.72.12.6836-6845.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Osiro D, Colnago LA, Otoboni AMMB, et al. A kinetic model for Xylella fastidiosa adhesion, biofilm formation, and virulence. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 2004;236(2):313–318. doi: 10.1016/j.femsle.2004.06.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.de Souza AA, Takita MA, Coletta-Filho HD, et al. Analysis of gene expression in two growth states of Xylella fastidiosa and its relationship with pathogenicity. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions. 2003;16(10):867–875. doi: 10.1094/MPMI.2003.16.10.867. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Boels IC, Kleerebezem M, de Vos WM. Engineering of carbon distribution between glycolysis and sugar nucleotide biosynthesis in Lactococcus lactis. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2003;69(2):1129–1135. doi: 10.1128/AEM.69.2.1129-1135.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.de Vos WM. Metabolic engineering of sugar catabolism in lactic acid bacteria. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. 1996;70(2–4):223–242. doi: 10.1007/BF00395934. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.de Souza AA, Takita MA, Coletta-Filho HD, et al. Gene expression profile of the plant pathogen Xylella fastidiosa during biofilm formation in vitro. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 2004;237(2):341–353. doi: 10.1016/j.femsle.2004.06.055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Nudleman E, Kaiser D. Pulling together with type IV pili. Journal of Molecular Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2004;7(1-2):52–62. doi: 10.1159/000077869. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Meng Y, Li Y, Galvani CD, et al. Upstream migration of Xylella fastidiosa via pilus-driven twitching motility. Journal of Bacteriology. 2005;187(16):5560–5567. doi: 10.1128/JB.187.16.5560-5567.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Cotter SE, Yeo H-J, Juehne T, St. Geme JW., III Architecture and adhesive activity of the Haemophilus influenzae Hsf adhesin. Journal of Bacteriology. 2005;187(13):4656–4664. doi: 10.1128/JB.187.13.4656-4664.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.St. Geme JW, III, Cutter D, Barenkamp SJ. Characterization of the genetic locus encoding Haemophilus influenzae type b surface fibrils. Journal of Bacteriology. 1996;178(21):6281–6287. doi: 10.1128/jb.178.21.6281-6287.1996. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Muñoz-Rojas J, Fuentes-Ramírez LE, Caballero-Mellado J. Antagonism among Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus strains in culture media and in endophytic association. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 2005;54(1):57–66. doi: 10.1016/j.femsec.2005.02.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Drider D, Fimland G, Héchard Y, McMullen LM, Prévost H. The continuing story of class IIa bacteriocins. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 2006;70(2):564–582. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00016-05. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Pashalidis S, Moreira LM, Zaini PA, et al. Whole-genome expression profiling of Xylella fastidiosa in response to growth on glucose. OMICS. 2005;9(1):77–90. doi: 10.1089/omi.2005.9.77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Andersen PC, Brodbeck BV, Oden S, Shriner A, Leite B. Influence of xylem fluid chemistry on planktonic growth, biofilm formation and aggregation of Xylella fastidiosa. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 2007;274(2):210–217. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2007.00827.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Bi JL, Dumenyo CK, Hernandez-Martinez R, Cooksey DA, Toscano NC. Effect of host plant xylem fluid on growth, aggregation, and attachment of Xlella fastidiosa. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 2007;33(3):493–500. doi: 10.1007/s10886-006-9248-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES