Skip to main content
Microbial Biotechnology logoLink to Microbial Biotechnology
. 2019 Jul 21;13(2):311–314. doi: 10.1111/1751-7915.13465

BeQuIK (Biosensor Engineered Quorum Induced Killing): designer bacteria for destroying recalcitrant biofilms

Pinpunya Riangrungroj 1,2, Karen M Polizzi 2,3,
PMCID: PMC7017806  PMID: 31328393

Abstract

This opinion piece describes a new design for the remediation of recalcitrant biofilms. It builds on previous work to develop engineered E. coli that recognize quorum sensing signals from pathogens in a biofilm and secrete toxins in response. To solve the challenge of dilute signalling molecules, we propose to use nanobodies and enzymes displayed on the surface of the cells to localize them to the biofilm and degrade the extracellular polymeric substances, thus creating a solution with better ‘seek and destroy’ capabilities.

graphic file with name MBT2-13-311-g002.jpg


A bacterial biofilm is a cluster of cells residing within a self‐produced matrix of extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) containing primarily proteins, polysaccharides and extracellular‐DNA (Hoiby et al., 2015). Biofilm formation begins when planktonic cells attach to biotic or abiotic surfaces to form a microcolony, followed by EPS secretion. The biofilm matures into a three‐dimensional structure that is difficult to penetrate or degrade in a process governed by bacterial quorum sensing (QS) via signalling molecules in accordance with population density (Miller and Bassler, 2001). Ultimately, the cell cluster is dispersed to release planktonic cells back into the environment to continue the cycle (Jamal et al., 2018).

Bacterial biofilms negatively impact human health in two notable areas. In medical settings, they are associated with chronic infections of tissues and organs (e.g. cystic fibrosis and wounds) or implanted medical devices (e.g. catheters, endotracheal tubes, tissue fillers), where the biofilms effectively hide bacteria from the host immune system and render them up to 1000‐fold less susceptible to antibiotics than in their planktonic state (Gilbert et al., 2002). Attempts to treat biofilm infections with antibiotics negatively impact the environment due to their prolonged use and continuous discharge, since chronic exposure to antibiotics, even at sublethal concentrations, can promote a pool of resistance genes in natural bacterial communities (Sengupta et al., 2013, Andersson and Hughes, 2014). In food and drink manufacturing settings, bacterial biofilms can contaminate plant pipelines, resulting in production losses, economic damage and the potential for infections in consumers (Galie et al., 2018; Wang, 2019). However, not all biofilms are harmful; they can be useful for catalysing specific biotransformations and for bioremediation of toxic compounds (Benedetti et al., 2016).

Due to the emergence of antibiotic resistance around the globe, many alternative strategies have been developed to eradicate biofilm formation, including physical (heat and ultrasound) (Cai et al., 2017; Ricker and Nuxoll, 2017; Wang et al., 2018), chemical (organic acids) (Ryssel et al., 2009; Ban et al., 2012; Singla et al., 2014) and biological (bacteriophage) (Tkhilaishvili et al., 2018; Gupta et al., 2019) methods. However, there are some limitations to existing treatment methods. For example, the use of chemical disinfectants can trigger bacteria to activate acid tolerance responses or accumulate mutations to survive the low‐pH environment (Bearson et al., 1997; De Biase and Lund, 2015). Alternatively, the application of host‐specific bacteriophages is currently limited by a narrow host range, the emergence of phage resistance and phage inactivation by the human immune system (Donlan, 2009).

With the advent of synthetic biology, which aims to develop living organisms with genetically programmed responses, there has been wide interest in engineering commensal bacteria to address biofilms. Studies have primarily relied on the detection of QS molecules because they are reliable signals of biofilm formation and a wealth of genetic parts exist that can be used for engineering. Early work demonstrated the potential use of engineered E. coli to sense and kill Pseudomonas aeruginosa, by the production of protein toxins upon detection of QS autoinducers (Saeidi et al., 2011; Gupta et al., 2013). Despite the successful demonstration, the system relies on the diffusion of the toxins to the pathogen, making biofilm penetration a key issue. Later, Hwang et al. (2014) demonstrated improved targeting of P. aeruginosa by reprogramming the expression of the chemotaxis protein CheZ (phosphatase‐activating protein) to cause E. coli to swim towards the pathogen in response to secreted QS molecules. As a result, the engineered E. coli cells were able to kill both planktonic and biofilm‐residing cells. However, this system still relies on diffusion of the QS molecules, which may limit the distance over which it is effective.

An alternative way to localize engineered E. coli to biofilms would be via direct detection of the EPS components themselves. These large macromolecules would be difficult to detect via genetic regulators such as activators or repressors due to their slow diffusion and inability to cross the cell membrane. However, to facilitate adhesion of engineered E. coli cells to biofilms, one possible option could be the display of recombinant antibodies (Abs) or Ab fragments such as ‘nanobodies’ (Nbs) on the surface to physically bind the cells to the EPS. Nbs are single‐domain antibodies derived from the heavy chain Abs of camelids, which, unlike classical Abs, are devoid of the light chain and the CH1 constant domains (Deffar et al., 2009; Muyldermans, 2013). Nbs have emerged as next‐generation Abs for an array of diagnostic and therapeutic applications due to their small size (~15 kDa), high binding affinity, pH and thermal stabilities, hydrophilicity, ease of production in prokaryotic and eukaryotic hosts and low immunogenicity in vivo (Khodabakhsh et al., 2019; Salvador et al., 2019). A handful of Nbs against proteins involved in biofilm formation, e.g., biofilm‐associated protein (Bap) (Payandeh et al., 2014) and flagellin (Adams et al., 2014), have already been discovered, and it is feasible to imagine that Nbs against new targets could be selected from libraries (McMahon et al., 2017) or via immunization. Nbs against chemical targets have been selected before (Kim et al., 2012; Bever et al., 2016). Therefore, they are capable of binding to small molecules.

Salema et al. (2013) demonstrated E. coli surface display of Nbs by fusing them to the N‐terminal β‐intimin domain and an extracellular Ig‐like domain (D0) (Fig. 1). The intimin‐Nb fusion constructs have been successfully used to select specific Nbs against different targets (Salema et al., 2016a,a,b) and to serve as the detection element in whole‐cell biosensors (Kylilis et al., 2019). In addition, they can act as synthetic adhesins to specifically attach to surface antigens on target cells such as solid tumours (Pinero‐Lambea et al., 2015). Recently, Glass and Riedel‐Kruse (2018) demonstrated the use of the intimin‐Nb fusions to programme multicellular morphologies, which could be possibly further applied towards engineering synthetic cell consortia for microbiome therapy (Timmis et al., 2019). To date, there are no reports of surface display of enzymes via the β‐intimin domain (Salema et al., 2013), but other fusion partners have been previously used successfully in E. coli (Schuurmann et al., 2014; Qu et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2018).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Design of QS‐dependent engineered E. coli via nanobody surface display for battling biofilm infections. The system consists of three modules: the surface co‐expressions of specific Nbs for pathogen identification and biofilm‐degrading enzymes (localizing), the constitutive expression of LuxR (sensing) for forming complex molecules with diffusible QS signals from pathogens and those complexes bind to plux promoter regulating the gene expression exhibiting antimicrobial and antibiofilm activities (killing). D0, extracellular Ig‐like domain; Enz, biofilm‐degrading enzyme; GOI, gene of interest; Nb, nanobody; OM, outer membrane; sp, signal peptide.

Here, we propose BeQuIK (Biosensor Engineered Quorum Induced Killing), a design for battling recalcitrant biofilms. BeQuIK is composed of three genetic modules introduced into E. coli cells in order to (i) target and degrade biofilms, (ii) sense the presence of pathogenic organisms and (iii) activate the production of toxins to kills these organisms. The novelty of BeQuIK lies in first module, which aims to solve the problems of previous ‘seek‐and‐destroy’ engineered cells by aiding in the targeting and penetration of biofilms. To achieve this, cells would display one or more biofilm‐targeting Nb (to recognize and bind to components of the EPS or biofilm‐mediated proteins) (Ardekani et al., 2013; Adams et al., 2014; Payandeh et al., 2014) and one or more biofilm‐degrading enzyme domains. The latter could consist of glucohydrolase enzymes, DNaseI, cellulase, etc. (Stiefel et al., 2016) and would allow for more effective diffusion of the QS signals needed to activate the killing mechanism as well as facilitating entry of the therapeutic agents meant to destroy the pathogenic bacteria. The proteins could either be displayed separately on the cell surface or as a fusion protein (Fig. 1).

Our design represents a new perspective for treating biofilm infections effectively by improving target localization based on physical linking between Nbs and specific antigens in the EPS. The engineered E. coli cells would also target planktonic cells for the prevention of biofilm formation leading to pathogen eradication. With accessible resources of Nbs and other materials, we envision that it is a feasible alternative for application to both biotic and abiotic surfaces, especially as a cleaning‐in‐place method for medical devices and industrial pipes. Furthermore, the sensing module and a responsive promoter in the killing module can be tailored to target any pathogens via its characteristic QS molecules for achieving an improved ‘seek‐and‐destroy’ system.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Acknowledgements

This article was supported by The Royal Thai Government Scholarship.

Microb Biotechnol (2020) 13(2), 311–314

Funding Information

This article was supported by The Royal Thai Government Scholarship.

References

  1. Adams, H. , Horrevoets, W.M. , Adema, S.M. , Carr, H.E. , van Woerden, R.E. , Koster, M. , and Tommassen, J. (2014) Inhibition of biofilm formation by Camelid single‐domain antibodies against the flagellum of Pseudomonas aeruginosa . J Biotechnol 186: 66–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ardekani, L.S. , Gargari, S.L. , Rasooli, I. , Bazl, M.R. , Mohammadi, M. , Ebrahimizadeh, W. , et al (2013) A novel nanobody against urease activity of Helicobacter pylori . Int J Infect Dis 17: e723–e728. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ban, G.H. , Park, S.H. , Kim, S.O. , Ryu, S. , and Kang, D.H. (2012) Synergistic effect of steam and lactic acid against Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella Typhimurium, and Listeria monocytogenes biofilms on polyvinyl chloride and stainless steel. Int J Food Microbiol 157: 218–223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bearson, S. , Bearson, B. , and Foster, J.W. (1997) Acid stress responses in enterobacteria. FEMS Microbiol Lett 147: 173–180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Benedetti, I. , de Lorenzo, V. , and Nikel, P.I. (2016) Genetic programming of catalytic Pseudomonas putida biofilms for boosting biodegradation of haloalkanes. Metab Eng 33: 109–118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bever, C.S. , Dong, J.X. , Vasylieva, N. , Barnych, B. , Cui, Y. , Xu, Z.L. , et al (2016) VHH antibodies: emerging reagents for the analysis of environmental chemicals. Anal Bioanal Chem 408: 5985–6002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cai, Y. , Wang, J. , Liu, X. , Wang, R. , and Xia, L. (2017) A review of the combination therapy of low frequency ultrasound with antibiotics. Biomed Res Int 2017: 2317846. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. De Biase, D. , and Lund, P.A. (2015) The Escherichia coli acid stress response and its significance for pathogenesis. Adv Appl Microbiol 92: 49–88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Deffar, K. , Shi, H.L. , Li, L. , Wang, X.Z. , and Zhu, X.J. (2009) Nanobodies – the new concept in antibody engineering. Afr J Biotechnol 8: 2645–2652. [Google Scholar]
  10. Donlan, R.M. (2009) Preventing biofilms of clinically relevant organisms using bacteriophage. Trends Microbiol 17: 66–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Galie, S. , Garcia‐Gutierrez, C. , Miguelez, E.M. , Villar, C.J. , and Lombo, F. (2018) Biofilms in the food industry: health aspects and control methods. Front Microbiol 9: 898. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Gilbert, P. , Maira‐Litran, T. , McBain, A.J. , Rickard, A.H. , and Whyte, F.W. (2002) The physiology and collective recalcitrance of microbial biofilm communities. Adv Microb Physiol 46: 202–256. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Glass, D.S. , and Riedel‐Kruse, I.H. (2018) A synthetic bacterial cell‐cell adhesion toolbox for programming multicellular morphologies and patterns. Cell 174: 649–658 e616. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gupta, S. , Bram, E.E. , and Weiss, R. (2013) Genetically programmable pathogen sense and destroy. ACS Syn Biol 2: 715–723. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gupta, P. , Singh, H.S. , Shukla, V.K. , Nath, G. and Bhartiya, S.K. (2019) Bacteriophage therapy of chronic nonhealing wound: clinical study. Int J Lower Extrem Wounds ???: 153473461983511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hoiby, N. , Bjarnsholt, T. , Moser, C. , Bassi, G.L. , Coenye, T. , Donelli, G. , et al (2015) ESCMID guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of biofilm infections 2014. Clin Microbiol Infect 21(Suppl 1): S1–S25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hwang, I.Y. , Tan, M.H. , Koh, E. , Ho, C.L. , Poh, C.L. , and Chang, M.W. (2014) Reprogramming microbes to be pathogen‐seeking killers. ACS Syn Biol 3: 228–237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Jamal, M. , Ahmad, W. , Andleeb, S. , Jalil, F. , Imran, M. , Nawaz, M.A. , et al (2018) Bacterial biofilm and associated infections. J Chin Med Assoc 81: 7–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Khodabakhsh, F. , Behdani, M. , Rami, A. , and Kazemi‐Lomedasht, F. (2019) Single‐domain antibodies or nanobodies: a class of next‐generation antibodies. Int Rev Immunol 1–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kim, H.J. , McCoy, M.R. , Majkova, Z. , Dechant, J.E. , Gee, S.J. , Tabares‐da Rosa, S. , et al (2012) Isolation of alpaca anti‐hapten heavy chain single domain antibodies for development of sensitive immunoassay. Anal Chem 84: 1165–1171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kylilis, N. , Riangrungroj, P. , Lai, H.E. , Salema, V. , Fernandez, L.A. , Stan, G.B. , et al (2019) Whole‐cell biosensor with tuneable limit of detection enables low‐cost agglutination assays for medical diagnostic applications. ACS Sensors 4: 370–378. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. McMahon, C. , Baier, A.S. , Zheng, S. , Pascolutti, R. , Ong, J.X. , Erlandson, S.C. , et al (2017) Platform for rapid nanobody discovery in vitro. bioRxiv ????: ????–????. [Google Scholar]
  23. Miller, M.B. , and Bassler, B.L. (2001) Quorum sensing in bacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol 55: 165–199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Muyldermans, S. (2013) Nanobodies: natural single‐domain antibodies. Annu Rev Biochem 82: 775–797. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Payandeh, Z. , Rasooli, I. , Mousavi Gargari, S.L. , Rajabi Bazl, M. , and Ebrahimizadeh, W. (2014) Immunoreaction of a recombinant nanobody from camelid single domain antibody fragment with Acinetobacter baumannii . Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 108: 92–98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Pinero‐Lambea, C. , Bodelon, G. , Fernandez‐Perianez, R. , Cuesta, A.M. , Alvarez‐Vallina, L. , and Fernandez, L.A. (2015) Programming controlled adhesion of E. coli to target surfaces, cells, and tumors with synthetic adhesins. ACS Syn Biol 4: 463–473. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Qu, W. , Xue, Y.X. , and Ding, Q. (2015) Display of fungi xylanase on Escherichia coli cell surface and use of the enzyme in xylan biodegradation. Curr Microbiol 70: 779–785. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Ricker, E.B. , and Nuxoll, E. (2017) Synergistic effects of heat and antibiotics on Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Biofouling 33: 855–866. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Ryssel, H. , Kloeters, O. , Germann, G. , Schafer, T. , Wiedemann, G. , and Oehlbauer, M. (2009) The antimicrobial effect of acetic acid‐an alternative to common local antiseptics? Burns: J Int Soc Burn Injuries 35: 695–700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Saeidi, N. , Wong, C.K. , Lo, T.M. , Nguyen, H.X. , Ling, H. , Leong, S.S. , et al (2011) Engineering microbes to sense and eradicate Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a human pathogen. Mol Syst Biol 7: 521. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Salema, V. , Marin, E. , Martinez‐Arteaga, R. , Ruano‐Gallego, D. , Fraile, S. , Margolles, Y. , et al (2013) Selection of single domain antibodies from immune libraries displayed on the surface of E. coli cells with two beta‐domains of opposite topologies. PLoS ONE 8: e75126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Salema, V. , Lopez‐Guajardo, A. , Gutierrez, C. , Mencia, M. and Fernandez, L.A. (2016a) Characterization of nanobodies binding human fibrinogen selected by E. coli display. J Biotechnol ???: ???–???. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Salema, V. , Manas, C. , Cerdan, L. , Pinero‐Lambea, C. , Marin, E. , Roovers, R.C. , et al (2016b) High affinity nanobodies against human epidermal growth factor receptor selected on cells by E. coli display. mAbs ???, ???–???. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Salvador, J.P. , Vilaplana, L. and Marco, M.P. (2019) Nanobody: outstanding features for diagnostic and therapeutic applications. Anal Bioanal Chem ???: ???–???. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Schuurmann, J. , Quehl, P. , Festel, G. , and Jose, J. (2014) Bacterial whole‐cell biocatalysts by surface display of enzymes: toward industrial application. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 98: 8031–8046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Singla, R. , Goel, H. , and Ganguli, A. (2014) Novel synergistic approach to exploit the bactericidal efficacy of commercial disinfectants on the biofilms of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. J Biosci Bioeng 118: 34–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Stiefel, P. , Mauerhofer, S. , Schneider, J. , Maniura‐Weber, K. , Rosenberg, U. , and Ren, Q. (2016) Enzymes enhance biofilm removal efficiency of cleaners. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60: 3647–3652. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Timmis, K. , Timmis, J.K. , Brussow, H. , and Fernandez, L.A. (2019) Synthetic consortia of nanobody‐coupled and formatted bacteria for prophylaxis and therapy interventions targeting microbiome dysbiosis‐associated diseases and co‐morbidities. Microb Biotechnol 12: 58–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Tkhilaishvili, T. , Lombardi, L. , Klatt, A.B. , Trampuz, A. , and Di Luca, M. (2018) Bacteriophage Sb‐1 enhances antibiotic activity against biofilm, degrades exopolysaccharide matrix and targets persisters of Staphylococcus aureus . Int J Antimicrob Agents 52: 842–853. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Wang, R. (2019) Biofilms and meat safety: a mini‐review. J Food Prot 82: 120–127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Wang, J. , Wen, K. , Liu, X. , Weng, C.X. , Wang, R. and Cai, Y. (2018) Multiple low frequency ultrasound enhances bactericidal activity of vancomycin against methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Biomed Res Int, ????, 602310. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Zhang, Y. , Dong, W. , Lv, Z. , Liu, J. , Zhang, W. , Zhou, J. , et al (2018) Surface display of bacterial laccase CotA on Escherichia coli cells and its application in industrial dye decolorization. Mol Biotechnol 60: 681–689. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Microbial Biotechnology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES