Skip to main content
PLOS Pathogens logoLink to PLOS Pathogens
. 2021 Feb 1;17(2):e1009262. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009262

Capture and visualization of live Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacilli from tuberculosis patient bioaerosols

Ryan Dinkele 1,2,#, Sophia Gessner 1,2,#, Andrea McKerry 3, Bryan Leonard 3, Ronnett Seldon 3, Anastasia S Koch 1,2, Carl Morrow 2,3, Melitta Gqada 3, Mireille Kamariza 4, Carolyn R Bertozzi 5,6, Brian Smith 7, Courtney McLoud 7, Andrew Kamholz 7, Wayne Bryden 8, Charles Call 8, Gilla Kaplan 9, Valerie Mizrahi 1,2,10, Robin Wood 2,3,*, Digby F Warner 1,2,10,*
Editor: Christopher M Sassetti11
PMCID: PMC7877778  PMID: 33524021

Abstract

Interrupting transmission is an attractive anti-tuberculosis (TB) strategy but it remains underexplored owing to our poor understanding of the events surrounding transfer of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) between hosts. Determining when live, infectious Mtb bacilli are released and by whom has proven especially challenging. Consequently, transmission chains are inferred only retrospectively, when new cases are diagnosed. This process, which relies on molecular analyses of Mtb isolates for epidemiological fingerprinting, is confounded by the prolonged infectious period of TB and the potential for transmission from transient exposures. We developed a Respiratory Aerosol Sampling Chamber (RASC) equipped with high-efficiency filtration and sampling technologies for liquid-capture of all particulate matter (including Mtb) released during respiration and non-induced cough. Combining the mycobacterial cell wall probe, DMN-trehalose, with fluorescence microscopy of RASC-captured bioaerosols, we detected and quantified putative live Mtb bacilli in bioaerosol samples arrayed in nanowell devices. The RASC enabled non-invasive capture and isolation of viable Mtb from bioaerosol within 24 hours of collection. A median 14 live Mtb bacilli (range 0–36) were isolated in single-cell format from 90% of confirmed TB patients following 60 minutes bioaerosol sampling. This represented a significant increase over previous estimates of transmission potential, implying that many more organisms might be released daily than commonly assumed. Moreover, variations in DMN-trehalose incorporation profiles suggested metabolic heterogeneity in aerosolized Mtb. Finally, preliminary analyses indicated the capacity for serial image capture and analysis of nanowell-arrayed bacilli for periods extending into weeks. These observations support the application of this technology to longstanding questions in TB transmission including the propensity for asymptomatic transmission, the impact of TB treatment on Mtb bioaerosol release, and the physiological state of aerosolized bacilli.

Author summary

Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb), the cause of tuberculosis (TB), must drive successive cycles of transmission and infection to retain a foothold in its obligate human host. Although critical for Mtb survival, the mechanisms enabling successful transmission have largely evaded research owing to the difficulties inherent in identifying when bacilli are released and by whom. With the available tools, fewer than one-third of new Mtb infections can be confidently linked to known TB cases, a deficiency reflecting the confounding effects of the prolonged infectious period of TB and the potential for transmission from transient exposures. Here, we describe the deployment of the Respiratory Aerosol Sampling Chamber (RASC), a personal clean room equipped for high-efficiency capture of bioaerosols, to isolate live Mtb bacilli released in infectious aerosols. Applying a fluorescent viability probe and microscopic imaging, we demonstrate the detection of live Mtb with single-cell resolution in complex bioaerosol samples from a high proportion of TB cases. Moreover, by exploiting compartmentalization of bacilli within a nanowell collection device, we establish the capacity for long-term maintenance of bacillary viability for serial imaging. Our observations support the utility of the RASC to better understand and ultimately interrupt Mtb transmission.

Introduction

Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb), the causative agent of tuberculosis (TB), is the leading infectious killer globally, claiming ~1.4 million lives annually [1]. TB control is heavily predicated on treatment of active disease. However, delayed and missed diagnoses, and the six-month duration of standard chemotherapy, contribute to failure of this approach to control the TB epidemic [2]. The increasing prevalence of drug-resistant TB, compounded by evidence of the transmission of multi-drug resistant (MDR) Mtb strains, further undermines this approach [3]. Together, these factors have focused attention on blocking Mtb transmission as a critical area for novel interventions [4]. In turn, this has highlighted significant gaps in our knowledge of Mtb transmission: fewer than 30% of new Mtb infections can be linked to a known TB case, suggesting the existence of unrecognized transmitters in TB endemic communities [5].

Reconstruction of transmission chains has traditionally required genetic fingerprinting of Mtb strains isolated from active TB cases and their diseased contacts. Despite advances in molecular epidemiology, this has proven enormously challenging even in low-incidence settings [6]. Consequently, the host and mycobacterial factors which ensure successful transmission remain obscure [7]. Since the interval between the time of infection and diagnosed disease varies, analyses are necessarily retrospective, making intervention impossible [8]. Moreover, targeting surveillance to active disease means that the potential contribution of asymptomatic transmitters is overlooked [9]. The question of whether asymptomatic individuals are able to transmit Mtb is especially relevant for TB control: to date, community-based exposure studies have focused predominantly on household contacts which account for fewer than 20% of infections in high TB-burden settings [10].

Direct study of aerosolized Mtb is equally complicated: issues such as timing of sampling, the small numbers of bacilli released in exhaled air and sputum, and the presence of environmental and patient-derived contaminating microorganisms and particulate matter impose profound technical and analytical challenges [11, 12]. Enumeration of viable aerosolized Mtb via microbiological culture is complicated by the semi-quantitative nature of “time to positivity” in liquid culture and the slow formation of colony forming units (CFU) on solid media (four to eight weeks for colonies to become visible) [13]. Additional complications arise from the presence in clinical Mtb samples of “differentially detectable” organisms [12]–which means that microbiological culture often underestimates the true size of the viable bacillary population, and the temporal–and, consequently, genetic [14] and physiological–separation of the (single) transmitted bacillus from the micro-population (~106 cells) contained in a visible Mtb colony on a plate. Decontamination, too, undermines assessments of bacillary load and physiological state. Where excessive, it depletes the number and viability of Mtb bacilli in the sample [15]; where inadequate, it risks overgrowth by contaminants, obscuring the signal.

Molecular methods have enabled detection of Mtb DNA in bioaerosols [16], however they do not distinguish live from dead organisms, and even protocols which target RNA [17] require extraction of intracellular nucleic acid, obviating the potential to investigate the physiological and metabolic state(s) of aerosolized bacilli. The method of bacillary capture is also important: approaches based on cough assume symptomatic spread, ignoring the possibility of Mtb transmission during normal respiratory activity and, therefore, potentially not capturing other natural transmission events [18], especially those from sub-clinical infections [19]. Face-mask and equivalent sampling methodologies either render live-cell analyses impossible or in vitro propagation (via microbiological culture) unavoidable [20]. In addition, many methods are unable to determine whether bacilli derive from small (buoyant) or large aerosol droplets. This is a critical flaw given the likelihood that size determines aerosol longevity and ability to access lung alveoli, key elements of infectiousness [21].

To address these challenges, we sought to develop a method for culture-independent detection, quantification, and visualization of live bacilli in bioaerosols captured using the Respiratory Aerosol Sampling Chamber (RASC), a small personal clean-room enabling capture of particulate material released by an individual patient during normal respiratory activity, including natural (non-induced) cough. In previous work, we demonstrated the potential for liquid capture of aerosolized Mtb in the RASC, eliminating the dependency on solid culture-based techniques for bacillary detection [11, 12]. This was a key innovation since it opened the possibility for detection, isolation, and manipulation of live bacilli for downstream phenotypic and genomic studies. Here, we advance this technology in a new cohort of recently diagnosed TB patients, incorporating methodologies for the specific labelling and enumeration of low numbers of live Mtb bacilli from aerosol samples in a format which enables detection via live-cell fluorescence microscopy of single bacilli arrayed in a nanowell device. Moreover, by assigning localization co-ordinates to individual fluorescent organisms in the nanowells, we demonstrate the capacity to extend microscopic analyses to live cells for prolonged durations under incubation.

Results

A custom-built nanowell device for microscopic analyses

The fluorescent trehalose analogue, 4-N, N-dimethylsamino-1,8-napthalimide-trehalose (DMN-trehalose), enables rapid labelling and microscopic detection of Mtb in sputum or liquid medium [22]. Since active membrane biosynthesis is necessary for DMN-trehalose incorporation, this probe possesses the advantage of labelling live, metabolically active organisms only. Moreover, the solvatochromic properties of the DMN fluorophore mean that the signal is enhanced following incorporation into the mycobacterial cell envelope, limiting background noise and thus circumventing the need for multiple wash steps–a critical consideration when aiming to detect all Mtb in a potentially paucibacillary (<100 bacilli/ml) bioaerosol sample. To enhance our capacity for isolation and DMN-trehalose-enabled microscopic detection of single Mtb cells from bioaerosol, we developed a custom-designed device comprising arrays of 50 x 50 μm nanowells (Fig 1A and 1B). Physical separation of samples across thousands of individual nanowell compartments was considered beneficial in ensuring that (i) any contaminating particulate matter would be distributed across the nanowells and (ii) all viable organic material would be isolated in discrete nanowell chambers, reducing the likelihood that faster-growing non-Mtb organisms (“contaminants” for TB diagnostic purposes, but natural components of aerosol microbiomes) might overwhelm the device following overnight labelling.

Fig 1. Design and fabrication of nanowell-arrayed microscope slides for the compartmentalization and visualization of TB bioaerosols.

Fig 1

(A) Photograph and (B) schematic of a nanowell-arrayed microscope slide. (C) 3D scan of a 207.840 x 277.029 μm section of the slide. Each device (25 mm x 75 mm) consists of two rows of eight round microwells machined from cast acrylic. The microwells are 6 mm in diameter and 2 mm deep. The nanowell film, which is bonded to the superstructure with UV-curing adhesive, is made from embossed COC film. The nanowells have side-wall angles of 35° and are 50 μm deep. The distance through the bottom of each well to the back of the film is ~170 μm, equivalent to a number 1.5 coverslip.

Towards an identikit of DMN-trehalose-positive Mtb bacilli

In developing a framework (or “identikit”) for the assignment of “putative Mtb bacillus” to individual fluorescent structures/ microparticles detected in the nanowell device, we processed exponentially growing and aged cultures of the laboratory strain, Mtb H37Rv, via the DMN-trehalose labelling protocol to assess the potential for morphological variation as a function of metabolic and replicative status. The median length of Mtb H37Rv bacilli (Fig 2A) did not change between exponential growth (2.83 μm, IQR = 0.85 μm) and early stationary phase (2.77 μm, IQR = 1.19 μm). In contrast, there was a small but statistically significant difference in average cell width (Fig 2B), with bacilli entering early stationary phase (0.60 μm, IQR = 0.07 μm) very slightly thinner than exponentially growing organisms (0.63, IQR = 0.04 μm). However, the average differences observed in mycobacterial cell width were unable to differentiate log from stationary phase bacilli owing to the largely overlapping distributions. This observation, plus the knowledge that bacillary length is commonly reported as a feature of morphological heterogeneity of clinical Mtb isolates [23], supported the adoption of width (~0.47 μm to ~0.86 μm) and DMN-trehalose positivity as primary markers for the identification of “putative Mtb” in bioaerosol samples.

Fig 2. Differentiation of growth states in Mtb using DMN-trehalose and cell morphology.

Fig 2

Comparisons between log (green) and stationary (blue) phase Mtb according to (A) cell length, (B) width, and (C) polarity index. (D) Average DMN-trehalose profile for log and stationary phase bacilli, with single-cell examples in both (E) log and (F) stationary phase. Polarity index for each cell was calculated as the median fluorescence intensity at region (1) divided by the median fluorescence intensity at region (2) in panel (D). Wilcoxon signed-rank test performed, p < 0.001 = ***, NS = not significant.

The metabolic state of aerosolized Mtb remains unknown. Therefore, we investigated the utility of cytological profiling via DMN-trehalose staining to differentiate bacilli broadly as either slow or fast growers based on their growth phase. Substantial differences in DMN-trehalose uptake and distribution along the cell length were observed between log and stationary phase bacilli (Fig 2C–2F). The polarity index, a simple metric of the relative brightness of the pole compared to the mid cell, was greater in log phase (1.21, IQR = 0.242) compared to stationary phase cells (0.948, IQR = 0.112) (Fig 2C). As such, cells identified as putative Mtb based on cell width and DMN-trehalose positivity could be characterized broadly into at least two categories based on DMN-trehalose staining.

DMN-trehalose is not specific for Mtb: all bacteria within the Actinomycetales which encode homologs of the mycobacterial antigen 85 complex possess the capacity to incorporate the fluorescent label. Among these, Corynebacteria are a common constituent of the oral microbiome and were previously identified in TB sputum samples [22]. Therefore, to expand our database of potential DMN-trehalose-positive (DMN-tre+) organisms, we included the opportunistic pathogen, Corynebacterium striatum [24], in the in vitro analyses. Following DMN-trehalose labelling, C. striatum was readily distinguishable from mycobacteria, yielding a distinct cytological profile characterized by an ovoid cell shape with near-uniform fluorescence signal throughout the cell membrane and septa (S1A Fig, panel i).

Microscopic identification and characterization of DMN-tre+ Mtb in TB bioaerosols

Thirty-one individuals with GeneXpert-positive, drug-susceptible TB were recruited into a pilot study (Table 1) for the capture and single-cell detection of live, Mtb bacilli in patient bioaerosols (Fig 3). Putative DMN-tre+ Mtb was identified based on cell width and DMN-trehalose positivity in 90% (28/31) of the TB patient bioaerosols (Table 1).

Table 1. Summary of samples investigated.

Total Positive (%) Median count
Sample type TB+ patient 31 28 (90.3) 14.0
Empty RASC 26 14 (53.8) 1.5
Total 57

† Median number of putative Mtb bacilli detected in the sample

Fig 3. Workflow from participant recruitment to image analysis.

Fig 3

(i) Recruitment of TB GeneXpert+ patients. (ii) One hour of bioaerosol production during tidal breathing and non-induced cough within the Respiratory Aerosol Sampling Chamber (RASC). (iii) Liquid capture of patient bioaerosol via Bertin Coriolis μ Biological Air Sampler. (iv) Bioaerosol concentration and staining with 100 μM DMN-trehalose during overnight (~16 hours) incubation at 37 oC. (v) Sample arraying within the nanowell device. (vi) Manual sample scanning and bacilli enumeration. (vii) Nanowell imaging (row 2 represents a zoomed in section from row 1). Columns represent 3 different patients. Bacilli not matching inclusion criteria are excluded from subsequent analysis. Scale bar, 5 μm.

The median count in the captured air from TB-positive patients was 14 (range 0–36) versus 1.5 (range 0–10) in the air analyzed from the empty RASC booths suggesting low-level carry over/contamination of the booth between tested individuals (Fig 4A). When comparing the basic morphological characteristics of aerosolized Mtb to those observed in log-phase, it was apparent that they were significantly shorter (Fig 4B) but with the same width on average (Fig 4C). However, a greater degree of width variation was observed in clinical samples (Fig 4C), suggesting that application of the selected width criteria (~0.47 μm to ~0.86 μm) to patient aerosols might be conservative.

Fig 4. Detection and characterization of putative Mtb within bioaerosols of confirmed TB patients.

Fig 4

(A) Plot comparing the number of putative Mtb detected within TB+ participants (red, n = 31) and empty RASC controls (orange, n = 27). Comparing distributions of (B) cell lengths and (C) cell widths in putative Mtb bacilli detected within bioaerosols of TB patients (red) to Mtb H37Rv cultured within the lab (green). Representative (D) images and (E) plots of the three distinct, exemplar cytological profiles from three patients in which putative Mtb were detected. (F) Average plots and idealised drawings indicating the different staining patterns of all bacilli detected in these three patients. (H) Polarity index and (I) length of the bacilli detected within these patients. (J) Representative images of clumps of putative Mtb detected within bioaerosol samples (TRDS182). Scale bar = 5 μm. Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test performed, p < 0.01 = **, < 0·001 = ***, p < 0,0001 = ****, NS = not significant.

Further investigation into the profiles of DMN-trehalose incorporation led to the observation of three distinct labelling patterns (Fig 4D–4F), namely: polar labelling (sample TRDS182, top row), diffuse labelling (sample TRDS174, middle row), and a patchy labelling pattern (sample 180801JM9, bottom row). Both polar and diffuse labelling have been previously observed in log and stationary phase bacilli, respectively (Fig 2D). Interestingly, this patchy labelling pattern wasn’t common in our in vitro experiments. Like the in vitro cultured organisms, no significant differences in cell length were observed for the different labeling patterns in the bioaerosol samples (Fig 4H). However, more prominent differences were seen in labelling pattern of DMN-trehalose (Fig 4I), highlighting the potential utility of the trehalose probe in indicating underlying metabolic states of aerosolized bacilli. Additional surprising results were the observation of clumps and small clusters of organisms; however, these were not common and were observed in only a fraction (2/31) of patients (Fig 4J).

Numerous organisms were detected with features closely matching those observed for laboratory-grown C. striatum (S1A Fig, panel ii). We also observed multiple DMN-tre+ organisms of possible bacterial and/ or fungal origin–despite the expectation that the ability to metabolize the fluorescent trehalose analogue should be limited to the Actinomycetales (S1B Fig). Utilizing the morphologic exclusion criteria developed above, all of these were eliminated from “putative Mtb” classification despite showing a DMN-tre+ phenotype (S1B Fig).

Serial imaging of captured, DMN-tre+ Mtb bacilli in the arrayed nanowells

A key motivation informing the development of the RASC platform was the need to capture live, aerosol-derived Mtb for analysis and propagation as part of a larger research program in TB transmission and Mtb aerobiology. This requires the capacity not only to isolate and detect individual bacilli, but also to maintain the viability of organisms in a format amenable to extended analysis and cultivation. To investigate the suitability of the nanowell array for this purpose, we prepared a small subset of bioaerosol samples for extended incubation in vitro. The samples were processed according to the standard DMN-trehalose staining protocol but, after the final wash step, were resuspended in fresh Middlebrook 7H9 culture medium before arraying on the nanowell slide and incubating at 37 oC without shaking. Following initial identification of putative DMN-tre+ Mtb bacilli (Day 0), images were captured every 24 h for the first week (excluding weekends) and again on Day 14 post isolation using the x-y coordinates of the specific nanowell to enable re-location of the same organisms for serial imaging (Fig 5).

Fig 5. Serial imaging of organisms captured directly from patient bioaerosol for up to two weeks.

Fig 5

Single bacilli identified from 4 separate patients were serially imaged daily for the first 7 days (except weekends) and weekly thereafter. Up to three bacilli were tracked per patient (bacilli number–represented by shape and dashed lines) in four patients (represented by colour) and identified as either “Putative Mtb” or “Other”. (A—C) Representative bacilli from two separate patients imaged on days 0, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 14. (A) and (B) represent putative Mtb, whereas (C) represents other organisms with a low probability of being Mtb based on the applied inclusion criteria. Summary of bacterial changes in (D) length and (E) mean fluorescence intensity minus the average background intensity. Scale bar = 5μm.

Over the two-week incubation period, no changes in length were observed for any of the cells, whether classified as “Putative Mtb” or “Other”. Similarly, the fluorescence intensities over background for individual cells displayed only minor increases for some of the “Other” organisms. It’s possible that the incubation time was too short to allow for adaptation of the bioaerosol-derived bacilli to the culture medium and/or solid substrate, with any alterations in metabolic or replicative state expected to manifest in altered bacillary morphology and/or DMN-trehalose profile; therefore, ongoing work includes exploring different culture media and extending the analysis from weeks to months. We were nevertheless encouraged by the ability to obtain serial images of the same organisms, supporting the utility of the nanowell array in enabling re-imaging of DMN-tre+ bacilli identified immediately post capture and assigned a unique “address” to allow for re-location.

Discussion

Fluorescence microscopy of bioaerosol samples enabled the detection of putative live Mtb in 90% of GeneXpert-confirmed TB patients. While absolute bacillary numbers in exhaled air samples were low (the maximum DMN-tre+ count was 36), it must be remembered that these samples were collected from only 60 minutes in the RASC and without requirement for a specific respiratory maneuver or induced cough. Consequently, simple extrapolation of the 14 bacilli median would suggest the release of around ~336 viable bacilli per day. This number is consistent with recent estimates based on face-mask sampling [7]. However, direct comparison is difficult owing to the use in that study of quantitative PCR targeting of the IS6110 locus (present in Mtb genomes in variable copy number) with an acknowledged detection limit of ~33 CFU from the gelatin filters. Of note, release of several hundred metabolically active bacilli (inferred from DMN-trehalose incorporation) implies significant infection potential; moreover, the observation here of putative Mtb “clumps” resonates with in vitro evidence demonstrating the enhanced capacity of Mtb aggregates to subvert macrophage antimicrobial defenses [25].

The physiological state of aerosolized organisms remains uncertain owing to the previous unavailability of tools to investigate this stage of the TB disease cycle. Although DMN-trehalose positivity alone implies metabolic activity (bacilli must be viable to incorporate the trehalose analog into the mycomembrane), it is not known if these organisms are replicatively active, nor if aerosolized bacilli contain defining alterations in cell envelope [26] or other macromolecular compositions and/or inclusions [27]. We determined the sensitivity of DMN-trehalose labelling to metabolic state as a function of log versus stationary phase growth, recording significant differences that could be used to distinguish these states. Similar profiles were observed in organisms from patient bioaerosols, however the implications of these observations remain uncertain and will require further research, potentially involving the incorporation of more than one spectrally compatible fluorescent probe [28]. The potential exists to extend this work beyond investigating metabolic state, focusing on drug resistance, for example. Previous work has shown differences in probe incorporation profiles in response to antibiotic treatment [29]. At a quantitative level, imaging organisms from diagnosed TB patients before and after treatment initiation, as well as serially over the course of standard chemotherapy, might therefore offer a more rapid indication of drug efficacy, in effect affording the sensitivity of broncho-alveolar lavage without the invasiveness of that procedure.

Considerable effort was made to minimize the acquisition of “contaminating” debris during RASC sampling–for example, by working in a clean-room and requiring that all patients wore disposable biohazard suits to reduce release of non-respiratory particles. This is because the cleanliness of samples is critical for microscopic visualization: auto-fluorescence is a major confounder in environmental samples and debris can obscure Mtb bacilli under microscopic investigation (S2 Fig). The nanowell device, too, was designed to maximize Mtb detection by increasing the likelihood of separating debris and bacilli through sample dispersal across thousands of nanowell chambers. It is possible that the composition and origin of the particulate matter will prove invaluable in future in determining the anatomical origin of aerosolized bacilli. In this work, though, raising the signal from putative Mtb above background noise was our priority. Our “empty booth” controls–in which sampling was performed in the empty RASC in the absence of an incumbent individual and was therefore expected to be Mtb free–returned 54% (14/26) positivity; however, the difference in median count compared to the TB-positive patients suggested that these organisms were carried over from the cyclone collection system or RASC (Fig 4A). Moreover, improvements to the collection system subsequent to this study have ensured complete sterilization, eliminating carryover as confounder.

Bioaerosols impose numerous additional complications which are not applicable to the current standard clinical TB specimens, such as sputum. For example, in processing our samples, we deliberately omitted a decontamination step (sample loss is too significant a factor when dealing with tens of organisms), risking the potential for proportionally larger numbers of non-Mtb DMN-trehalose-positive organisms to be present in the bioaerosol samples than in decontaminated sputum. The amplification of fluorescence consequent on incorporation into the mycomembrane suggests the possible use of DMN-trehalose in detecting Mtb within untreated and decontaminated sputum [22]. However, the fact that Ag85-dependent trehalose mycolylation is not unique to mycobacteria [22] complicates the use of this probe on its own to classify aerosol samples as “Mtb positive”. When the present work was initiated, there was a lack of ancillary Mycobacterium-specific probes which could be applied to increase the specificity of the microscopic detection while retaining sample viability (thus excluding standard approaches including auramine and acid-fast staining which involve inactivation steps). More recently, other mycobacterial probes have become available, including (i) the CDG-DNB3 dual fluorescence probe which is activated by the mycobacterial BlaC β-lactamase and retained in the cell wall following covalent modification by the decaprenylphosphoryl-β-D-ribose 2′-epimerase, DprE1 [30]; (ii) the TAMRA-labelled benzothiazinone analogue, JN108, which also targets the mycobacterial membrane protein, DprE1, and according to its developers, is able to differentiate Corynebacterium from Mycobacterium on the basis of fluorescence localization [31]; and (iii) the Quencher-Trehalose-Fluorophore (QTF) which, like DMN-trehalose is a fluorogenic analogue of the natural substrate of mycobacterial mycolyltransferases [32]. It is too soon to ascertain whether any of these will add value to the analysis; moreover, the overlapping auto-fluorescent signal in many samples urges the development of alternative probes in the red end of the visible spectrum. Current work aims to refine our framework for identification of Mtb based on automated detection of fluorophores, utilizing algorithms that capture metabolic and morphological characteristics.

Although we did not detect any clear alterations in morphology or DMN-trehalose incorporation profile, the incubation period was limited to two weeks which might be too short to allow for metabolic and/or replicative adaptation in the captured organisms; ongoing work is extending the duration of incubation, and will also explore the use of other compartmentalized capture devices as alternatives to the COC-embossed nanowell format. At the very least, these results support the ability to capture and maintain single Mtb cells in an arrayed format for serial imaging, and hint at the potential to exploit the physical separation of cells into nanowell compartments for clonal propagation of bacilli downstream for genomic and other analyses which require biomass [33].

As for any study describing the development of technologies to investigate a previously occult stage of the infectious disease cycle, the approach detailed here inevitably carries inherent limitations which must be considered when interpreting the data: (i) We have not presented orthogonal data confirming the identity of the “putative Mtb” identified microscopically. The presumptive evidence, however, is strong: the bioaerosol samples were obtained from GeneXpert-positive TB patients immediately after diagnosis and before treatment initiation, and our previous work has demonstrated the isolation in the RASC platform of PCR-confirmed Mtb colony forming units in bioaerosol samples [11, 12]. Moreover, ongoing work in which two samples collected from the same individual are analysed via DMN-trehalose probing and either auramine staining or RD9 PCR detection have confirmed 100% positivity correlation. (ii) The bacillary counts and morphological phenotypes presented here are not augmented with clinical metadata (chest radiography scores, HIV status, etc.). Our intention in this study was to establish the technological platform for bioaerosol sample capture and analysis–as described in our recently published protocol [34], current and planned work involves the application of the RASC to carefully designed clinical cohorts. (iii) The criteria used to classify DMN-tre+ organisms as “putative Mtb” are potentially restrictive, especially given that prevailing assumptions about the size and shape of clinical Mtb isolates are heavily influenced by the commonly applied staining methods (almost never supported by confirmatory molecular or microbiological data) as well as knowledge of Mtb morphology from growth in vitro in defined culture, in some cases in intracellular infection models or under applied stress conditions. There is a strong likelihood that we are failing to detect Mtb which do not conform to these criteria and, moreover, our use of fluorescence positivity necessarily excludes organism which might be transiently inactive or quiescent [35]. We are exploring the incorporation of automated image detection software to facilitate machine-driven detection of “interesting” structures following capture of microscopy images for all particulate matter (organic and inorganic) arrayed on the nanowell slides. This development is proposed to address a further limitation of our approach, namely that our method relies on detecting then imaging cells (including microscope focusing) based on DMN-trehalose fluorescence. The noise in some samples means finding an optimal focus can be a challenge, which may artifactually increase or decrease the width (and to some degree the length) of the bacilli we measure.

Our priority now is the deployment of the RASC to identify viable Mtb in aerosol collected from potentially infectious subclinical cases [19]. The capacity for non-invasive capture and isolation of viable Mtb from bioaerosol within 24 hours of collection also supports the potential utility of the RASC to measure the impact of TB treatment on the viability of Mtb bioaerosol release. Finally, while this technology enables the detection of viable bacilli, like all aerosol capture methods it does not provide a measure of infectiousness. Ascertaining which Mtb isolates go on to infect new individuals and cause TB disease will require innovative approaches toward “closing the loop”; that is, demonstrating productive infection of a new host following release. Historically, this has been achieved primarily by demonstrating infection of animals [36] (thus satisfying a key criterion of Koch’s Postulates); the application of genomic epidemiology in combination with RASC-enabled bacillary capture, perhaps in closed community (or even household) settings, offers a modern alternative. For now, the planned modifications to our platform are primarily informed by the need to enable multi-omic analyses of the single-cell organisms isolated from patient aerosols to generate insights that can be pursued in the human host, the natural target of Mtb.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

Ethics approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee, University of Cape Town (HREC 529/2019). Patients were recruited from primary healthcare facilities in Masiphumelele and Ocean View, peri-urban townships located outside Cape Town, South Africa. Informed consent was obtained from all participants and criteria for inclusion were (i) 18 years or older, (ii) GeneXpert-positive TB, and (iii) no evidence of drug resistant TB. All participants were recruited prior to initiation of standard anti-TB chemotherapy; following routine diagnosis, participants were transferred for RASC sampling, ethical approval having sanctioned a 2-hour delay to initiation of standard TB chemotherapy to enable bioaerosol collection.

Sample collection

Bioaerosol collection was done as previously described [12] with the sampling method improved by using a Coriolis μ Biological Air Sampler (Bertin Technologies SAS, France) possessing the capacity to capture up to 500 L of expired air. This enabled the concentration of <500 L of expired air per subject per hour into ~5–10 mL sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), thus ensuring high sampling volumes while producing a tractable, low-volume liquid output for downstream manipulation and analysis.

Bacterial culture conditions and DMN-trehalose staining

The laboratory strain, Mtb H37RvMA [37], was grown at 37°C in Middlebrook 7H9 (Difco) liquid broth supplemented with 0.2% (v/v) glycerol, 10% (v/v) Middlebrook OADC enrichment and 0.05% (w/v) Tween80 (Sigma-Aldrich). Corynebacterium striatum was cultured in LB broth (Sigma-Aldrich) at 37°C.

The solvatochromic probe, 4-N,N-dimethylamino-1,8-napthalimide-trehalose (DMN-trehalose) [22], was used for all staining. Enzymatic incorporation of DMN-trehalose into the hydrophobic mycomembrane by the mycobacterial Antigen-85 complex enhances DMN fluorescence one thousand-fold, limiting background noise attributable to unincorporated probe and circumventing the need for multiple washes. For staining of exponentially replicating and stationary-phase bacilli, Mtb H37Rv cultures were grown to an OD600 ~0.5 and ~1.2, respectively, before staining with 100 μM DMN-trehalose for 2 h. Thereafter, cells were harvested by centrifugation at 13000 × g for 5 min before resuspending in PBS prior to visualization.

Staining of bioaerosol samples

The 5–10 mL bioaerosol samples were concentrated by centrifugation at 3000 × g for 10 min (Allegra X-15R, Beckman Coulter). The pellet was resuspended in 200 μl fresh Middlebrook 7H9 medium and stained overnight (12–16 h), following which the stained sample was concentrated at 13000 × g for 5 min and resuspended in 20 μl sterile filtered PBS.

Nanowell arraying

Stained bioaerosol samples were arrayed in a custom-designed nanowell device (Edge Embossing), the superstructure of which consisted of two rows of eight wells (16 total) overlaid on an embossed cyclic olefin copolymer (COC) film (Fig 1A and 1B). The COC film contained the 50 x 50 μm nanowells which were arrayed ~140 μm apart center-to-center (Fig 1C). Each microwell therefore comprised approximately 1600 nanowells. Prior to inoculation, the device was plasma coated (Novascan) to counteract hydrophobicity. Following DMN-trehalose staining, the concentrated aerosol sample was added to a single microwell. Samples were loaded and plates sealed using an adhesive film (ThermoFischer Scientific) before centrifuging at 3000 × g for 10 min to disperse the sample for imaging.

Serial imaging of putative Mtb in bioaerosols

As described above, the 5–10 mL bioaerosol samples were concentrated by centrifugation at 3000 × g for 10 min (Allegra X-15R, Beckman Coulter). The pellet was resuspended in 200 μl fresh Middlebrook 7H9 medium and stained overnight (12–16 h), following which the stained sample was concentrated at 13000 × g for 5 min and resuspended in 20 μl fresh Middlebrook 7H9 medium and incubated at 37 oC without shaking. Images were captured as described in fluorescent microscopy every 24 h for the first week (excluding weekends) and again on day 14 post isolation, with incubation at 37 oC throughout.

Fluorescence microscopy

Imaging was done on a Zeiss Axio Observer 7 equipped with a 100× plan-apochromatic phase 3 oil immersion objective with a numerical aperture of 1·4. Epifluorescent illumination was provided by a 475 nm LED and non-specific fluorescence was removed with a Zeiss 38 HE filter set. Images were acquired using the Zeiss Zen software, and quantitative data extracted using MicrobeJ [38]. For serial imaging of bioaerosol samples, re-identification of putative bacilli detected at Day 0 was done by determining the x-y coordinates of the specific nanowell relative to the top-most, center nanowell in the macro well.

Statistical analysis

Data were exported from MicrobeJ and analyses performed using R, version 3.5.1. Data normality was assessed visually and, where applicable, a Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test was performed.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Exclusion of non-mycobacterial, DMN-tre+ organisms detected in bioaerosol samples based on cell morphology and staining profile.

(A) Representative images of (i) C. striatum cultured in LB broth during log-phase and stained with 100 uM DMN-trehalose for 5 min, and (ii) DMN-tre+ organisms detected within a bioaerosol sample. (B) A panel of non-Mtb, DMN-tre+ organisms, as determined by our inclusion criteria, identified in various bioaerosol samples. Scale bar, 5 μm.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Debris commonly found within TB bioaerosols.

Representative images of the three major categories of debris found within bioaerosol samples after overnight staining with 100 μM DMN-trehalose and visualization within a 50 x 50 μm nanowell. (A) Large, crystalline debris, (B) small fluorescent debris, and (C) granular debris.

(TIF)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The authors acknowledge the financial support of the South African Medical Research Council (www.samrc.ac.za) with funds from National Treasury under its Economic Competitiveness and Support Package (MRC-RFA-UFSP-01-2013/CCAMP, R.W.), for Extramural Unit funding (to V.M.), and via the Strategic Health Innovations Partnerships Unit (www.samrc.ac.za/innovation/strategic-health-innovation-partnerships) (to D.F.W and V.M). We are grateful for funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (www.gatesfoundation.org; OPP1116641, R.W.), the Research Council of Norway (www.forskningsradet.no; R&D Project 261669 “Reversing antimicrobial resistance”, D.F.W.), the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (www.nichd.nih.gov; U01HD085531, D.F.W.), and the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (www.niaid.nih.gov; R01AI147347, R.W.). We also acknowledge the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (www.hhmi.org) for a Senior International Research Scholars grant (V.M.), Stanford University’s Diversifying Academia, Recruiting Excellence Fellowship (www.stanford.edu), and the NIH Predoctoral Fellowship F31AI129359 (M.K), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP115061) and NIH (AI051622) grants (to C.R.B.), and the Carnegie Corporation of New York (www.carnegie.org) via sub-award from the University of Cape Town (www.uct.ac.za) (to A.K). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. Global Tuberculosis Report. 2019.
  • 2.Kaplan G. Tuberculosis control in crisis-causes and solutions. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2019; published online Oct 15. 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2019.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sharma A, Hill A, Kurbatova E, van der Walt M, Kvasnovsky C, Tupasi T et al. Estimating the future burden of multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis in India, the Philippines, Russia, and South Africa: a mathematical modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017; 17:707–715. 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30247-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Koch A, Cox H. Preventing drug-resistant tuberculosis transmission. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019; published online Nov 26. 10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30613-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Glynn JR, Guerra-Assunção JA, Houben RMGJ, Sichali L, Mzembe T, Mwaungulu LK, et al. Whole genome sequencing shows a low proportion of tuberculosis disease is attributable to known close contacts in rural Malawi. PLoS One. 2015; 10: 1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Stucki D, Ballif M, Egger M, Furrer H, Altpeter E, Battegay M, et al. Standard genotyping overestimates transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis among immigrants in a low-incidence country. J Clin Microbiol. 2016; 54: 1862–1870. 10.1128/JCM.00126-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Williams CM, Abdulwhhab M, Birring SS, De Kock E, Garton NJ, Townsend E, et al. Exhaled Mycobacterium tuberculosis output and detection of subclinical disease by face-mask sampling: prospective observational studies. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020; 3099: 1–11. 10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30707-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Behr MA, Edelstein PH, Ramakrishnan L. Revisiting the timetable of tuberculosis. BMJ. 2018; 362: 1–10. 10.1136/bmj.k2738 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Xu Y, Cancino-Muñoz I, Torres-Puente M, Villamayor LM, Borras R, Borras-Mañez M, et al. High-resolution mapping of tuberculosis transmission: Whole genome sequencing and phylogenetic modelling of a cohort from Valencia Region, Spain. PLoS Med. 2019; 16: e1002961 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002961 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Martinez L, Shen Y, Mupere E, Kizza A, Hill PC, Whalen CC. Transmission of Mycobacterium Tuberculosis in Households and the Community: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2017; 185: 1327–1339. 10.1093/aje/kwx025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wood R, Morrow C, Barry CE, Bryden WA, Call CJ, Hickey AJ, et al. Real-time investigation of tuberculosis transmission: Developing the respiratory aerosol sampling chamber (RASC). PLoS One. 2016; 11: 1–16. 10.1371/journal.pone.0146658 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Patterson B, Morrow C, Singh V, Moosa A, Gqada M, Woodward J, et al. Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacilli in bio-aerosols from untreated TB patients. Gates Open Res. 2018; 1: 11 10.12688/gatesopenres.12758.2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bowness R, Boeree MJ, Aarnoutse R, Dawson R, Diacon A, Mangu C, et al. The relationship between Mycobacterium tuberculosis MGIT time to positivity and CFU in sputum samples demonstrates changing bacterial phenotypes potentially reflecting the impact of chemotherapy on critical sub-populations. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015; 70: 448–455. 10.1093/jac/dku415 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Nimmo C, Shaw LP, Doyle R, Williams R, Brien K, Burgess C, et al. Whole genome sequencing Mycobacterium tuberculosis directly from sputum identifies more genetic diversity than sequencing from culture. BMC Genomics. 2019; 20: 1–9. 10.1186/s12864-018-5379-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kennedy JA, Baron VO, Hammond RJH, Sloan DJ, Gillespie SH. Centrifugation and decontamination procedures selectively impair recovery of important populations in Mycobacterium smegmatis. Tuberculosis 2018; 112: 79–82. 10.1016/j.tube.2018.07.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Matuka O, Singh TS, Bryce E, Yassi A, Kgasha O, Zungu M, et al. Pilot study to detect airborne Mycobacterium tuberculosis exposure in a South African public healthcare facility outpatient clinic. J Hosp Infect. 2015; 89: 192–196. 10.1016/j.jhin.2014.11.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sabiiti W, Azam K, Farmer CE, Kuchaka D, Mtafya B, Bowness R, et al. Tuberculosis bacillary load, an early marker of disease severity: the utility of tuberculosis Molecular Bacterial Load Assay. Thorax. 2020; 0: 1–3. 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2019-214238 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Patterson B, Wood R. Is cough really necessary for TB transmission? Tuberculosis. 2019; 117:31–35. 10.1016/j.tube.2019.05.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kendall E, Shrestha S, Dowdy DW. The epidemiological importance of subclinical tuberculosis: A critical re-appraisal. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;1–27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Williams CML, Cheah ESG, Malkin J, Patel H, Out J, Mlaga K, et al. Face mask sampling for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in expelled aerosols. PLoS One. 2014; 9: 1–7. 10.1371/journal.pone.0104921 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Fennelly KP, Jones-lópez EC. Quantity and quality of inhaled dose predicts immunopathology in tuberculosis. Front Immunol. 2015; 6: 1–13. 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kamariza M, Shieh P, Ealand CS, Peters JS, Chu B, Rodriguez-Rivera FP, et al. Rapid detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in sputum with a solvatochromic trehalose probe. Sci Transl Med. 2018; 10: eaam6310 10.1126/scitranslmed.aam6310 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Eum SY, Kong JH, Hong MS, Lee YJ, Kim JH, Hwang SH, et al. Neutrophils are the predominant infected phagocytic cells in the airways of patients with active pulmonary TB. Chest. 2010; 137: 122–128. 10.1378/chest.09-0903 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Alibi S, Ferjani A, Boukadida J, Cano ME, Fernández- Martínez M, Martínez-Martínez L, Navas J. Occurrence of Corynebacterium striatum as an emerging antibiotic-resistant nosocomial pathogen in a Tunisian hospital. Sci Rep. 2017; 7: 1–8. 10.1038/s41598-016-0028-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mahamed D, Boulle M, Ganga Y, Mc Arthur C, Skroch S, Oom L, et al. Intracellular growth of Mycobacterium tuberculosis after macrophage cell death leads to serial killing of host cells. eLife. 2017; 6: 1–27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Michaud JM, Thompson LR, Kaul D, Espinoza JL, Richter RA, Xu ZZ, et al. Taxon-specific aerosolization of bacteria and viruses in an experimental ocean-atmosphere mesocosm. Nat Commun. 2018; 9: 1–10. 10.1038/s41467-017-02088-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Garton NJ, Barer MR. Mycobacterial lipid bodies and the chemosensitivity and transmission of tuberculosis In: Goldfine H, editor. Health Consequences of Microbial Interactions with Hydrocarbons, Oils, and Lipids. Springer International Publishing; 2020. p. 109–132. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Rodriguez-Rivera FP, Zhou X, Theriot JA, Bertozzi CR. Visualization of mycobacterial membrane dynamics in live cells. J Am Chem Soc. 2017; 139: 3488–3495. 10.1021/jacs.6b12541 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Rodriguez-Rivera FP, Zhou X, Theriot JA, Bertozzi CR. Acute modulation of mycobacterial cell envelope biogenesis by front-line tuberculosis drugs. Angew Chemie—Int Ed. 2018; 57: 5267–5272. 10.1002/anie.201712020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Cheng Y, Xie J, Lee KH, Gaur R, Song A, Dai T, et al. Rapid and specific labeling of single live Mycobacterium tuberculosis with a dual-targeting fluorogenic probe. Sci Transl Med. 2018; 10: 1–13 10.1126/scitranslmed.aar4470 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sommer R, Neres J, Piton J, Dhar N, Van Der Sar A, Mukherjee R, et al. Fluorescent benzothiazinone analogues efficiently and selectively label Dpre1 in Mycobacteria and Actinobacteria. ACS Chem Biol. 2018; 13: 3184–3192. 10.1021/acschembio.8b00790 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hodges HL, Brown RA, Crooks JA, Weibel DB, Kiessling LL. Imaging mycobacterial growth and division with a fluorogenic probe. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018; 115: 5271–5276. 10.1073/pnas.1720996115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Goig GA, Cancino-Muñoz I, Torres-Puente M, Villamayor LM, Navarro D, Borrás R, et al. Whole-genome sequencing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis directly from clinical samples for high-resolution genomic epidemiology and drug resistance surveillance: an observational study. The Lancet Microbe. 2020; 1: e175–183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Patterson B, Koch A, Gessner S, Dinkele R, Gqada M, Bryden W, et al. Bioaerosol sampling of patients with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis: a study protocol. BMC Infect Dis. 2020; 20: 1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Chengalroyen MD, Beukes GM, Gordhan BG, Streicher EM, Churchyard G, Hafner R, et al. Detection and quantification of differentially culturable tubercle bacteria in sputum from patients with tuberculosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016; 194:1532–1540. 10.1164/rccm.201604-0769OC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Donald PR, Diacon AH, Lange C, Demers A-M, von Groote-Biddlingmeier F, Nardell E. Droplets, dust and guinea pigs: an historical review of tuberculosis transmission research, 1878–1940. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2018; 22: 972–982. 10.5588/ijtld.18.0173 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ioerger TR, Feng Y, Ganesula K, Chen X, Dobos KM, Fortune S, et al. Variation among genome sequences of H37Rv strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from multiple laboratories. J Bacteriol. 2010; 192: 3645–3653. 10.1128/JB.00166-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Ducret A, Quardokus E, Brun Y. MicrobeJ, a tool for high throughput bacterial cell detection and quantitative analysis. Nat Microbiol. 2016; 1: 1–14. 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.77 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Sabine Ehrt, Christopher M Sassetti

19 Aug 2020

Dear Prof. Warner,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Capture and visualization of live Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacilli from tuberculosis bioaerosols" for consideration at PLOS Pathogens. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

All reviewers agreed on the importance of this topic and expressed enthusiasm for the approach.  However, there was also general agreement that the manuscript could be improved.  In particular, the clinical characterization of the study population should be enhanced, and several claims either need to be tempered or supported with additional data.  

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Christopher M. Sassetti

Associate Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Sabine Ehrt

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: This paper presents very novel and potentially exciting methods and data, but unfortunately it has many weaknesses that the authors do not acknowledge. I strongly recommend the includsion of a 'limitations' section of paragraph towards the end. My major concern is the lack of any culture data on the patients samples, in spite of the title suggesting that there is capture of 'live M. tuberculosis.' Ideally it would have seemed reasonable to compare the bioaerosol collected to that collected by an Andersen cascade impactor, as used in other studies. But at minimum the collection from the Coriolis sampler could have been cultured. Why was this not done? The use of DMN trehalose has only been done on sputum samples and not previously on aerosols, which may contain bacilli that are more stressed and may not have the same responses as those in sputum.

In a similar vein, even though the RASC helps reduce mold contamination from the outside environment, cough aerosols have contained other organisms. In the original cough aerosol paper (Fennelly et al, 2004), nontuberculous mycobacteria, diptheroids, Cladosporium and other Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens were isolated from the patients. How can you confirm that the DMN trehalose stain is so specific that it is not staining some of the patients' other respiratory flora?

The study population is poorly characterized. Patients who are Xpert-positive are likely, but not always culture positive. Given the traditional use of AFB smears and cultures, these simple tests would have helped characterize the population better for readers. It is also usually customart to include some description of imaging, at least whether or not there was cavitary disease.

In line 202, reference 17 is not the best source for the statement, as that paper does not include anything about infectiousness or transmission. That statement can also be challenged, as one study found that cough aerosol cultures of Mtb were the best predictors of infectiousness and transmission of new infections to household contacts (Jones-Lopez et al, 2013). In addition, ref #17 is not the best choice in line 103, as the method used was originally published by Honeybone in the J Clin Microbiol in 2011.

Reviewer #2: The paper by Dinkele and colleagues details new methods for the detection of viable Mycobacterium tuberculosis in bioaerosols. The controlled nature of the air sampling procedure, coupled with a novel use of a fluorogenic substrate as a vital stain, makes this study extremely valuable to the field. The major finding, that the release of viable organisms, is significantly greater than were estimated by previous sampling methods, is important to the field. Moreover, this protocol has several potential applications linked to therapeutic interventions as a much more informative and sensitive “time to sputum negativity” type assay.

Reviewer #3: Dinkele, Gessler et al. report the development of a novel device (a nanowell arrayed microscope slide) which, when combined with staining by a solvatochromic dye (DMN-trehalose) allows quantitative visualization of exhaled Mtb from patient bioaerosols. The respiratory aerosol sampling chamber (RASC) has been previously described (PLoS One 2016) and the sensitive capture of Mtb (as identified by culture and/or PCR) from patient bioaerosols was reported in 2018 (Gates Open Research). The current publication introduces the nanowell capture device paired with the application of the DMN-trehalose dye and shares the morphologic and staining characteristics of the captured organisms. While the reviewer is in principle strongly supportive of aerobiology research which s(he) views as pioneering work on the frontiers of modern microbiology, the data included in the manuscript are descriptive, without definitive link to mechanism or novel insight into pathogenesis. Inclusion of downstream analysis (whole genome sequencing, proteomics, metabolomics, other), from even only a few patient aerosol samples would suffice to increase interest in publication to inform and inspire the broader microbiology community.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #1: My comments above might be interpreted to say that culture from the Coriolis should absolutely be done prior to acceptance. I suspect that may be impossible at this point. There is enough exciting potential in these methods that i would hate to see this not published at all. But the authors clearly need to describe the limitations in the paper and to explain some of the reasons for not doing some of what I suggested.

The sentence from line 105 to 108 is very confusing and needs re-writing for clarity. Although cough obviously assumes symptomatic spread, cough has been shown to be associated with 'natural transmission' by both R. Loudon and R. Turner.

In addition to addressing the limitations mentioned above, in your concluding paragraph of the discussion, it would be helpful to address how you plan to link these findings to transmission, e.g. in a household contact study?

Reviewer #2: The paper is written in a clear and well-balanced manner, the data are described with care and rigor, and the short-comings and caveats with respect to specificity and heterogeneity are discussed fully. One could ask for more data to be included but I feel this would not alter the basic findings or the immediate utility of this method. I believe it more important that these findings should be published quickly.

Reviewer #3: lines 34-35, although it is correct that ‘the contribution of asymptomatic transmitters to the TB pandemic is overlooked’ this is not addressed by the data presented in the manuscript and should be removed from the abstract. It however represents a valid and important area of future research that is appropriately included in the discussion.

Lines 43-44 ‘variations in DMN-trehalose incorporation suggested metabolic heterogeneity in aerosolized Mtb’ the heterogeneity depicted in Figure 4 is difficult for the reviewer to perceive. Can more distinct images be included? Can the heterogeneity be quantified via imaging software and statistics applied to confirm the presence of three distinct phenotypes? In addition, authors attribute heterogeneity in DMN-trehalose staining to metabolic state; inclusion of DCTB staining or staining of organisms undergoing in vitro antimycobacterial drug exposure for direct comparison would more strongly support this claim (Kamarizza Sci Trans Med 2018, Figure 7)

Lines 44-46 ‘intrapatient comparisons indicated that Mtb bioaerosols were probably derived from a compartment other than sputum’. This is conjecture and not well-supported by the data which show only a minor length difference between bioaerosol-derived and sputum-derived organisms. This difference could be due to sampling method as Coriolis subjects bioaerosols to manipulation that differs from standard sputum sampling. This claim requires additional data to support (whole genome sequencing, metabolomics, proteomics) or, further clarification of the basis upon which the claim is made.

Line 164, the major finding of the manuscript is that staining with DMN-Tre (89% positive) closely approximates the previously published culture/PCR positivity rates in exhaled bioaerosols from TB patients (93%, Gates Open Research 2018) while still enabling down-stream analysis. Some evidence of that downstream analysis (whole genome sequencing, metabolomics, proteomics or other) should be included in the manuscript as the reported findings otherwise represent an important but incremental advance beyond the prior publications describing the RASC (Plos One 2016) and the capture of viable Mtb from patient bioaerosols (Gates Open Research 2018) which in and of itself is not of broad interest to the wider microbiology community.

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: Line 67, the ref #1 should be placed at the end of that sentence.

Line 108: there is no period at the end of the sentence.

Line 134: 'bespoke' is a rather obscure word. Why not say something more direct, e.g. 'custom'?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Might alter the title to “Capture and visualization of live Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacilli from patient bioaerosols”

Lines 51-53 ‘ongoing transmission…is the primary driver of incident disease’. Important to provide citation here as this may well be true in high transmission settings in Sub-Saharan Africa but is controversial in other geographies, for example China, where some models support reactivation as the driver of the epidemic.

Lines 53-57 include citation here as well. this paragraph reads very similarly to Andrews ERJ 2019 which shares co-authors with this manuscript. This may well be due to the nature of introductions about TB transmission but authors should take care not to repeat themselves too closely.

Line 65 interventions “to better understand and ultimately interrupt Mtb transmission”?

Line 146 please address the differences in width in the discussion section (what is the likely source and significance of this, if any)?

Figure 2C has both columns i and ii as well as two rows; the columns are labelled but the rows are not; how does the top row complement or differ from the bottom row?

Figure 2D is not described in the text; which non-Mtb, DMN-tre+ organisms are in which row and column? This should be clarified in the legend.

Line 162 please confirm that the 28 patients reported here are not a subset of the 35 patients previously presented in the 2018 Gates Open Research publication

Figure 3 image ii (patient) makes more sense first followed by image i (RASC).

Are there any differences in any parameter based on strain lineage?

Table 1, what is meant by NA in the table? Please add a footnote clarifying this.

HIV+/HIV- seem not to differ in Mtb counts; this is unexpected (Kwan and Ernst Clin Micro Rev 2011) and should be addressed in the discussion

Lines 168-173 as noted above (abstract) the three patterns are indistinguishable to the reviewer. Please provide higher resolution images and quantitative analysis; also please include an image of PBS-starved organisms for direct comparisons (currently the reader has to ‘take your word for it’).

Line 175 please include more detail in the discussion about the potential significance of patient-derived organisms being shorter than organisms in log phase growth

Lines 179-182 please include data demonstrating non-Mtb DMN-Tre+ organisms in a supplemental figure

Line 186 because no physical or biochemical analysis of particulate matter was performed, Figure 5 should be relegated to a supplemental figure and the text shortened accordingly; if, in contrast such analysis exists it could be included in the main text (identification of host-associated molecules, mucus or metabolites for example)

Lines 210-215 why are only 3 of the 4 patients shown? Very difficult to observe polar staining differences and therefore would benefit from inclusion of a summary figure as is included for length. Also the potential mechanisms underlying differences in growth/polar staining between cultured organisms and patient bioaerosol should be more clearly elucidated in the discussion.

Line 231 results section suggests that some of the particles arise from Tyvek suits; because analysis of non-microbial constituents is not reported it is not possible to determine whether these particles arose from patient breath or other non-respiratory compartment that is of little relevance to TB pathogenesis

Lines 240-246 do not make sense to the reviewer. How can length be directly linked to cavity surface as the source of the organism? This conclusion seems to require substantially more evidence than is included in the manuscript.

Lines 293-296 “closing the loop” is unclear. Could bioaerosols be used to infect guinea pigs as a measure of infectiousness? Reference could be made to aerobiology studies from the 1890s (comprehensively reviewed by Peter Donald in an NIH webinar http://www.stoptb.org/assets/documents/news/TCRB%20Presents.pdf and manuscript published in IJTLD 2018). The last sentence could reference multiomic approaches to be applied to viable organisms isolated on a single cell basis directly from patient aerosols (proteomics, metabolomics, whole genome sequencing) which represent the frontier of modern microbiology.

References

Line 369, too many spaces between commas

Line 419, immunopathology in ?

Line 380, Articles?

Figure 3, vii the include/exclude distinction in the figure is uninterpretable, please include clearer examples and clarify rationale in the text (if software based, how was the software trained?)

Figure 4, what proportion of patients exhaled clumps? Was there a correlation with any clinical parameter? What proportion of total organism burden per patient with clumps was exhaled in clumps versus single organisms? What is the likely source and significance of this? What are the implications for measurement of drug response? Figure 4d what is the significance of cultured organisms being longer than aerosol? Why do you think this is the case?

**********

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: Yes: Kevin P Fennelly

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure 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. 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 us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here on PLOS Biology: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see http://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

Attachment

Submitted filename: Warner PlosP 2020.doc

Decision Letter 1

Sabine Ehrt, Christopher M Sassetti

28 Dec 2020

Dear Prof. Warner,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Capture and visualization of live Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacilli from tuberculosis patient bioaerosols' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Christopher M. Sassetti

Associate Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Sabine Ehrt

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: The revised manuscript is markedly improved over the original.

Reviewer #4: The reviewer appreciates the authors' thoughtful response to review as evidenced in the revised manuscript, figures and cover letter. In particular, updated Figures 2 and 4 as well as the addition of Figure 5 demonstrate the potential of the RASC+nanowell system to make novel measurements that may lead to breakthrough insights in microbiology.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #1: None.

Reviewer #4: All issues adequately addressed in the response to review.

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: No further suggestions.

Reviewer #4: These have been addressed by the authors.

**********

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: Yes: Kevin P. Fennelly

Reviewer #4: No

Acceptance letter

Sabine Ehrt, Christopher M Sassetti

26 Jan 2021

Dear Prof. Warner,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Capture and visualization of live Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacilli from tuberculosis patient bioaerosols," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the pre-publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Pearls, Reviews, Opinions, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript, if you opted to have an early version of your article, will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Exclusion of non-mycobacterial, DMN-tre+ organisms detected in bioaerosol samples based on cell morphology and staining profile.

    (A) Representative images of (i) C. striatum cultured in LB broth during log-phase and stained with 100 uM DMN-trehalose for 5 min, and (ii) DMN-tre+ organisms detected within a bioaerosol sample. (B) A panel of non-Mtb, DMN-tre+ organisms, as determined by our inclusion criteria, identified in various bioaerosol samples. Scale bar, 5 μm.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Debris commonly found within TB bioaerosols.

    Representative images of the three major categories of debris found within bioaerosol samples after overnight staining with 100 μM DMN-trehalose and visualization within a 50 x 50 μm nanowell. (A) Large, crystalline debris, (B) small fluorescent debris, and (C) granular debris.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Warner PlosP 2020.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: DINKELE GESSNER et al_RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS Pathogens are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES