Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Sep 2;16(9):e0251951. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251951

Exploring the cytotoxic mechanisms of Pediocin PA-1 towards HeLa and HT29 cells by comparison to known bacteriocins: Microcin E492, enterocin heterodimer and Divercin V41

George P Buss 1,*, Cornelia M Wilson 1
Editor: Vivek Gupta2
PMCID: PMC8412286  PMID: 34473709

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore potential mechanisms of cytotoxicity towards HeLa and HT29 cells displayed by Pediocin PA-1. We did this by carrying out sequence alignments and 3D modelling of related bacteriocins which have been studied in greater detail: Microcin E492, Enterocin AB heterodimer and Divercin V41. Microcin E492 interacts with Toll-Like Receptor 4 in order to activate an apoptosis reaction, sequence alignment showed a high homology between Pediocin PA-1 and Microcin E492 whereas 3D modelling showed Pediocin PA-1 interacting with TLR-4 in a way reminiscent of Microcin E492. Furthermore, Pediocin PA-1 had the highest homology with the Enterocin heterodimer, particularly chain A; Enterocin has also shown to cause an apoptotic response in cancer cells. Based on this we are led to strongly believe Pediocin PA-1 interacts with TLRs in order to cause cell death. If this is the case, it would explain the difference in cytotoxicity towards HeLa over HT29 cells, due to difference in expression of particular TLRs. Overall, we believe Pediocin PA-1 exhibits a dual effect which is dose dependant, like that of Microcin. Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we were unable to carry out experiments in the lab, and the unavailability of important data meant we were unable to provide and validate out solid conclusions, but rather suggestions. However, bioinformatic analysis is still able to provide information regarding structure and sequence analysis to draw plausible and evidence based conclusions. We have been able to highlight interesting findings and how these could be translated into future research and therapeutics in order to improve the quality of treatment and life of cancer patients.

Introduction

From 2015–2017 there were around 367,000 people given a new diagnosis of cancer every year, with breast, prostate, lung and bowel cancer accounting for 53% of these new diagnoses [1]. This study investigated the effect of Pediocin PA-1 on HT-29 cells, a cell line isolated in 1964 from colonic adenocarcinoma cells [2]; and HeLa cells, a cell line isolated in 1951 from cervical cancer cells [3]. Considering the neurotoxic effects of conventional therapies, such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy, from minor cognitive effects to major pathology such as encephalopathy [4, 5], the exploration of bacteriocins as a novel anti-cancer therapy allows the opportunity for a better quality of life for cancer patients undergoing treatment. Further still, targeted therapies have shown to improve the longevity and quality of patients lives [6, 7]. Bacteriocins offer the opportunity for the development of highly targeted therapies whilst still ensuring an even greater quality of life.

Pediocin PA1 is a 62-amino acid long class IIa bacteriocin expressed in Pediococcus acidilactiti (gram-positive bacteria) generally in response to stress and/or ultraviolet light [8, 9]. Bacteriocins are catatonic peptides produced by all types of bacteria that are non- immunogenic, biodegradable and can colonise cancer cells with specific toxicity [10]. Pediocin has been shown to display cytotoxic effects towards HeLa and HT29 cells, with a greater cytotoxic effect towards HeLa over HT29 [11]. Whilst there have been several studies discussing the cytotoxic effect of Pediocin, the mechanism has never been studied in as great detail as other bacteriocins. This is a comparative study against other bacteriocins which have been previously thoroughly researched; it is hoped that by carrying out sequence alignments and 3D modelling we will be able to identify potential mechanisms of actions by Pediocin PA-1. Microcin E492 and Enterocin AB heterodimer have both been shown to induce apoptosis, indicating a protein interaction [1214]. Therefore by comparing sequence alignment and analysing 3D models we hope to identify similarities within the structure of Pediocin A1 compared to these bacteriocins which may give further insight into its mechanism of action.

Furthermore, Divercin V41 is also a class IIa bacteriocin which was shown to have no cytotoxic effect against HT29, despite it belonging to the same class of toxin as Pediocin PA-1, we hope to identify the differences between these two bacteriocins, and thereby gain greater insight into Pediocin PA-1’s mechanism of action.

There has been some controversy pertaining to the mechanism of Pediocin PA-1: four cysteine residues within the structure indicated disulphide bridge formation, which forms a poration complex in target membrane, leading to cell death [15]. It has also been reported that Pediocin PA-1 is able to function in the absence of protein receptors [16]. However, Enterocin has also shown to cause the lipid bilayer permeabilization whilst inducing Apoptosis as well by bio-energetic collapse [17]–this is indicative of protein interaction with Toll-Like Receptors (TLRs) to trigger a caspase response. This would suggest a dual mechanism of action, as Enterocin is able to cause cell death through separate mechanisms of permeabilization of the lipid bilayer, leading to cell lysis, as well as inducing apoptosis by bio-energetic collapse through probable TLR interaction.

Other bacteriocins have also demonstrated to have this dual mechanism of cytotoxicity–which we discuss later in this paper. Therefore, we argue that it is likely Pediocin PA-1 also exhibited a dual mechanism of cytotoxicity due to previous observations, as well as similarity in shape and sequence with other bacteriocins with dual mechanisms of cytotoxicity–all of which are discussed later in this paper.

Whilst bacteriocins as a therapeutic agent have not proceeded past animal studies, the results of these studies clearly demonstrate how bacteriocins offer a potential advancement in the treatment of cancer, as most target cancer cells whilst having very limited interaction with human cells. This is due to the negative charge of cancer cells [18], the negative charge has been labelled the “Warburg Effect” which explains the secretion of more than thirty times the amount of lactic acid than healthy cells, by cancer cells [19, 20]. Bacteriocins have an overall positive charge, and thus target cancer cells over human cells [10]. Pediocin PA-1 itself is nontoxic, nonimmunogenic being used as a bio-food preservative protecting against Listeria monocytogenes [21], other bacteriocins are also widely used in the same manner. In this way we know that Pediocin is safe for human consumption.

Whilst this study had its limitations due to the COVID-19 pandemic preventing us from carrying out in vitro experiments in the lab, we were still able to utilise bioinformatic tools to gain a further insight into the potential mechanisms of Pediocin PA-1. Whilst also commenting on other bacteriocins. In this way we were able to provide a fundamental understanding at a molecular level for further investigation, as well as highlighting the potential use of bacteriocins as novel cancer therapeutics.

Methodology

Accessing protein sequences

UniProt [22] was used to access the protein sequences in this analysis (Table 1). UniProt is an opensource database maintained by the UniProt consortium. The database is an amalgamation of Swiss-Prot, TrEMBL and the PIR Protein Sequence Database. It contains protein sequence and functional information often derived from primary genome research and analysis.

Table 1. Table showing the proteins analysed and their corresponding accession numbers as according to UniProt [22].

Protein Acession_Number
Pediocin PA1 P29430
Divercin V41 Q9Z4J1
Microcin E492 A0A652PYJ5
Enterocin A AF240561
Enterocin B AYG20277

Pediocin PA1 and the other bacteriocins were located on the UniProt database, the PBD 3D structure was then downloaded. In the case of Divercin V41 there was no current PBD model, so the protein sequence was downloaded and modelled using Swiss Model [2325].

Sequence alignment

Protein sequences were downloaded from UniProt and then aligned using MultiAlin [22, 26]. Pediocin, Divercin, Microcin and Enterocin were uploaded to the server, default parameters of 90% high consensus and 50% low consensus were used. The sequence alignment was exported as a table image.

Model analysis

Once downloaded, PDB files were viewed in VMD [27]. VMD is an opensource modelling software which allows visualisation and analysis of protein structures. VMD can also be used to simulate and analyse the molecular dynamics of a system. We were able to use VMD to identify interacting residues that appeared significant to each protein structure and propose a mechanism of action based on this and previous in-vitro findings. It is worth noting that in the case of TLR-4 we located an accurate model of the LPS Ra complex of E. coli and TLR-4 interacting from RCSB PDB (named 3FXI). We then isolated the TLR-4 using the viewing tool of RCSB PDB and downloaded the.pdb file [28].

Swiss-model

Divercin V41 did not have a published PBD file on UniProt and we were unable to identify any previous research which had attempted to deduce the 3D structure. Therefore, we used Swiss-Model to derive a predicted structure for Divercin V41, this was downloaded as a PDB file and viewed in VMD. We were also unable to locate a fully devised 3D structure for Enterocin B, so Swiss-model was also used in this instance. SWISS-MODEL is an automated protein structure homology-modelling server [2325, 29].

Results

Results Microcin E492

Microcin E492 is a highly hydrophobic 7.9kDa bacteriocin produced by Klebsiella pneumonae [30, 31]. When co-cultured with HeLa cells cytotoxic effects observed were typical of apoptosis, these included: cell shrinkage, DNA fragmentation, caspase-3 activation and loss of mitochondrial membrane potential; cell necrosis was also observed at higher doses of Microcin [13]. Additionally, the presence of zZAD-fmk (caspase inhibitor) completely blocked the cytotoxic effect of Microcin [13]. Caspase 3- activation is associated with the activation of toll-like receptor 4, therefore during the 3D modelling analysis we included toll-like receptor 4 (TLR-4) to observe how Microcin E492 interacts with it [32].

Sequence alignment

A sequence alignment was performed between Microcin E492 and Pediocin PA-1. Microcin E492 is a significantly larger protein than Pediocin, however despite this difference there is significant homology between the two proteins (See Fig 1). Largely, the homology is of low consensus with only fourteen residues aligning with a high consensus.

Fig 1. Sequence comparison of Microcin E492 and Pediocin A1 (pediocin).

Fig 1

Low consensus alignments (50%) are represented as blue letters, whilst high consensus alignments (90%) are represented as red letters. Microcin is significantly larger than Pediocin A1, whilst there is homology this a mainly low consensus homology with fourteen residues of high consensus [26].

3D modelling: VMD

Unfortunately, despite extensive research there was no 3D model available for Microcin E492, therefore we used SWISS-MODEL to build a 3D model based on the fasta sequence obtained from RCSB PDB [33]. This was then downloaded as a.pdb file and viewed in VMD alongside the toll-like receptor-4. The model built using SWISS-MODEL had a sequence identity of 30%, whilst this is not ideal it was the only best possible model of Microcin E492 available at the time of research.

TLR-4 is arranged as a heterodimer of two chains: A and B, they are arranged in a helical structure and the ends of each chain come together to fold around each other. According to VMD analysis (see Fig 2), Microcin E492 sits in the middle of the heterodimer where both chains meet, interacting with both chains. Common contact residues for both chain A and B with Microcin included mainly hydrophobic residues: glycine, valine, phenylalanine, leucine and, isoleucine.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

3D model of microcin (A) and microcin interacting with TLR-4 (B) produced using the.pdb file imported from RCSB PDB to VMD. TLR-4 has been drawn in lines in order to distinguish between microcin and TLR-4 A) Microcin appears mainly globular in shape and has small yet frequent regions of polarity. B) TLR-4 is arranged as a heterodimer of two chains converging in the centre, microcin interacts with both chains in the middle of this convergence [27].

In order to explore the possibility that Pediocin PA-1 also could interact with TLR-4 we carried out 3D modelling of Pediocin PA-1 interacting with TLR-4 too (see Fig 3). Whilst being smaller than Microcin E491, Pediocin also sat in between the receptor interacting with both chains as they met. Common contact residues were the same as Microcin E492: glycine, valine, phenylalanine, leucine and isoleucine.

Fig 3. 3D model of Pediocin A1 interacting with TLR-4 produced using the.pdb file imported from RCSB PDB to VMD.

Fig 3

TLR-4 has been drawn in lines in order to distinguish between Pediocin A1 and TLR-4. Like microcin, pediocin appears mainly globular in shape, the TLR-4 is arranged as a heterodimer of two chains converging in the centre, Pediocin A1 interacts with both chains in the middle of this convergence [27].

Enterocin

Enterocin is a class IIa bacteriocin, it is a heterodimer formed from chains A and B and is produced by Enterococcus faecium. It is used within different food products due to its anti-listerial properties [14, 17]. The heterodimer is formed by strong hydrophobic forces of leucine, isoleucine, tyrosine, glycine and phenylalanine residues [34]. Enterocin also displays cytotoxic effects towards HT29 and HeLa cells, as a heterodimer these effects were greater. Enterocin also displayed a greater effect towards HeLa than HT29 cells [14, 35].

Sequence alignment and 3D models of Enterocin A and B were completed in order to distinguish whether there were any shared features between the mechanism of action of Pediocin and the Enterocin heterodimer.

Sequence alignment

A sequence alignment was carried out for PediocinA1, Enterocin A and, Enterocin B. The previous research has highlighted potentially have different mechanisms of action for Enterocin A and B, therefore upon comparing Pediocin PA-1 to each homodimer it can provide further insight into the exact mechanism of action of Pediocin PA-1. The highest homology is seen between Pediocin and Enterocin chain A, however there is still a significant homology between Pediocin and Enterocin B (see Fig 4). This could indicate that Pediocin has a dual mechanism of action incorporating how Enterocin functions as a heterodimer.

Fig 4. Sequence comparison of Enterocin A (EntA), Enterocin B (EntB) and Pediocin A1 (pediocin).

Fig 4

Low consensus alignments (50%) are represented as blue letters, whilst high consensus alignments (90%) are represented as red letters. Pediocin has a high level of alignment with both Enterocin A and Enterocin B [26].

3D modelling analysis

Enterocin A is significantly smaller than Enterocin B, 712 residues compared to 2125 residues. Enterocin B also appears to have a greater charged surface than Enterocin B. It is also interesting to note that both molecules have two cysteine residues (shown in yellow) on their surface (see Figs 5 and 6), however when acting as a homodimer these residues do not seem to be involved and no disulphide bridges were detected on analysis. Further analysis revealed a hydrophobic surface of Enterocin, with exposed residues including: Val’15, Trp’33, Lys’43. Tyr’2, Trp’33 and Ala’32. This is in keeping with the previous findings [14].

Fig 5. 3D model of Enterocin A produced using the.pdb file imported from RCSB PDB to VMD.

Fig 5

A) shows the positive x/y axis angle of Enterocin A, whilst B) shows the negative x/y angle. Analysis reveals regions of polar and charged residues (shown in red) of the surface of Enterocin B, as well as two cysteine residues (shown in yellow) on the surface of Enterocin A [27].

Fig 6.

Fig 6

Devised 3D model of Enterocin B alongside the global quality estimate (C). Analysis reveals areas of polarity (A) and one cysteine residue (B). The overall sequence identity was 7.69% however, there is currently no 3D model of Enterocin B on it’s own, therefore this is the most accurate representation to date [2325].

Divercin V41

Divercin has previously been shown to have a similar homology to Pediocin whilst showing no anti-tumour properties towards HT29 cells [36]. Therefore, we performed sequence alignment and 3D modelling of Divercin V41 in order to try and understand why, despite the similar homology, one shows anti-tumour effects towards HT29 cells and not the other.

Sequence alignment

The sequence comparison of Divercin V41 and Pediocin PA-1 shows a high homology, with high consensus (90% consensus) proteins including hydrophobic residues glycine and isoleucine; amphipathic residues tyrosine and tryptophan; and charged residues of glutamic acid (see Fig 7). Charged residues of glutamic acid are often used in the formation of salt bridges. Low consensus proteins (50% consensus) include: hydrophobic residues glycine, isoleucine, alanine; charged residues lysine, aspartic acid, and lysine; polar charged residues histidine and glutamine. Polar charged residues are often associated with hydrogen bond formation through acting as protein donators and acceptors.

Fig 7. Sequence comparison of Divercin V41 and Pediocin A1 (shown as PPA1_PEDAC).

Fig 7

Low consensus alignments (50%) are represented as blue letters, whilst high consensus alignments (90%) are represented as red letters. The overall consensus sequence is low alignment [26].

3D modelling analysis

The devised 3D model from SWISS MODEL (see Fig 8) predicted Divercin V41 to be more linear in shape compared to Pediocin PA-1, which is more globular. Pediocin PA-1 is also shown to have a greater surface polarity than Divercin V41. Depending on the mechanism of action, both the difference in shape and polarity could explain up to a certain extent, the reason for Divercin V41’s inability to show anti-tumour effects on HT29 cells despite the relatively high homology with Pediocin PA-1.

Fig 8.

Fig 8

Devised 3D models of Divercin V41 (B) and Pediocin A1 (A) alongside their global quality estimate respectively (C and D). Pediocin is shown to have a greater surface polarity than Divercin. There is only a 37.50% sequence identity for the DIvercin V41 model compared to the Pediocin A1 model, however due to the lack of data this is the most accurate model that we are aware of [2325].

VMD analysis revealed exposed residues included charged residues: Asp’41, Lys’25, Lys’36 and Lys’65; polar residues: Asn’29, Asn’34, Gln’44, Gln’51, Tyr’2 and Tyr’32; hydrophobic residues: Gly’5, Gly’39 and Gly’64; as well as amphipathic Trp’42. There were also three Cysteine residues on the -y axis of the Divercin V41. Despite this, there were no salt bridges detected upon investigation.

Discussion

Like Pediocin PA-1, Microcin E492 has shown cytotoxic effects against HeLa cells. The observations of this cytotoxicity are inductive of apoptosis both biochemically and morphologically [13]. Further analysis revealed this apoptosis was due to caspase 1 and 3 activation. Definitive support can be found in the same study, as the use of zZad-fmk (a general caspase inhibitor) inhibited the cytotoxic effect of Microcin. Caspase 3 activation has been linked to the activation of TLR-4 [36], therefore we are confident in our conclusion that Microcin must bind to TLR-4. Caspase 1 activation has been linked to the efflux of potassium ions, which activates the NLRC4 (nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain and leucine-rich repeat containing receptors) inflammasome pathway leading to the assembly of caspase 1 [37]. Considering previous studies have found high doses of Microcin E492 administered to HeLa cells lead to necrosis [13], alongside the previously mentioned caspase-1 activation, and the link between programmed necrosis and membrane pore formation [38], it is clear that microcin has a dual mechanism of apoptosis and pore-formation.

Whilst Pediocin PA-1 is much smaller in size compared to Microcin E492, they are both globular in shape as well as having residues of similar properties. Furthermore, the 3D modelling analysis revealed that they also bind to TLR4 in the same manner. Pediocin PA-1 was showed to have a greater cytotoxic effect against HeLa cells compared to HT29 cells, however the researchers were only able to speculate [11], if Pediocin PA-1 does interact with TLR-4 then one potential reason for this difference could be because TLR-4 is over-expressed in HeLa cells [39]. On the other hand, although TLR-4 is expressed in human colon cells, this appears to be mainly limited to crypt cells, alongside TLR-2 [40] (see Fig 9). Therefore, we would not expect as high levels of TLR-4 to be expressed in HT29 cells. This goes some way to explaining why we do not observe as extreme an effect in HT29 cells as we do in HeLa.

Fig 9. mRNA expression level of TLR-4 in HeLa and HT29 of bioinformatic data obtained from the Broad Institute Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia [41].

Fig 9

We did consider the possibility of Pediocin PA-1 acting on other receptors, however due COVID-19 restrictions the experimental data were not generated to further validate the hypothesis. It would be interesting to explore the effect Pediocin PA-1 may have on TLR-2 –which has been shown to have a major role in TLR2 recognition [42].

Divercin V41, like Pediocin PA-1, is produced from gram-positive bacteria; microcin however, is produced from gram-negative bacteria. Therefore, it would be interesting to explore how TLR-2 expression effects cytotoxicity, especially considering its important role in the recognition of gram-positive bacterial components. If Pediocin PA-1 does in fact interact with TLR-2, then this could go some way to explaining why Divercin, despite the high homology to Pediocin PA-1, does not display a cytotoxic effect to HT29 cells. Unfortunately, Divercin V41 has not been tested alongside HeLa (with high TLR-2/4 expression) and therefore it is difficult to compose more than a speculatory argument in regard to the mechanism. However, this observed difference in cytotoxicity despite high homology does give strong indication that Pediocin PA-1, like Microcin, has several cytotoxic effects which may be dose dependant. Going forward it would be interesting to carry out a comparative study on the cytotoxicity of Pediocin PA-1 and Divercin V41 in HeLa and HT29 cells of wild type, TLR-2 knockout and TLR-4 knockout.

The Enterocin AB heterodimer has also been shown to be an apoptotic inducer of HeLa and HT29, which means it must also interact with a TLR. Interestingly both homodimers of Enterocin induce apoptosis however this effect is enhanced when acting as a heterodimer [14]. The study did not use caspase inhibitors or identify the caspase that induced apoptosis, therefore it is not possible to comment on what TLR Enterocin AB acts on, or whether they act on separate TLRs each–hence the enhanced effect when working as a heterodimer. Pediocin PA-1 and Enterocin A have the highest homology of all the compounds assessed and are the most similar in shape and structure. It is interesting then that inhibition of HeLa growth increased from 38.42% when Enterocin B only was being used, to 78.83% growth inhibition when Enterocin A was added [14]. Both Pediocin PA-1 and Enterocin A have cysteine residues, we know that in Pediocin PA-1 cystine residues lead to the formation of two disulphide bonds which stabilise the hairpin conformation of the two beta sheets. Therefore, we believe it is from studying Enterocin A which will give us the best clues about the mechanism of action of Pediocin PA-1. A possible experiment could be to use TLR knockout HeLa cells alongside Enterocin A to observe the effect of inhibition, fluorescent microscopy could also be used to visualise the toxin with the cell.

As well as evidence that Pediocin PA-1 induces apoptosis, it has been shown to target lipid vesicles as a dose dependant efflux of carboxyfluoerscein (CF). Imaging showed results were light scattering, meaning the lipid membrane was permeabilised but the overall structure was not changed [15]. Further support for this mechanism was seen when Pediocin PA-1 remained functional in the absence of protein receptors [43], from this it was concluded that Pediocin did not interact with proteins, but rather was pore forming. We would argue that instead of this being Pediocin’s only mechanism of cytotoxicity, it is one of at least two. The toxins in this research are all class II bacteriocins, class II bacteriocins have all been recognised for their pore-forming mechanisms in bacteria [44]. However, as highlighted above many have been shown to cause bioenergetic collapse secondary to apoptosis, Microcin as an example was shown to cause apoptosis however at high doses, necrosis was observed. This clearly shows class IIa bacteriocins appear to have a dose dependant cytotoxic effect.

We strongly feel that the findings of this study provide a strong argument and support for further, more targeted research into Pediocin PA-1 and other bacteriocins. With colon cancer expected to cause 52,980 deaths in the United States in 2021 [1], and cervical cancer behind the cause of two deaths a day in the UK [45], better treatment options need to be explored. With current conventional chemotherapy treatments causing significant central and peripheral neurotoxic effects [4], bacteriocins such as those studied here offer the ability to target cancer cells whilst avoiding damage to other healthy human cells. By understanding the mechanism by which Pediocin PA-1 works, we can either isolate it for use in further studies and trials or derive a synthetic compound which works in a similar way.

Conclusion

Sequence alignment across bacteriocins studied in this project, including Pediocin PA-1, revealed mainly hydrophobic residues. The most common of these residues included: leucine, lysine and, glycine. It is also interesting to note that every bacteriocin also contained asparagine.

Visual Molecular Dynamic and SWISS-modelling revealed that bacteriocins which have previously shown a cytotoxic effect against HeLa and HT29 cells, were all globular in shape with polar surfaces. Whereas, Divercin V41, which has been shown to have no cytotoxic effect against HeLa cells, was predicted to be linear in shape. Considering that Divercin V41 was not dissimilar in sequence to the other bacteriocins studied, it could be suggested that a polar globular surface is an important factor for induction of apoptosis within tumour cells. This could be in terms of induction into the tumour cells, or specifically binding with TLR-4.

The computational work carried out in this study provides observations which support further in vitro studies to test the observations made in this study. Future experiments could include using TLR-4 knockout HeLa and HT29 cells to observe if there is any change in the cytotoxic effect of Pediocin PA-1. If our conclusions of this study are true we would expect to see a significant reduction in effect of Pediocin PA-1 against these cancer cells. Western blot analysis could also be used to detect the presence of different caspases linked to other TLRs, in order to observe whether other TLRs are involved in the apoptosis of tumour cells. Dependant on the findings of these future studies, we could begin to try and develop a similar molecule to Pediocin PA-1, or mass production of Pediocin PA-1, for use in animal models of colon and cervical cancer. This would allow comparison of effectiveness and side effects against current conventional therapies. Building further upon the findings of this research could allow an improvement in the quality of life of cancer patients by reducing the harmful side effects of conventional therapies, as well as the development of a potentially more effective treatment.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Sequence alignment of Microcin E492 and Pediocin PA-1.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. VMD 3D model of Pediocin and Microcin interacting with TLR-4.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. VMD 3D model of Pediocin PA-1 interacting with TLR-4.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. MultiAlign sequence alignment of Pediocin PA-1 and Enterocin heterodimer A and B.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. VMD 3D model of Enterocin A.

(TIF)

S6 Fig. SWISSMODEL 3D model of Enterocin B.

(TIF)

S7 Fig. MultiAlign sequence comparison of Divercin V41 and Pediocin PA-1.

(TIF)

S8 Fig. SWISSMODEL 3D Devised Model of Divercin V41 and Pediocin PA-1.

(TIF)

S9 Fig. mRNA expression level of TLR-4 in HeLa and HT29 of bioinformatic data obtained from the Broad Institute Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia.

(TIF)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Cancer Research UK, https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics-for-the-uk - heading-Zero Accessed: April 2021
  • 2.Coudray Anne-Marie; et al. "Proliferation of the Human Colon Carcinoma Cell Line HT29: Autocrine Growth and Deregulated Expression of the c-myc Oncogene". Cancer Research. 49: 6566–6571. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Scherer W.F., Syverton J.T., Gey G.O Studies on the propagation in vitro of poliomyelitis viruses. IV. Viral multiplication in a stable strain of human malignant epithelial cells (strain HeLa) derived from an epidermoid carcinoma of the cervix. J Exp Med. 1953May;97(5):695–710. doi: 10.1084/jem.97.5.695 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Verstappen CC, Heimans JJ, Hoekman K, Postma TJ. Neurotoxic complications of chemotherapy in patients with cancer: clinical signs and optimal management. Drugs. 2003;63(15):1549–63. doi: 10.2165/00003495-200363150-00003 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Durand T.; Bernier M.; Léger I.; Taillia H.; Noël G; Psimaras D; et al. Cognitive outcome after radiotherapy in brain tumor, Current Opinion in Oncology: 2015; Volume 27—Issue 6—p 510–515 doi: 10.1097/CCO.0000000000000227 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lancer The. Breast cancer targeted therapy: successes and challenges. The Lancet. 2017. Available at: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)31662-8/fulltext–articleInformation Accessed April 2021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Camidge DR. Targeted therapy vs chemotherapy: which has had more impact on survival in lung cancer? Does targeted therapy make patients live longer? Hard to prove, but impossible to ignore. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2014Nov;12(11):763–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Cascales E., Buchanan S.K., Duche D., Kleanthous C., Lloubes R., Postle K., et al. Colicin biology. Microbiology and molecular biology reviews: MMBR. 2007. Vol.71, No.1, pp. 158–229, ISSN 1092-2172 doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00036-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lwoff A., Biochemistry and Physiology of Protozoa. 1951. New York: Academic Press; pp434 [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kaur S., Kaur S. Bacteriocins as Potential Anticancer Agents. Frontiers in Pharmacology. 2015. 6 pp 272 doi: 10.3389/fphar.2015.00272 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Villarante K. I., Elegado F. B., Iwatani S., Zendo T., Sonomoto K., & de Guzman E. E. Purification, characterization and in vitro cytotoxicity of the bacteriocin from Pediococcus acidilactici K2a2-3 against human colon adenocarcinoma (HT29) and human cervical carcinoma (HeLa) cells. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2011. 27(4), 975–980. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bieler S., Estrada L., Lagos R., Baeza M., Castilla J., & Soto C. Amyloid formation modulates the biological activity of a bacterial protein. Journal of Biological Chemistry 280(29), 26880–26885 doi: 10.1074/jbc.M502031200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hetz C., Bono M. R., Barros L. F., & Lagos R. Microcin E492, a channel-forming bacteriocin from Klebsiella pneumoniae, induces apoptosis in some human cell lines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2002. 99(5), 2696–2701 doi: 10.1073/pnas.052709699 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ankaiah D., Palanichamy E., Bharathi C., Ayyanna R., Perumal V., Basheer S. et al. Cloning, overexpression, purification of bacteriocin enterocin-B and structural analysis, interaction determination of enterocin-A, B against pathogenic bacteria and human cancer cells. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2018. 116 pp: 502–512 doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.05.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bruno M. E. C., & Montville T. J. Common mechanistic action of bacteriocins from lactic acid bacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1993. 59(9), 3003–3010. doi: 10.1128/aem.59.9.3003-3010.1993 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Chen Y., Shapira R., Eisenstein M. and Montville T., 1997. Functional characterization of pediocin PA-1 binding to liposomes in the absence of a protein receptor and its relationship to a predicted tertiary structure. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 63(2), pp.524–531. doi: 10.1128/aem.63.2.524-531.1997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Abengózar MÁ, Cebrián R, Saugar JM, Gárate T, Valdivia E, Martínez-Bueno M, et al. Enterocin AS-48 as Evidence for the Use of Bacteriocins as New Leishmanicidal Agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017Mar24;61(4):e02288–16. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02288-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bayley Jean-Pierrea; Devilee Petera,b. The Warburg effect in 2012, Current Opinion in Oncology. 2012. (1) 24.doi: 10.1097/CCO.0b013e32834deb9e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Gambhir S. Molecular imaging of cancer with positron emission tomography. Nat Rev Cancer 2, 683–693 (2002) doi: 10.1038/nrc882 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Annibaldi A, Widmann C. Glucose metabolism in cancer cells. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2010;13(4):466–70 doi: 10.1097/MCO.0b013e32833a5577 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Espitia P., Otoni C.G., Soares N.F.F. Chapter 36 –Pediocin Applications in Antimicorbial Food Packaging. Antimicorbial Food Packaging, Academic Press. 2016. Pp: 445–454 [Google Scholar]
  • 22.The UniProt Consortium UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase in 2021 Nucleic Acids Res. 2021. 49:D1.doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa1216 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Waterhouse A., Bertoni M., Bienert S., Studer G., Tauriello G., Gumienny R., et al. SWISS-MODEL: homology modelling of protein structures and complexes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018.v 46(W1), W296–W303 doi: 10.1093/nar/gky427 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bienert S., Waterhouse A., de Beer T.A.P., Tauriello G., Studer G., Bordoli L., et al. The SWISS-MODEL Repository—new features and functionality. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017. 45, D313–D319 doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw1132 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Guex N., Peitsch M.C., Schwede T. Automated comparative protein structure modeling with SWISS-MODEL and Swiss-PdbViewer: A historical perspective. Electrophoresis 2009. 30, S162–S173. doi: 10.1002/elps.200900140 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Corpet F. Multiple sequence alignment with hierarchical clustering. Nucl. Acids Res. 1988. 16 (22), 10881–10890 doi: 10.1093/nar/16.22.10881 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Humphrey W., Dalke A. and Schulten K., "VMD—Visual Molecular Dynamics", J. Molec. Graphics, 1996, vol. 14, pp. 33–38 doi: 10.1016/0263-7855(96)00018-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.RCSB PDB, 2020. https://www.rcsb.org/structure/3FXI Accessed: April 2021
  • 29.Bertoni M., Kiefer F., Biasini M., Bordoli L., Schwede T. Modeling protein quaternary structure of homo- and hetero-oligomers beyond binary interactions by homology. Scientific Reports 7 (2017). doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-09654-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.De Lorenzo V. (1984). Isolation and characterization of nitrogenase from Klebsiella pneumoniae. Arch. Microbiol., 139, 72–75. doi: 10.1007/BF00692715 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.De Lorenzo V., & Pugsley A. P. Microcin E492, a low-molecular-weight peptide antibiotic which causes depolarization of the Escherichia coli cytoplasmic membrane. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1985. 27(4), 666–669. doi: 10.1128/AAC.27.4.666 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Elmore S. Apoptosis: A Review of Programmed Cell Death. Toxicol. Pathol. 2007. 35: 495. doi: 10.1080/01926230701320337 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.RCSB PDB, 2020. https://www.rcsb.org/ Accessed: April 2021
  • 34.Fathizadeh H., Saffari M., Esmaeili D., Moniri R., Salimian M. Evaluation of antibacterial activity of enterocin A-colicin E1 fusion peptide. Iranian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences, 2020; 23(11): 1471–1479. doi: 10.22038/ijbms.2020.47826.11004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Pilchová T., Pilet M. F., Cappelier J. M., Pazlarová J., & Tresse O. Protective effect of Carnobacterium spp. against Listeria monocytogenes during host cell invasion using in vitro HT29 model. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 2016. 6:88. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2016.00088 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Katare P.B., Nizami H.L., Paramesha B. et al. Activation of toll like receptor 4 (TLR4) promotes cardiomyocyte apoptosis through SIRT2 dependent p53 deacetylation. Sci Rep 2020. 10, 19232. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-75301-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Katsnelson MA, Rucker LG, Russo HM, Dubyak GR. K+ efflux agonists induce NLRP3 inflammasome activation independently of Ca2+ signaling. J Immunol. 2015Apr15;194(8):3937–52 doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1402658 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kennedy CL, Smith DJ, Lyras D, Chakravorty A, Rood JI. Programmed cellular necrosis mediated by the pore-forming alpha-toxin from Clostridium septicum. PLoS Pathog. 2009;5(7):e1000516.doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1000516 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Jiang X, Yuan J, Dou Y, Zeng D, Xiao S. Lipopolysaccharide Affects the Proliferation and Glucose Metabolism of Cervical Cancer Cells Through the FRA1/MDM2/p53 Pathway. Int J Med Sci 2021; 18(4): doi: 10.7150/ijms.47360 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Furrie E., Macfarlane S., Thomson G., Macfarlane G.T. et al. , Toll‐like receptors‐2, ‐3 and ‐4 expression patterns on human colon and their regulation by mucosal‐associated bacteria. Immunology 2005; 115: 565–574 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2567.2005.02200.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Nusinow D., Szpyt J., Ghandi M., Rose C., McDonald E., Kalocsay M., et al. , 2020. Quantitative Proteomics of the Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia. Cell, 180(2), pp.387–402.e16. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.12.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Takeuchi O, Hoshino K, Kawai T, Sanjo H, Takada H, Ogawa T, et al. Differential roles of TLR2 and TLR4 in recognition of gram-negative and gram-positive bacterial cell wall components. Immunity. 199911(4):443–51 doi: 10.1016/s1074-7613(00)80119-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Chen Y, Shapira R, Eisenstein M, Montville TJ. Functional characterization of pediocin PA-1 binding to liposomes in the absence of a protein receptor and its relationship to a predicted tertiary structure. Appl Environ Microbiol. 199763(2):524–31. doi: 10.1128/aem.63.2.524-531.1997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Moll GN, Konings WN, Driessen AJ. Bacteriocins: mechanism of membrane insertion and pore formation. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 199976(1–4):185–98. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Cancer Research UK, https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/ovarian-cancer Accessed: April 2021

Decision Letter 0

Vivek Gupta

3 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-14385

Exploring the cytotoxic mechanisms of Pediocin PA-1 towards HeLa and HT29 cells by comparison to known bacteriocins: Microcin E492, Enterocin Heterodimer and Divercin V41.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Buss,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 18 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vivek Gupta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

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

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

  • The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

  • A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

  • A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

4. Please upload a copy of Figures 1-8, to which you refer in your text. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The qualities that make this research work more interesting are originality of the topic, technical quality, importance in medical field, overall representation and easy understandability, enough figures in line with the text written in the article.

This research work describes very nicely describes application of computational analysis using sequence alignment and modelling tools to investigate the mechanism of action of known bacteriocins.

The title represents manuscript's contents, the conclusions and interpretations are sound, the references are cited properly, this can be considered as unique research as this will help provide a fundamental understanding of cytotoxic mechanisms of Pediocin PA-1 towards HeLa and HT29 cells using molecular simulation tools.

Review and comments are as under -

I have a below recommendation for revisions to improve the readership of the manuscript –

1) Abstract

Line 33 – “Pediocin PA-1 and Microcin E492 and 3D modelling”, please replace “and” with “whereas”

Line 39- 42, Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic meant that we were unable to carry out experiments in the lab, and the unavailability of important data meant we were unable to make solid conclusions but rather suggestions.

Please revise the statement as below –

Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we were unable to carry out experiments in the lab, and the unavailability of important data we were unable to provide and validate our solid conclusions, but rather suggestions.

Line 42, Remove – “However”, however and despite mean the same. So, please use either one.

2) Introduction

Line 55, please remove “ ‘ “ after diagnosis

Line 56, replace “looks at” with “investigated”

Line 59, replace “ – (Hyphen)“ with a “ , (comma)”

Line 69, replace “looking into” with “discussing”

Line 71, replace “researched in greater detail” with “thoroughly researched or thoroughly evaluated.”

Line 73, remove “been”

Line 78 – 80, “against HT29 – being of the same class of toxin as Pediocin PA-78 1 we hope to identify what is different between these two bacteriocins, and as such gain greater insight into Pediocin PA-1’s mechanism of action.”

Please replace this statement with below –

“against HT29, despite it belonged to the same class of toxin as Pediocin PA-78 1 we hope to identify the difference between these two bacteriocins, and thereby gain greater insight into Pediocin PA-1’s mechanism of action.”

Line 82, please replace “when it has come” with “pertaining”

Line 83, please replace “the structure have been shown to form a disulphide bridge” with “the structure indicated a disulphide bridge formation”

Line 84, please replace “found” with “reported”

Line 86, please remove “been”

Line 86-87, please replace “permeabilization of the lipid bi-layer whilst also inducing

apoptosis by bio-energetic collapse” with “the lipid bi-layer permeabilization whilst inducing

apoptosis as well by bio-energetic collapse”

Line 88, please replace “been shown” with “demonstrated”

Line 90, please replace “has a” with exhibited”

Line 105, please replace “In this way we were able to give a strong argument for further study, as well”, with “In this way we were able to provide a fundamental understanding at molecular level for further investigation, as well”

3) Methodology –

For all the softwares used in this work such as UniProt, MultiAlin and VMD, please provide the version, name of developer, country of origin, etc.

Line 155, please replace “PBD” with “PDB”

Figure 1 is actually a table, so please convert this to a table and replace in-text citation pertaining to this table.

4) Results Microcin E492 –

Line 193, please replace “to the best of our knowledge, the best model” with “it was the only best possible model”

Line 196, please replace “come fold” with “come together to fold”

5) Results – Enterocin –

Line 227, please replace “research has highlighted that Enterocin A and B potentially have different mechanisms of action” with “research has highlighted potentially different mechanisms of actions for Enterocin A and B”

Line 228, please replace “by” with “upon” and “give” with “provide”

Line 240-241, please replace “there were no disulphide bridges detected” with “no disulphide bridges were detected”

6) Divercin V41 (Did you mean – “Results – Divercin V41”,please be consistent)

Line 275, please replace “could go someway to explain why Divercin V41 does not show” with “could explain up to certain extent, the reason for Divercin 41’s inability to”

Line 281, please replace “on analysis” with “upon investigation”

7) Discussion –

Line 308, please add a “comma” between that and when

Line 309, please add a “comma” between cells and necrosis

Line 315, please replace “-“ with “,”

Line 318, please remove “-“ and add a word “with” between alongside and TLR-2.

Line 323 – 324, please replace “limitations of experimental data available, and the COVID-19 restrictions which prevented us from carrying out lab work we were unable to effectively look at this.” With “COVID-19 restrictions the experimental data were not generated to further validate this hypothesis”

Line 341-344, this whole statement is unclear, please re-phrase it for better understanding.

8) Conclusion –

Please draw a conclusion. I was hoping to see a conclusion with a summary of current computational work. Also, state how this work can be extended to future similar work.

Reviewer #2: 1. Page 4, Line 85: Please provide details about the respective protein receptors here.

2. Page 4, Lines 84-91: These statements need further explanation. A clear reason behind the argument that “it is likely Pediocin PA-1 also has a dual mechanism of cytotoxicity” is missing here. Please elaborate.

3. Page 14, Lines 317-320: Authors are recommended to provide details or evidence on the TLR-4 over-expression in HeLa cells and limited expression in human colon cells.

4. Are there any Bacteriocins available for cancer therapy and how far they are successful?

5. It can be understood that authors were unable to carry out experiments in the lab due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, how far can we rely on bioinformatic tools to while there is unavailability of important data? Please justify.

6. Conclusion needs be further clarified by the authors.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Harsh Shaiesh Shah

Reviewer #2: Yes: Vineela Parvathaneni

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

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

Attachment

Submitted filename: Harsh Shah - PONE-D-21-14385.docx

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 2;16(9):e0251951. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251951.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


8 Jul 2021

We find that all references are complete and correct - please see the rebuttal letter for the addition of two references.

Please find all figures uploaded.

The title has been amended on submission to match both manuscript and online submission.

We have checked the formatting and edited accordingly correcting: citation in brackets and heading formatting.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Letter of Rebuttal.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Vivek Gupta

4 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-14385R1

Exploring the cytotoxic mechanisms of Pediocin PA-1 towards HeLa and HT29 cells by comparison to known bacteriocins: Microcin E492, Enterocin Heterodimer and Divercin V41.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Buss,

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

While the authors have significantly amended the manuscript, potentially based on reviewers' comments, I do not see a detailed rebuttal letter addressing the comments. All I see is a generic letter with all edits summarized in a paragraph. Please review the comments from first revision, and provide detailed rebuttal when revising the manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 18 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vivek Gupta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

While the authors have significantly amended the manuscript, potentially based on reviewers' comments, I do not see a detailed rebuttal letter addressing the comments. All I see is a generic letter with all edits summarized in a paragraph. Please review the comments from first revision, and provide detailed rebuttal when revising the manuscript.

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

Reviewers' comments:

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

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

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 2;16(9):e0251951. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251951.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


14 Aug 2021

Please find all corrections completed, and a separate letter entitled 'reviewer rebuttal'.

All available data for this study is contained with the manuscript as it was a bioinformatic study therefore supplementary data is not available/necessary.

Decision Letter 2

Vivek Gupta

18 Aug 2021

Exploring the cytotoxic mechanisms of Pediocin PA-1 towards HeLa and HT29 cells by comparison to known bacteriocins: Microcin E492, Enterocin Heterodimer and Divercin V41.

PONE-D-21-14385R2

Dear Dr. Buss,

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

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

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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

Kind regards,

Vivek Gupta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Vivek Gupta

23 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-14385R2

Exploring the cytotoxic mechanisms of Pediocin PA-1 towards HeLa and HT29 cells by comparison to known bacteriocins: Microcin E492, Enterocin Heterodimer and Divercin V41.

Dear Dr. Buss:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

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

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

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Vivek Gupta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Sequence alignment of Microcin E492 and Pediocin PA-1.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. VMD 3D model of Pediocin and Microcin interacting with TLR-4.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. VMD 3D model of Pediocin PA-1 interacting with TLR-4.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. MultiAlign sequence alignment of Pediocin PA-1 and Enterocin heterodimer A and B.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. VMD 3D model of Enterocin A.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. SWISSMODEL 3D model of Enterocin B.

    (TIF)

    S7 Fig. MultiAlign sequence comparison of Divercin V41 and Pediocin PA-1.

    (TIF)

    S8 Fig. SWISSMODEL 3D Devised Model of Divercin V41 and Pediocin PA-1.

    (TIF)

    S9 Fig. mRNA expression level of TLR-4 in HeLa and HT29 of bioinformatic data obtained from the Broad Institute Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Harsh Shah - PONE-D-21-14385.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Letter of Rebuttal.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES