Skip to main content
PLOS Pathogens logoLink to PLOS Pathogens
. 2021 Sep 16;17(9):e1009880. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009880

Commensal bacteria augment Staphylococcus aureus infection by inactivation of phagocyte-derived reactive oxygen species

Josie F Gibson 1,2,3,#, Grace R Pidwill 1,2,#, Oliver T Carnell 1,2, Bas G J Surewaard 4,5, Daria Shamarina 1,2, Joshua A F Sutton 1,2, Charlotte Jeffery 1, Aurélie Derré-Bobillot 6, Cristel Archambaud 6, Matthew K Siggins 7,8, Eric J G Pollitt 1,2, Simon A Johnston 2,3,9, Pascale Serror 6, Shiranee Sriskandan 7,8, Stephen A Renshaw 2,3,9,*, Simon J Foster 1,2,*
Editor: Alice Prince10
PMCID: PMC8478205  PMID: 34529737

Abstract

Staphylococcus aureus is a human commensal organism and opportunist pathogen, causing potentially fatal disease. The presence of non-pathogenic microflora or their components, at the point of infection, dramatically increases S. aureus pathogenicity, a process termed augmentation. Augmentation is associated with macrophage interaction but by a hitherto unknown mechanism. Here, we demonstrate a breadth of cross-kingdom microorganisms can augment S. aureus disease and that pathogenesis of Enterococcus faecalis can also be augmented. Co-administration of augmenting material also forms an efficacious vaccine model for S. aureus. In vitro, augmenting material protects S. aureus directly from reactive oxygen species (ROS), which correlates with in vivo studies where augmentation restores full virulence to the ROS-susceptible, attenuated mutant katA ahpC. At the cellular level, augmentation increases bacterial survival within macrophages via amelioration of ROS, leading to proliferation and escape. We have defined the molecular basis for augmentation that represents an important aspect of the initiation of infection.

Author summary

S. aureus is a commensal inhabitant of the human skin and nares. However, it can cause serious diseases if it is able to breach our protective barriers such as the skin, often via wounds or surgery. If infection occurs via a wound, this initial inoculum contains both the pathogen, other members of the microflora and also wider environmental microbes. We have previously described “augmentation”, whereby this other non-pathogenic material can enhance the ability of S. aureus to lead to a serious disease outcome. Here we have determined the breadth of augmenting material and elucidated the cellular and molecular basis for its activity. Augmentation occurs via shielding of S. aureus from the direct bactericidal effects of reactive oxygen species produced by macrophages. This initial protection enables the effective establishment of S. aureus infection. Understanding augmentation not only explains an important facet of the interaction of S. aureus with our innate immune system, but also provides a platform for the development of novel prophylaxis approaches.

Introduction

Staphylococcus aureus exists in a polymicrobial environment, primarily as a human commensal organism [13], but can also cause disease after a breach in host defences, often via localised tissue injury [4]. S. aureus causes a spectrum of disease, from minor skin infections to life-threatening bacteraemia: infections that are increasingly difficult to treat due to antibiotic resistance [5]. Human innate immune defences, primarily phagocytes, play a crucial role in preventing serious S. aureus disease. However, during infection S. aureus can reside within, and escape from, an intraphagocyte niche [68]. Similar to other intracellular pathogens [9,10], this can lead to a population bottleneck, where most bacteria are effectively killed by phagocytes, but a small proportion survive, enabling continued infection [11]. This results in the emergence of clonal bacterial populations, which expand from the small numbers surviving the population bottleneck. In the murine sepsis model, liver-resident macrophages known as Kupffer cells are the basis of this population bottleneck and subsequent bacterial clonality [12,13]. Macrophages are crucial for defence against S. aureus, exposing bacteria to an array of bactericidal mechanisms, including ROS, deleterious enzymes and antimicrobial peptides [14]. After phagocytosis, NADPH oxidase (NOX2) produces superoxide (O2-) [15], which is converted to hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and hydroxyl radical (·OH). Hypochlorous acid (HOCl) is generated from H2O2 via the enzyme myeloperoxidase (MPO) [16]. Reactive nitrogen species (RNS) are produced by inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS), creating nitric oxide (NO·) which can then react with O2- to form peroxynitrite (ONOO-) [17]. All reactive species cause bacterial damage, but HOCl and H2O2 may be key in vivo, as both are efficacious against biofilms [18,19]. S. aureus uses several approaches to resist ROS/RNS: two superoxide dismutases detoxify O2- [20], catalase removes H2O2 [21], alkyl hydroperoxidase acts to reduce H2O2, ONOO- and organic peroxides [22], and staphylococcal peroxidase inhibitor (SPIN) inhibits MPO therefore blocking HOCl formation [23]. Many S. aureus-ROS studies focus on neutrophils, since chronic granulomatosis disease (CGD) highlights ROS as vital in neutrophil bacterial clearance [24]. Nevertheless, ROS are also important in tissue macrophages [25] for defence against S. aureus [26].

Augmentation is a recently described phenomenon whereby human skin commensals enhance S. aureus pathogenesis [12]. S. aureus bloodstream infection in mice can be augmented by either Gram-positive commensals, their purified peptidoglycan (PGN) or a natural mix of skin flora [12]. In this example of microbial crowdsourcing, only S. aureus benefits, not the non-pathogenic commensals, which succumb. During murine sepsis, augmenting material is co-phagocytosed with S. aureus in Kupffer cells, resulting in increased bacterial survival and the subsequent formation of clonal liver microabscesses [12], with the potential to seed other organs in the body [13]. In Kupffer cells, augmentation is associated with reduced oxidation and, importantly, augmentation is not observed in transgenic mice lacking functional NOX2, defining a pivotal role for ROS in this phenomenon. However, major signalling receptor-mediated mechanisms (including NOD1, NOD2, TLRs and the inflammasome) did not account for augmentation [12]. To elucidate the molecular mechanism(s) underpinning augmentation, we sought to define the breadth of materials able to enhance S. aureus infection and investigate whether augmentation occurs for other human pathogens. Using in vitro and in vivo studies, we demonstrate that the molecular basis for augmentation is absorption of ROS by augmenting material, shielding S. aureus from macrophage-mediated killing.

Results

A broad range of pathogen-derived materials augment S. aureus infection

Previously, we have shown that S. aureus pathogenesis can be augmented by live Gram-positive skin commensals, purified PGN, or natural skin flora [12]. To determine the breadth of material able to augment S. aureus pathogenesis, we used the murine sepsis model and co-injection of a low S. aureus infectious dose with potential augmenting materials. Increased bacterial numbers in the liver is a key marker of augmented infection, with accompanying weight loss and/or increased kidney bacterial load in severe cases [12]. We first tested Gram-negative bacteria Escherichia coli and Roseomonas mucosa, as part of the human microflora [27,28], with heat-killed (HK) Micrococcus luteus as a positive control. Addition of HK M. luteus, E. coli or R. mucosa significantly increased S. aureus counts in the liver in comparison to S. aureus-only infected mice (Figs 1A–1C, 1E and S1A–S1C). On average S. aureus liver counts are greatly increased from the inocula (of 1x106 CFU) to 1.25x108 CFU in augmented infections, in comparison to 1x106 in control infections. Interestingly, E. coli benefits from the presence of S. aureus, with an increase in E. coli counts in the liver, although these CFU counts are reduced in comparison to the injected E. coli inoculum (Fig 1B). In order to assess whether cross-kingdom materials could augment staphylococcal infection, we tested HK Cryptococcus neoformans and live fungi in the murine sepsis model. Addition of HK C. neoformans significantly increased S. aureus liver numbers (Figs 1D, 1E and S1D). In contrast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, an occasional human commensal which rarely becomes pathogenic [29,30], did not increase S. aureus liver or kidney numbers, but did enhance mouse weight loss (Figs 1E and S1E–S1G). Together these data demonstrate that S. aureus pathogenicity can be enhanced by a wider range of microorganisms than has previously been shown.

Fig 1. Breadth of the augmentation phenomenon, from S. aureus to other pathogens.

Fig 1

Co-injection of low dose S. aureus (SA 1x106 CFU) with heat-killed M. luteus (HK ML equivalent of 1x108 CFU) into mice: liver CFU (n = 5 per group, median value shown, two-tailed Mann-Whitney test), **p<0.008 B Co-injection of low dose S. aureus (SA 1x106 CFU) with E. coli (EC 5x106 CFU) into mice: liver CFU, S. aureus, circles; E. coli triangles (n = 8–10 per group, median value shown, two individual two-tailed Mann-Whitney tests), ***p<0.0003 C Co-injection of low dose S. aureus (SA 1x106 CFU) with R. mucosa (RM 2x108 CFU) into mice: liver CFU (n = 5 per group, median value shown, two-tailed Mann-Whitney test), *p<0.05 D Co-injection of low dose S. aureus (SA 1x106 CFU) with heat-killed C. neoformans (CN 750 μg) into mice: liver CFU (n = 9–10 per group, median value shown, two-tailed Mann-Whitney test), **p<0.006 E Summary heat-map for microorganisms tested for augmenting ability in S. aureus infection, showing significant changes in liver CFUs and weight change F Co-injection of low dose E. faecalis (EF 5x107 CFU) with M. luteus (ML 2x108 CFU) into mice: liver CFU (n = 10 per group, median value shown, two-tailed Mann-Whitney test), ****p<0.0001 G Summary heat-map of alternative pathogens tested for ability to be augmented, with addition of PGN or M. luteus, showing significant changes in liver CFUs and weight change. In all cases liver CFUs were enumerated at 3 days post-infection.

Can infection with other human pathogens be augmented?

Next, we tested whether augmenting material was able to increase the virulence of a range of human pathogens: Enterococcus faecalis, an opportunist pathogen capable of residing within macrophages [31]; Streptococcus pneumoniae, which is able to survive within phagocytes and experiences a population bottleneck which seeds further infection [32]; Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which survives within macrophages [33]; and Streptococcus pyogenes, which can survive and escape from within host cells [34]. During murine sepsis, live M. luteus augmented E. faecalis infection (of 5x107 CFU) with a significant increase in liver and lung bacteria compared to E. faecalis alone (Figs 1F, 1G and S1H–S1L). Furthermore, M. luteus PGN augmented a larger E. faecalis inoculum (1x108 CFU), although it did not at 5x107 CFU (S1M–S1R Fig). In both cases of E. faecalis augmentation, the liver bacterial number never increased higher than the inoculum. Pathogenesis of S. pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa was not increased by the presence of M. luteus PGN in sepsis models (Figs 1G and S2A–S2F). Also M. luteus PGN did not alter mouse weight or S. pyogenes numbers in an intra-muscular leg infection model (S2G and S2H Fig). These data suggest that augmented infections which result in increased pathogen numbers from the inoculum may be specific to S. aureus and a facet of its particular interaction mechanism with the host.

Augmentation requires spatial and temporal co-localisation of S. aureus and augmenting material

Macrophages and ROS are implicated in augmentation [12], suggesting that augmenting material influences S. aureus infection within the phagocyte. To test whether augmentation in the murine sepsis model requires concomitant inoculation of augmentor/pathogen, PGN was injected at a range of timepoints before and after S. aureus infection.

PGN was injected into mice at 24, 6 or 1 hours before, or 0, 6, 24 or 48 hours after S. aureus infection (Fig 2A–2F). S. aureus liver bacterial numbers were significantly increased when PGN was co-injected, but not when PGN was injected at all time-points before (Fig 2A–2C) or after (Fig 2D–2F) S. aureus, suggesting that co-administration is required. No change in weight or kidney bacteria was observed for PGN injected before (Figs 2C and S3A, S3B), while, for PGN injected after S. aureus, no change in kidney bacteria was observed, but significant reductions in mouse weight loss were observed at 6 and 24 hours (Figs 2F and S3C, S3D). Together these data demonstrate that to increase S. aureus pathogenesis, augmenting material must be present concomitantly with S. aureus.

Fig 2. Augmenting material must be present at the same time and location as S. aureus to enhance infection.

Fig 2

A-C Mice were intravenously injected with 500 μg M. luteus PGN 24 hours, 6 hours or 1 hour before infection with 1x106 S. aureus, or at the same time as S. aureus, or with S. aureus alone A Diagram of experimental protocol B liver CFUs, enumerated at 72 hpi (n = 7 per group, median value shown, Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s post-test), *p<0.05 C Summary heat-map for augmenting ability of PGN added before S. aureus infection, showing significant changes in liver CFUs and weight change D-F Mice were intravenously injected with 500 μg M. luteus PGN 48 hours, 24 hours or 6 hours after infection with 1x106 S. aureus, or at the same time as S. aureus, or with S. aureus alone D Diagram of experimental protocol E liver CFUs, enumerated at 72 hpi (n = 5 per group, median value shown, Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s post-test) *p<0.05 F Summary heat-map for augmenting ability of PGN added after S. aureus infection, showing significant changes in liver CFUs and weight change G-K Zebrafish larvae injected with 400 CFU S. aureus, 5 ng of M. luteus PGN, or both. The larvae have fluorescent macrophages (red) and were injected with fluorescent S. aureus (green) and/or fluorescently labelled M. luteus PGN (blue) G-I Images of infected larvae at 2 hpi showing macrophages containing S. aureus, scale 6.9 μm, greyscale insets depict location of fluorescence signal within the hatched box of the main image, for ease of visualisation (G), M. luteus peptidoglycan scale 6.9 μm (H), or both scale 10 μm (I), J Area of macrophage taken up by S. aureus at 2 hpi (n = 3, 14–21 larvae per group, unpaired t-test) K Area of macrophage taken up by M. luteus PGN at 2hpi (n = 3, 11–21 larvae per group, two-tailed unpaired t-test, ***p<0.0004).

The requirement for concomitant administration of S. aureus and augmenting material suggested that they are likely co-phagocytosed. To examine this, the amount of augmenting material within individual phagocytes in vivo was examined. A zebrafish transgenic line with fluorescent macrophages was used: Tg(mpeg:mCherry.CAAX)sh378 [35]. Augmentation has previously been shown to occur during systemic infection of zebrafish larvae [12]. Larvae were infected with GFP fluorescent S. aureus and/or fluorescently stained PGN. Macrophages phagocytosed injected material in each individually injected group (Fig 2G and 2H) and S. aureus and PGN were co-localised when present within the same macrophage (Figs 2I and S3E). Macrophages were imaged and the area of phagocytosed fluorescent materials was quantified using Fiji. The area taken up by S. aureus within individual macrophages was not altered when PGN was present (Fig 2J). However, the area of PGN was significantly increased in the presence of S. aureus, in comparison to PGN injected alone (Fig 2K). Thus, augmentation does not alter the level of S. aureus phagocytosis in vivo, however, it appears that macrophages which engulf S. aureus also phagocytose more augmenting material.

Augmenting material protects S. aureus from ROS in vitro

Since augmentation does not occur in the absence of NOX2, and Kupffer cells have reduced ROS levels in augmented S. aureus infection [12], we hypothesised that inactivation of ROS by augmenting material could be the mechanism by which S. aureus survival is enhanced with an ensuing increase in pathogenesis. We therefore tested whether augmenting material protects S. aureus from specific ROS and RNS in vitro, using H2O2, sodium hypochlorite (a source of HOCl), peroxynitrite, and methyl viologen (a source of superoxide) (Fig 3A). S. aureus survival in liquid culture in vitro was measured following ROS exposure, with or without M. luteus PGN. Exposure to each ROS led to a significant reduction in S. aureus numbers, while addition of PGN significantly increased S. aureus survival in the presence of H2O2, HOCl and peroxynitrite, but not methyl viologen (Figs 3B–3D and S4A).

Fig 3. Augmenting material protects S. aureus from ROS in vitro.

Fig 3

A Reactive oxygen species generated in the oxidative burst, ROS highlighted in red are examined B-D Following ROS exposure, percentage survival of S. aureus alone (5x104 CFU/mL), or with M. luteus PGN (1.25 mg) B hydrogen peroxide (n = 3, error bars show mean +/- SD, one-way ANOVA test with Tukey’s post hoc test) *p<0.05 C sodium hypochlorite (n = 3, error bars show mean +/- SD, one-way ANOVA test with Tukey’s post hoc test), **p<0.01; ***p<0.005 D peroxynitrite (n = 3, error bars show mean +/- SD, one-way ANOVA test with Tukey’s post hoc test), ***p<0.005; ****p<0.0001 E Following sodium hypochlorite exposure, percentage survival of S. aureus alone (5x104 CFU/mL), with heat-killed M. luteus (equivalent of 5x106 CFU/mL) or ROS killed M. luteus (equivalent of 5x106 CFU/mL) (n = 3, error bars show mean +/- SD, one-way ANOVA test with Tukey’s post hoc test), *p<0.05 F-G Following ROS exposure, percentage survival of S. aureus alone (5x104 CFU/mL), with heat-killed M. luteus (equivalent of 1.25x108 CFU/mL), or ROS killed M. luteus (equivalent of 1.25x108 CFU/mL) F hydrogen peroxide (n = 3, +/-SD, one-way ANOVA test with Tukey’s post hoc test), *p<0.05; ****p<0.0001 G peroxynitrite (n = 3, +/-SD one-way ANOVA test with Tukey’s post hoc test), *p<0.05; **p<0.003.

We have previously shown that live bacteria augment S. aureus infection [12], as such, we hypothesised that M. luteus would promote S. aureus survival in the presence of ROS. M. luteus was used at 100 times the concentration of S. aureus. Addition of live M. luteus led to significantly increased survival of S. aureus after H2O2, HOCl and peroxynitrite treatments, but not methyl viologen (S4B–S4E Fig). It was possible that live M. luteus was mediating augmentation via production of ROS defence enzymes, such as catalase. Addition of HK M. luteus increased S. aureus survival when exposed to HOCl but not H2O2 and peroxynitrite (Figs 3E and S4B–S4D). To determine if the lack of effectiveness of HK M. luteus was due to the availability of ROS active moieties the ratio of augmenting material was raised (ratio of 1:2500), which significantly increased S. aureus survival following exposure to H2O2 or peroxynitrite (Fig 3F and 3G). Thus, both live and HK M. luteus can protect S. aureus from ROS. It appears that H2O2 or peroxynitrite are effectively deactivated by enzymes present in live M. luteus; although these enzymes promote augmentation they are not required.

Thus, augmenting material may act as a buffer to react with, and therefore detoxify, ROS. If this is so, pre-treatment of augmenting material with ROS would diminish its effect. To test this, live M. luteus were pre-treated with ROS prior to inclusion in the in vitro liquid culture assay. HOCl pre-treated M. luteus showed a clear loss of protective ability, with no surviving bacteria, in comparison to live or HK M. luteus (Fig 3E). For both H2O2 and peroxynitrite, the level of S. aureus survival with addition of ROS-treated M. luteus was ~10–20%, whereas with HK M. luteus this was ~100% (Fig 3F and 3G). This indicates that augmenting material has a finite capacity to react with ROS and, in so doing, loses its ability to protect S. aureus.

Augmenting material restores virulence to ROS susceptible S. aureus in vitro and in vivo

S. aureus mutants lacking oxidative stress resistance mechanisms are susceptible to ROS and attenuated in pathogenesis [20,21]. We used a S. aureus katA ahpC to map which ROS resistance mechanisms are important for S. aureus survival and to test the ability of augmenting material to rescue this strain. The place of the ROS resistance enzymes investigated here in detoxifying the oxidative burst is shown in Fig 4A. S. aureus katA ahpC would be expected to have a reduced ability to detoxify H2O2, organic peroxides and peroxynitrite, and is more sensitive to peroxides in vitro [21]. S. aureus katA ahpC was protected from H2O2 by live M. luteus, but not by HK or H2O2-treated cells (Fig 4B), as were individual katA or ahpC mutants (S5A and S5B Fig). When katA ahpC was exposed to HOCl, katA ahpC survival was significantly increased from ~0.2% to ~100% with the addition of M. luteus and to ~68% with HK M. luteus, but not ROS-treated M. luteus which remained at ~4.4% survival (S5C Fig). The role of ROS resistance was then tested in vivo using the murine sepsis model. The katA, ahpC and katA ahpC strains were attenuated, with significantly fewer liver bacteria recovered for ahpC and katA ahpC, and kidney bacteria for katA ahpC and katA, with all strains causing significantly reduced weight loss in comparison to wild-type (S5D–S5I Fig).

Fig 4. S. aureus strains susceptible to ROS are augmented in vitro and in vivo.

Fig 4

A Reactive oxygen species generated in the oxidative burst, highlighting where KatA and AhpC action occurs B Following hydrogen peroxide exposure, percentage survival of S. aureus katAahpC mutants alone (5x104 CFU/mL), or with live M. luteus (5x106 CFU/mL), heat-killed M. luteus (equivalent of 5x106 CFU/mL) or ROS killed M. luteus (equivalent of 5x106 CFU/mL), (n = 3, error bars show mean +/- SD, one-way ANOVA test with Tukey’s post hoc test), ***p<0.0002; ****p<0.0001 C Co-injection of low dose S. aureus katAahpC (1x106 CFU) with heat-killed M. luteus (equivalent of 1x108 CFU) into mice: liver CFU, enumerated at 3 days post-infection (n = 5 per group, median value shown, two-tailed Mann-Whitney test), *p<0.05 D Co-injection of low dose S. aureus (SA 2x105 CFU) with M. luteus PGN (ML PGN 500 μg) into wild-type (WT) control mice or MPO-/- mice: liver CFU, enumerated at 3 days post-infection (n = 9 per group, median value shown, individual two-tailed Mann-Whitney tests), *p<0.05, **p<0.002, ***p<0.0006.

To test whether ROS-susceptible S. aureus could be augmented in vivo, a low dose (1x106 CFU) of katA ahpC was injected with or without HK M. luteus (1x108 CFU). In the presence of augmenting material, the katA ahpC strain had an exceptionally large and significant increase in liver bacterial numbers from 0 CFU to ~3x107 CFU, levels seen in augmented wild-type S. aureus infections, but no significant change in weight loss or kidney bacterial numbers (Figs 4C and S5J, S5K). Thus S. aureus katA ahpC can not only be augmented but also this leads to loss of attenuation in the liver. This further supports the assertion that augmentation occurs in the liver and is associated with the ability of the bacteria to survive ROS, as well as that augmentation also occurs during the initiation of infection. ROS resistance is additionally required for later infection stages, as S. aureus katA ahpC in the presence of augmenting material does not recover to parental bacterial numbers in the kidney.

To examine the role of HOCl in augmented S. aureus murine infection, MPO knock-out mice (MPO-/-) were infected alongside wild-type controls. Interestingly, we observed a significant increase in liver bacterial numbers in MPO-/- mice in comparison to wild-type mice (Fig 4D), demonstrating that MPO-/- mice were more susceptible to S. aureus infection. This suggests that MPO activity is a crucial component of the host defence in this model. Augmented infections for both wild-type and MPO-/- mice had significantly more liver bacterial numbers and increased weight loss than respective non-augmented infections (Figs 4D and S5L). Therefore, loss of MPO did not inhibit the ability of augmenting material to enhance S. aureus infection, suggesting that HOCl amelioration, at least alone, is not sufficient for augmentation in vivo.

Augmenting material protects S. aureus by inactivating ROS in macrophages

Augmentation occurs at the initiation of infection by circumventing the deleterious effects of ROS in vivo. To determine how these manifest at the cellular level, we used a murine macrophage cell line. Time-lapse imaging of RAW264.7 cells infected with fluorescent S. aureus were used to examine whether bacteria surviving within macrophages may represent the source of the microabcesses that occur as a product of augmentation [12]. In the presence of augmenting material, intracellular S. aureus survival and growth were observed within individual macrophages, which eventually led to host cell death and formation of large extracellular accumulations of bacteria, referred to here as bacterial masses (Fig 5A). Using a high-throughput assay to examine S. aureus mass formation, RAW264.7 cells were infected with S. aureus with or without HK M. luteus at a ratio of 1:10, a lower ratio than was used in the preceding in vitro and in vivo work, to limit cell toxicity. Despite this, the number of masses was significantly increased in the augmented group in comparison to S. aureus infection alone (Fig 5B). We next examined the ratio of augmenting material to S. aureus, using an augmenting material ratio of 10, 5, 2.5, 0.5 and 0.05 to S. aureus, with increased numbers of masses forming in the presence of higher concentrations of augmenting material (Fig 5C). Higher S. aureus levels also led to increased mass formation (Fig 5D). These data demonstrate dose-dependent augmentation by HK bacteria of S. aureus survival and proliferation within macrophages. Finally, we used human monocyte-derived macrophages (MDMs) in the time-lapse S. aureus mass formation assay. S. aureus was able to survive, proliferate and escape from MDMs (Fig 5E). Similarly, S. aureus mass formation from MDMs was significantly increased in the presence of augmenting material (Figs 5F and S6A). Augmenting material therefore increases the capacity of S. aureus to overwhelm human macrophages.

Fig 5. Augmenting material protects S. aureus from reactive oxygen species in macrophages.

Fig 5

A Images of GFP-S. aureus mass formation within RAW264.7 cells, scale 20 μm B RAW264.7 cells infected with GFP S. aureus (MOI 5) with or without heat-killed M. luteus (MOI 50), (n = 4), ****p<0.0001 C RAW264.7 cells infected with GFP S. aureus (MOI 5) with or without heat-killed M. luteus (ratio to S. aureus, 10, 5, 2.5, 0.5 or media control), (n = 4), **p<0.008; ****p<0.0001 D RAW264.7 cells infected with GFP S. aureus (MOI 5, 2.5, 1.25, 0.25, 0.025 or media control) with or without of heat-killed M. luteus (MOI 50), (n = 4), **p<0.003; ***p<0.0008; ****p<0.0001 E-F MDMs infected with GFP S. aureus (MOI 5) with or without heat-killed M. luteus (MOI 50) E images of GFP S. aureus mass formation within human MDMs, scale 20 μm F number of S. aureus masses observed (n = 3), **p<0.003 G RAW264.7 cells infected with GFP S. aureus (MOI 5) in the presence or absence of heat-killed M. luteus (MOI 50), either with or without DPI (2 μM), (n = 4), *p<0.05;***p<0.0004; ****p<0.0001 H RAW264.7 cells infected with GFP S. aureus (MOI 5) in the presence or absence of heat-killed M. luteus (MOI 50), either with or without apocynin (500 μM), (n = 4), ****p<0.0001 I RAW264.7 cells infected with GFP S. aureus (MOI 5) in the presence or absence of heat-killed M. luteus (MOI 50), either with or without mitoTEMPO (1 μM), (n = 4, non-significant) J RAW264.7 cells infected with GFP S. aureus (MOI 5) with or without heat-killed M. luteus (MOI 50) with Hydrop used to visualise hydrogen peroxide (n = 4, violin plot with median values shown), **p<0.007; ***p<0.0004 K RAW264.7 cells infected with CellROX-stained GFP S. aureus (MOI 50) to visualise intracellular oxidation in the presence or absence of heat-killed M. luteus (MOI 50), (n = 4, violin plot with median values shown), ****p<0.0001. In panels B, F, H, I and K, a two-tailed Mann Whitney test was used, in panels C, D, G, and J, a Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc test was used. Where used, error bars show mean +/- SD.

To examine the importance of ROS production, the mass formation assay was evaluated following treatment with NOX2 inhibitors DPI or apocynin, using concentrations which did not inhibit S. aureus growth (S6B and S6C Fig). Addition of DPI or apocynin significantly reduced the level of augmentation compared to the untreated controls (Fig 5G and 5H), but treatment with a specific scavenger of mitochondrial superoxide (mitoTEMPO) did not (Fig 5I). This confirms that ROS production, specifically in phagosomes, is important for augmentation of S. aureus infection within macrophages. Our in vitro assays showed that augmenting material protects S. aureus from ROS. Therefore, we used a specific fluorescent probe, Hydrop, to examine levels of H2O2 within infected RAW264.7 macrophages. The Hydrop assay showed significantly reduced H2O2 levels in RAW264.7 cells infected with S. aureus and HK M. luteus, in comparison to S. aureus alone (Figs 5J and S6D). To further examine how augmentation affects oxidation of the bacteria, RAW264.7 macrophages were infected with GFP S. aureus stained with CellROX, a dye which becomes fluorescent when oxidised by ROS. There were significantly more oxidised S. aureus events in macrophages infected with S. aureus alone than those infected with S. aureus alongside HK M. luteus (Figs 5K and S6E). Together these data demonstrate ROS levels are reduced in the presence of augmenting material, suggesting this material acts to inactivate ROS.

Can augmentation be exploited for vaccine development?

S. aureus vaccine development has been unsuccessful, in part due to animal models not being representative of human disease and high variability in infection outcome [36]. Natural human infection with S. aureus emerges from a polymicrobial environment. We therefore tested if the augmented infection model (where augmenting material represents polymicrobial species) might provide a suitable framework for vaccine development.

The test vaccine consisted of 1 μg ClfA, 50 μg CpG and 1% w/v Alhydrogel an aluminium based adjuvant, components which have been used previously [3739]. Mice were vaccinated on days 0, 14 and 21 before S. aureus infection on day 28, with blood drawn before and after vaccinations (Fig 6A). The vaccine was tested for efficacy, alongside PBS control injections, in three S. aureus infection scenarios; low dose (1x106 S. aureus), high dose (1x107 S. aureus) and augmented low dose (1x106 S. aureus +/- M. luteus PGN), in 2 independent experiments (Figs 6 and S7). Low dose infection caused low numbers (an average of 38 CFU) of bacteria in the liver, with more observed in the high dose infection (an average of 1.43x106 CFU), and as expected, the augmentation groups had very high liver bacterial numbers (an average of 4.45x107 CFU) (Fig 6B). Interestingly, vaccination reduced S. aureus liver and kidney bacterial numbers only for the augmentation groups (Figs 6B and S7A, S7B). The second independent experiment also showed that the vaccine was only effective in reducing S. aureus pathogenesis in the augmented scenario (S7C–S7F Fig). These data suggest that using augmentation to examine vaccine efficacy may be a useful strategy, as it mimics natural infection.

Fig 6. Vaccination reduces augmented infection.

Fig 6

A-B Mice were vaccinated subcutaneously on day 0, 14 and 21 with vaccine (1 μg ClfA, 50 μg CpG and 1% w/v Alhydrogel, triangles) or PBS control (circles). Day 28 post-vaccination mice were intravenously injected with low dose S. aureus (1x106 CFU) high dose S. aureus (1x107 CFU), with both low dose S. aureus and 250 μg M. luteus PGN A diagram of experimental protocol B liver CFUs, enumerated 72 hpi (n = 10 per group, median value shown, two-tailed Mann-Whitney test), **p<0.002.

Discussion

S. aureus is an insidious pathogen made more concerning due to the spread of antimicrobial resistance and the lack of an available vaccine. Understanding infection dynamics provides a route to the identification of disease breakpoints where interventions might be most effective. An effective vaccine should be able to prevent disease establishment, and so understanding the status of the pathogen at this infection initiation stage is crucial. All pathogens exist within a polymicrobial environment from which they emerge to cause disease. S. aureus lives as a human commensal, primarily in the nares where even in this niche it forms only a small proportion of the microbiome [13]. Thus, all S. aureus infections are initiated from an inoculum that is mostly not the pathogen. With this backdrop, we have identified the augmentation phenomenon, where human-skin commensals or derivatives enhance S. aureus pathogenesis, acting at the level of initial macrophage interaction [12]. The amount of material required to augment S. aureus infection is comparable to the number of bacteria located on human skin or vascular catheters [40,41]. Here we find that augmentation is not specific to S. aureus as it occurs with other opportunist pathogens. Both E. coli and E. faecalis, which survive intracellularly within macrophages [42,43], benefitted from augmenting material. However, in both cases augmentation was evidenced by reduced clearance rather than an increase in pathogen load, suggesting the increase in pathogenesis resulting in increased bacterial burden may be peculiar to S. aureus. We also show S. aureus disease can be augmented by a range of particulate materials from whole bacteria to fungal cell walls, suggesting that augmentation is not mediated by a response to specific components. This is supported by our previous work that demonstrated augmentation not to require any of the major host response pathways such as NOD1 and NOD2 [12]. The hypothesis that augmentation occurs at the initiation of infection was further supported by the requirement for co-inoculation of S. aureus and augmenting material.

Augmentation has a profound effect on S. aureus disease, resulting in the ability to reduce the required inoculum by 1000-fold to cause systemic disease in the murine sepsis model [12]. To determine what the molecular mechanism might be, we homed in on those events which occur within the macrophage after phagocytosis, where ROS production is known to be required for augmentation [12]. In vitro, augmenting material protected S. aureus from H2O2, HOCl and peroxynitrite, suggesting that augmenting material reacts with ROS acting as a buffer, allowing continued S. aureus survival. Augmenting material showed a variable, protective capacity against different ROS. As an example, low dose HK M. luteus (equivalent CFU 5x106) protected WT S. aureus from killing by HOCl but not the other ROS tested (Figs 3E and S4C, S4D). Conversely, PGN (25 mg/ml) was able to protect S. aureus from H2O2, peroxynitrite and HOCl (Fig 3B–3D). Use of a higher dose of HK M. luteus (equivalent CFU 1.25x108), which was comparable to the number of live cells from which the PGN was derived gave protection to all 3 ROS demonstrating parity (Fig 3F and 3G). Live M. luteus, at a concentration of 106 CFU, was able to protect S. aureus from ROS killing by HOCl, H2O2 and peroxynitrite, which is likely due in part to M. luteus ROS resistance enzymes, such as catalase. A variety of biological entities present on augmenting material hold the potential to react with ROS resulting in, for example, oxidation or chlorination [44,45]. Furthermore, pre-treatment of augmenting material with ROS inhibited its protective ability, defining a finite capacity for ROS detoxification. The in vitro data was obtained in an environment very different from that experienced by the bacteria inside phagocytes, let alone in vivo, therefore it was important to make analyses in these more complex milieu. There are a range of ROS, all ultimately originating from superoxide as a product of NADPH oxidase, but which are directly involved in S. aureus killing in macrophages is unknown [26]. S. aureus katA ahpC is susceptible to H2O2 in vitro and is attenuated in vivo. Interestingly, augmentation had a dramatic effect on S. aureus katA ahpC pathogenesis resulting in extremely boosted virulence, to a level compatible to its parent. This embeds the role of ROS resistance at the very earliest stages of disease in order to pass the initial threshold of infection establishment. H2O2 is produced early during oxidative burst [16,17,46] and may therefore constitute a key ROS in controlling S. aureus. We also found that augmenting material protects S. aureus from HOCl and that pre-treatment of the augmentor with this ROS abrogated its protective effect. HOCl is derived from H2O2 by MPO within macrophages but at a proposed lower level than in neutrophils [47], leading to a higher H2O2 concentration in macrophages [48]. Nevertheless, here we demonstrated that MPO is an important host defence enzyme in vivo, where its loss resulted in increased bacterial load in the liver highlighting HOCl as an important ROS in the control of infection. Lack of MPO did not prevent augmentation, in contrast to the loss of NOX2 activity in mice which did [12]. It is therefore likely that augmenting material acts as a sink for ROS in general thereby protecting S. aureus and allowing it to survive this crucial phase in host innate defences.

The effect of augmenting material is to allow S. aureus to survive the ROS assault in the macrophage. Inhibition of ROS in the absence of augmenting material did not greatly enhance S. aureus mass formation in isolated macrophages, possibly indicating that other killing mechanisms, of which there are a variety [26], may compensate in vitro. When S. aureus infection is augmented, absorption of ROS by augmenting material may prevent further maturation of the phagosome and thus activation of downstream bactericidal mechanisms. However, the importance of host ROS in controlling S. aureus infection real-life infections is clearly demonstrated with increased S. aureus pathogenicity in MPO (or NOX2 [12]) deficient mice, as well as the attenuation of S. aureus katA ahpC infection in vivo. A model for the molecular mechanism of augmentation is shown in S8 Fig, where phagocytosis of a threshold number of S. aureus leads to activation of ROS production and bacterial killing. Augmentation results in a bolus of phagocytosed material in addition to the S. aureus that acts to detoxify ROS and so increase the chance of bacterial survival, subsequent proliferation and lysis of the phagocyte, releasing a cluster of bacteria able to further multiply to form a microabscess. It is these microabscesses that can then go onto seed other sites in the host leading to a systemic and potentially fatal infection. Augmentation may act, therefore, to increase chances of infection spread by expanding the number of macrophages that are ineffective at controlling the initial infective dose. As the initiation of human infection will come from a polymicrobial environment, augmentation provides a framework to test prophylactic regimen. Indeed, under an augmentation scenario, an experimental S. aureus vaccine reduced bacterial burden. Understanding infection dynamics and the interplay between pathogen, host and other organisms is beginning to give insight into disease progression, and how novel interventions to sway the outcome in the favour for the host may be derived.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

Animal work in the UK was performed in accordance with the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. At the University of Sheffield, work was completed under project licences P3BFD6DB9 and PPL 40/3699 for murine work, or P1A4A7A5E for zebrafish work, with ethical approval from the University of Sheffield Local Ethical Review Panel. At Imperial College London, work was conducted under licence P4C824899 with approval from the Imperial ethical review board. At INRAE, animal work was approved by the local ethics committee (COMETHEA or “Comité d’Ethique en Expérimentation Animale”, Centre de Recherche Ile de France—Jouy en Josas–Antony) under the registration numbers 15_08, and by the French Ministry of Higher Education and Research APAFIS #480-2015041518048149v1, where all animal experiments were performed in accordance with European directive 2010/63/EU. Animal experiments in Calgary were approved by the University of Calgary Animal Care Committee and were in compliance with the Canadian Council for Animal Care Guidelines (protocol nr. AC16-0148). MDMs were derived, with informed consent, from the blood of healthy volunteers, in accordance with guidelines from the South Sheffield Research Ethics Committee (07/Q2305/7).

Animal husbandry

Mice were housed in designated animal facilities in standard husbandry conditions. BALB/c female mice aged 6–9 weeks (Charles River Laboratories) for all animal work completed at the University of Sheffield. At the University of Calgary female and male MPO-/- Mice and C57 wild-type controls aged 8–11 weeks (Jackson Laboratory) were used. Adult zebrafish were maintained according to standard protocols in UK home office approved facilities, at the Bateson centre Aquaria at the University of Sheffield. Embryos less than 5.2 days post-fertilisation (dpf) of Tg(mpeg1:mCherryCAAX)sh378 [35] were used.

Murine models

The mouse sepsis model was completed by injecting BALB/c mice with a pathogen (S. aureus, E. faecalis, S. pneumoniae or P. aeruginosa), augmenting material (M. luteus, PGN, HK M. luteus, HK C. neoformans, E. coli, R. mucosa or S. cerevisiae), or mixture of a pathogen and an augmentor. These were injected into the tail vein in a volume of 100 μl. Individual experimental figure legends show the CFU and/or amount of augmenting material used. Bacteria were prepared for injection as previously established [49], and serial dilutions of the inoculum were plated to confirm CFUs injected into mice. Mice were monitored daily for health and weight, and were euthanised at the experimental end point of 48 or usually 72 hours post-infection (hpi). Liver and kidney CFU were calculated as previously established [12].

For murine intramuscular injections, mice were challenged intramuscularly with S. pyogenes, with or without 500 μg M. luteus PGN in 50 μl PBS and quantitative endpoints compared at 24 hpi. Mice were euthanised and thigh muscle dissected and then homogenised. Bacterial CFU counts were determined by plating of homogenised tissue and blood samples onto the specified agar, with or without dilution in PBS, as appropriate.

In the subcutaneous mouse injections used in the vaccine experiments, mice were scruffed and injected subcutaneously into the scruff with 100 μl of vaccine or PBS control.

For murine blood sampling, mice were warmed to 37 oC to promote tail vein dilation, a small cut was made into the tail vein allowing a small volume of blood to be collected.

Zebrafish infection model

For zebrafish infection and imaging, the established zebrafish infection model was followed [50]. Immediately prior to injection, PGN was stained with Alexa Fluo 405 NHS Ester (Fisher) following established protocols [51]. 2 dpf larvae were anesthetized with tricaine and injected with 1 nl containing 400 CFU of GFP-S. aureus, 5 ng of stained PGN, or both, into the yolk sac circulation valley. Larvae were then recovered, before being mounted in 0.8% low melt agarose (Affymetrix, 32830) in glass-bottom microwell dishes (MatTek, P35 G-1.5–14 C). An UltraVIEW VoX spinning disk confocal microscope (Perkin Elmer, Cambridge, UK) was used for imaging larvae at 2 hpi, where 405 nm, 445 nm, 488 nm, 514 nm, 561 nm and 640 nm lasers were available for excitation and a 40x oil objective (UplanSApo 40x oil [NA 1.3] was used. Imaging of macrophages were obtained in the caudal hematopoietic tissue (CHT). Analysis was carried out using Fiji (ImageJ) to measure the area of macrophages, and S. aureus and PGN within macrophages. 47 macrophages from 21 zebrafish larvae which had been co-injected with S. aureus and PGN were assessed for the presence of phagocytosed S. aureus, PGN or both.

Bacterial strains and culture

Microbial strains used in this study are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Bacterial and fungal strains used.

Species Strain Description Culture conditions Reference or source
Staphylococcus aureus NewHG (SJF3680) NewHG lysA::pGM072(KanR) lysA+ Tryptic Soy Broth (TSB, Kanamycin 50 μg/mL), 37°C [11]
Staphylococcus aureus NewHG-GFP (SJF4620) geh::Pma1M-GFP TSB (Kanamycin 50 μg/mL), 37°C [13]
Staphylococcus aureus NewHG-mCherry (SJF4439) pMV158-mCherry lysA::kan lysA+ TSB (Kanamycin 50 μg/mL and Tetracycline 5 μg/mL), 37°C This study
Staphylococcus aureus NewHG katAahpC (SJF5252) katA::Tn917 and ahpC::tet TSB (Tetracycline 5 μg/mL, Erythromycin 5 μg/mL), 37°C This study
Staphylococcus aureus NewHG katA (SJF5251) katA::Tn917 TSB (Erythromycin 5 μg/mL), 37°C This study
Staphylococcus aureus NewHG ahpC (SJF5184) ahpC::tet TSB (Tetracycline 5 μg/mL), 37°C This study
Micrococcus luteus SJF4393 ATCC 4698 (RifR) TSB (Rifampicin 0.1 μg/mL), 30°C [12]
Enterococcus faecalis OG1RF Plasmid-free wild-type strain BHI (France),
TSB (Sheffield), 37°C
[52]
Streptococcus pyogenes H584 M1T1 invasive puerperal sepsis blood isolate Columbia horse blood agar, 37°C [53]
Streptococcus pneumoniae d39Δcps Un-encapsulated strain Todd-Hewitt supplemented with 0.5% w/v yeast extract Lab stock
Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA01 Wild-type Luria-Bertani (LB), 37°C Lab stock
Cryptococcus neoformans H99 Lab reference strain derived from Heitman lab, H99 #1 Grown in YPD, 28°C, then heat-killed. [54]
Escherichia coli W3110
(SJF4060)
Wild-type LB Lab stock
Roseomonas mucosa HS or HM Human isolate R2A Ian Myles (National Institute of Health)
Saccharomyces cerevisiae 842 (SJF 66) Wild-type Grown in YPD at 30°C Lab stock

Transductions

S. aureus NewHG katA, ahpC and katA ahpC strains were created using established transduction protocols [21] using ϕ11, from existing S. aureus SH1000 katA (KS100) [21] or ahpC (KC041) [21] strains. Presence of mutations in the newly generated NewHG strains were confirmed with PCR. The NewHG-mCherry (SJF4439) was created following the same transduction protocols [21] using an existing SH1000-mCherry strain [13].

Peptidoglycan and capsule preparation

M. luteus or S. aureus PGN used throughout this study was prepared and purified using established protocols [55]. C. neoformans capsule was isolated after growing cultures for 7 days at 28°C at 180 rpm. The culture was autoclaved, cells harvested at 6000 g, and supernatant collected. Ice-cold ethanol was added to precipitate the cryptococcal capsule, which was collected after centrifugation again at 6000 g.

Vaccine preparation

Vaccine formulations were made in 1x endotoxin free PBS. Vaccines were used at a final concentration of 1 μg/dose Clumping factor A (ClfA, recombinant, endotoxin purified, mass-spectrometry confirmed), 50 μg/dose CpG-B DNA (Hycult Biotech), 1% (w/v) Alhydrogel an aluminium based adjuvant (Invivogen). Vaccines were always administered subcutaneously, as above.

For the production of ClfA, XL1 blue E. coli were used to produce recombinant 6xHis tagged ClfA (residues 40–559). ClfA was purified from cell lysates via nickel affinity chromatography, size exclusion chromatography and confirmed as endotoxin-free. Finally, mass spectrometry was used to verify ClfA (residues 40–559) identity.

In vitro ROS challenge assays

To generate ROS-killed M. luteus, bacteria were treated with ROS (sodium hypochlorite, H2O2 or peroxynitrite) until colonies would no longer form on agar. An aliquot of ROS-killed suspension was then dried and weighed to determine concentration, before freezing to -20°C in PBS.

S. aureus and M. luteus from overnight broth cultures were adjusted to an optical density at 600 nm (OD600) of 0.05 and 0.1, respectively, in 50 mL TSB. Bacteria were grown at 37°C (S. aureus) or 30°C (M. luteus) for 2 h, shaking. Bacteria were harvested and resuspended in PBS to OD600 1.0 for S. aureus, or 11.3 for M. luteus. S. aureus and M. luteus were diluted to 2x105 CFU/mL and 2x107 CFU/mL, respectively, in PBS. HK and ROS-killed M. luteus were diluted to equivalent concentrations to live M. luteus, as determined by dry weight (approximately 3.2 mg/mL). 50 μL S. aureus was incubated in the presence of 50 μL live, HK or ROS-killed M. luteus, or M. luteus PGN (25 mg/ml), with ROS and PBS to a total volume of 200 μL. S. aureus was incubated alone, with or without ROS for positive and negative controls. An aliquot of live bacteria present in individual tubes was taken prior to addition of ROS to determine CFU/mL at the start of the assay. H2O2 (VWR) was used at a final concentration of 0.0077% v/v, peroxynitrite (Sigma-Aldrich) at a final concentration of 2.25 mM, methyl viologen (Sigma-Aldrich) at a final concentration of 1.8 M, and sodium hypochlorite (Fisher) at a final concentration of 0.00005% v/v. Tubes were incubated at 37°C, shaking, for 1 h before determination of CFU/mL by serial dilutions. Experimental data was combined from 3 replicates carried out on separate days.

Cell culture

Experiments were conducted with RAW264.7 cells (ATCC TIB-71), a leukemic murine macrophage cell line, or primary MDMs derived from human blood. RAW264.7 cells were cultivated in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM) supplemented with 2 mM L-Glutamine, 100 Units/mL streptomycin, 0.1 mg/mL penicillin, and 10% v/v Foetal bovine serum (FBS) (all media components sourced from Sigma-Aldrich). RAW264.7 cells were passaged into fresh media upon reaching 70–80% confluence. All experiments carried out between passages 5 and 20.

MDMs were isolated as described previously [56]. Briefly, peripheral blood mononuclear cells were isolated by Ficoll Plaque (GE Healthcare) density centrifugation, seeded in 24 well plates at 2x106 cells/well in RPMI-1640 media (Lonza) supplemented with 2 mM L-Glutamine, 10% v/v newborn calf serum (Gibco) and incubated at 37°C, 5% CO2. Non-adherent cells were removed after 24 h, and adherent cells were fed with fresh RPMI-1640 supplemented with 2 mM L-Glutamine and 10% v/v low endotoxin heat-inactivated foetal bovine serum (Biosera). MDMs were used for experiments at 14 days post-isolation. Media was replaced every 2–3 days for all cells used.

Cell infection

Cell infection assays were carried out as similar to those described previously [12], with modification. RAW264.7 or MDM cells were seeded into 24 well plates (Corning) or white 96 well micro-clear plates (Greiner) and grown to 80% confluence. DMEM supplemented with 2 mM L-glutamine was used in experimental assays for RAW264.7 cells. Cell monolayers were washed with tissue culture PBS (Fisher) three times before infection to remove residual antibiotic.

S. aureus was thawed from a frozen aliquot, as for mouse experiments. Unless otherwise stated, S. aureus was added to cells at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) 5, and HK M. luteus at MOI 50.

S. aureus macrophage survival and mass formation assay

For experiments concerning S. aureus mass formation, GFP expressing S. aureus was added to cells with or without HK M. luteus in 96 well plates and incubated at 37°C, 5% CO2 for 2.5 h. Media was removed and fresh infection media supplemented with 20 μg/mL lysostaphin (Biosynexus), alongside 100 μg/ml gentamycin (Fisher) for MDMs, was added and incubated for 0.5–1 h at 37°C, 5% CO2 to kill extracellular bacteria. Monolayers were washed with PBS three times, fresh media was added and incubated overnight at 37°C, 5% CO2. Wells were imaged at 24 h post-infection using ImageXpress Micro (Molecular Devices), using a 2x objective lens and FITC filter. Masses were analysed using MetaXpress high-content image acquisition and analysis software (Molecular Devices) for average number of masses larger than 20–40 μm per well. Experiments into the effects of chemicals on S. aureus mass formation were carried in the presence of 2 μM diphenyleneiodonium chloride (DPI), 500 μM apocynin or 1 μM MitoTEMPO, all sourced from Sigma-Aldrich, with media supplemented with solvent used for controls.

In a modification of this experiment, the ratio of S. aureus to HK M. luteus was altered. RAW264.7 cells were infected with GFP S. aureus (MOI 5) in the presence or absence of HK M. luteus at a ratio to S. aureus of 10 (MOI 50), 5 (MOI 25), 2.5 (MOI 12.5), 0.5 (MOI 2.5), or 0.05 (MOI 0.25). Alternatively, RAW264.7 cells were infected with GFP S. aureus at MOI 5, 2.5, 1.25, 0.25, 0.025 in the presence or absence of HK M. luteus (MOI 50).

Hydrop dye

For experiments using Hydrop fluorescent dye (Goryo chemical), mCherry S. aureus was stained with Alexa Fluor 555 NHS Ester (Fisher) [51] S. aureus were stored on ice until addition to RAW264.7 cells in a 24 well plate. S. aureus (MOI 5) and/or HK M. luteus (MOI 50) were added to cells in the presence of 1 μM Hydrop dye. 200 nM PMA with Hydrop dye was added to cells for positive control. Wells were imaged at 30 min post-infection on a Nikon Eclipse Ti microscope was used to image cells in a climate controlled set-up (37°C, Atmosphere: 5% CO2 / 95% air) with a x20 Lambda Apo NA 0.75 phase contrast objective for brightfield or with GFP or mCherry filters, images were captured with a Andor Neo-5.5-CL3 camera. Analysis was carried out using NIS elements (Nikon) and Fiji (ImageJ). The threshold for GFP images was adjusted within Fiji to exclude background fluorescence. The same threshold was set for all images from an experiment, and this was used to measure the fluorescence levels.

CellROX

For experiments using CellROX deep red reagent (Fisher), S. aureus SJF4620 was first stained with 20 μM CellROX and incubated at 37°C for 30 min, shaking. Labelled S. aureus (MOI 50) were added to RAW264.7 cells in the presence or absence of HK M. luteus, with unlabelled GFP S. aureus or blank media used for controls. Cells were incubated at 37°C, 5% CO2 for 30 min before fixation with 2% w/v paraformaldehyde (Sigma) for 1 h. Following fixation, samples were washed thoroughly with PBS and stained with 300 nM DAPI (Fisher) before further PBS washes. Samples were imaged on ImageXpress Micro (Molecular Devices) using a 20x objective lens, DAPI, FITC and Cy5 filters. Images were analysed using MetaXpress high-content image acquisition and analysis software. A custom module editor was used to identify bacteria in the GFP and Cy5 filters and count the frequency of signal overlap (referred to as ‘oxidised objects’).

S. aureus infection of macrophages timelapse

For timelapse experiments, GFP S. aureus in the presence or absence of HK M. luteus was added to RAW264.7 or MDM cells in a 24 well plate, and incubated on ice for 60 min, then at 37°C, 5% CO2 for 90 min. Antibiotic-containing media was then added to cells: 20 μg/mL lysostaphin for RAW264.7 cells, 20 μg/mL lysostaphin and 100 μg/mL gentamycin for MDMs. This was incubated at 37°C, 5% CO2 for 30 min. Wells were washed with PBS three times and replaced with fresh media. MDMs were imaged every 10 min for 18 h, while RAW264.7 cells were imaged every 20 min for 18 h. Imaging was carried out on a Nikon Eclipse Ti microscope was used to image cells in a climate-controlled set-up (37°C, Atmosphere: 5% CO2 / 95% air) with a x20 Lambda Apo NA 0.75 phase contrast objective for brightfield or with a GFP filter, images were captured with a Andor Neo-5.5-CL3 camera. Analysis was carried out using NIS elements (Nikon) and Fiji (ImageJ).

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was carried out in Prism 8.4.3 (GraphPad), with P<0.05 considered significant. Mouse experiments were analysed using two-tailed Mann-Whitney U tests or Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests with Dunn’s post-test, depending on the number of groups compared. Zebrafish experiments were analysed using unpaired t-tests. In vitro ROS challenge assays were analysed using one-way ANOVAs with Tukey post-test. Cell infection assays were analysed by Mann-Whitney U tests or Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA tests with Dunn’s post-test. All measurements were taken from distinct samples.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Breadth of the augmentation phenomenon.

A Co-injection of low dose S. aureus (SA 1x106 CFU) with heat-killed M. luteus (HK ML equivalent of 1x108 CFU) into mice: weight loss (n = 5 per group), *p<0.05 B Co-injection of low dose S. aureus (SA 1x106 CFU) with E. coli (EC 5x106 CFU) into mice: weight loss (n = 8–10 per group, S. aureus, circles; E. coli triangles), **p<0.003; ***p<0.0005 C Co-injection of low dose S. aureus (SA 1x106 CFU) with R. mucosa (RM 2x108 CFU) into mice: weight loss (n = 5 per group) D Co-injection of low dose S. aureus (SA 1x106 CFU) with heat-killed C. neoformans (CN 750 μg) into mice: weight loss (n = 9–10 per group) E-G Co-injection of low dose S. aureus (SA 1x106 CFU) with S. cerevisiae (SC 1x108 CFU) into mice, (n = 10 per group, S. aureus, circles; S. cerevisiae triangles): E weight loss, *p<0.05; ****p<0.0001, F liver CFU, ****p<0.0001, G kidney CFU, ***p<0.0005 H-L Co-injection of low dose E. faecalis (EF 5x107 CFU) with M. luteus (ML 2x108 CFU) into mice: H weight loss (n = 10 per group), I kidney CFU, J lung CFU, *p≤0.05, K heart CFU, L spleen M-N Co-injection of low dose E. faecalis (EF 5x107 CFU) with M. luteus PGN (ML PGN 500 μg) into mice (n = 10 per group): M weight loss, *p<0.05, N liver CFU, O-R Co-injection of high dose E. faecalis (EF 1x108 CFU) with M. luteus PGN (ML PGN 500 μg) into mice, CFUs taken at 48 hpi (n = 8–9 per group): O liver CFU, ****p<0.0001, P kidney CFU, **p<0.0.003, Q spleen CFU, ***p<0.0.0005, R heart CFU, *p<0.05. Colours used indicate the level of significance as indicated in Fig 1E. For all panels, the median value is shown. For panels B and E, a Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s post-test was used, for all remaining panels a two-tailed Mann-Whitney test was used. CFUs were enumerated at 3 days post-infection, unless otherwise stated.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Lack of augmentation of alternative bacterial pathogens.

A-C Co-injection of low dose S. pneumoniae (SPN 1x106 CFU) with M. luteus PGN (ML PGN 500 μg) into mice (n = 10 per group), CFUs enumerated at 3 days post-infection: A weight loss, *p<0.05, B liver CFU, C kidney CFU, **p<0.003 D-F Co-injection of low dose P. aeruginosa (PA 1x105 CFU) with M. luteus PGN (ML PGN 500 μg) into mice (n = 10 per group), CFUs enumerated at 3 days post-infection: D weight loss, E liver CFU, F kidney CFU G-H Intramuscular co-injection of S. pyogenes (SPY 1x108 CFU) with M. luteus PGN (ML PGN 500 μg) into mice (n = 8 per group): G leg hindlimb CFU at 24 hpi, H weight loss at 24 hpi. Colours used indicate the level of significance as indicated in Fig 1E. For all panels, a two-tailed Mann-Whitney test was used and the median value is shown.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Augmenting material must be present at the same time and location as S. aureus to enhance infection.

A-B Mice were intravenously injected with 500 μg M. luteus PGN 24 hours, 6 hours or 1 hour before infection with 1x106 S. aureus, at the same time as S. aureus, or with S. aureus alone (n = 7 per group, median value shown, Kruskal-Wallis tests with Dunn’s post-test) A weight loss B kidney CFU C-D Mice were intravenously injected with 500 μg M. luteus PGN 48 hours, 24 hours or 6 hours after infection with 1x106 S. aureus, at the same time as S. aureus, or with S. aureus alone (n = 5 per group, median value shown, Kruskal-Wallis tests with Dunn’s post-test) C weight loss, *p<0.05; **p<0.008 D kidney CFU E quantitation of zebrafish macrophages from Fig 2I, showing the percentage containing S. aureus only (green), PGN only (blue) or S. aureus co-localising with PGN (yellow) (n = 47 macrophages from 21 larvae).

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Augmenting material protects S. aureus from ROS in vitro.

A Following methyl viologen exposure, percentage survival of S. aureus alone (5x104 CFU/mL), or with M. luteus PGN (1.25 mg) (n = 3, error bars show mean +/- SD, one-way ANOVA test with Tukey’s post hoc test), *p<0.05; **p<0.01 B-D Following ROS exposure, percentage survival of S. aureus alone (5x104 CFU/mL), or with live M. luteus (5x106 CFU/mL), heat-killed M. luteus (equivalent of 5x106 CFU/mL) or ROS killed M. luteus (equivalent of 5x106 CFU/mL), (n = 3, error bars show mean +/- SD, one-way ANOVA tests with Tukey’s post hoc test) B methyl viologen, ****p<0.0001 C hydrogen peroxide, **p<0.007 D peroxynitrite, **p<0.003; ****p<0.0001 E Following sodium hypochlorite exposure, percentage survival of S. aureus alone (5x104 CFU/mL), or with live M. luteus (5x106 CFU/mL), (n = 3, error bars show mean +/- SD, one-way ANOVA test with Tukey’s post hoc test), *p<0.05.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. ROS susceptible S. aureus survives ROS exposure due to protection by augmenting material.

A-B Following hydrogen peroxide exposure, percentage survival of ROS susceptible S. aureus mutants alone (5x104 CFU/mL), or with live M. luteus (5x106 CFU/mL), heat-killed M. luteus (equivalent of 5x106 CFU/mL) or H2O2 killed M. luteus (equivalent of 5x106 CFU/mL), (n = 3, error bars show mean +/- SD, one-way ANOVA tests with Tukey’s post hoc test): A katA, *p<0.05 B ahpC, *p<0.05; ***p<0.0007 C Following sodium hypochlorite exposure, percentage survival of S. aureus katA ahpC alone (5x104 CFU/mL), or with live M. luteus (5x106 CFU/mL), heat-killed M. luteus (equivalent of 5x106 CFU/mL) or ROS killed M. luteus (equivalent of 5x106 CFU/mL), (n = 3, error bars show mean +/- SD, one-way ANOVA test with Tukey’s post hoc test), ****p<0.0001 D-F Injection of high dose (1x107) of S. aureus control, katA, katA ahpC into mice (n = 10 per group, median value shown, Kruskal-Wallis tests with Dunn’s post-test): D weight loss, **p<0.009; ***p<0.0003 E liver CFU, *p<0.05 F kidney CFUs, *p<0.05; **p<0.01 G-I Injection of high dose (1x107) of S. aureus control and ahpC into mice (n = 10 per group, median value shown, two-tailed Mann-Whitney tests): G weight loss, *p<0.05 H liver CFU, ***p<0.0002 I kidney CFU J-K Co-injection of low dose (1x106 CFU) S. aureus katA ahpC with heat-killed M. luteus (equivalent of 1x108 CFU) into mice: liver CFU (n = 5 per group, median value shown, two-tailed Mann-Whitney tests): J weight loss K kidney CFU L Co-injection of low dose S. aureus (SA 2x105 CFU) with M. luteus PGN (ML PGN 500 μg) into wild-type (WT) control mice or MPO-/- mice: weight loss (n = 9 per group, median value shown, individual two-tailed Mann-Whitney tests), *p<0.05; **p<0.004.

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Augmenting material protects S. aureus from ROS in murine and human macrophages.

A Representative images of human MDMs infected with GFP S. aureus (MOI 5) in the presence or absence of heat-killed M. luteus (MOI 50), showing number of GFP S. aureus masses observed (n = 3, individual images show a single field of view, 4 per well), scale 100 μm B S. aureus-GFP growth curve in the presence of 0, 2, 5 or 10 μM DPI C S. aureus-GFP growth curve in the presence of 500 μM apocynin or solvent control D Representative images of RAW264.7 cells in the presence of Hydrop (1 μM) (green) incubated alone (media), treated with PMA (200 nM), or infected with S. aureus (MOI 5), heat-killed M. luteus (MOI 50), or both S. aureus and heat-killed M. luteus, scale 20 μm E Representative images of RAW264.7 cells incubated alone (media), infected with S. aureus (MOI 50), CellROX-stained S. aureus (MOI 50) or CellROX-stained S. aureus (MOI 50) and heat-killed M. luteus (MOI 50). RAW264.7 nuclei were stained with DAPI (blue), S. aureus was labelled by GFP expression (green) and, upon oxidation, by CellROX (red). Arrows indicate co-localisation of GFP S. aureus with CellROX signal, implying oxidation of bacteria, scale 50 μm. White box indicates area of increased magnification, scale 10 μm.

(TIF)

S7 Fig. Vaccination reduces augmented infection.

A-B Mice were vaccinated subcutaneously on day 0, 14 and 21 with vaccine (1 μg ClfA, 50 μg CpG and 1% w/v Alhydrogel, triangles) or PBS control (circles). Day 28 post-vaccination mice were intravenously injected with low dose S. aureus (1x106 CFU), high dose S. aureus (1x107 CFU), or both low dose S. aureus and 250 μg M. luteus PGN (n = 10 per group, median value shown, two-tailed Mann-Whitney tests) A weight loss, *p<0.05 B kidney CFU, *p<0.05 C-F Mice were vaccinated subcutaneously on day 0, 14 and 21 with vaccine (1 μg ClfA, 50 μg CpG and 1% w/v Alhydrogel, triangles) or PBS control (circles). Day 28 post-vaccination mice were intravenously injected with high dose S. aureus (5x106 CFU), or low dose S. aureus (5x105 CFU) and 250 μg M. luteus PGN (n = 10 per group, median value shown, two-tailed Mann-Whitney tests) C diagram of experimental protocol D liver CFU, ****p<0.0001 E weight loss, *p<0.05; **p<0.006 F kidney CFU.

(TIF)

S8 Fig. Diagram of augmentation phenomenon mechanism.

Diagram highlighting how augmenting material protects S. aureus from ROS in the phagosome of macrophages. The left-hand side demonstrates non-augmented S. aureus infection, resulting in ROS mediated bacterial killing. The right-hand side shows an augmented S. aureus infection, highlighting how the presence of augmenting material in the same phagosome as S. aureus results in reduced S. aureus killing due to inactivating ROS produced in the phagosome. Survival S. aureus is then able to proliferate and escape the macrophage.

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr Lynda Partridge for the use of tissue culture and cell infection facilities. We thank Joseph Murphy for assistance with in vitro assays. We thank Stephen Brown and Lucie N’Koy at the Sheffield RNAi Screening Facility, Biomedical Sciences, University of Sheffield for providing training and equipment used in this study. We thank The Bateson Centre Aquarium Facility and the Biological Services Unit staff at The University of Sheffield for technical support during the in vivo experiments. Imaging was performed in the Wolfson Light Microscopy Facility using a Perkin Elmer spinning disk imaging system. ADB, CA, PS thank M.A. Nahori for technical advice and thank staff members from the conventional animal facilities (IERP, INRA, 78352 Jouy-en-Josas, France). For the purpose of open access, the authors have applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.

Abbreviations

CFU

colony forming units

CGD

chronic granulomatosis disease

dpf

days post-fertilisation

GFP

green fluorescent protein

HK

heat-killed

hpi

hours post-infection

HOCl

hypochlorous acid

H2O2

hydrogen peroxide

iNOS

inducible nitric oxide synthase

MDMs

monocyte-derived macrophages

MPO

myeloperoxidase

NOX2

NADPH oxidase

PGN

peptidoglycan

RNS

reactive nitrogen species

ROS

reactive oxygen species

Tg

transgenic

Data Availability

All the data are deposited on the ORDA database, link:10.15131/shef.data.15134709

Funding Statement

SAR and SJF were supported by Medical Research Council (MRC) grant MR/R001111/1 (www.mrc.ukri.org), SAJ was supported by MRC grant MR/J009156/1 (www.mrc.ukri.org), and SS by MRC grant MR/L008610/1 (www.mrc.ukri.org). PS were supported by the French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food, and Environment (INRAE) funding (www.inrae.fr). Imaging was performed in the Sheffield RNAi Screening Facility (Wellcome Trust grant reference number 084757 (www.wellcome.org)) and the Wolfson Light Microscopy Facility (MRC grant G0700091 (www.mrc.ukri.org) and Wellcome grant 077544/Z/05/Z (www.wellcome.org)). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Grice EA, Segre JA. The skin microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2011Apr;9(4):244–53. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2537 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Grice EA, Kong HH, Conlan S, Deming CB, Davis J, Young AC, et al. Topographical and temporal diversity of the human skin microbiome. Science. 2009May;324(5931):1190–2. doi: 10.1126/science.1171700 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Krismer B, Weidenmaier C, Zipperer A, Peschel A. The commensal lifestyle of Staphylococcus aureus and its interactions with the nasal microbiota. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2017Nov;15(11):675–87. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro.2017.104 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Naber CK. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management strategies. Clin Infect Dis. 2009May;48(s4):S231–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.McGuinness WA, Malachowa N, DeLeo FR. Vancomycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Yale J Biol Med. 2017Jun;90(2):269–81. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Prajsnar TK, Hamilton R, Garcia-Lara J, McVicker G, Williams A, Boots M, et al. A privileged intraphagocyte niche is responsible for disseminated infection of Staphylococcus aureus in a zebrafish model. Cell Microbiol. 2012Oct;14(10):1600–19. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-5822.2012.01826.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gresham HD, Lowrance JH, Caver TE, Wilson BS, Cheung AL, Lindberg FP. Survival of Staphylococcus aureus inside neutrophils contributes to infection. J Immunol. 2000Apr;164(7):3713–22. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.164.7.3713 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Thwaites GE, Gant V. Are bloodstream leukocytes Trojan Horses for the metastasis of Staphylococcus aureus? Nat Rev Microbiol. 2011Mar;9(3):215–22. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2508 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Grant AJ, Restif O, McKinley TJ, Sheppard M, Maskell DJ, Mastroeni P. Modelling within-host spatiotemporal dynamics of invasive bacterial disease. Relman DA, editor. PLoS Biol. 2008Apr;6(4):e74. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060074 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Plaut RD, Kelly VK, Lee GM, Stibitz S, Merkel TJ. Dissemination bottleneck in a murine model of inhalational anthrax. Infect Immun. 2012Sep;80(9):3189–93. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00515-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.McVicker G, Prajsnar TK, Williams A, Wagner NL, Boots M, Renshaw SA, et al. Clonal expansion during Staphylococcus aureus infection dynamics reveals the effect of antibiotic intervention. Peschel A, editor. PLoS Pathog. 2014Feb;10(2):e1003959. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003959 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Boldock E, Surewaard BGJ, Shamarina D, Renshaw S, Foster S. Human skin commensals augment Staphylococcus aureus pathogenesis. Nat Microbiol. 2018;3:881–90. doi: 10.1038/s41564-018-0198-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Pollitt EJG, Szkuta PT, Burns N, Foster SJ. Staphylococcus aureus infection dynamics. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14(6):e1007112. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1007112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Buchan KD, Foster SJ, Renshaw SA. Staphylococcus aureus: setting its sights on the human innate immune system. Microbiology. 2019Apr;165(4):367–85. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.000759 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Segal AW. The NADPH oxidase and chronic granulomatous disease. Mol Med Today. 1996Mar;2(3):129–35. doi: 10.1016/1357-4310(96)88723-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Fang FC. Antimicrobial actions of reactive oxygen species. MBio. 2011;2(5):e00141–11. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00141-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Dupré-Crochet S, Erard M, Nüβe O. ROS production in phagocytes: why, when, and where? J Leukoc Biol. 2013Oct;94(4):657–70. doi: 10.1189/jlb.1012544 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lineback CB, Nkemngong CA, Wu ST, Li X, Teska PJ, Oliver HF. Hydrogen peroxide and sodium hypochlorite disinfectants are more effective against Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms than quaternary ammonium compounds. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2018Dec;7(1):154. doi: 10.1186/s13756-018-0447-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Klebanoff SJ, Kettle AJ, Rosen H, Winterbourn CC, Nauseef WM. Myeloperoxidase: a front-line defender against phagocytosed microorganisms. J Leukoc Biol. 2013Feb;93(2):185–98. doi: 10.1189/jlb.0712349 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Karavolos MH, Horsburgh M, Ingham E, Foster SJ. Role and regulation of the superoxide dismutases of Staphylococcus aureus. Microbiology [Internet]. 2003Oct1 [cited 2020 Nov 23];149(10):2749–58. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14523108/ doi: 10.1099/mic.0.26353-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cosgrove K, Coutts G, Jonsson I-M, Tarkowski A, Kokai-Kun JF, Mond JJ, et al. Catalase (KatA) and alkyl hydroperoxide reductase (AhpC) have compensatory roles in peroxide stress resistance and are required for survival, persistence, and nasal colonization in Staphylococcus aureus. J Bacteriol. 2007Feb;189(3):1025–35. doi: 10.1128/JB.01524-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Poole LB. Bacterial defenses against oxidants: Mechanistic features of cysteine-based peroxidases and their flavoprotein reductases. Vol. 433, Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics. Academic Press; 2005. p. 240–54. doi: 10.1016/j.abb.2004.09.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.de Jong NWM, Ramyar KX, Guerra FE, Nijland R, Fevre C, Voyich JM, et al. Immune evasion by a staphylococcal inhibitor of myeloperoxidase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017Aug;114(35):9439–44. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1707032114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Segal BH, Veys P, Malech H, Cowan MJ. Chronic granulomatous disease: Lessons from a rare disorder. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2011Jan;17(1):S123–31. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2010.09.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Das D, Saha SS, Bishayi B. Intracellular survival of Staphylococcus aureus: correlating production of catalase and superoxide dismutase with levels of inflammatory cytokines. Inflamm Res. 2008Jul;57(7):340–9. doi: 10.1007/s00011-007-7206-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Pidwill GR, Gibson JF, Cole J, Renshaw SA, Foster SJ. The role of macrophages in Staphylococcus aureus infection. Front Immunol [Internet]. 2021Jan19 [cited 2021 Jan 19];11:3506. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2020.620339/full doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.620339 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Leimbach A, Hacker J, Dobrindt U. E. coli as an all-rounder: the thin line between commensalism and pathogenicity. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2013;358:3–32. doi: 10.1007/82_2012_303 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Romano-Bertrand S, Bourdier A, Aujoulat F, Michon A-L, Masnou A, Parer S, et al. Skin microbiota is the main reservoir of Roseomonas mucosa, an emerging opportunistic pathogen so far assumed to be environmental. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016Aug;22(8):737.e1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2016.05.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Murphy A, Kavanagh K. Emergence of Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a human pathogen Implications for biotechnology. Vol. 25, Enzyme and Microbial Technology. Elsevier; 1999. p. 551–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hoffmann C, Dollive S, Grunberg S, Chen J, Li H, Wu GD, et al. Archaea and fungi of the human gut microbiome: correlations with diet and bacterial residents. Pan C, editor. PLoS One [Internet]. 2013Jun17 [cited 2020 Dec 4];8(6):e66019. Available from: doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Zou J, Shankar N. The opportunistic pathogen Enterococcus faecalis resists phagosome acidification and autophagy to promote intracellular survival in macrophages. Cell Microbiol. 2016Jun;18(6):831–43. doi: 10.1111/cmi.12556 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ercoli G, Fernandes VE, Chung WY, Wanford JJ, Thomson S, Bayliss CD, et al. Intracellular replication of Streptococcus pneumoniae inside splenic macrophages serves as a reservoir for septicaemia. Nat Microbiol. 2018May;3(5):600–10. doi: 10.1038/s41564-018-0147-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Garai P, Berry L, Moussouni M, Bleves S, Blanc-Potard A-B. Killing from the inside: Intracellular role of T3SS in the fate of Pseudomonas aeruginosa within macrophages revealed by mgtC and oprF mutants. Mecsas J, editor. PLOS Pathog. 2019Jun;15(6):e1007812. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1007812 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Medina E, Goldmann O, Toppel AW, Chhatwal GS. Survival of Streptococcus pyogenes within host phagocytic cells: a pathogenic mechanism for persistence and systemic invasion. J Infect Dis. 2003Feb;187(4):597–603. doi: 10.1086/373998 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Bojarczuk A, Miller KA, Hotham R, Lewis A, Ogryzko N V, Kamuyango AA, et al. Cryptococcus neoformans intracellular proliferation and capsule size determines early macrophage control of infection. Sci Rep [Internet]. 2016Feb18 [cited 2017 Mar 23];6:21489. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26887656 doi: 10.1038/srep21489 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Miller LS, Fowler VG, Shukla SK, Rose WE, Proctor RA. Development of a vaccine against Staphylococcus aureus invasive infections: Evidence based on human immunity, genetics and bacterial evasion mechanisms. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2020Jan;44(1):123–53. doi: 10.1093/femsre/fuz030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Anderson AS, Scully IL, Buurman ET, Eiden J, Jansen KU. Staphylococcus aureus clumping factor A remains a viable vaccine target for prevention of S. aureus infection. MBio. 2016Mar;7(2):e00225. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00225-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Zhang F, Jun M, Ledue O, Herd M, Malley R, Lu Y-J. Antibody-mediated protection against Staphylococcus aureus dermonecrosis and sepsis by a whole cell vaccine. Vaccine. 2017Jul;35(31):3834–43. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.05.085 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Lacey KA, Leech JM, Lalor SJ, McCormack N, Geoghegan JA, McLoughlin RM. The Staphylococcus aureus cell wall-anchored protein clumping factor A is an important T cell antigen. Infect Immun. 2017Dec;85(12):e00549–17. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00549-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Sherertz RJ, Raad II, Belani A, Koo LC, Rand KH, Pickett DL, et al. Three-year experience with sonicated vascular catheter cultures in a clinical microbiology laboratory. J Clin Microbiol [Internet]. 1990. [cited 2021 May 13];28(1):76–82. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC269540/?report=abstract [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Grice EA, Kong HH, Renaud G, Young AC, Bouffard GG, Blakesley RW, et al. A diversity profile of the human skin microbiota. Genome Res [Internet]. 2008Jul1 [cited 2021 May 13];18(7):1043–50. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18502944/ doi: 10.1101/gr.075549.107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Gentry-Weeks CR, Karkhoff-Schweizer R, Pikis A, Estay M, Keith JM. Survival of Enterococcus faecalis in mouse peritoneal macrophages. Infect Immun. 1999May;67(5):2160–5. doi: 10.1128/IAI.67.5.2160-2165.1999 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Wan B, Zhang Q, Ni J, Li S, Wen D, Li J, et al. Type VI secretion system contributes to enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli virulence by secreting catalase against host reactive oxygen species (ROS). PLoS Pathog. 2017;13(3):e1006246. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006246 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ezraty B, Gennaris A, Barras F, Collet JF. Oxidative stress, protein damage and repair in bacteria [Internet]. Vol. 15, Nature Reviews Microbiology. Nature Publishing Group; 2017. [cited 2021 May 13]. p. 385–96. Available from: www.nature.com/nrmicro doi: 10.1038/nrmicro.2017.26 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Gray MJ, Wholey WY, Jakob U. Bacterial responses to reactive chlorine species. Annu Rev Microbiol [Internet]. 2013Sep [cited 2021 May 13];67:141–60. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC3891400/ doi: 10.1146/annurev-micro-102912-142520 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Segal A, Geisow M, Garcia R, Harper A, Miller R. The respiratory burst of phagocytic cells is associated with a rise in vacuolar pH. Nature [Internet]. 1981. [cited 2020 May 21];290(5805). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7219526/ doi: 10.1038/290406a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Rodrigues MR, Rodriguez D, Russo M, Campa A. Macrophage activation includes high intracellular myeloperoxidase activity. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2002Apr;292(4):869–73. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.2002.6724 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Winterbourn CC, Hampton MB, Livesey JH, Kettle AJ. Modeling the reactions of superoxide and myeloperoxidase in the neutrophil phagosome: implications for microbial killing. J Biol Chem. 2006Dec;281(52):39860–9. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M605898200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Panchal V V., Griffiths C, Mosaei H, Bilyk B, Sutton JAF, Carnell OT et al. Evolving MRSA: High-level β-lactam resistance in Staphylococcus aureus is associated with RNA Polymerase alterations and fine tuning of gene expression. Peschel A, editor. PLOS Pathog [Internet]. 2020Jul24 [cited 2020 Nov 23];16(7):e1008672. Available from: doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1008672 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Prajsnar TK, Cunliffe VT, Foster SJ, Renshaw S a. A novel vertebrate model of Staphylococcus aureus infection reveals phagocyte-dependent resistance of zebrafish to non-host specialized pathogens. Cell Microbiol [Internet]. 2008Nov [cited 2014 Jul 28];10(11):2312–25. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18715285 doi: 10.1111/j.1462-5822.2008.01213.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Lund VA, Wacnik K, Turner RD, Cotterell BE, Walther CG, Fenn SJ, et al. Molecular coordination of Staphylococcus aureus cell division. Elife. 2018Feb;7:e32057. doi: 10.7554/eLife.32057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Dunny GM, Brown BL, Clewell DB. Induced cell aggregation and mating in Streptococcus faecalis: evidence for a bacterial sex pheromone. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978Jul;75(7):3479–83. doi: 10.1073/pnas.75.7.3479 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Turner CE, Dryden M, Holden MTG, Davies FJ, Lawrenson RA, Farzaneh L, et al. Molecular analysis of an outbreak of lethal postpartum sepsis caused by Streptococcus pyogenes. J Clin Microbiol. 2013Jul;51(7):2089–95. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00679-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Morrow CA, Lee R, Chow EWL, Ormerod KL, Goldinger A, Byrnes EJ, et al. A unique chromosomal rearrangement in the Cryptococcus neoformans var. grubii type strain enhances key phenotypes associated with virulence. MBio [Internet]. 2012May2 [cited 2021 May 5];3(2). Available from: http://mbio.asm.org/ doi: 10.1128/mBio.00310-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Turner RD, Ratcliffe EC, Wheeler R, Golestanian R, Hobbs JK, Foster SJ. Peptidoglycan architecture can specify division planes in Staphylococcus aureus. Nat Commun. 2010Jun;15(1):26. doi: 10.1038/ncomms1025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Dockrell DH, Lee M, Lynch DH, Read RC. Immune-mediated phagocytosis and killing of Streptococcus pneumoniae are associated with direct and bystander macrophage apoptosis. J Infect Dis. 2001Sep;184(6):713–22. doi: 10.1086/323084 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Alice Prince, Michael Otto

7 Jul 2021

Dear Prof. Foster,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Commensal bacteria augment Staphylococcus aureus infection by inactivation of phagocyte-derived reactive oxygen species" 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. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

As indicated by the comment of the reviewers, the data in the manuscript are of substantial interest and well presented. Each of the reviewers has a number of concerns and/or clarifications which must be addressed. In particular, reviewer 1 asks, rightly so, whether just increasing the dose of S. aureus itself would similarly function as a sponge for ROS - and why this is not the case. Similarly, rev 3 makes important points regarding the actual mechanism of ROS "neutralization" and where this occurs. Overall, the concept that macrophage generation of ROS is critical in S. aureus clearance is important and this demonstration of heterogeneous augmentation is a nice contribution.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

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

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all 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.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. 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,

Alice Prince

Associate Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Michael Otto

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

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

As indicated by the comment of the reviewers, the data in the manuscript are of substantial interest and well presented. Each of the reviewers has a number of concerns and/or clarifications which must be addressed. In particular, reviewer 1 asks, rightly so, whether just increasing the dose of S. aureus itself would similarly function as a sponge for ROS - and why this is not the case. Similarly, rev 3 makes important points regarding the actual mechanism of ROS "neutralization" and where this occurs. Overall, the concept that macrophage generation of ROS is critical in S. aureus clearance is important and this demonstration of heterogeneous augmentation is a nice contribution.

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: In this study the authors extend upon their earlier work that documented a process referred to as augmentation whereby skin commensals along with peptidoglycan can enhance the pathogenesis of S. aureus. The authors provide evidence that this process occurs through ameliorating the ROS/killing mechanism of macrophages. This can occur with live and heat killed preparations as well as peptidoglycan. This aspect of the study is well executed. The other elements of the work pertaining to what is required for augmentation and how this inhibits ROS activity is less developed. Other than a multitude of species tested, it is not known if additional S. aureus or HK S. aureus would cause this augmentation phenomenon or the scope of different bacterial components in protection S. aureus from ROS damage. If indeed the augmenting material is just acting as a decoy to ROS, this is a straight forward mechanism, in the sense that more cells will require more time to be killed. Both of these points need some further investigation, along with the vaccination data at the end which doesn’t add to the mechanistic data presented regarding the ROS aspect of the study.

Reviewer #2: Could it be that S. cervisiae did not augment S. aureus counts in the liver and S. pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa those of E. faecalis, because these three species may target other organs or body districts. Could authors provide complementary counts of other organs and blood for the supplementary materials?

The hypothesis of augmentation envisages that in each phagosome of each phagocyte the augmenting material co-localises with S. aureus or S. aureus katA aphC. For example in the case of the liver samples (time of sampling in fig 1 not defined) which might be at 72h it is not clear if authors hypothesise that liver macrophages did take up at time 1h post-infection one S. aureus cell and one M. luteus and that both remained together within the same macrophage for 72h or if authors hypothesise that at each cycle of liver macrophage infection, which might occur each 6h, each successive event is determined by a colocalization of S. aureus and M. luteus. There might also be the hypothesis that the colocalization is necessary only for the first moment and that from then on S. aureus is able to start the successive phases of disease (not defined here) also, without needing the help of the mcirocossus. The last paragraph of the discussion nicely addresses this, but authors should provide references for the discussion of their hypotheses.

Please define time of sampling (i.e. liver) of all animal experiments (i.e. Fig 1 and 3).

Figure 2i authors should give a quantitative or at least semi-quantitative analysis which shows if the phagosome shown in 2i was the only one showing effectively colocalization or if this was the case in many phagocytes.

Reviewer #3: Gibson et al. investigate the ability of commensal bacteria or material from commensal bacteria to promote S. aureus survival and pathogenicity. The authors show that this phenomenon, named augmentation, is caused by the ability of commensal bacteria and associated materials to blunt the antimicrobial effect of reactive oxygen species. In general, the findings are interesting and an advance for the field. I have a few comments for the authors to consider (below).

**********

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: It was shown with different pathogens that they could all augment the S. aureus infection. Beyond what the authors have shown before with PGN and other skin commensals, this does not add further mechanistic data. Can other PAMPS also augment the response? Alternatively, is there a generalized host signaling pathway that is stimulated by all the different species tested that influences the outcome. Does adding back additional S. aureus PGN also augment?

Is the augmentation material just acting as a sponge/decoy to the immune system and reactive oxygen species? The data presented in figure 3 seems to support this. If this is the case, wouldn’t just adding heat-killed S. aureus or even more S. aureus cause the same effect? If there is a finite ability of the immune system and/or ROS to deal with bacterial cells adding more would act to quench the activity.

It is known, and acknowledged that murine models of S. aureus while showing promise with vaccines have yet to translate to human studies. While it was interesting to observe that the vaccine used only appeared to cause an effect with the augmented sample, it would be expected based on prior studies that the formulation used would also protect against the standard challenge.

In figure 4b the WT control is missing. The levels of S. aureus survival of the katAahpC mutant look similar to what was seen with WT in other experiments, without this control, the mutant’s inherent attenuation cannot be confirmed.

Figure 3, much of the data is only an n of 3. It is not clear if this data is the accumulation from multiple experiments, or if the experiment needs reproducing.

Reviewer #2: Availability of microscopy of early liver samples showing colocalization would strengthen the data.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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: In figure 2, the color that is used to track PGN is not noted. It is also hard to see if the PGN added is indeed co-localised with S. aureus.

Several pertinent comparisons in the data were lack statistical testing, such as Figure 3b is S. aureus alone different to S. aureus with PGN in the present of H2O2? Likewise, 3f, comparing the different groups with H2O2 treatment.

In figure 6, the level of infection with both the low and high doses of S. aureus without vaccination were less than what was observed in earlier experiments.

The authors may wish to include in their discussion why they see protection/augmentation with heat-killed preparations under some conditions but not others.

Reviewer #2: none

Reviewer #3: 1. While it is accurate to state the augmentation phenotype is not observed in transgenic mice lacking a functional NOX2 (as shown in Fig. 4, Boldock et al., Nat Microbiol, 2018), the text related to the requirement for NOX2 in augmentation needs clarification in the current manuscript. Simply put, the shielding phenotype conferred by commensal microbes would not be needed to promote optimal growth in mice lacking NOX2. The growth of SA alone is augmented already because phagocytes in Cybb-/- mice lack the ability to produce ROS, which contribute to bacterial killing. This is the likely reason for a lack of difference between SA alone and SA + PGN in Cybb-/- mice (Fig 4b) in the Boldock et al. Nat Microbiol paper. This point is underscored further by the much greater RFL per mm2 in Cybb-/- mice compared to that in the wild-type mice. These findings support the authors conclusions in the current manuscript, but not for the reasons implied by the text (lines 156 and 187). That is, ROS do not contribute to the shielding mechanism in vitro, but they are required to illustrate a difference between shielded and unshielded phenotypes. There could also be a difference in mechanism between in vitro assays and in vivo models, although this is beyond the scope of the current studies. Please revise the text to clarify the conclusion related to the role of NOX2, which was not optimally stated.

2. The assays that test the effects of reactive oxygen species in vitro can be influenced considerably by the assay buffer or media. For example, hydrogen peroxide can kill S. aureus readily in PBS, as shown in Fig. 3. However, the results will be different in an assay buffer that permits sustained S. aureus metabolism and/or replication, even if minimal (e.g., DMEM with glucose). Also, hydrogen peroxide (at millimolar concentrations) can have little or no impact on S. aureus survival in a rich media such as TSB. This is likely due to the interaction of ROS with components of media (a mechanism perhaps similar to the “shielding” reported here), and the ability of S. aureus to rapidly produce molecules needed for defense against ROS. This does not occur in PBS. I understand that these scenarios are different. The PBS assay addresses whether ROS have the potential to kill S. aureus, whereas assays performed in tissue culture or bacterial growth media address whether ROS kill S. aureus under conditions that permit sustained S. aureus metabolism and growth. Some additional text might be help clarify this potential issue with in vitro assays.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Marco Rinaldo Oggioni

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: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References:

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.

Decision Letter 1

Alice Prince, Michael Otto

9 Aug 2021

Dear Prof. Foster,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Commensal bacteria augment Staphylococcus aureus infection by inactivation of phagocyte-derived reactive oxygen species' 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,

Alice Prince

Associate Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Michael Otto

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):

Acceptance letter

Alice Prince, Michael Otto

10 Sep 2021

Dear Prof. Foster,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Commensal bacteria augment Staphylococcus aureus infection by inactivation of phagocyte-derived reactive oxygen species," 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. Breadth of the augmentation phenomenon.

    A Co-injection of low dose S. aureus (SA 1x106 CFU) with heat-killed M. luteus (HK ML equivalent of 1x108 CFU) into mice: weight loss (n = 5 per group), *p<0.05 B Co-injection of low dose S. aureus (SA 1x106 CFU) with E. coli (EC 5x106 CFU) into mice: weight loss (n = 8–10 per group, S. aureus, circles; E. coli triangles), **p<0.003; ***p<0.0005 C Co-injection of low dose S. aureus (SA 1x106 CFU) with R. mucosa (RM 2x108 CFU) into mice: weight loss (n = 5 per group) D Co-injection of low dose S. aureus (SA 1x106 CFU) with heat-killed C. neoformans (CN 750 μg) into mice: weight loss (n = 9–10 per group) E-G Co-injection of low dose S. aureus (SA 1x106 CFU) with S. cerevisiae (SC 1x108 CFU) into mice, (n = 10 per group, S. aureus, circles; S. cerevisiae triangles): E weight loss, *p<0.05; ****p<0.0001, F liver CFU, ****p<0.0001, G kidney CFU, ***p<0.0005 H-L Co-injection of low dose E. faecalis (EF 5x107 CFU) with M. luteus (ML 2x108 CFU) into mice: H weight loss (n = 10 per group), I kidney CFU, J lung CFU, *p≤0.05, K heart CFU, L spleen M-N Co-injection of low dose E. faecalis (EF 5x107 CFU) with M. luteus PGN (ML PGN 500 μg) into mice (n = 10 per group): M weight loss, *p<0.05, N liver CFU, O-R Co-injection of high dose E. faecalis (EF 1x108 CFU) with M. luteus PGN (ML PGN 500 μg) into mice, CFUs taken at 48 hpi (n = 8–9 per group): O liver CFU, ****p<0.0001, P kidney CFU, **p<0.0.003, Q spleen CFU, ***p<0.0.0005, R heart CFU, *p<0.05. Colours used indicate the level of significance as indicated in Fig 1E. For all panels, the median value is shown. For panels B and E, a Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s post-test was used, for all remaining panels a two-tailed Mann-Whitney test was used. CFUs were enumerated at 3 days post-infection, unless otherwise stated.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Lack of augmentation of alternative bacterial pathogens.

    A-C Co-injection of low dose S. pneumoniae (SPN 1x106 CFU) with M. luteus PGN (ML PGN 500 μg) into mice (n = 10 per group), CFUs enumerated at 3 days post-infection: A weight loss, *p<0.05, B liver CFU, C kidney CFU, **p<0.003 D-F Co-injection of low dose P. aeruginosa (PA 1x105 CFU) with M. luteus PGN (ML PGN 500 μg) into mice (n = 10 per group), CFUs enumerated at 3 days post-infection: D weight loss, E liver CFU, F kidney CFU G-H Intramuscular co-injection of S. pyogenes (SPY 1x108 CFU) with M. luteus PGN (ML PGN 500 μg) into mice (n = 8 per group): G leg hindlimb CFU at 24 hpi, H weight loss at 24 hpi. Colours used indicate the level of significance as indicated in Fig 1E. For all panels, a two-tailed Mann-Whitney test was used and the median value is shown.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Augmenting material must be present at the same time and location as S. aureus to enhance infection.

    A-B Mice were intravenously injected with 500 μg M. luteus PGN 24 hours, 6 hours or 1 hour before infection with 1x106 S. aureus, at the same time as S. aureus, or with S. aureus alone (n = 7 per group, median value shown, Kruskal-Wallis tests with Dunn’s post-test) A weight loss B kidney CFU C-D Mice were intravenously injected with 500 μg M. luteus PGN 48 hours, 24 hours or 6 hours after infection with 1x106 S. aureus, at the same time as S. aureus, or with S. aureus alone (n = 5 per group, median value shown, Kruskal-Wallis tests with Dunn’s post-test) C weight loss, *p<0.05; **p<0.008 D kidney CFU E quantitation of zebrafish macrophages from Fig 2I, showing the percentage containing S. aureus only (green), PGN only (blue) or S. aureus co-localising with PGN (yellow) (n = 47 macrophages from 21 larvae).

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Augmenting material protects S. aureus from ROS in vitro.

    A Following methyl viologen exposure, percentage survival of S. aureus alone (5x104 CFU/mL), or with M. luteus PGN (1.25 mg) (n = 3, error bars show mean +/- SD, one-way ANOVA test with Tukey’s post hoc test), *p<0.05; **p<0.01 B-D Following ROS exposure, percentage survival of S. aureus alone (5x104 CFU/mL), or with live M. luteus (5x106 CFU/mL), heat-killed M. luteus (equivalent of 5x106 CFU/mL) or ROS killed M. luteus (equivalent of 5x106 CFU/mL), (n = 3, error bars show mean +/- SD, one-way ANOVA tests with Tukey’s post hoc test) B methyl viologen, ****p<0.0001 C hydrogen peroxide, **p<0.007 D peroxynitrite, **p<0.003; ****p<0.0001 E Following sodium hypochlorite exposure, percentage survival of S. aureus alone (5x104 CFU/mL), or with live M. luteus (5x106 CFU/mL), (n = 3, error bars show mean +/- SD, one-way ANOVA test with Tukey’s post hoc test), *p<0.05.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. ROS susceptible S. aureus survives ROS exposure due to protection by augmenting material.

    A-B Following hydrogen peroxide exposure, percentage survival of ROS susceptible S. aureus mutants alone (5x104 CFU/mL), or with live M. luteus (5x106 CFU/mL), heat-killed M. luteus (equivalent of 5x106 CFU/mL) or H2O2 killed M. luteus (equivalent of 5x106 CFU/mL), (n = 3, error bars show mean +/- SD, one-way ANOVA tests with Tukey’s post hoc test): A katA, *p<0.05 B ahpC, *p<0.05; ***p<0.0007 C Following sodium hypochlorite exposure, percentage survival of S. aureus katA ahpC alone (5x104 CFU/mL), or with live M. luteus (5x106 CFU/mL), heat-killed M. luteus (equivalent of 5x106 CFU/mL) or ROS killed M. luteus (equivalent of 5x106 CFU/mL), (n = 3, error bars show mean +/- SD, one-way ANOVA test with Tukey’s post hoc test), ****p<0.0001 D-F Injection of high dose (1x107) of S. aureus control, katA, katA ahpC into mice (n = 10 per group, median value shown, Kruskal-Wallis tests with Dunn’s post-test): D weight loss, **p<0.009; ***p<0.0003 E liver CFU, *p<0.05 F kidney CFUs, *p<0.05; **p<0.01 G-I Injection of high dose (1x107) of S. aureus control and ahpC into mice (n = 10 per group, median value shown, two-tailed Mann-Whitney tests): G weight loss, *p<0.05 H liver CFU, ***p<0.0002 I kidney CFU J-K Co-injection of low dose (1x106 CFU) S. aureus katA ahpC with heat-killed M. luteus (equivalent of 1x108 CFU) into mice: liver CFU (n = 5 per group, median value shown, two-tailed Mann-Whitney tests): J weight loss K kidney CFU L Co-injection of low dose S. aureus (SA 2x105 CFU) with M. luteus PGN (ML PGN 500 μg) into wild-type (WT) control mice or MPO-/- mice: weight loss (n = 9 per group, median value shown, individual two-tailed Mann-Whitney tests), *p<0.05; **p<0.004.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. Augmenting material protects S. aureus from ROS in murine and human macrophages.

    A Representative images of human MDMs infected with GFP S. aureus (MOI 5) in the presence or absence of heat-killed M. luteus (MOI 50), showing number of GFP S. aureus masses observed (n = 3, individual images show a single field of view, 4 per well), scale 100 μm B S. aureus-GFP growth curve in the presence of 0, 2, 5 or 10 μM DPI C S. aureus-GFP growth curve in the presence of 500 μM apocynin or solvent control D Representative images of RAW264.7 cells in the presence of Hydrop (1 μM) (green) incubated alone (media), treated with PMA (200 nM), or infected with S. aureus (MOI 5), heat-killed M. luteus (MOI 50), or both S. aureus and heat-killed M. luteus, scale 20 μm E Representative images of RAW264.7 cells incubated alone (media), infected with S. aureus (MOI 50), CellROX-stained S. aureus (MOI 50) or CellROX-stained S. aureus (MOI 50) and heat-killed M. luteus (MOI 50). RAW264.7 nuclei were stained with DAPI (blue), S. aureus was labelled by GFP expression (green) and, upon oxidation, by CellROX (red). Arrows indicate co-localisation of GFP S. aureus with CellROX signal, implying oxidation of bacteria, scale 50 μm. White box indicates area of increased magnification, scale 10 μm.

    (TIF)

    S7 Fig. Vaccination reduces augmented infection.

    A-B Mice were vaccinated subcutaneously on day 0, 14 and 21 with vaccine (1 μg ClfA, 50 μg CpG and 1% w/v Alhydrogel, triangles) or PBS control (circles). Day 28 post-vaccination mice were intravenously injected with low dose S. aureus (1x106 CFU), high dose S. aureus (1x107 CFU), or both low dose S. aureus and 250 μg M. luteus PGN (n = 10 per group, median value shown, two-tailed Mann-Whitney tests) A weight loss, *p<0.05 B kidney CFU, *p<0.05 C-F Mice were vaccinated subcutaneously on day 0, 14 and 21 with vaccine (1 μg ClfA, 50 μg CpG and 1% w/v Alhydrogel, triangles) or PBS control (circles). Day 28 post-vaccination mice were intravenously injected with high dose S. aureus (5x106 CFU), or low dose S. aureus (5x105 CFU) and 250 μg M. luteus PGN (n = 10 per group, median value shown, two-tailed Mann-Whitney tests) C diagram of experimental protocol D liver CFU, ****p<0.0001 E weight loss, *p<0.05; **p<0.006 F kidney CFU.

    (TIF)

    S8 Fig. Diagram of augmentation phenomenon mechanism.

    Diagram highlighting how augmenting material protects S. aureus from ROS in the phagosome of macrophages. The left-hand side demonstrates non-augmented S. aureus infection, resulting in ROS mediated bacterial killing. The right-hand side shows an augmented S. aureus infection, highlighting how the presence of augmenting material in the same phagosome as S. aureus results in reduced S. aureus killing due to inactivating ROS produced in the phagosome. Survival S. aureus is then able to proliferate and escape the macrophage.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Gibosn et al Replies to Comments.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All the data are deposited on the ORDA database, link:10.15131/shef.data.15134709


    Articles from PLoS Pathogens are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES