Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Sep 29;16(9):e0257823. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257823

Crowdsourced analysis of fungal growth and branching on microfluidic platforms

Alex Hopke 1,2,3, Alex Mela 4,¤a, Felix Ellett 1,2, Derreck Carter-House 5, Jesús F Peña 5, Jason E Stajich 5, Sophie Altamirano 6, Brian Lovett 7, Martin Egan 8, Shiv Kale 9, Ilkka Kronholm 10, Paul Guerette 11, Edyta Szewczyk 11, Kevin McCluskey 11, David Breslauer 11, Hiral Shah 12,¤b, Bryan R Coad 13, Michelle Momany 4,*, Daniel Irimia 1,2,3,*
Editor: Richard A Wilson14
PMCID: PMC8480888  PMID: 34587206

Abstract

Fungal hyphal growth and branching are essential traits that allow fungi to spread and proliferate in many environments. This sustained growth is essential for a myriad of applications in health, agriculture, and industry. However, comparisons between different fungi are difficult in the absence of standardized metrics. Here, we used a microfluidic device featuring four different maze patterns to compare the growth velocity and branching frequency of fourteen filamentous fungi. These measurements result from the collective work of several labs in the form of a competition named the “Fungus Olympics.” The competing fungi included five ascomycete species (ten strains total), two basidiomycete species, and two zygomycete species. We found that growth velocity within a straight channel varied from 1 to 4 μm/min. We also found that the time to complete mazes when fungal hyphae branched or turned at various angles did not correlate with linear growth velocity. We discovered that fungi in our study used one of two distinct strategies to traverse mazes: high-frequency branching in which all possible paths were explored, and low-frequency branching in which only one or two paths were explored. While the high-frequency branching helped fungi escape mazes with sharp turns faster, the low-frequency turning had a significant advantage in mazes with shallower turns. Future work will more systematically examine these trends.

Introduction

Filamentous fungi are essential for industry, agriculture, and biomedical research [1]. They contribute to soil fertility, have a great capacity to make and secrete products, and hold enormous economic potential [2]. They are essential tools for studying fundamental biological questions, including the cell cycle and other cellular processes [3, 4]. Filamentous fungi are also important pathogens of plants, causing significant crop losses [5], and of animals, causing life-threatening infections. Fungal infections are a growing medical problem for patients after transplant and during immunosuppressive treatments. The associated healthcare costs of fungal infections are substantial [6]. Thus, learning more about fungal growth in various conditions could help find new ways to enhance or inhibit the growth of fungi, depending on the circumstances [2, 58].

Filamentous fungi can navigate and branch, making them well-adapted to spread in the environment, including their spreading on and within plant and animal tissues. Individual hyphae possess an ability to sense the physical and chemical properties of interfaces, and thus can respond to growth in different environments [9]. Branching is also crucial to the development of extensive fungal networks, facilitating nutrient acquisition. Overall, fungi display a great deal of diversity in growth patterns, which propagate from varying growth rates, hyphal dimensions, branching patterns, and frequency. Recently, the use of microfluidic devices has emerged as a powerful approach to studying how fungi grow in confined environments, relying on microscale models of environmental challenges, such as micron-sized topographies replicated in hard or soft polymers [1013]. These models enable the study of fungal growth and branching under fluid perfusion [11]. They also facilitate understanding how fungi navigate around and through micron-sized barriers and channels, e.g., understanding the role of the fungal Spitzenkörper–microtubule complex in determining how hyphae navigate obstacles in their path [12]. A further advantage of microfluidic devices for fungal research is that they are compact and easily transportable, making them ideal substrates to use in collaborative research projects conducted with researchers across the globe [13].

The clear advantages of microfluidics for the measurement of hyphal growth rates and branching patterns are attracting more fungal research groups to use these technologies. However, where microfluidic devices have been used, current methodologies are often highly customized for each species and vary significantly between labs. In order to make microfluidics with live imaging easily accessible to research groups working on a range of fungi, we started a worldwide crowd-sourced collaborative effort, the Fungus Olympics. All participating labs were furnished with identical microfluidic devices and microscopy platforms. The event enabled the quantitative comparison of 14 strains representing nine species from three phyla of filamentous fungi across for growth rate, branching, and navigation strategies in confined spaces.

Materials and methods

Fungus Olympics logistics

The 2019 Fungus Olympics was organized by the Irimia and Momany labs. Participants for the contest were recruited via Twitter and email communication. There was no fee for entry. Winners were announced at the 2019 Mycological Society of America (MSA) conference.

Fungus preparation (in alphabetical order)

Aspergillus fumigatus- frozen stock of conidia (AF293 isolate) was plated on Glucose Minimal Medium (GMM) plates and grown at 37°C for 5–7 days by Shiv Kale. Conidia were harvested in PBS-Tween (0.1%) and immediately injected into the device at 5 μL of 1 × 107 cfu/mL in RPMI at 37°C. The recording was immediately started with time intervals of 5 minutes.

Aspergillus fumigatus- ((A.f. A. fumigatus (A.f. 293.6 pyrG-/argB-) mKate2-rabA:argB; A.p. pyrG) or A. fumigatus Hook KO ((akuB- pyrG-) mKate2-rabA:hyg; ΔhookA:A.p. pyrG) conidia were harvested and counted in the Egan lab. Conidia were diluted to 5 x 107 cfu/mL, and 0.5 μL was loaded into the device, primed with Glucose Minimal Media (1% Yeast Extract, 2% Glucose). The device was placed at 37°C and imaged immediately with 5-minute intervals.

Aspergillus fumigatus- (invasive clinical isolate, accession number withheld for patient confidentiality) was cultured on potato dextrose agar and grown for 48–72 hours at 35°C in the Coad lab. Conidia were suspended in saline using a drop of Tween 80 and diluted to 5 × 107 cfu/mL in Sabouraud’s dextrose broth containing chloramphenicol and gentamicin. 10 μL of this solution was inoculated into the device, placed in the incubator at 35°C, and recording started immediately. A time interval of 5 minutes was used.

Aspergillus nidulans- (Strains A850 (WT) and AYR32 (ΔaspB)) conidia were grown on solid complete media (1% glucose, 2% peptone, 1% yeast extract, 1% Casamino Acids, 0.01% vitamins and supplements, nitrate salt solution, and trace elements, pH 6.5); 1.8% agar was added for solid medium. Additional supplements were added depending on strains auxotrophic markers (i.e., pyridoxine HCl, p-aminobenzoate, riboflavin HCl, arginine, uridine, and uracil) in a dark incubator at 30°C for approximately three days post-inoculation. Conidia were harvested in water, stored at 4°C, and used within 30 days of harvesting. Spore inoculum was normalized to 2 × 107 cfu/mL in liquid complete-media, and 10 μL was loaded into the central loading chamber of the device. The microfluidics device was incubated at 30°C for 12–16 hours post-inoculation or until the hyphae had grown into the obstacle before imaging. Imaging was conducted at 5 min time intervals in the ‘zoomed-in’ magnification. These A. nidulans entries from the Momany lab were used for protocol development and reference runs and were not a part of the competition.

Cryptococcus neoformans- (Strain KN99α, wild type reference strain) yeast cells were grown in liquid yeast extract-peptone-dextrose (YPD) supplemented with 2% glucose overnight at 30°C and counted in the Nielsen lab [14]. Yeast cells were resuspended at 1 × 107 cfu/mL, and 5 μL was loaded into the device, primed with liquid YPD. The device was incubated for 14 hours at 30°C and then imaged with 15-minute intervals.

Magnaporthe oryzae- (Strain B157, previously isolated from rice leaves) Wildtype (WT) and dam1Δ were grown on prune agar at 28°C for 9 days (3 days in the dark followed by constant light) for conidiation in the Manjrekar lab [15]. The conidia were harvested in water and filtered through two layers of miracloth. WT conidia were inoculated into the device at 10 μL of 5 × 105 cfu/mL in Complete liquid media. This was grown at 28°C for 3 or 24 hours before the start of recording. M. oryzae (Strain B157) dam1Δ conidia were inoculated into the device at 10 μL of 1 × 107 cfu/mL and grown for 24 hours at 28°C before the start of timelapse recording. A time interval of 10 minutes was used.

Metarhizium anisopliae (ARSEF strain 549)- spores were harvested from the entire surface of a potato dextrose agar plate incubated at 22°C in a dark incubator for one week. These spores were diluted to 1 × 107 cfu/mL in the St. Leger lab. 5 μL of this solution was loaded into the device, which was primed with SDB + 0.2% yeast extract media. The device was incubated for approximately 24 hours at 27°C before being imaged with 15-minute intervals.

Neurospora crassa- spores were grown on Medium N without ammonium nitrate [16] with 1.5% agar slants at 22°C until conidiation by the Kronholm lab [16]. Two strains were used: C40 obtained from a cross, and 1131, a natural isolate, previously described in [17]. Conidia were suspended in 1 mL of 0.01% Tween-80, filtered, and counted. Conidia were diluted to 4.5 × 106 cfu/mL, and 2 μL was loaded into the device, which was primed and filled with Medium N. The device was incubated at 35°C for 10 hours (Strain C40) or 16 hours (Strain 1131) before imaging with 5-minute intervals. Starting concentration of conidia and time of incubation before starting imaging were determined by initial trials.

Rhizopus microsporus- (invasive clinical isolate, accession number withheld) was cultured on potato dextrose agar and grown for 24–48 hours at 35°C in the Coad lab. Conidia were suspended in saline and diluted to 5 × 107 cfu/mL in Sabouraud’s dextrose broth containing chloramphenicol and gentamicin. 10 μL of this solution was inoculated into the device, placed in the incubator at 35°C, and recording started immediately. A time interval of 10 minutes was used.

Rhizopus stolonifer- (strain NRRL 66455) was grown for 1 week at 25°C on Malt Extract-Yeast Extract agar in the Stajich lab. R. stolonifer spores were suspended in 0.01% tween-80 [18]. The spores were counted and diluted to 1 × 105 cfu/mL. 10 μL were loaded into the device, which was primed and filled with liquid MEYE. The device was imaged at 5-minute intervals.

Trametes versicolor- Fruiting bodies of Trametes versicolor (WT) were harvested from a local tree stump in Oakland, CA. Stock samples were generated and stored as colonized PDA medium cubes suspended in 25% glycerol at -80°C. Species identity was confirmed by amplifying and sequencing the Internal Transcribed Spacer (ITS) region, using primers ITS1 and ITS4 [19]. Runs were always started from colonies actively growing on PDA plates. Before the runs, small fragments of PDA medium (about 1mm3) colonized with actively growing mycelium (from the edge of the colony) were inoculated into 14 ml round-bottom Falcon tubes containing 1.5 ml YM media (Difco, #BD 271120) and grown at 30°C without shaking for 2–3 days until fluffy growth of submerged mycelia was visible. Mycelia in YM medium were disrupted into hyphal fragments by pipetting with a 1000 μl tip and then passing them repeatedly through a syringe with an 18 Gauge needle. Following the microfluidics device’s priming, 10 μl of a suspension of hyphal fragments was introduced into the center of the device and incubated for 16–20 hours at 30°C. Old media and external fungal growth were then removed. A drop of fresh media was added to the center of the device, along with 2–3 ml of fresh media to the well. The recording was then initiated using a 15-minute time interval.

Device fabrication

Devices were designed using AutoCAD 2017 (v.O.48.M.294, AutoDesk). Photolithography masks were printed by FineLine Imaging Inc (Colorado Springs, CO) and used to pattern silicon wafers with two layers of negative photoresist (SU-8, Microchem, Newton, MA). A 10 μm layer was used for the Olympic challenges, while large features such as the loading chamber were patterned on a 200 μm layer. Patterning was performed using sequential ultraviolet light exposure of the photoresist through respective photolithography masks and the wafers processed using standard microfabrication techniques according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The wafer, patterned with 64 of the devices, was then used as a master mold for PDMS (Polydimethylsiloxane, Fisher Scientific, Fair Lawn, NJ) soft lithography. After curing, inlet holes were punched using a 1.5 mm punch (Harris Unicore), and each device released from the mold using a 5 mm outer punch. Devices were then irreversibly bonded to a 6 cm glass-bottom petri dish, following oxygen plasma treatment, with the bonding process being completed by placing the culture dishes on a hot plate at 85C for 10min.

Microscopy setup

Each of the participant labs employed a CytoSmart Lux2 microscope (Eindhoven, The Netherlands). The microscope was inserted into an incubator whenever the experiments required higher than room temperature. Automated time-lapse imaging was conducted in the ’Zoomed Out’ or ’Zoomed In’ settings (which correspond to 5X and 10X total magnification, respectively) and one of three imaging time intervals (5, 10, and 15 minutes/image). These microscopes were connected to a portable laptop. Acquired microscopy images and temperature data were automatically sent to the CytoSmart cloud during the experiments. For the R. stolonifer follow-up experiments examining branching, an OMAX microscope with 4× magnification at 23°C temperature was used with a 15-minute imaging interval.

Device loading

Devices and CytoSmart Lux2 microscopes were shipped out to each participating team before the competition. Fungal species were selected by each team, and a general loading protocol was shared with all participants (S1 File). This protocol served as a shared starting point for all groups, though they were encouraged to optimize it for their chosen fungi if necessary. Devices were primed by feeding an appropriate growth media through the central chamber until it visibly exited the ports on the side of the device. The central port was covered with a bubble of media and then placed in a vacuum chamber for 10 minutes. Following the vacuum, the device was allowed to equilibrate for 10 minutes, then screened by microscopy to ensure all features were filled with media. The media was added to fill the entire well and cover the device, approximately 3 mL. Fungi were loaded into the central port of the device and allowed to incubate at an optimal temperature for a certain time period (see individual materials for details on each species) to allow fungi to grow close to the features of the device. Time-lapse microscopy was then carried out on the provided CytoSmart microscopes to observe fungal growth through the device features.

Data analysis

Analysis of all time-lapse imaging datasets was performed manually. The analysis was performed for velocity and navigation and for as many features as possible for each entry. Several issues resulted in entries not being included in the analysis. While there was no time limit set on entries, if fungi did not reach at least halfway through the maze before the timelapse ended, the run was excluded. Fungal growth beginning within the maze, and inability to follow individual fungal hyphae through the features (overgrowth of the fungi, multiple hyphae entering simultaneously) were the other reasons for the exclusion of experiments from analysis. Individual hyphae were observed, with the time of entry and the time of exit out of the maze being used to determine ’time to escape’ for each feature. For the three maze features, designated ’honeycomb,’ ’square,’ and ’boomerang,’ all fungi that finished at least half the maze were analyzed, though only those that completed the whole maze were eligible for prizes. For determination of hyphal velocity, individual hyphae that grew in the "straight-line feature" were tracked manually in ImageJ (2.0.0-rc -59/1.52p) with Trackmate until growth ended or they left the field of view. For branching analysis, branching events were only counted for those that occurred on the leading hypha during its time within the maze as secondary hyphae entering the maze (or previous branches) could obscure events, not at the leading edge. For branch vs. nub determination, events of the leading edge were followed over time to observe growth. Branches went on to fully develop into long hyphae, while nubs arrested their growth and remained short (usually 1.5x the width of the parent hyphae or less).

Statistics

For statistical analyses and graphing, we used Prism (GraphPad Software version 8.3). Because sample sizes were small (N < 12), we employed the Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test corrected using the false discovery rate method of Benjamini and Hochberg. Differences between means were considered significant at p<0.05. Values are represented on graphs as mean and Standard Deviation (SD).

Results

We engaged the international fungal community to compare diverse filamentous fungal species for their ability to grow in microfluidic channels and navigate through microfluidic mazes. We sent the ’Fungus Olympics Devices’ and portable benchtop CytoSmart microscopes to fifteen labs in seven countries (Fig 1). The use of microfluidic devices and automated microscopes enabled us to gather consistent data from this substantial collaborative effort.

Fig 1. The Fungus Olympics, an international collaborative study of fungal hyphae in microfluidic mazes.

Fig 1

A-C) Overview of approach: (A) Microfluidic devices and CytoSmart mini microscopes are distributed to participating research groups around the world; (B) Each group performs experiments and uploads results to an online server; (C) Data is analyzed and hyphal growth patterns compared. D-F) Microfluidic mazes for analyzing hyphal growth: (D) "Boomerang" maze contains a challenging array of angular obstacles designed to trap hyphae growing from the entrance at the bottom; (E) "Honeycomb" maze presents hyphae with hexagonal challenges requiring turns of 45°; (F) "Square" maze presents hyphae with a series of 90° surfaces. Open growth channels are shown in gray. Three maze designs and straight channels for measuring hyphal velocity were present in each microfluidic device.

Our devices included straight-line, microscale channels for comparison of velocities of all fungal species. The velocity of fungi growing in straight channels was tracked manually, following the leading hyphal tip from frame to frame, as shown in Fig 2A. The organisms with the fastest average velocity were Trametes versicolor, Aspergillus nidulans, Rhizopus stolonifer, and Neurospora crassa. The overall results are presented in Table 1. Individual tracks incorporating cumulative time and distance are shown (Fig 2B). The average velocities of the fungi in the Olympics varied from 6 (T. versicolor) to less than 1 μm/min (M. oryzae) (Fig 2C).

Fig 2. Fungal velocities.

Fig 2

(A) A time series of a fungal hypha (N. crassa) growing in the straight channel. Red arrows indicate the leading hyphal tip, which was tracked for velocity determination. Channels are 10 μm wide. (B) Individual tracks for each fungus are shown, plotting the cumulative distance of hyphal growth (μm) vs. time (min). (C) The velocities are shown for each fungus. Individual runs are presented as open circles. Lines represent averages and standard deviation.

Table 1. Fungus Olympics challengers results and teams.

Species Challenge Speed #Runs Full run Half run Principal Investigator Team Location
(μm/min) Time (hours) #Runs Time (hours) #Runs
Trametes versicolor Square 4.4 3 David Breslauer Paul Guerette, Edyta Szewczyk & Kevin McCluskey Bolt Threads
Honeycomb 4 3
Boomerang 7 3
Straight 4.1 8
Aspergillus nidulans A850 Square 4.2 1 2.3 1 Michelle Momany Alex Mela University of Georgia
Honeycomb 2.3 3
Boomerang
Straight 3.8 9
Rhizopus stolonifer (NRRL 66455) Square 5.2 2 Jason Stajich Derreck Carter-House & Jesus Pena University of California, Riverside
Honeycomb 7.5 1 9.3 1
Boomerang 1.5 1
Straight 3.4 4
Neurospora crassa Square 4.5 1 1.9 1 Ilkka Kronholm Ilkka Kronholm University of Jyväskylä
Honeycomb
Boomerang 1.4 1
Straight 3.1 4
Aspergillus fumigatus Square 5.3 1 Martin Egan Martin Egan and Baronger Bieger University of Arkansas
Honeycomb 5.7 1 2.5 1
Boomerang
Straight 3 3
Aspergillus fumigatus Hook KO Square 3.9 1
Honeycomb 2.1 1
Boomerang 4.4 1
Straight 2.9 3
A. nidulans AYR32 Square Michelle Momany Alex Mela University of Georgia
Honeycomb
Boomerang
Straight 2.1 2
Aspergillus fumigatus (clinical isolate) Square Bryan Coad Bryan Coad and Sarah Kidd The University of Adelaide
Honeycomb 6.8 1
Boomerang
Straight 2.1 3
Rhizopus microsporus (clinical isolate) Square
Honeycomb 10 1
Boomerang 5.5 1
Straight 1.5 2
Metarhizium anisopliae Square 5.8 1 Raymond St. Leger Brian Lovett and Huiyu Sheng University of Maryland, College Park
Honeycomb 6.2 1
Boomerang
Straight 1.3 1
Aspergillus fumigatus 293 Square Shiv Kale Shiv Kale Nutritional Immunology and Molecular Medicine Institute
Honeycomb 3.7 1
Boomerang
Straight 1.2 1
Cryptococcus neoformans (K99alpha) Square Kirsten Nielsen Sophie Altamirano University of Minnesota
Honeycomb
Boomerang
Straight 1 2
Magnaporthe oryzae (B157) Square Johannes Manjrekar Hiral Shah The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda
Honeycomb
Boomerang
Straight 0.98 3
Magnaporthe oryzae dam1Δ mutant Square
Honeycomb
Boomerang
Straight 0.94 1

Linear growth speed and time to cross microfluidic devices with four different designs for the fourteen filamentous fungi in the Fungus Olympics. The fastest growing fungi are listed first. Principal investigators, teams, and locations are also listed.

The ’Fungus Olympics Devices’ also included three distinct mazes, in which channels or obstacles required growing hyphae to turn at defined angles (Fig 1). To navigate the honeycomb mazes, fungi had to execute 45-degree turns. To navigate the square mazes, fungi had to execute 90-degree turns. And to navigate the boomerang mazes, fungi had to execute turns of greater than 90 degrees. The boomerang maze also differs from the others because it consists of open space with embedded obstacles rather than channels. Examples of the three mazes are shown, with a time series from selected fungi showing typical maze navigation (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Fungal growth in maze obstacles.

Fig 3

(A) Honeycomb mazes challenge the growing hyphae with channel bifurcations at acute angles. (B) Square mazes consist of orthogonal channels forcing right-angle turns for growing hyphae. (C) Boomerang obstacles are such that growing hyphae have to turn more than 90 degrees to avoid being trapped. Red arrows indicate the leading hyphal tip. (T) is time, in minutes, from the point the hypha enters the channel. Scale bars are 100 μm.

T. versicolor and R. stolonifer appeared to use very different growth strategies, with distinct advantages for navigating different maze angles (Fig 4). R. stolonifer appeared to explore most possible turns via branching, but T. versicolor was more selective, establishing one or more dominant branches and then proceeding past the turns on a distinct path (Fig 4 and S1S6 Videos). Inside the honeycomb maze, R. stolonifer seemed to explore all options, but T. versicolor primarily occupied the outside channels of the maze, maintaining the same directional growth (S1 and S2 Videos). Inside the square maze, at +90 min, two rows in, T. versicolor only had two leading hyphae exploring, while R. stolonifer (at +210 min), at the same position in the maze, had continued to grow through the top row and occupied many of the turns that T. versicolor ignored (S3 and S4 Videos). Inside the boomerang maze, (at +30 min) T. versicolor had one hypha that had hit the first obstacle, whereas at +15 min, R. stolonifer had already explored the top row via branching (S5 and S6 Videos). Examining the number of branches vs. time to escape clearly shows that branching slows navigation of the honeycomb and square mazes but speeds navigation of the boomerang maze (Figs 4 and 5). The R. stolonifer strain had a higher rate of branching in all mazes, and this appeared to give an advantage over other species in the boomerang maze (Fig 5C and 5D).

Fig 4. Growth strategies.

Fig 4

T. versicolor and R. stolonifer use different growth strategies for navigating different mazes. T. versicolor establishes a dominant branch that grows faster. R. stolonifer branches often; however, each branch grows slower. T. versicolor strategy appears to be more efficient in devices with simple challenges, like the bifurcating channels. R. stolonifer branching strategy is an advantage when confronting complex challenges, like the boomerang traps. Scale bars are 100 μm. To make growth patterns more easily visible, T. versicolor hyphae were traced in purple and R. stolonifer hyphae were traced in green.

Fig 5. Maze escape analysis.

Fig 5

The average time it took to escape each maze is displayed, broken down by individual fungi and maze type. (A) The data for fungi that completed entire mazes is shown. (B) Data for fungi that did not complete the full mazes but completed at least half are also shown. (C) Fungi that completed entire mazes are plotted comparing average time to escape vs. average straight-line velocity (from Fig 2). (D) Average branch number vs. average time to escape. Error bars represent standard deviation.

For each fungus that fully completed a maze, ’time to escape’ was determined by following the leading hyphal tip from the time it entered the maze to the time it exited (Fig 5). Fungi with the highest linear velocities were not always the fastest in navigating mazes. The time to escape varied depending on the maze pattern (Fig 5C). Two organisms were particularly interesting. Relative to other fungi we analyzed, T. versicolor was fastest in straight-line velocity and in escape from the honeycomb maze and one of the fastest in escape from the square maze. However, T. versicolor was much slower to escape from the boomerang maze (Fig 5C). The opposite was true of R. stolonifer, which was intermediate in straight-line velocity, slowest to escape from the honeycomb and square mazes, but quickest to escape the boomerang maze (Fig 5C).

To better investigate the branching patterns of R. stolonifer, we repeated straight-line velocity and maze escape experiments at higher magnifications. We tracked the speed of individual hyphae and compared the original and new runs (Fig 6). The average velocities for all hyphae in straight channels were comparable (p = 0.78, N = 4 individual hyphae across 2 experimental runs for the “old” data from the competition; N = 9 individual hyphae across 5 experimental runs for the “new” post-competition data). The average time to escape (full runs only) for each maze was comparable between old and new experiments. The new set of experiments showed that in addition to many branches, R. stolonifer formed small protrusions of less than 5 μm that we called ’nubs’ (Fig 7). Live imaging showed that these protrusions did not extend over time. We found that for R. stolonifer in all three mazes, the number of nubs increased with decreasing hyphal velocity. In contrast, the number of branches on each hypha was independent of the hyphal velocity (Fig 7B). Moreover, the number of branches and nubs and the time to escape appeared to be independent (Fig 7C). Though the role of nubs is not clear, it seems possible that they might be branch initials that fail to extend when hyphal velocity slows.

Fig 6. Reproducibility of competition results.

Fig 6

After the initial runs by all labs, a second set of R. stolonifer experiments were conducted to establish reproducibility. (A) Individual hyphal tracks are shown for both the original runs (solid lines) and the new runs (dashed lines). (B) The average velocities were quantified. Individual dots represent the average velocity for each unique hypha in a straight channel. Error bars represent the mean ± standard deviation. (C) The average time to escape (full runs only) for each maze type is shown and plotted against the average velocity for the old and new runs. (D) The time to escape each maze is broken down to show individual maze data for old and new experiments. N = 4 hyphae, N = 2 experimental runs during the competition; N = 9 hyphae, N = 5 runs for the lab re-run for velocity data (A-B).

Fig 7. Branching and nubbing of growing R. stolonifer hyphae.

Fig 7

R. stolonifer displayed a unique phenotype during hyphal growth, sometimes forming fully developed branches, other times creating small branches that did not grow further, termed "nubs" here (see methods for full criteria). (A) A full branch and a hyphal nub are identified in the image. Scale bar is 100 μm. (B) We found that the number of branches on each hypha is independent of the hyphal velocity. The number of nubs increases with decreasing hyphal velocity. (C) We found no relationship between the time to escape and the number of branches and nubs.

Discussion

In this work, we ran a crowd-sourced collaborative project involving fifteen laboratories that used microfluidic devices and emerging imaging technologies to collect data on the growth of fourteen fungi. Our project is the first of this kind in the fungal field and was inspired by similar competitions among bacteria [20], cancer cells [21], and amoeba and neutrophils [22]. The labs used identical microscope systems and settings. The microfluidic devices provided were similar for all groups and were set to upload time-lapse movies to a cloud repository automatically. Participating teams had significant autonomy in choosing the fungal species, strains and growth conditions in order to optimize the performance of their entry. After the event, we analyzed growth and navigation metrics using movies uploaded to the cloud during the experiments by all teams. We found that the three out of 14 organisms that performed the best in terms of average velocity were T. versicolor [23], R. stolonifer [24], and N. crassa [25]. Only two organisms, T. versicolor (a basidiomycete) and R. stolonifer (a zygomycete), completed all three mazes. Interestingly, when we compared mutant strains to WT counterparts, we consistently found mutants to perform less effectively than the wild type strains.

We measured hyphal growth velocity in microfluidic devices that focused the fungal growth into micron-scale channels in a straight line. The organisms that showed the highest average velocity, T. versicolor, R. stolonifer, and N. crassa, are all saprotrophs that grow on dead plants and represent three phyla: Basidiomycota, Mucoromycota, and Ascomycota, respectively. T. versicolor is a polypore that grows on dead wood, whereas R. stolonifer grows on rotting fruit [26] and N. crassa on burned vegetation [27]. It is surprising that T. versicolor grew the fastest out of these species, as polypores are often slow-growing. In contrast, fungi from the genus Rhizopus often grow in resource-rich, but ephemeral habitats, and many species are capable of only utilizing simple sugars. Neurospora is quite often found in more ephemeral habitats as well, which require fast growth for quick monopolization of resources. Earlier reports of growth rate on agar plates or tubes place T. versicolor as the slowest growing species of these [28, 29]. Growing in liquid in a small cavity seemed to slow the growth of T. versicolor the least. Species that exhibited a lower average velocity were primarily opportunistic or obligate pathogens of living organisms: M. anisopliae (insects) [30], C. neoformans (mammals) [31], R. microsporus (humans/animals/plants) [32], and M. oryzae (plants) [33, 34]. The exception to this finding is the opportunistic pathogen of humans, A. fumigatus, which grew rapidly. It should be noted that though the pathogen C. neoformans is capable of hyphal growth, it reproduces asexually through budding [35]. Given that it was grown under conditions that favor yeast phase growth during the Fungus Olympics, it is not surprising C. neoformans yeast cells exhibited a lower average velocity compared to the filamentous fungi in this competition. [36].

We noted that none of the mutant strains measured performed as well as their wild-type counterparts. Such mutants included an A. nidulans septin mutant, ΔaspB (AYR32), an A. fumigatus mutant perturbed in dynein-mediated early endosome trafficking, Hook KO (ΔhookA), and the M. oryzae Δdam1 mutant. Dam1 is an outer kinetochore, a microtubule-associated protein that localizes to the growing hyphal tip, and its loss impairs hyphal morphology and branching. Future trials, including a broader range of participating labs, organisms, and gene-deletion mutants, could help further elucidate interesting growth patterns by species and ecological niches. These experiments could eventually lead to a better understanding of the mechanisms governing hyphal navigation and steering in filamentous fungi.

Though many of the fungi in the competition completed individual mazes, only T. versicolor and R. stolonifer completed all three mazes. Though we did not set out to examine hyphal branching and exploration strategies, something that has been the subject of significant study by other groups, the differences in exploration strategies of T. versicolor and R. stolonifer were striking [3739]. T. versicolor established one or two dominant hyphae and did not branch into other turns. In contrast, R. stolonifer frequently branched, growing into almost every possible turn. With the more selective strategy, T. versicolor traversed mazes requiring 45 degrees (honeycomb) or 90 degrees (square) turns more rapidly than R. stolonifer. On the other hand, with the frequent branching strategy, R. stolonifer traversed the maze requiring turns greater than 90 degrees (boomerang) more rapidly. Our experiments did not find a significant relationship between the time to escape and the number of branches or nubs formed by R. stolonifer. Future experiments specifically designed to probe this question may shed more light on this relationship in the future. We did, however, note that R. stolonifer started more branches in the boomerang maze than in the honeycomb or square mazes. These observations raise the intriguing possibility that R. stolonifer evasive branching might be a default response when encountering mechanical obstacles, similar to earlier observations in A. fumigatus [40]. Alternatively, branching might be suppressed in spatially constricted channels like those found in the honeycomb and square mazes instead of more open areas in the boomerang maze. It is also possible that differences in nutrient availability and metabolism might have contributed to different growth patterns, as has recently been shown at the colony level for several grassland saprotrophic fungi [41].

Several laboratories focused on the clinically relevant and opportunistic pathogen A. fumigatus entered this competition [42]. Current and past research has pointed to the importance of isolate heterogeneity for germination [43], low oxygen fitness [44], heterogeneity of fungal surface [45], elicitation of an immune response [46], and nutrient acquisition [47], as contributors to pathogenicity. In this first Olympiad, A. nidulans isolates exhibited a higher average velocity than the A. fumigatus isolates. However, this may be attributed to the low number of successfully observed replicates achieved for the A. fumigatus isolates. Runs involving A. nidulans and other fungal isolates with many replicates indicated instances of both slow and fast velocities for a given run. In fact, as the average velocity increased for a given isolate, so did the variance. This preliminary finding may suggest heterogeneity in velocity within an isolate (some hyphae being tortoises and some being hares), or illuminate the natural variation in growth velocity for a given hypha at a given moment in time. Interestingly, clinical isolates examined in this study exhibited an average velocity similar to the other opportunistic fungal pathogens.

Overall, the first edition of the Fungus Olympics revealed differences in linear velocities and growth patterns. To our surprise, the analysis of time to traverse mazes revealed two distinct branching strategies with advantages for different conformations. High-frequency branching in which all possible paths were explored allowed faster escape from mazes featuring turns greater than 90 degrees (boomerang). Low-frequency branching in which only one or two paths were explored allowed faster escape from mazes featuring turns less than 90 degrees (honeycomb and square). These experiments demonstrate the utility of standardized platforms for comparing experimental results of a wide array of fungi from laboratories across the world. Future editions of the Fungus Olympics will allow us to explore further growth modes for a more extensive selection of wild-type and mutant fungal species.

Supporting information

S1 File. General protocol: The general protocol for loading fungi into the microfluidic device that was sent to all participating groups in the Fungal Olympics is shown here.

(DOCX)

S1 Data. Source data: Source data for the information summarized in Figs 2b, 2c, 5a, 5d, 6a, 6d, 7b and 7c.

(XLSX)

S1 Video. Timelapse of T. versicolor in honeycomb maze.

Time begins (T0) on the frame where the hyphae enters the maze, in minutes.

(AVI)

S2 Video. Timelapse of R. stolonifer in honeycomb maze.

Time begins (T0) on the frame where the hyphae enters the maze, in minutes.

(AVI)

S3 Video. Timelapse of T. versicolor in square maze.

Time begins (T0) on the frame where the hyphae enters the maze, in minutes.

(AVI)

S4 Video. Timelapse of R. stolonifer in square maze.

Time begins (T0) on the frame where the hyphae enters the maze, in minutes.

(AVI)

S5 Video. Timelapse of T. versicolor in boomerang maze.

Time begins (T0) on the frame where the hyphae enters the maze, in minutes.

(AVI)

S6 Video. Timelapse of R. stolonifer in boomerang maze.

Time begins (T0) on the frame where the hyphae enters the maze, in minutes.

(AVI)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the labs who participated in the Fungus Olympics:

  • Dr. Bryan Coad (The University of Adelaide) and Dr. Sarah Kidd (National Mycology Reference Centre, South Australia Pathology). Australia.

  • Hiral Shah in the lab of Johannes Manjrekar at Bharat Chattoo Genome Research Centre, Dept. of Microbiology and Biotechnology Centre, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, India.

  • Sophie Altamirano in the lab of Kirsten Nielsen at the University of Minnesota, MN, USA.

  • Ilkka Kronholm at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland

  • Huiyu Sheng and Brian Lovett in the lab of Raymond St. Leger at the University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.

  • Derreck Carter-House and Jesús Peña in the lab of Jason Stajich at the University of California, Riverside, CA, USA.

  • Shiv Kale at the Nutritional Immunology and Molecular Medicine Institute, VA, USA.

  • Baronger Bieger in the lab of Martin Egan at the University of Arkansas, AR, USA.

  • Alex Mela in the lab of Michelle Momany at the University of Georgia, GA, USA

  • David Peris Navarro and Carla Perpiñá at the Institute of Agrochemistry and Food Technology, Spain.

  • Alex Andrianopoulos at the University of Melbourne, Australia.

  • Iuliana Ene and Chapman Beekman in the lab of Richard Bennett at Brown University, RI, USA.

  • Daniel Henk at the University of Bath, UK.

  • Meritxell Riquelme at Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada CICESE, Mexico.

  • David Breslauer, Paul Guerette, Edyta Szewczyk and Kevin McCluskey in the labs of Bolt Threads Inc., Emeryville, CA, USA

The Fungus Olympics idea, basic organization, and outreach to the fungal community were from Michelle Momany and Daniel Irimia. Fungus Olympics mazes were designed, and prototypes were fabricated by Dr. Felix Ellett at the BioMEMS Center. The devices used by the participants were fabricated and shipped by Anika Marand. The website for the event was set up by Andreu Cullere. Dr. Alex Hopke scheduled and organized the event and analyzed the data. Dr. Alex Mela contributed to experimental design and optimization. Alex Hopke, Alex Mela, Felix Ellett, Michelle Momany, and Daniel Irimia wrote the manuscript with input from all the authors.

We would also like to acknowledge the Mycology Society of America (https://msafungi.org/) for allocating time to present the results of the Fungus Olympics to the fungal community during the 2019 MSA conference.

Data Availability

Most data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files. The source data for Figs 2b, 2c, 5a–5d, 6a–6d, 7b and 7c are available in the "source data file". The accession numbers for the invasive Aspergillus fumigatus and Rhizopus microsporus clinical isolates are withheld because they contain potentially identifying and sensitive patient information, according to the Central Adelaide Local Health Network Human Research Ethics Committee (CALHN HREC) provisions. Data requests may be sent to Dr. Sarah Kidd, National Mycology Reference Centre, SA Pathology, Frome Road, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia, sarah.kidd@sa.gov.au.

Funding Statement

Funding to the Irimia lab included support from NIH GM092804 and EB002503. Funding to the Momany lab included support from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund CRT1017499. Funding to the Stajich lab included support from NSF DEB-1441715. Stajich is a CIFAR fellow in the program Fungal Kingdom: Threats and Opportunities. We would like to acknowledge the contribution of CytoSmart (www.cytosmart.com), who provided the microscopes and helped to defray the cost of shipping microscopes to participants.

References

  • 1.Lange L. The importance of fungi and mycology for addressing major global challenges*. IMA Fungus. 2014;5(2):463–71. Epub 2015/03/04. doi: 10.5598/imafungus.2014.05.02.10 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Meyer V, Basenko EY, Benz JP, Braus GH, Caddick MX, Csukai M, et al. Growing a circular economy with fungal biotechnology: a white paper. Fungal Biol Biotechnol. 2020;7:5. Epub 2020/04/14. doi: 10.1186/s40694-020-00095-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Caesar LK, Kelleher NL, Keller NP. In the fungus where it happens: History and future propelling Aspergillus nidulans as the archetype of natural products research. Fungal Genet Biol. 2020;144:103477. Epub 2020/10/10. doi: 10.1016/j.fgb.2020.103477. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Davis RH. Neurospora: contributions of a model organism: Oxford University Press.; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Fisher MC, Henk DA, Briggs CJ, Brownstein JS, Madoff LC, McCraw SL, et al. Emerging fungal threats to animal, plant and ecosystem health. Nature. 2012;484(7393):186–94. Epub 2012/04/14. doi: 10.1038/nature10947 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Benedict K, Jackson BR, Chiller T, Beer KD. Estimation of Direct Healthcare Costs of Fungal Diseases in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;68(11):1791–7. Epub 2018/09/12. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy776 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Low CY, Rotstein C. Emerging fungal infections in immunocompromised patients. F1000 Med Rep. 2011;3:14. Epub 2011/08/31. doi: 10.3410/M3-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Vartivarian SE, Anaissie EJ, Bodey GP. Emerging fungal pathogens in immunocompromised patients: classification, diagnosis, and management. Clin Infect Dis. 1993;17Suppl 2:S487–91. Epub 1993/11/01. doi: 10.1093/clinids/17.supplement_2.s487 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Almeida MC, Brand AC. Thigmo Responses: The Fungal Sense of Touch. Microbiology Spectrum. 2017;5(2). doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.FUNK-0040-2016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Thomson DD, Wehmeier S, Byfield FJ, Janmey PA, Caballero-Lima D, Crossley A, et al. Contact-induced apical asymmetry drives the thigmotropic responses of Candida albicans hyphae. Cellular Microbiology. 2015;17(3):342–54. doi: 10.1111/cmi.12369 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Baranger C, Fayeulle A, Le Goff A. Microfluidic monitoring of the growth of individual hyphae in confined environments. R Soc Open Sci. 2020;7(8):191535. doi: 10.1098/rsos.191535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Held M, Kašpar O, Edwards C, Nicolau DV. Intracellular mechanisms of fungal space searching in microenvironments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2019:201816423. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1816423116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Millet LJ, Aufrecht J, Labbé J, Uehling J, Vilgalys R, Estes ML, et al. Increasing access to microfluidics for studying fungi and other branched biological structures. Fungal Biology and Biotechnology. 2019;6(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s40694-019-0071-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Nielsen K, Cox GM, Wang P, Toffaletti DL, Perfect JR, Heitman J. Sexual cycle of Cryptococcus neoformans var. grubii and virulence of congenic a and alpha isolates. Infect Immun. 2003;71(9):4831–41. doi: 10.1128/IAI.71.9.4831-4841.2003 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kachroo P, Leong SA, Chattoo BB. Pot2, an inverted repeat transposon from the rice blast fungus Magnaporthe grisea. Mol Gen Genet. 1994;245(3):339–48. Epub 1994/11/01. doi: 10.1007/BF00290114 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Metzenberg RL. Vogel’s Medium N salts: avoiding the need for ammonium nitrate. Fungal Genetics Reports. 2003;50:Article 6. doi: 10.4148/1941-4765.1152 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Moghadam NN, Sidhu K, Summanen PAM, Ketola T, Kronholm I. Quantitative genetics of temperature performance curves of Neurospora crassa. Evolution. 2020;74(8):1772–87. Epub 2020/05/29. doi: 10.1111/evo.14016 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Benny GL. Methods Used by Dr. R. K. Benjamin, and Other Mycologists, to Isolate Zygomycetes. Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany. 2008;26(1):Article 8. doi: 10.5642/aliso.20082601.08 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.White TJ, Bruns T, Lee S, Taylor J. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In: Innis MA, Gelfand DH, Sninsky JJ, White TJ, editors. PCR Protocols: a Guide to Methods and Applications. New York: Academic Press; 1990. p. 315–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Youle M, Rohwer F, Stacy A, Whiteley M, Steel BC, Delalez NJ, et al. The Microbial Olympics. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012;10(8):583–8. Epub 2012/07/17. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2837 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Maiuri P, Terriac E, Paul-Gilloteaux P, Vignaud T, McNally K, Onuffer J, et al. The first World Cell Race. Curr Biol. 2012;22(17):R673–5. Epub 2012/09/15. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.07.052 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Skoge M, Wong E, Hamza B, Bae A, Martel J, Kataria R, et al. A Worldwide Competition to Compare the Speed and Chemotactic Accuracy of Neutrophil-Like Cells. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0154491. Epub 2016/06/23. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Janjusevic L, Karaman M, Sibul F, Tommonaro G, Iodice C, Jakovljevic D, et al. The lignicolous fungus Trametes versicolor (L.) Lloyd (1920): a promising natural source of antiradical and AChE inhibitory agents. J Enzyme Inhib Med Chem. 2017;32(1):355–62. Epub 2017/01/18. doi: 10.1080/14756366.2016.1252759 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Qing F, Shiping T. Postharvest Biological Control of Rhizopus Rot of Nectarine Fruits by Pichia membranefaciens. Plant Dis. 2000;84(11):1212–6. Epub 2000/11/01. doi: 10.1094/PDIS.2000.84.11.1212 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kuo HC, Hui S, Choi J, Asiegbu FO, Valkonen JP, Lee YH. Secret lifestyles of Neurospora crassa. Sci Rep. 2014;4:5135. Epub 2014/05/31. doi: 10.1038/srep05135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hernández-Lauzardo AN, Bautista-Baños S, Velázquez-del Valle MG, Trejo-Espino JL. Identification of Rhizopus stolonifer (Ehrenb.: Fr.) Vuill., Causal Agent of Rhizopus Rot Disease of Fruits and Vegetables Revista Mexicana de Fitopatología. 2006;24(1):65–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.James TY, Stajich JE, Hittinger CT, Rokas A. Toward a Fully Resolved Fungal Tree of Life. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2020;74:291–313. Epub 2020/07/15. doi: 10.1146/annurev-micro-022020-051835 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Held M, Edwards C, Nicolau DV. Probing the growth dynamics of Neurospora crassa with microfluidic structures. Fungal Biol. 2011;115(6):493–505. Epub 2011/06/07. doi: 10.1016/j.funbio.2011.02.003 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ryan FJ, Beadle GW, Tatum EL. The Tube Method of Measuring the Growth Rate of Neurospora. American Journal of Botany. 1943;30:784–99. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Roberts DW, St Leger RJ. Metarhizium spp., cosmopolitan insect-pathogenic fungi: mycological aspects. Adv Appl Microbiol. 2004;54:1–70. Epub 2004/07/15. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2164(04)54001-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.J H, Microbiology. ASf. Cryptococcus: from human pathogen to model yeast. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ribes JA, Vanover-Sams CL, Baker DJ. Zygomycetes in human disease. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2000;13(2):236–301. Epub 2001/02/07. doi: 10.1128/CMR.13.2.236 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Couch BC, Fudal I, Lebrun MH, Tharreau D, Valent B, van Kim P, et al. Origins of host-specific populations of the blast pathogen Magnaporthe oryzae in crop domestication with subsequent expansion of pandemic clones on rice and weeds of rice. Genetics. 2005;170(2):613–30. Epub 2005/04/02. doi: 10.1534/genetics.105.041780 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Wilson RA, Talbot NJ. Under pressure: investigating the biology of plant infection by Magnaporthe oryzae. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2009;7(3):185–95. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2032 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kozubowski L, Heitman J. Profiling a killer, the development of Cryptococcus neoformans. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2012;36(1):78–94. Epub 2011/07/04. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2011.00286.x . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Cullen PJ, Sprague GF. The regulation of filamentous growth in yeast. Genetics. 2012;190(1):23–49. doi: 10.1534/genetics.111.127456 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Prosser JI, Tough AJ. Growth mechanisms and growth kinetics of filamentous microorganisms. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 1991;10(4):253–74. doi: 10.3109/07388559109038211 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Harris SD. Branching of fungal hyphae: regulation, mechanisms and comparison with other branching systems. Mycologia. 2008;100(6):823–32. doi: 10.3852/08-177 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Heaton L, Obara B, Grau V, Jones N, Nakagaki T, Boddy L, et al. Analysis of fungal networks. Fungal Biology Reviews. 2012;26(1):12–29. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ellett F, Jorgensen J, Frydman GH, Jones CN, Irimia D. Neutrophil Interactions Stimulate Evasive Hyphal Branching by Aspergillus fumigatus. PLoS Pathog. 2017;13(1):e1006154. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Camenzind T, Philipp Grenz K, Lehmann J, Rillig MC. Soil fungal mycelia have unexpectedly flexible stoichiometric C:N and C:P ratios. Ecol Lett. 2021;24(2):208–18. Epub 2020/11/09. doi: 10.1111/ele.13632 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Latge JP, Chamilos G. Aspergillus fumigatus and Aspergillosis in 2019. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2019;33(1). Epub 2019/11/15. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00140-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Clark HR, Powell AB, Simmons KA, Ayubi T, Kale SD. Endocytic Markers Associated with the Internalization and Processing of Aspergillus fumigatus Conidia by BEAS-2B Cells. mSphere. 2019;4(1). Epub 2019/02/08. doi: 10.1128/mSphere.00663-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kowalski CH, Beattie SR, Fuller KK, McGurk EA, Tang YW, Hohl TM, et al. Heterogeneity among Isolates Reveals that Fitness in Low Oxygen Correlates with Aspergillus fumigatus Virulence. mBio. 2016;7(5). Epub 2016/09/22. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01515-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Bleichrodt RJ, Foster P, Howell G, Latge JP, Read ND. Cell Wall Composition Heterogeneity between Single Cells in Aspergillus fumigatus Leads to Heterogeneous Behavior during Antifungal Treatment and Phagocytosis. mBio. 2020;11(3). Epub 2020/05/14. doi: 10.1128/mBio.03015-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Rizzetto L, Giovannini G, Bromley M, Bowyer P, Romani L, Cavalieri D. Strain dependent variation of immune responses to A. fumigatus: definition of pathogenic species. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e56651. Epub 2013/02/27. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056651. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ries LNA, Steenwyk JL, de Castro PA, de Lima PBA, Almeida F, de Assis LJ, et al. Nutritional Heterogeneity Among Aspergillus fumigatus Strains Has Consequences for Virulence in a Strain- and Host-Dependent Manner. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:854. Epub 2019/05/21. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00854. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Richard A Wilson

8 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-05622

Crowdsourced Analysis of Fungal Growth and Branching on Microfluidic Platforms

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Irimia,

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

This was an interesting, multidisciplinary study, with important implications for understanding fungal growth dynamics, that was generally well received by the reviewers. However, both reviewers had suggestions for improvement. Reviewer 1 and 2 requested more experimental details and for inconsistencies in study to be addressed. Reviewer 2 also noted a fundamental problem, namely that it was unclear what type of manuscript this is purporting to be: a "how to" protocol or a study of fungal growth patterns. To resolve this issue, as indicated by Reviewer 2, more recourse to previous primary literature is likely warranted.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 23 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Richard A Wilson

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

  1. Please provide the accession numbers for the clinical isolates used in your study. If these are withheld at the request of a data access committee or ethics committee, please clarify this in your ethics and/or data availability statements as appropriate.

  1. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Bolt Threads Inc.,

3a) Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

3b) Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. 

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

  1. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

4a, You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

4b, If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Summary

First, I would like to thank the authors for organising the “Fungus Olympics” and their contribution to facilitating global collaboration efforts.

In this study, the authors present new device to characterise fungal growth velocity and branching frequencies and demonstrate its utility in gathering data from ascomycetes, basidiomycetes, and zygomycetes. They discovered two distinct strategies that fungi use to complete mazes. High branching frequencies allowed fungi to complete mazes with sharp turns faster, while low branching frequencies lead to an advantage navigating mazes with shallower turns.

While the authors present a compelling and coherent manuscript, addressing the missing data in a bit more detail in the material and methods section, as well as discussing the potential limitations of the study regarding the comparability of the different data sets, could further improve the quality of this manuscript. Otherwise, I am looking forward to reading about the second round of the “Fungus Olympics”.

Examples and evidence

Minor issues and suggestions.

While the authors are very thorough in describing which lab did which experiments, there are some minor points in the materials and methods section that need to be clarified for better understanding and reproducibility.

1. The authors use different units [c/mL (97,101,106,117, 152, 143, 149), cfu/mL (132, 134), spore/mL (137, 153)] to describe the concentration of the spore solution used to load the mazes. Can these be converted, so the same unit is used throughout the paper?

2. The culture conditions are described in great detail for most fungi. However, the culture conditions of Metarhizium anisopliae (136 - 139) to produce spores could be more detailed for better understanding. The authors should also mention how long Rhizopus stolonifera (152 – 154) was incubated before spores were harvested.

3. The authors do not mention which team, or teams, were conducting the experiments on Neurospora crassa (140 – 146). This information can be found in Table 1, but all the other contributing lab groups were mentioned in the material and methods section.

4. The authors describe criteria for excluding some entries from the analysis (212 – 214). One of them is insufficient fungal growth (less than half the maze). They do not specify whether there was a time limit for completing at least half of the maze. Clarifying the criteria that disqualified fungi would improve the overall understanding of the data analysis section.

5. The growth conditions, such as media and temperature, vary quite a bit between the entries. The authors should add a couple of sentences explaining how those conditions were chosen. Are they the ideal growth conditions determined by each participating lab group? The impact the varying culture conditions might have on the comparability of results should be briefly addressed in the discussion.

The authors present their results in a short and to the point fashion and support their claims with sufficient evidence. Some minor changes in Figures 3 and 6 could help the reader to better understand and interpret the presented data.

6. In Figure 3 the labels describing the time point should include a unit of time. For example, T(+90) should be T(+ 90 min) or it should be clarified in the Figure description (279 - 283).

7. In Figure 6 A the dashed line and solid line in the legend should be labelled to make sure the reader can get all the information needed to interpret the data at a glance.

8. In Figure 6 B the old data set is on the right and the new data set is on the left side, while in 6 D it is the opposite. I would suggest to always keeping the old data on the left and the new data on the right.

9. The description of the samples sizes (331 – 332 and 347 – 348) is quite difficult to understand and briefly explaining which numbers describe the old and new data set would improve the reader’s understanding immensely.

10. In the new data set, the time to escape (Figure 6 C) seems to be more similar between the different mazes than in the old data set, which showed a clear difference between the maze types. This should be addressed and discussed briefly.

Briefly addressing points 5 and 10 as part of a very short discussion of the limitations of this study, could complete the otherwise thorough and compelling discussion.

Reviewer #2: This fun, accessible paper was a treat to read. I do have a few thoughts as to how to improve the manuscript: the authors need to decide if they are writing a “how to do it” paper or a paper seriously engaged in the biology of growth patterns: the different growth patterns and strategies of fungi and why fungi may adopt different strategies. I’m guessing the authors intend a protocols/”how to do it” paper because a great deal of literature about fungal networks and network biology is completely absent (e.g., heaps of papers by Mark Fricker). IF the authors really want to engage in explanations for discovered patterns, please know there is a lot written about fungal networks and the mathematics and evolution of different network strategies. Not to acknowledge that work here, if the intent is to seriously engage in a discussion of growth patterns, is painful.

As a methods paper, the authors claim that a standardized system of measuring fungal growth would be advantageous for the discipline, as it is difficult to compare growth of fungi across experiments without a common set of protocols and agreed standards. Hyphal velocity is reported widely in the literature, but branching patterns and fine-scale growth strategies (e.g. through mazes) are less commonly reported.

That’s a compelling argument, but again the authors are lacking citations of much of the primary literature describing research on fungal growth rate metrics. To measure fungal hyphal growth rate and branching without acknowledging the historical (or even recent) work that has been done in the field is to miss some of the relevance of the newly described work. Many sentences in the final paragraph of the introduction allude to this work without directly citing it.

Previous researchers who have done similar experiments on hyphal growth rate and branching include (but are not limited to) Morrison and Righelato 1974, Prosser and Tough 1991, and Camenzind et al 2020. A relationship between hyphal growth rate and branching rate has already been reported and seems a counter to the results reported here (lines 337-338).

Referring to data on the growth velocity of A. nidulans and other isolates (which isolates?) with multiple runs , the authors suggest that there may be natural variation in growth velocity for a given isolate (lines 427-432). However, nutrient accessibility can enhance or reduce the hyphal growth rate of fungi (Camenzind et. al 2020; Prosser and Tough 1991; Morrison and Righelato 1974). Media recipes were not consistent across labs, correct? Can the authors dismiss nutrient accessibility/supply as a factor that could cause variation in hyphal growth velocity? This may be less of a concern than we think because the Momany lab ran all A. nidulans replicates, but the A. nidulans mutants did require adjustments to the media recipe. Either way, it would be good to know which isolates the authors reference and more about what’s going on here.

In general, for a methods paper, the methods need to be better explained.

One of the aims of this experiment appears to be to standardize the methods researchers use to quantify fungal growth (lines: 79-80, 94-169). However, the preparation of isolates in this experiment is highly variable across labs. Researchers grew different strains of the same fungal species at different temperatures and used different media recipes. They used different dilutions for the spore slurries and injected the microfluidic devices with different amounts of inoculum. Some isolates incubated in the microfluidic device before imaging, while the imaging for other isolates started immediately. Did the collaborators try and keep the concentration of inoculated spores consistent across the isolates? Why were the media recipes variable between isolates of the same species, especially when there is an extensive literature on what conditions maximize growth for most of the species in this experiment? When did the researchers determine when to start imaging? Is the variation in the fungal preparation methods due to the authors framing the experiment as a competition? These discrepancies caused confusion for this reader who expected a paper about standardized methods and they need to be addressed.

For example, for the Fungus Preparation section, please include the same information in each description, in other words, if you tell the reader the relevant lab for one fungus, include that information for all fungi. Strive to make these descriptions consistent. Are all relevant citations included? E.g. no citation is given for Medium N, is it such a standard medium that all readers will know exactly how to make it? This is a paper that is supposed to standardize protocols. Please give all information for all experiments so that a reader would be able to replicate them exactly.

Similarly, if someone wanted to print their own microfluidic devices, are templates or instructions available, if they are, how shall a reader find them?

The authors state: “Fungal species were selected by each team and loaded into devices using a general protocol shared with all participants.” Should that protocol be provided as supplementary material? Including the instructions each lab received for the fungal olympics would potentially answer many of the above questions.

In the results section, the authors explain that nubs are a unique feature fo R.stolonifer’s growth (Lines 333-337, 354-355). They mention that nubs increased with decreasing hyphal velocity. While the authors discuss nubs extensively in the data analysis section, they don’t explain the role of nubs in fungal development. What is the authors’ justification for studying nubs? What conclusions can the authors draw about the role of nubs in R.stolonifer’s development?

The authors found no relationship between the formation of branches and nubs and the time to escape for R. stolonifer (Lines 355-356, figure 7 part C). In figure 7 part C, it looks like the formation of nubs and the time to escape the maze are positively correlated. How did the authors come to the conclusion that branches and nub formation do not correlate to the time to escape the maze? More detail is needed here, perhaps indication of R^2 values.

Other comments: What’s meant by the word “lifestyle”? Do the authors mean life history strategy, growth pattern, ecological niche, something else? I see this word quite a bit in papers now but it seems to mean lots of different things and it would be useful to define it. As used it’s too vague to be meaningful.

Line 80: “towards increasing” is awkward. Writing is slightly awkward in places, throughout.

In the abstract, the authors include the straight channel as a microfluidic design (4 microfluidic designs total), but in the body of the paper (line 252) they explain that the straight-line feature is part of every microfluidic device. This minor discrepancy should be addressed.

Key citations (but please also look at papers that have cited these papers!):

Morrison, K.B., R.C. Righelato.1974. "The Relationship Between Hyphal Branching, Specific Growth Rate and Colony Radial Growth Rate in Penicillium chrysogenum".81: 517-20 DOI: 10.1099/00221287-81-2-51

Prosser, J.I, A.J. Tough. 1991. "Growth Mechanisms and Growth Kinetics of Filamentous Microorgansims". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.3109/07388559109038211

Camenzind, Tessa, Anika Lehmann, Janet Ahland. Stephanie Rumpel, and Matthias C. Rillig. 2020. “Trait-based approached reveal fungal adaptations to nutrient-limiting conditions.” Environmental Microbiology. 22 (8): 3548-3560 doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.15132. Epub 2020 Jul 8. PMID: 32558213.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 29;16(9):e0257823. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257823.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Jun 2021

• We would like to thank the reviewers for reading our work and for their constructive critiques. We have carefully revised the manuscript to reflect reviewer’s feedback and our point by point responses are highlighted below.

• We have revised the manuscript to reflect journal formatting requirements.

• We clarified in the manuscript that the accession numbers for the clinical isolates could not be provided due to the restrictions on sharing data. This statement is included in the methods section and data availability statements.

• We corrected the competing interest section, which now mentions that Paul Guerette, Edyta Szewczyk, Kevin McCluskey and David Breslauer are employees of Bolt Threads Inc.

• We have added the following to our funding statement: “Bolt Threads Inc provided support in the form of salaries for authors PG, ES, KM and DB but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

• We have added the updated statements to the cover letter.

• The map in figure 1 was drawn by author FE using Adobe Illustrator and based on online maps in the public domain (USGS National Map Viewer) which provided general proportions.

• We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. The wide variety of fungi used has complicated the selection of a term which accurately encompasses all the participating organisms. We have decided that cfu/mL is the most accurate and converted all units to this throughout the methods section (Lines 91-245) of manuscript.

• We have added this information to the methods section for each respective species. Lines 139-140, 158-

• We have added this information to the Neurospora crassa section of the methods (Line 145).

There was no set time limit used for exclusion. Fungi simply needed to reach the halfway point by the time the timelapse taken for the experiment had ended. We have added this information to that section for clarification (Lines 220-225).

• As this event was framed as a competition, each group was encouraged to select their own “optimal” conditions for their fungal entry. We have added text to clarify this as well as to mention the impact nutrient availability from differing culture conditions may have on the results (lines 204-207, 380-381, 437-439).

• We have added this information to the figure legend for Figure 3.

• The lack of labeling for the solid and dashed line legend was an error and we thank the reviewer for pointing it out. We have added back the labels to Figure 6A.

• We have adjusted Figure 6B to match the suggestions here.

• We have adjusted the wording and added indicators of “new” and “old” to help clarify the description here (lines 343-345).

• We thank the reviewer for pointing this out, however it is difficult to clarify the source of the heterogeneity without a substantially larger number of experiments. We have, however, added some discussion of possible sources of heterogeneity in results to the text to reflect the limitations of this

• We thank the reviewer for pointing out this gap—as written, this omission would indeed have been painful. We have clarified the purpose of the study in the introduction (lines 79-92) as follows: Despite the clear advantages of microfluidics for the measurement of hyphal growth rates and branching patterns many fungal research groups do not have access have the engineering expertise needed to design and manufacture the devices or to the microscopy equipment needed to accurately record the results. Where microfluidic devices have been used, current methodologies are often highly customized for each species and vary significantly between labs. In order to make microfluidics with live imaging easily accessible to research groups working on a range of fungi, we started a worldwide crowd-sourced collaborative effort, the Fungus Olympics.

• And in the Discussion lines 419-424 as follows:

• Though we did not set out to examine hyphal branching and exploration strategies, something that has been the subject of study by other groups ( reviewed by Harris, 2008, Heaton et al 2012, and Prosser and Tough 1991), the differences in exploration strategies of T. versicolor and R. stolonifer were striking.

• The reviewer raises a good point about the possibility that nutrient accessibility might be important (not just in the medium, but also as a result of metabolism). To address this point, we added a third possible explanation for the differences in branching pattern in the Discussion (lines 437-439):

• It is also possible that differences in nutrient availability and metabolism might have contributed to different growth patterns as has recently been shown at the colony level for several grassland saprotrophic fungi (Carmenzid et al, 2020).

• We clarified that standardization refers to the measurement of phenotypes. Standardizing the fungi culture conditions was not part of the goals. A general protocol for the use and loading of each device (now provided as a supplement) was given to all participants as a unified starting point. Some steps needed to be optimized for each fungi, as different fungal growth rates would determine how long it took each fungi to grow out of the central loading chamber and to reach the maze features and researchers needed to start imaging before their fungi entered the device features. Variation in media and incubation temperature was due to the competitive aspect of this work, where each group chose what they expected would be optimal for their selected fungal species/strains. We have added further text to highlight this (lines 204-207, 380-381).

• We have added the relevant labs for each fungus to the methods for consistency. We have also added further method details and media citations to allow for reproducibility for each experiment. For Medium N specifically, the citation was in reference #16. We now mention this reference immediately after the mention of Medium N to avoid any confusion. General methods for the production of the Fungus Olympics microfluidic devices are available in the device fabrication section. Those interested in this specific design could contact the Irimia lab through the email address provided as corresponding author.

• We have added the general set of instructions that was provided to each group as a supplement to this work (S1 Fig).

• We don’t have enough data to say what the nubs are doing. We have added the following statement on line 351: though the role of nubs is not clear, it seems possible that they might be branch initials that fail to extend when hyphal velocity slows.

• While there does appear to be a positive correlation between the formation of nubs and time to escape for some of the mazes, this difference was not significant. Future experiments designed to specifically probe this question may reveal more details into this relationship. We have added text to the results and discussion to clarify this (Lines 351-353, lines 429-432).

• The final sentence has been shortened to remove “lifestyle”.

• Future work will more systematically examine these trends.

• We have fixed this line.

• All 3 different maze designs and the straight channels are present in each microfluidic device. We have added text to the legend in Figure 1 and altered the text in the abstract to clarify that this is a single device with 4 different features, not 4 individually designed devices. Lines 261-262.

• We thank the reviewer for pointing out this omission. We have added reference to these papers in the discussion along with one from Fricker (Heaton et al 2012) and one from Harris (Harris, 2008). References #38, 39.

Attachment

Submitted filename: response to reviews.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Richard A Wilson

9 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-05622R1

Crowdsourced Analysis of Fungal Growth and Branching on Microfluidic Platforms

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Irimia,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Specifically, reviewer 2 had a small number of comments that should not take long to address and I will accept the article as soon as the changes have been made. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 23 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Richard A Wilson

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Response to revisions:

Thank you to the authors for their thorough response to our suggestions. By emphasizing the competitive aspect of the Fungal Olympics, the authors make it clear they are standardizing the fungal growth metrics and maze design only. The methods section is more organized and the author’s description of the microfluidic device makes it easier to visualize the experimental setup.

The authors made some effective changes to the discussion section. Framing the differences in growth strategies as unexpected strengthens their argument that microfluidic devices are useful for fungal biology. The authors also provide some interesting explanations for the morphology of R.stolinofer. I liked that the authors mention that they can use microfluidic devices to further explore these questions. Additionally, thank you for addressing that differences in nutrient availability and metabolism may have contributed to the differences in growth strategies. This is a necessary part of the discussion and fits nicely into the paper.

Minor issues and suggestions:

Lines 46-47: The authors made the suggested revision to omit the word ‘lifestyle’ here, but the abstract on page 1 of the manuscript is not revised. The authors should update the abstract on page 1 as well.

Lines 79-82: “Despite the clear advantages of microfluidics for the measurement of hyphal growth rates and branching patterns, many fungal research groups do not have access to have the engineering expertise needed to design and manufacture the devices or to the microscopy equipment needed to accurately record the results.”

There is a small error in this sentence that should be clarified.

Lines 98-99: In the methods section, the authors usually spell out the media recipe before abbreviating, except two instances. The authors should abbreviate the media recipe they used only after writing out the full name.

Line 148: Thank you to the authors for converting all units to cfu/mL. It greatly improves the clarity of the methods section. Line 148 is the only place in the methods that the concentration has not been converted to cfu/mL.

Supplementary Figure 1 (Loading protocol): The units for the inoculum are in cells/mL. The concentration should be in cfu/mL to be consistent with the unit in the methods section of the paper.

**********

7. 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: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 29;16(9):e0257823. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257823.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


1 Sep 2021

We would like to thank the reviewers for reading our work, their positive responses to our revisions and for their continued constructive critiques. We have carefully revised the manuscript to reflect reviewer’s feedback and our point by point responses are highlighted below.

Minor issues and suggestions:

Lines 46-47: The authors made the suggested revision to omit the word ‘lifestyle’ here, but the abstract on page 1 of the manuscript is not revised. The authors should update the abstract on page 1 as well.

We apologize for the error and have updated the abstract in the submission system to match our updated manuscript abstract.

Lines 79-82: “Despite the clear advantages of microfluidics for the measurement of hyphal growth rates and branching patterns, many fungal research groups do not have access to have the engineering expertise needed to design and manufacture the devices or to the microscopy equipment needed to accurately record the results.”

There is a small error in this sentence that should be clarified.

We have updated this sentence. “The clear advantages of microfluidics for the measurement of hyphal growth rates and branching patterns are attracting many fungal research groups to use these technologies. However, where microfluidic devices have been used, current methodologies are often highly customized for each species and vary significantly between labs.”

Lines 98-99: In the methods section, the authors usually spell out the media recipe before abbreviating, except two instances. The authors should abbreviate the media recipe they used only after writing out the full name.

We have updated these lines to contain the full names of the media used, to match the rest of the methods section.

Line 148: Thank you to the authors for converting all units to cfu/mL. It greatly improves the clarity of the methods section. Line 148 is the only place in the methods that the concentration has not been converted to cfu/mL.

We have updated this line to correct the units to cfu/mL to match the unified units in the rest of the document.

Supplementary Figure 1 (Loading protocol): The units for the inoculum are in cells/mL. The concentration should be in cfu/mL to be consistent with the unit in the methods section of the paper.

We have updated the figure to now be cfu/mL, in line with the unified units in the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_v4.docx

Decision Letter 2

Richard A Wilson

13 Sep 2021

Crowdsourced Analysis of Fungal Growth and Branching on Microfluidic Platforms

PONE-D-21-05622R2

Dear Dr. Irimia,

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

Richard A Wilson

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Richard A Wilson

20 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-05622R2

Crowdsourced Analysis of Fungal Growth and Branching on Microfluidic Platforms

Dear Dr. Irimia:

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Richard A Wilson

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. General protocol: The general protocol for loading fungi into the microfluidic device that was sent to all participating groups in the Fungal Olympics is shown here.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Data. Source data: Source data for the information summarized in Figs 2b, 2c, 5a, 5d, 6a, 6d, 7b and 7c.

    (XLSX)

    S1 Video. Timelapse of T. versicolor in honeycomb maze.

    Time begins (T0) on the frame where the hyphae enters the maze, in minutes.

    (AVI)

    S2 Video. Timelapse of R. stolonifer in honeycomb maze.

    Time begins (T0) on the frame where the hyphae enters the maze, in minutes.

    (AVI)

    S3 Video. Timelapse of T. versicolor in square maze.

    Time begins (T0) on the frame where the hyphae enters the maze, in minutes.

    (AVI)

    S4 Video. Timelapse of R. stolonifer in square maze.

    Time begins (T0) on the frame where the hyphae enters the maze, in minutes.

    (AVI)

    S5 Video. Timelapse of T. versicolor in boomerang maze.

    Time begins (T0) on the frame where the hyphae enters the maze, in minutes.

    (AVI)

    S6 Video. Timelapse of R. stolonifer in boomerang maze.

    Time begins (T0) on the frame where the hyphae enters the maze, in minutes.

    (AVI)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response to reviews.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_v4.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Most data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files. The source data for Figs 2b, 2c, 5a–5d, 6a–6d, 7b and 7c are available in the "source data file". The accession numbers for the invasive Aspergillus fumigatus and Rhizopus microsporus clinical isolates are withheld because they contain potentially identifying and sensitive patient information, according to the Central Adelaide Local Health Network Human Research Ethics Committee (CALHN HREC) provisions. Data requests may be sent to Dr. Sarah Kidd, National Mycology Reference Centre, SA Pathology, Frome Road, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia, sarah.kidd@sa.gov.au.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES