Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Nov 5;16(11):e0258934. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258934

Development of an agar-plug cultivation system for bioactivity assays of actinomycete strain collections

Nico Ortlieb 1,2,3,¤a, Elke Klenk 1,¤b, Andreas Kulik 1,4, Timo Horst Johannes Niedermeyer 1,2,3,*
Editor: Marcos Pileggi5
PMCID: PMC8570476  PMID: 34739482

Abstract

Natural products are an important source of lead compounds for the development of drug substances. Actinomycetes have been valuable especially for the discovery of antibiotics. Increasing occurrence of antibiotic resistance among bacterial pathogens has revived the interest in actinomycete natural product research. Actinobacteria produce a different set of natural products when cultivated on solid growth media compared with submersed culture. Bioactivity assays involving solid media (e.g. agar-plug assays) require manual manipulation of the strains and agar plugs. This is less convenient for the screening of larger strain collections of several hundred or thousand strains. Thus, the aim of this study was to develop a 96-well microplate-based system suitable for the screening of actinomycete strain collections in agar-plug assays. We developed a medium-throughput cultivation and agar-plug assay workflow that allows the convenient inoculation of solid agar plugs with actinomycete spore suspensions from a strain collection, and the transfer of the agar plugs to petri dishes to conduct agar-plug bioactivity assays. The development steps as well as the challenges that were overcome during the development (e.g. system sterility, handling of the agar plugs) are described. We present the results from one exemplary screening campaign targeted to identify compounds inhibiting Agr-based quorum sensing where the workflow was used successfully. We present a novel and convenient workflow to combine agar diffusion assays with microtiter-plate-based cultivation systems in which strains can grow on a solid surface. This workflow facilitates and speeds up the initial medium throughput screening of natural product-producing actinomycete strain collections against monitor strains in agar-plug assays.

Introduction

Natural products are an indispensable source of lead compounds for the development of drug substances [1, 2]. About 60% of the known natural products with biological activity are derived from plants, about 40% are produced by microorganisms such as fungi and bacteria [3]. Of the bacterial natural product producers, especially in the field of antibiotics discovery, the most famous are undoubtedly the Gram-positive, filamentous actinomycetes [3–6], although other bacteria such as myxobacteria and cyanobacteria have received increasing attention over the last years [7–9]. Both major pharmaceutical companies and academic groups have created impressive actinomycete strain collections, sometimes comprising of tens of thousands of strains [10–12]. Extracts of these strains have been screened against many targets over the years. One famous academic strain collection is the collection at the University of Tübingen, established by Prof. Hans Zähner [13–15]. Important compounds such as deferoxamine [16], a compound used to treat iron intoxication that is listed in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines [17], or the herbicide glufosinate [18] resulted from research on this strain collection.

However, the efficacy of screening campaigns using these actinomycete strain collections, especially screenings for novel antibiotics, has dropped in the last decades, and most major pharmaceutical companies have discontinued their antibiotics discovery programs [19–21]. It has become more and more difficult to isolate novel compounds from actinomycetes, high rates of rediscovery of already known compounds being one of the major issues [22]. On the other hand, resistances of human pathogens against the medically used antibiotics are currently on the rise e.g. due to misuse of antibiotics in animal farming, increased mobility of people in a globalized world, and increased industrialization [23], resulting in the current situation of an “antibiotic crisis” and the fear of return to the pre-antibiotic era [24, 25]. This makes the search for novel antibiotic natural products mandatory. In addition to compounds with direct antibacterial activity, inhibitors of bacterial quorum sensing (QS) are currently discussed as alternative anti-infectives [26, 27]. As QS-inhibitors do not possess direct antibacterial activity, they are less likely to induce resistance development (lower selection pressure), but at the same time reduce virulence and biofilm formation. Thereby, QS-inhibitors enable the host’s immune system to clear the pathogen effectively while at the same time they have little to no impact on the native microbiota.

In the past, mainly extract, fraction, or pure natural product libraries have been used in bioactivity screenings [28, 29]. It is known that most actinomycetes can produce a large diversity of natural products, and individual strains can produce many different compounds depending on growth conditions (e.g. medium composition, culture morphology, cultivation time, stressors) [3, 30–32]. The cultivation conditions direct the natural product profiles of the resulting extracts. Thus, uncommon cultivation conditions can increase the chances of producing novel chemistry [33, 34]. Extracts in the past have most often been generated by extraction of the cultivation medium of submersed actinomycetes cultures with organic solvents such as ethyl acetate. Although it is well known that Actinobacteria produce a different set of natural products when cultivated on solid growth media (agar) compared with submersed culture [35], this has less frequently been used to generate extracts for bioactivity screening, because extracting solid media of a large number of strains is inconvenient. One convenient way to circumvent extraction of the agar prior to bioactivity testing is to study the antibiotic activity of actinomycete natural products secreted into a solid growth medium in an agar plug assay [36]: A natural product producing actinomycete strain is grown on agar. After a defined incubation time, a plug of the agar including the strain is punched out aseptically using e.g. a cork borer, the back of a pipet tip, or a trimmed syringe. The agar plug is transferred to a fresh petri dish, and embedded into agar containing a monitor bacterium. In the case of the production of e.g. an antibacterial natural product, the monitor strain is not growing in the agar around the agar plug with the actinomycete, because antibacterial compounds secreted into the agar during actinomycete growth diffuse into the surrounding fresh agar. However, as this assay requires manual manipulation of the strains and agar plugs, it is not feasible to be used with a larger strain collection of several hundred strains at once.

Small-scale cultivation systems using microtiter plates (MTPs) are widely used in microbiology laboratories [37, 38]. The Duetz cryo-replicator is a system for the parallel handling of 96 bacterial strains in MTPs [39]. Its main use is to inoculate liquid medium in MTPs with cryo-preserved strains in strain collection master-plates for subsequent studies [40, 41]. Although this and similar systems have been used with Streptomyces sp. strains before [42–44], these cultivation systems have been used only for submersed cultivation, and have never been used to transfer actinomycetes spore suspensions to solid agar for subsequent agar plug assay screenings.

The aim of the study presented here was to remove the main bottleneck of agar plug assays, the inconvenient manual agar plug handling. We describe the successful development of a medium-throughput cultivation and agar-plug assay workflow that allows the convenient inoculation of solid agar plugs with actinomycete spore suspensions from a strain collection, and the transfer of the agar plugs to petri dishes to conduct agar-plug bioactivity assays.

Materials and methods

Preparation of spore suspension master plates

Actinomycetes were grown in petri dishes (Ø 94 mm) on ISP2 agar until they showed strong sporulation. The spores were collected by addition of 5 mL sterile 37.5% glycerol in water (v/v). 1.5 mL of the resulting spore suspensions were transferred into MTPs (polystyrene transparent square 96-half-deepwell microplates, flat bottom; EnzyScreen). The MTPs were closed with removable silicone mats (CapMat, Greiner Bio-One) and stored at -80°C.

Media compositions

ISP media according to the International Streptomyces Project were used to cultivate the actinomycete strains [45]. All media were prepared by dissolving the following ingredients in 1 L of distilled water. ISP2: 4 g/L yeast extract (Ohly GmbH, Germany), 4 g/L dextrose (Carl Roth, Germany), 10 g/L malt extract (Thermo Fischer Scientific, USA), pH 7.3. ISP3: 20 g/L oatmeal (Holo Hafergold, Reform Kontor GmbH & Co. KG, Germany), 5 mL trace metal standard solution (CaCl2 · 2 H2O 3 g/L, Fe(III)-citrate 1 g/L, MnSO4 · H2O 200 mg/L, ZnCl2 100 mg/L, CuSO4 · 5 H2O 25 mg/L, Na2B4O7 · 10 H2O 20 mg/L, Na2MoO4 · 2 H2O 10 mg/L, CoCl2 · 6 H2O, 4 mg/L), pH 7.3. NL19: 20 g/L mannitol, 20 g/L soy meal (Henselwerk, Magstadt, Germany), pH 7.5. NL200: 20 g/L mannitol, 20 g/L corn steep powder (Marcor Development Corp., Carlstadt, USA), pH 7.5. NL300: 20 g/L mannitol, 20 g/L cotton seed powder (PharmaMedia Dr. Müller GmbH, Leimen, Germany), pH 7.5. NL333: 5 g/L dextrose, 10 g/L soluble starch (Carl Roth G,bH & Co. KG), 10 g/L malt extract, 3 g/L yeast extract, 3 g/L BactoPeptone (Becton Dickinson, Sparks, USA), 3 g/L NH4NO3, 2 g/L CaCO3, pH 7.0. NL400: 10 g/L dextrose, 2 g/L starch (Carl Roth G,bH & Co. KG), 3 g/L BactoPeptone, 5 g/L yeast extract, 3 g/L meat extract, 3 g/L CaCO3, pH 7.0. NL410: 10 g/L dextrose, 10 g/L glycerol, 5 g/L oatmeal, 10 g/L soy meal, 5 g/L yeast extract, 5 g/L BactoCasaminoacid (Becton Dickinson), 1 g/L CaCO3, pH 7.0. NL500: 10 g/L soluble starch, 10 g/L dextrose, 10 g/L glycerol, 15 g/L fish meal (Becton Dickinson), 10 g/L sea salt (Sigma-Aldrich), pH 8.0. 2% to 2.5% of agar (Sigma-Aldrich, USA) were added for solid media. TSB (tryptone soy broth; Termo Fisher Scientific), TSA (tryptone soy agar; Becton Dickinson). All media were autoclaved at 121°C before use.

Screening against Staphylococcus aureus PC322

Bioactivity screening against S. aureus PC322 was performed according to Nielsen et al. [46] using the developed screening system. A S. aureus PC322 culture was prepared as follows: A single colony of S. aureus PC322, grown on TSA, was used to inoculate a pre-culture in 10 mL of TSB supplemented with 5 μg/mL erythromycin in a flask with baffles and shaken at 180 rpm at 37°C for about 12 h. The pre-culture was used to inoculate the main culture in 10 mL TSB (1% v/v), which was kept shaking at 180 rpm at 37°C for 16 h. This main culture was diluted to an OD600 of 0.1. 2 mL of this diluted culture were added to a solution of 320 μL 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indoxyl-β-D-galactopyranoside (X- Gal; 20 mg/ml in DMSO) and 4 μL erythromycin solution (50 mg/mL in ethanol) in 40 mL TSA. Subsequently, the mixture was poured into petri dishes, either around the agar plugs in 120 x 120 mm square petri dishes, or in round petri dishes (Ø 92 mm). In the latter case, after solidification, round wells (Ø 7 mm) were made using the back end of a 200 μL pipette tip and filled with 50 μl of sample solution. 50 μl hamamelitannin solution (2 mg/mL in DMSO) were used as positive control [47].

Taxonomy of strain Tü2700

To obtain genomic DNA for sequencing, Tü2700 biomass was harvested from a main culture after 4 d of incubation. To isolate the genomic DNA, the Qiagen Genomic-tip 100/G kit (Qiagen, Germany) was used, following the manufacturer’s protocol. 50 μl deionized H20 were used for elution. The genome has been sequenced using a PacBio RSII sequencer (macrogen Inc.; reagents: SMRT cell 8Pac V3 and DNA Polymerase Binding Kit P6). The genome sequence was analyzed using autoMLST to generate a phylogeny tree [48].

Cultivation of Streptomyces sp. Tü2700

Pre-cultures were prepared by inoculation of spores in NL410 in Erlenmeyer flasks (max. 20% media filling) equipped with baffle and spiral for three days at 180 rpm at 27°C. Small-scale media screening cultures (10 mL) were inoculated with 1% (v/v) of pre-culture, and incubated in 100 mL Erlenmeyer flasks with baffle and spiral at 180 rpm at 29°C. Production cultures were inoculated with 500 mL of pre-culture in 9.5 L of NL19 medium. Cultivation was done in a 10 L bioreactor (B20, B. Braun, Melsungen, Germany) under continuous stirring at a rotor speed of 200 rpm, and an airflow of 5 L/min at 27°C. 4 mL of Ucolub N115® were added during the 7 days of incubation to reduce foam development. Every 24 h, samples were drawn and tested for bioactivity.

Extraction and compound isolation

After harvesting, the cultivation medium was supplemented with 2% Celite® Hyflo Supercel. Separation into culture filtrate and mycelium by multiple sheet filtration (Pall T 1500 filter plates; relative retention range 10–30 μm) yielded 14 L of culture filtrate. The pH of the filtrate was adjusted to pH 5 with 1 M HCl and extracted five times for 30 min with each 2.0 L of ethyl acetate. The organic phases were combined and concentrated under reduced pressure to yield 3.8 g of extract. 1 g extract dissolved in 2 mL of methanol was loaded onto a Sephadex LH-20 gravity column (5 cm × 95 cm, mobile phase methanol, flow rate 102 mL/h, 4 fractions per h). Bioactive fractions were combined to yield 20 mg of a highly purified fraction. This fraction was further refined using semi-preparative HPLC (injection valve Valco C6UW with 5 mL sample loop; Chromatograph LaPrep with two P119 pumps (VWR, Darmstadt), a dynamic mixing chamber (Knauer, Berlin), P314 2-channel-UV-Vis detector (VWR; detection at 230 and 280 nm) with 2-channel-recorder (N-2, Abimed, Langenfeld) on a Luna C-18 (phenomenex; 5 μm, 100 Å; 10 mm x 250 mm) using isocratic separation at 40% acetonitrile in water at 9.45 mL/min for 10 min (column oven 30°C). The active compound eluted at tR 7.2 min. Fractions were collected peak based by hand, resulting in 8 mg of pure oxazolomycin A.

Analysis and structure elucidation

HPLC-HR-MS analysis. Samples were injected into a Dionex Ultimate 3000 HPLC system (Thermo Fisher Scientific), coupled to a maXis 4G ESI‐QTOF mass spectrometer (Bruker Daltonics). ESI (pos. and neg. ionization) was performed in Ultra Scan mode with capillary voltage 3.5 kV, nebulizer pressure 2.0 bar, drying gas 8.0 L/min at 350 °C. MS/MS spectra were recorded in auto MS/MS mode with collision energy stepping enabled. Molecular formulae were calculated from monoisotopic masses using the SmartFormula function of DataAnalysis (Bruker Daltonics). For analysis of agar extracts of strain Tü2700, a 10 mm2 agar block of Tü2700 colony growing on ISP2 agar for 8 days was extracted with 2 mL of methanol/acetone (1:1) for 1 h in an ultrasonic bath. After drying of the solvent using a rotary evaporator, the extract was reconstituted in 50 μL of methanol and analysed using an Agilent 1200 series HPLC coupled to an Agilent 6330 ion trap (alternating pos. and neg. mode ultra scan, cap. voltage 3.5 kV, temp. 350°C). NMR analysis. NMR experiments were performed on a Bruker Avance III HD 400 spectrometer at 400 MHz (1H). The compounds were dissolved in methanol-d4. The solution was filtered through cotton wool and transferred into an NMR tube. The chemical shifts were referenced to the residual protonated solvent signals of methanol-d4 (δH = 3.31 ppm and 4.78 ppm; δC = 49.15 ppm).

Results and discussion

Development of a cultivation and screening system

Formatting of the actinomycetes strain collection

1232 strains of the Tübingen actinomycetes strain collection were plated on ISP2 agar, and the time from incubation to sporulation was recorded. As the production of specialized metabolites is growth phase-dependent, it is important to assay the bioactivity of a strain at a defined time point relative to the onset of sporulation [32]. Accordingly, the spore suspensions generated from the strains were sorted depending on their sporulation delay, and compiled into spore suspension master plates containing strains with quick (5 days; 29% of the strains), intermediate (7–8 days; 64%), or slow sporulation (10 days; 7%). As master plates, polystyrene transparent square 96-well half-deepwell microplates with flat bottoms were used, to allow cooling of the master plates during transfer using pre-cooled aluminum blocks. The spore suspensions were filled into the plates (96 spore suspensions per master plate, 1.1 mL per well), which were covered with silicon lids and stored at -80°C.

Inoculation of agar plugs and strain cultivation

In a first experiment, a standard 96-well MTP was filled with liquefied ISP-2 agar (>85°C, 160 μL per well). After solidification of the agar at room temperature, a commercially available cryo-replicator was found to be suitable to transfer the spore suspensions from the master plates to the agar-containing plates (Fig 1B and 1C). The replicator consists of 96 individual spring-borne stainless steel pins. For inoculation, the cryo-replicator is pressed (app. 0.2 N) for 3 s onto the frozen surface of the spore stock. This leads to the melting of app. 0.3 μl of the spore stock, which will form an app. 50 μm film on the tip of the pin [39]. These spore suspension films were then used to inoculate the agar plugs in the MTPs. Care needed to be taken not to lower the pins too much to avoid damaging the agar plugs. Before switching to a new spore suspension master plate, the cryo-replicator was heat sterilized and allowed to cool down to ambient temperature. To analyze the possibility of cross-contamination during inoculation, MTPs containing an actinomycete spore suspension stock only in every third well were prepared. This master plate was used for three successive inoculations of agar-filled MTPs. We did not observe any contamination of adjoining wells with viable actinomycetes spores. However, although the growth of the actinomycete strains in the MTP wells was satisfactory, we found it was not possible to remove the agar plugs from the wells and put them into petri dishes without destroying the plugs.

Fig 1. "From spore to bioactivity"—The workflow of the combined MTP cultivation system and an agar plug diffusion assay.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

(A) Bottomless, stainless steel MTPs are closed on one side with silicone mats. The wells are filled with agar. (B) For inoculation, a cryo-replicator is first pressed onto the frozen surfaces of the spore suspensions. (C) Subsequently, the replicator pins are lowered onto the agar surface in the MTPs. (D) The plates are sealed with a gas-permeable membrane and stored in a water-saturated atmosphere. (E) After an appropriate incubation time, the MTPs are unsealed, and the growth of the bacteria is visually evaluated. (F) With the help of two plunger devices, agar plugs are pushed out into two square petri dishes. (G) An agar-plug assay reveals actinomycete strains secreting active natural products into their solid growth medium.

Removal of the bottoms of the wells was the solution to this problem, as it enabled us to push out the agar plugs. As bottomless MTPs are not commercially available, we removed the bottoms of standard polystyrene MTPs manually using a drill with the same diameter as the wells. It was not possible to remove the bottoms in an aseptic environment, thus a subsequent sterilization step was needed. Polystyrene is not heat stable, thus chemical sterilization according to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Guidelines, employing 7.5% H2O2 for 15 min and subsequently 70% ethanol for 5 min to rinse away the H2O2, was used [49]. However, subsequent inoculation experiments with these plates showed that this sterilization protocol was not sufficient, and frequent contamination especially with fungi was observed. We hypothesize that small scratches in the polystyrene, originating from the drilling process, cannot be reliably sterilized with the liquid disinfectants. After some trial and error, we designed bottom-less stainless-steel MTPs (96-well, round). These plates were reusable and could be heat sterilized at 160°C for 2 h. No contaminations were observed after we introduced these stainless-steel plates into our workflow (Fig 1A). Before filling the agar into the plates, the bottoms of the wells were closed with a silicone mat. Each well was filled with 160 μl of agar. Any medium can be used, resulting in a high flexibility of the growth system. Increasing the amount of agar in the medium from the commonly used 2.0% to 2.5% resulted in agar plugs with improved stability during subsequent manipulations.

The inoculated MTPs were closed with gas-permeable membranes (heat sealed rayon fibers) coated with acrylate adhesive, and incubated at 27°C for 5 to 10 days, depending on the sporulation delay. To prevent the agar from drying out during incubation, the MTPs were incubated in a water-saturated atmosphere (Fig 1D).

Transfer of plugs to the agar-plug assay

After incubation, the agar plugs were transferred from the growth plate into a petri dish. To achieve this, both sealing mats were removed. After a visual examination to confirm satisfactory growth (Fig 1E), the agar plugs were pressed out of the plate, directly into a petri dish, using a plunger device. A 10 cm square petri dish has a suitable width to accommodate the agar plugs from an MTP. We noticed that if all 96 agar plugs are extruded at the same time, they are too close together to allow the observation of distinct halos around the agar plugs in the subsequent bioactivity assay. Thus, we designed the plunger device in a way that only every other agar plug is pushed out at a time. Therefore, two plunger devices with 48 plungers each were needed (A1 to H11, and A2 to H12), and one MTP results in two petri dishes for bioactivity testing. The distances of the agar plugs in the petri dish were well suited for a subsequent agar-plug assay.

We found that the agar plugs were sticking strongly to the plunger tips of our first prototype, making it very difficult to reliably place the plugs in the petri dish. We solved this problem by making the tips of the plungers concave, so that only the outer rim of the plunger tip comes into direct contact with the agar plug (Fig 1F). Reducing the contact area this way, the adhesion of the bottom of the agar plug to the petri dish surface became strong enough, so that the agar plugs stayed in place after removal of the plunger device. The device was constructed to be heat sterilizable (aluminum handle, Teflon plungers).

Liquefied agar (42°C, 40 mL) containing a monitor strain was carefully poured into the petri dish around the agar plugs, and kept at room temperature for 1 h to allow solidification of the agar. Subsequently, the petri dish was incubated at the conditions required by the monitor strain. This workflow allowed the screening of the actinomycete strain collection for any bioactivity of interest that can be detected in agar-plus assays, as described in the following.

Screening of an actinomycete strain collection for QS inhibitors

To demonstrate the usability of the developed workflow, we performed a bioactivity screening campaign using S. aureus PC322 as monitor strain [46]. S. aureus PC322 can be used to examine the effects of compounds on virulence gene expression in S. aureus, as it is a transcriptional reporter strain carrying lacZ (β-galactosidase) fused to the central virulence gene hla (α-hemolysin). Transcription of hla is regulated via the Agr (auto-inducing peptide, AIP) QS pathway [50], thus compounds inhibiting staphylococcal AIP-based QS lead to reduced hla expression. Lower hla expression, in turn, leads to reduced lacZ expression in the hla::lacZ monitor strain and subsequently reduced degradation of the chromogenic β-galactosidase substrate X-Gal. The assay has two potential read-outs: If there is a clear and colorless inhibition zone around a test compound, the compound is antibacterial against S. aureus. If the halo is colorless but hazy, the compound can be suspected to have inhibitory activity on Agr-based QS without being directly antibacterial [46].

Screening of the strain collection

It is known that the medium composition has a strong influence on the natural product spectrum an actinomycete strain produces. Thus, we decided to screen the 1232 strains of the Tübingen actinomycetes strain collection we had formatted into spore suspension master plates after growth on two different solid media (ISP2 and ISP3). The cultivation and the screening assays were performed in triplicate. Strains that were reproducibly active were counted as “hit strains”. Independent from the cultivation medium, 82 strains (7%) were found to inhibit QS (hazy halo), 284 strains (23%) displayed antibiotic activity (clear inhibition zone), and 866 strains (70%) did not show any activity in the assay. The high proportion of antibacterial strains was not surprising, as the Tübingen actinomycete strain collection contains many strains that were selected for their antibiotic activity.

A majority of the strains with QS inhibitory activity (60 strains, 73%) exhibited only modest halos (< 5 mm), 17 strains (21%) showed halos > 10 mm, and 5 strains (6%) showed halos > 20 mm. While three of the most active strains (Tü1792, Tü2698, and Tü2700) showed activity when cultivated on either agar, Tü3337 was only active when grown on ISP2 agar, and Tü 99 only when grown on ISP3 agar. According to 16S rRNA analysis, all of the 5 most active strains belong to the genus Streptomyces (S1 Fig in S1 File). With the largest halo of the tested strains (25 mm, Fig 2A and 2B), Streptomyces Tü2700 was chosen for identification of the active compound(s).

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

(A) Screening plate containing the agar plug of Tü2700 (hazy halo on the top right; note the differences to the clear halos of three other strains indicating direct antibacterial activity). (B) Detailed view of the inhibition zone of Tü2700. (C) The same hazy halo (inhibitory activity of the strain on LacZ expression) was also observed when the strain was grown submersed. (D) Structure of Oxazolomycin A (1).

Taxonomic characterization of Tü2700

Whole-genome sequencing and phylogeny analysis using autoMLST showed the strain to belong to the genus Streptomyces, the closest type strains being S. alboflavus NRRL B-2373 (average nucleotide identity (ANI) of 86.0%, mash distance 0.1404) and S. aureocirculatus NRRL ISP5386 (ANI 85.3%, mash distance 0.1475) (see S1 Fig in S1 File). These results indicate that Streptomyces Tü2700 apparently belongs to a yet undescribed species. However, to confirm this hypothesis, further experiments to determine e.g. its lipid profile, morphology, and its utilization of different carbon sources would be needed, which was not within the scope of this study.

Cultivation of Tü2700 and isolation of the active compound

Isolation of a bioactive compound from liquid cultivation medium is more convenient compared to solid medium. Thus, we tested whether the active compound of Streptomyces Tü2700 is also produced in liquid medium. Indeed, we found that the same hazy halo could be observed when the strain was grown submersed (Fig 2C). To assess the influence of different cultivation media on the production of the putatively QS inhibiting compound by Streptomyces Tü2700, the strain was cultivated in various liquid media (NL19, NL200, NL300, NL333, NL400, NL410, NL500, ISP3). NL19 was found to be a suitable medium for submersed cultivation of Tü2700 and production of the active compound over a cultivation time of 4 days. Bioactivity-guided isolation resulted in the identification of oxazolomycin A (1, structure see Fig 2D) as the main active compound produced by this strain. Subsequent analysis of a Streptomyces Tü2700 agar plug by HPLC-MS confirmed that 1 is also produced when the strain grows on solid medium (see SI).

The identity of 1 was confirmed based on UV spectroscopy, mass spectrometry, and NMR spectroscopy data (S2–S4 Figs in S1 File), which are in agreement with previously reported data of oxazolomycin A [51, 52]. Oxazolomycin A is a well-known compound from Streptomyces, first isolated in 1985 [53]. It is known to have antibiotic, antiviral, and antitumor activity [52]. These activities are most likely caused by the property of 1 to act as a protonophore at pH < 7.0 and conveys both protons and monovalent cations such as potassium at pH > 7.5 [54]. Thus, the activity we observed for sub-lethal concentrations of 1 (50 μg/mL) on S. aureus PC322 is most likely also due to this unspecific protonophore/ionophore activity rather than specific inhibition of the QS of S. aurus, demonstrating the limitation of the monitor strain used in this screening against unspecific growth inhibitors which give false-positive results.

Conclusions

Conventional cultivation and screening systems for actinomycetes use submersed cultivation of the test strains. While actinomycetes can grow and produce secondary metabolites in submersed cultures, they naturally grow attached to solid surfaces. It is known that cultivation conditions have a tremendous influence on the production of secondary metabolites. To the best of our knowledge, there has not yet been a convenient way to combine agar diffusion assays with microtiter-plate-based cultivation systems in which strains can grow on a solid surface. Thus, we developed a cultivation system for actinomycetes which allows the cultivation of 96 different strains on solid agar in stainless steel microtiter plates, complementing the existing cultivation systems. The developed cultivation system has been seamlessly integrated with an agar-plug assay screening, resulting in a workflow that can conveniently be used to screen natural product-producing microorganisms in medium throughput.

The developed cultivation and screening system was tested on the Tübingen actinomycete strain collection. We found that the system can conveniently be used to cultivate > 1000 strains in parallel on different agars, and to directly use the resulting inoculates in agar-plug assays. As proof of concept, we used an agar-plug assay with the monitor strain S. aureus PC322, which has been developed to identify compounds inhibiting Agr based quorum sensing.

While the screening presented here did not result in the discovery of a novel compound or a compound with specific activity, the successful screening campaign showed the general value of the developed screening system. It allowed rapid and comprehensive initial screening of the strain collection against a monitor strain in an agar-plus assay. Since the development of the system, we have conducted 3 screening campaigns. The results of these campaigns will be reported elsewhere or have already been published [55]. Sterilization of the replicator proved to be the rate-limiting step in the developed workflow, but inoculating multiple plates from the same pore suspension master plate is a rapid process. Thus, increasing the number of media studied in parallel or parallelizing the number of different monitor strains tested against can increase the screening speed as needed.

Supporting information

S1 File. The phylogenetic tree of Streptomyces Tü2700 as well as UV/MS/NMR spectra of 1 and results of an HPLC analyses of a Tü2700 agar plug can be found in the Supporting Information.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (449.1KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

We thank T. Mourlidis for manufacturing the stainless steel microtiter plates and the plunger devices.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

NO and THJN were funded by the German Center for Infection Research (DZIF; TTU09.706). We acknowledge financial support within the funding programme Open Access Publishing by the German Research Foundation (DFG). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Katz L, Baltz RH. Natural product discovery: past, present, and future. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2016;43:155–76. [doi: 10.1007/s10295-015-1723-5] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Newman DJ, Cragg GM. Natural Products as Sources of New Drugs over the Nearly Four Decades from 01/1981 to 09/2019. J Nat Prod. 2020;83:770–803. [doi: 10.1021/acs.jnatprod.9b01285][] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Demain AL. Importance of microbial natural products and the need to revitalize their discovery. J Ind Micobiol Biotechnol. 2014;41:185–201. [doi: 10.1007/s10295-013-1325-z][] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Baltz RH. Renaissance in antibacterial discovery from actinomycetes. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2008;8:557–63. [doi: 10.1016/j.coph.2008.04.008] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Genilloud O. Actinomycetes: Still a source of novel antibiotics. Nat Prod Rep. 2017;34:1203–32. [doi: 10.1039/c7np00026j][] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Watve MG, Tickoo R, Jog MM, Bhole BD. How many antibiotics are produced by the genus Streptomyces? Arch Microbiol. 2001;176:386–90. [doi: 10.1007/s002030100345][] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Niedermeyer T, Brönstrup M. Natural-product drug discovery from microalgae. In: Posten C, Walter C, editors. Microalgal Biotechnology: Integration and Economy. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. 2012;169–200. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Salvador-Reyes LA, Luesch H. Biological targets and mechanisms of action of natural products from marine cyanobacteria. Nat Prod Rep. 2015;32:478–503. doi: 10.1039/c4np00104d [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Herrmann J, Fayad AA, Müller R. Natural products from myxobacteria: novel metabolites and bioactivities. Nat Prod Rep 2017;34:135–60. [doi: 10.1039/c6np00106h][] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wink J. How can actinomycete taxonomy and natural product research work together? The Sanofi-Aventis approach. Microbiology Australia. 2011;32:81–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Donadio Stefan, Monciardini Paolo, Alduina Rosa, Mazza Paola, Chiocchini Claudia, Cavaletti Linda, et al. Microbial technologies for the discovery of novel bioactive metabolites. J Biotechnol. 2002;13:187–98. doi: 10.1016/s0168-1656(02)00209-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Steele AD, Teijaro CN, Yang D, Shen B. Leveraging a large microbial strain collection for natural product discovery. J Biol Chem. 2019;294:16567–76. [doi: 10.1074/jbc.REV119.006514][] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Floss HG. Professor Dr Hans Zähner: an appreciation. J Antibiot. 2009;62:405. [doi: 10.1038/ja.2009.58][] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.The Tübingen Actinomycete Strain Collection [accessed 2020 May 14] URL: https://uni-tuebingen.de/fakultaeten/mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche-fakultaet/fachbereiche/interfakultaere-einrichtungen/imit/technologien/natresource/strain-collection/.
  • 15.Fiedler H-P. Secondary Metabolites Isolated in Tübingen 1964–1989—On the Occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the Institute of Microbiology, University of Tübingen, and the 60th Birthday of Prof. Dr. Hans Zähner. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen. 1989.
  • 16.Bickel H, Bosshardt R, Gäumann E, Reusser P, Vischer E, Voser W, et al. Stoffwechselprodukte von Actinomyceten. 26. Mitteilung. Über die Isolierung und Charakterisierung der Ferrioxamine A-F, neuer Wuchsstoffe der Sideramin‐Gruppe. Helv Chim Acta. 1960:2118–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.WHO Model List of Essential Medicines: 20th edition (March 2017).
  • 18.Bayer E, Gugel KH, Hägele K, Hagenmaier H, Jessipow S, König WA, et al. Stoffwechselprodukte von Mikroorganismen. 98. Mitteilung. Phosphinothricin und Phosphinothricyl‐Alanyl‐Alanin. Helv Chim Acta. 1972;55:224–39. doi: 10.1002/hlca.19720550126 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Brown ED, Wright GD. Antibacterial drug discovery in the resistance era. Nature. 2016;529:336–43. [doi: 10.1038/nature17042] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Powers JH. Antimicrobial drug development–the past, the present, and the future. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2004;10:23–31. [doi: 10.1111/j.1465-0691.2004.1007.x] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Projan SJ. Why is big Pharma getting out of antibacterial drug discovery? Curr Opin Microbiol. 2003;6:427–30. [doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2003.08.003][] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Koehn FE, Carter GT. The evolving role of natural products in drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discovery. 2005;4:206–20. doi: 10.1038/nrd1657 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hawkey PM, Jones AM. The changing epidemiology of resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2009;64 Suppl 1:i3–10. [doi: 10.1093/jac/dkp256][] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wright GD. Solving the Antibiotic Crisis. ACS Infect Dis. 2015;1:80–4. [doi: 10.1021/id500052s][] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rossolini GM, Arena F, Pecile P, Pollini S. Update on the antibiotic resistance crisis. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2014;18:56–60. [doi: 10.1016/j.coph.2014.09.006][] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hentzer M, Givskov M. Pharmacological inhibition of quorum sensing for the treatment of chronic bacterial infections. J Clin Invest. 2003;112:1300–7. [doi: 10.1172/JCI20074] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kaufmann GF, Park J, Janda KD. Bacterial quorum sensing: a new target for anti-infective immunotherapy. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2008;8:719–24. [doi: 10.1517/14712598.8.6.719] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Wagenaar MM. Pre-fractionated microbial samples—the second generation natural products library at Wyeth. Molecules. 2008;13:1406–26. [doi: 10.3390/molecules13061406][] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Grkovic T, Akee RK, Thornburg CC, Trinh SK, Britt JR, Harris MJ, et al. National Cancer Institute (NCI) Program for Natural Products Discovery: Rapid Isolation and Identification of Biologically Active Natural Products from the NCI Prefractionated Library. ACS Chem Biol. 2020;15:1104–14. [doi: 10.1021/acschembio.0c00139][] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bode HB, Bethe B, Höfs R, Zeeck A. Big Effects from Small Changes: Possible Ways to Explore Nature’s Chemical Diversity. ChemBioChem. 2002;3:619–27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hug JJ, Bader CD, Remškar M, Cirnski K, Müller R. Concepts and Methods to Access Novel Antibiotics from Actinomycetes. Antibiotics. 2018;7:44. [doi: 10.3390/antibiotics7020044][] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Barka EA, Vatsa P, Sanchez L, Gaveau-Vaillant N, Jacquard C, Meier-Kolthoff JP, et al. Taxonomy, Physiology, and Natural Products of Actinobacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2016;80:1–43. [doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00019-15][] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Genilloud O, González I, Salazar O, Martín J, Tormo JR, Vicente F. Current approaches to exploit actinomycetes as a source of novel natural products. J Ind Micobiol Biotechnol. 2011;38:375–89. [doi: 10.1007/s10295-010-0882-7][] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Abdelmohsen UR, Grkovic T, Balasubramanian S, Kamel MS, Quinn RJ, Hentschel U. Elicitation of secondary metabolism in actinomycetes. Biotechnol Adv. 2015;33:798–811. [doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2015.06.003][] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Crüsemann M, O’Neill EC, Larson CB, Melnik AV, Floros DJ, da Silva RR, et al. Prioritizing Natural Product Diversity in a Collection of 146 Bacterial Strains Based on Growth and Extraction Protocols. J Nat Prod. 2017;80:588–97. [doi: 10.1021/acs.jnatprod.6b00722][] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mazza G. Rapid Assay for Detection of Microorganisms Producing DNA-Damaging Metabolites. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1983;45:1949–52. doi: 10.1128/aem.45.6.1949-1952.1983 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Micheletti M, Lye GJ. Microscale bioprocess optimisation. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2006;17:611–8. [doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2006.10.006] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Betts JI, Baganz F. Miniature bioreactors: Current practices and future opportunities. Microb Cell Fact. 2006;5:21. [doi: 10.1186/1475-2859-5-21][] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Duetz WA, Rüedi L, Hermann R, O’Connor K, Büchs J, Witholt B. Methods for Intense Aeration, Growth, Storage, and Replication of Bacterial Strains in Microtiter Plates. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000;66:2641–6. doi: 10.1128/AEM.66.6.2641-2646.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Duetz WA. Microtiter plates as mini-bioreactors: miniaturization of fermentation methods. Trends Microbiol. 2007;15:469–75. [doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2007.09.004][] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Baltz RH, Davies JE, Demain AL. ASM Manual of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology: Chapter 8, Miniaturization of Fermentations; 2010.
  • 42.Minas W, Bailey JE, Duetz W. Streptomycetes in micro-cultures: Growth, production of secondary metabolites, and storage and retrieval in the 96-well format. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. 2000;78:297–305. doi: 10.1023/a:1010254013352 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Sohoni SV, Bapat PM, Lantz AE. Robust, small-scale cultivation platform for Streptomyces coelicolor. Microb Cell Fact. 2012;11:9. [doi: 10.1186/1475-2859-11-9][] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Siebenberg S, Bapat PM, Lantz AE, Gust B, Heide L. Reducing the variability of antibiotic production in Streptomyces by cultivation in 24-square deepwell plates. J Biosci Bioeng. 2010;109:230–4. [doi: 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2009.08.479][] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Shirling E. B. and Gottlieb D. Methods for characterization of Streptomyces species. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1966:313–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Nielsen A, Nielsen KF, Frees D, Larsen TO, Ingmer H. Method for screening compounds that influence virulence gene expression in Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54:509–12. [doi: 10.1128/AAC.00940-09] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kiran MD, Adikesavan NV, Cirioni O, Giacometti A, Silvestri C, Scalise G, et al. Discovery of a quorum-sensing inhibitor of drug-resistant staphylococcal infections by structure-based virtual screening. Mol Pharmacol. 2008;73:1578–86. [doi: 10.1124/mol.107.044164][] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Alanjary M, Steinke K, Ziemert N. AutoMLST: an automated web server for generating multi-locus species trees highlighting natural product potential. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:W276–W282. [doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz282][] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Rutala WA, Weber DJ. Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities 2008.
  • 50.Le KY, Otto M. Quorum-sensing regulation in staphylococci-an overview. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:1174. [doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01174] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Kawai S, Kawabata G, Kobayashi A, Kawazu K. Inhibitory Effect of Oxazolomycin on Crown Gall Formation. Agric Biol Chem. 1989;53:1127–33. [doi: 10.1080/00021369.1989.10869398] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Moloney MG, Trippier PC, Yaqoob M, Wang Z. The oxazolomycins: a structurally novel class of bioactive compounds. Curr Drug Discov Technol. 2004;1:181–99. [doi: 10.2174/1570163043334974][] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Mori T, Takahashi K, Kashiwabara M, Uemura D, Katayama C, Iwadare S, et al. Structure of oxazolomycin, a novel β-lactone antibiotic. Tetrahedron Lett. 1985;26:1073–6. [doi: 10.1016/S0040-4039(00)98515-0] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Grigorjev PA, Schlegel R, Gräfe U. On the protonophoric activity of oxazolomycin. Pharmazie. 1992;47:707–9. [] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Wex KW, Saur JS, Handel F, Ortlieb N, Mokeev V, Kulik A, et al. Bioreporters for direct mode of action-informed screening of antibiotic producer strains. Cell Chem Biol. 2021:in press. [doi: 10.1016/j.chembiol.2021.02.022][] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Marcos Pileggi

27 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-25646

Development of an agar-plug cultivation system for bioactivity assays of actinomycete strain collections

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Niedermeyer,

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.

The reviews received indicate that minor revisions are needed.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 11 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,

Marcos Pileggi, Ph.D

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

2. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

3. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. 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 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:

a. 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].”

b. 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.

4. 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. 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: Partly

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The authors report the development of a medium-throughput cultivation and agar-plug assay workflow, which enables the convenient inoculation of agar plugs with actinomycete spore suspensions from a strain collection and the convenient transfer of agar plugs to petri dishes to carry out agar-plug mediated bioactivity assays. To demonstrate the usability of the developed workflow, they performed a bioactivity screening campaign of 1232 collected actinomycete strains using Staphylococcus aureus PC322 as a monitor strain. The results showed that 30% of the tested strains were found to display antibiotic activity or inhibit Agr-based quorum sensing (QS). Moreover, they showed that all of the 5 most active strains belong to the genus Streptomyces based on 16S rRNA analysis. Finally, the genome of strain Streptomyces Tü2700 was sequenced and phylogeny analysis was performed and then the main active compound produced by this strain was identified. Overall, this study is well-done and the data is convincing, which provides a novel workflow to screen natural-product microbes in medium throughput and allows the convenient initial screening of strain collections in an agar plug bioactivity assay. I recommend its publication, however, before that, the following comments should be addressed.

1. The abstract part should be optimized. The results of this study should be described. In addition, the authors should also describe briefly what measures the authors take to address the challenges encountered in the workflow.

2. Line 85-86, the sentence “a plug---out of the agar” should be rephrased.

3. Line 130, the strain name S. aureus should be provided in full name for the first time.

4. Line 135, OD what is the wavelength?

5. The result part “Screening of the strain collection”, how many strains were used here? The number should be provided.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

The paper entitled “Development of an agar-plug cultivation system for bioactivity assays of actinomycete strain collections” describes the development and application of a medium-throughput agar-plug based screening system for the identification of bioactive compounds from actinomycete strains cultured on solid media. Using a collection of bespoke devices optimised for repeatability and sterilisation the authors were able to identify strains exhibiting quorum sensing inhibitory activity using a S. aureus hla::lacZ reporter strain. One such strain, Streptomyces sp. Tü2700, was shown to produce strong bioactivity which, following further isolation, the authors identified as oxazolomycin A.

This submission recognises its limitations as primarily a methodology paper and whilst short covers the necessary material. I believe papers like this are important contributions to the research community and this submission is no different. In the current state I would recommend that this paper is accepted for submission following minor revisions.

In my opinion the greatest outstanding issue of this paper is in the identification of oxazolomycin A as the bioactive compound. Whilst oxazolomycin A is clearly the compound they have managed to isolate from Tü2700 this is following a series of liquid culture optimisations for isolation and structural elucidation. The link to it being the bioactive compound identified in the screen is unsubstantiated. This doesn’t actually matter per se however I would recommend the authors make this distinction clearer and that the screen only allows for the identification of strains with the propensity to produce bioactive compounds but what is subsequently identified in the liquid isolation is most likely different to that showing activity on the agar plug screen. If the authors wished to confirm Tü2700 was producing oxazolomycin A during the screen it would be prudent to isolate the compound directly from the separate agar plug plates which, whilst it may take a significant number of plates, has been successfully achieved for years.

In addition to this I present below a few minor points for consideration:

- The authors make the claims (e.g. line 25, 72) that the solid cultivation of actinomycetes is rarely used for bioactivity screenings. Whilst this may be true for extremely large scale screens I would argue that the classical overlay bioassay is a widespread and is indeed first line methodology for screening the bioactivity of new isolates due to its simplicity and replicability. I would recommend the authors to readjust their claims slightly.

- I believe the manuscript would benefit from a small explanation of inhibitors of bacterial quorum sensing, perhaps just a few sentences, to give the readers a better understanding of why they are a promising source of therapeutics.

- I believe a Figure containing images of the strain Tü2700 and its bioactivity as noted from the screen would be of great benefit to the readers.

- Some small grammar issues:

o Line 25: I think it would be more correct to use “submersed” rather than “submerse” and this is continued throughout the manuscript

o Line 107: Please be consistent in the use of ml or mL

o Line 151: Similarly with v/v or V/V

I thank the authors for their submission, I believe the methodology, and general results, presented here may be of great benefit to the actinomycete research community.

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: Yes: Thomas C McLean

[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.

Decision Letter 1

Marcos Pileggi

11 Oct 2021

Development of an agar-plug cultivation system for bioactivity assays of actinomycete strain collections

PONE-D-21-25646R1

Dear Dr. Niedermeyer,

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,

Marcos Pileggi, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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: All comments have been addressed

**********

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: N/A

**********

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: Deat Authors,

Thank you for your revisions following review. I am very happy with the state of the manuscript and suggest just a few minor grammatical modifications to further improve your manuscript:

Line 56 - "sometimes comprising - of - tens of thousands of strains"

Line 85 - Actinobacteria should be capitilised

Line 107 - "We describe the successful development - of - a medium"

Line 137 - Remove the full stop after Staphylococcus

Line 152 - Please format H2O correctly

Lines 160,161,167,182 - Please capitilise L for litre

Line 282 - I suggest you change this sentance to read "Transcription of hla is regulated..." this avoid capitilising a gene name

Line 320 - Change submers to submersed

Line 345 - Change "are using" to use

With that in effect I would like to thank the authors for their swift and precise work and commend them on the final manuscript, following my colleague reviewers' comments.

**********

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: Yes: Thomas C. McLean

Acceptance letter

Marcos Pileggi

18 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-25646R1

Development of an agar-plug cultivation system for bioactivity assays of actinomycete strain collections

Dear Dr. Niedermeyer:

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. Marcos Pileggi

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. The phylogenetic tree of Streptomyces Tü2700 as well as UV/MS/NMR spectra of 1 and results of an HPLC analyses of a Tü2700 agar plug can be found in the Supporting Information.

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (449.1KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 210928 _ Response to Reviewers.pdf

    Click here for additional data file. (61.9KB, pdf)

    Data Availability Statement

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

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES