Skip to main content
PLOS Pathogens logoLink to PLOS Pathogens
. 2022 Apr 7;18(4):e1010434. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1010434

Enterococcus faecalis alters endo-lysosomal trafficking to replicate and persist within mammalian cells

Ronni A G da Silva 1,2, Wei Hong Tay 1, Foo Kiong Ho 1, Frederick Reinhart Tanoto 1, Kelvin K L Chong 1, Pei Yi Choo 1, Alexander Ludwig 3,4, Kimberly A Kline 1,2,3,*
Editor: Anders P Hakansson5
PMCID: PMC9017951  PMID: 35390107

Abstract

Enterococcus faecalis is a frequent opportunistic pathogen of wounds, whose infections are associated with biofilm formation, persistence, and recalcitrance toward treatment. We have previously shown that E. faecalis wound infection persists for at least 7 days. Here we report that viable E. faecalis are present within both immune and non-immune cells at the wound site up to 5 days after infection, raising the prospect that intracellular persistence contributes to chronic E. faecalis infection. Using in vitro keratinocyte and macrophage infection models, we show that E. faecalis becomes internalized and a subpopulation of bacteria can survive and replicate intracellularly. E. faecalis are internalized into keratinocytes primarily via macropinocytosis into single membrane-bound compartments and can persist in late endosomes up to 24 h after infection in the absence of colocalization with the lysosomal protease Cathepsin D or apparent fusion with the lysosome, suggesting that E. faecalis blocks endosomal maturation. Indeed, intracellular E. faecalis infection results in heterotypic intracellular trafficking with partial or absent labelling of E. faecalis-containing compartments with Rab5 and Rab7, small GTPases required for the endosome-lysosome trafficking. In addition, E. faecalis infection results in marked reduction of Rab5 and Rab7 protein levels which may also contribute to attenuated Rab incorporation into E. faecalis-containing compartments. Finally, we demonstrate that intracellular E. faecalis derived from infected keratinocytes are significantly more efficient in reinfecting new keratinocytes. Together, these data suggest that intracellular proliferation of E. faecalis may contribute to its persistence in the face of a robust immune response, providing a primed reservoir of bacteria for subsequent reinfection.

Author summary

Enterococcus faecalis is often isolated from chronic wounds. Prior to this study, E. faecalis has been observed within different cell types, suggesting that it can successfully colonize intracellular spaces. However, to date, little is known about the mechanisms for E. faecalis intracellular survival. Here, we describe key features of the intracellular lifestyle of E. faecalis. We show that E. faecalis exists in an intracellular state within immune cells and non-immune cells during mammalian wound infection. We show that E. faecalis can survive and replicate inside keratinocytes and macrophages, and intracellularly replicating E. faecalis are primed to more efficiently cause reinfection, potentially contributing to chronic or persistent infections. To establish this intracellular lifestyle, E. faecalis is taken up by keratinocytes primarily via macropinocytosis, whereupon it manipulates the endosomal pathway and expression of trafficking molecules required for endo-lysosomal fusion, enabling E. faecalis to avoid lysosomal degradation and consequent death. These results advance our understanding of E. faecalis pathogenesis, demonstrating mechanistically how this classic extracellular pathogen can co-opt host cells for intracellular persistence, and highlight the heterogeneity of mechanisms bacteria can use to avoid host-mediated killing.

Introduction

Enterococcus faecalis, traditionally considered an extracellular pathogen, is a member of the healthy human gut microbiome and a frequent opportunistic pathogen of the urinary tract and wounds. Enterococci are one of the most frequently isolated bacterial genera from wound infections [15]; however, their pathogenic mechanisms enabling persistence in this niche are not well understood.

We have previously shown in a mouse excisional wound infection model that E. faecalis undergo acute replication and long-term persistence, leading to delayed wound healing, despite a robust innate inflammatory response at the wound site [6]. These data suggest that E. faecalis possess mechanisms to evade the innate immune response, and indeed, we have also shown that extracellular E. faecalis can actively suppress NF-κB activation in macrophages [7]. In addition, E. faecalis can persist within a variety of eukaryotic cells including macrophages [810], osteoblasts [11,12], monocytes [13], endothelial cells [14], and epithelial cells [1520]. However, the mechanisms mediating intracellular persistence have not been well studied.

Once internalized, intracellular bacteria can be trafficked via the endo-lysosomal pathway. In this pathway, the small GTPase Rab5 regulates early endosome/macropinosome formation while Rab7, via replacement of Rab5, is required for the maturation of early to late endosomes, as well as for the fusion of late endosomes with lysosomes [21]. Late endosome-lysosome fusion is a critical step for the formation of an acidic and degradative compartment that eliminates bacteria, yet bacteria have evolved multiple mechanisms to interfere with this process [22]. For instance, Mycobacterium tuberculosis prevents Rab7 recruitment and, consequently, phagosome maturation, by interfering with Rab5 effectors, which are auxiliary proteins that support Rab5 conversion to Rab7 [23,24]. Listeria monocytogenes also inhibits Rab7 recruitment by inhibiting Rab5 GDP exchange activity in host cells [25]. Coxiella burnetii can localize to compartments labelled with Rab5 and LAMP1 (a marker of the late endosome/lysosome) but not Rab7 [26,27]. However, very little is known about the intracellular trafficking of E. faecalis and whether it can manipulate this pathway for its survival.

In this study, we sought to understand how E. faecalis persist within mammalian cells and how intracellularity contributes to pathogenesis. Using a mouse model of wound infection, we found viable E. faecalis within both immune and non-immune cells at the wound site up to 5 days after infection and provide evidence that intracellular E. faecalis is found in an active state of replication in vivo. Using an in vitro model of keratinocyte infection, we show that E. faecalis is taken up into these cells via macropinocytosis into single-membrane bound compartments, whereupon they can persist and manipulate the endosomal pathway. We show that internalized E. faecalis rarely co-localize with Cathepsin D and a subset of intracellular bacteria ultimately undergoes replication. Interestingly, E. faecalis infection results in a marked reduction of Rab5 and Rab7 protein levels, which may explain how E. faecalis prevent endo-lysosomal fusion. Finally, we show that E. faecalis derived from the intracellular niche are primed to more efficiently reinfect new keratinocytes. Together, our data are consistent with a model in which a subpopulation of E. faecalis are taken up into mammalian cells during wound infection, providing immune protection and a replicative niche, which may serve as a nidus for chronically infected wounds.

Results

Intracellular E. faecalis are present within CD45+ and CD45- cells during mouse wound infection

To determine whether E. faecalis persist intracellularly within infected wounds, we infected wounded mice with 106 CFU of E. faecalis for 1, 3 and 5 days. Infected wounds were dissociated to a single cell suspension, treated with gentamicin and penicillin G to kill extracellular bacteria, immunolabeled with anti-CD45 antibody, and sorted into CD45+ immune cells and CD45- non-immune cells. These sorted cells were then lysed for the enumeration of intracellular bacteria. Consistent with literature reporting the ability of E. faecalis to persist within phagocytic immune cells, we recovered viable E. faecalis from CD45+ cells (Fig 1A). In addition, intracellular E. faecalis was also recovered from the CD45- population, up to 5 days post infection (dpi) (Fig 1B). Compared to the approximately 105 CFU total recoverable E. faecalis (both extracellular and intracellular) within wounds at 3 and 5 dpi [6], we can estimate that approximately 1–10% of the total recovered bacterial population are intracellular at these time points. These data demonstrate that E. faecalis can exist intracellularly during wound infection, implying it is not an exclusive extracellular pathogen.

Fig 1. Recovery of viable E. faecalis within host cells during wound infection.

Fig 1

Male C57BL/6 mice were wounded and infected with 106 CFU of E. faecalis OG1RF. Wounds were harvested at 1, 3, or 5 days post-infection (dpi), dissociated to single cell suspension, treated with antibiotics to kill extracellular bacteria, labeled, and sorted into (A) CD45+ (immune) or (B) CD45- (non-immune) populations. CD45+ and CD45- cell populations were then lysed and plated for bacterial CFU. Each data point indicates the CFU within the sorted subpopulation from one mouse. Data shown represent at least 3 independent experiments, each of which included at least 4 mice per time point. Horizontal black lines indicate the mean for each group.

Actin polymerization and PI3K signaling facilitates uptake of E. faecalis into keratinocytes

To investigate the mechanisms by which E. faecalis infect non-immune cells at the wound site, we infected the spontaneously immortalized human keratinocyte cell line (HaCaT) with E. faecalis strain OG1RF at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 1, 10 or 100 for a period of up to 3 hours (h), followed by 1 h of gentamicin and penicillin, and quantified viable intracellular bacteria. The gentamicin and penicillin treatment used was sufficient to kill 99.9% of the extracellular bacteria (S1A and S1B Fig). We observed that E. faecalis can adhere to keratinocytes at all MOI and time points (Fig 2A), and intracellular E. faecalis were recovered as early as 1 h post-infection (hpi) at a MOI of 10 and 100 (Fig 2B). Parallel cytotoxicity experiments established that E. faecalis infection does not negatively affect keratinocytes at early time points of <4 hpi, even in the absence of gentamicin and penicillin (S2 Fig). Thus, we chose MOI 100 and no more than 3 h of infection without antibiotics to characterize its intracellular pathogenesis. Since we recovered intracellular E. faecalis from infected mouse wounds in both immune and non-immune compartments, we expected to also detect viable E. faecalis within mouse fibroblasts and macrophages in vitro. Indeed, intracellular E. faecalis were recovered from RAW264.7 murine macrophages and NIH/3T3 murine fibroblasts, indicating that E. faecalis internalization and persistence is not cell type specific (S1C Fig). Similarly, intracellular persistence within keratinocytes was not E. faecalis strain specific, as the vancomycin resistant strain V583 persisted at even higher numbers within HaCaT cells after 24 hpi (S1D and S1E Fig). E. faecalis V583 required 21 h of antibiotic exposure to kill 99.9% of extracellular bacteria, which may extend the effective infection period, but nonetheless supports the conclusion that E. faecalis V583 is present intracellularly at 24 hpi (S1F and S1G Fig).

Fig 2. Time and dose-dependent increase of intracellular E. faecalis OG1RF with keratinocytes, following actin polymerization-dependent entry, in vitro.

Fig 2

(A,B) 106 keratinocytes were infected with E. faecalis OG1RF at the indicated MOI for 1, 2, or 3 h, each followed by another 1 h of antibiotic treatment to eliminate extracellular bacteria. Infected host cells were washed once, lysed, and intracellular CFU enumerated. Solid lines indicate the mean CFU/well from a total of 3 independent experiments. Dashed black line indicates the limit of detection of the assay. (C-F) Keratinocytes were pre-treated with actin inhibitors cytochalasin-D (CytoD 1 μg/ml), latrunculin A (LatA 0.25 μg/ml), or PI3K inhibitor wortmannin (0.1 μg/ml) for 0.5 h, followed by E. faecalis infection at MOI 100 for 1, 2 or 3 h. Following three PBS washes, cells were lysed and associated adhered bacteria enumerated immediately after infection; or, to quantify intracellular CFU, the initial infection period was followed by 1 h antibiotic treatment, for a total of 2, 3 or 4 hpi, prior to lysis and enumeration. (C,E) Adherent or (D,F) intracellular bacteria were enumerated at the indicated time points (only significant differences are indicated). Solid lines indicate the mean for each data set of at least 3 independent experiments. (D) ****p<0.0001 2 way ANOVA, Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. (F) **p<0.01 2 way ANOVA, Sidak’s multiple comparisons test. (See S1 Fig for data related to antibiotic killing efficiency. See S1 Table for data related to drug cytotoxicity).

Bacterial uptake into non-professional phagocytes such as epithelial cells can proceed via a number of different endogenous endocytic pathways [28]. Previous studies have suggested that E. faecalis uptake into non-professional phagocytic cells is dependent on actin and microtubule polymerization, suggestive of macropinocytosis or receptor (clathrin)-mediated endocytosis [14,15]. To determine whether an intact cytoskeleton is important for E. faecalis entry into keratinocytes, we pre-treated keratinocytes with specific chemical inhibitors, prior to infection and intracellular CFU enumeration. We found that cytochalasin-D and latrunculin A, inhibitors of actin filament polymerization [29,30], did not alter bacterial adhesion to keratinocytes (Fig 2C), but resulted in a significant 100-fold decrease in recoverable intracellular bacteria at 4 hpi, demonstrating that actin polymerization is important for the entry process (Fig 2D). By contrast, colchicine, an inhibitor of microtubule polymerization [31], did not impede bacterial adhesion and minimally impacted uptake only at 2 hpi, suggesting that E. faecalis may enter keratinocytes via receptor-mediated endocytosis in some cases (S3A Fig). Since many endocytic pathways rely on an intact actin cytoskeleton [32], a panel of additional selective inhibitors was used to determine the mechanism of E. faecalis entry. Inhibitors of receptor (clathrin)- and caveolae-mediated endocytosis did not meaningfully affect bacterial adhesion or internalization (S3B and S3C Fig). Although, we observed a small but statistically significant decrease in the number of internalized bacteria at 3 hpi in dynasore-treated cells, it is likely due to the increased cytotoxicity associated with dynasore treatment (S1 Table). To test the role of macropinocytosis in E. faecalis uptake, we pre-treated keratinocytes with the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor wortmannin [33,34]. Wortmannin did not affect E. faecalis adhesion to keratinocytes (Fig 2E) but resulted in a 10-fold decrease in intracellular CFU, as compared to the untreated controls (Fig 2F). All compounds used were non-cytotoxic to mammalian cells (viability ≥80%), except for dynasore which reduced viability to 76% (S1 Table). Together, the strong dependence of E. faecalis internalization on actin polymerization and PI3K and independence of receptor (clathrin)- and caveolae-mediated endocytosis, is consistent with macropinocytosis as a primary means of uptake.

E. faecalis replicates intracellularly in vitro and in vivo

To confirm the presence of E. faecalis within keratinocytes, we imaged keratinocytes infected with E. faecalis expressing chromosomally encoded green fluorescent protein (GFP) [35] by confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Images taken at 4 hpi, from cells infected for 3 h followed by 1 h gentamicin and penicillin treatment to kill extracellular bacteria, revealed 1–10 intracellular bacteria within each infected keratinocyte (Fig 3A). This observation suggested either that selected infected keratinocytes can take up many E. faecalis, or that E. faecalis could replicate within these keratinocytes. We extended the period of post-infection antibiotic exposure up to 24 hpi and recovered similar intracellular CFU within the whole population (S1D Fig). However, within single infected keratinocytes, we visualized 10–30 E. faecalis, which often clustered in a perinuclear region (Fig 3B). At the same 24 hpi time point, we also detected clusters of fluorescent E. faecalis peripheral to apparently apoptotic keratinocytes (S4 Fig), indicative of intracellular bacteria that have either escaped from the keratinocyte or of bacteria derived from lysed keratinocytes, of which the latter may account for the slight decrease in overall intracellular CFU over time.

Fig 3. Intracellular E. faecalis replicates in vitro in HaCaT and RAW264.7 cells and in vivo in CD45-negative cells.

Fig 3

(A) CLSM orthogonal view of internalized E. faecalis within HaCaT keratinocytes at 4 hpi (3 h infection + 1 h antibiotic treatment). (B) CLSM orthogonal view of internalized E. faecalis within HaCaT keratinocytes at 24 hpi (3 h infection + 21 h antibiotic treatment). (A, B) Blue, dsDNA stained with Hoechst 33342; green, E. faecalis; red, F-actin. Images are representative of 3 independent experiments. Scale bar: 5 μm (C) CLSM view of internalized E. faecalis stained with BrdU and RADA. Examples of replicating E. faecalis are indicated with a white arrow. Blue, dsDNA stained with Hoechst 33342; green, E-GFP, E. faecalis; red, BrdU or RADA; white, F-actin. Images are representative of at least 3 independent experiments. Scale bar: 10 μm. (D) CLSM view of ex vivo murine wound tissue cells following infection and BrdU treatment. Left panel shows examples of potentially replicating E. faecalis clusters, indicated with white arrows. Scale bar: 10 μm. Right panels show magnified areas of interest. The marked areas with dashed lines white square show CD45-negative E. faecalis containing cells. Scale bars: 2 μm and 0.5 μm. Blue, dsDNA stained with Hoechst 33342; green, E. faecalis; red, BrdU; white, CD45. Images are representative of 3 independent experiments. (S1 Video shows a 3D video projection of this image. Additional images of ex vivo cell experiments are provided in S6 Fig).

To directly examine intracellular replication of E. faecalis OG1RF, we treated infected HaCaT and RAW264.7 cell lines with BrdU, a nucleotide analogue that is incorporated into replicating DNA; and RADA, a TAMRA-based fluorescent D-amino acid that labels newly synthesized peptidoglycan and has been recently used to assess E. faecalis replication within hepatocytes [3638]. As a control, E. faecalis treated with a bacteriostatic concentration of the antibiotic ramoplanin to halt replication do not incorporate fluorescent D-amino acids [39] or BrdU (S5A and S5B Fig). Following 3 h infection and 1 h antibiotic treatment, HaCaT and RAW264.7 cells were treated with BrdU or RADA for another 20 h concomitantly with antibiotics, to ensure that only intracellular replicating bacteria could incorporate the compounds. CLSM images of intracellular bacteria in both cell lines confirmed that E. faecalis incorporated both compounds, indicating E. faecalis were in a state of active replication (Fig 3C). We observed 45% (16/35) of the infected HaCaT contained E. faecalis that had incorporated RADA. To determine whether E. faecalis can replicate intracellularly in vivo, we infected mouse excisional wounds with E. faecalis expressing episomally encoded GFP (pDasherGFP) for 24 h. BrdU was injected and applied topically to the infected wound 1.5 h prior to wound collection. CLSM analysis of ex vivo wounds that were dissociated to multicellular clusters and immunolabeled for CD45 expression showed clusters of BrdU positive intracellular bacteria within CD45- cells (Figs 3D and S6 and S1 Video). Altogether these observations suggest that E. faecalis can replicate intracellularly within mammalian cells of both immune and epithelial origin.

Intracellular E. faecalis display heterotypic trafficking through early and late endosomes

Since we observed large numbers of E. faecalis within keratinocytes in the perinuclear region at 24 hpi, we hypothesized that E. faecalis may be trafficked through the host endo-lysosomal pathway. To interrogate this hypothesis, we infected cells for 30 min, 1 hpi and 3 hpi and subsequently immunolabelled the early endosome Rab5 GTPase in infected cells to visualize early intracellular endo-lysosomal compartments. Fluorescence histograms were generated for individual E. faecalis-containing compartments and were further validated by visualization of orthogonal views and 3D projections. At 30 min, 1 hpi, and 3 hpi we observed that 31% (13/42), 28% (18/64), and 35% (35/111) of intracellular E. faecalis, respectively, were found in Rab5+ labelled compartments (Figs 4A and S6). These data suggest that E. faecalis-containing compartments that are not in association with Rab5 may either traffic quickly through Rab5+ compartments or avoid association with Rab5 entirely. Additionally, observations of single enterococcal chains, for which we expected uniform association with Rab5, revealed instances of non-uniform Rab5 association along the chains, suggesting either incomplete Rab5 immunolabelling, or different Rab5 interaction or immunolabelling efficiency at different parts of the chain (Fig 4B). To investigate this further, we immunolabelled Rab5 at 30 min, 1 hpi and 3 hpi concomitantly with Rab7, a late endosomal GTPase that ultimately replaces Rab5 as the endo-lysosomal pathway progresses from early to late endosomes [40]. We observed 32% (18/56), 46% (48/104) and 25% (14/54) of intracellular E. faecalis in compartments labelled for both Rab5 and Rab7 at 30 min, 1 hpi, and 3 hpi, respectively (Figs 4C and 4D, and S7). Looking at Rab7 alone (which may include instances of Rab5 proximal labelling), we observed that 67% (44/65), 54% (63/116) and 63% (40/63) of E. faecalis-containing compartments lacked Rab7 labelling at 30 min, 1 hpi, and 3 hpi, respectively. These data support our hypothesis that some intracellular E. faecalis may be escaping Rab5/7 compartments altogether. In addition, at 4 hpi or 24 hpi we also immunolabeled the infected cells to visualize the following intracellular endo-lysosomal compartments: EEA1 (early endosome antigen 1, early endosome), Rab7 and LAMP1 (lysosomal-associated membrane protein, late endosome/pre-lysosome) (Figs 4E, 4F and S8). By 4 hpi, although EEA1-labeled early endosomes were often observed in close proximity to E. faecalis-containing compartments, only 5% (3/55) of internalized bacteria compartments showed a clear association with EEA1, and these compartments did not contain LAMP1 (EEA1+/LAMP1-). Instead, 64% (35/55) of internalized E. faecalis were in compartments associated with LAMP1 but not EEA1 (EEA1-/LAMP1+). The remainder (31% of internalized bacteria (17/55)) was neither associated with LAMP1- nor EEA1-labeled compartments (EEA1-/LAMP1-) (Fig 4E and 4F). Furthermore, we observed that Rab7 was associated with 28% (16/58) of E. faecalis-containing compartments at 4 hpi and with 32% (10/31) of E. faecalis-containing compartments at 24 hpi (S8A Fig); however, some but not all LAMP1+ E. faecalis-containing compartments were also Rab7+ (S8B Fig), again suggesting a degree of heterogeneity among the intracellular niche of E. faecalis. Altogether, these data suggest that a subset of internalized E. faecalis traffic rapidly through early endosomes and reach late endosomal compartments as early as 30 min post-infection and LAMP1+ late endosomal compartments by 4 hpi. Another pool of E. faecalis may avoid the canonical Rab5/Rab7 endo-lysosomal pathway entirely.

Fig 4. Intracellular E. faecalis displays heterotypic trafficking through early and late endosomes in keratinocytes.

Fig 4

(A) CLSM of infected keratinocytes labelled with antibodies against Rab5 (Alexa fluor 568, red, early endosome) at 30 min, 1 hpi and 3 hpi. (B) Representative fluorescence intensity profiles of immunolabeled Rab5 and fluorescent E. faecalis (pDasherGFP, green) was assessed over a linear segment of E. faecalis cells (derived from the white lines shown in panel A). Labeling of individual cells was manually scored using a combination of histogram overlap (where each cell is a peak on the histogram) and visualization of orthogonal views and 3D projections generated using Imaris 9.0.2. Arrows indicate points of colocalization. Images are representative of three independent experiments. Percentage of E. faecalis associated with Rab5 was derived from a minimum of 8 individual confocal images per time point (2–3 images per biological replicate). (C) CLSM of infected keratinocytes labelled with antibodies against Rab5 (Alexa Fluor 568, blue; early endosome) and Rab7 (Alexa Fluor 647, red; late endosome) at 30 min, 1 hpi and 3 hpi. (D) Representative fluorescence intensity profiles of immunolabeled Rab5 immunolabeled Rab7 and E. faecalis (pDasherGFP, green) was assessed over a linear segment (derived from the white lines shown in panel C) and scored as described for panel B. Arrow indicates points of colocalization. Images are representative of three independent experiments. Percentages are derived from a minimum of 8 individual confocal images per time point. CLSM of infected HaCaTs immunolabeled for EEA1 (early endosome) and LAMP1 (late endosome/lysosome) at 4 hpi. (F) Magnified images of boxed areas in (A) showing representative images of E. faecalis containing compartments. Percentages are derived from 10 individual confocal images and a total of 55 E. faecalis diplococci. Images are maximum intensity projections of 4–5 optical sections (~2 μm z-volume) and are representative of 3 independent experiments. Scale bars: A: 10 μm; C: 10 μm; E: 10 μm; F: 2 μm. (See S7 and S8 Figs for additional representative images).

Intracellular E. faecalis escapes lysosomal fusion with late endosome compartments

While E. faecalis can survive in murine macrophages by resisting acidification, which in turn prevents fusion with lysosomes [10], this has not been previously documented in epithelial cells. Our results showing that E. faecalis can replicate in keratinocytes led us to hypothesize that fusion between late endosomes and lysosomes may be impeded, permitting intracellular survival. To determine if lysosomes fuse with E. faecalis–containing late endosomes, we first immunolabeled infected cells at 24 hpi for LAMP1 (with a polyclonal antibody) and the lysosomal protease Cathepsin D. We found that LAMP1 and Cathepsin D colocalized in infected and non-infected cells, as expected. However, when looking at E. faecalis-containing compartments, while 47% (30/64) of internalized E. faecalis were observed in LAMP1+ compartments, these compartments were conspicuously devoid of Cathepsin D (Fig 5A, white arrows). The remainder (53% of internalized bacteria (34/64)) did not colocalise with either LAMP1 or Cathepsin D. We validated this finding using a monoclonal antibody against LAMP1 concomitantly with Cathepsin D immunolabeling. We confirmed that the majority of intracellular E. faecalis escaped lysosomal fusion with only 4% (3/69) and 8% (4/50) of the observed intracellular compartments containing E. faecalis labelled with Cathepsin D and LAMP1 simultaneously at 4 hpi and 24 hpi, respectively (Figs 5B, 5C, and S9). Finally, we also observed a complete lack of colocalization between E. faecalis-containing compartments and M6PR (mannose-6-phosphate receptor, a late endosome/pre-lysosome marker), which delivers lysosomal hydrolases to pre-lysosomal compartments (S10 Fig). Importantly, LAMP1+ compartments containing E. faecalis often appeared distended, particularly at 24 hpi (Figs 5A and S10). Based on these observations, we conclude that E. faecalis escapes lysosomal fusion. Moreover, we propose that intracellular replication occurs within late endosomes until a bacterial threshold is reached, whereupon the compartment is unable to accommodate additional bacteria leading to compartment and/or cell lysis.

Fig 5. Intracellular E. faecalis escape lysosomal fusion with late endosome compartments.

Fig 5

(A) CLSM of infected keratinocytes stained for the lysosomal protease Cathepsin D (late endosome/lysosome) and LAMP1 (late endosome/lysosome; polyclonal antibody) at 24 hpi. Bottom panel shows the boxed region above. Images are maximum intensity projections of 4–5 optical sections (~2 μm z-volume) and are representative of 3 independent experiments. Scale bars: top panel: 10 μm; C bottom panel: 5 μm. (B) CLSM of infected keratinocytes stained for the lysosomal protease Cathepsin D (late endosome/lysosome) and LAMP1 (late endosome/lysosome; monoclonal antibody) at 4 hpi and 24 hpi (C) Fluorescence intensity of Cathepsin D (Alexa Fluor 568, blue), LAMP1 (Alexa Fluor 647, red) and E. faecalis (pDasherGFP, green) were assessed over a linear segment (histograms) and scored as labelled by visualization of orthogonal views and 3D projections on Imaris 9.0.2. Arrow indicates points of colocalization. Images are representative of three independent experiments. Measurements (percentages) are derived from a minimum of 8 individual confocal images per time point (2–3 images per biological replicate).

E. faecalis intracellular infection reduces Rab5 and Rab7 protein levels

Rab5 and Rab7 are small GTPases that are critical for the formation of early and late endocytic compartments. To test whether E. faecalis infection affects Rab protein levels, we analyzed Rab5 and Rab7 proteins in the infected keratinocyte population, following infection with either E. faecalis strain OG1RF or strain V583. At 4 hpi, E. faecalis infection with either strain resulted in significantly lower Rab5 protein levels (Fig 6A and 6B). Somewhat unexpectedly, although we observed Rab7 associated with some E. faecalis compartments, we also observed a global reduction in Rab7 protein levels for both strains at 4 hpi. While Rab7 levels were restored by 24 hpi for both strains, Rab5 in V583-infected keratinocytes remained lower at 24 hpi, which may correlate with greater CFU and intracellular survival for V583 compared to OG1RF (S1F and S1G Fig). The expression of other endo-lysosomal proteins, such as Cathepsin D and LAMP1, were unchanged upon E. faecalis infection (S11 Fig), indicating that E. faecalis selectively interferes with the levels of endosomal Rab5 and Rab7 proteins. Taken together, the combined E. faecalis-mediated reduction in Rab expression, coupled with the ability of nearly 70% of E. faecalis-containing compartments to avoid Rab7 recruitment (Figs 4 and S8) could explain the lack of colocalization of Cathepsin D with E. faecalis-containing compartments (Fig 5) and is consistent with the conclusion that most E. faecalis-containing compartments do not fuse with lysosomes. Infected and non-infected HaCaT cells were both maintained under the same antibiotic treatment for protein collection, therefore observed differences in protein levels are not a consequence of antibiotic exposure.

Fig 6. E. faecalis infection reduces keratinocyte expression of both Rab5 and Rab7 at 4 hpi.

Fig 6

(A) Whole cell lysate analyzed by immunoblotting with antibodies α-LAMP1 (polyclonal antibody), α-Rab5, α-Rab7 and α-GAPDH. HaCaT cells were incubated with (+) and without (-) E. faecalis OG1RF and V583 for 4 hpi and 24 hpi. Images shown are representative of at least 3 biological replicates. (B) Relative density of the bands of interest were normalized against loading control (GAPDH). Error bars represent biological replicates and mean ​± SEM from at least 4 independent experiments. Statistical analysis was performed using unpaired T-test with Welch’s correction.

E. faecalis survives in heterogeneously labelled intracellular niches

To visualize the association between E. faecalis-containing compartments and endo-lysosomal organelles with greater resolution, we turned to correlative light and electron microscopy (CLEM). We created a HaCaT cell line that stably expresses LAMP1-mCherry and infected these cells with GFP-expressing E. faecalis for 18 h (3 h followed by 15 h antibiotic treatment). Confocal microscopy of fixed cells enabled us to locate E. faecalis and LAMP1+ compartments in infected cells before processing them for serial section transmission electron microscopy (TEM) (Figs 7, S12, and S13). These experiments revealed several features of E. faecalis intracellular infection that we could not appreciate using fluorescence microscopy alone. First, we observed E. faecalis in LAMP1+ compartments (8/26 or 30% of the observed intracellular E. faecalis) as well as in vacuoles that appeared to be devoid of LAMP1 (18/26) (Fig 7A–7C), which is in line with our immunofluorescence microscopy data (Figs 4E and 4F, 5, and S8B). Second, and importantly, regardless of the degree of colocalization with LAMP1, E. faecalis-containing vacuoles were invariably bounded by a single membrane (Fig 7D–7H). In addition, most internalized bacteria appeared to be morphologically intact, with a uniform density and a clearly defined septum and bacterial envelope (Figs 7D–7H and S13A). Third, we did not find examples of multiple replicating E. faecalis within a single LAMP1+ compartment leading to membrane distension, as predicted by our immunofluorescence imaging (Figs 4E and 4F, 5 and S10). Rather, we observed at most two diplococci within a single compartment (Figs 7D and S13B). Finally, although, we observed that LAMP1+ electron dense compartments of unknown nature (potentially lysosomes which are LAMP1+ organelles with dense ultrastructural appearance) were often located in close proximity to E. faecalis containing vacuoles, we did not observe any obvious fusion events between the two compartments (Fig 7C and 7E). In some instances, however, vacuoles harbouring E. faecalis appeared to contain LAMP1 multi-lamellar bodies (MLBs) (Figs 7G, S12 and S13). Together, these EM data confirm both that internalized E. faecalis can survive in late endosomal organelles and that there is heterogeneity within the intracellular niches for this organism. Furthermore, E. faecalis-containing vacuoles do not exhibit lysosomal features and do not appear to fuse with lysosomes. These findings raise the possibility that E. faecalis could be hijacking the endo-lysosomal pathway, altering organelle identity to prevent lysosomal recognition, and allowing for intracellular survival, replication and eventual escape.

Fig 7. Correlative light and electron microscopy of E. faecalis infected keratinocytes.

Fig 7

(A) Spinning disk confocal microscopy and correlative TEM of HaCaTs stably expressing LAMP1-mCherry infected with E. faecalis-GFP at 18 hpi. Confocal images are maximum intensity projections of 4–5 optical sections (~2 μm z-volume). (B and C) Enlarged views of the two areas highlighted in (A); panels B and C show the boxed areas 1 and 2 in (A), respectively. Large arrowheads indicate E. faecalis containing vacuoles, small arrows indicate LAMP1+ (LAMP1+ve) compartments. Note that E. faecalis is present in LAMP1- (LAMP1-ve) vacuoles in (B), and in LAMP1+ (LAMP1+ve) vacuoles in (C). LAMP1+ve compartments appear electron-dense (see TEM panel in C). * indicates a bacterium with altered appearance, possibly due to partial degradation. (D and E) Representative high magnification TEM images of LAMP1-ve (D) and LAMP1+ve E. faecalis containing vacuoles corresponding to data shown in (B) and (C), respectively. The large arrow in (E) indicates an electron-dense LAMP1+ve compartment in close proximity to an E. faecalis containing vacuole. Arrowheads in the lower panels indicate the presence of a single layer membrane surrounding the bacterial vacuole. (F) High magnification view of an E. faecalis containing vacuole. The vacuolar membrane (VM), the bacterial envelope (BE), and the septum are indicated. (F and G) 3D surface rendering of representative E. faecalis containing vacuoles reconstructed from serial TEM sections. An E. faecalis containing vacuole containing a LAMP1+ve multilamellar body (MLB) is shown in (G), while the vacuole shown in (F) is LAMP1-ve and does not contain a MLB. (See S12 Fig for data related to F-H, and S13 Fig for data related to D).

Intracellular E. faecalis is primed for more efficient reinfection

To investigate whether internalization of E. faecalis into keratinocytes provides an advantage for subsequent reinfection, we harvested intracellular bacteria and measured its ability to reinfect keratinocytes. An initial infection was performed at MOI 50 for 3 h to isolate intracellular bacteria. Intracellular-derived bacteria were then used for reinfection of keratinocytes at an MOI of 0.1, the highest MOI practically attainable given the low intracellular CFU, for another 3 h. 1 h of gentamicin and penicillin treatment was performed after both the initial infection and the second round of infection. Internalization recovery ratios were determined by comparing inoculum CFU to intracellular CFU bacteria during the reinfection assay. Parallel experiments with E. faecalis not yet exposed to keratinocytes at comparable MOI showed that reinfection with intracellular-derived bacteria resulted in significantly higher internalization rates, as shown by the recovery ratio (Fig 8A). Intracellular growth exclusively promoted reinfection, because total cell associated bacteria comprising both adherent and intracellular bacteria, was not significantly different from a planktonically grown inoculum (Fig 8B). These results are similar to observations made in S. pyogenes, where longer periods of internalization in macrophages increased recovered CFU during subsequent reinfections [41]. Taken together, these data suggest that internalized E. faecalis can more efficiently reinfect host cells.

Fig 8. Increased recovery of internalized E. faecalis upon reinfection of keratinocytes by intracellular bacteria.

Fig 8

Intracellular bacteria were isolated from infected keratinocytes and used as the inoculum (intracellular in vivo) for reinfection of new monolayers of keratinocytes. Parallel infections at various MOI were performed using E. faecalis not yet exposed to keratinocytes, grown planktonically in vitro as the inoculum. (A) Infections proceeded for 3 h followed by 1 h of antibiotic exposure to kill the extracellular bacteria prior to intracellular CFU enumeration. (B) Infections proceeded for 3 h prior extensive washing to remove non-adhered extracellular bacteria, prior to enumeration of total cell-associated (both extracellular adhered and intracellular) CFU. Each circle represents CFU data averaged from 3 separate wells from a single biological experiment, showing a total of 5–7 independent experiments. Data are represented in the figure as the recovery ratio, which for (A) intracellular is the CFU recovered divided by the inoculum CFU and for (B) cell-associated is the CFU recovered divided by the non-cell-associated extracellular CFU in the same well, to account for cell growth during the assay. Horizontal black line indicates the mean for each condition. *p<0.05, **p<0.01 Kruskal Wallis test with Dunn’s post test.

Discussion

E. faecalis is among the commonly isolated microbial species cultured from chronic wound infections. The ability of E. faecalis to persist in the face of a robust immune response and antibiotic therapy is frequently attributed to its ability to form biofilms during these infections. However, a number of bacterial pathogens undertake an intracellular pathway during infection that can contribute to persistent and or recurrent infection. This is well-described for uropathogenic E. coli (UPEC), particularly in animal models in which UPEC can replicate to high numbers within urothelial cells as intracellular bacterial communities or can persist in a quiescent intracellular state within LAMP1+ compartments for long periods of time, promoting recurrent and chronic infection [4245]. While there are numerous reports of intracellular E. faecalis within a variety of non-immune cells [1320], the contribution of an intracellular lifecycle to E. faecalis infection has been minimally investigated. Here, we report that, in vitro, E. faecalis become internalized into keratinocytes primarily via macropinocytosis, whereupon they undergo heterotypic trafficking through the endosomal pathway, which enables their replication and survival. These findings raise the possibility that this intracellular lifecycle may be linked to persistent and chronic infections, such as those that occur in wounds. Further, we demonstrate that intracellularity may be physiologically relevant in a mouse model of wound infection, where E. faecalis exists within both immune and non-immune cells for at least 5 days after infection. Importantly, E. faecalis recovered from within keratinocytes are primed to more efficiently infect new keratinocytes to seed another round of infection.

Previous studies using either professional or non-professional phagocytic cell lines have reported the internalization, but not the replication of intracellular E. faecalis [9,13,15] as these studies used only antibiotic protection assays coupled with TEM at single time points. Here, we performed antibiotic protection assays coupled with imaging across multiple time points, and our results similarly show that E. faecalis can enter and survive intracellularly up to 72 hpi. Importantly, we show with BrdU labelling that E. faecalis can be found in a state of active replication in cells harvested from infected wounds. This finding is further supported by in vitro analyses of intracellular E. faecalis from infected keratinocytes and macrophages that were incubated with BrdU and RADA. This is the first reported evidence, to our knowledge, of E. faecalis intracellular replication within epithelial cells or macrophages. Consistent with our observation, E. faecalis has also been shown to replicate within human hepatocytes in vitro and has been observed as clusters in association with hepatocytes in a mouse model of intravenous infection [38]. Together these data suggest that once E. faecalis enters mammalian cells, at least some of the bacteria are able to replicate intracellularly. Other “classical” extracellular bacteria including S. aureus and P. aeruginosa are also able to replicate intracellularly [4651]. Similar studies have also shown that S. pyogenes can be taken up by both immune and non-immune cells, where it can replicate, survive host defenses and disseminate to distant sites [52,53].

In this work, we show that E. faecalis enters keratinocytes in a process that is dependent on actin polymerization and PI3K signalling, and independent of receptor (clathrin)- or caveolae-mediated endocytosis. Chemical inhibition of actin polymerization by cytochalasin D and PI3K signaling by wortmannin specifically affects macropinocytosis but not receptor (clathrin)-mediated endocytosis [5456]. These findings suggest that E. faecalis strain OG1RF enters keratinocytes primarily in a macropinocytotic process. A previous study suggested that clinical isolates of E. faecalis enter HeLa (human epithelioid carcinoma) cells via either macropinocytosis or clathrin-mediated endocytosis, supported by inhibitors of microtubule polymerization and cytosolic acidification that reduced intracellular CFU [15]. We also observe that E. faecalis uptake is transiently diminished when receptor (clathrin)-mediated endocytosis is inhibited, suggesting that E. faecalis may also take advantage of this uptake pathway in some instances. Thus, it may be that different strains of E. faecalis favor entry into mammalian cells by different mechanisms, and E. faecalis OG1RF used in this study preferentially enters via macropinocytosis. However, another study reported that E. faecalis OG1 strain derivatives, closely related to OG1RF, entered human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC) cells via receptor (clathrin)-mediated endocytosis, in a cytocholasin D- and colchicine-dependent manner [14]. Because Millan et al used similar drug concentrations as we did, we suggest that OG1-related strains may enter epithelial cells primarily via macropinocytosis and endothelial cells primarily via receptor (clathrin)-mediated endocytosis.

Additionally, once inside keratinocytes, at least some E. faecalis commence trafficking through the endosomal pathway. As soon as 30 min after infection, most E. faecalis-containing compartments lacked the early endosome marker Rab5. Moreover, we did not observe any labelling with Rab7 in nearly 70% of the intracellular compartments containing internalized enterococci at time points <3 hpi. At 4 hpi, the majority (60–70%) of internalized E. faecalis were in compartments that were heterogeneously positive for the late endosomal markers LAMP1 and/or Rab7. These data indicate that Rab5 labelling may be incomplete or that E. faecalis associate with Rab5-containing compartments quickly and transiently, or only in a subset of infected cells, in either case with no subsequent or delayed Rab7 labelling. At the same time, since we observed some Rab5+/Rab7+ compartments at all early time points, traditional Rab5/Rab7 conversion dynamics from early to late endosome also happens in a subset of infected cells. Taken together, these data point to the possibility that at least a subset of internalized E. faecalis enter Rab5+/EEA1+ early endosomes/macropinosomes, and rapidly transit into late endosomal compartments. In parallel, Rab5 and Rab7 protein levels in infected keratinocytes were markedly decreased in comparison to non-infected keratinocytes. We predict that E. faecalis infection-driven reduction in Rab expression is crucial to determine the outcome of E. faecalis intracellular survival since Rab5 and Rab7 control important fusion events between early and late endosomes and late endosomes and lysosomes [22]. Rab GTPases are commonly hijacked by bacteria to promote their survival [57]. For comparison, intracellular microbes such as M. tuberculosis and L. monocytogenes distinctively modify the Rab5 machinery arresting phagosome maturation [22]. C. burnetii prevents Rab7 recruitment [58] and B. cenocepacia affects Rab7 activation [59]. However, to the best of our knowledge, our data are the first to show differences in overall Rab5 and Rab7 protein levels as a potential bacterial subversion mechanism for the macropinosome. Studies are underway to determine the bacterial factors and mechanisms by which E. faecalis affects Rab protein levels. While E. faecalis-containing LAMP1+ compartments appeared distended at 24 hpi, many E. faecalis were not tightly associated with LAMP1 or Rab7. Furthermore, we rarely observed Cathepsin D in E. faecalis-containing compartment, suggesting that late endosomes containing internalized bacteria could be missing markers or that these late endosomal compartments have been modified, making lysosomal fusion a rare event. Other intracellular pathogens such as C. burnetii and Francisella tularensis also reside in compartments devoid of Cathepsin D, or in compartments with very low levels of Cathepsin D [60,61]. The authors suggest that this was achieved by escaping fusion with lysosomes. In support of this view, TEM revealed that all membrane-bound E. faecalis were spatially separated from LAMP1+ electron dense compartments of unknown nature (potentially a lysosome, which is a LAMP1+ organelle), and there was no indication of membrane fusion between E. faecalis-containing compartments and lysosomes. Notably, we observed some E. faecalis in association with LAMP1 and Rab7, suggesting that some internalized E. faecalis cells may transit via the normal endocytic pathway and fuse with lysosomes. Collectively our results support a model in which late endosomes containing E. faecalis are modified, preventing the expected destruction of intracellular E. faecalis by lysosomal fusion and allowing them to replicate from within.

We propose three potential fates for different subsets of internalized E. faecalis (Fig 9). 1) Macropinosome maturation into Rab7+/LAMP1+ late endosomes and fusion with the lysosome, leading to the degradation of E. faecalis (Fig 9B-I). 2) Macropinosome maturation into LAMP1+ but Rab7- compartments, leading to E. faecalis survival because Rab7 presence is required for lysosome fusion (Fig 9B-II). 3) Macropinosome maturation into compartments lacking both Rab7 and LAMP1, which would also lead to E. faecalis survival (Fig 9B-III). Additionally, we cannot exclude the possibility that E. faecalis-containing compartments initially contain both Rab7 and LAMP1 late endosomal markers, but are subsequently modified by E. faecalis to increase its survival. In other words, there could be a transition from I into II and/or III mediated by downregulation of Rab5 and Rab7. Furthermore, intracellular E. faecalis that do not associate with any examined endo-lysosomal markers could reflect a cytosolic state. Finally, we have also shown that infected host cells can eventually die, releasing E. faecalis into the periphery of dead host cells. Based on reinfection studies, we propose that those bacteria released from dead cells may be primed to infect other cells, resulting in an enhanced cycle of reinfection. Altogether, our work has demonstrated that E. faecalis can enter, survive, replicate and escape from keratinocytes in vitro. If this intracellular lifecycle also exists in vivo, and extends to other cell types such as macrophages as our data suggest, these findings may allow for an abundant protective niche for bacterial persistence that could contribute to the chronic persistent infections associated with E. faecalis.

Fig 9. The intracellular lifestyle of E. faecalis.

Fig 9

(A) E. faecalis can survive intracellularly either inside keratinocytes or macrophages and contribute to reinfection in the wound site. (B) E. faecalis is taken up by keratinocytes via macropinocytosis. Treatment of keratinocytes with macropinocytosis inhibitors such as cytochalasin D, latrunculin A and wortmannin prevents E. faecalis uptake. (I) E. faecalis was observed inside single membrane endosomes that were positive to different endosomal proteins indicating that E. faecalis may transit through the normal endocytic pathway inside keratinocytes. (II and III) E. faecalis interferes with Rab5 and Rab7 proteins levels which could help prevent the late endosome to fuse with lysosome. The low percentage of compartments positive to Rab5 and then Rab7 combined with the varied percentages of LAMP1+ compartments indicates that E. faecalis may be affecting the expected macropinosome transit contributing to E. faecalis intracellular survival. Created with BioRender.com.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

All procedures, including isoflurane for anesthesia and CO2 followed by cervical dislocation for euthanasia, were approved and performed in accordance with the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) in Nanyang Technological University, School of Biological Sciences (ARF SBS/NIEA-0314).

Bacterial strains and growth conditions

Enterococcus faecalis strain OG1RF [62] and its derivative strains, including OG1RF strain SD234 which chromosomally expresses GFP [35] and the plasmid-based fluorescent E. faecalis OG1RF (pDasherGFP) (built using the IP-Free Fluorescent ProteinPaintbox -E. coli) [63], and Enterococcus faecalis strain V583 [64] were grown using Brain Heart Infusion (BHI) broth and agar (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ). Unless otherwise stated, bacterial strains were streaked from glycerol stocks stored at -80°C, inoculated and grown overnight statically for 16–20 h in 20 ml of liquid BHI broth. Cells were harvested by centrifugation at 5000 RPM (4°C) for 4 min. The supernatant was discarded, and the pellet washed with 1 ml of sterile phosphate buffered saline (PBS). The pellet was then resuspended in sterile PBS to an optical density (OD600nm) of 0.7 for E. faecalis, equivalent to 2–3×108 colony forming units (CFU).

Mouse wound excisional model

The procedure for mouse wound infections was modified from a previous study [6]. Briefly, male wild-type C57BL/6 mice (7–8 weeks old, 22 to 25 g; InVivos, Singapore) were anesthetized with 3% isoflurane. Following dorsal hair trimming, the skin was then disinfected with 70% ethanol before creating a 6-mm full-thickness wound using a biopsy punch (Integra Miltex, New York, USA). E. faecalis corresponding to 2–3 x 106 CFU was added to the wound site and sealed with a transparent dressing (Tegaderm 3M, St Paul Minnesota, USA). At the indicated time points, mice were euthanized and a 1 cm by 1 cm squared piece of skin surrounding the wound site was excised and collected in sterile PBS. Skin samples were homogenized, and the viable bacteria enumerated by plating onto both BHI plates and rifampicin (50 μg/ml) selection plates to ensure all recovered CFU correspond to the inoculated strain.

Fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS)

Excised skin samples were harvested, placed in 1.5 ml Eppendorf tubes containing 2.5 U/ml liberase prepared in DMEM (10% FBS) with 500 μg/ml of gentamicin and penicillin G (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) and minced with surgical scissors. The mixture was then transferred into 6-well plates and incubated for 1 h at 37°C in a 5% CO2 humidified atmosphere with constant agitation. Dissociated cells were then passed through a 70 μm cell strainer to remove undigested tissues and spun down at 1350 RPM for 5 min at 4°C. The enzymatic solution was then aspirated, and cells were blocked in 500 μl of FACS buffer (2% FBS (Gibco, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore), 0.2 mM ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) in PBS (Gibco, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore). Cells were then incubated with 10 μl of Fc-blocker (anti-CD16/CD32 antibody) for 20 min, followed by incubation with an anti-mouse CD45-Cy7 conjugated antibody (BD Pharmingen, Singapore) (1:400 dilution) for 20 min at room temperature. Cells were then centrifuged at 1350 RPM for 5 min at 4°C and washed in FACS buffer before a final resuspension in FACS buffer. Following which, cells were sorted using a BD FACSAria 3 sorter, equipped with 4 air-cooled lasers (355 nm UV, 488 nm Blue, 561 nm Yellow/Green and 633 nm Red) (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ). Post-sorting, cells were lysed with 0.1% Triton X–100 (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) and intracellular bacteria plated onto both BHI plates and antibiotic selection plates to ensure all recovered CFU correspond to the inoculated strain. Supernatants were also plated to ensure that no bacteria were present post-sorting.

BrdU Labelling

An intraperitoneal injection of an aqueous solution of BrdU (120 mg/kg) at 90 min before death, in addition to 10 μL of a 10 μM solution of BrdU spotted on the wound site was performed as adapted from Mysorekar and Hultgren [42]. After sacrifice, excised wounds were placed in DMEM (Gibco) medium containing 500 μg/ml of gentamicin and penicillin G, andtreated with 0.5 mg/ml Liberase TL (Roche) for 1 h to create a single cell suspension. Cells were then fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA), solubilized in 2 N HCl solution at 37°C for 30 min, washed three times with PBS (Gibco) and further stained with rat α-CD45 (Abcam, Cambridge, UK) antibody for 1 h followed by three times PBS washes and addition of secondary antibody α-rat-Alexa Fluor 568 (Abcam, Cambridge, UK) for 1h. Secondary antibody was then washed off with PBS three times and samples were incubated with a rat α-BrdU-Alexa Fluor 647 (Abcam, Cambridge, UK) conjugate was added overnight in 0.1% Triton X–100 as per α-BrdU antibody manufacturer instructions. After the α-BrdU antibody was washed off with PBS three times, samples were incubated with a 1:1000 dilution of Hoechst 33342 for 5 min at room temperature with subsequent PBS washing three times. Cells were mounted with ProLong Glass Antifade Mountant (Invitrogen, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore).

Cell culture

The spontaneously immortalized human keratinocyte cell line, HaCaT (AddexBio, San Diego, CA) and RAW264.7 murine macrophage-like cell line (InvivoGen, Singapore) was cultured at 37°C in a 5% CO2 humidified atmosphere. All cells were grown and maintained in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM) (Gibco; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore) with 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS) (PAA, GE Healthcare, Singapore), and 100 U of penicillin–streptomycin (Gibco, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore) where appropriate for extracellular bacterial killing. The culture medium was replaced once every three days, and upon reaching 80% confluency, cultures were passaged. Passaging was achieved by treatment with 0.25% trypsin-EDTA (Gibco; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore) for 6 min and seeding cells at a density of 2×106 cells/T75 flask (Nunc; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore). For RAW264.7 cells, passaging was achieved by gentle cell scraping and seeding cells at a density of 3x106 cells/T75 flask (Nunc; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore).

Intracellular infection assay

HaCaT keratinocytes were seeded at a density of 5×105 cells/well in a 6-well tissue culture plate (Nunc; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore) and grown for 3 days at 37°C in a 5% CO2 humidified atmosphere. After 3 days, each well had approximately 1–1.5×106 keratinocytes. Keratinocytes were infected at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 100, 10 or 1 for up to 3 h. Following infection, the media was aspirated, and the cells were washed three times in PBS and either lysed in 0.1% Triton X–100 (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) for enumeration of cell-associated/adhered bacteria, or incubated with 500 μg/ml of gentamicin and penicillin G (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) in complete DMEM for 1–70 h to selectively kill extracellular bacteria. The antibiotic containing medium was then removed and the cells were washed 3 times in PBS before the intracellular bacteria was enumerated. For macrophages, RAW264.7 cells were seeded at a density of 1×106 cells/well in a 6-well tissue culture plate (Nunc; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore) or 3×105 cells/well in a 24-well tissue culture plate (Nunc; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore) and allowed to attach overnight at 37°C in a 5% CO2 humidified atmosphere. Infection was performed similarly as described above.

Chemical inhibition of endocytosis

All chemical inhibitors were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO), unless otherwise stated. Stock solutions of cytochalasin D (1 mg/ml), latrunculin A (100 μg/ml), colchicine (10 mg/ml), dynasore (25 mg/ml), nystatin (25 mg/ml) and wortmannin (10 mg/ml) were dissolved in DMSO unless otherwise indicated and stored at −20°C. Pharmacological inhibitors were added to cells 30 min prior to any infection and maintained throughout the course of the infection. Actin polymerization was inhibited by 1 μg/ml of cytochalasin D [65,66] or 250 ng/ml of latrunculin A [29,6769]. Microtubule polymerization was inhibited by 10 μg/ml of colchicine [7072]. PI3K was inhibited by 0.1 μg/ml of wortmannin [66,70,73,74]. The large GTPase dynamin that is important for the formation of clathrin-coated vesicles was inhibited by 25 μg/ml of dynasore [7578]. The caveolae-mediated endocytosis was disrupted by 25 μg/ml of nystatin [75,7981]. Addition of pharmacological inhibitors at the concentrations indicated had no effect on bacteria viability, where growth kinetics and CFU count were similar to the untreated bacteria control. All chemical inhibitors were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO), unless otherwise stated.

Immunofluorescence staining

HaCaT or RAW264.7 cells were seeded at 3×105 cells/well into a 24-well culture plate with 10 mm coverslips, and allowed to attach overnight at 37°C, 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator. Infection with E. faecalis was performed as described previously. Following infection, coverslips seeded with cells were washed 3 times in PBS and fixed with 4% PFA at 4°C for 15 min. Cells were then permeabilized with 0.1% Triton X–100 (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) (actin) or 0.1% saponin (endosomal compartments) for 15 min at room temperature and washed 3 times in PBS or PBS with 0.1% saponin, respectively. Cells were then blocked with PBS supplemented with 0.1% saponin and 2% Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA). For actin labelling, the phalloidin–Alexa Fluor 568 conjugate (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore) was diluted 1:40 in PBS. For antibody labelling of endosomal compartments, antibody solutions were diluted in PBS with 0.1% saponin at a 1:10 dilution for mouse α-LAMP1 (ab25630, Abcam, Cambridge, UK), 1:50 mouse mAb α-LAMP1 (D4O1S, Cell Signalling Technology, USA), 1:50 for rabbit α-EEA1-Alexa Fluor 647 (ab196186, Abcam, Cambridge, UK), 1:100 for rabbit α-M6PR-Alexa Fluor 568 (ab202535, Abcam, Cambridge, UK), 1:30 for rabbit α-Rab5 (ab218624, Abcam, Cambridge, UK), 1:30 for rabbit α-Rab7 (ab137029, Abcam, Cambridge, UK), 1:30 for rabbit α-Rab7-Alexa Fluor 647 (ab198337, Abcam, Cambridge, UK) or a 1:100 for rabbit α-cathepsin D (ab75852, Abcam, Cambridge, UK) and incubated overnight at 4°C. The following day, coverslips were washed 3 times in 1× PBS with 0.1% saponin and incubated with a 1:500 dilution of the following secondary antibodies (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore): goat α-Mouse IgG (H+L) Alexa Fluor Plus 647, goat α-Rabbit IgG (H+L) Alexa Fluor Plus 647, goat anti-Rabbit IgG (H+L) Alexa Fluor 568, goat anti-Mouse IgG (H+L) Alexa Fluor 568 for 1 h at room temperature. Coverslips were then washed 3 times in 1× PBS with 0.1% saponin and incubated with a 1:500 dilution of Hoechst 33342 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore) for 20 min at room temperature. Next, the coverslips were subjected to a final wash, 3 times with PBS with 0.1% saponin and 2 times with PBS. After washing, the coverslips were mounted with SlowFade Diamond Antifade (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore) and sealed. In instances in which the host for the antibodies coincided (e.g. rabbit α-Rab5 and rabbit α-Rab7-Alexa Fluor 647), primary and secondary antibodies were added for one labelling first, washed off with PBS and then a conjugated antibody was used for the second labelling of interest to avoid overlap with the previous secondary antibody. LAMP1 was visualized using polyclonal mouse α-LAMP1 (ab25630, Abcam, Cambridge, UK) or monoclonal mouse mAb α-LAMP1 (D4O1S, Cell Signalling Technology, USA), as indicated in the figure legends.

BrdU Labelling of infected HaCaT and RAW264.7 cells

Intracellular infection for 3 h with fluorescent E. faecalis OG1RF (pDasherGFP) at MOI 100 for HaCaT cells and MOI 1 for RAW264.7 cells was followed by 1 h antibiotic treatment to kill extracellular bacteria. Complete DMEM was replaced with complete DMEM containing a 10 μM BrdU solution (ab142567, Abcam, Cambridge, UK) and 500 μg/ml of gentamicin and penicillin G for another 20 h. Cells were then fixed in 4% PFA, solubilized in 2 N hydrochloric acid (HCL) solution at 37°C for 30 min, washed three times with PBS (Gibco) and further stained with rat α-BrdU-Alexa Fluor 647 (ab220075, Abcam, Cambridge, UK) conjugate overnight in 0.1% Triton X–100 as per manufacturer instructions. After α-BrdU antibody was washed with PBS three times, samples were incubated with a 1:1000 dilution of Hoechst 33342 for 5 min at room temperature. Finally, samples were subjected to a final wash, three times with PBS. Cells were mounted with ProLong Glass Antifade Mountant (Invitrogen, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore).

Peptidoglycan labelling (RADA labelling) of intracellular bacteria

Infection was carried out as described for BrdU labeling. Complete DMEM was replaced with complete DMEM containing 250 μM orange-red TAMRA-based fluorescent D-amino acid (RADA, Tocris) solution and 500ug/ml of gentamicin and penicillin G for another 20 h. The RADA solution was removed, cells were washed with PBS three times and then fixed in 4% PFA. For actin labelling, phalloidin–Alexa Fluor 647 conjugate (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore) was diluted 1:40 in 0.1% Triton X–100 solution and incubated for a minimum of 1 h. The phalloidin solution was washed off with PBS three times and samples were then incubated with a 1:1000 dilution of Hoechst 33342 for 5 min at room temperature. Finally, samples were subjected to a final wash, three times with PBS. Cells were mounted with ProLong Glass Antifade Mountant (Invitrogen, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore). To test if non-replicating E. faecalis is incorporating BrdU or RADA, following the protocol used in [39], E. faecalis was treated with the bacteriostatic antibiotic ramoplanin to halt replication. Briefly, exponentially growing cells of E. faecalis were harvested then allowed to grow in the presence or absence of ramoplanin (26 μg/ml) with BrdU or RADA for 1 h. BrdU and RADA labelled samples were then processed as per their labelling protocol.

Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy (CLSM)

Confocal images were acquired on a 63× oil objective (NA 1.4, Plan Apochromat, Zeiss) fitted onto an Elyra PS.1 with LSM 780 confocal unit (Carl Zeiss, Göttingen, Germany) using the Zeiss Zen Black 2012 FP2 software suite. Laser power and gain were kept constant between experiments. Labelling experiments for control primary and secondary antibodies alone were performed in parallel infected cells. Z-stacked images were processed using Zen 2.1 (Carl Zeiss, Göttingen, Germany). Acquired images were visually analyzed using Imaris x64 9.0.2 (Oxford Instruments). Representative fluorescence intensity profiles of immunolabeled proteins were also assessed over a linear segment (histograms) using Fiji [82]. Individual cells were manually scored as labelled by a combination of histogram overlap (where each cell is a peak on the histogram) and visualization of orthogonal views and 3D projections on Imaris x64 9.0.2.

Construction of LAMP1-mCherry strain

pLAMP1-mCherry (Addgene plasmid #45147, Addgene, Cambridge) and EF1α-mCherry-N1 plasmid (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore) were isolated using the Monarch Plasmid Miniprep Kit (New England BioLabs Inc., USA), according to manufacturer’s instructions. The LAMP1 gene was then sub cloned into the pEF1α-mCherry-N1 vector using the In-Fusion HD Cloning Kit (Clontech, Takara, Japan), according to manufacturer’s instructions. The plasmid construct was then transformed into Stellar competent cells by incubating at 42°C for 1 min. Transformed colonies with the desired construct was assessed by colony PCR. Primers used for the cloning and subsequent verification are shown in S2 Table. EF1α Lamp1-mCherry plasmid was extracted from successful transformants with the Monarch Plasmid Miniprep Kit (New England BioLabs Inc., USA), according to manufacturer’s instructions. Keratinocytes were grown in 6-well tissue culture plates as described above, where each well was seeded with 2×105 cells. 2.5 μg of plasmid DNA was transfected into keratinocytes using Lipofectamine 3000 (Invitrogen; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore), according to manufacturer’s instructions. The culture media was replaced after 6 h of incubation, followed by a subsequent replacement 18 h later. Keratinocytes were then subjected to Geneticin selection (1 mg/ml) (Invitrogen; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore) to select for transfected clones. Clones stably overexpressing Lamp1-mCherry were subjected to validation by immunoblotting and flow cytometry. Clonal populations were selected and subjected to fluorescence activated cell sorting (FACS) to ensure that the entire population were expressing the fluorescent construct.

Correlative light and electron microscopy

E. faecalis infected keratinocytes stably transfected with LAMP1-mCherry were grown in 35 mm glass bottom dishes (MatTec Corp., Ashland, USA). Cells were fixed at 18 hpi for 2 h on ice in 2.5% glutaraldehyde (EMS) in 0.1 M cacodylate buffer (CB; EMS) pH 7.4 supplemented with 2 mM CaCl2. Cells were washed several times in CB and imaged using a spinning disk confocal microscope (CorrSight, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore). Confocal z-stacks were acquired with a 63x oil objective (NA 1.4, Plan Apochromat M27, Zeiss) on an Orca R2 CCD camera (Hamamatsu, Japan) using standard filter sets. Cells were then further processed for TEM. Briefly, cells were post-fixed with 1% osmium tetroxide for 1 h on ice, washed several times, and incubated with 1% low molecular weight tannic acid ((C14H10O9)n; EMS) for 1 h at RT. Cells were dehydrated using a graded ethanol series (20%, 50%, 70%, 90%, 100%), and embedded in Durcupan resin (Sigma Aldrich). Areas of interest were sawed out of the dish and sectioned parallel to the glass surface by ultramicrotomy (EM UC7, Leica) using a diamond knife (Diatome). Serial 70–80 nm thin sections were collected on formvar- and carbon-coated copper slot grids (EMS). Electron micrographs were recorded on a Tecnai T12 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) TEM operated at 120 kV using a 4k x 4k Eagle (Thermo Fisher Scientific) CCD camera. TEM and confocal microscopy images were manually overlaid and aligned in Photoshop with minimal warping or stretching. Serial sections were aligned manually in Photoshop, followed by surface rendering in IMOD.

Immunoblotting

Whole cell (WC) lysates were prepared by adding 488 μl of RIPA buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0; 1% Triton X–100; 0.5% Sodium deoxycholate; 0.1% SDS; 150 mM NaCl) to the wells after intracellular infection assays, where cells were scraped and kept in RIPA buffer for 30 min at 4°C. Prior to the addition of 74.5 μl of 1 M DTT and 187.5 μl NuPAGE LDS Sample Buffer (4X) (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore), cells were further mechanically disrupted by passing the lysate through a 26g size needle. Samples were then heated to 95°C for 5 min. 15 μl of cell lysate proteins were then separated in a 4–12% (w/v) NuPAGE Bis-Tris protein gel and transferred to PVDF membranes. Membranes were incubated with Tris-buffered saline, TBS (50 mM Tris, 150 mM NaCl, pH 7.5) containing 0.1% (v/v) Tween-20 (TBST) and 5% (w/v) BSA for 1 h at room temperature. Membranes were incubated with 1:1000 for mouse α-LAMP1 (ab25630, Abcam, Cambridge, UK), 1:1000 mouse mAb α-LAMP1 (D4O1S, Cell Signaling Technology, USA) 1:1000 for rabbit α-EEA1-Alexa Fluor 647 (ab196186, Abcam, Cambridge, UK), 1:1000 for rabbit α-M6PR-568 (ab202535, Abcam, Cambridge, UK), 1:1000 for rabbit α-cathepsin D (ab75852, Abcam, Cambridge, UK), 1:1000 for rabbit α-Rab5-Alexa Fluor 488 (ab270094, Abcam, Cambridge, UK), 1:1000 for rabbit α-Rab7 (ab137029, Abcam, Cambridge, UK), or 1:1000 for rabbit α-GADPH (5174, Cell Signaling Technology) in TBST containing 1% (w/v) BSA overnight at 4°C. Membranes were washed for 60 min with TBST at room temperature and then incubated for 2 h at room temperature with goat anti-rabbit (H+L) or goat anti-mouse HRP-linked secondary antibodies (Invitrogen) respectively. After incubation, membranes were washed with TBST for 30 min and specific protein bands were detected by chemiluminescence using SuperSignal West Femto maximum sensitivity substrate (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore). Band intensities were quantified relatively to the lane’s loading control using Fiji [82].

Intracellular reinfection assay

Infection of keratinocytes was performed in T175 flasks (Nunc; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore) to harvest intracellular bacteria. The infections were performed similarly as described above, except that keratinocytes were infected at MOI 50 for 3 h and subsequently incubated with gentamicin and penicillin G for 1 h. After disruption of keratinocytes, lysates were collected to harvest the intracellular bacteria. Cell lysates were spun down at 100 × g for 1 min to remove debris and the supernatant, which contained the intracellular bacteria, was transferred into a new tube. Harvested bacteria were washed once in PBS and resuspended in complete DMEM. An aliquot of the bacterial suspension was then used for CFU enumeration. The remainder of the bacterial suspension was used for a second round of infection on keratinocyte monolayers in 6-well plates. To achieve a sufficient MOI with recovered intracellular bacteria, each well of a 6-well plate was infected with intracellular-derived bacteria harvested from a T175 flask. For re-infection studies, keratinocytes were similarly infected with bacteria for 3 h and incubated with gentamicin and penicillin G for 1 h. After disruption of keratinocytes, intracellular bacteria were enumerated and the recovery ratio was determined by calculating the ratio between the inoculum CFU to the recovered intracellular CFU. Parallel infections with planktonically grown bacteria as the inoculum were performed by growing bacteria in complete DMEM for 4 h, before washing once in 0.1% Triton X–100 and a second time in PBS. After resuspending the planktonic bacteria in complete DMEM, bacterial cultures were normalized for infection of keratinocytes at MOI 1, 0.1 and 0.01. For the quantification of total cell-associated bacteria, host cells were infected with intracellular-derived bacteria for 3 h and subsequently lysed for CFU enumeration without prior antibiotic treatment. CFU counts of cell-associated bacteria were normalized against bacterial CFU counts in the supernatant from the same infected wells.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was done using Prism 9.2.0 (Graphpad, San Diego, CA). We used one- or two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with appropriate post tests, as indicated in the figure legend for each figure, to analyze experimental data comprising 3 independent biological replicates, where each data point is typically the average of 3 technical replicates (unless otherwise noted). In all cases, a p value of ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. (related to Fig 2).

Intracellular E. faecalis is not cell type specific and persists for up to 72 hpi. (A,F) Enumeration of CFU for OG1RF was performed at different steps of the antibiotic protection assay on HaCaT cells to determine the number of bacteria found intracellularly, compared to the number of bacteria found in the supernatant and final PBS wash after antibiotic treatment. (A) reflects 3 h of infection followed by 1 h of antibiotic treatment. CFU in (F) were enumerated CFU after 3 h of infection and 21 h of antibiotic treatment when optimal killing for strain V583 is achieved. (B,G) Enumeration of CFU after antibiotic killing in planktonic cultures of OG1RF and V583 in DMEM + 10% FBS. Planktonic cultures were grown for 3 h at an inoculum size equivalent to MOI 100 from the antibiotic protection assay prior to addition of antibiotics. Cultures were incubated in the presence of antibiotics for either 1 h or 21 h at 37°C with 5% CO2. Bacteria were pelleted and resuspended in sterile 1×PBS to remove residual antibiotics before CFU enumeration. For OG1RF at 1 h and 21 h post antibiotic treatment, and V583 at 21 h post antibiotic treatment, zero CFU counts were observed when bacteria were not resuspended in 1×PBS before CFU enumeration. (C) Solid lines indicate the mean CFU at 2–4 hpi at MOI 100 from at least 3 independent experiments. (D,E) HaCaTs were infected with E. faecalis OG1RF and V583 at MOI 100 for 3 h, followed by treatment with gentamicin and penicillin for 1, 21, 45, 69 h before lysis to obtain the intracellular population. Solid lines indicate the mean CFU from at least 2 independent experiments. Dashed lines serve as point of reference for 104 CFU, for easy visualization of the comparative increase in V583 CFU.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. (related to Fig 2).

Viability of HaCaT cells upon infection with E. faecalis OG1RF. HaCaT cells were infected with MOI 100 of E. faecalis OG1RF for 3 h and incubated with 500 μg/ml of gentamicin and penicillin up to 69 hpi and subsequently assessed for viability using the AlamarBlue cell viability reagent.

(TIFF)

S3 Fig. (related to Fig 2).

E. faecalis entry into keratinocytes is not dependent on microtubule polymerization, clathrin- and caveolae-mediated endocytosis. Keratinocytes were pre-treated with (A) microtubule inhibitor colchicine (10 μg/ml), (B) dynasore, an inhibitor of the large GTPase dynamin that is important for the formation of clathrin-coated vesicles (80) (25 μg/ml), or (C) nystatin, which selectively affects caveolae-mediated endocytosis by binding sterols, causing caveolae and cholesterol disassembly in the plasma membrane (81, 82) (25 μg/ml). Cells were pre-treated with compounds for 0.5 h and then infected with E. faecalis at MOI 100 for 1, 2, or 3 h. For enumeration of intracellular CFU, each infection period was followed by 1 h antibiotic treatment, for a total of 2, 3 or 4 hpi. Adherent or intracellular bacteria were enumerated at the indicated time points (only significant differences are indicated). Solid lines indicate the mean for each data set of at least 3 independent experiments. **p<0.01 2 way ANOVA, Sidak’s multiple comparisons test.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. (related to Fig 3).

E. faecalis at the periphery of keratinocytes at 24 hpi. CLSM representative images of infected keratinocytes with condensed nuclei following 3 h of infection and 21 h of incubation in antibiotic laced media. Blue, dsDNA stained with Hoechst 33342; green, E-GFP E. faecalis; red, F-actin. Data shown are representative of at least 3 independent experiments.

(TIFF)

S5 Fig. (related to Fig 3).

Non-replicating E. faecalis do not incorporate BrdU nor RADA. Fluorescent E. faecalis (pDasherGFP) was treated with the antibiotic ramoplanin to halt replication. (A) BrdU and (B) RADA labelling of bacteria in presence or absence of 26 μg/ml ramoplanin for 1 h. Scale bar: 2 μm.

(TIFF)

S6 Fig. (related to Fig 3).

Replicating and non-replicating intracellular E. faecalis in ex vivo cells isolated from infected wounds. (A) CLSM view of ex vivo murine wound tissue cells following infection and BrdU treatment. Left panel shows multiple examples of potentially replicating E. faecalis clusters, indicated with white arrows. Scale bar: 10 μm. (B) Enlarged area within white box in (A) on the top, and the same area with the Hoechst channel removed for clear viewing of the other markers on the bottom. The marked areas with white squares show CD45-negative E. faecalis containing cells. Scale bar: 2 μm. (C) Enlarged areas within white boxes in B show examples of non-replicating and replicating E. faecalis. Blue, dsDNA stained with Hoechst 33342; green, E. faecalis; red, BrdU; white, CD45. Images are representative of 3 independent experiments.

(TIFF)

S7 Fig. (related to Fig 4).

Most Rab5 and Rab7 compartments in E. faecalis infected keratinocytes do not colocalize with E. faecalis-containing compartment. CLSM Orthogonal views and individual channels of E. faecalis within keratinocytes labelled with antibodies against Rab5 (alone, left panels) or together with Rab7 (right panels) at 30 min, 1 h and 3 hpi. Left Panels: White, F-actin; green, E. faecalis (pDasherGFP); red, Rab5. Right panels: white, dsDNA stained with Hoechst 33342; green, E. faecalis (pDasherGFP); red, Rab7; blue, Rab5. Images are representative of 3 independent experiments. Scale bar: 10 μm.

(TIFF)

S8 Fig. (related to Fig 4).

E. faecalis is found in heterogeneously labelled Rab7/LAMP1 compartments. (A) CLSM of infected HaCaTs with fluorescent labelling of Rab7 (late endosome) and fluorescent E. faecalis (pDasherGFP). Images show examples of Rab7+ and Rab7- compartments. Green, E. faecalis (pDasherGFP); and red, Rab7. Images shown are representative of 3 independent experiments. Scale bar: 5 μm. (B) CLSM of infected HaCaTs with fluorescent labelling of Rab7 and LAMP1 (late endosome) and fluorescent E. faecalis (pDasherGFP). Pink, E. faecalis (pDasherGFP); yellow, Rab7; red, LAMP1. Images show examples of Rab7+/LAMP1- at 4 hpi (top panel), Rab7+/LAMP1+ (middle panel), LAMP1+/Rab7- and LAMP1+/Rab7- (Bottom panel) compartments. Images shown are representative of 3 independent experiments. Scale bar: 5 μm. White arrows indicate areas of interest for E. faecalis-containing compartments.

(TIFF)

S9 Fig. (related to Fig 5).

E. faecalis is rarely found in compartments that contain Cathepsin D. (A) CLSM Orthogonal views and individual channels of E. faecalis within keratinocytes labelled with antibodies against Cathepsin D and LAMP1 (monoclonal antibody) at 4 h and 24 hpi. Examples of E. faecalis colocalizing with LAMP1 but not with Cathepsin D can be observed (white arrows). White, dsDNA stained with Hoechst 33342; green, E. faecalis (pDasherGFP); red, LAMP1; and blue, Cathepsin D. Images are representative of 3 independent experiments. Scale bar: 10 μm. (B) Rare example of E. faecalis within keratinocyte colocalizing with Cathepsin D (white arrow). Keratinocytes were labelled with antibodies against Cathepsin D and LAMP1 (monoclonal antibody) at 24 hpi. White, dsDNA stained with Hoechst 33342; green, E. faecalis (pDasherGFP); red, LAMP1; blue, Cathepsin D. Images are representative of 3 independent experiments. Scale bar: 10 μm.

(TIFF)

S10 Fig. (related to Fig 5).

Internalized E. faecalis persist within late endosomal compartments. CLSM of infected HaCaTs stained with antibodies against M6PR (late endosome) and LAMP1 (late endosome/lysosome; polyclonal antibody) at 24 hpi. Images are maximum intensity projections of 4–5 optical sections (~2 μm z-volume) and are representative of 3 independent experiments. Scale bar: 2 μm.

(TIFF)

S11 Fig. (related to Fig 6).

E. faecalis infection of keratinocytes does not alter expression of other endosomal proteins. (A) Whole cell lysates analyzed by immunoblot with antibodies α-M6PR, α-EEA1, α-CathepsinD, and α-GAPDH. HaCaT cells were incubated with (+) and without (-) E. faecalis OG1RF for 4 hpi and 24 hpi. Images shown are representative of 3 biological replicates. (B) Whole cell lysates analyzed by immunoblot with monoclonal antibody α-LAMP1 and α-GAPDH. HaCaT cells were incubated with (+) and without (-) E. faecalis OG1RF and V583 for 4 hpi and 24 hpi. Images shown are representative of 5 biological replicates. (C) Relative density of the bands of interest were normalized against loading control (GAPDH). Error bars represent biological replicates and mean ​± SEM from at least 3 independent experiments. Statistical analysis was performed using unpaired T-test with Welch’s correction.

(TIFF)

S12 Fig. (related to Fig 7): Correlative light and electron microscopy of E. faecalis infected keratinocytes.

(A) Spinning disk confocal microscopy and correlative TEM of HaCaTs stably expressing LAMP1-mCherry infected with E. faecalis-GFP at 18 hpi. Confocal images are maximum intensity projections of 4–5 optical sections (~2 μm z-volume). (B) Enlarged views of area 1 highlighted in (A). (C) Serial section TEM and 3D surface rendering of the area shown in (B). (D) Enlarged views of area 2 highlighted in (A). (E) Serial section TEM and 3D surface rendering of the area shown in (D). Large arrowheads indicate E. faecalis containing vacuoles, small arrows indicate LAMP1+ compartments. VM: vacuolar membrane (VM); MLB: multilamellar body. An E. faecalis containing vacuole containing a LAMP1+ve MLB is shown in (B and C), while the E. faecalis containing vacuole shown in (D and E) is LAMP1-ve and does not contain an MLB (data pertinent to Fig 5F-H).

(TIF)

S13 Fig. (related to Fig 7): Ultrastructure of E. faecalis containing vacuoles in infected keratinocytes.

(A) Representative high magnification TEM images of E. faecalis containing vacuoles. Intact and partially intact bacteria are shown. Two examples of vacuoles containing MLBs are shown. (B and C) Serial section TEM analysis of E. faecalis containing vacuoles. (B) Two E. faecalis residing in a shared vacuole (area identical to that shown in Fig 7D). Note the continuity of the vacuolar lumen indicated by the two arrowheads. (C) Two E. faecalis residing in separate vacuoles. Note that the two vacuoles are separated by a vacuolar membrane, indicated by the two arrowheads.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Viability of HaCaT cells upon treatment with inhibitors.

HaCaT cells were incubated with various pharmacological inhibitors at the concentration used in antibiotic protection assays and subsequently assessed for viability using the AlamarBlue cell viability reagent. For cytochalasin D and latrunculin A, cells were incubated with the inhibitor for 24 h prior to assessment of viability. For wortmannin, colchicine, nystatin and dynasore, cells were incubated with the inhibitor for 4 h. Inhibitors resulting in HaCaT viability above 80% were considered as non-cytotoxic.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Primers used in this study.

(DOCX)

S1 Video. (related to Fig 3). Representative example of BrdU labelling of ex-vivo murine wound tissue cells infected with fluorescent E. faecalis.

(MP4)

Acknowledgments

We thank Kevin B. Wood from the University of Michigan for kindly providing the constitutively expressing GFP plasmid for E. faecalis (pDasherGFP) used in this study. We also thank Sng Wan Xin and Heng Yi Ting Eunice for technical assistance in this project. We are grateful to Kline lab members Haris Antypas, Claudia Stocks, Chor Ming Thong, and Brenda Tien for critical feedback on the manuscript.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

Funding for this work was provided by the National Research Foundation and Ministry of Education Singapore under its Research Centre of Excellence Program, by the National Research Foundation under its Singapore NRF Fellowship program (https://www.nrf.gov.sg/funding-grants/nrf-fellowship) to KAK (NRF-NRFF2011-11), by the Ministry of Education Singapore (https://researchgrant.gov.sg/Pages/GrantCallDetail.aspx?AXID=MOET2EP2-01-2021&CompanyCode=moe) under its Tier 2 programs to KAK (MOE2014-T2-1–129 and MOE2018-T2-1-127), by the Ministry of Education Singapore Tier 1 grants to A.L. (MOE RG136/17 and MOE RG39/14), and by an NTU Start-up grant to AL. RAGDS is supported by the National Research Foundation, Prime Minister’s Office, Singapore, under its Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise (CREATE) program, through core funding of the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART) Antimicrobial Resistance Interdisciplinary Research Group (AMR IRG). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Dowd SE, Wolcott RD, Sun Y, McKeehan T, Smith E, Rhoads D. Polymicrobial nature of chronic diabetic foot ulcer biofilm infections determined using bacterial tag encoded FLX amplicon pyrosequencing (bTEFAP). PLoS ONE. 2008;3(10):e3326. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003326 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Giacometti A, Cirioni O, Schimizzi AM, Del Prete MS, Barchiesi F, D’Errico MM, et al. Epidemiology and microbiology of surgical wound infections. J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38(2):918–22. doi: 10.1128/JCM.38.2.918-922.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Gjodsbol K, Christensen JJ, Karlsmark T, Jorgensen B, Klein BM, Krogfelt KA. Multiple bacterial species reside in chronic wounds: a longitudinal study. Int Wound J. 2006;3(3):225–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2006.00159.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Heitkamp RA, Li P, Mende K, Demons ST, Tribble DR, Tyner SD. Association of Enterococcus spp. with Severe Combat Extremity Injury, Intensive Care, and Polymicrobial Wound Infection. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2018;19(1):95–103. doi: 10.1089/sur.2017.157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Brook I, Frazier EH. Aerobic and anaerobic microbiology of chronic venous ulcers. Int J Dermatol. 1998;37(6):426–8. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-4362.1998.00445.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Chong KKL, Tay WH, Janela B, Yong AMH, Liew TH, Madden L, et al. Enterococcus faecalis Modulates Immune Activation and Slows Healing During Wound Infection. J Infect Dis. 2017;216(12):1644–54. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jix541 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Tien BYQ, Goh HMS, Chong KKL, Bhaduri-Tagore S, Holec S, Dress R, et al. Enterococcus faecalis promotes innate immune suppression and polymicrobial catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Infect Immun. 2017;85(12). doi: 10.1128/IAI.00378-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zou J, Shankar N. Enterococcus faecalis infection activates phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase signaling to block apoptotic cell death in macrophages. Infect Immun. 2014;82(12):5132–42. doi: 10.1128/IAI.02426-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Gentry-Weeks CR, Karkhoff-Schweizer R, Pikis A, Estay M, Keith JM. Survival of Enterococcus faecalis in mouse peritoneal macrophages. Infect Immun. 1999;67(5):2160–5. doi: 10.1128/IAI.67.5.2160-2165.1999 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zou J, Shankar N. The opportunistic pathogen Enterococcus faecalis resists phagosome acidification and autophagy to promote intracellular survival in macrophages. Cell Microbiol. 2016;18(6):831–43. doi: 10.1111/cmi.12556 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Campoccia D, Testoni F, Ravaioli S, Cangini I, Maso A, Speziale P, et al. Orthopedic implant infections: Incompetence of Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus lugdunensis, and Enterococcus faecalis to invade osteoblasts. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2016;104(3):788–801. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.35564 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Tong Z, Ma J, Tan J, Huang L, Ling J. Effects of inactivated Enterococcus faecalis on the proliferation and osteogenic induction of osteoblasts. Mol Med Rep. 2016;14(6):5125–33. doi: 10.3892/mmr.2016.5895 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Baldassarri L, Bertuccini L, Creti R, Filippini P, Ammendolia MG, Koch S, et al. Glycosaminoglycans mediate invasion and survival of Enterococcus faecalis into macrophages. J Infect Dis. 2005;191(8):1253–62. doi: 10.1086/428778 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Millan D, Chiriboga C, Patarroyo MA, Fontanilla MR. Enterococcus faecalis internalization in human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC). Microb Pathog. 2013;57:62–9. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2012.11.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bertuccini L, Ammendolia MG, Superti F, Baldassarri L. Invasion of HeLa cells by Enterococcus faecalis clinical isolates. Med Microbiol Immunol. 2002;191(1):25–31. doi: 10.1007/s00430-002-0115-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Horsley H, Dharmasena D, Malone-Lee J, Rohn JL. A urine-dependent human urothelial organoid offers a potential alternative to rodent models of infection. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):1238. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-19690-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Horsley H, Malone-Lee J, Holland D, Tuz M, Hibbert A, Kelsey M, et al. Enterococcus faecalis subverts and invades the host urothelium in patients with chronic urinary tract infection. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e83637. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083637 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Olmsted SB, Dunny GM, Erlandsen SL, Wells CL. A plasmid-encoded surface protein on Enterococcus faecalis augments its internalization by cultured intestinal epithelial cells. J Infect Dis. 1994;170(6):1549–56. doi: 10.1093/infdis/170.6.1549 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Wells CL, Jechorek RP, Erlandsen SL. Evidence for the translocation of Enterococcus faecalis across the mouse intestinal tract. J Infect Dis. 1990;162(1):82–90. doi: 10.1093/infdis/162.1.82 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wells CL, Jechorek RP, Maddaus MA, Simmons RL. Effects of clindamycin and metronidazole on the intestinal colonization and translocation of enterococci in mice. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1988;32(12):1769–75. doi: 10.1128/AAC.32.12.1769 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wandinger-Ness A, Zerial M. Rab proteins and the compartmentalization of the endosomal system. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2014;6(11):a022616. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a022616 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mottola G. The complexity of Rab5 to Rab7 transition guarantees specificity of pathogen subversion mechanisms. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2014;4:180. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2014.00180 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Saikolappan S, Estrella J, Sasindran SJ, Khan A, Armitige LY, Jagannath C, et al. The fbpA/sapM double knock out strain of Mycobacterium tuberculosis is highly attenuated and immunogenic in macrophages. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36198. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Puri RV, Reddy PV, Tyagi AK. Secreted acid phosphatase (SapM) of Mycobacterium tuberculosis is indispensable for arresting phagosomal maturation and growth of the pathogen in guinea pig tissues. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e70514. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070514 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Prada-Delgado A, Carrasco-Marin E, Pena-Macarro C, Del Cerro-Vadillo E, Fresno-Escudero M, Leyva-Cobian F, et al. Inhibition of Rab5a exchange activity is a key step for Listeria monocytogenes survival. Traffic. 2005;6(3):252–65. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0854.2005.00265.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ghigo E, Pretat L, Desnues B, Capo C, Raoult D, Mege JL. Intracellular life of Coxiella burnetii in macrophages. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009;1166:55–66. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04515.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ghigo E, Colombo MI, Heinzen RA. The Coxiella burnetii parasitophorous vacuole. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2012;984:141–69. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-4315-1_8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Haglund CM, Welch MD. Pathogens and polymers: microbe-host interactions illuminate the cytoskeleton. J Cell Biol. 2011;195(1):7–17. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201103148 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Coue M, Brenner SL, Spector I, Korn ED. Inhibition of actin polymerization by latrunculin A. FEBS Lett. 1987;213(2):316–8. doi: 10.1016/0014-5793(87)81513-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Flanagan MD, Lin S. Cytochalasins block actin filament elongation by binding to high affinity sites associated with F-actin. J Biol Chem. 1980;255(3):835–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Andreu JM, Timasheff SN. Tubulin bound to colchicine forms polymers different from microtubules. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1982;79(22):6753–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.79.22.6753 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Mayor S, Pagano RE. Pathways of clathrin-independent endocytosis. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2007;8(8):603–12. doi: 10.1038/nrm2216 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Doherty GJ, McMahon HT. Mechanisms of endocytosis. Annu Rev Biochem. 2009;78:857–902. doi: 10.1146/annurev.biochem.78.081307.110540 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Wymann MP, Bulgarelli-Leva G, Zvelebil MJ, Pirola L, Vanhaesebroeck B, Waterfield MD, et al. Wortmannin inactivates phosphoinositide 3-kinase by covalent modification of Lys-802, a residue involved in the phosphate transfer reaction. Mol Cell Biol. 1996;16(4):1722–33. doi: 10.1128/MCB.16.4.1722 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Debroy S, van der Hoeven R, Singh KV, Gao P, Harvey BR, Murray BE, et al. Development of a genomic site for gene integration and expression in Enterococcus faecalis. J Microbiol Methods. 2012;90(1):1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2012.04.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hsu YP, Rittichier J, Kuru E, Yablonowski J, Pasciak E, Tekkam S, et al. Full color palette of fluorescent d-amino acids for in situ labeling of bacterial cell walls. Chem Sci. 2017;8(9):6313–21. doi: 10.1039/c7sc01800b [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kuru E, Hughes HV, Brown PJ, Hall E, Tekkam S, Cava F, et al. In Situ probing of newly synthesized peptidoglycan in live bacteria with fluorescent D-amino acids. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2012;51(50):12519–23. doi: 10.1002/anie.201206749 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Nunez N, Derré-Bobillot A, Lakisic G, Lecomte A, Mercier-Nomé F, Cassard A-M, et al. The unforeseen intracellular lifestyle of Enterococcus faecalis in hepatocytes. bioRxiv [Preprint]. September 30, 2021; 10.1101/2021.09.30.462169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Choo PY, Wang CY, VanNieuwenhze MS, Kline KA. Spatial and temporal localization of cell wall associated pili in Enterococcus faecalis. bioRxiv. 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Rink J, Ghigo E, Kalaidzidis Y, Zerial M. Rab conversion as a mechanism of progression from early to late endosomes. Cell. 2005;122(5):735–49. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2005.06.043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hertzen E, Johansson L, Kansal R, Hecht A, Dahesh S, Janos M, et al. Intracellular Streptococcus pyogenes in human macrophages display an altered gene expression profile. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35218. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Mysorekar IU, Hultgren SJ. Mechanisms of uropathogenic Escherichia coli persistence and eradication from the urinary tract. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2006;103(38):14170–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0602136103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Klein RD, Hultgren SJ. Urinary tract infections: microbial pathogenesis, host-pathogen interactions and new treatment strategies. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020;18(4):211–26. doi: 10.1038/s41579-020-0324-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Anderson GG, Palermo JJ, Schilling JD, Roth R, Heuser J, Hultgren SJ. Intracellular bacterial biofilm-like pods in urinary tract infections. Science. 2003;301(5629):105–7. doi: 10.1126/science.1084550 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Guiton PS, Cusumano CK, Kline KA, Dodson KW, Han Z, Janetka JW, et al. Combinatorial small-molecule therapy prevents uropathogenic Escherichia coli catheter-associated urinary tract infections in mice. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(9):4738–45. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00447-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Flannagan RS, Heit B, Heinrichs DE. Intracellular replication of Staphylococcus aureus in mature phagolysosomes in macrophages precedes host cell death, and bacterial escape and dissemination. Cell Microbiol. 2016;18(4):514–35. doi: 10.1111/cmi.12527 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Jolly AL, Takawira D, Oke OO, Whiteside SA, Chang SW, Wen ER, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa-induced bleb-niche formation in epithelial cells is independent of actinomyosin contraction and enhanced by loss of cystic fibrosis transmembrane-conductance regulator osmoregulatory function. mBio. 2015;6(2):e02533. doi: 10.1128/mBio.02533-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Garzoni C, Kelley WL. Staphylococcus aureus: new evidence for intracellular persistence. Trends Microbiol. 2009;17(2):59–65. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2008.11.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Jarry TM, Cheung AL. Staphylococcus aureus escapes more efficiently from the phagosome of a cystic fibrosis bronchial epithelial cell line than from its normal counterpart. Infect Immun. 2006;74(5):2568–77. doi: 10.1128/IAI.74.5.2568-2577.2006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Qazi SN, Harrison SE, Self T, Williams P, Hill PJ. Real-time monitoring of intracellular Staphylococcus aureus replication. J Bacteriol. 2004;186(4):1065–77. doi: 10.1128/JB.186.4.1065-1077.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Mukherjee K, Khatua B, Mandal C. Sialic Acid-Siglec-E Interactions During Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infection of Macrophages Interferes With Phagosome Maturation by Altering Intracellular Calcium Concentrations. Front Immunol. 2020;11:332. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00332 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Bastiat-Sempe B, Love JF, Lomayesva N, Wessels MR. Streptolysin O and NAD-glycohydrolase prevent phagolysosome acidification and promote group A Streptococcus survival in macrophages. mBio. 2014;5(5):e01690–14. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01690-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Osterlund A, Engstrand L. An intracellular sanctuary for Streptococcus pyogenes in human tonsillar epithelium—studies of asymptomatic carriers and in vitro cultured biopsies. Acta oto-laryngologica. 1997;117(6):883–8. doi: 10.3109/00016489709114219 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Araki N, Johnson MT, Swanson JA. A role for phosphoinositide 3-kinase in the completion of macropinocytosis and phagocytosis by macrophages. J Cell Biol. 1996;135(5):1249–60. doi: 10.1083/jcb.135.5.1249 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Gaidarov I, Santini F, Warren RA, Keen JH. Spatial control of coated-pit dynamics in living cells. Nat Cell Biol. 1999;1(1):1–7. doi: 10.1038/8971 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Swanson JA, Watts C. Macropinocytosis. Trends Cell Biol. 1995;5(11):424–8. doi: 10.1016/s0962-8924(00)89101-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Spano S, Galan JE. Taking control: Hijacking of Rab GTPases by intracellular bacterial pathogens. Small GTPases. 2018;9(1–2):182–91. doi: 10.1080/21541248.2017.1336192 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Barry AO, Boucherit N, Mottola G, Vadovic P, Trouplin V, Soubeyran P, et al. Impaired stimulation of p38alpha-MAPK/Vps41-HOPS by LPS from pathogenic Coxiella burnetii prevents trafficking to microbicidal phagolysosomes. Cell Host Microbe. 2012;12(6):751–63. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2012.10.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Huynh KK, Plumb JD, Downey GP, Valvano MA, Grinstein S. Inactivation of macrophage Rab7 by Burkholderia cenocepacia. J Innate Immun. 2010;2(6):522–33. doi: 10.1159/000319864 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Ghigo E, Capo C, Tung CH, Raoult D, Gorvel JP, Mege JL. Coxiella burnetii survival in THP-1 monocytes involves the impairment of phagosome maturation: IFN-gamma mediates its restoration and bacterial killing. J Immunol. 2002;169(8):4488–95. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.169.8.4488 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Clemens DL, Lee BY, Horwitz MA. Virulent and avirulent strains of Francisella tularensis prevent acidification and maturation of their phagosomes and escape into the cytoplasm in human macrophages. Infect Immun. 2004;72(6):3204–17. doi: 10.1128/IAI.72.6.3204-3217.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Dunny GM, Brown BL, Clewell DB. Induced cell aggregation and mating in Streptococcus faecalis: evidence for a bacterial sex pheromone. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978;75(7):3479–83. doi: 10.1073/pnas.75.7.3479 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Hallinen KM, Guardiola-Flores KA, Wood KB. Fluorescent reporter plasmids for single-cell and bulk-level composition assays in E. faecalis. PLoS One. 2020;15(5):e0232539. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232539 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Bourgogne A, Garsin DA, Qin X, Singh KV, Sillanpaa J, Yerrapragada S, et al. Large scale variation in Enterococcus faecalis illustrated by the genome analysis of strain OG1RF. Genome Biol. 2008;9(7):R110. doi: 10.1186/gb-2008-9-7-r110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Blase C, Becker D, Kappel S, Bereiter-Hahn J. Microfilament dynamics during HaCaT cell volume regulation. Eur J Cell Biol. 2009;88(3):131–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcb.2008.10.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Kang J, Chen W, Xia J, Li Y, Yang B, Chen B, et al. Extracellular matrix secreted by senescent fibroblasts induced by UVB promotes cell proliferation in HaCaT cells through PI3K/AKT and ERK signaling pathways. Int J Mol Med. 2008;21(6):777–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Jeong SY, Martchenko M, Cohen SN. Calpain-dependent cytoskeletal rearrangement exploited for anthrax toxin endocytosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(42):E4007–15. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1316852110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Affentranger S, Martinelli S, Hahn J, Rossy J, Niggli V. Dynamic reorganization of flotillins in chemokine-stimulated human T-lymphocytes. BMC Cell Biol. 2011;12:28. doi: 10.1186/1471-2121-12-28 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Boettcher JP, Kirchner M, Churin Y, Kaushansky A, Pompaiah M, Thorn H, et al. Tyrosine-phosphorylated caveolin-1 blocks bacterial uptake by inducing Vav2-RhoA-mediated cytoskeletal rearrangements. PLoS Biol. 2010;8(8). doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000457 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Edwards AM, Potter U, Meenan NA, Potts JR, Massey RC. Staphylococcus aureus keratinocyte invasion is dependent upon multiple high-affinity fibronectin-binding repeats within FnBPA. PLoS One. 2011;6(4):e18899. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018899 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Ellington JK, Reilly SS, Ramp WK, Smeltzer MS, Kellam JF, Hudson MC. Mechanisms of Staphylococcus aureus invasion of cultured osteoblasts. Microb Pathog. 1999;26(6):317–23. doi: 10.1006/mpat.1999.0272 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Kuhn M. The microtubule depolymerizing drugs nocodazole and colchicine inhibit the uptake of Listeria monocytogenes by P388D1 macrophages. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1998;160(1):87–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.1998.tb12895.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Siemens N, Patenge N, Otto J, Fiedler T, Kreikemeyer B. Streptococcus pyogenes M49 plasminogen/plasmin binding facilitates keratinocyte invasion via integrin-integrin-linked kinase (ILK) pathways and protects from macrophage killing. J Biol Chem. 2011;286(24):21612–22. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110.202671 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Nam HJ, Park YY, Yoon G, Cho H, Lee JH. Co-treatment with hepatocyte growth factor and TGF-beta1 enhances migration of HaCaT cells through NADPH oxidase-dependent ROS generation. Exp Mol Med. 2010;42(4):270–9. doi: 10.3858/emm.2010.42.4.026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Rahn E, Petermann P, Hsu MJ, Rixon FJ, Knebel-Morsdorf D. Entry pathways of herpes simplex virus type 1 into human keratinocytes are dynamin- and cholesterol-dependent. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25464. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025464 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Vollner F, Ali J, Kurrle N, Exner Y, Eming R, Hertl M, et al. Loss of flotillin expression results in weakened desmosomal adhesion and Pemphigus vulgaris-like localisation of desmoglein-3 in human keratinocytes. Sci Rep. 2016;6:28820. doi: 10.1038/srep28820 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Kirchhausen T, Macia E, Pelish HE. Use of dynasore, the small molecule inhibitor of dynamin, in the regulation of endocytosis. Methods Enzymol. 2008;438:77–93. doi: 10.1016/S0076-6879(07)38006-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Ivanov AI. Pharmacological inhibition of endocytic pathways: is it specific enough to be useful? Methods Mol Biol. 2008;440:15–33. doi: 10.1007/978-1-59745-178-9_2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Chen Y, Wang S, Lu X, Zhang H, Fu Y, Luo Y. Cholesterol sequestration by nystatin enhances the uptake and activity of endostatin in endothelium via regulating distinct endocytic pathways. Blood. 2011;117(23):6392–403. doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-12-322867 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Calay D, Vind-Kezunovic D, Frankart A, Lambert S, Poumay Y, Gniadecki R. Inhibition of Akt signaling by exclusion from lipid rafts in normal and transformed epidermal keratinocytes. J Invest Dermatol. 2010;130(4):1136–45. doi: 10.1038/jid.2009.415 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Rothberg KG, Heuser JE, Donzell WC, Ying YS, Glenney JR, Anderson RG. Caveolin, a protein component of caveolae membrane coats. Cell. 1992;68(4):673–82. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(92)90143-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9(7):676–82. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Michael R Wessels, Anders P Hakansson

8 Nov 2021

Dear Kline,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Enterococcus faecalis persists and replicates within epithelial cells in vitro and in vivo during wound infection" for consideration at PLOS Pathogens. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

Although the reviewers find that the manuscript addresses interesting and clinically relevant questions related to the persistence of Enterococci during infection, they also raise a number of concerns that need to be addressed in a revised manuscript. The following issues would be particularly important to address:

1. The authors use the classical gentamicin exclusion assay to assess intracellular bacteria. As indicated by reviewer 1 and 3, no data is presented to show that extracellular bacteria are killed in your specific model system. Such verification needs to be added to the manuscript to enable proper interpretation and conclusions of the results.

2. As indicated by all three reviewers, the number of replicates used for analyses are generally low and due to their spread in several assays this makes interpretation difficult and some of the conclusion premature.

3. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that Enterococci replicate inside cells. First, the criteria used during imaging to determine whether bacteria are intracellular or not are clear. This combined with the reported decrease in intracellular bacteria over time, a decrease of bacteria in LAMP-positive vacuoles over times, and lack of evidence for replication in the CLEM analyses do not support the conclusion that bacteria replicate intracellularly. All three reviewers suggest approaches to address this issue.

4. In the experiments addressing bacterial entry mechanisms, information showing that the inhibitors used are not toxic to cells or bacteria (except for Dynasore) and that they function as specified in your specific cell system would be needed to draw clear conclusions.

5. Finally, all reviewers request additional information to clarify the results on intracellular trafficking and manipulation of Rab5 and Rab7. Information about how co-localization was determined is missing and how the authors have excluded the possibility that potential transient markers, such as Rab5 and Rab7 were never associated with the bacterial vesicles are not stated. This will be important to specify.

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

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

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

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

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

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

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

Sincerely,

Anders P Hakansson, Ph.D.

Associate Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Michael Wessels

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

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

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

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

Your paper has now been reviewed by three experts in the field. Although the reviewers find that the manuscript addresses interesting and clinically relevant questions related to the persistence of Enterococci during infection, they also raise a number of concerns that need to be addressed in a revised manuscript. The following issues would be particularly important to address:

1. The authors use the classical gentamicin exclusion assay to assess intracellular bacteria. As indicated by reviewer 1 and 3, no data is presented to show that extracellular bacteria are killed in your specific model system. Such verification needs to be added to the manuscript to enable proper interpretation and conclusions of the results.

2. As indicated by all three reviewers, the number of replicates used for analyses are generally low and due to their spread in several assays this makes interpretation difficult and some of the conclusion premature.

3. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that Enterococci replicate inside cells. First, the criteria used during imaging to determine whether bacteria are intracellular or not are clear. This combined with the reported decrease in intracellular bacteria over time, a decrease of bacteria in LAMP-positive vacuoles over times, and lack of evidence for replication in the CLEM analyses do not support the conclusion that bacteria replicate intracellularly. All three reviewers suggest approaches to address this issue.

4. In the experiments addressing bacterial entry mechanisms, information showing that the inhibitors used are not toxic to cells or bacteria (except for Dynasore) and that they function as specified in your specific cell system would be needed to draw clear conclusions.

5. Finally, all reviewers request additional information to clarify the results on intracellular trafficking and manipulation of Rab5 and Rab7. Information about how co-localization was determined is missing and how the authors have excluded the possibility that potential transient markers, such as Rab5 and Rab7 were never associated with the bacterial vesicles are not stated. This will be important to specify.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

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

Reviewer #1: This paper from Tay et al. explores the interesting issue of how Enterococcus faecalis persists chronically in wounds, which is important knowledge that could be leveraged for developing novel treatments in what is a very important clinical indication from a healthcare burden perspective. As the authors themselves recognize, the main results are not completely new – a number of other publications have shown that E. faecalis invades and persists in different kinds of cells (both immune and non-immune). The diversity of strategies that might be used by E. faecalis to persist inside keratinocytes is the novelty, but clarification and a number of confirmatory experiments are required to support these findings. As the results stand, the conclusions are not supported. The risk is that if those experiments are improved, it might be the case that the main (novel) conclusions are not supported.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript, Kline and colleagues detail the intracellular lifestyle of Enterococcus faecalis, a Gram-positive commensal bacterium of the digestive tract. Enterococci are also opportunistic pathogens, colonizing the mouth and wounds. Widely considered as an extracellular pathogen, a number of earlier studies have indicated that E. faecalis can also reside intracellularly. Here the authors use a keratinocyte cell line, HaCaT, as an in vivo model of wound infections. Two strains of E. faecalis, OG1RF and V583, enter these cells, and persist. Bacterial entry is dependent on polymerization of actin cytoskeleton, suggestive of micropinocytosis. Labeling with endocytic markers suggest that maturation of vacuole-residing enterococci follows the endocytic pathway. The correlative and light electron microscopy is a nice addition to the conventional fluorescence microscopy, although the number of bacteria examined is very low. The paper is well-written and easy to follow and the figures are nicely presented. The conclusions are for the most-part justified, with the exception of some concerns that I have detailed below.

Reviewer #3: The authors describe the ability for E. faecalis to invade immune and non-immune (namely keratinocytes) cells during a murine wound infection model. This phenomenon, as with other sites of the body, appears to confer significant biological advantages for the microbe, allowing it to persist in spite of a robust immune response and potentially traditional antimicrobial treatments. The authors performed an extensive and well selected set of experiments in order to begin unravelling the mechanisms of invasion. This manuscript is an interesting, important and well written piece of work. However, there are a number of minor issues that I believe require further explanation and clarification before publication.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

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

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

Reviewer #1: Most of the experiments needed are presented in the paper, so it's not a case that major experiments are needed, but the issue is that a lot of them are not rigorous enough and would have to be repeated/controls included/more replicates etc. If those experiments are improved, it might be the case that the main (novel) conclusions are not supported.

1. There is insufficient evidence to support the idea that E. faecalis replicates inside cells. CFUs go down over time; many experiments do not have parallel confocal stacks to confirm intracellularity during the experiment; that bacteria may merely be re-entering anew (rather than persisting) has not been ruled out; some experiments suffer from a lack of information about MOI, antibiotic concentration and kill curves, and bacteria growth curves; there are insufficient controls to cover the well-known pitfalls of the protection assay (including incomplete bacterial killing; cell permeability at high concentrations; and protection due to extracellular biofilms). The details for the above observations are provided in Part III.

2. The inhibitor and co-localization data are not convincing - The details for the above observations are provided in Part III.

3. A few experiments do not have enough biological replicates to give confidence that the findings are robust - The details for the above observations are provided in Part III.

Reviewer #2: Points of concern to be addressed:

(1) Figure 2A and 2B. Very few of the total bacterial population are being internalized into keratinocytes (from my estimate comparing Figure 2A with 2B, it is in the order of 1-5%). Is this internalization event an E. faecalis driven event or do keratinocytes have some phagocytic-like activity that allow them to internalize bacteria? Comparing the internalization of E. faecalis with non-pathogenic E. coli (DH10B or K12, for example), or an "extracellular" Gram-positive bacterium, would answer this question.

(2) Figure 2C and 2D. Compared to total CFUs (Supp Fig 1), which show a steady-state level of viable intracellular CFUs from 4-48 h, microscopy images show that there is an increase in the number of bacteria/cell with time. This increase cannot be in all infected cells, otherwise there would be an increase in total CFUs. In what percentage of infected cells does this increase in bacterial numbers occur? It is important to know what proportion of keratinocytes support bacteria replication. The authors should count bacteria in individual cells (i.e. single-cell analysis) over a time course to chart the heterogeneity in the intracellular distribution of bacteria. I suspect there are multiple scenarios happening, with the total CFUs being the sum of (i) bacterial replication in some cells, (ii) no replication in some cells, (iii) bacterial death in some cells and (iv) keratinocyte cell death.

(3) Related to trafficking data and the model depicted in Figure 8. The way that the authors do the infection, it is very asynchronous i.e. with the extended 3 h time period that the bacteria are in contact with the host cells (prior to antibiotic addition) so bacteria will enter almost immediately and others 3 h later. This creates a huge time spread in the trafficking of intracellular bacteria, which complicates the analysis of host cell marker acquisition. I understand that a long infection time is required to increase the number of intracellular bacteria, so I am not faulting the experimental design, but this caveat should be acknowledged. It seems odd to assess EEA1 acquisition at 4 h post-infection when EEA1, an early endosome marker, would only be acquired 15-30 min post-entry. For this reason, it is not surprising that so few bacteria are labelled with this early endosome marker after 4 h. Rab7 is transiently acquired by late endosomes and is lost upon their transition into lysosomes. Its transient nature of association makes it difficult to assess whether a vesicle/phagosome/bacterium has ever acquired Rab7 or not, unless live-cell imaging is undertaken. If a bacterium is negative for Rab7, Rab7 may have been acquired and lost, for example. As depicted in Figure 8, can the authors show that bacterial viability is associated with Rab7/LAMP1-labelling (scenario I, II or III in Figure 8)? Bacteria containing an inducible fluorescent protein could easily be used to assess viability in each of the described vacuoles.

(4) The CLEM data requires number of events scored to validate statements such as “all membrane-bound E. faecalis were spatially separated from lysosomes, and there was no indication of membrane fusion between E. faecalis-containing compartments and lysosomes”. Specifically, “we observed E. faecalis in LAMP1 positive compartments as well as in vacuoles that appeared to be devoid of LAMP1” please provide percentages; “most internalized bacteria appeared to be morphologically intact”, what proportion?; “we did not find evidence of multiple replicating E. faecalis within a single LAMP1 positive compartment leading to membrane distension” how many bacteria were assessed?; “In some instances, however, vacuoles harbouring E. faecalis appeared to contain LAMP1 positive multi-lamellar bodies (MLBs)”, how many instances?

(5) Figure 5B. LAMP1 is a heavily glycosylated protein that migrates at ~100 kDa on SDS-PAGE gels. The image shown in Figure 5B suggests that the LAMP1 antibody used in this study is not actually specific for LAMP1. Monoclonal H4A3 (available from Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank) and D4O1S (Cell Signaling, https://www.cellsignal.com/products/primary-antibodies/lamp1-d4o1s-mouse-mab/15665) are validated antibodies for LAMP1. I would like to see that the LAMP1 data is reproducible for either of these antibodies. Given that the authors are drawing conclusions about the steady-state levels of endocytic proteins, it is imperative that they are actually detecting LAMP1 here.

Reviewer #3: If possible the authors should present the gentamicin protection assay final wash CFU's. The addition of this data would significantly improve this manuscript

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

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

Reviewer #1: (I have pulled out and mentioned key issues in the preceding section but I include all of my comments here for ease of reference)

Minor general Comment:

- Statements saying that they are raising the issue that intracellular persistence may influence chronic E. faecalis infection should be removed or modified, since other studies had already raised that hypothesis. Therefore these authors are supporting those works but not trail-blazing the hypothesis.

- The absence of numbered lines in the document was very frustrating and hindered the review process.

Title:

Needs to be altered or qualified, otherwise it is misleading, because:

- The authors don’t have enough evidence to show that E. faecalis replicate in vivo (see more detailed comments below)

- Moreover, they only show one (very limited) experiment “during wound infection” in mice. If they wanted to focus the paper on wound infection, additional experiments are necessary to confirm the results (e.g. with epithelium organoids, or more mice experiments, or mimicking wounds in vitro in cell layers). In opposition, the majority of the results were obtained with cells/monolayers of keratinocytes without mimicking a wound.

Introduction:

This section is extremely short and superficial, focusing mainly on the discussion of a previous paper published by the authors and a summary of the results obtained in this work. It would have been good to see more details of other papers showing Enterococcus invasion to set the scene. Also, it is always good to give the clinical picture – why should we care about wound infection? What is the global burden both economically and from an incidence point of view?

Minor comment: Enterococci should not be in italics.

Results:

Intracellular E. faecalis are present within CD45+ and CD45- cells during mouse wound infection

- The antibiotic protection assay is not without its flaws. First, the antibiotic concentration used should be mentioned (at least as Supplementary material) and a dose response curve of antibiotic(s) used should be shown to assess if the concentration used was enough to kill all the bacteria. On the other hand, previous work by others has shown that very high concentrations of so-called impermeant antibiotics (even the gold standard gentamicin) can actually enter some cell types – have the authors confirmed that this does not happen under their conditions? Does the antibiotic have any cytotoxic effect on the suspended cells? We need to know this to assess the results obtained regarding the intracellular bacteria quantification. Finally, and perhaps most critically, Enterococci can form biofilms, even in a relatively short period of time, and biofilms would be largely resistant to antibiotics. Extracellular biofilms therefore could contribute to CFU post-treatment which could artificially inflate the estimates of intracellular bacteria.

- The area/depth of the wound harvested and the mean number of cells recovered should also be mentioned (in the Material & Methods and/or main text), to help the reader understand possible variations in the CFU counting.

- A comment/discussion or possible explanation observed for the 2 different “subpopulations” of infected CD45- cells should be provided. This becomes important in light of the subsequent results obtained in vitro by the authors.

E. faecalis adheres to and enters keratinocytes

- As above, a dose response curve of antibiotic(s) used should be shown to assess if the concentration and treatment periods used (which varied from 1h to 21h depending on the experiment) were enough to kill all the bacteria

- The sentence “Parallel cytotoxicity …. (data not shown)” is vague and could be confusing. It should be better explained, since the subsequent experiments in Supp Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 were performed at 1, 2, 3 and 4 hpi.

- The authors’ use of the strain V583 should be better contextualized and explained. It only appeared in this section (and Fig. 5) and the authors commented that it showed “even higher numbers within HaCat cells”, although the bacteria recovered after 48h and 72h dropped dramatically (which is not explained). In addition, since it seems a better “persister”, why was not used for all the other studies?

- The MOIs used for the images presented in Fig 2 should be mentioned (main text and caption).

- A panel of images comparing the different MOIs and time points showed in Fig 2A and 2B should be presented, as well as showing in Z-stack what the authors consider to be “internalized” and “adhered” (e.g. with arrows). Moreover, given there’s some point-spread going on, not all of the bacterial in the ortho views seem, in my opinion, to look particularly internalized at this resolution. As a minor point, it’s quite hard to see the cross-hairs on some images. Maybe make them white?

- In the context of the main results presented in this section, Fig 2C and 2D should be removed or moved to Supplementary, since they show results for much later time points (4 hpi and 24 hpi, respectively).

- The final conclusion that “E. faecalis is replicating within the cells” based on the results obtained after 24 hpi per se seems problematic and should be altered, for two reasons:

o Since the experiments were made in fixed different time points, more bacteria might simply have entered in the meantime and persisted inside the keratinocytes.

o In fig Supp 1 the authors show that intracellular bacterial CFU/keratinocyte does not vary significantly from 4 to 24, 48 and 72 hpi with antibiotic treatment (it even decreases in the latter time point).

- It is difficult to assess the significance of the Supp Fig 2, which was provided to show bacteria on the periphery of the keratinocytes that were previously inside the cells (3 hpi + 21 h antibiotic treatment), because these images also do not show any bacteria inside the cells in Z-stack (+ the bacterial amount is very low from what should be expected according to the authors’ results). Perhaps invasion did not occur at all in this case? And/or the bacteria outside are due to biofilms that resisted this antibiotic concentration (see above)?

Entry of E. faecalis into keratinocytes is dependent on actin polymerization and PI3K

signalling

- Cytotoxicity assessment of all the compounds tested using dose-response curves and/or imaging should be done (or mentioned, if published previously) to validate the results obtained with keratinocytes, since the authors also detected that at least one (Dynasor) that showed cell toxicity. It is probably important to see if they also affect isolated bacteria (or refer to the literature if they’ve been shown to have no effect on prokaryotes).

- Colchicine seems to boost bacterial adhesion and persistence. Any explanation for this?

- Are all the mean differences observed In Supp Fig 3 not statistically significantly different (apart from one time with the Dynasor treatment)? If not, the authors should show the statistical analysis for the others as well.

In case they are non-significant, a comment regarding the high heterogeneity of the results obtained should be made (scale is logarithmic).

- The authors cannot completely exclude a role of the endocytocytis (mediated be claveolae and clathrin), based only in the results from Supp Fig. 3, mainly because:

o They have means based on 3 experiments, which in some cases show high heterogeneity between them (so it suggests that in some cases endocytosis via this pathways might occur).

o Authors comment in Supp Fig. 3 that they saw a large amount of Dynasor-treated cells being killed after 4 hpi (justifying that the reduction in intracellular bacteria is due to keratinocytes’ death). However, they also saw a statistically significant reduction in intracellular bacteria recovered after 3 hpi (and even with 2 hpi you can see the reduction). This supports the possibility that at least in some cases the bacteria are entering via receptor-mediated endocytosis.

o Adhesion of bacteria seems to be impaired with Nystatin (at least in some cases).

o Controls regarding the abolition of the clathrin and claveolae pathways with the inhibitor concentrations tested were not shown or referred by the authors for this particular cells. As this could vary from cell type to cell type, it’s important to confirm that the inhibitors are working as expected.

o The use of Wortmannin per se does not tell us that only macropinocytosis is being influenced; it could also influence phagocytosis, which keratinocytes are also able to do, and even receptor-mediated endocytosis to some extent.

They should either increase their N or try to assess clathrin- and claveolae mediated endocytosis using imaging analysis. Or otherwise consider that receptor-mediated endocytosis pathways might also have a role (at least in some cases).

- Caption from Supp Fig 3 should be reduced and the “discussion” part should be moved to the main text.

Intracellular E. faecalis traffics through early and late endosomes

- No Z-stacks are shown in this section, so how can the authors know for sure that all the bacteria counted was inside? Were these experiments performed in the presence of antibiotics? (If so, dose-response curve should be presented to show the efficacy of the killing, as per above comments)

- Even with prolonged antibiotic treatment, the authors showed previously that E. faecalis is able to escape keratinocytes (Supp Fig 2). How they can confirm that they are not colocalizing bacteria that are outside or between the cells?

- Authors should also clarify if the total N of bacteria/cell compartments counted per condition is supported by a single image (which it seems to be) or different images. More biological replicates seem to be needed.

- Since the total N of bacteria/cell compartments counted vary considerably according to the different labelings, it becomes difficult to compare the percentages indicated by the author. More replicates are needed.

- According to the data, the percentage of E. faecalis in LAMP1-positive cells after 24 hpi is lower than the one observed in 4 hpi. Therefore, the authors cannot conclude that the bacteria are replicating inside the endosomes as they state in their final conclusion statement. Shouldn’t this value be higher?

- There is not enough evidence about replication in endosomes based on these data. Live cell imaging and/or more cell counting (statistically significant/biological replicates) should be provided.

- The panel in Supp Fig 4 is redundant, since the figures in the upper panel are only in a very slightly different magnification compared with the lower panel (higher difference in magnification or other regions/images should be provided instead).

E. faecalis intracellular infection interferes with Rab5 and Rab7 protein levels

- A large initial part of the paragraph (when comparing to other bacteria) should be moved to the Discussion section.

- Similar comments from the section above, regarding the absence of Z-stacks and small N used, apply to this section as well.

- Some comparisons from the strains V583 and OG1RF should be better contextualized. Are both of them equally fit in the conditions tested? (Growth curves should be provided) Were they always inoculated at the same MOI? (the MOIs in this section should be mentioned)

- Since E. faecalis does not change cathepsin D expression (and it seems that it is not naturally reduced over time) and the Rab7 levels seem to be restored after 24 hpi (as the authors also mention), why there is no fusion with lysosomes? This should be better explained or assessed (e.g. targeting/labeling lysosomes) by the authors.

E. faecalis containing vacuoles do not fuse with lysosomes

- The authors mention that they did not find evidence of replication, which is quite contradictory regarding the previous results obtained. Could this be related with different MOIs and/or time of infection? In any case, this should be better explained.

- Some quantification (with more images/biological samples) is needed and/or experiments targeting lysosomes, in order to conclude the absence of fusion with lysosomes.

- In Fig 6 the authors highlight a compartment with “bacteria with altered appearance”. This should be better explained in the text. The only lysosome showed in the figure is also not in a commonly observed shape for the compartments.

- Fig 6 and Supp Fig 7 seem to be based in the same (very limited) amount of images.

Intracellular E. faecalis is primed for more efficient reinfection

- The authors themselves said that the MOI used for reinfection was very low. This seems quite contradictory, since they also argue that E. faecalis replicates inside the cells over time. Therefore it would be meaningful if a first infection with higher MOIs and/or prolonged time of infection (similar to the ones previously used) was used, in order to recover more bacteria for the reinfection and to correlate better with the rest of the results.

Discussion:

All of the discussion and the E. faecalis persistence model in keratinocytes proposed should be reviewed in light of the aforementioned comments – especially the wound injury focus and in vivo conclusions, the replication of bacteria and the exclusion of receptor-mediated endocytosis in the model. The authors have to somehow account for the fact that there is a reduction over time of the intracellular bacteria recovered in their wound infections in vivo (particularly in CD45- cells), which opposes the idea of replication and persistence of bacteria.

A comment/hypothesis/discussion about how cathepsin D is absent in only 2 out of the 3 possible pathways that they present (and not in all for example) should be made, particularly considering that no change in its cell expression was observed.

Reviewer #2: Minor points:

(1) The source/description of E. faecalis V583 is not listed in Materials and Methods.

(2) Figure 5C. Text size is too small to be easily seen.

(4) Supplementary Figure 1B and C. What is the dashed line?

(5) Fluorescence images. As suggested by a number of journal commentaries (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22379119/; https://www.ascb.org/science-news/how-to-make-scientific-figures-accessible-to-readers-with-color-blindness/), fluorescence images should be shown in greyscale, where possible, to improve visibility to the human eye and accessibility to those with color blindness. This impacts Figure 4, Supp. Fig 4, Figure 5, Supp. Fig 5.

Reviewer #3: Author Summary

“whereupon it manipulates the endosomal pathway and

expression of trafficking molecules required for endo-lysosomal fusion, enabling E. faecalis

to avoid lysosomal degradation and consequent death.”

Qualify language – data does not necessarily prove that the bacteria manipulates the endosomal pathway

“extracellular pathogen”

Is it still thought of as an extracellular pathogen? Please consider rephrasing

Results

Intracellular E. faecalis are present within CD45+ and CD45- cells during mouse wound

Infection

Were the gentamicin treated “extracellular” bacteria definitely dead (live/dead stain)? Was this strain gent susceptible? In our experience, this assay can be quite misleading – did you plate the final PBS washing steps on agar to ensure no/low growth?

Fig 1. Are you plotting biological or technical replicates? You mention that at least 3 replicates were used. Would it be possible to clarify this in the legend?

E. faecalis adheres to and enters keratinocytes

Again, the results from the gentamicin protection assay can be very misleading. If you have no cfu data from the PBS washes, then perhaps qualify the language.

Nonetheless, the imaging data is compelling and beautifully presented. Perhaps make the orthogonal lines a little clearer for the reader.

Supplementary Fig 2. Convincing images but please increase magnification

Entry of E. faecalis into keratinocytes is dependent on actin polymerization and PI3K

Signalling

Fig. 3 and Supplementary fig. 3. This data is convincing; however, the statistical significance is less so. Are all data points technical or biological repeats? The use of parametric tests for such small datasets is unusual. Was the data normally distributed? If not consider non-parametric tests. Indeed, it might be better to not do tests - the difference can be seen in the graph…..

Intracellular E. faecalis traffics through early and late endosomes

How was this percentage data calculated? Was this done using image analysis software or done manually? This needs some explanation. If analysed manually, then how many cells / experiments were included. The images (particularly the red channel) look to have been increased in brightness.

E. faecalis intracellular infection interferes with Rab5 and Rab7 protein levels

“For instance, Mycobacterium tuberculosis affects

Rab7 recruitment and, consequently, phagosome maturation, by interfering with Rab5

effectors (Saikolappan et al. 2012; Puri, Reddy, and Tyagi 2013). Listeria monocytogenes also

affects Rab7 recruitment by inhibiting Rab5 GDP exchange activity in host cells (Prada-

Delgado et al. 2005). Additionally, Coxiella burnetii can localize to Rab5 and LAMP1 positive

compartments that lacks Rab7 (Ghigo et al. 2009; Ghigo, Colombo, and Heinzen 2012).”

I wonder whether this above section should be moved to the introduction / discussion. Or perhaps shortened. It feels out of place.

As mentioned earlier, it is not clear how colocalization with intracellular compartments was measured. Percentages are stated but the method is not clear. Please add. Without this information it is quite difficult to judge how reliable this data is.

Is the WB data normally distributed? T-test is parametric

E. faecalis containing vacuoles do not fuse with lysosomes

Fig. 6 and supplementary Fig 7. CLEM is very nicely presented and looks convincing. It might be easier for the reader to mention the colours in the legend. It is currently quite difficult to understand

Intracellular E. faecalis is primed for more efficient reinfection

“These results are similar to observations made in S. pyogenes, where longer periods of internalization in macrophages increased recovered CFU during subsequent reinfections (Hertzen et al. 2012).”

The above sections belongs in the discussion

Fig 7. (A) I agree with the use of non-parametric tests for these experiments. However, why did you not use this for the previous tests? The N appears to be comparable….

Discussion

“This is well described for uropathogenic E. coli”

This statement is true. However, this is in murine models of infection. Very little data in humans. Please alter language.

I think it is important to clarify that this a mouse / cell model of infection. Experiments using infected wounds in humans would need to be performed to corroborate this data.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

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

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Decision Letter 1

Michael R Wessels, Anders P Hakansson

27 Feb 2022

Dear Kline,

Thank you very much for submitting your revised manuscript "Enterococcus faecalis alters endo-lysosomal trafficking to replicate and persist within mammalian cells" for consideration at PLOS Pathogens. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board. Based on the editorial assessment, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the comments below.

After assessing your responses to the Reviewers’ comments and the accompanying revisions and additions incorporated into the revised manuscript, we find that the revised manuscript represents a major improvement that in all major respects addresses the reviewers’ concerns satisfactorily. There are, however, some minor issues remaining, primarily associated with the novel information included, that could be easily amended, and that would not require any additional experiments. These issues are listed below. As long as these minor revisions and amendments to the current manuscript are done, we would expect to return a favorable decision regarding your manuscript very quickly.

1. Based on the request from the reviewers, additional imaging data has been included to better represent the data and their associated conclusions (Fig 4A-D, 5B-C, S7, S8, S9). However, Figures S7 and S9 have no arrows in the individual panels making it difficult to understand what should be observed. Please add. New Figures 4A-D and 5B-C are relevant additions, yet it is hard to see the staining and co-positioning/co-localization with variable staining intensity of blue, red and green colors and no separate panels for each channel. The histogram analysis it a welcome addition, although without the ability for the reader to visually evaluate co-localization or co-positioning of bacteria and markers, the specific criteria used to score this, as described in the Methods section (lines 983-988) becomes unclear and difficult to follow. For example, in Figure 5B-C, the 4 h time-point, why is the first bacteria in the histogram not considered co-localized with LAMP-1 and in the 24 h section, again why is the first bacterium not considered co-localized with LAMP-1? Is this based on signal intensity or visual information that is not apparent unless each marker is observed separately? Additional clarification of the co-localization/co-positioning analyses in these figures would be necessary.

2. A new Figure 3C-D has been added to directly address intracellular replication by showing BrdU and RADA staining of bacteria inside HaCaT cells as well as in RAW macrophages. For both cell types in Figure 3C, arrows would be needed also in the separate panels to orient the reader to the colocalization events. The RADA staining for the HaCaT cells shows unspecific and dotty staining where no bacteria are found. Please comment or explain.

3. Reviewer 1 and 2 indicated a lack of information about endosomal trafficking inhibitor function. Inhibitor function is indirectly addressed in the response to Reviewer 1 through a list of references of papers that have used the same concentrations in the same cell types by other investigators. This information is, however, not included in the manuscript and the use of concentrations and inhibitors listed on lines 913-915 in the Methods section is not complete. To justify the inhibitor concentrations used in the manuscript, in the absence of experimental validation, please include the specific concentrations used for each inhibitor in the Methods section together with the references used to justify these concentrations.

4. Reviewer 2 highlights that the LAMP-1 antibody used may not be optimal and suggests validated antibodies to be used for confirmation. One of the validated antibodies suggested is now used in new figures Fig 5, S9, S11. However, although this is commented on in the response to the Reviewer, it is not mentioned specifically in the manuscript when different antibodies were used. As validation using these antibodies was an issue, it would be relevant to include antibody information for the LAMP-1 staining either in the relevant figure legends or mention in the Methods section what LAMP-1 antibody was used for what Figure, so that the readers can properly interpret the data.

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

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

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

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

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

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

Sincerely,

Anders P Hakansson, Ph.D.

Associate Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Michael Wessels

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

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

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

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

After assessing your responses to the Reviewers’ comments and the accompanying revisions and additions incorporated into the revised manuscript, we find that the revised manuscript represents a major improvement that in all major respects addresses the reviewers’ concerns satisfactorily. There are, however, some minor issues remaining, primarily associated with the novel information included, that could be easily amended, and that would not require any additional experiments. These issues are listed below. As long as these minor revisions and amendments to the current manuscript are done, we would expect to return a favorable decision regarding your manuscript very quickly.

1. Based on the request from the reviewers, additional imaging data has been included to better represent the data and their associated conclusions (Fig 4A-D, 5B-C, S7, S8, S9). However, Figures S7 and S9 have no arrows in the individual panels making it difficult to understand what should be observed. Please, add. New Figures 4A-D and 5B-C are relevant additions, yet it is hard to see the staining and co-positioning/co-localization with variable staining intensity of blue, red and green colors and no separate panels for each channel. The histogram analysis it a welcome addition, although without the ability for the reader to visually evaluate co-localization or co-positioning of bacteria and markers, the specific criteria used to score this, as described in the Methods section (lines 983-988) becomes unclear and difficult to follow. For example, in Figure 5B-C, the 4 h time-point, why is the first bacteria in the histogram not considered co-localized with LAMP-1 and in the 24 h section, again why is the first bacterium not considered co-localized with LAMP-1? Is this based on signal intensity or visual information that is not apparent unless each marker is observed separately? Additional clarification of the co-localization/co-positioning analyses in these figures would be necessary.

2. A new Figure 3C-D has been added to directly address intracellular replication by showing BrdU and RADA staining of bacteria inside HaCaT cells as well as in RAW macrophages. For both cell types in Figure 3C, arrows would be needed also in the separate panels to orient the reader to the colocalization events. The RADA staining for the HaCaT cells shows unspecific and dotty staining where no bacteria are found. Please comment or explain.

3. Reviewer 1 and 2 indicated a lack of information about endosomal trafficking inhibitor function. Inhibitor function is indirectly addressed in the response to Reviewer 1 through an extensive list of references of papers that have used the same concentrations in the same cell types by other investigators. This information is, however, not included in the manuscript and the use of concentrations and inhibitors listed on lines 913-915 in the Methods section is not complete. To justify the inhibitor concentrations used in the manuscript, in the absence of experimental validation, please include the specific concentrations used for each inhibitor in the Methods section together with the references used to justify these concentrations.

4. Reviewer 2 highlights that the LAMP-1 antibody used may not be optimal and suggests validated antibodies to be used for confirmation. One of the validated antibodies suggested is now used in new figures Fig 5, S9, S11. However, although this is commented on in the response to the Reviewer, it is not mentioned specifically in the manuscript when different antibodies were used. As validation using these antibodies was an issue, it would be relevant to include antibody information for the LAMP-1 staining either in the relevant figure legends or mention in the Methods section what LAMP-1 antibody was used for what Figure, so that the readers can properly interpret the data.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

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

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References:

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

Decision Letter 2

Michael R Wessels, Anders P Hakansson

10 Mar 2022

Dear Kline,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Enterococcus faecalis alters endo-lysosomal trafficking to replicate and persist within mammalian cells' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Anders P Hakansson, Ph.D.

Associate Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Michael Wessels

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

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

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

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

Acceptance letter

Michael R Wessels, Anders P Hakansson

1 Apr 2022

Dear Kline,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Enterococcus faecalis alters endo-lysosomal trafficking to replicate and persist within mammalian cells," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

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

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. (related to Fig 2).

    Intracellular E. faecalis is not cell type specific and persists for up to 72 hpi. (A,F) Enumeration of CFU for OG1RF was performed at different steps of the antibiotic protection assay on HaCaT cells to determine the number of bacteria found intracellularly, compared to the number of bacteria found in the supernatant and final PBS wash after antibiotic treatment. (A) reflects 3 h of infection followed by 1 h of antibiotic treatment. CFU in (F) were enumerated CFU after 3 h of infection and 21 h of antibiotic treatment when optimal killing for strain V583 is achieved. (B,G) Enumeration of CFU after antibiotic killing in planktonic cultures of OG1RF and V583 in DMEM + 10% FBS. Planktonic cultures were grown for 3 h at an inoculum size equivalent to MOI 100 from the antibiotic protection assay prior to addition of antibiotics. Cultures were incubated in the presence of antibiotics for either 1 h or 21 h at 37°C with 5% CO2. Bacteria were pelleted and resuspended in sterile 1×PBS to remove residual antibiotics before CFU enumeration. For OG1RF at 1 h and 21 h post antibiotic treatment, and V583 at 21 h post antibiotic treatment, zero CFU counts were observed when bacteria were not resuspended in 1×PBS before CFU enumeration. (C) Solid lines indicate the mean CFU at 2–4 hpi at MOI 100 from at least 3 independent experiments. (D,E) HaCaTs were infected with E. faecalis OG1RF and V583 at MOI 100 for 3 h, followed by treatment with gentamicin and penicillin for 1, 21, 45, 69 h before lysis to obtain the intracellular population. Solid lines indicate the mean CFU from at least 2 independent experiments. Dashed lines serve as point of reference for 104 CFU, for easy visualization of the comparative increase in V583 CFU.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. (related to Fig 2).

    Viability of HaCaT cells upon infection with E. faecalis OG1RF. HaCaT cells were infected with MOI 100 of E. faecalis OG1RF for 3 h and incubated with 500 μg/ml of gentamicin and penicillin up to 69 hpi and subsequently assessed for viability using the AlamarBlue cell viability reagent.

    (TIFF)

    S3 Fig. (related to Fig 2).

    E. faecalis entry into keratinocytes is not dependent on microtubule polymerization, clathrin- and caveolae-mediated endocytosis. Keratinocytes were pre-treated with (A) microtubule inhibitor colchicine (10 μg/ml), (B) dynasore, an inhibitor of the large GTPase dynamin that is important for the formation of clathrin-coated vesicles (80) (25 μg/ml), or (C) nystatin, which selectively affects caveolae-mediated endocytosis by binding sterols, causing caveolae and cholesterol disassembly in the plasma membrane (81, 82) (25 μg/ml). Cells were pre-treated with compounds for 0.5 h and then infected with E. faecalis at MOI 100 for 1, 2, or 3 h. For enumeration of intracellular CFU, each infection period was followed by 1 h antibiotic treatment, for a total of 2, 3 or 4 hpi. Adherent or intracellular bacteria were enumerated at the indicated time points (only significant differences are indicated). Solid lines indicate the mean for each data set of at least 3 independent experiments. **p<0.01 2 way ANOVA, Sidak’s multiple comparisons test.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. (related to Fig 3).

    E. faecalis at the periphery of keratinocytes at 24 hpi. CLSM representative images of infected keratinocytes with condensed nuclei following 3 h of infection and 21 h of incubation in antibiotic laced media. Blue, dsDNA stained with Hoechst 33342; green, E-GFP E. faecalis; red, F-actin. Data shown are representative of at least 3 independent experiments.

    (TIFF)

    S5 Fig. (related to Fig 3).

    Non-replicating E. faecalis do not incorporate BrdU nor RADA. Fluorescent E. faecalis (pDasherGFP) was treated with the antibiotic ramoplanin to halt replication. (A) BrdU and (B) RADA labelling of bacteria in presence or absence of 26 μg/ml ramoplanin for 1 h. Scale bar: 2 μm.

    (TIFF)

    S6 Fig. (related to Fig 3).

    Replicating and non-replicating intracellular E. faecalis in ex vivo cells isolated from infected wounds. (A) CLSM view of ex vivo murine wound tissue cells following infection and BrdU treatment. Left panel shows multiple examples of potentially replicating E. faecalis clusters, indicated with white arrows. Scale bar: 10 μm. (B) Enlarged area within white box in (A) on the top, and the same area with the Hoechst channel removed for clear viewing of the other markers on the bottom. The marked areas with white squares show CD45-negative E. faecalis containing cells. Scale bar: 2 μm. (C) Enlarged areas within white boxes in B show examples of non-replicating and replicating E. faecalis. Blue, dsDNA stained with Hoechst 33342; green, E. faecalis; red, BrdU; white, CD45. Images are representative of 3 independent experiments.

    (TIFF)

    S7 Fig. (related to Fig 4).

    Most Rab5 and Rab7 compartments in E. faecalis infected keratinocytes do not colocalize with E. faecalis-containing compartment. CLSM Orthogonal views and individual channels of E. faecalis within keratinocytes labelled with antibodies against Rab5 (alone, left panels) or together with Rab7 (right panels) at 30 min, 1 h and 3 hpi. Left Panels: White, F-actin; green, E. faecalis (pDasherGFP); red, Rab5. Right panels: white, dsDNA stained with Hoechst 33342; green, E. faecalis (pDasherGFP); red, Rab7; blue, Rab5. Images are representative of 3 independent experiments. Scale bar: 10 μm.

    (TIFF)

    S8 Fig. (related to Fig 4).

    E. faecalis is found in heterogeneously labelled Rab7/LAMP1 compartments. (A) CLSM of infected HaCaTs with fluorescent labelling of Rab7 (late endosome) and fluorescent E. faecalis (pDasherGFP). Images show examples of Rab7+ and Rab7- compartments. Green, E. faecalis (pDasherGFP); and red, Rab7. Images shown are representative of 3 independent experiments. Scale bar: 5 μm. (B) CLSM of infected HaCaTs with fluorescent labelling of Rab7 and LAMP1 (late endosome) and fluorescent E. faecalis (pDasherGFP). Pink, E. faecalis (pDasherGFP); yellow, Rab7; red, LAMP1. Images show examples of Rab7+/LAMP1- at 4 hpi (top panel), Rab7+/LAMP1+ (middle panel), LAMP1+/Rab7- and LAMP1+/Rab7- (Bottom panel) compartments. Images shown are representative of 3 independent experiments. Scale bar: 5 μm. White arrows indicate areas of interest for E. faecalis-containing compartments.

    (TIFF)

    S9 Fig. (related to Fig 5).

    E. faecalis is rarely found in compartments that contain Cathepsin D. (A) CLSM Orthogonal views and individual channels of E. faecalis within keratinocytes labelled with antibodies against Cathepsin D and LAMP1 (monoclonal antibody) at 4 h and 24 hpi. Examples of E. faecalis colocalizing with LAMP1 but not with Cathepsin D can be observed (white arrows). White, dsDNA stained with Hoechst 33342; green, E. faecalis (pDasherGFP); red, LAMP1; and blue, Cathepsin D. Images are representative of 3 independent experiments. Scale bar: 10 μm. (B) Rare example of E. faecalis within keratinocyte colocalizing with Cathepsin D (white arrow). Keratinocytes were labelled with antibodies against Cathepsin D and LAMP1 (monoclonal antibody) at 24 hpi. White, dsDNA stained with Hoechst 33342; green, E. faecalis (pDasherGFP); red, LAMP1; blue, Cathepsin D. Images are representative of 3 independent experiments. Scale bar: 10 μm.

    (TIFF)

    S10 Fig. (related to Fig 5).

    Internalized E. faecalis persist within late endosomal compartments. CLSM of infected HaCaTs stained with antibodies against M6PR (late endosome) and LAMP1 (late endosome/lysosome; polyclonal antibody) at 24 hpi. Images are maximum intensity projections of 4–5 optical sections (~2 μm z-volume) and are representative of 3 independent experiments. Scale bar: 2 μm.

    (TIFF)

    S11 Fig. (related to Fig 6).

    E. faecalis infection of keratinocytes does not alter expression of other endosomal proteins. (A) Whole cell lysates analyzed by immunoblot with antibodies α-M6PR, α-EEA1, α-CathepsinD, and α-GAPDH. HaCaT cells were incubated with (+) and without (-) E. faecalis OG1RF for 4 hpi and 24 hpi. Images shown are representative of 3 biological replicates. (B) Whole cell lysates analyzed by immunoblot with monoclonal antibody α-LAMP1 and α-GAPDH. HaCaT cells were incubated with (+) and without (-) E. faecalis OG1RF and V583 for 4 hpi and 24 hpi. Images shown are representative of 5 biological replicates. (C) Relative density of the bands of interest were normalized against loading control (GAPDH). Error bars represent biological replicates and mean ​± SEM from at least 3 independent experiments. Statistical analysis was performed using unpaired T-test with Welch’s correction.

    (TIFF)

    S12 Fig. (related to Fig 7): Correlative light and electron microscopy of E. faecalis infected keratinocytes.

    (A) Spinning disk confocal microscopy and correlative TEM of HaCaTs stably expressing LAMP1-mCherry infected with E. faecalis-GFP at 18 hpi. Confocal images are maximum intensity projections of 4–5 optical sections (~2 μm z-volume). (B) Enlarged views of area 1 highlighted in (A). (C) Serial section TEM and 3D surface rendering of the area shown in (B). (D) Enlarged views of area 2 highlighted in (A). (E) Serial section TEM and 3D surface rendering of the area shown in (D). Large arrowheads indicate E. faecalis containing vacuoles, small arrows indicate LAMP1+ compartments. VM: vacuolar membrane (VM); MLB: multilamellar body. An E. faecalis containing vacuole containing a LAMP1+ve MLB is shown in (B and C), while the E. faecalis containing vacuole shown in (D and E) is LAMP1-ve and does not contain an MLB (data pertinent to Fig 5F-H).

    (TIF)

    S13 Fig. (related to Fig 7): Ultrastructure of E. faecalis containing vacuoles in infected keratinocytes.

    (A) Representative high magnification TEM images of E. faecalis containing vacuoles. Intact and partially intact bacteria are shown. Two examples of vacuoles containing MLBs are shown. (B and C) Serial section TEM analysis of E. faecalis containing vacuoles. (B) Two E. faecalis residing in a shared vacuole (area identical to that shown in Fig 7D). Note the continuity of the vacuolar lumen indicated by the two arrowheads. (C) Two E. faecalis residing in separate vacuoles. Note that the two vacuoles are separated by a vacuolar membrane, indicated by the two arrowheads.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Viability of HaCaT cells upon treatment with inhibitors.

    HaCaT cells were incubated with various pharmacological inhibitors at the concentration used in antibiotic protection assays and subsequently assessed for viability using the AlamarBlue cell viability reagent. For cytochalasin D and latrunculin A, cells were incubated with the inhibitor for 24 h prior to assessment of viability. For wortmannin, colchicine, nystatin and dynasore, cells were incubated with the inhibitor for 4 h. Inhibitors resulting in HaCaT viability above 80% were considered as non-cytotoxic.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Primers used in this study.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Video. (related to Fig 3). Representative example of BrdU labelling of ex-vivo murine wound tissue cells infected with fluorescent E. faecalis.

    (MP4)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 220221_ Response to Reviewers.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers #2_05032022.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS Pathogens are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES