Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Jul 21;17(7):e0271620. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271620

Antimicrobial effects of inhaled sphingosine against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in isolated ventilated and perfused pig lungs

Henning Carstens 1,2,*, Katharina Kalka 1, Rabea Verhaegh 3, Fabian Schumacher 4, Matthias Soddemann 3, Barbara Wilker 3, Simone Keitsch 3, Carolin Sehl 3, Burkhard Kleuser 4, Michael Hübler 2, Ursula Rauen 5, Anne Katrin Becker 3, Achim Koch 1, Erich Gulbins 3,6,#, Markus Kamler 1,#
Editor: Abdelwahab Omri7
PMCID: PMC9302828  PMID: 35862397

Abstract

Background

Ex-vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) is a save way to verify performance of donor lungs prior to implantation. A major problem of lung transplantation is a donor-to-recipient-transmission of bacterial cultures. Thus, a broadspectrum anti-infective treatment with sphingosine in EVLP might be a novel way to prevent such infections. Sphingosine inhalation might provide a reliable anti-infective treatment option in EVLP. Here, antimicrobial potency of inhalative sphingosine in an infection EVLP model was tested.

Methods

A 3-hour EVLP run using pig lungs was performed. Bacterial infection was initiated 1-hour before sphingosine inhalation. Biopsies were obtained 60 and 120 min after infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Aliquots of broncho-alveolar lavage (BAL) before and after inhalation of sphingosine were plated and counted, tissue samples were fixed in paraformaldehyde, embedded in paraffin and sectioned. Immunostainings were performed.

Results

Sphingosine inhalation in the setting of EVLP rapidly resulted in a 6-fold decrease of P. aeruginosa CFU in the lung (p = 0.016). We did not observe any negative side effects of sphingosine.

Conclusion

Inhalation of sphingosine induced a significant decrease of Pseudomonas aeruginosa at the epithelial layer of tracheal and bronchial cells. The inhalation has no local side effects in ex-vivo perfused and ventilated pig lungs.

Introduction

Lung transplantation (LTx) is still the gold standard in the treatment of patients suffering from end-stage lung diseases with more than 4500 annual registered LTx worldwide [1]. Despite an improvement in survival over time, the current median survival is only approximately 6 years and therefore worse than the expected survival in other solid organ transplantations [1]. According to the International Heart and Lung Transplantation Registry (ISHLT), infections are the second leading cause of mortality within the first 30 days (17.2%) rising to the main cause of death within the first year after LTx (33.1%) [2]. In this context, it is important to note that in contrast to other solid organ transplants with superior outcomes, the lungs are continuously exposed to pathogens. Most important pathogens in post-transplant patients are Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA), Staphylococcus aureus (SA), Enterobacteriaceae, Klebsiella spp., Escherichia coli, Acinetobacter, Enterococcus faecalis, Candida albicans, Aspergillus spp., cytomegalovirus and herpes simplex virus [36]. PA is also known as a common pathogen among patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchiectasis or cystic fibrosis (CF) [7, 8]. In the context of hospital acquired or ventilator associated pneumonia PA is the leading pathogen for severe courses [9]. Over the last decade an increase of multidrug-resistance (MDR) in bacterial pathogens like PA, Acinetobacter species, Staphylococcus aureus (SA) and others was recorded [10, 11]. This “antibiotic crisis” as the WHO headlined [12] needs to be addressed and research into new antibacterial approaches is necessary. Sphingosine (SPH) has been recently identified as a lipid with marked antimicrobial potency. Sphingosine is markedly reduced in the respiratory tract of CF mice and patients and reconstitution of sphingosine in lungs of CF mice or in CF humans restores bacterial defense in these mice [1317]. This sphingoid long-chain base is thus part of the innate immune system. It is synthesized from ceramide by the enzyme ceramidase [from a review see e.g. 18]. The antimicrobial potency has been proven by several in vitro and in vivo studies in which sphingosine showed high efficiency against several bacterial species including PA, SA (even methicillin resistant SA; MRSA), Acinetobacter baumannii, Escherichia coli, and Neisseria meningitides [1316, 1923]. In previous studies we showed that inhalation of sphingosine led to a dose dependent uptake of sphingosine into bronchial epithelial cells (BEC) in mini pigs. This increase of sphingosine levels in the luminal membrane of BEC and trachea was without a concomitant systemic accumulation or any side effects up to very high doses [24, 25].

Due to the fact that donor lungs used for LTx are frequently positive for bacterial cultures and bacterial populations (46–89%), which possibly leads to a donor-to-recipient transmission with a subsequently higher risk of lung infection and therefore a reduced posttransplant outcome [2628], we here aimed to analyze whether inhalation of sphingosine into ex-vivo perfused and ventilated domestic pig lungs (EVLP) reduces or even eliminates lung infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. In addition, EVLP systems like XVIVO® built an optimal platform where marginal donor-lungs can easily be subjected and be treated with antibiotics in high dose regimes [29, 30] or maybe other anti-infective agents like sphingosine prior to lung re-implantation.

Methods

Animals

Mature domestic male hybrid pigs (BW 30–35 kg) were used with supervision of the central animal laboratory of the University of Duisburg-Essen. Human care was provided in compliance to the “Principles of Laboratory Animal Care’ formulated by the National Society for Medical Research and the ’Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals’ prepared by the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources and published by the National Institutes of Health (NIH Publication No. 86–23, revised 1996). Prior to euthanasia no medication was administered.

Ethics statement

Experiments were designed as organ procurements, which were reported to local authorities (Landesamt für Natur, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz NRW) according to applicable law (§ 1 VTMVO). We confirm that all experiments were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines (including the ARRIVE guidelines) and regulations.

Lung procurement and EVLP settings

Anesthesia of male domestic hybrid pigs (bodyweight 35+/- 5kg) induced with ketamine (30 mg/kg BW i.m.) (Ursotamin®, Serumwerk Bernburg AG, Bernburg, Germany) and xylazin (2 mg/kg BW i.m.) (Xylavet®, cp-pharma®, Burgdorf, Germany) sedation followed by intravenous application of midazolam (0.5 mg/kg BW i.v.) (midazolam-ratiopharm®, ratiopharm® GmbH, Ulm, Germany) and again ketamine (30 mg/kg BW i.v.) after insertion of an i.v. line. This was followed by final euthanasia using a potassium chloride overdose (7.45%, 1.7 ml/kg BW i.v.) (Kaliumchlorid 7.45%, B. Braun Deutschland GmbH & Co.KG, Melsungen, Germany). A midline sternotomy was used for a standard lung procurement as described elsewhere [31, 32]. Thereafter lungs were then immediately stored cold for one hour. An acellular solution (MP-Custodiol-MP, Dr. Franz Köhler Chemie GmbH, Bensheim, Germany) was used for the EVLP circuit. Custodiol-MP base solution was supplemented with the lyophilisate supplied by the manufacturer, 300 ml of 20% low-sodium human serum albumin (HSA 20%, CSL Behring GmbH, Marburg, Germany), 3000 IU heparin (heparin-natrium 25000ratiopharm, ratiopharm GmbH,Ulm,Germany) and 35 ml of 5% glucose (G5, B. Braun, Melsungen, Germany) yielding final concentrations of 23 μM deferoxamine, 6.8 μM LK614, 8.8 mM glucose and 54.5 g/l albumin. Lungs were randomized in two groups, i.e. one group receiving saline 0.9%: (n = 4; one additional pig was excluded due to positive testing for typical porcine pathogens prior to any experiment); and one group receiving 500 μM sphingosine (C18-sphingosine, Avanti Polar Lipids, Inc., AL, USA) (n = 5). A modified Toronto protocol with a pressure-controlled ventilation mode was used to ensure a gentle initial recruitment of atelectatic lungs [33, 34]. Both lung-groups were ventilated according to pressure controlled ventilation during EVLP (Inspiratory”peak” pressure of 16 mbar; I:E 4:1, 6 cm H2O PEEP and RR of 6 breaths/min) with an endotracheal tube of 8.0 mm. For the 1st recruitment maneuver (1 h after infection) and 2nd recruitment maneuver (1 h after inhalation) ventilation settings were increased (PEEP 8 cm H2O, inspiratory pressure 20 cm H2O, RR 8 breaths/min) for a period of 10 minutes. For measurements during recruitments fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) was increased from 21% up to 100%. All lungs remained on EVLP for 3 hours. For statistical analysis mean values during the 10-minute recruitment maneuvers were compared between both groups. At the end of EVLP, a dorsal biopsy of the right lung was taken for pathology and for calculation of wet-to-dry weight (W/D) ratio and total lung weight was measured after disconnection from the circuit. Analysis of the perfusate was performed during the above-named points to measure lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and alkaline phosphatase (AP) activity.

Infection and inhalation

Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain ATCC 27853 was used for the pneumonic infection. Growth of bacterial cultures was conducted as previously described by us [15]. Bacteria were diluted into pre-warmed saline 0.9% solution to a concentration of 2 × 109 CFU per 5 mL. This dose was shown to induce a severe infection in EVLP lungs in our pretests. To ensure an equal distribution of bacterial strains within the lungs, a nebulizer (Aerogen Ultra, Aerogen Limited, Galway, Ireland) connected to the endotracheal tube was used (Fig 1A). Sphingosine inhalation via an ultrasound nebulizer (Aeroneb®, Aerogen Limited, Galway, Ireland) was started 1 h after infection. Lungs were treated by a 15-minute nebulization of a 5 mL sphingosine suspension containing 500 μM sphingosine in 0.9% saline or a 5 ml 0.9% saline as control (Fig 1B).

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Nebulizer for the bacterial strains (A) and ultrasound nebulizer for the inhalation solution (B).

Biopsy and Broncho-Alveolar Lavage (BAL)

A fiberoptic videoscope (Ambu A/S, Baltorpbakken 13, DK-2750 Ballerup, Denmark) was used to extract BAL and biopsies (Fig 2A and 2B). BAL samples were taken by applying 10 mL of saline 0.9%. To avoid wash-out phenomena different target areas for the BAL were used. Out of each BAL an amount of 100 μL was pipetted onto tryptic soy agar plates and bacterial colonies were counted after incubation for 18 h at 37°C. Biopsies were processed as previously reported [25].

Fig 2.

Fig 2

A and B: Target areas for broncho-alveolar lavage (A) and biopsies (B).

Quantification of sphingosine in BAL

BAL (200 μL) were extracted in CHCl3/CH3OH/1N HCl (100:200:1, v/v/v). The lower phase was dried and resuspended in a detergent solution consisting of 7.5% (w/v) n-octyl glucopyranoside, 5 mM cardiolipin in 1 mM diethylenetriamine-pentaacetic acid. The kinase reaction was started by addition of 0.001 units sphingosine kinase (R&D) in 50 mM HEPES (pH 7.4), 250 mM NaCl, 30 mM MgCl2 10 μM ATP and 10 μCi [32P]γATP. Samples were incubated for 30 min at 37°C with shaking (350 rpm) followed by extraction in 20 μL 1N HCl, 800 μL CHCl3:CH3OH:1N HCl (100:200:1, v/v/v), and 240 μL each of CHCl3 and 2 M KCl. Phases were separated, the lower phase was collected, dried, dissolved in 20 μL CHCl3:CH3OH (1:1, v/v), and separated on Silica G60 TLC plates with CHCl3:CH3OH:acetic acid:H2O (90:90:15:5, v/v/v/v). The TLC plates were analyzed with a phosphorimager. Sphingosine levels were determined with a standard curve of C18-sphingosine.

Quantification of sphingosine, ceramide and sphingomyelin by HPLC-MS/MS

Tissue specimens were subjected to lipid extraction as performed previously in our group [35]. The internal standards d7-sphingosine (d7-SPH), 17:0 ceramide and 16:0-d31-sphingomyelin (all Avanti Polar Lipids, Alabaster, USA) were added to the extraction solvent. Lipids were chromatographically separated. A 6490 triple-quadrupole mass spectrometer (Agilent Technologies, Waldbronn, Germany) was used for MS/MS detection after positive electrospray ionization (ESI+) of sphingolipid analytes. SPH and six sub-species (16:0, 18:0, 20:0, 22:0, 24:0 and 24:1) each of ceramides (Cer) and sphingomyelins (SM) were analyzed [36]. Sphingolipid quantities were normalized to the protein content of the tissue homogenates used for extraction, as determined via Bradford assay, and expressed as “pmol/mg protein”.

Immunohistochemistry

Tissue samples from EVLP pig lungs were stained for sphingosine, ceramide or neutrophils/monocytes using the anti-GR1 antibodies as previously described [1517]. Immediately after removal, the tissue specimens were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA), subsequently dehydrated with an ethanol-to-xylol gradient, embedded in paraffin, sectioned at 7 μm, dewaxed and rehydrated. The sections were then washed, blocked for 10 min at room temperature with 5% fetal calf serum (FCS) and incubated with anti-sphingosine (1:1000 dilution) (clone NHSPH, #ALF-274042010, Alfresa Pharma Corporation), anti-ceramide (1:100 dilution) (clone S58-9, #MAB_0011, Glycobiotech) or anti-Ly-6G/Ly-6C (anti-GR1) (1:200) (clone RB6-8C5; #553122; BD Pharmingen) antibodies in HEPES buffered saline (H/S, 132 mM NaCl, 20 mM HEPES [pH 7.4], 5 mM KCl, 1 mM CaCl2, 0.7 mM MgCl2, 0.8 mM MgSO4) plus 1% FCS. Afterwards the samples were washed again and then with Cy3-coupled anti-mouse IgM F(ab)2 fragments (Jackson Immunoresearch) or Cy3-coupled anti-rat IgG F(ab)2 fragments (Jackson Immunoresearch). Finally, samples were embedded in Mowiol. Granulocytes in the epithelial cell layer were quantified. Evaluation of the stainings was performed using confocal microscopy (Leica TCS-SP5 confocal microscope). Images were analyzed with the Leica LAS AF software (Leica Microsystems, Mannheim, Germany). Control stainings were performed with irrelevant mouse IgM or rat IgG followed by the corresponding Cy3-coupled secondary antibody. Fluorescence intensities were quantified using Image J.

Hemalaun stainings

Lung paraffin tissue samples from EVLP pigs were dewaxed, rehydrated and washed as above. Sections were stained with hemalaun for 5 min. Afterwards, the samples were embedded in Mowiol and analyzed using a Leica TCS-SP5 confocal microscope equipped with a 40x lens. A classifying score was used for analysis.

Statistics

Comparisons were made between inhalation groups receiving sphingosine 500 μM (SPH 500) or saline 0.9% (NaCl 0.9%). Data was explored in mean value (mean) and standard deviation (sd). Differences were considered significant at the level of p < 0.05 = *, p < 0.01 = **, students t-test was used for normal distribution otherwise Mann-Whitney-u-test was applied. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics 22 (IBM, Armonk, New York, US).

Results

To determine the number of P. aeruginosa in the lung after infection, EVLP lungs of pigs were infected and we obtained BAL samples 1 h after the infection (Figs 1 and 2A). We analyzed aliquots of 0.1 mL of these BAL samples by culturing them on agar plates and report the CFU of these cultures as a measurement for bacterial numbers in the lung. Analysis of the CFU on agar plates yielded counts of 665 ± 538 CFU in the sphingosine group and 531 ± 393 CFU in the saline group 1 h after infection, verifying a consistent infection in both groups (Fig 3). Streak cultures from BAL fluid obtained one hour after inhalation of sphingosine contained a significantly (p = 0.016) reduced number of P. aeruginosa in the lung with 119 ± 138 CFU (Fig 3). Please note that in 2 out of 5 pigs sphingosine reduced the number of bacteria in the lung under the detection level. In contrast, inhalation of 0.9% NaCl did not reduce numbers of P. aeruginosa in the lung 1 h after the inhalation, which even slightly increased from 531 ± 393 CFU to 618 ± 397 CFU (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Analysis of CFU of streak cultures from BAL fluid (100 μL/plate).

Fig 3

Pigs were infected with 2 × 109 CFU of P. aeruginosa (ATCC 27853), BAL was performed with 10 mL (NaCl 0.9%), 5 mL were aspirated, collected and 0.1 mL aliquots were plated on tryptic soy agar plates with 5% sheep blood (Groups: “After infection”). CFU were counted after an incubation period of 18 h at 37°C. Sphingosine inhalation (500 μM in 5 mL 0.9% NaCl) significantly reduced CFU of P. aeruginosa, while inhalation of 0.9% NaCl was without effect (Groups: “After inhalation”). Given are dot-plots with connecting lines, n = 4 for the 0.9% control group and n = 5 for the sphingosine group: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; students t-test/ Mann-Whitney-u-test.

To validate the increase of sphingosine levels in the bronchial system of the lungs after inhalation, sphingosine amounts were measured in the BAL samples. After inhalation of NaCl 0.9% solution no increase of sphingosine was observed in the sodium group between “after infection” and “after inhalation” (9.0±1.7 vs. 8.6±0.8; p = 0.7), whereas the samples in the sphingosine group showed a significant increase after inhalation of 500 μM sphingosine solution from “after infection” to “after inhalation” (8.4±2.4 vs. 18.7±6.1; p = 0.008) as shown in Fig 4.

Fig 4. Analysis of sphingosine levels from BAL.

Fig 4

After a 15-minute nebulization of a 5 mL sphingosine suspension containing 500 μM sphingosine in 0.9% saline or 5 ml 0.9% saline as control a fiberoptic videoscope was used to extract BAL. BAL samples were taken by applying 10 mL of saline 0.9% to the bronchial system. Analysis of sphingosine levels in the sodium group resulted in comparable sphingosine levels “after infection” and “after inhalation” (9.0±1.7 vs. 8.6±0.8; p = 0.7). Whereas sphingosine levels significantly increase in the sphingosine group from “after infection” to “after inhalation” (8.4±2.4 vs. 18.7±6.1; p = 0.008). Given are dot-plots with connecting lines, n = 4 for the 0.9% control group and n = 5 for the sphingosine group: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; students t-test/ Mann-Whitney-u-test.

Mass spectrometry (MS) analysis of bronchial biopsies revealed a slight, but not significant increase of sphingosine, ceramide and sphingomyelin concentrations after inhalation of 500 μM SPH (Table 1). Samples from different lung compartments did not reveal a statistically significant difference in measured concentrations between the groups receiving 0.9% NaCl or 500 μM sphingosine. The variation of extracted samples was rather high, very likely because these biopsies contained very variable amounts of epithelial cell layer vs. submucosa and MS determines sphingosine not only in the epithelial cells that are exposed to inhaled sphingosine, but also endogenous sphingosine in the submucosa and other bronchial tissues (Table 1).

Table 1. Mass spectrometry analysis of total sphingosine, ceramide and sphingomyelin in biopsies and tissue samples from EVLP pig lungs after infection and inhalation of sphingosine (500 μM SPH) or saline (NaCl 0.9%).

NaCl 0.9% (n = 4) 500 μM SPH (n = 5)
mean±SD mean±SD p-value
1st biopsy
Sphingosine [pmol/mg protein] 48±3 53±14 n.s.
Ceramide total [pmol/mg protein] 1212±632 1429±310 n.s.
Sphingomyelin total [pmol/mg protein] 11960±5830 17052±3766 n.s.
2nd biopsy
Sphingosine [pmol/mg protein] 44±1 83±56 n.s.
Ceramide total [pmol/mg protein] 1300±440 2137±1243 n.s.
Sphingomyelin total [pmol/mg protein] 18207±3409 31863±20570 n.s.
Peripheral bronchial tissue
Sphingosine [pmol/mg protein] 197±72 190±55 n.s.
Ceramide total [pmol/mg protein] 2051±834 1520±452 n.s.
Sphingomyelin total [pmol/mg protein] 45715±4934 41072±10698 n.s.
Distal bronchus tissue
Sphingosine [pmol/mg protein] 43±12 50±33 n.s.
Ceramide total [pmol/mg protein] 1325±413 1426±681 n.s.
Sphingomyelin total [pmol/mg protein] 15589±2512 16227±5265 n.s.
Main bronchus tissue
Sphingosine [pmol/mg protein] 52±35 49±45 n.s.
Ceramide total [pmol/mg protein] 1524±533 1288±499 n.s.
Sphingomyelin total [pmol/mg protein] 12075±399 12083±3000 n.s.

Levels of sphingosine, ceramide and sphingomyelin were determined in bronchoscopy biopsies 1 h after infection and 1 h after inhalation. Analyzed were each 1 sample/pig with 5 pigs in the sphingosine group and 4 pigs in the saline group. Given is the mean ± SD of each parameter, p<0.05 was considered as significant, not significant was abbreviated with n.s.; students t-test/ Mann-Whitney-u-test.

To allow analysis of sphingosine and ceramide specifically in bronchial epithelial cells, we performed immuno-histological studies on our tissue samples. To this end, we stained paraffin sections with Cy3-coupled monoclonal anti-sphingosine antibodies. The analysis revealed a significant increase in fluorescence intensity of sphingosine in bronchial epithelial cells after tube-inhalation of a 500 μM SPH suspension compared to saline (NaCl 0.9%) solution (Fig 5).

Fig 5. Histological studies of lungs stained with Cy3-coupled anti-sphingosine antibodies.

Fig 5

Sphingosine concentrations increased in bronchial epithelial cells after inhalation of a 500 μM solution. EVLP pig lungs were inhaled with sphingosine (n = 5) or saline (0.9% NaCl) as control group (n = 4). Biopsies were fixed in paraformaldehyde, embedded in paraffin and sectioned. Sections were stained with Cy3-coupled anti-sphingosine antibodies. Shown are representative immune stainings for the saline group (A) and the sphingosine group (B) and quantitative analysis of the fluorescence intensity of a total of (C). Given is the mean ± SD of sphingosine fluorescence intensity from each 3 sections with analysis of fluorescence intensity in epithelial cells within 5 visual fields per animal (n = 4 for the control group and n = 5 for the sphingosine group), **p<0.01; students t-test/ Mann-Whitney-u-test.

Next, a possible conversion from sphingosine into ceramide within bronchial epithelial cells was studied. Sections were stained with Cy3-coupled monoclonal anti-ceramide antibodies and analyzed by confocal microscopy. The studies did not show a significant change of ceramide concentrations in the sphingosine group in comparison to the saline group (Fig 6).

Fig 6. Histological studies of lungs stained with Cy3-coupled anti-ceramide antibodies.

Fig 6

No differences in ceramide of BEC were detected after sphingosine inhalation (n = 5 pigs) compared to saline (NaCl 0.9%) inhalation (n = 4 pigs) (A, B). Quantitative analysis of the fluorescence intensity of a total of 1200 cells per group (C). Given is the mean ± SD of ceramide fluorescence intensity from each 3 sections with analysis of fluorescence intensity in epithelial cells within 5 visual fields per animal (n = 4 for the control group and n = 5 for the sphingosine group), p<0.05 was considered as significant; students t-test/ Mann-Whitney-u-test.

Next, pro-inflammatory effects were studied. To this end, sections were stained with Cy3-coupled anti-Gr1-antibody. Analysis did not reveal a significant difference in influx of granulocytes/monocytes after tube-inhalation of 500 μM sphingosine compared to the saline group (Fig 7A). In order to investigate whether sphingosine affected epithelial cell integrity in infected lungs, sections of epithelial cell layers were stained with hemalaun. The results demonstrate that tube-inhalation with sphingosine did not affect integrity of bronchial epithelial cells (Fig 7B).

Fig 7.

Fig 7

A and B: Quantitative analysis of histological studies from EVLP lungs stained with Cy3-coupled anti-Gr1-antibodies (αGR1). (A) No significant difference in granulocytes and monocytes influx into the epithelial cell layer was observed. Quantitative analysis of the fluorescence intensity of a total of 1200 bronchial epithelial cells per group is displayed. Quantitative analysis of the disruption of epithelial cell layer (B) after inhalation of NaCl 0.9% or 500 μM SPH. No significant differences in epithelial cell integrity using a grading model (Grade 0: no change of the epithelial cell layer, basal membrane intact, less than 2% pyknotic, i.e. dead epithelial cells. Grade 1: small disruptions of the epithelial cell layer, basal membrane intact, less than 5% pyknotic, i.e. dead epithelial cells; Grade 2: Larger disruptions of the epithelial cell layer, basal membrane still intact, less than 10% pyknotic, i.e. dead epithelial cells; Grade 3: Larger disruptions of the epithelial cell layer, disrupted basal membrane, more than 10% pyknotic, i.e. dead epithelial cells) were observed between the groups. Given is the mean ± SD of αGR1 Fluorescence intensity and disruption of epithelial cell layer from each 3 sections with analysis of fluorescence intensity in epithelial cells within 5 visual fields per animal (n = 4 for the control group and n = 5 for the sphingosine group), p<0.05 was considered as significant; students t-test/ Mann-Whitney-u-test.

Analysis of functional lung parameters during EVLP revealed an impaired lung function after application of 2x109 CFU of Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853, with an increased lung resistance and decreasing values of oxygenation capacity and lung compliance. Oxygenation capacity (PO2/FiO2 ratio), compliance (Cstat, Cdyn), pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) and pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) did not significantly differ between lungs that were inhaled with sphingosine or 0.9% NaCl as control (Table 2).

Table 2. Analysis of functional lung parameters during EVLP run.

NaCl 0.9% (n = 4) SPH 500 μM (n = 5)
    Mean ± SD Mean ± SD p-values
PO2/FiO2 ratio [mmHg] After infection 174±72 168±68 n.s.
After inhalation 133±37 114±65 n.s.
p-values n.s. n.s.
Dynamic compliance After infection 12±7 8±7 n.s.
[mL mbar-1] After inhalation 9+4 7±2 n.s.
p-values n.s. n.s.
Static compliance After infection 16±13 15±16 n.s.
[mL mbar-1] After inhalation 9±4 9±5 n.s.
p-values n.s. n.s.
PVR [mmHg L-1min m2] After infection 1968±561 1830±355 n.s.
After inhalation 2073±973 2098±464 n.s.
p-values n.s. n.s.
PAP [mmHg] After infection 25±7 24±2 n.s.
After inhalation 25±6 25±1 n.s.
p-values n.s. n.s.

Values 1-h after infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain (ATCC 27853) and 1 h after inhalation of NaCl 0.9% (n = 4) or SPH 500 μM (n = 5) reveals no statistically significant differences between both groups. Parameters containing oxygenation capacity (PO2/FiO2 ratio), dynamic and static lung compliance, pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) and pulmonary artery pressure (PAP). Given are the means ± SD, p<0.05 was considered as significant, not significant was abbreviated with n.s.; students t-test/ Mann-Whitney-u-test.

No relevant group differences in wet/dry ratio and lung weights before and after EVLP run were detected (Table 3).

Table 3. Analysis of wet/dry ratio and total weight gain during a 3 h EVLP run.

NaCl 0.9% (n = 4) 500 μM SPH (n = 5)
mean±SD mean±SD p-values
W/D ratio 8.9±2.2 8.2±1.9 n.s.
Lung weight before EVLP 427±42 407±45 n.s.
Lung weight after EVLP 705±199 602±147 n.s.

No significant differences were detected between both groups. Given is the mean ± SD, p<0.05 was considered as significant, not significant was abbreviated with n.s.; students t-test/ Mann-Whitney-u-test.

Perfusate measurements revealed an increasing activity of alkaline phosphatase (AP) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) from first to second measurements without statistically significant differences between both groups (Table 4).

Table 4. Analysis of perfusate measurements during EVLP run.

NaCl 0.9% (n = 4) 500 μM SPH (n = 5)
mean±SD mean±SD p-value
Alkaline phosphatase (AP)
After infection 2.3±1.5 3.2±2.4 n.s.
After inhalation 5.8±6.3 5.8±5.9 n.s.
Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH)
After infection 147±88 178±30 n.s.
After inhalation 258±128 218±65 n.s.

Values 1 h after infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 27853) and 1 h after inhalation of NaCl 0.9% (n = 4) or SPH 500 μM (n = 5) showed no statistically significant differences between both groups. Given is the mean ± SD, p<0.05 was considered as significant, not significant was abbreviated with n.s.; students t-test/ Mann-Whitney-u-test.

Discussion

The present study indicates that sphingosine is a safe and potent antibacterial treatment option for pulmonary P. aeruginosa infections and potentially also for other bacterial pneumonia. We demonstrate that a 15-minute inhalation of 500 μM sphingosine has the capability to reduce CFU of P. aeruginosa by a factor of almost 6. No significant side effects in EVLP pig lungs were observed, in accordance with previous in-vivo inhalation studies in infected and non-infected mice and non-infected mini pigs [15, 22, 24, 37]. As reported in our previous study, a 14-day period of sphingosine inhalation twice daily in a non-infected mini-pig model studying potential adverse effects of sphingosine did not result in obvious changes of health status nor did it lead to any changes in the lung or local signs of inflammation in the airway tract [24]. The present experimental setup allowed the application of a well-defined and evenly distributed number of bacterial pathogens and amount of sphingosine, respectively, into the broncho-alveolar system. In addition to this aspect of direct tube inhalation, the setup offers the opportunity to measure lung function continuously. However, despite the reduction of CFU after sphingosine inhalation, functional parameters did not differ between infected groups that were inhaled with 0.9% saline or 500 μM sphingosine. We assume that the time course of only 1 h observation of the lungs after inhalation is too short to restore the functions of endothelial cells and changes in the lung parenchyma once disturbed after infection. For instance, it is known that lung alveolar type I cells and alveolar type II cells regulate the structural integrity and function of alveoli after P. aeruginosa induced acute lung injury and restoration of alveolar integrity may require more time. Furthermore, an extensive release of lipopolysaccharides due to the sphingosine induced cell damage of Pseudomonas aeruginosa is possible and might have some effects on functional lung parameters with a delayed restoration of these functions.

Sphingosine kills pathogens within a few minutes by inducing membrane permeabilization [38] and thus, even a short period of 1 h observation after infection is more than sufficient to allow killing of the pathogens.

The measurements of sphingosine in the BAL suggest that most of the inhaled sphingosine remains in the fluid on top of the epithelial cells. In accordance, we were unable to measure a significant increase of sphingosine in biopsies and only a small increase of sphingosine in fluorescence microscopy stainings. These stainings allowed to determine the concentration of lipids within cells, which is important to determine side effects of the inhalation. The higher concentration of sphingosine in the BAL indicates that inhaled sphingosine is able to reach in particular extracellular bacteria in the lung.

Confocal microscopy was performed to measure sphingosine and ceramide concentrations in bronchial epithelial cells after inhalation of a 500 μM SPH containing solution compared to saline. Our studies demonstrate a significantly increased sphingosine concentration in epithelial cells of infected EVLP pig lungs after administration of sphingosine, while ceramide levels did not change. However, sphingosine levels in epithelial cells only moderately increased and given the strong effect of sphingosine on P. aeruginosa, we assume that most of the inhaled sphingosine remained in the mucus and the bronchial epithelial fluid lining the epithelial cells as discussed above. This fluid is lost during fixation of the lung tissues, but previous studies have shown that most of inhaled sphingosine remains in this fluid and the mucus [39]. Thus, sphingosine will be very active against extracellular bacteria such as P. aeruginosa, while most of the sphingosine does not seem to reach the epithelial cells, increasing the safety of sphingosine inhalations. The long chain base sphingosine is part of the innate defense against pathogens and is integrated in the lipid composition of the bronchial epithelial cell layer [15, 17, 39]. Previous studies demonstrated that low levels of sphingosine are sufficient to treat or prevent pulmonary infections, at least in mice, in particular mice with cystic fibrosis [15, 17, 39]. Cystic fibrosis mice exhibit a constitutive decrease of sphingosine in bronchial epithelial cells, which is caused by an IRF-8-regulated down-regulation of acid ceramidase expression in Cftr-deficient bronchial epithelial cells [40]. The lack of sphingosine resulted in increased infection susceptibility of CF-mice, which was corrected by inhalation of sphingosine [40].

The present study supports the notion that sphingosine is also an effective new therapeutic treatment option against bacterial colonization or bacterial infection of EVLP lungs prior to transplantation. No side effects were observed and a broad-spectrum antibacterial activity was already published in small animal experiments [14, 15, 17, 22, 24]. Further research is required to investigate the antibacterial effects to other pathogens in EVLP lungs.

Conclusion

In summary, we demonstrate that infection of an EVLP pig lung with 2x109 CFU of P. aeruginosa strain ATCC 27853 leads to a pronounced acute pneumonia with decreased lung function. Furthermore, a 15-minute treatment of these lungs with sphingosine via tube-inhalation decrease CFU of P. aeruginosa by a factor of almost 6. Further studies on several other P. aeruginosa strains are necessary to generalize our findings.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Author checklist.

(PDF)

Abbreviations

AP

alkaline phosphatase

AT1

alveolar type 1

AT2

alveolar type 2

BAL

broncho alveolar lavage

BEC

bronchial epithelial cells

Cer

ceramide

CF

cystsic fibrosis

CFU

colony forming unit

EVLP

ex-vivo lung perfusion

FCS

fetal calf serum

FiO2

inspired oxygen

LDH

lactate dehydrogenase

LTx

lung transplantation

MDR

multi drug resistance

MS

mass spectrometry

PA

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

PAP

pulmonary artery pressure

PEEP

positive endexpiratory pressure

PVR

pulmonary vascular resistance

SA

Staphylokokkus aureus

SM

sphingomyelin

SPH

sphingosine

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The study was supported by DFG grant GU 335/39-1 to EG and KA 5448/1-1 to MK. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Chambers D. C. et al. The International Thoracic Organ Transplant Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: 37th Adult Lung Transplantation Report—2020; Focus on Deceased Donor Characteristics. The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation 2020, 39 (10), 1016–1027. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2020.07.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lund L. H. et al. The Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: Thirty-Third Adult Heart Transplantation Report—2016; Focus Theme: Primary Diagnostic Indications for Transplant. Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation 2016, 35 (10), 1158–1169. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2016.08.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kovats Z. et al. Airway Pathogens during the First Year after Lung Transplantation: A Single-Center Experience. Transplantation Proceedings 2011, 43 (4), 1290–1291. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2011.03.075 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lobo L. J.; Noone P. G. Respiratory Infections in Patients with Cystic Fibrosis Undergoing Lung Transplantation. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine 2014, 2 (1), 73–82. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(13)70162-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dupont L. Lung Transplantation in Cystic Fibrosis Patients with Difficult to Treat Lung Infections. Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine 2017, 23 (6), 574–579. doi: 10.1097/MCP.0000000000000431 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cribbs S. K.; Beck J. M. Microbiome in the Pathogenesis of Cystic Fibrosis and Lung Transplant-Related Disease. Translational Research 2017, 179, 84–96. doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2016.07.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Murphy T. F. Pseudomonas Aeruginosa in Adults with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine 2009, 15 (2), 138–142. doi: 10.1097/MCP.0b013e328321861a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Menetrey Q.; Dupont C.; Chiron R.; Marchandin H. Bactéries Émergentes Dans La Mucoviscidose et Les Dilatations Des Bronches Hors Mucoviscidose. Le Point de Vue Du Microbiologiste. Revue des Maladies Respiratoires 2020, 37 (7), 561–571. doi: 10.1016/j.rmr.2020.06.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Vallés J. et al. A 7-Year Study of Severe Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia Requiring ICU Admission. Intensive Care Medicine 2003, 29 (11), 1981–1988. doi: 10.1007/s00134-003-2008-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Cerceo E.; Deitelzweig S. B.; Sherman B. M.; Amin A. N. Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections in the Hospital Setting: Overview, Implications for Clinical Practice, and Emerging Treatment Options. Microbial drug resistance (Larchmont, N.Y.) 2016, 22 (5), 412–431. doi: 10.1089/mdr.2015.0220 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Medina E.; Pieper D. H. Tackling Threats and Future Problems of Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria. Current topics in microbiology and immunology 2016, 398, 3–33. doi: 10.1007/82_2016_492 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pérez J.; Contreras-Moreno F. J.; Marcos-Torres F. J.; Moraleda-Muñoz A.; Muñoz-Dorado J. The Antibiotic Crisis: How Bacterial Predators Can Help. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal 2020, 18, 2547–2555. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2020.09.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Becker K. A. et al. Sphingolipids as Targets for Inhalation Treatment of Cystic Fibrosis. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 2018, 133, 66–75. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2018.04.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Pewzner‐Jung Y. et al. Sphingoid Long Chain Bases Prevent Lung Infection by Pseudomonas Aeruginosa. EMBO Molecular Medicine 2014, 6 (9), 1205–1214. doi: 10.15252/emmm.201404075 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Becker K. A.; Riethmüller J.; Lüth A.; Döring G.; Kleuser B.; Gulbins E. Acid Sphingomyelinase Inhibitors Normalize Pulmonary Ceramide and Inflammation in Cystic Fibrosis. American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology 2010, 42 (6), 716–724. doi: 10.1165/rcmb.2009-0174OC [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tavakoli Tabazavareh S. et al. Lack of Sphingosine Causes Susceptibility to Pulmonary Staphylococcus Aureus Infections in Cystic Fibrosis. Cellular Physiology and Biochemistry 2016, 38 (6), 2094–2102. doi: 10.1159/000445567 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gardner A. I. et al. Recombinant Acid Ceramidase Reduces Inflammation and Infection in Cystic Fibrosis. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2020, 202 (8), 1133–1145. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202001-0180OC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hannun Y.A.; Obeid L.M. Principles of Bioactive Lipid Signalling: Lessons from Sphingolipids. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2008, 9, 139–150. doi: 10.1038/nrm2329 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Baker J. E.; Boudreau R. M.; Seitz A. P.; Caldwell C. C.; Gulbins E.; Edwards M. J. Sphingolipids and Innate Immunity: A New Approach to Infection in the Post-Antibiotic Era? Surgical Infections 2018, 19 (8), 792–803. doi: 10.1089/sur.2018.187 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Becker K. A.; Li X.; Seitz A.; Steinmann J.; Koch A.; Schuchman E.; et al. Neutrophils Kill Reactive Oxygen Species-Resistant Pseudomonas Aeruginosa by Sphingosine. Cellular Physiology and Biochemistry 2017, 43 (4), 1603–1616. doi: 10.1159/000482024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Solger F.; Kunz T. C.; Fink J.; Paprotka K.; Pfister P.; Hagen F.; et al. A Role of Sphingosine in the Intracellular Survival of Neisseria Gonorrhoeae. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 2020, 10 (May), 1–12. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2020.00215 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Rice T. C.; Pugh A. M.; Seitz A. P.; Gulbins E.; Nomellini V.; Caldwell C. C. Sphingosine Rescues Aged Mice from Pulmonary Pseudomonas Infection. Journal of Surgical Research 2017, 219, 354–359. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2017.06.042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Beck S. et al. Sphingosine Is Able to Prevent and Eliminate Staphylococcus Epidermidis Biofilm Formation on Different Orthopedic Implant Materials in Vitro. Journal of Molecular Medicine 2020, 98 (2), 209–219. doi: 10.1007/s00109-019-01858-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Carstens H. et al. Clinical Development of Sphingosine as Anti-Bacterial Drug: Inhalation of Sphingosine in Mini Pigs Has No Adverse Side Effects. Cellular physiology and biochemistry: international journal of experimental cellular physiology, biochemistry, and pharmacology 2019, 53 (6), 1015–1028. doi: 10.33594/000000194 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Carstens H. et al. Inhaled Sphingosine Has No Adverse Side Effects in Isolated Ventilated and Perfused Pig Lungs. Scientific Reports 2021, 20;11(1):18607. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-97708-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.American Thoracic Society; Infectious Diseases Society of America. Guidelines for the Management of Adults with Hospital-Acquired, Ventilator-Associated, and Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 2005, 171 (4), 388–416. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200405-644ST [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Avlonitis V. S. et al. Bacterial Colonization of the Donor Lower Airways Is a Predictor of Poor Outcome in Lung Transplantation. European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery 2003, 24 (4), 601–607. doi: 10.1016/s1010-7940(03)00454-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bonde P. et al. Impact of Donor Lung Organisms on Post–Lung Transplant Pneumonia. The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation 2006, 25 (1), 99–105. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2005.06.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Zinne N. et al. A. Treatment of Infected Lungs by Ex Vivo Perfusion with High Dose Antibiotics and Autotransplantation: A Pilot Study in Pigs. PLoS ONE 2018, 13 (3), 1–13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193168 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Dumigan A. et al. A Porcine Ex Vivo Lung Perfusion Model to Investigate Bacterial Pathogenesis. mBio 2019, 10(6):e02802–19. doi: 10.1128/mBio.02802-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Olbertz C. et al. Use of Modified Custodiol-N as Perfusion Solution in Ex Vivo Lung Perfusion. American journal of translational research 2020, 12 (1), 153–161. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Popov A. F. et al. Ex Vivo Lung Perfusion—State of the Art in Lung Donor Pool Expansion. Medical science monitor basic research 2015, 21, 9–14. doi: 10.12659/MSMBR.893674 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Mehaffey J. H. et al. Airway Pressure Release Ventilation during Ex Vivo Lung Perfusion Attenuates Injury. The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery 2017, 153 (1), 197–204. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.09.029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Santa Cruz R.; Rojas J. I.; Nervi R.; Heredia R.; Ciapponi A. High versus Low Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) Levels for Mechanically Ventilated Adult Patients with Acute Lung Injury and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2013, 151 (6), CD009098. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009098.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Gulbins A. et al. Antidepressants Act by Inducing Autophagy Controlled by Sphingomyelin-Ceramide. Molecular psychiatry 2018, 23 (12), 2324–2346. doi: 10.1038/s41380-018-0090-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Naser E. et al. Characterization of the Small Molecule ARC39, a Direct and Specific Inhibitor of Acid Sphingomyelinase in Vitro. Journal of lipid research 2020, 61 (6), 896–910. doi: 10.1194/jlr.RA120000682 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Grassmé H. et al. Β1-Integrin Accumulates in Cystic Fibrosis Luminal Airway Epithelial Membranes and Decreases Sphingosine, Promoting Bacterial Infections. Cell Host and Microbe 2017, 21 (6), 707–718.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2017.05.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Verhaegh R.; Becker K. A.; Edwards M. J.; Gulbins E. Sphingosine Kills Bacteria by Binding to Cardiolipin. The Journal of biological chemistry 2020, 295 (22), 7686–7696. doi: 10.1074/jbc.RA119.012325 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Seitz A. P. et al. Sphingosine-Coating of Plastic Surfaces Prevents Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia. Journal of Molecular Medicine 2019, 97 (8), 1195–1211. doi: 10.1007/s00109-019-01800-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Gardner A. I. et al. Interferon Regulatory Factor 8 Regulates Expression of Acid Ceramidase and Infection Susceptibility in Cystic Fibrosis. Journal of Biological Chemistry 2021, 296, 100650. doi: 10.1016/j.jbc.2021.100650 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Abdelwahab Omri

4 Apr 2022

PONE-D-22-06001Antimicrobial effects of inhaled sphingosine against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in isolated ventilated and perfused pig lungsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Henning Carstens,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 19, 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Abdelwahab Omri, Pharm B, Ph.D, Full Professor, Laurentian University

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. As part of your revision, please complete and submit a copy of the Full ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines checklist, a document that aims to improve experimental reporting and reproducibility of animal studies for purposes of post-publication data analysis and reproducibility: https://arriveguidelines.org/sites/arrive/files/Author%20Checklist%20-%20Full.pdf (PDF). Please include your completed checklist as a Supporting Information file. Note that if your paper is accepted for publication, this checklist will be published as part of your article.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Carstens et al. demonstrated antimicrobial activities of sphingosine against Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection during EVLP. The manuscript is well written and makes a clear point. But I do have some concerns that need the authors to help clarify.

1. Line 195: please avoid starting a sentence with a number such as 100uL.

2. In all tables, please clearly indicate n.s.=non-significant.

3. The authors used a typical P. aeruginosa (ATCC 27853) reference strain for ex vivo tests, which is fine for proof of concept studies. But most nosocomial P. aeruginosa infections are likely multi-drug resistant. Have the authors considered using P. aeruginosa clinical isolates that are known to be antibiotic-resistant and see if sphingosine would show similar antimicrobial activities? At least the authors could put in more details on this topic in their discussion and cite previous research.

4. It’s a bit strange that the authors decided to go directly with ex vivo studies without a preliminary in vitro test of sphingosine activity against P. aeruginosa. For any potential therapeutic option, we need to at least see their MIC. Is 500uM sphingosine much higher or lower than its MIC against P.a. ATCC27853?

5. To claim sphingosine as a potential drug candidate for P. aeruginosa reduction during EVLP, a screening of sphingosine MIC against multiple clinical P. aeruginosa isolates is necessary. Or the authors should point out that it is a limitation of the study by only testing P.a. ATCC27853 ex vivo.

6. Fig. 3: are there any cases where the CFU decreased to 0 after 15 minutes of sphingosine treatment? Without a dot plot, it’s hard to interpret the data. Complete CFU elimination, even in rare cases, is encouraging because untreated P. aeruginosa almost always leads to chronic lung infections. Given the current data, sphingosine is not significantly disrupting lung functions even at 500uM. Would an increase of sphingosine dosage help achieve P. aeruginosa elimination? Please at least add some discussions.

7. Table 4: it’s quite difficult to distinguish the difference between NaCl and SPH treated groups by looking at the tissue images. The difference in fluorescence intensity, although showed statistical significance, seems small. The authors mentioned that the treatment time might not be long enough for SPH to enter epithelial cells, which could be the case. But I presume the BAL was collected before the lungs are fixed in paraformaldehyde? Have the authors considered using ELISA to quantify the exact concentrations of SPH/ceramide in BAL? Before the lungs are fixed, the authors could also have homogenized some fresh tissue samples and performed a side-by-side SPH/ceramide comparison between BAL and tissue.

Reviewer #2: Henning Carstens and co-authors submitted an article on the evaluation of nebulized sphingosine to treat a pig model of perfused lung infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The main result of the study was the possibility of decreasing the bacterial burden in perfused pig lungs by a factor of 6 without observing any side effects.

The study was well conducted and several experiments were performed to evaluate the effect of nebulized sphingosine.

Main points

My main point is that in general, reductions in bacterial load are expressed in logs, and a 1-log (10-fold) reduction is somewhat considered small. Perhaps this point should be explained in the manuscript?

The second point is that the authors showed that sphingosine is more effective than saline in reducing bacterial load, but no comparison was made with an antibiotic commonly used to treat Pseudomonas lung infections, such as ciprofloxacin or nebulized tobramycin.

Minor points

Why did you choose a concentration of 500 µM of sphingosine, what was the dose delivered to the lungs?

Line 186. I am not sure if the lungs can be inhaled. Perhaps write that the lungs were treated by nebulization of 5 ml of ...

Sphingosine was delivered as a suspension, did you evaluated the efficacy of the nebulization process (total output, particle size change during nebulization…).

In Fig. 3, why did you make 2 groups of untreated infected lungs. If all groups received the same, homogeneous initial bacterial inoculum, the CFU counts of the so-called "after infection" groups could be averaged to form a pre-treatment group to compare with the 2 treated groups (saline and sphingosine). Again, I think that a group treated with an antibiotic such as tobramycin could have helped evaluate the efficacy of the sphingosine treatment.

Why sphingosine was assayed only in tissues and not in the BAL? How long after the nebulization was collected the samples for sphingosine assays.

Why were the variabilities in sphingosine, ceramide, and sphingomyelin concentrations higher in the sphingosine group than in the saline group?

Lung functional parameters could have been tested on non-infected lungs before and after SPH nebulization to assess its effect on the lungs.

It could have been interesting to test several sphingosine doses and different Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains.

Line 418-419 is not clear to me.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: frederic Tewes

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

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

PLoS One. 2022 Jul 21;17(7):e0271620. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271620.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


12 Jun 2022

Reviewer #1: Carstens et al. demonstrated antimicrobial activities of sphingosine against Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection during EVLP. The manuscript is well written and makes a clear point. But I do have some concerns that need the authors to help clarify.

1. Line 195: please avoid starting a sentence with a number such as 100uL.

- The text has been changed to “Out of each BAL an amount of 100 µL…”

2. In all tables, please clearly indicate n.s.=non-significant.

- Table legends were supplemented by “not significant was abbreviated with n.s.”

3. The authors used a typical P. aeruginosa (ATCC 27853) reference strain for ex vivo tests, which is fine for proof of concept studies. But most nosocomial P. aeruginosa infections are likely multi-drug resistant. Have the authors considered using P. aeruginosa clinical isolates that are known to be antibiotic-resistant and see if sphingosine would show similar antimicrobial activities? At least the authors could put in more details on this topic in their discussion and cite previous research.

- We agree that many of the nosocomial Pseudomonas strains are resistant, but there are also many Pseudomonas infections with a minor change in antibiotic resistance levels in the clinical setting. We initially chose a sensitive Pseudomonas strain to limit variables in an overall complex trial design, but plan to conduct further series of trials to test the efficacy of SPH in this setting against other bacterial strains and Pseudomonas strains with altered resistance status. However, we have previously shown in vitro and in mouse studies that sphingosine also kills P. aeruginosa and S. aureus that are resistant to antibiotics (Verhaegh R, Becker KA, Edwards MJ, Gulbins E. Sphingosine kills bacteria by binding to cardiolipin. J Biol Chem 2020;295:7686-96. Seitz AP, Schumacher F, Baker J, Soddemann M, Wilker B, Caldwell CC, Gobble RM, Kamler M, Becker KA, Beck S, Kleuser B, Edwards MJ, Gulbins E. Sphingosine-coating of plastic surfaces prevents ventilator-associated pneumonia. J Mol Med (Berl) 2019;97:1195-1211. Pewzner-Jung Y, Tavakoli Tabazavareh S, Grassmé H, Becker KA, Japtok L, Steinmann J, Joseph T, Lang S, Tuemmler B, Schuchman EH, Lentsch AB, Kleuser B, Edwards MJ, Futerman AH, Gulbins E. Sphingoid long chain bases prevent lung infection by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. EMBO Mol Med 2014;6:1205-1.)

4. It’s a bit strange that the authors decided to go directly with ex vivo studies without a preliminary in vitro test of sphingosine activity against P. aeruginosa. For any potential therapeutic option, we need to at least see their MIC. Is 500uM sphingosine much higher or lower than its MIC against P.a. ATCC27853?

- We have previously demonstrated the inhalative effect of SPH against P. aeruginosa in a several mouse model, including pulmonary infection of cystic fibrosis mice with several P. aeruginosa strains (and S. aureus) as well as in mouse models of pneumonia after burn or trauma. In these mouse models we demonstrated that inhalation of sphingosine at a concentration of 125 �M was sufficient to kill P. aeruginosa in murine lungs, even in chronically infected lungs.

- We have also shown that sphingosine kills many bacterial strains in vitro. In these studies we demonstrated that sphingosine inhibited growth of and/or killed P. aeruginosa with an EC50 of 0.5 ± 0.1 mM, Acinetobacter baumannii with an EC50 of 0.07 ± 0.05 mM, of Moraxella catarrhalis of 0.04 ± 0.004 mM of Haemophilus influenzae with an EC50 of 4.8 ± 0.49 mM and Burkholderia cepacia with an EC50 of 45 ± 6.3 mM (Pewzner-Jung et al, 2014). This 500 mM is much higher than the MIC or EC50 concentration, but this is the concentration in the inhalation fluid and not the concentration reached in the bronchoalveloar fluid or on the cells.

5. To claim sphingosine as a potential drug candidate for P. aeruginosa reduction during EVLP, a screening of sphingosine MIC against multiple clinical P. aeruginosa isolates is necessary. Or the authors should point out that it is a limitation of the study by only testing P.a. ATCC27853 ex vivo.

- We now discuss this issue mentioning the references above and we also state that a limitation of the present work is that the demonstrated effect of sphingosine against P. aeruginosa was tested only on a sensitive strain (ATCC 27853). Further studies on several other P. aeruginosa strains are necessary to generalize our findings.

6. Fig. 3: are there any cases where the CFU decreased to 0 after 15 minutes of sphingosine treatment? Without a dot plot, it’s hard to interpret the data. Complete CFU elimination, even in rare cases, is encouraging because untreated P. aeruginosa almost always leads to chronic lung infections. Given the current data, sphingosine is not significantly disrupting lung functions even at 500uM. Would an increase of sphingosine dosage help achieve P. aeruginosa elimination? Please at least add some discussions.

- We thank the referee for this interesting suggestion and now provide the data as dot plot. This presentation indicates the strong effects of sphingosine on bacterial numbers even better than just simply mean ± SD, which is still given. However, in 2 out 5 lungs we achieved complete eradication of P. aeruginosa, which demonstrated the potential of sphingosine.

- It is possible that we did not achieve complete elimination of P. aeruginosa, because we only inhaled for 10 min. While increasing the dose might also increase the effect on P. aeruginosa, it may also result in alterations of the particle size in the inhalation aerosol. We prefer to inhale a lower dose of sphingosine for longer time in future studies improving the efficacy of sphingosine inhalation.

7. Table 4: it’s quite difficult to distinguish the difference between NaCl and SPH treated groups by looking at the tissue images. The difference in fluorescence intensity, although showed statistical significance, seems small. The authors mentioned that the treatment time might not be long enough for SPH to enter epithelial cells, which could be the case. But I presume the BAL was collected before the lungs are fixed in paraformaldehyde? Have the authors considered using ELISA to quantify the exact concentrations of SPH/ceramide in BAL? Before the lungs are fixed, the authors could also have homogenized some fresh tissue samples and performed a side-by-side SPH/ceramide comparison between BAL and tissue.

- Again, we thank the referee for the recommendation and we have added the analysis of the BAL and provide the data as boxplot. Here, the effectiveness of sphingosine inhalation was clearly demonstrated.

Reviewer #2: Henning Carstens and co-authors submitted an article on the evaluation of nebulized sphingosine to treat a pig model of perfused lung infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The main result of the study was the possibility of decreasing the bacterial burden in perfused pig lungs by a factor of 6 without observing any side effects.

The study was well conducted and several experiments were performed to evaluate the effect of nebulized sphingosine.

1. My main point is that in general, reductions in bacterial load are expressed in logs, and a 1-log (10-fold) reduction is somewhat considered small. Perhaps this point should be explained in the manuscript?

- It is possible that we did not achieve complete elimination of P. aeruginosa, because we only inhaled for 10 min. While increasing the dose might also increase the effect on P. aeruginosa, it may also also result in alterations of the particle size in the inhalation aerosol. We prefer to inhale a lower dose of sphingosine for longer time in future studies improving the efficacy of sphingosine inhalation.

2. The second point is that the authors showed that sphingosine is more effective than saline in reducing bacterial load, but no comparison was made with an antibiotic commonly used to treat Pseudomonas lung infections, such as ciprofloxacin or nebulized tobramycin.

- We have used P. aeruginosa, since many P. aeruginosa are resistant to many antibiotics including even ciprofloxacin or nebulized tobramycin. We have previously shown (Verhaegh R, Becker KA, Edwards MJ, Gulbins E. Sphingosine kills bacteria by binding to cardiolipin. J Biol Chem 2020;295:7686-96. Seitz AP, Schumacher F, Baker J, Soddemann M, Wilker B, Caldwell CC, Gobble RM, Kamler M, Becker KA, Beck S, Kleuser B, Edwards MJ, Gulbins E. Sphingosine-coating of plastic surfaces prevents ventilator-associated pneumonia. J Mol Med (Berl) 2019;97:1195-1211. Pewzner-Jung Y, Tavakoli Tabazavareh S, Grassmé H, Becker KA, Japtok L, Steinmann J, Joseph T, Lang S, Tuemmler B, Schuchman EH, Lentsch AB, Kleuser B, Edwards MJ, Futerman AH, Gulbins E. Sphingoid long chain bases prevent lung infection by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. EMBO Mol Med 2014;6:1205-1.) that sphingosine kills P. aeruginosa strains regardless of their resistance to classical antibiotics. The present studies served to establish whether sphingosine works in principle and future studies must be designed to improve dosing, efficacy and compare sphingosine with classical antibiotics.

Minor points

3. Why did you choose a concentration of 500 µM of sphingosine, what was the dose delivered to the lungs?

- In test series we have tested dosages from 125 µM to 500 µM sphingosine, a dosage of 500 µM proved to be sufficient, therefore we started the test series with this dosage.

4. Line 186. I am not sure if the lungs can be inhaled. Perhaps write that the lungs were treated by nebulization of 5 ml of ...

- The text has been changed to “Lungs were treated by a 15-minute nebulization of a 5 mL sphingosine suspension containing 500 µM sphingosine in 0.9% saline or a

5 ml 0.9 % saline as control”

5. Sphingosine was delivered as a suspension, did you evaluate the efficacy of the nebulization process (total output, particle size change during nebulization…).

- The specified particle size is between 0.4 and 4.4 µm and is therefore well suited for nebulization of our SPH solution. An additional measurement of the inhalation quality was not performed.

6. In Fig. 3, why did you make 2 groups of untreated infected lungs. If all groups received the same, homogeneous initial bacterial inoculum, the CFU counts of the so-called "after infection" groups could be averaged to form a pre-treatment group to compare with the 2 treated groups (saline and sphingosine).

- As recommended by the first reviewer, we have now implemented a dot-plot with pairwise progression, so it makes sense in our eyes not to change the statistics to that effect now.

7. Again, I think that a group treated with an antibiotic such as tobramycin could have helped evaluate the efficacy of the sphingosine treatment.

- This is a very interesting point, which we will take into account for subsequent studies. Since this experimental setup is quite complex, we have tried to include as few variables as possible.

8. Why sphingosine was assayed only in tissues and not in the BAL?

- We thank the referee for the recommendation and we have added the analysis of the BAL and provide the data as boxplot. Here, the effectiveness of inhalation was clearly demonstrated.

9. How long after the nebulization was collected the samples for sphingosine assays.

- The samples were taken 1 hour after nebulization

10. Why were the variabilities in sphingosine, ceramide, and sphingomyelin concentrations higher in the sphingosine group than in the saline group?

- Statistically they are not higher

11. Lung functional parameters could have been tested on non-infected lungs before and after SPH nebulization to assess its effect on the lungs.

- In our previous work, we tested the effect of sphingosine at different doses on EVLP lungs and could not demonstrate any dose-dependent changes. Therefore, in order to keep the number of animals as small as possible, we did not use this arm.

12. It could have been interesting to test several sphingosine doses and different Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains.

- As written above, the experimental setup was very complex and we tried to include as few variables as possible, but for further series of experiments it is planned to test also other P. aeruginosa strains, other bacteria and changed SPH dosages.

Line 418-419 is not clear to me.

We changed the sentence to: “Our studies demonstrate a significantly increased sphingosine concentration in epithelial cells of infected EVLP measured in fluorescence intensity studies”.

However, more importantly, we now also show quantitative analysis of sphingosine in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter.docx

Decision Letter 1

Abdelwahab Omri

5 Jul 2022

Antimicrobial effects of inhaled sphingosine against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in isolated ventilated and perfused pig lungs

PONE-D-22-06001R1

Dear Dr. Henning Carstens,

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

Abdelwahab Omri, Pharm B, Ph.D, Laurentian University, Canada

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Abdelwahab Omri

12 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-06001R1

Antimicrobial effects of inhaled sphingosine against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in isolated ventilated and perfused pig lungs

Dear Dr. Carstens:

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Abdelwahab Omri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Author checklist.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES