Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Nov 11;17(11):e0262662. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262662

Colibactin possessing E. coli isolates in association with colorectal cancer and their genetic diversity among Pakistani population

Habiba Tariq 1, Zobia Noreen 1, Aftab Ahmad 1,2, Laraib Khan 1, Mashhood Ali 3, Muhammad Malik 1, Aneela Javed 4, Faisal Rasheed 5, Alina Fatima 1, Tanil Kocagoz 6, Ugur Sezerman 7, Habib Bokhari 1,2,*
Editor: Grzegorz Woźniakowski8
PMCID: PMC9651576  PMID: 36367873

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most prevalent cause of tumorigenesis and several pathogenic bacteria have been correlated with aggressive cases of cancer i.e., genotoxin (colibactin) producing Escherichia coli (E. coli). This study was designed to investigate the genetic diversity of clb+clb+ E. coli strains and their association with CRC. Pathogenic E. coli isolates from colorectal biopsies were characterized based on phylotypes, antibiotic resistance pattern, and (Enterobacterial Repetitive Intergenic Consensus Sequence-based Polymerase Chain Reaction) ERIC-PCR. Furthermore, isolates were screened for the presence of the Pks (polyketide synthase) Island specifically targeting colibactin genes A and Q. The selective clb+clb+ isolates were subjected to cytotoxicity assay using Human embryonic kidney (HEK) cell lines. We revealed that 43.47% of the cancer-associated E. coli isolates were from phylogroup B2 comparatively more pathogenic than rest while in the case of healthy controls no isolate was found from B2. Moreover, 90% were found positive for colibactin and pks (polyketide synthase) island, while none of the healthy controls were found positive for colibactin genes. All healthy and cancer-associated isolates were tested against 15 antibiotic agents, we observed that cancer-associated isolates showed a wide range of resistance from 96% against Nalidixic acid to 48% against Doxycycline. Moreover, E. coli isolates were further genotyped using ERIC-PCR, and selected clb+clb+ E. coli isolates were subjected to cytotoxicity assay. We recorded the significant cytotoxic activity of clb+clb+ E. coli phylogroup B2 isolates that might have contributed towards the progression of CRC or dysbiosis of healthy gut microbiota protecting against CRC pathogenesis. Our results revealed a significant p<0.023 association of dietary habits and hygiene p<0.001with CRC. This is the first study to report the prevalence of E. coli phylogroups and the role of colibactin most virulent phylogroup B2 among Pakistani individuals from low socioeconomic setup.

Introduction

A large proportion of the world population is suffering from colorectal cancer (CRC) and it is recognized globally as the third leading cause of human cancer-related deaths [1]. Moreover, according to the World Health Organisation report, the rate of CRC is substantially higher among males in comparison to females [2]. In Pakistan, it is considered the third most common cancer among men and second among women with 10% and 9.2% respectively of total reported cases [3]. Most of the colorectal cancer cases are recognized as sporadic (~90%) in nature whereas only 5 to 10% cases of CRC have genetic association whereas, 1 to 2% cases are reported in the context of various inflammatory bowel diseases. Sporadic CRC cases are mainly influenced by various factors such as diet, environment, and intestinal microbiota [4].

Approximately, 1011 to 1012 bacterial cells per milliliter are residing in the human colon as intestinal microbiota making the colon the most densely populated microbial habitat on earth in terms of occupancy of microbes in a small area but also terms of total information content (encoding more than 3 million genes) [5]. These bacteria are distinguished into more than 1000 species that constitute a wider community or microbiota and out of this microbiota; it is natural to assume the association/abundance of a few bacteria with pathogenicity of human CRC (colorectal cancer). Moreover, through the action of various microbial gene products, metabolites, and multiple microbial structural components, this microbiota performs an essential role in regulating host immunity, metabolic activity, intestinal homeostasis, and gut barrier function. Microbial dysbiosis is mainly associated with various intestinal abnormalities such as Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) and colorectal cancer [6]. In this regard, E. coli capable of adhering to intestinal epithelial cells also carries numerous toxins, named cyclomodulins that include colibactin, cytolethal distending toxin (CDT), cycle inhibiting factor, and cytotoxic necrotizing factor (CNF), have been reported from CRC patients. Particularly, a toxin named colibactin, synthesized from pks island was preferentially found among the strains isolated from CRC patients [7]. It has also been perceived in recent studies that the colonization of colonic mucosa by E. coli strains particularly possessing pks island and producing colibactin are involved in the progression of CRC, either by producing genotoxins or by disturbing the host’s mismatch repair pathway (MMR) that results in microsatellite instability (MSI) [8].

E. coli strains are further categorized into four major phylogenetic groups i.e. A, B1, B2, and D [9]. Strains of E. coli that belong to different phylogenetic groups possess distinct properties such as antibiotic resistance profile, pathogenic potential, genome size, the capability of exploiting ecological niches and available sugars [10]. Cowling and Gordon in 2003 presented that the relative abundance of E. coli phylogroups depends majorly on the diet, body mass, and the surrounding environment of the host-specific niche. Phylogroups A and B2 in combination are mostly associated with humans, whereas phylogroups (A and B1) are commonly prevalent among non-human mammals, while the subgroup of phylogroups B2 has only been reported from humans [11]. Determination of colonic-mucosa-associated E. coli isolated from CRC patients conferred the highest percentage of cyclomodulin-producing E. coli belonging to B2 phylogroup and most of them possessed pks island that encodes colibactin and cnf genes [12]. In industrialized countries, far-reaching epidemiological statements about commensal E. coli populations reported the pervasiveness of groups A and B2, including clb+ strains. The distribution of the E. coli phylogroup depends on numerous variables such as diet, lifestyle, and hygiene status, with fluctuations in the ratio between phylogroup A and B2, while the rest are rarer [13].

Nougayrede and his companions, in 2006, identified a meningitis E. coli strain IHE3034. They identified the polyketide synthase island that produced a genotoxin named the toxin colibactin [14]. Colibactin is a naturally occurring genotoxic chemical compound that is synthesized by non-ribosomal peptide synthases, polyketide synthases, and hybrid enzymes encoded by a 54 kb genomic island. This toxin works by inducing arrest in the cell cycle at G2 or M phase, chromosomal aberrations, and by causing a double-strand break in DNA [15]. Moreover, it has been reported that colibactin-harbouring E. coli are highly represented among colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and have shown an increased number of tumors in various colorectal cancer mouse models [16].

Current studies have suggested that some specified strains of Escherichia coli (E. coli) possess a cluster of genes named polyketide synthase (pks) island, which has been associated with the development of CRC in humans [17]. The Pks Island possesses a 54-kb genome size that encodes for the colibactin (clb) gene cluster. The colibactin is recognized as a genotoxic metabolite that acts as cyclomodulin which takes part in enhancing DNA damage and also leads to cell cycle arrest in mammalian cells. This polyketide synthase island has been proved to be highly conserved in Enterobacteriaceae and also has been isolated from B2 strains of E. coli [18].

In vitro studies have presented that pks+ E. coli strains promote megalocytosis i.e. cells and nuclei enlargement without mitosis, induce DNA double-strand breaks, and encourage G2 cell cycle arrest. Human embryonic kidney(HEK) cells have been widely used cytoxicity studies in cell biology research because of their reliable growth and transfection, experimental cytotoxicity assays using HEk cell culture presented that pks-encoding E. coli plays a major role in colonizing, causing inflammation and cancer progression [19].

It has been extensively reported that antibiotic resistance is the main cause of reduction in the effectiveness of drugs during the treatment of various diseases including colorectal cancer. Drug resistance develops in approximately all colon cancer patients and that leads to decreased therapeutic efficacies of anticancer agents [20]. In this communication, we studied the prevalence and association of clb+ E. coli isolate cultured from colorectal cancer patients’ biopsies and healthy individuals. The isolated E. coli strains were then characterized based on antibiotic resistance profiling, phylogrouping, and ERIC PCR to further explore their correlation with different grades of CRC. Cytotoxicity assay was performed on selected clb+ isolates using HEK Cell lines to study the cytotoxic effect of colibactin on growing cells.

Materials and methods

Samples collection

Patients suffering from colorectal cancer, declared by the in-charge physician and confirmed by histopathological reports, attending the department of Gastroenterology, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) Islamabad were enrolled in the study. Patients aged less than 20 years and suffering from severe gastrointestinal infection and bleeding were not included in this study. This research study was approved by ethical review board, PIMS (Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences) Islamabad. Informed written consent was collected from enrolled patients. Biopsy samples were collected from enrolled patients along with controls and processed for culturing. Questionnaires were filled using the provided information by the patient to collect the socio-demographic data (S2 Table).

Culturing and biochemical identification

A biopsy sample from each patient was collected, kept in 20% glucose solution, and transported to the laboratory on the ice. Biopsies were then homogenized and preparations were cultured on MacConkey agar plates and incubated at 37°C for 18–24 hours for bacterial colonies isolation. Based on morphological characterization, single E. coli colonies were red-streaked and purified on MacConkey agar/LB agar incubated at 37°C overnight. The identification of E. coli colonies was confirmed by Gram’s staining and various biochemical tests (i.e. Triple Sugar Iron (TSI), Citrate Test, Catalase, Oxidase, Indole Test, Methyl red test, and Urease test). Pure E. coli cultures confirmed by morphological and biochemical tests were processed and preserved in 20% glycerol and stored at -80°C until further processing.

DNA extraction and quantification

Genomic DNA from E. coli strains was extracted by ethanol precipitation method using the method described by [21]. Briefly, a single pure bacterial colony selected from each sample was resuspended in 20 μL of 1% sodium dodecyl sulphate, 40 μL proteinase K (100 μg/mL), 80 μL of proteinase K buffer (4M NaCl, 0.5M EDTA; pH 7.5), and incubated at 55°C for 1 hour. Subsequently, 100 μL 6M NaCl was added, vortexed for 1 minute, and centrifuged at 16,863 × g for 1 minute, at 4°C. Nucleic acids were then precipitated by adding absolute ethanol and harvested by centrifugation (16,863 × g at 4°C for 1 minute). Resultant DNA pellets were each washed with 70% vol/vol ethanol and then re-suspended in 100 μL 10 mM Tris, 1 mM EDTA buffer; pH 7.5. Samples were stored at −20°C. The extracted genomic DNA was quantified using Nano-drop 2000c Colibri TITERTEK BRETHOLD and visualized by gel electrophoresis.

Phylogrouping using Quadraplex PCR

Genomic DNA extracted from each E. coli isolate was further used for Phylogrouping by Quadruplex PCR using the method described by (Clermont et al., 2013). The PCR amplified products were analyzed on 2% agarose gel for the confirmation of the amplified targeted product. The primers used for the determination of phylogroups (chuA, yjaA, TspE4.C2, and arpA) are listed in (S1 Table).

PCR conditions for phylogrouping

The PCR conditions used for characterization of phylogroups were as follows: initial denaturation at 94°C for 5minutes, denaturation at 94°C for 1 minute, annealing at 59°C for 1 minute, extension at 72°C for 1 minute followed by the final extension at 72°C for 7 minutes.

Detection of colibactin genes

E. coli isolates belonging to B2 phylogroups were further investigated for genotoxin (colibactin) production. The primers used for the determination of clb+ E. coli isolates (ClbA and ClbQ) are shown in (S1 Table). The PCR conditions used for colibactin genes amplification were as the initial denaturation was given at 95°C for 10 minutes, denaturation at 95°C for 15 seconds, annealing at 60°C for 1 minute, extension at 72°C for 40 seconds followed by the final extension at 72°C for 7 minutes.

Antibiotics susceptibility profiling

The antibiotic susceptibility was determined by the standardized method described by the Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method on Mueller-Hinton agar plates keeping CLSI 2017 recommendations as standards. The used antibiotic disks were Doxycycline (DO) (30 μg), Nalidixic acid (NA) (30 μg), Ceftazidime (CAZ) (30 μg), Erythromycin (E) (15 μg), Amoxicillin (AML) (20 μg), Gentamicin (CN) (10 μg), Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (SXT) (25 μg), Rifampin (RD) (5 μg), Ampicillin (Amp) (10 μg), Amikacin (AK) (30 μg), Levofloxacin (LEV) (5 μg), Ofloxacin (OFX) (5 μg), Colistin (CT) (10 μg), Amoxicillin-clavulanic Acid (AMC) (20 μg) and Ciprofloxin (CIP) (5 μg). Antibiotic susceptibility was ascertained after 18–24 hours of incubation at 37°C as described by (Velican et al., 2020) [22]. E. coli strains were classified as resistant, susceptible and intermediate by comparison of diameter of inhibition to the CLSI, 2017 guidelines.

ERIC-PCR genotyping

To determine the evolutionary relationship among the extracted sixty 60 isolates, genotyping was performed using ERIC fingerprinting assay. In this assay, a 22bps primer designed against the specific and conserved ERIC region was used. The PCR was performed in a total volume of 25μl reaction mixture containing 100 ng of DNA and 25pmol of ERIC 2 primer (5-AAGTAAGTGACTGGGGTG AGCG-3) [23].

Viability/cytotoxicity of bacterial culture against HEK cell lines

E. coli strains screened in the cytotoxicity assay included 5002 (colibactin negative, noncancerous source), H21C (a clb+ control), 190, 364 (clb+ CRC source of this study), and IHE3034 (clb+ gifted by Professor Jean-Philippe Nougayrède, France).

HEK cells maintained at standard conditions (37°C / 5% CO2) in DMEM containing L-Glutamine supplemented with 10% FBS and 1% Penicillin/ Streptomycin were used for the cytotoxicity assay. Plates containing HEK cells were incubated for 1 day before the bacteria infection assay cells in DMEM at 37°C, 10% Co2. Overnight culture of clb+ and colibactin negative E. coli strains was used for the inoculation of 70–80% confluent cells. Bacteria were suspended in PBS and adjusted OD to 1.0 (2x107 CFU/ml). Bacteria were added accordingly to a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 10–100 per cell and the plates were incubated at standard conditions for 6 hours. Cells were trypsinized after incubation and trypan blue was mixed with the cell suspension at 1:1. The cell suspension was loaded into a hemocytometer. Live and dead cells were counted under a light microscope as discussed by (Piccinini et al., 2017) [24]. To observe cell morphology, adherent cells were directly exposed to trypan blue at 1:1 and visualized under the light microscope.

Statistical analysis

The analysis of data was performed using IBM SPSS software. The reliability and validity of data were checked through using Cronbach alpha. The frequencies were calculated, Student’s t-test, chi-square, and ANOVA were applied on socio-demographic and presence of colibactin gene data using SPSS, and p> 0.05 is considered for the significance of results. Student’s t-test and ANOVA were used to calculate significant differences among healthy controls and cancer patients.

Results and discussion

Colorectal cancer including other severe colon inflammations like ulcerative colitis and the rectal ulcer is a major cause of mortality in Asian countries. Colorectal cancer and colon-associated diseases are commonly associated with dysbiosis of human gut microbiota that leads to colon inflammation leading to colorectal cancer. This disorder may be caused by multiple factors like pathogenic microbes, environmental changes, age, diet, and social behavior including exercise [25]. The current study was designed to characterize pathogenic E. coli from colorectal cancer patients visiting the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) by exploring their phylogenetic lineages, genotoxin or colibactin producing potential, antibiotic resistance profile, cytotoxic activity, and genetic heterogeneity using cost-effective and rapid ERIC-PCR approach in resource deficient setting.

We screened 60 biopsies collected from individuals who underwent colonoscopy. Histopathological analysis showed that 35 patients were suffering from colorectal cancer and the remaining 25 individuals reported normal. Overall, 75% of the patients included in the colon study were male and 25% were female. Among the male population, 60% of males were suffering from cancer and 40% were normal. Whereas, among the female population 50% of the females were cancerous while 50% of the female population was normal. Chi-square analysis results depict that colorectal cancer is independent of gender (p = 0.984). Socio-demographic data analysis showed that hygiene (washing hands after using the toilet and before meals) was significantly associated with colorectal cancer development. People performing frequent hand wash after using toilets are less likely involved in colorectal cancer development (X2(1) = 16.09, p = 0.001). Whereas, the people who wash their hands before every meal have fewer chances of CRC development (X2(1) = 8.419, p = 0.038). Similarly, patients with frequent intake of potatoes are more likely affected with colorectal cancer (X2 (1) = 9.49, p = 0.023).

Phylogroup identification using Quadraplex PCR

Each biopsy was cultured on MacConkey agar plates for detection and isolation of E. coli. Suspected E. coli colonies were identified using biochemical tests and all forty biopsies were found positive for E. coli culture. To study the genetic diversity of the E. coli isolates phylogenetics analysis was done using primers for phylogroups i.e. chuA, yjaA, TspE4.C2, arpA listed in (S1 Table) (Clermont et al., 2013). Our results showed that 42.85% (15 out of 35) of cancer-associated E. coli belong to B2 phylogroup while the rest belonged to other phylogroups i.e., Unknown (3) = A (3) = D/E (3) > Clade I/II (2) > C (1) > B1 (1) (Fig 1). However, E. coli strains isolated from the control group referred to phylogroups other than B2 i.e. Unknown (5) > F (3) > A (2) = D/E (2) = Clade I/II (2) = C (2) > B1 (1). So, the majority of the isolates from healthy controls 29% belonged to the unknown phylogroup. According to recent studies, it is now documented that pathogenic strains of E. coli majorly belong to B2 and D phylogroup and these strains tend to possess more virulence factors in comparison to commensal strains of E. coli [26]. Moreover, B2-phylogroup associated E. coli strains harbor Pks genomic island that is responsible for the production of non-ribosomally synthesized polyketide-peptide genotoxin known as colibactin [27]. However, we found none of the E. coli strains associated with healthy controls belonged to the B2 phylogroup. According to the study reported by Buc and colleagues, among the phylogroups mentioned for E. coli, a greater relative abundance belonging to the B2 and D phylogenetic group has been reported in CRC and IBD patients [28]. We surprisingly found different phylogenetic distribution as compared to preceding reports, including a high prevalence of B2 phylogroup among cancer patients but the less and equal frequency of A, D/E, and Unknown phylogroups in cancer samples. On contrary to our study, Zarei et al. reported the abundance of phylogroup B2 (30%) and A (52.5%) among colorectal cancer patients [29].

Fig 1.

Fig 1

(a) Phylogroup PCR related to 35 CRC related E. coli strains, well 1 represents 100 bps Gene Ruler DNA ladder, well 2 and 4 represents unknown phylogroup, well 3 represents clade I, while well 5,6, 7, and 8 show phylogroup D, C, E, and B2 phylogroup respectively. (b) Well 1 represents 100 bps Gene Ruler DNA ladder, well 2 and 3 represent A and F phylogroups respectively whereas the rest of the wells represent B2 phylogroup. (c) Well 1 represents 100 bps Gene Ruler DNA ladder, well 2 and 3 represent clade I/II, well 4,5,6 and 7 represent phylogroups B2, C, F, and E respectively. (d) Well 1 represents 100 bps Gene Ruler DNA ladder, well 2, 3,4 and 6 show B2 phylogroup while well 5 shows clade I/II.

Colibactin gene identification

E. coli isolates belonging to B2 phylogroups were further investigated for genotoxin (colibactin) production. The primers used for the determination of colibactin-producing E. coli isolates are ClbA and ClbQ as in (S1 Table). Our results showed that among 35 cancer patients 15 B2+ (B2 positive) isolates were found as clb+ while from the rest B2- (B2 negative) cancer-associated isolates none was found positive for colibactin gene as same in healthy controls. Our results showed that 100% of B2 isolates associated with CRC patients were found positive for colibactin genes (Fig 2). This affirms significant p<0.002 association of genotoxin producing colibactin gene and colorectal cancer, this association of colorectal cancer and a genotoxin (colibactin) producing E. coli is consistent with earlier studies by Martin et al. that 70% of colorectal cancer patients possessed mucosa-associated bacteria and from those bacteria, the majority belonged to E. coli species [25].

Fig 2. Represents 10 E. coli strains belonging to B2 phylogroup isolated from CRC patients.

Fig 2

(a) L presents 1kb GeneRuler DNA Marker, well 2 to 4 presents ClbA 342 bps and ClbQ 308bps bands. (b) Well, 1 presents a 1kb GeneRuler ladder, well 2 to well 5 presents ClbA and ClbQ bands while well # 6 contains negative control. (c) 1st well represents 100bps GeneRuler DNA ladder, well 2 and 4 shows ClbA, ClbQ, and ClbB 579 bps bands whereas well 3 show a negative result for colibactin genes.

Antibiotic resistance profiling

The antibiotic susceptibility of E. coli isolates was ascertained by standardized methods such as the Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method on Mueller-Hinton agar plates keeping CLSI 2017 recommendations as standards. E. coli strains positive for colibactin showed that more than 60% of the isolates were resistant to Ampicillin (91%), Rifampin (91%), Ofloxacin (91%), Nalidixic acid (96%), Colistin (82%), Amoxicillin (AMC) (78%), ceftazidime (82%), and Erythromycin (91%) (Fig 3). This study relates to another similar study, that reported high resistance rates of isolated E. coli towards ampicillin (77.8%), amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (88.9%), and Nalidixic acid (66.7%) were observed [30].

Fig 3.

Fig 3

(a) Graphical representation for frequency of antibiotic resistance of E. coli isolates among colon cancer patients and healthy individuals against each antibiotic tested. (b) Graphical representation of antibiotic profiling against clb+ isolates.

ERIC- PCR profiling

To determine the evolutionary relationship among the forty (40) isolates, genotyping was performed using ERIC fingerprinting assay. In this assay, a 22bps primer designed against the specific and conserved ERIC region was used. The PCR was performed in a total volume of 25μl reaction mixture containing 100ng of DNA and 25pmol of ERIC 2 primer (5-AAGTAAGTGACTGGGGTGAGCG-3) [23]. ERIC-PCR band patterns were calculated using the visibility and their molecular weights in presence of molecular markers. Bands for each sample were counted using the zero-one manual method and then, the data were entered on the following site: http://insilico.ehu.es/dice_upgma/, and the dendrogram was drawn. Our results corroborate another study that also reported high genetic diversity among E. coli isolates extracted from patients suffering from urinary tract infections and presented the dendrogram using the ERIC-PCR method [31]. Phylogenetic analyses using ERIC PCR categorized all isolates in five categories and suggested that CRC associated E. coli were found to be genetically diverse when compared using ERIC-PCR (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Dendrogram showing the phylogenetic grouping of the 40 E. coli strains studied.

Fig 4

In vivo viability/cytotoxicity activity of Clb+ E. coli strains

To verify the cytotoxic colibactin activity in the Clb-positive E. coli isolates and to study whether clb+ isolates showed enhanced cytotoxicity as compared to strains lacking colibactin, viability assay using HEK cells was done. Our results showed that all the strains irrespective of the phylogroup were cytolethal at MOI 10. At 10 MOI clb+ isolates (control positive as well as isolates) showed significant high cytotoxicity i.e., <95% of the HEK cell were killed as compared to colibactin negative strains (i.e., 85.46% killing). Our results indicate that isolates possessing the clb gene showed cytotoxic activity which may have contributed to the rapid progression of colorectal cancer in patients (Fig 5).

Fig 5. Cytotoxic activity of clb+ E. coli strains (190-CRC, 364-CRC) and colibactin negative E. coli strain (5002) with standard controls including IHE3034 and H21C.

Fig 5

Conclusions

Cancer-associated E. coli isolates were found to be multidrug-resistant and genetically diverse. Moreover, the association of these isolates to phylogroup B2 and the presence of the colibactin gene suggest that their presence in cancer patients may likely aggravate the dysbiosis by altering the normal gut microbiota leading to severe CRC disease. It will be worth checking the production of colibactin in these isolates and also contextualizing them in a global perspective by detailed comparative genomics analysis for a better understanding of their role in CRC.

Supporting information

S1 File

(XLSX)

S1 Raw images

(TIF)

S1 Table. Detailed list of primers used in the study [3234].

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Socio-demographic data of patients was collected using questionnaires.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the patients who volunteered in this study.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The research work was funded by PROJECT NO.PSF-TUBITAK/C-COMSATS (01) entitled “Developing Protocols for multiplex PCR based Screening and Computational Models for Virulence Factors associated with H. pylori and colibactin (genotoxin) producing E. coli.

References

  • 1.Stewart B. and Wild C.P., World cancer report 2014. Self, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Macrae F.A., Colorectal cancer: Epidemiology, risk factors, and protective factors. Update. com [Internet].[ažurirano 9]. lipnja 2017, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bhurgri, Colon Cancer Screening-Is It Time Yet? 2017: J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Faïs et al., Targeting colorectal cancer-associated bacteria: A new area of research for personalized treatments. Gut microbes, 2016. 7(4): p. 329–333. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2016.1155020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Rinninella E., et al., What is the healthy gut microbiota composition? a changing ecosystem across age, environment, diet, and diseases. Microorganisms, 2019. 7(1): p. 14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Yang Y. and Jobin C., Microbial imbalance and intestinal pathologies: connections and contributions. Disease models & mechanisms, 2014. 7(10): p. 1131–1142. doi: 10.1242/dmm.016428 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Villéger R., et al., Microbial markers in colorectal cancer detection and/or prognosis. World journal of gastroenterology, 2018. 24(22): p. 2327. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i22.2327 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gagnière J., et al., Interactions between microsatellite instability and human gut colonization by Escherichia coli in colorectal cancer. Clinical Science, 2017. 131(6): p. 471–485. doi: 10.1042/CS20160876 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Clermont O., Bonacorsi S., and Bingen E., Rapid and simple determination of theEscherichia coli phylogenetic group. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 2000. 66(10): p. 4555–4558. doi: 10.1128/AEM.66.10.4555-4558.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Micenková L., et al., Microcin determinants are associated with B2 phylogroup of human fecal Escherichia coli isolates. Microbiologyopen, 2016. 5(3): p. 490–498. doi: 10.1002/mbo3.345 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Carlos C., et al., Escherichia coli phylogenetic group determination and its application in the identification of the major animal source of fecal contamination. BMC microbiology, 2010. 10(1): p. 161. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-10-161 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Raisch J., et al., Colon cancer-associated B2 Escherichia coli colonize gut mucosa and promote cell proliferation. World Journal of Gastroenterology: WJG, 2014. 20(21): p. 6560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Secher T., Brehin C., and Oswald E., Early settlers: which E. coli strains do you not want at birth? American Journal of Physiology-Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology, 2016. 311(1): p. G123–G129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Nougayrède J.-P., et al., Escherichia coli induces DNA double-strand breaks in eukaryotic cells. Science, 2006. 313(5788): p. 848–851. doi: 10.1126/science.1127059 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Cuevas-Ramos G., et al., Escherichia coli induces DNA damage in vivo and triggers genomic instability in mammalian cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2010. 107(25): p. 11537–11542. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1001261107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tomkovich S., et al., Locoregional effects of microbiota in a preclinical model of colon carcinogenesis. Cancer research, 2017. 77(10): p. 2620–2632. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-3472 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Arthur J.C., et al., Intestinal inflammation targets cancer-inducing activity of the microbiota. Science, 2012. 338(6103): p. 120–123. doi: 10.1126/science.1224820 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bakthavatchalu V., et al., Cytotoxic Escherichia coli strains encoding colibactin isolated from immunocompromised mice with urosepsis and meningitis. PloS one, 2018. 13(3): p. e0194443. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194443 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Feng Y., et al., Cytotoxic Escherichia coli strains encoding colibactin and cytotoxic necrotizing factor (CNF) colonize laboratory macaques. Gut pathogens, 2017. 9(1): p. 71. doi: 10.1186/s13099-017-0220-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hu T., et al., Mechanisms of drug resistance in colon cancer and its therapeutic strategies. World journal of gastroenterology, 2016. 22(30): p. 6876. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i30.6876 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Rasheed F., et al., High frequency of cagA and vacA s1a/m2 genotype among Helicobacter pylori infected gastric biopsies of Pakistani children. Malays J Microbiol, 2011. 7(3): p. 167–170. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Velican A. M., Măruţescu L., Kamerzan C., Cristea V. C., Banu O., Borcan E., & Chifiriuc M.-C. (2020). Rapid detection and antibiotic susceptibility of uropathogenic Escherichia coli by flow cytometry. Microorganisms, 8(8), 1233. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8081233 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bokhari H., et al., Escherichia coli pathotypes in Pakistan from consecutive floods in 2010 and 2011. The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2013. 88(3): p. 519–525. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.12-0365 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Piccinini F., Tesei A., Arienti C., & Bevilacqua A. (2017). Cell counting and viability assessment of 2D and 3D cell cultures: Expected reliability of the trypan blue assay. Biological Procedures Online, 19(1), 1–12. doi: 10.1186/s12575-017-0056-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Martin H.M., et al., Enhanced Escherichia coli adherence and invasion in Crohn’s disease and colon cancer. Gastroenterology, 2004. 127(1): p. 80–93. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2004.03.054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Chakraborty A., et al., Characterization of Escherichia coli phylogenetic groups associated with extraintestinal infections in South Indian population. Annals of medical and health sciences research, 2015. 5(4): p. 241–246. doi: 10.4103/2141-9248.160192 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kohoutova D., et al., Escherichia coli strains of phylogenetic group B2 and D and bacteriocin production are associated with advanced colorectal neoplasia. BMC infectious diseases, 2014. 14(1): p. 1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12879-014-0733-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Buc E., et al., High prevalence of mucosa-associated E. coli producing cyclomodulin and genotoxin in colon cancer. PloS one, 2013. 8(2): p. e56964. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056964 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Zarei O., et al., Determination of virulence determinants of Escherichia coli strains isolated from patients with colorectal cancer compared to the healthy subjects. Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench, 2019. 12(1): p. 52. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Fentie A., et al., Bacterial profile, antibiotic resistance pattern and associated factors among cancer patients at University of Gondar Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia. Infection and drug resistance, 2018. 11: p. 2169. doi: 10.2147/IDR.S183283 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ardakani M.A. and Ranjbar R., Molecular typing of uropathogenic E. coli strains by the ERIC-PCR method. Electronic physician, 2016. 8(4): p. 2291. doi: 10.19082/2291 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Clermont O., et al., The C lermont E scherichia coli phylo‐typing method revisited: improvement of specificity and detection of new phylo‐groups. Environmental microbiology reports, 2013. 5(1): p. 58–65. doi: 10.1111/1758-2229.12019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Shimpoh T., et al., Prevalence of pks-positive Escherichia coli in Japanese patients with or without colorectal cancer. Gut pathogens, 2017. 9(1): p. 35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lan Y., et al., Prevalence of pks gene cluster and characteristics of Klebsiella pneumoniae‐induced bloodstream infections. Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2019. 33(4): p. e22838. doi: 10.1002/jcla.22838 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Grzegorz Woźniakowski

21 May 2021

PONE-D-21-08856

Colibactin possessing E. coli isolates in association with colorectal cancer and their genetic diversity among Pakistani Population

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bokhari,

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 Jul 05 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Grzegorz Woźniakowski, Full professor, PhD, ScD

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.The research project was presented to the ethical review board, PIMS Islamabad. Informed written consent was solicited from enrolled patients.".  

Please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named institutional review board or ethics committee specifically approved this study.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: This study aims to characterize the colibactin production in E. coli isolated from patients with or without colorectal cancer. While this type of descriptive work is important the current study has a number of defects. Firstly, it is of low power: there are only 23 cancer patients and 17 healthy controls. There is little indication of any power analysis to demonstrate why this number was picked and whether any meaningful conclusions can be drawn from such a cohort. Secondly, the agarose gel electrophoresis presented in Figures 1 and 2 are poor quality, presented poorly and the conclusions drawn from them poorly integrated into the manuscript text. This makes it hard to understand what is being concluded from these figures. Thirdly, the reason for the antibiotic resistance profiling is unclear in the broader context of the study. It’s nice to know what the resistance profile is but why include it here? Fourthly, the cytotoxicity data in Figure 5 seems selective. Why look at these strains only? What do the bars represent? How many times have the experiments been performed? Are there meaningful differences between groups? Statements in the results section seem unsupported by data (for example: “Our results showed that all the strains irrespective of the phylogroup were cytolethal at MOI above 50” – where is the data supporting this?). These are just a few examples of the problems with this study which indicate that it is of low quality.

Reviewer #2: Manuscript “Colibactin possessing E. coli isolates in association with colorectal cancer and their genetic diversity among Pakistani Population” is a very relevant study to show the association between specific Colibactin producing strain of E. coli with Colorectal Cancer. It is well designed epidemiological study accounting the dietary habit as well as hygiene practice in low socioeconomic backgrounds. Study mainly focused on strains harboring Pks Island which resides colibactin gene A and Q. Antibiogram profile of the isolates and ERIC-PCR Genotyping were among the tools used to type the strains. Overall, it is an informative study. Followings are my comments:

Majors:

1. As main massage of this paper is to show the association of Colibactin positive E. coli strain with CRC, the data

showed be compared and plotted using proper statistical tools to show this association. May be bar diagram: no.

of CRC isolates vs healthy isolates with and without colibactin gene instead of Fig. 2.

2. It would be informative to analyze individual antibiotic profile with presence of colibactin gene with CRC in Fig. 3.

3. Figure 5 does not have SD or SEM. So, hard to make any conclusion as both colibactin positive E. coli strain as

well as negative control showed toxicity above 85%. Better to use toxicity negative control strain which

showed <10% toxicity when compared with colibactin positive E. coli strain.

Minors:

1. Abstract is too long.

2. Table 1 primer list can be moved to supplement.

3. Figure quality in Fig. 1 and 2 low.

Reviewer #3: The present work describing the “Colibactin possessing E. coli isolates in association with colorectal cancer and their genetic diversity among Pakistani Population” is original and interesting. However, it requires considerable improvements.

General comments:

- Next submission, please, insert pages and lines!

- Abbreviations: define each abbreviation when it first appears in the text. After that, keep using the abbreviation. Sometimes words appear in abbreviated, sometimes in full formats (ex: CRC, pks, etc…) Standardize. Define “PIMS” when it first appears.

- Standardization: For example: for polyketide synthase “–producing”, “-positive” E. coli, I suggest using “pks+ E. coli” throughout the text. The same for colibactin-positive E. coli (clb+ E. coli)

- References: Instead of “XXX and his companions”, use “XXX et al.,”.

- It is Ofloxacin and Nalidixic acid (and not Oflaxacin and Nilidixic acid)

- In “Results and Discussion” session, authors present statistical data and association between hygiene and CRC development. However, there is no mention on how these data have been collected and analyzed. Provide details of methodology used.

- English revision is recommended. Sentence structures and conjunctions are frequently misused.

- Discussion and Conclusions could be better explored.

Minor comments/suggestions:

- Abstract, Line 6: “in the present study, colibactin positive E. coli…”

- Abstract , penultimate sentence: (Suggestion) substitute “populace” with “population”

- Introduction, Paragraph 4: “In 2006, Nougayrède et al. identified a meningitis E. coli strain IHE3034” / The sentence continues “…they named THIS toxin as colibactin”. Strain IHE3034 is not a toxin. Rephrase. // At the end of this paragraph: “… have shown an increased number of tumor in various CRC mouse models”

- Introduction, Paragraph 5: “Recent studies have intimated (implied? suggested?) that some specific E. coli strains possess a cluster of genes named polyketide synthase (pks) island, which has been associated with development of CRC in humans (Arthur et al., 2012)”

- Introduction, Paragraph 6: “HeLa cells”

- Introduction, Paragraph 7: “The isolated E. coli strains…”

- Sample collection: “Patients under 20 year of age suffering from severe (???) infection and bleeding were not included in this study.” Gastrointestinal infection and bleeding? general infection?

- Bacterial culture and Biochemical identification: Confusing. Rewrite. Suggestion: A biopsy sample from each patient was collected, kept in 20% glucose solution and transported to the laboratory on the ice. Biopsies were then homogenized and the preparations were cultured on MacConkey agar plates incubated at 37°C for 18-24 hours for bacterial colonies isolation. Based on morphological characterization, single E. coli colonies were re-streaked and purified on MacConkey agar/LB agar incubated at 37°C overnight. The identification of E. coli colonies were confirmed by Gram’s staining and various biochemical tests (i.e. Triple Sugar Iron (TSI), Citrate Test, Catalase, Oxidase, Indole Test, Methyl red test and Urease test). Pure E. coli cultures confirmed by morphological and biochemical tests were processed and preserved in 20% glycerol and stored at -80 °C until further processing.

- DNA extraction and quantification: Genomic DNA from E. coli strains were extracted by ethanol precipitation method using the method described by (Rasheed et al., 2011). Briefly, a single pure bacterial colony selected from each sample, was resuspended in 20 µL of 1% sodium dodecyl sulfate, 40 µL proteinase K (100 µg/mL), 80 µL of proteinase K buffer (4M NaCl, 0.5M EDTA; pH 7.5), and incubated at 55 °C for 1 hour.

- Phylogrouping: Genomic DNA extracted from each E. coli isolate was used for…. // The primers used for determination of phylogroups (chuA, yjaA, TspE4.C2, and arpA) are listed in Table 1.

- Detection of Colibactin Genes: The primers used for the determination of colibactin producing E.coli isolates (ClbA and ClbQ) are shown in Table 1.

- Antibiotics Susceptibility Profiling: E. coli strains were classified as resistant, susceptible, intermediate by comparison of diameter of inhibition according to the CLSI, 2017 guidelines.

- ERIC-PCR Genotyping: To determine the evolutionary relationship among the 40 E. coli isolates studied, genotyping was performed using ERIC fingerprinting assay.

- Viability/ Cytoxicity of Bacterial Culture against HeLa Cell Lines: Correct “CO2” and “Co2”: CO2 // “Six well plates containing HeLa cells...”. // “Bacteria were suspended in PBS and OD adjusted to 1.0 (2x107 CFU/mL).”

- Results and Discussion, second paragraph: observe comments above. How was these data accessed? How was the hygiene and potato intake accessed? Was the consumption of other food also accessed? // “Whereas, among female population 50% of the females were cancerous while 50% of females appeared normal.” Appeared” (??) vague

- Phylogroup Identification using Quadraplex PCR: “According to recent studies (REF), the majority of pathogenic E. coli strains belong to B2 and D phylogroups, and these strains tend to possess more virulence factors in comparison to commensal strains of E. coli.”

- Colibactin Gene Identification: “Our results showed that nine (9) out of ten (10/23) B2 phylogroup cancer-associated isolates were found as colibactin possessing E. coli.” Rewrite this sentence to make it clearer. “9 out of 10… (10/23)” is a bit confusing… // It would be easier if authors use “clb+” or “clb- E.coli” notation. It is important to observe that it is not the patient or heathy individual the one who “has positive/negative colibactin gene, but the E. coli strains. “Seventeen healthy individuals presented clb- E. coli strains, while among 23 CRC patients, 14 and 9 respectively presented clb- and clb+ E. coli strains.”

- In vivo viability/cytotoxicity activity of Colibactin Positive E. coli Strains: “Our results showed that ALL the strains irrespective of the phylogroup were cytolethal at MOI above 50.” But, as described in Material and Methods, this “all” strains refers to only 2 clb+ and 1 clb- E.coli (and 2 positive controls). This must be clear in this paragraph. Have you checked if these strains also produce other cyclomodulins like CDT and CNF? I think that a cytotoxin negative control should have been included in this experiment.// Revise: “(2 positive controls and 2 E. coli strains isolated in this study)”

- Table 1: The following primers are missing: ClbQ R, ClbB F and R.

- Figure 1, legend: Clearly state that this figure refers to the 23 CRC related E. coli strains.

- Figure 2, legend: Clearly state that this figure refers to the 10 E. coli strains belonging to the B2 phylogroup which were isolated from CRC cases.

Figure 3: “Graphical representation for antibiotic profiling of E. coli isolates among colon cancer patients and healthy individuals”. This not represents antibiotic profile of E. coli. This represents the frequency of antibiotic resistance of this group of E. coli for each antibiotic tested.

- Figure 4: “Dendrogram showing the phylogenetic grouping” of the 40 E. coli strains studied.

- Conclusions: Authors concluded that “Cancer-associated E. coli isolates were found to be multidrug-resistant and genetically diverse.” Would it be the equivalent to say that “clb+ E.coli are multidrug-resistant and genetically diverse”? Regarding antibiotic resistance experiment, the only result presented was the frequency of resistant isolates for individual antibiotics. Would be very interesting to compare resistance profiles presented by clb+ and clb- E. coli groups, and see if clb+ strains are in fact more “multidrug”-resistant than clb- strains. Likewise, it would be interesting to see the distribution of both groups in dendrogram presented in Figure 4.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 11;17(11):e0262662. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262662.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Nov 2021

Response to reviewers

With Reference ;

PONE-D- 21-08856

“Colibactin possessing E. coli isolates in association with colorectal cancer and their genetic diversity among Pakistani Population”.

First of all, we would like to thank reviewers for their valuable comments and time.

The specific comments and their responses are mentioned below.

Reviewer #1: This study aims to characterize the colibactin production in E. coli isolated from patients with or without colorectal cancer. While this type of descriptive work is important the current study has a number of defects.

Firstly, it is of low power: there are only 23 cancer patients and 17 healthy controls. There is little indication of any power analysis to demonstrate why this number was picked and whether any meaningful conclusions can be drawn from such a cohort.

Secondly, the agarose gel electrophoresis presented in Figures 1 and 2 are poor quality, presented poorly and the conclusions drawn from them poorly integrated into the manuscript text. This makes it hard to understand what is being concluded from these figures.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we have added more samples to increase number up to 60 samples in total. Secondly, agarose gel pictures quality have been improved. Figure 2 has been replaced with a bar graph diagram as per reviewer’s suggestions to present detailed breakdown of samples based on Phylogroups and presence/ absence of colibactin gene.

Thirdly, the reason for the antibiotic resistance profiling is unclear in the broader context of the study. It’s nice to know what the resistance profile is but why include it here?

Response: We performed antibiotic resistance profiling to report the main cause of reduction in effectiveness of drugs during the treatment of various diseases including colorectal cancer. Drug resistance develops in approximately all colon cancer patients and that leads to decreased therapeutic efficacies of anticancer agents. This is the main reason to analyze resistance patterns among CRC and Healthy individuals.

Fourthly, the cytotoxicity data in Figure 5 seems selective. Why look at these strains only? What do the bars represent? How many times have the experiments been performed? Are there meaningful differences between groups? Statements in the results section seem unsupported by data (for example: “Our results showed that all the strains irrespective of the phylogroup were cytolethal at MOI above 50” – where is the data supporting this?). These are just a few examples of the problems with this study which indicate that it is of low quality.

Response: Cytotoxicity assay has been repeated as suggested by reviewer and new figure has been added to present the precisely results in effective way.

Reviewer #2: Manuscript “Colibactin possessing E. coli isolates in association with colorectal cancer and their genetic diversity among Pakistani Population” is a very relevant study to show the association between specific Colibactin producing strain of E. coli with Colorectal Cancer. It is well designed epidemiological study accounting the dietary habit as well as hygiene practice in low socioeconomic backgrounds. Study mainly focused on strains harboring Pks Island which resides colibactin gene A and Q. Antibiogram profile of the isolates and ERIC-PCR Genotyping were among the tools used to type the strains. Overall, it is an informative study. Followings are my comments:

1. As main message of this paper is to show the association of Colibactin positive E. coli strain with CRC, the data showed be compared and plotted using proper statistical tools to show this association. May be bar diagram: no. of CRC isolates vs healthy isolates with and without colibactin gene instead of Fig. 2.

Response: Bar diagram has been added to represent phylogroups with presence or absence of colibactin gene among all cancer and healthy individuals.

2. It would be informative to analyze individual antibiotic profile with presence of colibactin gene with CRC in Fig. 3.

Response: yes agreed, Bar graph (Fig. 3) has been added to represents the strong association of colibactin gene with CRC.

3. Figure 5 does not have SD or SEM. So, hard to make any conclusion as both colibactin positive E. coli strain as well as negative control showed toxicity above 85%. Better to use toxicity negative control strain which showed <10% toxicity when compared with colibactin positive E. coli strain.

Response: Yes thank you for your worthy suggestions, we have repeated cytotoxicity assay with increased data set including positive and negative controls to address the comments and new figure has been added to present the precisely results in effective way.

Minors:

1. Abstract is too long.

Response: Abstract has been summarized to 300 words according to Plos ONE guide lines regarding abstract.

2. Table 1 primer list can be moved to supplement.

Response: Primer list has been moved to supporting information as Table S1.

3. Figure quality in Fig. 1 and 2 low.

Response: Figure quality has been improved upto 300dpi.

Reviewer #3: The present work describing the “Colibactin possessing E. coli isolates in association with colorectal cancer and their genetic diversity among Pakistani Population” is original and interesting. However, it requires considerable improvements.

General comments:

- Next submission, please, insert pages and lines!

Response: yes pages and lines have been added. Thank you

- Abbreviations: define each abbreviation when it first appears in the text. After that, keep using the abbreviation. Sometimes words appear in abbreviated, sometimes in full formats (ex: CRC, pks, etc…) Standardize. Define “PIMS” when it first appears.

Response: All required abbreviation have been defined.

- Standardization: For example: for polyketide synthase “–producing”, “-positive” E. coli, I suggest using “pks+ E. coli” throughout the text. The same for colibactin-positive E. coli (clb+ E. coli)

Response: Thank you, yes it has been corrected accordingly.

- References: Instead of “XXX and his companions”, use “XXX et al.,”.

Response: Yes changes have been made accordingly.

- It is Ofloxacin and Nalidixic acid (and not Oflaxacin and Nilidixic acid)

Response: yes it has been corrected, thank you.

- In “Results and Discussion” session, authors present statistical data and association between hygiene and CRC development. However, there is no mention on how these data have been collected and analyzed. Provide details of methodology used.

Response: Socio-demographic data was collected through questionnaire, attached as a supplementary table S2.

- English revision is recommended. Sentence structures a and conjunctions are frequently misused.

Response: We have revisited the complete manuscript considering these comments. There are number of sentences which have been rephrased for better expression. Moreover, language and grammar was thoroughly checked from abstract to conclusions sections and all the necessary technical expression have been mended accordingly. There are number of corrections incorporated in reference list as well. Language and grammar has been revised by

Habib Bokhari, PhD

Commonwealth Scholar & Fellow (LSHTM, UK)

Fulbright Fellow (Perelman School of Medicine, UPENN, USA)

Professor, Department of Biosciences COMSATS University, Islamabad, Pakistan

Office: +92-51-250-1223; FAX: +92-51-444-2805 Mobile: +92-300-512-7684

E-mail: habib@comsats.edu.pk

- Discussion and Conclusions could be better explored.

Response: Yes it has been improved to improve the expression of manuscript.

Minor comments/suggestions:

- Abstract, Line 6: “in the present study, colibactin positive E. coli…”

Response: Yes it has been fixed.

- Abstract , penultimate sentence: (Suggestion) substitute “populace” with “population”

Response: Yes it has been corrected.

- Introduction, Paragraph 4: “In 2006, Nougayrède et al. identified a meningitis E. coli strain IHE3034” / The sentence continues “…they named THIS toxin as colibactin”. Strain IHE3034 is not a toxin. Rephrase. // At the end of this paragraph: “… have shown an increased number of tumor in various CRC mouse models”

Response: done and corrected

- Introduction, Paragraph 5: “Recent studies have intimated (implied? suggested?) that some specific E. coli strains possess a cluster of genes named polyketide synthase (pks) island, which has been associated with development of CRC in humans (Arthur et al., 2012)”

Response: yes it has been corrected.

- Introduction, Paragraph 6: “HEK, cells”

Response: yes relevant information has been added

- Introduction, Paragraph 7: “The isolated E. coli strains…”

Response: Yes it has been corrected

- Sample collection: “Patients under 20 year of age suffering from severe (???) infection and bleeding were not included in this study.” Gastrointestinal infection and bleeding? general infection?

Response: Yes it was a typos mistake it has been fixed.

- Bacterial culture and Biochemical identification: Confusing. Rewrite. Suggestion: A biopsy sample from each patient was collected, kept in 20% glucose solution and transported to the laboratory on the ice. Biopsies were then homogenized and the preparations were cultured on MacConkey agar plates incubated at 37°C for 18-24 hours for bacterial colonies isolation. Based on morphological characterization, single E. coli colonies were re-streaked and purified on MacConkey agar/LB agar incubated at 37°C overnight. The identification of E. coli colonies were confirmed by Gram’s staining and various biochemical tests (i.e. Triple Sugar Iron (TSI), Citrate Test, Catalase, Oxidase, Indole Test, Methyl red test and Urease test). Pure E. coli cultures confirmed by morphological and biochemical tests were processed and preserved in 20% glycerol and stored at -80 °C until further processing.

Response: yes it has been corrected

- DNA extraction and quantification: Genomic DNA from E. coli strains were extracted by ethanol precipitation method using the method described by (Rasheed et al., 2011). Briefly, a single pure bacterial colony selected from each sample, was resuspended in 20 μL of 1% sodium dodecyl sulfate, 40 μL proteinase K (100 μg/mL), 80 μL of proteinase K buffer (4M NaCl, 0.5M EDTA; pH 7.5), and incubated at 55 °C for 1 hour.

Response: yes it has been corrected, thank you

- Phylogrouping: Genomic DNA extracted from each E. coli isolate was used for…. // The primers used for determination of phylogroups (chuA, yjaA, TspE4.C2, and arpA) are listed in Table 1.

Response: yes it has been corrected, thank you

- Detection of Colibactin Genes: The primers used for the determination of colibactin producing E.coli isolates (ClbA and ClbQ) are shown in Table 1.

Response: yes it has been corrected, thank you

- Antibiotics Susceptibility Profiling: E. coli strains were classified as resistant, susceptible, intermediate by comparison of diameter of inhibition according to the CLSI, 2017 guidelines.

Response: yes it has been corrected, thank you

- Viability/ Cytoxicity of Bacterial Culture against HeLa Cell Lines: Correct “CO2” and “Co2”: CO2 // “Six well plates containing HeLa cells...”. // “Bacteria were suspended in PBS and OD adjusted to 1.0 (2x107 CFU/mL).”

Response: Yes cytotoxicity assay has been repaeted with HEK cell lines and correction has been made accordingly. Thank you

- Results and Discussion, second paragraph: observe comments above. How was these data accessed? How was the hygiene and potato intake accessed? Was the consumption of other food also accessed? // “Whereas, among female population 50% of the females were cancerous while 50% of females appeared normal” Appeared” (??) vague

Response: Socio-demographic data was collected through questionnaire, attached as a supplementary table S2.

- Phylogroup Identification using Quadraplex PCR: “According to recent studies (REF), the majority of pathogenic E. coli strains belong to B2 and D phylogroups, and these strains tend to possess more virulence factors in comparison to commensal strains of E. coli.”

Response: yes it has been corrected

- Colibactin Gene Identification: “Our results showed that nine (9) out of ten (10/23) B2 phylogroup cancer-associated isolates were found as colibactin possessing E. coli.” Rewrite this sentence to make it clearer. “9 out of 10… (10/23)” is a bit confusing… // It would be easier if authors use “clb+” or “clb- E.coli” notation. It is important to observe that it is not the patient or heathy individual the one who “has positive/negative colibactin gene, but the E. coli strains. “Seventeen healthy individuals presented clb- E. coli strains, while among 23 CRC patients, 14 and 9 respectively presented clb- and clb+ E. coli strains.”

Response: it has been corrected

- In vivo viability/cytotoxicity activity of Colibactin Positive E. coli Strains: “Our results showed that ALL the strains irrespective of the phylogroup were cytolethal at MOI above 50.” But, as described in Material and Methods, this “all” strains refers to only 2 clb+ and 1 clb- E.coli (and 2 positive controls). This must be clear in this paragraph. Have you checked if these strains also produce other cyclomodulins like CDT and CNF? I think that a cytotoxin negative control should have been included in this experiment.// Revise: “(2 positive controls and 2 E. coli strains isolated in this study)”

Response: thank you , agreed, DH5-alpha has been added as cytotoxin negative control

- Table 1: The following primers are missing: ClbQ R, ClbB F and R.

Response: Yes fine, misssing details has been added. Thank you

- Figure 1, legend: Clearly state that this figure refers to the 23 CRC related E. coli strains.

Response: Yes, it has been fixed.

- Figure 2, legend: Clearly state that this figure refers to the 10 E. coli strains belonging to the B2 phylogroup which were isolated from CRC cases.

Response: Yes, it has been corrected.

-Figure 3: “Graphical representation for antibiotic profiling of E. coli isolates among colon cancer patients and healthy individuals”. This not represents antibiotic profile of E. coli. This represents the frequency of antibiotic resistance of this group of E. coli for each antibiotic tested.

Response: Yes, it has been corrected.

- Figure 4: “Dendrogram showing the phylogenetic grouping” of the 40 E. coli strains studied.

Response: yes it has been corrected and updated.

- Conclusions: Authors concluded that “Cancer-associated E. coli isolates were found to be multidrug-resistant and genetically diverse.” Would it be the equivalent to say that “clb+ E.coli are multidrug-resistant and genetically diverse”? Regarding antibiotic resistance experiment, the only result presented was the frequency of resistant isolates for individual antibiotics. Would be very interesting to compare resistance profiles presented by clb+ and clb- E. coli groups, and see if clb+ strains are in fact more “multidrug”-resistant than clb- strains. Likewise, it would be interesting to see the distribution of both groups in dendrogram presented in Figure 4.

Response: Yes, suggested changes have been made according

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Grzegorz Woźniakowski

4 Jan 2022

Colibactin possessing E. coli isolates in association with colorectal cancer and their genetic diversity among Pakistani Population

PONE-D-21-08856R1

Dear Dr. Bokhari,

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,

Grzegorz Woźniakowski, Full professor, PhD, ScD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Grzegorz Woźniakowski

14 Oct 2022

PONE-D-21-08856R1

Colibactin possessing E. coli isolates in association with colorectal cancer and their genetic diversity among Pakistani Population

Dear Dr. Bokhari:

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

Prof. Grzegorz Woźniakowski

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (XLSX)

    S1 Raw images

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Detailed list of primers used in the study [3234].

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Socio-demographic data of patients was collected using questionnaires.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.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