A role for Salmonella fimbriae in intraperitoneal infections.
Journal: 2000/March - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
ISSN: 0027-8424
PUBMED: 10655518
Abstract:
Enteric bacteria possess multiple fimbriae, many of which play critical roles in attachment to epithelial cell surfaces. SEF14 fimbriae are only found in Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis (S. enteritidis) and closely related serovars, suggesting that SEF14 fimbriae may affect serovar-specific virulence traits. Despite evidence that SEF14 fimbriae are expressed by S. enteritidis in vivo, previous studies showed that SEF14 fimbriae do not mediate adhesion to the intestinal epithelium. Therefore, we tested whether SEF14 fimbriae are required for virulence at a stage in infection after the bacteria have passed the intestinal barrier. Polar mutations that disrupt the entire sef operon decreased virulence in mice more than 1,000-fold. Nonpolar mutations that disrupted sefA (encoding the major structural subunit) did not affect virulence, but mutations that disrupted sefD (encoding the putative adhesion subunit) resulted in a severe virulence defect. The results indicate that the putative SEF14 adhesion subunit is specifically required for a stage of the infection subsequent to transit across the intestinal barrier. Therefore, we tested whether SefD is required for uptake or survival in macrophages. The majority of wild-type bacteria were detected inside macrophages soon after i.p. infection, but the sefD mutants were not readily internalized by peritoneal macrophages. These results indicate that the potential SEF14 adhesion subunit is essential for efficient uptake or survival of S. enteritidis in macrophages. This report describes a role of fimbriae in intracellular infection, and indicates that fimbriae may be required for systemic infections at stages beyond the initial colonization of host epithelial surfaces.
Relations:
Content
Citations
(27)
References
(31)
Diseases
(2)
Chemicals
(4)
Organisms
(4)
Processes
(4)
Anatomy
(3)
Affiliates
(1)
Similar articles
Articles by the same authors
Discussion board
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97(3): 1258-1262

A role for <em>Salmonella</em> fimbriae in intraperitoneal infections

Department of Microbiology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, B103 Chemical and Life Sciences Building, 601 S. Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801; and Department of Pathobiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3800 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6049
To whom reprint requests should be addressed. E-mail: ude.cuiu@2sdrawde.
Edited by Sankar Adhya, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, and approved December 6, 1999
Edited by Sankar Adhya, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, and approved December 6, 1999
Received 1999 Sep 10

Abstract

Enteric bacteria possess multiple fimbriae, many of which play critical roles in attachment to epithelial cell surfaces. SEF14 fimbriae are only found in Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis (S.enteritidis) and closely related serovars, suggesting that SEF14 fimbriae may affect serovar-specific virulence traits. Despite evidence that SEF14 fimbriae are expressed by S.enteritidisin vivo, previous studies showed that SEF14 fimbriae do not mediate adhesion to the intestinal epithelium. Therefore, we tested whether SEF14 fimbriae are required for virulence at a stage in infection after the bacteria have passed the intestinal barrier. Polar mutations that disrupt the entire sef operon decreased virulence in mice more than 1,000-fold. Nonpolar mutations that disrupted sefA (encoding the major structural subunit) did not affect virulence, but mutations that disrupted sefD (encoding the putative adhesion subunit) resulted in a severe virulence defect. The results indicate that the putative SEF14 adhesion subunit is specifically required for a stage of the infection subsequent to transit across the intestinal barrier. Therefore, we tested whether SefD is required for uptake or survival in macrophages. The majority of wild-type bacteria were detected inside macrophages soon after i.p. infection, but the sefD mutants were not readily internalized by peritoneal macrophages. These results indicate that the potential SEF14 adhesion subunit is essential for efficient uptake or survival of S.enteritidis in macrophages. This report describes a role of fimbriae in intracellular infection, and indicates that fimbriae may be required for systemic infections at stages beyond the initial colonization of host epithelial surfaces.

Abstract

Fimbriae play a critical role in virulence by allowing bacteria to interact with host cells and other solid substrates (1, 2). The distribution of fimbrial operons among enteric bacteria suggests a role for fimbriae in pathogenesis; broadly distributed fimbrial operons may provide general adhesive functions, but fimbriae whose distribution is limited may provide specific functions required in virulence. For example, the common type I fimbriae found in many Gram-negative bacteria mediates adherence to the pharynx, intestinal epithelium, and bladder, whereas plasmid encoded fimbriae found only in Salmonella bind specifically to M cells in the intestine (1, 3).

Most fimbriae (with the notable exception of type IV pili) have a conserved mechanism of translocation to the bacterial surface. Fimbrial proteins are secreted into the periplasm by means of the general secretory system. Two accessory proteins assist in construction of the fimbrial shaft. First, the fimbrial subunits are bound by a chaperone in the periplasm to prevent premature aggregation and then the subunits are translocated across the outer membrane by an usher protein. Recently, the crystal structures of FimC–FimH and PapD–PapK complexes have been solved, demonstrating an elegantly simple mechanism for the interactions between the subunit and chaperone and between pairs of subunits (4, 5). In all fimbrial systems that have been studied, the genes encoding the chaperone and usher are located in the same operon as the major subunit. Cursory examination of the Escherichia coli, Yersinia pestis, Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium (S. typhimurium), and Salmonella Typhi (S. typhi) genomes identified about one dozen chaperone–usher-dependent fimbrial operons per genome, although only a handful of these have currently been characterized (R.A.E., B. M. Matlock, and S.R.M., unpublished observations). It is expected that Salmonella enteritidis contains a similar number of fimbrial operons to these other enteric bacteria. The S. enteritidis fimbriae (SEF14) is restricted to S. enteritidis and other closely related group D Salmonella (7). Therefore, an analysis of SEF14 fimbrial function may provide insight into the unique aspects of virulence that distinguish this group of Salmonella.

The sef operon is located on a small pathogenicity island. The operon contains four structural genes (sefABCD) required for the translocation and biogenesis of SEF14 fimbriae: sefA encodes the major subunit, sefB and sefC encode the chaperone and usher, respectively, and sefD encodes the putative adhesin. Adjacent to sefD, there is an AraC-like regulatory protein (encoded by sefR) that activates transcription of the sef genes (6) (Fig. (Fig.1).1). Some evidence suggests that SEF14 fimbriae may play a role in pathogenesis. For example, immunization of mice with purified SEF14 subunits induces a strong T lymphocyte response, and the mice present a delayed-type hypersensitive response to whole S. enteritidis, demonstrating that these fimbriae are expressed in vivo and stimulate cell-mediated immunity (8). Furthermore, pretreatment of mice with anti-SEF14 antibodies protects mice from S. enteritidis infection (9). However, other studies on the effect of sef mutants on virulence showed conflicting results (10, 11).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pq0303896001.jpg

The sef pathogenicity island. Organization of the sef genes, direction of transcription (arrows), and predicted function of the ORFs.

Because discrepancies in earlier studies may be the result of genetic differences in the mutants used, we constructed several defined sef mutants (R.A.E., B. M. Matlock, and S.R.M., unpublished observations; L. H. Keller, R. C. Boston, and D.M.S., unpublished observations; ref. 13). Like many other fimbrial operons, the sefABCD genes are cotranscribed so that insertion of a kanamycin cassette into sefA eliminates transcription of sefD, and translocation of SefD across the outer membrane is a prerequisite for translocation of SefA (6). Based on these studies, we predict that the SEF14 fimbrial proteins displayed on the surface of the sef mutants is as shown in Fig. Fig.2.2. In this work, we assay the role of the various sef mutants in virulence and show that SEF14 fimbriae mediate interactions with phagocytes in the peritoneal cavity, which allows S. enteritidis to survive the macrophage assault. This role for fimbriae in vivo is in contrast to the routine modus operandi of previously characterized fimbriae involved in binding to host epithelial surfaces.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pq0303896002.jpg

Predicted export of SEF14 fimbrial subunits from the periplasm in the mutants used in this study. Note that all subunits contain signal sequences, suggesting that they are exported across the cytoplasmic membrane in a secretory-dependent manner. Wild-type SEF14 fimbriae (A) consist of the major subunit, SefA. Based on sequence homology, SefB is the chaperone that binds subunits in the periplasm and prevents premature aggregation. SefC is the membrane-located usher through which the subunits are translocated. SefD is probably a tip-located adhesin. Export of SefD occurs in the absence of SefA (ΔsefA; B) and may form a fibrillar structure on the cell surface. The polar sefA∷Kan strain (C) does not produce any subunits. Export of SefA does not occur in the absence of SefD (ΔsefD; D).

*Only the sef genotype is shown.

To reduce the number of mice required, we only tested two mice for each dilution of S. enteritidis; therefore, all LD50 values are approximate.

Acknowledgments

We thank D. Guiney, K. Hughes, M. Laird, S. Libby, J. L. Puente, and R. K. Taylor for comments on the manuscript; and S. Libby and F. Fang for experimental advice. This work was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Illinois Council for Food and Agriculture Research.

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations

SEFSalmonella enteritidis fimbriae
Kankanamycin sulfate
CFAcolonization antigen factor
CFUcolony-forming unit
Abbreviations

Footnotes

This paper was submitted directly (Track II) to the PNAS office.

Footnotes

References

  • 1. Low D, Braaten B, van der Woude M In: Escherichia coli and Salmonella typhimurium: Cellular and Molecular Biology. Neidhardt F C, editor. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: Am. Soc. Microbiol.; 1996. pp. 146–157. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 2. Edwards R A, Puente J L. Trends Microbiol. 1998;6:282–287.[PubMed]
  • 3. Bäumler A J, Tsolis R M, Heffron F. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1997;412:149–158.[PubMed]
  • 4. Sauer F G, Futterer K, Pinkner J S, Dodson K W, Hultgren S J, Waksman G. Science. 1999;285:1058–1061.[PubMed]
  • 5. Choudhury D, Thompson A, Stojanoff V, Langermann S, Pinkner J, Hultgren S J, Knight S D. Science. 1999;285:1061–1066.[PubMed]
  • 6. Lindler L E, Tall B D. Mol Microbiol. 1993;8:311–324.[PubMed]
  • 7. Clouthier S C, Muller K H, Doran J L, Collinson S K, Kay W W. J Bacteriol. 1993;175:2523–2533.
  • 8. Ogunniyi A, Manning P A, Kotlarski I. Infect Immun. 1994;62:5376–5383.
  • 9. Peralta R C, Yokoyoma H, Ikemori Y, Kuroki M, Kodama Y. J Med Microbiol. 1994;41:29–35.[PubMed]
  • 10. Thorns C J, Turcotte C, Gemmell C G, Woodward M J. Microb Pathog. 1996;20:235–246.[PubMed]
  • 11. Ogunniyi A D, Kotlarski I, Morona R, Manning P A. Infect Immun. 1997;65:708–717.
  • 12. Yang Y, Merriam J J, Mueller J P, Isberg R R. Infect Immun. 1996;64:2483–2489.
  • 13. Edwards R A, Keller L H, Schifferli D M. Gene. 1998;207:149–157.[PubMed]
  • 14. Keller L H, Benson C E, Garcia V, Nocks E, Battenfelder P, Eckroade R J. Avian Dis. 1993;37:501–507.[PubMed]
  • 15. Maloy S R, Stewart V J, Taylor R K Genetic Analysis of Pathogenic Bacteria. Plainview, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Lab. Press; 1996. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 16. Müller K H, Collinson S K, Trust T J, Kay W W. J Bacteriol. 1991;173:4765–4772.
  • 17. Mann B A, Slauch J M. Genetics. 1997;146:447–456.
  • 18. Reed L J, Muench H. Am J Hyg. 1938;27:493–497.[PubMed]
  • 19. Bäumler A J, Tsolis R M, Heffron F. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996;93:279–283.
  • 20. Bäumler A J, Tsolis R M, Bowe F A, Kusters J G, Hoffmann S, Heffron F. Infect Immun. 1996;64:61–68.
  • 21. Jones C, Pinkner J, Roth R, Heuser J, Nicholes A, Abraham S, Hultgren S. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1995;92:2081–2085.
  • 22. Dibb-Fuller M P, Allen-Vercoe E, Thorns C J, Woodward M J. Microbiology. 1999;145:1023–1031.[PubMed]
  • 23. Buchmeier N A, Heffron F. Infect Immun. 1991;59:2232–2238.
  • 24. Pascopella L, Raupach B, Ghori N, Monack D, Falkow S, Small P L. Infect Immun. 1995;63:4329–4335.
  • 25. Nnalue N A, Shnyra A, Hultenby K, Lindberg A A. Infect Immun. 1992;60:2758–2768.
  • 26. Conlan J W. Infect Immun. 1997;65:630–635.
  • 27. Conlan J W. Infect Immun. 1996;64:1043–1047.
  • 28. Dunlap N E, Benjamin W H, Jr, McCall R D, Jr, Tilden A B, Briles D E. Microb Pathog. 1991;10:297–310.[PubMed]
  • 29. Richter-Dahlfors A, Buchan A M J, Finlay B B. J Exp Med. 1997;186:569–580.
  • 30. Vassiloyanakopoulos A P, Okamoto S, Fierer J. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1998;95:7676–7681.
  • 31. Govoni G, Vidal S, Cellier M, Lepage P, Malo D, Gros P. Genomics. 1995;27:9–19.[PubMed]
  • 32. Krukonis E S, Dersch P, Eble J A, Isberg R R. J Biol Chem. 1998;273:31837–31843.[PubMed]
  • 33. Ishibashi Y, Arai T. Microb Pathog. 1996;21:435–446.[PubMed]
  • 34. Baorto D M, Gao Z, Malaviya R, Dustin M L, van der Merwe A, Lublin D M, Abraham S N. Nature (London) 1997;389:636–639.[PubMed]
Collaboration tool especially designed for Life Science professionals.Drag-and-drop any entity to your messages.