identification of novel virulence-associated genes via genome analysis of hypothetical genes sara...
TRANSCRIPT
Identification of Novel Virulence-Associated Genes via Genome Analysis of Hypothetical Genes
Sara Garbom, Åke Forsberg, Hans Wolf-Watz, and Britt-Marie Kihlberg
2004, Infection and Immunity, v. 72
pp. 1333-1340
Hypothesis
IF{Genomes of pathogenic bacteria are reduced to smallest set needed for growth in an animal host}
Hypothesis
IF{Genomes of pathogenic bacteria are reduced to smallest set needed for growth in an animal host}
THEN{Genes expressed in vivo and shared by pathogens may be “amenable” targets for antibacterial agents}
Why target in vivo expressed virulence factors?
VirulentWT
DeadWT
Traditional Antibiotic
VirulentMutant
Why target in vivo expressed virulence factors?
VirulentWT
DeadWT
Traditional Antibiotic
VirulentMutant
Why target in vivo expressed virulence factors?
VirulentWT
Virulence-specific Antibiotic
AvirulentMutant
VirulentWT
DeadWT
Traditional Antibiotic
VirulentMutant
Method:
In silico: Find novel putative virulence genes through comparative analysis
Method:
In silico: Find novel putative virulence genes through comparative analysis
In vitro: Assay genes for essentiality to survival
Method:
In silico: Find novel putative virulence genes through comparative analysis
In vitro: Assay genes for essentiality to survival
In vivo: Assay genes for virulence in an animal model
Goal:
“the rapid emergence of multiply [antibiotic] resistant bacterial strains…demands the development of new antibacterial agents by engaging strategies that specifically counteract the development of resistance”
In silico:
Gathered genes of unknown function from a pathogenic organism “Conserved hypotheticals” or “unknown”
Finding novel putative virulence genes through comparative analysis
In silico:
Gathered genes of unknown function from a pathogenic organism “Conserved hypotheticals” or “unknown”
Compared these genes to those of other pathogens
Finding novel putative virulence genes through comparative analysis
In silico:
Gathered genes of unknown function from a pathogenic organism “Conserved hypotheticals” or “unknown”
Compared these genes to those of other pathogens
Considered all genes found in all pathogens “virulence-associated genes (vag)”
Finding novel putative virulence genes through comparative analysis
Organism Disease
Treponema pallidum Syphilis
Yersinia pestis Black death
Neisseria gonorrhoeae Gonorrhea
Heliobacter pylori Peptic ulcer disease
Borrelia bugdoreferi Lyme disease
Streptococcus pneumoniae
Pneumococcal meningitis
Pneumonia
“With the the exception of Y. pestis, all are causitive agents of chronic disease in humans.”
Organism Genes remaining
Treponema pallidum 211
Yersinia pestis
Neisseria gonorrhoeae
Heliobacter pylori
Borrelia bugdoreferi
Streptococcus pneumoniae
Organism Genes remaining
Treponema pallidum 211
Yersinia pestis 73
Neisseria gonorrhoeae
Heliobacter pylori
Borrelia bugdoreferi
Streptococcus pneumoniae
Organism Genes remaining
Treponema pallidum 211
Yersinia pestis 73
Neisseria gonorrhoeae
17Heliobacter pylori
Borrelia bugdoreferi
Streptococcus pneumoniae
Classified vagA – vagQ“[NCBI nr] database indicated that all of the vag genes exhibited homologous sequences in at least 35 other microorganisms… nine had products that also exhibited similarity [to human proteins].”
99 in vivo expressed genes STM (signature tagged mutagenesis) and
“selected capture of transcribed sequences”
In vivo analysis & in silico comparison
Control:
99 in vivo expressed genes STM (signature tagged mutagenesis) and
“selected capture of transcribed sequences” Compared to (same) 6 genomes
In vivo analysis & in silico comparison
Control:
99 in vivo expressed genes STM (signature tagged mutagenesis) and
“selected capture of transcribed sequences” Compared to (same) 6 genomes 5 conserved genes classified as vir genes
Also conserved among many bacteria No human homologues
In vivo analysis & in silico comparison
Control:
In vitro:
Mutagenized conserved genes Insertion mutagenesis
Assaying genes for essentiality to survival and virulence
In vitro:
Mutagenized conserved genes Insertion mutagenesis
Analyzed cytotoxicity with HeLa cells
Assaying genes for essentiality to survival and virulence
In vitro:
Mutagenized conserved genes Insertion mutagenesis
Analyzed cytotoxicity with HeLa cells Measured Yop secretion
Yersinia outer proteins Known virulence factors Encoded on a plasmid Belonging to a type III secretion system
Assaying genes for essentiality to survival and virulence
3 mutations were lethal
Hypothesized:Unchanged in vitro growth patterns
3 mutations were lethal 14 remaining mutants
vagE - impaired growth / uncharacteristic morphology / delayed cytotoxic response*
vagH - lowered Yops secretion vagI - lowered Yops secretion but no loss of
cytotoxicity
Hypothesized:Unchanged in vitro growth patterns
3 mutations were lethal 14 remaining mutants
vagE - impaired growth / uncharacteristic morphology / delayed cytotoxic response*
vagH - lowered Yops secretion vagI - lowered Yops secretion but no loss of
cytotoxicity 11 “indistinguishable from the wild type”
Hypothesized:Unchanged in vitro growth patterns
In vivo:
Infected model organisms with mutagenized strains Oral infection of mice
Assaying genes for virulence in an animal model
In vivo:
Infected model organisms with mutagenized strains Oral infection of mice
Lethal vs. non-lethal/delayed-lethal classification of virulence WT killed 50% mice at 107 CFU/mL in 5-8
days “Attenuated” strains were not lethal at same
dose
Assaying genes for virulence in an animal model
5 were virulent
Control: 2 were virulent
Hypothesized:Viable targets would be attenuated for virulence
5 were virulent 9 were attenuated
All 3 non-WT like (in vitro) mutants were attenuated
Control: 2 were virulent 3 were attenuated
Hypothesized:Viable targets would be attenuated for virulence
In vivo:
In-frame deletion mutagenesis Prevent downstream effects of insertion
mutagenesis
Assaying genes for virulence in an animal model (continued)
In vivo:
In-frame deletion mutagenesis Prevent downstream effects of insertion
mutagenesis Meant to verify results of insertion
mutagenesis
Assaying genes for virulence in an animal model (continued)
1 deletion mutant could not be made
Hypothesized:Viable targets would still be attenuated for virulence
1 deletion mutant could not be made 3 mutants regained virulence
Genes in virulence-associated operons
Hypothesized:Viable targets would still be attenuated for virulence
1 deletion mutant could not be made 3 mutants regained virulence
Genes in virulence-associated operons
5 mutants remained attenuated 1 of these having exhibited non-WT like growth (in
vitro)
Hypothesized:Viable targets would still be attenuated for virulence
1 deletion mutant could not be made 3 mutants regained virulence
Genes in virulence-associated operons 5 mutants remained attenuated
1 of these having exhibited non-WT like growth (in vitro)
4~5 in vivo-only virulence genes were successfully discovered
Control: 3 remain attenuated
Hypothesized:Viable targets would still be attenuated for virulence
Experimental Control
211 genes initially considered
99 genes initially considered
Experimental Control
211 genes initially considered
17 (8%) conserved across pathogens
99 genes initially considered
5 (5%) conserved across pathogens
Experimental Control
211 genes initially considered
17 (8%) conserved across pathogens
9 (4%) in or around virulence genes
99 genes initially considered
5 (5%) conserved across pathogens
3 (3%) in or around virulence genes
Experimental Control
211 genes initially considered
17 (8%) conserved across pathogens
9 (4%) in or around virulence genes
5 (2%) confirmed virulence genes
99 genes initially considered
5 (5%) conserved across pathogens
3 (3%) in or around virulence genes
3 (3%) confirmed virulence genes
Hypothesis
IF{Genomes of pathogenic bacteria are reduced to smallest set needed for growth in an animal host}
THEN{Genes expressed in vivo and shared by pathogens may be “amenable” targets for antibacterial agents}
Amenable(…
Traditional screening not possible
Amenable(…
VirulentWT
DeadWT
Traditional Antibiotic
VirulentMutant
Amenable(…
VirulentWT
Virulence-specific Antibiotic
AvirulentMutant
VirulentWT
DeadWT
Traditional Antibiotic
VirulentMutant
Amenable(…
Traditional screening not possible Microarrays?
Amenable(…
Traditional screening not possible Microarrays?
Targeting gene products isn’t as easy as in-frame deletion mutagenesis …especially when human homologues exist for
4 out of 5 of the genes IDed
Amenable(…
Traditional screening not possible Microarrays?
Targeting gene products isn’t as easy as in-frame deletion mutagenesis …especially when human homologues exist for
4 out of 5 of the genes IDed Response of normal human microflora
unknown
Amenable(…
Traditional screening not possible Microarrays?
Targeting gene products isn’t as easy as in-frame deletion mutagenesis …especially when human homologues exist for
4 out of 5 of the genes IDed Response of normal human microflora
unknown …)
Conclusion
Genes responsible for virulence were identified
I’m “amenable” to calling the method a success
Why start with T. pallidium when Y. pestis was the organism of interest and Y. pseudotuberculosis was used for testing?
How would deletion mutagenesis of homologous genes in non-pathogens alter their growth?
How target-able were the products of the genes knocked out? What’s the best way to assay target-ability of an
uncharacterized gene product?
Was there any overlap between the set of vag genes and the control (vivo + silico) set?