Overexpression of heat shock GroEL stress protein in leptospiral biofilm

1 downloads 0 Views 827KB Size Report
studies on Leptospira have demonstrated biofilm formation on abiotic surfaces. ... Leptospira interrogans strain, Salinem, was originally isolated from human, ...
Accepted Manuscript Overexpression of heat shock GroEL stress protein in leptospiral biofilm K. Vinod Kumar, Chandan Lall, R. Vimal Raj, K. Vedhagiri, C. Kartick, P. Surya, K. Natarajaseenivasan, P. Vijayachari PII:

S0882-4010(16)30444-2

DOI:

10.1016/j.micpath.2016.11.010

Reference:

YMPAT 2000

To appear in:

Microbial Pathogenesis

Received Date: 9 August 2016 Revised Date:

24 September 2016

Accepted Date: 14 November 2016

Please cite this article as: Vinod Kumar K, Lall C, Vimal Raj R, Vedhagiri K, Kartick C, Surya P, Natarajaseenivasan K, Vijayachari P, Overexpression of heat shock GroEL stress protein in leptospiral biofilm, Microbial Pathogenesis (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2016.11.010. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

Overexpression of heat shock GroEL stress protein in leptospiral biofilm

2 3

K. Vinod Kumar1, Chandan Lall1, R. Vimal Raj1, K. Vedhagiri2, C. Kartick1, P Surya1, K.

4

Natarajaseenivasan3, P.Vijayachari1. *

5

1

6

and training in leptospirosis, Port Blair -744101, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India

7

2

8

Anna University, Chennai - 600 025, India

9

3

Bharathidasan University, Department of Microbiology, School of Life Sciences Tiruchirappalli – 620 024,

India

11 12

*Address for correspondence

:

Dr.PaluruVijayachari

13

Regional Medical Research Centre (ICMR),

14

Post Bag No.13, Dollygunj, Port Blair 744101,

15

Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India

Phone Number

17

Fax Number

18

E-mail

19

Section

:

24 25 26 27 28 29

+91 3192 251163

:

[email protected]

:

Short communication

:

Proteomic analysis of Leptospiral biofilms

AC C

23

:

EP

20 22

+91 3192 251158, +91 3192 251164

TE D

16

21

RI PT

SC

National Hub for Healthcare Instrumentation Development, (NHHID), Centre for Biotechnology,

M AN U

10

Regional Medical Research Centre (ICMR), WHO Collaborating Centre for Diagnosis, Reference, research

Short running head

30

1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Abstract

32

Leptospira is the causative agent of leptospirosis, which is an emerging zoonotic disease. Recent

33

studies on Leptospira have demonstrated biofilm formation on abiotic surfaces. The protein

34

expressed in the biofilm was investigated by using SDS-PAGE and immunoblotting in combination

35

with MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. The proteins expressed in Leptospira biofilm and planktonic

36

cells was analysed and compared. Among these proteins, one (60 kDa) was found to overexpress in

37

biofilm as compared to the planktonic cells. MALDI-TOF analysis identified this protein as stress

38

and heat shock chaperone GroEL. Our findings demonstrate that GroEL is associated with

39

Leptospira biofilm. GroEL is conserved, highly immunogenic and a prominent stress response

40

protein in pathogenic Leptospira spp., which may have clinical relevance.

41

Keywords: Biofilm, Leptospira, Hsp, Planktonic

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

31

2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Introduction

43

Leptospirosis is an emerging zoonosis caused by pathogenic spirochetes belonging to the genus

44

Leptospira. The disease is transmitted to humans through environmental surface waters

45

contaminated by the urine of reservoir host and domestic animals, which are chronically colonized

46

with Leptospira. It is also reported that leptospires can survive in nutrient deficient conditions in soil

47

and water, for long periods [1]. However, not much is known about the mechanisms by which

48

pathogenic leptospires persist in aqueous environments, chronically infected mammals and carrier

49

hosts. It is widely accepted that bacteria can exist in two different modes of growth, the first being

50

as single planktonic cells and the second as structured, multicellular communities known as biofilms

51

[2]. Biofilm formation in Leptospira is a recently studied phenomenon and is demonstrated in

52

environment and in vitro [3, 4]. Leptospira biofilm may play a significant role, not only in

53

environmental survival but also for successful infection and pathogenesis [5]. Similar to other

54

bacterial biofilms Leptospira biofilm is a complex structural arrangement of bacteria that are

55

enclosed in an extracellular polymeric substance (EPS)[3]. However the EPS of the leptospiral

56

biofilm are yet to be studied.

57

Polysaccharides, proteins, nucleic acids, metal ions and other humic materials can be associated

58

with the EPS matrix of the biofilms. Embedded cells within this EPS matrix can protect the bacteria

59

from environmental stress and may also offer protection from the host immune responses [6]. A

60

detailed understanding of the biofilm matrix composition especially proteins are critical for the

61

rational understanding of numerous clinical and environmental implication associated with biofilms

62

[7].

63

The architecture of leptospiral biofilms are rather well studied. However, the molecular mechanism

64

of biofilm formation remains to be explored. Proteomic comparison of other bacterial biofilms has

65

revealed the presence of several differentially expressed proteins. Heat shock proteins (HSPs) are

66

the major and best-studied proteins known for their involvement in bacterial biofilm[8]. These HSPs

67

are considered to be important in the pathology of various bacterial and parasitic infections. They

68

are reported to protect pathogens against the hostile environment of host phagocytic cell [8]. In this

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

42

3

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 69

study, an attempt was made to analyse the comparitive proteomics of the proteins in planktonic and

70

Leptospira biofilm.

71

1.

72

1.1. Bacterial strains and growth conditions

73

Leptospira interrogans strain, Salinem, was originally isolated from human, while Leptospira fainei

74

is of animal origin. All strains were obtained from national reference centre for leptospirosis at the

75

Regional Medical Research Centre, Port Blair, India. These strains were sub-cultured at 30 °C in

76

liquid Ellinghausen-McCullough-Johnson-Harris (EMJH) medium with fatty acid supplements

77

(Bovine Serum Albumin + Tween 80) with 1% BSA and were maintained with periodic sub

78

culturing every 7 days.

79

1.2. Biofilm formation

M AN U

SC

RI PT

Materials and methods

The biofilm formation assay was performed for the two strains, L. Interrogans Salinem and L.

81

fainei But-6, in EMJH liquid medium, as per the methodology described earlier [9]. Briefly, the

82

biofilms were allowed to form in U-bottom 96-well (polyvinyl plate) tissue culture by incubating

83

at 30°C for 10 days, without shaking. Every 24 hrs the growth medium was discarded and freshly

84

added. Fresh EMJH medium was added to the wells as a control. Each well was washed thrice

85

with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) under aseptic conditions to eliminate unbound bacteria.

86

The experiment was repeated at least thrice for the reproducibility. The ability of these strains to

87

form biofilm was determined as per the crystal violet staining method, as described by O'Toole [10]

EP

AC C

88 89

TE D

80

1.3. Microscopic examination

90

Leptospira strains were grown in the EMJH medium to approximately 2 x 108 cells mL-1 (without

91

shaking). Sterile glass slides (76 x 26 mm, Hi-Media) were submerged (20 mm) in 50 mL of

92

leptospiral cell suspension in EMJH growth medium (initial concentration of 2 x 105 cells mL -1)

93

and incubated at 30°C for 7-12 days. After incubation, slides were carefully removed and rinsed

94

two twice with PBS (pH- 7.4). One side of the slide was wiped with 70% ethanol and the attached

4

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT cells were observed on the other side by Dark Field Microscope (DFM, Zeiss AXIO SCOPE A.1,

96

Germany)[9].

97

1.4. SDS-PAGE and immunoblotting of Biofilm and planktonic cells

98

L. interrogans Salinem biofilm was grown in 5ml EMJH liquid medium in a wide mouthed glass

99

with stating inoculum size of ~105 cells ml-1 (1:10, vol/vol), incubated at 30°C for 4 to 7 days

RI PT

95

without shaking [11]. Biofilm formation was achieved at air liquid interphase on the walls of the

101

tube, the unbounded cells were aspirated and attached cells were gently rinsed with PBS (pH-

102

7.4). Biofilm was collected by scraping, using sterile plastic loop. Detachment of the leptospires

103

from the biofilm was carried out as described earlier [9]. Further, ethanol insoluble EPS was

104

precipitated along with leptospiral cells overnight at 4 °C with 3 volumes of ice-cold ethanol. The

105

content was centrifuged at 15000 rpm for 30 min and the pellet was subjected to protein

106

estimation and further solubilised in 2X SDS-PAGE sample buffer with 1% 2-mercaptoethanol.

107

Similarly, in planktonic (unbound cells) leptospiral cells were centrifuged at 12,000 g for 10 min.

108

The cell pellet was washed twice in 5 mM MgCl2-phosphate buffered saline (PBS) and protein was

109

estimated using BCA method. The protein concentration was optimised to proteins from biofilm

110

state and solubilised in 2 X SDS-PAGE sample buffers. After boiling, the content was loaded on a

111

10% polyacrylamide gel with pre stained protein marker as a standard (Bio-rad, USA) and

112

electrophoresed [12].The resulting lysates of the two phenotypes were utilised as antigens. Pooled

113

sera of acute phase leptospiraemic patient’s (Microscopic Agglutination Test Positive and IgM

114

ELISA Positive sera) were used as primary antibody for IgM recognition in immunoblotting as per

115

the methodology described elsewhere [13, 14].

116

1.5. Identification of over expressed proteins by MALDI – TOF

117

The target protein band was excised from SDS-PAGE and mass spectrometry analysis was carried

118

out. The protein bands were digested following the standard protocol [15]. Peptide mass fingerprint

119

was measured on an Opti-TOF 384 well insert (Applied Biosystems/MDS Sciex, Foster City, CA)

120

with 0.3 µl of 5 mg ml-1 alpha-cyano-4-hydroxycinnamic acid (Aldrich, St. Louis MO) in 50%

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

100

5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CH3CN, 50% 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid. Crystallized samples were washed with cold 0.1%

122

trifluoroacetic acid and were analyzed by an Applied Biosystems 4800 MALDI TOF/TOF

123

Proteomics Analyzer. An initial MALDI MS spectrum was acquired for each spot (400 laser shots

124

per spectrum) and a maximum of 15 peaks, with a signal-to-noise ratio of greater than 20 were

125

automatically selected for MS/MS analysis (1000 shots per spectrum) by post-source decay or by

126

collisionally-induced dissociation using air at a pressure of 5e-7Torr. Peak lists from the MS/MS

127

spectra were submitted for database similarity searching using Protein Pilot (Applied Biosystems)

128

Ver. 2.0, Rev. 50861. The involvement of the identified proteins in the molecular function and

129

biological process were assigned according to the gene ontology database

130

(http://www.geneontology.org) and the Swiss prot/uniprot database (http://beta.uniport.org).

131

1.6. RNA extraction and cDNA synthesis

132

Total RNA from 1 ml of leptospiral biofilm and planktonic cells from L. interrogans strain Salinem

133

was extracted using Trizol reagent (Invitrogen, USA) in accordance with manufacturer’s

134

instructions. The air dried RNA pellets were re-suspended in diethyl pyrocarbonate water. RNAase

135

free DNAase (Fermentas) was used to remove the genomic DNA content and the concentration was

136

estimated at optical density at 260/280 nm. 200 ηg of total RNA was reverse transcribed using

137

EuroScript RT kit (Euorgentec, Belgium). After RT, 0.25 U of RNAase (Fermentas) was added and

138

the mixture was incubated at 37°C for 20 min to remove any residual RNA from the reaction

139

mixture. The cDNA was stored in -20°C until use.

140

1.7. Real-time quantitative (qRT- PCR)

141

The real time quantitative RT- PCR for the cDNA targeting GroEl gene was performed, using

142

16sRNA gene as calibrator. Primers (Table 1) were designed using primer3

143

(http://frodo.wi.mit.edu/primer3/). The qRT- PCR was performed for the final volume of 25 µl

144

which contained 100 nm each of forward and reverse primer, 1X reaction buffer (2.5 mMdNTPs

145

including dUTP, 0.25U Meteor Taq DNA polymerase, 4 mM MgCl2 and SYBR green I). Samples

146

in duplicate were kept in 96 well plates and amplified in an automated real time PCR machine

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

121

6

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT (7500, Applied bio-systems). The PCR conditions were followed, viz, 95°C for 5 min, 40 cycles of

148

95°C for 15 Sec and 60°C for 1 min. The melt curve was performed at a holding step of 50°C.

149

Quantification was carried out using the comparative cycle threshold (CT) and demonstrated relative

150

transcription or the (2-∆∆ Ct) n-fold difference relative to calibrator gene.

151

2. Results and discussion

152

The biofilms of L. Interrogans Salinem and L. fainei But-6 were examined by using DFM. Briefly,

153

leptospiral cells were allowed to adhere on glass slides, glass tubes and wells of PVC plates. These

154

were observed by DFM at different time intervals (Fig. 1). Leptospira formed a dense layer on glass

155

slides, which was observed to increase in a time-dependent manner, reaching a stationary phase after

156

4-10 days. In addition, surface attached biomass (Biofilm) of Leptospira was quantified after 7 days

157

by crystal violet staining. L. interrogans Salinem and L. fainei But-6 yielded surface attached

158

biomass at OD550 nm =1.08 ± 0.06 SD and OD550 nm =1.60 ± 0.17 SD respectively (Fig. 1, IV). The

159

formation of biofilm at the air liquid interphase by L. interrogans Salinem was described earlier [3]

160

as observed in many other leptospiral strains. However, in this study, L. fainei But-6 was used for

161

first time which had comparatively higher intensity of attachment than the L. interrogans Salinem.

162

Salinem showed low affinity to bind to abiotic surface and there was a delay in adherence (after 6

163

days) when compared to the strain, But 6.

164

Protein extracted from biofilm and planktonic cells were visualized by SDS – PAGE. Although

165

several bands were observed in the biofilm state, protein band with molecular weight, 60 kDa from

166

the biofilm cells (Fig. 2, A) was overexpressed, as compared those in planktonic cells.

167

Immunoblotting revealed that this overexpressed protein reacted with the pooled sera of the patient,

168

and was immunoreactive with a molecular mass of 60 kDa (Fig. 2, B). The protein identities

169

including its theoretical and experimental molecular weights, pIs, sequence coverage and MASCOT

170

score was noted. The sequence coverage is the fraction of the complete protein sequence identified

171

and MASCOT score is given as S= -10 x log (P), where P is the probability that the observed match

172

would be a random event. MASCOT score values higher than 80 are considered to be significant (P

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

147

7

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT < 0.05). The analysis revealed that 60 kDa protein band corresponded to leptospiral chaperon

174

protein GroEL (PI=5.30) with a protein homology similar to L. interrogans serovar Lai str. IPAV.

175

A recent study by Iraola, Spangenberg [5] using RNAseq of Leptospira biflexa biofilm also showed

176

several chaperon proteins to be differentially expressed, i.e; dnaJ and dnaK, grpE (HSP),

177

LEPBI_I1822, LEPBI_I3214, LEPBI_II0248, LEPBI_I0452 and LEPBI_I0885. However, GroEL

178

was not observed in their differentially expressed gene data. This may be due to the conserved

179

sequence of GroEL proteins among L. interrogans.

180

The genomospecies L. biflexa is a free living saprophytic bacteria, even though it shared majority of

181

genes with its pathogenic counterpart (L. interrogans) and are involved in metabolic function and

182

environmental survival. L. biflexa is genetically distinct and lack the genes involved in pathogenesis

183

and host adaptations [16]. Therefore, it was worthwhile to study the proteomics involved in the

184

biofilm of pathogenic and intermediated strains such as L. interrogans Salinem and L. fainei But-6.

185

Moreover, these strains showed comparatively higher biofilm formation in our study[9].

186

GroEL belongs to the chaperonin family of molecular chaperones. It is present in several bacterial

187

fractions, including the cytosol, cell membrane, and extracellular material [17]. It is essential for

188

biofilm formation in the both Gram negative and Gram positive bacteria [18]. GroEL are stress-

189

response proteins that have important roles inducing generation or alteration of proteins involved in

190

adhesion and maintenance of biofilm [19] and also promotes refolding of misfolded polypeptides,

191

especially under stressful conditions and high cell density [20]. GroEL is reported to perform a

192

regulatory function that is not required in planktonic growth but is needed for biofilm maturation

193

[21].

194

GroEL protein plays a significant role in the adherence and subsequent biofilm formation in many

195

bacterium, viz, Mycobacteriumsmegmatis [21], Clostridium difficile [22], Haemophilus influenza

196

[18], Streptococcus mutans [23] and Campylobacter jejuni [2] ect. However, the role of GroEL in

197

adherence mechanism is yet to be explored.

198

In leptospires, Brihuega, et al (2012) observed cell aggregation of L. interrogans serovar Pomona, in

199

the placental tissue of pregnant guinea pigs[24]. We hypothesize that the cell adherence and biofilm

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

173

8

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT formation could be occurring in kidney tubular cells and might be a major factor in chronic

201

leptospirosis of animals as well as in humans. Role of GroEL (HSP60) in Leptospira during these

202

situations need to be studied.

203

The expression study by real time PCR showed that during the attachment of leptospiral cell at air-

204

liquid interface, an up-regulation of GroEl mRNA synthesis (Fig 2, C) occurs. Up-regulation of

205

GroEl protein during biofilm formation suggests the importance of GroEl in the process. HSPs are

206

expressed at basal level during normal growth conditions but are over expressed during stress. In

207

Leptospira, this condition can occur due to abnormal temperatures, poor nutrient conditions, adverse

208

host factors, oxidative stress etc. [1, 3, 25]. Remarkably, at higher temperatures, L. interrrogans has

209

shown to upregulate the synthesis of stress response and HSP’s, including the chaperones, DnaK,

210

GrpE, and GroEL, as well as the HSP100/Clp chaperone ClpB and proved essential for the virulence

211

and resistance to various environmental stress [26]. In the host, HSPs are considered to be the major

212

antigens among a number of bacterial pathogens and several micro-organisms, which express

213

immunogenic GroEL homologues, giving rise to an immunogenic host response [27]. Bacterial

214

infections may cause up-regulation of bacterial HSPs, in response to various stress conditions.

215

This study only focused on single HSP, However there could be other important proteins in co-

216

expression network which may have significant role in leptospiral biofilm. Especially proteins

217

involved in chemotaxis, synthesis of EPS material, Outer membrane proteins (OMPs), Metabolism

218

of sugars and lipids etc.[5]

219

In the immunoblot assay using pooled patient sera, it was found that the GroEL protein (60 kDa)

220

produced by the biofilm of both the strains was overexpressed and immunogenic. This is indicative

221

of the interaction of leptospiral cells with host during infection. In our earlier study, GroEL was

222

identified as one of the common immunoreactive protein and was suggested for use in the diagnosis

223

of leptospirosis[28]. GroEL (HSP60) proteins has been identified as an immunogenic protein and

224

predicted as a potential vaccine candidate against bacterial infections in animal models, viz.

225

Salmonella typhi [29], Streptococcus pneumonia [30], Bacillus anthracis[31].

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

200

9

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Similarly in our previous study, GroEL (HSP60) was identified to be one of the few proteins

227

eliciting long lasting immune response up to 4 years (data no shown). GroEL in some bacteria can

228

induce high antibody titers, promote lymphocyte proliferation, and induce both humoral and cell-

229

mediated immune [32]. Furthermore, investigations are needed to evaluate the capacity of GroEL to

230

trigger a protective immune response against Leptospira.

231

Bacterial growth in a biofilm provides many advantages for them, including, enhanced resistance to

232

environmental stress, such as desiccation and antimicrobials, as well as an increased resistance to

233

host defence mechanisms. For the first time, we demonstrated the proteomic analysis of Leptospira

234

biofilms for the pathogenic strains. Proteomic comparison of biofilm-grown and planktonic cells

235

demonstrated the difference in protein expression between the two states of growth, particularly in

236

the expression of one of the proteins involved during stress response. In conclusion, we provide

237

evidence in this communication that GroEL of Leptospira may have involvement in bacterium

238

adhesion as in other bacteria. Further investigations are needed to determine the mechanism of

239

GroEL in leptospiral biofilm formation.

240

Acknowledgement

241

The authors are thankful to the Department Of Science & Technology (DST), Government of India,

242

Ministry of Science and Technology for providing the extramural grant under Science and

243

Engineering Research Board (SERB), DST/SERB no. SR/SO/HS-0114/2012 for the study. The

244

authors are thankful to Dr. I. P. Sunish for his help in preparation of this manuscript.

245

Ethical clearance – This study was approved by Institutional Ethics Committee

246

Conflict of Interest: no conflict of interest declared

SC

M AN U

TE D

EP

AC C

247

RI PT

226

10

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT References

249

[1] Trueba G, Zapata S, Madrid K, Cullen P, Haake D. Cell aggregation: a mechanism of pathogenic

250

Leptospira to survive in fresh water. Int Microbiol. 2004;7:35-40.

251

[2] Kalmokoff M, Lanthier P, Tremblay T-L, Foss M, Lau P, Sanders G, et al. Proteomic analysis of

252

Campylobacter jejuni 11168 biofilms reveals a role for the motility complex in biofilm formation. J Bacteriol.

253

2006;188:4312-20.

254

[3] Ristow P, Bourhy P, Kerneis S, Schmitt C, Prevost M-C, Lilenbaum W, et al. Biofilm formation by

255

saprophytic and pathogenic leptospires. Microbiol. 2008;154:1309-17.

256

[4] Singh R, Stine OC, Smith DL, Spitznagel JK, Labib ME, Williams HN. Microbial diversity of biofilms in

257

dental unit water systems. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69.

258

[5] Iraola G, Spangenberg L, Lopes Bastos B, Grana M, Vasconcelos L, Almeida A, et al. Transcriptome

259

Sequencing Reveals Wide Expression Reprogramming of Basal and Unknown Genes in Leptospira biflexa

260

Biofilms. mSphere. 2016;1.

261

[6] Bales P, Renke E, May S, Shen Y, Nelson D. Purification and characterization of biofilm-associated EPS

262

exopolysaccharides from ESKAPE organisms and other pathogens. PloS one. 2013;8.

263

[7] Ma L, Conover M, Lu H, Parsek M, Bayles K, Wozniak D. Assembly and development of the

264

Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm matrix. PLoS Pathogens. 2009;5:e1000354.

265

[8] Stamm L, Gherardini F, Parrish E. Heat shock response of spirochetes. Infect Immun. 1991;59:1572-5.

266

[9] Kumar KV, Lall C, Raj RV, Vedhagiri K, Vijayachari P. Coexistence and survival of pathogenic

267

leptospires by formation of biofilm with Azospirillum. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2015;91:fiv051.

268

[10] O'Toole GA. Microtiter Dish Biofilm Formation Assay. J Vis Exp. 2011;47:e2437.

269

[11] Chander MP, Vinod Kumar K, Lall C, Vimal Raj R, Vijayachari P. GC/MS profiling, in vitro anti-

270

leptospiral and haemolytic activities of Boesenbergia rotunda (L.) Mansf. used as a medicinal plant by

271

Nicobarese of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Natural product research. 2016;30:1190-2.

272

[12] Laemmli UK. Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4.

273

Nature. 1970;227:680-5.

274

[13] Laemmli UK. Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4.

275

Nature. 1970;227:680-5.

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

248

11

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT [14] Towbin H, Staehelin T, Gordon J. Electrophoretic transfer of proteins from polyacrylamide gels to

277

nitrocellulose sheets: procedure and some applications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of

278

the United States of America. 1979;76:4350-4.

279

[15] Shevchenko A, Tomas H, Havlis J, Olsen JV, Mann M. In-gel digestion for mass spectrometric

280

characterization of proteins and proteomes. Nature protocols. 2006;1:2856-60.

281

[16] Picardeau M, Bulach DM, Bouchier C, Zuerner RL, Zidane N, Wilson PJ, et al. Genome sequence of the

282

saprophyte Leptospira biflexa provides insights into the evolution of Leptospira and the pathogenesis of

283

leptospirosis. PLoS One. 2008;3:e1607.

284

[17] Skår CK, Krüger PG, Bakken V. Characterisation and subcellular localisation of the GroEL-like and

285

DnaK-like proteins isolated from Fusobacterium nucleatum ATCC 10953. Anaerobe. 2003;9:305-12.

286

[18] Gallaher T, Wu S, Webster P, Aguilera R. Identification of biofilm proteins in non-typeable Haemophilus

287

Influenzae. BMC Microbiol. 2006;6:65.

288

[19] Matsumi Y, Fujita K, Takashima Y, Yanagida K, Morikawa Y, Matsumoto-Nakano M. Contribution of

289

glucan-binding protein A to firm and stable biofilm formation by Streptococcus mutans. Molecular Oral

290

Microbiology. 2015;30:217-26.

291

[20] Silva MS, De Souza AA, Takita MA, Labate CA, Machado MA. Analysis of the biofilm proteome of

292

Xylella fastidiosa. Proteome science. 2011;9:58.

293

[21] Ojha A, Anand M, Bhatt A, Kremer L, Jacobs W, Hatfull G. GroEL1: a dedicated chaperone involved in

294

mycolic acid biosynthesis during biofilm formation in Mycobacteria. Cell. 2005;123:861-73.

295

[22] Hennequin C, Porcheray F. GroEL (Hsp60) of Clostridium difficile is involved in cell adherence.

296

Microbiol. 2001;147:87-96.

297

[23] Lemos J, Luzardo Y, Burne R. Physiologic effects of forced down-regulation of dnaK and groEL

298

expression in Streptococcus mutans. J Bacteriol. 2007;189:1582-8.

299

[24] Brihuega B, Samartino L, Auteri C, Venzano A, Caimi K. In vivo cell aggregations of a recent swine

300

biofilm forming isolate of Leptospira interrogans strain from Argentina. Revista Argentina de microbiol.

301

2012;44:138-43.

302

[25] Lourdault K, Cerqueira G, Wunder E, Picardeau M. Inactivation of clpB in the pathogen Leptospira

303

interrogans reduces virulence and resistance to stress conditions. Infect Immun. 2011;79:3711-7.

304

[26] Lo M, Cordwell S, Bulach D, Adler B. Comparative transcriptional and translational analysis of

305

leptospiral outer membrane protein expression in response to temperature. PLoS Neg Trop Dis. 2009;3.

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

276

12

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT [27] Zugel U, Kaufmann SH. Role of heat shock proteins in protection from and pathogenesis of infectious

307

diseases. Clinical microbiology reviews. 1999;12:19-39.

308

[28] Natarajaseenivasan K, Artiushin S, Velineni S, Vedhagiri K, Vijayachari P, Timoney J. Surface-

309

associated Hsp60 chaperonin of Leptospira interrogans serovar Autumnalis N2 strain as an immunoreactive

310

protein. Euro J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2011;30:1383-9.

311

[29] Panchanathan V, Naidu BR, Devi S, Di Pasquale A, Mason T, Pang T. Immunogenic epitopes of

312

Salmonella typhi GroEL heat shock protein reactive with both monoclonal antibody and patients sera.

313

Immunology letters. 1998;62:105-9.

314

[30] Khan MN, Shukla D, Bansal A, Mustoori S, Ilavazhagan G. Immunogenicity and protective efficacy of

315

GroEL (hsp60) of Streptococcus pneumoniae against lethal infection in mice. FEMS immunology and medical

316

microbiology. 2009;56:56-62.

317

[31] Sinha K, Bhatnagar R. GroEL provides protection against Bacillus anthracis infection in BALB/c mice.

318

Molecular immunology. 2010;48:264-71.

319

[32] Yi L, Wang Y, Ma Z, Lin HX, Xu B, Grenier D, et al. Identification and characterization of a

320

Streptococcus equi ssp. zooepidemicus immunogenic GroEL protein involved in biofilm formation. Veterinary

321

research. 2016;47:50.

SC

M AN U

TE D

324

EP

323

AC C

322

RI PT

306

13

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Figure legends

326

Figure 1.

327

A. Biofilm formation by Leptospira, L. fainei But-6; (i) planktonic cells and (ii) biofilm allowed toform on the

328

glass slide, observed under Dark Ground Microscope (DFM) under 20X magnification. B. Demonstration of

329

biofilm formation at the air liquid in a 10 ml glass tubes, C. Biofilm formation at the air liquid interface in the

330

wells of 96 well Polyvinyl chloride U bottom plate and D. Crystal violet staining of the biofilm formed by

331

Leptospiral strain in comparison to planktonic cells. PL-1: Planktonic cells of L. interrogans Selinem, PL-2:

332

Planktonic cells of L. fainei But-6; BA-1: Biofilm of L. interrogans Selinem; BA-2: Biofilm of L. fainei But-6.

RI PT

325

SC

333

Figure 2. A: SDS-PAGE and B: immunoblots assay. P: Planktonic Leptospira whole cell lysate and BF;

335

biofilm whole cell lysate.

336

C) 16S rRNA and GroEL gene expression in culture in EMJH medium pathogenic Leptospira. RT-PCR was

337

performed to demonstrate leptospiral 16S rRNA (calibrator) and GroEL (test) gene expression. Comparative

338

cycle threshold (CT) and demonstrated relative transcription or the (2-∆∆ Ct) n-fold difference relative to

339

calibrator gene (the error bar is SE).

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

334

14

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 340

Table 1. List of primers used Sl no.

Genes

Primers sequence (5’->3’)

Product length

Forward 5’- AAATTCGGAGCACCTACCAT -3’ 1

GroELint

125 bp

Reverse 5’- ACGTCGTTCGTCTTAGTGGA-3’ Forward 5’- GTCGGAATCGCTAGTAATCG -3’

185 bp

16s rRNA Reverse 5’- CCGATACGGCTACCTTGTTA -3’

341

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

342

RI PT

2

15

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

e1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

EP

SC m l i f o i B

s l e c c i n o t k n a l P

TE D

0

AC C

B.

0 1

60kDa

M AN U

A.

Relative quantity (dRn)

BF

0 2

PL

0 3

C.

RI PT

Figure 2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights •

Biofilm formation in Leptospires is a new area of study and its molecular mechanism has not been fully explored yet. This study demonstrate the over expression of a stress protein associated with the Leptospira biofilm formation.



GroEL is conserved, known to be highly immunogenic and a prominent stress response protein

SC

among Leptospira spp., which may have the clinical relevance

EP

TE D

M AN U

This study will help in understanding the mechanisms of biofilm formation in Leptospira.

AC C



RI PT