Mechanistic Insights Into the Cross-Feeding of Ruminococcus gnavus and Ruminococcus bromii on Host and Dietary Carbohydrates

Emmanuelle H Crost, Gwenaelle Le Gall, Jenny A Laverde-Gomez, Indrani Mukhopadhya, Harry J Flint, Nathalie Juge, Emmanuelle H Crost, Gwenaelle Le Gall, Jenny A Laverde-Gomez, Indrani Mukhopadhya, Harry J Flint, Nathalie Juge

Abstract

Dietary and host glycans shape the composition of the human gut microbiota with keystone carbohydrate-degrading species playing a critical role in maintaining the structure and function of gut microbial communities. Here, we focused on two major human gut symbionts, the mucin-degrader Ruminococcus gnavus ATCC 29149, and R. bromii L2-63, a keystone species for the degradation of resistant starch (RS) in human colon. Using anaerobic individual and co-cultures of R. bromii and R. gnavus grown on mucin or starch as sole carbon source, we showed that starch degradation by R. bromii supported the growth of R. gnavus whereas R. bromii did not benefit from mucin degradation by R. gnavus. Further we analyzed the growth (quantitative PCR), metabolite production (1H NMR analysis), and bacterial transcriptional response (RNA-Seq) of R. bromii cultured with RS or soluble starch (SS) in the presence or absence of R. gnavus. In co-culture fermentations on starch, 1H NMR analysis showed that R. gnavus benefits from transient glucose and malto-oligosaccharides released by R. bromii upon starch degradation, producing acetate, formate, and lactate as main fermentation end-products. Differential expression analysis (DESeq 2) on starch (SS and RS) showed that the presence of R. bromii induced changes in R. gnavus transcriptional response of genes encoding several maltose transporters and enzymes involved in its metabolism such as maltose phosphorylase, in line with the ability of R. gnavus to utilize R. bromii starch degradation products. In the RS co-culture, R. bromii showed a significant increase in the induction of tryptophan (Trp) biosynthesis genes and a decrease of vitamin B12 (VitB12)-dependent methionine biosynthesis as compared to the mono-culture, suggesting that Trp and VitB12 availability become limited in the presence of R. gnavus. Together this study showed a direct competition between R. bromii and R. gnavus on RS, suggesting that in vivo, the R. gnavus population inhabiting the mucus niche may be modulated by the supply of non-digestible carbohydrates reaching the colon such as RS.

Keywords: Ruminococcus; cross-feeding; gut bacteria; mucin; resistant starch.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Growth curves of the mono- and co-cultures with mucin (A), soluble starch (SS) (B) or resistant starch (RS) (C) as sole carbon source and cell concentrations in the different growth conditions (D). The concentrations were determined by qPCR and expressed as 16S rDNA copy number/mL of culture. The values are averages of 3 replicates for R. gnavus ATCC 29149 grown with Glc or 4 replicates for the other conditions. The error bars correspond to the standard deviations. Cells samples were collected at a time of growth of 7 h for R. gnavus ATCC 29149 grown on Glc, 10 h for R. bromii L2-63 grown on SS and 8 h for the other conditions.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Concentration of starch degradation products in the spent media. The concentrations were determined by 1H NMR and the values are averages of 2 to 5 replicates. The error bars correspond to standard deviations. Results presented in the blue, red and green boxes come from growth assays with Glc, SS and RS as sole carbon source, respectively. Results from the YCFA medium alone, without carbon source, are presented inside the yellow box. Abbreviations: exp, exponential; sta, stationary; n/a, non-applicable.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Concentration of different metabolites in the spent media. Concentrations of ethanol, formate and acetate are shown in panel (A) while concentrations of propane-1, 2-diol and propanol are shown in panel (B). These concentrations were determined by 1H NMR and the values are averages of 2 to 5 replicates. The error bars correspond to standard deviations. Results presented in the blue, red and green boxes correspond to growth assays with Glc, SS and RS as sole carbon source, respectively. Results from the YCFA medium alone, without carbon source, are presented inside the yellow box. Abbreviations: exp, exponential; sta, stationary; n/a, non-applicable.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Principal component analysis (PCA) plots for transcriptomics data of R. bromii L2-63 genes (A) and R. gnavus ATCC 29149 genes (B).
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Volcano plots representing the differential expression analysis of R. bromii L2-63 genes. Genes are considered to be differentially expressed when Log2 Fold Change < –1.5 or > 1.5 and padj < 0.05; non-differentially expressed genes are shown as blue dots. The impact of starch on R. bromii L2-63 gene transcription in mono-cultures and co-cultures is shown in panel (A,B), respectively. (A) No gene was differentially expressed between both mono-cultures. (B) When comparing the co-cultures, 11 genes were up-regulated with RS as compared to SS (shown as green dots). The impact of R. gnavus ATCC 29149 on R. bromii L2-63 gene transcription with SS and RS as sole carbon source is shown in panel (C,D), respectively. (C) When SS was used as carbon source, 7 genes were up-regulated in the co-culture as compared to the mono-culture (shown as green dots). (D) When RS was used as carbon source, 23 genes were up-regulated in the co-culture (shown as green dots) while 4 genes were upregulated in the mono-culture (shown as red dots).
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
Heatmap of the transcription level (in arbitrary unit) of differentially expressed (Log2 Fold Change 1.5 and padj R. bromii L2-63 genes in different growth conditions. This heatmap was produced with ClustVis web tool (Metsalu and Vilo, 2015) using the transcript counts as input values.
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 7
Volcano plots representing the differential expression analysis of R. gnavus ATCC 29149 genes. Genes were considered to be differentially expressed when Log2 Fold Change < –1.5 or > 1.5 and padj < 0.05; non-differentially expressed genes are shown as blue dots. Panel (A) shows the impact of starch type on R. gnavus ATCC 29149 gene transcription when co-cultured with R. bromii L2-63; 213 genes were upregulated in the co-culture with RS (shown as green dots) while 212 genes were up-regulated in the co-culture with SS (shown as red dots). The combined effect of the presence of R. bromii L2-63 and the carbon source (starch vs. glucose) is shown in panels (B) and (C) when SS or RS was used in the co-culture, respectively; (B) When SS was used as carbon source, 40 genes were up-regulated in the co-culture (shown as green dots) and 59 genes were up-regulated in the mono-culture (shown as red dots). (C) When RS was used as carbon source, 119 genes were up-regulated in the co-culture (shown as green dots) while 101 genes were up-regulated in the mono-culture (shown as red dots).
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 8
Heatmap of the transcription level (in arbitrary unit) of selected differentially expressed (Log2 Fold Change 1.5 and padj R. gnavus ATCC 29149 genes in different growth conditions. This heatmap was produced with ClustVis web tool (Metsalu and Vilo, 2015) using the transcript counts as input values. The 20 R. gnavus ATCC 29149 genes with an upregulated transcription in both co-cultures with R. bromii L2-63 on starch compared to the mono-culture on Glc are in blue. The 22 R. gnavus ATCC 29149 genes with an upregulated transcription in the mono-culture on Glc compared to both co-cultures with R. bromii L2-63 on starch are in black.

References

    1. Almagro-Moreno S., Boyd E. F. (2009). Insights into the evolution of sialic acid catabolism among bacteria. BMC Evol. Biol. 9:118. 10.1186/1471-2148-9-118
    1. Belzer C., Chia L. W., Aalvink S., Chamlagain B., Piironen V., Knol J., et al. (2017). Microbial metabolic networks at the mucus layer lead to diet-independent butyrate and vitamin B12 production by intestinal symbionts. mBio 8:e00770-17. 10.1128/mBio.00770-17
    1. Boratyn G. M., Camacho C., Cooper P. S., Coulouris G., Fong A., Ma N., et al. (2013). BLAST: a more efficient report with usability improvements. Nucleic Acids Res. 41 W29–W33. 10.1093/nar/gkt282
    1. Bunesova V., Lacroix C., Schwab C. (2018). Mucin cross-feeding of infant Bifidobacteria and Eubacterium hallii. Microb. Ecol. 75 228–238. 10.1007/s00248-017-1037-4
    1. Centanni M., Hutchison J. C., Carnachan S. M., Daines A. M., Kelly W. J., Tannock G. W., et al. (2017). Differential growth of bowel commensal Bacteroides species on plant xylans of differing structural complexity. Carbohydr. Polym. 157 1374–1382. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.11.017
    1. Centanni M., Lawley B., Butts C. A., Roy N., Lee J., Kelly W. J., et al. (2018). Bifidobacterium pseudolongum has characteristics of a keystone species in bifidobacterial blooms in the ceca of rats fed Hi-Maize starch. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 10.1128/AEM.00547-18 [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Chia L. W., Hornung B. V. H., Aalvink S., Schaap P. J., de Vos W. M., Knol J., et al. (2018). Deciphering the trophic interaction between Akkermansia muciniphila and the butyrogenic gut commensal Anaerostipes caccae using a metatranscriptomic approach. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 111 859–873. 10.1007/s10482-018-1040-x
    1. Crost E. H., Tailford L. E., Le Gall G., Fons M., Henrissat B., Juge N. (2013). Utilisation of mucin glycans by the human gut symbiont Ruminococcus gnavus is strain-dependent. PLoS One 8:e76341. 10.1371/journal.pone.0076341
    1. Crost E. H., Tailford L. E., Monestier M., Swarbreck D., Henrissat B., Crossman L. C., et al. (2016). The mucin-degradation strategy of Ruminococcus gnavus: the importance of intramolecular trans-sialidases. Gut Microbes 7 302–312. 10.1080/19490976.2016.1186334
    1. David L. A., Maurice C. F., Carmody R. N., Gootenberg D. B., Button J. E., Wolfe B. E., et al. (2014). Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome. Nature 505 559–563. 10.1038/nature12820
    1. Donaldson G. P., Lee S. M., Mazmanian S. K. (2016). Gut biogeography of the bacterial microbiota. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 14 20–32. 10.1038/nrmicro3552
    1. Duncan S. H., Hold G. L., Barcenilla A., Stewart C. S., Flint H. J. (2002). Roseburia intestinalis sp. nov., a novel saccharolytic, butyrate-producing bacterium from human faeces. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 52(Pt 5), 1615–1620. 10.1099/00207713-52-5-1615
    1. Flint H. J., Duncan S. H., Louis P. (2017). The impact of nutrition on intestinal bacterial communities. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 38 59–65. 10.1016/j.mib.2017.04.005
    1. Gunning A. P., Kirby A. R., Fuell C., Pin C., Tailford L. E., Juge N. (2013). Mining the “glycocode”–exploring the spatial distribution of glycans in gastrointestinal mucin using force spectroscopy. FASEB J. 27 2342–2354. 10.1096/fj.12-221416
    1. Hoek M., Merks R. M. H. (2017). Emergence of microbial diversity due to cross-feeding interactions in a spatial model of gut microbial metabolism. BMC Syst. Biol. 11:56. 10.1186/s12918-017-0430-4
    1. Koropatkin N. M., Cameron E. A., Martens E. C. (2012). How glycan metabolism shapes the human gut microbiota. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 10 323–335. 10.1038/nrmicro2746
    1. Lawson P. A., Finegold S. M. (2015). Reclassification of Ruminococcus obeum as Blautia obeum comb. nov. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 65(Pt 3), 789–793. 10.1099/ijs.0.000015
    1. Liu C., Finegold S. M., Song Y., Lawson P. A. (2008). Reclassification of Clostridium coccoides, Ruminococcus hansenii, Ruminococcus hydrogenotrophicus, Ruminococcus luti, Ruminococcus productus and Ruminococcus schinkii as Blautia coccoides gen. nov., comb. nov., Blautia hansenii comb. nov., Blautia hydrogenotrophica comb. nov., Blautia luti comb. nov., Blautia producta comb. nov., Blautia schinkii comb. nov. and description of Blautia wexlerae sp. nov., isolated from human faeces. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 58(Pt 8), 1896–1902. 10.1099/ijs.0.65208-0
    1. Lombard V., Golaconda Ramulu H., Drula E., Coutinho P. M., Henrissat B. (2014). The carbohydrate-active enzymes database (CAZy) in 2013. Nucleic Acids Res. 42 D490–D495. 10.1093/nar/gkt1178
    1. Love M. I., Huber W., Anders S. (2014). Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15:550. 10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8
    1. Mark Welch J. L., Hasegawa Y., McNulty N. P., Gordon J. I., Borisy G. G. (2017). Spatial organization of a model 15-member human gut microbiota established in gnotobiotic mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114 E9105–E9114. 10.1073/pnas.1711596114
    1. Metsalu T., Vilo J. (2015). ClustVis: a web tool for visualizing clustering of multivariate data using Principal Component Analysis and heatmap. Nucleic Acids Res. 43 W566–W570. 10.1093/nar/gkv468
    1. Milani C., Lugli G. A., Duranti S., Turroni F., Mancabelli L., Ferrario C., et al. (2015). Bifidobacteria exhibit social behavior through carbohydrate resource sharing in the gut. Sci. Rep. 5:15782. 10.1038/srep15782
    1. Moore W. E. C., Johnson J. L., Holdeman L. V. (1976). Emendation of Bacteroidaceae and Butyrivibrio and descriptions of Desulfomonas gen. nov. and ten new species in the genera Desulfomonas, Butyrivibrio, Eubacterium, Clostridium, and Ruminococcus. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 26 238–252. 10.1099/00207713-26-2-238
    1. Mukhopadhya I., Morais S., Laverde-Gomez J., Sheridan P. O., Walker A. W., Kelly W., et al. (2018). Sporulation capability and amylosome conservation among diverse human colonic and rumen isolates of the keystone starch-degrader Ruminococcus bromii. Environ. Microbiol. 20 324–336. 10.1111/1462-2920.14000
    1. Murata T., Yamato I., Igarashi K., Kakinuma Y. (1996). Intracellular Na+ regulates transcription of the ntp operon encoding a vacuolar-type Na+-translocating ATPase in Enterococcus hirae. J. Biol. Chem. 271 23661–23666.
    1. Ndeh D., Gilbert H. J. (2018). Biochemistry of complex glycan depolymerisation by the human gut microbiota. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 42 146–164. 10.1093/femsre/fuy002
    1. Owen C. D., Tailford L. E., Monaco S., Suligoj T., Vaux L., Lallement R., et al. (2017). Unravelling the specificity and mechanism of sialic acid recognition by the gut symbiont Ruminococcus gnavus. Nat. Commun. 8:2196. 10.1038/s41467-017-02109-8
    1. Pereira F. C., Berry D. (2017). Microbial nutrient niches in the gut. Environ. Microbiol. 19 1366–1378. 10.1111/1462-2920.13659
    1. Qin J., Li R., Raes J., Arumugam M., Burgdorf K. S., Manichanh C., et al. (2010). A human gut microbial gene catalogue established by metagenomic sequencing. Nature 464 59–65. 10.1038/nature08821
    1. Reichardt N., Duncan S. H., Young P., Belenguer A., McWilliam Leitch C., Scott K. P., et al. (2014). Phylogenetic distribution of three pathways for propionate production within the human gut microbiota. ISME J. 8 1323–1335. 10.1038/ismej.2014.14
    1. Rogowski A., Briggs J. A., Mortimer J. C., Tryfona T., Terrapon N., Lowe E. C., et al. (2015). Glycan complexity dictates microbial resource allocation in the large intestine. Nat. Commun. 6:7481. 10.1038/ncomms8481
    1. Sambrook J., Fritsch E. F., Maniatis T. (1989). Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
    1. Sonnenburg E. D., Smits S. A., Tikhonov M., Higginbottom S. K., Wingreen N. S., Sonnenburg J. L. (2016). Diet-induced extinctions in the gut microbiota compound over generations. Nature 529 212–215. 10.1038/nature16504
    1. Tailford L. E., Crost E. H., Kavanaugh D., Juge N. (2015a). Mucin glycan foraging in the human gut microbiome. Front. Genet. 6:81. 10.3389/fgene.2015.00081
    1. Tailford L. E., Owen C. D., Walshaw J., Crost E. H., Hardy-Goddard J., Le Gall G., et al. (2015b). Discovery of intramolecular trans-sialidases in human gut microbiota suggests novel mechanisms of mucosal adaptation. Nat. Commun. 6:7624. 10.1038/ncomms8624
    1. Tannock G. W., Wilson C. M., Loach D., Cook G. M., Eason J., O’Toole P. W., et al. (2012). Resource partitioning in relation to cohabitation of Lactobacillus species in the mouse forestomach. ISME J. 6 927–938. 10.1038/ismej.2011.161
    1. Thursby E., Juge N. (2017). Introduction to the human gut microbiota. Biochem. J. 474 1823–1836. 10.1042/BCJ20160510
    1. Tropini C., Earle K. A., Huang K. C., Sonnenburg J. L. (2017). The gut microbiome: connecting spatial organization to function. Cell Host Microbe 21 433–442. 10.1016/j.chom.2017.03.010
    1. Turroni F., Bottacini F., Foroni E., Mulder I., Kim J. H., Zomer A., et al. (2010). Genome analysis of Bifidobacterium bifidum PRL2010 reveals metabolic pathways for host-derived glycan foraging. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 19514–19519. 10.1073/pnas.1011100107
    1. Turroni F., Milani C., Duranti S., Mahony J., van Sinderen D., Ventura M. (2017). Glycan utilization and cross-feeding activities by Bifidobacteria. Trends Microbiol. 26 339–350. 10.1016/j.tim.2017.10.001
    1. Turroni F., Strati F., Foroni E., Serafini F., Duranti S., van Sinderen D., et al. (2012). Analysis of predicted carbohydrate transport systems encoded by Bifidobacterium bifidum PRL2010. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78 5002–5012. 10.1128/AEM.00629-12
    1. Williams B. B., Van Benschoten A. H., Cimermancic P., Donia M. S., Zimmermann M., Taketani M., et al. (2014). Discovery and characterization of gut microbiota decarboxylases that can produce the neurotransmitter tryptamine. Cell Host Microbe 16 495–503. 10.1016/j.chom.2014.09.001
    1. Ze X., Ben David Y., Laverde-Gomez J. A., Dassa B., Sheridan P. O., Duncan S. H., et al. (2015). Unique organization of extracellular amylases into amylosomes in the resistant starch-utilizing human colonic firmicutes bacterium Ruminococcus bromii. mBio 6:e01058-15. 10.1128/mBio.01058-15
    1. Ze X., Duncan S. H., Louis P., Flint H. J. (2012). Ruminococcus bromii is a keystone species for the degradation of resistant starch in the human colon. ISME J. 6 1535–1543. 10.1038/ismej.2012.4
    1. Ze X., Le Mougen F., Duncan S. H., Louis P., Flint H. J. (2013). Some are more equal than others: the role of “keystone” species in the degradation of recalcitrant substrates. Gut Microbes 4 236–240. 10.4161/gmic.23998

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する