Volume 169, Issue 3, Pages e8 (April 2017)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages (January 2014)
Advertisements

Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages (January 2014)
Volume 153, Issue 6, Pages (June 2013)
Jun Zhu, John J. Mekalanos  Developmental Cell 
An Elegan(t) Screen for Drug-Microbe Interactions
Computer Simulations and Image Processing Reveal Length-Dependent Pulling Force as the Primary Mechanism for C. elegans Male Pronuclear Migration  Akatsuki.
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages (January 2012)
Volume 156, Issue 4, Pages (February 2014)
Volume 156, Issue 4, Pages (February 2014)
Huimin Na, Olga Ponomarova, Gabrielle E. Giese, Albertha J.M. Walhout 
Volume 156, Issue 6, Pages (March 2014)
Volume 27, Issue 22, Pages e5 (November 2017)
Regulation of Ceramide Biosynthesis by TOR Complex 2
Volume 20, Issue 12, Pages (September 2017)
Adam Friedman, Norbert Perrimon  Cell 
Volume 25, Issue 4, Pages e6 (April 2017)
The Plasticity of the Hsp90 Co-chaperone System
Saikat Mukhopadhyay, Yun Lu, Shai Shaham, Piali Sengupta 
Impulse Control: Temporal Dynamics in Gene Transcription
Volume 14, Issue 7, Pages (February 2016)
Volume 153, Issue 1, Pages (March 2013)
Effects of Genetic Variation on the E. coli Host-Circuit Interface
Biofilm Inhibitors that Target Amyloid Proteins
Volume 21, Issue 4, Pages (April 2014)
Tobias Bollenbach, Selwyn Quan, Remy Chait, Roy Kishony  Cell 
Volume 49, Issue 1, Pages (January 2013)
Small Molecule Fluoride Toxicity Agonists
Volume 1, Issue 2, Pages (August 2015)
PM analysis of wild-type E. coli K-12 and its rpoZ-defective mutant.
Volume 22, Issue 12, Pages (March 2018)
Small Molecule Fluoride Toxicity Agonists
Structure-Guided Design of Fluorescent S-Adenosylmethionine Analogs for a High- Throughput Screen to Target SAM-I Riboswitch RNAs  Scott F. Hickey, Ming C.
Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages (April 2012)
Rhamnose-Containing Cell Wall Polymers Suppress Helical Plant Growth Independently of Microtubule Orientation  Adam M. Saffer, Nicholas C. Carpita, Vivian.
Modeling the Therapeutic Efficacy of p53 Restoration in Tumors
Starvation activates MAP kinase through the muscarinic acetylcholine pathway in Caenorhabditis elegans pharynx  Young-jai You, Jeongho Kim, Melanie Cobb,
Volume 49, Issue 2, Pages (January 2013)
Michal Levin, Tamar Hashimshony, Florian Wagner, Itai Yanai 
Volume 37, Issue 6, Pages (March 2010)
Volume 2, Issue 6, Pages (June 2016)
Volume 69, Issue 1, Pages e3 (January 2018)
Volume 29, Issue 1, Pages (January 2008)
Volume 135, Issue 1, Pages (October 2008)
ATPase Site Architecture and Helicase Mechanism of an Archaeal MCM
Volume 22, Issue 4, Pages (April 2014)
Volume 7, Issue 6, Pages (June 2008)
Forging New Ties between E. coli Genes
Host Translational Inhibition by Pseudomonas aeruginosa Exotoxin A Triggers an Immune Response in Caenorhabditis elegans  Deborah L. McEwan, Natalia V.
Volume 85, Issue 4, Pages (February 2015)
Selective Activation of Cognate SNAREpins by Sec1/Munc18 Proteins
DNA-Induced Switch from Independent to Sequential dTTP Hydrolysis in the Bacteriophage T7 DNA Helicase  Donald J. Crampton, Sourav Mukherjee, Charles.
Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages (April 2013)
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages (November 2006)
An AT-Rich Sequence in Human Common Fragile Site FRA16D Causes Fork Stalling and Chromosome Breakage in S. cerevisiae  Haihua Zhang, Catherine H. Freudenreich 
Chunli Ren, Paul Webster, Steven E. Finkel, John Tower  Cell Metabolism 
Volume 147, Issue 2, Pages (October 2011)
Signaling from the Living Plasma Membrane
Tradeoffs and Optimality in the Evolution of Gene Regulation
TNF Dually Mediates Resistance and Susceptibility to Mycobacteria via Mitochondrial Reactive Oxygen Species  Francisco J. Roca, Lalita Ramakrishnan  Cell 
Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages (August 2008)
Gerd Prehna, Maya I. Ivanov, James B. Bliska, C. Erec Stebbins  Cell 
Volume 30, Issue 2, Pages (April 2008)
Huimin Na, Olga Ponomarova, Gabrielle E. Giese, Albertha J.M. Walhout 
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages (January 2009)
An Inhibitor of Gram-Negative Bacterial Virulence Protein Secretion
A Persistence Detector for Metabolic Network Rewiring in an Animal
Peter B. Kim, James W. Nelson, Ronald R. Breaker  Molecular Cell 
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages (January 2009)
CRISPR Immunological Memory Requires a Host Factor for Specificity
Volume 150, Issue 1, Pages (July 2012)
Presentation transcript:

Volume 169, Issue 3, Pages 431-441.e8 (April 2017) Bacterial Metabolism Affects the C. elegans Response to Cancer Chemotherapeutics  Aurian P. García-González, Ashlyn D. Ritter, Shaleen Shrestha, Erik C. Andersen, L. Safak Yilmaz, Albertha J.M. Walhout  Cell  Volume 169, Issue 3, Pages 431-441.e8 (April 2017) DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.03.046 Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Cell 2017 169, 431-441.e8DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2017.03.046) Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Screen of Cancer Chemotherapeutics in C. elegans Fed Two Different Bacteria (A) Fecundity and developmental phenotypes in C. elegans in response to chemotherapeutic drugs when fed either E. coli OP50 or Comamonas. All drugs were tested at a concentration of 10 μM. Bright-field images were taken at 2× magnification. RTK, receptor tyrosine kinase. (B) Chemotherapeutic drug titrations in C. elegans L4 animals fed either E. coli OP50 or Comamonas. Colors correspond to phenotypes observed after 72 hr in three independent experiments, as indicated in (A). Representative images of fecundity phenotypes in C. elegans are shown. All images were taken at 2× or 4× (inset) total magnification. See also Figure S1. Cell 2017 169, 431-441.e8DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2017.03.046) Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Active Bacterial Metabolism Is Required to Modulate FUDR Efficacy in C. elegans (A) Bacteria mixing experiment. Bright-field images at 2× magnification (right). (B) Graph of minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) or the lowest concentration tested at which complete embryonic lethality was observed 96 hr after L4 animals were added to drug plates. The mean and SD of three independent experiments are shown. Cell 2017 169, 431-441.e8DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2017.03.046) Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Genetic Screens Identify Bacterial Genes that Affect Drug Efficacy in C. elegans (A) Left: schematic of genetic screens. Right: number of mutants, for each bacteria and drug combination, identified in each round of screening, as indicated. See also Figure S2 and Table S1. (B) Unique bacterial mutants identified in each genetic screen. Up/downward arrows correspond to in/decreased drug efficacy in animals fed the mutant bacteria. Arrows are colored based on listed functional categories. Cell 2017 169, 431-441.e8DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2017.03.046) Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Four Classes of Bacterial Mutants Affect Drug Efficacy in C. elegans (A) Network diagram for bacterial mutant drug interactions identified in matrix experiment, in which each mutant was used with each drug. Each node indicates a bacterial mutant that affects drug efficacy in C. elegans. Nodes are colored based on functional categories listed in Figure 3B. Bacterial mutants are connected when they share the same effect on drug efficacy; edges are as follows: solid lines indicate increased drug efficacy and dashed lines indicate decreased drug efficacy. Bacterial mutant-drug interactions were grouped into four classes: class I, mutants that affect drug efficacy of only one drug; class II, mutants that increase OR decrease drug efficacy of two drugs; class III, mutants that increase OR decrease drug efficacy of all three drugs; class IV, mutants that increase drug efficacy of one or more drugs AND decrease efficacy of other drugs. E, E. coli; C, Comamonas. See also Figure S3. (B) Bacterial growth assays in the presence or absence of drug for all 98 bacterial mutants in round 2 of screening, as indicated in Figure 3A. All drugs were tested at a concentration of 50 μM. Each value represents OD600nm after 8 hr of incubation with DMSO (x axis) or drug (y axis). Data points are colored according to host drug phenotype. Cell 2017 169, 431-441.e8DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2017.03.046) Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 Bacterial Nucleotide Metabolism Affects Chemotherapeutic Drug Efficacy in C. elegans (A) Summary of the E. coli nucleotide biosynthesis network. Colored arrows indicate increase (upward) or decrease (downward) efficacy with CPT, 5-FU, and FUDR. Conversion products from reactions involving 5-FU and FUDR and indicated in light blue. (B) Dose-response curves of selected E. coli mutants. Mean and SD of technical replicates in one experiment are shown. The other biological replicate experiments are provided in Figure S4. Cell 2017 169, 431-441.e8DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2017.03.046) Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 6 Nucleobase Supplementation and Flux Balance Analysis of E. coli Mutants (A) Nucleobase supplementation. WT, wild-type E. coli. Adenine, guanine, and cytosine did not rescue (Figure S5). Representative images of three independent experiments for each bacterial genotype, drug, and nucleobase are shown. 5-FU and FUDR were tested at 0.5 μM. Each nucleobase was added at a concentration of 200 μM (−, vehicle control; T, thymine; U, uracil). See also Figure S5. (B) Flux balance analysis (FBA). FBA was performed on the E. coli metabolic network model iJO1366 (Orth et al., 2011) with an objective function that maximized the production of a nucleoside triphosphate (represented by the flux of drain reactions shown as red arrows) in each simulation. Production fluxes were recalculated upon the deletion of reactions associated with each gene on the right panel. The analysis was repeated with the addition of uracil as represented by an allowed negative flux in a uracil exchange reaction. Bar graphs show production rates during gene deletion simulations as a percentage of wild-type bacteria. The production rate of ribonucleotides and deoxyribonucleotides varied by <2%, therefore, only ribonucleotides and dTTP are shown for simplicity. Cell 2017 169, 431-441.e8DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2017.03.046) Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 7 Model for Anti-pyrimidine Efficacy Modulation by Bacteria (A) Cartoon of transposon-insertion site in the Comamonas 23S rRNA− mutant. (B) Dose-response curves for FUDR. A representative experiment out of three biological replicates is shown. (C) Representative experiment of bacterial growth in the presence or absence of 50 μM FUDR. (D) Nucleobase supplementation; −, vehicle control; T, thymine; U, uracil. (E) Model for anti-pyrimidine efficacy modulation by bacteria. Cell 2017 169, 431-441.e8DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2017.03.046) Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure S1 Reported Mechanism of Action for CPT, 5-FU, and FUDR, Related to Figure 1 Schematic of reported mechanisms of action for the topo-I inhibitor CPT (left), and the anti-pyrimidines 5-FU and FUDR (right). Solid dark arrows indicate main reported mechanisms of action and gray dashed arrows indicate side pathways. TYMS – thymidylate synthase. Cell 2017 169, 431-441.e8DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2017.03.046) Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure S2 Drug Efficacy of C. elegans Fed E. coli K-12 BW25113 Compared to E. coli OP50, Related to Figure 3 C. elegans phenotypes in animals fed E. coli K-12 BW25113, the background strain for the Keio collection (Baba et al., 2006), compared to E. coli OP50. Cell 2017 169, 431-441.e8DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2017.03.046) Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure S3 Overview of the C. elegans Response to 5-FU and FUDR Fed Mutant Bacteria in the Matrix Experiment, Related to Figure 4 Each colored block represents bacterial mutant-drug interactions identified in ≥ two out of three independent experiments. All doses listed are in μM. Cell 2017 169, 431-441.e8DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2017.03.046) Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure S4 Dose-Response Curves for E. coli Mutants, Related to Figure 5 Each plot represents an independent experiment, plotted are the mean and standard deviation between technical replicates. Cell 2017 169, 431-441.e8DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2017.03.046) Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure S5 Nucleobase Supplementation in Different Bacterial Mutants, Related to Figure 6 (A) Effect of nucleotide base supplementation at 200 μM in three independent experiments. (- = vehicle control, A = adenine, G = guanine, C = cytosine, T = thymine, U = uracil). (B) Representative bright-field images at 2X magnification. Cell 2017 169, 431-441.e8DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2017.03.046) Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions