IncC conjugative plasmids and Salmonella genomic island 1 (SGI1) and relatives are frequently associated with multidrug resistance of clinical isolates of pathogenic Enterobacteriaceae. SGI1 is specifically mobilized in trans by IncA and IncC plasmids (commonly referred to as A/C plasmids) following its excision from the chromosome, an event triggered by the transcriptional activator complex AcaCD encoded by these helper plasmids. Although SGI1 is not self-transmissible, it carries three genes, traNS, traHS and traGS, coding for distant homologs of the predicted mating pore subunits TraNC, TraHC and TraGC, respectively, encoded by A/C plasmids. Here we investigated the regulation of traNS and traHGS and the role of these three genes in the transmissibility of SGI1. Transcriptional fusion of the promoter sequences of traNS and traHGS to the reporter gene lacZ confirmed that expression of these genes is inducible by AcaCD. Mating experiments using combinations of deletion mutants of SGI1 and the helper IncC plasmid pVCR94 revealed complex interactions between these two mobile genetic elements. Whereas traNC and traHGC are essential for IncC plasmid transfer, SGI1 could rescue null mutants of each individual gene revealing that TraNS, TraHS and TraGS are functional proteins. Complementation assays of individual traC and traS mutants showed that not only do TraNS/HS/GS replace TraNC/HC/GC in the mating pore encoded by IncC plasmids but also that traGS and traHS are both required for SGI1 optimal transfer. In fact, remodeling of the IncC-encoded mating pore by SGI1 was found to be essential to enhance transfer rate of SGI1 over the helper plasmid. Furthermore, traGS was found to be crucial to allow DNA transfer between cells bearing IncC helper plasmids, thereby suggesting that by remodeling the mating pore SGI1 disables an IncC-encoded entry exclusion mechanism. Hence traS genes facilitate the invasion by SGI1 of cell populations bearing IncC plasmids.
Conjugation is a nearly ubiquitous mechanism of horizontal gene transfer in bacteria, allowing the exchange of the largest number of genes per transfer event, often across taxonomical barriers [1–3]. In Gram-negative and most Gram-positive bacteria, conjugation is mediated by a complex nano-machine called type IV secretion system (T4SS). Conjugative T4SSs are multiprotein complexes that span the cell envelope and translocate DNA substrates from a donor to a recipient cell [4]. Conjugative plasmids and integrative and conjugative elements (ICEs) code for T4SS to promote their own dissemination by conjugation. These self-transmissible mobile genetic elements often bear a gene cargo of metal and antibiotic resistance genes, virulence determinants and other traits with potential selective advantages for the bacterial host [2,5–7]. Conjugative plasmids of the incompatibility group C (IncC) have been found in a broad range of Enterobacteriaceae and in Vibrio cholerae in which they can replicate and efficiently transfer [8–11]. IncC plasmids are closely related to IncA plasmids, and together are collectively referred to as A/C plasmids [8]. IncC plasmids are often recovered from clinical isolates of major pathogenic bacteria to which they confer resistance against multiple drugs, including last-resort antibiotics such as carbapenems [8,12,13]. IncC plasmids share a common scaffold of genes necessary for their replication, stability, conjugative transfer and regulation (Fig 1) [8,14]. Expression of the conjugative transfer genes of IncC plasmids is controlled by repressors Acr1 and Acr2 [15]. These two transcriptional repressors control the transcription of an operon containing acaC and acaD that code for the two subunits of the master activator AcaCD [15,16]. In IncC plasmids, AcaCD specifically binds to and activates 18 promoters that drive the expression of multiple genes and operons, most of which are of unknown function [15]. A third of these promoters drive the expression of tra genes coding for F-type T4SS assembly (traLEKB, traVA, dsbC/traC/trhF/traWU, traFHG), mating pair stabilization (traN), and the relaxase and type IV coupling protein (traIDJ) necessary for conjugative transfer (Fig 1) [17,18]. AcaCD also activates the expression of genes carried by unrelated mobilizable genomic islands (MGIs), thereby triggering their excision from the chromosome and their IncC-dependent dissemination into new bacterial hosts. Such MGIs include MGIVmi1 from Vibrio mimicus, MGIVchHai6 from Vibrio cholerae and Salmonella genomic island 1 (SGI1) from Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium DT104 [15,19–22]. SGI1 and its multiple variants are frequently found in S. enterica and Proteus mirabilis clinical isolates [23–25]. SGI1 and relatives all share a common 26-kb core region disrupted by a complex class 1 integron conferring multidrug resistance (Fig 1) [23,26,27]. SGI1 is thought to hijack the conjugative apparatus encoded by IncA and IncC plasmids to transfer to a new host cell by a mechanism that remains unknown as no origin of transfer (oriT) or mobilization protein such as a relaxase has been identified in SGI1 to date [28]. Remarkably, SGI1 was reported to be mobilized at a much higher rate than MGIVmi1 and MGIVchHai6 (~3 logs higher) when mobilized by the same IncC plasmid, even outperforming the helper plasmid by 10 fold [15,20]. Unlike MGIVmi1 and MGIVchHai6, the core region conserved in SGI1-related elements codes for two putative T4SS subunits, TraGS and TraHS, as well as a putative mating pair stabilization protein, TraNS, that are distantly related to the counterparts TraGC (Vcrx144), TraHC (Vcrx143) and TraNC (Vcrx084) encoded by IncC plasmids (Fig 1, Table 1) [18,29–33]. While these observations suggest that the putative T4SS subunits encoded by SGI1 could be involved in SGI1 spread, they have been shown to be dispensable for its mobilization [28]. Like xis, a gene coding for the recombination directionality factor Xis that facilitates the excision of SGI1 from the chromosome, expression of the three tra genes of SGI1 has recently been reported to be under the control of AcaCD (Fig 1) [15,34,35]. This raises the question of the functional role of the putative tra genes of SGI1. In this study, we investigated whether SGI1 could alter the mating pore encoded by IncC plasmids to enhance its own transfer. First, we confirmed that the genes traNS, and traHGS of SGI1 are under AcaCD control and that this cluster of tra genes is important for SGI1 mobilization. Using combinations of deletion mutants and complementation assays, we explored the role of each TraC/TraS subunit on the formation of the mating pore and its proficiency to mediate transfer of SGI1 and/or the helper IncC plasmid. Finally, we demonstrated that substitution of the TraG subunit enables SGI1 to escape an entry exclusion mechanism encoded by IncC plasmids.
Expression of traNC and traHGC of IncC plasmids is activated by AcaCD, which recognizes a specific AcaCD box upstream of the -35 sequence in the promoters PtraNc and PtraF, respectively (Fig 1) [15]. Two AcaCD boxes were also predicted in intergenic sequences upstream of traNS and traHGS. To test whether expression of SGI1 tra genes is AcaCD-dependent, promoters of traNS (PtraNs) and traHGS (PtraHs) were cloned upstream of a promoterless lacZ gene and their activity was measured by β-galactosidase assays. Controls included the constitutive promoter Pint and the AcaCD-inducible promoter Pxis that drive the expression of the integrase- and Xis-coding genes of SGI1, respectively. Activity of PtraNs was below the level of detection in absence of AcaCD, whereas in the same condition, PtraHs exhibited a weak yet detectable constitutive activity that remained weaker than the constitutive expression of Pint (Fig 2A). AcaCD increased the activity of PtraNs and PtraHs by 6 and 10 fold, respectively, as observed for Pxis (Fig 2A and 2B). Therefore, like their IncC counterparts, expression of SGI1-borne traS genes is directly stimulated by AcaCD, suggesting that TraNS, TraHS and TraGS of SGI1 are produced alongside with TraNC, TraHC and TraGC of IncC plasmids. Thus, the SGI1-coded TraS subunits might complement or even compete with those encoded by IncC plasmids and lead to the synthesis of a hybrid T4SS with altered properties. While predicted to be part of the mating apparatus of IncC plasmids, whether TraNC, TraHC or TraGC are necessary for conjugative transfer has not yet been established [8]. To investigate this, we carried out mating experiments using a set of deletion mutants of pVCR94ΔX2 (Su Sp) as well as complementation assays aimed at evaluating their importance for conjugative transfer. Individual deletion of traNC, traHC or traGC completely abolished conjugative transfer of pVCR94ΔX2 (Fig 3). Trans-complementation of each deletion mutant by expressing the missing gene from the medium-copy plasmid pBAD30 under the control of the arabinose-inducible PBAD promoter restored pVCR94ΔX2 transfer to wild-type level, thereby confirming that the mutations were non-polar (Fig 3). Therefore, the predicted T4SS subunits TraNC, TraGC and TraHC are essential for conjugative transfer of IncC plasmids. To facilitate further investigations on SGI1, we substituted its multidrug resistance locus In104 with a kanamycin-resistance (Kn) cassette, while preserving the core genes conserved in all SGI1-like elements (Fig 1). Resulting SGI1ΔIn104 (Kn) was then used with pVCR94ΔX2 to investigate the role of traNS and traHGS, and of their respective IncC-borne homologs in the dissemination of SGI1 and IncC plasmids. As shown in Fig 2, expression of traNS, traHS and traGS in SGI1 is triggered by AcaCD of IncC plasmids. Nevertheless, whether these genes code for proteins able to contribute to the formation of a functional T4SS was unclear. Kiss et al. [28] reported that mobilization of a natural SGI1 variant lacking ~10 kb (from 3,610 to 13,537 bp) including open reading frames from traNS to traHS was not significantly impacted by the deletion. This suggests the region encompassing traNS to traHS does not contain indispensable functions for SGI1 mobilization. To verify this, we constructed a ΔtraS mutant of SGI1ΔIn104 lacking the whole traNS to traHS region and compared the mobilization by pVCR94ΔX2 of SGI1ΔIn104 and its ΔtraS mutant. Unlike previously reported [28], we observed that ΔtraS led to ~4,000-fold decrease of transfer (2. 27 ± 1. 42 for SGI1ΔIn104 vs 5. 46×10−4 ± 1. 20×10−4 for its ΔtraS mutant), thereby suggesting that genes included in the traS gene cluster are important for SGI1 mobilization. We took advantage of the non-transmissible traNC, traHC and traGC null mutants of pVCR94ΔX2 that likely produce a non-functional mating apparatus to test whether SGI1ΔIn104 could rescue such mutants. If the putative T4SS subunits encoded by SGI1ΔIn104 can replace the ones missing in the T4SS encoded by pVCR94ΔX2, transmissibility of the plasmid should be restored. Remarkably, SGI1ΔIn104 could restore conjugative transfer of each individual mutant to levels that were comparable to wild-type pVCR94ΔX2, while also allowing its own transfer (second pair of bars in Fig 4A, 4B and 4C). These results indicate that SGI1 produces functional mating pore components that can replace the missing corresponding parts in the IncC T4SS. To confirm this hypothesis, trans-complementation of the traNC, traGC and traHC null mutants of pVCR94ΔX2 was carried out by providing donor cells with traNS, traGS and traHS, respectively, expressed from pBAD30. Expression of traNS restored conjugative transfer of pVCR94ΔX2 ΔtraNC to wild-type level (Fig 3). Surprisingly, despite its strong divergence from TraGC (Table 1), TraGS restored conjugative transfer of pVCR94ΔX2 ΔtraGC with only a mere 5-fold reduction compared to wild-type (Fig 3). In contrast, although TraHC and TraHS share 64% identity, expression of traHS failed to restore conjugative transfer of pVCR94ΔX2 ΔtraHC (Fig 3). This latter observation was puzzling because SGI1ΔIn104 could complement the traHC null mutant of pVCR94ΔX2. As shown above, TraGS is a functional substitute for TraGC as it restored transfer of pVCR94ΔX2 ΔtraGC (Fig 3). In contrast, when the reciprocal experiment was carried out, we found that TraGC is a poor substitute for TraGS for mediating transfer of SGI1ΔIn104. While SGI1ΔIn104 transfer was unaffected by the ΔtraGC mutation in pVCR94ΔX2 (Fig 4A), SGI1ΔIn104 ΔtraGS transfer was strongly reduced despite the presence of wild-type pVCR94ΔX2. Taken together, these results suggest that TraGS is required for optimal transfer of SGI1 whereas efficient transmissibility of IncC plasmids can be mediated by TraGC and/or TraGS (Figs 3 and 4A). Combination of both traGC and traGS mutations completely abolished transfer of both elements, confirming the key role of this T4SS component (Fig 4A and S1A Fig). In this context, overexpression of either traGC or traGS nearly restored full transfer of pVCR94ΔX2 ΔtraGC. However, traGC was inefficient at complementing SGI1ΔIn104 ΔtraGS and resulted in a 250-fold decrease of transfer compared to SGI1ΔIn104 (Fig 4A). In contrast, providing traGS in trans fully restored transfer of SGI1ΔIn104 ΔtraGS. Therefore, traGS seems to be a key factor for enhancing the transmissibility of SGI1 relatively to IncC plasmids. Overexpression of traHS was unable to complement a traHC null mutant of pVCR94ΔX2, whereas wild-type SGI1ΔIn104 rescued pVCR94ΔX2 ΔtraHC (Figs 3 and 4B). As traHS and traGS seem to be part of the same operon in SGI1, like their homologs traHC and traGC in IncC plasmids (Fig 1), we suspected that the products of these genes might be interacting partners in the T4SS [14,15]. Substitution of a cognate partner within a pair of interacting proteins by a homologous protein encoded by another element is likely to impair these interactions and affect the functionality of the resulting hybrid mating pore. To test this hypothesis, complementation assays were performed using ptraHGS to coexpress both traHS and traGS in cells bearing either pVCR94ΔX2 ΔtraHC or pVCR94ΔX2 ΔtraHGC (Fig 3). In both cases, conjugative transfer of pVCR94ΔX2 was partially restored, thereby confirming that TraGS and TraHS work together within the mating pore. Together with the lack of complementation of pVCR94ΔX2 ΔtraHC by ptraHS, this latter observation likely reflects the inability of the SGI1-encoded TraHS subunit to interact with the IncC plasmid-encoded TraGC subunit to form a functional T4SS. Although SGI1ΔIn104 ΔtraHS combined with pVCR94ΔX2 did not prevent the formation of a functional mating pore since pVCR94ΔX2 transferred at wild-type level, we observed that transfer of SGI1ΔIn104 ΔtraHS was reduced by 100 fold (Fig 4B). Because TraGS is required for optimal transfer of SGI1ΔIn104 (Fig 4A), this observation suggests that although TraHS does not work in association with TraGC, TraHC associated with TraGS could form a functional mating pore. To investigate further these interactions, we combined pVCR94ΔX2 and SGI1ΔIn104 mutants, as well as expression of TraC/TraS subunits from pBAD30 vectors in conjugative transfer experiments. Neither element transferred when the traHC/traHS combination of mutants was used (Fig 4B and S1B Fig). However, complementation by providing either traHC or traHS in trans partially restored transfer of both elements. When pVCR94ΔX2 ΔtraHC was combined with SGI1ΔIn104 ΔtraGS, no transfer was detected for either element (Fig 4D), thereby confirming that TraGC and TraHS are incompatible and unable to form a functional T4SS. In contrast, the reciprocal association of pVCR94ΔX2 ΔtraGC with SGI1ΔIn104 ΔtraHS allowed transfer of both elements to near wild-type levels, thereby confirming that association of TraHC with TraGS can sustain formation of a functional and efficient hybrid T4SS (Fig 4B). Altogether, these results revealed that while SGI1 can use a mating pore entirely encoded by IncC plasmids, the expression and association of TraHS with TraGS are necessary for its optimal transfer, which largely surpasses the transfer rate of the helper plasmid. Additional experiments were performed to assess the impact of traNC and traNS on the transfer ability of pVCR94ΔX2 and SGI1. Transfer assays using a donor bearing pVCR94ΔX2 and SGI1ΔIn104 ΔtraNS revealed that traNS was dispensable for SGI1 transfer if the IncC helper plasmid provided TraNC (Fig 4C). Combination of ΔtraNC and ΔtraNS mutations abolished pVCR94ΔX2 transfer, although it allowed residual transfer of SGI1ΔIn104 ΔtraNS (>4 logs below SGI1ΔIn104 level). Complementation of both mutations using either ptraNC or ptraNS restored the transmissibility of both elements (Fig 4C and S1C Fig). Attempts to rescue pVCR94ΔX2 ΔtraHGC with ptraHGS only partially restored transfer of the mutant plasmid (250-fold reduction of transfer compared to wild-type) (Fig 3), whereas wild-type SGI1ΔIn104 restored transfer of pVCR94ΔX2 ΔtraHGC to near wild-type level (Fig 4D). This observation suggests that TraNS of SGI1 interacts specifically with the TraHGS-containing T4SS. This prompted us to test whether traNS could act cooperatively with traHGS to enhance the transmissibility of SGI1ΔIn104. We found that although SGI1ΔIn104 ΔtraNS transfer is not affected by the mutation in the context of wild-type pVCR94ΔX2, the concomitant absence of traHGC in pVCR94ΔX2 resulted in a 330-fold decrease of SGI1ΔIn104 ΔtraNS, despite the presence of SGI1ΔIn104-borne traHGS and pVCR94ΔX2-borne traNC (Fig 4D). In contrast, transfer of pVCR94ΔX2 was not affected in this context. These results showed that all three SGI1 Tra subunits seem to work together to promote its optimal transfer. In F-type T4SSs, TraG is known to be a determinant of entry exclusion in the donor cell [36]. Entry exclusion is a process by which DNA transport from the donor cell is blocked by a recipient cell that contains a plasmid belonging to the same exclusion group. IncA and IncC plasmids seem to have been combined into A/C based on entry exclusion rather than incompatibility [37]. However, whether A/C plasmids exert entry exclusion had yet to be demonstrated. To test this, we monitored the mobilization of pSU4628, a derivative of the broad-host-range mobilizable plasmid CloDF13 (Table 2). Although pSU4628 lacks T4SS genes, it codes for a mobilization protein that recognizes its cognate oriT and enables its translocation through P- and F-type T4SSs [38]. As a control, we first tested whether pSU4628 could be efficiently mobilized from E. coli SM10λpir which bears conjugative plasmid RP4 (P-type) to E. coli bearing or lacking pVCR94ΔX4. pSU4628 transferred at high frequency regardless of the presence of the IncC plasmid in the recipient (Fig 5A), thereby indicating that IncC plasmids do not exclude entry of DNA mediated by IncP RP4. In contrast, when pVCR94ΔX2 was used to mobilize pSU4628 to the same recipient strains, a 160-fold reduction of transfer (Exclusion index (EI) ) was observed if pVCR94ΔX4 was present in the recipient, thereby confirming that IncC plasmids exert entry exclusion. Genes mediating entry exclusion of A/C plasmids have not yet been characterized; however, by analogy with other F-type T4SSs [36], TraGC is likely the determinant of entry exclusion in donor cells. Since SGI1 codes for its own TraGS subunit, we hypothesized that SGI1 would escape IncC entry exclusion, thereby facilitating DNA exchange between cells bearing IncC plasmids. To test this, we monitored pSU4628 mobilization from a donor bearing both pVCR94ΔX2 and SGI1ΔIn104 to recipient cells bearing or lacking pVCR94ΔX4. pSU4628 mobilization by pVCR94ΔX2 was enhanced by SGI1ΔIn104 at a rate comparable to mobilization by RP4 regardless of the presence of pVCR94ΔX4 in the recipient (EI = 1. 6) (Fig 5A), thereby confirming that SGI1 disables IncC entry exclusion. Deletion of traHS had no significant impact (EI = 1. 3) suggesting it plays no role in disabling IncC entry exclusion. In contrast, when SGI1ΔIn104 ΔtraGS was used, mobilization of pSU4628 was much reduced and the presence of the IncC plasmid in the recipient resulted in exclusion (EI = 27) (Fig 5A). Mobilization of pSU4628 in the presence of SGI1ΔIn104 ΔtraHGS was comparable with donors lacking SGI1ΔIn104 (EI = 19). Recently, Sibor et al. [24] showed SGI1 mobilization when the IncC helper plasmid resides in the recipient strain. Since SGI1 is not self-transmissible, this observation suggests that prior to SGI1 mobilization, the donor strain acquires the IncC plasmid, which can then mobilize SGI1 toward the recipient. Such a two-step transfer of SGI1 can only occur if SGI1 disables IncC entry exclusion. We verified this using as a donor E. coli BW25113 Nx containing either SGI1ΔIn104 (Kn) or its ΔtraGS mutant, and as a recipient E. coli CAG18439 bearing pVCR94ΔX4. Selection of intermediate BW25113 Nx transconjugants bearing pVCR94ΔX4 showed that the helper plasmid transferred efficiently regardless of the absence or presence of traGS (Fig 5B). Furthermore, while SGI1ΔIn104 transferred at high frequency to CAG18439 with pVCR94ΔX4, we failed to detect transfer of SGI1ΔIn104 ΔtraGS (Fig 5B). Mobilization was restored to wild-type level when the ΔtraGS mutant was complemented with traGS, whereas overexpression of traGC partially rescued transfer to levels 4 logs below the wild-type. This confirms that SGI1 fails to transfer to cells harboring an IncC helper if it must rely on a TraGC-based T4SS. TraGS-based T4SS is critical for SGI1 propagation across bacterial population bearing IncC plasmids.
Most known MGIs are opportunistic passengers riding the T4SS encoded by their conjugative helper element [39]. IncC conjugative plasmids have hitherto been shown to mobilize in trans three different MGIs: MGIVmi1 from V. mimicus, MGIVchHai6 from V. cholerae and SGI1 from S. enterica. Mobilization of both MGIVmi1 and MGIVchHai6 would rely on the auxiliary mobilization protein MobI, which would play the role of adaptor between the oriT of the MGIs and the relaxase of IncC plasmids [15,19,20]. However, this mechanism of mobilization is suboptimal with transfer rates 150 to 200 times lower than the IncC helper plasmid. In strong contrast, SGI1 was reported to transfer more than 10 times better than the same IncC helper plasmid [15,40]. Hence, SGI1 is not merely a free rider of the T4SS encoded by IncC plasmids, but rather tweaks the engine to its own benefit. This study confirmed the key role of TraNC, TraGC and TraHC in the formation of the T4SS of IncC plasmids. Expression of each protein restored the transfer of the corresponding mutant, although it did not enhance its transfer rate above wild-type level. Therefore, unlike the master regulator AcaCD [15], individual production of TraNC, TraGC or TraHC is not a limiting step for plasmid transfer. Moreover, our study of the three putative tra genes of SGI1 confirmed that not only is expression of these genes AcaCD-dependent as recently shown by Murányi et al. [35], but each one also codes for a fully functional T4SS subunit; together the Tra subunits of SGI1 could complement individual traGC, traHC and traNC deletion mutants of pVCR94ΔX2. Heterologous complementation of T4SS functions by subunits encoded by different plasmids has already been reported for P-type T4SSs. For instance, the peptide hydrolase TraL from the IncN plasmid pKM101 can replace VirB1 of the VirB T4SS of Agrobacterium tumefaciens despite low sequence identity (31%) [41]. Likewise, their TraC and VirB5 components can also be exchanged [42]. Furthermore, the VirB10 homolog TrwE of IncW plasmid R388 can be partially substituted for conjugation by TrwE of Bartonella tribocorum, a component of a T4SS involved in pathogenicity [43]. However, such exchanges of T4SS subunits between mobile genetic elements is uncommon and usually prevented in natural systems. For instance, interference between multiple functionally divergent T4SSs that co-occur in Bartonella is avoided by tight spatiotemporal regulation of expression or rapid diversification of the T4SS components [44]. Optimal SGI1 transfer depends on which of the subunits are composing the mating pore. Fig 6 illustrates the possible combinations of T4SS subunits and their outcome on SGI1 transfer efficiency inferred from our results (Figs 3 and 4). Our findings challenge a previous report by Kiss et al. [28] suggesting that SGI1 traS genes are not involved in SGI1 mobilization. In fact, our results indicate that traGS (collaboratively with traHS and traNS) enhances the transfer rate of SGI1ΔIn104 over the helper IncC plasmid (Fig 4). Moreover, traGC substitution by traGS enables SGI1 to invade cell populations bearing IncC plasmids likely by evading IncC entry exclusion (Fig 5B). Since SGI1 has also been shown to destabilize IncC plasmids [40], this mechanism sheds a new light on the ecological and epidemiological significance of SGI1 and relatives in the propagation of multidrug resistance. In fact, we predict that combination of entry exclusion escaping and IncC plasmid destabilization would result in displacement of IncC plasmids by SGI1 in enterobacterial cell populations bearing IncC plasmids upon contact with a small subpopulation of cell bearing only SGI1. Deletion of both traNC and traNS revealed that, despite the lack of putative adhesin that seems to be required for transfer of IncC plasmids, SGI1 can still transfer at low frequency. The TraNC/TraNS adhesins, which are thought to stabilize the mating cell pair [18,30,31], are likely required for the transfer of a large DNA molecule such as pVCR94ΔX2 (~120 kb), while the smaller size of SGI1 (~26 kb for SGI1ΔIn104) would render it less vulnerable to premature separation of the mating partners due to the shorter transfer time required to transfer the whole element. In addition, traNC and traNS could be easily exchanged without drastic impairment of SGI1ΔIn104 or pVCR94ΔX2 transfer. This result is not surprising considering that TraNC and TraNS are the least divergent proteins of the three orthologous pairs (78% identity) (Fig 1, Table 1). An H (TraHC or TraHS) and a G (TraGC or TraGS) subunit are both required for assembly of a functional mating apparatus. However, we showed that all combinations are not functionally equivalent, as TraHS and TraGC appeared to be incompatible (Fig 4B). Thus, SGI1-encoded subunit TraHS specifically interacts with TraGS, strongly enhancing the efficiency of SGI1 transfer. Altogether, our observations suggest that the TraHGS association allows a specific interaction with protein (s) and/or DNA of SGI1 to optimize its transfer. One candidate could be the relaxosome, i. e. the machinery that processes DNA at the SGI1-borne origin of transfer (oriT) to allow its transfer. oriT of SGI1 and components of the relaxosome that process it remain to be identified and could be partly encoded by SGI1 to confer specificity to the altered mating pore. Chromosomally integrated SGI1 is not entirely quiescent. While expression of IncC plasmid-borne traC genes strictly depends on AcaCD activation [15], traHGS are constitutively transcribed at low level in an AcaCD-independent fashion (Fig 2). Basal expression of traHGS strongly suggests that SGI1 primes the bacterial cell to accumulate TraGS and TraHS subunits. While production of these T4SS subunits is likely vain when SGI1 is alone, upon arrival of a helper IncC plasmid, cells primed with TraGS and TraHS might be more prone to rapidly incorporate SGI1-encoded subunits in lieu of IncC-plasmid-encoded ones, thereby favoring the transfer of SGI1 over the helper plasmid. In contrast, expression of traNS is strictly dependent upon AcaCD activation (Fig 2) [35]. Tight control over traNS expression may have been selected to prevent futile expression of the cell surface-exposed adhesin, which could potentially serve as a receptor for infection by bacteriophages. In conclusion, unlike any other known mobilizable genomic island described to date, SGI1 not only hijacks the mating pore encoded by IncC plasmids, but also customizes it by inserting its T4SS subunits. This strategy enhances the propagation of SGI1 in bacterial populations as a result of enhanced transfer rates and expansion of its host range to recipient cells bearing IncC plasmids. This study takes us one step further into the comprehension of the intimate relation that links the mobility of unrelated classes of multidrug resistance-conferring mobile genetic elements.
Bacterial strains and plasmids used in this study are described in Table 2. Strains were routinely grown in lysogeny broth (LB-Miller, EMD) at 37°C in an orbital shaker/incubator and were preserved at -80°C in LB broth containing 15% (vol/vol) glycerol. Antibiotics were used at the following concentrations: ampicillin (Ap), 100 μg/ml; chloramphenicol (Cm), 20 μg/ml; hygromycin B (Hy), 50 μg/ml; kanamycin (Kn), 50 μg/ml or 10 μg/ml for single copy integrants of pOPlacZ; nalidixic acid (Nx), 40 μg/ml; spectinomycin (Sp), 50 μg/ml; streptomycin (Sm), 200 μg/ml; sulfamethoxazole (Su), 160 μg/ml; tetracycline (Tc), 12 μg/ml; trimethoprim (Tm), 32 μg/ml. When required, bacterial cultures were supplemented with either 0. 02 or 0. 2% L-arabinose. Conjugation assays were performed by mixing 100 μl of donor cells and 100 μl of recipient cells (typically ~2×109 cells/ml each) that were grown overnight in LB broth at 37°C with suitable antibiotics to ensure retention of the plasmid and SGI1 derivatives. Cells were pelleted by centrifugation for 3 min at 1,200 g, washed once in 200 μl of LB broth and resuspended in 10 μl of LB broth. Mating mixtures were then deposited as drops on LB agar plates and incubated at 37°C for 6 hours. The cells were recovered from the plates in 800 μl of LB broth, vortexed and diluted via serial 10-fold dilutions before plating on LB agar plates containing suitable antibiotics. Donors were selected using a chromosomal marker, and as necessary a marker for pVCR94, SGI1ΔIn104 and/or pSU4628. To induce expression of tra genes in complementation assays, mating experiments were carried out onto LB agar plates with 0. 02% arabinose. Frequency of transfer was calculated as transconjugants/donor from data obtained from at least 3 parallel mating experiments. Plasmid DNA was prepared using the EZ-10 Spin Column Plasmid DNA Minipreps Kit (Bio Basic) according to manufacturer’s instructions. All enzymes used in this study were purchased from New England Biolabs. PCR assays were performed with the primers described in S1 Table. PCR conditions were as follows: (i) 3 min at 94°C; (ii) 30 cycles of 30 sec at 94°C, 30 sec at the appropriate annealing temperature, and 1 minute/kb at 68°C; and (iii) 5 min at 68°C. When necessary, PCR products were purified using an EZ-10 Spin Column PCR Products Purification Kit (Bio Basic) according to manufacturer’s instructions. E. coli was transformed by electroporation as described by Dower et al. [53] in a Bio-Rad GenePulser Xcell apparatus set at 25 μF, 200 V and 1. 8 kV using 1-mm gap electroporation cuvettes. Sequencing reactions were performed by the Plateforme de Séquençage et de Génotypage du Centre de Recherche du CHUL (Québec, QC, Canada). Plasmids and oligonucleotides used in this study are listed in Table 2 and S1 Table. Plasmids used for complementation assays were derived from pBAD30. traNC, traGC, and traHC were amplified using primer pairs 94traN84EcoRI. for/94traN84EcoRI. rev, 94traG144EcoRI. for/94traG144EcoRI. rev, 94traH143EcoRI. for/94traH143EcoRI. rev, and genomic DNA of E. coli BW25113 Nx containing pVCR94ΔX2 as the template. Amplicons were digested by EcoRI and cloned into EcoRI-digested pBAD30 using T4 DNA ligase, generating ptraNC, ptraGC and ptraHC. Likewise, traNS, traGS, traHS and traHGS were amplified using primer pairs SGI105traNSalI. for/SGI105traNSalI. rev, SGI111traGSalI. for/SGI111traGSalI. rev, SGI1s012EcoRI. for/SGI1s012EcoRI. rev, and SGI1s012SalI. for/SGI111traGSalI. rev, and genomic DNA of E. coli BW25113 Nx containing SGI1 as template. Amplicons were digested by SalI or EcoRI and cloned into SalI or EcoRI-digested pBAD30 using the T4 DNA ligase, generating ptraNS, ptraGS, ptraHS and ptraHGS. PCR fragments containing the promoter region upstream of int, xis, traNS, traHGS were amplified using primer pairs SGI1promintPstI. for/SGI1promintPstI. rev, SGI1promxisPstI. for/SGI1promxisPstI. rev, SGI1promtraNPstI. for/SGI1promtraNPstI. rev, SGI1promtraHPstI. for/SGI1promtraHPstI. rev and cloned into the PstI restriction site of pOPlacZ to produce pPromint, pPromxis, pPromtraNS, pPromtraHS, respectively [15]. The resulting plasmids were verified by restriction profiling and DNA sequencing. These vectors were integrated in single copy into the chromosomal site attBλ of E. coli BW25113 Nx using pINT-Ts [52]. Deletion mutants of pVCR94ΔX2 and SGI1 were constructed using the one-step chromosomal gene inactivation technique with pSIM6 or pSIM18 (Table 2) [45]. For pVCR94ΔX2, deletions of traNC, traGC, traHC and traHGC were obtained using primer pairs, 94del84traN. for/94del84traN. rev, 94del144traG. for/94del144traG. rev, 94del143traH. for/94del143traH. rev, 94del143traH. for/94del144traG. rev, respectively, and pKD3 as the template (Table 2 and S1 Table). SGI1 derivative SGI1ΔIn104 was obtained using primer pair SGI1delVar. for/SGI1delVar. rev and pKD13 as the template. Subsequent deletions of traNS, traGS, traHS, traHGS and traNS-traHS region in SGI1ΔIn104 were obtained using primer pairs, SGI1delS005. for/SGI1del05traN. rev, SGI1delS011. for/SGI1delS011. rev, SGI1delS012. for/SGI1delS012. rev, SGI1delS012. for/SGI1delS011. rev and SGI1delS012. for/SGI1del05traN. rev, respectively, and pKD3 as the template. Substitution of the aph (Kn) resistance gene with the cat (Cm) resistance gene in pVCR94ΔX3 was carried out using the same approach with primers 94DelXnoFRTcm. for and 94DelXnoFRTcm. rev, and pKD3 as the template, yielding pVCR94ΔX4. When possible, the antibiotic resistance cassette was removed from the resulting construction by Flp-catalyzed excision using the pCP20 vector [50]. All deletions were verified by PCR and antibiotic resistance profiling. Qualitative assays on solid LB agar plate were done using 40 μg/ml 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl-β-D-galactopyranoside (X-gal) as the substrate with or without 0. 02% arabinose. Plates were observed after overnight incubation at 37°C. Quantitative liquid assays using o-2-nitrophenyl-β-D-galactopyranoside (ONPG) as the substrate were done according to a protocol adapted from Miller [54]. After overnight incubation at 37°C in 4 ml LB broth supplemented with appropriate antibiotics, cultures were refreshed 1: 100 in 4 ml LB broth supplemented with 10 μg/ml kanamycin, 25 μg/ml ampicillin and 0. 2% arabinose except for the non-induced controls. Cultures were incubated for 5 hours at 37°C with shaking prior to sampling for enzymatic assays. OD measurements for enzymatic assays were performed using a Multiskan Go Microplate Spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific). Each experiment was performed in at least three independent biological replicates. Induction ratios were calculated by dividing the “induced” values by the “non-induced” values whereas the control ratios were calculated by dividing the “non-induced” values by the control values.
Acquisition and dissemination of multidrug resistance genes among Enterobacteriaceae is in part driven by IncA and IncC (A/C) conjugative plasmids and Salmonella genomic island 1 (SGI1). Although unrelated, SGI1 relies on the self-transmissible A/C plasmids to disseminate within bacterial populations. The mechanisms allowing SGI1 to hijack the mating apparatus synthesized by A/C plasmids have not been previously established. Here, we show that IncC plasmids trigger the expression of three SGI1-borne genes that code for functional mating pore subunits distantly related to those encoded by the IncC helper plasmids. Our results indicate that these subunits alter the mating pore encoded by IncC plasmids to ensure optimal transfer of SGI1 and promote SGI1 dissemination in cell populations harboring IncC plasmids. Apart from SGI1 and relatives, documented mobilizable genomic islands are not known to code for mating pore components, possibly because of redundancy with those encoded by helper conjugative elements. Instead they usually code for mobilization proteins such as a relaxase and auxiliary factors involved in DNA recognition, processing and docking to the mating pore encoded by their helper conjugative element. From an ecological and epidemiological perspective, the strategy used by SGI1 likely confers a strong competitive advantage to SGI1 over IncC plasmids in clinical settings and could account for the high prevalence of SGI1 and relatives in multidrug-resistant Salmonella enterica and Proteus mirabilis.
medicine and health sciences
pathology and laboratory medicine
pathogens
plasmids
microbiology
bacterial diseases
antibiotic resistance
deletion mutagenesis
enterobacteriaceae
genetic elements
forms of dna
dna
molecular biology techniques
mutagenesis and gene deletion techniques
pharmacology
bacteria
bacterial pathogens
research and analysis methods
infectious diseases
antimicrobial resistance
artificial gene amplification and extension
chromosome biology
medical microbiology
gene expression
microbial pathogens
salmonella enterica
molecular biology
salmonella
biochemistry
cell biology
nucleic acids
polymerase chain reaction
genetics
microbial control
biology and life sciences
genomics
mobile genetic elements
organisms
chromosomes
Salmonella genomic island 1 (SGI1) reshapes the mating apparatus of IncC conjugative plasmids to promote self-propagation