Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Clinical Science and Epidemiology
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Therapeutics and Prevention
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About mBio
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • AAM Fellows
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
mBio
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Clinical Science and Epidemiology
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Therapeutics and Prevention
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About mBio
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • AAM Fellows
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
Editor's Pick Research Article | Host-Microbe Biology

Probiotic Properties of Escherichia coli Nissle in Human Intestinal Organoids

Suman Pradhan, Alison Ann Weiss
Alan G. Barbour, Editor
Suman Pradhan
aDepartment of Molecular Genetics, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alison Ann Weiss
aDepartment of Molecular Genetics, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alan G. Barbour
University of California, Irvine
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/mBio.01470-20
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • FIG 1
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 1

    Bacterial growth in HIOs. HIOs were microinjected with 103 CFU of nonpathogenic Nissle, pathogenic EHEC, or pathogenic UPEC. The HIOs were incubated with penicillin-streptomycin in the tissue culture medium to prevent bacterial growth outside of the lumen. The plot shows the mean number of CFU ± SD determined at the indicated times from three different HIOs.

  • FIG 2
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 2

    EHEC and UPEC destroy the epithelial barrier. HIOs were injected with 103 CFU of Nissle, UPEC, or EHEC along with the fluorescent dye FITC-dextran. (A) The retention of fluorescence was monitored microscopically over time. Bars, 100 μm. Representative images of experiments performed in triplicate are shown. (B) The epithelial barrier function was assessed by quantifying the retention of fluorescence using ImageJ software, and the fluorescence is plotted as the mean ± SD (n = 3). The statistical significance (determined by an unpaired t test) of the results for Nissle versus those for EHEC was assessed at 18 h postinfection (**, P < 0.003), and the statistical significance of the results for Nissle versus those for UPEC was assessed at 72 h postinfection (*, P < 0.02).

  • FIG 3
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 3

    Epithelial damage of infected HIOs. HIOs were microinjected with 103 CFU of Nissle, EHEC, or UPEC and harvested at the indicated times postinjection. Cryosections of infected HIOs were stained for DNA (blue; DAPI), bacteria (green; anti-E. coli for Nissle and UPEC, anti-O157 for EHEC), and F-actin (red; phalloidin) and assessed by confocal microscopy. The lumen is labeled. Bars, 20 μm. Representative images of experiments performed in triplicate are shown. (A) Nissle at 18 hours; (B) EHEC at 18 hours; (C) Nissle at 72 hours; (D) UPEC at 72 hours.

  • FIG 4
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 4

    Nissle and EHEC coinfection. (A) Experimental timeline. HIOs were injected with 103 CFU of Nissle. After 12 h, half were challenged with 103 CFU of EHEC. (B) Plot of the mean number of CFU ± SD (n = 3) determined at the indicated times. (C) Cryosection of coinfected HIOs at 42 h (30 h after challenge with EHEC) stained for DNA (blue; DAPI), bacteria (green; anti-O157), and F-actin (red; phalloidin). Bar, 20 μm. A representative image of an experiment performed in triplicate is shown.

  • FIG 5
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 5

    Nissle and UPEC coinfection. (A) Experimental timeline. HIOs were injected with 103 CFU of Nissle, and 24 h later, half were challenged with 103 CFU of UPEC. (B) Plot of the mean number of CFU ± SD (n = 3) determined at the indicated times. (C) Cryosection of coinfected HIOs at 96 h (72 h after challenge with UPEC) stained for DNA (blue; DAPI), bacteria (green; anti-E. coli), and F-actin (red; phalloidin). Bar, 20 μm. A representative image of an experiment performed in triplicate is shown.

  • FIG 6
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 6

    Nissle protects the epithelial barrier function from infection with pathogenic UPEC and EHEC. HIOs were microinjected with 103 CFU of Nissle along with FITC-dextran and challenged with 103 CFU of EHEC at 12 h or UPEC at 24 h. (A) The retention of fluorescence was monitored microscopically over time. Each column represents a single organoid imaged at the indicated time. Bars (displayed only on the final image), 100 μm. Representative images of experiments performed in triplicate are shown. (B) The epithelial barrier function was assessed by quantifying the retention of fluorescence using ImageJ software, and the results are plotted as the mean ± SD, with at least 3 repeats being performed. Differences were not statistically significant at 72 h by analysis of variance with Bonferroni’s multiple-comparison posttest.

  • FIG 7
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 7

    E-cadherin expression. Cryosections from saline-injected controls, single-strain infections, and coinfection experiments (as described in Fig. 4 and 5) were stained for E-cadherin. A white box was sized to outline the epithelial cells stained for E-cadherin in the control HIOs. Keeping the boxed area constant, fluorescence was quantified for three random epithelial areas for each organoid, and the results were averaged. Statistical analysis was performed using the averages for the three independent repeats (n = 3). (A) Saline, 72 h postinjection; (B) Nissle, 72 h postinjection; (C) EHEC, 18 h postinjection; (D) Nissle and EHEC, coinfection at 18 h; (E) UPEC, 72 h postinjection; (F) Nissle and UPEC, coinfection at 72 h. White boxes indicate the regions used to quantify fluorescence. Bars, 20 μm. (G and H) Fluorescence was quantified using ImageJ software and plotted as the mean ± SD (n = 3). (G) E-cadherin fluorescence in the EHEC challenge; (H) E-cadherin fluorescence in the UPEC challenge. Statistical significance was assessed with GraphPad Prism (version 5) software, using one-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni’s posttest. *, P = 0.1 to 0.01; ***, P < 0.0001.

  • FIG 8
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 8

    Nissle protects from apoptosis. HIOs were microinjected with 103 CFU of Nissle, EHEC alone, or UPEC alone or coinfected, as described in Fig. 4 and 5. The outer border of the HIO, including the mesenchymal layer, was marked, and the caspase 3 total fluorescence within the area was determined. Values were normalized by dividing the total fluorescence intensity by the area of the organoid. Each infection was performed in triplicate. (A to F) Cryosections of infected HIOs were stained for DNA (blue) and the apoptotic marker activated caspase 3 (red). (A) Nissle, 18 h postinfection; (B) EHEC, 18 h postinfection; (C) Nissle and EHEC, coinfection at 18 h; (D) Nissle, 72 h postinfection; (E) UPEC, 72 h postinfection; (F) Nissle and UPEC, coinfection at 72 h. Bars, 50 μm. L, lumen; M, mesenchyme. (G) Fluorescence was quantified using ImageJ software and plotted as the mean ± SD (n = 3). Statistical significance was assessed with GraphPad Prism (version 5) software, using one-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni’s posttest. The results of comparisons between the pathogen with Nissle and the pathogen without Nissle are indicated. *, P = 0.1 to 0.01; **, P = 0.001 to 0.01.

  • FIG 9
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 9

    Nissle influences ROS production. HIOs were microinjected with saline; 103 CFU of Nissle, EHEC alone, or UPEC alone; or coinfected, as described in Fig. 4 and 5. (A to F) HIOs were injected with an ROS detection reagent, and ROS fluorescence was measured. (A) Saline, 72 h postinjection; (B) Nissle, 72 h postinjection; (C) EHEC, 18 h postinjection; (D) Nissle and EHEC, coinfection at 18 h; (E) UPEC, 72 h postinjection; (F) Nissle and UPEC, coinfection at 72 h. Bars, 50 μm. (G) Fluorescence intensity was quantified using ImageJ software and plotted as the mean ± SD (n = 3). Statistical significance was assessed with GraphPad Prism (version 5) software, using one-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni’s posttest. *, P = 0.1 to 0.01; **, P = 0.001 to 0.01; ***, P < 0.0001. (H) The number of CFU recovered was determined at the indicated time points (n = 3).

  • FIG 10
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 10

    Strain competition in broth culture. (A) Phage life cycle. (Top) Lytic infection results in phage production and bacterial death; (bottom) the repressor produced by lysogenic phage can prevent lytic infection and bacterial death. (B to F) LB broth or filter-sterilized culture supernatant was inoculated with 103 CFU of a single strain or strains mixed 1:1, as indicated, and the numbers of CFU were assessed over time. (B) LB broth was inoculated with Nissle, EHEC, or both. The growth of Nissle was suppressed by EHEC. (C) Nissle was inoculated into LB broth. Nissle and a colony of Nissle that survived coculture with EHEC (Nissle::Stx2PT) were inoculated into the culture supernatant from EHEC. The growth of Nissle was suppressed by the EHEC supernatant. (D) Nissle was inoculated into LB broth or the supernatant from Nissle::Stx2PT. The growth of Nissle was suppressed by the Nissle::Stx2PT supernatant. (E) LB broth was inoculated with Nissle, EDL933, or both. The growth of neither strain was suppressed in mixed culture. (F) LB broth was inoculated with Nissle, UPEC, or both. The growth of neither strain was suppressed in mixed culture.

  • FIG 11
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 11

    Shiga toxin production by lysogens. HIO mesenchymal cells were incubated for 18 h with LB broth or filter-sterilized supernatant from EHEC or Nissle::Stx2PT in the presence or absence of neutralizing antibodies to the Shiga toxin Stx2a and Stx2b subunits (30 ng each). (A to E) Cellular death was assessed by staining with Sytox green. Representative bright-field (BF) images with fluorescence are shown. Boxed regions represent the areas used to quantitate fluorescence. Bars, 50 μm. (A) LB control; (B) EHEC supernatant; (C) EHEC supernatant and anti-Stx2; (D) Nissle::Stx2PT supernatant; (E) Nissle::Stx2PT supernatant and anti-Stx2. (F) The fluorescence intensity in representative boxed regions was quantified using ImageJ software and plotted as the mean ± SD (n = 3). Statistical significance was assessed with GraphPad Prism (version 5) software, using one-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni’s posttest; comparisons between supernatant samples with and without antibody are indicated. **, P = 0.001 to 0.01.

Tables

  • Figures
  • TABLE 1

    Bacterial strains used in this study

    TABLE 1
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Probiotic Properties of Escherichia coli Nissle in Human Intestinal Organoids
Suman Pradhan, Alison Ann Weiss
mBio Jul 2020, 11 (4) e01470-20; DOI: 10.1128/mBio.01470-20

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this mBio article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Probiotic Properties of Escherichia coli Nissle in Human Intestinal Organoids
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from mBio
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in mBio.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Probiotic Properties of Escherichia coli Nissle in Human Intestinal Organoids
Suman Pradhan, Alison Ann Weiss
mBio Jul 2020, 11 (4) e01470-20; DOI: 10.1128/mBio.01470-20
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

EHEC
Shiga toxin
bacteriophages
organoid
probiotics

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About mBio
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • AAM Fellows
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Warranty
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #mBio

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Online ISSN: 2150-7511