Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research note
  • Open Access

Induction of the acid inducible lipF promoter is reversibly inhibited in pH ranges of pH 4.2-4.0

BMC Research Notes201811:284

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-018-3370-1

  • Received: 26 December 2017
  • Accepted: 20 April 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Objective

In the human body pathogenic mycobacteria encounter low pH within the phagosomes of macrophages where they reside after being internalized by the host cell. Low pH within macrophages has been shown to induce expression of a variety of genes within these bacteria. It had been previously observed that the Mycobacterium tuberculosis lipF promoter is transcriptionally upregulated between pHs 4.5–6.4 in Mycobacterium smegmatis, with an upper pH limit of 6.4 capable of promoter induction. To better understand the parameters of acid induced gene expression, we sought to determine the lower pH limit capable of lipF promoter induction.

Results

As we had already determined an upper pH limit, we determine here that there is a lower limit of pH’s capable of upregulating the lipF promoter, with pH below 4.3 not positively upregulating the promoter. At non-inducing pH 4.2 the bacterial cells remain viable in the absence of acid induced lipF promoter upregulation and subsequent exposure to acid pH 5.0 results in lipF promoter upregulation. There appears to be a lower limit of pH capable of upregulating lipF promoter expression and this limit is not due to cell death.

Keywords

  • Acidic stress
  • lipF
  • Lipase
  • Mycobacterium tuberculosis

Introduction

Tuberculosis continues to be an important health problem in the world with a large fraction of the population infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the causative agent of tuberculosis [1]. Like other mycobacteria, M. tuberculosis senses and responds to acidic stress [2, 3]. Previously we had identified a 477 base pair region upstream of the M. tuberculosis lipF gene that was transcriptionally upregulated by acidic stress [4]. A homologue of the lipF gene was previously identified in Mycobacterium smegmatis and is implicated in acidic stress [5]. Importantly, a transposon insertion mutant in between the lipF gene and its 59 base pair acid inducible minimal promoter resulted in a mutant M. tuberculosis that does not produce LipF and was more attenuated in mice and macrophages indicating the gene product aids M. tuberculosis in resisting acidic stress [6]. The product of the lipF gene is predicted to be a lipase or esterase, and proven to act as a lipase [7].

The lipF promoter region was reduced to a 59 base pair minimal region which retained the ability to be upregulated by acidic stress [8]. Within this region we also identified a − 10 six base pair region proposed to bind RNA polymerase and analyzed it by mutational analysis [9]. As the original pH at which the lipF promoter had been identified was pH 4.5, the highest pH to also induce the promoter was sought and determined to be pH 6.4 [10]. This is a pH that may be encountered within the phagosomes of macrophages where M. tuberculosis resides within the human body. During infection M. tuberculosis is phagocytosed by macrophages and the pH can drop to as low as 4.5 within phagosomes but can then increase to a range from pH 6.0–6.5 [1114]. Thus the previously described range of lipF promoter activity between pH 4.5 and 6.4 is well within this spectrum allowing the bacterium to be more resistant to acidic stress. In this present study we determine a lower pH limit of lipF promoter upregulation, which may be important to understand acid sensing mechanisms of mycobacteria.

Main text

Results

The minimal acid inducible lipF promoter of M. smegmatis is composed of 59 base pairs upstream of the M. tuberculosis lipF gene and this was fused to gfp to create the plasmid pMPR (Table 1) [8]. This promoter is upregulated by acidic stress within M. tuberculosis as well as within M. smegmatis, consequently an acid sensing apparatus is similar in these species [4]. As we had previously identified the highest pH capable of inducing the lipF minimal acid inducible promoter to be pH 6.4, here we test the lowest possible pH that can induce the lipF promoter fused to gfp (pMPR). We found that all pHs tested except for pH 4.0, 4.1, and 4.2 could induce the lipF promoter with maximal induction being at pH 4.5 (Fig. 1). This maximum induction coincides with the original pH used to identify the lipF promoter’s acid induction [4, 10]. M. smegmatis containing pFPV27 with a promoterless gfp (Table 1) had little green fluorescent protein (GFP) production. Negative values for M. smegmatis containing pMPR indicate the cells produce less GFP than the bacteria containing promoterless pFPV27. M. smegmatis containing the pBEN plasmid which produces GFP constitutively from a heat shock promoter (Table 1) had substantial GFP production as indicated (Fig. 1). As we expected that pH 4.2 would be lethal to mycobacteria and would explain a lack of lipF induction, we tested mycobacterial killing at this pH, and at the same time assayed lipF induction. As before, acid induction of the lipF promoter occurred at pH 5.0 and not at pH 4.2 or pH 7.0 (Fig. 2a). In addition no acid induced bacterial killing occurred at pHs 4.2, 5.0, or 7.0 with 3 h of exposure, consequently cell death does not explain the lack of induction (Fig. 2b). Exposure to 24 h of acid media at pH 4.5 resulted in 75% reduction in viability compared to exposure to pH 7.0 media (Fig. 2b). To further investigate we repeated induction at pH 4.2 for 3 h, centrifuged the bacterial cells, washed them, and resuspended them in pH 5.0 for another 3 h and observed positive lipF induction (Fig. 2a). The lack of induction of the lipF promoter is reversible, as removal of pH 4.2, and exposure to pH 5.0 resulted in lipF promoter induction. Fluorescence photography was performed on M. smegmatis at pH 4.2, 4.3, 5.0, 7.0 3 h, or 4.2 exposed for 3 h, centrifuged, washed, and induced at pH 5.0. M. smegmatis with an mpr-gfp fusion fluoresces brightly after exposure to pH 5.0 and 4.3, but no fluorescence after exposure to pH 7.0 or pH 4.2 (Fig. 2c). Strikingly fluorescence was also observed after bacterial exposure to pH 4.2 for 3 h, washing, and exposure to pH 5.0 for an additional 3 h (Fig. 2c). This fluorescence was observed at the end of the 3 h incubation at pH 5.0.
Table 1

Shuttle plasmids used in the experiments that can be amplified in E. coli and transformed into M. smegmatis

pFPV27

Reporter plasmid with promoterless gfp

pBEN

Reporter plasmid with constitutive heat shock promoter driving constitutive expression of gfp

pMPR

Reporter plasmid with lipF minimal acid inducible promoter driving expression of gfp

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

M. smegmatis containing pBEN, pMPR, or pFPV27 were grown to mid-logarithmic phase in pH 7.0 media and the pH was then shifted to pH 4.0 through 7.0 for a 3 h exposure. Fluorescence and OD600 were measured. AFU is adjusted fluorescence units and calculated by fluorescence units/optical density units at 600 nm. The data are presented as the mean ± the standard deviation. *P < 0.03, significantly different from pH 4.5; oP < 0.04, significantly different from pH 4.3. There was no statistical difference of cells bearing pMPR at pH 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, and 5.0 compared to pH 4.3. Statistical difference was defined as a P < 0.05. The sample size was 3 and represents biological replicates

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

a To test if induction at pH 4.2 is reversible, M. smegmatis containing pBEN, pMPR, or pFPV27 were grown to mid-logarithmic phase at pH 7.0, then exposed to pH 4.2, 5.0, or 7.0 for 3 h. An additional culture had been previously grown at pH 7.0 to mid-logarithmic phase, shifted to pH 4.2 for 3 h, and then shifted to pH 5.0 for an addition 3 h. AFUs were determined as previously described. The data are presented as the mean ± the standard deviation. *P < 0.04, significantly different from pH 4.2 3 h of exposure. The sample size was 3 and represents biological replicates. b To determined viability of mycobacteria exposed to acidity, the M. smegmatis containing pMPR were exposed to pH 7.0, 5.0, or 4.2, diluted to 1:105, and plated onto 7H10 plates. Bacterial colony forming units (CFU)/ml of the undiluted sample were quantitated from the bacterial plates and were normalized by dividing by the OD600 of the bacterial undiluted samples. Exposure to 3 h of acidity did not reduce mycobacterial viability in any of the conditions tested including 3 h of exposure to pH 4.2. As a control M. smegmatis was grown to mid-logarithmic phase and then exposed to pH 4.5 or 7.0 for 24 h. The bacteria were then diluted and plated onto agar plates and the CFU/ml normalized for OD600 as before. As expected exposure to 24 h at pH 4.5 resulted in a 75% reduction of viability of the mycobacteria whereas exposure to pH 7.0 did not. The data are presented as the mean ± the standard deviation. *P < 0.05, significantly different from pH 4.5 24 h exposure; #P < 0.03, significantly different from pH 4.5 24 h exposure; +P  < 0.02, significantly different from pH 4.5 24 h exposure; oP < 0.02, significantly different from pH 7.0 24 h exposure. There was no statistical difference for pH 4.2 or 5.0 3 h of exposure compared to pH 7.0 3 h of exposure. There was also no statistical difference between pH 4.2, 5.0, or 7.0 3 h of exposure compared to pH 7.0 24 h of exposure. Statistical difference was defined as a P < 0.05, the sample size was 3 and represents biological replicates. c M. smegmatis containing pMPR was grown to mid-logarithmic phase and exposed to pH 4.2, 4.3, 5.0, or 7.0 for 3 h, or 4.2 3 h and then 5.0 3 h. Individual M. smegmatis bacilli were visualized via differential interference contrast microscopy (DICM) and fluorescence microscopy at ×40 magnification. This experiment was repeated three times with similar results. Approximately 7 images were sampled for each condition

Discussion

In this study we show a lower limit where acidity no longer induces the lipF promoter in M. smegmatis. In vivo, M. tuberculosis is taken up by macrophages into phagosomes during the infectious process. When macrophages are induced with Interferon gamma (INF-γ), pH inside the phagosomes decreases to 4.5 and rebounds to pH 6.0 or above (11, 12, 13, and 14). The lipF promoter would be active during these in vivo conditions. In this study we determined the acidic pH at which lipF fails to be upregulated is pH 4.2 and this pH is not reported to be present within phagosomes of macrophages that contain viable M. tuberculosis bacilli. The lipF promoter may have evolved to detect pHs actually present within phagosomes.

The transcription factor PhoP has been shown to bind within the lipF promoter but it is unclear if it responds to external acid stress [15]. PhoP is part of a two component system which employs a membrane bound sensor kinase to sense external stimuli and in response phosphorylates PhoP, though acid stress is not known to be involved in PhoP phosphorylation [15]. Sigma factor binding site analysis revealed that the lipF promoter likely uses a principle sigma factor and a deletion strain of the sigF gene encoding a stress response sigma factor revealed that it is likely not involved in lipF promoter regulation as the promoter is upregulated in this strain [4, 9]. It remains unclear the exact nature of the acid sensing mechanism and the exact transcription factors involved in lipF promoter upregulation.

Bacterial killing or toxicity is unlikely to be the origin of the lack of ability to upregulate the lipF promoter at pH 4.2 as bacteria were measured to not lose viability in 3 h acid exposure time frame. In the lipF promoter upregulation system a protein factor present on the mycobacterial cell surface may be responsible for sensing pH with an optimum function between pH 6.4 and 4.3. At pH 4.2 this factor may be reversibly in an inactive configuration to signal to the lipF promoter within the cell. Upon washing away pH 4.2, and resuspending in pH 5.0 the new environment is capable of converting the conformation to an activating form. In vivo pH 4.2 is likely never experienced within phagosomes and the factor evolved to be optimally active at acidic pHs encountered. With manipulation of the intraphagosomal pH to be slightly lower than normal (pH 4.5) to 4.2 or lower, genes normally thought to be active during exposure to an acidic phagosome may not be upregulated and decrease M. tuberculosis adaptability and increase bacterial cell death.

Conclusions

Here we show the lower pH limit for lipF promoter induction is pH 4.3. Likely the failure to upregulate the acid induced lipF promoter from pH 4.2-4.0 results from dysregulation of the acid sensing/promoter induction machinery that is not related to mycobacterial cell death. This machinery and process may be manipulated in the future using pharmacotherapy in M. tuberculosis infected individuals to lower intraphagosomal pH below the pH 4.3 limit of acid induction.

Methods

Strains and media

Escherichia coli strain DH5α (ATCC 67878) was used in all experiments to generate and amplify plasmid constructs for further use. E. coli was grown in Luria–Bertani broth and on Luria–Bertani agar petri plates (Fisher Scientific, BP1427-500 and DF0445-17-4). M. smegmatis Mc2 155 (ATCC 700084) was grown at 37 °C in Middlebrook 7H9 broth (Becton–Dickinson, DF0713-17-9) supplemented with 10% ADC (bovine serum albumin-Fisher Scientific BP1600-100, dextrose-EMD DX0145-1, and NaCl-EMD SX0420-1), 0.025% Tween 80 (polyoxyethylenesorbitan monooleate—Fisher Scientific T164-500), and 2% glycerol (Hoefer GR124-1) in rolling liquid media culture, and in Middlebrook 7H10 agar (Becton–Dickinson, DF0627-17-4) with 10% ADC for solid surface growth. E. coli was transformed with 50 ng of pFPV27, pMPR, and pBen, (Table 1), containing promoterless gfp [1618], the 59 base pair minimal acid inducible lipF promoter fused to gfp [8], and the heat shock promoter fused to gfp respectively [19]. 25 μg/ml kanamycin (Fisher Scientific AAJ6066803) was utilized for selecting resistant plasmids. Plasmids were isolated using Wizard minipreps (Promega, PR-A1330). 50 ng of purified plasmids were transformed via electroporation into M. smegmatis and selection occurred on 7H10 agar with 10% ADC and 25 μg/ml kanamycin.

Acid promoter induction

To create acidic media, 2% HCL (EMD Millipore, MHX06074) was added to 20 ml of 7H9/ADC broth dropwise to reach the desired pH between 5.0 and 4.0. M. smegmatis containing plasmids were grown in pH 7.0 Middlebrook 7H9 broth to an optical density at 600 nm (OD600) on a Genesys10uv spectrophotometer (Thermofisher 840-208100) of 0.5 (logarithmic phase), the cells were centrifuged for 2 min at 12,000 rotations per minute (RPM) and 24 °C in a microcentrifuge (BioRad Model 16K—1660602EDU), supernatant removed, and cells resuspended in 7H9 culture media (Becton–Dickinson) at pHs 5.0-4.0, or neutral pH 7.0, and grown for an additional 3 h. 3 h was chosen as this is the approximate generation time of the mycobacteria. All promoter inductions were performed at 37 °C, and all pH points were tested in triplicate. To terminate inductions, all samples were vortexed with 4 mm glass beads (Fisher, 50-872-931) to eliminate clumping and were diluted to the same optical density at 600 nm in 7H9 broth. Fluorescence of the samples was measured on a TD-700 Turner designs fluorometer (7000-998—Turner Designs) with a 486 nm (nanometer) excitation filter and a 510–700 nm emission filter. Adjusted fluorescence units were determined to be fluorescence units/optical density units at 600 nm. All measurements in the figures are mean of the values and the error bars are the standard deviation. To further investigate non-inducing pH 4.2, M. smegmatis was grown in 7H9 pH 7.0 until reaching OD600 of 0.5, exposed to 7H9 media at pH 4.2 for 3 h, centrifuged, washed, and then resuspended in pH 5.0 for another 3 h, and measured on a TD-700 Turner designs fluorometer as previously described. pH points were tested in triplicate.

Microscopy

Bacteria were visualized via differential interference microscopy, and also fluorescence microscopy using a Nikon Eclipse E600. The same field of slide was captured by differential interference contrast microscopy and by fluorescence at 40× magnification to record identical M. smegmatis cells.

Determination of cell viability

Mycobacterium smegmatis was grown to mid-logarithmic phase, exposed to pH 7.0, 5.0 or 4.2 for 3 h, or to pH 7.0 or 4.5 for 24 h. Cells were vortexed with 4 mm glass beads (Fisher) and the optical density at 600 nm was determined. To plate the bacteria, the samples were diluted 1:105, and 1:106 and 100 μl of samples were plated onto 7H10 plates. M. smegmatis was incubated at 37 °C for 3 days and the number of colonies was counted. The number of bacterial colony forming units (cfus)/ml for an OD600 of 1 was determined. All pH points were tested in triplicate and the data was described as the mean of the values and the error bars are the standard deviations.

Statistical analysis

Three biological replicates were performed for each condition and data are represented as the mean ± standard deviation. An unpaired t test was used to compare means and statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05.

Limitations

This data was obtained from M. smegmatis cultures in vitro and may need to be repeated in M. tuberculosis. Only pHs to pH 4.0 were tested and sample pHs below this limit could be investigated in the future.

Abbreviations

AFU: 

adjusted fluorescence units

CFU: 

colony forming units

E. coli

Escherichia coli

GFP: 

green fluorescent protein

INF-γ: 

interferon gamma

M. smegmatis

Mycobacterium smegmatis

M. tuberculosis

Mycobacterium tuberculosis

nm: 

nanometer

OD600

optical density at 600 nm

RPM: 

rotations per minute

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

RT and DD carried out the acid induction experiments of the lipF minimal promoter and measured gfp expression. RT and BS assayed the survival of M. smegmatis at various acidities. RT and BS documented M. smegmatis fluorescence with microscopy. BS developed the experimental design of the work. BS and RT wrote the manuscript, and BS edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Kind thank you to Dr. Jeffrey Felton for providing editorial suggestions.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Consent to publish

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was funded by a Potts Memorial Foundation grant.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Basic Medical Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Western University of Health Sciences, 309 E. Second St., Pomona, CA 91766, USA
(2)
Mercy Medical Center Merced Hospital, 333 Mercy Avenue, Merced, CA 95340, USA

References

  1. World Health Organization, Global Tuberculosis Control 2014; 2014. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s23360en/s23360en.pdf.
  2. O’Brien LM, Gordon SV, Roberts IS, Andrew PW. Response of Mycobacterium smegmatis to acid stress. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1996;9:11–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Schnappinger D, Ehrt S, Voskuil MI, Liu Y, Mangn JA, Monahan IM, Dolganov G, Efron B, Butcher PD, Nathan C, Schoolnik GK. Transcriptional adaptation of Mycobacterrium tuberculosis within macrophages: insights into the phagosomal environment. J Exper Med. 2003;198:693–704.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Saviola B, Woolwine S, Bishai WR. Isolation of acid-inducible genes of Mycobacterium tuberculosis with the use of recombinase-based in vivo expression technology. Infect Immun. 2003;71:1379–88.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Tran SL, Rao M, Simmers C, Gebhard S, Olsson K, Cook GM. Mutants of Mycobacterium smegmatis unable to grow at acidic pH in the presence of the protonophore carbonyl cyanide mchlorophenylhydrozone. Microbiology. 2005;151:665–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Camacho LR, Ensergueix D, Perez E, Gicquel B, Guilhot C. Identification of a virulence gene cluster of Mycobacterium tuberculosis by signature-tagged transposon mutagenesis. Mol Microbiol. 1999;34:257–67.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Zhang Y, Wang H. Expression and characterization of the carboxyl esterase Rv3487c from Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Prot Exp Purific. 2005;42:59–66.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Richter L, Tai W, Felton J, et al. Determination of the minimal acid-inducible promoter region of the lipF gene from Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Gene. 2007;395:22–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2006.12.037.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gonzales M, Saviola B. Mutational analysis of the -10 region from the Mycobacterium tuberculosis lipF promoter. Mol Biol Rep. 2009;36:1225–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Richter L, Saviola B. The lipF promoter of Mycobacterium tuberculosis is upregulated by acidic pH but not by other stress conditions. Microbiol Res. 2009;164:228–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Clemens DL, Horwitz MA. Characterization of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis phagosome and evidence that phagosomal maturation is inhibited. J Exp Med. 1995;181:257–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Deretic V, Fratti RA. Mycobacterium tuberculosis phagosome. Mol Microbiol. 1999;31:1603–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. MacMicking JD, Taylor GA, Mckinney JD. Immune control of tuberculosis by INF-γ-Inducible LRG-47. Science. 2003;302:654–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Rohde K, Yates RM, Purdy GE, Russell DG. Mycobacterium tuberculosis and the environment within the phagosome. Immunol Rev. 2007;219:37–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Cimino M, Thomas C, Namouchi A, Dubrac S, Gicquel B, Gopaul DN. Identification of DNA binding motifs of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis PhoP/PhoR two-component signal transduction system. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(8):e42876.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Barker LP, Brooks DM, Small PL. The identification of Mycobacterium marinum genes differentially expressed in macrophage phagosomes using promoter fusions to green fluorescent protein. Mol Microbiol. 1998;29:1167–77.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Cormack BP, Valdivia RH, Falkow S. FACS-optimized mutants of the green fluorescent protein (GFP). Gene. 1996;173:33–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Valdivia RH, Hromockyi AE, Monack D, Ramakrishnan L, Falkow S. Applications for green fluorescent protein (GFP) in the host-pathogen interactions. Gene. 1996;173:47–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Ramakrishnan L, Federspiel NA, Falkow S. Granuloma specific expression of mycobacterium virulence proteins from the glycinerich PE-PGRS family. Science. 2000;288:1436–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2018

Advertisement