Skip to main content

Proteomic response of Turicibacter bilis MMM721 to chicken bile and its bile acids

Abstract

Objective

Bile and its individual components, mainly bile acids, are important for digestion and drive bacterial community dynamics in the upper gastrointestinal tract of chickens. However, specific responses to bile acids have been characterized in only a few commensal bacteria, and it is unclear how other members of the microbiota respond to biliary stress. Here, we used label-free LC–MS/MS to assess the proteomic response of a common inhabitant of the chicken small intestine, Turicibacter bilis MMM721, to 24 h of growth in anaerobic growth media supplemented with 0.1% whole chicken bile, 0.1% taurochenodeoxycholic acid (TCDCA), or 0.1% taurocholic acid (TCA).

Results

Seventy, 46, and 10 differentially expressed proteins were identified in Turicibacter bilis MMM721 cultured with supplements of chicken bile, TCDCA, and TCA, respectively, when compared to unsupplemented controls. Many differentially expressed proteins were predicted to be involved in ribosomal processes, post-translational modifications and chaperones, and modifications to the cell surface. Ultimately, the T. bilis MMM721 response to whole bile and bile acids is complex and may relate to adaptations for small intestine colonization, with numerous proteins from a variety of functional categories being impacted.

Introduction

Bile is critical for digestion and interacts with microbes within the gastrointestinal tract (GIT). The major solutes in bile are bile acids (BAs), traditionally considered to be antimicrobial compounds [1,2,3,4]. BAs greatly impact bacteria colonizing the small intestine, where high concentrations lead to membrane disruption, DNA damage, and protein misfolding [5,6,7,8,9,10]. In chickens, the primary BAs are ~ 15% taurocholic acid (TCA) and ~ 85% taurochenodeoxycholic acid (TCDCA) [4, 11,12,13].

Turicibacter are anaerobic commensals of the upper GIT of numerous species [14,15,16,17,18]. Recently, Turicibacter bilis MMM721 (henceforth referred to as MMM721) was isolated from chicken eggshells during a study of bacterial succession and is capable of colonizing the small intestine where it likely interacts with bile and BAs [18].

Despite the importance of bacteria-BA interactions, few studies have measured the proteomic response of individual gut bacteria to bile and BAs. The ubiquitous nature of Turicibacter spp. in the upper intestinal tract of vertebrate species suggests the genus has mechanisms through which it can tolerate the stress induced by BAs. Here, we use survival assays and LC–MS/MS proteomics to interrogate the response of MMM721 to chicken bile and its BA components: TCDCA and TCA.

Main text

Materials and methods

Growth conditions

The isolation of MMM721 has been described previously [19]. MMM721 was maintained anaerobically on Brain Heart Infusion (Difco) agar (pH 7.0) supplemented with 1.0% (v/v) glycerol and 1.1% (w/v) sodium DL-lactate (BHIGL) at 42 °C as previously described [19]. MMM721 was grown for 24 h on BHIGL prior to use in experiments. Plates were scraped and inoculated into BHIGL broth, BHIGL broth with 0.1% (v/v) whole chicken bile (BHIGL + Bile), 0.1% (w/v) TCDCA (BHIGL + TCDCA), or 0.1% (w/v) TCA (BHIGL + TCA). Whole bile was collected from the gallbladder of euthanized white leghorn chickens at the National Animal Disease Center (Ames, IA). TCA and TCDCA were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. Cultures were incubated anaerobically (85% N2, 5% CO2, 10% H2) for 24 h at 42 °C.

Growth curves for BHIGL broth with 1.0% BHIGL + Bile, 0.1% BHIGL + Bile, 0.1% BHIGL + TCDCA, and 0.1% (w/v) BHIGL + TCA were conducted with a Bioscreen C automated turbidity reader which measures the optical density (OD600) hourly. Growth curves were conducting with nine technical replicates.

For growth assays, colony forming units (CFU)/mL were determined on BHIGL immediately after inoculation using previously described methods [20]. After 24 h, cultures were plated on BHIGL agar and incubated for 48 h to determine CFU/mL. Three biological replicates were conducted for each condition tested with two technical replicates each.

For proteomic analysis, cells from broth cultures described above, were harvested via centrifugation. Pellets were washed twice with 1∙phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and resuspended in 3 mL of cold 50 mM ammonium bicarbonate buffer (pH 8.0) prior to freezing at -80 °C. Three biological replicates of each strain were conducted for each condition tested. All centrifugation steps were 4000×g for 20 m at 4 °C.

Turicibacter bilis MMM721 genome annotation

Genomic features for MMM721 have been described previously [19]. MMM721 was annotated with Prokka v1.14.4 [21]. Prokka-identified open reading frames (ORFs) were submitted to EggNOG-Mapper (http://eggnog-mapper.embl.de) for functional assignments [22].

LC–MS/MS sample preparation

Cell pellets were thawed and distributed into 2×1.5 ml screw-cap bead-beating tubes filled with 300 μl of 0.1 mm zirconia/silica beads (BioSpec Products, Inc.). Tubes were placed on a Vortex-Genie with tube-holder attachment (USA Scientific) and agitated at maximum speed for 3 min followed by 5 min on ice. This was repeated for 5 cycles, after which samples were spun for 10 m (16000 g) at 4 °C. Supernatant was removed and protein concentrations were determined using a Bradford protein assay (Bio-Rad). Samples with low protein concentrations were concentrated with Amicon Ultra-15 (10 kDa cut-off) Centrifugal Filter Units (Millipore). Trypsin/Lys-C Mix, Mass Spec Grade (Promega) was used to digest 40 μg of protein from each sample. Samples were then desalted, dried, and resuspended using previously described methods prior to LC–MS/MS [23]. All preparation steps were conducted according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Data analysis

Raw data files were processed in MaxQuant v1.6.7.0 and Perseus v1.6.7.0 using previously described parameters [23,24,25]. The Prokka-annotated Turicibacter bilis MMM721 genome was used to construct a protein database for proteomic analysis. Protein expression levels were transformed to log2 quantities. Peptides were considered significantly differentially expressed peptides (DEPs) if they had a false discovery rate q < 0.05 and a log2 difference of greater than 0.6 or less than −0.6. Statistical analyses and figure generation were conducted in R [26, 27].

Results

Preliminary growth curve

Growth was observed in 0.1% bile but not in 1.0% bile. Growth curves for MMM721 in BHIGL + Bile, BHIGL + TCDCA, BHIGL + TCA, and BHIGL suggested the strain reached stationary phase somewhere between 12–20 h after inoculation (Additional File 1). An incubation time of 24 h was chosen for the survival assay and proteomics to allow time for MMM721 to mount a response to supplemented bile and BAs.

Reduced MMM721 growth in the presence of bile and TCDCA

Small increases in MMM721 CFU/mL were observed in un-supplemented BHIGL (2.9 × 104 CFU/mL) and BHIGL + TCA (4.2 × 104 CFU/mL). Incubation in BHIGL + Bile (1.5 × 103 CFU/mL) or BHIGL + TCDCA (7.7 × 103 CFU/mL) elicited significant (p.adj < 0.05) decreases in vegetative cells after 24 h (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Turicibacter bilis MMM721 growth in BHIGL, BHIGL + Bile, BHIGL + TCA, and BHIGL + TCDCA. Bacterial CFU/mL after 24 h were determined on BHIGL agar. The dashed line denotes the mean CFU/mL at inoculation (hour 0). *differences between the initial CFU/mL immediately after inoculation vs. CFU/mL after 24 h as determined by the t.test function in R (p.adjusted < 0.05). Error bars represent standard error of the mean

Proteomic data confirm differential response of MMM721 to bile and TCDCA

Label-free LC–MS/MS was used to identify and quantitate DEPs in the supplemented media relative to BHIGL alone. Of the 70 DEPs identified in BHIGL + Bile compared to BHIGL, 35 were increased and 35 were reduced (Fig. 2A, Table 1). Clusters of Orthologous Group (COG) category G (carbohydrate transport and metabolism) had the most increased DEPs (Fig. 2A). COG category J (translation, ribosomal structure, and biogenesis) had the most decreased DEPs in MMM721 grown in BHIGL + Bile, though several COG J DEPs were also highly expressed (Table 1).

Fig. 2
figure 2

T. bilis MMM721 DEPs in BHIGL + Bile, BHIGL + TCDCA, and BHIGL + TCA compared to BHIGL only control. Barcharts of COG category counts of DEPs after 24 h of incubation in A BHIGL + BHIGL, B BHIGL + TCDCA, and C BHIGL + TCA compared to a BHIGL-only control. COG category assignments and protein descriptions were provided by EggNOG-mapper. Venn diagrams of shared and unique DEPs that were D up-regulated and E down-regulated after 24 h in BHIGL + Bile, BHIGL + TCDCA, and BHIGL + TCA as compared to BHIGL only

Table 1 Table of DEPs in T. bilis MMM721 DEPs in BHIGL + Bile, BHIGL + TCDCA, and BHIGL + TCA compared to BHIGL only control. Bolded values were DEPs in BHIGL + Bile, BHIGL + TCDCA, or BHIGL + TCA. The COG category assignments and protein descriptions were provided by EggNOG-mapper

BHIGL + TCDCA displayed 46 DEPs (25 increased/21 reduced) compared to BHIGL, with COG G having the most increased DEPs and COG J having the most decreased DEPs (Table 1, Fig. 2B).

Ten DEPs (8 increased/2 reduced) were identified when comparing BHIGL + TCA to BHIGL. Both COG categories G and J had multiple proteins increased in BHIGL + TCA (Fig. 2C). Several of these proteins were undescribed cytoplasmic proteins (Table 1). A dehydrogenase (ONGNNMAF_01745) belonging to COG C (Energy production and conversion) and CplX (ONGNNMAF_00641), an ATPase belonging to COG O, were both increased in BHIGL + TCA.

Two DEPs were increased in all treatments, peptidase dimerization protein (ONGNNMAF_02259) and d-alanine- d-alanine ligase (ONGNNMAF_01948) (Fig. 2D, Table 1). GMP synthase (ONGNNMAF_01593) and an intersubunit bridge protein (ONGNNMAF_01914) were decreased across all treatments (Fig. 2E; Table 1). A full summarization of all the DEPs in the study can be found in Table 1.

Discussion

Bile and BAs are critical in shaping the GIT microbiota, especially in chickens where current production feed models result in long periods of bile flow [28,29,30,31,32]. Microbial responses to bile and BAs impact host immune regulation and weight gain, yet proteomic responses of individual microbes to bile and BAs are not well understood [1, 2]. Turicibacter bilis, and other gut microbes, interact with bile and BAs, using them as an environmental cue for germination and biotransforming them in vitro [18, 33,34,35]. Here, we describe the growth and proteomic responses of Turicibacter bilis MMM721 to chicken bile and its main BA components: TCDCA and TCA.

MMM721 grown in BHIGL + Bile or BHIGL + TCDCA showed a reduction in CFUs and similar proteomic responses after 24 h. These similarities were not unexpected, as the most abundant BA in chickens is TCDCA [4, 11,12,13]. Previous studies and work from our lab demonstrated the ability of Turicibacter, including MMM721, to deconjugate taurine from TCDCA and TCA, forming CDCA and CA, respectively [35]. Unconjugated BAs more easily cross into the bacterial cell, though CDCA does so more efficiently, disrupting membrane integrity to a greater extent than CA, partially explaining the differences in growth and proteomic response [9, 28, 36].

Many DEPs in COG category J, translation, ribosomal structure, and biogenesis, were significantly decreased in BHIGL + Bile and BHIGL + TCDCA. Decreased protein synthesis would manifest as an overall decrease in bacterial growth, matching the observations in this and other studies [37,38,39,40]. COG category O, post-translational modification, protein turnover, and chaperones, DEPs were enriched in BHIGL + Bile when compared to BHIGL. Both BHIGL + Bile and BHIGL + TCDCA had molecular chaperones increased, likely in response to the ability of BAs to unfold cytoplasmic proteins, ensuring the proper folding of proteins within the cell [8, 41].

Only two DEPs were increased in all treatments. One was a peptidase dimerization domain protein that plays a protective role under BA stress [42, 43]. A d-alanine-d-alanine ligase involved in peptidoglycan biosynthesis was also increased, which may result from the disruptive effects BAs have on the bacterial cell surface [44, 45]. GMP synthase and an intersubunit bridge protein were decreased across all treatments. Subunit bridges are vital for the assembly and initiation of ribosomal translation, highlighting the decreased translational rate of MMM721 in response to BAs [46]. GMP synthase is responsible for the first step of de novo GMP synthesis. Decreased GMP synthase would reduce the GMP pool and potentially replication rate [47, 48].

The reduction in CFU/mL observed in the BHIGL + Bile and BHIGL + TCDCA suggests that stress response proteins observed in the proteomic data could be related to the stress the CDCA causes MMM721 or due to MMM721 cell death. However, studies show the half-life for bacterial proteins is approximately 20 h, so many of the DEPs observed in this study likely reflect the MMM721 response to TCDCA and whole chicken bile [49, 50]. Proteomic and transcriptomic analyses of earlier timepoints in the MMM721 growth cycle would be beneficial to more fully characterize the MMM721 response to TCDCA and whole bile.

The observed DEPs from the BHIGL + TCA treatment likely reflect the response of MMM721 to TCA. Of note, both a dehydrogenase (ONGNNMAF_01745) belonging to COG C (Energy production and conversion) and CplX (ONGNNMAF_00641), a subunit of an ATP-dependent Clp protease belonging to COG category O were significantly increased in BHIGL + TCA. CplX is an ATPase involved in several regulatory and proteolytic processes. Lactobacillus delbrueckii increases expression of CplX upon exposure to bile salts, suggesting this protein plays an important role in adaptation to BA stress [51, 52]. Dehydrogenases represent a broad family of enzymes that catalyze reduction reactions, with some classes, like hydroxysteroid dehydrogenases, capable of modifying the steroid ring of BAs themselves [53]. More work should be done to characterize the activity of the various MMM721 dehydrogenases. Many of the DEPs identified in this study were unable to be identified or had unknown functions. Further work characterizing the genome of MMM721 would be beneficial in future transcriptomic and proteomic studies.

Conclusions

The present study constitutes the first characterization of the Turicibacter bilis response to chicken bile and individual bile acids using culturing and label-free LC–MS/MS strategies. Comparisons of the differentially expressed peptides were obtained from Turicibacter bilis MMM721 exposed to chicken bile, TCDCA, and TCA. Whole chicken bile and TCDCA both reduced MMM721 growth after 24 h of exposure, producing similar proteomic responses. Exposure of MMM721 to TCA did not substantially inhibit cell growth and up-regulated proteins involved in metabolism and post-translational modifications. Ultimately, the Turicibacter bilis MMM721 response to whole bile and bile acids is complex, involving proteins from several pathways. Understanding how members of the microbiota respond and modify BAs is critical to optimize animal nutrition and maintain efficient production.

Limitations

Many of the DEPs have not yet been identified or characterized, making it difficult to determine responsive proteins and pathways and highlighting the importance of further characterization work for Turicibacter bilis MMM721. The 24 h exposure period may have coincided with the death phase of the MMM721 growth cycle, potentially exacerbating the decrease in CFU and the up- or down-regulation of various DEPs. The decrease in CFU associated with whole chicken bile and TCDCA might also be the result of MMM721 sporulating our entering into a viable but not culturable state, giving the perception of decreased CFU/mL. Additional analysis earlier in the MMM721 growth cycle would be informative.

Availability of data and materials

The data described in this Research Note can be accessed at MassIVE (https://massive.ucsd.edu/ProteoSAFe/static/massive.jsp) under the accession no. MSV000088421. The complete genome sequence for Turicibacter bilis MMM721 can be found in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) GenBank database under the accession number CP071249.

Abbreviations

TCDCA:

Taurochenodeoxycholic acid

TCA:

Taurocholic acid

GIT:

Gastrointestinal tract

BAs:

Bile acids

BHIGL:

Brain heart infusion with lactate

PBS:

Phosphate-buffered saline

ORFs:

Open reading frames

DEPs:

Differentially expressed proteins

COG:

Clusters of orthologous groups

References

  1. Ridlon JM, Kang D-J, Hylemon PB. Bile salt biotransformations by human intestinal bacteria. J Lipid Res. 2006;47(2):241–59.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Joyce SA, Gahan CGM. Bile acid modifications at the microbe-host interface: potential for nutraceutical and pharmaceutical interventions in host health. Annu Rev Food Sci Technol. 2016;7(1):313–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Boyer JL. Bile formation and secretion. Compr Physiol. 2013;3(3):1035–78.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alvaro D, Cantafora A, Attili AF, Ginanni Corradini S, De Luca C, Minervini G, et al. Relationships between bile salts hydrophilicity and phospholipid composition in bile of various animal species. Comp Biochem Physiol B. 1986;83(3):551–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Northfield TC, McColl I. Postprandial concentrations of free and conjugated bile acids down the length of the normal human small intestine. Gut. 1973;14(7):513.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zaefarian F, Abdollahi MR, Cowieson A, Ravindran V. Avian liver: the forgotten organ. Animals. 2019;9(2):63.

    PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Denbow DM. Gastrointestinal anatomy and physiology. Sturkie’s avian physiology. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2015. p. 337–66.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cremers CM, Knoefler D, Vitvitsky V, Banerjee R, Jakob U. Bile salts act as effective protein-unfolding agents and instigators of disulfide stress in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014;111(16):E1610.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cabral DJ, Small DM, Lilly HS, Hamilton JA. Transbilayer movement of bile acids in model membranes. Biochemistry. 1987;26(7):1801–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kandell RL, Bernstein C. Bile salt/acid induction of DNA damage in bacterial and mammalian cells: implications for colon cancer. Nutr Cancer. 1991;16(3–4):227–38.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Vessey DA. The biochemical basis for the conjugation of bile acids with either glycine or taurine. Biochem J. 1978;174(2):621–6.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Elkin RG, Wood KV, Hagey LR. Biliary bile acid profiles of domestic fowl as determined by high performance liquid chromatography and fast atom bombardment mass spectrometry. Comp Biochem Physiol B. 1990;96(1):157–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hagey LR, Vidal N, Hofmann AF, Krasowski MD. Complex evolution of bile salts in birds. Auk. 2010;127(4):820–31.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bosshard PP, Zbinden R, Altwegg M. Turicibacter sanguinis gen. nov., sp. Nov., a novel anaerobic, Gram-positive bacterium. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2002;52(4):1263–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Köhler T, Dietrich C, Scheffrahn RH, Brune A. High-resolution analysis of gut environment and bacterial microbiota reveals functional compartmentation of the gut in wood-feeding higher termites (Nasutitermes spp.). Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012;78(13):4691–701.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Looft T, Allen HK, Cantarel BL, Levine UY, Bayles DO, Alt DP, et al. Bacteria, phages and pigs: the effects of in-feed antibiotics on the microbiome at different gut locations. ISME J. 2014;8(8):1566–76.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Auchtung TA, Holder ME, Gesell JR, Ajami NJ, Duarte RTD, Itoh K, et al. Complete genome sequence of Turicibacter sp. strain H121, isolated from the feces of a contaminated germ-free mouse. Genome Announc. 2016;4(2):e00114.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Maki JJ, Bobeck EA, Sylte MJ, Looft T. Eggshell and environmental bacteria contribute to the intestinal microbiota of growing chickens. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2020;11:60.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Maki JJ, Looft T. Turicibacter bilis sp. Nov., a novel bacterium isolated from the chicken eggshell and swine ileum. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2022;72(1):005153.

    CAS  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jett BD, Hatter KL, Huycke MM, Gilmore MS. Simplified agar plate method for quantifying viable bacteria. Biotechniques. 1997;23(4):648–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(14):2068–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Huerta-Cepas J, Forslund K, Coelho LP, Szklarczyk D, Jensen LJ, von Mering C, et al. Fast genome-wide functional annotation through orthology assignment by eggNOG-Mapper. Mol Biol Evol. 2017;34(8):2115–22.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Reinhardt TA, Lippolis JD. Characterization of bovine mammary gland dry secretions and their proteome from the end of lactation through day 21 of the dry period. J Proteomics. 2020;223: 103831.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tyanova S, Temu T, Cox J. The MaxQuant computational platform for mass spectrometry-based shotgun proteomics. Nat Protoc. 2016;11(12):2301–19.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Tyanova S, Temu T, Sinitcyn P, Carlson A, Hein MY, Geiger T, et al. The Perseus computational platform for comprehensive analysis of (prote)omics data. Nat Methods. 2016;13(9):731–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Warnes G, Bolker B, Bonebakker L, Gentleman R, Huber W, Liaw A, et al. gplots: Various R programming tools for plotting data2005.

  27. Park J, Taslim C, Lin S. BOG: R-package for Bacterium and virus analysis of Orthologous Groups. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2015;13:366–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ridlon JM, Harris SC, Bhowmik S, Kang D-J, Hylemon PB. Consequences of bile salt biotransformations by intestinal bacteria. Gut Microbes. 2016;7(1):22–39.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sistrunk JR, Nickerson KP, Chanin RB, Rasko DA, Faherty CS. Survival of the fittest: how bacterial pathogens utilize bile to enhance infection. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2016;29(4):819–36.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Van De Weerd HA, Keatinge R, Roderick S. A review of key health-related welfare issues in organic poultry production. Worlds Poult Sci J. 2009;65(4):649–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lewis PD, Perry GC. Effects of interrupted lighting regimens on the feeding activity of the laying fowl. Br Poult Sci. 1986;27(4):661–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Fondevila G, Archs JL, Cámara L, de Juan AF, Mateos GG. The length of the feed restriction period affects eating behavior, growth performance, and the development of the proximal part of the gastrointestinal tract of young broilers. Poult Sci. 2020;99(2):1010–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Siegerstetter S-C, Schmitz-Esser S, Magowan E, Wetzels SU, Zebeli Q, Lawlor PG, et al. Intestinal microbiota profiles associated with low and high residual feed intake in chickens across two geographical locations. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(11): e0187766.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Richards-Rios P, Leeming G, Fothergill J, Bernardeau M, Wigley P. Topical application of adult cecal contents to eggs transplants spore-forming microbiota but not other members of the microbiota to chicks. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2020;86(5):e02387-e2419.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kemis JH, Linke V, Barrett KL, Boehm FJ, Traeger LL, Keller MP, et al. Genetic determinants of gut microbiota composition and bile acid profiles in mice. PLoS Genet. 2019;15(8): e1008073.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Foley MH, O’Flaherty S, Allen G, Rivera AJ, Stewart AK, Barrangou R, et al. Lactobacillus bile salt hydrolase substrate specificity governs bacterial fitness and host colonization. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2021;118(6): e2017709118.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Noh DO, Gilliland SE. Influence of bile on cellular integrity and β-galactosidase activity of Lactobacillus acidophilus1. J Dairy Sci. 1993;76(5):1253–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hyronimus B, Le Marrec C, Hadj Sassi A, Deschamps A. Acid and bile tolerance of spore-forming lactic acid bacteria. Int J Food Microbiol. 2000;61(2):193–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Begley M, Gahan CGM, Hill C. The interaction between bacteria and bile. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2005;29(4):625–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Sannasiddappa TH, Lund PA, Clarke SR. In vitro antibacterial activity of unconjugated and conjugated bile salts on Staphylococcus aureus. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:1581.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hartl FU, Bracher A, Hayer-Hartl M. Molecular chaperones in protein folding and proteostasis. Nature. 2011;475(7356):324–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Koskenniemi K, Laakso K, Koponen J, Kankainen M, Greco D, Auvienen P, et al. Proteomics and transcriptomics characterization of bile stress response in probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2011;10(2):M110.002741-M110.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Ridlon JM, Devendran S, Alves JM, Doden H, Wolf PG, Pereira GV, et al. The ‘in vivo lifestyle’ of bile acid 7α-dehydroxylating bacteria: comparative genomics, metatranscriptomics, and bile acid metabolomics analysis of a defined microbial community in gnotobiotic mice. Gut Microbes. 2020;11(3):381–404.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Taranto MP, Fernandez Murga ML, Lorca G, de Valdez GF. Bile salts and cholesterol induce changes in the lipid cell membrane of Lactobacillus reuteri. J Appl Microbiol. 2003;95(1):86–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ruiz L, Margolles A, Sánchez B. Bile resistance mechanisms in Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium. Front Microbiol. 2013;4:396.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lilleorg S, Reier K, Remme J, Liiv A. The intersubunit bridge b1b of the bacterial ribosome facilitates initiation of protein synthesis and maintenance of translational fidelity. J Mol Biol. 2017;429(7):1067–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Budin-Verneuil A, Pichereau V, Auffray Y, Ehrlich D, Maguin E. Proteome phenotyping of acid stress-resistant mutants of Lactococcus lactis MG1363. PROTEOMICS. 2007;7(12):2038–46.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kilstrup M, Hammer K, Ruhdal Jensen P, Martinussen J. Nucleotide metabolism and its control in lactic acid bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2005;29(3):555.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Koch AL, Levy HR. Protein turnover in growing cultures of Escherichia coli. J Biol Chem. 1955;217(2):947–57.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Moran MA, Satinsky B, Gifford SM, Luo H, Rivers A, Chan LK, Meng J, Durham BP, Shen C, Varaljay VA, Smith CB, Yager PL, Hopkinson BM. Sizing up metatranscriptomics. ISME J. 2013;7(2):237–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Ferreira AB, De Oliveira MNV, Freitas FS, Alfenas-Zerbini P, Da Silva DF, De Queiroz MV, Borges AC, De Moraes CA. Increased expression of clp genes in Lactobacillus delbrueckii UFV H2b20 exposed to acid stress and bile salts. Beneficial Microbes. 2013;4(4):367–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Fux A, Korotkov VS, Schneider M, Antes I, Sieber SA. Chemical cross-linking enables drafting ClpXP proximity maps and taking snapshots of in situ interaction networks. Cell Chem Biol. 2019;26(1):48–59.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Doden HL, Ridlon JM. Microbial hydroxysteroid dehydrogenases: from alpha to omega. Microorganisms. 2021;9(3):469.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Duane Zimmerman for advice and technical support. The mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication are solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Funding

Funding for this research was provided by the U. S. Department of Agriculture under project 5030–31320-004-00D. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the USDA. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. This research was supported by an appointment to the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Research Participation Program administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). ORISE is managed by ORAU under DOE contract number DE- SC0014664. All opinions expressed in this paper are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the policies and views of USDA, ARS, DOE, or ORAU/ORISE. This research used resources provided by the SCINet project of the USDA Agricultural Research Service, ARS project number 0500–00093-001–00-D.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

TL and JJM designed the research. TL, JDL, and JJM performed the research and generated the data. JDL and JJM analyzed the data. TL, JDL, and JJM wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Torey Looft.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

OD600 growth curve comparing Turicibacter bilis growth in BHIGL broth supplemented with 0.1% whole avian bile (ATB), TCDCA (TCDCA), and TCA (TCA) compared to BHIGL-only (BHIGL). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maki, J.J., Lippolis, J.D. & Looft, T. Proteomic response of Turicibacter bilis MMM721 to chicken bile and its bile acids. BMC Res Notes 15, 236 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06127-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06127-8

Keywords

  • Turicibacter bilis
  • Bile Acids
  • Chicken
  • Proteomics