IAI FigSearch
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hamrick, T. S.
Right arrow Articles by Orndorff, P. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hamrick, T. S.
Right arrow Articles by Orndorff, P. E.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Infection and Immunity, February 2003, p. 1016-1019, Vol. 71, No. 2
0019-9567/03/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/IAI.71.2.1016-1019.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Influence of Extracellular Bactericidal Agents on Bacteria within Macrophages

Terri S. Hamrick,{dagger}* Adam H. Diaz, Edward A. Havell, John R. Horton, and Paul E. Orndorff

Department of Microbiology, Pathology, and Parasitology, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27606

Received 17 June 2002/ Returned for modification 16 October 2002/ Accepted 14 November 2002


   ABSTRACT
Top
 Abstract
Text
 References
 
We employed gentamicin-sensitive and -resistant derivatives of Escherichia coli in a macrophage phagocytosis assay that compared {lambda} bacteriophage and gentamicin as extracellular bactericidal agents. Colony counts and direct microscopic examination of phagocytized E. coli supported the conclusion that gentamicin entered macrophages, even at low concentrations, and contributed to their bactericidal activity. Also, two E. coli strains differing in the ability to express the adhesin of type 1 pili (FimH) were distinguishably different in intracellular survival when {lambda} was used as the extracellular killing agent but were indistinguishable when gentamicin was employed.


   TEXT
Top
 Abstract
 Text
References
 
Much of what we know about the interaction of bacteria and eucaryotic cells in vitro involves the seemingly straightforward assessment of whether a bacterium is located inside or outside of the eucaryotic cell. Various methods have been used to detect, reduce, or eliminate extracellular bacteria. Such methods include direct microscopic evaluation (11) and the use of bacteriostatic antibiotics (10) and lytic bacteriophage (6, 16). The most recent and widely used method has been to measure the degree to which the eucaryotic cell offers protection from the bactericidal effects of gentamicin (7). Aminoglycoside antibiotics such as gentamicin penetrate eucaryotic cells poorly, making it possible to kill extracellular bacteria without affecting internalized bacteria (20).

Whereas the gentamicin protection assay is simple and highly sensitive (7), several reports have indicated that gentamicin is capable of entering macrophages and killing intracellular bacteria (4, 8, 13). Such observations have led to the practice of using low gentamicin concentrations (e.g., 5 µg/ml) and/or keeping exposure to gentamicin as brief as possible. However, such practices have not allayed concerns that the use of this antibiotic has an impact on conclusions about the ability of a particular species of bacteria, or specific mutant derivatives, to survive intracellularly. Nevertheless, no specific instance has been described in which results were materially changed by using an alternative to gentamicin.

In the present study, we utilized an alternative extracellular bactericidal agent (bacteriophage {lambda}) in macrophage phagocytosis assays to show that gentamicin, even at a low concentration, enters and aids macrophages in killing internalized bacteria. Further, we document an instance in which the two methods of extracellular elimination led to different conclusions about the significance of an Escherichia coli adherence organelle in effecting intracellular survival.

Bacterial strains and media. All of the bacterial strains used were E. coli K-12 derivatives. Lambda-sensitive E. coli strains ORN175 (FimH+) (10) and ORN204 (FimH-) (9) were each genetically marked by selecting versions capable of utilizing mannitol (Mtl+), creating strains ORN222 and ORN223, respectively. In some pilot experiments, {lambda}-resistant versions of strains ORN175 and ORN204 (ORN115 and ORN133, respectively [14]) were additionally utilized. A gentamicin-resistant version of strain ORN223 (ORN224) was obtained by the isolation of a spontaneous gentamicin-resistant mutant. A clear-plaque mutant of bacteriophage {lambda} ({lambda}cI71) was a kind gift of A. D. Kaiser. Lambda lysates were prepared and concentrated, and their titers were determined by standard techniques (1, 3, 15). The agar media used were L agar, MinA agar (12), and tetrazolium agar (18).

Lambda phage bactericidal activity. Pilot experiments revealed that {lambda}cI71, at concentrations of ca. 109 PFU/ml and greater, eliminated 99.6% ± 0.8% of {lambda}-sensitive bacteria within 0.5 h of addition (but had no effect on {lambda}-resistant E. coli strains) under the conditions employed in our bactericidal assays (9). FimH+ and FimH- E. coli strains were equally susceptible to {lambda}-mediated killing. Lambda titers were completely stable in the presence or absence of macrophages for at least 5 h, and the presence of {lambda} had no effect on macrophage bactericidal ability. This latter point was established in experiments in which macrophages ingested a {lambda}-resistant strain in the presence or absence of {lambda} (gentamicin served as the extracellular killing agent in these experiments). Lambda antiserum (produced in rabbits by standard techniques and having a neutralization constant for {lambda}cI71 of approximately 21 min-1) was effective in preventing {lambda}-mediated killing of {lambda}-sensitive E. coli and had no effect on bacterial viability.

On the basis of the foregoing results, we developed a protocol with {lambda} as an extracellular killing agent that was essentially the same as one we had previously developed with gentamicin (9). The only modification of the procedure when {lambda} was employed was the addition of {lambda} antiserum 2 min prior to lysis of macrophages with Triton X-100. The antiserum was necessary to prevent the extracellular {lambda} from infecting the released bacteria and was effective in preventing {lambda}-mediated killing of {lambda}-sensitive E. coli. The antiserum had no adverse effect on {lambda}-resistant E. coli or macrophages at the concentration employed (0.5 µl of undiluted antiserum per ml).

Gentamicin and {lambda} as extracellular bactericidal agents. We examined several parameters of macrophage killing curves to determine the degree to which an internalized bacterial population (defined as the population of macrophage-bound bacteria that had survived the 30-min exposure to {lambda} or gentamicin) was reduced. From inspection of compiled data from four killing curves (Fig. 1), it is readily apparent that macrophage bactericidal effectiveness was influenced by the choice of extracellular killing agents (compare Fig. 1A and B). However, to quantitatively assess the effects of the two extracellular killing agents and the effect of the FimH phenotype on macrophage bactericidal activity, a number of curve parameters were examined. These parameters included (i) the initial killing rate of internalized bacteria, (ii) the maximal percentage of internalized bacteria killed, and (iii) the percentage of internalized bacteria that survived the ca. 4.5 h of exposure to the macrophages and the extracellular killing agent.



View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 1. Elimination of internalized FimH+ or FimH- E. coli by resident BALB/c peritoneal macrophages when {lambda} (A) or gentamicin (B) was used as an extracellular killing agent. The FimH+ strains were mixed (1:1) with the FimH- strains and incubated with macrophages. See the text and Table 1, footnotes a to c, for descriptions of the specific bacterial strains employed and the curve parameters compared. Values on the y axis indicate the percentage of internalized bacteria surviving at the times indicated along the x axis. One hundred percent defines that population of macrophage-bound bacteria that survived the 30-min treatment with the extracellular agent. The values shown are averages of four experiments, each performed in duplicate. Error bars denote standard errors of the means. The time points denoted are approximate to allow values from separate experiments to be averaged.

 
When measuring the initial killing rate (the slope of a line tracing the decrease in the percentage of the internalized E. coli over the first ca. 1.25 h postinternalization), we noted that the rate of FimH- E. coli elimination was significantly greater than that of FimH+ E. coli elimination when {lambda} was used in the assay but the FimH phenotype had no effect when gentamicin was employed (Table 1). With regard to the maximal number of internalized E. coli cells eliminated (the lowest point in the elimination curve) when gentamicin was employed, the magnitude of the decrease was significantly greater than when {lambda} was employed and there was no difference between the maximal elimination levels of FimH+ and FimH- E. coli. When {lambda} was employed, a significantly higher percentage of internalized FimH+ bacteria survived (compared to FimH- bacteria) (Table 1). The last feature of the killing assay examined was the number of bacteria that survived the ca. 4.5 h of exposure to the macrophages and the extracellular killing agent. We noted a pronounced difference in the effects of the extracellular killing agents upon the survival of bacteria that was independent of the FimH phenotype. With {lambda}, the percentage of the protected population present at the end of the experiment increased; with gentamicin, it decreased (Table 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1. Summary of the effects of {lambda} and gentamicin as extracellular killing agents on FimH+ or FimH- E. coli bound to resident mouse peritoneal macrophagesa

 
Gentamicin contributes to macrophage bactericidal effectiveness. Of the two strains tested, FimH- E. coli appeared to be more susceptible to macrophage killing (i.e., the initial rate of the FimH- bacterial decrease was pronounced regardless of the extracellular killing agent employed [Fig. 1]). However, even with FimH- E. coli, the overall elimination of bacteria, as measured by survival after ca. 4 h, was decidedly more effective with gentamicin. We conducted an experiment to see if resistance to gentamicin had any effect upon the survival of the internalized population, reasoning that if gentamicin was not contributing to the killing of internalized bacteria, then gentamicin resistance should not be a factor in survival. Results affirmed that gentamicin resistance influenced the ability of ingested FimH- E. coli to proliferate when both gentamicin and {lambda} were used as extracellular bactericidal agents (Fig. 2). This effect was most apparent at later times in the assay and was consistent with the idea that gentamicin entered macrophages gradually and contributed to the decrease in intracellular bacteria. This interpretation was supported by microscopic examination of macrophages after 4 h of exposure to FimH+ E. coli and employing either {lambda} or gentamicin as the extracellular killing agent (Fig. 3). The numbers of bacteria in macrophages when {lambda} was used as an extracellular killing agent was particularly striking compared to the dearth of bacteria (both internal and external) when gentamicin was used as the extracellular killing agent (Fig. 3B). The same results were obtained when a FimH- strain (ORN204) was employed but because of the somewhat lower adherence rate of FimH- E. coli (9), more fields needed to be examined (data not shown).



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 2. Effect of gentamicin resistance upon survival of internalized FimH- E. coli in the presence of extracellular gentamicin and {lambda}. Gentamicin-sensitive (GntS) strain ORN204 was mixed (1:1) with ORN224, a gentamicin-resistant (GntR) mutant of ORN223, and incubated with macrophages as described in the text. Internalized bacteria were defined as those macrophage-associated bacteria that were viable after a 30-min exposure to {lambda} and gentamicin. Bacterial numbers, determined at subsequent time points by plating on mannitol tetrazolium agar, are expressed as a percentage of the internalized population. Each experiment was performed in duplicate. The points represent averages of two separate experiments. The vertical bars indicate standard errors.

 


View larger version (134K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 3. Microscopic examination of macrophage monolayers containing FimH+ strain ORN175 after 4 h of exposure to {lambda} (A) or gentamicin (B). Macrophage monolayers, obtained as described in the text, were infected and washed, and medium containing either {lambda} or gentamicin was added for the remainder of the experiment. The medium was then removed, and the monolayers were stained with acridine orange-crystal violet as described by Miliotis (11). Viable intracellular bacteria are visible as bright points in panel A. Bar, 40 µm.

 
Conclusions. A variety of in vitro assays have been designed to differentiate bacteria that are inside host cells from those that are outside host cells. Gentamicin protection is widely viewed as synonymous with host cell internalization. However, both early (4, 5) and more recent (8, 13, 19) reports of gentamicin leakage into cultured eucaryotic cells have led to the practice of using 5 µg of gentamicin per ml to eliminate extracellular bacteria or using higher concentrations for a brief period, followed by extended periods of incubation with 5 µg of gentamicin per ml. With our detection methods, gentamicin had an effect upon intracellular bacterial viability even at 5 µg/ml.

Our results also demonstrated how the choice of extracellular killing agent can influence conclusions about bacterial factors that may be important for intracellular survival. In previous reports, we and others have utilized different extracellular killing agents to examine the effect of the type 1 pilus ligand (FimH) upon the intracellular fate of E. coli taken up by macrophages via that adhesin (2, 9, 10). The reports all indicate that binding via type 1 pili is not a disadvantage to the bacterium, as one might have expected. However, support for the notion that pili actually facilitate survival of E. coli bound to macrophages (over that observed for bound but nonpiliated E. coli) has been inconsistent (9, 10). Our present results suggest that the choice of extracellular bactericidal agent may be one important variable. Recent experiments with mast cells indicate that internalized FimH+ bacteria survive better than FimH- bacteria because of their direction to different intracellular compartments that differ in the ability to eliminate the bacteria (17). The ability to detect such differences depends, in part, upon the degree to which the killing effected by the cultured cell can be separated from artifactual killing due to gentamicin leakage.

Most generally, our work indicates that if alternatives to gentamicin are available, their use may provide contrasting and informative results.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This work was supported by grants AI22223 and DK34987 from the National Institutes of Health and by the State of North Carolina.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: College of Veterinary Medicine, 4700 Hillsborough St., Raleigh, NC 27606. Phone: (919) 513-6207. Fax: (919) 513-6455. E-mail: paul_orndorff{at}ncsu.edu. Back

Editor: B. B. Finlay

{dagger} Present address: Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Campbell University School of Pharmacy, Buies Creek, NC 27506. Back


   REFERENCES
Top
 Abstract
 Text
 References
 
1. Arber, W., L. Enquist, B. Hohn, N. E. Murray, and K. Murray. 1983. Experimental methods for use with {lambda}, p. 433-466. In R.W. Hendrix, J. W. Roberts, F. W. Stahl and R. A. Weisberg (ed.), Lambda II. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.
2. Baorto, D. M., Z. Gao, R. Malaviya, M. L. Dustin, A. van der Merwe, D. M. Lublin, and S. N. Abraham. 1997. Survival of FimH-expressing enterobacteria in macrophages relies on glycolipid traffic. Nature 389:636-639.[CrossRef][Medline]
3. Davis, R. W., D. Botstein, and J. R. Roth. 1980. Advanced bacterial genetics. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.
4. Drevets, D. A., B. P. Canono, P. J. Leenen, and P. A. Campbell. 1994. Gentamicin kills intracellular Listeria monocytogenes. Infect. Immun. 62:2222-2228.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Edelson, P. J., R. Zwiebel, and Z. A. Cohn. 1975. The pinocytic rate of activated macrophages. J. Exp. Med. 142:1150-1164.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Eissenberg, L. G., and P. B. Wyrick. 1981. Inhibition of phagolysosome fusion is localized to Chlamydia psittaci-laden vacuoles. Infect. Immun. 32:889-896.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Elsinghorst, E. A. 1994. Measurement of invasion by gentamicin resistance. Methods Enzymol. 236:405-420.[Medline]
8. Eze, M. O., L. Yuan, R. M. Crawford, C. M. Paranavitana, T. L. Hadfield, A. K. Bhattacharjee, R. L. Warren, and, D. L. Hoover. 2000. Effects of opsonization and gamma interferon on growth of Brucella melitensis 16M in mouse peritoneal macrophages in vitro. Infect. Immun. 68:257-263.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Hamrick, T. S., E. A. Havell, J. R. Horton, and P. E. Orndorff. 2000. Host and bacterial factors involved in the innate ability of mouse macrophages to eliminate internalized unopsonized Escherichia coli. Infect. Immun. 68:125-132.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Keith, B. R., S. L. Harris, P. W. Russell, and P. E. Orndorff. 1990. Effect of type 1 piliation on in vitro killing of Escherichia coli by mouse peritoneal macrophages. Infect. Immun. 58:3448-3454.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Miliotis, M. 1991. Acridine orange stain for determining intracellular enteropathogens in HeLa cells. J. Clin. Microbiol. 29:830-831.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Miller, J. H. 1972. Experiments in molecular genetics. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.
13. Ohya, S., H. Xiong, Y. Tanabe, M. Arakawa, and M. Mitsuyama. 1998. Killing mechanism of Listeria monocytogenes in activated macrophages as determined by an improved assay system. J. Med. Microbiol. 47:211-215.[Abstract]
14. Russell, P. W., and P. E. Orndorff. 1992. Lesions in two Escherichia coli type 1 pilus genes alter pilus number and length without affecting receptor binding. J. Bacteriol. 174:5923-5935.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Sambrook, J., E. F. Fritsch, and T. Maniatis. 1989. Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual, 2nd ed. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.
16. Shaw, D. R., A. T. Maurelli, J. D. Goguen, S. C. Straley, and R. Curtiss. 1983. Use of UV-irradiated bacteriophage T6 to kill extracellular bacteria in tissue culture infectivity assays. J. Immunol. Methods 56:75-83.[CrossRef][Medline]
17. Shin, J. S., Z. Gao, and S. N. Abraham. 2000. Involvement of cellular caveolae in bacterial entry into mast cells. Science 289:785-788.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
18. Silhavy, T. J., M. L. Berman, and L. W. Enquist. 1984. Experiments with gene fusions. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.
19. Tsang, A. W., K. Oestergaard, J. T. Myers, and J. A. Swanson. 2000. Altered membrane trafficking in activated bone marrow-derived macrophages. J. Leukoc. Biol. 68:487-494.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20. Vaudaux, P., and F. A. Waldvogel. 1979. Gentamicin antibacterial activity in the presence of human polymorphonuclear leukocytes. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 16:743-749.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Infection and Immunity, February 2003, p. 1016-1019, Vol. 71, No. 2
0019-9567/03/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/IAI.71.2.1016-1019.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hamrick, T. S.
Right arrow Articles by Orndorff, P. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hamrick, T. S.
Right arrow Articles by Orndorff, P. E.

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
J. Bacteriol. J. Virol. Eukaryot. Cell
Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. All ASM Journals