If you have property, others will want it, even if you are a simple amoeba. Here we show how the amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum protects the bacteria they farm with other bacteria they use as weapons. We also show how a food bacterium evolved from a weapon bacterium with a single stop codon. In the process of telling this amazing story, we also discuss the challenges of making a major transition in a research career.
Guns and butter in social amoeba bacteria interactions
1. 1
Strassmann/ Queller lab group
Guns and butter in microbial farming
interactions
Joan Strassmann
strassmann@wustl.edu, http://strassmannandquellerlab.wordpress.com
Read my blog on how to become a professor!
http://sociobiology.wordpress.com
7. Test questions on the talk
you heard yesterday,
Cooperation and conflict
in the social amoeba
Dictyostelium discoideum
David Queller
8. 1. Why study Dictyostelium? Which
of these reasons is NOT true?
1. To test social evolution theory in a completely different
system
2. To find the genes underlying cooperation and conflict
3. To find quantitative trait loci in sexual recombinants
4. To do experimental evolution
5. To use genomics and molecular evolution
9. SM plate SM plate
1 round
2. Selection to find cheater mutations
1. was impossible
2. used wild clones
3. identified many genes
4. was impeded by pleiotropy
10,000 REMI generated
mutants
10. 3. Which of the following is NOT true about genetic
relatedness in wild fruiting bodies?
1. Wild fruiting bodies are
clonal.
2. Relatedness in wild
fruiting bodies is over
0.86.
3. Wild fruiting bodies
have never been
discovered.
4. Wild fruiting bodies
sometimes contain
multiple species
11. 4. Do obligate stalkless cheaters occur in nature?
1. Yes. About 50% of clones
cannot make stalks on their
own.
2. Yes. About 7% of clones
cannot make stalks on
their own.
3. Yes. About one in a
thousand cannot make
stalks on their own.
4. No. All clones can make
stalks on their own.
12. SM plate SM plate
1 round
5. Under experimental evolution
conditions of very low relatedness:
1. Some mutants lost the ability to
form stalks.
2. All mutants retained the ability
to make stalks
Low relatedness – plate 106 spores
14. 1. Why study Dictyostelium? Which
of these reasons is NOT true?
1. To test social evolution theory in a completely different
system
2. To find the genes underlying cooperation and conflict
3. To find quantitative trait loci in sexual recombinants
4. To do experimental evolution
5. To use genomics and molecular evolution
15. 2. Selection to find cheater mutations
1. was impossible
2. used wild clones
3. identified many genes
4. was impeded by pleiotropy
Santorelli et al. 2008 Nature
Lorenzo
Santorelli
16. 3. Which of the following is NOT true about genetic
relatedness in wild fruiting bodies?
1. Wild fruiting bodies are
clonal.
2. Relatedness in wild
fruiting bodies is over
0.86.
3. Wild fruiting bodies
have never been
discovered.
4. Wild fruiting bodies
sometimes contain
multiple species
Gilbert et al. 2007 PNAS
Owen Gilbert
17. 4. Do obligate stalkless cheaters occur in nature?
1. Yes. About 50% of clones
cannot make stalks on their
own.
2. Yes. About 7% of clones
cannot make stalks on
their own.
3. Yes. About one in a
thousand cannot make
stalks on their own.
4. No. All clones can make
stalks on their own. We
looked at 3316 clones from
95 fruiting bodies. Gilbert et al. 2007 PNAS
Owen Gilbert
18. SM plate SM plate
1 round
5. Under experimental evolution
conditions of very low relatedness:
1. Some mutants lost the ability to
form stalks, making them cheaters,
obligate social parasites.
2. All mutants retained the ability to
make stalks
Low relatedness – plate 106 spores
Kuzdzal-Fick et al Science 2010
Jennie Kuzdzal-Fick
19.
20.
21. Why and how to make a huge scientific
transition
22. Enormity of the
transition
Different natural history
Different kingdom
Different techniques
Different colleagues
Different scientific
societies
Different hurdles
Different opportunities
23. Enormity of the transition
About two years spent studying the
biology of dying cells.
32. What kept us going?
1. Continuing interesting questions
1. Is there conflict in chimeras?
2. Do they recognize kin?
3. Can we change their social structure under
experimental evolution?
33. What kept us going?
1. Continuing interesting
questions
2. Students interested in
the work
34. What kept us going?
1. Continuing interesting questions
2. Students interested in the work
3. Great mentors – Richard Kessin
35. What kept us going?
1. Continuing interesting questions
2. Students interested in the work
3. Great mentors
4. Great collaborators
36. What kept us going?
1. Continuing interesting questions
2. Students interested in the work
3. Great mentors
4. Great collaborators
5. Funding
45. Some clones carry bacteria through the social stage
Micrographs of sorus contents
Spores
Spores
Bacteria
5µm
12 genetically-distinct clones collected from a small transect in Va.
Experienced same environment; access to same potential food
Study population:
46. Some clones transport bacteria; some do not
Micrographs of dispersed slug amoeba
Farmer Non-farmer
Nuclei
Nuclei
Bacteria
Amoeba stained with DAPI (DNA stain) and Baclight Red (live bacteria specific stain)
47. About a third of clones are farmers.
MinnesotaVirginia
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 2 3 4
5/14
3/9
1/3
4/9
FarmerNon-farmer
%occurrence
Average
proportion
of farmers
35.5%
52. Host amoebae have greater
proliferation in host bacteria
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Pf3 Kp
Totalamoebaex10⁴
D. discoideum amoebae proliferation at 24 hours
N=3
Host farmer
Non-farmer
53. 0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Day1 Day3 Day5 Day7
Absorbance(A600)
Solitary Social
Farmers are prudent; they do not eat
all the bacteria present
Bacteria
Bacteria w/ Non-farmers
Bacteria w/ Farmers
Non-farmer
Fb’s:
3
mm
Farmer
Fb’
s:
Bacteria
5 days after beginning
57. Are farmers immune compromised
because they are nice to their bacteria?
Kessin 2000
58. Sentinel cells are less adhesive cells that pass
through the multicellular body, accumulating
toxins and bacteria, an innate immune system,
and a liver. Then they are sloughed off the tail end
of the slug.
Chen et al. 2007
59. Farmers have fewer sentinel cells
than non-farmers
Figure removed, not yet published.
60. 1. About a third of clones are farmers.
2. Farmers carry bacteria in the social stage.
3. Farmers prudently do not eat all the
bacteria.
4. Farmers proliferate more than non-
farmers on soil if no bacteria are added.
5. Farmers have fewer sentinel cells.
6. Farmers form more spores on toxic
media.
7. Farmers are not sick.
What do we know so far?
61. Turn to some other questions
Look harder at the bacteria farmers carry.
62. Some carried bacteria are not good food
D.discoideum
farmer clones
Location
collected
Closest relative in GenBank % Identity
5 clones Mt. Lake, VA Burkholderia xenovorans LB400 98
2 clones Mt. Lake, VA Stenotrophomonas maltophilia K279a 98
2 clones Mt. Lake, VA Enterobacter sakazakii ATCC BAA-894 98
3 clones Mt. Lake, VA Pseudomonas fluorescens Pf-5 98
2 clones Mt. Lake, VA Burkholderia phytofirmans psJN 97
4 clones Lake Itaska, MN Flavobacterium johnsoniae UW101 93
Pathogens?
Weapons?
63. Carried Burkholderia xenovorans is a poor food -
but could be a weapon
Bs = Burkholderia xenovorans, Kp= Klebsiella pneumoniae
64. Do farmers use bacteria as weapons
against other Dicty clones?
Kessin 2000
65. 0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0 5 50 95 100
Percapitasporeproduction
% farmer clone
Non-farmers
Farmers
Farmers outcompete non-farmers
Type F3,30=18.71, p<0.0001; Significant
differences found between types, results of a
post-hoc Tukey HSD test
Brock et al. Nature Communications 2013
66. Besides food bacteria, farmers carry
bacteria for defense
D.discoideum
farmer clones
Location
collected
Closest relative in GenBank
%
Identity
5 clones Mt. Lake, VA Burkholderia xenovorans LB400 98
2 clones Mt. Lake, VA Stenotrophomonas maltophilia K279a 98
2 clones Mt. Lake, VA
Enterobacter sakazakii ATCC BAA-
894 98
3 clones Mt. Lake, VA Pseudomonas fluorescens Pf-5 98
2 clones Mt. Lake, VA Burkholderia phytofirmans psJN 97
4 clones
Lake Itaska,
MN Flavobacterium johnsoniae UW101 93
68. Farmer-associated B. xenovorans isolate exudates
harm non-farmers and benefit host farmers
68
%changeinsporeproduction
FarmerNon-farmer
Box plots of combined data.
Change in spore production is strongly affected by farmer status,
with non-farmers decreasing spore production compared to controls
and farmers increasing spore production compared to controls.
69. Farmers have ways of protecting their
crop against other D. discoideum
clones, partly using their bacterial
weapons.
71. A story about one clone of D.
discoideum, clone QS160, from
Mountain Lake Biological
Station which is a farmer
Stallforth et al. PNAS, 2013
72. Debbie noticed two different bacteria colony
morphologies from QS161. Both turned out to
be Pseudomonas fluoresens.
Pf2
Pf3
73. Pseudomonas fluorescens
• Gram negative rod shaped bacteria that inhabit
soil, plants (rhizosphere), and water surfaces
• Nonpathogenic and optimum growth at 25°C
make it ideal for plant disease suppression
• Commercially important for antibiotics
(Mupirocin) and fungicides for crops
• Produces siderophores such as pyoverdin (chelates
iron)
74. Pf2 alone is not a food for D.
discoideum; we’ll show it is a weapon
Kp control Pf2 alone
74
75. Pf3, the other bacterium from
QS161 works well as food
Kp control Pf3 Pf2
75
77. Who knew small molecules are so
cool?
• Low molecular weight (<900 daltons) organic compound
• Size allows rapid diffusion across membranes to intracellular
sites of action
• May be an enzyme substrate or regulator of biological
processes
• Variety of biological functions such as cell signalling
molecules, drugs, and pesticides
• Can be natural (secondary metabolites) or derived (some
drugs-Ravindranathan et al 2013; Wang et al 2013)
• Very common in soil bacteria and fungi
78. Are there small molecule
differences that make Pf2
inedible and Pf3 edible?
85. How do Pf2 and Pf3 differ? They were isolated
from the same clone of D. discoideum, after all.
86. A single stop codon in Pf3 turns off GacA
pathway
Pf2
Pf3
Pf2
Pf3
Pf2
Pf3
Pf2
Pf3
A single stop codon appears to make Pf3 edible
87. GacS/GacA (global activator)
two component system
• Highly conserved in Gram-negative bacteria
• GacS sensor kinase autophosphorylates and activates GacA
response regulator
•
• Disruption of either gene produces identical phenotype
• Gene disruption leads to:
– Loss of production of positively regulated external products such
as exotoxins, exoproteases, antibiotics (pyrrolnitrin), and
quorum sensing signals
– Overproduction of negatively regulated secondary metabolites
such as siderophores
– Flagella are affected *
88. Did Pf2 evolve into edible Pf3 by losing
the GacA function?
89. ∆gacA knockout has same spectra
as Pf3 food bacteriaCurrent Chromatogram(s)
min5 10 15 20
mAU
0
100
200
300
400
500
DAD1 A, Sig=254,4 Ref=360,100 (PIERRE2-3-KO 2013-03-03 17-03-233.D)
min5 10 15 20
mAU
0
100
200
300
400
500
DAD1 A, Sig=254,4 Ref=360,100 (PIERRE2-3-KO 2013-03-03 17-03-233.D)
min5 10 15 20
mAU
0
500
1000
1500
2000
DAD1 A, Sig=254,4 Ref=360,100 (PIERRESC-3 2011-08-29 13-22-5108-29-11-PF2-50.D)
Sample Name : 3
=====================================================================
Acq. Operator : Pierre Seq. Line : 2
Acq. Instrument : Instrument 1 Location : Vial 62
Injection Date : 3/3/2013 5:35:09 PM Inj : 1
Inj Volume : 5.0 µl
Different Inj Volume from Sequence ! Actual Inj Volume : 100.0 µl
Acq. Method : D:DATAPIERRE2-3-KO 2013-03-03 17-03-23DEFAULT_ACID.M
Last changed : 1/17/2013 6:51:31 PM by Pierre
Analysis Method : C:CHEM321METHODSSHUGENG20 MIN GRADIENT_W&E.M
Last changed : 3/5/2013 2:08:20 PM by Tim
(modified after loading)
Instrument 1 3/5/2013 2:09:25 PM Tim Page 1 of 1
Current Chromatogram(s)
min5 10 15 20
mAU
0
100
200
300
400
500
DAD1 A, Sig=254,4 Ref=360,100 (PIERRE2-3-KO 2013-03-03 17-03-233.D)
min5 10 15 20
mAU
0
100
200
300
400
500
DAD1 A, Sig=254,4 Ref=360,100 (PIERRE2-3-KO 2013-03-03 17-03-233.D)
min5 10 15 20
mAU
0
500
1000
1500
2000
DAD1 A, Sig=254,4 Ref=360,100 (PIERRESC-3 2011-08-29 13-22-5108-29-11-PF2-50.D)
=====================================================================
Acq. Operator : Pierre Seq. Line : 2
Acq. Instrument : Instrument 1 Location : Vial 62
Injection Date : 3/3/2013 5:35:09 PM Inj : 1
Inj Volume : 5.0 µl
Different Inj Volume from Sequence ! Actual Inj Volume : 100.0 µl
Acq. Method : D:DATAPIERRE2-3-KO 2013-03-03 17-03-23DEFAULT_ACID.M
Last changed : 1/17/2013 6:51:31 PM by Pierre
Analysis Method : C:CHEM321METHODSSHUGENG20 MIN GRADIENT_W&E.M
Last changed : 3/5/2013 2:08:20 PM by Tim
(modified after loading)
Instrument 1 3/5/2013 2:09:25 PM Tim Page 1 of 1
Current Chromatogram(s)
min5 10 15 20
mAU
0
100
200
300
400
500
DAD1 A, Sig=254,4 Ref=360,100 (PIERRE2-3-KO 2013-03-03 17-03-233.D)
min5 10 15 20
mAU
0
100
200
300
400
500
DAD1 A, Sig=254,4 Ref=360,100 (PIERRE2-3-KO 2013-03-03 17-03-233.D)
min5 10 15 20
mAU
0
500
1000
1500
2000
DAD1 A, Sig=254,4 Ref=360,100 (PIERRESC-3 2011-08-29 13-22-5108-29-11-PF2-50.D)
Instrument 1 3/5/2013 2:09:25 PM Tim Page 1 of 1
5 10 15 20 min
Current Chromatogram(s)
min5 10 15 20
mAU
0
100
200
300
400
500
DAD1 A, Sig=254,4 Ref=360,100 (PIERRE2-3-KO 2013-03-03 17-03-233.D)
min5 10 15 20
mAU
0
100
200
300
400
500
DAD1 A, Sig=254,4 Ref=360,100 (PIERRE2-3-KO 2013-03-03 17-03-233.D)
min5 10 15 20
mAU
0
500
1000
1500
2000
DAD1 A, Sig=254,4 Ref=360,100 (PIERRESC-3 2011-08-29 13-22-5108-29-11-PF2-50.D)
Data File : D:DATAPIERRE2-3-KO 2013-03-03 17-03-233.D
Sample Name : 3
=====================================================================
Acq. Operator : Pierre Seq. Line : 2
Acq. Instrument : Instrument 1 Location : Vial 62
Injection Date : 3/3/2013 5:35:09 PM Inj : 1
Inj Volume : 5.0 µl
Different Inj Volume from Sequence ! Actual Inj Volume : 100.0 µl
Acq. Method : D:DATAPIERRE2-3-KO 2013-03-03 17-03-23DEFAULT_ACID.M
Last changed : 1/17/2013 6:51:31 PM by Pierre
Analysis Method : C:CHEM321METHODSSHUGENG20 MIN GRADIENT_W&E.M
Last changed : 3/5/2013 2:08:20 PM by Tim
(modified after loading)
Instrument 1 3/5/2013 2:09:25 PM Tim Page 1 of 1
Current Chromatogram(s)
min5 10 15 20
mAU
0
100
200
300
400
500
DAD1 A, Sig=254,4 Ref=360,100 (PIERRE2-3-KO 2013-03-03 17-03-233.D)
min5 10 15 20
mAU
0
100
200
300
400
500
DAD1 A, Sig=254,4 Ref=360,100 (PIERRE2-3-KO 2013-03-03 17-03-233.D)
mAU
2000
DAD1 A, Sig=254,4 Ref=360,100 (PIERRESC-3 2011-08-29 13-22-5108-29-11-PF2-50.D)
Print of window 38: Current Chromatogram(s)
Data File : D:DATAPIERRE2-3-KO 2013-03-03 17-03-233.D
Sample Name : 3
=====================================================================
Acq. Operator : Pierre Seq. Line : 2
Acq. Instrument : Instrument 1 Location : Vial 62
Injection Date : 3/3/2013 5:35:09 PM Inj : 1
Inj Volume : 5.0 µl
Different Inj Volume from Sequence ! Actual Inj Volume : 100.0 µl
Acq. Method : D:DATAPIERRE2-3-KO 2013-03-03 17-03-23DEFAULT_ACID.M
Last changed : 1/17/2013 6:51:31 PM by Pierre
Analysis Method : C:CHEM321METHODSSHUGENG20 MIN GRADIENT_W&E.M
Last changed : 3/5/2013 2:08:20 PM by Tim
(modified after loading)
Current Chromatogram(s)
min5 10 15 20
mAU
0
100
200
300
400
500
DAD1 A, Sig=254,4 Ref=360,100 (PIERRE2-3-KO 2013-03-03 17-03-233.D)
mAU
300
400
500
DAD1 A, Sig=254,4 Ref=360,100 (PIERRE2-3-KO 2013-03-03 17-03-233.D)
Print of window 38: Current Chromatogram(s)
Data File : D:DATAPIERRE2-3-KO 2013-03-03 17-03-233.D
Sample Name : 3
=====================================================================
Acq. Operator : Pierre Seq. Line : 2
Acq. Instrument : Instrument 1 Location : Vial 62
Injection Date : 3/3/2013 5:35:09 PM Inj : 1
Inj Volume : 5.0 µl
Different Inj Volume from Sequence ! Actual Inj Volume : 100.0 µl
Acq. Method : D:DATAPIERRE2-3-KO 2013-03-03 17-03-23DEFAULT_ACID.M
Last changed : 1/17/2013 6:51:31 PM by Pierre
Analysis Method : C:CHEM321METHODSSHUGENG20 MIN GRADIENT_W&E.M
Last changed : 3/5/2013 2:08:20 PM by Tim
(modified after loading)
mAU
254 nm
* Pyochelin II
* Pyochelin I
* Pyrrolnitrin
Chromene *
PfA
PfA ΔgacA
PfB
0
0
0
2000
500
500
* Pyochelin I
* Pyochelin II
Food
Non-food
Non-food
mutagenized
to food
Pf3
Pf2
91. The edible and inedible Pf strains are
each other’s closest relative
92. In the environment of D. discoideum, this
Pseudomonas fluorescens clone evolved edibility
with a single mutation that would be disabling in
nature.
95. Where are the farmer Dicty?
1. We hypothesized that there would be more
clones of Dictyostelium discoideum in feces than in
soil samples because of the higher numbers of
bacteria in feces
2. We hypothesized that there would be more
farmer D. discoideum carrying bacteria in the soil
samples than in the feces because we reasoned
there would be fewer kinds of delicious bacteria in
soil compared to feces.
96. It is not easy to collect feces samples!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hbarrison/2874265346/in/photostream/
98. Fisher Brodie
• collected paired samples of feces and soil
delivered to us on three dates: 5 July, 27 July,
and 11 August 2013.
• There were 9 pairs at the first collection, 12 at
the second, and 8 at the third.
• In all there were 20 deer feces samples, and 9
bear feces samples.
99. What did we find?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hbarrison/2874265346/in/photostream/
100. More Dicty in soil than feces
Dicty No Dicty
soil 12 17
feces 3 26
Chi Square, p< 0.016