bacteria

Seminal work

How unruly data led MU scientists to discover a new microbiome
By Roger Meissen | MU Bond Life Sciences Center

seminal vesicles 3_11_16.jpg

This seminal vesicle contains a newly-discovered microbiome in mice. Some of its bacteria, like P. acnes, could lead to higher occurrences of prostate cancer. | contributed by Cheryl Rosenfeld

It’s a strange place to call home, but seminal fluid offers the perfect environment for particular types of bacteria.

Researchers at MU’s Bond Life Sciences Center recently identified new bacteria that thrive here.

Cheryl Rosenfeld1.jpg “It’s a new microbiome that hasn’t been looked at before,” said Cheryl Rosenfeld, a Bond LSC investigator and corresponding author on the study. “Resident bacteria can help us or be harmful, but one we found called P. acnes is a very important from the standpoint of men. It can cause chronic prostatitis that results in prostate cancer. We’re speculating that the seminal vesicles could be a reservoir for this bacteria and when it spreads it can cause disease.”

Experiments published in Scientific Reportsa journal published by Nature — indicate these bacteria may start disease leading to prostate cancer in mice and could pass from father to offspring.


A place to call home

From the gut to the skin and everywhere in between, bacterial colonies can both help and hurt the animals or humans they live in.

Seminal fluid offers an attractive microbiome — a niche environment where specific bacteria flourish and impact their hosts. Not only is this component of semen chockfull of sugars that bacteria eat, it offers a warm, protected atmosphere.

“Imagine a pond where bacteria live — it’s wet it’s warm and there’s food there — that’s what this is, except it’s inside your body,” said Rosenfeld. “Depending on where they live, these bacteria can influence our cells, produce hormones that replicate our own hormones, but can also consume our sugars and metabolize them or even cause disease.”

Rosenfeld’s team wasn’t trying to find the perfect vacation spot for a family of bacteria. They initially wanted to know what bacteria in seminal fluid might mean for offspring of the mice they studied.

“We were looking at the epigenetic effects — the impact the father has on the offspring’s disease risk — but what we saw in the data led us to focus more on the effects this bacterium, P. acnes, has on the male itself,” Rosenfeld said. “We were thinking more about effect on offspring and female reproduction — we weren’t even considering the effect the bacteria that live in this fluid could have on the male — but this could be one of the more fascinating findings.”

But, how do you figure out what might live in this unique ecosystem and whether it’s harmful?

First, her team found a way to extract seminal fluid without contamination from potential bacteria in the urinary tract.

“We gowned up just like for surgery and we had to extract the fluid directly from the seminal vesicles to avoid contamination,” said Angela Javurek, primary author on the study and recent MU graduate. “You only have a certain amount of time to collect the fluid because it hardens like glue.”

Once they obtained these samples, they turned to a DNA approach, sequencing it using MU’s DNA Core.

They compared it to bacteria in fecal samples of the same mice to see if bacteria in seminal fluid were unique. They also compared samples from normal mice and ones where estrogen receptor genes were removed.


The difference in the data

It sounds daunting to sort and compare millions of DNA sequences, right? But, the right approach can make all the difference.

“A lot of it looks pretty boring, but bioinformatics allow us to decipher large amounts of data that can otherwise be almost incomprehensible,” said Scott Givan, the associate director of the Informatics Research Core Facility (IRCF) that specializes in complicated analysis of data. “Here we compared seminal fluid bacterial DNA samples to publicly available databases that come from other large experiments and found a few sequences that no one else has discovered or at least characterized, so we’re in completely new territory.”

The seminal microbiome continued to stand out when compared to mouse poop, revealing 593 unique bacteria.

One of the most important was P. acnes, a bacteria known to cause chronic prostatitis that can lead to prostate cancer in man and mouse. It was abundant in the seminal fluid, and even more so when estrogen receptor genes were present.

“We’re essentially doing a lot of counting, especially across treatments to see if particular bacteria species are more common than others,” said Bill Spollen, a lead bioinformatics analyst at the IRCF. “The premise is that the more abundant a species is, the more often we’ll see its DNA sequence and we can start making some inferences to how it could be influencing its environment.”

Although this discovery excites Rosenfeld, much is unknown about how this new microbiome might affect males and their offspring.

“We do have this bacteria that can affect the male mouse’s health, that of his partner and his offspring,” Rosenfeld said. “But we’ve been studying microbiology for a long time and we still find bacteria within our own bodies that nobody has seen before. That blows my mind.”

The study, “Discovery of a Novel Seminal Fluid Microbiome and Influence of Estrogen Receptor Alpha Genetic Status,” recently was published in Scientific Reports, a journal published by Nature.

 

Chemical beacons: LSC scientist discovers how plants beckon bacteria to attack

Scott Peck studies Arabidopsis and how bacteria perceive it before initiating an infection. Roger Meissen/ Bond LSC

Scott Peck, Bond LSC scientist and associate professor of biochemistry, studies Arabidopsis and how bacteria perceive it before initiating an infection. Roger Meissen/ Bond LSC

Sometimes plants inadvertently roll out the red carpet for bacteria.

Researchers at the University of Missouri Bond Life Sciences Center recently discovered how a plant’s own chemicals act as a beacon to bacteria, triggering an infection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published their study April 21.

“When bacteria recognize these plant chemicals it builds a needle-like syringe that injects 20-30 proteins into its host, shutting down the plant’s immune system,” said Scott Peck, Bond LSC plant scientist and lead investigator on the study. “Without a proper defense response, bacteria can grow and continue to infect the plant. It looks like these chemical signals play a very large role in mediating these initial steps of infection.”

The question of how bacteria actually know they are in the presence of a plant has puzzled scientists for years. Being able to identify the difference between a plant cell and, say, a rock or a piece of dirt, means the bacteria saves energy by only turning on its infection machinery when near a plant cell.

“Our results show the bacteria needs to see both a sugar – which plants produce quite a bit of from photosynthesis – and five particular acids at the same time,” Peck said. “It’s sort of a fail-safe mechanism to be sure it’s around a host before it turns on this infection apparatus.”

Peck’s work started with one mutant plant called Arabidopsis mkp1.

Discovered several years ago by Peck’s lab, this little mustard plant acts differently than others by rebuffing the advances of bacteria. Lab tests confirmed that this mutant didn’t get infected by Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000, a bacterial pathogen that causes brown spots on tomatoes and hurts the model plant Arabidopsis. Along with MU biochemistry research scientist Jeffrey Anderson and post doc Ying Wan, they showed that this mutant didn’t trigger the bacteria’s Type III Secretion System, the needle-like syringe and associated proteins that lead to infection.

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) worked with Peck’s team to compare levels of metabolites between the mutant Arabidopsis and normal plants. This comparison helped Peck identify a few of these chemicals – created from regular plant processes – that existed in much lower levels in their special little mutant.

Using the PNNL work as a guide, the team found five acids collectively had the biggest effect in turning on a bacteria’s infection: aspartic, citric, pyroglutamic, 4-hydrobenzoic and shikimic acid.

“The key experiment involved us simply adding these acids back into the mutant,” Peck said. “Suddenly we saw the mutant plant wasn’t resistant anymore and the bacteria were once again capable of injecting proteins to turn off the plant’s immune system.”

First contact and recognition means all the difference, whether bacteria or plant. Just a slight jump out of the starting blocks by one or the other could change who will win a battle of health or infection.

While low concentrations of these five acids trigger the bacteria’s attack, high levels blind it to the plant’s presence, leading Peck to believe it could be used to hinder bacterial growth. If this actually thwarts the bacteria’s head start, it could mean stopping disease in crops and could lead to a different approach in the field.

“A lot of the winning and losing occurs within the first 2-6 hours and it seems to be that if the microbe is too slow to turn off the immune system, the plant can actually fight off the infection,” Peck said. “In the future we could possibly make a new generation of anti-microbial compounds that don’t try to kill the bacteria, but rather just make them no longer virulent by blocking these chemical signals so the natural plant immune system can basically take over.”

Peck’s team believes at least some other bacteria will respond to these chemical signals, and he plans to test other bacterial pathogens to make certain. They also want to test bacteria to see if they are more virulent in humans once primed for attack by these plant chemical signals.

“In the long run the question is how far this extends. A lot of people get salmonella or listeria infections through a food source,” Peck said. “The question is do other bacteria that come in through plant food sources have similar perception systems and end up being more infectious in humans because they are already primed for infection.”

A $500,000 grant from the National Science Foundation supported this research.