Research Article
18 April 2014

Role of F1C Fimbriae, Flagella, and Secreted Bacterial Components in the Inhibitory Effect of Probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 on Atypical Enteropathogenic E. coli Infection

ABSTRACT

Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (EPEC) is recognized as an important intestinal pathogen that frequently causes acute and persistent diarrhea in humans and animals. The use of probiotic bacteria to prevent diarrhea is gaining increasing interest. The probiotic E. coli strain Nissle 1917 (EcN) is known to be effective in the treatment of several gastrointestinal disorders. While both in vitro and in vivo studies have described strong inhibitory effects of EcN on enteropathogenic bacteria, including pathogenic E. coli, the underlying molecular mechanisms remain largely unknown. In this study, we examined the inhibitory effect of EcN on infections of porcine intestinal epithelial cells with atypical enteropathogenic E. coli (aEPEC) with respect to single infection steps, including adhesion, microcolony formation, and the attaching and effacing phenotype. We show that EcN drastically reduced the infection efficiencies of aEPEC by inhibiting bacterial adhesion and growth of microcolonies, but not the attaching and effacing of adherent bacteria. The inhibitory effect correlated with EcN adhesion capacities and was predominantly mediated by F1C fimbriae, but also by H1 flagella, which served as bridges between EcN cells. Furthermore, EcN seemed to interfere with the initial adhesion of aEPEC to host cells by secretion of inhibitory components. These components do not appear to be specific to EcN, but we propose that the strong adhesion capacities enable EcN to secrete sufficient local concentrations of the inhibitory factors. The results of this study are consistent with a mode of action whereby EcN inhibits secretion of virulence-associated proteins of EPEC, but not their expression.

INTRODUCTION

Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (EPEC) frequently causes acute and persistent diarrhea in animals and humans. EPEC infection leads to serious acute diarrhea in weaned pigs (1, 2). In humans, EPEC infections are particularly serious for infants and toddlers and are often accompanied by high lethality in developing countries (3, 4). However, it is now recognized that atypical EPEC (aEPEC) strains are more frequent in humans than typical EPEC (tEPEC; expression of bundle-forming pili) strains in both developing and developed countries (5, 6). In animals, aEPEC strains are much more prevalent than EPEC strains, and aEPEC strains isolated from cattle, sheep, and pigs belong to the same serotypes found in humans (7, 8). Furthermore, recent studies showed a close clonal relationship between human and animal aEPEC isolates, suggesting a possible zoonotic potential of animal aEPEC strains that could serve as a reservoir for human infections (9).
Infection of intestinal epithelial cells by EPEC is a complex multistage process. Initially, EPEC loosely adheres to epithelial cells by diverse adhesins and subsequently translocates effector molecules, including the translocated intimin receptor (Tir), into host cells using a type 3 secretion system (T3SS). After integration of Tir into the host cell membrane, EPEC binds tightly through the adhesin intimin with Tir. EPEC is able to intimately adhere to epithelial cells and to form microcolonies with resulting typically associated histopathological alterations of the host cell surface known as attaching and effacing (AE) lesions. Rearrangement and massive accumulation of actin and other cytoskeletal proteins beneath the site of bacterial attachment lead to the formation of pedestal structures and destruction of microvilli (effacement). The pathogenesis is further characterized by loss of tight-junction integrity and barrier functions of the gut epithelium and destruction of microvilli (effacement) and the brush border that leads to diarrhea (4, 1013).
The nonpathogenic E. coli strain Nissle 1917 (EcN) is a widely employed probiotic strain, and several in vivo studies have demonstrated its promising probiotic activity in humans and animals, including the treatment of acute, chronic, or frequent recurring diarrhea and inflammatory bowel disease (1419). Proposed probiotic actions of EcN include effects on pathogens, host epithelial cells, host smooth muscle cell activity, and the host immune system (2028). In vitro, EcN has been shown to inhibit invasion of host cells by several enteric pathogens, including Salmonella, Yersinia, Shigella, Legionella, Listeria, and adherent-invasive E. coli (29, 30). However, the underlying molecular mechanisms remain largely unknown. Here, we characterize the effects of EcN on aEPEC infection of IPEC-J2 cells by means of confocal laser scanning microscopy and scanning electron microscopy, as well as molecular and protein biochemical methods. Our data provide new insights into host-bacterium and interbacterial interactions and show that EcN might be a promising tool in prophylactic defense against EPEC infections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cell line and bacterial strains.

The porcine intestinal epithelial cell line IPEC-J2 (31) was grown to confluence in Dulbecco's modified Eagle medium (DMEM)–Ham's F-12 (1:1) (Biochrom, Berlin, Germany) supplemented with 5% fetal calf serum (FCS) and maintained in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 at 37°C. The bacterial strains used in this study are listed in Table 1. EcN was kindly provided by G. Breves (Hannover, Germany). The EcN mutant EcN ΔfliA (this study) was generated using the method of Datsenko and Wanner (32). The fliA gene was replaced by a kanamycin resistance (kan) antibiotic cassette generated using the plasmid pKD4 as the template and primer pair fliAH1P1 (5′-GTGAATTCACTCTATACCGCTGAAGGTGTAATGGATAAACAGTGTAGGCTGGAGCTGCTTC-3′) and fliAH2P2 (5′-ACTTACCCAGTTTAGTGCGTAACCGTTTAATGCCTGGCTGTGCATATGAATATCCTCCTTAG-3′). EcN ΔfliA was complemented using the plasmid pACYC177 harboring the sequence of fliA (strain EcN ΔfliA + fliA). E. coli MG1655 was a laboratory strain originally obtained from C. A. Cross (San Francisco, CA, USA). E. coli IMT13962 was from the collection of the Institute of Microbiology and Epizootics (Berlin, Germany) and was originally isolated from the colon of a clinical healthy piglet and chosen for its strong adherence to IPEC-J2 cells. Strain IMT13962(pCosF1C6) was generated from strain IMT13962 by complementation with the foc operon cloned into the pSuperCos1 vector (Stratagene, Heidelberg, Germany). Strain P2005/03 (kindly provided by R. Bauerfeind, Gießen, Germany) was isolated from a piglet with diarrhea and classified as aEPEC. Human EPEC E2348/69 was kindly provided by J. B. Kaper (Baltimore, MD, USA). E. coli strain H5316 is a microcin-sensitive indicator strain kindly provided by K. Hantke (Tübingen, Germany). Uropathogenic E. coli (UPEC) strain RZ525 was kindly provided by U. Dobrindt (Würzburg, Germany). Unless otherwise indicated, bacterial strains were grown in LB broth at 37°C with agitation at 200 rpm. For cultivation of strains P2005/03 and E2348/69, LB broth was supplemented with 20 μg/ml tetracycline and 30 μg/ml nalidixic acid, respectively.
TABLE 1
TABLE 1 Bacterial strains used in this study
Bacterial strainDescriptionSourceReference
EcNE. coli Nissle 1917 (DSM 6601); probiotic; O6:K5:H1; ST 73Human47
EcN ΔfimEcN; deletion of fim operonHuman29
EcN Δfim focEcN; deletion of fim and foc operonsHuman29
EcN ΔfocEcN; deletion of foc operonHuman29
EcN ΔfliAEcN; deletion of fliA (bp 41–672); KmrHumanThis study
EcN ΔfliA + fliAEcN; deletion of fliA (bp 41–672); pACYC177 fliA; KmrHumanThis study
E2348/69EPEC; O127:H6; ST 15; NalrHuman 
H5316E. coli K-12 MC4100; Δlac entC::MudX; negative for the gene fur; 31zbd::Tn10Human37
IMT13962E. coli 140815; O15:NT; fim+; negative for the genes foc, eae, stx2e, faeG, fanA, fasA, fedA, fimF41a, est-Ia, and eltB-IpPorcine34
IMT13962 pCosF1C6IMT13962; pCosF1C6; foc+PorcineThis study
MG1655E. coli K-12; OR:H48; ST 98;, F λ; negative for the gene ilvG; rfb-50 rph-1Human64
P2005/03aEPEC; O108:H9; ST 302; intimin β eae+ lerA+; negative for the genes perA, bfp, stx, est-II, est-Ia, and eltB-Ip, astA; TetrPorcine34
RZ525UPEC; O6:K5:H1; foc+; negative for the gene hlyAHuman65

Preparation of bacterial supernatants.

Bacterial strains were grown in LB broth at 37°C with agitation at 200 rpm to an optical density at 600 nm (OD600) of 1.0, diluted 1:100 in DMEM–Ham's F-12 cell culture medium containing 5% fetal calf serum, and grown again to an OD600 of 1.0. The bacterial cultures were centrifuged at 8,000 × g at 4°C for 15 min. The supernatants (SN) were sterile filtered with 0.22-μm filters and kept until use at −20°C.

Infection assay.

aEPEC P2005/03 and EPEC E2348/69 were grown to an OD600 of 1.0, washed by centrifugation, resuspended in cell culture medium, and adjusted by dilution to provide a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 100:1 (bacteria to host cells) in wells of 12- or 24-well cell culture plates. Confluent monolayers of IPEC-J2 cells were infected with P2005/03 or E2348/69 and incubated at 37°C. After 3 h, nonadherent bacteria were removed by three washes with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). For P2005/03, incubation was continued for an additional 3 h. Efficiencies of infection of epithelial cells were determined by washing and lysing the cells with 0.1% Triton X-100 in double-distilled H2O (ddH2O) and plating serial dilutions on LB agar plates containing 5 μg/ml tetracycline or 30 μg/ml nalidixic acid, which allowed the selective growth of P2005/03 and E2348/69, respectively. The plates were incubated overnight at 37°C, and the resulting numbers of CFU were determined. For preincubation experiments, epithelial cells were first incubated with the strains indicated for 2 h and washed three times with PBS prior to EPEC infections. For co- and postincubation experiments, strains were added simultaneously or 1 h after aEPEC infection. For growth kinetics of adherent aEPEC on epithelial cells, the cell culture medium was changed every 30 min 2 h after the beginning of aEPEC infection to remove nonadherent bacteria and to exchange exhausted cell culture medium.

Adhesion assay.

Bacterial strains were prepared and added to IPEC-J2 cell cultures as described for infection assays. At the indicated time points, nonadherent bacteria were removed by washing the cells three times with PBS. Numbers of adherent bacteria were determined by lysing the cells with 0.1% Triton X-100 and plating serial dilutions on LB agar plates.

Fluorescence microscopy.

For fluorescence microscopy, epithelial cells were grown to confluence on glass coverslips and fixed with acetone for 2 min at −20°C (confocal laser scanning microscopy) or 4% paraformaldehyde for 30 min at 4°C (epifluorescence microscopy) after performing infection or adhesion experiments. All incubation steps during staining with fluorescent dyes were performed in the dark. Strain P2005/03 was detected by immunohistochemical staining. Samples were incubated with polyclonal antibodies against serotype O108 raised in rabbit (Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, Germany; diluted 1:50 in PBS with 0.5% bovine serum albumin [BSA]) for 30 min at room temperature, followed by incubation with goat anti-rabbit tetramethyl rhodamine isocyanate (TRITC)-labeled secondary monoclonal antibodies (Sigma-Aldrich, Munich, Germany; diluted 1:200 in PBS with 0.5% BSA) for 30 min at room temperature. Samples were washed three times with PBS after each antibody labeling.
The ability to produce AE lesions was indirectly examined by fluorescent actin staining (FAS) according to the method of Knutton et al. (33). F-actin was stained with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)-phalloidin (5 μg/ml; Invitrogen, Karlsruhe, Germany) for 30 min at room temperature. Samples were washed three times with PBS. Cell nuclei and bacteria in general were visualized by staining DNA with 0.3 μg/ml propidium iodide (Invitrogen, Karlsruhe, Germany) for 3 min at room temperature. Before staining, paraformaldehyde (PFA)-fixed cells were first incubated with 1 ml ice-cold 0.1% Triton X-100 in PBS for 4 min on ice and washed three times with PBS in order to permeabilize the cells. Images were acquired with the confocal laser scanning microscope DMIRE 2 TCS SP2 or the epifluorescence microscope DMBL (both from Leica, Wetzlar, Germany).
EcN flagella were stained with polyclonal antibodies against flagellum H1, kindly provided by L. Beutin (National Reference Laboratory for E. coli, Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, Germany). Antibodies were diluted 1:50 in PBS with 0.5% BSA and applied for 30 min at room temperature, followed by incubation with FITC-labeled secondary monoclonal antibodies against rabbit (Sigma-Aldrich, Munich, Germany) for 30 min at room temperature. Samples were washed three times with PBS after each antibody labeling.

Scanning electron microscopy.

Infected cells grown on glass coverslips were fixed with 2% glutaraldehyde and 0.05% calcium chloride in 0.1 M sodium cacodylate buffer, pH 7.4, for 24 h at 4°C. Then, the samples were rinsed three times with ice-cold 0.1 M sodium cacodylate buffer, pH 7.4; fixed a second time with 1% osmium tetroxide in 0.1 M sodium cacodylate buffer for 3 h at 4°C; and subsequently rinsed again. For raster preparation, samples were dehydrated in a graduated series of ethanol solutions and finally in 100% acetone, critical-point dried with liquid carbon dioxide using the point dryer CPD 030 (Bal-Tec, Witten, Germany), and sputtered with 20-nm gold particles using the sputter coater SCD 005 (Bal-Tec, Witten, Germany). Samples were examined with a Leo 1430 scanning electron microscope (Leo Elektronenmikroskopie, Oberkochen, Germany).

Microcin test.

The expression, as well as the sensitivity, of E. coli strains versus microcins was tested as described by Kleta et al. (34).

Isolation of secreted and intracellular EPEC proteins.

The human EPEC strain E2348/69 was grown in 6 ml DMEM–Ham's F-12 cell culture medium to an OD600 of approximately 1.0. The bacteria were centrifuged for 5 min at 8,000 × g at room temperature, and the pellet was resuspended in 6 ml DMEM–Ham's F-12 cell culture medium. The bacterial suspension was then diluted 1:100 in 50 ml DMEM–Ham's F-12 in a 250-ml Erlenmeyer flask and grown again to an OD600 of 1.0 with shaking at 200 rpm at 37°C. The bacterial culture (45 ml) was centrifuged (15 min; 8,000 × g; 4°C), and the resulting supernatants were sterile filtered using 0.22-μm filters. Secreted proteins in the supernatants were precipitated with trichloroacetic acid (TCA) (final concentration, 10%) overnight at 4°C. The next day, the TCA precipitates were centrifuged for 30 min at 10,000 × g at 4°C. The resulting protein pellet was dried for 5 min at room temperature; resuspended in 1 ml 0.2% SDS in 25 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0; mixed with ice-cold acetone (1:4); and incubated for 1 h at −20°C. After centrifugation (30 min; 10,000 × g; 4°C), the protein pellet was dried (5 min; room temperature) and diluted in 25 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0) and 4 M urea. The secreted proteins (1,000-fold concentrated) were stored at −20°C.
In order to extract proteins from EPEC bacteria, 1 ml of the 50-ml bacterial suspension in the 250-ml Erlenmeyer flask was centrifuged for 5 min at 8,000 × g at room temperature. The bacterial pellet was resuspended in 4× sample buffer (1 M Tris-HCl, pH 6.8, 4% SDS, 8% β-mercaptoethanol, 20% glycerin, 0.025% bromophenol blue). The proteins were denatured by heating at 99°C for 5 min. The tubes were incubated on ice for 5 min, centrifuged for 5 s, and kept at −20°C until further use.
To determine the effects of EcN and MG1655 on protein secretion by EPEC, E2348/69 was grown in culture supernatants of EcN and MG1655, respectively. Bacterial supernatants were obtained from DMEM–Ham's F-12 medium as described above but without added FCS. For dilution of bacterial supernatants, DMEM–Ham's F-12 cell culture medium was used.

Western blot analysis.

Proteins were separated by SDS-PAGE according to the method of Laemmli (35). For nonspecific protein detection, SDS-PAGE gels were stained with the Silver Stain Plus Kit (Bio-Rad, Munich, Germany) according to the manufacturer's instructions. The proteins EspA, EspB, and Tir were detected using Western blot analysis according to the method of Towbin et al. (36). Briefly, proteins were transferred to nitrocellulose membranes (Sartorius, Göttingen, Germany) using a tank blot apparatus (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Munich, Germany). The membrane was blocked in 5% skim milk powder in Tris-buffered saline (TBS) buffer for 1 h. Primary antibodies against EspA, EspB, and Tir were kindly provided by J. B. Kaper (University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA). The membranes were incubated with primary antibodies diluted 1:5,000 in blocking buffer overnight at 4°C with shaking, washed three times with TBS for 10 min each time, incubated with 1:2,000-diluted secondary antibodies labeled with horseradish peroxidase (Sigma-Aldrich, Munich, Germany) in blocking buffer for 1 h, and washed as described above. The proteins were visualized by enhanced chemiluminescence.

Statistical methods.

Statistical calculations were performed using SPSS 11.5 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). Significances (P values) were calculated using Student's t test for normally distributed data or the Mann-Whitney U test for nonnormally distributed data. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference.

RESULTS

Effects of EcN on aEPEC adhesion, microcolony formation, and formation of attaching and effacing lesions.

The probiotic strain EcN and two nonpathogenic E. coli control strains (IMT13962 and MG1655) were tested for the ability to inhibit infection of IPEC-J2 cells with the aEPEC strain P2005/03. In monoinfection experiments, the infection efficiencies of aEPEC strain P2005/03 varied from approximately 2.2 × 104 to 1.7 × 105 bacteria per well or 0.1 to 0.65 bacteria per epithelial cell, respectively. Preincubation of EcN resulted in a reduction of aEPEC infection by 83% (P < 0.001). Preincubation with the control strains IMT13962 and MG1655 did not affect aEPEC infection (Fig. 1). In contrast to preincubation, co- and postincubation experiments with EcN did not decrease aEPEC infection efficiencies (data not shown).
FIG 1
FIG 1 aEPEC infection after preincubation with EcN. IPEC-J2 cells were preincubated with EcN, IMT13962, and MG1655 for 2 h, followed by aEPEC infection for 6 h. Numbers of adherent aEPEC bacteria were determined by serial dilutions of cell lysates. Shown are relative infection rates compared to aEPEC monoinfection (set as 100%) as mean values and standard deviations (SD) of at least 3 independent tests in duplicate wells. *, P < 0.0001 compared to monoinfection.
Using confocal laser scanning microscopy, we evaluated in detail EcN effects on single aEPEC infection steps. aEPEC P2005/03 was distinguishable from EcN by staining with specific antibodies against serotype O108. In monoinfection, aEPEC P2005/03 formed compact microcolonies, whereas preincubation with EcN reduced both the numbers and the size of aEPEC microcolonies, as indicated by single adherent aEPEC bacteria or by very small and loose microcolonies. The formation of AE lesions was not inhibited. Bacteria that had attached as microcolonies always formed AE lesions. Only very few single adherent bacteria did not form AE lesions (Fig. 2).
FIG 2
FIG 2 Effect of EcN on aEPEC microcolony formation. IPEC-J2 cells were preincubated with or without EcN for 2 h, followed by aEPEC infection for 6 h. Nonadherent bacteria were removed by washing. The cells and adherent bacteria were fixed and stained, and images were taken by confocal laser scanning microscopy. (A) aEPEC monoinfection. (B) EcN preincubation. Scale bars = 10 μm. aEPEC P2005/03 bacteria were stained using primary anti-O108 antisera and secondary anti-rabbit-IgG–TRITC antibodies (red), actin was stained with FITC phalloidin (green), and cell nuclei and bacteria were stained with propidium iodide (blue).

Growth of nonadherent aEPEC in the EcN–IPEC-J2 cell culture supernatant.

The reduction of aEPEC infection might have been due to a reduction of growth of nonadherent aEPEC in the supernatant of EcN–IPEC-J2 cells. To test this, infection assays with or without preincubation of EcN were performed, and the number of aEPEC bacteria in the cell culture supernatant was determined every hour. In preincubation experiments with EcN, IMT13962, and MG1655, the growth of nonadherent aEPEC was not significantly affected in cell culture supernatants (data not shown).

Effects of EcN on growth of adherent aEPEC.

Confocal laser scanning microscopy showed that both the numbers and the size of aEPEC microcolonies were reduced in preincubation experiments with EcN compared to monoinfection (Fig. 2). In order to estimate the growth of epithelial-cell-adherent aEPEC in microcolonies, we performed growth kinetic experiments. In these experiments, we changed the cell culture medium every 30 min beginning 2 h after aEPEC infection to remove nonadherent bacteria and to exchange exhausted cell culture medium. Thirty minutes corresponded to the doubling time of aEPEC strain P2005/03 in cell culture medium, and thus, adhesion of new bacteria from the cell culture medium was minimized. We found in preincubation experiments with EcN that the number of adherent aEPEC bacteria was reduced by 90% within 2 h after infection. Washing the epithelial cells 2 h after infection resulted in detachment of adherent aEPEC bacteria in both monoinfection and preincubation experiments with EcN (Fig. 3, compare 2- and 3-h time points). This phenomenon was not observed in the subsequent washing steps. We therefore included only the times 3.0 to 4.5 h after aEPEC infection for determination of the effects of EcN on growth of cell-adherent aEPEC. As shown in Fig. 3, preincubation with EcN resulted in reduced growth of adherent aEPEC on IPEC-J2 cells by 31.5%, which was not statistically significant (P = 0.056).
FIG 3
FIG 3 Growth kinetics of adherent aEPEC on epithelial cells. IPEC-J2 cells were preincubated with EcN for 2 h, followed by aEPEC infection for 4.5 h. Numbers of adherent aEPEC bacteria were determined by plating serial dilutions of cell lysates on agar plates every 30 min beginning 2 h after aEPEC infection. aEPEC was selectable due to tetracycline resistance. (A) Adherent aEPEC bacteria as mean values ± SD of 2 separate experiments in duplicate wells. (B) Regression and growth parameters. Calculations were as follows: td = t/n, where t is the time of determination and n is the number of divisions; n = (log N − log N0)/log2, where N is the number of bacteria after n divisions and N0 is the number of bacteria at the beginning of the experiment; ν = n/t; μ = ln2/td.

Effects of EcN microcins on aEPEC growth.

EcN produces the microcins H47 and M (37), low-molecular-weight peptides that have antibacterial activity against other E. coli strains (38). We tested for possible effects of EcN microcins on aEPEC growth in agar plate inhibition tests. The E. coli strain H5316 served as a microcin-sensitive control strain. The production of microcins by EcN was indicated by a zone of inhibition around the filter paper disc with EcN. In contrast to EcN, E. coli strains IMT13962 and MG1655 did not produce microcins. However, EcN microcins did not affect aEPEC growth (data not shown).

Adhesion of EcN on IPEC-J2 cells and correlation with inhibitory effects.

An inhibitory effect on aEPEC infection was observed in preincubation experiments with EcN. In contrast, preincubation with the control strains IMT13962 and MG1655 did not affect the infection levels of aEPEC. To determine whether the adhesion levels of these strains could affect aEPEC infection, as in the preincubation experiments, epithelial cells were washed directly prior to aEPEC infection to remove nonadherent bacteria, and the abilities of strains to adhere to epithelial cells were determined by counting attached cells during aEPEC infection. Adhesion experiments with EcN, IMT13962, and MG1655 were performed for 2 h on epithelial cells. In contrast to control strains, EcN adhered well to epithelial cells. Using an MOI of 100, approximately 20 bacteria adhered to one epithelial cell (Fig. 4). EcN adhered 7-fold and 400-fold more strongly than IMT13962 and MG1655, respectively (P < 0.05).
FIG 4
FIG 4 Adhesion of EcN to IPEC-J2 cells. EcN, IMT13962, and MG1655 were incubated with IPEC-J2 cells for 2 h in 12-well plates (2.6 × 105 epithelial cells/well). Nonadherent bacteria were removed by washing, and numbers of adherent bacteria were determined by plating serial dilutions of cell lysates on agar plates. The data are given as mean values and SD of three separate experiments in duplicate wells. *, P < 0.05 compared to EcN.

Role of F1C fimbriae in adhesion of EcN on IPEC-J2 cells and correlation with inhibitory effect.

Adhesion of EcN to IPEC-J2 cells was mediated by F1C fimbriae but not by type 1 fimbriae. Deletion of the foc operon (coding for F1C fimbriae) resulted in a reduction of adhesion by 99.9% (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the reduction of EcN adhesion correlated with a reduction of the inhibitory effect against aEPEC infection (Fig. 5). In contrast, deletion of the fim operon (coding for type 1 fimbriae) did not affect adhesion to IPEC-J2 cells and did not inhibit aEPEC infection. We attempted to complement the foc mutant with the cloned foc operon. However, several cloning strategies using three different cloning vectors failed. All the clones tested showed abnormal cell lengths and growth defects and thus were not further evaluated. The control strain IMT13962, which does not harbor the gene for F1C fimbriae, adhered sparingly to IPEC-J2 cells and had no inhibitory effect on aEPEC infection. To determine the role of F1C fimbriae, we also complemented the absence of F1C fimbriae in IMT13962 by introduction of the cosmid pCosF1C6 harboring the foc operon for production of F1C fimbriae and tested its role in adhesion to IPEC-J2 cells. The complemented strain IMT13962(pCosF1C6) expressed fimbriae (Fig. 6A), showed higher levels of adherence to IPEC-J2 cells, and resulted in an inhibitory effect on aEPEC infection (Fig. 6B). In addition, we also tested another F1C fimbria-positive E. coli strain, a nonhemolytic UPEC strain, RZ525, for adherence to IPEC-J2 cells and the subsequent inhibitory effect. Strain RZ525 adhered well to IPEC-J2 cells and also reduced aEPEC infection efficiencies (Fig. 6B).
FIG 5
FIG 5 Roles of F1C and type 1 fimbriae in adhesion of EcN and in aEPEC infection. For adhesion, the EcN wild type and mutants were incubated on IPEC-J2 cells for 2 h. For aEPEC infection, IPEC-J2 cells were first incubated with the EcN wild type and mutants for 2 h, followed by aEPEC infection for 6 h. IPEC-J2 cells were washed, and the numbers of adherent bacteria were determined by plating serial dilutions of cell lysates on agar plates. The data are given as relative adhesion rates compared to EcN or as infection rates in relation to monoinfection, respectively, as mean values and SD of three separate experiments in duplicate wells. **, P < 0.001, and *, P < 0.05 compared to EcN adhesion or aEPEC monoinfection, respectively.
FIG 6
FIG 6 (A) Scanning electron micrograph of IMT13962(pCosF1C6) on IPEC-J2. The F1C fimbria-negative E. coli control strain IMT13962 was complemented with the cosmid pCosF1C6 carrying the foc operon for production of F1C fimbriae. The strain was incubated with IPEC-J2 cells for 4 h, and images of bacteria on cells were taken by scanning electron microscopy. IMT13962(pCosF1C6) is shown to express F1C fimbriae. Scale bar = 1 μm. (B) Adhesion of IMT13962(pCosF1C6) and UPEC RZ525 to IPEC-J2 cells and effects on aEPEC infection. For adhesion, strains were incubated on IPEC-J2 cells for 2 h. For aEPEC infection, IPEC-J2 cells were first incubated with IMT13962 or RZ525 for 2 h, followed by aEPEC infection for 6 h. The IPEC-J2 cells were washed, and numbers of adherent bacteria were determined by plating serial dilutions of cell lysates on agar plates. The data are given as relative adhesion rates compared to EcN or as rates in relation to monoinfection, respectively, as mean values and SD of three separate experiments in duplicate wells. *, P < 0.05 compared to EcN adhesion or aEPEC monoinfection, respectively.

Role of flagella in adhesion of EcN to IPEC-J2 cells and correlation with inhibitory effect.

Scanning electron and epifluorescence microscopy showed that EcN formed a filamentous network on IPEC-J2 cells (Fig. 7A and B). This network consisted of flagella, as shown by deletion of the fliA gene encoding the flagellar sigma factor 28, which resulted in loss of the filamentous network (Fig. 7C). Flagella were formed during the adhesion process and growth on IPEC-J2 cells, in which the length and the number of flagella increased with increasing incubation times (Fig. 7D).
FIG 7
FIG 7 Scanning electron micrographs and fluorescence microscopy of EcN and EcN ΔfliA on IPEC-J2 cells. (A and B) EcN homogeneously adhered to IPEC-J2 cells via F1C fimbriae (white arrows) and formed a filamentous network via flagella (black arrows). (C) EcN ΔfliA did not express flagella and did not form a filamentous network but still adhered to IPEC-J2 cells via F1C fimbriae. Adhesion assays were performed for 4 h. Scale bars = 10 μm (A) and 1 μm (B and C). (D) Expression of flagella by EcN on IPEC-J2 cells. IPEC-J2 cells were incubated with EcN over a period of 4 h. At the indicated time points, cells and bacteria were fixed and flagella were stained by polyclonal anti-H1 antibodies and by secondary anti-rabbit IgG FITC-labeled antibodies. Images were taken by epifluorescence microscopy. Scale bar = 10 μm. Note that the EcN wild type expressed flagella depending on the incubation time on epithelial cells.
Deletion of the fliA gene resulted in reduction of adhesion by 50% (P < 0.001). This resulted in a distinct but smaller (by 29%) inhibitory effect of EcN ΔfliA than of wild-type EcN (P < 0.001). Complementation with the plasmid pACYC177 harboring sequence including fliA resulted in restored adhesion and inhibition of aEPEC infection to EcN wild-type levels (Fig. 8).
FIG 8
FIG 8 Role of flagella in adhesion of EcN to IPEC-J2 and in aEPEC infection. The EcN wild type, EcN ΔfliA, and EcN ΔfliA + fliA were incubated with IPEC-J2 cells for 2 h. For aEPEC infection, IPEC-J2 cells were first incubated with the EcN wild type, EcN ΔfliA, and EcN ΔfliA + fliA for 2 h, followed by aEPEC infection for 6 h. The IPEC-J2 cells were washed, and the numbers of adherent bacteria were determined by plating serial dilutions of cell lysates on agar plates. The data are given as relative adhesion rates compared to EcN or as rates in relation to monoinfection, respectively, as mean values and SD of at least three separate experiments in triplicate wells. *, P < 0.001 compared to EcN adhesion or aEPEC monoinfection.

Role of EcN culture supernatants in aEPEC infection.

The inhibitory effect of EcN against aEPEC infection might have been due to secreted EcN components. We therefore also tested the effects of bacterium-free EcN SN compared to supernatants of control strains. For comparison with the initial experiments with bacteria (for which EcN was present in the pre- and coincubation periods), we also performed pre- and coincubation experiments. Preincubation with bacterial supernatants had no effect on aEPEC infection, whereas coincubation led to a reduction of aEPEC infection by 75% (P < 0.01), indicating the presence of an inhibitory component in the supernatant and a direct effect on aEPEC bacteria, but not on epithelial cells (Fig. 9). Interestingly, this component was not specific to EcN but was also found in strains IMT13962 and MG1655. Supernatants of both strains inhibited aEPEC infection to an extent similar to that with EcN (76% and 85%; P < 0.01). In contrast to the supernatants of MG1655 and fresh culture medium, the pH values of the supernatants of EcN and IMT13962 were slightly lower (pH 7.1 to 7.3 versus pH 7.7). Furthermore, the growth of aEPEC bacteria in cell culture medium was reduced by 30% to 35% in coincubation experiments with the supernatants of EcN, IMT13962, and MG1655 3 h after infection (P < 0.05) (data not shown). However, preincubation of aEPEC for 2 h at 37°C in bacterial supernatant of EcN, IMT13962, or MG1655 or in cell culture medium alone (negative control), followed by addition to epithelial cells with fresh cell culture medium, showed that the aEPEC infection rates were not affected compared to the negative control (data not shown).
FIG 9
FIG 9 Infection efficiencies of aEPEC P2005/03 on IPEC-J2 in pre- and coincubation experiments with bacterial supernatants. Infection was performed at an MOI of 100 for 6 h. IPEC-J2 cells were preincubated for 2 h or coincubated with bacterial supernatants. The data are given in relation to monoinfection as mean values and SD of three separate experiments in duplicate wells. *, P < 0.01 compared to monoinfection.

Effects of EcN on the secretion of virulence-associated proteins of EPEC by T3SS.

To verify whether EcN might affect the secretion of virulence-associated EPEC proteins by the T3SS, we examined the influence of EcN SN on the secretion of EspA, EspB, and Tir. EspA could mediate the initial adherence to and the translocation of other effector molecules into host cells (10, 12). EspB is involved in pore formation in host cell membranes, supports the translocation of other effector molecules into host cells, and supports destruction of microvilli (39, 40). Tir is the translocated receptor for the aEPEC adhesin intimin (11).
In our experiments, aEPEC P2005/03 was found to secrete only very small amounts of proteins, which were not sufficient for further analysis (data not shown). To overcome this, we chose to examine the typical human EPEC strain E2348/69 (O127:H6). Strain E2348/69 had previously been shown to secrete large amounts of proteins in DMEM–Ham's F-12 cell culture medium (12, 41). First, we tested whether strain E2348/69 showed the same phenotypes as aEPEC P2005/03, i.e., infection of IPEC-J2 cells, microcolony formation on IPEC-J2 cells, and inhibition by EcN. Similar to aEPEC P2005/03, EPEC E2348/69 formed compact microcolonies (localized adherence pattern) on IPEC-J2 cells, but epithelial cells were infected considerably faster by E2348/69 than by P2005/03 and appeared more adherent. However, in preincubation experiments with EcN, EPEC E2348/69 infection was inhibited by 77%, which was comparable to that seen in aEPEC P2005/03 infections. E. coli strains MG1655 and IMT13962 did not inhibit EPEC E2348/69 infection, as was already shown for aEPEC P2005/03 infection (data not shown).
Having verified that EcN and control strains had similar effects on aEPEC P2005/03 and EPEC E2348/69 adhesion and microcolony formation, we used EPEC E2348/69 to determine the effects of EcN supernatants on the secretion of virulence-associated EPEC proteins. EPEC E2348/69 bacteria were grown in EcN or MG1655 supernatants to an OD600 of 1. The bacteria were then removed by centrifugation, and the supernatant proteins were precipitated with TCA, followed by SDS-PAGE and detection of total proteins by silver staining. EcN and MG1655 did not produce detectable amounts of secreted proteins in cell culture medium (data not shown). As shown in Fig. 10A, EcN supernatants inhibited the secretion of almost all proteins by EPEC. Inhibition was dependent on the EcN supernatant concentration but not on pH. MG1655 supernatants also inhibited EPEC protein secretion, but to a lesser extent.
FIG 10
FIG 10 Detection of proteins expressed in and secreted by EPEC E2348/69. EPEC E2348/69 bacteria were grown to an OD600 of 1.0 in pure cell culture medium (lanes 1), in undiluted or 4:1- or 1:1-diluted supernatants of EcN (lanes 2, 3, and 4, respectively), or in undiluted supernatant of EcN with corrected pH (lanes 5), as well as in undiluted or 4:1- or 1:1-diluted supernatants of MG1655 (lanes 6, 7, and 8, respectively). (A and B) E2348/69-secreted proteins were extracted by TCA precipitation, concentrated 1,000-fold, and analyzed by SDS-PAGE, followed by silver staining (A) or Western blotting (B). (C) Intracellular proteins were detected by SDS-PAGE, followed by Western blotting. Western blotting included detection of EspA, EspB, or Tir. The amounts of loaded proteins corresponded to the amounts of secreted proteins in 10 ml bacterial culture at an OD600 of 1.0 for silver staining (A) and 3 ml for Western blot analysis (B), and the amounts of intracellular proteins corresponded to approximately 2.5 × 107 E2348/69 bacteria each (C).
Western blot analysis of protein gels showed that EcN supernatants inhibited secretion of EspA, EspB, and Tir. In contrast, MG1655 supernatants inhibited the secretion of Tir but showed little or no effect on the secretion of EspA and EspB (Fig. 10B).
In addition to secreted-protein levels, we also determined the expression of EspA, EspB, and Tir in the EPEC bacterial-cell total protein preparations, including cytosolic proteins, which may not have been secreted. EPEC E2348/69 bacteria were grown in EcN and MG1655 supernatants to an OD600 of 1. The bacteria were pelleted and lysed. After SDS-PAGE, EspA, EspB, and Tir were detected by Western blot analysis. EcN and MG1655 supernatant treatments showed only slight reductions in intracellular EspA, EspB, and Tir concentrations, with MG1655 showing a smaller effect than EcN supernatants (Fig. 10C). These results suggested that the EcN supernatants affected the protein secretion of EPEC E2348/69 rather than intracellular protein expression.

DISCUSSION

Probiotic bacteria might affect or interfere with aEPEC infections due to direct effects against pathogens or due to stabilizing effects on the intestinal microbiota, mucosa, or mucosal immunity. EcN has been successfully applied against different porcine and human intestinal disorders, including infection by enterotoxigenic E. coli, acute nonspecific diarrhea, or chronic inflammatory bowel diseases (1418). In vitro, EcN has been shown to inhibit the invasion of porcine and human intestinal epithelial cell lines by enteropathogens (29, 30, 42), although the underlying mechanisms have rarely been defined. As there is currently no information about probiotic effects of EcN and other probiotics against aEPEC infection—either in animals or in humans—we determined the effects of EcN on aEPEC infection using a porcine intestinal-epithelial in vitro model.
In the present study, preincubation of IPEC-J2 cells with EcN resulted in a drastic reduction of cell-adherent EPEC (aEPEC, as well as tEPEC). EcN affected the attachment and growth of cell-adherent aEPEC and therefore the growth of microcolonies, but not the formation of attaching and effacing lesions of adherent EPEC. We conclude that EcN interferes with the EPEC infection process very early and that this interference is a complex multistage process. Furthermore, culture supernatants of EcN were also found to be very effective against aEPEC infection. This is consistent with the observations of Altenhoefer et al. (29) and Schierack et al. (42), which showed that supernatants are effective against invasion of enteropathogens. The bacterial supernatants appear to act directly on aEPEC bacteria and not on host epithelial cells, as aEPEC infection was not inhibited by preincubation of IPEC-J2 cells with bacterial supernatants; only coincubation resulted in reduced infection efficiencies of aEPEC. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that other bacterial factors from the supernatant may have effects on host cells. Furthermore, the effects of supernatants on aEPEC infection were not EcN specific, as the supernatants of control E. coli strains also inhibited aEPEC infection. This is in accordance with a recent study on the effects of EcN against Salmonella invasion (42) but in contrast to another study that showed a specific effect of EcN supernatants against enteroinvasive pathogens (29). The discrepancy might be based on the use of E. coli strain DH5α in the latter study. The strain grows very slowly in LB, as well as in cell culture medium (our unpublished observation), suggesting metabolic deficiencies, and might not secrete sufficient amounts of inhibitory supernatant factor(s). In addition, these prior studies used different intestinal epithelial cell lines and experimental conditions, which could also have been responsible for divergent results. Although there are several reports on the effects of bacterial supernatants on infection by enteropathogens, to date, a clearly defined inhibitor has not been identified.
The probiotic effect of EcN is likely to depend in part on the very high adhesion rate of EcN compared to the control strains. Only EcN was still present in high numbers after numerous washing steps of IPEC-J2 cell monolayers. In contrast, poorly adherent control bacteria were inevitably removed. As a result, only EcN was still able to grow to sufficient densities at host cell surfaces and possibly secrete sufficient amounts of putative inhibitors. Successful probiotic action of a bacterial strain is often associated with its colonization of the intestine. The colonization of hosts by EcN can be very successful but is likely to be specific for individual hosts (34, 43).
Our results suggest that the inhibitory factor secreted by EcN is effective only when present at sufficient concentrations prior to aEPEC adhesion. Inhibitory effects were observed only in preincubation experiments where sufficient EcN bacteria (approximately 20 adherent bacteria per epithelial cell) were present close to the host cell surface, and thus the interaction site of aEPEC with epithelial cells. This suggestion is also supported by our observations that dilution of EcN supernatants reduced the inhibitory effect on secretion of virulence-associated effector proteins by EPEC.
EcN expresses several fimbrial-gene clusters, including (i) type 1 fimbriae (66), expressed by most E. coli strains and involved in the infection processes of many pathogens, such as UPEC or adherent invasive E. coli (AIEC) (44, 45); (ii) F1C fimbriae, which have usually been associated with uropathogenic E. coli; and (iii) curli fimbriae (46, 47). The type 1 fimbriae do not appear to play a predominant role in EcN adhesion or in mediating an inhibitory effect of EcN. An EcN Δfim mutant adhered as well as the EcN wild-type strain to IPEC-J2 cells, and adhesion of EcN to IPEC-J2 cells was not inhibited by α-d-mannose (data not shown), indicating that type 1 fimbriae play only a subordinate role in EcN adhesion.
Recently, it was demonstrated that F1C fimbriae play an important role in EcN biofilm formation, adherence to intestinal epithelial cells in vitro, and intestinal colonization of mice and a probiotic effect against Salmonella invasion (42, 48, 49). In the present study, we showed that F1C fimbriae were expressed and appeared to play a prominent role in adhesion of EcN to IPEC-J2 epithelial cells and contributed to the inhibitory effects on aEPEC infection. The notion that F1C fimbriae were indeed an important adhesin involved in these effects was further strengthened by complementation studies of E. coli strain IMT13962 with the foc operon and adhesion assays with the UPEC strain RZ525 carrying the F1C fimbriae. Both strains adhered at levels comparable to those of the EcN ΔfliA mutant, and both inhibited aEPEC infection.
A second important EcN adhesion determinant we identified was the flagellum. We showed for the first time that EcN expresses H1 flagella during the adhesion process at epithelial cell surfaces. Time course experiments showed elongation of flagella after adhesion and the formation of a tight network on epithelial cell monolayers. Flagella contributed to the strong adherence of EcN to IPEC-J2 cells through interactions between single bacteria, as well as apparent anchorage to the host cell surface. We suggest that flagella may also prevent detachment of EcN after bacterial cell division, as well as facilitate adhesion of further EcN bacteria from the cell culture medium. Flagella, therefore, may contribute to the inhibitory effects on pathogen infection by enhancing EcN adhesion to host cell surfaces.
The role of flagella in adhesion might be of much greater importance in vivo, as flagella enable bacteria to direct their movement toward the host cell by chemotaxis and thus support subsequent adhesion (50). Moreover, flagella can also serve as direct adhesion determinants, as shown for enteropathogens, including typical EPEC strains (51). The cross-linking of EPEC bacteria on the surfaces of human epithelial HeLa cells via flagella contributed to a three-dimensional structure but required a eukaryotic signal, similar to the expression of flagella by EcN in our present study. As scanning electron microscopy did not show expression of flagella by EcN on human intestinal Caco-2 cells in another study (52), expression of EcN flagella might depend on the epithelial cell line, suggesting host or tissue specificity.
A prerequisite for successful infection of epithelial cells by enteropathogens is their adhesion to receptors on host cell surfaces. Receptors are predominantly carbohydrates of transmembrane or transmembrane-associated glycolipids and glycoproteins, as well as proteins or glycoproteins of extracellular matrices. The specificity of binding is determined by the sequence of carbohydrate chains (53). The blocking of host cell surface receptors by probiotics (competitive exclusion), due to direct binding either to similar epitopes or to adjacent structures, has been proposed to be a potential mechanism for inhibiting pathogenic infections (54, 55).
In the present study, aEPEC infection was inhibited by EcN adhesion, as well as by EcN supernatants that were isolated from shaking cultures and thus could also contain fimbrial components serving as potential ligands for host cell receptors. It might be possible that EcN and aEPEC use similar host cell receptors for adhesion, supporting competitive exclusion as one mechanism for the inhibitory effects. F1C fimbriae mediating adhesion of EcN to IPEC-J2 cells exhibit a high binding affinity to glycosphingolipids (e.g., asialo-GM1 and asialo-GM2), with the disaccharide sequence GalNacβ1-4Galβ as a minimal binding epitope and lower affinity for other ceramides (56, 57). In contrast, EPEC host cell receptors have only rarely been defined, but in in vitro studies of EPEC bacteria showing a localized adherent phenotype, they were found to bind to glycosphingolipids, suggesting that both EcN and EPEC might use the same host cell receptor (58). Our experiments in which IPEC-J2 receptors were blocked with antibodies directed against asialo-GM2 indicated the expression of asialo-GM2 by IPEC-J2 and the binding of aEPEC to this receptor. In contrast to aEPEC, EcN adhesion levels were not affected by blocking asialo-GM2 (data not shown). In order to verify whether both EcN and EPEC bind to the same host cell receptors, more detailed studies identifying receptors present on IPEC-J2 cell surfaces and the binding of EcN and EPEC are necessary.
The results of the present study also show that the inhibitory factor might not affect aEPEC infection indirectly via epithelial cells, as preincubation of supernatants had no effect on aEPEC infection. The binding of ligands to receptors is in general very stable, and thus, the blocking of receptor structures used by pathogens to bind to cell surfaces would also result in inhibition of pathogen adhesion in preincubation experiments with supernatants, as shown for probiotic bifidobacteria (59, 60). Our results, therefore, do not appear to support competitive exclusion as a predominant mechanism for the inhibitory effects of EcN.
EPEC infection of intestinal epithelial cells is mediated by a number of virulence-associated proteins that are secreted or translocated by the T3SS. Inhibition of protein expression, secretion, or translocation results in decreased EPEC virulence (4, 61). In the present study, we tested the effects of EcN supernatants on protein expression and secretion. As the porcine aEPEC strain secreted protein concentrations insufficient for extensive SDS-PAGE and Western blot analysis, we examined the effects of EcN on secretion of virulence proteins in the human tEPEC strain E2348/69. The well-characterized tEPEC strain E2348/69 secreted detectable amounts of proteins common for EPEC adherence factor (EAF) plasmid-positive (tEPEC) compared to EAF plasmid-negative (aEPEC) EPEC strains (41, 62). Protein secretion of strain E2348/69 was almost completely inhibited by EcN supernatants, including inhibition of secretion of EspA, EspB, and Tir. Supernatants of the control strain E. coli MG1655 inhibited protein secretion to a much lesser extent. A reduction in secretion of all three proteins indicated that the T3SS or expression of locus of enterocyte effacement (LEE) genes encoding the secreted proteins was affected. T3SSs are used by a number of pathogenic Gram-negative bacteria, including E. coli, Yersinia, Shigella, Salmonella, and Chlamydia. Inhibition of the T3SS would therefore be an effective mechanism for prevention of infection. It has previously been shown that a low-molecular-weight polyketide compound isolated from cultures of Streptomyces sp. was able to inhibit the T3SS (63). However, there are no data available on whether and how probiotics might block the T3SS. As intracellular cytosolic protein concentrations of EPEC were only slightly reduced, we conclude that protein secretion via the T3SS was the major target of inhibition, rather than bacterial protein expression. Further studies with respect to the expression of virulence genes are needed to confirm this.
In conclusion, a number of previous studies have indicated that EcN is effective against a range of pathogenic bacteria that possess numerous different infection strategies with diverse mechanisms to adhere to host cells. Our data give insights into potential mechanisms by which EcN could affect infection due to one of these pathogens, aEPEC. However, it appears unlikely that EcN will be found to inhibit infections by different specific mechanisms. The probiotic mode of action might rather be based on interfering with global mechanisms of bacterial pathogenesis, as suggested by this study. Although this mode of action might not be specifically limited to EcN, we assume that the strong colonization capabilities of EcN, both in vitro and in vivo, together with its fitness characteristics, support its probiotic effect.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank R. Bauerfeind (Gießen, Germany), L. Beutin (Berlin, Germany), G. Breves (Hannover, Germany), U. Dobrindt (Würzburg, Germany), K. Hantke (Tübingen, Germany), J. B. Kaper (Baltimore, MD, USA), and H. Steinrück (Berlin, Germany) for providing strains and antibodies.
This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) through the Collaborative Research Center 852 (grant no. SFB852/1) and grant FOR 438/1-1, by InnoProfile IP 03 IP 611 funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, Germany), by Berlin Funding for Graduates (NaföG Grants), and by the FAZIT Foundation.

REFERENCES

1.
Bertschinger HU and Fairbrother JM. 1999. Escherichia coli infections, p 431–468. In Straw BE, D'Allaire S, Mengeling WL, and Taylor DJ (ed), Diseases of swine, 8th ed. Blackwell Science, Oxford, United Kingdom.
2.
Zhu C, Harel J, Jacques M, Desautels C, Donnenberg MS, Beaudry M, and Fairbrother JM. 1994. Virulence properties and attaching-effacing activity of Escherichia coli O45 from swine postweaning diarrhea. Infect. Immun. 62:4153–4159.
3.
Clarke SC. 2001. Diarrhoeagenic Escherichia coli—an emerging problem? Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 41:93–98.
4.
Nataro JP and Kaper JB. 1998. Diarrheagenic Escherichia coli. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 11:142–201.
5.
Ochoa TJ, Barletta F, Contreras C, and Mercado E. 2008. New insights into the epidemiology of enteropathogenic Escherichia coli infection. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 102:852–856.
6.
Trabulsi LR, Keller R, and Tardelli Gomes TA. 2002. Typical and atypical enteropathogenic Escherichia coli. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 8:508–513.
7.
Aktan I, Sprigings KA, La Ragione RM, Faulkner LM, Paiba GA, and Woodward MJ. 2004. Characterisation of attaching-effacing Escherichia coli isolated from animals at slaughter in England and Wales. Vet. Microbiol. 102:43–53.
8.
Krause G, Zimmermann S, and Beutin L. 2005. Investigation of domestic animals and pets as a reservoir for intimin- (eae) gene positive Escherichia coli types. Vet. Microbiol. 106:87–95.
9.
Moura RA, Sircili MP, Leomil L, Matte MH, Trabulsi LR, Elias WP, Irino K, and Pestana de Castro AF. 2009. Clonal relationship among atypical enteropathogenic Escherichia coli strains isolated from different animal species and humans. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75:7399–7408.
10.
Cleary J, Lai LC, Shaw RK, Straatman-Iwanowska A, Donnenberg MS, Frankel G, and Knutton S. 2004. Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (EPEC) adhesion to intestinal epithelial cells: role of bundle-forming pili (BFP), EspA filaments and intimin. Microbiology 150:527–538.
11.
Kenny B, DeVinney R, Stein M, Reinscheid DJ, Frey EA, and Finlay BB. 1997. Enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC) transfers its receptor for intimate adherence into mammalian cells. Cell 91:511–520.
12.
Knutton S, Rosenshine I, Pallen MJ, Nisan I, Neves BC, Bain C, Wolff C, Dougan G, and Frankel G. 1998. A novel EspA-associated surface organelle of enteropathogenic Escherichia coli involved in protein translocation into epithelial cells. EMBO J. 17:2166–2176.
13.
Moon HW, Whipp SC, Argenzio RA, Levine MM, and Giannella RA. 1983. Attaching and effacing activities of rabbit and human enteropathogenic Escherichia coli in pig and rabbit intestines. Infect. Immun. 41:1340–1351.
14.
Henker J, Laass MW, Blokhin BM, Maydannik VG, Bolbot YK, Elze M, Wolff C, Schreiner A, and Schulze J. 2008. Probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 versus placebo for treating diarrhea of greater than 4 days duration in infants and toddlers. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 27:494–499.
15.
Krammer HJ, Kamper H, von Bunau R, Zieseniss E, Stange C, Schlieger F, Clever I, and Schulze J. 2006. Probiotic drug therapy with E. coli strain Nissle 1917 (EcN): results of a prospective study of the records of 3,807 patients. Z. Gastroenterol. 44:651–656. (In German.).
16.
Kruis W, Fric P, Pokrotnieks J, Lukas M, Fixa B, Kascak M, Kamm MA, Weismueller J, Beglinger C, Stolte M, Wolff C, and Schulze J. 2004. Maintaining remission of ulcerative colitis with the probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 is as effective as with standard mesalazine. Gut 53:1617–1623.
17.
Schroeder B, Duncker S, Barth S, Bauerfeind R, Gruber AD, Deppenmeier S, and Breves G. 2006. Preventive effects of the probiotic Escherichia coli strain Nissle 1917 on acute secretory diarrhea in a pig model of intestinal infection. Dig. Dis. Sci. 51:724–731.
18.
Schultz M, Strauch UG, Linde HJ, Watzl S, Obermeier F, Gottl C, Dunger N, Grunwald N, Scholmerich J, and Rath HC. 2004. Preventive effects of Escherichia coli strain Nissle 1917 on acute and chronic intestinal inflammation in two different murine models of colitis. Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 11:372–378.
19.
von Buenau R, Jaekel L, Schubotz E, Schwarz S, Stroff T, and Krueger M. 2005. Escherichia coli strain Nissle 1917: significant reduction of neonatal calf diarrhea. J. Dairy Sci. 88:317–323.
20.
Arribas B, Rodriguez-Cabezas ME, Camuesco D, Comalada M, Bailon E, Utrilla P, Nieto A, Concha A, Zarzuelo A, and Galvez J. 2009. A probiotic strain of Escherichia coli, Nissle 1917, given orally exerts local and systemic anti-inflammatory effects in lipopolysaccharide-induced sepsis in mice. Br. J. Pharmacol. 157:1024–1033.
21.
Bar F, Von Koschitzky H, Roblick U, Bruch HP, Schulze L, Sonnenborn U, Bottner M, and Wedel T. 2009. Cell-free supernatants of Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 modulate human colonic motility: evidence from an in vitro organ bath study. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 21:559–566.
22.
Bickert T, Trujillo-Vargas CM, Duechs M, Wohlleben G, Polte T, Hansen G, Oelschlaeger TA, and Erb KJ. 2009. Probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 suppresses allergen-induced Th2 responses in the airways. Int. Arch. Allergy Immunol. 149:219–230.
23.
Helwig U, Lammers KM, Rizzello F, Brigidi P, Rohleder V, Caramelli E, Gionchetti P, Schrezenmeir J, Foelsch UR, Schreiber S, and Campieri M. 2006. Lactobacilli, bifidobacteria and E. coli Nissle induce pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. World J. Gastroenterol. 12:5978–5986.
24.
Kamada N, Maeda K, Inoue N, Hisamatsu T, Okamoto S, Hong KS, Yamada T, Watanabe N, Tsuchimoto K, Ogata H, and Hibi T. 2008. Nonpathogenic Escherichia coli strain Nissle 1917 inhibits signal transduction in intestinal epithelial cells. Infect. Immun. 76:214–220.
25.
Otte JM and Podolsky DK. 2004. Functional modulation of enterocytes by gram-positive and gram-negative microorganisms. Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol. 286:G613–G626.
26.
Reissbrodt R, Hammes WP, dal Bello F, Prager R, Fruth A, Hantke K, Rakin A, Starcic-Erjavec M, and Williams PH. 2009. Inhibition of growth of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli by nonpathogenic Escherichia coli. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 290:62–69.
27.
Ukena SN, Singh A, Dringenberg U, Engelhardt R, Seidler U, Hansen W, Bleich A, Bruder D, Franzke A, Rogler G, Suerbaum S, Buer J, Gunzer F, and Westendorf AM. 2007. Probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 inhibits leaky gut by enhancing mucosal integrity. PLoS One 2:e1308.
28.
Zyrek AA, Cichon C, Helms S, Enders C, Sonnenborn U, and Schmidt MA. 2007. Molecular mechanisms underlying the probiotic effects of Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 involve ZO-2 and PKCzeta redistribution resulting in tight junction and epithelial barrier repair. Cell Microbiol. 9:804–816.
29.
Altenhoefer A, Oswald S, Sonnenborn U, Enders C, Schulze J, Hacker J, and Oelschlaeger TA. 2004. The probiotic Escherichia coli strain Nissle 1917 interferes with invasion of human intestinal epithelial cells by different enteroinvasive bacterial pathogens. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 40:223–229.
30.
Boudeau J, Glasser AL, Julien S, Colombel JF, and Darfeuille-Michaud A. 2003. Inhibitory effect of probiotic Escherichia coli strain Nissle 1917 on adhesion to and invasion of intestinal epithelial cells by adherent-invasive E. coli strains isolated from patients with Crohn's disease. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 18:45–56.
31.
Schierack P, Nordhoff M, Pollmann M, Weyrauch KD, Amasheh S, Lodemann U, Jores J, Tachu B, Kleta S, Blikslager A, Tedin K, and Wieler LH. 2006. Characterization of a porcine intestinal epithelial cell line for in vitro studies of microbial pathogenesis in swine. Histochem. Cell Biol. 125:293–305.
32.
Datsenko KA and Wanner BL. 2000. One-step inactivation of chromosomal genes in Escherichia coli K-12 using PCR products. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97:6640–6645.
33.
Knutton S, Baldwin T, Williams PH, and McNeish AS. 1989. Actin accumulation at sites of bacterial adhesion to tissue culture cells: basis of a new diagnostic test for enteropathogenic and enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli. Infect. Immun. 57:1290–1298.
34.
Kleta S, Steinrück H, Breves G, Duncker S, Laturnus C, Wieler LH, and Schierack P. 2006. Detection and distribution of probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 clones in swine herds in Germany. J. Appl. Microbiol. 101:1357–1366.
35.
Laemmli UK. 1970. Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature 227:680–685.
36.
Towbin H, Staehelin T, and Gordon J. 1979. Electrophoretic transfer of proteins from polyacrylamide gels to nitrocellulose sheets: procedure and some applications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 76:4350–4354.
37.
Patzer SI, Baquero MR, Bravo D, Moreno F, and Hantke K. 2003. The colicin G, H and X determinants encode microcins M and H47, which might utilize the catecholate siderophore receptors FepA, Cir, Fiu and IroN. Microbiology 149:2557–2570.
38.
Duquesne S, Destoumieux-Garzon D, Peduzzi J, and Rebuffat S. 2007. Microcins, gene-encoded antibacterial peptides from enterobacteria. Nat. Prod. Rep. 24:708–734.
39.
Ide T, Laarmann S, Greune L, Schillers H, Oberleithner H, and Schmidt MA. 2001. Characterization of translocation pores inserted into plasma membranes by type III-secreted Esp proteins of enteropathogenic Escherichia coli. Cell. Microbiol. 3:669–679.
40.
Iizumi Y, Sagara H, Kabe Y, Azuma M, Kume K, Ogawa M, Nagai T, Gillespie PG, Sasakawa C, and Handa H. 2007. The enteropathogenic E. coli effector EspB facilitates microvillus effacing and antiphagocytosis by inhibiting myosin function. Cell Host. Microbe 2:383–392.
41.
Kenny B and Finlay BB. 1995. Protein secretion by enteropathogenic Escherichia coli is essential for transducing signals to epithelial cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 92:7991–7995.
42.
Schierack P, Kleta S, Tedin K, Babila JT, Oswald S, Oelschlaeger TA, Hiemann R, Paetzold S, and Wieler LH. 2011. E. coli Nissle 1917 affects salmonella adhesion to porcine intestinal epithelial cells. PLoS One 6:e14712.
43.
Prilassnig M, Wenisch C, Daxboeck F, and Feierl G. 2007. Are probiotics detectable in human feces after oral uptake by healthy volunteers? Wien Klin. Wochenschr. 119:456–462.
44.
Boudeau J, Barnich N, and Darfeuille-Michaud A. 2001. Type 1 pili-mediated adherence of Escherichia coli strain LF82 isolated from Crohn's disease is involved in bacterial invasion of intestinal epithelial cells. Mol. Microbiol. 39:1272–1284.
45.
Connell I, Agace W, Klemm P, Schembri M, Marild S, and Svanborg C. 1996. Type 1 fimbrial expression enhances Escherichia coli virulence for the urinary tract. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93:9827–9832.
46.
Blum G, Marre R, and Hacker J. 1995. Properties of Escherichia coli strains of serotype O6. Infection 23:234–236.
47.
Grozdanov L, Raasch C, Schulze J, Sonnenborn U, Gottschalk G, Hacker J, and Dobrindt U. 2004. Analysis of the genome structure of the nonpathogenic probiotic Escherichia coli strain Nissle 1917. J. Bacteriol. 186:5432–5441.
48.
Monteiro C, Saxena I, Wang X, Kader A, Bokranz W, Simm R, Nobles D, Chromek M, Brauner A, Brown RM Jr, and Romling U. 2009. Characterization of cellulose production in Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 and its biological consequences. Environ. Microbiol. 11:1105–1116.
49.
Lasaro MA, Salinger N, Zhang J, Wang Y, Zhong Z, Goulian M, and Zhu J. 2009. F1C fimbriae play an important role in biofilm formation and intestinal colonization by the Escherichia coli commensal strain Nissle 1917. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75:246–251.
50.
Ramos HC, Rumbo M, and Sirard JC. 2004. Bacterial flagellins: mediators of pathogenicity and host immune responses in mucosa. Trends Microbiol. 12:509–517.
51.
Giron JA, Torres AG, Freer E, and Kaper JB. 2002. The flagella of enteropathogenic Escherichia coli mediate adherence to epithelial cells. Mol. Microbiol. 44:361–379.
52.
Ukena SN, Westendorf AM, Hansen W, Rohde M, Geffers R, Coldewey S, Suerbaum S, Buer J, and Gunzer F. 2005. The host response to the probiotic Escherichia coli strain Nissle 1917: specific up-regulation of the proinflammatory chemokine MCP-1. BMC Med. Genet. 6:43.
53.
Ofek I and Doyle RJ. 1994. Bacterial adhesion to cells and tissues. Chapman & Hall, New York, NY.
54.
Collado MC, Meriluoto J, and Salminen S. 2007. Role of commercial probiotic strains against human pathogen adhesion to intestinal mucus. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 45:454–460.
55.
Mack DR and Lebel S. 2004. Role of probiotics in the modulation of intestinal infections and inflammation. Curr. Opin. Gastroenterol. 20:22–26.
56.
Backhed F, Alsen B, Roche N, Angstrom J, von Euler A, Breimer ME, Westerlund-Wikstrom B, Teneberg S, and Richter-Dahlfors A. 2002. Identification of target tissue glycosphingolipid receptors for uropathogenic, F1C-fimbriated Escherichia coli and its role in mucosal inflammation. J. Biol. Chem. 277:18198–18205.
57.
Khan AS, Kniep B, Oelschlaeger TA, Van Die I, Korhonen T, and Hacker J. 2000. Receptor structure for F1C fimbriae of uropathogenic Escherichia coli. Infect. Immun. 68:3541–3547.
58.
Jagannatha HM, Sharma UK, Ramaseshan T, Surolia A, and Balganesh TS. 1991. Identification of carbohydrate structures as receptors for localised adherent enteropathogenic Escherichia coli. Microb. Pathog. 11:259–268.
59.
Fujiwara S, Hashiba H, Hirota T, and Forstner JF. 1999. Purification and characterization of a novel protein produced by Bifidobacterium longum SBT2928 that inhibits the binding of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli Pb176 (CFA/II) to gangliotetraosylceramide. J. Appl. Microbiol. 86:615–621.
60.
Zhong SS, Zhang ZS, Wang JD, Lai ZS, Wang QY, Pan LJ, and Ren YX. 2004. Competitive inhibition of adherence of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli, enteropathogenic Escherichia coli and Clostridium difficile to intestinal epithelial cell line Lovo by purified adhesin of Bifidobacterium adolescentis 1027. World J. Gastroenterol. 10:1630–1633.
61.
Jarvis KG, Giron JA, Jerse AE, McDaniel TK, Donnenberg MS, and Kaper JB. 1995. Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli contains a putative type III secretion system necessary for the export of proteins involved in attaching and effacing lesion formation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 92:7996–8000.
62.
Deng W, Li Y, Hardwidge PR, Frey EA, Pfuetzner RA, Lee S, Gruenheid S, Strynakda NC, Puente JL, and Finlay BB. 2005. Regulation of type III secretion hierarchy of translocators and effectors in attaching and effacing bacterial pathogens. Infect. Immun. 73:2135–2146.
63.
Kimura K, Iwatsuki M, Nagai T, Matsumoto A, Takahashi Y, Shiomi K, Omura S, and Abe A. 2011. A small-molecule inhibitor of the bacterial type III secretion system protects against in vivo infection with Citrobacter rodentium. J. Antibiot. 64:197–203.
64.
Blattner FR, GPlunkett III, Bloch CA, Perna NT, Burland V, Riley M, Collado-Vides J, Glasner JD, Rode CK, Mayhew GF, Gregor J, Davis NW, Kirkpatrick HA, Goeden MA, Rose DJ, Mau B, and Shao Y. 1997. The complete genome sequence of Escherichia coli K-12. Science 277:1453–1462.
65.
Zingler G, Ott M, Blum G, Falkenhagen U, Naumann G, Sokolowska-Kohler W, and Hacker J. 1992. Clonal analysis of Escherichia coli serotype O6 strains from urinary tract infections. Microb. Pathog. 12:299–310.
66.
Troge A, Scheppach W, Schroeder BO, Rund SA, Heuner K, Wehkamp J, Stange EF, and Oelschlaeger TA. 2012. More than a marine propeller—the flagellum of the probiotic Escherichia coli strain Nissle 1917 is the major adhesin mediating binding to human mucus. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 302:304–314.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Infection and Immunity
Infection and Immunity
Volume 82Number 5May 2014
Pages: 1801 - 1812
Editor: B. A. McCormick
PubMed: 24549324

History

Received: 13 November 2013
Returned for modification: 20 December 2013
Accepted: 7 February 2014
Published online: 18 April 2014

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Contributors

Authors

Sylvia Kleta
Zentrum für Infektionsmedizin, Institut für Mikrobiologie und Tierseuchen, Fachbereich Veterinärmedizin, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Marcel Nordhoff
Zentrum für Infektionsmedizin, Institut für Mikrobiologie und Tierseuchen, Fachbereich Veterinärmedizin, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Karsten Tedin
Zentrum für Infektionsmedizin, Institut für Mikrobiologie und Tierseuchen, Fachbereich Veterinärmedizin, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Lothar H. Wieler
Zentrum für Infektionsmedizin, Institut für Mikrobiologie und Tierseuchen, Fachbereich Veterinärmedizin, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Rafal Kolenda
Department of Biochemistry, Pharmacology and Toxicology, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Wrocław, Poland
Fakultät für Naturwissenschaften, Brandenburgische Technische Universität Cottbus-Senftenberg, Senftenberg, Germany
Sibylle Oswald
Institut für Molekulare Infektionsbiologie, Universität Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
Tobias A. Oelschlaeger
Institut für Molekulare Infektionsbiologie, Universität Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
Wilfried Bleiß
Lehrstuhl für Molekulare Parasitologie, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Peter Schierack
Zentrum für Infektionsmedizin, Institut für Mikrobiologie und Tierseuchen, Fachbereich Veterinärmedizin, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Fakultät für Naturwissenschaften, Brandenburgische Technische Universität Cottbus-Senftenberg, Senftenberg, Germany

Editor

B. A. McCormick
Editor

Notes

Address correspondence to Peter Schierack, [email protected].

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Note:

  • For recently published articles, the TOTAL download count will appear as zero until a new month starts.
  • There is a 3- to 4-day delay in article usage, so article usage will not appear immediately after publication.
  • Citation counts come from the Crossref Cited by service.

Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. For an editable text file, please select Medlars format which will download as a .txt file. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

View Options

Figures and Media

Figures

Media

Tables

Share

Share

Share the article link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share on social media

American Society for Microbiology ("ASM") is committed to maintaining your confidence and trust with respect to the information we collect from you on websites owned and operated by ASM ("ASM Web Sites") and other sources. This Privacy Policy sets forth the information we collect about you, how we use this information and the choices you have about how we use such information.
FIND OUT MORE about the privacy policy