The second messenger signaling molecule cyclic di-AMP drives developmental cycle progression in Chlamydia trachomatis

  1. Junghoon Lee
  2. Scot P Ouellette

  • Curated by eLife

    eLife logo

    eLife Assessment

    In this useful study, ectopic expression and knockdown strategies were used to assess the effects of increasing and decreasing Cyclic di-AMP on the developmental cycle in Chlamydia. The authors convincingly demonstrate that overexpression of the dacA-ybbR operon results in increased production of c-di-AMP and early expression of the transitionary gene hctA and late gene omcB. Whilst the authors have attempted to revise the submission, the model proposed in the revised manuscript is still not fully supported by the data presented.

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Abstract

The obligate intracellular bacterium Chlamydia alternates between two functional forms during its developmental cycle: elementary body (EB) and reticulate body (RB). However, the molecular mechanisms governing the transitions between these forms are unknown. Here, we present evidence cyclic di-AMP (c-di-AMP) is a key factor in triggering the transition from RB to EB (i.e., secondary differentiation) in the chlamydial developmental cycle. By overexpressing or knocking down expression of c-di-AMP synthase genes, we made strains producing different levels of c-di-AMP, which we linked to changes in secondary differentiation status. Increases in c-di-AMP resulted in an earlier increase in transcription of EB-associated genes, and this was further manifested in earlier production of EBs. In contrast, when c-di-AMP levels were decreased, EB production was reduced. Based on these data, we conclude there is a threshold level of c-di-AMP needed to trigger secondary differentiation in Chlamydia. This study identifies a mechanism by which secondary differentiation is initiated in Chlamydia and reveals a critical role for the second messenger signaling molecule c-di-AMP in this process.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.7554/elife.104240.3 on eLife
  2. Version published to 10.7554/elife.104240 on eLife
  3. eLife

    eLife Assessment

    In this useful study, ectopic expression and knockdown strategies were used to assess the effects of increasing and decreasing Cyclic di-AMP on the developmental cycle in Chlamydia. The authors convincingly demonstrate that overexpression of the dacA-ybbR operon results in increased production of c-di-AMP and early expression of the transitionary gene hctA and late gene omcB. Whilst the authors have attempted to revise the submission, the model proposed in the revised manuscript is still not fully supported by the data presented.

  4. eLife

    Reviewer #2 (Public review):

    This manuscript describes the role of the production of c-di-AMP on the chlamydial developmental cycle. The main findings remain the same. The authors show that overexpression of the dacA-ybbR operon results in increased production of c-di-AMP and early expression of transitionary and late genes. The authors also knocked down the expression of the dacA-ybbR operon and reported a modest reduction in the expression of both hctA and omcB. The authors conclude with a model suggesting the amount of c-di-AMP determines the fate of the RB, continued replication, or EB conversion.

    Overall, this is a very intriguing study with important implications however the data is very preliminary and the model is very rudimentary. The data support the observation that dramatically increased c-di-AMP has an impact on transitionary gene expression and late gene expression suggesting dysregulation of the developmental cycle. This effect goes away with modest changes in c-di-AMP (detaTM-DacA vs detaTM-DacA (D164N)). However, the model predicts that low levels of c-di-AMP delays EB production is not not well supported by the data. If this prediction were true then the growth rate would increase with c-di-AMP reduction and the data does not show this. The levels of of c-di-AMP at the lower levels need to be better validated as it seems like only very high levels make a difference for dysregulated late gene expression. However, on the low end it's not clear what levels are needed to have an effect as only DacAopMut and DacAopKD show any effects on the cycle and the c-di-AMP levels are only different at 24 hours.

    The data still do not support the overall model.

    In Figure 1 the authors show at 24 hpi.

    DacA overexpression increases cdiAMP to ~4000 pg/ml

    DacAmut overexpression reduces cdiAMP dramatically to ~256 pg/ml)

    DacATM overexpression increases cdiAMP to ~4000 pg/ml.

    DacAmutTM overexpression does not seem to change cdiAMP ~1500 pg/ml .

    dacAKD decreases cdiAMP to ~300 pg/ml .

    dacAKDcom increased cdiAMP to ~8000 pg/ml.

    DacA-ybbRop overexpression increased cdiAMP to ~500,000 pg/ml.

    DacA-ybbRopmut ~300 pg/ml.

    However in Figure 2 the data show that overexpression of DacA (cdiAMP ~4000 pg/ml) did not have a different phenotype than over expression of the mutant (cdiAMP ~256 pg/ml). HctA expression down, omcB expression down, euo not much change, replication down, and IFUs down. Additionally, Figure 3 shows no differences in anything measured although cdiAMP levels were again dramatically different. DacATM overexpression (~4000 pg/ml) and DacAmutTM (~1500). This makes it unclear what cdiAMP is doing to the developmental cycle.

    In Figure 4 the authors knockdown dacA (dacA-KD) and complement the knockdown (dacA-KDcom) dacAKD decreases cdiAMP (~300) while DacA-KDcom increases cdiAMP much above wt (~8000).
    KD decreased hctA and omcB at 24hpi. Complementation resulted in a moderate increase in hctA at a single time point but not at 24 hpi and had no effect on euo or omcB expression. Importantly, complementation decreased the growth rate. Based on the proposed model, growth rate should increase as the chlamydia should all be RBs and replicating and not exiting the cell cycle to become EBs (not replicating). Interestingly reducing cdiAMP levels by over expressing DacAmut (~256 pg/ml) did not have an effect on the cycle but the reduction in cdiAMP by knockdown of dacA (~300 pg/ml) did have a moderate effect on the cycle.

    For Figure 5 DacA-ybbRop was overexpressed and this increased cdiAMP dramatically ~500,000 pg/ml as compared to wt ~1500. This increased hctA only at an early timepoint and not at 24hpi and again had no effect on omcB or euo. Overexpression of the operon with the mutation DacA-ybbRopmut reduced cdiAMP to ~300 pg/ml and this showed a reduction in growth rate similar to dacAmut but a more dramatic decrease in IFUs.

    Overall:

    DacA overexpression increases cdiAMP to ~4000 pg/ml (decreased everything except euo)

    DacAmut overexpression reduces cdiAMP dramatically (~256 pg/ml). (decreased everything except euo)

    DacATM overexpression increases cdiAMP to ~4000 pg/ml (no changes noted)

    DacAmutTM overexpression does not seem to change cdiAMP ~1500 pg/ml (no changes noted)

    dacAKD decrease cdiAMP to ~300 pg/ml (decreased everything except euo)

    dacAKDcom increased cdiAMP to ~8000 pg/ml (decreases growth rate, increase hctA a little but not omcB)

    DacA-ybbRop overexpression increased cdiAMP to ~500,000 pg/ml (decreases growth rate, increase hctA a little but not omcB)

    DacA-ybbRopmut ~300 pg/ml (decreased everything except euo)

    Overall, the data show that increasing cdiAMP only has a phenotype if it is dramatically increased, no effect at 4000 pg/ml. Decreasing cdiAMP has a consistent effect, decreased growth rate, IFU, hctA expression and omcB expression. However, if their proposed model was correct and low levels of cdiAMP blocked EB conversion then more chlamydial cells would be RBs (dividing cells) and the growth rate should increase. Conversely, if cdiAMP levels were dramatically raised then all RBs would all convert and the growth rate would be very low. When cdiAMP was raised to ~4000 pg/ml there was no effect on the growth rate. However, an increase to ~8000 pg/ml resulted in a significant decrease but growth continued. Increasing cdAMP to ~500,000 pg/ml had less of an impact on the growth rate. Overall, the data does not cleanly support the proposed model.

  5. eLife

    Author response:

    The following is the authors’ response to the current reviews

    Reviewer #2 (Public review):

    This manuscript describes the role of the production of c-di-AMP on the chlamydial developmental cycle. The main findings remain the same. The authors show that overexpression of the dacA-ybbR operon results in increased production of c-di-AMP and early expression of transitionary and late genes. The authors also knocked down the expression of the dacA-ybbR operon and reported a modest reduction in the expression of both hctA and omcB. The authors conclude with a model suggesting the amount of c-di-AMP determines the fate of the RB, continued replication, or EB conversion.

    Overall, this is a very intriguing study with important implications however the data is very preliminary and the model is very rudimentary. The data support the observation that dramatically increased c-di-AMP has an impact on transitionary gene expression and late gene expression suggesting dysregulation of the developmental cycle. This effect goes away with modest changes in c-di-AMP (detaTM-DacA vs detaTM-DacA (D164N)). However, the model predicts that low levels of c-di-AMP delays EB production is not not well supported by the data. If this prediction were true then the growth rate would increase with c-di-AMP reduction and the data does not show this. The levels of of c-di-AMP at the lower levels need to be better validated as it seems like only very high levels make a difference for dysregulated late gene expression. However, on the low end it's not clear what levels are needed to have an effect as only DacAopMut and DacAopKD show any effects on the cycle and the c-di-AMP levels are only different at 24 hours.

    These appear to be the same comments the reviewer presented last time, so we will reiterate our prior points here and elsewhere. We do not think and nor do we predict that low c-di-AMP levels should increase growth rate (as measured by gDNA levels), and this conclusion cannot be drawn from our data. Rather, we predict that the inability to accumulate c-di-AMP should delay production of EBs, and this is what the data show. The reviewer has applied their own subjective (and erroneous) interpretation to the model. The asynchronicity of the normal developmental cycle means RBs continue to replicate as EBs are forming, so gDNA levels cannot be used as the sole metric for determining RB levels. We show that reduced c-di-AMP levels reduce EB levels as well as transcripts associated with late stages of development. The parsimonious interpretation of these data support that low c-di-AMP levels delay progression through the developmental cycle consistent with our model.

    The data still do not support the overall model.

    We disagree. We have presented quantified data that include appropriate controls and statistical tests, and the reviewer has not disputed that or pointed to additional experiments that need to be performed. The reviewer has imposed a subjective interpretation of our model based on their own biases. A reader is free, of course, to disagree with our model, but a reviewer should not block a manuscript based on such a disagreement if no experimental flaws have been identified.

    In Figure 1 the authors show at 24 hpi.

    We also showed data from 16hpi, which is a more relevant timepoint for assessing premature transition to EBs. In contrast, the 24hpi is more important for assessing developmental effects of reduced c-di-AMP levels.

    DacA overexpression increases cdiAMP to ~4000 pg/ml

    DacAmut overexpression reduces cdiAMP dramatically to ~256 pg/ml)

    DacATM overexpression increases cdiAMP to ~4000 pg/ml.

    DacAmutTM overexpression does not seem to change cdiAMP ~1500 pg/ml .

    dacAKD decreases cdiAMP to ~300 pg/ml .

    dacAKDcom increased cdiAMP to ~8000 pg/ml.

    DacA-ybbRop overexpression increased cdiAMP to ~500,000 pg/ml.

    DacA-ybbRopmut ~300 pg/ml.

    However in Figure 2 the data show that overexpression of DacA (cdiAMP ~4000 pg/ml) did not have a different phenotype than over expression of the mutant (cdiAMP ~256 pg/ml). HctA expression down, omcB expression down, euo not much change, replication down, and IFUs down. Additionally, Figure 3 shows no differences in anything measured although cdiAMP levels were again dramatically different. DacATM overexpression (~4000 pg/ml) and DacAmutTM (~1500). This makes it unclear what cdiAMP is doing to the developmental cycle.

    As we have explained in the text and in response to reviewer comments on previous rounds of review, overexpressing the full-length WT or mutant DacA is detrimental to developmental cycle progression for reasons that have nothing to do with c-di-AMP levels (likely disrupting membrane function), since, as the reviewer notes, the WT DacA deltaTM strain had similar c-di-AMP levels but no negative effects on growth/development. If we had not presented the effects of overexpressing the individual isoforms, then a reviewer would surely have requested such, which is why we present these data even though they don’t seem to support our model. This is an honest representation of our findings. The reviewer seems intent on nitpicking a minor datapoint that seems to contradict the rest of the manuscript while ignoring or not carefully reading the rest of the manuscript.

    In Figure 4 the authors knockdown dacA (dacA-KD) and complement the knockdown (dacA-KDcom)

    dacAKD decreases cdiAMP (~300) while DacA-KDcom increases cdiAMP much above wt (~8000).

    KD decreased hctA and omcB at 24hpi. Complementation resulted in a moderate increase in hctA at a single time point but not at 24 hpi and had no effect on euo or omcB expression.

    By 24hpi, late gene transcripts are being maximally produced during a normal developmental cycle. It is unclear why the reviewer thinks that these transcripts should be elevated above this level in any of our strains that prematurely transition to EBs. There is no basis in the literature to support such an assumption. As we noted in the text, the dacA-KDcom strain phenocopied the dacAop OE strain, and we showed RNAseq data and EB production curves for the latter that support our conclusions of the effect of increased c-di-AMP levels on developmental progression.

    Importantly, complementation decreased the growth rate.

    Yes, since the c-di-AMP levels breached the “EB threshold” at 16hpi, it causes premature transition to EBs, which do not replicate their gDNA, at an earlier stage of the cycle when fewer organisms are present. Therefore, the gDNA levels are decreased at 24hpi, which is consistent with our model.

    Based on the proposed model, growth rate should increase as the chlamydia should all be RBs and replicating and not exiting the cell cycle to become EBs (not replicating).

    This is a spurious conclusion from the reviewer. As we clearly showed, the dacA-KDcom did not restore a wild-type phenotype and instead mimicked the dacAop OE strain. This was commented on in the text.

    Interestingly reducing cdiAMP levels by over expressing DacAmut (~256 pg/ml) did not have an effect on the cycle but the reduction in cdiAMP by knockdown of dacA (~300 pg/ml) did have a moderate effect on the cycle.

    This is again a spurious conclusion from the reviewer. The dacAMut and dacA-KD strains are distinct. As noted in the text and above for DacA WT OE, overexpressing the DacAMut similarly disrupts organism morphology, which is different from dacA-KD. These strains should not be directly compared because of this. This point has been previously highlighted in the text (in Results and Discussion).

    For Figure 5 DacA-ybbRop was overexpressed and this increased cdiAMP dramatically ~500,000 pg/ml as compared to wt ~1500. This increased hctA only at an early timepoint and not at 24hpi and again had no effect on omcB or euo.

    As we explained in prior reviews, our RNAseq data more comprehensively assessed transcripts for the dacAop OE strain. These data show convincingly that late gene transcripts (not just hctA and omcB) are elevated earlier in the developmental cycle. Again, it is not clear why the reviewer should expect that late gene transcripts should be higher in these strains than they are during a normal developmental cycle. This is not part of our model and appears to be a bias that the reviewer has imposed that is not supported by the literature.

    Overexpression of the operon with the mutation DacA-ybbRopmut reduced cdiAMP to ~300 pg/ml and this showed a reduction in growth rate similar to dacAmut but a more dramatic decrease in IFUs.

    As we described in the text, in earlier revisions, and above, the dacAMut OE strain has distinct effects unrelated to c-di-AMP levels and, therefore, should not be compared to other strains in terms of linking its c-di-AMP levels to its phenotype.

    Overall:

    DacA overexpression increases cdiAMP to ~4000 pg/ml (decreased everything except euo)

    DacAmut overexpression reduces cdiAMP dramatically (~256 pg/ml). (decreased everything except euo)

    DacATM overexpression increases cdiAMP to ~4000 pg/ml (no changes noted)

    DacAmutTM overexpression does not seem to change cdiAMP ~1500 pg/ml (no changes noted)

    dacAKD decrease cdiAMP to ~300 pg/ml (decreased everything except euo)

    dacAKDcom increased cdiAMP to ~8000 pg/ml (decreases growth rate, increase hctA a little but not omcB)

    DacA-ybbRop overexpression increased cdiAMP to ~500,000 pg/ml (decreases growth rate, increase hctA a little but not omcB)
    DacA-ybbRopmut ~300 pg/ml (decreased everything except euo)

    Overall, the data show that increasing cdiAMP only has a phenotype if it is dramatically increased, no effect at 4000 pg/ml.

    Yes, this clearly shows there is a threshold - as we hypothesize! However, these thresholds are more important at the 16hpi timepoint not 24hpi (which the reviewer is referencing) when assessing premature transition to EBs. We specifically highlighted in our prior revision in Figure 1E this EB threshold to make this point clearer for the reader. Once the threshold is breached, then the overall c-di-AMP levels become irrelevant as the RBs have begun their transition to EBs.

    Decreasing cdiAMP has a consistent effect, decreased growth rate, IFU, hctA expression and omcB expression. However, if their proposed model was correct and low levels of cdiAMP blocked EB conversion then more chlamydial cells would be RBs (dividing cells) and the growth rate should increase.

    The only effect should be normal gDNA levels, which is what we see in the dacA-KD. Given the asynchronicity of a normal developmental cycle in which RBs continue to replicate as EBs are still forming, there is no basis to assume gDNA levels should increase under these conditions for the dacA-KD strain at 24hpi.

    Conversely, if cdiAMP levels were dramatically raised then all RBs would all convert and the growth rate would be very low.

    We agree. This is what is reflected by the dacAop OE and dacA-KDcom strains, with reduced gDNA levels at 24hpi since organisms have transitioned to EBs at an earlier time post-infection.

    When cdiAMP was raised to ~4000 pg/ml there was no effect on the growth rate.

    Yes, because it had not breached the EB threshold at 16hpi – consistent with our model! The reviewer is confusing effects of elevated c-di-AMP at 24hpi when they should be assessed at the 16hpi timepoint for strains overproducing this molecule.

    However, an increase to ~8000 pg/ml resulted in a significant decrease but growth continued.

    If the reviewer is referring to the dacA-KDcom strain, then this is not accurate. gDNA levels were decreased in this strain at 24hpi when the c-di-AMP levels were increased compared to the WT (mCherry OE) control at 16hpi, indicating this strain had breached the “EB threshold” and initiated conversion to EBs at an earlier timepoint post-infection when fewer organisms were present.

    Increasing cdAMP to ~500,000 pg/ml had less of an impact on the growth rate.

    It is not clear what this conclusion is based on and what the reviewer is comparing to. This is a subjective assessment not based on our data.

    Overall, the data does not cleanly support the proposed model.

    It is an unfortunate aspect of biology, particularly for obligate intracellular bacteria – a challenging experimental system on which to work, that the data are not always “clean”. The overall effects of increased c-di-AMP levels on chlamydial developmental cycle progression we have documented support our model, and we think the reader, as always, should make their own assessment.

    The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

    Reviewer #2 (Public review):

    This manuscript describes the role of the production of c-di-AMP on the chlamydial developmental cycle. The main findings remain the same. The authors show that overexpression of the dacA-ybbR operon results in increased production of c-di-AMP and early expression of transitionary and late genes. The authors also knocked down the expression of the dacA-ybbR operon and reported a modest reduction in the expression of both hctA and omcB. The authors conclude with a model suggesting the amount of c-di-AMP determines the fate of the RB, continued replication, or EB conversion.

    Overall, this is a very intriguing study with important implications however, the data is very preliminary, and the model is very rudimentary. The data support the observation that dramatically increased c-di-AMP has an impact on transitionary gene expression and late gene expression suggesting dysregulation of the developmental cycle. This effect goes away with modest changes in c-di-AMP (detaTM-DacA vs detaTM-DacA (D164N)). However, the model predicts that low levels of c-di-AMP delays EB production is not not well supported by the data. If this prediction were true then the growth rate would increase with c-di-AMP reduction and the data does not show this.

    Thank you for the comments. We have apparently not adequately communicated our predictions and the model. We do not think and nor do we predict that low c-di-AMP levels should increase growth rate, and there is no basis in any of our data to support that. Rather, we predict that the inability to accumulate c-di-AMP should delay production of EBs, and this is what the data show. We have clarified this in the text (line 89 paragraph).

    The levels of c-di-AMP at the lower levels need to be better validated as it seems like only very high levels make a difference for dysregulated late gene expression. However, on the low end it's not clear what levels are needed to have an effect as only DacAopMut and DacAopKD show any effects on the cycle and the c-di-AMP levels are only different at 24 hours.

    Our hypothesis is that increasing concentrations of c-di-AMP within a given RB is a signal for it to undergo secondary differentiation to the EB, and the data support this as noted by the reviewers. Again, we stress that low levels of c-di-AMP are irrelevant to the model. We have revised Figure 1E to indicate the level of c-di-AMP in the control strain at the 24hpi timepoint that coincides with increased EB levels. We hope this will further clarify the goals of our study. That a given strain might be below the EB control is not relevant to the model beyond indicating that it has not reached the necessary threshold for triggering secondary differentiation.

    The authors responded to reviewers' critiques by adding the overexpression of DacA without the transmembrane region. This addition does not really help their case. They show that detaTM-DacA and detaTM-DacA (D164N) had the same effects on c-di-AMP levels but the figure shows no effects on the developmental cycle.

    As it relates directly to the reviewer’s point, the delta-TM strains did not show the same level of c-di-AMP. It may be that the reviewer misread the graph. The purpose of testing these strains was to show that the negative effects of overexpressing full-length WT DacA were due to its membrane localization. Both the FL and deltaTM-DacA (WT) overexpression had equivalent c-di-AMP levels even though the delta-TM overexpression looked like the mCherry-expressing strain based on the measured parameters. This shows that the c-di-AMP levels were irrelevant to the phenotypes observed when overexpressing these WT isoforms. For the mutant isoforms, the delta-TM looked like the mCherry-expressing control while the FL isoform was negatively impacted for reasons we described in the Discussion (e.g., dominant negative effect). In addition, at 16hpi, neither delta-TM strain had c-di-AMP levels that approached the 24h control as denoted in Figure 1E (dashed line) and in the text, which explains why these strains did not show increased late gene transcripts at an earlier timepoint like the dacAop and dacA-KDcom strains.

    Describing the significance of the findings:

    The findings are important and point to very exciting new avenues to explore the important questions in chlamydial cell form development. The authors present a model that is not quantified and does not match the data well.

    We respectfully disagree with this assessment as noted above in response to the reviewer’s critique. All of our data are quantified and support the hypothesis as stated.

    Describing the strength of evidence:

    The evidence presented is incomplete. The authors do a nice job of showing that overexpression of the dacA-ybbR operon increases c-di-AMP and that knockdown or overexpression of the catalytically dead DacA protein decreases the c-di-AMP levels. However, the effects on the developmental cycle and how they fit the proposed model are less well supported.

    Overall this is a very intriguing finding that will require more gene expression data, phenotypic characterization of cell forms, and better quantitative models to fully interpret these findings.

    It is not clear what quantitative models the reviewer would prefer, but, ultimately, it is up to the reader to decide whether they agree or not with the model we present. The data are the data, and we have tried to present them as clearly as possible. We would emphasize that, with the number of strains we have analyzed, we have presented a huge amount of data for a study with an obligate intracellular bacterium. As a comparison, most publications on Chlamydia might use a handful of transformant strains, if any. Given the cost and time associated with performing such studies, it is prohibitive to attempt all the time points that one might like to do, and it is not clear to us that further studies will add to or alter the conclusions of the current manuscript.

    Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

    Minor critiques

    The graphs have red and blue lines but the figure legends are red and black. It would be better if these matched.

    Changed.

    For Figure 1C. The labels are not very helpful. It's not clear what is HeLa vs mCherry. I believe it is uninfected vs Chlamydia infected.

    Changed.

  6. Version published to 10.7554/elife.104240.2 on eLife
  7. eLife

    eLife Assessment

    In this useful study, ectopic expression and knockdown strategies were used to assess the effects of increasing and decreasing Cyclic di-AMP on the developmental cycle in Chlamydia. The authors convincingly demonstrate that overexpression of the dacA-ybbR operon results in increased production of c-di-AMP and early expression of the transitionary gene hctA and late gene omcB. Whilst the authors have attempted to revise the submission, the model currently proposed is not fully supported by the data presented.

  8. eLife

    Reviewer #2 (Public review):

    This manuscript describes the role of the production of c-di-AMP on the chlamydial developmental cycle. The main findings remain the same. The authors show that overexpression of the dacA-ybbR operon results in increased production of c-di-AMP and early expression of transitionary and late genes. The authors also knocked down the expression of the dacA-ybbR operon and reported a modest reduction in the expression of both hctA and omcB. The authors conclude with a model suggesting the amount of c-di-AMP determines the fate of the RB, continued replication, or EB conversion.

    Overall, this is a very intriguing study with important implications however, the data is very preliminary, and the model is very rudimentary. The data support the observation that dramatically increased c-di-AMP has an impact on transitionary gene expression and late gene expression suggesting dysregulation of the developmental cycle. This effect goes away with modest changes in c-di-AMP (detaTM-DacA vs detaTM-DacA (D164N)). However, the model predicts that low levels of c-di-AMP delays EB production is not not well supported by the data. If this prediction were true then the growth rate would increase with c-di-AMP reduction and the data does not show this. The levels of c-di-AMP at the lower levels need to be better validated as it seems like only very high levels make a difference for dysregulated late gene expression. However, on the low end it's not clear what levels are needed to have an effect as only DacAopMut and DacAopKD show any effects on the cycle and the c-di-AMP levels are only different at 24 hours.

    The authors responded to reviewers' critiques by adding the overexpression of DacA without the transmembrane region. This addition does not really help their case. They show that detaTM-DacA and detaTM-DacA (D164N) had the same effects on c-di-AMP levels but the figure shows no effects on the developmental cycle.

    Describing the significance of the findings:

    The findings are important and point to very exciting new avenues to explore the important questions in chlamydial cell form development. The authors present a model that is not quantified and does not match the data well.

    Describing the strength of evidence:

    The evidence presented is incomplete. The authors do a nice job of showing that overexpression of the dacA-ybbR operon increases c-di-AMP and that knockdown or overexpression of the catalytically dead DacA protein decreases the c-di-AMP levels. However, the effects on the developmental cycle and how they fit the proposed model are less well supported.

    Overall this is a very intriguing finding that will require more gene expression data, phenotypic characterization of cell forms, and better quantitative models to fully interpret these findings.

  9. eLife

    Author Response:

    The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

    Reviewer #1 (Public review):

    Summary:

    The paper by Lee and Ouellette explores the role of cyclic-d-AMP in chlamydial developmental progression. The manuscript uses a collection of different recombinant plasmids to up- and down-regulate cdAMP production, and then uses classical molecular and microbiological approaches to examine the effects of expression induction in each of the transformed strains.

    Strengths:

    This laboratory is a leader in the use of molecular genetic manipulation in Chlamydia trachomatis and their efforts to make such efforts mainstream is commendable. Overall, the model described and defended by these investigators is thorough and significant.

    Thank you for these comments.

    Weaknesses:

    The biggest weakness in the document is their reliance on quantitative data that is statistically not significant, in the interpretation of results. These challenges can be addressed in a revision by the authors.

    Thank you for these comments. We point out that, while certain RT-qPCR data may not be statistically significant, our RNAseq data indicate late genes are, as a group, statistically significantly increased when increasing c-di-AMP levels and decreased when decreasing c-di-AMP levels. We do not believe running additional experiments to “achieve” statistical significance in the RT-qPCR data is worthwhile. We hope the reviewer agrees with this assessment.

    We have also included new data in this revised manuscript, which we believe further strengthens aspects of the conclusions linked to individual expression of full-length DacA isoforms. We have also quantified inclusion areas and bacterial sizes for critical strains.

    Reviewer #2 (Public review):

    Summary:

    This manuscript describes the role of the production of c-di-AMP on the chlamydial developmental cycle. Chlamydia are obligate intracellular bacterial pathogens that rely on eukaryotic host cells for growth. The chlamydial life cycle depends on a cell form developmental cycle that produces phenotypically distinct cell forms with specific roles during the infectious cycle. The RB cell form replicates amplifying chlamydia numbers while the EB cell form mediates entry into new host cells disseminating the infection to new hosts. Regulation of cell form development is a critical question in chlamydia biology and pathogenesis. Chlamydia must balance amplification (RB numbers) and dissemination (EB numbers) to maximize survival in its infection niche. The main findings In this manuscript show that overexpression of the dacA-ybbR operon results in increased production of c-di-AMP and early expression of the transitionary gene hctA and late gene omcB. The authors also knocked down the expression of the dacA-ybbR operon and reported a reduction in the expression of both hctA and omcB. The authors conclude with a model suggesting the amount of c-di-AMP determines the fate of the RB, continued replication, or EB conversion. Overall, this is a very intriguing study with important implications however the data is very preliminary and the model is very rudimentary and is not well supported by the data.

    Thank you for your comments. Chlamydia is not an easy experimental system, but we have done our best to address the reviewer’s concerns in this revised submission.

    Describing the significance of the findings:

    The findings are important and point to very exciting new avenues to explore the important questions in chlamydial cell form development. The authors present a model that is not quantified and does not match the data well.

    Describing the strength of evidence:

    The evidence presented is incomplete. The authors do a nice job of showing that overexpression of the dacA-ybbR operon increases c-di-AMP and that knockdown or overexpression of the catalytically dead DacA protein decreases the c-di-AMP levels. However, the effects on the developmental cycle and how they fit the proposed model are less well supported.

    dacA-ybbR ectopic expression:

    For the dacA-ybbR ectopic expression experiments they show that hctA is induced early but there is no significant change in OmcB gene expression. This is problematic as when RBs are treated with Pen (this paper) and (DOI 10.1128/MSYSTEMS.00689-20) hctA is expressed in the aberrant cell forms but these forms do not go on to express the late genes suggesting stress events can result in changes in the developmental expression kinetic profile. The RNA-seq data are a little reassuring as many of the EB/Late genes were shown to be upregulated by dacA-ybbR ectopic expression in this assay.

    As the reviewer notes, we also generated RNAseq data, which validates that late gene transcripts (including sigma28 and sigma54 regulated genes) are statistically significantly increased earlier in the developmental cycle in parallel to increased c-di-AMP levels. The lack of statistical significance in the RT-qPCR data for omcB, which shows a trend of higher transcripts, is less concerning given the statistically significantly RNAseq dataset. We have reported the data from three replicates for the RT-qPCR and do not think it would be worthwhile to attempt more replicates in an attempt to “achieve” statistical significance.

    We recognize that hctA may also increase during stress as noted by the Grieshaber Lab. In re-evaluating these data, we decided to remove the Penicillin-linked studies from the manuscript since they detract from the focus of the story we are trying to tell given the potential caveat the reviewer mentions.

    The authors also demonstrate that this ectopic expression reduces the overall growth rate but produces EBs earlier in the cycle but overall fewer EBs late in the cycle. This observation matches their model well as when RBs convert early there is less amplification of cell numbers.

    dacA knockdown and dacA(mut)

    The authors showed that dacA knockdown and ectopic expression of the dacA mutant both reduced the amount of c-di-AMP. The authors show that for both of these conditions, hctA and omcB expression is reduced at 24 hpi. This was also partially supported by the RNA-seq data for the dacA knockdown as many of the late genes were downregulated. However, a shift to an increase in RB-only genes was not readily evident. This is maybe not surprising as the chlamydial inclusion would just have an increase in RB forms and changes in cell form ratios would need more time points.

    Thank you for this comment. We agree that it is not surprising given the shift in cell forms. The reduction in hctA transcripts argues against a stress state as noted above by the reviewer, and the RNAseq data from dacA-KD conditions indicates at least that secondary differentiation has been delayed. We agree that more time points would help address the reviewer’s point, but the time and cost to perform such studies is prohibitive with an obligate intracellular bacterium.

    Interestingly, the overall growth rate appears to differ in these two conditions, growth is unaffected by dacA knockdown but is significantly affected by the expression of the mutant. In both cases, EB production is repressed. The overall model they present does not support this data well as if RBs were blocked from converting into EBs then the growth rate should increase as the RB cell form replicates while the EB cell form does not. This should shift the population to replicating cells.

    We agree that it seems that perturbing c-di-AMP production by knockdown or overexpressing the mutant DacA(D164N) has different impacts on chlamydial growth. We have generated new data, which we believe addresses this. Overexpressing membrane-localized DacA isoforms is clearly detrimental to chlamydiae as noted in the manuscript. However, when we removed the transmembrane domain and expressed N-terminal truncations of these isoforms, we observed no effects of overexpression on chlamydial morphology or growth. Importantly, for the wild-type full-length or truncated isoforms, overexpressing each resulted in the same level of c-di-AMP production, further supporting that the negative effect of overexpressing the wild-type full-length is linked to its membrane localization and not c-di-AMP levels. These data have been included as new Figure 3. These data indicate that too much DacA in the membrane is disruptive and suggest that the balance of DacA to YbbR is important since overexpression of both did not result in the same phenotype. This is further described in the Discussion.

    As it relates to knockdown of dacA-ybbR, we have essentially removed/reduced the amount of these proteins from the membrane and have blocked the production of c-di-AMP. This is fundamentally different from overexpression.

    Overall this is a very intriguing finding that will require more gene expression data, phenotypic characterization of cell forms, and better quantitative models to fully interpret these findings.

    Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

    There is a generally consistent set of experiments conducted with each of the mutant strains, allowing a straightforward examination of the effects of each transformant. There are a few general and specific things that need to be addressed for both the benefit of the reader and the accuracy of interpretation. The following is a list of items that need to be addressed in the document, with an overall goal of making it more readable and making the interpretations more quantitatively defended.

    Specific comments:

    (1) The manuscript overall is wordy and there are quite a few examples of text in the results that should be in the discussion (examples include lines 224-225, 248-262, 282-288, 304-308) the manuscript overall could use a careful editing for verbosity.

    Thank you for this comment. We have removed some of the indicated sentences. However, to maintain the flow and logic of the manuscript, some statements may have been preserved to help transition between sections. As far as verbosity, we have tried to be as clear as possible in our descriptions of the results to minimize ambiguity. Others who read our manuscript appreciated the thoroughness of our descriptions.

    (2) There is also a trend in the document to base fact statements on qualitative and quantitative differences that do not approach statistical significance. Examples of this include the following: lines 156-158, 190-192, 198-199, 230-232, 239-242, 292-293). This is something the authors need to be careful about, as these different statistically insignificant differences may tend to multiply a degree of uncertainty across the entire manuscript.

    We have quantified inclusion areas and tried to remove instances of qualitative assessments as noted by the reviewer. In regards to some of the transcripts, we can only report the data as they are. In some cases, there are trends that are not statistically significant, but it would seem to be inaccurate to state that they were unchanged. In other cases, a two-fold or less difference in transcript levels may be statistically significant but biologically insignificant. A reader can and should make their own conclusions.

    (3) Any description of inclusion or RB size being modestly different needs to be defended with microscopic quantification.

    We have quantified inclusion areas and RB sizes and tried to remove instances of qualitative assessments as noted by the reviewer.

    (4) It would be very helpful to reviewers if there was a figure number added to each figure in the reviewer-delivered text.

    Added.

    (5) Figure 1A: This should indicate that the genes indicated beneath each developmental form are on high (I think that is what that means).

    We have reorganized Figure 1 to better improve the flow.

    (6) Figure 1B is exactly the same as the three images in Figure 8B. I would delete this in Figure 1. This relates to comment 9.

    We presented this intentionally to clearly illustrate to the reader, who may not be knowledgeable in this area, what we propose is happening in the various strains. As such, we respectfully disagree and have left this aspect of the figure unchanged.

    (7) Figure 1D: It is not clear if the period in E.V has any meaning. I think this is just a typo. Also, the color coding needs to be indicated here. What do the gray bars represent? The labeling for the gene schematic for dacA-KDcom should not be directly below the first graph in D. This makes the reader think this is a label for the graph. This can be accomplished if the image in panel B is removed and the first graph in panel D is moved into B. This will make a better figure.

    We have reorganized Figure 1 to better improve the flow.

    (8) Figure 2 C, G: The utility of these panels is not clear. For them to have any value, they need to be expressed in genome copies. If they are truly just a measure of chlamydia genomic DNA, they have minimal utility to the reader. There are similar panels in several other figures.

    We have reported genome copies as suggested in lieu of ng gDNA for these measurements. Importantly, it does not alter any interpretations.

    (9) I am not sure about the overall utility of Figure 8. Granted, a summary of their model is useful, but the cartoons in the figure are identical or very nearly identical to model figures shown in two other publications from the same group (PMID: 39576108, 39464112) These are referenced at least tangentially in the current manuscript (Jensen paper- now published- and ref 53). Because the model has been published before, if they are to be included, there needs to be a direct comparison of the results in each of these three papers, as they basically describe the same developmental process. The model images should also be referenced directly to the first of the other papers.

    This was intentional so that readers familiar with our work will see the similarities between these systems. We have added additional comments in the Discussion related to our newly published work. As an aside, Dr. Lee generated the first version of the figure that was adapted by others in the lab. It is perhaps unlucky that those other studies have been published before his work.

  10. eLife

    eLife Assessment

    In this valuable study, ectopic expression and knockdown strategies were used to assess the effects of increasing and decreasing Cyclic di-AMP on the developmental cycle in Chlamydia. The authors convincingly demonstrate that overexpression of the dacA-ybbR operon results in increased production of c-di-AMP and early expression of the transitionary gene hctA and late gene omcB. Whilst these results are intriguing, the model currently proposed is over-simplified and likely incomplete.

  11. eLife

    Reviewer #1 (Public review):

    Summary:

    The paper by Lee and Ouellette explores the role of cyclic-d-AMP in chlamydial developmental progression. The manuscript uses a collection of different recombinant plasmids to up- and down-regulate cdAMP production, and then uses classical molecular and microbiological approaches to examine the effects of expression induction in each of the transformed strains.

    Strengths:

    This laboratory is a leader in the use of molecular genetic manipulation in Chlamydia trachomatis and their efforts to make such efforts mainstream is commendable. Overall, the model described and defended by these investigators is thorough and significant.

    Weaknesses:

    The biggest weakness in the document is their reliance on quantitative data that is statistically not significant, in the interpretation of results. These challenges can be addressed in a revision by the authors.

  12. eLife

    Reviewer #2 (Public review):

    Summary:

    This manuscript describes the role of the production of c-di-AMP on the chlamydial developmental cycle. Chlamydia are obligate intracellular bacterial pathogens that rely on eukaryotic host cells for growth. The chlamydial life cycle depends on a cell form developmental cycle that produces phenotypically distinct cell forms with specific roles during the infectious cycle. The RB cell form replicates amplifying chlamydia numbers while the EB cell form mediates entry into new host cells disseminating the infection to new hosts. Regulation of cell form development is a critical question in chlamydia biology and pathogenesis. Chlamydia must balance amplification (RB numbers) and dissemination (EB numbers) to maximize survival in its infection niche. The main findings In this manuscript show that overexpression of the dacA-ybbR operon results in increased production of c-di-AMP and early expression of the transitionary gene hctA and late gene omcB. The authors also knocked down the expression of the dacA-ybbR operon and reported a reduction in the expression of both hctA and omcB. The authors conclude with a model suggesting the amount of c-di-AMP determines the fate of the RB, continued replication, or EB conversion. Overall, this is a very intriguing study with important implications however the data is very preliminary and the model is very rudimentary and is not well supported by the data.

    Describing the significance of the findings:

    The findings are important and point to very exciting new avenues to explore the important questions in chlamydial cell form development. The authors present a model that is not quantified and does not match the data well.

    Describing the strength of evidence:

    The evidence presented is incomplete. The authors do a nice job of showing that overexpression of the dacA-ybbR operon increases c-di-AMP and that knockdown or overexpression of the catalytically dead DacA protein decreases the c-di-AMP levels. However, the effects on the developmental cycle and how they fit the proposed model are less well supported.

    dacA-ybbR ectopic expression:

    For the dacA-ybbR ectopic expression experiments they show that hctA is induced early but there is no significant change in OmcB gene expression. This is problematic as when RBs are treated with Pen (this paper) and (DOI 10.1128/MSYSTEMS.00689-20) hctA is expressed in the aberrant cell forms but these forms do not go on to express the late genes suggesting stress events can result in changes in the developmental expression kinetic profile. The RNA-seq data are a little reassuring as many of the EB/Late genes were shown to be upregulated by dacA-ybbR ectopic expression in this assay.

    The authors also demonstrate that this ectopic expression reduces the overall growth rate but produces EBs earlier in the cycle but overall fewer EBs late in the cycle. This observation matches their model well as when RBs convert early there is less amplification of cell numbers.

    dacA knockdown and dacA(mut)

    The authors showed that dacA knockdown and ectopic expression of the dacA mutant both reduced the amount of c-di-AMP. The authors show that for both of these conditions, hctA and omcB expression is reduced at 24 hpi. This was also partially supported by the RNA-seq data for the dacA knockdown as many of the late genes were downregulated. However, a shift to an increase in RB-only genes was not readily evident. This is maybe not surprising as the chlamydial inclusion would just have an increase in RB forms and changes in cell form ratios would need more time points.

    Interestingly, the overall growth rate appears to differ in these two conditions, growth is unaffected by dacA knockdown but is significantly affected by the expression of the mutant. In both cases, EB production is repressed. The overall model they present does not support this data well as if RBs were blocked from converting into EBs then the growth rate should increase as the RB cell form replicates while the EB cell form does not. This should shift the population to replicating cells.

    Overall this is a very intriguing finding that will require more gene expression data, phenotypic characterization of cell forms, and better quantitative models to fully interpret these findings.

  13. eLife

    Author response:

    Public Reviews:

    Reviewer #1 (Public review):

    Summary:

    The paper by Lee and Ouellette explores the role of cyclic-d-AMP in chlamydial developmental progression. The manuscript uses a collection of different recombinant plasmids to up- and down-regulate cdAMP production, and then uses classical molecular and microbiological approaches to examine the effects of expression induction in each of the transformed strains.

    Strengths:

    This laboratory is a leader in the use of molecular genetic manipulation in Chlamydia trachomatis and their efforts to make such efforts mainstream is commendable. Overall, the model described and defended by these investigators is thorough and significant.

    Weaknesses:

    The biggest weakness in the document is their reliance on quantitative data that is statistically not significant, in the interpretation of results. These challenges can be addressed in a revision by the authors.

    Thank you for these comments. We have generated new data, which we hope the reviewer will find more compelling. These will be included in a revised manuscript.

    Reviewer #2 (Public review):

    Summary:

    This manuscript describes the role of the production of c-di-AMP on the chlamydial developmental cycle. Chlamydia are obligate intracellular bacterial pathogens that rely on eukaryotic host cells for growth. The chlamydial life cycle depends on a cell form developmental cycle that produces phenotypically distinct cell forms with specific roles during the infectious cycle. The RB cell form replicates amplifying chlamydia numbers while the EB cell form mediates entry into new host cells disseminating the infection to new hosts. Regulation of cell form development is a critical question in chlamydia biology and pathogenesis. Chlamydia must balance amplification (RB numbers) and dissemination (EB numbers) to maximize survival in its infection niche. The main findings In this manuscript show that overexpression of the dacA-ybbR operon results in increased production of c-di-AMP and early expression of the transitionary gene hctA and late gene omcB. The authors also knocked down the expression of the dacA-ybbR operon and reported a reduction in the expression of both hctA and omcB. The authors conclude with a model suggesting the amount of c-di-AMP determines the fate of the RB, continued replication, or EB conversion. Overall, this is a very intriguing study with important implications however the data is very preliminary and the model is very rudimentary and is not well supported by the data.

    Thank you for your comments. Chlamydia is not an easy experimental system, but we will do our best to address the reviewer’s concerns in a revised submission.

    Describing the significance of the findings:

    The findings are important and point to very exciting new avenues to explore the important questions in chlamydial cell form development. The authors present a model that is not quantified and does not match the data well.

    Describing the strength of evidence:

    The evidence presented is incomplete. The authors do a nice job of showing that overexpression of the dacA-ybbR operon increases c-di-AMP and that knockdown or overexpression of the catalytically dead DacA protein decreases the c-di-AMP levels. However, the effects on the developmental cycle and how they fit the proposed model are less well supported.

    dacA-ybbR ectopic expression:

    For the dacA-ybbR ectopic expression experiments they show that hctA is induced early but there is no significant change in OmcB gene expression. This is problematic as when RBs are treated with Pen (this paper) and (DOI 10.1128/MSYSTEMS.00689-20) hctA is expressed in the aberrant cell forms but these forms do not go on to express the late genes suggesting stress events can result in changes in the developmental expression kinetic profile. The RNA-seq data are a little reassuring as many of the EB/Late genes were shown to be upregulated by dacA-ybbR ectopic expression in this assay.

    As the reviewer notes, we also generated RNAseq data, which validates that late gene transcripts (including sigma28 and sigma54 regulated genes) are statistically significantly increased earlier in the developmental cycle in parallel to increased c-di-AMP levels. The lack of statistical significance in the RT-qPCR data for omcB, which shows a trend of higher transcripts, is less concerning given the statistically significantly RNAseq dataset. We have reported the data from three replicates for the RT-qPCR and do not think it would be worthwhile to attempt more replicates in an attempt to “achieve” statistical significance.

    The authors also demonstrate that this ectopic expression reduces the overall growth rate but produces EBs earlier in the cycle but overall fewer EBs late in the cycle. This observation matches their model well as when RBs convert early there is less amplification of cell numbers.

    dacA knockdown and dacA(mut)

    The authors showed that dacA knockdown and ectopic expression of the dacA mutant both reduced the amount of c-di-AMP. The authors show that for both of these conditions, hctA and omcB expression is reduced at 24 hpi. This was also partially supported by the RNA-seq data for the dacA knockdown as many of the late genes were downregulated. However, a shift to an increase in RB-only genes was not readily evident. This is maybe not surprising as the chlamydial inclusion would just have an increase in RB forms and changes in cell form ratios would need more time points.

    Thank you for this comment. We agree that it is not surprising given the shift in cell forms. The reduction in hctA transcripts argues against a stress state as noted above by the reviewer, and the RNAseq data from dacA-KD conditions indicates at least that secondary differentiation has been delayed. We will try to clarify this in a revision.

    Interestingly, the overall growth rate appears to differ in these two conditions, growth is unaffected by dacA knockdown but is significantly affected by the expression of the mutant. In both cases, EB production is repressed. The overall model they present does not support this data well as if RBs were blocked from converting into EBs then the growth rate should increase as the RB cell form replicates while the EB cell form does not. This should shift the population to replicating cells.

    We agree that it seems that perturbing c-di-AMP production, whether by knockdown or overexpressing the mutant DacA(D164N), has an overall negative impact on chlamydial growth. We have generated new data, which we think will address this. These new data will be included in a revised manuscript.

    Overall this is a very intriguing finding that will require more gene expression data, phenotypic characterization of cell forms, and better quantitative models to fully interpret these findings.

  14. Version published to 10.7554/elife.104240.1 on eLife
  15. Version published to 10.1101/2024.05.24.595738 on bioRxiv