Bacteria detect neutrophils via a system that responds to hypochlorous acid and flow

  1. Ilona P Foik
  2. Summer J Kasallis
  3. Runhang Shu
  4. Serena Abbondante
  5. Michaela E Marshall
  6. Lauren A Urban
  7. Leora Duong
  8. Andy P Huang
  9. Eric Pearlman
  10. Timothy L Downing
  11. Albert Siryaporn

  • Curated by eLife

    eLife logo

    eLife Assessment

    This is an important study reporting a new phenotype for a gene cluster that has previously been associated with the responses of the Gram-negative opportunistic pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa to flow fluid. Expression of the froABCD gene cluster is induced by HOCl in vitro and by activated immune cells, which produce these types of reactive chlorine species and the evidence presented by the authors is convincing. Overall, the authors have been responsive to the previous review, although the exact mechanism of fro-induction by HOCl remains unclear. The high cysteine- and methionine content of the anti-sigma factor FroI hints at a direct oxidative modification of this protein during activation of the operon and a corneal infection model shows that fro is upregulated in P. aeruginosa 20 h after infection, but the evidence that HOCl is the causative agent of fro upregulation under these conditions is at present circumstantial. This study is of interest to infection biologists interested in mechanisms of microbial pathogenicity.

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Neutrophils kill bacteria by producing an array of lethal molecules, including hypochlorous acid (HOCl). The extent to which pathogens detect HOCl from neutrophils and defend themselves has not been understood. We report that the opportunistic pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa responds to activated neutrophils by upregulating the flow regulated operon (Fro), which was previously shown to be activated by fluid flow. We found that fro is upregulated in a mouse infection model where neutrophil influx occurs. This upregulation is induced in vitro by HOCl and its secondary product taurine chloramine but not by other neutrophil defense factors including LL-37, histones, or H2O2. HOCl induces the FroR-dependent upregulation of methionine sulfoxide reductases that relieve otherwise lethal oxidative stress. Fro expression is regulated by FroR’s anti-σ factor FroI, which contains the highest density of methionines and cysteines of all anti-σ factors. The second-order rate constants of HOCl are highest with these residues, raising the possibility that the activation of fro could involve oxidation of FroI. These findings suggest a model in which flow transports oxidizing molecules that activate the fro operon, establishing an early warning system for P. aeruginosa that improves its survival against host immune defenses and persistence during infection.

Article activity feed

  1. eLife

    eLife Assessment

    This is an important study reporting a new phenotype for a gene cluster that has previously been associated with the responses of the Gram-negative opportunistic pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa to flow fluid. Expression of the froABCD gene cluster is induced by HOCl in vitro and by activated immune cells, which produce these types of reactive chlorine species and the evidence presented by the authors is convincing. Overall, the authors have been responsive to the previous review, although the exact mechanism of fro-induction by HOCl remains unclear. The high cysteine- and methionine content of the anti-sigma factor FroI hints at a direct oxidative modification of this protein during activation of the operon and a corneal infection model shows that fro is upregulated in P. aeruginosa 20 h after infection, but the evidence that HOCl is the causative agent of fro upregulation under these conditions is at present circumstantial. This study is of interest to infection biologists interested in mechanisms of microbial pathogenicity.

  2. eLife

    Reviewer #1 (Public review):

    Summary:

    Foik et al. report that hypochlorous acid, a reactive chlorine species generated during host defense, activates the transcription of the froABCD in P. aeruginosa. This gene cluster had previously been associated with a potential role during flow of fluids and appears to be regulated by the sigma factor FroR and its anti-sigma factor FroI. In the present study, the authors show that froABCD is expressed both in neutrophils and macrophages, which they claim is likely a result of HOCl but not H2O2 production. Fro expression is also induced in a murine model of corneal infection, which is characterized by immune cells invasion. Expression of the fro system can be quenched by several antioxidants, such as methionine, cysteine, and others. FroR-deficient cells that lack froABCD expression during HOCl stress, appear more sensitive to the oxidant.

    Strengths:

    The authors provide a number of data supporting their claim that transcription of the froABCD system is induced by reactive chlorine species. This was shown by RNAseq, qRT-PCR, and through microscopy using a transcriptional reporter fusion. Likewise, elevated expression of froABCD was shown in vitro and in vivo, excluding potential in vitro artifacts. The manuscript, while mostly descriptive, is easy to follow and the data were presented clearly and convincingly. The authors have also been responsive to concerns from the previous review.

    Comments on revised version.

    The authors have addressed most of my previous concerns and I appreciate their willingness to improve the manuscript. I am still not quite convinced by their explanation of why fro expression is higher in macrophage vs. neutrophil phagosome if indeed this defense is HOCl-specific, but I am happy to leave it as it is.

    Regarding the complementation: while Sanfilippo et al. have indeed provided a complementation of the fro deletion, they have done so under very different experimental conditions, e.g. without any HOCl.

    While I would have liked to see additional mechanistic insights into FroIR regulation, I accept that the authors prefer to keep the manuscript more descriptive.

  3. eLife

    Reviewer #2 (Public review):

    Summary:

    Foik et al. studied the regulation of the fro operon in response to HOCl and Taurine N-chloramine, oxidants derived from immune cells, especially neutrophils. They use a transcriptional fusion of YFP to the froA promotor in an mCherry expressing P. aeruginosa strain to determine fro induction under the microscope. They use this system to study fro expression in medium, in the presence of neutrophils and macrophages, neutrophil-conditioned medium, and several chemical stimuli, including NaCl, HOCl, taurine N-chloramine, hydrogen peroxide, nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, and sodium hydroxide. They also use a corneal infection model to demonstrate that froA is upregulated in P. aeruginosa 20 h post infection and perform transcriptional analyses in WT and a froR mutant in response to HOCl.

    Strengths:

    Their data clearly shows that HOCl is a strong inducer of the fro Operon. Addition of HOCl-quenching chemicals together with HOCl abrogates the response. They also show that a froR mutant is more susceptible to HOCl than WT. Their transcriptomic data reveals genes under control of the FroR/FroI sigma factor/anti sigma factor system.

    Unexpected outcomes and open questions for future research:

    (1) As outlined above, HOCl seems to be a strong inducer of the fro operon. Interestingly, during interaction with immune cells, macrophages and neutrophils seem to induce a reporter gene under fro control in a similar manner, although macrophages are generally thought to produce less HOCl, when compared to neutrophils. May be this view needs to be revised, or another reactive species, produced by macrophages, can activate the fro operon as well: H2O2 might be produced in sufficient quantities by these immune cells.

    (2) The fro operon was originally described to be activated by shear stress ("flow-regulated operon") by Sanfilippo et al. (2019, Nat Microbiol, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-019-0455-0). This initial study used plain LB medium in a fluidic chamber to induce the shear stress. However, later studies by Padron et al. (2023, Proc Nat Acad Sci USA, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216774120) showed that the presence of hydrogen peroxide is required in the flow medium to induce the fro operon and that the naturally occurring amount of hydrogen peroxide in plain LB is sufficient. To clarify this fact, the authors could amend their sentence in line 84 to read "P. aeruginosa responds to shear generated by the flow of hydrogen peroxide-containing fluids via the fro operon, which is upregulated in the bacterium during infection in humans". In light of the authors' new findings, it seems likely that in contrast to H2O2, HOCl does not need the additional shear stress to activate the fro-operon, while the underlying oxidative mechanism of activation is the same. As the authors suggest, additional shear stress could lead to fro induction at even lower HOCl concentrations, but this has not been tested.

  4. eLife

    Author response:

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

    eLife Assessment:

    This is an important study reporting a new phenotype for a gene cluster that has previously been associated with the responses of the Gram-negative opportunistic pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa to flow fluid. Expression of the froABCD gene cluster is induced by HOCl in vitro and by activated immune cells, which produce these types of reactive chlorine species and the evidence presented by the authors is in many places convincing. Overall, the authors have been responsive to the previous review, although the exact mechanism of fro induction by HOCl remains unclear. The high cysteine- and methionine content of the antisigma factor FroI hints at a direct oxidative modification of this protein during activation of the operon and a corneal infection model shows that fro is upregulated in P. aeruginosa 20 h after infection, but the evidence that HOCl is the causative agent of fro upregulation under these conditions is at present circumstantial. This study is of interest to infection biologists interested in mechanisms of bacterial pathogenicity.

    We thank the eLife editors for their valuable assessment. We respectfully request a revision to the assessment phrase “but the evidence that HOCl is the causative agent of fro upregulation under these conditions is at present circumstantial” for the Version of Record. We believe the phrase ‘under these conditions’ is unclear and could be interpreted to the conditions of the broader study, which would draw into question the core findings of the work. We are unsure whether ‘under these conditions’ also referred to the FroI oxidation model but have now clarified in the main text that this was a proposed model, not a claim, and have reduced the emphasis of this concept from the abstract.

    We respectfully offer the following minor suggestions to increase the clarity of the statement:

    (1) Add a period after “hints at a direct oxidative modification of this protein during activation of the operon” to ensure that this statement is not convolved with the subsequent statement on corneal infection.

    (2) Alter “under these conditions” to “in this infection model”.

    Public Reviews:

    Reviewer #1 (Public review):

    Summary:

    Foik et al. report that hypochlorous acid, a reactive chlorine species generated during host defense, activates the transcription of the froABCD in P. aeruginosa. This gene cluster had previously been associated with a potential role during flow of fluids and appears to be regulated by the sigma factor FroR and its antisigma factor FroI. In the present study, the authors show that froABCD is expressed both in neutrophils and macrophages, which they claim is likely a result of HOCl but not H2O2 production. Fro expression is also induced in a murine model of corneal infection, which is characterized by immune cells invasion. Expression of the fro system can be quenched by several antioxidants, such as methionine, cysteine, and others. FroR-deficient cells that lack froABCD expression during HOCl stress, appear more sensitive to the oxidant.

    Strengths:

    The authors provide a number of data supporting their claim that transcription of the froABCD system is induced by reactive chlorine species. This was shown by RNA-seq, qRT-PCR, and through microscopy using a transcriptional reporter fusion. Likewise, elevated expression of froABCD was shown in vitro and in vivo, excluding potential in vitro artifacts. The manuscript, while mostly descriptive, is easy to follow and the data were presented clearly and convincingly. The authors have also been responsive to concerns from the previous review.

    We thank the reviewer for their positive evaluation.

    Weaknesses:

    (1) Line 10: "HOCl preferentially oxidizes....". Please consider modifying the language to: "the second-order rate constant of HOCl is significantly higher with Met/Cys compared to other aa."

    We have made this change.

    (2) I am not sure I completely understand Fig. 1B. Is the promoter right upstream of yfp or is yfp located downstream of froA? If the latter is the case, wouldn't this be a translational fusion?

    The reporter was placed after the FroA stop codon. Both froA and yfp are under transcriptional control by the same single fro promoter within the froABCD operon. The construct is therefore not translationally fused but rather is transcriptionally fused to the fro promoter.

    (3) My previous comment regarding why fro expression is higher during phagocytosis in macrophages compared to neutrophils has been somewhat (albeit not convincingly), addressed by the authors in the response to the reviewer, but this discussion should be part of the manuscript as the macrophage data were shown.

    We have added that fro activation may also be caused by macrophage MPO-produced HOCl or another macrophage species in the discussion.

    (4) Line 122: The statement "The degree of fro inhibition by 4-ABAH...." is incorrect unless the authors can provide experimental evidence. Fro expression is not upregulated because MPO is inhibited by 4-ABAH, which results in less hOCL production.

    We have rephrased this explicitly as “The suppression of fro activation by 4-ABAH pre-treatment of neutrophils prior to PMA stimulation …” instead of “The degree of fro inhibition by 4-ABAH…” to clarify that 4-ABAH does not directly inhibit fro expression.

    (5) Can Supp Fig. 1 be quantified in a similar way it was done for HOCl to allow for a better comparison if HOCl or flow is the more potent inducer?

    We believe that comparing fro activation by flow and HOCl is an excellent experiment. However, the growth conditions for flow and HOCl stimulation are significantly different (growth phase, medium, temperature) so a comparison using the existing data is not particularly meaningful. We will perform this comparison in a future study.

    (6) Overall, the fro expression (YFP/mCherry) seems highly variable for treatment with HOCl (Fig. 2C: ~65; 2D: ~20; why is fro expression 3x lower?

    We attribute the discrepancy to maintenance changes in the fluorescence microscope equipment that were made in between the measurements, which affected fluorescence excitation and emission, and the high sensitivity of the fro reporter to small changes in the concentration of HOCl (Fig. 3B). While the results follow the same qualitative trend, we believe that the discussion of the quantitative fold-changes in the text are not necessary. We have replaced the numerical fold-changes previously used to describe Fig. 2C and Fig. 3B with qualitative descriptions instead to reduce confusion.

    (7) The authors should provide evidence that N-chlorotaurine can activate fro expression also. They said they weren't able to obtain chlorinated taurine, but this is quite simple to produce: PMCID: PMC1219228 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9480913/

    We have now performed this measurement. Consistent with our proposed model, taurine chloramine activated fro expression (Fig. 5D).

    (8) Fig. 4 supplement 1: Please provide concentrations for the oxidants used in these experiments.

    Thank you for pointing out this omission. These have now been provided in the figure caption.

    (9) Lines 251/252: change to: upregulation of instead of in

    This change has been made.

    (10) Chaperones and other heat-shock genes are more upregulated in ∆froR, indicating elevated HOCl-mediated oxidative damage, which supports their findings.

    We thank the reviewer for this observation.

    (11) Complementation of ∆froR is missing

    We agree that this study would be strengthened by complementation. We note that this strain was previously complemented in Sanfilippo et al., Nat. Micro., 2019, confirming that the deletion functions as expected.

    (12) Line 198: The growth experiment at 4 uM shows differences between WT and mutant, but at 2 uM cells showed already low fro expression due to cell death (which has not been proven by CFU counts). This discrepancy should at least be discussed.

    The YFP reporter is sensitive to photobleaching by oxidation (i.e., Tsourkas et al., Anal. Chem., 2005). It is possible that the fro reporter is diminished at higher concentrations of HOCl but that fro components are still produced. We have now discussed this discrepancy in our discussions of Figures 3B and 6A when they arise in the Results section.

    (13) The critical in vitro experiment is missing: does purified FroI get oxidized by HOCl and dissociated from FroR?

    We agree that this is an important mechanistic prediction of our work. We feel that it is beyond the scope of the current work and emphasize it as a future direction in the Discussion.

    (14) Lines: 350-355: The claim that the fro system is the first-line defense is unproven.

    This was not a claim but rather was a proposed model. We have nonetheless removed this statement in order to reduce potential confusion.

    Reviewer #2 (Public review):

    Summary:

    Foik et al. studied the regulation of the fro operon in response to HOCl, an oxidant derived from immune cells, especially neutrophils. They use a transcriptional fusion of YFP to the froA promotor in an mCherry-expressing P. aeruginosa strain to determine fro-induction under the microscope. They use this system to study fro expression in medium, in the presence of neutrophils and macrophages, neutrophil-conditioned medium, and several chemical stimuli, including NaCl, HOCl, hydrogen peroxide, nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, and sodium hydroxide. They also use a corneal infection model to demonstrate that froA is upregulated in P. aeruginosa 20 h post-infection and perform transcriptional analyses in WT and a froR mutant in response to HOCl.

    Strengths:

    Their data clearly shows that HOCl is a strong inducer of the fro Operon. Addition of HOCl-quenching chemicals together with HOCl abrogates the response. They also show that a froR mutant is more susceptible to HOCl than WT. Their transcriptomic data reveals genes under control of the FroR/FroI sigma factor/anti sigma factor system.

    We thank the reviewer for their succinct and positive assessment.

    Weaknesses:

    Although the presented evidence is mostly solid, some of their findings need to be evaluated more carefully; explaining the rationale behind some of the experiments might enhance the article; and some of the models proposed by the authors seem far-fetched, as outlined below:

    We have addressed these issues below. We believe the ‘far-fetched’ model refers to our description that flow increases sensitivity to oxidative molecules. However, this particular finding was demonstrated in a previous publication, as described below.

    Unexpected outcomes and open questions for future research:

    (1) As outlined above, HOCl seems to be the main inducer of the fro operon. Interestingly, during interaction with immune cells, macrophages and neutrophils seem to induce a reporter gene under fro control in a similar manner, although macrophages are generally thought to produce less HOCl, when compared to neutrophils. May be this view needs to be revised, or another reactive species, produced by macrophages, can activate the fro operon as well.

    We have added to the Discussion that fro activation may also be caused by macrophage MPO-produced HOCl or another macrophage species.

    (2) HOCl is typically unstable in the presence of biomolecules. Nevertheless, medium conditioned by activated neutrophils is a strong inducer of the fro operon. The medium used by the authors for this experiment contains taurine, and, as the authors acknowledge, this taurine will likely react with HOCl to form the more stable taurine N-chloramine. Similarly, the MinA bacterial medium used to treat P. aeruginosa with HOCl directly also contains ammonium ions at mM concentrations, which could potentially react with HOCl to form monochloramine. It could be speculated that taurine N-chloramine and other chloramines are as effective as HOCl in activating the fro-operon.

    We have now measured fro expression in response to taurine chloramine, which was generated in the absence of ammonium. Consistent with our predictions, taurine chloramine activated fro expression (Fig. 5D).

    (3) The fro operon was originally described to be activated by shear stress ("flow-regulated operon"). How shear stress and HOCl-stress are related, or if fro activation by both stimuli is a coincidence, remains unclear. The authors propose a model, in which flow transports oxidizing molecules, which ultimately activate the fro operon. However, the initial work by Sanfilippo et al. (2019, Nat Microbiol) used plain LB medium in a fluidic chamber to induce the shear stress, which should be free of oxidants, and certainly of HOCl.

    We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important point. Padron et al., PNAS, 2023 showed exactly this important result: plain LB contains H2O2 that activates fro expression at high shear rates. Their central finding is that shear significantly amplifies the effects of an oxidant and explains why H2O2 does not activate fro expression in our experiments, which lack flow. Based on this model, one expects that flow would significantly amplify the effects of HOCl. Testing this model with HOCl is a future direction that we have noted in the discussion.

    Comments on revised version:

    The authors have addressed my concerns appropriately.

  5. Version published to 10.7554/elife.107784.3 on eLife
  6. Version published to 10.7554/elife.107784 on eLife
  7. Version published to 10.1101/2022.02.01.478687v4 on bioRxiv
  8. Version published to 10.7554/elife.107784.2 on eLife
  9. eLife

    eLife Assessment

    This is an important study reporting a new phenotype for a gene cluster that has previously been associated with the responses of the Gram-negative opportunistic pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa to flow fluid. Expression of the froABCD gene cluster is induced by HOCl in vitro and by activated immune cells, which produce these types of reactive chlorine species and the evidence presented by the authors is in many places convincing. Overall, the authors have been responsive to the previous review, although the exact mechanism of fro-induction by HOCl remains unclear. The high cysteine- and methionine content of the anti-sigma factor FroI hints at a direct oxidative modification of this protein during activation of the operon and a corneal infection model shows that fro is upregulated in P. aeruginosa 20 h after infection, but the evidence that HOCl is the causative agent of fro upregulation under these conditions is at present circumstantial. This study is of interest to infection biologists interested in mechanisms of bacterial pathogenicity.

  10. eLife

    Reviewer #1 (Public review):

    Summary:

    Foik et al. report that hypochlorous acid, a reactive chlorine species generated during host defense, activates the transcription of the froABCD in P. aeruginosa. This gene cluster had previously been associated with a potential role during flow of fluids and appears to be regulated by the sigma factor FroR and its anti-sigma factor FroI. In the present study, the authors show that froABCD is expressed both in neutrophils and macrophages, which they claim is likely a result of HOCl but not H2O2 production. Fro expression is also induced in a murine model of corneal infection, which is characterized by immune cells invasion. Expression of the fro system can be quenched by several antioxidants, such as methionine, cysteine, and others. FroR-deficient cells that lack froABCD expression during HOCl stress, appear more sensitive to the oxidant.

    Strengths:

    The authors provide a number of data supporting their claim that transcription of the froABCD system is induced by reactive chlorine species. This was shown by RNAseq, qRT-PCR, and through microscopy using a transcriptional reporter fusion. Likewise, elevated expression of froABCD was shown in vitro and in vivo, excluding potential in vitro artifacts. The manuscript, while mostly descriptive, is easy to follow and the data were presented clearly and convincingly. The authors have also been responsive to concerns from the previous review.

    Weaknesses:

    (1) Line 10: "HOCl preferentially oxidizes....". Please consider modifying the language to: "the second-order rate constant of HOCl is significantly higher with Met/Cys compared to other aa."

    (2) I am not sure I completely understand Fig 1B. Is the promoter right upstream of yfp or is yfp located downstream of froA? If the latter is the case, wouldn't this be a translational fusion?

    (3) My previous comment regarding why fro expression is higher during phagocytosis in macrophages compared to neutrophils has been somewhat (albeit not convincingly), addressed by the authors in the response to the reviewer, but this discussion should be part of the manuscript as the macrophage data were shown.

    (4) Line 122: The statement "The degree of fro inhibition by 4-ABAH...." is incorrect unless the authors can provide experimental evidence. Fro expression is not upregulated because MPO is inhibited by 4-ABAH, which results in less hOCL production.

    (5) Can Supp Fig. 1 be quantified in a similar way it was done for HOCl to allow for a better comparison if HOCl or flow is the more potent inducer?

    (6) Overall, the fro expression (YFP/mCherry) seems highly variable for treatment with HOCl (Fig. 2C: ~65; 2D: ~20; why is fro expression 3x lower?

    (7) The authors should provide evidence that N-chlorotaurine can activate fro expression also. They said they weren't able to obtain chlorinated taurine, but this is quite simple to produce: PMCID: PMC1219228

    (8) Fig. 4 supplement 1: Please provide concentrations for the oxidants used in these experiments.

    (9) Lines 251/252: change to: upregulation of instead of in

    (10) Chaperones and other heat-shock genes are more upregulated in ∆froR, indicating elevated HOCl-mediated oxidative damage, which supports their findings.

    (11) Complementation of ∆froR is missing

    (12) Line 198: The growth experiment at 4 uM shows differences between WT and mutant, but at 2 uM cells showed already low fro expression due to cell death (which has not been proven by CFU counts). This discrepancy should at least be discussed.

    (13) The critical in vitro experiment is missing: does purified FroI get oxidized by HOCl and dissociated from FroR?

    (14) Lines: 350-355: The claim that the fro system is the first-line defense is unproven.

  11. eLife

    Reviewer #2 (Public review):

    Summary:

    Foik et al. studied the regulation of the fro operon in response to HOCl, an oxidant derived from immune cells, especially neutrophils. They use a transcriptional fusion of YFP to the froA promotor in an mCherry expressing P. aeruginosa strain to determine fro-induction under the microscope. They use this system to study fro expression in medium, in the presence of neutrophils and macrophages, neutrophil-conditioned medium, and several chemical stimuli, including NaCl, HOCl, hydrogen peroxide, nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, and sodium hydroxide. They also use a corneal infection model to demonstrate that froA is upregulated in P. aeruginosa 20 h post infection and perform transcriptional analyses in WT and a froR mutant in response to HOCl.

    Strengths:

    Their data clearly shows that HOCl is a strong inducer of the fro Operon. Addition of HOCl-quenching chemicals together with HOCl abrogates the response. They also show that a froR mutant is more susceptible to HOCl than WT. Their transcriptomic data reveals genes under control of the FroR/FroI sigma factor/anti sigma factor system.

    Weaknesses:

    Although the presented evidence is mostly solid, some of their findings need to be evaluated more carefully; explaining the rationale behind some of the experiments might enhance the article; and some of the models proposed by the authors seem far-fetched, as outlined below:

    Unexpected outcomes and open questions for future research:

    (1) As outlined above, HOCl seems to be the main inducer of the fro operon. Interestingly, during interaction with immune cells, macrophages and neutrophils seem to induce a reporter gene under fro control in a similar manner, although macrophages are generally thought to produce less HOCl, when compared to neutrophils. May be this view needs to be revised, or another reactive species, produced by macrophages, can activate the fro operon as well.

    (2) HOCl is typically unstable in the presence of biomolecules. Nevertheless, medium conditioned by activated neutrophils is a strong inducer of the fro operon. The medium used by the authors for this experiment contains taurine, and, as the authors acknowledge, this taurine will likely react with HOCl to form the more stable taurine N-chloramine. Similarly, the MinA bacterial medium used to treat P. aeruginosa with HOCl directly also contains ammonium ions at mM concentrations, which could potentially react with HOCl to form monochloramine. It could be speculated that taurine N-chloramine and other chloramines are as effective as HOCl in activating the fro-operon.

    (3) The fro operon was originally described to be activated by shear stress ("flow-regulated operon"). How shear stress and HOCl-stress are related, or if fro activation by both stimuli is a coincidence, remains unclear. The authors propose a model, in which flow transports oxidizing molecules, which ultimately activate the fro operon. However, the initial work by Sanfilippo et al. (2019, Nat Microbiol) used plain LB medium in a fluidic chamber to induce the shear stress, which should be free of oxidants, and certainly of HOCl.

    Comments on revised version:

    The authors have addressed my concerns appropriately.

  12. eLife

    Author response:

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

    We greatly appreciate the efforts of the reviewers, which have provided insightful and helpful comments to improve the manuscript. The feedback touches upon a number of topics, focusing on clarification or justification of experimental techniques and on understanding the mechanism by which P. aeruginosa detects HOCl. All reviewers raised the issue of how HOCl activates fro expression, including whether free or protein-bound methionine, cysteine, or other HOCl byproducts induce this expression. For the upcoming revision, we plan to perform experiments that address this issue and will discuss potential mechanistic models in light of the new data. In addition, we plan to perform additional experiments to address a reviewer’s concerns regarding the dependence of the fro response on HOCl production by neutrophils. The revision will correct imprecise statements pointed out by reviewers, and address all remaining issues requiring clarification or further discussion, including the range of HOCl sensitivity, relationship between HOCl and flow sensitivity, and justification for testing the fro response to nitric acid.

    We have completed a number of experiments and responded thoroughly to reviewer comments below. We thank the reviewers again for their details comments, which suggested additional experiments and interpretations that have resulted in significant additional insight into the potential mechanism of HOCl sensing and its relevance with neutrophils.

    Reviewer #1 (Public review):

    Summary:

    Foik et al. report that hypochlorous acid, a reactive chlorine species generated during host defense, activates the transcription of the froABCD in P. aeruginosa. This gene cluster had previously been associated with a potential role during the flow of fluids and appears to be regulated by the sigma factor FroR and its antisigma factor FroI. In the present study, the authors show that froABCD is expressed both in neutrophils and macrophages, which they claim is likely a result of HOCl but not H2O2 production. Fro expression is also induced in a murine model of corneal infection, which is characterized by immune cell invasion. Expression of the fro system can be quenched by several antioxidants, such as methionine, cysteine, and others. FroR-deficient cells that lack froABCD expression during HOCl stress appear more sensitive to the oxidant.

    Strengths:

    The authors provide a number of data supporting their claim that transcription of the froABCD system is induced by reactive chlorine species. This was shown by RNAseq, qRT-PCR, and through microscopy using a transcriptional reporter fusion. Likewise, elevated expression of froABCD was shown in vitro and in vivo, excluding potential in vitro artifacts. The manuscript, while mostly descriptive, is easy to follow, and the data were presented clearly.

    We greatly appreciate the efforts of the reviewer and thank them for their succinct summary of the manuscript.

    Weaknesses:

    (1) Lines 60-62: Some of the authors' conclusions are not supported by the data and thus appear unfounded. One example: "we determine that fro upregulation.....These data suggest a novel mechanism..." Their data do not show that MSR upregulation is a direct effect of FroABCD. Instead, it could be possible that the FroR sigma factor also controls the expression of msr genes, which would be independent of froABCD.

    We thank the reviewer for pointing out this important distinction. We have clarified in lines 63-65 in the clean version of the revision that MSR upregulation depends on FroR rather than FroABCD.

    (2) The authors show increased fro transcription both in neutrophils and macrophages; however, the two types of immune cells differ quite dramatically with respect to myeloperoxidase activation and HOCl production.

    Neither has this been discussed nor considered here.

    We agree that the distinction between the cell types is important and have added a brief description of the differences in respiratory bursts and ROS production between the two cell types and our justification for focusing on neutrophils in lines 102-103. We think it’s very interesting that Fro appears to be activated by macrophages, which are not associated with HOCl production on their own. We think that it would be interesting to identify what is inducing Fro in macrophages in future work.

    (3) With respect to the activation of fro expression upon challenge with conditioned media from stimulated neutrophils, does the conditioned media contain detectable amounts of HOCl? Do chloramines, which are byproducts of HOCl oxidation with amines, also stimulate expression?

    This is an excellent question that addresses which molecules Fro is responding to from neutrophils. We have performed additional experiments that confirm that PMA-stimulated neutrophils produce HOCl (Fig. S2) through the use of a commercial hypochlorite sensor assay, which claims high specificity for detecting HOCl. We further confirmed that this production is inhibited by pretreatment with the MPO-specific inhibitor 4ABAH. These data support the interpretation that the Fro response to stimulated neutrophils requires MPO activity, of which the major product is HOCl. We have described this in lines 117-127.

    Our data does not exclude the possibility that other MPO products could activate Fro expression. We were unable to obtain a reliable source of the major secondary MPO product, taurine chloramine, for our experiments, unfortunately. We believe that understanding the potential for secondary products to activate the response is an important and interesting question that can be explored in a future study. We have added a discussion of this in lines 367-376.

    (4) A better control to prove that this fro expression is indeed induced by HOCl in activated neutrophils would be to conduct the experiments in the presence of a myeloperoxidase inhibitor.

    We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We have performed the suggested set of experiments and found that indeed, the pre-treatment of neutrophils with MPO inhibitor 4-ABAH prior to PMA stimulation suppresses the activation of fro (Fig. 2D and Figure 2-figure supplement 1-2). The results are discussed in lines 117-127.

    (5) The work was conducted with two different P. aeruginosa strains (i.e. AL143 and PAO1F). None of the figure legends provides details on which strain was used. For instance, in line 111, the authors refer to Figure S1B for data that I thought were done with PAO1F, while in 154, data were presented in the context of the infection model, which was conducted with the other strain.

    We thank the reviewer for pointing this issue out. We have ensured that strain names appear in all the revised figure legends. To clarify, only mouse experiments and a related RT-qPCR assay used strain PAO1F due to prior IACUC approval of this strain and its use in previous publications.

    (6) It would be good if immune cell recruitment at 2hrs and 20hrs PI could be quantified.

    We previously quantified neutrophil recruitment at the site of corneal abrasion at 24 hours using the same conditions and strains (Ratitong, B. et al., J. Immun, 2022). While we do not have immune cell recruitment data for the 2 hr and 20 hr time points, the previous data show significant neutrophil recruitment near the latter time point, which is consistent with the interpretation that fro expression is activated by stimulated neutrophils. We have discussed this in lines 212-216.

    (7) The conclusions of Figure 4 are, in my opinion, weak (line 187-188; "It is possible that ....."). These antioxidants likely quench the low amounts of NaOCl directly. This would significantly reduce the NaOCl concentrations to a level that no longer activates expression of fro. There is no direct evidence provided that oxidized methionine induces fro expression. Do the authors postulate that this is free methionine, or could methionine and/or cysteine oxidation in FroR increase the binding affinity of the sigma factor to the promoter? Another possibility is that NaOCl deactivates the anti-sigma factor. None of these scenarios has been considered here.

    We acknowledge that our model of HOCl sensing was unclear and thank the reviewer for their insight. This critique is echoed by reviewer #2 in comment 3 as well. We recently found that the FroI anti-sigma factor has the highest concentration of methionine and cysteine residues of all known P. aeruginosa anti-sigma factors (Appendix 2—Table 1). Given that FroR and FroI form an extracytoplasmic function sigma – anti-sigma pair, which are associated with transducing extracellular signals to the cytoplasm, we have proposed an alternative model in which HOCl or secondary RCS molecules are detected through their oxidation of cysteine and methionine residues in FroI. This is discussed in lines 271-279 and lines 363-367.

    (8) Line 184: The reaction constants of HOCl with Cys and Met are similar.

    We thank the reviewer for pointing out this important clarification. We have revised the sentence to accurately reflect this in lines 243-244.

    (9) Treatment with 16 uM NaOCl caused a growth arrest of ~15 hrs in the WT (Figure 5A), whereas no growth at all was recorded with 7.5 uM in Figure 3A.

    We thank the reviewer for catching this. We have determined that the concentration of NaOCl in the reagent used for this particular experiment was lower than expected, thus requiring a higher concentration to achieve growth inhibition. We have repeated the experiment with new reagent and find that the results (now Figure 6A) are similar to the previous experiment but at a lower concentration of 4 micromolar, consistent with the concentration found to be sub-inhibitory in Figure 3A.

    (10) The concentration range of NaOCl causing fro expression is extremely narrow, while oxidative burst rapidly generates HOCl at much higher concentrations. This should be discussed in more detail.

    We appreciate the reviewer’s comment, which is related to reviewer #2’s comment #9. We have clarified the reported production rates of HOCl, which far surpass the bacterial MIC. After greater consideration, we believe secondary HOCl products including taurine chloramine could have a more significant role in vivo. While this molecule is less potent than HOCl, it is longer-lived, retains bactericidal activity, and retains the ability to oxidize methionine. We have discussed this in lines 377-405.

    Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

    (1) Some statements in the text don't match the data shown in the Figures. For instance:

    (a) Figure 2B shows ~65-fold fro expression, but the text states: "...increased expression of fro expression by 30fold..."(line 88).

    The YFP/mCherry value of PMA-stimulated is 67.4 in the Figure (now Figure 2C). The fold-change is computed relative to unstimulated conditioned medium (third column, which has a value of 2.2), which is a 30-fold change. We have added a citation in the main text to the Source Data, which provides these raw values, to help clarify the computation for readers, and added in the legend that the value for unstimulated is greater than 1.

    (b) Figure 3B shows ~35-fold fro expression at 1 uM NaOCl, but the text states: "...NaOCl increased fro expression by up to 74-fold..."(line 110).

    We have clarified that the increase is relative to untreated, added that untreated value is below 1 in the caption, and provided a citation in the main text to the Source Data, which contains the raw values. The change is measured relative to untreated, for which the YFP/mCherry value is 0.48. The value at 1 uM is 35.7, giving a 74-fold change.

    (2) Line 229: While the ∆froR strain was sensitive to HOCl, the strain was tolerant". Please revise.

    We have corrected this typo (now lines 328- 329). We meant to convey that growth was not entirely inhibited in the froR strain.

    Reviewer #2 (Public review):

    Summary:

    Foik et al. studied the regulation of the fro operon in response to HOCl, an oxidant derived from immune cells, especially neutrophils. They use a transcriptional fusion of YFP to the froA promoter in an mCherry-expressing P. aeruginosa strain to determine fro-induction under the microscope. They use this system to study fro expression in medium, in the presence of neutrophils and macrophages, neutrophil-conditioned medium, and several chemical stimuli, including NaCl, HOCl, hydrogen peroxide, nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, and sodium hydroxide. They also use a corneal infection model to demonstrate that froA is upregulated in P. aeruginosa 20 h post-infection and perform transcriptional analyses in WT and a froR mutant in response to HOCl.

    Strengths:

    Their data clearly shows that HOCl is a strong inducer of the fro Operon. The addition of HOClquenching chemicals together with HOCl abrogates the response. They also show that a froR mutant is more susceptible to HOCl than WT. Their transcriptomic data reveal genes under control of the FroR/FroI sigma factor/anti sigma factor system.

    Weaknesses:

    Although the presented evidence is mostly solid, some of their findings need to be evaluated more carefully; explaining the rationale behind some of the experiments might enhance the article, and some of the models proposed by the authors seem far-fetched, as outlined below:

    We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s efforts and thank them for highlighting strengths and areas for improvement.

    (1) In line 76 the authors claim "Relative to P. aeruginosa that were incubated in host cell-free media, P. aeruginosa in close proximity to human neutrophils or that were engulfed in mouse macrophages appeared to increase fro expression (Fig. 1C)". Counting bacterial cells in Figure 1C shows that 1 in 17 bacteria (5.8%) induce the froA-promotor in media in the absence of immune cells, while 4 in 72 bacteria (only 5.5%) do the same in the presence of neutrophils. Contrary to the authors' claims, it appears that P. aeruginosa actually decreases fro-expression in close proximity to neutrophils. There is a slight increase in fro-expression in bacteria co-incubated with macrophages (3 in 21, or 14.3%). A more rigorous statistical analysis might substantiate the authors' claim, but, as is, the claim "neutrophils increase fro expression" is untenable.

    We believe the images alone do not give an adequate representation of the data and have quantified a larger portion of the data, which has been added as Figure 1D. The quantification supports the original claim that fro expression is increased during co-incubation with macrophages and neutrophils. Since there was not sufficient statistical sampling to distinguish engulfed P. aeruginosa from free ones, this part of the claim has been removed from the text (updated in lines 80-84).

    (2) The authors should explain the rationale behind some of the chemicals used. Why did they use nitric acid? Especially at these high concentrations, a strong acid such as nitric acid might have a significant influence on the medium pH. I understand that the medium is phosphate-buffered, but 25 mM nitric acid in an unbuffered medium would shift the pH well below 2. Similar considerations apply to hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide.

    We thank the reviewers for pointing out the need for this clarification. We have updated Figure 3D with a lower concentration of NaOH at 1 uM, which is the same concentration as NaOCl that activates fro expression. Due to the high buffering capacity of our medium, a high concentration of 6 mM NaOH was needed to induce a discernible change in pH and this high concentration of NaOH had no obvious effect on growth. Neither 1 uM nor 6 mM NaOH produced a change in fro expression, consistent with our previous findings that the effect is not due to sodium ions or higher pH. These updated findings are described in lines 181-190.

    Since the effect of chloride is already controlled for using NaCl and the concentration of HCl used was not sufficient to cause a significant change in pH in the buffered medium, we have removed the HCl group from the data.

    We have clarified that nitric acid was used because it is a strong oxidizer that is not found in neutrophils and that concentrations used were near the minimal inhibitory concentrations (lines 145-147 and lines 191-198). We acknowledge that the growth inhibition from HNO3 could be due to pH or oxidation. However, since no change in fro expression was observed at concentrations approaching the inhibitory concentration, we did not address the potential effects of low pH from nitric acid on fro expression.

    (3) In line 187, the authors state that "It is possible that oxidized methionine increases fro expression" and they suggest a model to that effect in Figure 5D. It is unclear why the authors singled out methionine sulfoxide, since a number of other things get oxidized by HOCl. In line 184, the authors state, in the same vein, that "HOCl oxidizes methionine residues 100-fold more rapidly than other cellular components". The authors should state which other cellular compounds they are referring to. Certainly not cysteine and other thiols, which react equally fast and are highly abundant in the cell: P. aeruginosa contains 340 µM GSH, 140 µM CoA-SH (https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.RA119.009934) plus free cysteine and cysteines in proteins (based on codon usage, 1.34% of amino acids in proteins are cysteine, while methionine is only slightly more present at 2.10%, although a number of starting methionines are removed from mature proteins).

    We acknowledge that our HOCl sensing model had been vague and unclear and thank the reviewer for their insight. This critique is echoed by reviewer #1 in comment 7 as well.

    Our initial suggestion that methionine sulfoxide was sensed was motivated by the observation that methionine sulfoxide reductases are upregulated by HOCl. However, we have revised this based on feedback from reviewers and further consideration of chlorine redox chemistry. Interestingly, we found that the FroI anti-sigma factor has the highest concentration of methionine and cysteine residues of all the P. aeruginosa anti-sigma factors (Appendix 2—table 1). Given that FroR and FroI form an extracytoplasmic function sigma – anti-sigma pair, which are associated with transducing extracellular signals to the cytoplasm, we propose a model in which HOCl or secondary RCS molecules are detected by their oxidation of cysteine and methionine residues in FroI. This is discussed in lines 271-278 and lines 362-366.

    (4) Overall (and this is probably not addressable with the authors' data), some very interesting questions remain unanswered: what is the molecular mechanism of fro-induction? How is the FroR/FroI system modulated by HOCl? Does the system sense free or protein-bound methionine-sulfoxide? Are certain methionine residues in these proteins directly oxidized by HOCl? Many "HOCl-sensing" proteins are also modified at cysteine residues or amino groups; could those play a role? And lastly: what is the connection between shear/fluid flow and HOCl, or are these totally separate mechanisms of fro-induction?

    We thank the reviewer for raising these excellent mechanistic questions. Issues relating to HOCl sensing are addressed in the preceding comment.

    Regarding the connection to shear sensing, Padron et al., 2023 found that the detection of flow in P. aeruginosa can be attributed to chemical transport, in particular to H2O2 that was present in growth media. Based on the same principle, we expect Fro to be upregulated in flow at much lower concentrations than those observed in stationary fluids. The activation of Fro and the effects of HOCl would thus be expected to be flow-sensitive. We have commented on this important factor in the discussion in lines 406-417.

    Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

    (1) To address 1, the authors could evaluate the microscopic images in the same manner in which they evaluated the other microscopic images, as, for example, presented in Figure 2B or Figure S1B.

    See response to Weakness point (1).

    (2) To address 2, please explain the choice of the chemicals (why nitric acid?), but also provide the pH of the media with those high concentrations of strong acids and bases, and interpret them in light of the permissible pH range for P. aeruginosa growth. More sensible controls might be a lower NaOH concentration in the range that would be reached through the amount of NaOH in the NaOCl stock at the highest NaOCl concentrations used. As for the acids, I don't see a reason to use these acids at these high concentrations. Please explain.

    See response to Weakness point (2).

    (3) To address 3: The authors could specify their methionine-sulfoxide model a bit more, so that testable hypotheses can be developed. If the authors think the FroR/FroI system senses free methionine sulfoxide, they or others could add methionine sulfoxide to the medium and check induction. If they think specific methionine residues in these proteins are oxidized, they could provide evolutionary evidence of conserved methionine residues. Or, based on a structure or structural prediction, they (or others) could mutate methionine residues, e.g., at the protein's surface or potential protein/protein-interaction sites and assess the effect on HOCl-based activation. Or they could consider other amino acids known to be highly reactive towards HOCl and mutate those in a future study.

    See response to Weakness point (3).

    Further comments:

    (4) The headline of the figure legend of Figure S1 seems incomplete. Please mention the flow experiments shown in Figure S1A.

    We have updated the title of this figure, which now appears in the eLife format as Figure 1 – figure supplement 1.

    (5) What is the difference between the data presented in Figure 4C (bars "UTR" and "NaOCl") and the same bars in Figure S2A? Is this redundant or a re-plot?

    In this revision, Figure 4C has become Figure 5B and Figure S2A is now Figure 5—figure supplement 1. Only the 1 uM NaOCl condition is replotted. We have described this in the legend for Figure 5—figure supplement 1.

    (6) Line 228: hpd is more likely a gene of the aromatic amino acid catabolism.

    We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have removed the ‘branched’ descriptor in this sentence, now in lines 325-326.

    (7) Line 229: "While the ΔfroR strain was sensitive to HOCl, the strain was tolerant (Figure 5A)". Please clarify. Which strain was tolerant? WT?

    We have corrected this typo (now line 328-329). We meant to convey that growth was not entirely inhibited in the froR strain.

    (8) Line 247: "Activated neutrophils produce HOCl concentrations as high as 50 µM [24]." This "50 µM" number is often quoted; the citation trail typically leads to Weiss et al. 1982 (https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI110652). However, a more factually correct statement based on that paper would be "2 x 10^6 neutrophils, activated with 30 ng/mL PMA at 37C in 1 mL of Dulbecco's buffer can produce around 50 nmol HOCl per hour". In the particular reference 24, Dybpukt et al used a methodology similar to Weiss et al., and here around 50nmol were produced by the same number of cells in 30 min in response to 100 ng/mL PMA. Please clarify accordingly.

    We thank the reviewer for bringing this to our attention. We have altered the language to indicate that the production rate is for this specific set of parameters. Related to this, Reviewer #1 Comment #10 requested a more detailed discussion of the significance of the Fro response, since it is at much lower HOCl concentration than produced by neutrophils. We have discussed this in lines 377-405.

    (9) Line 275: "which is strain PA14 strain". Please clarify.

    We have fixed this error and entered it into the Key Resource Table.

    (10) Line 311: "Cultures containing densities below 10 P. aeruginosa per frame were concentrated using a syringe filter with 0.2 or 0.8 µm pore sizes (Millipore, Burlington, MA)." Isn't that a bit concerning when testing the induction of an operon that is supposedly activated by shear through fluid flow? Did the authors convince themselves that this procedure does not induce fro?

    We do not expect the filtering procedure to cause changes in gene expression because cells are imaged immediately after filtering. Nonetheless, we performed additional experiments (Fig 3F and 2D) entirely without concentrating cells and found that YFP/mCherry levels were consistent with previous data in Figure 3. This rationale has been added to the Methods section under the “Fluorescence and Phase Contrast Microscopy” section.

  13. Version published to 10.1101/2022.02.01.478687v3 on bioRxiv
  14. Mentioned by @rridrobot.bsky.social on Bluesky

    Authors used C57BL/6J in their study. Including #RRIDs will make this less ambiguous. SciScore made a table with this resource, see “Automated Services” module (download as csv, xml or #jats) #reproducibility #methodsmatter

  15. Version published to 10.7554/elife.107784.1 on eLife
  16. eLife

    eLife Assessment

    This is an important study reporting a new phenotype for a gene cluster that has previously been associated with the responses of the Gram-negative opportunistic pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa to flow fluid. Expression of the froABCD gene cluster is induced by HOCl in vitro and by activated immune cells, which produce these types of reactive chlorine species. Overall, the evidence presented by the authors is solid; however, the mechanism of fro-induction by HOCl remains unclear, and the evidence in support of the authors' claims is descriptive, which needs to be improved. This study is of interest to infection biologists interested in mechanisms of bacterial pathogenicity.

  17. eLife

    Reviewer #1 (Public review):

    Summary:

    Foik et al. report that hypochlorous acid, a reactive chlorine species generated during host defense, activates the transcription of the froABCD in P. aeruginosa. This gene cluster had previously been associated with a potential role during the flow of fluids and appears to be regulated by the sigma factor FroR and its anti-sigma factor FroI. In the present study, the authors show that froABCD is expressed both in neutrophils and macrophages, which they claim is likely a result of HOCl but not H2O2 production. Fro expression is also induced in a murine model of corneal infection, which is characterized by immune cell invasion. Expression of the fro system can be quenched by several antioxidants, such as methionine, cysteine, and others. FroR-deficient cells that lack froABCD expression during HOCl stress appear more sensitive to the oxidant.

    Strengths:

    The authors provide a number of data supporting their claim that transcription of the froABCD system is induced by reactive chlorine species. This was shown by RNAseq, qRT-PCR, and through microscopy using a transcriptional reporter fusion. Likewise, elevated expression of froABCD was shown in vitro and in vivo, excluding potential in vitro artifacts. The manuscript, while mostly descriptive, is easy to follow, and the data were presented clearly.

    Weaknesses:

    (1) Lines 60-62: Some of the authors' conclusions are not supported by the data and thus appear unfounded. One example: "we determine that fro upregulation.....These data suggest a novel mechanism..." Their data do not show that MSR upregulation is a direct effect of FroABCD. Instead, it could be possible that the FroR sigma factor also controls the expression of msr genes, which would be independent of froABCD.

    (2) The authors show increased fro transcription both in neutrophils and macrophages; however, the two types of immune cells differ quite dramatically with respect to myeloperoxidase activation and HOCl production. Neither has this been discussed nor considered here.

    (3) With respect to the activation of fro expression upon challenge with conditioned media from stimulated neutrophils, does the conditioned media contain detectable amounts of HOCl? Do chloramines, which are byproducts of HOCl oxidation with amines, also stimulate expression?

    (4) A better control to prove that this fro expression is indeed induced by HOCl in activated neutrophils would be to conduct the experiments in the presence of a myeloperoxidase inhibitor.

    (5) The work was conducted with two different P. aeruginosa strains (i.e. AL143 and PAO1F). None of the figure legends provides details on which strain was used. For instance, in line 111, the authors refer to Figure S1B for data that I thought were done with PAO1F, while in 154, data were presented in the context of the infection model, which was conducted with the other strain.

    (6) It would be good if immune cell recruitment at 2hrs and 20hrs PI could be quantified.

    (7) The conclusions of Figure 4 are, in my opinion, weak (line 187-188; "It is possible that ....."). These antioxidants likely quench the low amounts of NaOCl directly. This would significantly reduce the NaOCl concentrations to a level that no longer activates expression of fro. There is no direct evidence provided that oxidized methionine induces fro expression. Do the authors postulate that this is free methionine, or could methionine and/or cysteine oxidation in FroR increase the binding affinity of the sigma factor to the promoter? Another possibility is that NaOCl deactivates the anti-sigma factor. None of these scenarios has been considered here.

    (8) Line 184: The reaction constants of HOCl with Cys and Met are similar.

    (9) Treatment with 16 uM NaOCl caused a growth arrest of ~15 hrs in the WT (Figure 5A), whereas no growth at all was recorded with 7.5 uM in Figure 3A.

    (10) The concentration range of NaOCl causing fro expression is extremely narrow, while oxidative burst rapidly generates HOCl at much higher concentrations. This should be discussed in more detail.

  18. eLife

    Reviewer #2 (Public review):

    Summary:

    Foik et al. studied the regulation of the fro operon in response to HOCl, an oxidant derived from immune cells, especially neutrophils. They use a transcriptional fusion of YFP to the froA promoter in an mCherry-expressing P. aeruginosa strain to determine fro-induction under the microscope. They use this system to study fro expression in medium, in the presence of neutrophils and macrophages, neutrophil-conditioned medium, and several chemical stimuli, including NaCl, HOCl, hydrogen peroxide, nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, and sodium hydroxide. They also use a corneal infection model to demonstrate that froA is upregulated in P. aeruginosa 20 h post-infection and perform transcriptional analyses in WT and a froR mutant in response to HOCl.

    Strengths:

    Their data clearly shows that HOCl is a strong inducer of the fro Operon. The addition of HOCl-quenching chemicals together with HOCl abrogates the response. They also show that a froR mutant is more susceptible to HOCl than WT. Their transcriptomic data reveal genes under control of the FroR/FroI sigma factor/anti sigma factor system.

    Weaknesses:

    Although the presented evidence is mostly solid, some of their findings need to be evaluated more carefully; explaining the rationale behind some of the experiments might enhance the article, and some of the models proposed by the authors seem far-fetched, as outlined below:

    (1) In line 76 the authors claim "Relative to P. aeruginosa that were incubated in host cell-free media, P. aeruginosa in close proximity to human neutrophils or that were engulfed in mouse macrophages appeared to increase fro expression (Fig. 1C)". Counting bacterial cells in Figure 1C shows that 1 in 17 bacteria (5.8%) induce the froA-promotor in media in the absence of immune cells, while 4 in 72 bacteria (only 5.5%) do the same in the presence of neutrophils. Contrary to the authors' claims, it appears that P. aeruginosa actually decreases fro-expression in close proximity to neutrophils. There is a slight increase in fro-expression in bacteria co-incubated with macrophages (3 in 21, or 14.3%). A more rigorous statistical analysis might substantiate the authors' claim, but, as is, the claim "neutrophils increase fro expression" is untenable.

    (2) The authors should explain the rationale behind some of the chemicals used. Why did they use nitric acid? Especially at these high concentrations, a strong acid such as nitric acid might have a significant influence on the medium pH. I understand that the medium is phosphate-buffered, but 25 mM nitric acid in an unbuffered medium would shift the pH well below 2. Similar considerations apply to hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide.

    (3) In line 187, the authors state that "It is possible that oxidized methionine increases fro expression" and they suggest a model to that effect in Figure 5D. It is unclear why the authors singled out methionine sulfoxide, since a number of other things get oxidized by HOCl. In line 184, the authors state, in the same vein, that "HOCl oxidizes methionine residues 100-fold more rapidly than other cellular components". The authors should state which other cellular compounds they are referring to. Certainly not cysteine and other thiols, which react equally fast and are highly abundant in the cell: P. aeruginosa contains 340 µM GSH, 140 µM CoA-SH (https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.RA119.009934) plus free cysteine and cysteines in proteins (based on codon usage, 1.34% of amino acids in proteins are cysteine, while methionine is only slightly more present at 2.10%, although a number of starting methionines are removed from mature proteins).

    (4) Overall (and this is probably not addressable with the authors' data), some very interesting questions remain unanswered: what is the molecular mechanism of fro-induction? How is the FroR/FroI system modulated by HOCl? Does the system sense free or protein-bound methionine-sulfoxide? Are certain methionine residues in these proteins directly oxidized by HOCl? Many "HOCl-sensing" proteins are also modified at cysteine residues or amino groups; could those play a role? And lastly: what is the connection between shear/fluid flow and HOCl, or are these totally separate mechanisms of fro-induction?

  19. eLife

    Author response:

    We greatly appreciate the efforts of the reviewers, which have provided insightful and helpful comments to improve the manuscript. The feedback touches upon a number of topics, focusing on clarification or justification of experimental techniques and on understanding the mechanism by which P. aeruginosa detects HOCl. All reviewers raised the issue of how HOCl activates fro expression, including whether free or protein-bound methionine, cysteine, or other HOCl byproducts induce this expression. For the upcoming revision, we plan to perform experiments that address this issue and will discuss potential mechanistic models in light of the new data. In addition, we plan to perform additional experiments to address a reviewer’s concerns regarding the dependence of the fro response on HOCl production by neutrophils. The revision will correct imprecise statements pointed out by reviewers, and address all remaining issues requiring clarification or further discussion, including the range of HOCl sensitivity, relationship between HOCl and flow sensitivity, and justification for testing the fro response to nitric acid.

  20. Version published to 10.1101/2022.02.01.478687v2 on bioRxiv
  21. Version published to 10.1101/2022.02.01.478687v1 on bioRxiv