Skip to main content
  • ASM Journals
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Issues
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Special Series: Sponsored Minireviews and Video Abstracts
    • Archive
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Novel Systems Biology Techniques
    • Early-Career Systems Microbiology Perspectives
  • For Authors
    • Getting Started
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics
  • About the Journal
    • About mSystems
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • ASM Journals
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
mSystems
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Issues
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Special Series: Sponsored Minireviews and Video Abstracts
    • Archive
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Novel Systems Biology Techniques
    • Early-Career Systems Microbiology Perspectives
  • For Authors
    • Getting Started
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics
  • About the Journal
    • About mSystems
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
Research Article | Therapeutics and Prevention

Combinatorial Approaches to Viral Attenuation

Matthew L. Paff, Benjamin R. Jack, Bartram L. Smith, James J. Bull, Claus O. Wilke
Olga Zhaxybayeva, Editor
Matthew L. Paff
aDepartment of Integrative Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA
bInstitute for Cellular and Molecular Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Benjamin R. Jack
aDepartment of Integrative Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA
bInstitute for Cellular and Molecular Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bartram L. Smith
aDepartment of Integrative Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA
bInstitute for Cellular and Molecular Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James J. Bull
aDepartment of Integrative Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA
bInstitute for Cellular and Molecular Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Claus O. Wilke
aDepartment of Integrative Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA
bInstitute for Cellular and Molecular Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Claus O. Wilke
Olga Zhaxybayeva
Dartmouth College
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/mSystems.00046-18
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Supplemental Material
  • FIG 1 
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 1 

    Initial fitness of promoter knockout strains. Fitness (measured as doublings per hour) was quantified for single (Δϕ9 and Δϕ10) and double (Δϕ9/ϕ10) promoter knockout strains engineered into three different genetic backgrounds (wild type [wt], orange; gene 10 codon deoptimized, blue; and an abolished gene 8 stop codon, green). Comparison to wild type indicates significantly reduced fitness (10deop, P = 0.0297; Δϕ910deop, P = 0.0250; Δϕ98Δstop, P = 0.00436; Δϕ1010deop, P = 0.00755; Δϕ9ϕ10wt, P = 0.00718; Δϕ9/ϕ1010deop, P = 0.00586; Δϕ9/ϕ108Δstop, P = 0.00296; paired t tests) in all but 2 strains (Δϕ9wt, P = 0.0889; Δϕ10wt, P = 0.0749; paired t tests). Additionally, no significant difference was detected between Δϕ910deop and wt10deop (P = 0.253, paired t test).

  • FIG 2 
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 2 

    Differential gene expression for promoter knockout strains against wild type. Shown is RNA abundance (measured as transcripts per million [tpm], rescaled to a range of 0 to 1) for promoter knockout strains (y axis) versus wild type (x axis). Each point represents the RNA abundance for a single gene (genes 9 and 10A are labeled). Each panel shows a different comparison of mutant versus wild type, where columns indicate promoter knockout and rows represent and are colored by genetic background (orange, wt; blue, 10deop; green, 8Δstop). Panels marked “NA” represent knockout-background combinations for which no data were collected. Samples were taken at 9 min postinfection.

  • FIG 3 
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 3 

    RNA abundances for genes 8 to 12. Each bar represents the mean mRNA expression level from promoter knockout strains for genes immediately surrounding the ϕ9 and ϕ10 locations. Each point represents a single measurement. Lines connecting points indicate single batches (samples collected and sequenced together). Promoter knockouts are indicated along the x axis with columns organized by genetic background (column names) distinguished by color (orange, wt; blue, 10deop; green, 8Δstop). Samples were taken at 9 min postinfection.

  • FIG 4 
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 4 

    Relative RNA abundance for differentially expressed genes. Each panel represents a different strain, where columns indicate promoter knockout and rows represent genetic background. Each bar indicates the relative RNA abundance for a given gene. Genes for which a significant difference was found (FDR of <0.05) are shown as solid bars, and all other genes are shown as partially transparent bars. Panels marked as “NA” represent knockout-background combinations for which no data were collected. Colors indicate the genetic background for each strain (orange, wt; blue, 10deop; green, 8Δstop). The horizontal lines provide a reference to the ancestor strain (orange, wt; blue, 10deop). Bar heights below these lines indicate reduced expression, and bar heights above indicate increased expression. (A) RNA abundance relative to wild type. Adjusted P values for each comparison are provided in Table S2. (B) RNA abundance for 10deop strains relative to wt10deop. Adjusted P values for each comparison are provided in Table S3 in the supplemental material. Samples were taken 9 min postinfection.

  • FIG 5 
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 5 

    Fitness recovery for promoter knockout strains. Initial and final fitness for evolved lines after ~160 to 180 generations. Promoter knockout lines are indicated along the x axis, colored by genetic background (wt, orange; 10deop, blue; 8Δstop, green). Desaturated bars (on the right of each pair) indicate evolved fitness. The orange horizontal line indicates the mean fitness for the wt ancestor strain—the standard against which the magnitude of fitness recovery of attenuation is ultimately measured. Fitness increases are seen in all four lines, but all remain below wt (P < 0.05, two-sample t test). All P values are provided in Table S4 in the supplemental material.

  • FIG 6 
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 6 

    RNA abundance increases in evolved population. Shown are initial and evolved transcript abundance (measured as transcripts per million [tpm], rescaled to a range of 0 to 1) for genes 8 to 12 (rows) in 2 evolved lines (evo-Δϕ9/ϕ10wt, orange; evo-Δϕ9/ϕ108Δstop, green). Each point represents a single measurement, with the bars indicating the mean RNA abundances. We include transcript abundances for the wt strain (orange) as a reference. Significant increases in abundance are indicated with a star, and nonsignificant ones are labeled “NS.” Expression increases in genes 9 and 10A in evo-Δϕ9/ϕ10wt and in genes 9 to 12 in evo-Δϕ9/ϕ108Δstop (FDR < 0.05, two-sample t test), but each of these genes remains well below wt levels (FDR < 0.001). Samples were taken at 9 min postinfection.

  • FIG 7 
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 7 

    RNA abundance correlates with fitness. Shown is mean RNA abundance versus mean fitness for genes 8 to 12 with reported Pearson R2 values (0.252, 0.523, 0.689, 0.704, and 0.579, respectively). Significant positive Spearman correlations were observed for genes 10 to 12 (P = 0.002, 0.00006, and 0.005; FDR = 0.042, 0.003, and 0.078, respectively). Pearson correlation FDR values for the same set of genes were at least as small. A complete list of all T7 genes with both Spearman and Pearson correlations between RNA abundance and fitness can be found in the data repository (see file data/results/fitness_rna_correlation.csv in https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1204715).

Tables

  • Figures
  • Supplemental Material
  • TABLE 1 

    T7 knockout strains

    Background genotypeDescriptionKnockout strains
    wtWild typeΔϕ9wt, Δϕ10wt, Δϕ9/ϕ10wta
    10deopCodon-modified gene 10 with 10%
    preferred codon usage
    Δϕ910deop, Δϕ1010deop, Δϕ9/ϕ10deopa
    8ΔstopStop codon for gene 8 abolished;
    generates 25-amino-acid
    readthrough product
    Δϕ98Δstop,a Δϕ9/ϕ108Δstopa
    • ↵a Strains used for long-term evolution experiments. The resulting evolved strains are notated with the “evo-” prefix (e.g., evo-Δϕ9/ϕ10wt) throughout the article.

  • TABLE 2 

    High-frequency (≥0.5 in evolved population) nucleotide changes for all adaptations

    PositionBaseAmino acid changeGene (function)Frequency of change ina:
    Δϕ9/ϕ10wtΔϕ9/ϕ1010deopΔϕ98ΔstopΔϕ9/ϕ108Δstop
    InitialEvolvedInitialEvolvedInitialEvolvedInitialEvolved
    3454A→CK95T1 (RNAP)1.001.00
    3835A→CE222A10.6860.87
    5453T→GI761M11.001.00
    5483A→GA771A11.001.00
    9050C→TG51G2 (host RNAP
    inhibitor)
    0.735
    10686A→GR144G3 (endonuclease I)0.534
    14279T→CI118T4.7 (DNA
    metabolism)
    0.061
    15124A→GT258A5 (DNA
    polymerase)
    1.00
    21840+ACoding8 (head-tail
    connector)
    0.899
    21842G→TG535b81.00
    21927T→CIntergenic1.001.00
    21953G→AA2T9 (capsid
    assembly)
    0.567
    22971C→TA2V10A (major
    capsid)
    1.00
    22972T→CA2A10A1.001.00
    22979A→TT5S10A1.001.00
    26232G→TR464M12 (tail
    tubular B)
    0.651
    31036T→CS148P16 (internal
    virion D)
    1.001.00
    32350T→CF586L161.001.00
    35083C→TL154L17 (tail fiber)1.001.001.001.00
    39566C→AIntergenic1.001.001.001.001.001.00
    • ↵a Evolved strains are indicated with the prefix “evo-” (e.g., evo-Δφ9/φ10wt) throughout the article. Because of the sequential construction of double knockouts from single knockouts, changes in the initial Δϕ98Δstop strain would have been propagated into Δϕ9/ϕ108Δstop, as seen in the bottom two rows of the table.

    • ↵b Results in nonsense mutation.

  • TABLE 3 

    Promoter replacement sequences

    SequenceCoordinatesUse
    GAATTCCGAAGAGATTACAATAA21848–21870Replace ϕ9 and gene 8 stop codon
    AAGCTTCGAAGAGATTACAATAA22887–22909Replace ϕ10
    GAATTCAGAGATTACAATAA21851–21870Replace ϕ9 only

Supplemental Material

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • TABLE S1 

    Mean fitness (doublings per hour) for initial and evolved strains. Download TABLE S1, PDF file, 0.1 MB.

    Copyright © 2018 Paff et al.

    This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

  • TABLE S2 

    Difference in relative transcript abundance between modified and wild-type strains for genes 9 to 12. Adjusted P values are FDR corrected (see Materials and Methods). Download TABLE S2, PDF file, 0.1 MB.

    Copyright © 2018 Paff et al.

    This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

  • TABLE S3 

    Difference in relative transcript abundance between promoter knockout and codon-deoptimized strains for genes 9 to 12. Adjusted P values are FDR corrected (see Materials and Methods). Download TABLE S3, PDF file, 0.1 MB.

    Copyright © 2018 Paff et al.

    This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

  • TABLE S4 

    Fitness difference between wild-type ancestor and modified strains (initial and evolved). Download TABLE S4, PDF file, 0.1 MB.

    Copyright © 2018 Paff et al.

    This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Combinatorial Approaches to Viral Attenuation
Matthew L. Paff, Benjamin R. Jack, Bartram L. Smith, James J. Bull, Claus O. Wilke
mSystems Jul 2018, 3 (4) e00046-18; DOI: 10.1128/mSystems.00046-18

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this mSystems article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Combinatorial Approaches to Viral Attenuation
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from mSystems
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in mSystems.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Combinatorial Approaches to Viral Attenuation
Matthew L. Paff, Benjamin R. Jack, Bartram L. Smith, James J. Bull, Claus O. Wilke
mSystems Jul 2018, 3 (4) e00046-18; DOI: 10.1128/mSystems.00046-18
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

bacteriophages
codon deoptimization
promoter knockout
viral attenuation

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About mSystems
  • Author Videos
  • Board of Editors
  • Policies
  • Overleaf Pilot
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Warranty
  • Types of Articles
  • Getting Started
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #mSystemsJ

@ASMicrobiology

       

 

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Online ISSN: 2379-5077