This protocol describes a quantitative approach to measure microbial autoaggregation using imaging flow cytometry.
Beneficial and probiotic bacteria play essential roles in their hosts, providing various health benefits, including immunity to infectious diseases. The Lactobacillaceae family consists of Gram-positive bacteria with confirmed probiotic properties. This study utilizes Lactobacillaceae species as a model to demonstrate the effectiveness of single-cell high throughput analysis in studying cellular aggregation. The focus is on analyzing the response of these beneficial species to simple carbohydrates from the diet.
The study showcases how Imaging Flow Cytometry (IFC) can overcome the fundamental differences in the assembly of probiotic bacteria in the presence and absence of carbohydrates. IFC combines the power and speed of conventional flow cytometry with the spatial resolution of microscopy, enabling high-rate complex morphometric measurements in a phenotypically defined manner across a library of beneficial bacterial strains and conditions. This protocol provides insights into the autoaggregation of Lactobacillaceae species and sheds light on their response to dietary carbohydrates, contributing to understanding the mechanisms behind the beneficial effects of these probiotic bacteria.
Bacterial autoaggregation is considered a primary step in biofilm formation. In this process (sometimes also called autoagglutination or flocculation), bacteria of the same type form multicellular clumps that eventually settle at the bottom of culture tubes or attach to their target tissue or surface1.
Autoaggregation is a widely observed phenomenon and has been shown so far in Gram-negative pathogens such as the opportunistic pathogen Acinetobacter baumannii2, the dental pathogen Aggregobacter actinomycetemcomitans3, and the emerging pathogen Burkholderia pseudomallei4. Autoaggregation has also been described in several probiotic Gram-positive strains5,6,7,8. In Lactobacillus (L.) acidophilus, autoaggregation was partially mediated by S-layer proteins and correlated with an adhesion to xylan7. Similarly, we found a correlation between glucose-dependent autoaggregation and induction of the adhesive properties (as judged by adhesion to mucin) of the probiotic species Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG, Lacticaseibacillus casei, L. acidophilus, Lacticaseibacillus paracasei, and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum5. The increased autoaggregation most likely reflected changes in the expression of cellular adhesins in response to glucose and its catabolites9. While the molecular mechanisms of autoaggregation remain to be determined, it has been shown that this process alters the phenotype of the aggregated bacteria and grants them enhanced tolerance to environmental stressors1, as well as increased sensitivity to quorum sensing molecules10.
Several approaches have been used to measure autoaggregation; one experimental approach is to let cultures stand statically in narrow culture tubes for a given time. Control cultures remain turbid, whereas autoaggregation cultures will settle at the bottom of the tube. A more quantitative approach measures autoaggregation by sedimentation or settling assay11.
Flow cytometry has also been increasingly employed in recent years to investigate bacterial autoaggregation. This method is appropriate for analyzing particles between approximately 0.5 and 1000 µm in size. The single bacterium or formed aggregates are suspended in fluid, fed into a stream, and can be detected one by one11. Recording forward scattered light allows measuring the relative size of the cell or aggregate. It is relatively fast and straightforward but cannot detect several parameters, such as aggregate size or the average number of cells in aggregates. Therefore, this approach can be complemented microscopically, allowing more parameters to be checked12. However, traditional microscopy is time-consuming and thereby limits the number of tested samples and the statistical power of the analysis. In general, imaging flow cytometry provides several features compared to traditional flow cytometry, such as simultaneous analysis of cell morphology and phenotype, conducting image-based analysis, detecting rare events, and validating flow cytometry data13. These advantages enhance the capabilities of flow cytometry and facilitate a more detailed examination of cell populations.
This study provides a valuable protocol for imaging flow cytometry to monitor autoaggregation in lactic acid bacteria (LAB). These Gram-positive rods are facultative anaerobes and belong to the LAB group. These efficient glucose fermenters generate lactic acid as their main end-product of carbohydrate metabolism14. These bacteria are beneficial core members of the microbiome and are naturally found in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) of humans and animals, as well as in the urogenital tract of females15. Therefore, the exact characterization of their autoaggregation properties is of high biotechnological and clinical interest.
Our previous findings indicated that the basal level of autoaggregation differs between different probiotic strains. This heterogeneity is affected by the different carbohydrates used as a carbon source5. To overcome this fundamental property of probiotic bacteria, the effects of carbohydrates from the diet were monitored on autoaggregation on the single-cell level using IFC. This IFC-based approach combines the power and speed of traditional flow cytometers with the microscope's resolution. Therefore, it allows high-rate complex morphometric measurements in a phenotypically defined way16,17. This approach can be extended to other probiotic and pathogenic bacteria, combined with fluorescent reporters to monitor gene expression, and fluorescently labeled strains to monitor the presence and abundance of specific bacterial species in heterogeneous aggregates.
The .ast file, with the template for Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) as an example, is provided in Supplementary Coding File 1.
1. Media preparation
2. Preparation of samples
NOTE: This step involves the evaluation of cellular aggregation in response to fermentable or non-fermentable sugar from our diet. A schematic representation of the sample preparation process is depicted in Figure 1.
3. Data acquisition
4. Data analysis
The results demonstrate that this method can easily measure the differences in autoaggregation in response to dietary sugars in LAB bacteria. By separating individuals from aggregates, the method allows calculating the percentage of the population of the aggregation events out of all events in response to fermentable or non-fermentable sugars from the diet. Additionally, it was possible to measure if there are differences in the mean size of the aggregate's population between treatments.
The representative images in Figure 3 demonstrate the gating strategy for each LAB bacterium. In LGG and L. paracasei, single cells, small aggregates, large aggregates, and chains were detected (Figure 3). However, chains and larger aggregates could not be separated.
The representative images in Figure 4 revealed substantial variations in the aggregation characteristics among different LAB strains presented in response to fermentable or non-fermentable sugars, which were measured by the population percentage and the average size of aggregation events5.
Figure 1: Workflow of the sample preparation process. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2: Gating strategy for evaluating aggregation events population and size. (A) Gating of focused events from all events based on Gradient RMS using the brightfield channel. (B) Separation of singles and small aggregates from larger aggregates by plotting the area (µm2) versus the aspect ratio (width divided by the length of a best-fit ellipse) of the brightfield channel. (C) The area of the brightfield channel among aggregation events provides information about the size of the particles. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 3: Cell images of gating strategy. (A) LGG. (B) L. paracasei in TSB (control). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 4: Representative brightfield images of aggregation events population in different conditions. (A) LGG. (B) L. paracasei. (C) L. plantarum. (D) L. casei. The conditions include TSB medium (control), TSB medium supplemented with glucose and raffinose (1% w/v), and TSB medium supplemented with glucose (1% w/v) and buffer. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Supplementary Coding File 1: The .ast file with the template for LGG as an example. Please click here to download this File.
Flow cytometry is a widely used method for quantifying fluorescence intensities in eukaryotic cells, but it may not provide accurate measurements for bacterial cells due to their larger size or small aggregates. These factors can significantly impact the precise quantification of autoaggregation and the basal level of aggregate formation in different conditions. To address this, imaging flow cytometry (IFC) was employed to gain a better resolution of how carbohydrates affect the aggregation of probiotic bacteria5. IFC combines the statistical significance of large sample sizes in traditional flow cytometry with the per-cell information content of standard microscopy by collecting numerous digital images per sample and extracting numerical image-based features16.
Previously, IFC has been used to study various bacterial behaviors, such as antibiotic production in Bacillus subtilis and the composition of dual-species biofilms18,19. While sporadic use of Imagestream flow cytometry for measuring autoaggregation has been reported20, it is believed to be the first demonstration of its usefulness in studying probiotic bacteria5. The findings indicate that IFC is efficient and reliable, serving as a replacement for both traditional flow cytometry and microscopy in studying microbial aggregation of LAB strains, especially considering the significant differences in basal levels of autoaggregation among strains5. This approach is particularly valuable for accurate high-throughput screening of multiple strains and growth conditions.
However, the IFC-based method has certain limitations and considerations. It requires a higher number of cells to generate data sets compared to traditional microscopy methods. Additionally, the optical and digital resolution of IFC images is relatively lower than that of conventional microscopy due to the inherent properties of the method. While traditional flow cytometry lacks the reliability and quality assurance of optical scans, Imagestream flow cytometry is commonly used as an alternative to conventional flow cytometry rather than fluorescent microscopy. Moreover, determining the area value that distinguishes single cells from aggregates is a critical step, and its accurate identification is crucial to avoid losing vital data. As mentioned in the protocol, this value varies across bacterial species and should be carefully determined.
Further developments can be made to expand the method’s application, such as investigating aggregation under additional environmental factors. Combining image analysis with flow cytometry data allows for more comprehensive characterization of microbial aggregates, including size, shape, and composition. This method can also be applied to enhance the high-throughput characterization of microbial aggregates in naturally occurring aquatic habitats21. Furthermore, it can be easily adapted to examine aggregation in complex microbiome communities by labeling target species and cell types.
Overall, the findings highlight that this approach is straightforward, informative, and highly useful for evaluating the aggregation properties of bacteria in both mono-species and complex communities. It enables a better understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying autoaggregation by comparing the number of cells and the size of aggregates among different deletion, overexpression strains, and various chemical and physical manipulations.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
This work was supported by the Israeli Science Foundation (Grant 119/16) and IMoh grant (3-15656) to IKG. R.S. supported by the Kreitman fellowship.
14 mL culture tubes | Falcon | 352051 | |
15 mL centrifuge tube | Falcon | 352096 | |
Bacto Agar | Baeton,Dickinson and Company | 214010 | |
Bacto Typtic Soy Broth | Baeton,Dickinson and Company | 211825 | |
D-(+)-Glucose | Sigma | G7021-1KG | |
D-(+)-Raffinose pentahydrate | Sigma | 83400-25G | |
Difco Lactobacilli MRS broth | Baeton,Dickinson and Company | 288130 | |
EASY-LOCK MICROPR. 1.5 mL (Eppendorf) | FL medical | 23053 | |
IDEAS Software | Amnis/EMD Millipore | N/A | Details available at: https://www.merckmillipore.com/INTL/en/20150212_144049?ReferrerURL=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&bd=1 |
ImageStream X Mark II | Amnis/EMD Millipore | N/A | Details available at: https://www.merckmillipore.com/INTL/en/20150121_205948?ReferrerURL=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F |
MOPS, 3-(N-morpholino)propanesulfonic acid | Fisher bioreagents | BP308-500 | |
Potassium phosphate dibasic | Fisher Scientific, 174.18 g/mol | BP363-1 | |
Potassium phosphate monobasic | Sigma, 136.09 g/mol | P0662-500G |