Regulated bacterial interaction networks: A mathematical framework to describe competitive growth under inclusion of metabolite cross-feeding

When bacterial species with the same resource preferences share the same growth environment, it is commonly believed that direct competition will arise. A large variety of competition and more general ‘interaction’ models have been formulated, but what is currently lacking are models that link mono-culture growth kinetics and community growth under inclusion of emerging biological interactions, such as metabolite cross-feeding. In order to understand and mathematically describe the nature of potential cross-feeding interactions, we design experiments where two bacterial species Pseudomonas putida and Pseudomonas veronii grow in liquid medium either in mono- or as co-culture in a resource-limited environment. We measure population growth under single substrate competition or with double species-specific substrates (substrate ‘indifference’), and starting from varying cell ratios of either species. Using experimental data as input, we first consider a mean-field model of resource-based competition, which captures well the empirically observed growth rates for mono-cultures, but fails to correctly predict growth rates in co-culture mixtures, in particular for skewed starting species ratios. Based on this, we extend the model by cross-feeding interactions where the consumption of substrate by one consumer produces metabolites that in turn are resources for the other consumer, thus leading to positive feedback loops in the species system. Two different cross-feeding options were considered, which either lead to constant metabolite cross-feeding, or to a regulated form, where metabolite utilization is activated with rates according to either a threshold or a Hill function, dependent on metabolite concentration. Both mathematical proof and experimental data indicate regulated cross-feeding to be the preferred model over constant metabolite utilization, with best co-culture growth predictions in case of high Hill coefficients, close to binary (on/off) activation states. This suggests that species use the appearing metabolite concentrations only when they are becoming high enough; possibly as a consequence of their lower energetic content than the primary substrate. Metabolite sharing was particularly relevant at unbalanced starting cell ratios, causing the minority partner to proliferate more than expected from the competitive substrate because of metabolite release from the majority partner. This effect thus likely quells immediate substrate competition and may be important in natural communities with typical very skewed relative taxa abundances and slower-growing taxa. In conclusion, the regulated bacterial interaction network correctly describes species substrate growth reactions in mixtures with few kinetic parameters that can be obtained from mono-culture growth experiments. 1 Author summary Correctly predicting growth of communities of diverse bacterial taxa remains a challenge, because of the very different growth properties of individual members and their myriads of interactions that can influence growth. Here we tried to improve and empirically validate mathematical models that combine theory of bacterial growth kinetics (i.e., Monod models) with mathematical definition of interaction parameters. We focused in particular on common cases of shared primary substrates (i.e., competition) and independent substrates (i.e., indifference) in an experimental system consisting of one fast-growing and one slower growing Pseudomonas species. Growth kinetic parameters derived from mono-culture experiments included in a Monod-type consumer-resource model explained some 75% of biomass formation of either species in co-culture, but underestimated the observed growth improvement when either of the species started as a minority compared to the other. This suggested an in important role of cross-feeding, whereby released metabolites from one of the partners is utilized by the other. Inclusion of cross-feeding feedback in the two-species Monod growth model largely explained empirical data at all species-starting ratios, in particular when cross-feeding is activated in almost binary manner as a function of metabolite concentration. Our results also indicate the importance of cross-feeding for minority taxa, which can explain their survival despite being poorly competitive.

[1]  William R. Harcombe,et al.  Ecological modelling approaches for predicting emergent properties in microbial communities , 2022, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[2]  V. Hatzimanikatis,et al.  Symbolic kinetic models in python (SKiMpy): intuitive modeling of large-scale biological kinetic models , 2022, bioRxiv.

[3]  M. Power,et al.  Priority effects in microbiome assembly , 2021, Nature Reviews Microbiology.

[4]  Vassily Hatzimanikatis,et al.  Spatio-temporal modeling of the crowding conditions and metabolic variability in microbial communities , 2021, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[5]  Alan R. Pacheco,et al.  Non-additive microbial community responses to environmental complexity , 2021, Nature Communications.

[6]  David R. Johnson,et al.  Spatial organization in microbial range expansion emerges from trophic dependencies and successful lineages , 2020, Communications biology.

[7]  Otto X. Cordero,et al.  Context-dependent dynamics lead to the assembly of functionally distinct microbial communities , 2020, Nature Communications.

[8]  D. J. Kiviet,et al.  Short-range interactions govern the dynamics and functions of microbial communities , 2019, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[9]  Anush Chiappino-Pepe,et al.  Mechanistic insights into bacterial metabolic reprogramming from omics-integrated genome-scale models , 2019, npj Systems Biology and Applications.

[10]  Michael Manhart,et al.  Understanding the evolution of interspecies interactions in microbial communities , 2019, bioRxiv.

[11]  S. Retterer,et al.  Soil Aggregate Microbial Communities: Towards Understanding Microbiome Interactions at Biologically Relevant Scales , 2019, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[12]  Jan Roelof van der Meer,et al.  Bridging the Holistic-Reductionist Divide in Microbial Ecology , 2019, mSystems.

[13]  Sayan Mukherjee,et al.  A unifying framework for interpreting and predicting mutualistic systems , 2019, Nature Communications.

[14]  Elisenda Feliu,et al.  Nonnegative Linear Elimination for Chemical Reaction Networks , 2018, SIAM J. Appl. Math..

[15]  Elisenda Feliu,et al.  Groebner bases of reaction networks with intermediate species , 2018, Adv. Appl. Math..

[16]  Pankaj Mehta,et al.  Available energy fluxes drive a transition in the diversity, stability, and functional structure of microbial communities , 2018, bioRxiv.

[17]  Alan R. Pacheco,et al.  Costless metabolic secretions as drivers of interspecies interactions in microbial ecosystems , 2018, bioRxiv.

[18]  Dani Or,et al.  Spatial organization of bacterial populations in response to oxygen and carbon counter-gradients in pore networks , 2018, Nature Communications.

[19]  T. Fukami,et al.  Role of priority effects in the early-life assembly of the gut microbiota , 2018, Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

[20]  D. Or,et al.  Dynamics of soil biogeochemical gas emissions shaped by remolded aggregate sizes and carbon configurations under hydration cycles , 2018, Global change biology.

[21]  Mikhail Tikhonov,et al.  Emergent simplicity in microbial community assembly , 2017, Science.

[22]  C. Mazza,et al.  Delft University of Technology Quantitative chemical biosensing by bacterial chemotaxis in microfluidic chips , 2018 .

[23]  Rick L. Stevens,et al.  A communal catalogue reveals Earth’s multiscale microbial diversity , 2017, Nature.

[24]  K. Zengler,et al.  Elucidation of complexity and prediction of interactions in microbial communities , 2017, Microbial biotechnology.

[25]  N. Fierer Embracing the unknown: disentangling the complexities of the soil microbiome , 2017, Nature Reviews Microbiology.

[26]  D. Or,et al.  Biophysical processes supporting the diversity of microbial life in soil , 2017, FEMS microbiology reviews.

[27]  Vassily Hatzimanikatis,et al.  redGEM: Systematic reduction and analysis of genome-scale metabolic reconstructions for development of consistent core metabolic models , 2017, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[28]  Scott T. Weiss,et al.  Mapping the ecological networks of microbial communities , 2017, Nature Communications.

[29]  Johannes Zimmermann,et al.  BacArena: Individual-based metabolic modeling of heterogeneous microbes in complex communities , 2017, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[30]  Li Xie,et al.  Lotka-Volterra pairwise modeling fails to capture diverse pairwise microbial interactions , 2017, eLife.

[31]  L. Pillard,et al.  The Genome of the Toluene-Degrading Pseudomonas veronii Strain 1YdBTEX2 and Its Differential Gene Expression in Contaminated Sand , 2016, PloS one.

[32]  S. Lion,et al.  Moment equations in spatial evolutionary ecology. , 2016, Journal of theoretical biology.

[33]  James Q. Boedicker,et al.  The Contribution of High-Order Metabolic Interactions to the Global Activity of a Four-Species Microbial Community , 2016, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[34]  Daniel Segrè,et al.  Synthetic Ecology of Microbes: Mathematical Models and Applications. , 2016, Journal of molecular biology.

[35]  Kiran Raosaheb Patil,et al.  Metabolic interactions in microbial communities: untangling the Gordian knot. , 2015, Current opinion in microbiology.

[36]  Matthew J Simpson,et al.  Modelling the movement of interacting cell populations: a moment dynamics approach. , 2015, Journal of theoretical biology.

[37]  Christian Mazza,et al.  Stochastic Dynamics for Systems Biology , 2014 .

[38]  T. Fukami,et al.  Historical contingency in species interactions: towards niche-based predictions , 2013, Ecology letters.

[39]  Elisenda Feliu,et al.  Simplifying biochemical models with intermediate species , 2013, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[40]  Wolfgang Wiechert,et al.  Extensive exometabolome analysis reveals extended overflow metabolism in various microorganisms , 2012, Microbial Cell Factories.

[41]  Kevin W Eliceiri,et al.  NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis , 2012, Nature Methods.

[42]  Matti Vihola,et al.  On the stability and ergodicity of adaptive scaling Metropolis algorithms , 2009, 0903.4061.

[43]  D. Or,et al.  Aqueous films limit bacterial cell motility and colony expansion on partially saturated rough surfaces. , 2010, Environmental microbiology.

[44]  R. Arditi,et al.  Microbial Interactions within a Cheese Microbial Community , 2007, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[45]  Don A. Driscoll,et al.  Metacommunities: Spatial Dynamics and Ecological Communities , 2006 .

[46]  S. Ethier,et al.  Markov Processes: Characterization and Convergence , 2005 .

[47]  T. Kepler,et al.  Stochasticity in transcriptional regulation: origins, consequences, and mathematical representations. , 2001, Biophysical journal.

[48]  B. Séraphin,et al.  Positive feedback in eukaryotic gene networks: cell differentiation by graded to binary response conversion , 2001, The EMBO journal.

[49]  C. Robert,et al.  Controlled MCMC for Optimal Sampling , 2001 .

[50]  J. Leveau,et al.  Dynamics of multigene expression during catabolic adaptation of Ralstonia eutropha JMP134 (pJP4) to the herbicide 2,4‐dichlorophenoxyacetate , 1999, Molecular microbiology.

[51]  B. Bolker,et al.  Spatial Moment Equations for Plant Competition: Understanding Spatial Strategies and the Advantages of Short Dispersal , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[52]  M. Doebeli,et al.  The evolution of interspecific mutualisms. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[53]  J. Timothy Wootton,et al.  THEORETICAL CONCEPTS AND EMPIRICAL APPROACHES TO MEASURING INTERACTION STRENGTH , 1998 .

[54]  J. Klima,et al.  Determination of Bacterial Cell Dry Mass by Transmission Electron Microscopy and Densitometric Image Analysis , 1998, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[55]  D. Tilman Competition and Biodiversity in Spatially Structured Habitats , 1994 .

[56]  D. Gibson,et al.  Toluene degradation by Pseudomonas putida F1: genetic organization of the tod operon , 1988, Applied and environmental microbiology.

[57]  Dm Jones Manual of Methods for General Bacteriology , 1981 .

[58]  P. Gerhardt Manual of methods for general bacteriology. , 1981 .

[59]  A. Hastings Disturbance, coexistence, history, and competition for space , 1980 .