Advertisement

Current Genetics

, Volume 62, Issue 1, pp 71–79 | Cite as

Multifaceted roles of extracellular DNA in bacterial physiology

  • Dina Vorkapic
  • Katharina Pressler
  • Stefan Schild
Open Access
Review

Abstract

In textbooks, DNA is generally defined as the universal storage material for genetic information in all branches of life. Beyond this important intracellular role, DNA can also be present outside of living cells and is an abundant biopolymer in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The origin of extracellular DNA in such ecological niches is diverse: it can be actively secreted or released by prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells by means of autolysis, apoptosis, necrosis, bacterial secretion systems or found in association with extracellular bacterial membrane vesicles. Especially for bacteria, extracellular DNA represents a significant and convenient element that can be enzymatically modulated and utilized for multiple purposes. Herein, we discuss briefly the main origins of extracellular DNA and the most relevant roles for the bacterial physiology, such as biofilm formation, nutrient source, antimicrobial means and horizontal gene transfer.

Keywords

Neutrophil extracellular traps Nutrient acquisition Competence Nucleoside transporters Transition fitness Virulence 

Abbreviations

eDNA

Extracellular DNA

NETs

Neutrophil extracellular traps

HGT

Horizontal gene transfer

QS

Quorum sensing

MVs

Membrane vesicles

OMVs

Outer membrane vesicles

CCR

Carbon catabolite repression

Introduction

Extracellular DNA (eDNA) is a ubiquitous biopolymer found in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, reaching concentrations up to 2 μg g−1 of the uppermost horizons of soil and up to 0.5 g m−2 in the top centimeter of deep-sea sediments (Dell’Anno and Danovaro 2005; Niemeyer and Gessler 2002). The significance of eDNA in bacterial physiology and especially in the life cycle of microbial pathogens drew attention in the past decade, as it became evident that it plays an important role in bacterial pathogenicity, transition fitness, environmental survival and evolution. Bacteria encounter eDNA in the host and outside environment. Back in 1928, F. Griffith reported that pneumococci are capable of transferring genetic information through a process known as transformation, not knowing by then that the transferred material is eDNA (Griffith 1928). In 1956, Catlin observed eDNA as a structural component of bacterial biofilms and in 1980s eDNA was determined as a significant component of small intestinal mucus in rabbit, but its origin in such environments remained speculative (Catlin 1956; Ferencz et al. 1980). Since then, we began to understand how eDNA can be actively secreted or liberated from eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells and how, depending on environmental conditions, bacteria can utilize free DNA as a nutrient source, for recombination into the chromosome, for repair of their own DNA or as a building element in bacterial biofilms (Antonova and Hammer 2015; Dubnau 1999; Flemming and Wingender 2010). In this review, we provide a brief overview of eDNA occurrence and role for bacterial lifestyles, follow the origin of eDNA to its degradation and highlight the importance of eDNA in bacterial life cycle (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Physiological implications of extracellular DNA (eDNA). Bacteria encounter eDNA, the ubiquitous biopolymer, within the terrestrial and aquatic environments. Pathogenic microorganisms also meet significant amounts of eDNA in the host during infection. Bacteria can utilize eDNA dependent on the environmental condition as nutrient source, for horizontal gene transfer or as biofilm matrix component. By means of degradative enzymes they can not only modulate the polymer, but also evade the innate immune defense mechanism based on eDNA

eDNA is an important component of the biofilm matrix

One stage of bacterial life cycles with relative high local eDNA concentrations are biofilms, which represent multicellular surface communities formed by different microorganisms on biotic or abiotic surfaces. Bacteria can form biofilms in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems as well as in the host as a survival mode, which protects against harsh environmental conditions such as pH and temperature changes, antimicrobial agents, digestive enzymes, UV light, dehydration or predators (Hall-Stoodley et al. 2004). The substantial segment of extracellular matrix of mature biofilms is produced by the bacteria themselves and consists mainly of proteins, polysaccharides, membrane vesicles and eDNA (Flemming and Wingender 2010). Many studies of biofilms formed by Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus, Listeria monocytogenes, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Neisseria meningitidis and Vibrio cholerae reveal eDNA to be required for biofilm organization, maturation or even initial attachment of bacteria to the surface (Harmsen et al. 2010; Lappann et al. 2010; Mann et al. 2009; Seper et al. 2011; Whitchurch et al. 2002). Besides its function as a structural component, Gloag and coworkers additionally showed that eDNA was important for coordination of bacterial alignment and movements during biofilm growth in P. aeruginosa (Gloag et al. 2013). In contrast, eDNA hinders biofilm development of Salmonella enterica ser. Typhimurium and ser. Typhi on abiotic surfaces and prevents Caulobacter crescentus swarmer progeny cells from settling into biofilm (Berne et al. 2010; Wang et al. 2014). For certain bacteria that form biofilm inside the host, an additional beneficial feature of eDNA is the induction of genes responsible for resistance to host antimicrobial peptides, as shown for Salmonella enterica ser. Typhimurium and P. aeruginosa (Johnson et al. 2013; Mulcahy et al. 2008). The presence of eDNA in bacterial biofilms is frequently accompanied by secretion of bacterial nucleases, which makes it a shapeable flexible structural component, adjustable to the needs of the bacterial community. Deletion of extracellular nucleases generally results in compact, thick and unstructured biofilms. Compared to wild-type these mutant biofilms lack visible fluid-filled channels characteristic of mature three-dimensional biofilm matrix (Cho et al. 2015; Kiedrowski et al. 2011; Seper et al. 2011; Steichen et al. 2011). In addition, nucleases are key enzymes, which play a critical role in the degradation of eDNA allowing its utilization as a carbon, nitrogen and phosphate source in nutrient-limited environments (Mulcahy et al. 2010; Pinchuk et al. 2008; Seper et al. 2011). The presence of eDNA in biofilms is not limited to the prokaryotic world. Recently, several reports demonstrate that eDNA contributes also to the maintenance and structural integrity of eukaryotic biofilms such as of Candida albicans and Aspergillus fumigatus, where it is hypothesized to confer antifungal resistance (Martins et al. 2010; Mathe and Van Dijck 2013; Rajendran et al. 2013). In laboratory research, we tend to see biofilms as single species communities, which is likely not the case in nature. Thus, eDNA could be a vital content produced, modulated and shared for use by multiple species within the biofilm association. Elucidation of such interactions and cross-talks between different species will be a future research task.

Bacteria encounter eDNA in the host and outside environment

Several mechanisms of eDNA release have been reported in recent years. eDNA can originate from other microorganisms, host or bacteria themselves. For S. aureus and Enterococcus faecalis, it has been proposed that eDNA release in biofilm development is mainly dependent on two mechanisms of autolysis: programmed cell death (altruistic suicide) and killing of sister cells (fratricide) (Montanaro et al. 2011; Rice et al. 2007; Thomas et al. 2008, 2009). Concordantly, decreased eDNA amounts and reduced biofilm formation have been observed in N. meningitidis and V. cholerae ampD mutants, which exhibit reduced autolysis (Lappann et al. 2010; Seper et al. 2011). In dual species cultures, Streptococcus sanguinis and Streptococcus gordonii release eDNA in a process induced by pyruvate oxidase-dependent production of H2O2. Such an autolysis-independent DNA release is suggested to be an adaptation to the competitive oral biofilm environment, where both species can efficiently compete with other H2O2-sensitive colonizers and autolysis could create open spaces for competitors to invade (Kreth et al. 2009). Besides bacterial eDNA release, eukaryotes can also be a donor of eDNA. For example, throughout the bacterial disease, several pathogens secrete pore-forming toxins, e.g., the alpha-hemolysin of E. coli, the cytolysin of V. cholerae, the listeriolysin O of L. monocytogenes, the alpha-toxin of S. aureus, or toxins that act as inhibitors on the protein synthesis, e.g., exotoxin A of P. aeruginosa, to induce apoptosis, necrosis and lysis of host cells and therefore promote liberation of DNA (Bayles et al. 1998; Fernandez-Prada et al. 1998; Guzman et al. 1996; Jonas et al. 1994; Merrick et al. 1997; Morimoto and Bonavida 1992; Moss et al. 1999; Rogers et al. 1996; Russo et al. 2005; Saka et al. 2008). Notably, in a variety of bacteria such as Streptococcus pneumoniae, S. aureus and N. meningitidis, typical cytoplasmic proteins are found to be be released via non-classical signal-dependent pathways (Bergmann et al. 2001; Gotz et al. 2015; Kolberg et al. 2008). Originally thought to occur via cell lysis, there is mounting evidence that excretion of such proteins involves a programmed process as part of their normal cell cycle, which could also be a relevant mechanism for eDNA liberation (Ebner et al. 2015a, b). Another source of eDNA in the host is a defense mechanism by the innate immune system known as neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs). NETs originate from neutrophils undergoing a programmed cell death upon activation through a variety of microbial pathogens (Fuchs et al. 2007). They release nuclear or mitochondrial DNA backbone associated with histones and granular and cytoplasmic proteins to capture and kill the intruders (Brinkmann et al. 2004). The immobilization furthermore prevents spread of the microbes from the initial site of infection and recruits additional professional phagocytes to eliminate the pathogens. In return, the microbes have evolved to escape these disarming and killing traps. The best strategy to evade NETs is to actively degrade them. Since the main component is DNA, NETs can be efficiently degraded by DNases, which has been demonstrated to be relevant for virulence fitness of several bacteria, including the group A Streptococcus, S. aureus, S. pneumoniae and V. cholerae (Beiter et al. 2006; Berends et al. 2010; Brinkmann et al. 2004; Buchanan et al. 2006; Seper et al. 2013). Recently, it was shown that S. aureus can further convert the DNA derived from NETs to 2′-deoxyadenosine by the activity of an adenosine synthase A on top of the endo-exonuclease Nuc (Thammavongsa et al. 2011, 2013). The released 2′-deoxyadenosine triggers apoptosis of macrophages via accumulation of intracellular dATP and activation of caspase-3 (Koopman et al. 1994; Thammavongsa et al. 2013). Thus, S. aureus not only evades NETs, but also turns the DNA of this defense mechanism back against the host by the use of bacterial enzymes.

Additionally to their function of releasing pathogens from NETs, nucleases can also mediate dispersal of biofilms. For example the two extracellular nucleases of V. cholerae are crucial for biofilm detachment (Seper et al. 2011). The impact of this biofilm dispersion is highlighted by the in vivo fitness of V. cholerae, the causative agent of the waterborne diarrheal disease cholera. V. cholerae biofilm clumps derived from the aquatic reservoir are a likely form in which the pathogen is taken up by humans. Such infectious aggregates provide a concentrated bacterial dose and are protected against acids or bile salts (Hall-Stoodley and Stoodley 2005; Hartley et al. 2006; Huq et al. 1996; Nalin et al. 1978, 1979; Pruzzo et al. 2008; Zhu and Mekalanos 2003). Indeed, biofilm-derived V. cholerae outcompete their planktonic counterparts in the murine model (Tamayo et al. 2010). However, for successful colonization in the small intestine V. cholerae has to detach from the biofilm to adhere and penetrate through the mucosal layer aided by motility, which requires a planktonic state (Butler and Camilli 2005; Freter and Jones 1976; Freter and O’Brien 1981; Zhu and Mekalanos 2003). Concordantly, biofilm clumps of extracellular nuclease mutants are attenuated in vivo, as biofilm detachment of these mutants is massively decreased (Seper et al. 2011).

eDNA serves as element for evolution and nutrient source

Extracellular DNA is also a pool for horizontal gene transfer (HGT), which is defined by the utilization of exogenous DNA for the purpose of genetic recombination and requires natural competence of bacterial cells to yield evolutionarily favorable properties. Generally, active DNA release for the purpose of HGT via bacterial conjugation occurs via type IV secretion system, which requires cell–cell contact. To our best knowledge, secretion of DNA via type IV secretion system without requirement of a physical cell–cell contact has only been documented for Neisseria gonorrhoeae. The consequence of such system is spreading genetic information through the population and the possibility of using eDNA for nutrient acquisition or biofilm formation without reducing cell population and promoting host immune response (Hamilton et al. 2005; Zweig et al. 2014). eDNA can also be found in association with outer membrane vesicles (OMVs) of Gram-negative species (Dorward et al. 1989; Garon et al. 1989; Loeb et al. 1981). Interestingly, OMVs in Helicobacter pylori and Pseudomonas putida promote biofilm formation (Baumgarten et al. 2012; Yonezawa et al. 2009). The same is known for Acinetobacter baumannii where release of OMVs is one of the main mechanisms that contribute to total availability of eDNA (Sahu et al. 2012). The export of DNA via membrane vesicles (MVs) has been observed for a long time as a characteristic of Gram-negative species (Dorward and Garon 1990); however, a recent study by Liao et al. showed the presence of eDNA in MVs of the Gram-positive bacterium Streptococcus mutans (Liao et al. 2014). MVs containing DNA increase the efficiency of DNA uptake and genetic recombination, as it has been shown for example in H. influenzae and E. coli, most likely because DNA in vesicles is protected from degradation and vesicles may efficiently fuse back into the cell membrane (Deich and Hoyer 1982; Kahn et al. 1983; Renelli et al. 2004; Yaron et al. 2000). Thus, MVs might act as DNA delivery vehicles, but the exact localization of the DNA, the molecular mechanism of DNA deposition in vesicles and later uptake in the donor cell as well as the relevance of MVs-mediated HGT need to be investigated in the future. A recent work of Borgeaud et al. demonstrates that V. cholerae is capable of type VI secretion system-mediated killing of nonimmune neighboring cells and liberation of their DNA, which can subsequently act as eDNA for HGT (Borgeaud et al. 2015).

Other examples for HGT include Campylobacter jejuni where eDNA facilitates transfer of genetic traits between bacteria in biofilm, which can contribute to spread of antimicrobial resistance (Brown et al. 2015). Furthermore, antibiotic resistances encoded on plasmids can spread via transformation in multispecies oral biofilms (Hannan et al. 2010). Notably, regulatory circuits of biofilm formation, quorum sensing (QS), carbon catabolite repression (CCR) and competence are frequently linked in bacteria (Spoering and Gilmore 2006; Yang and Lan 2015). In S. mutans, QS signal stimulates the uptake of eDNA causing cells in biofilm to undergo an enhanced competence induction (Håvarstein and Morrison 1999; Li et al. 2001). Moreover, transcription factor CcpA regulates competence and biofilm development in S. gordonii during CCR to ensure that cell energy is used for uptake of preferable carbon source (Zheng et al. 2012). In H. influenzae, competence is regulated by the availability of nucleic acid precursors, which is under control of CRP-dependent regulon (MacFadyen et al. 2001; Redfield et al. 2005). As nutrient starvation is the main signal for competence induction in H. influenzae, it has been suggested that it emerged as a ‘DNA for food’ uptake system, rather than being used for HGT (Redfield 1993). In addition, the competence system in E.coli possibly favors utilization of DNA for the purpose of nutrient acquisition rather than processing it for genetic transformation (Finkel and Kolter 2001).

One of the intensively studied regulatory systems of competence is V. cholerae. Meibom et al. showed that V. cholerae induces natural competence when growing on chitin, an abundant biopolymer that can be readily used as a carbon source, suggesting another example of bacterial competence during CCR (Meibom et al. 2005). Thus, it is not surprising that the above-mentioned type VI secretion system in V. cholerae, which promotes bacterial predation when growing on chitin, is a part of the competence regulon (Borgeaud et al. 2015). Chitin utilization and competence genes in V. cholerae are under positive control of the QS regulator HapR, the cytidine repressor CytR and CRP, a global regulator of CCR (Antonova et al. 2012; Antonova and Hammer 2015). Interestingly, CytR acts on the competence genes as an anti-activator in concert with the CRP–cAMP complex, while free cytidine is a repressor for natural competence (Antonova et al. 2012). In contrast, HapR acts as a repressor for the secreted endonuclease Dns, and CytR negatively controls nucleoside uptake via inner membrane transporters in V. cholerae (Blokesch and Schoolnik 2008; Gumpenberger et al. 2015; Haugo and Watnick 2002; Lo Scrudato and Blokesch 2012). Additionally, the CRP–cAMP complex positively regulates the nucleoside uptake (Gumpenberger et al. 2015). Taken together, absence of PTS sugars resulting in high levels of cAMP is a prerequisite for activation of competence and utilization of DNA as nutrient source. At low cell densities and presence of nucleotide expression of genes involved in utilization of eDNA, including the secreted endonuclease Dns may facilitate survival using eDNA as nutrient source. At high cell density and presence of nutrient sources other than nucleotides, eDNA utilization is repressed and the uptake of intact DNA and potential genome diversification by HGT is in favor.

The complex pathway of eDNA degradation in V. cholerae and the subsequent utilization of nucleotides as phosphate, carbon and nitrogen source has recently been solved. Extracellular nucleases Xds and Dns are both induced under low phosphate conditions (McDonough et al. 2014; Seper et al. 2011), causing extracellular accumulation of nucleotides. Nucleotides can transit through outer membrane via pore-forming outer membrane protein OmpK, a homolog of Tsx in E. coli (Maier et al. 1988; Osborn and Wu 1980), and are subsequently dephosphorylated in the periplasm via three periplasmic phosphatases (nucleotidases) with different specificities. In detail, UshA facilitates phosphate removal from all four 5′ deoxynucleotides, CpdB from 3′AMP, 3′dGMP and 3′TMP and PhoX preferentially from 3′dAMP and 3′dCMP (McDonough et al. 2015). Free nucleosides are then readily taken up in the cell by three NupC nucleoside transport systems and used as a source of carbon and nitrogen (Gumpenberger et al. 2015), while phosphate is taken up by the Pst/PhoU system which has been identified in the genome and demonstrated as active (Heidelberg et al. 2000; McDonough et al. 2014; Pratt et al. 2009). All three nucleoside transport systems are functional, but exhibit slightly different nucleobase specificity and activities (Gumpenberger et al. 2015). Interestingly, a mutant lacking all three nucleoside transporters shows no attenuation in vivo, but exhibits a fitness disadvantage when transitioning from the host to nutrient-poor aquatic environment (Gumpenberger et al. 2015). Similar observations have been previously reported for hexose-6-phosphate uptake in V. cholerae (Moisi et al. 2013). Notably, V. cholerae is capable of storing carbon and phosphate in the form of glycogen or polyphosphate, respectively (Bourassa and Camilli 2009; Jahid et al. 2006). Such findings reinforce the hypothesis in which nucleoside uptake genes, like many other genes induced in later stages of the V. cholerae infection, do not play a direct role in the in vivo fitness, but rather increase the transition fitness of the pathogen due to the severe drop in nutrient source availability upon exiting from the host into the aquatic environments (Schild et al. 2007).

Originally described in E. coli, NupC transport system was shown to be a member of concentrative nucleoside transporter (CNT) family, driven by H+-motive force and discriminative for adenosine and cytidine (Munch-Petersen and Mygind 1976; Patching et al. 2005). Several homologs of E. coli NupC have been known to act as nucleoside transporters in S. aureus, H. pylori or Bacillus subtilis where nucleosides can be used as energy source or for de novo synthesis of nucleotides (Kriegeskorte et al. 2014; Miller et al. 2012; Saxild et al. 1996). Interestingly, three NupC systems of V. cholerae are the first bacterial nucleoside transport systems, which use Na+ for effective transport like their homologs hCNT or rCNT in humans or rodents, respectively (Johnson et al. 2012; Ritzel et al. 1997). Therefore, V. cholerae might be an ideal bacterial candidate for investigating the cellular uptake route for many cytotoxic nucleoside derivatives used in the treatment of viral and neoplastic diseases (Baldwin et al. 1999; Johnson et al. 2012, 2014).

Conclusion and future perspectives

Throughout the evolution, bacteria have been forced to acquire mechanisms, which would enable fast regulation of gene expression in response to different environmental signals. Such genes are often involved in major physiological changes, such as transition from host to the outside environment and switch from planktonic to sessile state or vice versa. Especially, biofilm formation is a survival strategy of many bacteria and can be seen in the host, or aquatic or terrestrial habitat. Cells in the biofilm are embedded in the dynamic matrix where they reach homeostasis and are organized to exploit all available nutrients (Sutherland 2001). Particularly, eDNA has recently emerged as an important component of the biofilm matrix which forms agglomerates with other matrix components and therefore acts as a ‘glue’ between cells, contributing to its stability (Peterson et al. 2013). Thus, eDNA can be seen as a potential target for biofilm control, as destabilizing of eDNA interactions with other matrix components generally leads to destabilization of biofilm and increased antibiotic susceptibility (Okshevsky et al. 2015). In this review, we also focused on degradation of eDNA and its subsequent uptake into the cell via nucleoside transporters in human pathogen V. cholerae, which like many bacteria can utilize eDNA as source of nutrients. Yet, many questions are left unanswered—Why are V. cholerae transporters sodium dependent? Why V. cholerae needs three transporters? The answer could lay in the observation of its life cycle, which is marked by distinct changes in nutrient availability, osmolarity, pH and temperature. Similarly, B. subtilis also encodes three nucleoside transporters. B. subtilis enters a dormant stage (spore) when nutrients in the environment are deprived. The existence of three nucleoside transport systems may enable bacteria to selectively take up compounds relevant for a specific stage of the life cycle. Concordantly, the regulation of such systems ensures that, once the cell has started the differentiation or adaptation, they can be completed even with environmental changes (Beaman et al. 1983). Whether this is also true for other pathogens with complex life cycles, which are able to make use of eDNA as a nutrient source, remains to be elucidated.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work was supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) grants: W901 (DK Molecular Enzymology) to D. V., K. P. and S. S., as well as P22986 and P27654 to S. S.

References

  1. Antonova ES, Hammer BK (2015) Genetics of natural competence in Vibrio cholerae and other vibrios. Microbiol Spectr. doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.VE-0010-2014 vol 3 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Antonova ES, Bernardy EE, Hammer BK (2012) Natural competence in Vibrio cholerae is controlled by a nucleoside scavenging response that requires CytR-dependent anti-activation. Mol Microbiol 86:1215–1231. doi: 10.1111/mmi.12054 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin SA, Mackey JR, Cass CE, Young JD (1999) Nucleoside transporters: molecular biology and implications for therapeutic development. Mol Med Today 5:216–224. doi: 10.1016/S1357-4310(99)01459-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumgarten T, Sperling S, Seifert J, von Bergen M, Steiniger F, Wick LY, Heipieper HJ (2012) Membrane vesicle formation as a multiple-stress response mechanism enhances Pseudomonas putida DOT-T1E cell surface hydrophobicity and biofilm formation. Appl Environ Microbiol 78:6217–6224. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01525-12 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bayles KW, Wesson CA, Liou LE, Fox LK, Bohach GA, Trumble WR (1998) Intracellular Staphylococcus aureus escapes the endosome and induces apoptosis in epithelial cells. Infect Immun 66:336–342PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Beaman TC, Hitchins AD, Ochi K, Vasantha N, Endo T, Freese E (1983) Specificity and control of uptake of purines and other compounds in Bacillus subtilis. J Bacteriol 156:1107–1117PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Beiter K, Wartha F, Albiger B, Normark S, Zychlinsky A, Henriques-Normark B (2006) An endonuclease allows Streptococcus pneumoniae to escape from neutrophil extracellular traps. Curr Biol 16:401–407. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.01.056 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berends ET, Horswill AR, Haste NM, Monestier M, Nizet V, von Kockritz-Blickwede M (2010) Nuclease expression by Staphylococcus aureus facilitates escape from neutrophil extracellular traps. J Innate Immun 2:576–586. doi: 10.1159/000319909 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bergmann S, Rohde M, Chhatwal GS, Hammerschmidt S (2001) alpha-Enolase of Streptococcus pneumoniae is a plasmin(ogen)-binding protein displayed on the bacterial cell surface. Mol Microbiol 40:1273–1287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berne C, Kysela DT, Brun YV (2010) A bacterial extracellular DNA inhibits settling of motile progeny cells within a biofilm. Mol Microbiol 77:815–829. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2010.07267.x PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Blokesch M, Schoolnik GK (2008) The extracellular nuclease Dns and its role in natural transformation of Vibrio cholerae. J Bacteriol 190:7232–7240. doi: 10.1128/JB.00959-08 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borgeaud S, Metzger LC, Scrignari T, Blokesch M (2015) The type VI secretion system of Vibrio cholerae fosters horizontal gene transfer. Science 347:63–67. doi: 10.1126/science.1260064 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bourassa L, Camilli A (2009) Glycogen contributes to the environmental persistence and transmission of Vibrio cholerae. Mol Microbiol 72:124–138. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2009.06629.x PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brinkmann V et al (2004) Neutrophil extracellular traps kill bacteria. Science 303:1532–1535. doi: 10.1126/science.1092385 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown HL, Hanman K, Reuter M, Betts RP, van Vliet AH (2015) Campylobacter jejuni biofilms contain extracellular DNA and are sensitive to DNase I treatment. Front Microbiol 6:699. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00699 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Buchanan JT et al (2006) DNase expression allows the pathogen group A Streptococcus to escape killing in neutrophil extracellular traps. Curr Biol 16:396–400. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2005.12.039 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Butler SM, Camilli A (2005) Going against the grain: chemotaxis and infection in Vibrio cholerae. Nat Rev Microbiol 3:611–620. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro1207 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Catlin BW (1956) Extracellular deoxyribonucleic acid of bacteria and a deoxyribonuclease inhibitor. Science 124:441–442. doi: 10.1126/science.124.3219.441 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cho C et al (2015) Role of the nuclease of nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae in dispersal of organisms from biofilms. Infect Immun 83:950–957. doi: 10.1128/IAI.02601-14 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deich RA, Hoyer LC (1982) Generation and release of DNA-binding vesicles by Haemophilus influenzae during induction and loss of competence. J Bacteriol 152:855–864PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Dell’Anno A, Danovaro R (2005) Extracellular DNA plays a key role in deep-sea ecosystem functioning. Science (NY) 309:2179. doi: 10.1126/science.1117475 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dorward DW, Garon CF (1990) DNA is packaged within membrane-derived vesicles of gram-negative but not gram-positive bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 56:1960–1962PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Dorward DW, Garon CF, Judd RC (1989) Export and intercellular transfer of DNA via membrane blebs of Neisseria gonorrhoeae. J Bacteriol 171:2499–2505PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Dubnau D (1999) DNA uptake in bacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol 53:217–244. doi: 10.1146/annurev.micro.53.1.217 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ebner P et al (2015a) Excretion of cytoplasmic proteins (ECP) in Staphylococcus aureus. Mol Microbiol 97:775–789. doi: 10.1111/mmi.13065 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ebner P, Rinker J, Gotz F (2015b) Excretion of cytoplasmic proteins in Staphylococcus is most likely not due to cell lysis. Curr Genet. doi: 10.1007/s00294-015-0504-z PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Ferencz A, Orskov I, Orskov F, Klemm P (1980) Deoxyribonucleic acid is a significant component of the small-intestinal mucus. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand B 88:347–348. doi: 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1980.tb02654.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Fernandez-Prada C, Tall BD, Elliott SE, Hoover DL, Nataro JP, Venkatesan MM (1998) Hemolysin-positive enteroaggregative and cell-detaching Escherichia coli strains cause oncosis of human monocyte-derived macrophages and apoptosis of murine J774 cells. Infect Immun 66:3918–3924PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Finkel SE, Kolter R (2001) DNA as a nutrient: novel role for bacterial competence gene homologs. J Bacteriol 183:6288–6293. doi: 10.1128/JB.183.21.6288-6293.2001 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Flemming HC, Wingender J (2010) The biofilm matrix. Nat Rev Microbiol 8:623–633. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2415 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Freter R, Jones GW (1976) Adhesive properties of Vibrio cholerae: nature of the interaction with intact mucosal surfaces. Infect Immun 14:246–256PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Freter R, O’Brien PCM (1981) Role of chemotaxis in the association of motile bacteria with intestinal mucosa: chemotactic responses of Vibrio cholerae and description of motile nonchemotactic mutants. Infect Immun 34:215–221PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Fuchs TA et al (2007) Novel cell death program leads to neutrophil extracellular traps. J Cell Biol 176:231–241. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200606027 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Garon CF, Dorward DW, Corwin MD (1989) Structural features of Borrelia burgdorferi—the lyme disease spirochete: silver staining for nucleic acids. Scan Microsc Suppl 3:109–115Google Scholar
  35. Gloag ES et al (2013) Self-organization of bacterial biofilms is facilitated by extracellular DNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:11541–11546. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1218898110 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gotz F, Yu W, Dube L, Prax M, Ebner P (2015) Excretion of cytosolic proteins (ECP) in bacteria. Int J Med Microbiol 305:230–237. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmm.2014.12.021 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Griffith F (1928) The significance of pneumococcal types. J Hyg 27:113–159. doi: 10.1017/S0022172400031879 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gumpenberger T et al (2015) Nucleoside uptake in Vibrio cholerae and its role in the transition fitness from host to environment. Mol Microbiol. doi: 10.1111/mmi.13143 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Guzman CA et al (1996) Apoptosis of mouse dendritic cells is triggered by listeriolysin, the major virulence determinant of Listeria monocytogenes. Mol Microbiol 20:119–126. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.1996.tb02494.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hall-Stoodley L, Stoodley P (2005) Biofilm formation and dispersal and the transmission of human pathogens. Trends Microbiol 13:7–10. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2004.11.004 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hall-Stoodley L, Costerton JW, Stoodley P (2004) Bacterial biofilms: from the natural environment to infectious diseases. Nat Rev Microbiol 2:95–108. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro821 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hamilton HL, Dominguez NM, Schwartz KJ, Hackett KT, Dillard JP (2005) Neisseria gonorrhoeae secretes chromosomal DNA via a novel type IV secretion system. Mol Microbiol 55:1704–1721. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2005.04521.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hannan S, Ready D, Jasni AS, Rogers M, Pratten J, Roberts AP (2010) Transfer of antibiotic resistance by transformation with eDNA within oral biofilms. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 59:345–349. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-695X.2010.00661.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Harmsen M, Lappann M, Knochel S, Molin S (2010) Role of extracellular DNA during biofilm formation by Listeria monocytogenes. Appl Environ Microbiol 76:2271–2279. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02361-09 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hartley DM, Morris JG Jr, Smith DL (2006) Hyperinfectivity: a critical element in the ability of V. cholerae to cause epidemics? PLoS Med 3:e7. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030007 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Haugo AJ, Watnick PI (2002) Vibrio cholerae CytR is a repressor of biofilm development. Mol Microbiol 45:471–483. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2002.03023.x PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Håvarstein LS, Morrison DA (1999) QS and peptide pheromones in streptococcal competence for genetic transformation. In: Dunny GM, Winans SC (eds) Cell–cell signaling in bacteria. ASM Press, Washington, pp 9–192Google Scholar
  48. Heidelberg JF et al (2000) DNA sequence of both chromosomes of the cholera pathogen Vibrio cholerae. Nature 406:477–483. doi: 10.1038/35020000 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Huq A, Xu B, Chowdhury MA, Islam MS, Montilla R, Colwell RR (1996) A simple filtration method to remove plankton-associated Vibrio cholerae in raw water supplies in developing countries. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:2508–2512PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Jahid IK, Silva AJ, Benitez JA (2006) Polyphosphate stores enhance the ability of Vibrio cholerae to overcome environmental stresses in a low-phosphate environment. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:7043–7049. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00924-06 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Johnson ZL, Cheong CG, Lee SY (2012) Crystal structure of a concentrative nucleoside transporter from Vibrio cholerae at 2.4 A. Nature 483:489–493. doi: 10.1038/nature10882 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Johnson L, Horsman SR, Charron-Mazenod L, Turnbull AL, Mulcahy H, Surette MG, Lewenza S (2013) Extracellular DNA-induced antimicrobial peptide resistance in Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium. BMC Microbiol 13:115. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-13-115 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Johnson ZL, Lee JH, Lee K, Lee M, Kwon DY, Hong J, Lee SY (2014) Structural basis of nucleoside and nucleoside drug selectivity by concentrative nucleoside transporters. eLife 3:e03604. doi: 10.7554/eLife.03604 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jonas D, Walev I, Berger T, Liebetrau M, Palmer M, Bhakdi S (1994) Novel path to apoptosis: small transmembrane pores created by staphylococcal alpha-toxin in T lymphocytes evoke internucleosomal DNA degradation. Infect Immun 62:1304–1312PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Kahn ME, Barany F, Smith HO (1983) Transformasomes: specialized membranous structures that protect DNA during Haemophilus transformation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 80:6927–6931. doi: 10.1073/pnas.80.22.6927 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kiedrowski MR et al (2011) Nuclease modulates biofilm formation in community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. PLoS One 6:e26714. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026714 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kolberg J, Hammerschmidt S, Frank R, Jonak J, Sanderova H, Aase A (2008) The surface-associated elongation factor Tu is concealed for antibody binding on viable pneumococci and meningococci. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 53:222–230. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-695X.2008.00419.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Koopman G, Reutelingsperger CP, Kuijten GA, Keehnen RM, Pals ST, van Oers MH (1994) Annexin V for flow cytometric detection of phosphatidylserine expression on B cells undergoing apoptosis. Blood 84:1415–1420PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Kreth J, Vu H, Zhang Y, Herzberg MC (2009) Characterization of hydrogen peroxide-induced DNA release by Streptococcus sanguinis and Streptococcus gordonii. J Bacteriol 191:6281–6291. doi: 10.1128/JB.00906-09 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kriegeskorte A et al (2014) Inactivation of thyA in Staphylococcus aureus attenuates virulence and has a strong impact on metabolism and virulence gene expression. Mbio 5:e01447–e01514. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01447-14 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lappann M, Claus H, van Alen T, Harmsen M, Elias J, Molin S, Vogel U (2010) A dual role of extracellular DNA during biofilm formation of Neisseria meningitidis. Mol Microbiol 75:1355–1371. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2010.07054.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Li YH, Lau PC, Lee JH, Ellen RP, Cvitkovitch DG (2001) Natural genetic transformation of Streptococcus mutans growing in biofilms. J Bacteriol 183:897–908. doi: 10.1128/JB.183.3.897-908.2001 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Liao S et al (2014) Streptococcus mutans extracellular DNA is upregulated during growth in biofilms, actively released via membrane vesicles, and influenced by components of the protein secretion machinery. J Bacteriol 196:2355–2366. doi: 10.1128/JB.01493-14 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lo Scrudato M, Blokesch M (2012) The regulatory network of natural competence and transformation of Vibrio cholerae. PLoS Genet 8:e1002778. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002778 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Loeb MR, Zachary AL, Smith DH (1981) Isolation and partial characterization of outer and inner membranes from encapsulated Haemophilus influenzae type b. J Bacteriol 145:596–604PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. MacFadyen LP, Chen D, Vo HC, Liao D, Sinotte R, Redfield RJ (2001) Competence development by Haemophilus influenzae is regulated by the availability of nucleic acid precursors. Mol Microbiol 40:700–707. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2001.02419.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Maier C, Bremer E, Schmid A, Benz R (1988) Pore-forming activity of the Tsx protein from the outer membrane of Escherichia coli. Demonstration of a nucleoside-specific binding site. J Biol Chem 263:2493–2499PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Mann EE et al (2009) Modulation of eDNA release and degradation affects Staphylococcus aureus biofilm maturation. PLoS One 4:e5822. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005822 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Martins M, Uppuluri P, Thomas DP, Cleary IA, Henriques M, Lopez-Ribot JL, Oliveira R (2010) Presence of extracellular DNA in the Candida albicans biofilm matrix and its contribution to biofilms. Mycopathologia 169:323–331. doi: 10.1007/s11046-009-9264-y PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mathe L, Van Dijck P (2013) Recent insights into Candida albicans biofilm resistance mechanisms. Curr Genet 59:251–264. doi: 10.1007/s00294-013-0400-3 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. McDonough E, Lazinski DW, Camilli A (2014) Identification of in vivo regulators of the Vibrio cholerae xds gene using a high-throughput genetic selection. Mol Microbiol 92:302–315. doi: 10.1111/mmi.12557 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. McDonough E, Kamp H, Camilli A (2015) Vibrio cholerae phosphatases required for the utilization of nucleotides and extracellular DNA as phosphate sources. Mol Microbiol. doi: 10.1111/mmi.13128 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Meibom KL, Blokesch M, Dolganov NA, Wu CY, Schoolnik GK (2005) Chitin induces natural competence in Vibrio cholerae. Science 310:1824–1827. doi: 10.1126/science.1120096 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Merrick JC, Edelson BT, Bhardwaj V, Swanson PE, Unanue ER (1997) Lymphocyte apoptosis during early phase of Listeria infection in mice. Am J Pathol 151:785–792PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Miller EF, Vaish S, Maier RJ (2012) Efficiency of purine utilization by Helicobacter pylori: roles for adenosine deaminase and a NupC homolog. PLoS One 7:e38727. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038727 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Moisi M, Lichtenegger S, Tutz S, Seper A, Schild S, Reidl J (2013) Characterizing the hexose-6-phosphate transport system of Vibrio cholerae, a utilization system for carbon and phosphate sources. J Bacteriol 195:1800–1808. doi: 10.1128/JB.01952-12 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Montanaro L, Poggi A, Visai L, Ravaioli S, Campoccia D, Speziale P, Arciola CR (2011) Extracellular DNA in biofilms. Int J Artif Org 34:824–831. doi: 10.5301/ijao.5000051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Morimoto H, Bonavida B (1992) Diphtheria toxin- and pseudomonas A toxin-mediated apoptosis. ADP ribosylation of elongation factor-2 is required for DNA fragmentation and cell lysis and synergy with tumor necrosis factor-alpha. J Immunol 149:2089–2094PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Moss JE, Aliprantis AO, Zychlinsky A (1999) The regulation of apoptosis by microbial pathogens. Int Rev Cytol 187:203–259. doi: 10.1016/S0074-7696(08)62419-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Mulcahy H, Charron-Mazenod L, Lewenza S (2008) Extracellular DNA chelates cations and induces antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. PLoS Pathog 4:e1000213. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1000213 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Mulcahy H, Charron-Mazenod L, Lewenza S (2010) Pseudomonas aeruginosa produces an extracellular deoxyribonuclease that is required for utilization of DNA as a nutrient source. Environ Microbiol 12:1621–1629. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2010.02208.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Munch-Petersen A, Mygind B (1976) Nucleoside transport systems in Escherichia coli K12: specificity and regulation. J Cell Physiol 89:551–559PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Nalin DR et al (1978) Cholera, non-vibrio cholera, and stomach acid. Lancet 2:856–859. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(78)91568-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Nalin DR, Daya V, Reid A, Levine MM, Cisneros L (1979) Adsorption and growth of Vibrio cholerae on chitin. Infect Immun 25:768–770PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Niemeyer J, Gessler F (2002) Determination of free DNA in soils. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 165:121–124. doi: 10.1002/1522-2624(200204)165:2<121:Aid-Jpln1111121>3.0.Co;2-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Okshevsky M, Regina VR, Meyer RL (2015) Extracellular DNA as a target for biofilm control. Curr Opin Biotechnol 33:73–80. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2014.12.002 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Osborn MJ, Wu HC (1980) Proteins of the outer membrane of gram-negative bacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol 34:369–422. doi: 10.1146/annurev.mi.34.100180.002101 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Patching SG, Baldwin SA, Baldwin AD, Young JD, Gallagher MP, Henderson PJ, Herbert RB (2005) The nucleoside transport proteins, NupC and NupG, from Escherichia coli: specific structural motifs necessary for the binding of ligands. Org Biomol Chem 3:462–470. doi: 10.1039/b414739a PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Peterson BW, van der Mei HC, Sjollema J, Busscher HJ, Sharma PK (2013) A distinguishable role of eDNA in the viscoelastic relaxation of biofilms mBio 4:e00497–e00513. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00497-13 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Pinchuk GE et al (2008) Utilization of DNA as a sole source of phosphorus, carbon, and energy by Shewanella spp.: ecological and physiological implications for dissimilatory metal reduction. Appl Environ Microbiol 74:1198–1208. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02026-07 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Pratt JT, McDonough E, Camilli A (2009) PhoB regulates motility, biofilms, and cyclic di-GMP in Vibrio cholerae. J Bacteriol 191:6632–6642. doi: 10.1128/JB.00708-09 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Pruzzo C, Vezzulli L, Colwell RR (2008) Global impact of Vibrio cholerae interactions with chitin. Environ Microbiol 10:1400–1410. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2007.01559.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Rajendran R, Williams C, Lappin DF, Millington O, Martins M, Ramage G (2013) Extracellular DNA release acts as an antifungal resistance mechanism in mature Aspergillus fumigatus biofilms. Eukaryot Cell 12:420–429. doi: 10.1128/EC.00287-12 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Redfield RJ (1993) Genes for breakfast: the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too of bacterial transformation. J Hered 84:400–404PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Redfield RJ, Cameron AD, Qian Q, Hinds J, Ali TR, Kroll JS, Langford PR (2005) A novel CRP-dependent regulon controls expression of competence genes in Haemophilus influenzae. J Mol Biol 347:735–747. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2005.01.012 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Renelli M, Matias V, Lo RY, Beveridge TJ (2004) DNA-containing membrane vesicles of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 and their genetic transformation potential. Microbiology 150:2161–2169. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.26841-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Rice KC, Mann EE, Endres JL, Weiss EC, Cassat JE, Smeltzer MS, Bayles KW (2007) The cidA murein hydrolase regulator contributes to DNA release and biofilm development in Staphylococcus aureus. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:8113–8118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0610226104 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Ritzel MW, Yao SY, Huang MY, Elliott JF, Cass CE, Young JD (1997) Molecular cloning and functional expression of cDNAs encoding a human Na+-nucleoside cotransporter (hCNT1). Am J Physiol 272:C707–C714PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Rogers HW, Callery MP, Deck B, Unanue ER (1996) Listeria monocytogenes induces apoptosis of infected hepatocytes. J Immunol 156:679–684PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Russo TA et al (2005) E. coli virulence factor hemolysin induces neutrophil apoptosis and necrosis/lysis in vitro and necrosis/lysis and lung injury in a rat pneumonia model. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 289:L207–L216. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00482.2004 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Sahu PK, Iyer PS, Oak AM, Pardesi KR, Chopade BA (2012) Characterization of eDNA from the clinical strain Acinetobacter baumannii AIIMS 7 and its role in biofilm formation. Sci World J 2012:973436. doi: 10.1100/2012/973436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Saka HA et al (2008) Vibrio cholerae cytolysin is essential for high enterotoxicity and apoptosis induction produced by a cholera toxin gene-negative V. cholerae non-O1, non-O139 strain. Microb Pathog 44:118–128. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2007.08.013 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Saxild HH, Andersen LN, Hammer K (1996) Dra-nupC-pdp operon of Bacillus subtilis: nucleotide sequence, induction by deoxyribonucleosides, and transcriptional regulation by the deoR-encoded DeoR repressor protein. J Bacteriol 178:424–434PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Schild S, Tamayo R, Nelson EJ, Qadri F, Calderwood SB, Camilli A (2007) Genes induced late in infection increase fitness of Vibrio cholerae after release into the environment. Cell Host Microbe 2:264–277. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2007.09.004 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Seper A et al (2011) Extracellular nucleases and extracellular DNA play important roles in Vibrio cholerae biofilm formation. Mol Microbiol 82:1015–1037. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2011.07867.x PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Seper A et al (2013) Vibrio cholerae evades neutrophil extracellular traps by the activity of two extracellular nucleases. PLoS Pathog 9:e1003614. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003614 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Spoering AL, Gilmore MS (2006) Quorum sensing and DNA release in bacterial biofilms. Curr Opin Microbiol 9:133–137. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2006.02.004 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Steichen CT, Cho C, Shao JQ, Apicella MA (2011) The Neisseria gonorrhoeae biofilm matrix contains DNA, and an endogenous nuclease controls its incorporation. Infect Immun 79:1504–1511. doi: 10.1128/IAI.01162-10 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Sutherland IW (2001) The biofilm matrix—an immobilized but dynamic microbial environment. Trends Microbiol 9:222–227. doi: 10.1016/S0966-842X(01)02012-1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Tamayo R, Patimalla B, Camilli A (2010) Growth in a biofilm induces a hyperinfectious phenotype in Vibrio cholerae. Infect Immun 78:3560–3569PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Thammavongsa V, Schneewind O, Missiakas DM (2011) Enzymatic properties of Staphylococcus aureus adenosine synthase (AdsA). BMC Biochem 12:56. doi: 10.1186/1471-2091-12-56 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Thammavongsa V, Missiakas DM, Schneewind O (2013) Staphylococcus aureus degrades neutrophil extracellular traps to promote immune cell death. Science 342:863–866. doi: 10.1126/science.1242255 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Thomas VC, Thurlow LR, Boyle D, Hancock LE (2008) Regulation of autolysis-dependent extracellular DNA release by Enterococcus faecalis extracellular proteases influences biofilm development. J Bacteriol 190:5690–5698. doi: 10.1128/JB.00314-08 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Thomas VC, Hiromasa Y, Harms N, Thurlow L, Tomich J, Hancock LE (2009) A fratricidal mechanism is responsible for eDNA release and contributes to biofilm development of Enterococcus faecalis. Mol Microbiol 72:1022–1036. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2009.06703.x PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Wang H, Huang Y, Wu S, Li Y, Ye Y, Zheng Y, Huang R (2014) Extracellular DNA inhibits Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium and S. enterica serovar typhi biofilm development on abiotic surfaces. Curr Microbiol 68:262–268. doi: 10.1007/s00284-013-0468-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Whitchurch CB, Tolker-Nielsen T, Ragas PC, Mattick JS (2002) Extracellular DNA required for bacterial biofilm formation. Science 295:1487. doi: 10.1126/science.295.5559.1487 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Yang N, Lan L (2015) Pseudomonas aeruginosa Lon and ClpXP proteases: roles in linking carbon catabolite repression system with quorum-sensing system. Curr Genet. doi: 10.1007/s00294-015-0499-5 Google Scholar
  118. Yaron S, Kolling GL, Simon L, Matthews KR (2000) Vesicle-mediated transfer of virulence genes from Escherichia coli O157:H7 to other enteric bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 66:4414–4420. doi: 10.1128/AEM.66.10.4414-4420.2000 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Yonezawa H et al (2009) Outer membrane vesicles of Helicobacter pylori TK1402 are involved in biofilm formation. BMC Microbiol 9:197. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-9-197 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Zheng L, Chen Z, Itzek A, Herzberg MC, Kreth J (2012) CcpA regulates biofilm formation and competence in Streptococcus gordonii. Mol Oral Microbiol 27:83–94. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-1014.2011.00633.x PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Zhu J, Mekalanos JJ (2003) Quorum sensing-dependent biofilms enhance colonization in Vibrio cholerae. Dev Cell 5:647–656. doi: 10.1016/S1534-5807(03)00295-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Zweig M et al (2014) Secreted single-stranded DNA is involved in the initial phase of biofilm formation by Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Environ Microbiol 16:1040–1052. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.12291 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dina Vorkapic
    • 1
  • Katharina Pressler
    • 1
  • Stefan Schild
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Molecular Biosciences, University of GrazGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations