Skip to main content
Advertisement
  • Loading metrics

Phenotypic heterogeneity optimizes trade-offs during adaptive deployment of the type VI secretion system

  • Boris Taillefer,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Laboratoire d’Ingénierie des Systèmes Macromoléculaires (LISM), Aix-Marseille University, CNRS, Marseille, France

  • Florian Schattenberg,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology

    Affiliation Department of Applied Microbial Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Leipzig, Germany

  • Thierry Doan,

    Roles Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Laboratoire d’Ingénierie des Systèmes Macromoléculaires (LISM), Aix-Marseille University, CNRS, Marseille, France

  • Susann Müller,

    Roles Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Applied Microbial Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Leipzig, Germany

  • Eric Cascales

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    cascales@imm.cnrs.fr

    Affiliation Laboratoire d’Ingénierie des Systèmes Macromoléculaires (LISM), Aix-Marseille University, CNRS, Marseille, France

Abstract

The type VI secretion system (T6SS) is a widespread nanoweapon deployed by bacteria to eliminate competitors in polymicrobial environments, allowing niche colonization or host invasion. Fluorescence microscopy recordings have shown that T6SS expression and/or activation is heterogeneous in clonal populations of many bacterial species. However, it is still unknown whether T6SS heterogeneity is genetically controlled or arises from stochastic processes and what its physiological relevance is. Here, we report that enteroaggregative Escherichia coli (EAEC) exhibits stable phenotypic heterogeneity in T6SS expression. Under iron-limiting conditions, the Sci1 T6SS is expressed in only a subset of the population, creating distinct ON and OFF subpopulations in a reversible, heritable, and epigenetically controlled equilibrium. This heterogeneity is governed by the interplay between the iron-responsive regulator Fur- and Dam-dependent DNA methylation at the sci1 promoter. Mutations in Fur binding sites or GATC methylation motifs shift the population to homogeneous ON or OFF states, respectively. Functional analyses reveal that while ON cells mediate antibacterial activity, OFF cells buffer the population against lethal retaliatory responses from defensive T6SS⁺ competitors. Our results suggest that T6SS heterogeneity in EAEC represents a finely tuned attenuation strategy optimizing the trade-off between competitive killing and survival in hostile microbial communities. This work uncovers a novel layer of regulation in T6SS deployment and highlights phenotypic heterogeneity as an adaptive trait in interbacterial warfare.

Introduction

The type VI secretion system (T6SS) is a contractile nanoweapon that delivers effectors into neighboring cells via a spring-like injection mechanism [1]. By targeting both bacterial competitors and eukaryotic host cells, the T6SS plays a central role in microbial competition, polymicrobial community dynamics, and pathogenesis [2]. T6SS gene clusters are widespread in gram-negative bacteria inhabiting diverse ecological niches, including opportunistic respiratory pathogens, enteric pathogens and commensals, plant-associated symbionts and pathogens, and free-living soil and marine species [3,4]. Because T6SS activity can profoundly alter microbial interactions and host colonization, its expression is tightly regulated by a range of environmental cues [5,6]. T6SSs gene clusters respond to physical, chemical, and nutritional signals, including cell density, pH, temperature, salinity, viscosity, nutrient availability, host-derived stimuli or stresses, via quorum sensing, two-component systems, alternative sigma factors, or global regulators [5,6].

In enteroaggregative Escherichia coli (EAEC), the sci1 T6SS gene cluster is controlled by iron availability through the ferric uptake regulator Fur, and by the DNA adenine methylase Dam [7]. The promoter of the sci1 gene cluster (Psci1) is comprised of two Fur binding sites (proximal F1 and distal F2 boxes) and three GATC sites (G1, G2, and G3), with the F1 box and G1 site overlapping the transcriptional −10 element. This architecture establishes direct competition between Fur, Dam, and RNA polymerase for promoter occupancy in an iron-dependent manner: under iron-rich conditions, holo-Fur binds to the promoter, preventing G1 methylation and repressing sci1 expression (OFF state). Conversely, under iron starvation, apo-Fur loses affinity for the promoter, allowing Dam-mediated methylation of G1 and favoring promoter activation and expression of the T6SS sci1 gene cluster (ON state) [7].

Promoter architectures that couple transcription factor binding with DNA methylation can generate bistable gene expression states, producing epigenetic regulation and phenotypic heterogeneity [8]. Indeed, fluorescence microscopy using translational fusions to T6SS core components has suggested heterogeneous expression in EAEC [915]. T6SS heterogeneous expression or activation has also been observed in several other species [1622]. Phenotypic heterogeneity refers to the emergence of distinct phenotypic states within a clonal population, driven by cell-to-cell variation in gene expression [8,2325]. Such heterogeneity can arise from genetic (e.g., DNA rearrangements) or nongenetic (e.g., DNA methylation, feedback loops, and stochastic fluctuations) mechanisms. In Yersinia pseudotuberculosis, T6SS4 heterogeneous expression has been shown to be controlled by the heterogeneous expression of the gene encoding the RovC transcriptional regulator [21], whereas the Pseudomonas aeruginosa T6SS-H1 bistable expression is controlled by c-di-GMP levels via a yet unknown mechanism [22]. These observations suggest that phenotypic heterogeneity might be a recurring feature of T6SS regulation, although the underlying mechanisms can differ markedly between bacterial species.

Phenotypic heterogeneity can provide adaptive advantages through strategies such as bet-hedging and division of labor [26]. In bet-hedging, subpopulations are pre-adapted to unpredictable environmental changes, increasing the overall survival of the population despite the cost of expressing traits that may be disadvantageous under certain conditions. Examples include antimicrobial peptide resistance in a minority of Photorhabdus laumondii cells, which is essential for successful host invasion [27]. In division of labor, phenotypically distinct subpopulations accomplish specialized tasks independently that enhance group fitness [28]. The P. aeruginosa T6SS-H1 activity is inversely associated with expression of other virulence factors such as the T3SS, suggesting that T6SS-H1 heterogeneity can be embedded in broader physiological specialization programs [22]. Such a strategy is also observed in Myxococcus xanthus fruiting body formation [29] and in heterogeneous expression of the Salmonella enterica type III secretion system (T3SS), where ON cells enable host invasion while OFF cells divide more rapidly to sustain infection [30]. In this case, the ON/OFF subpopulation equilibrium is critical for pathogenicity since a slight change in the ratio reduces the infection success [31]. While an increasing number of studies have described phenotypic heterogeneity in various bacterial traits, the role and ecological impact of this phenomenon remain poorly understood [32].

Although T6SS expression was initially speculated to be energetically expensive for the cell, this assumption is now debated [4,33]. The complex regulatory networks controlling T6SS expression suggest a significant metabolic burden in vivo, potentially favoring heterogeneous expression to balance competitive advantage with growth [34]. However, recent studies in EAEC, Vibrio cholerae, Vibrio fischeri, and Bacteroides fragilis found that T6SS assembly is not energetically costly under laboratory conditions [3539]. These studies, however, may not capture potential costs under more complex in vivo conditions. Indeed, T6SS expression in Campylobacter jejuni reduces fitness during bile salt exposure when competing with E. coli [38], and Bacteroides fragilis expressing T6SS incurs a fitness cost in the mouse gut but not in vitro [39].

Here, we investigate the molecular basis and ecological role of phenotypic heterogeneity of the sci1 T6SS gene cluster of EAEC strain 17-2. Using fluorescent reporters, confocal microscopy, and microfluidics, we show that ON and OFF subpopulations coexist in equilibrium under iron-limiting conditions. ON or OFF subpopulations isolated revert to a heterogeneous state within approximately 10 generations, indicating epigenetic regulation. Mutational analysis of regulator-binding sites revealed that Fur binding at the distal F2 box and Dam methylation of the G3 site are key determinants of Psci1 bistability. Finally, competition assays demonstrate that T6SS heterogeneity enhances population fitness in polymicrobial environments by enabling ON cells to attack competitors while OFF cells avoid retaliatory T6SS counterattacks. Our findings reveal phenotypic heterogeneity as a previously unrecognized strategy for fine-tuning T6SS activity and balancing competition with survival in polymicrobial communities.

Results

sci1 expression is heterogeneous within clonal population of EAEC

Expression of the EAEC sci1 T6SS gene cluster is repressed by Fur under iron-rich conditions, such as in LB medium, and induced under iron depletion, such as in M9/glycerol minimal medium (sci1-inducing medium, SIM [7]). Using a translational reporter strain expressing tssB-sfGFP to visualize T6SS sheath dynamics, we observed heterogeneous fluorescence in iron-limiting SIM medium (Fig 1A). Three distinct subpopulations were observed: cells that do not produce TssB-sfGFP (no fluorescence), cells that produce TssB-sfGFP (diffuse fluorescence) and cells that produce TssB-sfGFP and assemble sheaths (Figs 1A and S1). These observations suggest that heterogeneity occurs at both the transcriptional/translational level (expression/production versus no expression/production) and the post-translational level (assembly versus no assembly).

thumbnail
Fig 1. Phenotypic heterogeneity of T6SS expression and assembly reaches a stable equilibrium over generations.

(a) Analyses of TssB-GFP cells. Representative confocal fields (top, merged bright and fluorescence channels; scale bar, 5 μm) and distribution of T6SS sheath (bottom, max/mean fluorescence intensity ratio) in TssB-GFP cells population. The y-axis represents the probability distribution of single-cell fluorescence intensities. (b) Analyses of TssC-GFP-TssK cells. Representative confocal fields (top, merged bright and fluorescence channels; scale bar, 5 μm) and distribution of fluorescence (bottom, mean fluorescence intensity ratio) in TssC-GFP-TssK cells population. The y-axis represents the probability distribution of single-cell fluorescence intensities. (c) Coefficient of variation (CV) of TssC-GFP-TssK populations and T6SS⁺ cell frequency (f(T6SS+)) in TssB-GFP populations as a function of generation number. T6SS⁺ cell frequency was calculated as the proportion of cells with a max/mean fluorescence ratio > 2. Approximately 2,000 cells were analyzed per generation from ≥3 independent replicates. The data represent means (circles) and standard deviations (SD, error bars) from ~2,000 cells per generation from ≥3 independent replicates. (d) Representative confocal fields of the 3 types of TssC-GFP-TssK (upper panels) or of TssB-GFP (lower panels) microcolonies (homogeneous ON, heterogeneous, homogeneous OFF). Scale bars, 10 μm. (e) Distribution of CV in TssC-GFP-TssK (left) and f(T6SS⁺) in TssB-GFP (right) across microcolonies from single-cell experiments. The dotted lines indicate the mean values. TssC-GFP-TssK: 8,500 cells analyzed (55 microcolonies from 4 independent replicates); TssB-GFP: 5,900 cells analyzed (43 microcolonies from 3 independent replicates). (f) Dynamics of f(T6SS+) in sorted subpopulations over time. The data represent means (circles) ± standard deviations (SD, error bars) from at least three biological replicates. Statistical significance (one-tailed Wilcoxon’s t test; ns, nonsignificant; *p < 0.1; ***p < 0.001) is indicated. The data underlying this Figure can be found in S1 Data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003838.g001

To gain further information on transcriptional heterogeneity, we engineered a reporter strain in which sfGFP was inserted between the tssC and tssK genes (TssC-GFP-TssK). This construct revealed a bimodal distribution of fluorescence (Fig 1B), with approximately 40% of cells in a low-fluorescence OFF state and 60% in a high-fluorescence ON state (Figs 1B and S1). The partial overlap between peaks (Fig 1B) suggests the presence of intermediate or transient activation states. Flow cytometric sorting of ON and OFF subpopulations confirmed the coexistence of these states (S4A Fig, see below).

The ON/OFF equilibrium of sci1 T6SS expression is stable across generations

To quantify heterogeneity, we calculated the coefficient of variation (CV) of single-cell fluorescence, i.e., the ratio between the standard deviation of the fluorescence represented by values from each cell with the mean fluorescence of the population (CV = SD/µ), over generations. With this parameter, higher CV values indicate greater heterogeneity. Both the CV and the proportion of T6SS⁺ cells remained stable over multiple generations in SIM, indicating that the ON/OFF equilibrium is maintained (Figs 1C and S2).

Heterogeneous expression is stable and heritable across generations

To investigate how heterogeneity arises and propagates, we performed single-cell time-lapse microscopy using the TssB-GFP and TssC-GFP-TssK reporter strains. Cells grown to equilibrium were plated on a microfluidic chip at single-cell density. Individual founder cells gave rise to predominantly OFF, ON, or heterogeneous microcolonies after 7–10 generations (Figs 1D and S3). ON-enriched and heterogeneous colonies were more frequent than OFF-enriched colonies, resulting in a population distribution similar to that observed in liquid culture (CV > 0.20; Fig 1E). The overall frequency of T6SS⁺ cells was reduced in microfluidics, likely reflecting slower growth associated with lower oxygen availability compared with liquid cultures (Fig 1E). The presence of mostly homogeneous colonies indicates that the ON or OFF state can be transmitted from mother to progeny, with ON states appearing more frequently. It is, however, noteworthy that following transcriptional repression, visualization of the OFF state by fluorescence microscopy depends on the half-life of sfGFP.

To further assess the stability of the T6SS ON and OFF states, subpopulations were isolated by flow cytometry. The ratio of OFF and ON cells was comparable to that observed by fluorescence microscopy (S4A and S4B Fig). Sorted cells largely retained their activation state in the short term: ON cells predominantly formed ON colonies, and OFF cells predominantly formed OFF colonies (Figs 1F, S4C and S4D). However, both subpopulations reverted to the heterogeneous ON/OFF equilibrium within 15–20 generations in SIM (Fig 1F).

Fur binding and GATC methylation govern heterogeneous Psci1 expression

The ability of ON and OFF subpopulations to revert to equilibrium suggested that sci1 heterogeneity is genetically controlled. The sci1 promoter (Psci1) is comprised of multiple regulatory elements, including two Fur boxes (proximal F1 and distal F2) and three GATC sites, targeted by the Dam methyltransferase (proximal G1 to distal G3) (Fig 2A) [7]. G1 lies within F1, overlapping the −10 element, G2 is located between the −10 and −35 elements, while F2 and G3 are upstream of the −35 (Fig 2A). Fur binding onto F1 and F2 represses sci1 expression and prevents G1 methylation, whereas G1 methylation antagonizes Fur binding, thereby promoting transcription [7].

thumbnail
Fig 2. Fur and Dam binding sites F2 and G3 control heterogeneous T6SS expression.

(a) Schematic representation of the sci1 T6SS promoter (Psci1). Psci1 contains two Fur binding boxes (F1 and F2) and three Dam methylation GATC sites (G1, G2, and G3). The F1 box includes the G1 site and overlaps with the transcriptional −10 element [7]. (b) TssB-GFP f(T6SS+) (bar plots) and TssC-GFP-TssK CV (line points) for WT and promoter variants. The data represent means (vertical bars) ± SD (error bars) from at least three biological replicates. Statistical significance compared to the WT strain (one-tailed Wilcoxon’s t test; ns, nonsignificant; *p < 0.1; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001) is indicated. (c) Competition assay between EAEC WT or promoter variants (attackers) and sensitive E. coli W3110 (recipient) in SIM (top) or LB (bottom) medium. Killing activity was visualized by the LAGA method [40], where color intensity reflects attacker activity (from yellow (no killing) to purple (intense killing), see heatmap on right). Images are representative results of biological triplicates. The data underlying this Figure can be found in S1 Data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003838.g002

To dissect the contributions of these regulatory elements to heterogeneity, we engineered chromosomal point mutations disrupting individual Fur boxes or GATC sites (S6A Fig). Preventing adenine methylation at GATC sites reduced Psci1 activity, as shown by decreased T6SS sheath formation in G1, G3, and triple G123 mutants (Fig 2B). Conversely, disrupting the F2 Fur box relieved repression as the F2 mutant exhibited increased T6SS sheath numbers (Figs 2B and S5). When assessed in the TssC-GFP-TssK reporter strain, Fur box mutants displayed an increased ON state, whereas G3 and G123 mutants were homogeneously OFF (Figs 2B, S6B and S7). G1 and G2 mutants remained heterogeneous but with ON/OFF ratios distinct from wild-type (Figs 2B, S6 and S7). We thus concluded that the promoter architecture, via competing Fur binding and Dam methylation, is essential for establishing heterogeneous sci1 expression.

We next assessed whether these mutations affected T6SS-mediated killing of E. coli W3110 target cells using the LAGA assay [40]. Figure 2C shows that the T6SS activity roughly correlated with the proportion of T6SS⁺ cells: G2 mutant cells exhibited reduced killing, while G1 and G3 cells were significantly impaired in killing and G123 mutant cells were inactive under inducing conditions (SIM, Fig 2C). In contrast, the F2 mutant showed increased T6SS activity compared to the WT and killed target cells even under iron-rich, repressive conditions (LB, Fig 2C). These findings support the model that ON cells deploy T6SS for antagonism, whereas OFF cells remain inactive.

T6SS heterogeneity acts as an attenuation strategy against retaliatory T6SS attacks

Because the F2 and G123 mutants mimic homogeneous ON (T6SS+) and OFF (T6SS) subpopulations, respectively, we used these strains to explore the functional significance of heterogeneity, particularly the role of OFF cells. One long-standing hypothesis is that T6SS imposes a substantial energetic burden, favoring heterogeneous expression as a cost-sharing strategy. However, consistent with previous findings [36], neither overexpression (F2) nor complete inhibition (G123) affected growth in liquid culture (S8A Fig) even in the presence of bile salts to mimic the EAEC ecological environment, indicating that T6SS assembly and activity are not energetically costly in EAEC and that the OFF subpopulation does not serve to counteract the growth defects associated to the production, assembly or activity of the T6SS.

As the T6SS was recently shown to serve as a foraging strategy to acquire nutrients by lysing neighboring cells [4143], we next considered a suicide model in which OFF cells act as a nutritional reservoir for ON cells. In this case, OFF cells will not produce the Tli1 immunity protein and therefore can be killed by ON cells to support their growth. To test this hypothesis, we conducted competition experiments using the SGK assay [40]. The SGK assay is a growth recovery method that measures the time necessary for surviving bacteria to reach mid-exponential phase, which is inversely proportional to the initial number of surviving cells. We did not detect kin killing in EAEC: contrarily to Δsci1 mutant cells (i.e., deleted of the whole T6SS gene cluster) that are susceptible to WT attacks, G123 cells were not (S8B Fig). In addition, competition with the ON-homogeneous F2 strain did not increase mortality of WT or of G123 OFF cells (S8B Fig). This result suggests that basal expression of the immunity gene tli1 from the internal promoter P4532 [44] is sufficient to confer protection against kin ON cells.

A third possibility is that T6SS heterogeneity is an attenuation strategy into the host. During infection, the immune system recognizes virulence factors to neutralize pathogens. An attenuation strategy, such as LPS modification in Burkholderia pseudomallei [45] or antigenic variation in Borrelia burgdorferi [46], allows to escape the immune system. However, we observed that homogeneous ON populations exhibited the highest infective success in Galleria mellonella, whereas OFF cells alone failed to efficiently colonize this wax moth host model (S8C Fig), arguing against this hypothesis.

Finally, we hypothesized that heterogeneity mitigates antagonism in polymicrobial environments where defensive T6SS⁺ species deploy tit-for-tat retaliation [47]. Heterogeneous expression could thus serve as an attenuation strategy to reduce defence intensity and to improve survival. Consistent with this hypothesis, SGK assays showed that OFF cells (G123) alone failed to kill E. coli W3110, whereas increasing the ON/OFF ratio using synthetic mixes between the F2 and G123 populations proportionally enhanced antibacterial activity (Fig 3A). However, when competing with the model retaliatory T6SS-positive competitor Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1ΔretS (i.e., a strain that constitutively expresses the H1-T6SS but only assembles it and fires upon attacks from competitors [48]), increasing the ON/OFF ratio led to higher EAEC mortality (Fig 3B). These findings indicate that ON cells provide antagonistic capacity but simultaneously increase susceptibility to retaliatory T6SS attacks, whereas heterogeneity dampens this cost. Thus, T6SS heterogeneity functions as an attenuation strategy, balancing offensive capacity with survival.

thumbnail
Fig 3. Phenotypic heterogeneity modulates T6SS strength and mediates a trade-off between killing efficiency and survival against T6SS⁺ competitors.

(a) Competition assays between WT EAEC or mixed populations with increasing ON/OFF ratios (0%–100% ON) and E. coli W3110 recipients. F2 and G123 mutants were used as ON and OFF populations, respectively, and combined at different ratios to generate distinct heterogeneity states. Recipient mortality was quantified by the SGK method [40]. The data represent the three independent values (gray circles) and means (horizontal bars) from three biological replicates. Statistical significance between strains (Student t test; ns, nonsignificant; *p < 0.1; **p < 0.01) is indicated. (b) Competition assays between WT EAEC or ON/OFF mixtures and the T6SS⁺ defensive bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1ΔretS. EAEC mortality was quantified by the SGK method [40]. Data are means of 3 replicates. The data represent the three independent values (gray circles) and means (horizontal bars) from three biological replicates. Statistical significance between strains (Student t test; ns, nonsignificant; *p < 0.1) is indicated. (c) Three-species competition assays between E. coli K-12 W3110 (gray), EAEC strain 17-2 (WT or Δsci1, blue), and P. aeruginosa PAO1ΔretS or PAO1ΔretSΔH1-T6SS (orange) at a 1:1:1 ratio. Mortality of each bacterial species was quantified by the SGK method [40]. (d) Three-species competition assays between E. coli K-12 W3110 (gray), EAEC strain 17-2 (WT or increasing ON/OFF ratios (0%–100%), blue), and P. aeruginosa PAO1ΔretS or PAO1ΔretSΔH1-T6SS (orange) at a 1:1:1 ratio. Mortality of each bacterial species was quantified by the SGK method [40]. The data represent means (vertical bars) ± SD (error bars) from nine replicates (technical triplicates of three biological replicates). Statistical significance compared to the WT strain (one-tailed Wilcoxon’s t test; ns, nonsignificant; *p < 0.1; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001) is indicated with the strain color code. The data underlying this Figure can be found in S1 Data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003838.g003

To further evaluate the ecological relevance of EAEC T6SS sci1 heterogeneity, we performed three-species competition assays with EAEC, the T6SS-negative and susceptible E. coli W3110 strain, and P. aeruginosa PAO1ΔretS mixed in a 1:1:1 ratio. Figure 3C shows that in this three-species competition assay, EAEC and P. aeruginosa engaged in reciprocal T6SS-mediated killing, leading to high mortality in both populations. Under these conditions, the strong reduction in EAEC abundance limited its ability to eliminate the susceptible W3110 strain. In contrast, when the H1-T6SS of P. aeruginosa was inactivated, EAEC efficiently eliminated both competitors while experiencing reduced mortality. Inactivation of both the EAEC Sci1 T6SS and P. aeruginosa H1-T6SS led to a stable equilibrium of the three strains during co-incubation.

To quantitatively assess the impact of phenotypic heterogeneity, we varied the proportion of T6SS-active (ON) cells within the EAEC population (Fig 3D). Increasing the fraction of ON cells enhanced killing of P. aeruginosa, but also resulted in an increase in EAEC mortality due to retaliatory attacks (Fig 3D). As a consequence, W3110 survival increased as EAEC populations became depleted through reciprocal killing.

Discussion

In this work, we describe T6SS phenotypic heterogeneity and dissect the molecular and ecological basis of this behavior in EAEC. We show that in iron-limited inducing medium, the population stabilizes at a reversible equilibrium of ~60% ON and ~40% OFF cells. This equilibrium is not fixed: sorted ON or OFF subpopulations return to equilibrium within 15–20 generations, consistent with an epigenetic mechanism of control [8]. Similarly, growth in iron-rich medium yielded a homogeneous OFF population, yet dilution into minimal medium restored heterogeneity.

Our genetic analyses identify the Psci1 promoter architecture, which comprises Fur boxes and GATC methylation sites [7], as the determinant of T6SS sci1 heterogeneity. Mutations preventing Fur binding, notably F2 yield homogeneous ON populations, whereas mutations disrupting G3 methylation produce homogeneous OFF populations. These results align with the model in which Fur binding represses transcription and competes with Dam-mediated methylation at GATC sites [7]. In EAEC, Fur regulates the expression of the sci1 T6SS gene cluster, while the methylation state of the GATC sites modulates Fur binding, allowing heterogeneous expression from cell to cell. Importantly, individual mutations at different promoter elements produce distinct ON/OFF ratios, suggesting that specific promoter architectures can tune the equilibrium between subpopulations. Such architectures may be subject to natural selection to optimize T6SS activity in specific ecological niches, consistent with recent modeling of promoter sequence variation and regulator affinity and processivity [49,50].

Our results confirm that Fur is the main regulator of the sci1 gene cluster, with reversible binding to promoter Fur boxes controlling the ON/OFF switch [7]. Mutations of the Fur boxes, which prevent Fur binding, resulted in a constitutive ON state even in the presence of iron. T6SS heterogeneous expression, therefore, likely arises from the modulation of Fur binding. We ruled out heterogeneous fur transcription as the cause of T6SS heterogeneity, as Pfur reporters are expressed uniformly in EAEC (S9 Fig). Instead, we propose that stochastic methylation of Psci1 GATC sites modulates Fur binding, producing the observed distribution of expression states. Measuring the ON-OFF and OFF-ON switch rates in the different mutant backgrounds will likely provide further information to refine the regulatory model.

Interestingly, fluorescence microscopy and FACS analyses revealed a continuum of expression levels rather than two discrete peaks, suggesting intermediate states that may arise from hemi-methylated promoters or partial dilution of T6SS components during the ON-OFF switch. While our mutational analysis highlights key promoter elements (F2, G3), additional factors such as Dam and Fur abundance, iron availability, and methylation dynamics probably contribute to heterogeneity. Single-molecule tracking and microfluidics approaches [51] will be useful for elucidating these dynamics.

Functionally, ON cells confer antibacterial activity, whereas OFF cells do not contribute to killing but instead mitigate attacks from retaliatory T6SS⁺ competitors. Interestingly, our data suggest that killing efficiency scales approximately with the fraction of T6SS-active cells, whereas susceptibility to retaliatory killing displays a more nonlinear dependence, suggesting that costs can increase disproportionately at high ON fractions. EAEC T6SS heterogeneity, therefore, represents a trade-off that solves a conflict between two opposing pressures: the need for ON cells to eliminate susceptible recipients, and the cost of provoking counterattacks from armed competitors. Populations with a mixed ON/OFF composition thus maximize competitive advantage while avoiding excessive reciprocal killing (Fig 4). Recent work has shown that the competitive success of T6SS-armed bacteria depends not only on killing capacity per se, but also on activation dynamics, weapon deployment and associated costs. In Vibrio fisheri, faster activation of the T6SS can provide a competitive advantage, whereas excessive T6SS production can become counterproductive once its cost overweighs its benefits [52]. Our results further suggest that competition success may also depend on T6SS phenotypic heterogeneity operating as a frequency-dependent strategy that optimizes population fitness. This trade-off is particularly evident in multispecies contexts, where increasing the proportion of T6SS-active cells enhances killing but incurs a nonlinear survival cost. Such dynamics may represent an evolutionarily stable strategy in polymicrobial communities. Indeed, in communities such as the gut where hundreds of species cohabit, bacteria have developed antibacterial weapons but also defence mechanisms against these weapons. This includes capsule production, surface modification, cell aggregation [5356]. However, these mechanisms carry substantial fitness costs [56,57]. The heterogeneity strategy described may enhance colonization success by combining offensive capacity with reduced susceptibility to retaliation. By modulating the fraction of ON cells, EAEC limits the activation of costly defensive strategies, representing an indirect form of adaptive defence. This ON/OFF balance may, however, come at a cost in other biological contexts. In particular, while OFF cells may be advantageous in interbacterial competition by limiting exposure to retaliatory attacks, they may be less effective in host-associated environments where T6SS activity contributes to virulence or niche establishment. Indeed, our results showed that ON cells better colonize the wax moth model, whereas OFF cells are less efficient. This context-dependent trade-off suggests that phenotypic heterogeneity may allow bacterial populations to balance competing selective pressures depending on the ecological conditions.‌‌

Our data support a model in which a homogeneous OFF population cannot invade due to a lack of killing, while a homogeneous ON population suffers from excessive counterattacks (Fig 4). In contrast, a heterogeneous population achieves maximal fitness by balancing competition and defence. Because ON/OFF states are reversible, OFF cells can regenerate the ON population lost during tit-for-tat killing, further supporting persistence in complex communities.

thumbnail
Fig 4. Model for the role of T6SS phenotypic heterogeneity in EAEC.

(a) The Psci1 promoter integrates Fur- and Dam-dependent regulation, generating ON (T6SS⁺, yellow) and OFF (T6SS⁻, blue) subpopulations at a reversible equilibrium. (b) OFF (blue) cells, which do not express T6SS, do not kill competitors but avoid triggering such defences (1). Due to the absence of killing activity, OFF cells are unable to colonize the niche (2). (c) While ON (yellow) cells assemble and deploy functional T6SS (1) and kill susceptible competitors (2), they provoke retaliatory attacks from defensive T6SS⁺ species (gray) and are eliminated and fail to colonize the niche (3). (d) Heterogeneous ON/OFF population (1) optimizes colonization by killing neighboring cells (2). While ON (yellow) cells are eliminated by counterattacks by defensive T6SS+ species (gray), OFF (blue) cells resist (3) and can ensure a continuous supply of ON cells (4-5) while limiting population-wide exposure to retaliation. Figure created with BioArt resources from NAID Visual & Medical Arts.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003838.g004

T6SS heterogeneity may extend beyond EAEC. Fluorescence microscopy recordings have revealed heterogeneous T6SS expression in many species, including Burkholderia thailandensis, Pseudomonas putida, P. fluorescens, P. aeruginosa, Serratia marcescens, Salmonella enterica Typhimurium, Acinetobacter baylii, Y. pseudotuberculosis, or Vibrio fischeri [1622], despite their distinct regulatory circuits [5,6,21,22,58]. Indeed, in Y. pseudotuberculosis, P. aeruginosa, and EAEC, distinct regulatory architectures converge on similar heterogeneous outputs. Whereas T6SS heterogeneity in Y. pseudotuberculosis and P. aeruginosa depends on the RovC transcriptional regulator and c-di-GMP levels, respectively [21,22], our work demonstrates that EAEC T6SS heterogeneity arises from a complex interplay between Fur and DNA methylation regulations. Determining the molecular basis and functional significance of T6SS heterogeneity in other bacterial species will likely reveal the variety of regulatory mechanisms underlying heterogeneity and will clarify whether it represents a conserved trade-off strategy, a division-of-labor mechanism, or a bet-hedging strategy. Because T6SSs are employed to eliminate competitors in polymicrobial environment, we hypothesize that this attenuation strategy by a heterogeneous expression might be evolutionarily conserved.

In addition to heterogeneous gene expression, we observed heterogeneous T6SS sheath assembly using TssB-sfGFP fusions. Because subunit stoichiometry is known to be an important parameter controlling T6SS assembly, we propose that the heterogeneous assembly we observed could result from cell-to-cell differences in subunit abundance. Interestingly, a second promoter (P4532) within the cluster shares a similar architecture to Psci1, including overlapping Fur box, Dam site, and −10 element [44]. Future work should test whether this promoter also exhibits heterogeneity and whether it contributes to T6SS assembly by controlling expression of downstream T6SS genes. Another possibility is that accessory proteins involved in prey sensing and signaling [5961] modulate T6SS activation at the post-translational level.

Given that gain and loss of T6SS loci are common across species [19,6264], long-term fitness costs likely drive strong selection on T6SS regulation in vivo. EAEC appears to have evolved a finely tuned balance between T6SS activity and quiescence through phenotypic heterogeneity. This strategy may provide a general mechanism by which bacteria optimize the benefits of T6SS while limiting its costs in complex communities. Broader comparative analyses will further reveal whether this phenomenon is a common ecological strategy shaping bacterial interactions across diverse niches.

Methods

Bacterial strains and culture conditions

Bacteria and plasmids used in this study are listed in S1 Table. E. coli strains were routinely grown in LB medium (iron-rich conditions) or in sci1 inducing minimal medium (SIM, M9 minimal medium supplemented with glycerol 0.2%, vitamin B1 200 μg/mL, casaminoacids 40 μg/mL, MgSO4 1 mM and CaCl2 0.1 mM; iron-starved conditions). When required, media were supplemented with antibiotics (chloramphenicol 40 µg/mL, kanamycin 50 µg/mL, ampicillin 100 µg/mL, gentamicin 15–20 µg/mL) or isopropyl-β-D-galactopyranoside (IPTG, 0.1 mM). Cultures were grown at 37 °C with shaking (180 rpm). Chloro-Phenol-Red-Galactopyranoside (CPRG, 2 mM) was prepared in distilled water.

Plasmid construction

Plasmid and oligos used in this study are listed in S2 and S3 Tables, respectively. PCRs were performed using a Biometra thermocycler and Q5 polymerase (New England Biolabs). The pKO3-Psci1 vector was generated by restriction-ligation. A 1-kb DNA fragment containing the Psci1 promoter (from −500 pb to + 500 bp relative to the −10 element) was amplified from EAEC 17−2 genomic DNA with oligonucleotides carrying BamHI and SalI restriction sites at 5′ and 3′, respectively. The purified fragment and pKO3 plasmid were digested by BamHI and SalI (New England Biolabs) for 3 h at 37 °C and ligated with T4 DNA ligase (New England Biolabs) for 1 h at room temperature. Promoter point mutations were introduced by site-directed mutagenesis. Complementary oligonucleotide pairs bearing the desired substitution were used to amplify the entire pKO3-Psci1 plasmid. PCR products were then digested with DpnI to remove template plasmids and transformed into DH5α competent cells. All pKO3-Psci1 variants were verified by PCR and DNA sequencing (Eurofins Genomics).

Strain construction

The fluorescence transcriptional reporter TssC-GFP-TssK was constructed by λ-Red recombination [65] using plasmid pKOBEG [66]. Electrocompetent cells harboring pKOBEG were transformed with a PCR product amplified from pKD4-Nt-sfGFP, which contained the sfGFP gene and a kanamycin cassette flanked by 50-bp extensions homologous to the upstream and downstream regions of the insertion site. Transformants were selected on kanamycin plates and verified by colony PCR before and sequencing of the site of insertion. The kanamycin cassette was then excised using pCP20 [65]. Directed mutagenesis was performed by allelic exchange using the pKO3 vector, which carries the sacB gene whose expression is toxic in the presence of sucrose [67]. Cells were transformed with pKO3-Psci1 variants and incubated at 30 °C for plasmid replication. Clones were restreaked at 37 °C to select for chromosomal integration. Second crossover events were obtained by plating on LB agar plates supplemented with 5% sucrose at 37 °C. Colonies were restreaked on LB agar plates and randomly sequenced (Eurofins Genomics) to confirm the desired mutation.

Competition assay

Intra-species competition assays were performed with EAEC 17-2 (or derivatives) as attacker strains and E. coli W3110 Kanᴿ or EAEC 17-2 (or derivatives) bearing a kanamycin-resistance cassette inserted into the lacZ gene [7] as recipients. Overnight cultures were diluted into fresh SIM medium and grown to an optical density at λ = 600 nm (OD600) of 0.8. For the lysis-associated β-galactosidase assay (LAGA), attacker and recipient strains were mixed at a 4:1 ratio; for the survivor growth kinetics assay (SGK), the ratio was 1:4 [40]. Mixtures (10 µL) were spotted on SIM agar and incubated for 4 h at 37 °C. In the qualitative LAGA assay, β-galactosidase released from lysed W3110 cells cleaves the membrane-impermeant β-galactosidase chromogenic substrate chlorophenol-red β-D-galactopyranoside (CPRG, yellow) into chlorophenol red (CPR, purple). 10 μL of CPRG 2 mM was then added on top of the spots. The color intensity correlates with killing efficiency. For quantitative SGK assays, spots were resuspended in LB supplemented with 50 μg/mL of kanamycin, serially 10-fold diluted in LB supplemented with kanamycin and inoculated in 96-well microplates. Recipient survivor growth was monitored using a TECAN microplate reader. Growth parameters were extracted with the R package growthcurver [68]. Because the time to resume growth depends on the initial cell concentration (i.e., the time required for the recipient population to resume exponential growth is inversely correlated with the initial number of surviving cells), the mid-exponential time point (Tmid) was used as a proxy for recipient mortality. For inter-species competition assays, Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1ΔretS was used as the attacker and EAEC wild-type strain 17-2 and its derivatives carrying the pBBR5-GmR vector as recipients. PAO1 was grown overnight in LB, diluted 25-fold, and cultured to OD₆₀₀ = 2. One mL was pelleted and resuspended to OD₆₀₀ = 10. EAEC strains were grown overnight in LB supplemented with 15 µg/mL gentamicin, diluted into SIM, and harvested at OD₆₀₀ = 0.8. Three-species competition assays were performed with EAEC 17-2 (or its Δsci1 derivative) with a kanamycin cassette inserted in the lacZ gene, PAO1 ΔretS (or its ΔH1-T6SS derivative) carrying the pBBR-GmR vector, and E. coli W3110 carrying the AmpR pmCherry vector. Cells were grown as described above, mixed in a 1:1:1 ratio, and 10-μL mixtures were spotted on SIM agar plates. After 4h of incubation at 37 °C, spots were resuspended in LB and serially diluted in LB supplemented with 50 μg/mL of kanamycin, 20 μg/mL of gentamycin or 100 μg/mL of ampicillin for measuring the survival of EAEC, PAO1, and W3110, respectively. Mixtures containing defined F2(ON)/G123(OFF) ratios (0%–100%) were prepared and mixed with competitor cells, spotted on SIM agar, and incubated for 4 h at 37 °C and processed as above for quantitative measurements.

Fluorescence microscopy

Cells were grown as described, concentrated 10-fold, and 2 µL were spotted onto a 2% agarose pad mounted in a Gene Frame. Slides were sealed with a coverslip and imaged on a Nikon Eclipse Ti2 microscope equipped with a 100 × NA 1.45 Ph3 objective, an ORCA-Fusiondigital camera (Hamamatsu) and a Perfect Focus System. sfGFP was excited at 488 nm. Images were analyzed with MicrobeJ after segmentation with MiSiC [69] to extract single-cell fluorescence. Distributions were plotted using ggplot2 and geom_density within the R package [70]. The coefficient of variation (CV = SD/mean) was used as a heterogeneity metric for TssC-GFP-TssK cell fluorescence data. Because the T6SS sheath gives the brighter pixel in a cell compared to a diffuse fluorescence, a ratio of maximum/mean pixel fluorescence > 2 was considered positive for sheath detection for strain TssB-GFP.

Flow cytometry and cell sorting

Flow cytometry and fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) were performed on an Influx v7 Cell Sorter (Becton) equipped with a stream-in-air 70 µm nozzle and a blue 488-nm Sapphire OPS laser (400 mW). The 488-nm laser was used for the analysis of the FSC (488/10 nm band pass filter, PMT1), which provides information related on cell size, and of the SSC (trigger signal, 488/10 nm band pass filter, PMT2), which provides information on cell density and the GFP fluorescence (530/40 nm band pass filter, PMT3). Light was detected with PMTs (Hamamatsu R3896 PMTs in C6270 sockets). FACSFlow buffer (Becton, Dickinson and Company) ran at 33 psi with an event rate of ~3,000 events s−1. The instrument was calibrated daily with 1-μm blue and 2-μm yellow-green FluoSphere beads (Thermo Fisher Scientific) in the linear range. For calibration in the logarithmic range and for spiking into the sample, 0.5-μm and 1-µm yellow-green beads (Thermo Fisher Scientific) were used. Acquisition was stopped after 50,000 events were recorded in the FSC against the SSC cell gate. FACS was performed as described [71] with the most accurate sorting mode ’1.0 drop pure’ and at a maximum sorting speed of 3,000 cells s−1. A total of 2 × 106 cells per gate were collected for microscopy, mixed with glycerol (15% final concentration), and stored at −80 °C. 2D-plots were created using FlowJo V10 (Becton, Dickinson and Company). In addition, proportions of cells were analyzed in 2D-plots FSC versus green fluorescence in the GFP cell gate equal to 100% with respect to the 3 gates assembler, producer (ON) and nonproducer (OFF) for the 4 strains EAEC 17-2, TssB-GFP, TssC-GFP-TssK, and TssC-GFP-TssK F2, respectively. For the calculation, the beads in the GFP cell gate were subtracted.

Single-cell experiments

Single-cell assays were performed in an Ibidi sticky-Slide VI 0.4. A 2% BD agar layer was poured into the channel, then cut to create a flow channel. The cell suspension was spotted on the agar, overlaid with a coverslip, and the input well was filled with 80 µL of culture medium. The device was incubated at 37 °C in a custom thermostable chamber on the microscope. Microcolonies growth was imaged after 4 h using the settings described above.

Wax moth infection assay

Galleria mellonella larvae were used as an infection model. Larvae were starved for 48 h at 28 °C in the dark. EAEC 17-2 WT, F2 (ON) and G123 (OFF) strains bearing the kanamycin cassette inserted into the lacZ gene were grown to OD600 = 0.8. Starved larvae were infected by ingestion of 2 × 105 CFU/mL and incubated for 24 h at 28 °C in the dark. After 24 h, larvae were washed for 10 s in sterile water, sacrificed, and their intern organs were collected and homogenized in 500 µL of PBS with 6 glass beads using a FastPrep-24 5G (MP biomedicals) for 30 s at power 4.5. Homogenates were serially diluted and plated on LB agar plate supplemented with 50 µg/mL of kanamycin for EAEC recovery. The assay was performed in triplicate.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using R. Pairwise comparisons were conducted using unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-tests unless otherwise specified. For nonparametric datasets, statistical significance was assessed using one-tailed Wilcoxon tests. When comparing multiple groups, one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post-hoc test was applied. All experiments were performed with at least three independent biological replicates.

Supporting information

S3 Table. Oligonucleotides used in this study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003838.s003

(PDF)

S1 Fig. Phenotypic heterogeneity of T6SS expression and assembly.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003838.s004

(PDF)

S2 Fig. Phenotypic heterogeneity of T6SS expression and assembly over generations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003838.s005

(PDF)

S3 Fig. Representative time-lapse recordings of a single-cell experiment from a clonal TssB-GFP cell.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003838.s006

(PDF)

S5 Fig. T6SS sheath frequency in WT and F2 TssB-GFP cells.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003838.s008

(PDF)

S6 Fig. Impact of promoter point mutations on T6SS+ cell frequency (TssB-GFP) and T6SS expression (TssC-GFP-TssK).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003838.s009

(PDF)

S7 Fig. Phenotypic heterogeneity of the T6SS expression and assembly of promoter variants.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003838.s010

(PDF)

S8 Fig. Potential roles of T6SS heterogeneity.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003838.s011

(PDF)

S9 Fig. Psci1 and Pfur activity in EAEC.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003838.s012

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We thank Julien Brillard and Alain Givaudan (DGIMI, INRAE Montpellier, France) for help regarding Galleria mellonella infection assays, Marie Grandjean and Corinne Sebban-Kreuzer for the PAO1ΔretS strain, members of the Cascales laboratory for discussions, and Moly Ba and Audrey Gozzi for technical assistance.

References

  1. 1. Cherrak Y, Flaugnatti N, Durand E, Journet L, Cascales E. Structure and activity of the type VI secretion system. Microbiol Spectr. 2019;7(4):10.1128/microbiolspec.psib-0031–2019. pmid:31298206
  2. 2. Cianfanelli FR, Monlezun L, Coulthurst SJ. Aim, load, fire: the type VI secretion system, a bacterial nanoweapon. Trends Microbiol. 2016;24(1):51–62. pmid:26549582
  3. 3. Coyne MJ, Roelofs KG, Comstock LE. Type VI secretion systems of human gut Bacteroidales segregate into three genetic architectures, two of which are contained on mobile genetic elements. BMC Genomics. 2016;17:58. pmid:26768901
  4. 4. Unni R, Pintor KL, Diepold A, Unterweger D. Presence and absence of type VI secretion systems in bacteria. Microbiology (Reading). 2022;168(4):10.1099/mic.0.001151. pmid:35467500
  5. 5. Bernard CS, Brunet YR, Gueguen E, Cascales E. Nooks and crannies in type VI secretion regulation. J Bacteriol. 2010;192(15):3850–60. pmid:20511495
  6. 6. Hespanhol JT, Nóbrega-Silva L, Bayer-Santos E. Regulation of type VI secretion systems at the transcriptional, posttranscriptional and posttranslational level. Microbiology (Reading). 2023;169(8):001376. pmid:37552221
  7. 7. Brunet YR, Bernard CS, Gavioli M, Lloubès R, Cascales E. An epigenetic switch involving overlapping fur and DNA methylation optimizes expression of a type VI secretion gene cluster. PLoS Genet. 2011;7(7):e1002205. pmid:21829382
  8. 8. Casadesús J, Low D. Epigenetic gene regulation in the bacterial world. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2006;70(3):830–56. pmid:16959970
  9. 9. Zhang XY, Brunet YR, Logger L, Douzi B, Cambillau C, Journet L, et al. Dissection of the TssB-TssC interface during type VI secretion sheath complex formation. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e81074. pmid:24282569
  10. 10. Brunet YR, Hénin J, Celia H, Cascales E. Type VI secretion and bacteriophage tail tubes share a common assembly pathway. EMBO Reports. 2014;15:315–21.
  11. 11. Durand E, Nguyen VS, Zoued A, Logger L, Péhau-Arnaudet G, Aschtgen M-S, et al. Biogenesis and structure of a type VI secretion membrane core complex. Nature. 2015;523(7562):555–60. pmid:26200339
  12. 12. Logger L, Aschtgen M-S, Guérin M, Cascales E, Durand E. Molecular dissection of the interface between the type VI secretion TssM cytoplasmic domain and the TssG baseplate component. J Mol Biol. 2016;428(22):4424–37. pmid:27600411
  13. 13. Zoued A, Durand E, Brunet YR, Spinelli S, Douzi B, Guzzo M, et al. Priming and polymerization of a bacterial contractile tail structure. Nature. 2016;531(7592):59–63. pmid:26909579
  14. 14. Santin YG, Doan T, Lebrun R, Espinosa L, Journet L, Cascales E. In vivo TssA proximity labelling during type VI secretion biogenesis reveals TagA as a protein that stops and holds the sheath. Nat Microbiol. 2018;3(11):1304–13. pmid:30275513
  15. 15. Santin YG, Doan T, Journet L, Cascales E. Cell width dictates type VI secretion tail length. Curr Biol. 2019;29(21):3707-3713.e3. pmid:31630952
  16. 16. Gerc AJ, Diepold A, Trunk K, Porter M, Rickman C, Armitage JP, et al. Visualization of the serratia type VI secretion system reveals unprovoked attacks and dynamic assembly. Cell Rep. 2015;12(12):2131–42. pmid:26387948
  17. 17. Speare L, Smith S, Salvato F, Kleiner M, Septer AN. Environmental viscosity modulates interbacterial killing during habitat transition. mBio. 2020;11(1):e03060-19. pmid:32019799
  18. 18. Bernal P, Furniss RCD, Fecht S, Leung RCY, Spiga L, Mavridou DAI, et al. A novel stabilization mechanism for the type VI secretion system sheath. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118(7):e2008500118. pmid:33558227
  19. 19. Drebes Dörr NC, Proutière A, Jaskólska M, Stutzmann S, Bader L, Blokesch M. Single nucleotide polymorphism determines constitutive versus inducible type VI secretion in Vibrio cholerae. ISME J. 2022;16(7):1868–72. pmid:35411099
  20. 20. Bourigault Y, Dupont CA, Desjardins JB, Doan T, Bouteiller M, Le Guenno H, et al. Pseudomonas fluorescens MFE01 delivers a putative type VI secretion amidase that confers biocontrol against the soft-rot pathogen Pectobacterium atrosepticum. Environ Microbiol. 2023;25(11):2564–79. pmid:37622480
  21. 21. Kerwien A, Körner B, Meyer I, Teschke Y, Köster CS, Salto IP, et al. T6SS4 is heterogeneously expressed in Yersinia pseudotuberculosis and is a target for transcriptional and post-transcriptional regulation. PLoS Pathog. 2025;21(9):e1013356. pmid:40991669
  22. 22. Chen H, Malengo G, Wang L, Vogler O, Renner M, Glatter T, et al. Coordination of virulence factors and lifestyle transition in Pseudomonas aeruginosa through single-cell analysis. Commun Biol. 2025;8(1):1236. pmid:40819180
  23. 23. Elowitz MB, Levine AJ, Siggia ED, Swain PS. Stochastic gene expression in a single cell. Science. 2002;297(5584):1183–6. pmid:12183631
  24. 24. van der Woude MW, Bäumler AJ. Phase and antigenic variation in bacteria. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2004;17(3):581–611, table of contents. pmid:15258095
  25. 25. van der Woude MW. Phase variation: how to create and coordinate population diversity. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2011;14(2):205–11. pmid:21292543
  26. 26. Ackermann M. A functional perspective on phenotypic heterogeneity in microorganisms. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2015;13(8):497–508. pmid:26145732
  27. 27. Mouammine A, Pages S, Lanois A, Gaudriault S, Jubelin G, Bonabaud M, et al. An antimicrobial peptide-resistant minor subpopulation of Photorhabdus luminescens is responsible for virulence. Sci Rep. 2017;7:43670. pmid:28252016
  28. 28. Giri S, Waschina S, Kaleta C, Kost C. Defining division of labor in microbial communities. J Mol Biol. 2019;431(23):4712–31. pmid:31260694
  29. 29. Popp PF, Mascher T. Coordinated cell death in isogenic bacterial populations: sacrificing some for the benefit of many? J Mol Biol. 2019;431(23):4656–69. pmid:31029705
  30. 30. Sturm A, Heinemann M, Arnoldini M, Benecke A, Ackermann M, Benz M, et al. The cost of virulence: retarded growth of Salmonella Typhimurium cells expressing type III secretion system 1. PLoS Pathog. 2011;7(7):e1002143. pmid:21829349
  31. 31. Diard M, Garcia V, Maier L, Remus-Emsermann MNP, Regoes RR, Ackermann M, et al. Stabilization of cooperative virulence by the expression of an avirulent phenotype. Nature. 2013;494(7437):353–6. pmid:23426324
  32. 32. Sampaio NMV, Dunlop MJ. Functional roles of microbial cell-to-cell heterogeneity and emerging technologies for analysis and control. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2020;57:87–94. pmid:32919307
  33. 33. Basler M. Type VI secretion system: secretion by a contractile nanomachine. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015;370(1679):20150021. pmid:26370934
  34. 34. Miyata ST, Bachmann V, Pukatzki S. Type VI secretion system regulation as a consequence of evolutionary pressure. J Med Microbiol. 2013;62(Pt 5):663–76. pmid:23429693
  35. 35. Septer AN, Sharpe G, Shook EA. The Vibrio fischeri type VI secretion system incurs a fitness cost under host-like conditions. BioRxiv. 2023.
  36. 36. Taillefer B, Giraud JF, Cascales E. No fitness cost entailed by type VI secretion system synthesis, assembly, contraction, or disassembly in enteroaggregative Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol. 2023;205(12):e0035723. pmid:37971272
  37. 37. Zhang C, Datta S, Ratcliff WC, Hammer BK. Constitutive expression of the type VI secretion system carries no measurable fitness cost in Vibrio cholerae. Ecol Evol. 2024;14(3):e11081. pmid:38435022
  38. 38. Gupta S, Ray S, Khan A, China A, Das D, Mallick AI. The cost of bacterial predation via type VI secretion system leads to predator extinction under environmental stress. iScience. 2021;24(12):103507. pmid:34934926
  39. 39. Robitaille S, Simmons EL, Verster AJ, McClure EA, Royce DB, Trus E, et al. Community composition and the environment modulate the population dynamics of type VI secretion in human gut bacteria. Nat Ecol Evol. 2023;7(12):2092–107. pmid:37884689
  40. 40. Taillefer B, Grandjean MM, Herrou J, Robert D, Mignot T, Sebban-Kreuzer C, et al. Qualitative and quantitative methods to measure antibacterial activity resulting from bacterial competition. Bio Protoc. 2023;13(13):e4706. pmid:37449039
  41. 41. Lien Y-W, Amendola D, Lee KS, Bartlau N, Xu J, Furusawa G, et al. Mechanism of bacterial predation via ixotrophy. Science. 2024;386(6719):eadp0614. pmid:39418385
  42. 42. Stubbusch AKM, Peaudecerf FJ, Lee KS, Paoli L, Schwartzman J, Stocker R, et al. Antagonism as a foraging strategy in microbial communities. Science. 2025;388(6752):1214–7. pmid:40504916
  43. 43. Paillat M, Meng LC, Journet L, Cascales E, Doan T. Type VI and type IX secretion systems and gliding motility contribute to facultative predation by Flavobacterium johnsoniae. Curr Biol. 2026;36(10):2649-2661.e6. pmid:42105752
  44. 44. Brunet YR, Bernard CS, Cascales E. Fur-Dam regulatory interplay at an internal promoter of the Enteroaggregative Escherichia coli type VI secretion sci1 gene cluster. J Bacteriol. 2020;202(10):e00075-20. pmid:32152218
  45. 45. Wikraiphat C, Saiprom N, Tandhavanant S, Heiss C, Azadi P, Wongsuvan G, et al. Colony morphology variation of Burkholderia pseudomallei is associated with antigenic variation and O-polysaccharide modification. Infect Immun. 2015;83(5):2127–38. pmid:25776750
  46. 46. Chaconas G, Castellanos M, Verhey TB. Changing of the guard: how the Lyme disease spirochete subverts the host immune response. J Biol Chem. 2020;295(2):301–13. pmid:31753921
  47. 47. Basler M, Ho BT, Mekalanos JJ. Tit-for-tat: type VI secretion system counterattack during bacterial cell-cell interactions. Cell. 2013;152(4):884–94. pmid:23415234
  48. 48. Mougous JD, Cuff ME, Raunser S, Shen A, Zhou M, Gifford CA, et al. A virulence locus of Pseudomonas aeruginosa encodes a protein secretion apparatus. Science. 2006;312(5779):1526–30. pmid:16763151
  49. 49. Berg K, Pedersen HL, Leiros I. Biochemical characterization of ferric uptake regulator (Fur) from Aliivibrio salmonicida. Mapping the DNA sequence specificity through binding studies and structural modelling. Biometals. 2020;33(4–5):169–85. pmid:32648080
  50. 50. Pan RW, Röschinger T, Faizi K, Garcia HG, Phillips R. Deciphering regulatory architectures of bacterial promoters from synthetic expression patterns. PLoS Comput Biol. 2024;20(12):e1012697. pmid:39724021
  51. 51. Robert L, Ollion J, Elez M. Real-time visualization of mutations and their fitness effects in single bacteria. Nat Protoc. 2019;14(11):3126–43. pmid:31554956
  52. 52. Lin YL, Smith SN, Kanso E, Septer AN, Rycroft CH. A subcellular biochemical model for T6SS dynamics reveals winning competitive strategies. PNAS Nexus. 2023;2(7):pgad195. pmid:37441614
  53. 53. LeRoux M, Peterson SB, Mougous JD. Bacterial danger sensing. J Mol Biol. 2015;427(23):3744–53. pmid:26434507
  54. 54. Hersch SJ, Manera K, Dong TG. Defending against the type six secretion system: beyond immunity genes. Cell Rep. 2020;33(2):108259. pmid:33053336
  55. 55. Robitaille S, Trus E, Ross BD. Bacterial defense against the type VI secretion system. Trends Microbiol. 2021;29(3):187–90. pmid:32951987
  56. 56. Rivard N, Martinkus J, Dessartine MM, Côté J-P, Cascales E. Anti-type VI tactics: bacterial defenses against type VI secretion system attacks. Trends Biochem Sci. 2026;:S0968-0004(26)00064-2. pmid:41925476
  57. 57. MacGillivray KA, Ng SL, Wiesenfeld S, Guest RL, Jubery T, Silhavy TJ, et al. Trade-offs constrain adaptive pathways to the type VI secretion system survival. iScience. 2023;26(12):108332. pmid:38025790
  58. 58. Bernard CS, Brunet YR, Gueguen E, Cascales E. Nooks and crannies in type VI secretion regulation. J Bacteriol. 2010;192(15):3850–60. pmid:20511495
  59. 59. Lin L, Capozzoli R, Ferrand A, Plum M, Vettiger A, Basler M. Subcellular localization of type VI secretion system assembly in response to cell-cell contact. EMBO J. 2022;41(13):e108595. pmid:35634969
  60. 60. Speare L, Woo M, Dunn AK, Septer AN. A putative lipoprotein mediates cell-cell contact for type VI secretion system-dependent killing of specific competitors. mBio. 2022;13(2):e0308521. pmid:35404117
  61. 61. Reglinski M, Monlezun L, Coulthurst SJ. The accessory protein TagV is required for full type VI secretion system activity in Serratia marcescens. Mol Microbiol. 2023;119(3):326–39. pmid:36627840
  62. 62. Kostiuk B, Santoriello FJ, Diaz-Satizabal L, Bisaro F, Lee K-J, Dhody AN, et al. Type VI secretion system mutations reduced competitive fitness of classical Vibrio cholerae biotype. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):6457. pmid:34753930
  63. 63. Baseggio L, Rudenko O, Engelstädter J, Barnes AC. The evolution of a specialized, highly virulent fish pathogen through gene loss and acquisition of host-specific survival mechanisms. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2022;88(14):e0022222. pmid:35862683
  64. 64. Ng SL, Kammann S, Steinbach G, Hoffmann T, Yunker PJ, Hammer BK. Evolution of a cis-acting SNP that controls type VI secretion in Vibrio cholerae. mBio. 2022;13(3):e0042222. pmid:35604123
  65. 65. Datsenko KA, Wanner BL. One-step inactivation of chromosomal genes in Escherichia coli K-12 using PCR products. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000;97(12):6640–5. pmid:10829079
  66. 66. Chaveroche MK. A rapid method for efficient gene replacement in the filamentous fungus Aspergillus nidulans. Nucleic Acids Research. 2000;28:97e–97.
  67. 67. Link AJ, Phillips D, Church GM. Methods for generating precise deletions and insertions in the genome of wild-type Escherichia coli: application to open reading frame characterization. J Bacteriol. 1997;179(20):6228–37. pmid:9335267
  68. 68. Sprouffske K, Wagner A. Growthcurver: an R package for obtaining interpretable metrics from microbial growth curves. BMC Bioinformatics. 2016;17:172. pmid:27094401
  69. 69. Panigrahi S, Murat D, Le Gall A, Martineau E, Goldlust K, Fiche J-B, et al. Misic, a general deep learning-based method for the high-throughput cell segmentation of complex bacterial communities. Elife. 2021;10:e65151. pmid:34498586
  70. 70. Wickham H. Data analysis. ggplot2, Use R!. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2016. pp. 189–201.
  71. 71. Cichocki N, Hübschmann T, Schattenberg F, Kerckhof F-M, Overmann J, Müller S. Bacterial mock communities as standards for reproducible cytometric microbiome analysis. Nat Protoc. 2020;15(9):2788–812. pmid:32770154