Measuring single-cell susceptibility to antibiotics within monoclonal bacterial populations

Lena Le Quellec; Andrey Aristov; Salomé Gutiérrez Ramos; Gabriel Amselem; Julia Bos; Zeynep Baharoglu; Didier Mazel; Charles N. Baroud

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0303630

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 19, 2024
13 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Vinayak Singh, Editor PONE-D-24-06332Measuring single-cell susceptibility to antibiotics within monoclonal bacterial populationsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Aristov, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 27 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Vinayak Singh, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "ANR grant UniBAC (ANR-17-CE13-0010)" Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 5. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include author Charles N. Baroud. 6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The depleting pipeline of antibiotics and the spread of AMR necessitates new tools to classify and study antibiotic activity. In this manuscript, the authors use a previously developed microfluidic droplet-based platform to look at antibiotic susceptibility. Using fluorescent E. coli and ciprofloxacin as the candidate antibiotic they evaluate their platform. Initial experiments were carried out to benchmark the growth of the bacteria in the platform and compared with growth in a 96-well plate format. Image analysis pipelines were subsequently developed to quantitate the bacterial growth from 0h to 24h. Exposure to different concentrations of ciprofloxacin on different chips allows them to define microfluidic MIC which is closer to MBC by conventional assays rather than to the MIC values. They further analyze these data to derive single-cell antibiotic susceptibility profiles and also demonstrate the utility of the platform to document morphological changes upon antibiotic exposure. As the authors themselves present in the introduction, there have been numerous studies that have achieved the goals this study set out to do. So, in terms of novelty this is not an entirely unique technique or device. But the study provides an additional toolset available to the research community to address these issues. The experiments are well-designed and the manuscript written well. Specific comments: - In the abstract the authors state “To date, neither bulk nor single-cell methods are able to link the heterogeneity of single-cell susceptibility to the population-scale response to antibiotics.” This is misleading, as there are several studies which have linked single-cell behavior to populations scale responses – publications from Balaban group, James Collins group, Losick group for example. - Ln 48-49, the authors claim that the link between single-cell measurements and the classical biological measurements has never been explicitly tested. Again this is misleading as all the microfluidic papers on antibiotic susceptibility testing that the authors cite indeed compared the findings with classical biological measurements. - It is not very convincing that this platform is any better than a conventional 96 well plate. Imaging of bacteria in a conventional 96 well plate should be able to accomplish most of the observations obtained on this platform. Especially since in any case the cells at the bottom of the droplet are being imaged. For example, in the study (Zahir T, Camacho R, Vitale R, Ruckebusch C, Hofkens J, Fauvart M, Michiels J. 2019. High-throughput time-resolved morphology screening in bacteria reveals phenotypic responses to antibiotics. Communications Biology 2:1–13.) - The authors show that the microfluidic MIC is similar to the MBC determined by conventional method and not to the MIC. This was the observation with antibiotic ciprofloxacin (which seems to lyse the cells), would they expect a similar finding even with bacteriostatic antibiotics. It would have enriched the manuscript if they could have included analysis of an additional antibiotic (bacteriostatic). - Have the authors accounted for the variable depletion of nutrients in the droplets due to differential seeding densities. Would this effect their observations on antibiotic activity, especially under conditions that the droplet is filled up with bacteria. - The authors claims of looking at time evolution of phenotypes over time is not fully supported as from the movies, it appears the cells are in constant turbulence in the droplet and it would not be feasible to follow the same cell over time/ divisions. - Considering that the platform is an additional resource in the antibiotic susceptibility field, it would be beneficial if the authors could summarize and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of their setup in comparison to other microfluidic devices in the field. - Reference 1 seems incomplete. - Movies S1 and S2 appear to be switched. - Ln 31, ‘By’ should be ‘by’ Reviewer #2: The authors present an interesting piece of scientific research using a droplet-based approach to measure how single E.coli cells can expand to form colonies under antibiotic stress. The authors highlight how their current approach is built upon existing platforms and technologies, and could perhaps discuss more on the novelty of their current approach. The authors should include a section in the Materials and Methods on their statistical analyses used in their research; the statistics used are mentioned in their legends. Overall, the manuscript is well written but there are a few minor corrections: There is an inconsistent use of "µ" throughout. Figure 3b is not described in the legend. There are a few spelling errors (lines: 206, 391, 477, Fig 1 legend). ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303630.r001
Revision 1
26 Apr 2024 Author Response Dear referees, We thank both referees for the assessment of our manuscript and their support for its publication. Below we answer their comments in detail. The comments are shown in black and our answers in blue (and also preceded with “AUTHORS' REPLY: “). Reviewer #1: The depleting pipeline of antibiotics and the spread of AMR necessitates new tools to classify and study antibiotic activity. In this manuscript, the authors use a previously developed microfluidic droplet-based platform to look at antibiotic susceptibility. Using fluorescent E. coli and ciprofloxacin as the candidate antibiotic they evaluate their platform. Initial experiments were carried out to benchmark the growth of the bacteria in the platform and compared with growth in a 96-well plate format. Image analysis pipelines were subsequently developed to quantitate the bacterial growth from 0h to 24h. Exposure to different concentrations of ciprofloxacin on different chips allows them to define microfluidic MIC which is closer to MBC by conventional assays rather than to the MIC values. They further analyze these data to derive single-cell antibiotic susceptibility profiles and also demonstrate the utility of the platform to document morphological changes upon antibiotic exposure. As the authors themselves present in the introduction, there have been numerous studies that have achieved the goals this study set out to do. So, in terms of novelty this is not an entirely unique technique or device. But the study provides an additional toolset available to the research community to address these issues. The experiments are well-designed and the manuscript written well. AUTHORS' REPLY: We thank reviewer 1 for his/her positive remarks on our manuscript. We agree with the referee that this manuscript provides an additional approach to study the bacterial response to antibiotics, this way complementing the already published studies. This manuscript therefore shows the demonstration of the type of data that can be obtained. We are currently working towards gaining new biological insights by using these tools, which will hopefully lead to future publications. END OF REPLY Specific comments: - In the abstract the authors state “To date, neither bulk nor single-cell methods are able to link the heterogeneity of single-cell susceptibility to the population-scale response to antibiotics.” This is misleading, as there are several studies which have linked single-cell behavior to populations scale responses – publications from Balaban group, James Collins group, Losick group for example. AUTHORS' REPLY: The referee is right that our statement was too broad. We have now toned it down as follows: To date, linking the heterogeneity of single-cell susceptibility to the population-scale response to antibiotics remains challenging due to the trade-offs between the resolution and the field of view. END OF REPLY - Ln 48-49, the authors claim that the link between single-cell measurements and the classical biological measurements has never been explicitly tested. Again this is misleading as all the microfluidic papers on antibiotic susceptibility testing that the authors cite indeed compared the findings with classical biological measurements. AUTHORS' REPLY: Again, we have replaced this sentence with a more focused statements, as follows: Finally, there is still a need to strengthen the link between the droplet-based measurements with the vast quantity of data obtained in traditional experiments. END OF REPLY - It is not very convincing that this platform is any better than a conventional 96 well plate. Imaging of bacteria in a conventional 96 well plate should be able to accomplish most of the observations obtained on this platform. Especially since in any case the cells at the bottom of the droplet are being imaged. For example, in the study (Zahir T, Camacho R, Vitale R, Ruckebusch C, Hofkens J, Fauvart M, Michiels J. 2019. High-throughput time-resolved morphology screening in bacteria reveals phenotypic responses to antibiotics. Communications Biology 2:1–13.) AUTHORS' REPLY: The results presented in this manuscript should be viewed as a complement to the paper by Amselem et al., Lab. Chip. 2016. In that paper we showed how the microfluidic format allowed a wide range of operations on bacterial suspensions, in the presence or absence of antibiotics. Amselem et al. showed for example that it was possible to modify the antibiotic concentration in time, or to recover the contents of a single droplet out of more than 1000. These operations distinguish the microfluidic format from multiwell plates. That paper however failed to relate the final state of a bacterial colony to the initial state inside each drop, nor did it benchmark the microfluidic measurements against standard biological tools. These two aspects are now addressed in the current manuscript. This aspect is now emphasized in the discussion, where we now state: The current pipeline can be combined with the results of Ref. [28] to perform more complex experiments, e.g. to modulate the antibiotic concentration in time to to recover the contents of individual drops and perform -omics measurements on them. When comparing with 96 well plates, the ability to work with small volumes makes it possible to count the number of cells inside each droplet initially just after loading the chips. This counting step is critical for defining the single-cell susceptibility that is shown in fig. 4, which we think opens a range of possibilities for probabilistic analysis of cell behavior. The paper by Zahir et al. does show beautiful images of cells after being subjected to antibiotics. However counting the number of cells at the initial seeding would be practically impossible in the volume of a well of a 96 well plate, since it would be prohibitively difficult to scan the whole volume to identify a single cell in 100 µl. END OF REPLY - The authors show that the microfluidic MIC is similar to the MBC determined by conventional method and not to the MIC. This was the observation with antibiotic ciprofloxacin (which seems to lyse the cells), would they expect a similar finding even with bacteriostatic antibiotics. It would have enriched the manuscript if they could have included analysis of an additional antibiotic (bacteriostatic). AUTHORS' REPLY: Our paper indeed focuses on the ciprofloxacyn because the SOS response due to the DNA damage by ciprofloxacyn provokes cell elongation perfectly observable inside of the droplet. The platform is naturally suitable for other antibiotics, which is the subject of our current work where we are comparing the statistics and morphologies of cells subjected to a range of different antibiotics. However these tests require a much more in-depth study, making them out of the scope of the current paper. END OF REPLY - Have the authors accounted for the variable depletion of nutrients in the droplets due to differential seeding densities. Would this effect their observations on antibiotic activity, especially under conditions that the droplet is filled up with bacteria. AUTHORS' REPLY: The outcome for each droplet (whether it is positive or negative and whether it leads to filamentation) is mainly determined by the initial evolution within the drop. In all of the experiments shown here, the number of cells at this early stage is in the range of a few cells per droplet, so that crowding effects or cell-cell interactions should be negligible. END OF REPLY - The authors claims of looking at time evolution of phenotypes over time is not fully supported as from the movies, it appears the cells are in constant turbulence in the droplet and it would not be feasible to follow the same cell over time/ divisions. AUTHORS' REPLY: The reviewer here is pointing to one of the main differences between the current approach and “mother machine” approaches. While the mother machine provides a method to follow the progeny of a specific cell, in terms of division rate and shape, the current approach only provides statistical measurements of the progeny of a small number of cells per droplet. Indeed, since the cells move it is not possible to generate a single-cell lineage. Nevertheless the format provides a way to obtain a good estimate of the distribution of shapes at each time step of the time lapse. We have changed the statement on “progeny of single cells” as follows: Since the droplet position is invariant throughout the experiment, identifying the evolution of the morphology within each droplet can be achieved END OF REPLY - Considering that the platform is an additional resource in the antibiotic susceptibility field, it would be beneficial if the authors could summarize and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of their setup in comparison to other microfluidic devices in the field. AUTHORS' REPLY: We have now added a new paragraph in the discussion section. In this paragraph we compare with droplet-based microfluidic methods, which are the most relevant comparison point. The new paragraph is cited below: Compared with other droplet-based methods, the current approach is based on analyzing a much lower number of droplets per condition (500 drops here, compared with typically $10^4$ drops~\\cite{scheler_droplet-based_2020}). However this small number of drops is partially balanced by the ability to work with a much larger Poisson parameter: Since we count the number of cells initially in each droplet, we can work with a mean number of cells above one per droplet, while other methods must work with a mean number closer to 0.1 cells per drop. The resulting total number of cells that is analyzed is therefore comparable between the different approaches. Moreover most droplet-based methods treat the biological problem as a "digital" problem, categorizing drops as either positive or negative. In contrast, the current approach provides information about cell morphology within each droplet, by relying on microscopy-based readout. While this makes the imaging and analysis of the experiments more computationally demanding, it also provides richer information about the bacterial response to antibiotic stress. In turn this information will be valuable for identifying mechanisms by which cells escape antibiotic stress. END OF REPLY - Reference 1 seems incomplete. - Movies S1 and S2 appear to be switched. - Ln 31, ‘By’ should be ‘by’ AUTHORS' REPLY: Thank you for your careful reading of the manuscript. We have fixed these issues and replaced Ref. 1 by a more relevant one. END OF REPLY Reviewer #2: The authors present an interesting piece of scientific research using a droplet-based approach to measure how single E.coli cells can expand to form colonies under antibiotic stress. The authors highlight how their current approach is built upon existing platforms and technologies, and could perhaps discuss more on the novelty of their current approach. THE AUTHORS' REPLY: We thank reviewer 2 for his/her evaluation of our article and support for publication. The reviewer’s comment is similar to the one by reviewer 1. As a result we have now added a new paragraph in the discussion section where the current approach is compared with other droplet-based methods. The paragraph is copied below: Compared with other droplet-based methods, the current approach is based on analyzing a much lower number of droplets per condition (500 drops here, compared with typically $10^4$ drops~\\cite{scheler_droplet-based_2020}). However this small number of drops is partially balanced by the ability to work with a much larger Poisson parameter: Since we count the number of cells initially in each droplet, we can work with a mean number of cells above one per droplet, while other methods must work with a mean number closer to 0.1 cells per drop. The resulting total number of cells that is analyzed is therefore comparable between the different approaches. Moreover most droplet-based methods treat the biological problem as a "digital" problem, categorizing drops as either positive or negative. In contrast, the current approach provides information about cell morphology within each droplet, by relying on microscopy-based readout. While this makes the imaging and analysis of the experiments more computationally demanding, it also provides richer information about the bacterial response to antibiotic stress. In turn this information will be valuable for identifying mechanisms by which cells escape antibiotic stress. END OF REPLY The authors should include a section in the Materials and Methods on their statistical analyses used in their research; the statistics used are mentioned in their legends. AUTHORS' REPLY: Thank you for your careful reading of the manuscript. We have added the missing section. END OF REPLY Overall, the manuscript is well written but there are a few minor corrections: There is an inconsistent use of "µ" throughout. Figure 3b is not described in the legend. There are a few spelling errors (lines: 206, 391, 477, Fig 1 legend). AUTHORS' REPLY: Thank you for your careful reading of the manuscript. We have fixed these issues. END OF REPLY Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLOS One answers to referees.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303630.r002
30 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Vinayak Singh, Editor Measuring single-cell susceptibility to antibiotics within monoclonal bacterial populations PONE-D-24-06332R1 Dear Dr. Andrey Aristov, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and is accepted for publication. An invoice will be generated. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Vinayak Singh, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303630.r003
Formally Accepted
16 May 2024 Acceptance Letter - Vinayak Singh, Editor PONE-D-24-06332R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Aristov, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Vinayak Singh Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303630.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .