Back

Persistence-colonization trade-off and niche differentiation enable the coexistence of E. coli phylogroups

Morel-Journel, T.; Lehtinen, S.; Cotto, O.; Martinson, J.; Clermont, O.; Walk, S.; Denamur, E.; Blanquart, F.

2023-08-14 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2023.08.10.552787 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Despite extensive literature on the pathogenicity and virulence of the opportunistic pathogen Escherichia coli, much less is known about its ecological and evolutionary dynamics as a commensal in healthy hosts. Based on two detailed longitudinal datasets on the gut microbiota of healthy adult individuals followed over months to years in France and in the USA, we identified a robust trade-off between the ability to establish in a new host (colonization) and the ability to remain in the host (residence). Major E. coli lineages (phylogroups) exhibited similar fitness but a diversity of strategies, from strong colonizers residing for a few days in the gut, to poor colonizers residing for years. Strains with the largest number of extra-intestinal virulence associated genes and highest pathogenicity resided for longest in hosts. Moreover, the residence time of a strain was reduced more strongly when it competed with other strains of the same phylogroup than of different phylogroups, suggesting niche differentiation between them. To investigate the consequences of the trade-off and niche differentiation for coexistence between strains, we developed a discrete-state Markov model describing the dynamics of E. coli in a population of hosts. We found that the trade-off and niche differentiation acted together as equalizing and stabilizing mechanisms enabling the coexistence of phylogroups over extended periods of time. Our model predicted that a reduction in transmission (e.g. better hygiene) would not alter the balance between phylogroups, while disturbance of the microbiome (e.g. antibiotics) would hinder residents strains such as those of the extra-intestinal pathogenic phylogroup B2.3.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.