Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-29T05:43:48.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Impact of a short-term exposure to spaceflight on the phenotype, genome, transcriptome and proteome of Escherichia coli

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2015

Tianzhi Li
Nanlou Respiratory Diseases Department, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
De Chang
Nanlou Respiratory Diseases Department, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China Department of Respiratory Medicine, General Hospital of Chinese People's Armed Police Forces, Beijing 100039, China
Huiwen Xu
Institute for Medical Device Standardization Administration, National Institute for Food and Drug Control, Beijing 100050, China
Jiapeng Chen
BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China
Longxiang Su
Nanlou Respiratory Diseases Department, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
Yinghua Guo
Nanlou Respiratory Diseases Department, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
Zhenhong Chen
Nanlou Respiratory Diseases Department, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
Yajuan Wang
Nanlou Respiratory Diseases Department, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
Li Wang
Nanlou Respiratory Diseases Department, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
Junfeng Wang
Nanlou Respiratory Diseases Department, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
Xiangqun Fang
Nanlou Respiratory Diseases Department, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
Changting Liu*
Nanlou Respiratory Diseases Department, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
*Corresponding author. E-mail:


Escherichia coli (E. coli) is the most widely applied model organism in current biological science. As a widespread opportunistic pathogen, E. coli can survive not only by symbiosis with human, but also outside the host as well, which necessitates the evaluation of its response to the space environment. Therefore, to keep humans safe in space, it is necessary to understand how the bacteria respond to this environment. Despite extensive investigations for a few decades, the response of E. coli to the real space environment is still controversial. To better understand the mechanisms how E. coli overcomes harsh environments such as microgravity in space and to investigate whether these factors may induce pathogenic changes in E. coli that are potentially detrimental to astronauts, we conducted detailed genomics, transcriptomic and proteomic studies on E. coli that experienced 17 days of spaceflight. By comparing two flight strains LCT-EC52 and LCT-EC59 to a control strain LCT-EC106 that was cultured under the same temperature conditions on the ground, we identified metabolism changes, polymorphism changes, differentially expressed genes and proteins in the two flight strains. The flight strains differed from the control in the utilization of more than 30 carbon sources. Two single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and one deletion were identified in the flight strains. The expression level of more than 1000 genes altered in flight strains. Genes involved in chemotaxis, lipid metabolism and cell motility express differently. Moreover, the two flight strains also differed extensively from each other in terms of metabolism, transcriptome and proteome, indicating the impact of space environment on individual cells is heterogeneous and probably genotype-dependent. This study presents the first systematic profile of E. coli genome, transcriptome and proteome after spaceflight, which helps to elucidate the mechanism that controls the adaptation of microbes to the space environment.

Research Article
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Arunasri, K., Adil, M., Charan, K.V., Suvro, C., Reddy, S.H. & Shivaji, S. (2013). Effect of simulated microgravity on E. coli K12 MG1655 growth and gene expression. PLoS ONE 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audic, S. & Claverie, J.M. (1997). The significance of digital gene expression profiles. Genome Res. 7, 986995.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauer, A.W., Kirby, W.M., Sherris, J.C. & Turck, M. (1966). Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 45, 493496.Google Scholar
Benjamini, Y. & Yekutieli, D. (2001). The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Ann. Stat. 29, 11651188.Google Scholar
Bentley, R. & Meganathan, R. (1982). Biosynthesis of vitamin K (menaquinone) in bacteria. Microbiol. Rev. 46, 241280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bouloc, P. & Dari, R. (1991). Escherichia-coli metabolism in space. J. Gen. Microbiol. 137, 28392843.Google Scholar
Brown, R.B., Klaus, D. & Todd, P. (2002). Effects of space flight, clinorotation, and centrifugation on the substrate utilization efficiency of E-coli . Microgravit. Sci. Technol. 13, 2429.Google Scholar
Chang, T.T., Walther, I., Li, C.F., Boonyaratanakornkit, J., Galleri, G., Meloni, M.A., Pippia, P., Cogoli, A. & Hughes-Fulford, M. (2012). The Rel/NF-κB pathway and transcription of immediate early genes in T cell activation are inhibited by microgravity. J. Leukoc. Biol. 92, 11331145.Google Scholar
Chopra, V., Fadl, A.A., Sha, J., Chopra, S., Galindo, C.L. & Chopra, A.K. (2006). Alterations in the virulence potential of enteric pathogens and bacterial–host cell interactions under simulated microgravity conditions. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A 69, 13451370.Google Scholar
Cogoli, A., Tschopp, A. & Fuchs-Bislin, P. (1984). Cell sensitivity to gravity. Science 225, 228230.Google Scholar
Crabbe, A., Pycke, B., Van Houdt, R., Monsieurs, P., Nickerson, C., Leys, N. & Cornelis, P. (2010). Response of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 to low shear modelled microgravity involves AlgU regulation. Environ. Microbiol. 12, 15451564.Google Scholar
Croxen, M.A., Law, R.J., Scholz, R., Keeney, K.M., Wlodarska, M. & Finlay, B.B. (2013). Recent advances in understanding enteric pathogenic Escherichia coli . Clin. Microbiol. Reviews 26, 822880.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duray, P.H., Hatfill, S.J. & Pellis, N.R. (1997). Tissue culture in microgravity. Sci. Med. 4, 4655.Google ScholarPubMed
Foster, J.S., Khodadad, C.L., Ahrendt, S.R. & Parrish, M.L. (2013). Impact of simulated microgravity on the normal developmental time line of an animal–bacteria symbiosis. Sci. Rep. 3, 1340.Google Scholar
Gao, H., Liu, Z. & Zhang, L. (2011). Secondary metabolism in simulated microgravity and space flight. Protein Cell 2, 858861.Google Scholar
Horneck, G., Bucker, H., Dose, K., Martens, K.D., Bieger, A., Mennigmann, H.D., Reitz, G., Requardt, H. & Weber, P. (1984a). Microorganisms and biomolecules in space environment experiment ES 029 on Spacelab-1. Adv. Space Res. 4, 1927.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horneck, G., Klaus, D.M. & Mancinelli, R.L. (2010). Space microbiology. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 74, 121156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horneck, G. et al. (2012). Resistance of bacterial endospores to outer space for planetary protection purposes–experiment PROTECT of the EXPOSE-E mission. Astrobiology 12, 445456.Google Scholar
Hudault, S., Guignot, J. & Servin, A.L. (2001). Escherichia coli strains colonising the gastrointestinal tract protect germfree mice against Salmonella typhimurium infection. Gut 49, 4755.Google Scholar
Juergensmeyer, M.A., Juergensmeyer, E.A. & Guikema, J.A. (1999). Long-term exposure to spaceflight conditions affects bacterial response to antibiotics. Microgravit. Sci. Technol. 12, 4147.Google Scholar
Kacena, M.A., Manfredi, B. & Todd, P. (1999a). Effects of space flight and mixing on bacterial growth in low volume cultures. Microgravit. Sci. Technol. 12, 7477.Google ScholarPubMed
Kacena, M.A., Merrell, G.A., Manfredi, B., Smith, E.E., Klaus, D.M. & Todd, P. (1999b). Bacterial growth in space flight: logistic growth curve parameters for Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis . Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 51, 229234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klaus, D., Simske, S., Todd, P. & Stodieck, L. (1997). Investigation of space flight effects on Escherichia coli and a proposed model of underlying physical mechanisms. Microbiology, UK 143, 449455.Google Scholar
Knight, V., Couch, R.B. & Landahl, H.D. (1970). Effect of lack of gravity on airborne infection during space flight. JAMA 214, 513518.Google Scholar
Lai, Y., Rosenshine, I., Leong, J.M. & Frankel, G. (2013). Intimate host attachment: enteropathogenic and enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli . Cell. Microbiol. 15, 17961808.Google Scholar
Lynch, S.V. & Matin, A. (2005). Travails of microgravity: man and microbes in space. Biologist 52.Google Scholar
Lynch, S.V., Mukundakrishnan, K., Benoit, M.R., Ayyaswamy, P.S. & Matin, A. (2006). Escherichia coli biofilms formed under low-shear modeled microgravity in a ground-based system. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72(12), 77017710.Google Scholar
Mellmann, A. et al. (2011). Prospective genomic characterization of the German enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O104:H4 outbreak by rapid next generation sequencing technology. PLoS ONE 6, e22751.Google Scholar
Mortazavi, A., Williams, B.A., McCue, K., Schaeffer, L. & Wold, B. (2008). Mapping and quantifying mammalian transcriptomes by RNA-Seq. Nat. Methods 5, 621628.Google Scholar
Nagalakshmi, U., Waern, K. & Snyder, M. (2010). RNA-Seq: a method for comprehensive transcriptome analysis. Current Protocols in Molecular Biology, ed. Frederick, M. Ausubel et al. Chapter 4: Unit 4 11 1113. Pubilished by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. SN - 0471142720.Google Scholar
Nicholson, W.L., Moeller, R., Team, P. & Horneck, G. (2012). Transcriptomic responses of germinating Bacillus subtilis spores exposed to 1.5 years of space and simulated Martian conditions on the EXPOSE-E experiment PROTECT. Astrobiology 12, 469486.Google Scholar
Nickerson, C.A., Ott, C.M., Mister, S.J., Morrow, B.J., Burns-Keliher, L. & Pierson, D.L. (2000). Microgravity as a novel environmental signal affecting Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium virulence. Infect. Immun. 68, 31473152.Google Scholar
Nickerson, C.A., Ott, C.M., Wilson, J.W., Ramamurthy, R. & Pierson, D.L. (2004). Microbial responses to microgravity and other low-shear environments. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 68, 345361.Google Scholar
Reid, G., Howard, J. & Gan, B.S. (2001). Can bacterial interference prevent infection? Trends Microbiol. 9, 424428.Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, J.A., Abogunde, O., Thomas, K., Lawal, A., Nguyen, Y.U., Sodipe, A. & Jejelowo, O. (2010). Spaceflight and modeled microgravity effects on microbial growth and virulence. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 85, 885891.Google Scholar
Schuerger, A.C. (2004). Microbial ecology of the surface exploration of Mars with human-operated vehicles. Sci. Technol. 107, 363386.Google Scholar
Schuerger, A.C., Mancinelli, R.L., Kern, R.G., Rothschild, L.J. & McKay, C.P. (2003). Survival of endospores of Bacillus subtilis on spacecraft surfaces under simulated Martian environments: implications for the forward contamination of Mars. Icarus 165, 253276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singleton, P. (1999). Bacteria in Biology, Biotechnology, and Medicine. Wiley, Chichester, New York.Google Scholar
Smibert, R.M. & Krieg, N.R. (1994). Phenotypic characterization. In Methods for General and Molecular Bacteriology (ed. PGRGEMWAWNR Krieg.), pp. 607654. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Sonnenfeld, G. (2012). Space flight modifies T cellactivation—role of microgravity. J. Leukoc. Biol. 92, 11251126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Su, L. et al. (2014). Phenotypic, genomic, transcriptomic and proteomic changes in Bacillus cereus after a short-term space flight. Adv. Space Res. 53, 1829.Google Scholar
Taylor, G.R. (1974). Space microbiology. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 28, 121137.Google Scholar
Taylor, P.W. & Sommer, A.P. (2005). Towards rational treatment of bacterial infections during extended space travel. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 26, 183187.Google Scholar
Thirsk, R., Kuipers, A., Mukai, C. & Williams, D. (2009). The space-flight environment: the International Space Station and beyond. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 180, 12161220.Google Scholar
Tucker, D.L., Ott, C.M., Huff, S., Fofanov, Y., Pierson, D.L., Willson, R.C. & Fox, G.E. (2007). Characterization of Escherichia coli MG1655 grown in a low-shear modeled microgravity environment. BMC Microbiol. 7, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venkateswaran, K., Satomi, M., Chung, S., Kern, R., Koukol, R., Basic, C. & White, D. (2001). Molecular microbial diversity of a spacecraft assembly facility. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 24, 311320.Google Scholar
Vukanti, R. & Leff, L.G. (2012). Expression of multiple stress response genes by Escherichia coli under modeled reduced gravity. Microgravit. Sci. Tecnol. 24, 267279.Google Scholar
Vukanti, R., Mintz, E. & Leff, L. (2008). Changes in gene expression of E-coli under conditions of modeled reduced gravity. Microgravit. Sci. Tecnol. 20, 4157.Google Scholar
Vukanti, R., Model, M.A. & Leff, L.G. (2012). Effect of modeled reduced gravity conditions on bacterial morphology and physiology. BMC Microbiol. 12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Y. et al. 2014. Transcriptomic and proteomic responses of Serratia marcescens to spaceflight conditions involve large-scale changes in metabolic pathways. Adv. Space Res. 53, 11081117.Google Scholar
Wilson, J.W. et al. (2007). Space flight alters bacterial gene expression and virulence and reveals a role for global regulator Hfq. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 1629916304.Google Scholar
Wilson, J.W., Ott, C.M., Ramamurthy, R., Porwollik, S., McClelland, M., Pierson, D.L. & Nickerson, C.A. (2002a). Low-Shear modeled microgravity alters the Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium stress response in an RpoS-independent manner. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68, 54085416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J.W., Ramamurthy, R., Porwollik, S., McClelland, M., Hammond, T., Allen, P., Ott, C.M., Pierson, D.L. & Nickerson, C.A. (2002b). Microarray analysis identifies Salmonella genes belonging to the low-shear modeled microgravity regulon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 1380713812.Google Scholar