Abstract
The rapid emergence of antibiotic resistant bacterial pathogens constitutes a critical problem in healthcare and requires the development of novel treatments. Potential strategies include the exploitation of microbial social interactions based on public goods, which are produced at a fitness cost by cooperative microorganisms, but can be exploited by cheaters that do not produce these goods. Cheater invasion has been proposed as a "Trojan horse" approach to infiltrate pathogen populations with strains deploying built-in weaknesses (e.g. sensitiveness to antibiotics). However, previous attempts have been often unsuccessful because population invasion by cheaters was prevented by various mechanisms including the presence of spatial structure (e.g. growth in biofilms), which limits the diffusion and exploitation of public goods. Here we followed an alternative approach and examined whether the manipulation of public good uptake and not its production could result in potential "Trojan horses" suitable for population invasion. We focused on the siderophore pyoverdine produced by the human pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa MPAO1 and manipulated its uptake by deleting and/or overexpressing the pyoverdine primary (FpvA) and secondary (FpvB) receptors. We found that receptor synthesis feeds back on pyoverdine production and uptake rates, which led to strains with altered pyoverdine-associated costs and benefits. Moreover, we found that the receptor FpvB was advantageous under iron-limited conditions but revealed hidden costs in the presence of an antibiotic stressor (gentamicin). As a consequence, FpvB mutants became the fittest strain under gentamicin exposure, displacing the wildtype in liquid cultures, and in biofilms and during infections of the wax moth larvae Galleria mellonella, which both represent structured environments. Our findings reveal that an evolutionary trade-off associated with the costs and benefits of a versatile pyoverdine uptake strategy can be harnessed for devising a Trojan horse candidate for medical interventions. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.