Now, researchers at the University of Delaware have discovered that bacteria do more than just work together. Bacterial cells from different species can combine into unique hybrid cells by fusing their cell walls and membranes and sharing cellular contents, including proteins and ribonucleic acid (RNA), the molecules which regulate gene expression and control cell metabolism. In other words, the organisms exchange material and lose part of their own identity in the process.

This unprecedented observation, which was reported on Tuesday, Sept. 1 in mBio, a journal of the American Society for Microbiology, has the potential to shed light on unexplained phenomena affecting human health, energy research, biotechnology and more.

The research team, led by Eleftherios (Terry) Papoutsakis, Unidel Eugene Du Pont Chair of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, studied interactions between Clostridium ljungdahlii and C. acetobutylicum. These species of bacteria work together in a syntrophic system, producing metabolites that are mutually beneficial to each other’s survival.

The team found that C. ljungdahlii invades C. acetobutylicum. The two organisms combine cell walls and membranes and exchange proteins and RNA to form hybrid cells, some of which continue to divide and in fact differentiate into the characteristic sporulation program.

“They mix their machinery to survive or do metabolism, and that’s kind of extraordinary, because we always assumed that each and every organism has its own independent identity and machinery,” said Papoutsakis.

Previously, researchers have observed that bacteria could exchange some material through nanotubes. The combination into hybrid cells was unexpected.

“This is the first time we’ve shown this in this bacteria, and it’s also a new mechanism of how material is exchanged,” said Kamil Charubin, a doctoral student in chemical and biomolecular Engineering and first author of the paper.

Although this phenomenon of interspecies microbial fusion is now being reported for the first time, it is likely ubiquitous in nature among many bacterial pairs.

So why do bacteria bother to fuse together? The simple answer is likely because this process allows the microbes to share machinery that will increase their odds of survival.

For example, some pathogenic bacteria — those that can cause disease — may borrow proteins from other antibiotic-resistant bacteria in order to shore up their own resistance. Some bacteria might borrow machinery from others in order to evade detection by the immune system. This could also help to explain why some bacteria are difficult to culture, or grow for study or medical diagnostic purposes. These difficult-to-culture bacteria might combine with or work with and depend on other microorganisms for their existence instead of growing and multiplying on their own.

The team’s findings may influence understanding of the evolution of biology because once bacterial species share machinery, they can evolve together instead of only evolving on their own, said Papoutsakis.

“These findings will guide new thinking in not just the field of microbial evolution, but also toward biotechnological solutions that can benefit the soldier,” said Dr. Robert Kokoska, program manager, Army Research Office (ARO), an element of the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command’s Army Research Laboratory. “These include studies of how the human microbiome shapes soldier human health and cognition and how microbial communities can be better designed for a broad range of advances including strategies for reliable in-field biological sensing, waste remediation and novel means of biosynthesis.”

This work was supported by the Army Research Office (award no. W911NF-17-1-0343, and W911NF-19-1-0274) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DE-SC0019155).

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Delaware. Original written by Julie Stewart. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

A recent review paper, co-authored by Brodie Sakakibara with the Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Management (CCDPM) has determined that virtual appointments, in the form of telerehabilitation, also work for people recovering from a stroke.

After a stroke, a client is provided with a therapy program to help re-gain loss of skills or motion — this can range from speech and memory, strength, balance and endurance. While not initially introduced for disease outbreaks, Sakakibara a UBCO assistant professor says research shows remote therapy can be effective during stroke recovery.

“Telerehabilitation has been promoted as a more efficient means of delivering rehabilitation services to stroke patients while also providing care options to those unable to attend conventional therapy,” says paper co-author Sakakibara. “These services can be provided to remote locations through information and communication technologies and can be accessed by patients in their homes.”

To learn how effective telerehabilitation can be, six different clinical trials — examining stroke telerehabilitation programs — were launched across Canada as part of a Heart and Stroke Foundation initiative. People recovering from a stroke were provided with interventions ranging from lifestyle coaching to memory, speech skills and physical-exercise training.

“Researchers from each of the six trials came together to write a review paper describing their experiences conducting a telerehabilitation study, and to report on the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of telerehab services within a research context,” says Sakakibara.

Going forward with telerehabilitation as a new reality, Sakakibara says the study authors determined there are important lessons learned from each of the six trials. Most notably, the efficacy and cost of telerehabilitation is similar to that of traditional face-to-face management. He also notes patients mostly reported satisfaction with the telerehabilitation when therapists were trained appropriately, and when there was some social interaction. Overall, clinicians prefer face-to-face interactions but will use telerehabilitation when face-to-face is not feasible.

And finally, since seniors are a key target group for stroke rehabilitation — as stroke is associated with aging — the technology needs to be easy to use and suit the needs of the end users.

“The older adult of today, in terms of technology comfort and use, is different than the older adult of tomorrow,” he says. “While there might be some hesitation of current older adults using technology to receive health and rehab services, the older adult of tomorrow likely is very comfortable using technology. This represents a large opportunity to develop and establish the telehealth/rehabilitation model of care.”

Sakakibara notes COVID-19 has amplified the necessity for telehealth and telerehabilitation for many Canadians — especially those in remote areas or for the estimated 70 per cent of stroke victims who are no longer able to drive.

“Prior to the outbreak, telehealth/rehabilitation was highly recommended in Canadian stroke professional guidelines, but was underused,” he says. “Now in response to COVID-19, the use of telerehabilitation has been accelerated to the forefront. Once these programs are implemented in practice, it’ll be part of the norm, even when the outbreak is over. It is important that we develop and study telerehabilitation programs to ensure the programs are effective and benefit the patients.”