Modulating gene expression and protein secretion in the bacterial predator Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus

Modulating gene expression and protein secretion in the bacterial predator Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus | bioRxiv /* */ /* */ <!-- <!-- /*! * yepnope1.5.4 * (c) WTFPL, GPLv2 */ (function(a,b,c){function d(a){return"[object Function]"==o.call(a)}function e(a){return"string"==typeof a}function f(){}function g(a){return!a||"loaded"==a||"complete"==a||"uninitialized"==a}function h(){var a=p.shift();q=1,a?a.t?m(function(){("c"==a.t?B.injectCss:B.injectJs)(a.s,0,a.a,a.x,a.e,1)},0):(a(),h()):q=0}function i(a,c,d,e,f,i,j){function k(b){if(!o&&g(l.readyState)&&(u.r=o=1,!q&&h(),l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=null,b)){"img"!=a&&m(function(){t.removeChild(l)},50);for(var d in y[c])y[c].hasOwnProperty(d)&&y[c][d].onload()}}var j=j||B.errorTimeout,l=b.createElement(a),o=0,r=0,u={t:d,s:c,e:f,a:i,x:j};1===y[c]&&(r=1,y[c]=[]),"object"==a?l.data=c:(l.src=c,l.type=a),l.width=l.height="0",l.onerror=l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=function(){k.call(this,r)},p.splice(e,0,u),"img"!=a&&(r||2===y[c]?(t.insertBefore(l,s?null:n),m(k,j)):y[c].push(l))}function j(a,b,c,d,f){return q=0,b=b||"j",e(a)?i("c"==b?v:u,a,b,this.i++,c,d,f):(p.splice(this.i++,0,a),1==p.length&&h()),this}function k(){var a=B;return a.loader={load:j,i:0},a}var l=b.documentElement,m=a.setTimeout,n=b.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],o={}.toString,p=[],q=0,r="MozAppearance"in l.style,s=r&&!!b.createRange().compareNode,t=s?l:n.parentNode,l=a.opera&&"[object Opera]"==o.call(a.opera),l=!!b.attachEvent&&!l,u=r?"object":l?"script":"img",v=l?"script":u,w=Array.isArray||function(a){return"[object Array]"==o.call(a)},x=[],y={},z={timeout:function(a,b){return b.length&&(a.timeout=b[0]),a}},A,B;B=function(a){function b(a){var a=a.split("!"),b=x.length,c=a.pop(),d=a.length,c={url:c,origUrl:c,prefixes:a},e,f,g;for(f=0;f<d;f++)g=a[f].split("="),(e=z[g.shift()])&&(c=e(c,g));for(f=0;f<b;f++)c=x[f](c);return c}function g(a,e,f,g,h){var i=b(a),j=i.autoCallback;i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift(),i.bypass||(e&&(e=d(e)?e:e[a]||e[g]||e[a.split("/").pop().split("?")[0]]),i.instead?i.instead(a,e,f,g,h):(y[i.url]?i.noexec=!0:y[i.url]=1,f.load(i.url,i.forceCSS||!i.forceJS&&"css"==i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift()?"c":c,i.noexec,i.attrs,i.timeout),(d(e)||d(j))&&f.load(function(){k(),e&&e(i.origUrl,h,g),j&&j(i.origUrl,h,g),y[i.url]=2})))}function h(a,b){function c(a,c){if(a){if(e(a))c||(j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}),g(a,j,b,0,h);else if(Object(a)===a)for(n in m=function(){var b=0,c;for(c in a)a.hasOwnProperty(c)&&b++;return b}(),a)a.hasOwnProperty(n)&&(!c&&!--m&&(d(j)?j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}:j[n]=function(a){return function(){var b=[].slice.call(arguments);a&&a.apply(this,b),l()}}(k[n])),g(a[n],j,b,n,h))}else!c&&l()}var h=!!a.test,i=a.load||a.both,j=a.callback||f,k=j,l=a.complete||f,m,n;c(h?a.yep:a.nope,!!i),i&&c(i)}var i,j,l=this.yepnope.loader;if(e(a))g(a,0,l,0);else if(w(a))for(i=0;i (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];var j=d.createElement(s);var dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.src='//www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;j.type='text/javascript';j.async=true;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-M677548'); Skip to main content Home About Submit ALERTS / RSS Search for this keyword Advanced Search New Results Modulating gene expression and protein secretion in the bacterial predator Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus View ORCID Profile Ljiljana Mihajlovic , View ORCID Profile Lara M. Hofacker , View ORCID Profile Florian Lindner , View ORCID Profile Priyanikha Jayakumar , View ORCID Profile Andreas Diepold , View ORCID Profile Simona G. Huwiler doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.05.17.654431 Ljiljana Mihajlovic 1 Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of Zurich , Zurich, Switzerland Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Ljiljana Mihajlovic Lara M. Hofacker 1 Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of Zurich , Zurich, Switzerland Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Lara M. Hofacker Florian Lindner 1 Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of Zurich , Zurich, Switzerland Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Florian Lindner Priyanikha Jayakumar 2 Flow Cytometry Facility, University of Zurich , Zurich, Switzerland Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Priyanikha Jayakumar Andreas Diepold 3 Department of Ecophysiology, Max Planck Institute for Terrestrial Microbiology , Marburg, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Andreas Diepold Simona G. Huwiler 1 Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of Zurich , Zurich, Switzerland Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Simona G. Huwiler For correspondence: simona.huwiler{at}uzh.ch Abstract Full Text Info/History Metrics Supplementary material Preview PDF Abstract The predatory bacterium Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus kills and consumes other bacteria, thrives in diverse environments and holds great potential to address major challenges in medicine, agriculture, and biotechnology. As a bacterial predator it represents an alternative to traditional antimicrobial strategies to combat multidrug-resistant bacterial pathogens and prevent food waste, while the multitude of predatory enzymes it produces hold potential for biotechnological applications. However, the limited availability of versatile genetic tools and secretion assays constrain both fundamental studies and bioengineering of B. bacteriovorus . Here, we developed a molecular toolbox for B. bacteriovorus by systematically tuning gene expression and secretion of a reporter protein. We investigated functional native and synthetic promoters from the Anderson library with varying expression levels and demonstrated their efficacy in driving expression of the fluorescent reporter protein mScarletI3 at both the population and single-cell level. Additionally, we evaluated different ribosomal binding sites (RBS) to fine-tune gene expression. To examine secretion, we established a novel protocol to quantify extracellular release of a Nanoluc luciferase reporter protein in B. bacteriovorus using different native Sec-dependent signal sequences. We anticipate that the newly developed genetic toolkit and techniques will advance research on this fundamental predator-prey system, laying the foundation for its broader application and future bioengineering efforts. This work will pave the way for tailored applications of B. bacteriovorus in microbial ecology, agriculture, biotechnology, and medicine. Introduction The microbial predator Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus has significant potential to address multiple challenges in medicine, agriculture and biotechnology [ 1 – 4 ]. It is a small predatory bacterium naturally present in numerous environments including soil [ 5 ], fresh water [ 6 ] and the human gut [ 7 ]. It has a unique predatory life cycle involving the killing, invasion and digestion of Gramnegative bacterial prey (S1 Fig). In the attack phase (AP), B. bacteriovorus approaches its prey by swimming in liquid or gliding on surfaces [ 8 ]. It then invades the periplasm of its prey, where it secretes hydrolytic enzymes that break down the prey components. These released prey nutrients fuel B. bacteriovorus growth and division, culminating in release of multiple progeny that continue the predatory cycle [ 9 – 11 ]. While significant progress has been made in understanding this intricate bipartite bacterial interaction, research is hindered by the limited tools available for modulating gene expression [ 12 ] and protein secretion in B. bacteriovorus . The natural ability to target and eliminate multiple WHO priority bacterial pathogens and its inherent low immunogenicity [ 2 , 4 ] has positioned B. bacteriovorus as a promising alternative to traditional antimicrobial approaches, offering innovative solutions in multiple contexts [ 4 , 13 , 14 ]. B. bacteriovorus has potential as a ‘living antibiotic’ for combating multidrugresistant infections [ 2 , 4 ]. Beyond clinical applications, it could also help to prevent or treat bacterial infections in farm animals [ 15 ], protect agricultural crops [ 16 – 19 ], and effectively disrupt or prevent bacterial biofilms [ 20 , 21 ]. Apart from its antimicrobial effects, Bdellovibrio species potentially play a role in maintaining balance in microbial communities [ 7 , 22 , 23 ] and serve as valuable models for studying microbial interactions and predator-prey dynamics [ 4 , 24 ]. Despite its enormous potential, B. bacteriovorus remains challenging to engineer due to the lack of versatile genetic tools compared with well-characterized bacteria like Escherichia coli . Without a comprehensive molecular toolbox for precise gene expression and protein secretion, efforts for controlled and targeted application of B. bacteriovorus remain limited. Engineering B. bacteriovorus is further complicated by its dependence on prey for survival in the predatory life cycle and the limited availability of genetic tools. The range of independently replicating plasmids for B. bacteriovorus is narrow [ 25 – 28 ], and functional, chemically inducible promoters (e.g., P lac , P BAD ) as in E. coli , are limited [ 12 , 28 ] To date, only few promoters have been characterized in B. bacteriovorus [ 12 , 28 ]. The scarcity of versatile gene expression systems than can be fine-tuned and the great application potential of B. bacteriovorus highlights the urgent need to expand the B. bacteriovorus toolkit with additional genetic components like adjustment of the ribosomal binding site (RBS), enabling more precise control of gene expression in this unique predatory bacterium. B. bacteriovorus is versatile in secreting an extensive arsenal of hydrolytic enzymes encoded in its genome [ 29 ], with one of the largest fractions of secreted proteins in bacteria [ 14 , 30 ]. It is likely that the secretion of hydrolytic enzymes plays a crucial role in degradation and digestion once the predator is inside the prey’s periplasm [ 29 , 31 ]. In addition, B. bacteriovorus secretes several proteases when encountering high-nutrient medium in attack-phase or on S. aureus biofilms [ 31 , 32 ]. Two of these proteases, Bd2269 and Bd2692, effectively removed S. aureus biofilms, when the purified proteins were added directly [ 33 ]. B. bacteriovorus encodes a type I and type II secretion system, as well as a twin-arginine translocation and complete Sec systems [ 29 , 34 ]. Although B. bacteriovorus holds great potential for the secretion of hydrolytic enzymes with biotechnological application [ 35 ], the secretion itself is largely unexplored, to the best of our knowledge. A contributing factor to this knowledge gap is the lack of established methods for rapid detection and quantification of protein secretion. To address these challenges, we developed a molecular toolbox to modulate B. bacteriovorus gene expression and protein secretion. Specifically, to optimize gene expression, we systematically evaluated native and synthetic promoters in combination with different ribosomal binding sites (RBSs), using a fluorescent reporter (mScarletI3) to quantify expression levels. We found that several synthetic promoters from the Anderson library [ 36 ] regulate B. bacteriovorus gene expression at different levels. Additionally, we demonstrate that promoter selection influences both intracellular expression of the fluorescent reporter mScarletI3 and extracellular secretion of the NanoLuc luciferase, with varying secretion efficiencies depending on the chosen native or synthetic promoters and secretion signals. Collectively, these advances address existing limitations in B. bacteriovorus engineering and provide a robust framework for its application across diverse fields. Results Establishment of a readout assay for promoter screening in B. bacteriovorus in the attack phase (AP) with mScarletI3 reporter Our initial goal was to develop a modular expression vector to enable reliable assembly or exchange of genetic parts for tight control of gene expression in B. bacteriovorus AP. The vector was designed with a uniform architecture, incorporating a reporter gene preceded by genetic key regulatory components: a promoter and a ribosomal binding site (RBS) ( Fig 1a , S2 Fig). To facilitate promoter screening, we generated a fluorescent readout system based on the pCAT.000 plasmid, a low-copy vector featuring an RSF1010-derived origin of replication [ 37 ]. This standardized design streamlines the screening process and provides a foundation for fine-tuning gene expression, facilitating the investigation of molecular mechanisms underlying predatory behavior and potential applications of B. bacteriovorus in various fields. Download figure Open in new tab Fig 1. Transcriptional readout assay comparing expression of fluorescent reporter proteins in B. bacteriovorus AP. ( a ) Schematic representation of B. bacteriovorus AP cell expressing cytosolic mScarletI3 under the control of P merRNA promoter on a pCAT.000-derived plasmid. ( b ) Comparison of fluorescence intensities of different fluorescent reporter proteins (mCherry, mNeonGreen, mScarletI3) expressed in B. bacteriovorus AP cells, measured at their respective emission wavelengths (610 nm, 592 nm, 517 nm respectively). The control is plasmid pCAT:P merRNA -opt.RBS lacking a fluorescent protein; its fluorescence was measured at 610 nm, 592 nm, and 517 nm, while a mean of all three measurements is shown here. White dots indicate median fluorescence. A second independent biological replicate produced highly similar results (see online source data). To identify an optimal reporter gene, we quantified the expression levels of the three different fluorescent reporter proteins mCherry, mNeonGreen [ 38 ], and mScarletI3 [ 39 ] in B. bacteriovorus AP cells - where they can be readily measured by flow cytometryunder the control of the strong native promoter P merRNA ( Fig 1 ). The codon usage of all fluorescent reporter proteins was optimized for efficient expression in B. bacteriovorus , providing a reliable and quantitative readout of promoter and RBS activity. The empty plasmid control pCAT:P merRNA -opt.RBS exhibited negligible fluorescence, confirming minimal background signal. Among the tested reporters, mScarletI3 displayed the highest fluorescence intensity, approximately 3-fold higher than mNeonGreen and 100-fold higher than mCherry ( Fig 1b ). These results highlight mScarletI3 as the optimal reporter for gene expression studies in B. bacteriovorus under these conditions, allowing for highly sensitive measurement and comparison of different promoter strengths. Different expression profiles driven by native B. bacteriovorus promoters To expand the genetic engineering toolbox of B. bacteriovorus , we evaluated different types of promoters ( Fig 2 ). Initially, as a proof-of-concept, we tested native promoters for regulating gene expression ( Fig 2a ). Previous studies have shown that the native promoter P merRNA in B. bacteriovorus exhibits very high activity during the AP [ 12 , 40 ]. Building on these findings, we leveraged RNA-seq data [ 17 ] to identify promoters associated with genes highly expressed during the attack phase (AP), reasoning that these promoters would likely drive strong transcription of heterologous genes. Approximately 67% of AP-specific genes in B. bacteriovorus are regulated by FliA ( σ 28 ) [ 17 ], which is homologous to E. coli σ 28 . In E. coli , FliA primarily governs flagellar and motility genes—accounting for roughly 1% of its genome [ 41 ] whereas in B. bacteriovorus , the same sigma factor controls a large fraction of AP genes, including many encoding surface proteins and proteases. This expanded regulatory scope underscores the potential of FliA-driven promoters for high-level expression in B. bacteriovorus AP. We therefore selected several promoters with or without identifiable FliA binding motifs, including P bd0149 , P bd1981 , P bd0064 , P bd1130 , P bd3548 (all with FliA motifs) and P bd2209 , P bd3180 (“non-FliA”) ( Fig 2a ). Each promoter region (∼100 bp upstream of the putative translation start site, S1 Tab) was placed upstream of a B. bacteriovorus -optimized ribosomal binding site (opt.RBS) [ 12 , 42 ] and the mScarletI3 reporter in the low-copy pCAT.000-derived plasmids. Download figure Open in new tab Fig 2. Native and synthetic promoters exhibit distinct mScarletI3 expression levels and variability in B. bacteriovorus AP cells. ( a ) Violin plots showing the distribution of mScarletI3 fluorescence for B. bacteriovorus AP cells carrying native promoters with FliA motifs (P bd0149 , P bd1981 , P bd0064 , P bd1130 , P bd3548 ) or without FliA motifs (P bd3181 , P bd2209 ). ( b ) Violin plots showing fluorescence levels driven by four synthetic Anderson promoters ( P J23119 , P J23104 , P J23102 , P J23100 ). Each promoter was tested in a pCAT.000-derived plasmid with an optimized RBS (opt.RBS) upstream of mScarletI3. Fluorescence intensity was measured using flow cytometry. White dots indicate median fluorescence. Positive mScarletI3 expression was defined by setting a gate at the 95 th percentile of the fluorescence distribution of the negative control (pCAT:P merRNA -opt.RBS, S3a Fig). The data show a single representative experiment out of two independent measurements with similar outcomes (see online source data). Flow cytometry analyses of B. bacteriovorus AP cells harboring these plasmids revealed that most native promoters drove significantly higher fluorescence than the empty vector control (pCAT:P merRNA -opt.RBS), although their strengths varied ( Fig 2a ). P merRNA was confirmed to be the strongest of the tested native promoters, in agreement with Dwidar et al . [ 12 ]. FliAassociated promoters P bd0149 , P bd1981 , P bd0064 showed robust activity, while the other two P bd1130 , P bd3548 showed moderate expression levels. The two “non-FliA” promoters: P bd3180 and P bd2209 both produced only moderate fluorescence levels in B. bacteriovorus AP ( Fig 2a ). Further, we tested the same set of native B. bacteriovorus promoters in the prey bacterium E. coli S17-1 to assess cross-species activity (S4a Fig). While P merRNA yielded robust fluorescence in B. bacteriovorus AP, it was notably weaker in E. coli , likely due to the specific function in the predator [ 40 ]. Overall, most B. bacteriovorus promoters drove moderate expression in E. coli , with P bd0064 and P bd3180 showing the highest expression levels. Interestingly, the two “non-FliA” promoters showed substantially greater expression in E. coli than in B. bacteriovorus AP (S4a Fig). This cross-species activity could be due to partial conservation of sigma factor motifs recognized by E. coli RNA polymerase. Their lower activity in B. bacteriovorus suggests that these ∼100 bp regions upstream of the fluorescent reporter gene translational start site may lack B. bacteriovorus specific regulatory elements. Overall, our analysis confirms that multiple native promoters can drive strong gene expression in B. bacteriovorus during the AP, while promoters with FliA motifs seem to have a higher promoter activity. However, because these native promoters are not fully orthogonal to B. bacteriovorus ’ endogenous regulatory network, using them additionally on a plasmid may cause unintended cross-talk with the same promoters in the genome. Consequently, we next investigated four synthetic promoters to achieve more independent, fine-tuned control of gene expression. Four synthetic promoters from the Anderson library are functional in B. bacteriovorus AP To broaden the range of expression levels available in B. bacteriovorus further, we evaluated four synthetic promoters derived from the widely used Anderson library ( http://parts.igem.org/Promoters/Catalog/Anderson ) ( Fig 2b ). These promoters (e.g., P J23119 , P J23104 , P J23102 , P J23100 ) are based on a σ 70 consensus sequence and have been successfully employed in E. coli for tunable gene expression [ 43 ]. We observed varying expression levels among these synthetic promoters in E. coli S17-1, with P J23119 exhibiting the highest activity (S4b Fig). When tested in B. bacteriovorus AP the Anderson promoters consistently showed moderate-to-high expression with different relative strengths ( Fig 2b ). P J23119 generated the highest, P J23104 and P J23102 an intermediate, whereas P J23100 produced the lowest fluorescence level of mScarletI3. Notably, the strong activity of P J23119 in B. bacteriovorus AP suggests the conservation of the transcriptional machinery between E. coli and B. bacteriovorus , at least for some σ 70 -like regulated promoters. B. bacteriovorus RNA polymerase σ 70 (Bd0242) [ 29 ] could effectively recognize σ 70 (−like) promoters, consistent with the known conservation of core σ 70 consensus elements across many proteobacteria [ 44 ]. While the exact mechanism remains to be elucidated, particularly regarding the role of any B. bacteriovorus- specific σ factors, our data indicate that carefully chosen synthetic promoters can be used for reliable and tunable gene expression. Differential expression patterns of native and synthetic promoters in B. bacteriovorus during predation To investigate how native versus synthetic promoters influence B. bacteriovorus gene expression over time, we monitored mScarletI3 fluorescence in predator–prey mixtures using a plate reader for up to 72 hours. B. bacteriovorus carried pCAT.000-derived plasmids encoding mScarletI3 under either native promoters (P bd0064 , P bd0149 , P bd1981 ) or synthetic Anderson promoters (P J23119, P J23102 , P J23104 ) with B. bacteriovorus optimized RBS [ 12 ]. Dynamics at early time points (0–10 hours) ( Fig 3a ) showed that cultures expressing mScarletI3 under the synthetic promoters (P J23119, P J23102 , P J23104 ) tend to display a faster increase in mean fluorescence. By comparison, native promoters (P bd0064 , P bd0149 , P bd1981 ) remained at unchanged levels until approximately 4 hours after mixing predator and prey. This delay is consistent with native regulatory elements active during the AP of B. bacteriovorus after being released from the prey. In parallel, the OD 600 measured during the predation of different B. bacteriovorus strains on E. coli declined steadily at similar rates ( Fig 3b ), likely reflecting a very similar lysis speed of the E . coli prey population. Download figure Open in new tab Fig 3. Temporal gene expression of selected synthetic and native promoters in B. bacteriovorus populations during predation. ( a ) Mean mScarletI3 fluorescence (517 nm) measured over the first 10 hours of mixing E. coli S17-1 and B. bacteriovorus with native (P bd0064 , P bd0149 , P bd1981 ) or synthetic (P J23102, P J23104, P J23119 ) promoters expressed from pCAT.000-derived plasmids. Each promoter was tested in a pCAT.000-derived plasmid with an optimized RBS (opt.RBS) upstream of mScarletI3. For clarity of comparison, fluorescence starting values were adjusted to a common baseline across all samples. ( b ) Corresponding OD 600 profiles over time, illustrating prey cell lysis of E. coli S17-1 by the same B. bacteriovorus strains as in a . Data represents the average of two biological replicates, each measured in two technical replicates. To examine the expression patterns over a longer time in B. bacteriovorus AP we continued monitoring the fluorescence of the cultures for up to 72 hours (S5 Fig). The native promoters display a more gradual increase in fluorescence during the early stages of the predatory life cycle, consistent with a regulatory pattern tightly linked to B. bacteriovorus -specific gene expression dynamics [ 40 ]. While synthetic promoter P J23119 reached similar fluorescence end levels as the native promoters, fluorescence levels in the strains with P J23102 and P J23104 seem to slowly decrease from about 24-hr on. While this suggests that the heterologous P J23119 promoter remains active for an extended period in newly formed B. bacteriovorus AP cells, the fluorescence observed with P J23102 and P J23104 at later time points may result from mScarletI3 protein that was produced during the initial ∼12 hours of growth on E. coli S-17_1. Despite these differences in timing, all tested promoters maintained discernible fluorescence over the 72 hours. In all predator-prey cultures, OD600 values declined steadily after an initial rapid decrease and eventually stabilized at low levels, likely reflecting the lysis dynamics of the E. coli prey population. Overall, we show that synthetic promoters drive robust, early-onset expression in B. bacteriovorus , largely independent of its life cycle phase, unlike native AP promoters, which appear more tightly regulated. To achieve a more fine-tuned expression regulation we next investigated the effects of different RBS sequences. Optimization of the RBS generally enhances gene expression of native promoters in B. bacteriovorus AP RBSs play a pivotal role in translation initiation by guiding the ribosome to the correct start codon on the mRNA, thereby influencing overall protein expression levels. Even slight alterations in RBS sequences, particularly in the Shine-Dalgarno sequence (SD) [ 45 ] and surrounding regions, can markedly affect translational efficiency. Recent work in various bacteria has highlighted the power of RBS engineering to tune gene expression for synthetic biology and metabolic engineering applications [ 42 ]. In B. bacteriovorus , however, RBS optimization is still an emerging area of research [ 12 ]. To test the importance of the RBS in B. bacteriovorus , we compared plasmids harboring either an optimized RBS (opt.RBS) [ 12 ] or no RBS for several promoters (P merRNA , P bd0064 , P bd0149 , and P J23119 ). As expected, fluorescence distribution of B. bacteriovorus AP populations revealed that the absence of RBS drastically lowered mScarletI3 fluorescence for both native and synthetic promoters (S6 and S7 Figs). As expected the expression level without RBS is moderate to low in B. bacteriovorus AP (S6 Fig), while the expression of synthetic promoter P J23119 seems to be less affected by the absence of RBS (S6 Fig). When we compare the absence of RBS in synthetic promoter P J23119 in E. coli the proportion of cells expressing the gene is higher than in B. bacteriovorus AP, with overall a low level fluorescence expression (S3 and S7 Fig). This finding agrees with prior observations in E. coli [ 46 ]. Building on this, we evaluated how an optimized RBS derived from a previous B. bacteriovorus study [ 12 ] compares to the native RBS sequences embedded within ∼100 bp upstream of the start codon in four native promoters (P bd0064 , P bd0149 , P bd1981 , and P bd3180 ). When placed upstream of the sequence encoding mScarletI3, the optimized RBS boosted protein expression compared to the native RBS in three out of four cases evaluated ( Fig 4a ). Interestingly, while the native sequences upstream of bd0064, bd0149 and bd1981 drive lower expression, incorporating optimized RBS elements significantly enhances their expression levels ( Fig 4a ). In contrast, the native sequence upstream of bd3180 drove higher expression levels than its counterpart with an optimized RBS. This discrepancy may result from altered spacing in the native P bd3180 promoter region, while the optimized RBS could have introduced suboptimal local mRNA structures that reduced translational efficiency. Download figure Open in new tab Fig 4. Influence of Ribosomal Binding Site (RBS) modifications on B. bacteriovorus AP gene expression. ( a ) Comparison of native versus optimized RBS sequences for four native promoters (P bd0149 , P bd0064 , P bd1981 , P bd3180 ) ( b ) Comparison of B. bacteriovorus -optimized RBS (opt.RBS) [ 12 ] (as in Fig 2) versus E. coli -optimized synthetic RBS (syn.RBS) for both the synthetic promoter P J23119 and the native B. bacteriovorus promoter P bd0149 . Fluorescence was measured in B. bacteriovorus AP populations using flow cytometry at the emission at 517 nm. White dots indicate median fluorescence (density plots shown in S3a Fig). A second biological and independent repeat of these measurements showed the same outcome (see source data). To assess whether RBS sequences designed for E. coli also function well in B. bacteriovorus AP, we tested synthetic RBS (syn.RBS) BBa-B0034, a widely used strong RBS optimized for E. coli (iGEM Registry, http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_B0034 ), alongside the B. bacteriovorus -optimized RBS (opt.RBS) [ 12 ] for both a synthetic Anderson promoter (P J23119 ) and a native promoter (P bd0149 ). As shown in Fig. 4b , combining the synthetic promoter P J23119 with a synthetic RBS resulted in a slight increase in mScarlet fluorescence compared to the combination with a B. bacteriovorus -optimized RBS. This outcome is expected, as both the P J23119 promoter and the synthetic RBS were originally optimized for E. coli . In contrast, pairing the native B. bacteriovorus promoter P bd0149 with the synthetic RBS led to a decrease in mScarlet fluorescence compared to when the same promoter was combined with the species-optimized RBS. These results highlight the importance of species-specific RBS optimization for achieving efficient gene expression in B. bacteriovorus AP. In summary, our data confirms the critical influence of the RBS on protein expression in B. bacteriovorus AP. Removing the RBS seems to drastically lower detectable protein output, and replacing the native RBS sequences with B. bacteriovorus -optimized versions significantly boosts expression for most native promoters tested. Furthermore, an RBS optimized for E. coli is less efficient than the B. bacteriovorus -optimized RBS version when combined with a native promoter highlighting the need for species-specific optimization of the RBSs in this predatory bacterium. NanoLuc secretion assay to quantify Sec-dependent protein secretion in B. bacteriovorus AP Protein secretion in B. bacteriovorus holds promise for targeted degradation of prey bacteria and/or their biofilms [ 32 , 33 ] and potential biotechnological applications [ 14 ], yet a sensitive quantitative assays have been lacking. To address this gap, we developed a luciferase-based secretion assay for AP cells, using different promoters to drive expression of the NanoLuc luciferase [ 47 ]. NanoLuc fused to diverse N-terminal signal peptides was secreted into the supernatant and to catalyze a luminescent reaction with furimazine and oxygen, enabling measurement of secretion directly from supernatants ( Fig 5a ). Download figure Open in new tab Fig 5. NanoLuc secretion assay in B. bacteriovorus AP ( a ) Schematic representation of the plasmid construct in B. bacteriovorus AP cells, showing NanoLuc luciferase fused to an N-terminal secdependent signal sequence (ss_NanoLuc) under the control of P merRNA . The secreted NanoLuc reacts with furimazine, producing detectable luminescence (h·ν). ( b ) Comparison of four signal peptides ss_Bd2269 1-22 , ss_Bd0468 1-23 , ss_Bd0120 1-22 , ss_Bd2692 1-20 , and in driving extracellular NanoLuc secretion, and a no-signal-peptide control (no_ss) as background. ( c ) Effect of promoters with different strengths (P merRNA , P J23119 , or P bd0064 ) on NanoLuc secretion using the ss_Bd2692 1-20 signal peptide. The no_ss control served as background signal for internal, non-secreted NanoLuc as in a . Bars represent mean luminescence (log scale) detected in culture supernatants (two technical replicates); a second independent biological replicate yielded similar results (see source data). Different Sec-dependent signal peptides confer variable secretion efficiency Four different Sec-dependent signal peptides, ss_Bd2269 1-22 , ss_Bd0468 1-23 , ss_Bd0120 1-22 and ss_Bd2692 1-20 (S2 Tab) were tested to quantify secretion from B. bacteriovorus AP under identical conditions using the strong native promoter P merRNA for transcription ( Fig 5b , left panel). Depending on the signal peptide, different levels of extracellular NanoLuc were detected ( Fig 5b , right panel). ss_Bd2269 and ss_Bd0468 exhibited the highest luminescence ∼1.1 × 10 4 a.U. ss_Bd0120 showed an intermediate mean value of 6.8 × 10 3 a.U., while ss_Bd2692 yielded a moderate yet significant secretion (5.1 × 10 3 a.U.) above background. In contrast, the negative control lacking any signal peptide (no_ss) displayed only minimal luminescence confirming that successful export depends on a functional Sec signal. These data confirm that B. bacteriovorus AP can secrete heterologous proteins through the Secdependent secretion pathway and that choosing an appropriate signal peptide is critical for maximizing secretion efficiency. Promoter strength modulates the level of Sec-dependent secretion To further refine control over secreted protein levels, we exchanged strong native promoter P merRNA with either the synthetic P J23119 or the moderate native P bd0064 upstream of signal peptide ss_Bd2692 1-20 ( Fig 5c , left panel). Luminescence measurements from supernatants revealed that promoter strength correlated directly with the level of secreted NanoLuc ( Fig 5c , right panel). P merRNA showed highest extracellular NanoLuc (e.g., 5.1 × 10 3 a.U.), whereas P J32119 and P bd0064 were ∼13 fold lower (4 × 10 2 a.U.). As expected, removing the signal peptide (no_ss) effectively abolished secretion (minimal background 23 a.U.), indicating that the Sec pathway can be used for export of NanoLuc in B. bacteriovorus AP with an according native Sec-dependent signal peptide. By fine-tuning the promoter choice, we modulated secretion levels from high to moderate, creating a flexible system for engineering B. bacteriovorus as a protein-delivery chassis. Collectively, we established a versatile NanoLuc-based secretion assay by demonstrating that different native and synthetic promoters, next to different endogenous Sec-dependent signal peptides can direct the amount of heterologous proteins secreted by B. bacteriovorus AP. Beyond serving as a convenient readout for secretion studies, this platform paves the way for using B. bacteriovorus as a delivery chassis for secretion of enzymes or proteinaceous antimicrobial effectors in situ. This opens new avenues for targeted biocontrol and other biotechnological applications. Discussion In this study, we have developed a molecular toolbox for the predatory bacterium B. bacteriovorus which enables precise control of both gene expression and protein secretion. By systematically evaluating native and synthetic promoters, multiple ribosomal binding sites (RBSs), and Sec-dependent signal peptides, we show that B. bacteriovorus can be engineered with far greater versatility than previously possible reducing the gap to more established model organisms such as E. coli . Crucially, we have integrated single-cell analyses (using flow cytometry) and population-level assays (using a plate-reader for timecourse fluorescence assays and a NanoLuc-based secretion assay) to capture the inherent complexity and heterogeneity of the organism. This integrated approach highlights the potential of B. bacteriovorus for sophisticated engineering and lays the groundwork for advances in both fundamental research and biotechnological applications. A key finding of our study is the identification of several promoters, both native and synthetic, that provide robust and tunable gene expression in B. bacteriovorus during the AP. Promoters containing a putative FliA ( σ 28 ) binding motif tended to yield stronger AP-specific expression, consistent with the central role of σ 28 in motility and other AP-related functions [ 40 ] ( Fig 2a ). In contrast, non-FliA promoters that were highly active in E. coli stationary-phase were expressed only at a very low level in B. bacteriovorus AP ( Fig 2a and S4 Fig), highlighting the distinct regulatory architecture of B. bacteriovorus and reinforcing the need to validate promoter functionality in the target organism. Notably, synthetic σ 70 -based promoters from the Anderson library [ 48 , 49 ] sometimes outperformed native promoters in both timing (earlier onset in the predation cycle) and level of expression in B. bacteriovorus ( Fig 2b and Fig 3a ). This suggests a partial conservation of the transcriptional machinery between B. bacteriovorus and more conventional Gram-negative bacteria, despite the predatory life cycle of B. bacteriovorus with specialized developmental stages. Similar findings in other bacteria like Myxobacteria, Cyanobacteria and Actinobacteria , indicate that well-chosen synthetic promoters can function across phylogenetically distant bacteria, at least for σ 70 -dependent transcription [ 48 – 50 ]. While our study primarily examined how native and synthetic promoters regulate downstream gene expression in B. bacteriovorus AP, the question of interchangeability of specific promoters between different bacterial species, and in this case even the predator-prey gap, requires further investigation. In particular, FliA—which acts as a master regulator in B. bacteriovorus has a narrower regulatory scope in E. coli , underscoring how sigma factor homology may not guarantee identical promoter recognition across species. Our results show that B. bacteriovorus AP can recognize multiple promoter types, likely through the conserved σ 70 apparatus and a specialized σ 28 factor (FliA). This ability to integrate different regulatory cues sets the stage for detailed studies of how global regulators (such as c-di-GMP, cGAMP, and potential other signaling molecules [ 51 – 54 ] control the transition between different phases of the predatory life cycle. By mapping these networks, we can better understand the complex predatory life cycle of B. bacteriovorus and develop more precise genetic tools for controlling gene expression. We hope that in the future, inducible or conditionresponsive promoters may allow fine-tuned timing of predatory functions, which would help to decipher the intricate predator–prey interactions across multiple phases. To better understand how native and synthetic promoters function within individual B. bacteriovorus cells, we needed to address the challenge of capturing expression variability at the single cell level. Such variability is often overlooked in population-level analyses, especially for relatively small B. bacteriovorus cells. In this study, we used flow cytometry to measure fluorescence in individual cells, to detect how different promoters and RBSs effect the expression level in B. bacteriovorus and compare it to E. coli and elucidate the proportion of cells in ON or OFF expression state (S7 Fig). Building on our promoter-based transcriptional control, we revealed that small changes in the 5′ untranslated region can have a profound effect on protein production levels. An RBS optimized for E. coli was less efficient to an RBS tailored for B. bacteriovorus ( Fig. 4b ), underscoring the importance of species-specific design. For most native promoters, replacing the short endogenous RBS with this optimized sequence resulted in a substantial increase in protein expression ( Fig. 4a ). These data highlight that translational control in B. bacteriovorus can be fine-tuned by engineering the Shine-Dalgarno sequence and surrounding region, a principle that has been exploited in other bacterial systems [ 55 ]. Combined with careful promoter selection, RBS engineering offers a powerful dual strategy for achieving precise and high-level gene expression in this predatory bacterium. A major outcome of this work is a secretion assay for B. bacteriovorus that provides a rapid and sensitive method for measuring extracellular protein levels. By pairing NanoLuc luciferase with several Sec-dependent signal peptides derived from B. bacteriovorus hydrolytic enzymes, we identified clear differences in secretion efficiencies. Some signal peptides produced high extracellular NanoLuc activity, whereas complete removal of the signal peptide abolished secretion ( Fig 5a ). In addition, different promoters affected how much NanoLuc was ultimately exported ( Fig 5b ), highlighting that both transcriptional strength and posttranslational signals shape protein secretion. While in this assay NanoLuc luciferase was used as heterologously expressed and secreted protein, we aim to expand the repertoire of heterologous secreted proteins. The later will allow us to gain further insights into the secretion pathway in B. bacteriovorus while understanding its limitations. This assay not only provide a simple and straightforward readout to study B. bacteriovorus secretion, but also opens the door to engineering the bacterium as a protein delivery vehicle. Its ability to secrete hydrolytic enzymes or other bioactive proteins could be exploited for biotechnological and therapeutic applications, such as targeted biofilm disruption, crop protection, or antimicrobial strategies against multidrug-resistant pathogens [2,14,20,29,35]. In addition, NanoLuc-based secretion assays could help to understand alternative secretion routes, such as the Twin-arginine translocation pathway. Further, our assays set the groundwork to extend this assay by using “split” luciferase reporters, which would enable spatio-temporal insights into secretion events within the prey cells. These advances may further enhance our ability to rationally design B. bacteriovorus as a versatile delivery chassis in different settings. From an applied perspective, the ability to tune protein production and secretion in B. bacteriovorus holds great promise for exploiting its natural predatory traits against a range of pathogens. Engineered strains could deliver additional antimicrobial effectors directly to prey cells, degrade persistent biofilms more efficiently, or serve as on-site biocontrol agents in agriculture. In addition, B. bacteriovorus ’ outer membrane containing an atypical LPS [ 56 ] and its inherent low immunogenicity [ 2 ] support its potential as a ‘living antibiotic’. In the future, engineered predatory bacteria could also work alongside existing antimicrobial treatments, e.g. by increasing their effectiveness, reducing the dose required, and/or prevent emerging resistance. Understanding how B. bacteriovorus behaves under varied environmental or host conditions, such as limited nutrients or distinct microbiome compositions, will be critical to advance its therapeutic and biocontrol applications. The genetic tools and assays developed here, which enable tunable gene expression and robust secretion measurements, provide a foundation for probing how B. bacteriovorus adapts to these diverse contexts. Conclusions Despite these advances in the molecular engineering of B. bacteriovorus , several issues remain. First, we have only examined a subset of promoters; extending this approach to include a wider range of promoter libraries, possibly guided by transcriptomic or proteomic data [31,40,57–59] may reveal additional layers of regulatory control and enable more systematic tuning of gene expression in B. bacteriovorus . Second, the RBS sequences used here can be further improved through rational design and large-scale combinatorial libraries, allowing deeper insights into the B. bacteriovorus translational machinery and accelerating the discovery of highly efficient translation initiation signals. Third, while our NanoLuc assay demonstrated Sec-dependent secretion, other B. bacteriovorus secretion pathways (e.g., type I or twin-arginine translocation [ 29 ]) need to be investigated in the future, specifically concerning the suitability for secretion of specific heterologous proteins. Finally, understanding how these engineered constructs perform under different environmental conditions - such as nutrient limitation or oxygen stress - will be crucial for exploiting B. bacteriovorus in real-world contexts, including soil, water, and clinical settings. In summary, this work significantly expands the genetic engineering repertoire available for B. bacteriovorus . By validating the functionality of synthetic and native promoters, refining RBS sequences, and developing a sensitive secretion assay, we provide tools that will drive both fundamental investigations of predation biology and the advancement of predator-based biotechnologies. As interest in exploiting predatory bacteria for antimicrobial and environmental applications grows, our results highlight the importance of combining robust genetic tools, single-cell approaches, and quantitative secretion assays to fully harness the therapeutic and biocontrol potential of this remarkable organism. Materials and Methods Bacterial cultivation Wild-type Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus HD100 T , Escherichia coli S17-1, and E. coli S17-1 pZMR100 [ 60 ] were kindly provided by Prof. R. E. Sockett (University of Nottingham, UK). E. coli S17-1, and E. coli S17-1 pZMR100 were used for cultivation of B. bacteriovorus strains. E. coli NEB5α (New England Biolabs) was used for plasmid assembly via Gibson cloning. Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus HD100 strains were cultivated in 2 ml of Ca/HEPES buffer (5.94 g/l HEPES free acid, 0.294 g/l calcium chloride dihydrate, pH 7.6) with E. coli S17-1 or E. coli pZMR100 as prey at 29°C, shaking at 200 rpm. Kanamycin-resistant B. bacteriovorus strains carrying pCAT.000-derived plasmids [ 8 ] were grown with kanamycin-resistant E. coli pZMR100 in the presence of 50 µg/ml kanamycin. Wild-type B. bacteriovorus HD100 was cultured under the same conditions using E. coli S17-1 as prey, without kanamycin. For a lysate, both prey, E. coli pZMR100 or E. coli S17-1, 150 µl of stationary-phase prey (OD 600 of 4.5) was added to Ca/HEPES buffer with B. bacteriovorus . Cultures were incubated for 24 hours, except for flow cytometry experiments, where incubation was extended to 48 hours. B. bacteriovorus revival plates were prepared according to Lambert & Sockett [ 9 ]. E. coli S17-1 strains were grown in YT broth at 37°C, shaking at 200 rpm. For kanamycinresistant strains carrying pZMR100 [ 7 ] or strains with pCAT.000-derived plasmids [ 9 ], 25 µg/ml kanamycin was added. Phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, pH 7.4) was used for flow cytometry. A complete list of all B. bacteriovorus and E. coli strains used in this study is provided in S3 and S4 Tables (XLS table in online materials). Generation of E. coli and B. bacteriovorus strains with different reporter plasmids General cloning procedure Various reporter plasmids were constructed by fusing a pCAT.000-derived backbone [ 37 ] with different fluorescent proteins, promoter regions or protein secretion signals. The cloning strategies for these plasmids are detailed in the following sections. A complete list of plasmids and their compositions is provided in S5 Table. Generating reporter plasmids with different fluorescent proteins Coding regions for fluorescent proteins mCherry, mScarletI3 [ 39 ], mNeonGreen [ 38 ] were codon optimized for B. bacteriovorus (Twist Biosciences). Gene blocks with fluorescent protein coding regions were used as templates for amplification by PCR (98°C for 30 s; 30 cycles: 98°C for 10 s, 56.4°C for 10 s, 72°C for 45 s; 72°C for 5 min) using Phusion plus polymerase (Thermo Fisher) according to manufacturer’s instructions, using primer pairs as listed in S6 Tab. Plasmid backbones, into which the coding regions for fluorescent proteins were inserted, were amplified from pFL015 (10 ng, S5 Tab) using KOD Hot Start polymerase (Merck Millipore) (98°C for 10 s; 30 cycles: 98°C for 10 s, 57°C for 5 s, 68°C for 45 s; 72°C for 5 min) with primer pairs LM_pcat_fp_bb_fwd and LM_pcat_fp_bb_rev (S6 Tab). Generating reporter plasmids to determine fluorescence intensity using different native and synthetic promoters and ribosomal binding sites All reporter plasmids contained a pCAT.000-derived vector carrying the codon-optimized mScarletI3 fluorescent protein pLH-C1 (S5 Tab). Native promoter regions were amplified from B. bacteriovorus HD100 genomic DNA by PCR (98°C for 30 s; 30 cycles: 98°C for 10 s, 59°C for 15 s, 72°C for 30 s; 72°C for 5 min) using Phusion plus polymerase according to manufacturer’s instructions using suitable primer pairs (S6 Tab). Synthetic promoters from the Andersson library ( http://parts.igem.org/Promoters/Catalog/Anderson ) were ordered as oligonucleotides (Microsynth) and assembled by oligonucleotide annealing. To achieve this, 5 μl of each forward and reverse primer (S6 Tab) was added into 90 μl HEPES buffer (3 mM, pH 7.5), mixed and heated to 95°C for 5 min, and cooled to 4°C (0.1°C/s). The annealed DNA fragments were diluted 1:10 and amplified by PCR under the same conditions as for native promoters (Primer details in S6 Tab). Plasmid backbones, into which the different promoter regions were inserted, were amplified from pLH-C1 (10 ng, Tab S5) using KOD Hot Start polymerase (94°C for 5 s; 30 cycles: 98°C for 10 s, 60°C for 5 s, 68°C for 90 s; 72°C for 5 min) and primer pairs as listed in S6 Tab. PCR products were treated with DpnI (10 U) New England Biolabs (NEB) before Gibson assembly. Generation of plasmids for the Nanoluc secretion assay in B. bacteriovorus Reporter plasmids to monitor secretion in B. bacteriovorus were constructed using a pCAT.000-derived vector with the Nanoluc coding sequence as the template (pFL016, S5 Tab). Secretion signal sequences were identified using SignalP 6.0 [ 61 ] (for details see S2 Tab) and amplified from B. bacteriovorus HD100 genomic DNA by PCR (98°C for 30 s; 30 cycles: 98°C for 10 s, 60°C for 10 s, 72°C for 30 s; 72°C for 5 min) with Phusion polymerase (Primer details in S6 Tab). Plasmid backbones for insertion of secretion signal regions before the Nanoluc coding region were amplified from pFL016 (10 ng, Tab S5) using KOD Hot Start polymerase (98°C for 10 s; 30 cycles: 98°C for 10 s, 57°C for 5 s, 68°C for 45 s; 72°C for 5 min) and according to primer pairs (S6 Tab). Gibson assembly and transformation of plasmids into B. bacteriovorus Different fluorescent protein sequences, promoter regions or secretion signal sequences were assembled into plasmid backbones originating from pCAT.000 [ 37 ] (for details see previous sections) using the Gibson assembly NEBuilder HiFi DNA Assembly Kit (New England Biolabs) following the manufacturer’s instructions. 3 μl Gibson assembly reactions were transformed into chemically competent E. coli NEB5α cells which were plated on YT agar plates with 25 μg/ml kanamycin and incubated overnight at 37°C. Plasmids were isolated from transformed E. coli NEB5α single clones and verified by Sanger sequencing (Microsynth, Balgach). Subsequently, the plasmids were transformed into E. coli S17-1 by heat shock for conjugation into wild-type B. bacteriovorus HD100. Conjugation was carried out as previously described [ 62 ]. Single plaques of the B. bacteriovorus strains containing the pCAT.000-derived plasmids were isolated and grown as described in the “bacterial cultivation” section on E. coli S17-1 pZMR100 with 50 µg/ml kanamycin. Glycerol stocks of B. bacteriovorus strains were generated by mixing 1.2 ml of a 24-h B. bacteriovorus lysate with 0.4 ml 80% sterile glycerol and immediate freezing in liquid nitrogen for long term storage at -80°C. Fluorescence quantification in E. coli and B. bacteriovorus AP using flow cytometry mScarletI3 fluorescence in different strains of E. coli S17-1 and B. bacteriovorus HD100 AP were quantified using a 5-laser Cytek Aurora spectral flow cytometer. 1 ml of 48-hour cultures of stationary-phase E. coli S17-1 (grown at 200 rpm and 37° C) and B. bacteriovorus lysates (grown at 200 rpm and 29° C), were centrifuged ( E. coli : 2’500 × g , 5 min; B. bacteriovorus : 5’000 × g , 20 min), resuspended in 1 ml PBS buffer, and diluted 1:100 in PBS. mCherry, mScarletI3 or mNeonGreen fluorescence was measured separately in the Cytek Aurora detection channels YG3 (615/20 bandpass filter), YG2 (598/20 bandpass filter), or B2 (525/17 bandpass filter), respectively. Samples were acquired at a low flow rate (15 μl/min) and at an event rate of ∼2000 events/sec. Threshold was set on the forward scatter (FSC) of 500 and side scatter (SSC) of 3000 and all fluorescence detector gains were set at 1500. Data acquisition was performed using SpectroFlo ® software (version 3.3.0; https://cytekbio.com/pages/spectro-flo ) at the University of Zurich Flow Cytometry Facility. Doublets were excluded using SSC-A versus SSC-H gating. Bacterial cells were analysed using YG3-H, YG2-H or B2-H versus SSC-H density plots, and fluorescent population was defined using a gate set on the 95 th percentile of the negative control (pCAT:P merRNA -opt.RBS). Since there was no spectral overlap, no unmixing was performed, and the raw data was used for analysis. Flow cytometry data were exported as .fcs files and analyzed in R (version 2024.09.0) using Bioconductor package, flowCore, for preprocessing and ggplot2 for visualization. Median fluorescence intensity within gated populations was calculated to evaluate protein expression. Fluorescence-based promoter activity quantification in B . bacteriovorus using plate reader assays For temporally resolved measurements of transcriptional activity in different B. bacteriovorus strains, assay media was prepared by mixing 270 µl YT broth, 19.73 ml Ca/HEPES and 3.17 µl CaCl 2 . In each well of a transparent sterile flat-bottom black 96-well plate (BRAND, Cat no.781671) we added 110 µl of assay media, 15 µl of E. coli S17-1 (pZMR100, with 50 µg/ml kanamycin) with an OD 600 of 4.50 (∼3.6×10 9 cells/ml) and 15 µl of 24-hour B. bacteriovorus lysate. 96-well plates were incubated at 29° C in a plate reader (Tecan Infinite M200) for 72 hours. OD 600 nm and mScarletI3 fluorescence (excitation: 540 nm, emission: 590 nm) were measured every 10 minutes. During incubation, plates were shaken continuously (double orbital, 2 mm) and covered with lids to minimize evaporation. Quantification of protein secretion in B. bacteriovorus AP using Nanoluc assay Protein secretion in B. bacteriovorus AP was quantified using the Nano-Glo ® Luciferase Assay (Promega). 1 ml of 24-hour lysates were centrifuged in a 1.5-ml Eppendorf tube at 5’000 × g for 20 min, and 50 μl of the supernatant was transferred to each well of a black 96-well plate (BRAND, Cat no.781671). The Nano-Glo ® Luciferase Assay Reagent was prepared by mixing Nano-Glo ® Luciferase Assay Substrate (1 volume) with Nano-Glo ® Luciferase Assay Buffer (50 volumes). Assay components were equilibrated to room temperature before use. 50 μl of the supernatant was combined with 25 μl of Nano-Glo ® Reagent in each well and mixed well. Luminescence was measured using plate reader (Tecan Infinite 200 Pro) with 200 ms integration time. Luminescence intensity, measured over a period of ∼40 min, reflected total functional protein secretion. To normalize Nanoluc secretion from viable B. bacteriovorus AP cells, the concentration of viable B. bacteriovorus AP cells was determined by viability stain and flow cytometry as described next. Viability assessment of B. bacteriovorus AP by flow cytometry The viability of different B. bacteriovorus AP strains was assessed using the LIVE/DEAD™ BacLight™ Bacterial Viability and Counting Kit (Molecular Probes™, L34856; Fisher Scientific) and a 5-lasesr Cytek Aurora spectral flow cytometer. 1 ml of the B. bacteriovorus lysates incubated for 24 hours at 29° C were centrifuged at 5’000 × g for 20 min, washed by resuspension in 1 ml PBS, and diluted 1:100 in PBS. The stock solutions of propidium iodide (PI, 20 mM) and Syto9 (3.34 mM) in the LIVE/DEAD™ BacLight™ Bacterial Viability and Counting Kit were diluted 1:10 in PBS buffer. From these dilutions 1 μl each was added to 200 μl of B. bacteriovorus AP containing sample and mixed well. Fluorescence was detected using the YG3 channel (615/20 bandpass filter) and the B2 channel (525/17 bandpass filter) for propidium iodide and Syto9-stained B. bacteriovorus AP cells. Samples were acquired at a low flow rate (15 μl/min) and at an event rate of ∼1000 events/sec. Threshold was set on the FSC of 500 and SSC of 3000, and all fluorescence detector gains were set at 1000. Data were acquired using SpectroFlo ® software (version 3.3.0; https://cytekbio.com/pages/spectro-flo ) at the University of Zurich Flow Cytometry Facility. The gating strategy excluded doublets (SSC-A vs. SSC-H). Further, PI- and Syto9-stained cells were identified using YG3-H vs. SSC-H and B2-H vs. SSC-H density plots. Live cells were distinguished from dead cells using YG3-H vs. B2-H density plots. A fixed sample volume (10 μl) was acquired, and the total number of viable cells was determined using the described gating strategy. The average number of viable cells per 1 μl was then calculated. Author contributions L.M. designed and executed all experiments and their analysis thereof, with contributions from other authors as follows. L.M., L.M.H. and F.L. generated all plasmids used for this work. Flow cytometry experiments with B. bacteriovorus were measured by L.M. and L.M.H. The temporal quantification of expression level in the microplate reader was performed by L.M. and L.M.H. P.J. advised L.M. to optimize the protocol for viability staining and quantification of B. bacteriovorus by flow cytometry and advised during flow cytometry measurements when required. A.D. and S.G.H. advised and supervised the project. L.M. and S.G.H. wrote this article, with additional input on specific sections from L.M.H., F.L., P.J. and A.D. All authors contributed to the article and approved the final manuscript submitted. Additional information Requests for materials should be addressed to Simona G. Huwiler. The authors declare no competing interests. Supporting Information S1 Figure. Overview of the B. bacteriovorus predatory life cycle . During the free-swimming attack phase (AP), B. bacteriovorus swims towards and attaches to a Gram-negative bacterium (e.g. Escherichia coli ). The predator then invades and multiplies within the prey periplasm, finally lysing the prey cell and releasing progeny back into the environment. These newly formed predator cells resume the attack phase, continuing their search for new prey bacteria. (see separate DOCX) S1 Figure. Overview of the B. bacteriovorus predatory life cycle . During the free-swimming attack phase (AP), B. bacteriovorus swims towards and attaches to a Gram-negative bacterium (e.g. Escherichia coli ). The predator then invades and multiplies within the prey periplasm, finally lysing the prey cell and releasing progeny back into the environment. These newly formed predator cells resume the attack phase, continuing their search for new prey bacteria. (DOCX) S2 Figure . Plasmid map of pLH-C1 (pCAT:P merRNA -opt.RBS-mScarletI3), derived from pCAT.000 [ 37 ], showing the mScarletI3 reporter gene under the control of promoter P merRNA and an RBS sequence optimized for B. bacteriovorus (opt.RBS) [ 12 ]. Key features include kanamycin and ampicillin resistance cassettes (KanR, AmpR) for selection, as well as the RSF1010 origin of replication. (DOCX) S3 Figure. Overview of mScarlet fluorescence distributions in cells harbouring various pCAT.000-derived vectors in B. bacteriovorus AP (a) and E. coli S17-1 (b) . Thresholds (red, dashed line) indicate the 95 th percentile of fluorescence intensity of the empty vector without reporter gene pCAT:P merRNA -opt.RBS. Median fluorescence values are indicated by black lines. Panels show comparisons across different native and synthetic promoters combined with native (nat.RBS), optimized (opt.RBS), synthetic (syn.RBS), or no RBS (noRBS). Detailed plasmid description can be found in S5 Table. (DOCX) S4 Figure. Native and synthetic promoters exhibit distinct mScarletI3 expression levels and variability in E. coli S17-1 . ( a ) Native B. bacteriovorus promoters, five with FliA motif (P bd0149 , P bd1981 , P bd0064 , P bd1130 , P bd3548 ) and two without (P bd3180 , P bd2209 ) were cloned upstream of mScarletI3 and introduced into E. coli S17-1. ( b ) Synthetic Anderson promoters (P J23119 , P J23104 , P J23102 , P J23100 ) originally designed for E. coli drove varying levels of mScarletI3 expression under these same conditions. Each promoter was tested in a pCAT.000-derived plasmid with an optimized RBS upstream of mScarletI3. Fluorescence data measured by flow cytometry are displayed on a biexponential scale. White dots in violin plots represent median fluorescence (density plots shown in S3b Fig). A second independent biological replicate yielded comparable results (see source data). (DOCX) S5 Figure. Extended temporal gene expression of selected synthetic and native promoters in B. bacteriovorus populations during predation over 72 hours . ( a ) Overall gene expression level measured as mScarletI3 fluorescence at emission wavelength 517 nm during predation of E. coli S17-1 by B. bacteriovorus with native (P bd0064 , P bd0149 , P bd1981 ) or synthetic (P J23102, P J23104, P J23119 ) promoters expressed on pCAT.000-derived plasmids. For clarity of comparison, fluorescence starting values were adjusted to a common baseline across all samples. ( b ) Corresponding OD 600 changes over the extended predation period. Data represents the average of two biological replicates, each measured in two technical replicates. (DOCX) S6 Figure. Removal of Ribosomal binding site (RBS) from B. bacteriovorus native promoters and synthetic promoters leads to low expression level of mScarletI3 in B. bacteriovorus AP populations . Promoter strengths of B. bacteriovorus native promoters (P merRNA , P bd0064 , P bd0149 ) and the synthetic promoter P J23119 were assessed at the population level in B. bacteriovorus AP using mScarlet-I3 fluorescence measured by flow cytometry. For all promoters, the B. bacteriovorus optimized ribosome binding site (opt. RBS, blue) was compared to the same construct lacking an RBS (no RBS, grey). White dots in violin plots represent median fluorescence (density plots shown in S3a Fig). A second biological and independent repeat of these measurements showed the same outcome (see source data). (DOCX) S7 Figure. Effect of promoter and ribosome binding site (RBS) on gene expression levels in B. bacteriovorus AP (a) and E. coli S17-1 (b ). Bar plots represent the percentage of cells (%) exhibiting ON (cyan) or OFF (red) expression states, assessed using a fluorescent reporter gene of mScarletI3 on a pCAT.000-derived vector. Different combinations of the native promoter P bd0149 (left) and the synthetic promoter P J23119 (right) were tested with native (nat. RBS), optimized (opt. RBS), synthetic (syn. RBS), or no RBS (no RBS). Control represents cells harbouring empty vector without the reporter gene (pCAT:P merRNA -opt.RBS). In general, the proportion of cells in ON state is larger in E. coli when RBS is absent compared to B . bacteriovorus AP (Figure S3), with exception of PmerRNA. Flow cytometry data was analysed as indicated in S7 Figure, where expression states were determined by gating cells based on fluorescence intensity thresholds set at the 95 th percentile of the control. Most of this data is also shown as violin plots in Fig 4 andS4, S6 Figs. (DOCX) S1 Table. Overview of promoter regions used in this study . Native promoter regions (violet stands for FliA regulated and light blue for non-FliA regulated, based on Karunker et al . [ 40 ]), native sequence containing native RBS (grey underlined), optimized RBS (dark blue, underlined) with additional AAG as space holder (blue) to translational start site, synthetic RBS BBa_B0034 (orange). Abbreviations: not applicable (n/a). (DOCX) S2 Table. Overview of the Amino acid and DNA sequences used forSec-dependent signal peptides fused to NanoLuc reporter gene used in this study . Cleavage sites were predicted with SignalP 6.0 [ 61 ] and are indicated with a red slash. (DOCX) S3 Table. B. bacteriovorus strains used in this study . (XLSX) S4 Table. E. coli strains used in this study . (XLSX) S5 Table. Plasmids generated and used in this study . All plasmids share a pCAT.000-based backbone. pCAT.000 was a gift from Alistair McCormick (Addgene plasmid # 119559 ; http://n2t.net/addgene:119559 ; RRID:Addgene_119559) and generated in Vasudevan et al. Plant Physiol. 2019 (doi: 10.1104/pp.18.01401). Plasmids pLM-mScarletI3 and pLH-C1 were the same, they were kept under different names due to different experiments. Abbreviations: not applicable (n/a), RBS optimized for B. bacteriovorus (RBSopt), B. bacteriovorus native RBS (RBSnat), synthetic RBS (RBSsyn), RBS absent (noRBS). (XLSX) S6 Table. Primers used in this study . (XLSX) Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Prof. R. Elisabeth Sockett (University of Nottingham, UK) for providing B. bacteriovorus HD100 T , E. coli S17-1, and E. coli S17-1 pZMR100. We would like to thank Prof. Leo Eberl (University of Zurich) for hosting us in his laboratory. This study was enabled by the Vontobel-Stiftung providing salary for L.M. (awarded to S.G.H.). During parts of the manuscript writing period the salary for L.M. was provided by a Spark grant CRSK-3_228835 from Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) (awarded to L.M.). UZH Innovation grant Nr. BIOIG24-020 (awarded to L.M.) provided salary for L.M.H.’s summer internship and allowed critical flow cytometry experiments. F.L. was funded by a FreeNovation grant from Novartis Forschungsstiftung, and S.G.H. by SNSF Ambizione Fellowship PZ00P3_193401. Work in the group of A.D. was supported by the Max Planck Society. For the purpose of Open Access, a CC BY public copyright license is applied to any Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) version arising from this submission. Funder Information Declared Vontobel-Stiftung, Zurich, CH Swiss National Science Foundation , PZ00P3_193401 , CRSK-3_228835 University of Zurich Innovation grant, Zurich, CH , BIOIG24-020 Novartis Forschungsstiftung, Basel, CH , FreeNovation grant Max Planck Society Bibliography 1. ↵ Bratanis E , Andersson T , Lood R , Bukowska-Faniband E. Biotechnological Potential of Bdellovibrio and Like Organisms and Their Secreted Enzymes . Front Microbiol . 2020 ; 11 : 662 . doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00662 OpenUrl CrossRef 2. ↵ Atterbury RJ , Tyson J. Predatory bacteria as living antibiotics - where are we now? Microbiology (Reading) . 2021 ; 167 . doi: 10.1099/mic.0.001025 OpenUrl CrossRef 3. Dwidar M , Monnappa AK , Mitchell RJ . The dual probiotic and antibiotic nature of Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus . BMB Reports . 2012 ; 45 : 71 – 78 . doi: 10.5483/BMBRep.2012.45.2.71 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 4. ↵ Sockett RE , Lambert C. Bdellovibrio as therapeutic agents: a predatory renaissance? Nat Rev Microbiol . 2004 ; 2 : 669 – 675 . doi: 10.1038/nrmicro959 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 5. ↵ Jurkevitch E , Minz D , Ramati B , Barel G. Prey Range Characterization, Ribotyping, and Diversity of Soil and Rhizosphere Bdellovibrio spp. Isolated on Phytopathogenic Bacteria . Appl Environ Microbiol . 2000 ; 66 : 2365 – 2371 . doi: 10.1128/AEM.66.6.2365-2371.2000 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 6. ↵ Hobley L , Lerner TR , Williams LE , Lambert C , Till R , Milner DS , et al. Genome analysis of a simultaneously predatory and prey-independent, novel Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus from the River Tiber, supports in silico predictions of both ancient and recent lateral gene transfer from diverse bacteria . BMC Genomics . 2012 ; 13 : 670 . doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-670 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 7. ↵ Iebba V , Santangelo F , Totino V , Nicoletti M , Gagliardi A , De Biase RV , et al. Higher Prevalence and Abundance of Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus in the Human Gut of Healthy Subjects . PLoS ONE . 2013 ; 8 : e61608 . doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061608 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 8. ↵ Lambert C , Fenton AK , Hobley L , Sockett RE . Predatory Bdellovibrio Bacteria Use Gliding Motility To Scout for Prey on Surfaces . J Bacteriol . 2011 ; 193 : 3139 – 3141 . doi: 10.1128/JB.00224-11 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 9. ↵ Lambert C , Morehouse KA , Chang C-Y , Sockett RE . Bdellovibrio: growth and development during the predatory cycle . Current Opinion in Microbiology . 2006 ; 9 : 639 – 644 . doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2006.10.002 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 10. Lai TF , Ford RM , Huwiler SG . Advances in cellular and molecular predatory biology of Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus six decades after discovery . Front Microbiol . 2023 ; 14 : 1168709 . doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1168709 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 11. ↵ Sockett RE . Predatory Lifestyle of Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus . Annu Rev Microbiol . 2009 ; 63 : 523 – 539 . doi: 10.1146/annurev.micro.091208.073346 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 12. ↵ Dwidar M , Yokobayashi Y. Controlling Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus Gene Expression and Predation Using Synthetic Riboswitches . ACS Synth Biol . 2017 ; 6 : 2035 – 2041 . doi: 10.1021/acssynbio.7b00171 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 13. ↵ Kadouri DE , To K , Shanks RMQ , Doi Y. Predatory Bacteria: A Potential Ally against Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Pathogens . PLoS ONE . 2013 ; 8 : e63397 . doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063397 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 14. ↵ Bratanis E , Andersson T , Lood R , Bukowska-Faniband E. Biotechnological Potential of Bdellovibrio and Like Organisms and Their Secreted Enzymes . Front Microbiol . 2020 ; 11 : 662 . doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00662 OpenUrl CrossRef 15. ↵ Atterbury RJ , Hobley L , Till R , Lambert C , Capeness MJ , Lerner TR , et al. Effects of Orally Administered Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus on the Well-Being and Salmonella Colonization of Young Chicks . Appl Environ Microbiol . 2011 ; 77 : 5794 – 5803 . doi: 10.1128/AEM.00426-11 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 16. ↵ Saxon EB , Jackson RW , Bhumbra S , Smith T , Sockett RE . Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus HD100 guards against Pseudomonas tolaasii brown-blotch lesions on the surface of post-harvest Agaricus bisporus supermarket mushrooms . BMC Microbiol . 2014 ; 14 : 163 . doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-14-163 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 17. ↵ Alexandre G Youdkes D , Helman Y , Burdman S , Matan O , Jurkevitch E. Potential Control of Potato Soft Rot Disease by the Obligate Predators Bdellovibrio and Like Organisms . Alexandre G , editor. Appl Environ Microbiol . 2020 ; 86 : e02543 – 19 . doi: 10.1128/AEM.02543-19 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 18. Sason G , Yedidia I , Nussinovitch A , Chalegoua E , Pun M , Jurkevitch E. Self-demise of soft rot bacteria by activation of microbial predators by pectin-based carriers . Microbial Biotechnology . 2023 ; 16 : 1561 – 1576 . doi: 10.1111/1751-7915.14271 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 19. ↵ Sason G , Chalegoua E , Pun M , Nussinovitch A , Jurkevitch E , Yedidia I. Encapsulated Predatory Bacteria Efficiently Protect Potato Tubers from Soft Rot Disease . Plant Disease . 2024 [cited 20 Mar 2025 ]. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-02-24-0487-RE OpenUrl CrossRef 20. ↵ Sun Y , Ye J , Hou Y , Chen H , Cao J , Zhou T. Predation Efficacy of Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus on Multidrug-Resistant Clinical Pathogens and Their Corresponding Biofilms . Jpn J Infect Dis . 2017 ; 70 : 485 – 489 . doi: 10.7883/yoken.JJID.2016.405 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 21. ↵ Dashiff A , Junka RA , Libera M , Kadouri DE . Predation of human pathogens by the predatory bacteria Micavibrio aeruginosavorus and Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus: Predation by M. aeruginosavorus and B. bacteriovorus . Journal of Applied Microbiology . 2011 ; 110 : 431 – 444 . doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2010.04900.x OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 22. ↵ Johnke J , Fraune S , Bosch TCG , Hentschel U , Schulenburg H. Bdellovibrio and Like Organisms Are Predictors of Microbiome Diversity in Distinct Host Groups . Microb Ecol . 2020 ; 79 : 252 – 257 . doi: 10.1007/s00248-019-01395-7 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 23. ↵ Varon M , Zeigler BP . Bacterial Predator-Prey Interaction at Low Prey Density . Appl Environ Microbiol . 1978 ; 36 : 11 – 17 . doi: 10.1128/aem.36.1.11-17.1978 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 24. ↵ Summers JK , Kreft J-U. The role of mathematical modelling in understanding prokaryotic predation . Front Microbiol . 2022 ; 13 : 1037407 . doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.1037407 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 25. ↵ Cotter TW , Thomashow MF . A conjugation procedure for Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus and its use to identify DNA sequences that enhance the plaque-forming ability of a spontaneous host-independent mutant . J Bacteriol . 1992 ; 174 : 6011 – 6017 . doi: 10.1128/jb.174.19.6011-6017.1992 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 26. Roschanski N , Strauch E. Assessment of the Mobilizable Vector Plasmids pSUP202 and pSUP404.2 as Genetic Tools for the Predatory Bacterium Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus . Curr Microbiol . 2011 ; 62 : 589 – 596 . doi: 10.1007/s00284-010-9748-5 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 27. Liu S-J Mukherjee S , Brothers KM , Shanks RMQ , Kadouri DE . Visualizing Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus by Using the tdTomato Fluorescent Protein . Liu S-J , editor. Appl Environ Microbiol . 2016 ; 82 : 1653 – 1661 . doi: 10.1128/AEM.03611-15 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 28. ↵ Salgado S , Hernández-Herreros N , Prieto MA . Controlling the expression of heterologous genes in Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus using synthetic biology strategies . Microbial Biotechnology . 2024 ; 17 : e14517 . doi: 10.1111/1751-7915.14517 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 29. ↵ Rendulic S , Jagtap P , Rosinus A , Eppinger M , Baar C , Lanz C , et al. A Predator Unmasked: Life Cycle of Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus from a Genomic Perspective . Science . 2004 ; 303 : 689 – 692 . doi: 10.1126/science.1093027 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 30. ↵ Song C , Kumar A , Saleh M. Bioinformatic Comparison of Bacterial Secretomes . Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics . 2009 ; 7 : 37 – 46 . doi: 10.1016/S1672-0229(08)60031-5 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 31. ↵ Dwidar M , Im H , Seo JK , Mitchell RJ . Attack-Phase Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus Responses to Extracellular Nutrients Are Analogous to Those Seen During Late Intraperiplasmic Growth . Microb Ecol . 2017 ; 74 : 937 – 946 . doi: 10.1007/s00248-017-1003-1 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 32. ↵ Monnappa AK , Dwidar M , Seo JK , Hur J-H , Mitchell RJ . Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus Inhibits Staphylococcus aureus Biofilm Formation and Invasion into Human Epithelial Cells . Sci Rep . 2014 ; 4 : 3811 . doi: 10.1038/srep03811 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 33. ↵ Im H , Dwidar M , Mitchell RJ . Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus HD100, a predator of Gram-negative bacteria, benefits energetically from Staphylococcus aureus biofilms without predation . ISME J . 2018 ; 12 : 2090 – 2095 . doi: 10.1038/s41396-018-0154-5 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 34. ↵ Barabote RD , Rendulic S , Schuster SC , Saier MH . Comprehensive analysis of transport proteins encoded within the genome of Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus . Genomics . 2007 ; 90 : 424 – 446 . doi: 10.1016/j.ygeno.2007.06.002 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 35. ↵ Martínez V , Herencias C , Jurkevitch E , Prieto MA . Engineering a predatory bacterium as a proficient killer agent for intracellular bio-products recovery: The case of the polyhydroxyalkanoates . Sci Rep . 2016 ; 6 : 24381 . doi: 10.1038/srep24381 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 36. ↵ Anderson J.C. iGEM Registry of Standard Biological Parts: Anderson Promoter Collection . 2006 . Available: Available: http://parts.igem.org/Promoters/Catalog/Anderson 37. ↵ Vasudevan R , Gale GAR , Schiavon AA , Puzorjov A , Malin J , Gillespie MD , et al. CyanoGate: A Modular Cloning Suite for Engineering Cyanobacteria Based on the Plant MoClo Syntax . Plant Physiol . 2019 ; 180 : 39 – 55 . doi: 10.1104/pp.18.01401 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 38. ↵ Shaner NC , Lambert GG , Chammas A , Ni Y , Cranfill PJ , Baird MA , et al. A bright monomeric green fluorescent protein derived from Branchiostoma lanceolatum . Nat Methods . 2013 ; 10 : 407 – 409 . doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2413 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 39. ↵ Gadella TWJ , Van Weeren L , Stouthamer J , Hink MA , Wolters AHG , Giepmans BNG , et al. mScarlet3: a brilliant and fast-maturing red fluorescent protein . Nat Methods . 2023 ; 20 : 541 – 545 . doi: 10.1038/s41592-023-01809-y OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 40. ↵ Stevenson B Karunker I , Rotem O , Dori-Bachash M , Jurkevitch E , Sorek R. A Global Transcriptional Switch between the Attack and Growth Forms of Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus . Stevenson B , editor. PLoS ONE . 2013 ; 8 : e61850 . doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061850 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 41. ↵ Søgaard-Andersen L Fitzgerald DM , Bonocora RP , Wade JT . Comprehensive Mapping of the Escherichia coli Flagellar Regulatory Network . Søgaard-Andersen L , editor. PLoS Genet . 2014 ; 10 : e1004649 . doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004649 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 42. ↵ Salis HM . The Ribosome Binding Site Calculator . Methods in Enzymology . Elsevier ; 2011 . pp. 19 – 42 . doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-385120-8.00002-4 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 43. ↵ Typas A , Hengge R. Role of the spacer between the −35 and −10 regions in σs promoter selectivity in Escherichia coli . Molecular Microbiology . 2006 ; 59 : 1037 – 1051 . doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2005.04998.x OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 44. ↵ Browning DF , Busby SJW . The regulation of bacterial transcription initiation . Nat Rev Microbiol . 2004 ; 2 : 57 – 65 . doi: 10.1038/nrmicro787 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 45. ↵ Shine J , Dalgarno L. The 3′-Terminal Sequence of Escherichia coli 16S Ribosomal RNA: Complementarity to Nonsense Triplets and Ribosome Binding Sites . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA . 1974 ; 71 : 1342 – 1346 . doi: 10.1073/pnas.71.4.1342 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 46. ↵ De Smit MH , Van Duin J. Secondary structure of the ribosome binding site determines translational efficiency: a quantitative analysis . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA . 1990 ; 87 : 7668 – 7672 . doi: 10.1073/pnas.87.19.7668 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 47. ↵ England CG , Ehlerding EB , Cai W. NanoLuc: A Small Luciferase Is Brightening Up the Field of Bioluminescence . Bioconjugate Chem . 2016 ; 27 : 1175 – 1187 . doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.6b00112 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 48. ↵ Nevot G , Santos-Moreno J , Campamà-Sanz N , Toloza L , Parra-Cid C , Jansen PAM , et al. Synthetically programmed antioxidant delivery by a domesticated skin commensal . Cell Systems . 2025 ; 16 : 101169 . doi: 10.1016/j.cels.2025.101169 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 49. ↵ Huang H-H , Camsund D , Lindblad P , Heidorn T. Design and characterization of molecular tools for a Synthetic Biology approach towards developing cyanobacterial biotechnology . Nucleic Acids Research . 2010 ; 38 : 2577 – 2593 . doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq164 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 50. ↵ Hu W-F , Niu L , Yue X-J , Zhu L-L , Hu W , Li Y-Z , et al. Characterization of Constitutive Promoters for the Elicitation of Secondary Metabolites in Myxobacteria . ACS Synth Biol . 2021 ; 10 : 2904 – 2909 . doi: 10.1021/acssynbio.1c00444 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 51. ↵ Camilli A Hobley L , Fung RKY , Lambert C , Harris MATS , Dabhi JM , King SS , et al. Discrete Cyclic di-GMP-Dependent Control of Bacterial Predation versus Axenic Growth in Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus . Camilli A , editor. PLoS Pathog . 2012 ; 8 : e1002493 . doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002493 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 52. Crosson S Lowry RC , Hallberg ZF , Till R , Simons TJ , Nottingham R , Want F , et al. Production of 3′,3′-cGAMP by a Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus promiscuous GGDEF enzyme, Bd0367, regulates exit from prey by gliding motility . Crosson S , editor. PLoS Genet . 2022 ; 18 : e1010164 . doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1010164 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 53. Cadby IT , Basford SM , Nottingham R , Meek R , Lowry R , Lambert C , et al. Nucleotide signaling pathway convergence in a cAMP-sensing bacterial c-di-GMP phosphodiesterase . The EMBO Journal . 2019 ; 38 : e100772 . doi: 10.15252/embj.2018100772 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 54. ↵ O’Toole GA Rotem O , Nesper J , Borovok I , Gorovits R , Kolot M , Pasternak Z , et al. An Extended Cyclic Di-GMP Network in the Predatory Bacterium Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus . O’Toole GA , editor. J Bacteriol . 2016 ; 198 : 127 – 137 . doi: 10.1128/JB.00422-15 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 55. ↵ Höllerer S , Jeschek M. Ultradeep characterisation of translational sequence determinants refutes rare-codon hypothesis and unveils quadruplet base pairing of initiator tRNA and transcript . Nucleic Acids Research . 2023 ; 51 : 2377 – 2396 . doi: 10.1093/nar/gkad040 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 56. ↵ Schwudke D , Linscheid M , Strauch E , Appel B , Zähringer U , Moll H , et al. The Obligate Predatory Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus Possesses a Neutral Lipid A Containing α-D-Mannoses That Replace Phosphate Residues . Journal of Biological Chemistry . 2003 ; 278 : 27502 – 27512 . doi: 10.1074/jbc.M303012200 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 57. Herman C Lambert C , Chang C-Y , Capeness MJ , Sockett RE . The First Bite— Profiling the Predatosome in the Bacterial Pathogen Bdellovibrio . Herman C , editor. PLoS ONE . 2010 ; 5 : e8599 . doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008599 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 58. Dori-Bachash M , Dassa B , Pietrokovski S , Jurkevitch E. Proteome-Based Comparative Analyses of Growth Stages Reveal New Cell Cycle-Dependent Functions in the Predatory Bacterium Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus . Appl Environ Microbiol . 2008 ; 74 : 7152 – 7162 . doi: 10.1128/AEM.01736-08 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 59. Tyson J , Radford P , Lambert C , Till R , Huwiler SG , Lovering AL , et al. Prey killing without invasion by Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus defective for a MIDAS-family adhesin . Nat Commun . 2024 ; 15 : 3078 . doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-47412-3 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 60. ↵ Rogers M , Ekaterinaki N , Nimmo E , Sherratt D. Analysis of Tn7 transposition . Mol Gen Genet . 1986 ; 205 : 550 – 556 . doi: 10.1007/BF00338097 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 61. ↵ Teufel F , Almagro Armenteros JJ , Johansen AR , Gíslason MH , Pihl SI , Tsirigos KD , et al. SignalP 6.0 predicts all five types of signal peptides using protein language models . Nat Biotechnol . 2022 ; 40 : 1023 – 1025 . doi: 10.1038/s41587-021-01156-3 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 62. ↵ Harding CJ , Huwiler SG , Somers H , Lambert C , Ray LJ , Till R , et al. A lysozyme with altered substrate specificity facilitates prey cell exit by the periplasmic predator Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus . Nat Commun . 2020 ; 11 : 4817 . doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18139-8 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed View the discussion thread. Back to top Previous Next Posted May 17, 2025. Download PDF Supplementary Material Email Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv. NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article. Your Email * Your Name * Send To * Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas. You are going to email the following Modulating gene expression and protein secretion in the bacterial predator Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus Message Subject (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv Message Body (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website. Your Personal Message CAPTCHA This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Share Modulating gene expression and protein secretion in the bacterial predator Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus Ljiljana Mihajlovic , Lara M. Hofacker , Florian Lindner , Priyanikha Jayakumar , Andreas Diepold , Simona G. Huwiler bioRxiv 2025.05.17.654431; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.05.17.654431 Share This Article: Copy Citation Tools Modulating gene expression and protein secretion in the bacterial predator Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus Ljiljana Mihajlovic , Lara M. Hofacker , Florian Lindner , Priyanikha Jayakumar , Andreas Diepold , Simona G. Huwiler bioRxiv 2025.05.17.654431; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.05.17.654431 Citation Manager Formats BibTeX Bookends EasyBib EndNote (tagged) EndNote 8 (xml) Medlars Mendeley Papers RefWorks Tagged Ref Manager RIS Zotero Tweet Widget Facebook Like Google Plus One Subject Area Microbiology Subject Areas All Articles Animal Behavior and Cognition (7635) Biochemistry (17691) Bioengineering (13892) Bioinformatics (41937) Biophysics (21452) Cancer Biology (18588) Cell Biology (25504) Clinical Trials (138) Developmental Biology (13378) Ecology (19899) Epidemiology (2067) Evolutionary Biology (24320) Genetics (15609) Genomics (22506) Immunology (17736) Microbiology (40394) Molecular Biology (17181) Neuroscience (88605) Paleontology (666) Pathology (2832) Pharmacology and Toxicology (4824) Physiology (7641) Plant Biology (15156) Scientific Communication and Education (2045) Synthetic Biology (4294) Systems Biology (9825) Zoology (2271)