RESEARCH ARTICLE

Open Access

Impeding Quorum Sensing Among the Intestinal Microbiota Impacts the Metastatic Rate of Colorectal Cancer

Matthew Dietz

Division of Basic and Translational Research, Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

BioTechnology Institute, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Travis J. Gates,

Travis J. Gates

Division of Basic and Translational Research, Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

Department of Pharmacology, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Rakesh Sikdar,

Rakesh Sikdar

orcid.org/0000-0001-9795-8028

BioTechnology Institute, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, and Biophysics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Subbaya Subramanian,

Subbaya Subramanian

Division of Basic and Translational Research, Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

Department of Pharmacology, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Mikael H. Elias,

Mikael H. Elias

BioTechnology Institute, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, and Biophysics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Christopher Staley,

Corresponding Author

Christopher Staley

[email protected]

orcid.org/0000-0002-2309-0083

Division of Basic and Translational Research, Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

BioTechnology Institute, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

Correspondence:

Christopher Staley ([email protected])

Search for more papers by this author

Matthew Dietz,

Matthew Dietz

Division of Basic and Translational Research, Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

BioTechnology Institute, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Travis J. Gates,

Travis J. Gates

Division of Basic and Translational Research, Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

Department of Pharmacology, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Rakesh Sikdar,

Rakesh Sikdar

orcid.org/0000-0001-9795-8028

BioTechnology Institute, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, and Biophysics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Subbaya Subramanian,

Subbaya Subramanian

Division of Basic and Translational Research, Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

Department of Pharmacology, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Mikael H. Elias,

Mikael H. Elias

BioTechnology Institute, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, and Biophysics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Christopher Staley,

Corresponding Author

Christopher Staley

[email protected]

orcid.org/0000-0002-2309-0083

Division of Basic and Translational Research, Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

BioTechnology Institute, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

Correspondence:

Christopher Staley ([email protected])

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 19 June 2025

https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.71009

Funding: This research was funded through a 2023 Norm and Pat Wells grant and a 2024 research grant, both from the Minnesota Colorectal Cancer Research Foundation.

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

ABSTRACT

Background

The gut microbiota is associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and CRC metastatic potential. However, the role of bacteria in CRC progression and metastasis remains unclear.

Aims

Here, we hypothesized that microbial communication, mediated through quorum sensing (QS), was a critical component regulating microbial functions related to cancer progression and metastasis.

Materials & Methods

To test this, male and female C57BL/6 mice were injected with organoids modeling aggressive colon cancer (CRC), carrying mutations in Apc, Kras, p53, and Smad4. Two groups of mice were treated with two different quorum quenching (QQ) lactonases (GcL or SsoPox) for 8 weeks (n = 10/group/sex). Fecal samples were collected weekly and characterized by Illumina next-generation sequencing, with tissues collected during necropsy.

Results

Male mice treated with SsoPox had fewer metastases than control mice (χ² = 3.206, p = 0.073), with no SsoPox-treated male developing a metastasis. In contrast, female mice treated with SsoPox had more metastases than control mice (χ² = 2.554, p = 0.110), and every female, SsoPox-treated mouse that developed a primary tumor also developed metastasis by the experimental endpoint. However, QQ treatment was shown to minimally affect the gut microbiome composition. Similarly, no significant differences were observed in inflammatory response as assessed by immunofluorescent staining or fecal concentrations of immunoglobulin A, calprotectin, or lipocalin-2. Differences in fecal short-chain fatty acid concentrations also did not differ significantly.

Discussion

These results suggest that QQ treatment has a sex-based effect on CRC metastatic rate.

Conclusion

Targeting communication among the gut microbiome may be a promising avenue for the development of CRC therapies that minimally impact microbial community composition and host immune response.

1 Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide, with a 60% increase in prevalence predicted between 2020 and 2040 [1]. Even with standard, first-line therapies for CRC, most patients' tumors will progress within a year [2]. Metastasis in CRC is a grim marker of patient outcome, with 5-year survival rates plummeting from 90% for localized disease to 14% in metastatic disease [3, 4]. A complete understanding of the mechanisms driving CRC metastasis is still being developed, but some intestinal microbes such as Bacteroides fragilis, Prevotella spp., and Fusobacterium nucleatum have been associated with both CRC risk and CRC metastatic potential [5, 6]. Therefore, the microbiome likely serves as a novel target for CRC treatment, including as an anti-metastatic treatment, and modulation of the microbiome has already shown some success in improving the outcomes of other cancer therapies [7, 8].

Gut bacteria communicate with one another, as well as their host, through quorum sensing (QS), or the production and detection of autoinducer molecules [9, 10]. Both interspecies and intraspecies communication via QS allow bacteria to synchronously alter their function based on population densities, allowing them to maximize benefits from collective functions that would be too costly in low-density communities [9-11]. N-acyl homoserine lactones (AHLs) are a common group of QS molecules that are produced predominantly by Gram-negative bacteria [12, 13]. The number and diversity of QS molecules, including AHLs, are not well understood, but studies on AHLs in cancer have shown AHLs to have microenvironment-dependent effects on human cancer cells and that QS can promote CRC metastasis in an orthotopic mouse model [14, 15]. While exact mechanisms of action have yet to be outlined, these initial findings demonstrate the potential of microbiome-targeted therapies to impact human disease.

Gram-positive bacteria degrade AHLs by expelling quorum quenching (QQ) enzymes such as lactonases and acylases [16], which is thought to give them an advantage by disrupting the ability of Gram-negative bacteria to communicate and coordinate functions such as biofilm and virulence factor production [12, 17, 18]. Instead of AHLs, QS signaling in Gram-positive bacteria relies on an autoinducer-2, leaving them unhindered by QQ AHL degradation [19]. At normal physiological levels, this leads to a natural homeostasis between QS and QQ systems within most microbiomes, including the gut [19]. Supraphysiological doses of QQ enzymes have shown promising results as a way to reduce biofouling and pathogenic infections in fisheries and poultry farms without the use of antibiotics [20, 21], but research into their potential use in modifying the host microbiome to modulate its role in other diseases has remained largely uninvestigated [22, 23].

SsoPox, a thermostable lactonase, is active primarily on longer-chain AHLs (> C8–C12), while another lactonase, GcL, has a much broader substrate specificity compared to SsoPox, acting on C4-C12 AHLs [18, 24]. Both SsoPox and GcL have demonstrated the ability to inhibit biofilm production and reduce the production of virulence factors, including in vivo in the case of SsoPox [18, 20, 24-26]. We elected to study two distinct lactonases, as bacteria produce species-specific AHLs, the acyl side chains of which differ in both length and chemical structure [27, 28]. Thus, lactonases with distinct substrate preferences may allow for precision QQ treatment to target specific bacterial species thought to contribute to pathogenesis without disrupting the activity of others [17, 18, 23, 24].

Our objective was to determine if QQ lactonase treatments could modify the QS behavior of the gut microbiome, resulting in slower tumor growth or reduced metastatic burden in aggressive CRC. We hypothesized that QQ treatment would affect the rate of CRC metastasis without significantly changing the gut microbiome composition, potentially by modulating host inflammatory or immune response.

2 Methods

2.1 Mice

C57BL/6 mice were purchased at 35–41 days of age from Jackson Labs and given drinking water supplemented with SsoPox or GcL (both at 1 mg/mL) [29] or a drinking water control (DW), which was supplied ad lib (n = 10/group). Mice were individually housed in conventional housing [30]. Fecal pellets were collected weekly and stored at −20°C until DNA extraction. At the end of eight weeks or when moribund, mice were sacrificed, tissues were collected, and tumor and metastatic burden were assessed by visual inspection. The experiment was approved by the University of Minnesota Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), protocol 2212-40606A.

2.2 Organoid Preparation, Injection, and Monitoring

We used the AKPS organoid derived from C57BL/6 mice, which contains driver gene mutations in Apc, Kras, p53, and Smad4 (AKPS) [31, 32], to model aggressive CRC. Organoids were cultured in 10% Matrigel media before being injected into the colon wall, with each mouse receiving two 5000-cell injections [31]. Following the injection, mice were monitored for eight weeks.

2.3 Lactonase Preparation

We focus on the lactonases SsoPox and GcL because these enzymes represent two major classes of lactonases—phosphotriesterase-like lactonase and metallo-beta-lactamase-like lactonase, respectively. Both enzymes are extremely thermally stable [33, 34], and this critical property typically correlates with high resistance toward harsh conditions, including protease resistance as observed for SsoPox [35], key properties that are likely essential to enable these enzymes to remain active through the digestive system. Moreover, these two enzymes possess distinct AHL substrate preferences: SsoPox preferentially hydrolyzes long-chain AHLs (C8 or higher), while GcL is a broad-spectrum lactonase [36].

Specifically, the mutant lactonase SsoPox W263I, referred to as SsoPox throughout this article, that is improved for activity [34] and wild-type GcL with an N-terminal Strep-tag II [24] were overexpressed in Escherichia coli strain BL21 Star (DE3) (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) containing the pGro7 plasmid (TakaRa Bio, San Jose, CA, USA). The enzymes were produced using a 75-L fermentation system (New Brunswick Scientific, Edison, NJ, USA) operated by the University of Minnesota BioResource Center and purified as previously described [33]. The purification protocol takes advantage of the high thermal stability of both enzymes [34]. Briefly, cell lysates were centrifuged, and the supernatants were subjected to heat treatment to precipitate host cell contaminants at 75°C (for SsoPox W263I) and 65°C (for GcL) for 30 min. Precipitated contaminants were removed by centrifugation (15,000 g/30 min/4°C) and the supernatants were ultrafiltered (0.6 μm for GcL; 0.6 μm followed by 0.2 μm nominal filter for SsoPox), concentrated, and lyophilized. Both enzyme preparations were assayed for quality and purity using SDS-PAGE (6%–12%) and tested for activity against 5-thiobutyl-γ-butyrolactone (TBBL) substrate (synthesized by Enamine LTD, Kyiv, Ukraine) in an activity buffer (50-mM HEPES pH 8.0, 150-mM NaCl, 0.2-mM CoCl₂) containing 0.5-mM TBBL and 1-mM Ellman's reagent (5,5′-dithiobis-[2-nitrobenzoic acid] or DTNB) as previously described [37]. The specific activity for TBBL of the purified proteins was 28,410 and 7896 μmol min⁻¹ mg⁻¹ of lyophilized enzyme for SsoPox W263I and GcL, respectively.

2.4 DNA Extraction and Sequencing

DNA was extracted from single, thawed mouse pellets (~100 mg) using the DNeasy PowerSoil Pro kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) on the QIAcube platform. The V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene was amplified using the 515F/806R primer set [38] by the University of Minnesota Genomics Center (UMGC). Paired-end sequencing was done on the Illumina MiSeq platform (Illumina Inc, San Diego, CA, USA) at a read length of 301 nucleotides by UMGC [39]. Sequences were processed using Mothur and our previously published pipeline [30]. Briefly, sequences were aligned against the SILVA database (ver. 138.1) [40] and clustered at 99% sequence similarity. Samples were rarefied to 5000 sequence reads by random subsampling, and taxonomic classification was performed against the Ribosomal Database Project (ver. 18) [41]. Sequencing data were deposited in the National Center for Biotechnology's Sequence Read Archive under BioProject accession number SRP477359.

2.5 Characterization of Functional Response

Immunofluorescence staining for CD163, CD206, and CD68 was performed on tumor tissue to quantify immune infiltrates, primarily T cells and macrophages. Assays for immunoglobulin A (IgA), calprotectin, and lipocalin 2 (Lcn-2) were performed using enzyme-linked immunosorbant assays (ELISAs) from Abcam (Cambridge, UK).

Quantification of short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs; 2-methylbutyric acid, acetic acid, butyric acid, isobutyric acid, isovaleric acid, propionic acid, and valeric acid) was performed by the Center for Metagenomics and Proteomics using a previously described method with modifications [42]. Briefly, feces were lyophilized and extracted using a 0.5% aqueous phosphoric acid solution at a ratio of 0.1 g material to 1 mL. Samples were homogenized using a Precellys bead beater homogenizer (four 10 s pulses at 15,000 × g, 20 s pause, 0°C), after which the organic phase was stored in a fresh vial. Analytical assessment was performed using a gas chromatography-coupled mass spectrometry (GC–MS) platform. The MS detector was a high-resolution Agilent 7200 QTOF instrument operated in electron impact ionization mode at 70 eV electron energy that scanned from 35 to 350 m/z. Quantification of SCFAs from the raw GC–MS data was performed using the open-source software Skyline [43]. Calibration curves were fit independently for each compound by linear regression using the peak ratio of each compound to the global internal standard. No regression weighting was used, and regression intercepts were forced through zero. All calibration curves were fit with an R² of at least 0.995 precision.

2.6 Statistics

Shannon and Chao1 indices were calculated using (version 1.41.1) [44]. Also in Mothur, beta diversity was evaluated based on Bray-Curtis distances using analysis of similarity [45] (ANOSIM), and ordination was performed by principal coordinate analysis (PCoA). Differences in alpha diversity and analyte concentrations were determined by analysis of variance (ANOVA) using Tukey's post-hoc test. Relative abundances of taxa were compared among groups with Kruskal–Wallis analysis. Differences in the rate of metastasis between groups were determined with Chi-squared tests. Statistics were calculated using XLSTAT ver. 2022.1 1.1243, Excel ver. 16.0 (Addinsoft, Belmont, MA). All statistics were evaluated at α = 0.05, with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.

3 Results

In both male and female mice, there were no significant differences in the rate of organoid engraftment between treated and untreated mice (80%, 70%, and 78% for SsoPox, GcL, and control males, respectively; 100%, 80%, and 70% for females; ANOVA p = 1.000, 0.140, Figure 1). SsoPox-treated males had a lower rate of metastasis (0.00%) when compared to controls (30% for controls; χ² = 3.206, p = 0.073, Figure 1A); however, in females, SsoPox treatment resulted in more metastases than untreated females (60% vs. 30%, χ² = 2.554, p = 0.110, Figure 1B).

Details are in the caption following the image — **FIGURE 1**
Open in figure viewer PowerPoint

Bar graph of male (A) and female (B) disease progression at the time of necropsy. One male SsoPox mouse died from complications of organoid injection. One female SsoPox mouse developed a blockage at week three that required euthanasia.

3.1 QQ Lactonase Treatments Minimally Affect the Microbiome

There were no differences in alpha diversity, measured using the Shannon and Chao1 indices, among treatment groups in male mice (ANOVA F = 0.222, 0.372, p = 0.803, 0.694). Similarly, there were no differences among treatment groups in female mice (ANOVA F = 0.610, 0.278, p = 0.553, 0.761). Over the eight-week period, the Shannon index increased in males but did not significantly increase in females (ANOVA F = 6.345, 2.775, p = 0.015, 0.102). In that same time, the Chao1 index did not significantly change in either sex (ANOVA Fs < 0.113, p > 0.739).

The gut microbiome community structures (β-diversity) of male mice were not significantly different among treatment groups at endpoint (ANOSIM R = −0.005, p = 0.481, Figure 2A). Bacteroides was significantly more abundant in the male SsoPox-treated mice at endpoint when compared to controls (Kruskal–Wallis K = 7.621, p = 0.022). Male mice that developed tumors had greater relative abundances of Clostridiales (unable to classify at greater resolution) and lower abundances of Lactobacillus when compared to those that did not develop tumors (K = 4.234, 4.747, p = 0.040, 0.029), as has been previously reported in both mice and humans [46-48]. Among predominant genera, none showed differential abundances based on the presence of metastasis. Even in the adherent microbiome, there were no significant differences in male samples by treatment group in either colon or tumor samples (ANOSIM R = −0.030, −0.055, p = 0.732, 0.748; Figure 3A,C).

The gut microbiome compositions of female mice differed among all groups at both baseline and endpoint (ANOSIM R = 0.268, 0.200, p = 0.001, 0.008, respectively; Figure 2B), suggesting differences between groups were associated with their baseline composition, irrespective of treatment. However, Romboutsia was found to be significantly less abundant in SsoPox-treated mice when compared to controls at endpoint (K = 6.657, p = 0.036). Similar to male mice, females that developed tumors had greater relative abundances of Clostridiales (not further classified) and Alistipes, a genus associated with inflammation in CRC [49, 50], when compared with those that did not develop tumors (K = 4.48, 4.31, p = 0.034, 0.038). Female mice that developed metastases had significantly greater abundances of Ruminococcaceae (not further classified) than those that did not metastasize by experiment endpoint, though this family has been found to be associated with eubiosis and microbiome restoration after dextran sodium sulfate (DSS)-induced bowel inflammation [51, 52]. In the female adherent microbiome in healthy colon samples, there was a significant difference between SsoPox and control mice (ANOSIM R = 0.432, 0.001), and SsoPox mice had significantly higher abundances of Muribaculaceae (not further classified) (Figure 3B). For female adherent tumor microbiomes, there was an overall difference in the compositions of the treatment groups (ANOSIM R = 0.125, p = 0.036), but none of the individual comparisons reached significance, and no genera with a relative abundance > 1% were significantly different between treatment groups (Figure 3D).

3.2 QQ Lactonases Treatments Do Not Induce an Immune Response or Microbial SCFA Production

To determine the physiological effects of QQ treatments that may be driving tumor growth and metastasis, endpoint fecal concentrations of IgA, calprotectin, and Lcn-2 were tested but found to not be significantly different by treatment group in both male (ANOVA F = 0.126, 1.308, 0.771, p = 0.881, 0.291, 0.478) and female (ANOVA F = 2.078, 2.140, 0.711, p = 0.151, 0.144, 0.503) mice (Table 1). Similarly, none of the seven SCFAs measured had significantly different concentrations by treatment groups in either males or females (ANOVA F < 1.109, p ≥ 0.349, Table 2). Tumor tissue staining for CD206, CD163, and CD68, which are used to measure the abundance of immune infiltrates, including T cells and both M1 and M2 macrophages, also did not find significant differences by treatment group in either sex (Figure 4). While not conclusive, these findings suggest that the use of QQ enzyme treatments does not elicit a strong immune or inflammatory response. Similarly, few correlations were noted between the microbiome and ELISA or SCFA data. A higher relative abundance of Duncaniella was correlated with lower valeric acid levels in male mice (Spearman ρ = −0.597, p = 0.017). In female mice, relative abundances of Muribaculaceae were correlated, and Alistipes were inversely correlated with propionic acid concentrations (Spearman ρ = 0532, −0.555; p = 0.010, 0.007).

TABLE 1. Fecal concentrations (mean ± standard deviation, ng/mg) of IgA, calprotectin, and Lcn-2 among male and female mice at student endpoint.

Analyte	DW	GcL	SsoPox	F	p
Female IgA	11.31 ± 1.26	14.97 ± 5.43	13.08 ± 1.29	2.078	0.151
Male IgA	3.53 ± 1.64	3.71 ± 2.80	3.81 ± 1.15	0.126	0.881
Female calprotectin	0.26 ± 0.69	0.96 ± 0.92	0.92 ± 0.42	2.140	0.144
Male calprotectin	0.17 ± 0.54	0.65 ± 0.71	0.36 ± 0.62	1.308	0.291
Female Lcn-2	0.11 ± 0.06	0.38 ± 0.55	0.37 ± 0.63	0.711	0.503
Male Lcn-2	0.08 ± 0.05	0.06 ± 0.02	0.07 ± 0.04	0.771	0.478

Note: Differences among treatment groups were evaluated by ANOVA.

TABLE 2. Fecal concentrations (mean ± standard deviation, μg/g) of short-chain fatty acids among male and female mice at study endpoint.

Sex	Treatment group			ANOVA
Male	DW	GcL	SsoPox	F (M)	p (M)
2-Methylbutyric acid	8.21 ± 1.62	9.63 ± 5.01	10.03 ± 2.91	0.570	0.579
Acetic acid	875.80 ± 275.99	697.52 ± 150.21	874.98 ± 225.30	0.848	0.450
Butyric acid	177.90 ± 83.46	208.79 ± 45.79	194.40 ± 56.15	0.270	0.767
Isobutyric acid	15.67 ± 5.27	16.18 ± 10.67	18.33 ± 5.85	0.219	0.806
Isovaleric acid	10.88 ± 1.75	10.28 ± 5.97	13.87 ± 4.71	1.097	0.363
Propionic acid	234.16 ± 90.17	227.24 ± 102.60	264.28 ± 73.11	0.242	0.789
Valeric acid	20.00 ± 6.00	20.75 ± 5.42	24.15 ± 12.73	0.362	0.703

Female	DW	GcL	SsoPox	F (F)	p (F)
2-Methylbutyric acid	11.70 ± 5.98	12.05 ± 7.95	10.40 ± 3.57	0.143	0.867
Acetic acid	815.87 ± 162.22	698.75 ± 176.93	700.85 ± 201.49	1.009	0.382
Butyric acid	380.19 ± 148.76	342.46 ± 138.66	321.87 ± 83.00	0.375	0.692
Isobutyric acid	20.16 ± 9.10	21.19 ± 12.22	18.13 ± 6.31	0.193	0.826
Isovaleric acid	15.55 ± 6.92	18.00 ± 12.88	14.74 ± 5.67	0.261	0.773
Propionic acid	155.50 ± 46.35	199.57 ± 86.00	197.67 ± 41.07	1.109	0.349
Valeric acid	24.92 ± 11.83	28.75 ± 12.37	25.25 ± 10.03	0.276	0.761

4 Discussion

Our results demonstrate that QQ treatment can have a significant effect on CRC metastatic rate, though we have yet to fully elucidate a likely mechanism of action. The overall gut microbiome compositional diversity was not affected by QQ treatment, as we hypothesized, but a lack of widespread categorization of bacterial species and the QS/QQ molecules they produce limited our ability to examine specific bacterial species that may have been directly impacted by GcL or SsoPox treatment. We hypothesized that QQ might impact immune responses and inflammation, which are known to be linked to the microbiota [39], as well as SCFA concentrations [53], as a measure of microbial metabolic function; however, our data suggest a limited impact of QQ on these processes.

Despite a lack of differences in immunity or metabolite production, QQ had a profound role in reducing metastasis among males while exacerbating it in females, suggesting a potential mechanism of action mediated by the host endocrine system. Although a consensus in the literature is lacking, higher levels of testosterone tended to be inversely correlated with CRC development in men but may be positively correlated in women [54, 55]. Interaction between the endocrine system and QS systems has been previously, but ambiguously, reported, suggesting a complex feedback loop potentially mediated by AHLs [56, 57]. Furthermore, previous studies found that women with polycystic ovary syndrome had decreased lactonase activity in their paraoxonase 1 enzyme, which is known to degrade QS signals [58] as well as raise testosterone levels and CRC risk [58, 59], further suggesting a potential connection between endocrine signaling, QS, and CRC. This may explain why female mice exhibited a severe adverse response to QQ treatment while male mice, who lacked sufficient estradiol to promote biofilm growth, did not.

Results of our study should be interpreted cautiously, as our experimental design uses a model of established, aggressive CRC and does not seek to study the role of QS/QQ in early CRC development. Future studies should explore the role of QS/QQ in tumor onset and progression through the use of sporadic and genetic models of CRC. Moreover, our study has several limitations, including a modest sample size, limited duration, and testing in only one genotype. Repetition with a higher sample size with sequential necropsies will be needed to determine the exact effects of QQ treatment on the rate of CRC metastasis. However, our current results highlight novel sex-specific differences in response to distinct QQ lactonase treatments and suggest a potential interaction between host endocrine signaling, bacterial QS, and CRC metastasis. Unraveling the interplay between these complex systems will take decades of research but may unlock both novel therapies and substantial improvements to existing interventions. Our finding that these lactonase enzymes greatly impede metastatic progression from established and aggressive CRC suggests that QQ therapies may be a promising avenue for development, especially given the increasing frequency of earlier and more advanced disease in CRC.

Author Contributions

Matthew Dietz: conceptualization; methodology; investigation; writing – original draft; data curation; formal analysis; validation; visualization; funding acquisition. Travis J. Gates: methodology; writing – review and editing; investigation; resources. Rakesh Sikdar: resources; writing – review and editing. Subbaya Subramanian: conceptualization; writing – review and editing. Mikael H. Elias: conceptualization; writing – review and editing; resources; project administration; funding acquisition. Christopher Staley: conceptualization; writing – review and editing; project administration; supervision; investigation; funding acquisition.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Kevin J. Murray and Zachary J. Mayer from the Center for Metabolomics and Proteomics at the University of Minnesota for assistance with short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) quantification. Resources from the Minnesota Supercomputing Institute were used for data storage, processing, and analysis. We would also like to thank Kelli Tourand for administrative support. We are grateful to Dr. Frederick Schendel, Plant Manager, University of Minnesota Biotechnology Resource Center (BRC), St. Paul, MN, Tom Douville, and the BRC staff for assistance with protein production.

Ethics Statement

The experiment was approved by the University of Minnesota Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), protocol 2212-40606A.

Conflicts of Interest

M.H.E. is a co-founder, a former CEO, and an equity holder of Gene&GreenTK, a company that holds the license to WO2014167140 A1, FR 3068989 A1, FR 19/02834. M.H.E. has filed the patents EP3941206 and WO2020185861A1. M.H.E.'s interests with Gene&GreenTK have been reviewed and managed by the University of Minnesota in accordance with its conflict-of-interest policies. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflicts of interest.

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

Raw sequence data are deposited in the Sequence Read Archive of the National Center for Biotechnology Information under BioProject accession number SRP477359.

References

1E. Morgan, M. Arnold, A. Gini, et al., “Global Burden of Colorectal Cancer in 2020 and 2040: Incidence and Mortality Estimates From Globocan,” Gut 72 (2023): 338–344.
10.1136/gutjnl-2022-327736
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2M. A. Morse, H. Hochster, and A. Benson, “Perspectives on Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy,” Oncologist 25 (2020): 33–45.
10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0176
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3R. L. Siegel, K. D. Miller, A. Goding Sauer, et al., “Colorectal Cancer Statistics, 2020,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 70 (2020): 145–164.
10.3322/caac.21601
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4L. H. Biller and D. Schrag, “Diagnosis and Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Review,” JAMA 325 (2021): 669–685.
10.1001/jama.2021.0106
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5M. Patel, M. McAllister, R. Nagaraju, et al., “The Intestinal Microbiota in Colorectal Cancer Metastasis—Passive Observer or Key Player?,” Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 180 (2022): 103856.
10.1016/j.critrevonc.2022.103856
PubMed Google Scholar
6X. Yang, P. Li, Z. Qu, et al., “Gut Bacteria and Sex Differences in Colorectal Cancer,” Journal of Medical Microbiology 72 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.001706.
10.1099/jmm.0.001706
Web of Science® Google Scholar
7Y.-B. Kang and Y. Cai, “Faecal Microbiota Transplantation Enhances Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Therapy Against Cancer,” World Journal of Gastroenterology 27 (2021): 5362–5375.
10.3748/wjg.v27.i32.5362
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8M. Angrish and R. Pezo, “Impact of Gut-Microbiome Altering Drugs and Fecal Microbiota Transplant on the Efficacy and Toxicity of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review,” Advances in Cancer Biology – Metastasis 4 (2021): 100020.
10.1016/j.adcanc.2021.100020
Google Scholar
9S. Mukherjee and B. L. Bassler, “Bacterial Quorum Sensing in Complex and Dynamically Changing Environments,” Nature Reviews. Microbiology 17 (2019): 371–382.
10.1038/s41579-019-0186-5
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10A. Maldonado-Barragán and S. A. West, “The Cost and Benefit of Quorum Sensing-Controlled Bacteriocin Production in Lactobacillus plantarum,” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 33 (2020): 101–111.
10.1111/jeb.13551
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11I. A. S. V. Packiavathy, A. Kannappan, S. Thiyagarajan, et al., “AHL-Lactonase Producing Psychrobacter sp. From Palk Bay Sediment Mitigates Quorum Sensing-Mediated Virulence Production in Gram Negative Bacterial Pathogens,” Frontiers in Microbiology 12 (2021): 634593.
10.3389/fmicb.2021.634593
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12P. D. Utari, J. Vogel, and W. J. Quax, “Deciphering Physiological Functions of AHL Quorum Quenching Acylases,” Frontiers in Microbiology 8 (2017): 1123.
10.3389/fmicb.2017.01123
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13R. Billot, L. Plener, P. Jacquet, M. Elias, E. Chabrière, and D. Daudé, “Engineering Acyl-Homoserine Lactone-Interfering Enzymes Toward Bacterial Control,” Journal of Biological Chemistry 295 (2020): 12993.
10.1074/jbc.REV120.013531
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
14B. N. Balhouse, L. Patterson, E. M. Schmelz, D. J. Slade, and S. S. Verbridge, “N-(3-Oxododecanoyl)-L-Homoserine Lactone Interactions in the Breast Tumor Microenvironment: Implications for Breast Cancer Viability and Proliferation In Vitro,” PLoS One 12 (2017): e0180372.
10.1371/journal.pone.0180372
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15N. Debunne, E. Wynendaele, Y. Janssens, et al., “The Quorum Sensing Peptide EntF* Promotes Colorectal Cancer Metastasis in Mice: A New Factor in the Microbiome-Host Interaction,” https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.17.301044 (2020).
10.1101/2020.09.17.301044
Google Scholar
16E. V. Prazdnova, A. V. Gorovtsov, N. G. Vasilchenko, et al., “Quorum-Sensing Inhibition by Gram-Positive Bacteria,” Microorganisms 10 (2022): 350.
10.3390/microorganisms10020350
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17M. Schwab, C. Bergonzi, J. Sakkos, et al., “Signal Disruption Leads to Changes in Bacterial Community Population,” Frontiers in Microbiology 10 (2019): 611.
10.3389/fmicb.2019.00611
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18A. Guendouze, L. Plener, J. Bzdrenga, et al., “Effect of Quorum Quenching Lactonase in Clinical Isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Comparison With Quorum Sensing Inhibitors,” Frontiers in Microbiology 8 (2017): 227.
10.3389/fmicb.2017.00227
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19B. A. Hense and M. Schuster, “Core Principles of Bacterial Autoinducer Systems,” Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 79 (2015): 153–169.
10.1128/MMBR.00024-14
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20A. R. Lubis, M. A. A. Sumon, N. Dinh-Hung, et al., “Review of Quorum-Quenching Probiotics: A Promising Non-Antibiotic-Based Strategy for Sustainable Aquaculture,” Journal of Fish Diseases 47 (2024): e13941.
10.1111/jfd.13941
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21A. S. Jaramillo-Jaramillo, T. J. D. Coulson, C. Hofacre, et al., “Effect of In-Water Administration of Quorum System Inhibitors in Broilers' Productive Performance and Intestinal Microbiome in a Mild Necrotic Enteritis Challenge,” Avian Pathology 52 (2023): 309–322.
10.1080/03079457.2023.2224260
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22M. A. Rather, D. Saha, S. Bhuyan, A. N. Jha, and M. Mandal, “Quorum Quenching: A Drug Discovery Approach Against Pseudomonas aeruginosa,” Microbiological Research 264 (2022): 127–173.
10.1016/j.micres.2022.127173
Web of Science® Google Scholar
23J. Lee, Y.-J. Won, D.-C. Choi, et al., “Micro-Patterned Membranes With Enzymatic Quorum Quenching Activity to Control Biofouling in an MBR for Wastewater Treatment,” Journal of Membrane Science 592 (2019): 117365.
10.1016/j.memsci.2019.117365
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
24C. Bergonzi, M. Schwab, T. Naik, and M. Elias, “The Structural Determinants Accounting for the Broad Substrate Specificity of the Quorum Quenching Lactonase GcL,” ChemBioChem 20 (2019): 1848–1855.
10.1002/cbic.201900024
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
25S. Hraiech, J. Hiblot, J. Lafleur, et al., “Inhaled Lactonase Reduces Pseudomonas aeruginosa Quorum Sensing and Mortality in Rat Pneumonia,” PLoS One 9 (2014): e107125.
10.1371/journal.pone.0107125
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26K. Mahan, R. Martinmaki, I. Larus, R. Sikdar, J. Dunitz, and M. Elias, “Effects of Signal Disruption Depends on the Substrate Preference of the Lactonase,” Frontiers in Microbiology 10 (2019): 3003.
10.3389/fmicb.2019.03003
PubMed Google Scholar
27R. D. Prescott and A. W. Decho, “Flexibility and Adaptability of Quorum Sensing in Nature,” Trends in Microbiology 28 (2020): 436–444.
10.1016/j.tim.2019.12.004
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28A. W. Decho, P. T. Visscher, J. Ferry, et al., “Autoinducers Extracted From Microbial Mats Reveal a Surprising Diversity of N-Acylhomoserine Lactones (AHLs) and Abundance Changes That May Relate to Diel Ph,” Environmental Microbiology 11 (2009): 409–420.
10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01780.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
29A. Syal, M. Martell, R. Sikdar, et al., “Quorum Quenching Enzymes Disrupt Bacterial Communication in a Sex- and Dose-Dependent Manner,” Animal Models and Experimental Medicine 8 (2025): 473–482.
10.1002/ame2.12520
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
30T. Kaiser, H. Nalluri, Z. Zhu, and C. Staley, “Donor Microbiota Composition and Housing Affect Recapitulation of Obese Phenotypes in a Human Microbiota-Associated Murine Model,” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 11 (2021): 614218.
10.3389/fcimb.2021.614218
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
31D. Wangmo, T. J. Gates, X. Zhao, R. Sun, and S. Subramanian, “Centrosomal Protein 55 (cep55) Drives Immune Exclusion and Resistance to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Colorectal Cancer,” Vaccine 12 (2024): 63.
10.3390/vaccines12010063
CAS Google Scholar
32P. M. K. Westcott, N. J. Sacks, J. M. Schenkel, et al., “Low Neoantigen Expression and Poor T-Cell Priming Underlie Early Immune Escape in Colorectal Cancer,” Nature Cancer 2 (2021): 1071–1085.
10.1038/s43018-021-00247-z
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
33C. Bergonzi, M. Schwab, and M. Elias, “The Quorum-Quenching Lactonase From Geobacillus caldoxylosilyticus: Purification, Characterization, Crystallization and Crystallographic Analysis,” Acta Crystallographica Section F: Structural Biology Communications 72 (2016): 681–686.
10.1107/S2053230X16011821
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
34J. Hiblot, G. Gotthard, M. Elias, and E. Chabriere, “Differential Active Site Loop Conformations Mediate Promiscuous Activities in the Lactonase SsoPox,” PLoS One 8 (2013): e75272.
10.1371/journal.pone.0075272
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
35B. Rémy, L. Plener, L. Poirier, M. Elias, D. Daudé, and E. Chabrière, “Harnessing Hyperthermostable Lactonase From Sulfolobus solfataricus for Biotechnological Applications,” Scientific Reports 6 (2016): 37780.
10.1038/srep37780
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
36R. Sikdar and M. Elias, “Quorum Quenching Enzymes and Their Effects on Virulence, Biofilm, and Microbiomes: A Review of Recent Advances,” Expert Review of Anti-Infective Therapy 18 (2020): 1221–1233.
10.1080/14787210.2020.1794815
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
37O. Khersonsky and D. S. Tawfik, “The Histidine 115-Histidine 134 Dyad Mediates the Lactonase Activity of Mammalian Serum Paraoxonases,” Journal of Biological Chemistry 281 (2006): 7649–7656.
10.1074/jbc.M512594200
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
38J. G. Caporaso, C. L. Lauber, W. A. Walters, et al., “Ultra-High-Throughput Microbial Community Analysis on the Illumina HiSeq and MiSeq Platforms,” ISME Journal 6 (2012): 1621–1624.
10.1038/ismej.2012.8
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
39L. Rizzetto, F. Fava, K. M. Tuohy, and C. Selmi, “Connecting the Immune System, Systemic Chronic Inflammation and the Gut Microbiome: The Role of Sex,” Journal of Autoimmunity 92 (2018): 12–34.
10.1016/j.jaut.2018.05.008
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
40E. Pruesse, C. Quast, K. Knittel, et al., “SILVA: A Comprehensive Online Resource for Quality Checked and Aligned Ribosomal Rna Sequence Data Compatible With ARB,” Nucleic Acids Research 35 (2007): 7188–7196.
10.1093/nar/gkm864
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
41J. R. Cole, Q. Wang, E. Cardenas, et al., “The Ribosomal Database Project: Improved Alignments and New Tools for rRNA Analysis,” Nucleic Acids Research 37 (2009): D141–D145.
10.1093/nar/gkn879
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
42R. García-Villalba, J. A. Giménez-Bastida, M. T. García-Conesa, F. A. Tomás-Barberán, J. Carlos Espín, and M. Larrosa, “Alternative Method for Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry Analysis of Short-Chain Fatty Acids in Faecal Samples,” Journal of Separation Science 35, no. 15 (2012): 1906–1913, https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jssc.201101121.
10.1002/jssc.201101121
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
43K. J. Adams, B. Pratt, N. Bose, et al., “Skyline for Small Molecules: A Unifying Software Package for Quantitative Metabolomics,” Journal of Proteome Research 19 (2020): 1447–1458.
10.1021/acs.jproteome.9b00640
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
44P. D. Schloss, S. L. Westcott, T. Ryabin, et al., “Introducing Mothur: Open-Source, Platform-Independent, Community-Supported Software for Describing and Comparing Microbial Communities,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology 75 (2009): 7537–7541.
10.1128/AEM.01541-09
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
45K. R. Clarke, “Non-Parametric Multivariate Analyses of Changes in Community Structure,” Australian Journal of Ecology 18 (1993): 117–143.
10.1111/j.1442-9993.1993.tb00438.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
46A. Montalban-Arques, E. Katkeviciute, P. Busenhart, et al., “Commensal Clostridiales Strains Mediate Effective Anti-Cancer Immune Response Against Solid Tumors,” Cell Host & Microbe 29 (2021): 1573–1588.e7.
10.1016/j.chom.2021.08.001
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
47T. He, X. Cheng, and C. Xing, “The Gut Microbial Diversity of Colon Cancer Patients and the Clinical Significance,” Bioengineered 12 (2021): 7046–7060.
10.1080/21655979.2021.1972077
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
48E. Jacouton, F. Chain, H. Sokol, P. Langella, and L. G. Bermúdez-Humarán, “Probiotic Strain Lactobacillus casei Bl23 Prevents Colitis-Associated Colorectal Cancer,” Frontiers in Immunology 8 (2017): 1553.
10.3389/fimmu.2017.01553
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
49J. Fu, G. Li, X. Li, et al., “Gut Commensal Alistipes as a Potential Pathogenic Factor in Colorectal Cancer,” Discover Oncology 15 (2024): 473.
10.1007/s12672-024-01393-3
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
50B. J. Parker, P. A. Wearsch, A. C. M. Veloo, and A. Rodriguez-Palacios, “The Genus Alistipes: Gut Bacteria With Emerging Implications to Inflammation, Cancer, and Mental Health,” Frontiers in Immunology 11 (2020): 906.
10.3389/fimmu.2020.00906
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
51Y. Chung, Y. Ryu, B. C. An, et al., “A Synthetic Probiotic Engineered for Colorectal Cancer Therapy Modulates Gut Microbiota,” Microbiome 9 (2021): 122.
10.1186/s40168-021-01071-4
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
52T. J. Gates, C. Yuan, M. Shetty, et al., “Fecal Microbiota Restoration Modulates the Microbiome in Inflammation-Driven Colorectal Cancer,” Cancers 15 (2023): 2260.
10.3390/cancers15082260
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
53J. De la Cuesta-Zuluaga, N. T. Mueller, R. Álvarez-Quintero, et al., “Higher Fecal Short-Chain Fatty Acid Levels Are Associated With Gut Microbiome Dysbiosis, Obesity, Hypertension and Cardiometabolic Disease Risk Factors,” Nutrients 11 (2019): 51.
10.3390/nu11010051
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
54R. Peila, R. S. Arthur, and T. E. Rohan, “Sex Hormones, Shbg and Risk of Colon and Rectal Cancer Among Men and Women in the UK Biobank,” Cancer Epidemiology 69 (2020): 101–831.
10.1016/j.canep.2020.101831
Web of Science® Google Scholar
55W. Yang, E. L. Giovannucci, S. E. Hankinson, et al., “Endogenous Sex Hormones and Colorectal Cancer Survival Among Men and Women,” International Journal of Cancer 147 (2020): 920–930.
10.1002/ijc.32844
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
56A. Beury-Cirou, M. Tannières, C. Minard, et al., “At a Supra-Physiological Concentration, Human Sexual Hormones Act as Quorum-Sensing Inhibitors,” PLoS One 8 (2013): e83564.
10.1371/journal.pone.0083564
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
57C. Vidaillac, V. F. L. Yong, M. S. Aschtgen, et al., “Sex Steroids Induce Membrane Stress Responses and Virulence Properties in Pseudomonas aeruginosa,” MBio 11 (2020): e01774-20, https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01774-20.
10.1128/mBio.01774-20
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
58P. Dursun, E. Demirtaş, A. Bayrak, and H. Yarali, “Decreased Serum Paraoxonase 1 (PON1) Activity: An Additional Risk Factor for Atherosclerotic Heart Disease in Patients With PCOS?,” Human Reproduction 21 (2006): 104–108.
10.1093/humrep/dei284
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
59R. Dadachanji, N. Shaikh, S. Khavale, A. Patil, N. Shah, and S. Mukherjee, “PON1 Polymorphisms Are Associated With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Susceptibility, Related Traits, and Pon1 Activity in Indian Women With the Syndrome,” Fertility and Sterility 104 (2015): 207–216.
10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.03.037
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Volume14, Issue12

June 2025

e71009

Impeding Quorum Sensing Among the Intestinal Microbiota Impacts the Metastatic Rate of Colorectal Cancer