Dynamic instability, polarity, and spatiotemporal organization are hallmarks of the microtubule cytoskeleton that allow formation of complex structures such as the eukaryotic spindle. No similar structure has been identified in prokaryotes. The bacteriophage-encoded tubulin PhuZ is required to position DNA at mid-cell, without which infectivity is compromised. Here, we show that PhuZ filaments, like microtubules, stochastically switch from growing in a distinctly polar manner to catastrophic depolymerization (dynamic instability) both in vitro and in vivo. One end of each PhuZ filament is stably anchored near the cell pole to form a spindle-like array that orients the growing ends toward the phage nucleoid so as to position it near mid-cell. Our results demonstrate how a bacteriophage can harness the properties of a tubulin-like cytoskeleton for efficient propagation. This represents the first identification of a prokaryotic tubulin with the dynamic instability of microtubules and the ability to form a simplified bipolar spindle.https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.03197.001
For a cell or virus to reproduce, it must duplicate its genome and separate the two copies. In plants and animals, this DNA is stored in the nucleus of each cell in the form of chromosomes, and a complex protein structure called the spindle apparatus is responsible for physically aligning and then separating the duplicated chromosomes.
The spindle apparatus is mainly built from a group of proteins called tubulin, which join together end-to-end to form fibers called microtubules. Proteins that interact with the fibers link them to the chromosomes or to one of the two ‘poles’ that sit on opposite sides of the cell. Tubulin proteins are then rapidly added to, or removed from, the other end of the microtubule, lengthening or shortening the structure. The rapid switch between fiber growth and shortening is known as dynamic instability. As these fibers shrink, they pull the pair of chromosomes apart and towards opposite sides of the cell.
Viruses that infect bacteria (bacteriophages, or phages for short) replicate their DNA by invading a bacterial cell and hijacking its DNA-replication machinery. In contrast to animals and plants, bacterial cells do not have a cell nucleus, and most bacteria and many phages have genomes comprised of circular DNA rings. Bacteria and phages do share the need to correctly position their DNA in the bacterial cell; but neither bacteria nor phages are known to possess an equivalent to the spindle apparatus that could perform this positioning. A group of bacteriophages were recently found to contain a type of tubulin called PhuZ; however, it was not known if this protein could form a spindle-like apparatus in bacterial cells.
Erb, Kraemer et al. now reveal that PhuZ filaments grow and shorten in similar ways to the microtubules in animal and plant cells: PhuZ proteins are rapidly added to or subtracted from just one end of the fiber. Erb, Kraemer et al. believe this is the first time dynamic instability has been confirmed in a tubulin from a cell without a nucleus.
Erb, Kraemer et al. infected bacteria with bacteriophages that use PhuZ and observed that long fibers of PhuZ form and arrange into a structure that resembles a simple form of the spindle apparatus. These structures only form if a virus has invaded a cell. During the early stages of infection, viral DNA localizes to the cell poles but rearranges at around the same time that PhuZ fibers form. At this point, the viral DNA moves towards the middle of the bacterial cell with fibers on either side of the DNA, suggesting that the fibers play a role in moving the DNA. While the fast growing ends of the fibers were shown to be highly dynamic, the other ends were stably anchored at the cell poles.
Erb, Kraemer et al. propose that this bacteriophage system may be an evolutionary ancestor of the spindle apparatus, although more work is required to confirm this.https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.03197.002
Tubulins are universally conserved GTPases that polymerize in a head to tail fashion to form filaments. They have evolved properties that allow them to assemble into a wide variety of structures with various functions and dynamics. In eukaryotes, α/β-tubulin forms large, dynamically unstable microtubules (MTs), composed of 13 protofilaments (Downing and Nogales, 1998). MTs are the essential component of many cell biological processes; one of the most familiar and well studied is the mitotic spindle required for the faithful segregation of sister chromatids in all eukaryotic cells.
MTs have a distinct growth polarity in which growing (plus) ends elongate substantially faster than minus ends (Allen and Borisy, 1974; Downing and Nogales, 1998). They are often anchored by their minus ends at specific locations in the cell known as microtubule organizing centers to facilitate mitosis, directional transport, and motility. This anchoring significantly stabilizes the MTs and lends a consistent organization to these structures (Mitchison and Kirschner, 1984b). The polarity of the filament becomes key in its ability to specifically interact with binding partners, such as the kinetochore, and for the regulation of the filaments by microtubule accessory proteins (MAPs) (Euteneuer and McIntosh, 1981; Kitamura et al., 2010). These two features allow for the rapid and effective search and capture of the sister chromatids by the MTs via dynamic instability.
Dynamic instability is defined as the stochastic switching between states of polymerization and rapid depolymerization (Mitchison and Kirschner, 1984a). The biomechanical source of this dynamic instability is the differential between the addition of new monomers into the MT lattice and the hydrolysis of the GTP bound to the beta subunit of the heterodimer. While GTP bound to the subunits in the middle of the lattice has been hydrolyzed to GDP, the tip of the growing MT is crowned by a cap of GTP-bound heterodimers (Mitchison and Kirschner, 1984a). The loss of this GTP cap facilitates a conformational change in the filaments, subsequent depolymerization and, possibly, catastrophe (Downing and Nogales, 1998).
Until now, these properties of tubulins have appeared to be unique hallmarks of eukaryotes. Some plasmid encoded bacterial actins, such as ParM and Alp7A, display dynamic instability (Garner et al., 2004; Derman et al., 2009); however, unlike MTs, ParM filaments elongate bidirectionally (Garner et al., 2004) and assemble only transiently during the relatively brief process of pushing plasmid DNA molecules apart (Campbell and Mullins, 2007). Furthermore, they are not spatially organized and assemble at random positions in the cell. Several families of bacterial tubulins have been identified that participate in cell division, DNA segregation, and viral DNA positioning (Larsen et al., 2007; Oliva et al., 2012; Meier and Goley, 2014). While TubZ has been shown to treadmill (Larsen et al., 2007), for most other prokaryotic tubulins, the type of motion the filament undergoes in vivo remains unclear. None of the bacterial tubulins have been shown to exhibit dynamic instability or other critical properties of a microtubule-based spindle.
We recently identified a family of bacteriophage tubulins, PhuZ, that play a role in spatially organizing DNA during lytic growth and thereby contribute to efficient phage production (Kraemer et al., 2012). PhuZ from Pseudomonas chlororaphis phage 201ϕ2-1 contains a tubulin fold and an extended C-terminus that forms extensive longitudinal and lateral contacts required to stabilize a unique triple stranded filament (Kraemer et al., 2012; Zehr et al., 2014). Catalytically defective PhuZ mutants lacking GTPase activity generate stable filaments and disrupt correct positioning of clusters of DNA during lytic growth (Kraemer et al., 2012). While this suggested the importance of filament dynamics, it has remained unclear how PhuZ polymers might facilitate this organization.
Here we present the first example of a prokaryotic tubulin that undergoes dynamic instability both in vitro and in vivo. In addition, the PhuZ cytoskeleton has many of the properties of eukaryotic MTs, including polarity, a GTP cap, and anchoring. These shared properties extend to the ability of both PhuZ and MTs to build a bipolar spindle for the movement of DNA. We further characterize replication of this bacteriophage, demonstrating that the infection nucleoid contains only replicating phage DNA and that nucleoid centering is independent of replication.
To gain insight into the mechanism of phage centering by PhuZ, we investigated the properties of PhuZ filaments assembled in vitro and in vivo. First, we used total internal reflection (TIRF) microscopy to visualize dynamics of purified PhuZ (Figure 1A). In the presence of GTP and a crowding agent to minimize filament diffusion, 2.5 µM PhuZ (20% Cy3-labeled, 80% unlabeled) that was otherwise unattached to PEG-coated coverslips, formed short dynamic filaments that translocated across the coverslip (Video 1, Figure 1A). Many of these filaments displayed non-uniform intensity, and annealing and severing events were also observed (Video 2), implying that many of these structures consist of at least two PhuZ filaments. The apparent motion could be the result of either diffusion near the surface or treadmilling, that is, growth at one end and depolymerization at the other. This ambiguity could be resolved by using the naturally occurring intensity variations along each filament to allow growth and shrinkage rates at each end to be quantified (n = 40) independent of any overall filament motion. This revealed that the filaments treadmill in a coordinated manner (Figure 1A), with new filament growth at one end and depolymerization at the other. Depolymerization from these minus-ends occurred at a rate of 15 ± 5 µm/min (n = 40). The large amount of heterogeneity could be due to the presence of bundles and some events being catastrophic depolymerization events from a plus-end. Thus, like MTs and actin, PhuZ filaments must be polar, with one end growing faster than the other. In a manner reminiscent of MT catastrophe, filaments were also observed to occasionally fully depolymerize (Video 3).
To better assess the dynamics and polarity of individual growing filaments, we performed two-color TIRF microscopy of Cy3-labeled PhuZ (green) growing new polymer off of Cy5-labeled and biotinylated seeds (red) in the absence of crowding agent. To make stable seeds, 2 µM PhuZ (20% Cy5, 5% biotin, 75% unlabeled) was polymerized with the non-hydrolyzable GTP analogue GMPCPP for 5 min and attached to PEG-biotin-coated coverslips via streptavidin. After 2 min, the flow chamber was subsequently washed with TIRF buffer (See ‘Materials and methods’) to remove unattached filaments, free monomers, and GMPCPP. Cy3-labelled PhuZ (20% Cy3, 80% unlabeled) and GTP were then added to the chamber to initiate dynamic filament formation, and dynamics were monitored at 0.25-s intervals for 100 s (Video 4, Figure 1B–D). To ensure that Cy3-PhuZ filaments would only grow from the preformed Cy5-PhuZ seeds, Cy3-PhuZ was added to the flow chamber at a concentration (1.5 µM) below the critical concentration (2.5 µM). The movies indicate that PhuZ filaments possess a distinct kinetic polarity, with growth only seen from one end, highlighted in Figure 1. This is similar to, but more asymmetric than MTs(Bergen and Borisy, 1980). The Cy3-PhuZ filaments elongated at a rate of 1.9 ± 0.1 µm/min at 1.5 µM, (n = 40). This rate, when normalized for concentration, is equivalent to the growth rate of ParM filaments(Garner et al., 2004), and about 6-fold faster than growing MTs(Hyman et al., 1992; Gupta et al., 2002; Bode et al., 2003) (Table 1). After a random period of time, growing PhuZ filaments were observed to switch to rapid disassembly (Video 4, Figure 1C,D) and completely depolymerize. The remaining stabilized GMPCPP Cy5-PhuZ seed could then nucleate another round of polymerization. As shown in the kymographs (Figure 1D), filament depolymerization always (n = 40) went to completion and proceeded at an average rate of 108 ± 20 µm/min. This rate of catastrophic depolymerization is comparable to rates observed for yeast tubulin (103 µm/min)(Gupta et al., 2002; Bode et al., 2003), but is an order of magnitude faster than that of either mammalian tubulin or ParM (13, 9.4 µm/min, respectively)(Hyman et al., 1992; Garner et al., 2004). The GMPCPP Cy5-seeds formed stable filaments that never disassembled (Video 4, Figure 1C,D), showing that, as with MTs, dynamic instability of PhuZ filaments requires the energy of GTP hydrolysis. PhuZ is the first prokaryotic tubulin known to display dynamic instability.
The dynamic instability observed by TIRF suggests that filament behavior is tightly coupled to nucleotide hydrolysis. Examination of the polymerization kinetics of a catalytically inactive mutant (D190A-PhuZ) by right-angle light scattering (Figure 2A) revealed that the critical concentration (320 ± 20 nM) was about 10-fold lower than the 2.5 µM previously measured for wild-type PhuZ (Kraemer et al., 2012; Zehr et al., 2014). This difference is likely due to the competition between the rate of hydrolysis during transient association of longitudinal dimers (proportional to [PhuZ] (Allen and Borisy, 1974)) with the rate of assembly of hexameric nuclei (proportional to [PhuZ] (Mitchison and Kirschner, 1984a)) as well as contributions from filament turnover at steady-state due to nucleotide hydrolysis by wild-type PhuZ. Unlike wild-type PhuZ, D190A-PhuZ polymerization curves show a linear phase after the initial growth phase (Figure 2A), likely due to increased bundling of these non-dynamic filaments. Compared with tubulin, whose GDP critical concentration is about 10x higher than with GTP (Mitchison and Kirschner, 1984a; Caplow et al., 1994), PhuZ is even more discriminating, with no polymerization detectable with GDP at PhuZ concentrations as high as 200 µM (Figure 2C). D190A-PhuZ also requires GTP for polymerization (Figure 2D).
While the polymer cannot form with GDP, GTP is rapidly hydrolyzed in the filament body to GDP. To test the stability of the GDP-PhuZ lattice, excess GDP was spiked into wild type or D190A-PhuZ polymerization reactions having 100 µM GTP (Figure 2B). Upon addition of GDP, wild-type PhuZ rapidly depolymerized, with no observable polymer detected ∼1 min post GDP addition, while no appreciable depolymerization was observed with D190A-PhuZ (Figure 2B). Due to the rapid GTP hydrolysis within the lattice, only the most recently added monomers at the plus-end of the filament contain GTP. Thus, the observed rapid depolymerization after adding GDP implies the existence of a stabilizing GTP-cap that is lost upon GDP addition. The stability observed with D190A-PhuZ demonstrates that the nucleotide state of the penultimate PhuZs must be determining filament stability and not the state of the exchangeable most plus-end monomer. These observations help explain the catastrophic depolymerizations observed in our movies as the result of stochastic loss of the cap due to nucleotide hydrolysis in one or more plus end monomers.
To determine if PhuZ displays the microtubule-like properties in vivo that were observed in vitro (unidirectional growth, dynamic instability), we visualized GFP-PhuZ filaments in Pseudomonas chlororaphis cells using rapid time-lapse microscopy. To permit fluorescent labeling and visualization, P. chlororaphis cells were grown on agarose pads containing arabinose to induce production of GFP tagged PhuZ expressed from a plasmid. When GFP-PhuZ was expressed in the absence of phage infection, but at concentrations comparable to that occurring during an infection, short filaments were formed (average length of 0.9 µm, n = 1260) throughout the cell (Figure 3A,D). In time-lapse microscopy, these filaments displayed dynamic instability, undergoing periods of polymerization and depolymerization (Figure 3B,C). GFP-PhuZ filaments were not specifically localized (Figure 3D) but instead polymerized and depolymerized at positions throughout the cells, as shown by kymographs of fluorescence intensity throughout a 60 s window (Figure 3C). In contrast, a catalytically inactive mutant of PhuZ (PhuZD190A (Kraemer et al., 2012)) is abolished for filament dynamics (Figure 3E). Overall, the dynamic properties of the in vivo assembled filaments of uninfected cells were similar to the results obtained in vitro and filaments displayed no particular organization or strong preference for any region of the cell.
Upon infection of P. chlororaphis cells with phage 201ϕ2-1, PhuZ assembled long filaments that extended approximately half the length of the cell, with an average length of 2.0 µm (n = 780). As shown in Figure 4A, B, Figure 5A and Video 5, PhuZ formed a spindle-like structure in which a pair of bundled filaments emanated from a single location at each cell pole and extended toward the infection nucleoid at midcell. Filaments of the phage spindle were highly dynamic and could be observed to polymerize and depolymerize (Figures 4B, 5A, 5C, 5E, Video 5). Dynamics (both polymerization and depolymerization) always occurred on the nucleoid side, with the ends nearest the cell poles appearing relatively static (Figures 4B and 5A). While filaments in uninfected cells were located at positions throughout the cell (Figure 3D, n = 108), the spindle vertex was almost always (83%, n = 61) stably associated with the extreme pole of the cell (Figure 4C). Kymographs of filament position over time in infected cells (Figure 4B) suggest that the spindle vertex continuously occupies the cell poles and that the spindle arms reach toward but do not cross the central cavity of the cell occupied by the infection nucleoid. Comparisons of filament length over time in kymographs (Figures 3C and 4B) and the average length change per unit time (Figure 5E) between uninfected and infected cells suggest a stabilization of the PhuZ filament in the presence of the phage. Although our resolution does not allow us to rule out filament or bundle growth at the vertex of the spindle, one interpretation of these results is that the stabilized minus ends of the filaments are located at the cell pole during phage infection while the dynamically unstable plus ends extend toward the infection nucleoid.
To further understand how PhuZ participates in development and centering of the infection nucleoid and to determine the composition of the DNA in this structure, we followed infection nucleoid formation via fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Using probes complementary to either phage DNA (Cy3) or host chromosomal DNA (Cy5) (Figure 6A), we showed that host chromosomal DNA is degraded by 40 min post infection and that the nucleoid formed during phage infection is composed entirely of phage DNA. We never observed co-localization of the two probe signals. All cells with a phage nucleoid were positive for phage probe binding (Figure 6B).
To assess the dynamics of the phage DNA in live cells, we observed infected wild type (WT) cells grown on agarose pads containing the nonspecific vital DNA stain Syto16. Upon phage infection, host DNA disappears concomitant with the appearance of a focus of phage DNA, which first appears near one cell pole in 75% of infected cells (n = 155) (Video 6 and Video 7, Figure 7A). Over time, the small circular mass of phage DNA increases in size and migrates toward the cell midpoint (Figure 7A,B). After arrival at midcell, the phage nucleoid oscillates slightly about the central axis (Figure 7C,D), suggesting that the nucleoid continues to experience positioning forces. This oscillatory movement is reminiscent of eukaryotic chromosomes lined up at midcell by the mitotic spindle. In contrast to eukaryotes, where DNA replication is temporally separated from segregation, the phage nucleoid continued to increase in mass as it moved toward midcell, suggesting that DNA replication and positioning occur simultaneously.
The infection nucleoid is composed solely of phage DNA (Figure 6), increases in size (replicates) as it moves toward midcell (Figure 7) and is likely the site of genome encapsidation (Kraemer et al., 2012). We therefore sought to test whether replication was required, directly or indirectly, for phage DNA movement. At various points during infection we added a potent DNA gyrase inhibitor (ciprofloxacin) that blocks replication of DNA in a broad spectrum of bacteria, plasmids and phage (Alonso et al., 1981; Constantinou et al., 1986; Fisher et al., 1989). While ciprofloxacin reduced phage nucleoid size as expected, indicating a reduced accumulation of DNA (Figure 8A), it had no effect on its positioning at midcell, suggesting that DNA replication was not required for the centering function of the PhuZ spindle (Figure 8B). By contrast, interfering with PhuZ filament dynamics has a marked affect on phage DNA positioning (Kraemer et al., 2012).
The ability of intrinsically polarized and dynamically unstable MTs to be anchored, stabilized, and regulated allows these filaments to be harnessed by the eukaryotic cell to perform key organizational tasks. It has been argued that the spatiotemporal organization of the cytoskeleton by organizing centers may be a defining characteristic of eukaryotes (Theriot, 2013). However, the prokaryotic cell also utilizes cytoskeletal proteins to organize internal space and efficiently execute essential life processes. Now we demonstrate that even entities often considered ‘non-living’, such as bacteriophage, can exploit the advantages of a well-defined cytoskeletal organization to faithfully propagate themselves.
We have shown that the tubulin PhuZ polymerizes into a filament that is intrinsically polar and dynamically unstable and that in vivo it is anchored and stabilized at the cell poles. Furthermore, it assembles into a bipolar spindle that more than superficially resembles its eukaryotic counterpart. The PhuZ spindle appears to play a key role in organizing viral reproduction by positioning the phage nucleoid at midcell (Figure 9). Since polar localization is phage infection-dependent, we hypothesize that a phage protein (depicted as purple triangles in Figure 9) is necessary for the organization of the spindle. Based on our long time lapse movies of complete infection cycles, a transition must occur between early un-localized pre-existing filaments to the localized polar structures seen in late infection, suggesting a clear role for anchoring. Whether the putative phage polar protein also acts to nucleate de novo filament formation or facilitate bundling is unclear. We propose that early during infection, the dynamically unstable ends of PhuZ polymers (plus ends, by analogy with tubulin) specifically interact with and move the replicating phage DNA, presumably by applying pushing forces, although this movement is independent of replication.
Tubulins in bacteria have been studied intensively for nearly 25 years. To date, prokaryotic tubulins have either been demonstrated to treadmill (Larsen et al., 2007) (TubZ) or the relevant filament movement remains an unresolved matter (FtsZ). This apparent switch in the type of functional movement displayed by prokaryotic tubulins versus eukaryotic ones had posed an intriguing question—why don't bacterial tubulins undergo dynamic instability? We now know that some of them do and this particular type of biomechanics may inherently lend itself to the formation of complex structures for the search and capture of large masses of DNA.
PhuZ appears to be unique from other prokaryotic systems implicated in DNA positioning in prokaryotes. The tubulin based plasmid segregation system TubZ has not been shown to display dynamic instability (Larsen et al., 2007; Chen and Erickson, 2008). TubZ assembles two and four-stranded polymers (Montabana and Agard, 2014) in contrast to the dynamically unstable triple stranded filaments of PhuZ (Zehr et al., 2014). Several actin based plasmid segregation systems display dynamic instability in vitro and in vivo, but unlike PhuZ, these proteins only transiently assemble spindles that rapidly push copies of their plasmids to the cell poles (Moller-Jensen et al., 2002, 2003; Garner et al., 2004; Campbell and Mullins, 2007; Derman et al., 2009; Sengupta et al., 2010). Proteins belonging to the highly conserved ParA ATPase family segregate plasmids, chromosomes, and protein complexes in a variety of organisms (Gerdes et al., 2010; Schumacher, 2012; Kiekebusch and Thanbichler, 2014). ParA proteins have been proposed to form ATP dependent concentration gradients or other intracellular structures as they carry out these diverse functions, but none of them form dynamically unstable polymers similar to PhuZ (Lim et al., 2014; Vecchiarelli et al., 2014). Clearly, bacteria and their mobile genetic elements have evolved an enormous number of nucleotide hydrolyzing, self-assembling, DNA positioning machines. This raises the question as to whether any eukaryotic cells have inherited one of these many ancient DNA positioning mechanisms.
All eukaryotic cells are thought to utilize a mitotic spindle to ensure accurate inheritance of sister chromatids to the daughter cells, but it has long been a mystery how such a complicated structure might have evolved. The first function of the eukaryotic spindle is to line up replicated chromatids at the midline of the dividing cell. Our discovery of a bacteriophage that assembles a similar structure raises the possibility that bipolar spindles arose more than once by convergent evolution taking advantage of the unique properties of tubulin polymers. Alternatively, it is also possible that phage hijacked the mitotic spindle from an ancient eukaryotic cell. However, since bacteria and phage are thought to predate eukaryotic life, an intriguing possibility is that the mitotic spindle first evolved in a bacteriophage for the purpose of positioning viral DNA during lytic growth and was later co-opted for positioning chromosomal DNA in the progenitor of the first eukaryotic cell. One can imagine that a primordial tubulin evolved to form filaments of increasing biochemical, structural, and functional complexity, beginning with single stranded protofilaments (FtsZ) required for cell division (Erickson et al., 1996; Meier and Goley, 2014). These then evolved into multi-stranded filaments capable of segregating plasmid DNA (TubZ) (Larsen et al., 2007; Chen and Erickson, 2008; Aylett et al., 2010; Oliva et al., 2012; Montabana and Agard, 2014) and centering viral DNA (PhuZ). The increased structural and biochemical complexity, including an increase in the number of protofilaments, would allow the lattice to become more cooperative and provide a greater difference between growth and nucleation rates. This in turn would allow the lattice to become more metastable, thereby storing the greater energy necessary for more complex functions within the lattice.
Bacterial tubulin homologs have proven as essential to prokaryotic cell biology as to eukaryotes, and as such, it is not totally unexpected that the advantages conferred upon a cell or virus by the ability to build complex tubulin based structures would also be selected for and shared across kingdoms.
Wild-type and KCK-PhuZ were expressed and purified as previously reported (Kraemer et al., 2012). D190A-PhuZ was purified by an altered protocol to minimize polymerization. Cultures were lysed in a buffer containing 500 mM KCl, 2 mM EDTA, 10% glycerol, 15 mM thioglycerol, and 50 mM HEPES, pH 8 and cleared at 35k xg. 0.1 vol of DOWEX resin were then added to the clarified lysate to remove nucleotide. The sample was then spun at 38,000 RPM in a Ti45 rotor (Beckman Coulter, Pasadena, CA) to remove the resin and residual aggregates. D190A-PhuZ was then purified by Ni-affinity chromatography using an EDTA-resistant Ni-resin (Roche, Switzerland). The 6× His-tag was cleaved with thrombin protease and EDTA was dialyzed out, and the protein was subsequently purified by gel filtration (Superdex 200) in a buffer containing 250 mM KCl, 1 mM MgCl2, 10% glycerol, 15 mM thioglycerol, and 50 mM HEPES, pH 8. Prior to experiments, all constructs were spun at 80,000 RPM in a TLA100 rotor (Beckman) at 4°C for 20 min.
Thioglycerol was removed from KCK-tagged protein by a Zeba column (Pierce) equilibrated with buffer with no reducing agent. A 2-fold molar excess of dye, Cy3- or Cy5-maleimide (GE, Fairfield, CT), or biotin-maleimide (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) was added and incubated for 15 min at 25°C. 50 mM DTT was added to quench the reaction and the reaction was spun at 80,000 RPM in a TLA100 rotor (Beckman) to remove aggregates. To remove excess dye and non-functional protein, labeled PhuZ was exchanged into BRB80 pH 7.2 in by a Zeba column (Pierce, Rockford, IL), polymerized by the addition of 5 mM GTP, and pelleted at 80,000 RPM in a TLA100 rotor (Beckman). Non-polymerized protein was removed, and the pellet was resuspended in a depolymerization buffer (500 mM KCl, 1 mM MgCl2, 15 mM thioglycerol, 10% glycerol, 50 mM HEPES pH 8) on ice for 1.5 hr. Labeled protein was buffer exchanged into BRB80 pH 7.2 and stored.
Slides were prepared using a modified protocol from Bieling et al. (2007). 24 × 40 mm coverslips (VWR, Radnor, PA) were sonicated in 2 M KOH for 30 min. Slides were then washed three times with H2O and sonicated in piranha solution (2 parts 30% H2O2, 3 parts H2SO4) for 30 min. Slides were subsequently washed three times with H2O and spun dry. Slides were silanized by making sandwiches with a drop of GOPTS (Sigma) and baked for 1 hr at 75°C. Sandwiches were separated and washed in dry isopropanol (Sigma), and spun dry. 30 μl of a saturated PEG-SEV acetone solution (1% biotin-PEG-SEV) (Laysan, Arab, AL) were added to silanized slides, and sandwiches were baked for 4 hr at 75°C. Sandwiches were separated in H2O, sonicated for 5 min, spun dry, and stored in the dark.
Flow chambers were made using double-sided tape. For single color experiments, the chamber was washed three times with imaging buffer (BRB80 pH 7.2 supplemented with 100 mM KCl, 0.5% BSA, 0.5% methylcellulose, and 40 mM βme). 4 mM GTP was added to 2.5 μM Cy3-PhuZ (80% wild-type, 20% Cy3-labeled) in imaging buffer, flowed into the chamber, and subsequently imaged. Images were acquired at a 0.5 s interval on an Andor CCD camera.
For two-color imaging, chambers were washed three times with imaging buffer (supplemented with a GLOX system to minimize photobleaching), followed by 5 min incubation with neutravadin. Chambers were then washed three more times with imaging buffer to remove unbound neutravadin. 200 μM GMPCPP was added to 2 μM Cy5-PhuZ (75% wild-type, 20% Cy5, 5% biotin) to induce polymerization. After 5 min on ice, Cy5-PhuZ-GMPCPP seeds were added to the chamber. After 2 min, the chamber was washed three times with imaging buffer to remove any seeds not adhered to the cover slip. 4 mM GTP was added to 1.5 μM Cy3-PhuZ (80% wild-type, 20% Cy3), added to the chamber, and imaged at a 0.25 s interval.
Right angle light scattering was conducted by mixing D190A-PhuZ with BRB80 pH 7.2 containing GTP using a stop-flow system designed in-house. An excitation wavelength of 530 nm was used. The critical concentration was determined by plotting the maximum intensity vs PhuZ concentration. The x-intercept of this plot was used as the critical concentration.
For nucleotide spiking experiments, protein and buffer were mixed 1:1 (150 μl reactions) by hand and polymerization was followed by right angle light scattering. Upon reaching plateau, 10 μl of GDP or buffer was added.
5 mM GDP or GTP was added to PhuZ protein and, after 5 min, samples were spun at 80,000 RPM in a TLA100 rotor (Beckman) for 20 min at 25°C. Supernatants were carefully removed and the pellet was resuspended in 1× gel loading buffer. Samples from the supernatant and pellet were then run on a 10% SDS-PAGE gel and stained with Simple Blue (Life Technologies).
Pseudomonas chlororaphis cells were grown on 1% agarose pads supplemented with 25% Luria broth, 1 µg/ml FM4-64, and when appropriate, either 0.5 µM Syto 16 or 5 µg/ml DAPI as described (Kraemer et al., 2012). For phage infections, 5 µl of phage lysate (108 pfu/ml) was applied to the cells, a coverslip was added, and images were captured using a DeltaVision Spectris Deconvolution microscope (Applied Precision, Issaquah, WA). GFP-PhuZ was expressed in strain ME41 (Kraemer et al., 2012) from the arabinose promoter by including arabinose within the pad at a concentration ranging from 0 to 2%, as indicated.
P. chlororaphis cells were grown on a 1% agarose pad, infected with 5 µl of phage 201ϕ2-1 lysate (108 pfu/ml) and at various times (8, 20, 40 70 min) after infection fixed with glutaraldehyde (0.025%) and paraformaldehyde (16%). Fixed cells were processed for hybridization as described (Ho et al., 2002). Briefly, cells were washed in PBS, blocked at 75°C for 2 min with 70% formamide, 2× SSC, 1 mg/ml Salmon sperm DNA, washed one time each with 70%, 90%, and 100% ethanol, and allowed to dry. Cells were then treated with 50% formamide, 2× SSC for 5 min at 23°C, probe was added, and then heated at 94°C for 2 min, and then hybridized at 42°C overnight. DNA probes specific for the host P. chlororaphis chromosomal DNA or phage 201ϕ2-1 DNA were prepared by first digesting total P. chlororaphis chromosomal DNA or total phage 201ϕ2-1 DNA with a set of enzymes (Bsp1286 I, HhaI, HpyCH4 III, Hpy188 I, Nla III), and then labeling the ends with Cy3-dCTP or Cy5-dCTP using terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase.
Pseudomonas chlororaphis cells were grown on 1% agarose pads supplemented with 25% Luria broth, 1 µg/ml FM4-64, and 5 µg/ml DAPI. After 2 hr of cell growth at 30°C, 5 µl of phage lysate (108 pfu/ml) was applied to the cells, and infection was allowed to proceed for 80 min at 30°C. 5 µl of ciprofloxacin (2 µg/ml) was added 10 min before infection, or 10, 20, 40, and 50 min after infection. After 80 min of infection, cells were fixed on the pad with glutaraldehyde (0.025%) and paraformaldehyde (16%) and then coverslips were added and the cells imaged using a DeltaVision Spectris Deconvolution microscope (Applied Precision, Issaquah, WA). As a control, a set of infections were performed in which only buffer (1 N HCl) but no ciprofloxacin was added. In addition, we also examined cells treated with ciprofloxacin but without the addition of phage. Images were analyzed using ImageJ software to quantitate DAPI intensity of the infection nucleoids and to determine the position of infection nucleoids relative to cell lengths.
Structural polarity and directional growth of microtubules of Chlamydomonas flagellaJournal of Molecular Biology 90:381–402.https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2836(74)90381-7
DNA gyrase inhibitors block development of Bacillus subtilis bacteriophage SP01Journal of Virology 39:855–860.
Filament structure of bacterial tubulin homologue TubZProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 107:19766–19771.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1010176107
Head-to-tail polymerization of microtubules in vitro. Electron microscope analysis of seeded assemblyThe Journal of Cell Biology 84:141–150.https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.84.1.141
In vivo visualization of type II plasmid segregation: bacterial actin filaments pushing plasmidsThe Journal of Cell Biology 179:1059–1066.https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200708206
In vitro assembly studies of FtsZ/tubulin-like proteins (TubZ) from Bacillus plasmids: evidence for a capping mechanismThe Journal of Biological Chemistry 283:8102–8109.https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M709163200
Involvement of host DNA gyrase in growth of bacteriophage T5Journal of Virology 57:875–882.
Bacterial cell division protein FtsZ assembles into protofilament sheets and minirings, structural homologs of tubulin polymersProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 93:519–523.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.1.519
Structural polarity of kinetochore microtubules in PtK1 cellsThe Journal of Cell Biology 89:338–345.https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.89.2.338
Ciprofloxacin and the fluoroquinolones. New concepts on the mechanism of action and resistanceThe American Journal of Medicine 87:2S–8S.https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9343(89)90010-7
beta-Tubulin C354 mutations that severely decrease microtubule dynamics do not prevent nuclear migration in yeastMolecular Biology of the Cell 13:2919–2932.https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E02-01-0003
Role of GTP hydrolysis in microtubule dynamics: information from a slowly hydrolyzable analogue, GMPCPPMolecular Biology of the Cell 3:1155–1167.https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.3.10.1155
Spatiotemporal organization of microbial cells by protein concentration gradientsTrends in Microbiology 22:65–73.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2013.11.005
Form and function of the bacterial cytokinetic ringCurrent Opinion in Cell Biology 26:19–27.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceb.2013.08.006
Prokaryotic DNA segregation by an actin-like filamentThe EMBO Journal 21:3119–3127.https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/cdf320
Bacterial tubulin TubZ-Bt transitions between a two-stranded intermediate and a four-stranded filament upon GTP hydrolysisProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 111:3407–3412.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1318339111
Tubulin homolog TubZ in a phage-encoded partition systemProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 109:7711–7716.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1121546109
Bacterial plasmid partition machinery: a minimalist approach to survivalCurrent Opinion in Structural Biology 22:72–79.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2011.11.001
P1 plasmid segregation: accurate redistribution by dynamic plasmid pairing and separationJournal of Bacteriology 192:1175–1183.https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.01245-09
A propagating ATPase gradient drives transport of surface-confined cellular cargoProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 111:4880–4885.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1401025111
Dynamic instability of individual microtubules analyzed by video light microscopy: rate constants and transition frequenciesThe Journal of Cell Biology 107:1437–1448.https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.107.4.1437
Jodi NunnariReviewing Editor; University of California, Davis, United States
eLife posts the editorial decision letter and author response on a selection of the published articles (subject to the approval of the authors). An edited version of the letter sent to the authors after peer review is shown, indicating the substantive concerns or comments; minor concerns are not usually shown. Reviewers have the opportunity to discuss the decision before the letter is sent (see review process). Similarly, the author response typically shows only responses to the major concerns raised by the reviewers.
Thank you for sending your work entitled “A Bacteriophage Tubulin Harnesses Dynamic Instability to Center DNA in Infected Cells” for consideration at eLife. Your article has been evaluated by Richard Losick (Senior editor), a Reviewing editor, and 2 reviewers.
As you will see from the appended reviewers' comments, there was a high level of interest in your study describing how a bacteriophage tubulin creates spindle-like structures in bacteria to position phage DNA. However, the reviewers felt that key data fell short of supporting your model and thus revisions are required before the manuscript is suitable for publication. Specifically, conclusions regarding dynamic instability and organization of filaments in spindle-like structures of infected cells made on the basis filament tracking data require substantiation. Reviewer 2 makes specific suggestions of alternative image analysis strategies that could address these concerns. Both reviewers also made other excellent suggestions that will improve the quality/clarity of the manuscript that should be considered.
This interesting paper from Erb, Kraemer et al reports the dynamic properties of a tubulin isotype, PhuZ, encoded by the genome of a bacteriophage that infects Pseudomonas chlororaphis bacteria. The authors report that filaments of PhuZ, like eukaryotic MTs, display dynamic instability in vivo and in vitro, and that within the bacterial cell during lytic infection, they assemble into a spindle-like structure capable of using free energy released by PhuZ polymerization to generate polar-ejection forces that push the replicating phage DNA to the center of the bacterial cell. I think this is a well-written, succinct, scientifically sound and interesting study. My only minor concern is the extent to which it advances what was published in their Cell paper, but on balance I think it does represent a sufficiently significant advance, and accordingly I recommend publication in eLife. I have only minor suggestions for the authors to consider:
1) It would be useful to present a small summary table comparing the four parameters of dynamic instability (i.e. growth rate, shrinkage rate, catastrophe frequency and rescue frequency) displayed by the phage tubulin compared to eukaryotic tubulins.
2) Figure 7 shows a drawing that depicts some type of PhuZ organizing center that anchors the minus ends at the poles of the cell. What is the evidence for this, and are there any molecular candidates for this function (in the Shapiro lab model for the ParA spindle, TipN fulfills this function)?
3) I think the discussion would be more interesting if the authors noted that other workers have also proposed the existence of spindle-like structures that are responsible for prokaryotic DNA segregation, e.g. by using actin-like filament depolymerase motors to mediate plasmid segregation e.g. Ptacin et al, 2010, Nat Cell Biol. 12:791. Moreover, other workers have proposed that bacterial cytoskeleton-mediated plasmid segregation may utilize a chemical gradient mechanisms rather than polymer ratchet mechanisms e.g. Vecchiarelli et al, 2014, PNAS, 111:4880.
This paper reports analysis of polymerization dynamics of a tubulin-like protein from a bacteriophage using TIRF microscopy of pure protein and in vivo imaging. The conclusions of the paper are overall exciting, in that the authors report dynamic instability of individual filaments, and a structure resembling a bipolar mitotic spindle in infected cells. Dynamic instability of a bacterial polymer is not new, but the spindle-like organization is, and it’s very interesting. Thus, the paper may be suited for eLife. That said, the paper tries to cover a lot of ground, and the most important conclusions are not sufficiently supported by the data provided. In particular, important claims made on the basis of single filament tracking in living cells seem to be serious over-interpretations because the images provided do not convincingly demonstrate that single filament tracking is possible in living cell. The large degree of over-interpretation of the in vivo imaging data that support the most interesting aspects of the paper's conclusion make the current paper unsuited for publication.
1) The most interesting aspect of the paper is the claim of spindle-like organization in infected cells, and dynamic instability of polarized filaments selectively at the center of the cell. This part of the paper is not adequately supported by the data provided. The individual filament traces in Figure 3 G, H are unconvincing, with lots of datapoints consisting of a single point that goes up or down compared to a trendline. This could be noise. The images in Figure 2A, J and visual inspection of the movies provided suggests tracking of individual filament ends may not be possible using the current microscopy methods. The tracking data and movies appear broadly consistent with the hypothesis provided by the authors, but given the difficulty of convincing single filament tracking, these data have been seriously over-interpreted in the text.
Another strong statement in the text that is not adequately supported by the data is that the filaments are arranged in a bipolar manner, with all fluctuating ends oriented towards the center of the cell. Again, the movies are visually consistent with such an interpretation, but they fall well short of proving it, as implied in the text. Filaments in infected cells appear tightly bundled near the poles, which would make is difficult to detect fluctuations in length of individual filaments there. The imaging in the center of the cell is too imprecise to convincingly detect non-fluctuating ends, or even convincingly track fluctuating ends. The authors’ model or polarized organization is attractive, but they seriously over-interpret the data in trying to support it.
2) The pure filament studies convincingly demonstrate both highly polarized net assembly, leading to treadmilling of uncapped filaments, and dynamic instability of free ends of the kind that prefer to grow; let's call them plus ends. This is very nice data. However, in interpreting the in vivo imaging, the authors seem to ignore the possibility of minus ends shrinking. In uninfected cells, shouldn't we see some minus end shrinkage? In infected cells, their cartoon model puts in some kind of nucleating site/cap at poles that orients filaments and caps minus ends. But there is no strong support for this nucleating site from the in vivo imaging data. The text states that filaments are randomly oriented in uninfected cells, and bipolar in infected, but this large difference in organization is not well supported by the data provided.
Points 1) and 2) could perhaps be addressed by some kind of quantitative image analysis that focused less on single filament tracking, which is frankly unconvincing, and more on other kinds of fluctuation analysis. For example, a spatial map of temporal variance might demonstrate in a convincing manner that fluctuations are located at random positions in uninfected cells, and concentrated at the center in infected cells. Difference imaging; subtracting frame n- from frame n- might also be beneficial in analyzing where in the cell polymerization dynamics occur. Difference imaging sometimes allows detection of fluctuations even in densely packed regions like the poles. A spatial map of average signal in difference images, which is related to an analysis of temporal variance, could be useful to map the positions in a cell where length change is occurring. More critical interpretation of imaging data is also essential. The authors must distinguish much more precisely between experimental observation and model. It's fine to propose a model that is not completely proven, but is consistent with the data. It is not ok to make statements about what has been observed when the data do not support those statements. It may be the case that the authors will have to argue their model without use of single filament tracking in vivo, if such tracking is simply unconvincing or impossible, as suggested by the current Movies and Figures.
3) Figure 6 is not very relevant to the main point of the paper, and the result could be mentioned in words only. In general, the paper jumps around a lot, and would benefit from more thorough analysis of polymerization dynamics, both in vitro and (especially) in vivo, and less distraction from analysis of DNA.https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.03197.020
- Joe Pogliano
- David A Agard
- David A Agard
- David A Agard
- Joe Pogliano
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
We thank members of the Agard and Pogliano labs for invaluable discussions, especially Daniel Elnatan for TIRF microscopy assistance. We also thank members of the Mullins lab for TIRF advice. The OMX and Light Microscopy Facility at UCSD is funded by grant NS047101. We thank Jennifer Santini for her invaluable help with the OMX. JAK. was supported by the Genentech Foundation Predoctoral Fellowship and the Achievement Rewards for College Scientists Foundation Award. This work was supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (DAA.) and National Institutes of Health grants R01GM073898 (JP), GM031627 (DAA), and GM104556 (JP and DAA).
- Jodi Nunnari, Reviewing Editor, University of California, Davis, United States
- Received: May 4, 2014
- Accepted: October 22, 2014
- Version of Record published: November 27, 2014 (version 1)
© 2014, Erb et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.