1. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
Download icon

Coordination of peptidoglycan synthesis and outer membrane constriction during Escherichia coli cell division

  1. Andrew N Gray
  2. Alexander J F Egan
  3. Inge L van't Veer
  4. Jolanda Verheul
  5. Alexandre Colavin
  6. Alexandra Koumoutsi
  7. Jacob Biboy
  8. Maarten A F Altelaar
  9. Mirjam J Damen
  10. Kerwyn Casey Huang
  11. Jean-Pierre Simorre
  12. Eefjan Breukink
  13. Tanneke den Blaauwen
  14. Athanasios Typas
  15. Carol A Gross  Is a corresponding author
  16. Waldemar Vollmer
  1. University of California, San Francisco, United States
  2. Newcastle University, United Kingdom
  3. University of Utrecht, Netherlands
  4. University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
  5. Stanford University, United States
  6. European Molecular Biology Laboratory Heidelberg, Germany
  7. Université Grenoble Alpes, France
Research Article
  • Cited 101
  • Views 5,716
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2015;4:e07118 doi: 10.7554/eLife.07118

Abstract

To maintain cellular structure and integrity during division, Gram-negative bacteria must carefully coordinate constriction of a tripartite cell envelope of inner membrane (IM), peptidoglycan (PG) and outer membrane (OM). It has remained enigmatic how this is accomplished. Here, we show that envelope machines facilitating septal PG synthesis (PBP1B-LpoB complex) and OM constriction (Tol system) are physically and functionally coordinated via YbgF, renamed CpoB (Coordinator of PG synthesis and OM constriction, associated with PBP1B). CpoB localizes to the septum concurrent with PBP1B-LpoB and Tol at the onset of constriction, interacts with both complexes, and regulates PBP1B activity in response to Tol energy state. This coordination links PG synthesis with OM invagination and imparts a unique mode of bifunctional PG synthase regulation by selectively modulating PBP1B cross-linking activity. Coordination of the PBP1B and Tol machines by CpoB contributes to effective PBP1B function in vivo and maintenance of cell envelope integrity during division.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Andrew N Gray

    Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Alexander J F Egan

    Centre for Bacterial Cell Biology, Institute for Cell and Molecular Biosciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Inge L van't Veer

    Membrane Biochemistry and Biophysics, Bijvoet Centre for Biomolecular Research, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Jolanda Verheul

    Bacterial Cell Biology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Alexandre Colavin

    Biophysics Program, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Alexandra Koumoutsi

    Genome Biology Unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Jacob Biboy

    Centre for Bacterial Cell Biology, Institute for Cell and Molecular Biosciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Maarten A F Altelaar

    Biomolecular Mass Spectrometry and Proteomics, Bijvoet Centre for Biomolecular Research, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Mirjam J Damen

    Biomolecular Mass Spectrometry and Proteomics, Bijvoet Centre for Biomolecular Research, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Kerwyn Casey Huang

    Biophysics Program, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Jean-Pierre Simorre

    Institut de Biologie Structurale, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Eefjan Breukink

    Membrane Biochemistry and Biophysics, Bijvoet Centre for Biomolecular Research, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Tanneke den Blaauwen

    Bacterial Cell Biology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Athanasios Typas

    Genome Biology Unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Carol A Gross

    Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    For correspondence
    cgrossucsf@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Waldemar Vollmer

    Centre for Bacterial Cell Biology, Institute for Cell and Molecular Biosciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Gisela Storz, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: February 20, 2015
  2. Accepted: May 6, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 7, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: May 8, 2015 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: June 8, 2015 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2015, Gray et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 5,716
    Page views
  • 1,502
    Downloads
  • 101
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Immunology and Inflammation
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Jason Neidleman et al.
    Research Article Updated

    While mRNA vaccines are proving highly efficacious against SARS-CoV-2, it is important to determine how booster doses and prior infection influence the immune defense they elicit, and whether they protect against variants. Focusing on the T cell response, we conducted a longitudinal study of infection-naïve and COVID-19 convalescent donors before vaccination and after their first and second vaccine doses, using a high-parameter CyTOF analysis to phenotype their SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells. Vaccine-elicited spike-specific T cells responded similarly to stimulation by spike epitopes from the ancestral, B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variant strains, both in terms of cell numbers and phenotypes. In infection-naïve individuals, the second dose boosted the quantity and altered the phenotypic properties of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells, while in convalescents the second dose changed neither. Spike-specific T cells from convalescent vaccinees differed strikingly from those of infection-naïve vaccinees, with phenotypic features suggesting superior long-term persistence and ability to home to the respiratory tract including the nasopharynx. These results provide reassurance that vaccine-elicited T cells respond robustly to emerging viral variants, confirm that convalescents may not need a second vaccine dose, and suggest that vaccinated convalescents may have more persistent nasopharynx-homing SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells compared to their infection-naïve counterparts.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Deike J Omnus et al.
    Research Article

    The highly conserved protease Lon has important regulatory and protein quality control functions in cells from the three domains of life. Despite many years of research on Lon, only a few specific protein substrates are known in most organisms. Here, we used a quantitative proteomics approach to identify novel substrates of Lon in the dimorphic bacterium Caulobacter crescentus. We focused our study on proteins involved in polar cell differentiation and investigated the developmental regulator StaR and the flagella hook length regulator FliK as specific Lon substrates in detail. We show that Lon recognizes these proteins at their C-termini, and that Lon-dependent degradation ensures their temporally restricted accumulation in the cell cycle phase when their function is needed. Disruption of this precise temporal regulation of StaR and FliK levels in a Δlon mutant contributes to defects in stalk biogenesis and motility, respectively, revealing a critical role of Lon in coordinating developmental processes with cell cycle progression. Our work underscores the importance of Lon in the regulation of complex temporally controlled processes by adjusting the concentrations of critical regulatory proteins. Furthermore, this study includes the first characterization of FliK in C. crescentus and uncovers a dual role of the C-terminal amino acids of FliK in protein function and degradation.