1. Cell Biology
  2. Evolutionary Biology
Download icon

Phylogenomics: Leaving negative ancestors behind

  1. Sergio A Muñoz-Gómez  Is a corresponding author
  2. Andrew J Roger  Is a corresponding author
  1. Dalhousie University, Canada
Insight
  • Cited 2
  • Views 2,635
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2016;5:e20061 doi: 10.7554/eLife.20061

Abstract

Bacteria with a single cell membrane have evolved from ancestors with two membranes on multiple occasions within the Firmicutes phylum.

Main text

For more than a century bacteriologists have used the Gram stain reaction to classify bacteria. The Gram stain is a violet-colored dye that is retained by Gram-positive bacteria but not by Gram-negative bacteria. These different reactions to the stain reflect fundamental differences in the cell envelopes of these bacteria: Gram-positive bacteria usually have a single cell membrane that is encased by a thick wall made of a polymer called peptidoglycan, whereas Gram-negative bacteria tend to have two membranes with a thin wall of peptidoglycan sandwiched between them.

The tree of life contains about 30 bacterial phyla, but only three of them contain bacteria that are surrounded by a single cell membrane, which are also known as “monoderms”. The remaining phyla contain bacteria with two cell membranes, and most of these “diderms” have large molecules called lipopolysaccharides (LPS) in their outer membranes. However, at least two phyla comprise diderms that do not have LPS.

The evolutionary relationships between monoderms and diderms have remained uncertain for many years. It is generally thought that the monodermic cell plan evolved from the more complex didermic cell plan in a single simplification event (see, for example, Cavalier-Smith, 2006). However, it is possible that diderms could have evolved from monoderms (Dawes, 1981; Tocheva, 2011). Now, in eLife, Simonetta Gribaldo of the Institut Pasteur and co-workers – including Luísa Antunes and Daniel Poppleton as joint first authors – report that monodermic bacteria evolved from ancestral didermic bacteria not once but multiple times by losing the outer membrane from their cell envelopes (Antunes et al., 2016).

Antunes et al. focused on the Firmicutes, a phylum that contains a mixture of monoderms and diderms. By analyzing the genomes of more than 200 members of the phylum, they showed that the two didermic groups – the Negativicutes and the Halanaerobiales – are not each other's closest relatives and are, instead, more closely related to one or more of the monodermic groups. Furthermore, they demonstrate that the biosynthetic machinery for synthesizing their LPS has not been transferred between them nor acquired from elsewhere. Instead, the outer membrane of the didermic firmicutes appears to have been inherited vertically from a distant ancestor. These results suggest that the monodermic firmicutes evolved at least five times from an ancestral and more complex didermic cell plan (Figure 1).

Evolution of the Firmicutes phylum. 

(A) Didermic firmicutes have a cytoplasmic membrane (shown in blue), a peptidoglycan cell wall (gray) and an outer membrane (green), whereas monodermic firmicutes have a cytoplasmic membrane and a peptidoglycan cell wall, but no outer membrane. Antunes et al. show that the ancestral didermic cell plan of the Firmicutes phylum has been lost at least five times. Most lineages lost their outer membranes to become monoderms (thick gray lines), but the Negativicutes and the Halanaerobiales retained the ancestral didermic cell plan (thick green lines). (B) Major transitions between bacterial cell plans within the Firmicutes phylum. Ancestral sporulating diderms (similar to the Negativicutes and the Halanaerobiales) convergently gave rise to classical sporulating monoderms (e.g., Bacillus and Clostridium), which lost the capacity to form endospores in some linages (e.g., Lactobacillus). Endospores are shown as cells within cells.

Comparative analyses of the genomes of Negativicutes and Halanaerobiales also allowed Antunes et al. to make inferences about the nature and evolution of their didermic envelopes. Notably, and unusually, most of the genes required for the biogenesis of the outer membrane clustered in a large genomic region in both groups. Moreover, these two groups have envelope appendages (such as flagella and pili) that resemble the envelope appendages of other diderms (in other phyla) more than they resemble those of their close monodermic relatives. Finally, didermic firmicutes appear to retain ancestral systems for the biogenesis of their outer membranes.

The root of the bacterial tree of life remains a mystery and we do not know whether the last common ancestor of all bacteria was a monoderm or a diderm, and whether it produced endospores or not. It is reasonable to assume that the classical diderms that contain LPS have a single origin (Sutcliffe, 2010; Tocheva et al., 2016; Sutcliffe and Dover, 2016), and that they plausibly evolved via an endospore released by an ancestral monoderm (Dawes, 1981; Vollmer, 2012; Tocheva et al., 2011). And now the work of Antunes et al. suggests that most Firmicutes lineages became secondarily monodermic on multiple occasions. Is the same true for the Actinobacteria and the Chloroflexi, the other two phyla that contain monoderms? It is also noteworthy that the three monodermic phyla tend to cluster in many analyses, and are relatively close to the presumed root of the bacterial tree of life (Raymann et al., 2015; Hug et al., 2016), although resolution remains poor at the deepest phylogenetic levels. A more robust phylogenetic framework for bacteria is needed to make sense of these observations.

To better understand the large-scale evolutionary history of bacteria, we need to answer why, how and when the major structural differences among the prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea) came to be. Antunes et al. have provided some answers to the last question (and also shown that a given major structural change can happen more than once), and planted the seeds to answer the first two questions with regard to the evolution of monodermic bacteria. Future biochemical, ultrastructural and genomic characterization of novel prokaryotic lineages, such as the CPR taxa (short for candidate phyla radiation taxa; Hug et al., 2016), will provide more raw material to reconstruct the phenotypic evolution of prokaryotes. The syntheses of these data, together with a robust phylogenetic tree of the prokaryotes, will no doubt provide new insights into the major changes in cell evolution and help to clarify the nature of the last common ancestor of bacteria.

References

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
    Sporulation in evolution
    1. IW Dawes
    (1981)
    In: MJ Carlile, JF Collins, BEB Moseley, editors. Cellular and Molecular Aspects of Microbial Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 85–130.
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Sergio A Muñoz-Gómez

    Centre for Comparative Genomics and Evolutionary Bioinformatics, CIFAR Program in Integrated Microbial Biodiversity and the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
    For correspondence
    sergio.munoz@dal.ca
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6200-474X
  2. Andrew J Roger

    Centre for Comparative Genomics and Evolutionary Bioinformatics, CIFAR Program in Integrated Microbial Biodiversity and the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
    For correspondence
    Andrew.Roger@Dal.Ca
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published: August 31, 2016 (version 1)
  2. Version of Record updated: September 22, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Muñoz-Gómez 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.

Metrics

  • 2,635
    Page views
  • 242
    Downloads
  • 2
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, 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. Cell Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Jacob A Zahm et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Chromosome segregation during cell division requires engagement of kinetochores of sister chromatids with microtubules emanating from opposite poles. As the corresponding microtubules shorten, these ‘bioriented’ sister kinetochores experience tension-dependent stabilization of microtubule attachments. The yeast XMAP215 family member and microtubule polymerase, Stu2, associates with kinetochores and contributes to tension-dependent stabilization in vitro. We show here that a C-terminal segment of Stu2 binds the four-way junction of the Ndc80 complex (Ndc80c) and that residues conserved both in yeast Stu2 orthologs and in their metazoan counterparts make specific contacts with Ndc80 and Spc24. Mutations that perturb this interaction prevent association of Stu2 with kinetochores, impair cell viability, produce biorientation defects, and delay cell cycle progression. Ectopic tethering of the mutant Stu2 species to the Ndc80c junction restores wild-type function in vivo. These findings show that the role of Stu2 in tension-sensing depends on its association with kinetochores by binding with Ndc80c.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Haibin Yang et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Communications between actin filaments and integrin-mediated focal adhesion (FA) are crucial for cell adhesion and migration. As a core platform to organize FA proteins, the tripartite ILK/PINCH/Parvin (IPP) complex interacts with actin filaments to regulate the cytoskeleton-FA crosstalk. Rsu1, a Ras suppressor, is enriched in FA through PINCH1 and plays important roles in regulating F-actin structures. Here, we solved crystal structures of the Rsu1/PINCH1 complex, in which the leucine-rich-repeats of Rsu1 form a solenoid structure to tightly associate with the C-terminal region of PINCH1. Further structural analysis uncovered that the interaction between Rsu1 and PINCH1 blocks the IPP-mediated F-actin bundling by disrupting the binding of PINCH1 to actin. Consistently, overexpressing Rsu1 in HeLa cells impairs stress fiber formation and cell spreading. Together, our findings demonstrated that Rsu1 is critical for tuning the communication between F-actin and FA by interacting with the IPP complex and negatively modulating the F-actin bundling.