A structural switch controls the architecture of Vibrio cholerae biofilms by mediating the interactions between two matrix components.
As single-celled organisms bacteria are exposed to a variety of stresses, but their ability to form multicellular structures called biofilms helps them to grow and survive in challenging environments. In addition to offering protection against predators, antimicrobial treatments and other forms of stress, being in a biofilm also makes bacteria more effective in spreading diseases (Costerton et al., 1995).
The cells in a biofilm are embedded in an elastic matrix made of polysaccharides, DNA and proteins that have been secreted by the bacteria, and, like bricks in a wall, they are precisely organized (Drescher et al., 2016). However, in spite of its toughness, the matrix must remain permeable to nutrients and flexible so that the biofilm can continue to grow.
To achieve this, bacteria use a set of matrix proteins that are patterned in space and time (Berk et al., 2012). However, it is still unclear how these matrix proteins interact to simultaneously remain a connected and flexible multicellular structure. Now, in eLife, Carrie Partch, Fitnat Yildiz and co-workers – including Jiunn Fong of the University of California, Santa Cruz as first author – report new insights into how the architecture of the matrix of the bacterium Vibrio cholerae is regulated (Fong et al., 2017).
Despite improved and ongoing vaccination programs, V. cholerae still causes major pandemics of cholera in high-risk areas such as Yemen, where over half a million people have recently been infected, and thousands have been killed (World Health Organization, 2017a; World Health Organization, 2017b). The bacterium spreads rapidly through contaminated water sources and intestinal infections – a cycle that is promoted by the formation of biofilms.
Because the lifecycle of V. cholerae depends on switching between planktonic and biofilm states, the components of the matrix must remain dynamic. Two of the most important components are a protein called RbmA and a polysaccharide called VPS (Figure 1A; Teschler et al., 2015). Each component performs a specific role, which is partly determined by its position during the formation of the biofilm. RbmA helps cells to stick together and to form clusters, while VPS is needed to develop a three-dimensional cellular structure. In the matrix, RbmA can exist as a monomer or two RbmA proteins can combine to form a dimer (Figure 1B,C; Giglio et al., 2013). However, until now it was not known how these different states influence the architecture of the biofilm, or how RbmA forms dimers in the first place.
Fong et al. demonstrated that far from being inert, the matrix components are dynamic structures that interact with each other to maintain the biofilm architecture. Using a technique called nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, Fong et al. found that the dimers can adopt one of two conformations – an ordered loop or a disordered loop. However, only the ordered-loop conformation can enable RbmA to form the antiparallel dimers, which are less prone to degradation than the disordered-loop monomers.
Fong et al. further discovered that both the monomers and the dimers have the ability to bind to VPS. However, RbmA dimers cross-link VPS to form a more solid complex that is anchored into the matrix. When Fong et al. genetically modified RbmA to only form dimers, the proteins concentrated in the center of the matrix instead of building a stable mesh across it. This affected the mechanical properties of the matrix, and the biofilms appeared smooth with a lower cell density. However, removing RbmA led to visually similar biofilms, despite the absence of the cross-linked protein complexes.
These findings raise a plethora of questions: for example, what causes the changes in the viscous properties of the matrix – the RbmA dimer or VPS? And does the position of RbmA in the matrix cause the architectural defects in mutant biofilms? It remains unclear what triggers the formation of the RbmA dimer. One possibility may be that the increasing internal forces generated within a growing biofilm could toggle the conformational change, in a manner that is similar to other bacterial adhesion proteins (Persat et al., 2015). If this was indeed the case, the biofilm matrix could be considered as a ‘smart hydrogel’ that can modulate adhesion depending on its mechanical environment.
The study by Fong et al. builds a foundation for future studies exploring the role of further matrix components of V. cholerae and other organisms. The principles of biofilm formation might not be specific to the microbial world – other living systems also depend on the dynamic properties of their extracellular matrices. In humans, for example, the architecture and dynamics of the extracellular matrix secreted by embryonic cells tightly control how the tissue and organs develop (Rozario and DeSimone, 2010). It has also been shown that force-induced dynamic interactions between extracellular matrix components play a central role in wound healing (Kubow et al., 2015). There is clearly much that we can learn by digging deeper into the matrix.
Microbial biofilmsAnnual Review of Microbiology 49:711–745.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.mi.49.100195.003431
Structural basis for biofilm formation via the Vibrio cholerae matrix protein RbmAJournal of Bacteriology 195:3277–3286.https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00374-13
The extracellular matrix in development and morphogenesis: a dynamic viewDevelopmental Biology 341:126–140.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2009.10.026
Living in the matrix: assembly and control of Vibrio cholerae biofilmsNature Reviews Microbiology 13:255–268.https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro3433
Weekly Epidemiological Record477–500, Weekly Epidemiological Record, 92.
Cholera Counts Reaches 500 000 in YemenWorld Health Organizaition Website.
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)
Cellular aging is a multifactorial process that is characterized by a decline in homeostatic capacity, best described at the molecular level. Physicochemical properties such as pH and macromolecular crowding are essential to all molecular processes in cells and require maintenance. Whether a drift in physicochemical properties contributes to the overall decline of homeostasis in aging is not known. Here we show that the cytosol of yeast cells acidifies modestly in early aging and sharply after senescence. Using a macromolecular crowding sensor optimized for long-term FRET measurements, we show that crowding is rather stable and that the stability of crowding is a stronger predictor for lifespan than the absolute crowding levels. Additionally, in aged cells we observe drastic changes in organellar volume, leading to crowding on the µm scale, which we term organellar crowding. Our measurements provide an initial framework of physicochemical parameters of replicatively aged yeast cells.
PPP-family phosphatases such as PP1 have little intrinsic specificity. Cofactors can target PP1 to substrates or subcellular locations, but it remains unclear how they might confer sequence-specificity on PP1. The cytoskeletal regulator Phactr1 is a neuronally-enriched PP1 cofactor that is controlled by G-actin. Structural analysis showed that Phactr1 binding remodels PP1's hydrophobic groove, creating a new composite surface adjacent to the catalytic site. Using phosphoproteomics, we identified mouse fibroblast and neuronal Phactr1/PP1 substrates, which include cytoskeletal components and regulators. We determined high-resolution structures of Phactr1/PP1 bound to the dephosphorylated forms of its substrates IRSp53 and spectrin aII. Inversion of the phosphate in these holoenzyme-product complexes supports the proposed PPP-family catalytic mechanism. Substrate sequences C-terminal to the dephosphorylation site make intimate contacts with the composite Phactr1/PP1 surface, which are required for efficient dephosphorylation. Sequence specificity explains why Phactr1/PP1 exhibits orders-of-magnitude enhanced reactivity towards its substrates, compared to apo-PP1 or other PP1 holoenzymes.