Two different cell-cycle processes determine the timing of cell division in Escherichia coli

  1. Alexandra Colin
  2. Gabriele Micali
  3. Louis Faure
  4. Marco Cosentino Lagomarsino  Is a corresponding author
  5. Sven van Teeffelen  Is a corresponding author
  1. Institut Pasteur, France
  2. ETH Zürich, Switzerland
  3. Medical University of Vienna, Austria
  4. IFOM Foundation and University of Milan, Italy
  5. Université de Montréal, Canada

Abstract

Cells must control the cell cycle to ensure that key processes are brought to completion. In Escherichia coli, it is controversial whether cell division is tied to chromosome replication or to a replication-independent inter-division process. A recent model suggests instead that both processes may limit cell division with comparable odds in single cells. Here, we tested this possibility experimentally by monitoring single-cell division and replication over multiple generations at slow growth. We then perturbed cell width, causing an increase of the time between replication termination and division. As a consequence, replication became decreasingly limiting for cell division, while correlations between birth and division and between subsequent replication-initiation events were maintained. Our experiments support the hypothesis that both chromosome replication and a replication-independent inter-division process can limit cell division: the two processes have balanced contributions in non-perturbed cells, while our width perturbations increase the odds of the replication-independent process being limiting.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in supplemental datasets provided for each figure. Average quantities and sample sizes for each biological replicate can be found in Supplementary file 1. Supplementary file 2 contains all single-cell data used in this study.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Alexandra Colin

    Microbial Morphogenesis and Growth Laboratory, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9144-3282
  2. Gabriele Micali

    Department of Environmental Systems Science, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Louis Faure

    Department of Neuro-Immunology, Medical University of Vienna, Wien, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4621-586X
  4. Marco Cosentino Lagomarsino

    Quantitative Biology and Physics, IFOM Foundation and University of Milan, Milan, Italy
    For correspondence
    marco.cosentino-lagomarsino@ifom.eu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0235-0445
  5. Sven van Teeffelen

    Département de Microbiologie, Infectiologie et Immunologie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada
    For correspondence
    sven.vanteeffelen@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0877-1294

Funding

H2020 European Research Council (679980)

  • Sven van Teeffelen

Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-10-LABX-62-IBEID)

  • Sven van Teeffelen

Mairie de Paris Emergence program

  • Sven van Teeffelen

Volkswagen Foundation Life program

  • Sven van Teeffelen

Italian Association for Cancer Research AIRC-IG (23258)

  • Marco Cosentino Lagomarsino

National Science Foundationce Foundation (310030_188642)

  • Gabriele Micali

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2021, Colin 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

  • 3,526
    views
  • 417
    downloads
  • 32
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

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)

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

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

  1. Alexandra Colin
  2. Gabriele Micali
  3. Louis Faure
  4. Marco Cosentino Lagomarsino
  5. Sven van Teeffelen
(2021)
Two different cell-cycle processes determine the timing of cell division in Escherichia coli
eLife 10:e67495.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.67495

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.67495

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Shinichi Kawaguchi, Xin Xu ... Toshie Kai
    Research Article

    Protein–protein interactions are fundamental to understanding the molecular functions and regulation of proteins. Despite the availability of extensive databases, many interactions remain uncharacterized due to the labor-intensive nature of experimental validation. In this study, we utilized the AlphaFold2 program to predict interactions among proteins localized in the nuage, a germline-specific non-membrane organelle essential for piRNA biogenesis in Drosophila. We screened 20 nuage proteins for 1:1 interactions and predicted dimer structures. Among these, five represented novel interaction candidates. Three pairs, including Spn-E_Squ, were verified by co-immunoprecipitation. Disruption of the salt bridges at the Spn-E_Squ interface confirmed their functional importance, underscoring the predictive model’s accuracy. We extended our analysis to include interactions between three representative nuage components—Vas, Squ, and Tej—and approximately 430 oogenesis-related proteins. Co-immunoprecipitation verified interactions for three pairs: Mei-W68_Squ, CSN3_Squ, and Pka-C1_Tej. Furthermore, we screened the majority of Drosophila proteins (~12,000) for potential interaction with the Piwi protein, a central player in the piRNA pathway, identifying 164 pairs as potential binding partners. This in silico approach not only efficiently identifies potential interaction partners but also significantly bridges the gap by facilitating the integration of bioinformatics and experimental biology.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Brian DePasquale, Carlos D Brody, Jonathan W Pillow
    Research Article Updated

    Accumulating evidence to make decisions is a core cognitive function. Previous studies have tended to estimate accumulation using either neural or behavioral data alone. Here, we develop a unified framework for modeling stimulus-driven behavior and multi-neuron activity simultaneously. We applied our method to choices and neural recordings from three rat brain regions—the posterior parietal cortex (PPC), the frontal orienting fields (FOF), and the anterior-dorsal striatum (ADS)—while subjects performed a pulse-based accumulation task. Each region was best described by a distinct accumulation model, which all differed from the model that best described the animal’s choices. FOF activity was consistent with an accumulator where early evidence was favored while the ADS reflected near perfect accumulation. Neural responses within an accumulation framework unveiled a distinct association between each brain region and choice. Choices were better predicted from all regions using a comprehensive, accumulation-based framework and different brain regions were found to differentially reflect choice-related accumulation signals: FOF and ADS both reflected choice but ADS showed more instances of decision vacillation. Previous studies relating neural data to behaviorally inferred accumulation dynamics have implicitly assumed that individual brain regions reflect the whole-animal level accumulator. Our results suggest that different brain regions represent accumulated evidence in dramatically different ways and that accumulation at the whole-animal level may be constructed from a variety of neural-level accumulators.