Bacteria carry out a wide range of essential functions for their survival. These vital cellular activities are referred to as “core biological processes” and include energy production, DNA replication, transcription, translation, cell division, and cell wall synthesis, among others. These processes are executed by multiprotein complexes, which require the coordinated action of multiple essential proteins to function properly. In the absence of these proteins, the complexes cannot work, with the consequent loss of cell viability. Therefore, understanding the essential protein-protein interactions (PPIs) is critical to understand how core biological processes are regulated and how they contribute to the cell’s overall function (Koonin, 2000; Carro, 2018; Cossar et al., 2020). By investigating these pathways and their associated proteins, we can gain insight into bacterial growth and survival mechanisms (de Groot et al., 2020; Gómez Borrego and Torrent Burgas, 2022).

Proteomic techniques such as yeast two-hybrid and tandem affinity purification coupled with mass spectrometry have identified millions of PPIs. However, the high number of false positives in high-throughput screenings makes the results less reliable (Rao et al., 2014; Zhao et al., 2020). A useful way to deal with false positives in interatomic data is to consider the three-dimensional structure of proteins, which provides insights into their function and architecture. The scientific community has experimentally determined thousands of protein structures at atomic resolution using X-ray crystallography, NMR, and cryo-EM. However, most protein complexes have not yet been determined. Recently, novel deep-learning models such as AlphaFold2 (AF2) and RosettaFold have outperformed previous methods in predicting protein structures, providing results with similar precision to experimental methods in successful cases (Jumper et al., 2021; Baek et al., 2021). AF2 can fold protein monomers and protein complexes, outperforming standard docking approaches (Evans et al., 2021). Therefore, we posit that AF2 can effectively differentiate between genuine interactions and false positive cases.

The topological analysis of pathogen interactomes is a powerful method for exploring the function of interacting proteins, uncovering the evolutionary conservation of protein interactions, or identifying essential hubs (Dong et al., 2020; Crua Asensio et al., 2017; Macho Rendón et al., 2022). Therefore, developing a complete map of the essential interactome is a powerful strategy to study the functional organization of proteins and to identify new targets for discovering new antibiotics. Here, we used AF2 to predict the Gram-negative and Gram-positive essential interactomes, comprising a total of 1402 interactions, which include the global confidence scores of the binary complexes predicted by AF2. We also discuss how these structures can provide insight into new mechanisms of action and identify intereting PPIs to target for discovering novel antibiotics.

The average bacterial proteome is composed of ~4000–5000 proteins, which means that the interactome could potentially span around 20 million interactions. Based on recent estimates, there are approximately 12,000 physical interactions in Escherichia coli, which indicates that only about 0.1% of potential interactions may occur (Rajagopala et al., 2014). However, not all these interactions are expected to be essential for bacterial survival. If we were to selectively disrupt each interaction without impacting any other factors, only a small subset of interactions would likely be classified as essential. How can we identify these essential interactions without the paramount effort of performing all these experiments? We reasoned that a given interaction would only be essential if and only if both proteins forming the complex are essential (Figure 1a). While this simple approximation does not give us the exact answer, it does provide an upper bound for the essential interactome.

Figure 1 with 7 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Using this premise, we retrieved a list of all essential Gram-negative and Gram-positive proteins from previous studies (Figure 1b), and considered as essential proteins only those that are present in at least two different species (Baba et al., 2006; Gerdes et al., 2003; Goodall, 2018; Liberati et al., 2006; Gallagher et al., 2011; Poulsen et al., 2019; Ramage et al., 2017; Bai et al., 2021; Commichau et al., 2013; Dembek et al., 2015; Ji et al., 2001; Chaudhuri et al., 2009; Santiago et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2017). Next, we retrieved all PPIs with experimental evidence (experimental score >0.15) and/or high-confidence PPIs (score >0.7) between these proteins from the STRING database (Szklarczyk et al., 2021). Additionally, we incorporated all of the synthetically lethal interactions identified in E. coli-K12-BW25113, as recorded in the Mslar database (Zhu et al., 2023a) to capture interactions between non-essential proteins that become essential in combination. We filtered out interactions that include ribosomal subunits and tRNA ligases. Using this pipeline, we modeled 722 unique Gram-negative essential PPIs (involving 216 proteins), 680 essential Gram-positive PPIs (involving 167 proteins), and 28 synthetically lethal PPIs (involving 45 proteins) using AF2-Multimer (Evans et al., 2021). To assess the confidence of the predictions, we used the ipTM scores to classify the models, as previously reported (Figure 1—figure supplements 1 and 2, Source data 1; Evans et al., 2021; Mackay et al., 2007; Bryant et al., 2022a). Concurrently, we modeled 722 Gram-negative and 680 Gram-positive negative PPIs, generated by random pairing among the selected proteins, to evaluate the ability of AF2 to distinguish between correct and incorrect models. To define an appropriate ipTM score cutoff, we calculated the cumulative distribution function of the ipTM scores for the selected and random complexes. The analysis revealed a significant difference between the two distributions (Figure 1c). Based on these results, we classified the models into three categories: unlikely (ipTM<0.4), plausible (0.4≤ipTM≥0.6), and high confidence (ipTM>0.6). Of the 722 Gram-negative PPIs, 549 (76.04%) were classified as unlikely, 74 (10.25%) as plausible, and 99 (13.71%) as high accuracy. For the 680 Gram-positive PPIs, 576 (84.70%) were classified as unlikely, 57 (8.48%) as plausible, and 47 (6.91%) as high accuracy (Figure 1d). We also validated our predicted models using crosslinking data that were available for 14 complexes (Source data 1). The distance restraints identified (crosslinked lysines are ~15–20 Å apart) are compatible with our models in 93% of the cases. Hence, despite the limited overlap between the crosslinking datasets and our list of validated interactions, for the complexes that did match, our models were consistent with the experimental data. These findings support the notion that AF2 is capable of distinguishing between incorrect and high-accuracy models, which is consistent with previous observations in other applications (Mackay et al., 2007). Thus, our results suggest that many of the essential PPIs retrieved from databases could be false positives, likely due to the high number of false positives found in large-scale screening experiments, which may include indirect interactions (Zhu et al., 2023b). We also compared ipTM scores with both pDockQ (Akdel et al., 2022) and pDockQ2 (Bryant et al., 2022b). The correlation between ipTM and pDockQ was low (R=0.328), but a stronger correlation was obtained between ipTM and pDockQ2 (R=0.649, Figure 1—figure supplement 1). Notably, some complexes with high ipTM values (>0.8) had minimal pDockQ2 scores, some of them virtually 0. However, these interactions showed improved pDockQ2 scores when modeled alongside accessory proteins (Figure 1—figure supplement 2), suggesting a better recall performance for ipTM. We conclude that pDockQ2 is a very accurate but restrictive metric. Therefore, we selected ipTM for assessing predicted interactions. Nonetheless, pDockQ and pDockQ2 scores for all predicted complexes can be found in Source data 1.

To test AF’s predictive capabilities in bacterial complexes, we conducted a thorough validation of 140 bacterial protein-protein complexes from the PDB (Supplementary file 1). This dataset encompasses structures published after the latest release of AF, sharing less than 30% sequence homology with all other complexes in the PDB. According to our criteria (ipTM>0.6), we observed that 81% (113 out of 140) of these structures were accurately predicted by AF2. From all models generated, 83% (116 out of 140) were almost identical to the native structures in terms of correct folding (TM-score>0.8). Most interestingly, 72% (101 out of 140) of the predicted structures were similar in terms of root mean square deviation at the interaction interface (i-RMSD<4 Å) and 56% (79 out of 140) of the interfaces were virtually identical to the real structures (i-RMSD<2 Å), highlighting the excellent prediction power of AF2.

The interface solvent accessible surface area (SASA) of our selected models showed moderate correlation with the ipTM score, suggesting that larger interfaces were more likely to have better model accuracies (Figure 1e). Additionally, we considered the conservation of the interface residues, which is frequently used as a proxy to identify protein-binding sites (Guharoy and Chakrabarti, 2010). As expected, the residues in the interface were significantly more conserved than those located at the surface, suggesting that the predicted models are reliable (Figure 1f, Figure 1—figure supplements 3–5). We also analyzed the residue types of the interface in high-confidence models (Figure 1g, 4.5 Å distance cutoff). The most abundant interface residues were involved in electrostatic interactions, particularly between arginines and negatively charged residues. There was also a significant contribution of hydrophobic interactions, with a high relevance of leucine and isoleucine residues, as well as between the hydrophobic moiety of the arginine side chain and the last two residues.

In summary, we assembled a high-accuracy essential interactome for both Gram-negative (Figure 2a) and Gram-positive bacteria (Figure 2b) that will enable us to identify protein hubs and investigate the importance of these interactions. Here, we focus on new structures involving essential complexes, where we can gain mechanistic insight from a detailed understanding of the structure (Table 1).

Figure 2 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Complexes involved in the endogenous fatty acid synthesis

The biosynthesis of fatty acids (FA) is a crucial process for membrane biosynthesis and plays a pivotal role in related processes, such as the biosynthesis of lipid A, lipoic acid, and phosphatidic acid (Yao and Rock, 2013). The initial step in FA biosynthesis involves the transfer of biotin from the biotin protein ligase (BPL) BirA to the Acc complex via AccB. This is followed by the generation of malonyl-CoA through the catalytic action of the Acc complex. The resulting malonyl-CoA is then transferred to AcpP, which couples to each step of the elongation cycle catalyzed by the Fab family of proteins, ultimately resulting in the production of FA (Chan and Vogel, 2010; Figure 3a).

Figure 3 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Currently, the structure of the BirA-AccB binary complex remains unsolved. Hence, our model provides valuable functional insights into this complex. We show that the BPL catalytic domain of BirA aligns with the biotinyl-binding (BB) domain of AccB. Within the structure of the complex, two BirA loops play a significant role: the first loop, spanning residues 218–226, interacts with the substrate, while the second loop, consisting of residues 116–121, is enriched in arginine and aids in stabilizing the substrate’s negative charge (Figure 3b). Based on our model, we propose that these loops act together to encapsulate the biotin moiety within the catalytic pocket of BirA, creating a closed state. Upon interaction with AccB, BirA engages with two specific AccB loops: the β-hairpin loop, that contains the important residue Lys122, and the “thumb motif”, comprising residues 94–102. The presence of Lys122 near the substrate leads to electrostatic repulsion of the arginine-rich loop, creating an open state. Then, the biotin molecule can covalently attach to the Lys122 residue of AccB, presenting itself to the essential Acc complex. Our model is compatible with mutagenesis studies performed in BirA where mutations M310L and P143T were found to induce a superrepressor phenotype, i.e., BirA lacks the capacity to biotinylate AccB (Chakravartty and Cronan, 2012). The effect of these mutations, that do not significantly affect the BirA active site, can be explained by the destabilization of the BirA-AccB interface.

The Acc complex, composed of four subunits, is responsible for catalyzing two half-reactions. First, AccC carboxylates the biotin group attached to Lys122 of AccB. In the second step, the AccAD complex transfers the carboxyl group from Lys122-carboxybiotin to acetyl-CoA to form malonyl-CoA (Figure 3a). While crystal structures of all the monomeric subunits have been solved (accAD: 2F9Y, accB: 1BDO, accC: 3RV4), the full structure of the Acc complex remains unknown. The accepted stoichiometry for the Acc complex is AccB₄C₂A₂D₂, although a dimeric form of AccB has also been reported (Chakravartty and Cronan, 2012; Cronan, 2021). When testing various AccBC stoichiometries, we found that the dimeric form of AccB led to higher accuracies. Our predicted models suggest that the BB domain of AccB can interact with the catalytic pockets of AccA and AccC, while the N-terminal domain can only be attached to AccC (Figure 3b). Additionally, the essential AccB ‘thumb motif’ interacts with the N-terminus of AccA and the loop comprising residues 192–195 of AccC, in agreement with previous mutational and structural studies (Tong, 2005). These studies concluded that the thumb region is critical for identifying Acc proteins, as only biotin-dependent enzymes involved in the synthesis of malonyl-CoA contain thumb domains (Tong, 2005). Other studies also suggest that the thumb domain may act as a mobile lid that tightly fits into AccC and AccA active sites (Cronan, 2001). While the heterotetrameric AccAD has already been crystallized, we identified a new, unsolved, high-accuracy interaction between AccC and AccD, which is consistent with coevolutionary studies (Broussard et al., 2013). We hypothesize that this interaction is crucial for maintaining AccBC close in space with AccAD, allowing the BB domain of AccB to dynamically shuttle from AccC to AccA (Figure 3c). The binding affinity of the BB domain to either AccC or AccA can be influenced by the carboxylation state of the biotin moiety. The introduction of a negative charge to biotin through carboxylation may decrease the affinity for AccC, leading to the binding of the BB domain to AccA. The structural information obtained from these interfaces is consistent with the bi-substrate ping-pong mechanism followed by the Acc complex (Cronan, 2001).

The malonyl-CoA produced by the Acc complex is then loaded onto AcpP by FabD, initiating the FA synthesis through the catalytic reaction of FabH. The FA elongation process is cyclic and requires several Fab proteins, adding two carbons to the FA intermediate in each cycle (Figure 3a; Cong et al., 2019). The interaction of AcpP to each Fab protein is essential for the cycle to proceed, as FA intermediates are tethered and transported by AcpP (Yao and Rock, 2015). In these lines, many AcpP-Fab protein complexes have been solved (AcpP-FabD: 6UOJ, AcpP-FabF: 7L4E, AcpP-FabB: 6OKC, AcpP-FabA: 4KEH, AcpP-FabI: 2FHS, AcpP-FabZ: 4ZJB) but the structure of the complex AcpP-FabG remains unknown, despite the similarity between FabG and FabI (Bartholow et al., 2021; Dodge et al., 2019). Both FabG and FabI contain Rossmann folds composed of twisted β-sheets surrounded by α-helices (Masoudi et al., 2014). To investigate these interactions, we generated models of homodimeric FabG and FabI and analyzed their interactions with AcpP (Figure 3—figure supplement 1). The interfaces between the Fab homodimers exhibited a high degree of similarity, but the interaction between AcpP and the Fab partner displayed some distinct features. In both cases, Ser36 of AcpP was positioned near the active site of the FabG/FabI pocket where the catalytic activity takes place. However, the exact binding location of AcpP appeared to differ, possibly due to the presence of FabI’s C-terminal region, which also interacts with the catalytic site and is absent in FabG (Figure 3—figure supplement 1). It is worth noting that the crystallized structure of the FabI-AcpP complex does not show AcpP’s Ser36 facing the catalytic site, whereas in our model, Ser36 is positioned in the correct orientation. These findings provide valuable insights into the selectivity of AcpP for different Fab protein pairs, particularly for the uncharacterized AcpP-FabG complex.

Complexes involved in LPS synthesis

Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) is a crucial molecule that forms the outer leaflet of the Gram-negative outer membrane (OM). It consists of lipid A, O-antigen polysaccharide, and a core oligosaccharide connecting both parts. The OM is an asymmetric lipid bilayer, with LPS making up the outer leaflet and phospholipids forming the inner leaflet. The biosynthesis of lipid A, also called the Raetz pathway, is highly conserved in Gram-negative bacteria and involves several enzymes of the Lpx family (Shanbhag, 2019; Whitfield and Trent, 2014). In E. coli, LpxA binds to AcpP to transfer β-hydroxymyristoyl, one of the many substrates of FabA/FabZ, to UDP-N-acetylglucosamine, which is synthesized by GlmU. Next, LpxC deacetylates the LpxA product, and LpxD transfers another β-hydroxylauroyl molecule, which is also transported by AcpP. The Raetz pathway requires six more reactions to convert the initial UDP-N-acetylglucosamine into Kdo2-lipid A before it is translocated to the outer leaflet of the inner membrane (IM) by the MsbA flippase (Figure 4a; Shanbhag, 2019; Mahalakshmi et al., 2014).

Figure 4 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

The crystal structures of homotrimeric LpxA₃ (6P9S), LpxD₃ (6P89), and GlmU₃ (2OI6) contain left-handed β-helix domains, with different structural features characterizing each protein (Figure 4b). Though the LpxD₃-AcpP₃ structure is already known (4IHF), the LpxA₃-AcpP₃ and GlmU₃-AcpP₃ complexes remain unsolved. The interfaces in our predicted models for both complexes consistently display the critical Ser36 residue of AcpP (located in the universal recognition helix or helix II) placed in the catalytic chamber, resembling the LpxD₃-AcpP₃ crystal structure. Interestingly, our models reveal a hydrophobic patch that accommodates the lipid moiety of the ligand (Figure 4—figure supplement 1) with a size proportional to the substrate’s length. These structures reveal that all the complexes contain an extruding loop derived from the left-handed β-helix domain, which could act as a lid, facilitating ligand recognition. Therefore, we propose that a shared mechanism mediated by the extruding loop of the left-handed β-helix domain defines substrate specificity in these three complexes.

Complexes involved in LPS transport

The lipid A-core synthesis and transport in bacteria must be tightly coupled. The lipid A-core region of LPS is synthesized in the cytoplasm and transported to the periplasmic face of the IM using the MsbA flippase. The O-antigen is then ligated to the lipid A-core by the WaaL ligase to form the LPS molecule. Subsequently, the LPS is carried from the IM to the OM by the lipoprotein transport protein complex (LptA-G), which plays a vital role in cellular function (Olsen et al., 2007; Hicks and Jia, 2018; Putker et al., 2015).

To extract the LPS from the IM, the LptB₂FG complex, an ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporter, hydrolyzes ATP to induce conformational changes in the transmembrane (TM) LptFG complex. The LptFG periplasmic β-jellyroll (βJR) domains are arranged in an antiparallel manner, creating a conduit for the LPS to move from the hydrophobic pocket of LptFG to the βJR domains of LptFC (Figure 5a). Once inside the LptFC complex, LptA facilitates the unidirectional transport of LPS to LptD in the OM. For this transport the formation of a physical bridge in the periplasm between LptC, LptA, and LptD is essential (Li et al., 2019). Hence, LPS undergoes a two-portal mechanism, moving from LptA to the N-terminal βJR fold of LptD, and then to the C-terminal TM β-barrel domain. There, the LptDE complex forms a plug-and-barrel structure, with LptE inserted into the β-barrel of LptD, effectively blocking a portion of the extracellular opening to maintain membrane impermeability (Figure 5a; Okuda et al., 2016).

Figure 5

Download asset Open asset

While the cryo-EM and crystal structures of LptA (6GD5), LptB₂FGC (6MK7), and LptDE (4RHB) have been extensively studied, the structure of the bridge formed by LptCAD remains ill-defined. Additionally, the exact number of LptA molecules that make up the periplasmic bridge is still unknown, although previous research suggests that LptA molecules in isolation can form polymers of up to eight subunits (Malojčić et al., 2014; Merten et al., 2012). In our study, we have successfully generated a high-accuracy model of the periplasmic bridge by computationally predicting the structure of the LptCAD complex. Our model supports the formation of a head-to-tail LptCAD complex (Figure 5b) and suggests that the presence of a single LptA monomer is enough to form a bridge spanning approximately 15 nm, which corresponds to the average thickness of the periplasm in E. coli. It should be noted that the width of the periplasmic space can vary depending on environmental conditions, contracting or expanding during stress (Santambrogio et al., 2013). Consequently, the oligomeric state of LptA may adapt to these changes, allowing the formation of larger bridges. By modeling different LptA oligomers (such as LptA₂ and LptA₃), we were able to generate models consistent with previously reported structures (Merten et al., 2012; Sochacki et al., 2011), indicating that LptA can transiently oligomerize in the periplasm, facilitating the formation of extended bridges (Figure 5b). Furthermore, under certain conditions, the periplasmic space can significantly shrink (approximately 10 nm), consistently with the loss of a single LptA molecule. In our analysis, we identified a high-accuracy interaction between LptC and LptD, which involves the interface region of their βJR domains, analogous to previously characterized complexes, suggesting that the formation of the complex without LptA is also feasible.

Complexes involved in OMP transport

Outer membrane proteins (OMPs) are β-barrel proteins that are synthesized in the cytoplasm and require translocases to be transported to the OM (Suits et al., 2008). This transport is mediated by the Sec complex, which drives the translocation of unfolded peptides across the IM, and the Bam machinery, which mediates the insertion and folding of β-barrel proteins into the OM. High-resolution cryo-EM images of the Bam complex are available, but only a single low-resolution (5MG3, 14 Å) structure of the Sec holo-translocon (HTL; SecYEGDF-YidC).

The export of nascent OMPs can occur co-translationally if the proteins contain signal peptides or post-translationally through the action of SecA (Knyazev et al., 2018). The translocation process relies on the essential components SecY and SecE. While SecY and SecE are essential for translocation, SecG stimulates the process but is not indispensable. SecY and SecE interact with other accessory proteins such as SecDF, a secretion factor that utilizes proton motive force to facilitate protein secretion into the periplasm, and YidC, an integral membrane protein that functions as a chaperone and insertase for membrane protein biogenesis (Figure 6a; Ma et al., 2019). Crystal and cryo-EM data have provided valuable insights into the structure and function of sub-complexes like SecYEA (6ITC), SecYEG (6R7L), SecDF (3AQ0), and YidC (6AL2), but limited information is available regarding the conformational rearrangements carried out by YidC within the overall structure of the translocon (Suits et al., 2008; du Plessis et al., 2011; Oswald et al., 2021).

Figure 6 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the translocon assembly, we generated a model of the HTL assembly, which encompasses SecYEDF and YidC, and compared it to the low-resolution cryo-EM structure (Figure 6b; Veenendaal et al., 2004). Interestingly, the model positioned the previously uncharacterized N-terminal helix of YidC inside the central cavity, providing potential stabilization of the complex in a specific state (Figure 6—figure supplement 1). In the cryo-EM structure, the C-terminal domain of SecE encircles SecY from the external face (Figure 6b, top). However, in the model, SecE adopts a diagonal embrace of the two SecY halves, with the hinge facing the central cavity and the C-terminal region facing the TM domains of YidC (Figure 6—figure supplement 1). The cryo-EM structure shows close contacts between SecF and YidC, constraining the complex and preventing the formation of the central cavity. In contrast, our model shows weak interaction between SecF and YidC’s N-terminal helix. In addition, SecF is distant from the TM and periplasmic domains, being SecD positioned between both subunits. Furthermore, the crystal structures of SecDF and YidC closely resemble our model but exhibit poor alignment with the cryo-EM structure (RMSDs for YidC and SecDF: 0.512 Å and 3.552 Å in our model; 14.060 Å and 15.336 Å in the cryo-EM structure).

The subunit organization in our model is consistent with a proposed mechanism in which the preprotein infiltrates into the pocket of SecY, displaces the plug domain, and is subsequently released through the exit lateral gate, with the dynamic periplasmic domains coordinating its release into the periplasm. Previous studies have examined the dynamics of the SecY lateral gate (formed by TM2 and TM7) and concluded that it fluctuates significantly, irrespective of the bound ligand and the experimental conditions (du Plessis et al., 2011). In the cryo-EM structure, the lateral gate is in a closed state and faces the membrane, whereas in our model, it faces the TM region of YidC (Figure 6b).

We also decided to model the HTL including SecA as several mechanisms have been proposed to explain post-translational translocation in bacteria (Figure 6—figure supplement 1; Knyazev et al., 2018). Tight interactions involving the SecY’s β-hairpin loop comprising residues 247–262 and SecA could explain some rearrangements in SecY that mediate the open/closed states, allowing the preprotein to move from the SecA-SecY pocket to the SecY pore. It is noteworthy that when SecA attaches to SecY, the central cavity is not formed, and the N-terminal helix of YidC is positioned near the lateral exit gate of SecY, which supports earlier research (Figure 6—figure supplement 1; Botte et al., 2016). It appears that the arrangement of the Sec translocon can vary greatly and depends on its interaction with SecA, and the ribosome, and whether the translocation is YidC-dependent or -independent. Based on our models, SecA is essential for propelling the polypeptide during the initial stages, and the preprotein is transported to the exit lateral gate where YidC is located. If SecA is absent, a different mechanism may be employed to translocate the preprotein, (Knyazev et al., 2018; Steudle et al., 2021; Alvira et al., 2020) and the N-terminal helix of YidC found in the central cavity may play a crucial role.

Complexes involved in lipoprotein transport

Lipoproteins are integral components of the OM that play essential roles in cell wall synthesis, secretion systems, and antibiotic efflux pumps (Tsirigotaki et al., 2017). The transport of lipoproteins from the IM to the OM is facilitated by the Lol pathway, which involves five essential proteins: LolA, LolB, LolC, LolD, and LolE (Figure 7a; Grabowicz and Silhavy, 2017). However, recent studies suggest that in certain species, the involvement of LolA and LolB in lipoprotein trafficking may not be essential, indicating the existence of alternative pathways (Tsirigotaki et al., 2017).

Figure 7 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

In the Lol pathway, lipoproteins are extracted from the IM by the ABC transporter LolCD₂E and transferred to the lipoprotein periplasmic carrier, LolA. The ATPase activity of the LolD dimer is responsible for ATP hydrolysis, leading to structural rearrangements that enable LolC to recruit LolA (Figure 7b, bottom) (Narita and Tokuda, 2017). LolA then accepts the lipoprotein moiety. Despite sharing structural homology, LolC and LolE have two distinct clear roles: LolC specifically binds to LolA, while LolE interacts with lipoproteins (Kaplan et al., 2018) To gain insights into the specific role of each subunit, we compared the already solved LolAC structure (6F3Z) with the hypothetical LolAE complex (Figure 7—figure supplement 1). LolC and LolE share an identical overall fold, except for a β-hairpin located in the interface. The β-hairpin loop in LolC is smaller and can be easily accommodated within the β-barrel of LolA. Instead, the loop in LolE is larger and cannot be placed inside the β-barrel. This comparison indicates that the β-hairpin loop may be responsible for the specific interaction between LolA and LolC.

After the lipoprotein is loaded into LolA, the lipoprotein-LolA complex travels across the periplasm to interact with LolB, which accepts the lipoprotein and incorporates it into the OM. LolA and LolB also contain a β-barrel domain, however, the latter also accommodates a helix inside the β-barrel (Kaplan et al., 2022). Surprisingly, the LolAB crystal structure remains unsolved. Our LolAB model shows strikingly similar interfaces with LolAC, as both show the protruding β-hairpin loop contained inside the β-barrel hydrophobic cavity, evidencing that both complexes share a similar mechanism (Figure 7b, top). Moreover, the critical Leu68 of LolB, which is crucial to receive and localize lipoproteins to the OM, is located at the interface region (Takeda et al., 2003). An incorrect fold is obtained if one tries to model the interaction between LolB and LolC (Figure 7—figure supplement 1) as the protruding β-hairpin loops of both subunits face each other instead of following a ‘mouth-to-mouth’ model. Probably the helix inside the LolB β-barrel allows LolC to distinguish between LolA and LolB as binding partners. In summary, this data is consistent with a model in which the periplasmic chaperone LolA accepts and delivers lipoproteins in a ‘mouth-to-mouth’ mechanism by interacting specifically with LolC and LolB (Narita and Tokuda, 2017).

Complexes involved in cell division

Bacterial cell division is a highly regulated and dynamic process that involves the coordinated action of numerous proteins. The initial step of this process is the formation of the Z-ring, a circular structure located at the midcell, composed of polymerized tubulin-like FtsZ proteins, which serves as a landmark for the division site. FtsA and ZipA proteins anchor the FtsZ proteins to the membrane (Hayashi et al., 2014). Current models suggest that other proteins like FtsN, FtsK, and the FtsQLB complex are recruited when FtsA changes from a group to a single molecule through FtsEX (Hayashi et al., 2014; Mahone and Goley, 2020). These recruited proteins are important for initiating the contraction of the membrane. Later, FtsN recruits FtsW, which adds glycan strands, and FtsI, which connects peptide side chains to specific areas where peptidoglycan (PG) is needed (Figure 8). FtsW and FtsI contribute to the synthesis and modification of the cell wall during cell division (Pichoff et al., 2019; Rohs et al., 2018).

Figure 8 with 3 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

The crystal structure of FtsA bound to the C-terminal helix of FtsZ of Thermotoga maritima is already solved (4A2A) but the N-terminal GTPase domain and the long-unfolded linker which connects both domains of FtsZ in the complex are missing. AF2 allowed us to predict the FtsA-FtsZ binary complex including the interface region between the GTPase domain of FtsZ and FtsA, absent in the crystal structure. After testing multiple stoichiometries, we detected that trimeric and tetrameric FtsA and FtsZ are the most confident states based on the ipTM score. The FtsA₄-FtsZ₃ complex displays the C-terminal of FtsZ attached to the pockets created between two FtsA monomers (Figure 8).

Although FtsZ plays a central role in cell division, the divisome assembly depends on the recruitment of multiple scaffold proteins and is influenced by the polymerization states of FtsA and FtsZ. Furthermore, some essential proteins like FtsN and FtsX were not included in our essential interactome as they were identified as essential in only one species, E. coli. With the aim of increase our understanding of the cell division process, we decided to include these proteins in our model. Also, we successfully obtained a high-confidence model for the experimentally unsolved FtsEX complex, an ABC transport involved in coordinating PG synthesis and hydrolysis and recruiting divisome proteins (Figure 8—figure supplement 1; Mahone and Goley, 2020). Recent studies have suggested that FtsEX acts on FtsA, promoting the transition from polymeric to monomeric FtsA, which in turn activates the constriction pathway through its interaction with FtsN (Hayashi et al., 2014; Mahone and Goley, 2020). Unfortunately, our attempts to predict the interfaces between FtsEX and FtsA/FtsZ were unsuccessful. We also modeled the binary complexes, FtsQB and FtsBL, which strongly support the formation of the FtsQLB complex. FtsLB adopts a helical coiled-coil conformation, while FtsQB reveals the binding of FtsB’s C-terminal domain to FtsQ, consistently with other experimental findings (Figure 8—figure supplement 2; Vicente et al., 2006). Additionally, we explored the interactions between FtsK and FtsQLB and found that their binding is primarily mediated by the N-terminal TM domains of FtsK and FtsQ (Figure 8). We observed contacts between the C-terminal domain of FtsK and the periplasmic domains of FtsQLB. These findings suggest that FtsKQ could play a role in connecting chromosome segregation and PG synthesis, ensuring DNA is not trapped during membrane constriction.

Our interactome highlights the central role of FtsW, which participates in multiple PPIs. As previously mentioned, FtsW and FtsI form a well-studied GTase-TPase pair involved in PG synthesis (Pichoff et al., 2019; Craven et al., 2022). The current model of cell membrane constriction proposes that FtsQLB mediates the localization of FtsWI to the midcell and triggers the final steps of constriction, although its structure remains structurally unverified (Vicente et al., 2006). We obtained confident models when modeling FtsW with FtsL and FtsB, which are consistent with a model in which the formation of FtsQLB regulates FtsWI, as detailed in recent studies (Vicente et al., 2006). Finally, FtsN is an essential protein involved in initiating membrane constriction through interactions with FtsQLB and FtsWI sub-complexes (Hayashi et al., 2014). Therefore, we extended our analysis to predict the structures of the FtsWIN and FtsQLBWIN complexes. As shown in Figure 8—figure supplement 2, the N-terminal helix of FtsN interacts with the TM helices of FtsW, while the helix and loop comprising residues 98–140 attach to the C-terminal domain of FtsI. The SPOR domain of FtsN does not participate in protein interactions. In addition, we acquired an FtsQLBN model with poor precision, suggesting that FtsN would bind exclusively to FtsWI. Notably, we observed that the SPOR domain of FtsN (present in the FtsWIN model) shares the same interaction site as FtsLB when joining with FtsWI (as seen in the FtsQLBWI model) by overlapping the FtsWIN and FtsQLBWI structures. Therefore, we suggest that PG synthesis occurs when FtsQLB binds to FtsWI, displacing the SPOR domain so that it can attach to PG, facilitating the transport of the complex to regions where PG is required.

Complexes involved in DNA replication

DNA replication involves the duplication of DNA during cell division to pass it on to the next generation. This intricate process is divided into three steps: initiation, elongation, and termination, which are carried out by conserved and dynamic protein machineries called replisomes. Despite progress made in characterizing the architecture of prokaryotic replisomes, the highly dynamic nature of replication makes the structural characterization challenging (van der Ploeg et al., 2013; Reyes-Lamothe et al., 2010).

The initiator protein of replication, DnaA, self-oligomerizes in the presence of ATP at the replication origin (OriC) (Xu and Dixon, 2018). This facilitates the formation of a DNA bubble, enabling the loading of helicases and recruitment of the DNA polymerase III complex (Reyes-Lamothe et al., 2010). First, the DnaBC complex, comprising 12 subunits, inhibits the unwinding of the double-stranded DNA. The later binding of DnaG primase to DnaB promotes dissociation from DnaC, resulting in DNA unwinding (Reyes-Lamothe et al., 2010). Experimentally solved structures of the DnaBC complex are available (6KZA), but data on oligomeric DnaA or DnaBG interactions is limited, as they can vary depending on bacterial species, cell cycle stage, and ATP/ADP presence (Reyes-Lamothe et al., 2010; Xu and Dixon, 2018). Previous studies have suggested that high concentrations of ATP-DnaA are required to adopt a helical filament-like structure to fully engage oriC. In our AF2 model, which describes tetrameric DnaA, the monomers are arranged in a bent filament, with the domain III of the monomers interacting in a head-to-tail manner and the domain IV facing the DNA (Figure 9—figure supplement 1; Xu and Dixon, 2018; Katayama et al., 2017). Unfortunately, we were unable to obtain larger oligomers or highly reliable interactions involving DnaG bound to DnaBC. One possible explanation for this is that the presence of a DNA molecule or accessory proteins, such as DiaA, are required in such cases.

DNA elongation is facilitated by the DNA polymerase III holoenzyme, which is a complex composed of three sub-complexes: the αεθ polymerase core, the β₂ sliding clamp, and the δτηγ3-ηδ'ψχ clamp loader (Reyes-Lamothe and Sherratt, 2019). Detailed structural insights into these subassemblies have been obtained through cryo-EM studies, shedding light on their underlying mechanisms. However, modeling these large and dynamic complexes is challenging, especially in the absence of DNA molecules. Despite these inherent limitations, we identified an intriguing unresolved complex involving the interaction between the sliding clamp DnaN and DNA polymerase I (Figure 9a). The existence of this interaction suggests that DnaN may serve as a recruiter for DNA polymerase I at the replication fork, facilitating its attachment to the DNA. This finding highlights the crucial role of DnaN in coordinating the activities of multiple polymerases at the replication fork, thereby ensuring the efficiency and accuracy of DNA synthesis (Reyes-Lamothe et al., 2010).

Figure 9 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

During DNA replication, gyrases and topoisomerases IV form heterotetramers (GyrA₂B₂, ParC₂E₂) that modulate DNA topology by transiently cutting one or both DNA strands (Fijalkowska et al., 2012; Badshah and Ullah, 2018). Interestingly, we have discovered a potential connection between type II topoisomerases and the folate metabolism, facilitated by the GyrA-FolP interaction. As illustrated in Figure 9b, FolP and the C-terminal domain of GyrB share a similar interface with GyrA, indicating that FolP might compete with GyrB, thus exerting regulatory control over the complex. By exploring different stoichiometries, we have developed a model that suggests a complex comprising two GyrA and four FolP copies. When aligning our model with the FolP crystal structure bound to its substrate (1AJ0; Figure 9b, bottom), we observed a significant difference in the loop region spanning residues 22–36. In our model, this loop obstructs the catalytic site, whereas in the experimentally resolved structure, the pocket is accessible. This rearrangement of the loop, likely induced by the presence of the substrate, may be crucial in facilitating its interaction with GyrA while impeding its interaction with GyrB. Although the exact nature and significance of the interplay between these complexes remain incompletely understood, it is conceivable that this interaction plays a role in regulating DNA topology and preserving genome stability, given the vital role of folate metabolism in nucleotide synthesis.

Our Gram-positive interactome analysis reveals significant representation of both topoisomerases and replisome proteins. Notably, we have identified a distinctive interaction specific to Gram-positive bacteria involving the replication initiator DnaB and DnaI in Bacillus subtilis and Streptococcus pneumoniae. This PPI is absent in Gram-negative bacteria, as they lack a DnaI homolog and follow a different mechanism for replication initiation regulation (Hooper and Jacoby, 2016). In certain Gram-positive bacteria, DnaI interacts with DnaB, thereby aiding in the coordination of DNA replication initiation with the activities of the replication machinery. The predicted interface reveals close contacts between the N-terminal region of DnaI and the C-terminal domain of DnaB, resembling the structure of DnaBC (Figure 9c). Furthermore, our analysis predicts highly reliable binary interactions involved in DNA synthesis (nrdEF) and DNA transcription (rpoCZ, rpoC-greA, and rpoC-sigA). While the subunits of the DNA-dependent RNA polymerase have been extensively characterized, with cryo-EM structures available at good resolutions, a high-resolution binary complex of the two components of the ribonucleotide reductase enzyme (NrdEF) remains unresolved. The predicted interface emphasizes the importance of the C-terminal loop of NrdF in the interaction, where the “thumb motif” containing two phenylalanine residues interacts with four tyrosines in the catalytic site of NrdE, probably to stabilize the nucleotide substrate (Figure 9d). These findings align with previous studies proposing that a thiyl radical is formed in Cys382 and the reduction of the nucleotide occurs through the cooperation of two cysteines present in the catalytic pocket, namely Cys172 and Cys409. These cysteines function as reducing agents (Jameson and Wilkinson, 2017).

Complexes involved in the synthesis of ubiquinone

Ubiquinone, also known as coenzyme Q, plays a vital role in the electron transport chain, driving ATP synthesis in numerous organisms. In E. coli, a series of enzymatic steps performed by ubiquitin proteins (Ubi) utilizes chorismate and octaprenyl diphosphate as precursors to synthesize ubiquinone (Figure 10a; Thomas et al., 2019) While some Ubi proteins function independently, the final six reactions are performed by the Ubi metabolon (UbiE-I). This metabolon comprises three hydroxylases (UbiI, UbiH, and UbiF) and two methyltransferases (UbiG and UbiE) (Abby et al., 2020). The overall structure of this obligatory Ubi metabolon remains poorly defined. The metabolon enhances catalytic efficiency by organizing sequential enzymes of the same metabolic pathway and encapsulating reactive ubiquinone intermediates, thereby protecting against oxidative damage (Abby et al., 2020). Additionally, two accessory factors, UbiJ and UbiK, are present. UbiJ binds ubiquinone and other non-specific lipids. The mechanisms by which octaprenylphenol exits the membrane and attaches to UbiJ in the soluble Ubi complex (potentially facilitated by UbiB) and how the final product is transported to the membrane are still unclear.

Figure 10

Download asset Open asset

Through our analysis, we have identified high-confidence binary complexes involved in consecutive enzymatic steps, supporting the existence of the Ubi metabolon complex. Furthermore, we have predicted the UbiE-K assembly, shedding light on the structural arrangement of this previously unexplored metabolon. Based on the predicted interfaces, UbiE and UbiH interact with UbiG and UbiI to form a heterotetramer. In addition, UbiF seems to interact only with UbiI (Figure 10b and c). Additionally, the accessory proteins UbiJ and UbiK adopt a coiled-coil structure, which suggests their association with the membrane to facilitate the delivery of ubiquinone. Moreover, the SCP2 domain of UbiJ creates a lipophilic environment that accommodates lipid intermediates within the Ubi complex, consistent with previous findings (Hajj Chehade et al., 2019). Our model further suggests that the presence of two α-hairpin domains in UbiJ facilitates its interaction with UbiK, with the loops assisting the movement of the SCP2 domain between different subunits. The initial reaction catalyzed by the metabolon is likely initiated by the interaction between UbiJ and UbiI (Abby et al., 2020; Hajj Chehade et al., 2019). Subsequently, the lipid intermediate is sequentially transported to UbiG, UbiH, UbiE, UbiF, and ultimately to UbiG to catalyze the final reaction (Figure 10b and c). Interestingly, the initial reaction involves a hydroxylase, succeeded by a methyltransferase, and this process is reiterated once, ultimately concluding with another hydroxylase. Additionally, the three hydroxylases share a very similar structure, and likewise, the two methyltransferases also display structural homology. It should be noted that the quaternary structure of our model suggests the possibility of Ubi subunit polymerization, as it deviates significantly from the 1 MDa Ubi metabolon suggested by Abby et al., 2020. This initial model of the complete Ubi metabolon provides valuable insights into the complex’s mechanism, emphasizing the role of UbiJ in transporting lipid intermediates between different subunits.

All models described in this paper are available on ModelArchive (https://modelarchive.org, dataset ID: ma-sysbio-bei) with accession codes in Table 1. The scores of selected and random binary PPIs and the annotations of the essential proteins are provided in Source data 1.

1. 1. Gómez Borrego J
   2. Torrent Burgas M

   (2024) ModelArchive

   Structural assembly of the bacterial essential interactome.

   https://doi.org/10.5452/ma-sysbio-bei

1. 1. Abby SS
   2. Kazemzadeh K
   3. Vragniau C
   4. Pelosi L
   5. Pierrel F

   (2020) Advances in bacterial pathways for the biosynthesis of ubiquinone

   Bioenergetics 1861:148259.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbabio.2020.148259

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Akdel M
   2. Pires DEV
   3. Pardo EP
   4. Jänes J
   5. Zalevsky AO
   6. Mészáros B
   7. Bryant P
   8. Good LL
   9. Laskowski RA
   10. Pozzati G
   11. Shenoy A
   12. Zhu W
   13. Kundrotas P
   14. Serra VR
   15. Rodrigues CHM
   16. Dunham AS
   17. Burke D
   18. Borkakoti N
   19. Velankar S
   20. Frost A
   21. Basquin J
   22. Lindorff-Larsen K
   23. Bateman A
   24. Kajava AV
   25. Valencia A
   26. Ovchinnikov S
   27. Durairaj J
   28. Ascher DB
   29. Thornton JM
   30. Davey NE
   31. Stein A
   32. Elofsson A
   33. Croll TI
   34. Beltrao P

   (2022) A structural biology community assessment of AlphaFold2 applications

   Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 29:1056–1067.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-022-00849-w

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Alvira S
   2. Watkins DW
   3. Troman L
   4. Allen WJ
   5. Lorriman JS
   6. Degliesposti G
   7. Cohen EJ
   8. Beeby M
   9. Daum B
   10. Gold VA
   11. Skehel JM
   12. Collinson I

   (2020) Inter-membrane association of the Sec and BAM translocons for bacterial outer-membrane biogenesis

   eLife 9:e60669.

   https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60669

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Baba T
   2. Ara T
   3. Hasegawa M
   4. Takai Y
   5. Okumura Y
   6. Baba M
   7. Datsenko KA
   8. Tomita M
   9. Wanner BL
   10. Mori H

   (2006) Construction of Escherichia coli K-12 in-frame, single-gene knockout mutants: the Keio collection

   Molecular Systems Biology 2:0050.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/msb4100050

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Badshah SL
   2. Ullah A

   (2018) New developments in non-quinolone-based antibiotics for the inhibiton of bacterial gyrase and topoisomerase IV

   European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 152:393–400.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmech.2018.04.059

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Baek M
   2. DiMaio F
   3. Anishchenko I
   4. Dauparas J
   5. Ovchinnikov S
   6. Lee GR
   7. Wang J
   8. Cong Q
   9. Kinch LN
   10. Schaeffer RD
   11. Millán C
   12. Park H
   13. Adams C
   14. Glassman CR
   15. DeGiovanni A
   16. Pereira JH
   17. Rodrigues AV
   18. van Dijk AA
   19. Ebrecht AC
   20. Opperman DJ
   21. Sagmeister T
   22. Buhlheller C
   23. Pavkov-Keller T
   24. Rathinaswamy MK
   25. Dalwadi U
   26. Yip CK
   27. Burke JE
   28. Garcia KC
   29. Grishin NV
   30. Adams PD
   31. Read RJ
   32. Baker D

   (2021) Accurate prediction of protein structures and interactions using a three-track neural network

   Science 373:871–876.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abj8754

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Bai J
   2. Dai Y
   3. Farinha A
   4. Tang AY
   5. Syal S
   6. Vargas-Cuebas G
   7. van Opijnen T
   8. Isberg RR
   9. Geisinger E

   (2021) Essential gene analysis in acinetobacter baumannii by high-density transposon mutagenesis and CRISPR interference

   Journal of Bacteriology 203:e0056520.

   https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00565-20

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Banzhaf M
   2. van den Berg van Saparoea B
   3. Terrak M
   4. Fraipont C
   5. Egan A
   6. Philippe J
   7. Zapun A
   8. Breukink E
   9. Nguyen-Distèche M
   10. den Blaauwen T
   11. Vollmer W

   (2012) Cooperativity of peptidoglycan synthases active in bacterial cell elongation

   Molecular Microbiology 85:179–194.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2012.08103.x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Bartholow TG
   2. Sztain T
   3. Patel A
   4. Lee DJ
   5. Young MA
   6. Abagyan R
   7. Burkart MD

   (2021) Elucidation of transient protein-protein interactions within carrier protein-dependent biosynthesis

   Communications Biology 4:340.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-01838-3

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Basu S
    2. Wallner B

    (2016) DockQ: A Quality Measure for Protein-Protein Docking Models

    PLOS ONE 11:e0161879.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161879

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Botte M
    2. Zaccai NR
    3. Nijeholt JLÀ
    4. Martin R
    5. Knoops K
    6. Papai G
    7. Zou J
    8. Deniaud A
    9. Karuppasamy M
    10. Jiang Q
    11. Roy AS
    12. Schulten K
    13. Schultz P
    14. Rappsilber J
    15. Zaccai G
    16. Berger I
    17. Collinson I
    18. Schaffitzel C

    (2016) A central cavity within the holo-translocon suggests A mechanism for membrane protein insertion

    Scientific Reports 6:38399.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep38399

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Broussard TC
    2. Price AE
    3. Laborde SM
    4. Waldrop GL

    (2013) Complex formation and regulation of Escherichia coli acetyl-CoA carboxylase

    Biochemistry 52:3346–3357.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/bi4000707

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Bryant P
    2. Pozzati G
    3. Elofsson A

    (2022a) Improved prediction of protein-protein interactions using AlphaFold2

    Nature Communications 13:1265.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28865-w

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Bryant P
    2. Pozzati G
    3. Zhu W
    4. Shenoy A
    5. Kundrotas P
    6. Elofsson A

    (2022b) Predicting the structure of large protein complexes using AlphaFold and Monte Carlo tree search

    Nature Communications 13:6028.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33729-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Cantalapiedra CP
    2. Hernández-Plaza A
    3. Letunic I
    4. Bork P
    5. Huerta-Cepas J

    (2021) eggNOG-mapper v2: functional annotation, orthology assignments, and domain prediction at the metagenomic scale

    Molecular Biology and Evolution 38:5825–5829.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msab293

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Carro L

    (2018) Protein-protein interactions in bacteria: a promising and challenging avenue towards the discovery of new antibiotics

    Beilstein Journal of Organic Chemistry 14:2881–2896.

    https://doi.org/10.3762/bjoc.14.267

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Chakravartty V
    2. Cronan JE

    (2012) Altered regulation of Escherichia coli biotin biosynthesis in BirA superrepressor mutant strains

    Journal of Bacteriology 194:1113–1126.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.06549-11

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Chan DI
    2. Vogel HJ

    (2010) Current understanding of fatty acid biosynthesis and the acyl carrier protein

    The Biochemical Journal 430:1–19.

    https://doi.org/10.1042/BJ20100462

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Chaudhuri RR
    2. Allen AG
    3. Owen PJ
    4. Shalom G
    5. Stone K
    6. Harrison M
    7. Burgis TA
    8. Lockyer M
    9. Garcia-Lara J
    10. Foster SJ
    11. Pleasance SJ
    12. Peters SE
    13. Maskell DJ
    14. Charles IG

    (2009) Comprehensive identification of essential Staphylococcus aureus genes using Transposon-Mediated Differential Hybridisation (TMDH)

    BMC Genomics 10:291.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-10-291

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Commichau FM
    2. Pietack N
    3. Stülke J

    (2013) Essential genes in Bacillus subtilis: a re-evaluation after ten years

    Molecular bioSystems 9:1068–1075.

    https://doi.org/10.1039/c3mb25595f

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Cong Q
    2. Anishchenko I
    3. Ovchinnikov S
    4. Baker D

    (2019) Protein interaction networks revealed by proteome coevolution

    Science 365:185–189.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw6718

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Cossar PJ
    2. Lewis PJ
    3. McCluskey A

    (2020) Protein-protein interactions as antibiotic targets: A medicinal chemistry perspective

    Medicinal Research Reviews 40:469–494.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/med.21519

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. Preprint

    1. Craven SJ
    2. Condon SGF
    3. Senes A

    (2022) A Model of the Interactions between the FtsQLB and the FtsWI peptidoglycan synthase complex in bacterial cell division

    bioRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.10.30.514410

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Cronan JE

    (2001) The biotinyl domain of Escherichia coli acetyl-coa carboxylase: evidence that the “thumb” structure id essential and that the domain functions as a dimer

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 276:37355–37364.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M106353200

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Cronan JE

    (2021) The classical, yet controversial, first enzyme of lipid synthesis: Escherichia coli Acetyl-CoA Carboxylase

    Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 85:e0003221.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00032-21

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Crua Asensio N
    2. Muñoz Giner E
    3. de Groot NS
    4. Torrent Burgas M

    (2017) Centrality in the host-pathogen interactome is associated with pathogen fitness during infection

    Nature Communications 8:14092.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14092

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. de Groot NS
    2. Torrent Burgas M
    3. Elofsson A

    (2020) Bacteria use structural imperfect mimicry to hijack the host interactome

    PLOS Computational Biology 16:e1008395.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008395

    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Dembek M
    2. Barquist L
    3. Boinett CJ
    4. Cain AK
    5. Mayho M
    6. Lawley TD
    7. Fairweather NF
    8. Fagan RP

    (2015) High-throughput analysis of gene essentiality and sporulation in Clostridium difficile

    mBio 6:e02383.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.02383-14

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Dodge GJ
    2. Patel A
    3. Jaremko KL
    4. McCammon JA
    5. Smith JL
    6. Burkart MD

    (2019) Structural and dynamical rationale for fatty acid unsaturation in Escherichia coli

    PNAS 116:6775–6783.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1818686116

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Dong C
    2. Jin Y-T
    3. Hua H-L
    4. Wen Q-F
    5. Luo S
    6. Zheng W-X
    7. Guo F-B

    (2020) Comprehensive review of the identification of essential genes using computational methods: focusing on feature implementation and assessment

    Briefings in Bioinformatics 21:171–181.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bby116

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. du Plessis DJF
    2. Nouwen N
    3. Driessen AJM

    (2011) The Sec translocase

    Biomembranes 1808:851–865.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2010.08.016

    • Google Scholar
32. Preprint

    1. Evans R
    2. O’Neill M
    3. Pritzel A
    4. Antropova N
    5. Senior A
    6. Green T
    7. Žídek A
    8. Bates R
    9. Blackwell S
    10. Yim J
    11. Ronneberger O
    12. Bodenstein S
    13. Zielinski M
    14. Bridgland A
    15. Potapenko A
    16. Cowie A
    17. Tunyasuvunakool K
    18. Jain R
    19. Clancy E
    20. Kohli P
    21. Jumper J
    22. Hassabis D

    (2021) Protein complex prediction with alphafold-multimer

    bioRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.10.04.463034

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Fijalkowska IJ
    2. Schaaper RM
    3. Jonczyk P

    (2012) DNA replication fidelity in Escherichia coli: a multi-DNA polymerase affair

    FEMS Microbiology Reviews 36:1105–1121.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2012.00338.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Gallagher LA
    2. Shendure J
    3. Manoil C

    (2011) Genome-scale identification of resistance functions in Pseudomonas aeruginosa using Tn-seq

    mBio 2:e00315-e00310.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00315-10

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Gerdes SY
    2. Scholle MD
    3. Campbell JW
    4. Balázsi G
    5. Ravasz E
    6. Daugherty MD
    7. Somera AL
    8. Kyrpides NC
    9. Anderson I
    10. Gelfand MS
    11. Bhattacharya A
    12. Kapatral V
    13. D’Souza M
    14. Baev MV
    15. Grechkin Y
    16. Mseeh F
    17. Fonstein MY
    18. Overbeek R
    19. Barabási A-L
    20. Oltvai ZN
    21. Osterman AL

    (2003) Experimental determination and system level analysis of essential genes in Escherichia coli MG1655

    Journal of Bacteriology 185:5673–5684.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.185.19.5673-5684.2003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Gómez Borrego J
    2. Torrent Burgas M

    (2022) Analysis of host-bacteria protein interactions reveals conserved domains and motifs that mediate fundamental infection pathways

    International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23:11489.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms231911489

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Goodall ECA

    (2018)

    The essential genome of Escherichia coli K-12

    mBio 9:e02096-17.

    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Grabowicz M
    2. Silhavy TJ

    (2017) Redefining the essential trafficking pathway for outer membrane lipoproteins

    PNAS 114:4769–4774.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1702248114

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Graham CLB
    2. Newman H
    3. Gillett FN
    4. Smart K
    5. Briggs N
    6. Banzhaf M
    7. Roper DI

    (2021) A Dynamic network of proteins facilitate cell envelope biogenesis in gram-negative bacteria

    International Journal of Molecular Sciences 22:12831.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms222312831

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Guharoy M
    2. Chakrabarti P

    (2010) Conserved residue clusters at protein-protein interfaces and their use in binding site identification

    BMC Bioinformatics 11:286.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-11-286

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Hajj Chehade M
    2. Pelosi L
    3. Fyfe CD
    4. Loiseau L
    5. Rascalou B
    6. Brugière S
    7. Kazemzadeh K
    8. Vo CDT
    9. Ciccone L
    10. Aussel L
    11. Couté Y
    12. Fontecave M
    13. Barras F
    14. Lombard M
    15. Pierrel F

    (2019) A soluble metabolon synthesizes the isoprenoid lipid ubiquinone

    Cell Chemical Biology 26:482–492.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chembiol.2018.12.001

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Hayashi Y
    2. Tsurumizu R
    3. Tsukahara J
    4. Takeda K
    5. Narita S
    6. Mori M
    7. Miki K
    8. Tokuda H

    (2014) Roles of the protruding loop of factor b essential for the localization of lipoproteins (LolB) in the anchoring of bacterial triacylated proteins to the outer membrane

    Journal of Biological Chemistry 289:10530–10539.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M113.539270

    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Hicks G
    2. Jia Z

    (2018) Structural basis for the lipopolysaccharide export activity of the bacterial lipopolysaccharide transport system

    International Journal of Molecular Sciences 19:2680.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19092680

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Hooper DC
    2. Jacoby GA

    (2016) Topoisomerase inhibitors: fluoroquinolone mechanisms of action and resistance

    Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine 6:a025320.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a025320

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Jameson KH
    2. Wilkinson AJ

    (2017) Control of Initiation of DNA Replication in Bacillus subtilis and Escherichia coli

    Genes 8:22.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/genes8010022

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Ji Y
    2. Zhang B
    3. Van SF
    4. Warren P
    5. Woodnutt G
    6. Burnham MK
    7. Rosenberg M

    (2001) Identification of critical staphylococcal genes using conditional phenotypes generated by antisense RNA

    Science 293:2266–2269.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1063566

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Jumper J
    2. Evans R
    3. Pritzel A
    4. Green T
    5. Figurnov M
    6. Ronneberger O
    7. Tunyasuvunakool K
    8. Bates R
    9. Žídek A
    10. Potapenko A
    11. Bridgland A
    12. Meyer C
    13. Kohl SAA
    14. Ballard AJ
    15. Cowie A
    16. Romera-Paredes B
    17. Nikolov S
    18. Jain R
    19. Adler J
    20. Back T
    21. Petersen S
    22. Reiman D
    23. Clancy E
    24. Zielinski M
    25. Steinegger M
    26. Pacholska M
    27. Berghammer T
    28. Bodenstein S
    29. Silver D
    30. Vinyals O
    31. Senior AW
    32. Kavukcuoglu K
    33. Kohli P
    34. Hassabis D

    (2021) Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold

    Nature 596:583–589.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2

    • Google Scholar
48. Software

    1. Jumper J
    2. Evans R
    3. Pritzel A
    4. Green T
    5. Figurnov M
    6. Ronneberger O
    7. Tunyasuvunakool K
    8. Bates R
    9. Žídek A
    10. Potapenko A
    11. Bridgland A
    12. Meyer C
    13. Kohl SAA
    14. Ballard AJ
    15. Cowie A
    16. Romera-Paredes B
    17. Nikolov S
    18. Jain R
    19. Adler J
    20. Back T
    21. Petersen S
    22. Reiman D
    23. Clancy E
    24. Zielinski M
    25. Steinegger M
    26. Pacholska M
    27. Berghammer T
    28. Bodenstein S
    29. Silver D

    (2022) Alphafold, version 2.3.1

    Github.

    https://github.com/deepmind/alphafold
49. 1. Kaplan E
    2. Greene NP
    3. Crow A
    4. Koronakis V

    (2018) Insights into bacterial lipoprotein trafficking from a structure of LolA bound to the LolC periplasmic domain

    PNAS 115:E7389–E7397.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1806822115

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Kaplan E
    2. Greene NP
    3. Jepson AE
    4. Koronakis V

    (2022) Structural basis of lipoprotein recognition by the bacterial Lol trafficking chaperone LolA

    PNAS 119:e2208662119.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2208662119

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Katayama T
    2. Kasho K
    3. Kawakami H

    (2017) The DnaA cycle in Escherichia coli: activation, function and inactivation of the initiator protein

    Frontiers in Microbiology 8:2496.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.02496

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Knyazev DG
    2. Kuttner R
    3. Zimmermann M
    4. Sobakinskaya E
    5. Pohl P

    (2018) Driving forces of translocation through bacterial translocon SecYEG

    The Journal of Membrane Biology 251:329–343.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00232-017-0012-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Koonin EV

    (2000) How many genes can make a cell: the minimal-gene-set concept

    Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 1:99–116.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genom.1.1.99

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. Software

    1. Krawczyk K

    (2013) Getinterfaces.Py

    Oxford Protein Informatics Group.

    https://www.blopig.com/blog/2013/10/get-pdb-intermolecular-protein-contacts-and-interface-residues/
55. 1. Launay R
    2. Teppa E
    3. Martins C
    4. Abby SS
    5. Pierrel F
    6. André I
    7. Esque J

    (2022) Towards molecular understanding of the functional role of UbiJ-UbiK2 complex in ubiquinone biosynthesis by multiscale molecular modelling studies

    International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23:10323.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms231810323

    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Li Y
    2. Orlando BJ
    3. Liao M

    (2019) Structural basis of lipopolysaccharide extraction by the LptB2FGC complex

    Nature 567:486–490.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1025-6

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Liberati NT
    2. Urbach JM
    3. Miyata S
    4. Lee DG
    5. Drenkard E
    6. Wu G
    7. Villanueva J
    8. Wei T
    9. Ausubel FM

    (2006) An ordered, nonredundant library of Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain PA14 transposon insertion mutants

    PNAS 103:2833–2838.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0511100103

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Liu X
    2. Gallay C
    3. Kjos M
    4. Domenech A
    5. Slager J
    6. van Kessel SP
    7. Knoops K
    8. Sorg RA
    9. Zhang J-R
    10. Veening J-W

    (2017) High-throughput CRISPRi phenotyping identifies new essential genes in Streptococcus pneumoniae

    Molecular Systems Biology 13:931.

    https://doi.org/10.15252/msb.20167449

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Liu X
    2. Biboy J
    3. Consoli E
    4. Vollmer W
    5. den Blaauwen T

    (2020) MreC and MreD balance the interaction between the elongasome proteins PBP2 and RodA

    PLOS Genetics 16:e1009276.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1009276

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Ma C
    2. Wu X
    3. Sun D
    4. Park E
    5. Catipovic MA
    6. Rapoport TA
    7. Gao N
    8. Li L

    (2019) Structure of the substrate-engaged SecA-SecY protein translocation machine

    Nature Communications 10:2872.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10918-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Macho Rendón J
    2. Rebollido-Ríos R
    3. Torrent Burgas M

    (2022) HPIPred: Host-pathogen interactome prediction with phenotypic scoring

    Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal 20:6534–6542.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2022.11.026

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Mackay JP
    2. Sunde M
    3. Lowry JA
    4. Crossley M
    5. Matthews JM

    (2007) Protein interactions: is seeing believing?

    Trends in Biochemical Sciences 32:530–531.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2007.09.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Mahalakshmi S
    2. Sunayana MR
    3. SaiSree L
    4. Reddy M

    (2014) yciM is an essential gene required for regulation of lipopolysaccharide synthesis in Escherichia coli

    Molecular Microbiology 91:145–157.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/mmi.12452

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Mahone CR
    2. Goley ED

    (2020) Bacterial cell division at a glance

    Journal of Cell Science 133:jcs237057.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.237057

    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Malojčić G
    2. Andres D
    3. Grabowicz M
    4. George AH
    5. Ruiz N
    6. Silhavy TJ
    7. Kahne D

    (2014) LptE binds to and alters the physical state of LPS to catalyze its assembly at the cell surface

    PNAS 111:9467–9472.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1402746111

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Masoudi A
    2. Raetz CRH
    3. Zhou P
    4. Pemble IV CW

    (2014) Chasing acyl carrier protein through A catalytic cycle of lipid A production

    Nature 505:422–426.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12679

    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Merten JA
    2. Schultz KM
    3. Klug CS

    (2012) Concentration-dependent oligomerization and oligomeric arrangement of LptA

    Protein Science 21:211–218.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.2004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Mitternacht S

    (2016) FreeSASA: An open source C library for solvent accessible surface area calculations

    F1000Research 5:189.

    https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7931.1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Narita S-I
    2. Tokuda H

    (2017) Bacterial lipoproteins; biogenesis, sorting and quality control

    Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1862:1414–1423.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbalip.2016.11.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Okuda S
    2. Sherman DJ
    3. Silhavy TJ
    4. Ruiz N
    5. Kahne D

    (2016) Lipopolysaccharide transport and assembly at the outer membrane: the PEZ model

    Nature Reviews. Microbiology 14:337–345.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2016.25

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Olsen LR
    2. Vetting MW
    3. Roderick SL

    (2007) Structure of the E. coli bifunctional GlmU acetyltransferase active site with substrates and products

    Protein Science 16:1230–1235.

    https://doi.org/10.1110/ps.072779707

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Oswald J
    2. Njenga R
    3. Natriashvili A
    4. Sarmah P
    5. Koch HG

    (2021) The Dynamic SecYEG Translocon

    Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences 8:664241.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2021.664241

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Pichoff S
    2. Du S
    3. Lutkenhaus J

    (2019) Roles of FtsEX in cell division

    Research in Microbiology 170:374–380.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resmic.2019.07.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Poulsen BE
    2. Yang R
    3. Clatworthy AE
    4. White T
    5. Osmulski SJ
    6. Li L
    7. Penaranda C
    8. Lander ES
    9. Shoresh N
    10. Hung DT

    (2019) Defining the core essential genome of Pseudomonas aeruginosa

    PNAS 116:10072–10080.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900570116

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Putker F
    2. Bos MP
    3. Tommassen J

    (2015) Transport of lipopolysaccharide to the Gram-negative bacterial cell surface

    FEMS Microbiology Reviews 39:985–1002.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/femsre/fuv026

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Rajagopala SV
    2. Sikorski P
    3. Kumar A
    4. Mosca R
    5. Vlasblom J
    6. Arnold R
    7. Franca-Koh J
    8. Pakala SB
    9. Phanse S
    10. Ceol A
    11. Häuser R
    12. Siszler G
    13. Wuchty S
    14. Emili A
    15. Babu M
    16. Aloy P
    17. Pieper R
    18. Uetz P

    (2014) The binary protein-protein interaction landscape of Escherichia coli

    Nature Biotechnology 32:285–290.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2831

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Ramage B
    2. Erolin R
    3. Held K
    4. Gasper J
    5. Weiss E
    6. Brittnacher M
    7. Gallagher L
    8. Manoil C

    (2017) Comprehensive arrayed transposon mutant library of klebsiella pneumoniae outbreak strain KPNIH1

    Journal of Bacteriology 199:e00352-17.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00352-17

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Rao VS
    2. Srinivas K
    3. Sujini GN
    4. Kumar GNS

    (2014) Protein-protein interaction detection: methods and analysis

    International Journal of Proteomics 2014:147648.

    https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/147648

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Reyes-Lamothe R
    2. Sherratt DJ
    3. Leake MC

    (2010) Stoichiometry and architecture of active DNA replication machinery in Escherichia coli

    Science 328:498–501.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185757

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Reyes-Lamothe R
    2. Sherratt DJ

    (2019) The bacterial cell cycle, chromosome inheritance and cell growth

    Nature Reviews Microbiology 17:467–478.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-019-0212-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Rohs PDA
    2. Buss J
    3. Sim SI
    4. Squyres GR
    5. Srisuknimit V
    6. Smith M
    7. Cho H
    8. Sjodt M
    9. Kruse AC
    10. Garner EC
    11. Walker S
    12. Kahne DE
    13. Bernhardt TG

    (2018) A central role for PBP2 in the activation of peptidoglycan polymerization by the bacterial cell elongation machinery

    PLOS Genetics 14:e1007726.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007726

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Santambrogio C
    2. Sperandeo P
    3. Villa R
    4. Sobott F
    5. Polissi A
    6. Grandori R

    (2013) LptA assembles into rod-like oligomers involving disorder-to-order transitions

    Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry 24:1593–1602.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s13361-013-0687-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Santiago M
    2. Matano LM
    3. Moussa SH
    4. Gilmore MS
    5. Walker S
    6. Meredith TC

    (2015) A new platform for ultra-high density Staphylococcus aureus transposon libraries

    BMC Genomics 16:252.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-015-1361-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Shanbhag AP

    (2019) FabG: from a core to circumstantial catalyst

    Biotechnology Letters 41:675–688.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-019-02678-2

    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Sjodt M
    2. Rohs PDA
    3. Gilman MSA
    4. Erlandson SC
    5. Zheng S
    6. Green AG
    7. Brock KP
    8. Taguchi A
    9. Kahne D
    10. Walker S
    11. Marks DS
    12. Rudner DZ
    13. Bernhardt TG
    14. Kruse AC

    (2020) Structural coordination of polymerization and crosslinking by a SEDS-bPBP peptidoglycan synthase complex

    Nature Microbiology 5:813–820.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-0687-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Sochacki KA
    2. Shkel IA
    3. Record MT
    4. Weisshaar JC

    (2011) Protein diffusion in the periplasm of E. coli under osmotic stress

    Biophysical Journal 100:22–31.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2010.11.044

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Steudle A
    2. Spann D
    3. Pross E
    4. Shanmugam SK
    5. Dalbey RE
    6. Kuhn A

    (2021) Molecular communication of the membrane insertase YidC with translocase SecYEG affects client proteins

    Scientific Reports 11:3940.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83224-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Suits MDL
    2. Sperandeo P
    3. Dehò G
    4. Polissi A
    5. Jia Z

    (2008) Novel structure of the conserved gram-negative lipopolysaccharide transport protein A and mutagenesis analysis

    Journal of Molecular Biology 380:476–488.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2008.04.045

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Szklarczyk D
    2. Gable AL
    3. Nastou KC
    4. Lyon D
    5. Kirsch R
    6. Pyysalo S
    7. Doncheva NT
    8. Legeay M
    9. Fang T
    10. Bork P
    11. Jensen LJ
    12. von Mering C

    (2021) The STRING database in 2021: customizable protein-protein networks, and functional characterization of user-uploaded gene/measurement sets

    Nucleic Acids Research 49:D605–D612.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaa1074

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Szwedziak P
    2. Löwe J

    (2013) Do the divisome and elongasome share a common evolutionary past?

    Current Opinion in Microbiology 16:745–751.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2013.09.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Takeda K
    2. Miyatake H
    3. Yokota N
    4. Matsuyama S
    5. Tokuda H
    6. Miki K

    (2003) Crystal structures of bacterial lipoprotein localization factors, LolA and LolB

    The EMBO Journal 22:3199–3209.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/cdg324

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Thomas WC
    2. Brooks FP
    3. Burnim AA
    4. Bacik JP
    5. Stubbe J
    6. Kaelber JT
    7. Chen JZ
    8. Ando N

    (2019) Convergent allostery in ribonucleotide reductase

    Nature Communications 10:2653.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10568-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Tong L

    (2005) Acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase: crucial metabolic enzyme and attractive target for drug discovery

    Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 62:1784–1803.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-005-5121-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Tsirigotaki A
    2. De Geyter J
    3. Šoštaric N
    4. Economou A
    5. Karamanou S

    (2017) Protein export through the bacterial Sec pathway

    Nature Reviews Microbiology 15:21–36.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2016.161

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. van der Ploeg R
    2. Verheul J
    3. Vischer NOE
    4. Alexeeva S
    5. Hoogendoorn E
    6. Postma M
    7. Banzhaf M
    8. Vollmer W
    9. den Blaauwen T

    (2013) Colocalization and interaction between elongasome and divisome during a preparative cell division phase in Escherichia coli

    Molecular Microbiology 87:1074–1087.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/mmi.12150

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. van Teeseling MCF

    (2021) Elongation at midcell in preparation of cell division requires FtsZ, but not MreB nor PBP2 in caulobacter crescentus

    Frontiers in Microbiology 12:732031.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.732031

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Veenendaal AKJ
    2. van der Does C
    3. Driessen AJM

    (2004) The protein-conducting channel SecYEG

    Molecular Cell Research 1694:81–95.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamcr.2004.02.009

    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Vicente M
    2. Rico AI
    3. Martínez-Arteaga R
    4. Mingorance J

    (2006) Septum enlightenment: assembly of bacterial division proteins

    Journal of Bacteriology 188:19–27.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.188.1.19-27.2006

    • Google Scholar
99. Software

    1. Wallner B

    (2016) Dockq, version 1.0

    Github.

    https://github.com/bjornwallner/DockQ
100. 1. Whitfield C
     2. Trent MS

     (2014) Biosynthesis and export of bacterial lipopolysaccharides

     Annual Review of Biochemistry 83:99–128.

     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biochem-060713-035600

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Xu ZQ
     2. Dixon NE

     (2018) Bacterial replisomes

     Current Opinion in Structural Biology 53:159–168.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2018.09.006

     • Google Scholar
102. 1. Yao J
     2. Rock CO

     (2013) Phosphatidic acid synthesis in bacteria

     Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1831:495–502.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbalip.2012.08.018

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
103. 1. Yao J
     2. Rock CO

     (2015) How bacterial pathogens eat host lipids: implications for the development of fatty acid synthesis therapeutics

     The Journal of Biological Chemistry 290:5940–5946.

     https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.R114.636241

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
104. 1. Zhao B
     2. Hu S
     3. Liu X
     4. Xiong H
     5. Han X
     6. Zhang Z
     7. Li X
     8. Wang L

     (2020) A novel computational approach for identifying essential proteins from multiplex biological networks

     Frontiers in Genetics 11:343.

     https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2020.00343

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
105. 1. Zhu SB
     2. Jiang QH
     3. Chen ZG
     4. Zhou X
     5. Jin YT
     6. Deng Z
     7. Guo FB

     (2023a) Mslar: Microbial synthetic lethal and rescue database

     PLOS Computational Biology 19:e1011218.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011218

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
106. 1. Zhu W
     2. Shenoy A
     3. Kundrotas P
     4. Elofsson A

     (2023b) Evaluation of AlphaFold-Multimer prediction on multi-chain protein complexes

     Bioinformatics 39:btad424.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btad424

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Jordi Gómez Borrego

   Systems Biology of Infection Lab, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Biosciences Faculty, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1963-5455

2. Marc Torrent Burgas

   Systems Biology of Infection Lab, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Biosciences Faculty, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   marc.torrent@uab.cat

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6567-3474

• 975

  views

• 265

  downloads

• 0

  citations

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