Mechanistic Insights into MinD Regulation and Pattern Formation in Bacillus subtilis

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this work, the authors investigate the molecular dynamics of MinD, a component of the Bacillus subtilis Min system, in vitro and in vivo. In Escherichia coli the Min system is highly dynamic and displays rapid pole-to-pole oscillation whereby a time average minimum of the Min proteins at mid-cell is established. However, in B. subtilis, this is not the case, and there is no MinE present. MinD in B. subtilis dynamically relocalizes from the poles to division sites and binds to MinC and MinJ, which mediates its interaction with DivIVA. This paper reports the biochemical characterization of B. subtilis MinD in vitro and dynamics of MinD variants in vivo, providing mechanistic insight into the mechanism of dynamic localization.

Strengths:

In the current study, the authors perform a detailed biochemical characterizion of the in vitro ATPase activity of MinD and demonstrate that rapid hydrolysis is elicited by adding phospholipids. They further show using a collection of substitution mutants of MinD that both monomers and dimers bind to the membrane, and ATP occupancy changes the on and off rates. Identification, quantification, and tracking of discrete Halo-MinD populations were nicely done and showed that mutations in MinD alter dynamic localization, correlating with PL binding on and off rates in vitro.

Weaknesses:

While the study shows that MinD in B. subtilis utilizes a different (MinE-independent) activation mechanism, it remains to be determined the extent to which MinJ and/or MinC play a role.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Feddersen & Bramkamp determined important characteristics of how MinD protein binds/dissociates to/from the membrane, and dimerizes in relation to its ATPase activity. The presented data clearly shows the differences in function of MinD homologs from B. subtilis and E. coli.

Strengths:

The work presents well-executed experiments that lead to interesting conclusions and a new model of how Min system works during B. subtilis mid-cell division. Importantly, this model is supported by in vitro characterization of well-chosen mutants in the functional domains of MinD. Outstandingly, most of the in vitro data are confirmed by single-molecule localization microscopy.

Weaknesses:

The authors immobilized liposomes, for which they used E. coli total lipids, to measure ATPase activity and liposome association and dissociation of B. subtilis MinD. For these experiments would be more suitable to use B. subtilis total lipids as more biologically relevant data could be gained.

Although the work is in detail and nicely compares the function of B. subtilis Min system with E. coli Min system, it lacks the comparison of the Min system function in other rod-shaped Gram-positive bacteria. I would suggest including in the Discussion the complexity of other Min systems. Especially, this complexity is seen in other rod-shaped and spore formers such as Clostridial species in which one of these Min systems or both are present, an oscillating E. coli Min system type and more static as in B. subtilis.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Experimentally, this study provides sufficient data to support the authors' conclusion that MinD dimerization but not ATPase activity is both necessary and sufficient for concentrating it and its binding partner, the division inhibitor MinC, at cell poles. Biochemical data appears to be rigorously acquired and includes proper controls. Although cytological data are consistent with the authors' model, quantitative information on MinD localization in a statistically relevant set of cells is missing (e.g. Figure 2B).

The study's other major conclusion, that a reaction-diffusion model explains MinD localization in wild-type cells, is unsubstantiated. A mathematically grounded test of the reaction-diffusion model for MinD localization that takes into account biochemical and cytological data is missing from the manuscript. The model is only discussed in general terms and only in the discussion.

Structurally, the manuscript requires substantial rewriting and revision. It was extremely challenging to review, largely due to the lengthy and often disorganized nature of the text. In many places, it appears as if sentences and sometimes paragraphs were cut and pasted from other sections or entirely separate manuscripts. The entire paper would benefit from several rounds of aggressive editing and revision.