A conserved cell-pole determinant organizes proper polar flagellum formation

  1. Max Planck Institute for Terrestrial Microbiology, Department of Ecophysiology, Marburg 35043, Germany
  2. Department of Biology I, Microbiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany
  3. Department of Microbiology and Molecular Biology, Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen, Giessen, Germany
  4. Interfaculty Institute of Microbiology and Infection Medicine Tübingen, Bacterial Metabolomics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
  5. Institute for Biological Physics, University of Cologne, Köln, Germany
  6. Core Facility for Mass Spectrometry and Proteomics, Max Planck Institute for Terrestrial Microbiology, Marburg, Germany

Peer review process

Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, and public reviews.

Read more about eLife’s peer review process.

Editors

  • Reviewing Editor
    Karine Gibbs
    University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States of America
  • Senior Editor
    Dominique Soldati-Favre
    University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

Joint Public Review:

Bacteria exhibit species-specific numbers and localization patterns of flagella. How specificity in number and pattern is achieved in Gamma-proteobacteria needs to be better understood but often depends on a soluble GTPase called FlhF. Here, the authors take an unbiased protein-pulldown approach with FlhF, resulting in identifying the protein FipA in V. parahaemolyticus. They convincingly demonstrate that FipA interacts genetically and biochemically with previously known spatial regulators HubP and FlhF. FipA is a membrane protein with a cytoplasmic DUF2802; it co-localizes to the flagellated pole with HubP and FlhF. The DUF2802 mediates the interaction between FipA and FlhF, and this interaction is required for FipA function. Altogether, the authors show that FipA likely facilitates the recruitment of FlhF to the membrane at the cell pole together with the known recruitment factor HupB. This finding is crucial in understanding the mechanism of polar localization. The authors show that FipA co-occurs with FlhF in the genomes of bacteria with polarly-localized flagella and study the role of FipA in three of these organisms: V. parahaemolyticus, S. purtefaciens, and P. putida. In each case, they show that FipA contributes to FlhF polar localization, flagellar assembly, flagellar patterning, and motility, though the details differ among the species. By comparing the role of FipA in polar flagellum assembly in three different species, they discover that, while FipA is required in all three systems, evolution has brought different nuances that open avenues for further discoveries.

Strengths:

The discovery of a novel factor for polar flagellum development. The solid nature and flow of the experimental work.

The authors perform a comprehensive analysis of FipA, including phenotyping of mutants, protein localization, localization dependence, and domains of FipA necessary for each. Moreover, they perform a time-series analysis indicating that FipA localizes to the cell pole likely before, or at least coincident with, flagellar assembly. They also show that the role of FipA appears to differ between organisms in detail, but the overarching idea that it is a flagellar assembly/localization factor remains convincing.

The work is well-executed, relying on bacterial genetics, cell biology, and protein interaction studies. The analysis is deep, beginning with discovering a new and conserved factor, then the molecular dissection of the protein, and finally, probing localization and interaction determinants. Finally, the authors show that these determinants are important for function; they perform these studies in parallel in three model systems.

Weaknesses:

The comparative analysis in the different organisms was on balance, a weakness. Mixing the data for the organisms together made the text difficult to read and took away key points from the results. The individual details crowded out the model in its current form. Indeed, because some of the phenotypes and localization dependencies differ between model systems, the comparison is challenging to the reader. The authors could more clearly state what these differences mean, why they arise, and (in the discussion) how they might relate to the organism's lifestyle.

More experiments would be needed to fully analyze the effects of interacting proteins on individual protein stability; this absence slightly detracted from the conclusions.

  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  2. Wellcome Trust
  3. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
  4. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation