Coordination of peptidoglycan synthesis and outer membrane constriction during Escherichia coli cell division

  1. Andrew N Gray
  2. Alexander J F Egan
  3. Inge L van't Veer
  4. Jolanda Verheul
  5. Alexandre Colavin
  6. Alexandra Koumoutsi
  7. Jacob Biboy
  8. Maarten A F Altelaar
  9. Mirjam J Damen
  10. Kerwyn Casey Huang
  11. Jean-Pierre Simorre
  12. Eefjan Breukink
  13. Tanneke den Blaauwen
  14. Athanasios Typas
  15. Carol A Gross  Is a corresponding author
  16. Waldemar Vollmer
  1. University of California, San Francisco, United States
  2. Newcastle University, United Kingdom
  3. University of Utrecht, Netherlands
  4. University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
  5. Stanford University, United States
  6. European Molecular Biology Laboratory Heidelberg, Germany
  7. Université Grenoble Alpes, France

Abstract

To maintain cellular structure and integrity during division, Gram-negative bacteria must carefully coordinate constriction of a tripartite cell envelope of inner membrane (IM), peptidoglycan (PG) and outer membrane (OM). It has remained enigmatic how this is accomplished. Here, we show that envelope machines facilitating septal PG synthesis (PBP1B-LpoB complex) and OM constriction (Tol system) are physically and functionally coordinated via YbgF, renamed CpoB (Coordinator of PG synthesis and OM constriction, associated with PBP1B). CpoB localizes to the septum concurrent with PBP1B-LpoB and Tol at the onset of constriction, interacts with both complexes, and regulates PBP1B activity in response to Tol energy state. This coordination links PG synthesis with OM invagination and imparts a unique mode of bifunctional PG synthase regulation by selectively modulating PBP1B cross-linking activity. Coordination of the PBP1B and Tol machines by CpoB contributes to effective PBP1B function in vivo and maintenance of cell envelope integrity during division.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Andrew N Gray

    Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Alexander J F Egan

    Centre for Bacterial Cell Biology, Institute for Cell and Molecular Biosciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Inge L van't Veer

    Membrane Biochemistry and Biophysics, Bijvoet Centre for Biomolecular Research, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Jolanda Verheul

    Bacterial Cell Biology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Alexandre Colavin

    Biophysics Program, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Alexandra Koumoutsi

    Genome Biology Unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Jacob Biboy

    Centre for Bacterial Cell Biology, Institute for Cell and Molecular Biosciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Maarten A F Altelaar

    Biomolecular Mass Spectrometry and Proteomics, Bijvoet Centre for Biomolecular Research, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Mirjam J Damen

    Biomolecular Mass Spectrometry and Proteomics, Bijvoet Centre for Biomolecular Research, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Kerwyn Casey Huang

    Biophysics Program, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Jean-Pierre Simorre

    Institut de Biologie Structurale, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Eefjan Breukink

    Membrane Biochemistry and Biophysics, Bijvoet Centre for Biomolecular Research, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Tanneke den Blaauwen

    Bacterial Cell Biology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Athanasios Typas

    Genome Biology Unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Carol A Gross

    Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    For correspondence
    cgrossucsf@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Waldemar Vollmer

    Centre for Bacterial Cell Biology, Institute for Cell and Molecular Biosciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Gisela Storz, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, United States

Version history

  1. Received: February 20, 2015
  2. Accepted: May 6, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 7, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: May 8, 2015 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: June 8, 2015 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2015, Gray 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

  • 5,877
    views
  • 1,661
    downloads
  • 147
    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. Andrew N Gray
  2. Alexander J F Egan
  3. Inge L van't Veer
  4. Jolanda Verheul
  5. Alexandre Colavin
  6. Alexandra Koumoutsi
  7. Jacob Biboy
  8. Maarten A F Altelaar
  9. Mirjam J Damen
  10. Kerwyn Casey Huang
  11. Jean-Pierre Simorre
  12. Eefjan Breukink
  13. Tanneke den Blaauwen
  14. Athanasios Typas
  15. Carol A Gross
  16. Waldemar Vollmer
(2015)
Coordination of peptidoglycan synthesis and outer membrane constriction during Escherichia coli cell division
eLife 4:e07118.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07118

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07118

Further reading

    1. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Hina Khan, Partha Paul ... Dibyendu Sarkar
    Research Article

    Survival of Mycobacterium tuberculosis within the host macrophages requires the bacterial virulence regulator PhoP, but the underlying reason remains unknown. 3′,5′-Cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) is one of the most widely used second messengers, which impacts a wide range of cellular responses in microbial pathogens including M. tuberculosis. Herein, we hypothesized that intra-bacterial cAMP level could be controlled by PhoP since this major regulator plays a key role in bacterial responses against numerous stress conditions. A transcriptomic analysis reveals that PhoP functions as a repressor of cAMP-specific phosphodiesterase (PDE) Rv0805, which hydrolyzes cAMP. In keeping with these results, we find specific recruitment of the regulator within the promoter region of rv0805 PDE, and absence of phoP or ectopic expression of rv0805 independently accounts for elevated PDE synthesis, leading to the depletion of intra-bacterial cAMP level. Thus, genetic manipulation to inactivate PhoP-rv0805-cAMP pathway decreases cAMP level, stress tolerance, and intracellular survival of the bacillus.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Natalia E Ketaren, Fred D Mast ... John D Aitchison
    Research Advance

    To date, all major modes of monoclonal antibody therapy targeting SARS-CoV-2 have lost significant efficacy against the latest circulating variants. As SARS-CoV-2 omicron sublineages account for over 90% of COVID-19 infections, evasion of immune responses generated by vaccination or exposure to previous variants poses a significant challenge. A compelling new therapeutic strategy against SARS-CoV-2 is that of single-domain antibodies, termed nanobodies, which address certain limitations of monoclonal antibodies. Here, we demonstrate that our high-affinity nanobody repertoire, generated against wild-type SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (Mast et al., 2021), remains effective against variants of concern, including omicron BA.4/BA.5; a subset is predicted to counter resistance in emerging XBB and BQ.1.1 sublineages. Furthermore, we reveal the synergistic potential of nanobody cocktails in neutralizing emerging variants. Our study highlights the power of nanobody technology as a versatile therapeutic and diagnostic tool to combat rapidly evolving infectious diseases such as SARS-CoV-2.