Mys­ter­ies of the Bac­te­r­ial L‑Form: Can Some of Them Be Un­veiled?

by Hans H. Mar­tin

L‑forms are bac­te­r­ial vari­ants with de­fec­tive cell walls and ir­reg­u­lar growth and mul­ti­pli­ca­tion. They arise af­ter pep­ti­do­gly­can, the ex­oskele­ton of the bac­te­r­ial cell wall, has been ei­ther de­graded by bac­te­ri­olytic en­zymes, or its biosyn­the­sis has been dis­turbed by an­tibi­otics and other in­hibitors, or by de­fect mu­ta­tions in es­sen­tial genes for cell wall syn­the­sis. L‑forms with dif­fer­ent de­grees of wall de­fects can arise. In­ter­na­tional ex­perts, headed by no­belist Sid­ney Bren­ner, rec­og­nized the need to dis­tin­guish be­tween en­tirely cell wall-less pro­to­plasts, sur­rounded only by a cy­to­plas­mic mem­brane, and spher­o­plasts with resid­ual, frag­ile cell walls. L‑forms were dis­cov­ered in 1935 by Emmy Klieneberger and sub­se­quently de­scribed by many au­thors (ex­am­ples here and here). Much in­ter­est in L‑forms arose from their as­sumed but still un­con­firmed roles as con­cealed pathogens and as sur­vivors of an­tibi­otic ac­tion. They are also use­ful tools for the study of ba­sic mech­a­nisms of cell bi­ol­ogy, such as cell di­vi­sion. Yet, as justly de­plored in a re­cent re­view, L‑forms are still "un­fa­mil­iar to many mi­cro­bi­ol­o­gists" and are of­ten re­garded "with scep­ti­cism." One hears com­plaints about the un­usu­ally la­bor-in­ten­sive and time-con­sum­ing process of L‑form iso­la­tion and cul­ti­va­tion, and the un­cer­tain out­come. How­ever, in my ex­pe­ri­ence, this can be over­come by pa­tient de­ter­mi­na­tion.

Fig­ure 1. Pep­ti­do­gly­can sac­culi iso­lated from L‑form spher­o­plasts of P. mirabilis. Elec­tron mi­cro­graph of Pt-Ir-shad­owed sam­ple. 20,000X.

A spe­cial type of re­sis­tance to an­tibi­otics, which we stud­ied ex­ten­sively in my lab, is re­flected in the abil­ity of the Gram-neg­a­tive bac­terium Pro­teus mirabilis to evade the in­hibitory ac­tion of peni­cillin and other β‑lactam an­tibi­otics by grow­ing as spher­o­plast- L‑forms (ref­er­ences here and here). It is im­por­tant to note that the most com­mon re­sis­tance mech­a­nism, in­ac­ti­va­tion of β‑lactam an­tibi­otics by β‑lactamase, is not in­volved in this phe­nom­e­non.

Fig­ure 2. Free peni­cillin-bind­ing pro­teins (PBPs) of P. mirabilis la­belled with [35S] peni­cillin G. S from L‑form spher­o­plasts grown in the pres­ence of 120 mg/l peni­cillin G. B from nor­mal bac­te­ria.

β‑Lactam an­tibi­otics are known as spe­cific in­hibitors of the biosyn­the­sis of pep­ti­do­gly­can. They in­ac­ti­vate the pep­ti­do­gly­can-transpep­ti­dases (see chap­ter "β‑Lac­tam-in­duced Pro­teus L‑forms" by Ghuy­sen, J.M., Nguyen-Dis­tèche, and Rous­set, A.) mul­ti­ple en­zymes that form cross-link­ages be­tween pep­tide side chains of ad­ja­cent gly­can strands in dif­fer­ent stages of pep­ti­do­gly­can biosyn­the­sis. The en­zymes are present in all bac­te­ria as a group of mem­brane-bound pro­teins of dif­fer­ent size but with the com­mon prop­erty of co­va­lently bind­ing peni­cillin and other β‑lactam an­tibi­otics. Thus, all are termed peni­cillin-bind­ing pro­teins (Fig. 2). In the pep­ti­do­gly­can of Gram-neg­a­tive bac­te­ria, they con­nect the D-cen­ter of meso-di­aminomelic acid in po­si­tion 3 (meso-DAP3) of one side chain to D-ala­nine in po­si­tion 4 (D‑ALA4) of an ad­ja­cent side chain and are there­fore called DD-pep­ti­do­gly­can-transpep­ti­dases (Fig. 3, up­per).

Fig­ure 3. Pep­tide crosslink­ages in pep­ti­doglcan catal­ysed by DD– (β‑lac­tam-sen­si­tive) and by LD– (β‑lac­tam-in­sen­si­tive) pep­ti­do­gly­can-transpep­ti­dases.

In many bac­te­ria, in­ac­ti­va­tion of the transpep­ti­dases re­sults in the loss of strength and shape of the cell wall with sub­se­quent lysis—a lethal event. Not so in Pro­teus mirabilis and some other Gram-neg­a­tive bac­te­ria. Here, frag­ile spher­o­plasts sur­vive and can be prop­a­gated in­def­i­nitely in the pres­ence of high con­cen­tra­tions of β‑lactams. These spher­o­plasts carry dis­or­ga­nized com­po­nents of the outer mem­brane, pili and fla­gella on their sur­face (Fig. 4), but their vi­a­bil­ity is ev­i­dent. Un­der the phase con­trast mi­cro­scope one can watch them us­ing their fla­gella to clum­sily tum­ble around. Also, upon trans­fer to β‑lac­tam-free medium they re­vert to nor­mal, rod-shaped bac­te­ria.

One would think that af­ter pro­longed life with peni­cillin the L‑form spher­o­plasts would have lost pep­ti­do­gly­can from their dam­aged cell walls. How­ever, very early on Otto Kan­dler and col­leagues found all the nor­mal com­po­nents of pep­ti­do­gly­can wall-bound in the "un­sta­ble" (i.e. spher­o­plast-type) Pro­teus L‑form. In my lab, we then iso­lated shape-de­fec­tive but still macro­mol­e­c­u­lar pep­ti­do­gly­can from L‑form spher­o­plasts (Fig. 1). We also found that cell walls of spher­o­plasts and nor­mal Pro­teus bac­te­ria con­tained nearly equal amounts of pep­ti­do­gly­can, with com­pa­ra­ble quan­ti­ties of the typ­i­cal amino sugar and amino acid com­po­nents. Most sur­pris­ing, the de­gree of pep­tide crosslink­age was sim­i­lar in pep­ti­do­gly­cans from L‑form spher­o­plasts and nor­mal cells (ref­er­ences here and here).

Fig­ure 4. L‑­Form-spher­o­plasts of P. mirabilis grown in liq­uid shake cul­ture with 120 mg/l peni­cillin G. a Phase con­trast 2,300X. b Elec­tron mi­cro­graph of Pt-Ir-shad­owed spher­o­plast. 12,000X.

Our early sus­pi­cion was that, against ex­pec­ta­tions, some of the known pep­ti­do­gly­can-trans-pep­ti­dases might con­tinue to func­tion dur­ing L‑form growth. A com­par­i­son of peni­cillin-bind­ing pro­teins in L‑form spher­o­plasts and Pro­teus bac­te­ria seemed to sup­port this no­tion. Spher­o­plasts, har­vested from their high peni­cillin growth medium, con­tained var­i­ous amounts of free peni­cillin-bind­ing pro­teins (Fig. 1). Some of these had been shown to form very short-lived com­plexes with peni­cillin and might thus be re­ac­ti­vated and re­sume their transpep­ti­dase ac­tiv­ity. How­ever, we could not con­firm the func­tion of such a mech­a­nism at that time, and the prob­lem re­mained un­solved.

Al­most 25 years later, with the dis­cov­ery of a novel pep­ti­do­gly­can cross-link­ing en­zyme for a β‑lac­tam-re­sis­tant transpep­ti­da­tion path­way, a new type of re­sis­tance to β‑lactam an­tibi­otics be­came known. β‑Lac­tam-in­sen­si­tive pep­ti­do­gly­can-transpep­ti­dases were first found in β‑lac­tam-re­sis­tant En­te­ro­coc­cus fae­cium and then in E. coli and P. mirabilis. In E. coli the en­zymes form un­usual pep­tide crosslink­ages be­tween the L-cen­ter of meso-di­aminopimelic acid in po­si­tion 3 (meso-DAP3) of one side chain and the D-cen­ter of meso-di­aminopimelic acid in po­si­tion 3 (meso-DAP3) of an ad­ja­cent side chain. They are there­fore called LD-pep­ti­do­gly­can-transpep­ti­dases. The re­sult­ing meso-DAP3─meso-DAP3 crosslink­ages (Fig. 3, lower) are present as mi­nor com­po­nents of E. coli pep­ti­do­gly­can, in ad­di­tion to the "nor­mal" meso- DAP3─D‑ALA4 crosslink­ages (ref­er­ence).

Two ex­pla­na­tions for the β‑lactam re­sis­tant growth of the P.mirabilis spher­o­plast-L-form seem now pos­si­ble. Dur­ing L‑form growth in the pres­ence of peni­cillin, the re­main­ing ac­tiv­ity of some of the DD-pep­ti­do­gly­can-transpep­ti­dases may suf­fice to syn­the­size a pep­ti­do­gly­can with shape-de­fects, but with a suf­fi­cient amount of the usual (meso-DAP3)─(D‑ALA4) crosslink­ages, Or, al­ter­na­tively, the L‑form may con­struct an ex­clu­sively or pref­er­en­tially meso-DAP3─meso-DAP3 crosslinked pep­ti­do­gly­can with the help of the β‑lac­tam-in­sen­si­tive LD-pep­ti­do­gly­can-transpep­ti­dases.

Both mech­a­nisms may en­sure the con­ser­va­tion of es­sen­tial struc­tures for the re­pair of an in­tact pep­ti­do­gly­can, af­ter the even­tual es­cape into a β‑lac­tam-free en­vi­ron­ment al­lows the re­turn to the nor­mal shape of the bac­te­r­ial cell. Hope­fully, the de­scribed mod­els may serve as clues to­wards ob­tain­ing the still miss­ing struc­tural data and help us to un­der­stand the strange en­dur­ing bac­te­r­ial life with peni­cillin in the L‑form.

 

Hans H. Martin

Hans Mar­tin is pro­fes­sor emer­i­tus, Tech­ni­cal Uni­ver­sity Darm­stadt, Ger­many, and an emer­i­tus mem­ber of the ASM.

 

Other Posts

2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
16 years ago

Thanks for this help­ful ar­ti­cle — par­tic­u­larly for that link to Uni­ver­sity of Ab­erdeen re­view (un­for­tu­nately can't pay for the full re­port).
'L‑forms are still "un­fa­mil­iar to many mi­cro­bi­ol­o­gists" and are of­ten re­garded "with scep­ti­cism." ' It's no won­der that for two and half years I've tried to en­gage in dis­cus­sion with a num­ber of doc­tors, phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal em­ploy­ees, and an NHS lab mi­cro­bi­ol­o­gist and all were in­cred­i­bly dis­mis­sive that I might know some­thing about some strange L‑form bac­te­ria that they didn't.

michael marshall
14 years ago

One of the very first peo­ple to study L‑forms was Dr MARTIN HENRY DAWSON in 1939–1940 : im­me­di­ately af­ter­wards, on Oc­to­ber 16th 1940, he did some­thing truly dif­fer­ent.
He in­jected a young man (dy­ing of 'in­cur­able' sub­a­cute bac­te­r­ial en­do­cardi­tis) with the juice of some mold he brewed up.
The young man lived — be­com­ing the first ever per­son to get a nee­dle of sys­temic peni­cillin.
What makes this so un­usual is that L‑forms are that rare form of bac­te­ria that are IMMUNE to penicillin's ef­fects....
Michael Mar­shall Hal­i­fax Canada