Bridges Across the Periplas­mic Moat

by Merry Youle

Gram-neg­a­tive bac­te­ria pose a par­tic­u­lar chal­lenge to any en­ter­pris­ing phage. First the phage is met by the outer mem­brane (OM)—a bar­rier to sur­mount that also can be used as a con­ve­nient hand­grip for ad­sorp­tion. Next haz­ard is the nu­cle­ase-in­fested periplasm with its jun­gle of pep­ti­do­gly­can. An in­fect­ing phage genome needs pro­tec­tion to cross that com­part­ment in­tact. For this, most tailed phages (the or­der Cau­dovi­rales) use the 'long straw' method. These phages are equipped with l‑o-n‑g tails for bridg­ing the periplas­mic moat. But what about the short-tailed ones such as T7?  And what about the roly-poly icosa­he­dral phages that have no tail at all? They all have one in­no­v­a­tive so­lu­tion or an­other. As ev­i­dence, here are three di­verse ex­am­ples of de­li­cious phage in­ge­nu­ity.

Fig­ure 1. Schematic of a T7 virion be­fore and af­ter ejec­tion of the in­ter­nal core pro­teins to ex­tend its tail. To­gether gene prod­ucts 16 (gp16) and 17 (gp17) ac­tively translo­cate ap­prox­i­mately the first kbp of the T7 genome across the periplasm and into the cy­to­plasm. Source

Ex­tend­able Tail

The mech­a­nism used by the short-tailed phage T7 for cross­ing the host's en­ve­lope lay­ers is to ex­tend the length of its tail upon in­fec­tion. This tac­tic has been in­tensely stud­ied and widely re­ported (see here and here). In brief, each T7 virion car­ries tail ex­ten­sion pro­teins as an in­ter­nal core that is pre­cisely po­si­tioned ad­ja­cent to the tail por­tal. This core is com­posed of three dif­fer­ent pro­teins, in quan­ti­ties of ten, eight, and four re­spec­tively. Upon ad­sorp­tion, these pro­teins exit the cap­sid in a spe­cific se­quence ahead of the DNA to form a tube. This added-on con­duit ex­tends T7's ba­sic 23 nm long tail to 40–55 nm, long enough to eas­ily bridge the periplasm and pen­e­trate the cell mem­brane (CM). These ejected pro­teins do more than just ex­tend the tail. As the tail ex­tends, they help clear a path to the CM by di­gest­ing the ob­struct­ing pep­ti­do­gly­can. Dur­ing genome de­liv­ery they work in con­cert to ratchet ap­prox­i­mately the first kbp of the genome into the cy­to­plasm, then put on the brakes. The rest of the genome is then pulled in by tran­scrib­ing RNA poly­merase. Its work fin­ished, the tube dis­as­sem­bles, re­seal­ing the punc­tured cell mem­brane as it dis­ap­pears.

Fig­ure 2. To­mo­graphic cen­tral xy sec­tion of a rep­re­sen­ta­tive Sal­mo­nella wt PRD1 par­ti­cle with a tube pos­si­bly at ini­tial stage of DNA ejec­tion. The vesi­cle mem­brane and the tail tube are clearly con­tin­u­ous. Red ar­row­heads in­di­cate the 15 nm di­am­e­ter ver­tex aper­ture through which the tube pro­trudes; the black ar­row points to the closed con­i­cal tip of the tail tube. The semi­cir­cu­lar red line within the vesi­cle marks the lo­ca­tion of the resid­ual genome. Source

A lipid chute

Can you imag­ine a phage as­sem­bling its tail af­ter ad­sorp­tion? Two re­cent pa­pers re­late such sto­ries, both com­plete with stun­ning im­ages of the process in their phage of choice. The first ob­served PRD1 of Sal­mo­nella en­ter­ica var. ty­phimurium. PRD1 is a mem­ber of the fam­ily Tec­tiviri­dae, a group that is known for their in­ter­nal lipid mem­branes. Its genome trav­els be­tween hosts in a rather com­pli­cated virion con­tain­ing 18 dif­fer­ent pro­teins. Some of those pro­teins are lo­cal­ized in the unique ver­tex of the cap­sid that pro­vides the pas­sage­way for de­liv­ery of the genome into the host. Oth­ers are com­po­nents of the pro­tein-rich in­ter­nal mem­brane that lines the in­side of the pro­tein cap­sid. Ad­sorp­tion to the host trig­gers im­me­di­ate ex­ten­sive al­ter­ations to that cap­sid. The ini­tial con­for­ma­tional changes 'de­cap' the unique ver­tex and some of its neigh­bor­ing ver­tices, thus open­ing the in­te­rior of the cap­sid to the aque­ous en­vi­ron­ment. The re­sul­tant change in the in­ter­nal os­mo­lar­ity trig­gers dra­matic mor­pho­gen­e­sis. This re­struc­tur­ing is car­ried out by the abun­dant pro­teins within the mem­brane. They re­assem­ble to form the struc­tural frame­work that re­molds the mem­brane into a 50 nm long chute ini­tially closed at its dis­tal end. As this grow­ing tube pro­trudes through the por­tal of the unique ver­tex it di­gests a path through the pep­ti­do­gly­can to the CM. When it reaches the cy­to­plasm, the tip opens to safely de­liver the DNA into the cell.

A pro­tein bar­rel

The sec­ond pa­per dis­closes the eco­nom­i­cal in­ge­nu­ity of the min­i­mal­ist phage φX174. Its stream­lined genome of 5386 nts en­codes only 11 pro­teins. Its icosa­he­dral cap­sid is cor­re­spond­ingly small (26 nm di­am­e­ter) and sim­ple (four dif­fer­ent pro­teins). Two pro­teins build the cap­sid; two oth­ers (G and H) form the twelve promi­nent mush­room-shaped spikes that pro­trude 32 Å above the cap­sid and spread to a width of 70 Å.  Each spike is a pen­tamer of pro­tein G with a cen­tral hy­drophilic chan­nel through its en­tire length, the pre­sumed pas­sage­way for DNA be­ing de­liv­ered into a new host. The twelve copies of Pro­tein H in each virion are also as­so­ci­ated with the spikes, but their pre­cise lo­ca­tion re­mains vague. It's been known since the 1970s that pro­tein H (the 'pi­lot pro­tein') is es­sen­tial for mul­ti­ple ac­tiv­i­ties early in in­fec­tion, in­clud­ing recog­ni­tion of the phage's LPS re­cep­tor and sub­se­quent ad­sorp­tion. And un­like the other virion pro­teins, some copies of pro­tein H es­cort the DNA into the cell. En­try of the sin­gle-stranded DNA (ss­DNA) genome is linked to syn­the­sis of the com­ple­men­tary strand, and some of the parental pro­tein H re­mains bound to the genome, now in the dou­ble-stranded replica­tive form. On this ba­sis, those re­searchers posited in 1975: An at­trac­tive mech­a­nism for tran­sit of a poly­elec­trolyte, such as DNA, through the lipid bi­lay­ers of the cell mem­branes would be a pro­tein pore or chan­nel. The gene H pro­tein has sig­nif­i­cant qual­i­fi­ca­tions to form such a struc­ture.

Fig­ure 3. The struc­ture of the H‑protein coiled-coil tube. a, Rib­bon rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the struc­ture. The monomers are in­di­vid­u­ally col­ored. b, Top view of the struc­ture with the N ter­mi­nus clos­est to the viewer. Source

Seek­ing more clues as to the func­tions of pro­tein H, re­searchers at­tempted to crys­tal­lize it. How­ever, un­like the other pro­teins in the φX174 virion, the 328 amino acid pro­tein H stub­bornly re­fused to crys­tal­lize un­til they re­moved some residues from both ter­mini. This ap­proach re­warded them with a solved struc­ture for the core seg­ment (residues 143 to 282). This struc­ture, called the H tube, is a de­cameric coiled coil com­posed of ten par­al­lel α‑helices. Each tube is a hol­low cylin­der or bar­rel 170 Å long, di­vided into two do­mains (A and B) by a kink at residues 193–194-195. Pre­vi­ously known coiled coil struc­tures are typ­i­cally dimers or trimers; in­cor­po­rat­ing more monomers in­creases the di­am­e­ter of the in­ter­nal chan­nel. The au­thors note that may well be the first ex­am­ple of a de­cameric coiled coil. (I note: Leave it to a phage.)

This ob­served struc­ture surely sug­gests a con­duit for safe pas­sage of the phage DNA across the periplasm. The H tube formed by full-length H pro­teins would be long enough; the typ­i­cal dis­tance be­tween mem­branes of E. coli is 17–18 nm. The ter­mi­nal re­gions omit­ted from this struc­ture are rich in glycine and ala­nine, a com­mon char­ac­ter­is­tic of trans­mem­brane he­lices that sug­gests they serve to an­chor the ends of the tube in the CM and OM. The in­ner chan­nel with its min­i­mum in­side di­am­e­ter of ~22 Å is also ad­e­quate for pas­sage of two ss­DNA mol­e­cules ori­ented in op­po­site directions—as would be re­quired for de­liv­ery of the cir­cu­lar ss­DNA genome of φX174.

And yes, these re­searchers also used cry­o­elec­tron to­mog­ra­phy to look at E. coli cells early in in­fec­tion. This tech­nique re­vealed the pres­ence of a tube span­ning the periplasm, thereby sup­port­ing the hy­poth­e­sis that the H tube forms a DNA con­duit into the cell.

Fig­ure 4. Cry­o­elec­tron mi­cro­graphic to­mo­gram of the φX174-like phage ST‑1 in­fect­ing E. coli mini cells. a–c, Slices of to­mo­grams show­ing three states of the in­fec­tion process. d–h, En­larged im­ages taken from a–c. d, The virus has at­tached to the outer mem­brane (OM). One of the pen­tameric spikes of an icosa­he­dral par­ti­cle has rec­og­nized a lipopolysac­cha­ride (LPS) mol­e­cule in the outer mem­brane of the E. coli cell wall. e, f, Af­ter at­tach­ment, the virus ex­trudes a tube for DNA pen­e­tra­tion. A tube can be seen (white ar­row) cross­ing the periplas­mic space, lodged in the outer and in­ner mem­brane (IM). g, h, Af­ter DNA has been in­jected into the cell, the ex­tended tail starts to dis­as­sem­ble. i, Schematic model of φX174 in­fec­tion. Source

All of this is sug­ges­tive, but ma­jor ques­tions loom. There be­ing 12 copies of pro­tein H in each virion, does one re­side at each spike or are all twelve lo­cated at a unique ver­tex that is com­pe­tent for DNA de­liv­ery? Pro­tein H mu­tants that lack some of the "knobs" that are key to as­sem­bly of the coiled coil struc­ture can still as­sem­ble viri­ons, but in­fec­tiv­ity is re­duced a thou­sand-fold. This in­di­cates that the abil­ity to as­sem­ble H pro­teins into an H tube is re­quired dur­ing in­fec­tion, but not dur­ing virion mor­pho­gen­e­sis, thus sup­port­ing the pro­posed role of the H tube dur­ing genome de­liv­ery. An­other ques­tion arises be­cause, as men­tioned above, some of the parental H pro­tein is as­so­ci­ated with the genome af­ter en­try into the cy­to­plasm. The au­thors do not men­tion this, but I couldn't help but do the math: twelve copies of pro­tein H per virion mi­nus ten copies in the H tube leaves a pos­si­ble two copies to en­ter with the genome. A pos­si­bil­ity, but we need more ev­i­dence.

Greater chal­lenges

While dif­fer­ing in mech­a­nism, these three tac­tics share a com­mon goal. Imag­ine, now, what gym­nas­tics might be used by phages con­tend­ing with far wider moats. For ex­am­ple, the cur­rent in­ter­pre­ta­tion of the in­tra­cel­lu­lar struc­ture of Planc­to­mycetes sug­gests a much wider gap be­tween OM and CM (see our re­cent blog post here). Even more daunt­ing, viruses in­fect­ing the ex­tremophilic cre­nar­chaeon Ig­nic­oc­cus hos­pi­talis must cross a moat that can be hun­dreds of nanome­ters wide. I don't doubt that there are viruses that in­fect both of these or­gan­isms, but I am un­aware of any stud­ies re­port­ing their char­ac­ter­is­tics (please cor­rect me if I missed some­thing here). This leaves us free for a lit­tle while longer to spec­u­late and place our bets. I, for one, would wa­ger only that there are un­ex­pected twists to the story ahead.

 

Post­script   An­other chap­ter has been added to the φX174 story. A new pa­per, also from the Fane lab, pro­vides more clues about the lo­ca­tion of the 12 copies of pro­tein H in the φX174 virion. Still ques­tions re­main.

 

Ref­er­ence

Sun L, Young LN, Zhang X, Boudko SP, Fokine A, Zbornik E, Roznowski AP, Mo­lineux IJ, Ross­mann MG, Fane BA (2013). Icosa­he­dral bac­te­rio­phage ΦX174 forms a tail for DNA trans­port dur­ing in­fec­tion. Na­ture. PMID 24336205

 

Other Posts

  • Of Arms And The Fun­gus

    Pic­tures Con­sid­ered #30 by Elio — Hap­toglossa mirabilis looks like a par­tic­u­larly vi­cious kind of uni­cel­lu­lar preda­tor. For its ne­far­i­ous deeds it uses a re­mark­ably com­plex struc­ture that off­hand looks like a har­poon, barb-like pro­jec­tions and all. With this de­vice, it in­jects...

  • A Pestis from the Past

    by S. Mar­vin Fried­man — In re­cent decades we've come to re­al­ize that vic­tory goes not to the swift or to the strong, but to the im­mune. The in­tro­duc­tion of agents of deadly dis­eases into im­muno­log­i­cally naïve pop­u­la­tions de­ter­mined mo­men­tous events in hu­man his­tory. The con­quest of the Amer­i­cas re­sulted in good part from the…

  • The mi­cro­bial na­ture of hu­mans

    by Mau­reen O'Malley — Quite a lot has been writ­ten about hu­man mi­cro­biome re­search and how it changes older ideas about hu­man au­ton­omy, in­di­vid­u­al­ity and iden­tity. Most of these dis­cus­sions fo­cus on how the bi­o­log­i­cal ba­sis for our 'self' is in fact a con­sor­tium of dif­fer­ent lin­eages of cells, and that the ma­jor­ity of these cells are mi­cro­bial.

  • A Post-Hu­man Bios­phere

    by Roberto — Only very rarely have I had the ex­pe­ri­ence of serendip­i­tously run­ning into an ar­ti­cle that is en­ter­tain­ing, hugely in­for­ma­tive, and shock­ing all at once. It hap­pened last week and I feel ut­terly com­pelled to pro­vide brief com­ments in­ter­spersed among quotes from sec­tions that I found par­tic­u­larly strik­ing and thought pro­vok­ing.