Tales of Mys­tery and Imag­i­na­tion (2/2)

This is the sec­ond part of »Tales of Mys­tery and Imag­i­na­tion« – see here for the first part.

by Daniel P. Haeusser

The Case of the Miss­ing Pep­ti­do­gly­can

Early at­tempts from the 1970's to de­tect pep­ti­do­gly­can in PVC su­per­phy­lum mem­bers failed, lead­ing to the ac­cepted con­clu­sion that the periplasm of the ma­jor­ity of its species lacked a cell wall. These early ex­per­i­ments in­volved clas­si­cal tech­niques of pep­ti­do­gly­can de­tec­tion through bio­che­mi­cal pu­rifi­ca­tion and char­ac­ter­i­za­tion of sac­culi, and ob­ser­va­tion by elec­tron mi­croscopy. In more re­cent years, as genome se­quenc­ing be­gan to be cheaply at­tain­able, mi­cro­bi­ol­o­gists scoured PVC su­per­phy­lum species for genes in­volved in cell wall syn­the­sis. Their tar­get for com­par­i­son was un­derstandably the well-char­ac­ter­ized dcw clus­ter of genes widely con­served in other Gram-neg­a­tive (par­tic­u­larly non-coc­coid) bac­te­r­ial lin­eages. Those first searches sug­gested that PVC su­per­phy­lum mem­bers had in­deed lost key dcw clus­ter genes that were likely es­sen­tial for cell wall syn­the­sis.

Study of the Planc­to­mycetes in par­tic­u­lar pro­vided fur­ther ev­i­dence that they and their super­phy­lum mem­bers may have evolved to lose cell wall struc­ture. For ex­am­ple, Plan­cot­mycete iso­lates tested re­sis­tant to an­tibi­otics tar­get­ing cell wall syn­the­sis. While none of this proved that PVC mem­bers by and large lacked cell walls, to­gether the data seemed to point to that con­clu­sion. That is, if not for the chlamy­dial anom­aly. Un­like the Plan­co­to­mycetes, Chlamy­diae are sen­si­tive to beta-lac­­tams, and the genomes of sev­eral species en­code a com­plete (or nearly com­plete) suite of en­zym­es for pep­ti­do­gly­can syn­the­sis that have been rec­og­nized for over a decade. But, as ex­plained above, re­searchers failed to ac­tu­ally find any pep­ti­do­gly­can in the Chlamy­diae, par­tic­u­larly the path­o­genic ones that are the fo­cus of most re­search. Hence the anom­aly that re­mained un­til just the last cou­ple of years. As of­ten oc­curs in sci­ence, new tech­nolo­gies and tech­niques have pro­vid­ed novel dis­cov­er­ies that over­turn long held as­sump­tions.

Fig­ure 1. a Cryo-elec­tron to­mog­ra­phy micro­graph and b re­con­structed, av­er­aged to­mo­graph­ic slice sub­frames of Planc­to­myces lim­no­philus cells. An elec­tron-dense layer be­tween the in­ner and outer mem­branes has a fuzzy ap­pearance typ­i­cal for Gram-neg­a­tive cell pep­ti­do­gly­can, but is clearly vis­i­ble in re­con­struc­tions. c Seg­men­ta­tion of the re­con­structed vol­ume. Green: ex­ternal mem­brane, cyan: in­ternal mem­brane, red: PG lay­er, ma­genta: cra­ter­i­form struc­tures, vi­o­let: riboso­mes, yel­low: stor­age gran­ules and white: hold­fast sub­stance.. Source

More ad­vanced genome analy­ses op­ti­mized for de­tect­ing re­mote re­la­tion­ships be­tween pro­teins en­coded in dist­ant lin­eages re­vealed in 2015 that Planc­to­mycetes do in­deed con­tain all of the es­sential genes for pep­ti­do­gly­can syn­the­sis. This study and oth­ers were able to de­tect pep­ti­do­gly­can com­po­nents through ad­vanced chro­ma­to­gra­phy cou­pled to mass spec­trom­e­try, vi­su­al­ize cell wall through cryo-elec­tron to­mog­ra­phy (Fig­ure 3), cell wall dis­so­lu­tion through lysozyme treat­ment, and in­cor­po­ra­tion of la­beled probes into pep­ti­do­gly­can monomers. A year prior to this, chem­i­cal probes had been used to de­tect pep­ti­do­gly­can in one path­o­genic species of Chla­my­diae. By 2016, use of su­per-res­o­lu­tion mi­croscopy re­vealed that these so called anom­alies were lim­it­ing their cell wall synt­hesis to a nar­row band at the site of di­vi­sion, dur­ing their replica­tive phase alone. With these dis­co­ver­ies, along with iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of pep­ti­do­gly­can in sev­eral species of Ver­ru­comi­cro­bia, the long held as­sump­tions of wall-less PVC su­per­phy­lum de­viancy were shat­tered, leav­ing the Gram-pos­i­tive Mol­li­cutes as the last bas­tion of true pep­ti­do­gly­can-lack­ing de­viants (See Part 1, Fig. 1). Yet, the in­trigu­ing uni­que­ness and di­ver­sity of the PVC su­per­phy­lum isn't quite ex­tin­guished. These re­sults end up birthing even more ques­tions (evo­lu­tion­ary and cell bi­o­log­i­cal) into PVC super­phy­lum man­age­ment of / re­liance on pep­ti­do­gly­can, and how they co­or­di­nate its place­ment with cy­to­kinesis.

Just One More Thing, Sir

As the char­ac­ter of po­lice de­tec­tive Columbo be­came fa­mous for notic­ing that some things still don't quite add up, so it is in the PVC su­per­phy­lum story to date, de­spite the dis­cov­ery of ubi­quit­ous cell wall through­out species branches and the res­o­lu­tion of the chlamy­dial anom­aly. Per­haps most ob­vi­ously: if the Planc­to­mycetes ac­tu­ally do con­tain pep­ti­do­gly­can, why aren't they sus­cep­tible to cell-wall-tar­get­ing an­tibi­otics. (In re­al­ity some are, it is just that most don't seem to be.)

The au­thors of the Fron­tiers in Mi­cro­bi­ol­ogy re­view pos­tu­late that Planc­to­mycete re­sis­tance could be at­trib­uted in part to their en­cod­ing of mul­ti­ple beta-lac­ta­mase en­zymes. How­ever, the cor­re­la­tion of re­sis­tance to the pres­ence of known re­sis­tance genes does not line up too well. I won­der whether it is more a tes­ta­ment to the fact that many of the Planc­to­mycetes may in­deed pro­duce cell wall, but do not ab­solutely re­quire it. In par­tic­u­lar I would en­vi­sion this for those Planc­to­my­ce­tes that di­vide through bud­ding. And the rea­son­ing here brings us back to the other his­tor­i­cally unique di­ver­sity of the PVC su­per­phy­lum that still holds true, the myr­iad forms of cy­toki­ne­sis, that of­ten oc­cur with­out FtsZ (Fig­ure 1).

Though sport­ing in­ter­est­ing sur­face struc­tures through ex­ten­sions of their outer en­ve­lope, the Ver­ru­comi­cro­bia mir­ror the Gram-neg­a­tive com­mon an­ces­tor to the PVC su­per­phy­lum in terms of cell wall syn­the­sis and cy­toki­ne­sis. That is, they con­tain pep­ti­do­gly­can, pre­sum­ably elon­gate through ma­chin­ery that in­cludes MreB, and they di­vide through ma­chin­ery founded upon FtsZ. But they are just one evo­lu­tion­ary branch of the su­per­phy­lum. The other branches em­ploy non-stan­­dard meth­ods of cy­toki­ne­sis.

The bud­ding Planc­to­mycetes con­tain pep­ti­do­gly­can, but they have evolved to di­vide with­out FtsZ through a bud­ding process. FtsZ-less cell di­vi­sion through a bud­ding or bleb­bing-like process is a hall­mark of L‑form bac­te­ria, which sur­vive ab­sent a cell wall. Per­haps the bud­ding Planc­to­mycetes can sim­i­larly eas­ily adapt to ex­is­tence with­out a cell wall in the face of an­tibi­otics. In con­trast then, the fis­sion Planc­to­mycetes would be closer to the sys­tem of the non-path­o­genic Chlamy­diae, which like­wise con­tain pep­ti­do­gly­can through­out their periplasm, yet di­vide (roughly) down the mid­dle in a man­ner that would re­quire pep­ti­do­gly­can syn­the­sis. How can these PVC su­per­phy­lum mem­bers do this, sans FtsZ? Likely, as has been shown for some, the actin ho­molog MreB has taken on the role of also guid­ing pep­ti­do­gly­can syn­the­sis dur­ing cell di­vi­sion, not just along the cross-wall dur­ing rod mor­pho­gen­e­sis.

MreB takes on just such a role dur­ing the slightly asym­met­ric di­vi­sion of path­o­genic Chlamy­diae, but these ob­lig­ate in­tra­cel­lu­lar species ap­pear to have also evolved to limit their use of cell wall to just the time when still ab­solutely es­sen­tial – cy­toki­ne­sis, thereby mak­ing them less prone to host de­struc­tion or an­tibi­otics in the scheme of their en­tire life cy­cle. (This is a fas­ci­nat­ing story in of it­self that might be in­ter­est­ing to go into in a later col­umn.)

How did each of these al­ter­na­tive routes evolve, and what com­bi­na­tion of bac­te­r­ial and host se­lec­tive pres­sures may have been in­volved? While the role of MreB for link­ing cell wall and di­vi­sion is known in some cases, for most it is, at this point, just con­jec­ture. Per­haps most ripe for Tal­mu­dic spec­u­la­tion (as we are prone to here): How does the di­ver­sity of di­vi­sion mechanisms/players and pep­ti­do­gly­can de­ploy­ment re­late to the well-de­fined en­domem­brane sys­tem that PVC su­per­phy­lum mem­bers have of­ten be­come noted for? Does the evo­lu­tion of ex­pan­sive en­domem­brane sys­tems cre­ate a need for less re­liance on strict mor­phol­ogy / di­vi­sion links, fa­vor­ing a bud­ding– like sys­tem? Did such a sys­tem lead to the re­place­ment of FtsZ (the tubu­lin an­ces­tor) with MreB (the actin an­ces­tor) that ul­ti­mately gave rise to the actin-myosin di­vi­sion ma­chin­ery of an­i­mals?

Some­how, even though the PVC su­per­phy­lum mem­bers now look a lit­tle bit more 'nor­mal' to our ex­pec­ta­tions for Do­main Bac­te­ria, they still hold on to sig­nif­i­cant ex­otic in­trigue.

 

Fron­tispiece: Cryo-elec­tron to­mog­ra­phy micro­graph and re­con­structed, av­er­aged to­mo­graph­ic slice sub­frames of Planc­to­my­ces lim­no­philus cells. Source

 

Other Posts