Mirac­u­lous Mi­crobes

by the STC team

Sur­pris­ing as the world of mi­crobes may be, some sto­ries are so far be­yond our ex­pec­ta­tions that they bor­der on the mirac­u­lous. We share some of these "Be­lieve it or Not" sto­ries.

1. Teach­ing E. coli how to fill up with for­eign vesi­cles

(mod­i­fied from a pre­vi­ous post) What if we told you that en­gi­neer­ing a sin­gle pro­tein into E. coli is suf­fi­cient to make it fill up with mem­brane-bound vesi­cles? Would you send us to the couch or to a padded cell? Not so fast, as this is pre­cisely what a group of six­teen in­ves­ti­ga­tors from three con­ti­nents have re­cently shown by ex­press­ing caveolin‑1 in E. coli. Caveolin‑1 is the main pro­tein in­volved in the for­ma­tion of mam­malian mem­brane struc­tures called cave­o­lae. The con­se­quences were amaz­ing. Cave­o­lae, by the way, are flask-shaped pits in the cell mem­brane in­volved in the for­ma­tion of en­do­cytic vesi­cles and as­pects of cell sig­nal­ing and lipid me­tab­o­lism. They are the sites where some bac­te­ria and viruses first at­tach prior to en­ter­ing the cell.

Fig­ure 1. An E. coli cell re­plete with caveolins.(A) Time-course: t0, be­gin­ning of pro­tein ex­pres­sion, la­bel­ing is as­so­ci­ated with the in­ner mem­brane (small ar­row­heads) and oc­ca­sion­ally with in­vagi­na­tions (see in­set; large ar­row­head). In­tra­cy­to­plas­mic vesi­cles are clearly ev­i­dent af­ter 30 min to 90 min, un­til af­ter 120 min the en­tire cy­to­plasm, in many cells, is filled with vesi­cles. In­set in 12 hr ex­pres­sion: anti-MBP im­munoblot show­ing pro­tein lev­els at in­di­vid­ual time points. (B and C) High-pres­sure fast-frozen, freeze-sub­sti­tuted, and Epon-em­bed­ded E. coli show­ing an h‑caveola un­der­go­ing fis­sion from the cy­to­plas­mic mem­brane (in­di­cated by ar­row­head). (D and E) Cells ex­press­ing MBP-cave­olin‑1 with en­tire cy­to­plasm filled (D), and higher mag­ni­fi­ca­tion of vesic­u­lar struc­tures in the cy­to­plasm (E). (F) De­tail of high-pres­sure fast frozen, freeze sub­sti­tuted E. coli ex­press­ing MBP-cave­olin1 show­ing cy­to­plas­mic vesi­cles. Scale bars: (A and D) 200 nm, (A, in­set, E, and F) 100 nm, (B and C) 20 nm. Source

The E. coli used here per­formed spec­tac­u­larly, be­yond any re­searchers' dreams. They made bi­layer-bound cave­o­lae-like struc­tures that match in key ways the cave­o­lae in an­i­mal cells. In fact, they made so many that within a few hours the cells be­came ut­terly filled with these vesi­cles – wall-to-wall cave­o­lae. The ma­nip­u­la­tions were straight­for­ward. The re­searchers cloned the caveolin‑1 gene in a stan­dard plas­mid ex­pres­sion vec­tor and in­tro­duced this con­struct into E. coli. Cul­tures of the trans­formed strain grew vig­or­ously to high overnight cell den­si­ties, the same as cells car­ry­ing an empty plas­mid. By this time, the cells were lit­er­ally filled with the vesi­cles. Other than that, lit­tle is known as yet about how this af­fected the bac­te­ria

Next, these re­searchers asked if it's pos­si­ble to in­tro­duce for­eign con­stituents into the E. coli cave­o­lae. Af­ter in­cu­bat­ing 'E. coli K‑12 subsp. cave­o­lae­fa­ciens' with flu­o­res­cent mem­brane-stain­ing dyes that can cross the outer but not the in­ner mem­brane of Gram-neg­a­tive cells, they saw lots of flu­o­res­cence within the cave­o­lae. So yes, the cave­o­lae con­tain ma­te­r­ial from the periplasm. And that ma­te­r­ial can in­clude pro­teins. One could call this process en­do­cy­to­sis-like. Some­thing sim­i­lar has been re­ported only once in bac­te­ria, to wit in the some­what enig­matic Planc­to­mycetes (a point that is be­ing de­bated here).

This fill­ing of bac­te­r­ial cells with ex­tra­ne­ous vesi­cles is sim­ply star­tling. We know of no prece­dent. What this tells us about the plas­tic­ity of bac­te­r­ial cells re­mains to be seen, but it sounds like there is quite a mes­sage here.

Also ex­cit­ing is that this sys­tem may be of use in biotech­nol­ogy. Con­sider the pos­si­bil­i­ties for drug de­liv­ery of­fered by en­cap­su­la­tion of small mol­e­cules and pro­teins in­tro­duced into the periplasm. In an­other proof-of-prin­ci­ple step, these re­searchers showed that cave­o­lae con­tain­ing GFP and an im­munoglob­u­lin-bind­ing do­main from staph Pro­tein A not only be­came bound to hu­man breast can­cer cells car­ry­ing an an­ti­body on their sur­face but ap­peared to be­come in­ter­nal­ized.

2. Con­vert­ing a harm­less E. coli K‑12 into a po­ten­tial pathogen

Here is an­other un­ex­pected event re­sult­ing from a mu­ta­tion in a sin­gle gene. E. coli K‑12 is a strain widely con­sid­ered so safe that one could take a bath in it and even swal­low it. No­body has dis­puted this even in the old days of the de­bate about the safety of re­com­bi­nant DNA tech­nol­ogy. Best we know, no in­stance has been re­ported of this strain be­ing in­fec­tive. There­fore, it came to a com­plete sur­prise when Koli et al., re­searchers at the In­sti­tute of Mol­e­c­u­lar Med­i­cine in Delhi found that a mu­tant in the hi­s­tone-like DNA-bind­ing pro­tein HU ex­presses such patho­gen­e­sis fac­tors as curli fibers, the lysozyme in­hibitor Ivy, and he­molysin E. This hap­pens be­cause a mu­ta­tion in HU causes ma­jor changes in the tran­scrip­tion of many genes, the above in­cluded. With these vir­u­lence genes awak­ened, the HU mu­tant dis­rupts phago­so­mal func­tion and is in­va­sive to host cells in cul­ture as well as in a mouse ileal loop model. In ad­di­tion, once in­ter­nal­ized, the bac­te­ria caused a novel form of host sub­ver­sion, namely the im­pair­ment of host cell apop­to­sis. The ef­fects on tran­scrip­tion are at­trib­uted to changes in the su­per­coil­ing of the DNA by the mu­tant pro­tein. The pro­tein in­duces pos­i­tive su­per­coils, which al­ter the avail­abil­ity of pro­mot­ers, thus chang­ing the cells tran­scrip­tional pro­file in one fell swoop.

Fig­ure 2. In­va­sion of in­testi­nal ep­ithe­lial cells by HU-mod­i­fied E. coli. Trans­mis­sion EM of cells in­fected with mu­tant (SK842) and wild type (MG1655) at an MOI of 100. Source

Granted, this is not your run-of-the-mill mu­ta­tion that af­fects a sin­gle func­tion, but it is quite amaz­ing that a broad change in tran­scrip­tion should re­veal the po­ten­tial ac­tion of oth­er­wise dor­mant path­o­genic­ity fac­tors. As the au­thors said: "Us­ing the E. coli K‑12/HUα(E38K, V42L) vari­ant as a model, we pro­pose that tra­di­tional com­men­sal E. coli can adopt an in­va­sive lifestyle through re­pro­gram­ming its cel­lu­lar tran­scrip­tion, with­out gross ge­netic changes." Keep in mind that, in gen­eral, in­va­sion of host cells is not what E. coli strains, in­clud­ing pathogens, usu­ally do.

Let's con­sider this in con­text. Many a pathogen can be con­verted into a harm­less or­gan­ism by a sin­gle mu­ta­tion, so why not the con­verse? This would hap­pen if you re­verted a mu­ta­tion that in­ac­ti­vates an im­por­tant toxin. But the sit­u­a­tion here is far more com­plex. The rea­son the K‑12 strain is in­nocu­ous is not due to sev­eral of the fac­tors needed for vir­u­lence be­ing ab­sent but be­cause they are hid­den. A sin­gle mu­ta­tion in an ar­chi­tec­tural pro­tein (well, in fact a dou­ble mu­ta­tion but still in one gene), one that mod­i­fies DNA struc­ture, can have the pleiotropic ef­fect of 'wak­ing up' these vir­u­lence genes si­mul­ta­ne­ously. Per­haps this may not seem far-fetched, but we think that it lies out­side the range of what the usual imag­i­na­tion al­lows.

3. How to Make a Pho­to­syn­thetic Bac­terium in A Sim­ple Step

(mod­i­fied from a pre­vi­ous post) Try turn­ing an or­gan­ism into pho­to­syn­the­sizer in one sim­ple step. Seems wildly im­plau­si­ble, no? Pho­to­syn­the­sis as we know it evolved over a long time via a se­ries of com­plex and so­phis­ti­cated evo­lu­tion­ary events. Mak­ing chloro­phyll alone, leav­ing alone the rest of the pho­to­syn­thetic ma­chin­ery, took much do­ing. Can you imag­ine chang­ing a "reg­u­lar" bac­terium into a pho­to­syn­the­sizer in a sim­ple di­rect way? The an­swer is star­tling: this mir­a­cle can in­deed be car­ried out in one hum­ble stride. Re­searchers coated a fairly or­di­nary bac­terium with beads of cad­mium sul­fide and, presto, it now uses light to en­hance its abil­ity to fix CO2. You have now pro­vided the bac­terium with its own so­lar pan­els. The cho­sen non-pho­to­syn­thetic bac­terium, Moorella ther­moacetica, be­longs to a class called the ace­to­gens, who can fix CO2 to make ac­etate, so it's evolved to uti­lize CO2, al­beit with­out light. This trick may have in­dus­trial ap­pli­ca­tions, some even green.

Fig­ure 3. M. ther­moacetica–CdS re­ac­tion schemat­ics. (A) Schematic of the M. ther­moacetica–CdS hy­brid sys­tem, pro­ceed­ing from the growth of the cells and bio­pre­cip­i­ta­tion (load­ing) of the CdS nanopar­ti­cles (shown in yel­low) through pho­to­syn­thetic con­ver­sion of CO2 (cen­ter right) to acetic acid (right). (B) Path­way di­a­gram for the M. ther­moacetica–CdS sys­tem. Two pos­si­ble routes to gen­er­ate re­duc­ing equiv­a­lents, [H], ex­ist: gen­er­a­tion out­side the cell (dashed line) or gen­er­a­tion by di­rect elec­tron trans­port to the cell (solid line). Source

The steps in mak­ing the ar­ti­fi­cial pho­to­syn­the­sizer are sim­ple: Feed the bac­te­ria Cd+2 and cys­teine, and they come out of so­lu­tion as CdS pre­cip­i­tates. The bac­te­ria be­come beau­ti­fully dec­o­rated with CdS nanopar­ti­cles, about 10 nm or less in size. Now, turn on blue light. When CdS ab­sorbs a pho­ton, it pro­duces an elec­tron and a "hole pair," e– and h+. The elec­tron pro­vides re­duc­ing power, which is passed on to the Wood-Ljung­dahl path­way to syn­the­size acetic acid from CO2. The yield of ac­etate is 90% based on the ini­tial cys­teine con­cen­tra­tion, the rest be­com­ing bio­mass. The quan­tum yield was 2.4% of in­ci­dent light, com­pa­ra­ble to that of plants.

As one of the au­thors of the pa­per, Pei­dong Yang, said: "Our hy­brid sys­tem com­bines the best of both worlds: the light-har­vest­ing ca­pa­bil­i­ties of semi­con­duc­tors with the cat­alytic power of bi­ol­ogy. In this study, we've demon­strated not only that bio­ma­te­ri­als can be of suf­fi­cient qual­ity to carry out use­ful pho­to­chem­istry, but that in some ways they may be even more ad­van­ta­geous in bi­o­log­i­cal ap­pli­ca­tions."

4. All One's Eggs In One Bas­ket

(mod­i­fied from a pre­vi­ous post). At the heart of every cell's 'op­er­at­ing sys­tem' you find the ri­bo­somes, these in­ge­nious nano-ma­chines that trans­late mes­sen­ger RNA into all kinds of pro­teins the cell needs to build and main­tain it­self. In­tu­itively, you would prob­a­bly guess that the genes en­cod­ing such vi­tal parts of the 'op­er­at­ing sys­tem' are lo­cated on the chro­mo­some, the hard drive. They are, in al­most all known cases in ar­chaea and bac­te­ria alike.

Fig­ure 4. USB flash drive (aka thumb drive). Cus­tomized from: Source

En­ter Au­rei­monas sp. AU20  and its cousins, hum­ble mem­bers of the Rhi­zo­biales sub­fam­ily of the ubiq­ui­tous Al­phapro­teobac­te­ria. Re­cently, Hisayuki Mit­sui and co-work­ers iso­lated Au­rei­monas from the stem of a soy bean plant and found to their sur­prise that it lacks rRNA genes on its chro­mo­some. In­stead, a typ­i­cal bac­te­r­ial rRNA operon is car­ried on a small (9.4 kb) mul­ti­copy plas­mid (18 ‒ 34 copies/cell) that is also present in the 4 cousins (out of 12) of Au­rei­monas that lack chro­mo­so­mal rRNA genes, too (Fig­ure 4). Thus, it's ap­par­ently a fam­ily trait, and not a mere ge­netic ac­ci­dent.

The plas­mid does not en­code fac­tors known to be needed for plas­mid seg­re­ga­tion and may rely there­fore solely on sto­chas­tic dis­tri­b­u­tion of plas­mid copies among daugh­ter cells. Fur­ther­more, the au­thors could not de­tect any of the known ad­dic­tion mod­ules that usu­ally en­sure plas­mid main­te­nance in the host. Most likely, the se­lec­tive pres­sure to sta­bly main­tain the rRNA-en­cod­ing plas­mid is suf­fi­cient: you bet­ter keep your thumb drive plugged in! But this strikes us a dan­ger­ous ex­is­tence. Lose the plas­mid and you are a goner!

You may won­der whether there aren't any viruses lurk­ing here. And you would be right! A virus DNA re­cently iso­lated from a ma­rine sponge  con­tains a bac­te­r­ial 16S rRNA gene. Since ma­rine sponges usu­ally live in con­sor­tia with bac­te­r­ial epibionts and sym­bionts, it is un­for­tu­nate that the au­thors don't spec­ify whether this 16S rRNA gene was car­ried by phage or by a eu­kary­otic virus of the sponge. In any case, this pro­vides an­other ex­am­ple for an 'op­er­at­ing sys­tem on a thumb drive'.

Does this un­ex­pected lo­ca­tion of rRNA genes on a plas­mid mean that these genes par­tic­i­pate in hor­i­zon­tal gene trans­fer? There is some ev­i­dence that this is in fact the case. If so, rRNA-based phy­lo­ge­nies ‒ the mar­velous idea that al­lowed Carl Woese to pro­pose his three-do­mains model ‒ may turn out to be re­ally messy, in some niches at least. That would then be the nor­mal state of af­fairs in most of bi­ol­ogy.

5. A Bac­terium with A Col­lec­tion of Dis­tinct Nu­cleoids

(mod­i­fied from a pre­vi­ous post). We sup­pose that if any­thing char­ac­ter­izes this blog it's an em­pha­sis on strange or at least un­ex­pected sto­ries that we en­counter along our mi­cro­bi­o­log­i­cal pere­gri­na­tions. But, in our opin­ion, few matches one re­lated by Christoph un­der the ti­tle A Lake­side Tale. Here he de­scribed a very large swamp-dwelling bac­terium, Achro­matium ox­al­iferum, that seems to thumb its nose as a ba­sic tenet of bi­ol­ogy, namely that poly­ploid cells con­tain iden­ti­cal or nearly iden­ti­cal nu­clei (or, if prokary­otic, nu­cleoids). Ha! The cells of A. ox­al­iferum con­tain per­haps 200 chro­mo­somes, many of which are dif­fer­ent from the oth­ers. So, each cell con­tains a "com­mu­nity genome!" A new bi­ol­ogy?

A. ox­al­iferum is the largest bac­terium known from non-ma­rine en­vi­ron­ments, on av­er­age 15 × 50 μm in size (Fig­ure 5). Grossart and cowork­ers found that the DNA of 27 hand­cked cells showed con­sid­er­able di­ver­sity (this a amounts to hav­ing a hy­per­vari­able re­gion). Most sur­pris­ing is that this het­ero­gene­ity was found in the DNA of sin­gle cells! The au­thors checked 131 mark­ers whose genes are in most cases present as sin­gle copies in the genome. They found that the ma­jor­ity had 15 – 20 se­quence vari­ants. Once again, this is a sit­u­a­tion one would read­ily ac­cept for sam­ples con­tain­ing mem­bers of a tax­o­nomic gemisch, but not for a sin­gle species. All these sin­gle-cell genomes con­tain mul­ti­ple and dif­fer­ent copies of some of the "sin­gle copy" genes, fur­ther sup­port­ing that we are deal­ing here with great in­tra­cel­lu­lar di­ver­sity. Their neigh­bor­ing genes were also var­ied. Thus the genes could not be as­sem­bled into a sin­gle genome.

Fig­ure 5. Di­vid­ing cell of A. ox­al­iferum. Stacked Over­lay of bright-field im­ages show­ing cal­cite crys­tals (CaCO3) and sul­fur droplets (S0) with flu­o­res­cence mi­cro­scopic im­ages of the same cell stained for nu­cleic acids with Sybr­Green I. Note that sul­fur and nu­cleic acids spots are present in the grooves around the cal­cite bod­ies, but not at the same po­si­tions. In this cell, 244 DNA spots were counted us­ing the soft­ware tool 'Count­Them'.  Source

The genes of this 'com­mu­nity genome' are phy­lo­ge­net­i­cally re­lated on the genus level, and dis­trib­uted over a co­hort of ~200 chro­mo­somes within sin­gle Achro­matium cells. This is not a case of poly­ploidy, a term re­served for mul­ti­ple copies of the same se­quences. If this not poly­ploidy – and it is not! – bac­te­ri­ol­ogy has a novel "drawer". Yet, be­fore putting an ap­pro­pri­ate la­bel on this "drawer" a con­fir­ma­tion of the re­sults by a dif­fer­ent ex­per­i­men­tal ap­proach would be de­sir­able – in keep­ing with Pierre-Si­mon de Laplace's (1749 – 1827) de­mand that "The weight of ev­i­dence for an ex­tra­or­di­nary claim must be pro­por­tional to its strange­ness".

I (Christoph) was re­cently al­lowed to peek at Achro­matium cells through a mi­cro­scope, no­tably at just 6× mag­ni­fi­ca­tion, I saw a few Eu­glena fla­gel­lates buzzing around, some other tiny uni­cel­lu­lar euks, and sev­eral dozen Achro­matium cells, some­what thicker than the translu­cent Eu­glena but ~1/3 their length, and eas­ily rec­og­niz­able by their white, potato-shaped in­clu­sions of amor­phous cal­cite. The cells were ap­par­ently do­ing well since many were busy with cell di­vi­sion in a very reg­u­lar man­ner, that is, con­strict­ing at mid­cell. I could have eas­ily picked sin­gle cells – as they did for DNA se­quenc­ing – from the sus­pen­sion with a mi­cropipette. When I turned away from the oc­u­lar and in­spected the Petri dish with the Achro­matium cells I was still able to see them but would have been un­able to count their cal­cite "pota­toes". For a mi­cro­bi­ol­o­gist trained to ob­serve his 'ob­jects of de­sire' un­der the mi­cro­scope at >400× mag­ni­fi­ca­tion, it was, ad­mit­tedly, a stun­ning ex­pe­ri­ence to ac­tu­ally see in­di­vid­ual bac­te­ria with the naked eye (ok, equipped with eye­glasses in my case ).

 

Other Posts