Ex­tra­cel­lu­lar Elec­tron Trans­fer (EET) Goes Main­stream

by Kevin Blake

Of all the strange ways that bac­te­ria can make a liv­ing, min­eral res­pi­ra­tion ranks among the strangest. Per­haps it's my an­thro­po­mor­phic world­view, but the idea of "breath­ing" solid rock ("No, they're min­er­als!" Break­ing Bad's Hank Schrader would shout) seems com­pletely ab­surd. And yet, bac­te­ria have been do­ing it for bil­lions of years. Mi­cro­bi­ol­o­gists have long thought that extra­cel­lu­lar elec­tron trans­fer (EET) – the process of trans­fer­ring elec­trons from the cy­tosol to the ex­te­rior of the cell – was lim­ited to ex­otic, min­eral-respir­ing, Gram-neg­a­tive bac­te­ria. How­ever, new find­ings from the Port­noy Lab (Light et al., 2018) sug­gests that EET is much more com­mon than pre­vi­ously thought. By way of a novel flavin-based mech­a­nism, a di­verse group of non-min­eral re­spiring, Gram-pos­i­tive bac­te­ria have also been found to en­gage in EET (Fig. 1).

Fig­ure 1. Graphic of a Gram-pos­i­tive bac­te­ria pro­duc­ing elec­tric­ity us­ing flavin mol­e­cules (yel­low dots) as elec­tron shut­tles. Source

A quick re­fresher: Cel­lu­lar res­pi­ra­tion is one way that cells gen­er­ate en­ergy. The ox­i­da­tion of car­bon sources pro­duces elec­trons. These get fer­ried down an elec­tron trans­port chain to gen­er­ate po­ten­tial that can be har­nessed to do work—such as the pro­duc­tion of ATP—before be­ing passed to a ter­mi­nal elec­tron ac­cep­tor. In hu­mans and many other or­gan­isms that ter­mi­nal ac­cep­tor is in­tra­cel­lu­lar oxy­gen. But in bac­te­ria en­gag­ing in EET, elec­trons are trans­ferred to a ter­mi­nal accep­tor out­side of the cell, such as iron or man­ganese. This ex­tra­cel­lu­lar trans­fer pro­duces an elec­tri­cal cur­rent. This cur­rent can be cap­tured by an elec­trode (Fig. 2), pro­vid­ing a use­ful tool for as­say­ing EE, and for bioin­dus­trial ap­pli­ca­tions. (Mi­cro­bial elec­tron trans­fer has been ex­plored many times on STC, in­clud­ing here, here, and here).

L. mono­cy­to­genes ac­com­plishes EET us­ing a novel flavin-based mech­a­nism

Fig­ure 2. A mi­cro­bial bat­tery made from a cul­ture of L. mono­cy­to­genes. CE, WE, RE: elec­trodes. CEM: cation ex­change mem­brane Source

Over 25 years ago re­searchers ob­served that the food­borne pathogen Lis­te­ria mono­cy­to­genes, a fer­men­ta­tive Gram-pos­i­tive bac­terium, pos­sessed ex­tra­cel­lu­lar fer­ric iron re­duc­tase ac­tiv­ity. This was odd be­cause L. mono­cy­to­genes does not have the genes or the min­eral-respir­ing lifestyle that are con­ven­tion­ally as­so­ci­ated with EET. The­refore, Light et al. hy­poth­e­sized that L. mono­cy­to­genes might pos­sess a novel EET strat­egy. To con­firm this, they first tested the bug for elec­tro­chem­i­cal ac­tiv­ity us­ing cyc­lic voltam­me­try ex­per­i­ments, which use elec­trodes to mo­nitor elec­tric cur­rent. The au­thors found that L. mo­no­cytogenes pro­duces a cat­alytic wave sim­i­lar to She­wanella onei­den­sis, a Gram-neg­a­tive elec­tro­chem­i­cally ac­tive bac­terium. This pro­vided strong ev­i­dence that L. mono­cy­to­genes does in­deed en­gage in EET.

So, if L. mono­cy­to­genes pos­sesses EET ac­tiv­ity, but doesn't have the genes con­ven­tion­ally asso­ci­a­ted with EET, how does it do it? To an­swer this, Light et al. be­gan by per­form­ing a for­ward ge­netic screen to iden­tify mu­tants with di­min­ished fer­ric iron re­duc­tase and elec­tro­chem­i­cal ac­tiv­ity. This led them to a largely un­char­ac­ter­ized, eight-gene lo­cus. These genes in­cluded ndh2, en­cond­ing a unique Type II NADH hydrogenase—which cat­alyzes elec­tron ex­change from cy­toso­lic NADH to a quinone de­riv­a­tive— and dmkA and dmkB, en­cod­ing par­alogs of the mi­cro­bial en­zymes MenA and HepT—which cat­alyze pro­duc­tion of the quinone demethyl­me­naquinone (DMK). Fur­ther tests showed that by us­ing this unique NADH de­hy­dro­ge­nase and dis­tinct quinone de­riv­a­tive, L. mono­cy­to­genes is able to seg­re­gate elec­tron flow be­tween EET and aer­o­bic res­pi­ra­tion.

Fig­ure 3. Pro­posed mech­a­nism of elec­tron trans­port from in­tra­cel­lu­lar NADH to ex­tra­cel­lu­lar flavins. Source

Other genes in the eight-gene lo­cus im­pli­cated flavins – specif­i­cally, flavin mononu­cleotide (FMN) and flavin ade­nine din­u­cleotide (FAD) – as the sub­strate for the EET-as­­so­ci­ated en­zymes. This sug­gested that flavins are used to shut­tle elec­trons to ex­te­rior ter­mi­nal elec­tron ac­cep­tors. It had been pre­vi­ously de­scribed that Gram-neg­a­tive She­wanella species pro­duce and se­crete flavins for use as an elec­tron shut­tle. While L. mono­cy­to­genes does not produ­ce flavins it­self, en­vi­ron­men­tal flavins are com­monly found in the plant bio­mass and mam­malian hosts it calls home. The au­thors found that adding FMN to cul­tures of L. mono­cy­to­genes in­creased the elec­tric cur­rent and ad­ding FAD en­hanced the con­cen­tra­tion-de­pen­dent re­duc­tion of in­sol­u­ble fer­ric ox­ide, con­firm­ing their role as the elec­tron shut­tles.

The au­thors com­bined all their find­ings into a mol­e­c­u­lar model. In this model, elec­trons are trans­ferred from in­tra­cel­lu­lar NADH to mem­brane-bound DMK, then to ex­tra­cel­lu­lar flavins, be­fore ul­timately be­ing trans­ferred to a ki­net­i­cally fa­vor­able ter­mi­nal elec­tron ac­cep­tor in the en­vi­ron­ment (Fig. 3).

EET con­fers a com­pet­i­tive ad­van­tage, and is a prop­erty of hun­dreds of Gram-pos­i­tive species

With the mech­a­nism be­hind L. mono­cy­to­genes' EET ac­tiv­ity char­ac­ter­ized, the next ques­tion asked is why this bac­terium might have evolved EET in the first place? Af­ter all, be­ing a food­borne pa­tho­gen, it isn't us­ing EET for min­eral res­pi­ra­tion. Fol­low­ing-up on their ob­ser­va­tion that EET genes were dis­pens­able un­der aer­o­bic growth but es­sen­tial un­der anaer­o­bic growth, the au­thors hypo­thesized that EET might give L. mono­cy­to­genes a com­pet­i­tive ad­van­tage dur­ing growth in the in­tes­tinal lu­men. In­deed, Ndh2 trans­po­son mu­tants showed a six-fold de­crease in in­testi­nal coloni­za­tion in mice mod­els.

If L. mono­cy­to­genes had in­creased fit­ness uti­liz­ing flavin-based EET, the au­thors hy­poth­e­sized that it might also be found in other Gram-pos­i­tive species. In­deed, BLAST searches re­vealed that the genes re­spon­si­ble for this new EET mech­a­nism are found in hun­dreds of species across the Firmi­cutes phy­lum. These species oc­cupy a di­verse ar­ray of eco­log­i­cal niches, and in­clude sev­eral hu­man pathogens, mem­bers of the hu­man mi­cro­biota, and bac­te­ria used for food fer­men­ta­tion and pro­bi­otics.

Dis­cus­sion

Com­pared to Gram-neg­a­tive bac­te­ria, very lit­tle is cur­rently known about EET in Gram-pos­i­tive bac­te­ria. Light et al.'s flavin-based mech­a­nism could ex­plain many pre­vi­ous re­ports of EET-like ac­tiv­ity in sev­eral Gram-pos­i­tive species. For ex­am­ple, En­te­ro­coc­cus fae­calis, an op­por­tunis­tic pathogen found in mam­malian in­testines, was found to pos­sess EET ac­tiv­ity (Pankra­tova et al. 2018). Like L. mono­cy­to­genes, E. fae­calis EET re­quires DMK but not heme, though Pankra­tova et al. did not in­clude elec­tron shut­tling by flavins in their model. Light et al. found ho­mologs to most of the genes in their EET lo­cus in E. fae­calis, sug­gest­ing that E. fae­calis' EET ac­tiv­ity could be flavin-based. Ad­di­tion­ally, a strain of Bacil­lus mega­terium iso­lated from an an­odic biofilm was found to have EET ac­tiv­ity that was boosted by flavin ad­di­tion (You et al. 2018), though the ge­netic and mol­e­c­u­lar bases be­hind it were not ex­plored.

The find­ing that EET ac­tiv­ity is a prop­erty of di­verse Gram-pos­i­tive species opens up many new pos­si­bil­i­ties for bioin­dus­trial ap­pli­ca­tions. While Gram-pos­i­tive bac­te­ria have been de­scribed as "weak" cur­rent gen­er­a­tors com­pared to Gram-neg­a­tive species, this flavin-based EET in­volves fewer elec­tron trans­fer steps, and this sim­pler mech­a­nism could prove eas­ier to en­gi­neer. Ad­di­tion­ally, given its es­sen­tial role in anaer­o­bic growth, it could be a new tar­get for an­tibi­otics against Gram-pos­i­tive pathogens.

Per­haps the most ex­cit­ing as­pect of this newly-dis­cov­ered EET mech­a­nism is how dif­fer­ent it is from pre­vi­ously char­ac­ter­ized mech­a­nisms. Ad­di­tion­ally, its ap­par­ent abun­dance in fer­men­ta­tive bac­te­ria sug­gests that, rather than be­ing a spe­cial­ized process unique to niche min­eral-respir­ing bac­te­ria, EET may rep­re­sent a fun­da­men­tal facet of mi­cro­bial me­tab­o­lism. Clearly, there is much to be learned about EET.

 

Kevin Blake (2019)

Kevin is a grad­u­ate stu­dent at Wash­ing­ton Uni­ver­sity in St. Louis in the lab of Dr. Gau­tam Dan­tas. He is on Twit­ter @kevinsblake.

 

Other Posts