The Very Bac­te­r­ial Cater­pil­lar

by Jen­nifer Frazer

Glued to the in­side of your mouth this very mo­ment (there's a 50% chance) may be plump bacter­ial cater­pil­lars. They cling to your cheek with paired lit­tle hold­fasts, like the feet of a tomato horn­worm res­olutely clasp­ing its stem. Of course, rather than toma­toes and tomato leaves, the diet of these bac­te­ria is you.

Fig­ure 1. Schematic rep­re­sen­ta­tions and elec­tron mi­cro­scope im­ages (SEM, TEM) of b A. fil­i­formis, c S. muel­leri and d C. stee­dae. Scale bar 1 µm. Fron­tispiece: flu­orescence stain­ing of C. steedae. Source

Their en­to­mo­log­i­cal ap­pear­ance is only the start of their strange­ness, how­ever. Though these cater­pil­lars don't crawl, they are mul­ti­cel­lu­lar, an un­usual state of af­fairs. More­over, some of the co-joined cells dif­fer phys­i­cally from their com­rades, hint­ing at spe­cial­iza­tion (the ni­tro­gen-fix­ing for­ti­fied cells of cyanobac­te­ria called het­e­ro­cysts are the pre­mier prokary­otic ex­am­ple).

And these bac­te­ria per­form at least one more magic trick: they've some­how tilted their world by 90 de­grees. That is, they di­vide lon­gi­tu­di­nally ─ rather than trans­versely in the usual fash­ion ─ by, in the re­searchers' own words, guil­lo­t­ining them­selves (Fig­ure 1).

A team of sev­en­teen Eu­ro­pean and North Amer­i­can sci­en­tists re­cently tried to an­swer one of the many ques­tions these bacteria's un­usual lifestyle sug­gests: how did such un­ortho­dox cell di­vi­sion evolve? And then, armed with this in­for­ma­tion, could they tweak the DNA of a re­lated bac­terium to get it per­form the same trick?

Hang In There, Baby

Though these par­tic­u­lar bac­te­ria live in the mouths of mam­mals, they be­long to a greater din­ner club that might be termed "Hang­ing On For Dear Life to Your Meta­zoan Meal Ticket". Mem­bers of this group seem to share three things: po­lar­ity (there is an "up" side and a "down" side), hold­fasts af­fixed to an an­i­mal sur­face, and lon­gi­tu­di­nal di­vi­sion.

In ad­di­tion to the in­side of your cheek, such bac­te­ria have also been found cling­ing to the exte­ri­ors of ne­ma­tode worms, a niche not as un­usual as it may seem given that four out of five an­i­mals on land are round­worms.

Fig­ure 2. Epi­flu­o­res­cence and con­fo­cal mi­croscopy-based PG-in­ser­tion pat­tern in A. fil­i­formis. a Phase con­trast im­age (left panel), cor­re­spond­ing epifluores­cence im­age (mid­dle panel) and en­larged se­lected re­gions (white frames in right pan­el) of A. fil­i­formis conse­cu­tively la­beled with HADA, BADA and TADA for 30 min, 15 min and 15 min. As­ter­isks point at newly com­pleted septa and ar­rowheads point to nascent septa. Scale bars are 5 μm (mid­dle pan­els) and 1 μm (right pan­els). b Sep­tal flu­o­res­cence of HADA, BADA and TADA was plot­ted onto the long axis for two rep­re­sen­ta­tive A. fil­i­formis cells. c Schematic representa­tion of A. fili­formis growth mode. e Sche­matic rep­re­sen­ta­tion of A. fil­i­formis growth mode. D dis­tal, P prox­i­mal. The re­sults are rep­re­sen­ta­tive of at least three in­de­pen­dent analy­ses. Source

The bac­te­ria on ne­ma­todes are uni­cel­lu­lar, how­ever. Only in the mouths and guts of mam­mals have mul­ti­cel­lu­lar an­i­mal sym­bionts evolved. And, in­ter­est­ingly, the bac­te­r­ial cater­pil­lars are all mem­bers of a sin­gle shape-shift­ing fa­mily: the Neis­se­ri­aceae (Betap­roteo­bac­teria). This fam­ily is per­haps most fa­mous for one mem­ber, N. gon­or­rhoeae, that causes what used to be termed a "so­cial dis­ease" (a term that to me con­notes some­thing quite dif­fer­ent to­day). An­other mem­ber, N. menin­gi­tidis, lives in about 10% of hu­mans, but it un­for­tu­nately can also cause menin­gi­tis, de­vel­op­men­tal de­lay, and/or death in chil­dren and young adults. Many other mem­bers of Neis­se­ria are harm­less in­hab­i­tants of mam­mals.

At least three mul­ti­cel­lu­lar species in this fam­ily dwell in mouths, only two of which make cater­pil­lars. Alysiella fi­li­formis is the one that does not, and is at­tached at only one end to its hu­man. Af­ter cells di­vide they re­main at­tached to each other like co-joined twins. They stand shoul­der to shoul­der with other twins, form­ing long pal­isades (Fig­ure 2).

Si­mon­siella muel­leri and Conchi­formibius steedae, by con­trast, are at­tached at both poles, giv­ing them the ca­terpillar look (Fig­ure 3). All three gen­era di­vide in the un­ortho­dox longitu­dinal con­fig­u­ra­tion (see here for a phy­logeny of the Neis­se­ri­aceae). The Cana­dian and Aus­trian-led team set out to find out how that might have evolved from a trans­versely di­vid­ing an­ces­tor.

The usual method is more akin to a gar­rote than a guil­lo­tine. A di­vid­ing bac­te­r­ial cell adds new pep­ti­do­gly­can ─ the stuff of their cell walls ─ in rings assemb­ling at the mid­point of the wall of a rod-shaped bac­terium. More pep­ti­do­gly­can is laid down along the in­side of each ring un­til a new wall is built and daugh­ter cells are sev­ered.

The sci­en­tists won­dered if a sim­i­lar mech­a­nism might be at play in mul­ti­cel­lu­lar mouth bac­te­ria, and how ex­actly their di­vi­sion di­rec­tion changed. They had two ideas on the sub­ject: ei­ther the bac­te­ria ro­tated their axis of di­vi­sion by 90 de­grees, or they sim­ply changed shape, re­tain­ing the same di­vi­sion plane.

Chang­ing Per­spec­tive on Life

Fig­ure 3. Epi­flu­o­res­cence and con­fo­cal mi­croscopy-based PG in­ser­tion pat­tern in S. muel­leri and C. stee­dae. Phase con­trast im­ages (left pan­els), cor­re­spond­ing epi­flu­o­res­cence im­ages (mid­dle pan­els) and en­larged se­­lected re­gions (right pan­els; the white frames in­di­cate the se­lected re­gions) of S.muelleri (a) la­beled with HADA, BADA and TADA for 1 h, 30 min and 30 min, re­spectively and of C. steedae (b) la­beled with HADA, BADA and TADA for 1 h, 45 min and 45 min, respec­tively. Scale bars are 5 μm (mid­dle pan­els) and 1 μm (right pan­els). c For two re­presentative S. muel­leri septa (sep­tum 1 and sep­tum 2, left and right panel), fluo­rescence of HADA, BADA and TADA was plot­ted onto the long axis. Scale bars are 5 μm (left and mid­dle panel) and 1 μm (right panel). d Schematic repre­sen­tation of S. muel­leri and C. steedae growth mode. Source

When the sci­en­tists in­fused the bac­te­ria with flu­o­res­cent pro­teins that would re­veal how cell wall build­ing progres­sed, they dis­cov­ered the sur­pris­ing guil­lo­tine ma­neu­ver, in which new peptidogly­can was de­posited in a solid sheet from one end of the cell to the other. New wall grew from the un­at­tached pole to the at­tached one in Alysiella and from both at­tached poles to­ward the round­ed mid-sec­tion of cater­pil­lar cells in Si­mon­siella and Conchi­formibius.

The three species also shared changes to DNA, in­clud­ing the ad­di­tion, loss, or mu­ta­tion of a suite of genes. Two of the genes are the bac­te­r­ial ver­sions of actin and tubu­lin (and the oth­ers may be genes that reg­u­late these genes); the actin ho­molog guides cells to grow longer, while the tubu­lin ho­molog di­rects the lay­ing of the new wall in divid­ing cells.

They then made many of these same changes to the genes in a typ­i­cally di­vid­ing rod-shaped bac­terial rel­a­tive, N. elon­gata, to see if they could get it to di­vide lon­gi­tu­di­nally like its kin. They could not. But the changes did make fat­ter cells with cor­re­spond­ingly wider septa (Fig­ure 4).

Taken to­gether, their ev­i­dence seems to sug­gest that the way lon­gi­tu­di­nally-di­vid­ing multicel­lular Neis­se­rias accom­plished their feat was not by shift­ing the axis of cell di­vi­sion, but rather the pola­rity of their cells. Grow squat­ter and fat­ter, and sud­denly the trans­verse di­vi­sion plane ap­pears to be lon­gi­tu­di­nal. Of course, it does not ex­plain how the gar­rote be­came a guil­lo­tine, a ques­tion that awaits fu­ture stud­ies.

A care­ful com­par­i­son of the DNA of the mul­ti­cel­lu­lar oral bac­te­ria and that of many rel­a­tives also re­vealed the three species evolved from rod-shaped an­ces­tors on at least two and pos­si­bly three oc­ca­sions. Their ne­ma­tode rel­a­tives rep­re­sent yet more in­stances of a sim­i­lar lifestyle. What could cause such strik­ingly sim­i­lar forms to evolve? The au­thors spec­u­late that con­di­tions on an­i­mal sur­faces ─ such as rapidly shed host cells and lots of a for­eign sub­stance (saliva, soil, or wa­ter) that tends to strip bac­te­ria from their food ─ fa­vor the evo­lu­tion of mi­crobes that cling and co­op­er­ate.

Fig­ure 4. d Schematic rep­re­sen­ta­tion of a sep­tating wild-type (but an­tibi­otic resis­tant) N. elon­gata (left) and of N. elon­gata whose genes were tweaked to be more sim­i­lar to mullti­cel­lu­lar Neis­se­ria. Scale bar 1 µm. Source

In­deed, the au­thors ob­served that the mul­ti­cel­lu­lar Neis­serias shared ad­ja­cent cell walls and an outer mem­brane ─ yet an­other strik­ing re­sem­blance to cyanobac­te­ria. Whether the cater­pil­lar cells' cy­to­plasm is also con­nected by pores un­known. If some of these cells also spe­cial­ize (the au­thors ob­served an in­di­vid­ual with thicker walls every 14 cells in C. steedae), that may fur­ther help them with­stand nutri­tional stress, they spec­u­late.

Why might we care about how cells change shape? For one, the ma­chin­ery in­volved in sculpt­ing and di­vid­ing cells could pro­vide tar­gets for new an­tibi­otics.

But these par­tic­u­lar bac­te­ria are tempt­ing for an­other rea­son: un­like var­i­ous other an­i­mal sym­bionts, they're easy to grow and tin­ker with. You might re­call that STC had fea­tured other lon­gi­tu­­d­i­nal-di­vid­ing bac­te­ria be­fore, here and here, and that these gamma­pro­teo­bac­ter­ial sym­bionts of ne­ma­todes are way more dif­fi­cult to study as they can­not grow in the lab, yet. So study­ing these odd lit­tle Neis­se­rias may not just be a lot of fun; it may also some­day solve prob­lems caused by their less en­dear­ing rel­a­tives.

Ref­er­ence

Ny­ongesa S, We­ber PM, Ber­net È, Pulido F, Nieves C, Nieckarz M, De­laby M, Viehboeck T, Krause N, Rivera-Mil­lot A, Naka­mura A, Vis­cher NOE, van Nieuwen­hze M, Brun YV, Cava F, Bul­gheresi S, Vey­rier FJ (2022). Evo­lu­tion of lon­gi­tu­di­nal di­vi­sion in mul­ti­cel­lu­lar bac­te­ria of the Neis­se­ri­aceae fa­mi­ly. Nat Com­mun, 13 (1), 4853. PMID 35995772

 

Jen­nifer Frazer is a free­lance sci­ence writer and the au­thor of the re­tired blog The Art­ful Amoeba at Sci­entific Amer­i­can. She has twice been a guest on Ra­di­o­Lab and writ­ten for Sci­en­tific Amer­i­can mag­a­zine and other pub­li­ca­tions. She's cur­rently work­ing on a book about slime molds.
 

 

Other Posts