Selective Penicillin-Binding Protein Imaging Probes Reveal Substructure in Bacterial Cell Division

Departments of †Chemistry, ‡Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, and §Biology, Indiana University , Bloomington, Indiana 47405, United States.
ACS Chemical Biology (Impact Factor: 5.33). 08/2012; 7(10):1746-53. DOI: 10.1021/cb300329r
Source: PubMed


The peptidoglycan cell wall is a common target for antibiotic therapy, but its structure and assembly are only partially understood. Peptidoglycan synthesis requires a suite of penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs), the individual roles of which are difficult to determine because each enzyme is often dispensable for growth perhaps due to functional redundancy. To address this challenge, we sought to generate tools that would enable selective examination of a subset of PBPs. We designed and synthesized fluorescent and biotin derivatives of the β-lactam-containing antibiotic cephalosporin C. These probes facilitated specific in vivo labeling of active PBPs in both Bacillus subtilis PY79 and an unencapsulated derivative of D39 Streptococcus pneumoniae. Microscopy and gel-based analysis indicated that the cephalosporin C-based probes are more selective than BOCILLIN-FL, a commercially available penicillin V analogue, which labels all PBPs. Dual labeling of live cells performed by saturation of cephalosporin C-susceptible PBPs followed by tagging of the remaining PBP population with BOCILLIN-FL demonstrated that the two sets of PBPs are not co-localized. This suggests that even PBPs that are located at a particular site (e.g., septum) are not all intermixed, but rather that PBP subpopulations are discretely localized. Accordingly, the Ceph C probes represent new tools to explore a subset of PBPs and have the potential to facilitate a deeper understand of the roles of this critical class of proteins.

27 Reads
  • Journal of Physical Organic Chemistry 01/2013; 26(1). DOI:10.1002/poc.3076 · 1.38 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ribosomally synthesized posttranslationally modified peptides (RiPPs) are a rapidly growing class of natural products with diverse structures and activities. In recent years, a great deal of progress has been made in elucidating the biosynthesis of various RiPP family members. As with the study of nonribosomal peptide and polyketide biosynthetic enzymes, these investigations have led to the discovery of entirely new biological chemistry. With each unique enzyme investigated, a more complex picture of Nature's synthetic potential is revealed. This review focuses on recent reports (since 2008) that have changed the way that we think about ribosomal natural product biosynthesis and the enzymology of complex bond-forming reactions.
    ACS Chemical Biology 01/2013; 8(3). DOI:10.1021/cb3005325 · 5.33 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Asymmetries in cell growth and division occur in eukaryotes and prokaryotes alike. Even seemingly simple and morphologically symmetric cell division processes belie inherent underlying asymmetries in the composition of the resulting daughter cells. We consider the types of asymmetry that arise in various bacterial cell growth and division processes, which include both conditionally activated mechanisms and constitutive, hardwired aspects of bacterial life histories. Although asymmetry disposes some cells to the deleterious effects of aging, it may also benefit populations by efficiently purging accumulated damage and rejuvenating newborn cells. Asymmetries may also generate phenotypic variation required for successful exploitation of variable environments, even when extrinsic changes outpace the capacity of cells to sense and respond to challenges. We propose specific experimental approaches to further develop our understanding of the prevalence and the ultimate importance of asymmetric bacterial growth. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Microbiology Volume 67 is September 08, 2013. Please see for revised estimates.
    Annual review of microbiology 06/2013; 67(1). DOI:10.1146/annurev-micro-092412-155622 · 12.18 Impact Factor
Show more