4.8 Article

Sequential assembly of the septal cell envelope prior to V snapping in Corynebacterium glutamicum

期刊

NATURE CHEMICAL BIOLOGY
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 221-+

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41589-018-0206-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Stanford University Interdisciplinary Graduate Fellowship
  2. Ford Foundation Predoctoral Fellowship
  3. University of California Chancellor's Fellowship
  4. Simons Foundation Life Science Research Foundation fellowship
  5. NIH Ruth Kirchstein National Research Service Award [F32GM116338]
  6. National Institutes of Health [AI036929, GM058867, AI051622]
  7. Stanford Center for Systems Biology grant [P50-GM107615]
  8. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  9. HHMI-Simons Faculty Scholar Award
  10. ARRA award from the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) [1S10RR026780-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Members of the Corynebacterineae, including Corynebacterium and Mycobacterium, have an atypical cell envelope characterized by an additional mycomembrane outside of the peptidoglycan layer. How this multilayered cell envelope is assembled remains unclear. Here, we tracked the assembly dynamics of different envelope layers in Corynebacterium glutamicum and Mycobacterium smegmatis by using metabolic labeling and found that the septal cell envelope is assembled sequentially in both species. Additionally, we demonstrate that in C. glutamicum, the peripheral peptidoglycan layer at the septal junction remains contiguous throughout septation, forming a diffusion barrier for the fluid mycomembrane. This diffusion barrier is resolved through perforations in the peripheral peptidoglycan, thus leading to the confluency of the mycomembrane before daughter cell separation (V snapping). Furthermore, the same junctional peptidoglycan also serves as a mechanical link holding the daughter cells together and undergoes mechanical fracture during V snapping. Finally, we show that normal V snapping in C. glutamicum depends on complete assembly of the septal cell envelope.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据