Control of pili synthesis and putrescine homeostasis in Escherichia coli
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife Assessment
This valuable study presents an interesting analysis of the role of the polyamine precursor putrescine in the pili-dependent surface motility of a laboratory strain of Escherichia coli. The overall data convincingly demonstrate a role in this case. This study presents interesting findings for those studying uropathogenic bacteria, and those studying bacterial polyamine function.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
Abstract
Polyamines are biologically ubiquitous cations that bind to nucleic acids, ribosomes, and phospholipids and, thereby, modulate numerous processes, including surface motility in Escherichia coli . We characterized the metabolic pathways that contribute to polyamine-dependent control of surface motility in the commonly used strain W3110 and the transcriptome of a mutant lacking a putrescine synthetic pathway that was required for surface motility. Genetic analysis showed that surface motility required type 1 pili, the simultaneous presence of two independent putrescine anabolic pathways, and modulation by putrescine transport and catabolism. An immunological assay for FimA—the major pili subunit, reverse transcription quantitative PCR of fimA , and transmission electron microscopy confirmed that pili synthesis required putrescine. Comparative RNAseq analysis of a wild type and Δ speB mutant which exhibits impaired pili synthesis showed that the latter had fewer transcripts for pili structural genes and for fimB which codes for the phase variation recombinase that orients the fim operon promoter in the ON phase, although loss of speB did not affect the promoter orientation. Results from the RNAseq analysis also suggested (a) changes in transcripts for several transcription factor genes that affect fim operon expression, (b) compensatory mechanisms for low putrescine which implies a putrescine homeostatic network, and (c) decreased transcripts of genes for oxidative energy metabolism and iron transport which a previous genetic analysis suggests may be sufficient to account for the pili defect in putrescine synthesis mutants. We conclude that pili synthesis requires putrescine and putrescine concentration is controlled by a complex homeostatic network that includes the genes of oxidative energy metabolism.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
eLife Assessment
This valuable study presents an interesting analysis of the role of the polyamine precursor putrescine in the pili-dependent surface motility of a laboratory strain of Escherichia coli. The overall data convincingly demonstrate a role in this case. This study presents interesting findings for those studying uropathogenic bacteria, and those studying bacterial polyamine function.
-
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
Mehta et al., in constructing E. coli strains unable to synthesize polyamines, noted that strains deficient in putrescine synthesis showed decreased movement on semisolid agar. They show that strains incapable of synthesizing putrescine have decreased expression of Type I pilin and, hence, decreased ability to perform pilin-dependent surface motility.
Strengths:
The authors characterize the specific polyamine pathways that are important for this phenomenon. RNAseq provides a detailed overview of gene expression in the strain lacking putrescine. They rule out potential effects of pilin phase variation on the phenotype. The data suggest homeostatic control of polyamine synthesis and metabolic changes in response to putrescine.
Weaknesses:
The authors do not, in the end, uncover the molecular details …
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
Mehta et al., in constructing E. coli strains unable to synthesize polyamines, noted that strains deficient in putrescine synthesis showed decreased movement on semisolid agar. They show that strains incapable of synthesizing putrescine have decreased expression of Type I pilin and, hence, decreased ability to perform pilin-dependent surface motility.
Strengths:
The authors characterize the specific polyamine pathways that are important for this phenomenon. RNAseq provides a detailed overview of gene expression in the strain lacking putrescine. They rule out potential effects of pilin phase variation on the phenotype. The data suggest homeostatic control of polyamine synthesis and metabolic changes in response to putrescine.
Weaknesses:
The authors do not, in the end, uncover the molecular details of pilin expression per se, but that would require significantly more analyses and data; the mechanisms of pilin regulation are complicated and still not completely understood.
-
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
This study by Mehta et al. describes the mechanisms behind the observation that putrescine biosynthesis mutants in Escherichia coli strain W3110 are affected in surface motility. The manuscript shows that the surface motility phenotype is dependent on Type I fimbriae and that putrescine levels affect the expression level of fimbriae. The results further suggest that without putrescine, the metabolism of the cell is shifted towards production of putrescine and away from energy metabolism.
Strengths:
The authors show the effect of putrescine on the regulation of type I fimbriae using various strategies (mutants, addition of exogenous, RNA seq, etc.). All experiments converge to the same conclusion that an optimal level of putrescine is needed.
Weakness:
The authors use one isolate of E. coli strain …
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
This study by Mehta et al. describes the mechanisms behind the observation that putrescine biosynthesis mutants in Escherichia coli strain W3110 are affected in surface motility. The manuscript shows that the surface motility phenotype is dependent on Type I fimbriae and that putrescine levels affect the expression level of fimbriae. The results further suggest that without putrescine, the metabolism of the cell is shifted towards production of putrescine and away from energy metabolism.
Strengths:
The authors show the effect of putrescine on the regulation of type I fimbriae using various strategies (mutants, addition of exogenous, RNA seq, etc.). All experiments converge to the same conclusion that an optimal level of putrescine is needed.
Weakness:
The authors use one isolate of E. coli strain W3110, that contains an insertion in fimE which controls the expression of type I fimbriae. The insertion in fimE likely modifies the ratio of cells expressing fimbriae in the population, and it would be important to confirm the results in other isolates or other strains.
-
Author response:
The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.
Alternate explanations for major conclusions.
The major conclusions are (a) surface motility of W3110 requires pili which is not novel, (b) pili synthesis and pili-dependent surface motility require putrescine — 1 mM is optimal, and 4 mM is inhibitory, and (c) the existence of a putrescine homeostatic network that maintains intracellular putrescine that involves compensatory mechanisms for low putrescine, including diversion of energy generation toward putrescine synthesis.
Conclusion a: Reviewer 3 suggests that the mutant may have lost surface motility because of outer surface structures that actually mediate motility but are co-regulated with or depend on pili synthesis. The reviewer explicitly suggests flagella as the alternate appendage, although …
Author response:
The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.
Alternate explanations for major conclusions.
The major conclusions are (a) surface motility of W3110 requires pili which is not novel, (b) pili synthesis and pili-dependent surface motility require putrescine — 1 mM is optimal, and 4 mM is inhibitory, and (c) the existence of a putrescine homeostatic network that maintains intracellular putrescine that involves compensatory mechanisms for low putrescine, including diversion of energy generation toward putrescine synthesis.
Conclusion a: Reviewer 3 suggests that the mutant may have lost surface motility because of outer surface structures that actually mediate motility but are co-regulated with or depend on pili synthesis. The reviewer explicitly suggests flagella as the alternate appendage, although flagella and pili are reciprocally regulated. Most experiments were performed in a ΔfliC background, which lacks the major flagella subunit, in order to prevent the generation of fast-moving flagella-dependent variants. Furthermore, no other surface structure that could mediate surface motility is apparent in the electron microscope images. This observation does not definitively rule out this possibility, especially because of the large transcriptomic changes with low putrescine. Our explanation is the simplest.
Conclusion b, first comment: Reviewer 1 states that “it is not possible to conclude that the effects of gene deletions to biosynthetic, transport or catabolic genes on pili-dependent surface motility are due to changes in putrescine levels unless one takes it on faith that there must be changes to putrescine levels.” The comment ignores both the nutritional supplementation and the transcript changes that strongly suggest compensatory mechanisms for low putrescine. Why compensate if the putrescine concentration does not change? The reviewer then implicitly acknowledges changes in putrescine content: “it is important to know how much putrescine must be depleted in order to exert a physiological effect”.
Conclusion b, second comment: Reviewer 1 proposes that agmatine accumulation can account for some of the observed properties, but which property is not specified. With respect to motility, agmatine accumulation cannot account for motility defects because motility is impaired in (a) a speA mutant which cannot make agmatine and (b) a speC speF double mutant which should not accumulate agmatine. With respect to the transcriptomic results, even if high agmatine is the reason for some transcript changes, the results still suggest a putrescine homeostasis network.
Conclusion c: the reviewers made no comments on the RNAseq analysis or the interpretation of the existence of a homeostatic network.
Additional experiments proposed.
Complementation. Reviewers 1 and 3 suggested complementation experiments, but the latter states that nutritional supplementation strengthens our arguments. The most relevant complementation is with speB. We tried complementation and found that our control plasmid inhibited motility by increasing the lag time before movement commenced. A plasmid with speB did stimulate motility relative to the control plasmid, but movement with the speB plasmid took 4 days, while wild-type movement took 1.5 days. We think that interpretation of this result is ambiguous. We did not systematically search for plasmids that had no effect on motility.
The purpose of complementation is to determine whether a second-site mutation is the actual cause of the motility defect. In this case, the artifact is that an alteration in polyamine metabolism is not the cause of the defect. However, external putrescine reverses the effects on motility and pili synthesis in the speB mutant. This result is inconsistent with a second-site mutation. Still, we agree that complementation is important, and because of our difficulties, we tested numerous mutants with defects in polyamine metabolism. The results present an interpretable and coherent pattern. For example, if putrescine is not the regulator, then mutants in putrescine transport and catabolism should have had no effect. Every single mutant is consistent with a role in movement and pili synthesis. The simplest explanation is that putrescine affects movement and pili synthesis.
Phase variation. Reviewer 2 noted that we did not discuss phase variation. The comment came from the observation that the speB mutant had fewer fimB transcripts which could explain the loss of motility. The reviewer also suggested a simple experiment, which we performed and found that putrescine does not control phase variation. We present those results in the supplemental material. Our discussion of this topic includes a major qualification.
Testing of additional strains. Published results from another lab showed that surface motility of MG1655 requires spermidine instead of putrescine (PMID 19493013 and 21266585). MG1655 and the W3110 that we used in our study are E. coli K-12 derivatives and phylogenetic group A. Any number of changes in enzymes that affect intracellular putrescine concentration could result in different responses to putrescine. We are currently studying pili synthesis and motility in other strains. While that study is incomplete, loss of speB in a strain of phylogenetic group D eliminates no surface motility. This work was intended as our initial analysis and the focus was on a single strain.
Measuring intracellular polyamines. We felt that we had provided sufficient evidence to conclude that putrescine controls pili synthesis and putrescine concentrations are lower in the speB mutant: the nutritional supplementation, the lower levels of transcripts for putrescine catabolic enzymes which require putrescine for their expression strongly suggest lower putrescine in a mutant lacking a putrescine biosynthesis gene, and a transcriptomic analysis that found the speB mutant had transcript changes to compensate for low putrescine. We understand the importance of measuring intracellular polyamines. We are currently examining the quantitative relationship between intracellular polyamines and pili synthesis in multiple strains which respond differently to loss of speB.
Recommendations for the authors:
Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):
The authors should measure putrescine, agmatine, cadaverine, and spermidine levels in their gene deletion strains.
Polyamine concentration measurements will be part of a separate study on polyamine control of pili synthesis of a uropathogenic strain. A comparison is essential, and the results from W3110 will be part of that study.
Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):
(1) Line 28. Your statements about urinary tract infections are pure speculation. They are fine for the discussion, but should not be in the abstract.
The abstract from line 27 on has been reworked. The comment of the reviewer is fair.
(2) Line 65. Do we need this discussion about the various strains? If you keep it, you should point out that they were all W3110 strains. But you could just say that you confirmed that your background strain can do PDSM (since you are also not showing any data for the other isolates). Discussing the various strains implies that you are not confident in your strain and raises the question of why you didn't use a sequenced wt MG1655, or something like that.
This section has been reworked. Our strain of W3110 has an insertion in fimB which is relevant for movement but does not affect our results. The insertion limits our conclusions about phase variation. We want to point out that strains variations are large. We also sequenced our strain of W3110.
(3) Related. You occasionally use "W3110-LR" to designate the wild type. You use this or not, but be consistent throughout the text.
Fixed
(4) Line 99. Does eLife allow "data not shown"?
(5) Line 119. As you note, the phenotype of the puuA patA double mutant is exactly the opposite of what one would expect. Although you provide additional evidence that high levels also inhibit motility, complementing the double mutant would provide confidence that the strain is correct.
We rapidly ran into issues with complementation which are discussed in public responses to reviewer comments.
(6) Figure 6C. Either you need to quantify these data or you need a better picture.
The files were corrupted. It was repeated several time, but we lost the other data.
(7) Figure 7. Label panels A and B to indicate that these strains are speB. Also, you need to switch panels C and D to match the order of discussion in the manuscript.
Done
(8) Line 134. Is there a statistically significant difference in the ELISA between 1 and 4 mM? You need to say one way or the other.
No statistical significance and this has been added to the paper
(9) Figure 10C. You need to quantify these data.
Quantification added as an extra panel.
(10) Line 164. You include H-NS in the group of "positive effectors that control fim operon expression" and you reference Ecocyc, rather than any primary reference. Nowhere in the manuscript do you mention phase variation. In the speB mutant, you see decreased fimB, increased fimE, and decreased hns expression. My interpretation of the literature suggests that this would drive the fim switch to the off-state. This could certainly explain some of the results. It is also easily measurable with PCR. This might require testing cells scraped directly from the plates.
The experiments were performed. There is no need to scrap cells from plates because the fimB result from RNAseq was from a liquid culture, and the prediction would be that the phase-locking should be evident in these cells.
(11) Figure 10. Likewise, do you know that your hns mutant is not locked in the off-state? Granted, the original hns mutants (pilG) showed increased rates of switching, but growth conditions might matter.
We also did phase variation for the hns mutant and the hns mutant was not phase locked. This result is shown. In addition to growth conditions, the strain probably matters.
(12) Line 342. You describe the total genome sequencing of W3110, yet this is not mentioned anywhere else in the manuscript.
It is now
Minor points:
(13) Line 192. "One of the most differentially expressed genes...".
(14) Line 202. "...implicates extracellular putrescine in putrescine homeostasis."
(15) Line 209. "...potential pili regulators...".
(16) You are using a variety of fonts on the figures. Pick one.
(17) Figure 9A. It took me a few minutes to figure out the labeling for this figure and I was more confused after reading the legend. It would be simpler to independently label red triangles, blue triangles, red circles, and blue circles.
(18) Figure 9B and 10. The reader can likely figure out what W3110_1.0_3 means, but more straightforward labeling would be better, or you need to define these labels.
All points were addressed and fixed.
Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):
Other comments:
(1) Please go through the figures and the reference to figures in the text, as they often do not refer to the right panel (ex: figures 2 and 7 for instance). In the text, please homogenize the reference to figures (Figure 2C vs Figure 3). To help compare motility experiments between figures, please use the same scale in all figures.
This has been fixed.
(2) Lines 65-70: I am not sure I get the reason behind choosing the W3110 strain from your lab stock. In what background were the initial mutants constructed (from l.64-65)? Were the nine strains tested, all variations of W3110? If so, is the phenotype described in the manuscript robust in all strains?
We have provided more explanation. W3110 was the most stable: insertions that allowed flagella synthesis in the presence of glucose were frequent. We deleted the major flagella subunit for most experiments. Before introduction of the fliC deletion, we needed to perform experiments 10 times so that fast-moving variants, which had mutationally altered flagella synthesis, did not complicate results.
(3) Line 82-84: As stated in the public review, I think more controls are needed before making this conclusion, especially as type I fimbriae are usually involved in sessile phenotypes.
Response provided in the public response.
(4) In Figure 3: Changing the order of the image to follow the text would make the figure easier to follow.
Fixed as requested
(5) Lines 100-101: simultaneous - the results presented here do not support this conclusion. In Figure 4b, the addition of putrescine to speB mutants is actually not different from WT. From the results, it seems like one of biosynthesis or transport is needed, but it's not clear if both are needed simultaneously. For this, a mutant with no biosynthesis and no transport is needed and/or completely non-motile mutants would be needed to compare.
We disagree. If there are two pathways of putrescine synthesis and both are needed, then our conclusion follows.
(6) Lines 104-105: '... because E. coli secretes putrescine.' - not sure why this statement is there, as most transporters tested after are importers of putrescine? It is also not clear to me if putrescine is supplemented in the media in these experiments. If not, is there putrescine in the GT media?
Good points, and this section has been reworded to clarify these issues. Some of the material was moved to the discussion.
(7) Line 109: 'We note that potE and plaP are more highly expressed than potE and puuP...' - first potE should be potF?
This has been corrected.
(8) Figure 8: What is the difference between the TEM images in Figure 1 and here? The WT in Figure 1 does show pili without the supplementation unless I'm missing something here. Please specify.
The reviewer means Figure 2 and not Figure 1. Figure 2 shows a wild-type strain which has both putrescine anabolic pathways while Figure 8 is the ΔspeB strain which lacks one pathway.
(9) Line160-162: Transcripts for the putrescine-responsive puuAP and puuDRCBE operons, which specify genes of the major putrescine catabolic pathway, were reduced from 1.6- to 14- fold (FDR {less than or equal to} 0.02) in the speB mutant (Supplemental Table 1), which implies lower intracellular putrescine. I might not get exactly the point here. If the catabolic pathways are repressed in the speB mutant, then there will be less degradation which means more putrescine!?
Expression of these genes is a function of intracellular putrescine: higher expression means more putrescine. Any discussion of steady putrescine must include the anabolic pathways: the catabolic pathways do not determine the intracellular putrescine, they are a reflection of intracellular putrescine.
(10) Lines 162-163: Deletion of speB reduced transcripts for genes of the fimA operon and fimE, but not of fimB. It seems that the results suggest the opposite a reduction of fimB but not fimE!?
The reviewer is correct, and it is our mistake, and the text now states what is in the figure..
-
-
-
-
eLife Assessment
This valuable study presents an interesting analysis of the role of the polyamine precursor putrescine in the pili-dependent surface motility of a laboratory strain of Escherichia coli. The genetic data convincingly shows this role, yet without putrescine measurements, the evidence remains incomplete. This work will be of interest to biomedical scientists studying uropathogenic bacteria, and those studying bacterial polyamine function.
-
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
Ita Mehta and colleagues have investigated the role of putrescine in the pili-dependent surface motility of a laboratory strain of Escherichia coli. Enterobacteria, and particularly E. coli and Salmonella Typhimurium contain an enormous amount of putrescine and cadaverine compared to other bacteria. It has been estimated by Igarashi and colleagues that putrescine is present in E. coli at levels of at least 30 mM. Therefore, an investigation of the role of putrescine in E. coli is a welcome and important contribution to understanding polyamine function. The authors have used a comprehensive suite of E. coli gene deletion strains of putrescine biosynthetic, transport, and catabolic genes to understand the role of putrescine in pili-dependent surface motility.
Strengths:
Single gene deletions of …
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
Ita Mehta and colleagues have investigated the role of putrescine in the pili-dependent surface motility of a laboratory strain of Escherichia coli. Enterobacteria, and particularly E. coli and Salmonella Typhimurium contain an enormous amount of putrescine and cadaverine compared to other bacteria. It has been estimated by Igarashi and colleagues that putrescine is present in E. coli at levels of at least 30 mM. Therefore, an investigation of the role of putrescine in E. coli is a welcome and important contribution to understanding polyamine function. The authors have used a comprehensive suite of E. coli gene deletion strains of putrescine biosynthetic, transport, and catabolic genes to understand the role of putrescine in pili-dependent surface motility.
Strengths:
Single gene deletions of arginine decarboxylase (speA) and agmatine ureohydrolase (speB), and a double gene deletion of the constitutive ornithine decarboxylase (speC) and the acid-inducible ornithine decarboxylase (speF), all of which are involved in putrescine biosynthesis, were found by the authors to be less efficient at pili-dependent surface motility. In addition, the putrescine transport genes plaP and potF are also required for efficient pili-dependent surface motility. Furthermore, the putrescine catabolic genes patA and puuA, when co-deleted, reduce pili-dependent surface motility. Transcriptomic analysis of the agmatine ureohydrolase (speB) gene deletion strain compared to the parental strain indicates a coordinated response to the speB gene deletion, including upregulation of ornithine biosynthetic genes and a downregulation of energy metabolic genes.
Weaknesses:
Because the cellular content of putrescine and other polyamines in the E. coli strains was not measured at any point in this study, and the gene deletions were not genetically complemented, it is not possible to definitively attribute physiological changes to the gene deletion strains specifically to changes in putrescine levels. Furthermore, the GT medium used for the mobility experiments contains trypsinated casein (tryptone), which may contain polyamines and most certainly contain arginine. There are two modes of putrescine biosynthesis in E. coli: one mode is the direct formation of putrescine from L-ornithine mediated by ornithine decarboxylase, and the other is the indirect pathway involving decarboxylation of arginine to form agmatine, followed by hydrolysis of agmatine to form putrescine and urea. In the absence of external arginine, putrescine is made by ornithine decarboxylase, however, in the presence of external arginine, ornithine biosynthesis is repressed and arginine decarboxylase becomes the primary biosynthetic route for putrescine biosynthesis. The GT medium used by the authors will tend to favor putrescine production from arginine. The speB gene deletion, which is used for the transcriptomic analyses, will even in the absence of external arginine, accumulate a very large amount of agmatine, greater than the level of putrescine. This will confound the interpretation of the effect of the speB gene deletion, because agmatine accumulation may be responsible for some of the effects, and the addition of external putrescine may repress agmatine accumulation. In the absence of polyamine level measurements, the relative levels of agmatine, the putrescine structural analog cadaverine, and the accumulation of decarboxylated S-adenosylmethionine, are not known. Changes to these metabolites could affect pili-dependent surface motility. Furthermore, it is not possible to conclude that the effects of gene deletions to biosynthetic, transport or catabolic genes on pili-dependent surface motility are due to changes in putrescine levels unless one takes it on faith that there must be changes to putrescine levels. Since E. coli contains such an enormous amount of putrescine, it is important to know how much putrescine must be depleted in order to exert a physiological effect.
The authors have tackled an important biomedical problem relevant to infections of the urogenital tract and also important for understanding the very unusual high level of putrescine in E. coli and related species. However, without confirmation of putrescine levels in their various strains, it would be difficult to unequivocally conclude that putrescine, or changes to its concentrations, are responsible for the physiological changes seen with the gene deletion strains.
-
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
Mehta et al., in constructing E. coli strains unable to synthesize polyamines, noted that strains deficient in putrescine synthesis showed decreased movement on semisolid agar. They show that strains incapable of synthesizing putrescine have decreased expression of Type I pilin and, hence, decreased ability to perform pilin-dependent surface motility.
Strengths:
The authors characterize the specific polyamine pathways that are important for this phenomenon. RNAseq provides a detailed overview of gene expression in the strain lacking putrescine. The data suggest homeostatic control of polyamine synthesis and metabolic changes in response to putrescine.
Weaknesses:
In this version, the authors ignore phase variation of the pil operon promoter, which can be monitored via PCR. The gene expression data …
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
Mehta et al., in constructing E. coli strains unable to synthesize polyamines, noted that strains deficient in putrescine synthesis showed decreased movement on semisolid agar. They show that strains incapable of synthesizing putrescine have decreased expression of Type I pilin and, hence, decreased ability to perform pilin-dependent surface motility.
Strengths:
The authors characterize the specific polyamine pathways that are important for this phenomenon. RNAseq provides a detailed overview of gene expression in the strain lacking putrescine. The data suggest homeostatic control of polyamine synthesis and metabolic changes in response to putrescine.
Weaknesses:
In this version, the authors ignore phase variation of the pil operon promoter, which can be monitored via PCR. The gene expression data suggest that shifting to the pilin "off" state could help explain the phenotype.
-
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
This study by Mehta et al. describes the mechanisms behind the observation that putrescine biosynthesis mutants in Escherichia coli strain W3110 are affected by surface motility. The manuscript shows that the surface motility phenotype is dependent on Type I fimbriae and that putrescine levels affect the expression level of fimbriae. The results further suggest that without putrescine, the metabolism of the cell is shifted towards the production of putrescine and away from energy metabolism.
There are two main aspects in the manuscript.
(1) The first observation is that a fimA mutant modified/decreased the motility phenotype. From this result, the authors conclude that type I fimbriae (or pili) are involved in the surface motility phenotype. Type I fimbriae are typically known to be involved in …
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
This study by Mehta et al. describes the mechanisms behind the observation that putrescine biosynthesis mutants in Escherichia coli strain W3110 are affected by surface motility. The manuscript shows that the surface motility phenotype is dependent on Type I fimbriae and that putrescine levels affect the expression level of fimbriae. The results further suggest that without putrescine, the metabolism of the cell is shifted towards the production of putrescine and away from energy metabolism.
There are two main aspects in the manuscript.
(1) The first observation is that a fimA mutant modified/decreased the motility phenotype. From this result, the authors conclude that type I fimbriae (or pili) are involved in the surface motility phenotype. Type I fimbriae are typically known to be involved in non-motile phenotypes, such as biofilm formation or adhesion. Type I fimbriae are also co-regulated with other surface structures that might impact motility. Thus, more controls are needed before concluding that the surface motility requires the type I fimbriae. For instance, the authors should have complemented the mutants and should have verified the flagella expression/motility in the fimA mutant.
(2) The second observation is that putrescine also impacts the surface motility phenotype and the expression of type I fimbriae. Although there is no genetic complementation, here the exogenous addition of putrescine to the speB mutant provides a chemical complementation method, which makes the data stronger.
In addition, testing the effect of putrescine on motility and type I fimbriae expression in additional strains of E. coli would strengthen the conclusion. This is especially important since the results are somewhat different from previous results obtained with a different strain of E. coli. The authors do note that experimental conditions are different, but testing their theory would make the conclusions stronger.
-