Showing posts with label eukaryote. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eukaryote. Show all posts

Thursday, November 23, 2017

Life Outside The Chromosome

Biology concepts – plasmid, linear organelle genomes, extrachromosomal circular DNAs, conjugation,


Planet of the Apes (1968) – a good movie, but not a great movie.
Every ape was a ventriloquist; you never saw their lips move.
But it did have the first reciprocal interspecies kiss. The pan and
scan version loses the, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil joke;
you only see what is in the red box.
I love older movies, but only if shown in full aspect (wide screen or letterbox format). So much of old cinema had interesting things going on outside the field of focus.  Take Charlton Heston testifying before the panel of apes in Planet of the Apes. In the pan and scan version, you see one ape covering his ears when he doesn’t like what Heston is saying, but you miss the other two apes – one is covering his eyes and one is covering his mouth! You only get the joke in wide screen.

Biology can be the same. So much emphasis is placed on chromosomal DNA that we sometimes miss interesting things going on elsewhere, or we start to investigate years later than we might have if we would just look at the whole picture.

Last week we focused on the big DNA in prokaryotes, the chromosome(s). But this doesn’t mean prokaryotes don’t have other DNA. Most prokaryotes have extrachromosomal DNA in the form of plasmids (plasma = shape, and id = belonging to). These are smaller loops of DNA that have fewer genes than a chromosome, and the genes are not essential for survival.

However, "smaller than chromosomes" doesn't mean they have to be small. The "megaplasmids" are over 100,000 nucleotides, and can be more than 2 million nucleotides in length, but even these are smaller than the chromosome. The exception might be in bacteria that have multiple chromosomes. Often one chromosome is much smaller; a megaplasmid could be larger than the secondary chromosome.

Plasmids replicate on their own, so sometimes they are called autonomously replicating elements. As such, they do not depend on the chromosome for their existence. Plasmids have internal control features that keep the number of a certain plasmid within limits in any one bacterium. Some plasmids have other controls that keep certain plasmid types from surviving in cells that have other types of plasmids. But this doesn’t mean that a cell may have only one type of plasmid. Our lyme disease-causing example of last week, B. burgdorferi, has 21 different plasmids. What is more, some are linear and some are circular. It just can’t help but be an exception in all things molecular.


The plasmid is different from the chromosome. It is
smaller and is not tethered to the cell membrane.
New data is showing that eukaryotes also possess
plasmids, especially yeast. They are being used to
produce complicated proteins in a system more
like our own cell
Even though plasmids do not carry genes essential for survival, they can still have an influence on the life of the cell. For instance, most antibacterial resistance genes are carried on plasmids. These extrachromosomal elements can be transferred from bacterium to bacterium, and can be passed on to the daughter cells, producing populations of bacteria that can laugh at our puny efforts to kill them.


Plasmids may also transfer metabolic genes, allowing the recipient cell to degrade other sources of food, or virulence genes, allowing them to colonize different portions of the body. This is sometimes what happens with E. coli.  Species that live in the large bowel pick up a plasmid that codes for a system that lets them cling to the wall of the small intestine, higher in the gastrointestinal tract. Having them live here can cause diarrhea in several different ways, but it all depends on the presence or absence of  that plasmid.


One type of plasmid, called the F plasmid, has a role in bacterial sex determination. O.K., it isn’t like the sexes we think usually think of; bacteria with the F plasmid are considered F+ or “male” and those without are considered F- or “female.” The F plasmid codes for proteins that will create a tube (pilus) that can link one bacterium to another and permit the replicated F plasmid to be transferred to the F- cell, thereby turning a female in to a male. Tada – sex change the easy way.


The F plasmid contains tra genes that build the pilus
and control the integration of the DNA into the
chromosome. Helicase, the enzyme that unwinds
DNA for replication or insertion, was first identified
in the F plasmid.
Most of the time this is not such a big deal, but sometimes the F plasmid sequences can integrate into the chromosome of the bacterium, and when it cuts itself back out and becomes circular again, it may bring piece of the chromosome as well. This is now a F’ plasmid. When the F’ gets transferred to a F- cell, it takes those chromosomal sequences with it. This is one important source of genetic diversity in bacteria, called conjugation.

Plasmids are an integral part of the prokaryotic genome, so I have never considered them exceptions. What is more, you and I both know that there are circular DNAs in eukaryotic cells. Remember that the mitochondrion and chloroplast have their own chromosomes, although significantly reduced from what they had when captured by our ancestor cells underwent endosymbiosis.

Since the organelles were derived from prokaryotes, it would follow that their DNA is kept in a single, circular chromosome. In most cases this is true, but there are those organisms that demonstrate linear organelle DNA or multiple chromosomes in their organelles.

For example, the human blood sucking louse Pediculus humanus doesn’t have a single mitochondrial chromosome. Its 34 remaining mitochondrial genes are housed on 18 separate minichromosomes. Why ? – IDK (with a nod to my texting children). Even stranger, the fungus Candida parapsilosis has a linear mitochondrial genome, while its very close relative, the human pathogen C. albicans, has a conventional mitochondrial genome geometry.


The moon jellyfish is a cnidarian. Cnidarins are named
for cnidocytes, the stingers that allow them to defend
themselves or catch food. However, the sea turtle is
immune to the toxin of the moon jelly, so they are
happy with jellyfish sandwiches, like on SpongeBob.
Many other examples of linear organelle chromosomes exist, especially in the cnidarians (animals like corals and jellyfish). The relationships between these groups, phylogenetically speaking, have been hard to work out. The evidence that the hydrozoans (like the fire coral and the Portugese man-o-war) and scyphozoans (like moon jellyfish) have linear mitochondrial genomes indicate that they are probably closely related to each other and are younger than the other groups of cnidarians, like anthozoans (most corals and sea anemones).

Finally, corn (maize, species name Zea mays) cells have been show to have linear, complex, and circular forms of the chloroplast genome. In seedlings, the areas of high cellular division seem to be more active in the linear copies of the chloroplast chromosome. This may indicate that while the circular form is still present, it is the linear form that is functional in the Z. mays cells. Maybe we are catching a peak at evolution in action.

Most prokaryotes have circular chromosomes, and most eukaryotic species have organelles with circular chromosomes. It would follow that the instances of linearization of mitochondrial or chloroplasts sequences occurred after endosymbiosis was established, but why? What is their advantage? What would the text abbreviation be for “nobody knows?”

The above examples indicate that extrachromosomal DNA in eukaryotes can be more dynamic than previously surmised. But we haven’t touched on the interesting part. Eukaryotic linear chromosomes can sometimes give rise to circular pieces of DNA that then replicate on their own and stick around for varying lengths of time, just like plasmids.

Probably for reasons of "species prejudice" we don’t use the term plasmid for circular DNA in higher organisms; it makes us sound too similar to our prokaryotic ancestors. Circular DNA in plants and animals is called extrachromosomal circular DNA (eccDNA) or small poly-dispersed circular DNA (spcDNA) – and the scientists are right, these sound much more advanced: a plasmid that a eukaryote can be proud of.

The sources of these eccDNA sequences are several. They can be formed from non-coding DNA (sequences that don’t lead to the production of a particular RNA or protein), or they can be derived from tandem repeat (two copies of the same gene) DNA that are plentiful in the eukaryotic genome. A June, 2012 study identified a new type of eccDNA in mice and humans that actually has coding sequences that are non-repetitive.

eccDNA has been found in every species in which it has been looked for, so its presence is not unusual. What is unusual is that eccDNA can come and go, and can be formed from normal intrachromosomal recombination (the crossing over of sequences within one chromosome) or by the looping out of sequences from a chromosome and then being cut out. As of now, we don’t know what controls their occurrence or why they form.

Importantly, they do seem to have a function. Small numbers are seen in normal cells, but the number is increased in cancer cells or normal cells that have been exposed to cancer-causing or DNA-damaging agents. This was first demonstrated using a cancer cell line called HeLa, named for the mother from whom they were isolated, Henrietta Lacks. I highly recommend the biography of her tumor cells called, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, authored by Rebecca Skloot.


Xenopus laevis is a good model organism for
Studying development. Notice how the tadpole
Only takes 3 days to develop into a tadpole, and
every stage can be visualized. Plus, they can lay
up to 2500 eggs at a time.
The function of eccDNA in normal tissues is suggested by a study in Xenopus laevis, the African clawed frog. This animal is a much used model for studies of development because the eggs and embryos are big, the frogs can be induced to mate year round, and the embryos develop outside the body.

During development of the embryo, different levels of eccDNA are seen. Some sequences are seen early, while different sequences are seen later, and most of the eccDNA is gone by the time the embryos mature to tadpoles. This suggests specific functions for eccDNA in normal development. We wish we knew what the specific functions are – again, your opportunity for a Nobel Prize. 

The type of eccDNA in X. laevis is called a t-loop circle. The “t” stands for telomeres, like we mentioned last week. Telomeres have many units of a repeated sequence and are used to help replicate the ends of linear chromosomes. We have talked about how each replication of the chromosome leads to a slightly shorter telomere and how some scientists hypothesize that telomere shortening has something to do with aging defects.

Early in development, embryonic cells are dividing rapidly; in the 4-week human embryo, new cells are produced at a rate of 1 million/second! All this cell division requires replication, and replication shortens the telomeres. Could it be that the t-loop circle eccDNA has a function in preserving telomere length?


The telomere has many copies of a repeat sequence. Each repeat 
is recognized by an enzyme that helps to replicate that end of 
the chromosome. The enzyme called telomerase contains 
an RNA primer that can’t be converted to DNA, so the last
repeat is always lost. The telomere gets shorter with every 
replication. Sooner or later, this is going to cause a problem.

A study in 2002 suggested just that, these eccDNA telomere sequences might serve as a reserve of long telomeric sequences. These repeats could later be added back on to the telomeres through recombination events, thus preserving telomere length despite high levels of chromosome replication.

One the other hand, eccDNA is more plentiful in ageing cells and damaged cells. This might be an attempt to save the cell from the defects induced by telomere shortening or by damaging agents, or it may have a completely different function, perhaps even to induce cell suicide (apoptosis), so as to prevent damage to other cells. Once again, the small DNAs that are so easy to ignore may very well be the ones that allow us to live.

We have talked directly and indirectly about the mitochondria for the past few weeks; a crucial structure for energy production. Next time lets talk about the organisms that think they can do without this organelle.


Shibata, Y., Kumar, P., Layer, R., Willcox, S., Gagan, J., Griffith, J., & Dutta, A. (2012). Extrachromosomal MicroDNAs and Chromosomal Microdeletions in Normal Tissues Science, 336 (6077), 82-86 DOI: 10.1126/science.1213307

For additional information or classroom activities about plasmids, extrachromosomal DNA, or telomeres, see:

Plasmids –

Extrachromosomal DNA –

Telomeres -

Thursday, October 26, 2017

Simple Ain’t So Simple Anymore

Biology Concepts – prokaryotes, simplicity, complexity, organelles, microcompartments


Not everything new is better; new doesn’t
necessarily mean improved. Remember the
“New” Coke debacle?
Newer is better, right? Everything old is simple and plain. Back in the good old days, you had to read a book, but today you can browse the internet and pick from 8000 songs while you drive to the superstore to pick up a Kindle. Today is faster. Better. More complex?

How about living in 1800. Could you catch and kill your dinner with a trap of your own making, followed by gutting and dressing it on the back porch of a house you built with your own hands, while you try to keep your entire family from being eaten or dying from an infected scratch?  Now whose world seems complex!

This same belief has been applied to forms of life. Bacteria are old and simple; we are new and complex. Plants and animals can do millions of things that bacteria can’t, because they are so simple and primitive and we are so high tech, biologically speaking.

But it is a mistake to call bacteria simple or primitive. They may not have all the bells and whistles that eukaryotic (eu - true and karyo = nucleus) cells have, but they have survived much longer than other life forms, and they outnumber us by billions. There are more bacteria in a handful of rich soil than people who have ever lived on Earth. So don’t confuse complexity with success.

A cursory look at bacteria would suggest that they are indeed simple. They are bags of chemicals, without the complex organelles that mark eukaryotic cells. Plus, they're small; the whole organism is just one cell. They have just one chromosome and fewer genes than eukaryotic cells. It would be easy to see them as simple.

Even at the biochemical level prokaryotes (pro = primitive) appear simple compared to eukaryotic cells. Our more modern cells aren’t satisfied with just making more proteins, they also modify many of these proteins, adding carbohydrates, acetyl groups, phosphate groups, sulfur groups, etc. These post-translational modifications (after peptides are translated from mRNA messages) are crucial for different functions and for interactions with messengers and DNA.


Histones are protein complexes that help DNA to coil up into tight 
configurations. But DNA it is tightly packaged, it is hard for 
individual genes to be transcribed and made into protein. Histone 
acetyltransferases are enzymes that add acetyl groups to the histones 
and open DNA to be read. Histone deacteylases do the 
opposite, they add acetyl groups and cause the DNA 
to tightly coil.
The exception here is that less than a decade ago scientists found that many prokaryotes also do some kinds of post-translational modifications, includingphosphorylation and acetylation. Acetylation, the addition of a -COCH3 group to a molecule, is important in eukaryotic cells for several reasons, not the least of which is in determining which DNA is open to be replicated or transcribed (copied to mRNA).

Data from 2004 was the first to show that prokaryotes can carry out phosphorylation (addition of PO3 groups) to proteins. What is more, acetylation and phosphorylation are reversible modifications, so an additional layer of complexity is added. Prokaryotic proteins have one function when modified and another when not modified, just like modification of eukaryotic proteins. Sounds like prokaryotes have more going on than we thought.

Prokaryotes are the real success stories of life on Earth. They can do things some things eukaryotes can’t do (more on this next time). Even more amazing, every deficit we have said they have - they can’t do this, they don’t have those – can be seen as a reason they are more amazing.

Prokaryotes are single celled organisms, so they have less specialization. But this means that the cell has to carry out every function that the organism needs. Could your fat cells produce antibodies and kill off protozoan invaders? I think not. We also poke fun at prokaryotes because they don’t have organelles; but this means they have to find a way to do all their chemistry in one big open environment, much more difficult .……….or maybe not.

That classic rule of biology, "eukaryotic cells have organelles and prokaryotic cells don’t," may not be completely true. This would be a big exception.  Evidence shows that many kinds of prokaryotes do have local environments, called microcompartments. We have all been living a lie!

The most studied of the microcompartments is the carboxysome. This hollow shell, first described as far back as 1956, holds enzymes (RuBisCo, see When Amazing Isn’t Enough) that many prokaryotes use for carbon fixation. Photosynthesis is the most obvious type of carbon fixation, where carbon in a gas form (CO2) is converted to carbon in an organic, solid form (carbohydrates).


Carboxysomes as seen by electron microscopy. They really
do look geometric. The faces and corners are specific groups
of proteins, and hold the enzymes inside the microcompartment.
There are minute pores where the proteins come together
to let reagents and products move in and out of the carboxysome.
RuBisCo is a fairly inefficient enzyme, so sequestering it with its substrate inside a microcompartment works to increase the production of energy. Doesn’t this sound a lot like one of the key reasons for the development of organelles – the bringing together of reagents for increased efficiency of reactions?

But it is not just photosynthetic bacteria (cyanobacteria) that use carboxysomes. Many other autotrophic bacteria (auto = own and troph = food) use carboxysomes to fix carbon during chemosynthesis. Chemoautotrophs, for instance, are organisms that use chemical energy rather than sunlight energy to fix carbon.

In many prokaryotes, the oxidation of hydrogen sulfide or ammonia (a nitrogen containing compound) provides the energy for producing organic carbon; Thiomargarita namibinesis from our posts on giant bacteria uses sulfur for chemosynthesis. But there are also organisms that use the energy from the production of methane to drive carbon fixation. You have undoubtedly had experience with intestinal prokaryotes that produce methane gas (methanogens) – don’t try to say you haven’t.

The carboxysome (as a model of many microcompartments) is not a membrane bound bag as organelles are in eukaryotes. Carboxysomes are more like soccer balls made of protein, but in this case they hold a rigid polyhedral form and don’t get bicycle kicked into a prokaryotic net by Pele.

Each face of the shell is made up of a two dimensional polymer of protein hexagons. However, as architects will tell you, this is a difficult shape to close using only hexagons, even with 10,000 of them, like the typical carboxysome has. Soccer balls and the dome at the Epcot Center use strategically placed pentagonal faces that allow for the turning of the hexagonal faces and a closing of the compartment (see cartoon above).


These are cartoons showing the structure of a
carbon fullerene (right) and a carbon nanotube
(left). Each green sphere represents a carbon atom.
These structures are very strong, like for making
bicycle helmets. They may also become useful for
things like space elevators, nanoelectrical circuits,
and solid lubricants.
We have used this hexagonal and pentagonal combination for decades, but it was identified in bacteria less than five years ago. This arrangement is also seen in viral protein coats, as well as in carbon fullerenes, which are superstable carbon nanostructures described in 1985 and named for the inventor of the geodesic dome, Buckminster Fuller.

Could this be the exception – nature stealing an idea from humans? Probably not, I’m guessing Dr. Fuller independently happened upon the same solution that nature had worked out millions of years ago – but it took a heck of an intellect to recognize a good thing.

It might be lucky for us that Fuller’s domes had us looking for this combination in other areas. Carboxysomes are present in up to 25% prokaryotic pathogens (disease causing organisms), and current research is aiming to disrupt the formation of the hexagonal/pentagonal compartments as a way to kill, or at least slow down, the microbes. So many prokaryotic pathogens are developing resistance to traditional antibiotics that a new approach will be heartily welcomed.

There are other microcompartments besides the carboxysome. The bacterium Clostridium kluyveri is proposed to have a metabolosome compartment for the conversion of ethanol into carbohydrates. Furthermore, Salmonella enterica, is capable of producing two different metabolosomes; one for propane-1,2-diol and one for ethanolamine, for conversion of these substrates into energy-containing carbon sources.

The evidence of these additional microcompartments makes one wonder just how many different species of protein shelled microcompartments there may be. To investigate this question, a group from UCLA recently published a study using comparative genomics (comparing genes of similar and dissimilar organisms to find groups of genes of similar function) to point out possible enzyme pathways that may be sequestered in microcompartments.

Their late 2012 study suggests that new types of microcompartments for different types of propanediol metabolism, and the identification of microcompartments in organisms for which they were previously unknown, like mycobacteria. The genomic evidence also suggests new types of protein shells, differing compartments being used for differing variants of enzyme function.

It is in these final examples that we see a more concrete purpose for the microcompartment. During the metabolism of alcohol, propane-1,2-diol, or ethanolamine, a compound called acetaldehyde is formed. This is a toxic product that needs to be converted to acetic acid in rapid order to avoid toxicity to the cell. By isolating the acetaldehyde in the metabolosome, S. enterica improves its own living conditions. This is also important to us humans.


This is not a before and after picture for an embarrassing
karaoke incident. This is a demonstration of the facial
flushing reaction when a person has an ALDH2 mutation, and 
can’t metabolize alcohol efficiently.
Many Asians and Ashkenazi Jews have a mutation of the acetaldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH2) gene that produces the enzyme that rids the body of acetaldehyde after the consumption of alcohol. The mutation produces a poorly functioning enzyme, so acetaldehyde builds up in their systems and causes a facial flushing reaction. If both ALDH2 genes (one from mom, one from dad) are mutated, the person gets violently ill from consuming ethanol. As you might imagine, populations in which this mutation is prevalent have very low rates of alcoholism.

So we have the exception that prokaryotes are not really without organelles; theirs just look different. Could you guess that the exception goes the other way too? Well, it does. The nucleus of eukaryotic cells works with microcompartments that allow certain things in and out, but keep your DNA inside the nucleus.

The pores of the nucleus (Cells Are Great Multitaskers) are complex openings made up of many proteins. Why? Nuclei could just use receptors to allows certain things in or out, similar to the system used by the cell plasma membrane. But evolution went with a more complex solution.


The vault complex is made of 78 identical protein chains.
One chain is shown in white. Together, they form a
microcompartment that is crucial for our nucleus function.
There is a protein microcompartment called a vault complex that works with the pore complex. This is a highly regulated way of moving RNAs and ribosomes (made in the nucleolus which is inside the nucleus) out of the nucleus, while keeping your DNA inside. I don’t think it is a hard concept to grasp that you cells are happier when your DNA stays inside the nucleus; do you keep your valuables on your front lawn?

Next time we will see how the nucleus, its pore complex, and its microcompartment carriers helped us make the jump from prokaryote to eukaryote. The nucleus is a later evolutionary development, but it still uses a prokaryotic system. This is clue that helps us investigate our cellular family tree. 





Jorda, J., Lopez, D., Wheatley, N., & Yeates, T. (2012). Using comparative genomics to uncover new kinds of protein-based metabolic organelles in bacteria Protein Science DOI: 10.1002/pro.2196




For more information or classroom activities on bacterial microcomponents, post-translational modification of proteins, alcohol metabolism, or the vault complex, see:

Bacterial microcomponents –

Protein post-translational modification –

Alcohol metabolism –

Nuclear vault complex –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_%28organelle%29

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

It’s All in the Numbers - Sizes in Nature


If all the animal species are broken up into groups, the light 
blue section includes insects, and the rest of the 
circle colors represent every other animal on Earth!
Comparisons help to make very big or very small numbers meaningful, and biology is chock full of big and small numbers. For instance, there are more insects in the world than there are humans. By more, I mean ALOT MORE, something like 1.5 x 1018 insects. But what does that number mean? Consider looking at it this way; the world population hit 7 billion last year and that's a big number, but even if we were to double our population again in the next ten minutes, there would still be 100 million insects for every human on earth. This certainly makes an impression, but it seems small when comparing the most numerous organisms, bacteria, to humans.

Bacteria outnumber us by orders of magnitude more than insects do; they live everywhere, in every environment. They have been found in 0.5 million year-old permafrost as well as 40 miles up in the atmosphere. There are approximately 100 million to 1 billion bacteria in every teaspoon of dirt, so in total there are currently 5 x1030 bacteria carrying out their daily routines. That means there are about 5 x 1019 living bacteria (that is 50,000,000,000,000,000,000) for every person who has EVER LIVED. Another way of visualizing this might be to imagine that each bacterium is a penny being stacked. The column would be a trillion light years high. That’s about five times the diameter of the observable universe.


Nanobacteria are still controversial, the 0.2 µm diameter is 
close to the smallest size that could still hold DNA. 
For comparison, the white line in panel A is 1 µm long, 
and in Panel C the line is just 0.1 µm.
While the redwoods might be slightly taller than the sequoias, 
the mass of the sequoias is much greater because the 
trunks have such a large diameter.
Even using comparisons and analogies, these numbers are almost too big to comprehend. It isn’t much easier when talking about sizes. The scale of life is amazing, from the smallest bacteria (called nanobacteria), just 0.2 µm in size (1/5,000,000 of a meter), to the biggest living thing on Earth, a Giant Sequoia called General Sherman. This behemoth of a tree is more than 83 meters (272 ft.) in height and 1,225,000 kilograms (2,701,000 lb.) in mass. This means that from smallest to largest, life spans more than eight orders of magnitude. In terms of biomass, the difference between the smallest bacterium and General Sherman is even greater, about 1 x 1023, about the same as difference in mass as one human compared to seven Earths.

On a smaller scale, the difference in size between bacteria and nucleated cells (eukaryotic cells) is still pretty stunning. A single macrophage cell of your immune system can ingest more than 100 bacteria without flinching, and macrophages are nowhere near the biggest eukaryotic cells. These different sizes demand some distinctions in how cells conduct their business; for example, how they move molecules into and within themselves.


A macrophage reaching out and ingesting bacteria.
The bacteria are the small, connected rods.
Eukaryotic cells, unlike prokaryotic cells (bacteria and Archaea), have specialized systems, like actin filaments, cytoskeleton, and microtubules. These apparatus are designed to act like conveyor belts; they carry different molecules through the cell to their needed destinations. Eukaryotes also have specific receptors for bringing in specific molecules. These are fast systems of uptake and movement, and can work against a concentration gradient.


The cytoskeleton of the eukaryotic cell stretch out like fibers.
They help it move, can convey molecules from place to place,
and holds the cells shape.




Unfortunately, bacteria only have diffusion to move molecules around their insides. This makes things doubly hard on them because bacteria have limited access to resources; most often they meet up with few molecules that are important to them (being a small cell in a big environment). Therefore, they need to get as many of these resources into their cell as possible and move throughout their entire volume quickly.

Diffusion is the movement of molecules from places where there a lot of them toward places here there are fewer of them (from high concentration to low concentration). Think of a crowd pouring out onto the football field after a big win. You start with many people in the stands and very few on the field, but end up with about an equal number of people in all parts of the stadium. Bacteria count on consuming their nutrients this way. Important molecules diffuse into the cell, and then get metabolized for energy or other building blocks. This breaking down and reassembly of molecules helps ensure that the concentration of important molecules is always lower inside the cell, so diffusion into the cell can continue. Importantly, as the width or length of a cell doubles, the volume increases by a factor of eight; therefore, prokaryotic cells remain small so that they can get molecules everywhere they need them quickly. It is the only way for diffusion to remain profitable for them.


Diffusion is the movement of from where there are 
many to where there are few. If it is water 
molecules that are moving, then call it osmosis.
Diffusion is not quite as simple as people pouring out the stands. There are several aspects of this process that are important to bacteria. The first of these is the diffusion rate, which is based on a diffusion coefficient for each different molecule, and the liquid it is moving through. For oxygen moving through water, the diffusion rate is about 1 mm/hr. This means that for an average sized bacteria it only takes 1 millisecond (1/1000th of a second) for an oxygen molecule to travel across the entire cell.

There is also the mixing rate; this refers to the time it takes for a molecule that enters the cell to have an equal probability of being found in any part of the cell. A 1µm (1/1,000,000 of a meter) bacterium has a mixing time of roughly 1 millisecond. But since the volume increases by a factor of eight as the size doubles, it would not take much growth for the mixing time to become problematic if a cell was to rely on diffusion alone.

Finally, there is the issue of traffic time. Every reaction that takes place in a cell involves two or more molecules finding one another and then interacting. In both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells there are some systems designed to help bring molecules together, but in the end, it is basically luck – they have to run into one another. The number of molecules can affect this time; say you want molecule A to meet molecule B. If the cell contained only one of each molecule, this could take a while, but if there are 1000A’s and 1000B’s, then the traffic time will be decreased considerably. For average sized bacteria, traffic times exist in the range of 1 second, but again, if they are much bigger, the chances of molecules meeting their partners goes down dramatically.

If the bacterium grows too big, the diffusion rate, mixing time, and traffic time can become too long to permit survival. Therefore, size limitations seem to be set for bacteria. However, some bacteria just have to be rule breakers. There are two excellent examples of bacteria that have evolved ways to overcome the diffusion problems associated with increased size, and we'll start to look at them next week.



Schulz, H., & Jørgensen, B. (2001). Big Bacteria Annual Review of Microbiology, 55 (1), 105-137 DOI: 10.1146/annurev.micro.55.1.105



For more information on numbers in nature, diffusion, and cytoskeleton, as well as web-based activities and experiments, go to:

Cell size and volume:
http://staff.jccc.net/pdecell/cells/cellsize.html
faculty.massasoit.mass.edu/whanna/121_assets/15-week_2_prelab.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdvKM1m0jnE
http://www.cellsalive.com/howbig.htm
www.nsa.gov/academia/_files/collected_learning/high.../surface_area.pdf
www.smccd.net/accounts/bucher/modules/DuzSizeMatter.pdf
http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/AEF/1996/deaver_cell.php


scaling in nature:
http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/the-sizes-of-organisms-span-21-orders-15321100
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/cells/scale/
http://www.dnatube.com/video/596/Size-Analogies-of-Bacteria-and-Viruses
http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/size_shapes_animals/index.html


diffusion:
http://www.biologycorner.com/bio1/diffusion.html
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072495855/student_view0/chapter2/animation__how_diffusion_works.html
http://staff.jccc.net/pdecell/cells/diffusion.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/diffus.html
http://www.wisc-online.com/objects/ViewObject.aspx?ID=ap1903
http://www.biologycorner.com/2009/09/16/diffusion-lab/
http://chem.lapeer.org/Bio1Docs/Diffusion.html
http://www.biologyjunction.com/osmosis__diffusion_in_egg_lab.htm
http://phet.colorado.edu/en/contributions/view/3415


cytoskeleton:
http://www.cellsalive.com/cells/cytoskel.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rqbmLiSkpk
http://www.biochemweb.org/cytoskeleton.shtml
http://www.biology.arizona.edu/cell_bio/tutorials/cytoskeleton/page1.html
http://www.biology.arizona.edu/cell_bio/tutorials/cytoskeleton/main.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlYyoi5vpE8

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

A Tale Of Two Tails

Biology concepts – flagella, bacteria, prokaryotes, eukaryotes, undulipodia, axoneme, basal body, centriole


Everyone has the dream where you show up for a class
that you didn’t know was on your schedule, only to be
having a test. But in second place is the dream where you
are back in elementary school, or maybe the principal’s
office. Above is a picture of every teacher I had in
elementary school.
You find yourself transported back to sixth grade grammar class. You barely fit in the desk and your clothes are out of style.... again. You don’t know how you got there, but the immediate problem is that Mrs. Belcher has just called your name to answer the next question. What are homonyms?! You stare back at her with terror in your eyes.

But your study of word roots may help you survive. Homo- means same, while -nym means word. OK, it’s coming back to you. Homonyms can be words that are spelled but have different meanings and origins (called homographs) or words that are pronounced the same but have different spellings and meanings (called homophones).  Yes! The class cheers, and Mrs. Belcher is more than mildly surprised. Crisis averted.

I have no idea how you got transported back to grammar school, but your question and answer is very timely to our discussion today. Homographs, like minute (min-it, a short time) and minute (my-noot, a small amount), look the same, but have different meanings. Homophones, like to, too, and two sound the same but mean different things and have different origins.  This is very much like the differences in prokaryotic flagella and eukaryotic undulipodia. Too much of a stretch for you... maybe.

We have seen that bacterial flagella are long, whip-like structures protruding from the cell that can aid in motility. So are eukaryotic undulipodia. They look very similar, yet we are going to see they have very different structures, mechanisms of function, and origins – just like homophone and homonyms.  So maybe the analogy wasn’t so far off.

Both flagella and undulipodia extend from the cell surface with a long tail. But in the prokaryote, this was made of small subunits of flagellin proteins. In the undulipodia, the structure is called the axoneme, and is made of long microtubules of tubulin protein. Already we have significant differences between two things that look very similar.


A cross section of an undulipodium axoneme looks like
this – although I’m not sure they’re color coded in the
cell. Notice how the inner are connects the nested tubule
of one doublet to the outside tubule of the next doublet.
The inner arms are responsible for the degree of bend,
the outer arms are involved in the rate of movement. There
are other proteins involved, but we aren’t getting that
detailed. Maybe you want to do that on your own.
The axoneme (axo = axis, and neme = thread) of the undulipodia has a very distinct structure which is best appreciated when you look at it in cross section. The long microtubles appear as small circles in the cross cut, but they are arranged very precisely (see picture). They come in doublets, and there are nine sets of them surrounding a central doublet (called 9 + 2 or 9(2) + 2). This is very different from the single hollow tube of the prokaryotic flagellum.

The way the axoneme is built is also the key to how it works. The different microtubule doublets are cross-linked by protein complexes called dynein arms. There are inner arms and outer arms. An inner arm connects one microtubule from one doublet to another microtubule of the adjacent doublet. When one doublet slides further out from the cell body and the connected adjacent doublet doesn’t, this creates stress and the whole thing must bend to maintain the connections.

So, walking proteins are how the undulipodia create their whip-like action. There is a walking system analogous to dynein arm movement that has developed in many animals. We have looked at muscle contraction before. Just like myosin heads walking along actin filaments that are anchored to the muscle cell membrane, the dynein arms on some doublets start to crawl up or down the adjacent microtubule of an undulipodia creating a bend and then they can reverse to whip back the other direction. This is very different from the spinning motor of the bacterial flagellum.


Pay attention to these cartoons, they show how the undulipodia
bend. ATP powers the sliding of the dynein arms. As they move
down one tubule, that filament moves up. If the filaments are
anchored in the membrane, as they are in undulipodia, the
movement creates tension and a bend. The cartoon on the
right is a good summary.
The motions the two different mechanisms produce is different too (a homophone). While the prokaryotic flagellum spins like a propeller, the sliding of the microtubules makes the undulipodium wave back and forth, like a field of wheat on a breezy day, or how a snake might thrash if you held his head down (don’t just hold his tail down, he’ll bite you).

The undulipodium motion often occurs in just one plane, back and forth instead of all around, but that doesn’t mean it has too limit itself to that. It can spin too; it just takes a very coordinated sliding back and forth of microtubules.

Another difference between prokaryotic flagella and eukaryotic undulipodia is in how they are powered. We saw that flagella in bacteria get their force from the spinning motor, and the motor gets its energy from an ion gradient across the membrane. But in eukaryotes, it was seen early on that if you strip the membrane off of an undulipodium, and added ATP, they start to move.

Yes, all undulipodia are held within the membrane. Some bacterial flagella are membrane covered, but all eukaryotic versions are sheathed in plasma membrane. But back to the ATP. Exposing the naked undulipodium to ATP, even on a dead cell, can initiate the dynein walking and microtubule sliding, so it is definitely ATP powered.

Also, this points out that the power for the bacteria movement comes from the motor in the base, but the eukaryotic movement is in the axoneme, not the base. The basal body that anchors the eukaryotic undulipodium into the cell membrane is amazing in its own way. The basal body is actually a centriole, the same structure that helps to move the chromosomes apart in the spindle apparatus during mitosis. We’ll come back to this double duty organelle in a a few weeks.


Chlamydomonas algae species have a double flagella
for swimming. A single stroke as shown above. The
power strokes on top is followed by the recovery stroke
below. Put all the numbers together and looks like
someone swimming underwater. The picture of the
organism is there because it’s always better to see the
real thing as compared to a cartoon.
Our two systems still look similar, but we see how they are not so similar in structure and action. Since eukaryotic cells are so much bigger than prokaryotes, the first flagella to be examined and found to have the 9(2) + 2 structure were in sperm tails.

But soon after that, the protozoans were discovered to have undulipodia as well. Organisms from the algae genus Chlamydomonas have two long undulipodia that they use for motility. Located at the front of the cell, their movement pulls the alga through the water. But protozoans are just as likely to have undulipodia that push them through water. They can work both ways.

Amazingly, when a Chlamydomonas finds itself out of water, the undulipodia resorb in short order. Nature hates to waste energy, so why maintain a boat motor if you’re not in the water. But place them back in a liquid environment and the two structures will reassemble with in an hour – with the same structure 9(2) + 2 and working the same exact way.

Of course, saying they all have the same 9(2) + 2 structure is an invitation to find exceptions, and science has found them. A 2006 study found that rabbits are quite the rule breakers. Sure, they have 9(2) + 2 axonemes, but they don’t stop there. Some rabbit embryo undulipodia show a 9(2) + 0 structure, where the central doublet is completely missing, yet the structure functions just as other motile undulipodia.

What’s more, rabbits can also have 9(2) + 4 axonemes, with double the number of central microtubules. Again, they function just fine. Is there a reason for these variations – maybe, but maybe they are just mutations that didn’t have a negative impact, so they were retained.


You know how annoying it is when you touch a cactus
and those little bristles get stuck in your skin? Well,
don’t touch a bristleworm. They’re lined with those painful
bristles – hence the name. Somebody studied these worms,
and found out they have parasitic protozoans in their gut.
Then someone studied those parasites and found that they
have sperm. And someone studied the sperm and found
that they have unique axoneme structures. I love science.
A couple of parasitic protozoans that live in bristle worm guts show differences in their axonemes. Lecudina tuzetae sperm tails have a 6(2) + 0 structure, while the Diplauxis hatti protozoan sperm has a 3(2) + 0 axoneme. Described in a 1980 paper, this is the simplest motile undulipodium known – as of now.

The undulipodium basal body (born as a centriole) can have exceptions as well. The vast majority have a structure of 9(3) + 0, where instead of doublets, they have triplets. This makes sense since they need to be strong to support the axoneme.

But diatoms, very small algae cells protected by a silica shell, can have sperm that look very different, according to a 2013 study. Their basal bodies have been observed to have doublet microtubules, and are very similar to the axoneme. Even weirder, a couple of insects feel the need to go big with their basal bodies. Acerentomonon microrhinus, a primitive hexapod insect has sperm tail basal bodies with 14 microtubule doublets, while Sciara coprophila, a fungus gnat (see picture), has up to 90 singlet microtubules in its sperm basal body.

We have talked a lot about sperm tails and protozoan motility structures, and these undulipodia look the most like bacterial flagella. But undulipodia come in a couple of flavors; those longer than 40 m or so are called flagella while the shorter ones are called cilia. See the naming problem and why Lynn Margulis came up with undulipodia?


This is a fungus gnat – it sounds like they eat fungus,
but nope. Only the larval form feeds; the adults never
eat. That’s OK, they don’t live very long at all. They
overwinter in their adult form because they are unique
in that they can both tolerate freezing weather and freeze
themselves without damage. It must be important, since
their sperm tails are loaded with 90 microtubules in the
basal body – everyone knows that massive numbers of
microtubules is the best way to avoid cold damage.
Both eukaryotic flagella and cilia have the microtubule and dynein arm structure, with centrioles for their basal bodies. There are exceptions to the cilia that we will look at in a few weeks, but the biggest difference between them, besides their length, is that cilia occur in groups, while flagella are usually found in ones or twos. You could say that cilia and flagella are like synonyms, they have almost the same meaning (and structure), although they are two different things.

Next week – Halloween is coming, so what better time to have a discussion of genetically modified foods and an 19th century teenage girl who wrote the best science fiction book ever.




Prensier, G., Vivier, E., Goldstein, S., & Schrevel, J. (1980). Motile flagellum with a "3 + 0" ultrastructure Science, 207 (4438), 1493-1494 DOI: 10.1126/science.7189065

Idei, M., Osada, K., Sato, S., Nakayama, T., Nagumo, T., & Mann, D. (2012). Sperm ultrastructure in the diatoms Melosira and Thalassiosira and the significance of the 9 + 0 configuration Protoplasma, 250 (4), 833-850 DOI: 10.1007/s00709-012-0465-8

Feistel K, & Blum M (2006). Three types of cilia including a novel 9+4 axoneme on the notochordal plate of the rabbit embryo. Developmental dynamics : an official publication of the American Association of Anatomists, 235 (12), 3348-58 PMID: 17061268




For more information or classroom activities, see:

Undulipodia –