The Bacteria that Commit Honourable Suicide

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


In multicellular organisms it is essential that every cell behaves and does the job it was produced to perform. The survival of a multicellular organism depends on this - every cell in your body is tightly controlled in terms of how big it can grow (fairly big), when it can reproduce (almost never) and what sort of metabolic processes it may carry out. And, like a dystopian sci-fi future, any cell that steps out of line is put to death. Not by surrounding cells, but by its own internal processes.

Each cell in the human body is programmed to die. Death is their default state. It is only by behaving, by obeying outside orders and carrying out the processes it's meant to, that the cell is able to inhibit its own destruction. This is a good thing for the body as a whole, because cells that do manage to escape the tight death-regulation control are cancerous cells, and cause havoc within the body.

This makes sense for cells within a multicellular organism who, after all, have an entire body to maintain. What is less certain is why bacteria would want to have death pathways within their cells. Because strangely enough they do. In E. coli two genes, called mazE and mazF are encoded on the same bit of DNA (the same operon). MazF encodes a killer toxin, while mazE makes the antitoxin. If the mazE DNA is damaged, or the mazE protein made by the DNA is inhibited, then the mazF will be let loose and the cell will die.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Not only does this one death-pathway exist in E. coli but it interacts with another mechanism the cells have for dying. In the case of large amounts of DNA damage, the DNA repair system is mediated by a protein called RecA. A rise in the amount of messenger RNA for RecA (messenger RNA is used to make the protein from the DNA) triggers cell death in E. coli by causing the cell membrane to depolarise, breaking down cellular integrity and leading to cell death. When the mazEF system is activated it will inhibit RecA; in cells where the mazEF system has been removed higher levels of mRNA Rec A were found. And cells with both RecA and the mazEF systems removed were much less likely to die. Cells with both of the death-pathways removed were surviving longer despite damage to the DNA.

Although the mechanism is very interesting, it still leaves the big unanswered question of why the bacteria do this. What possible reason would there by for a unicellular organism to kill itself? One observation that might help to answer is that mazEF does not just inhibit RecA on its own, it also relies on a small molecule called EDF (extracellular death factor). The exciting thing about EDF is that it doesn't come from inside the bacteria, it is a quorum-sensing molecule that is produced by surrounding bacteria of the same species. This suggests a high degree of colony behaviour from the bacteria, the reason one cell dies is because the colony cannot cope with having a crazy rogue cell anymore than the inside of a human body can.

But if both pathways lead ultimately to death, what is the point of choosing between them? One suggestion is that if there are lots of bacteria around in a colony, it makes more sense to kill off any that start to go genetically screwy, and RecA doesn't just kill bacteria it also leads to certain amounts of DNA repair. If there are many bacteria around, all releasing EDF, then any cell with small amounts of DNA damage will discreetly commit suicide. If there are fewer cells around, then the RecA will do its work, and may help to produce more survivors (albeit survivors with imperfect DNA) which would be the priority if colony numbers are low.

DNA may be 'selfish', but the emergent behaviour of cells can get pretty altruistic at times!

---

Ref 1 (this paper has a huge discussion of all the ways bacterial cells can kill themselves):Lewis, K. (2000). Programmed Death in Bacteria Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 64 (3), 503-514 DOI: 10.1128/MMBR.64.3.503-514.2000

Ref 2: Robinson, R. (2012). In E. coli, Interrupting One Death Pathway Leads You Down Another PLoS Biology, 10 (3) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001278

About S.E. Gould

A biochemist with a love of microbiology, the Lab Rat enjoys exploring, reading about and writing about bacteria. Having finally managed to tear herself away from university, she now works for a small company in Cambridge where she turns data into manageable words and awesome graphs.

More by S.E. Gould

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe