Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Clinical Science and Epidemiology
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Therapeutics and Prevention
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About mBio
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • AAM Fellows
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
mBio
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Clinical Science and Epidemiology
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Therapeutics and Prevention
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About mBio
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • AAM Fellows
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
Commentary

Phototaxis of Cyanobacteria under Complex Light Environments

Minsu Kim
Minsu Kim
Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00498-17
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Photosynthetic bacteria are capable of producing their own food via photosynthesis. Unsurprisingly, they evolved the ability to move toward better light conditions (i.e., phototaxis). In a recent article in mBio, Chau et al. tuned the wavelength, flux, direction, and timing of light input and characterized the motility of the unicellular cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. strain PCC6803 (R. M. W. Chau, D. Bhaya, and K. C. Huang, mBio 8:e02330-16, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.02330-16 ). The results revealed an intricate dependence of the motility on various light inputs, laying the fundamental groundwork toward understanding phototaxis under complex and dynamic light environments.

The views expressed in this Commentary do not necessarily reflect the views of this journal or of ASM.

COMMENTARY

The movement of heterotrophic bacteria under a nutrient gradient is a well-understood process. Heterotrophic bacteria cannot fix carbon from inorganic sources and have to use organic carbon for their growth. These bacteria do not wait in one place for organic molecules to diffuse toward them; rather, they move toward the sources of such molecules. Since the observation, first published more than 100 years ago, that bacteria swim into capillaries filled with meat extract but escape from capillaries filled with poison (1–3), extensive studies have characterized chemotaxis in heterotrophic bacteria. Now, much is known about how these bacteria regulate their motility in response to different chemical signals and chemical compositions of their environment.

Phototrophic bacteria, i.e., those that can synthesize the organic compounds they need directly by using the energy from light, face a similar need to move. These bacteria require light to convert water and carbon dioxide to carbohydrates and oxygen during oxygenic photosynthesis. Like their heterotrophic counterparts and their responses to chemical signals, phototropic bacteria have evolved the ability to sense light and move toward better light conditions via a process called phototaxis. Unlike chemotaxis, our understanding of bacterial phototaxis is limited. For example, when multiple light sources are presented from different directions, in which direction do the bacteria move? Not all wavelengths of light are equally beneficial, as some wavelengths (blue or ultraviolent) can damage DNA and other cellular components. Do the cells respond to light of different wavelengths differently? In their natural habitats, they experience various light intensities and wavelengths. How quickly can they respond to such changes in light inputs?

In a recent study published in mBio, Chau et al. addressed these fundamental questions about bacterial phototaxis by subjecting unicellular the cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. strain PCC 6803 to well-controlled light environments (4). Cyanobacteria are the only known form of bacteria that perform oxygenic photosynthesis. Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803 is a model cyanobacterium for studies of phototaxis and photosynthesis, because it is the first phototrophic organism that has been fully sequenced (5), and a strategy to delete specific genes is available. This bacterium measures light intensity and color by using a range of photoreceptors. It cannot swim, but it can crawl across surfaces by using type IV pili; it crawls by extending, adhering, and retracting the pili. Therefore, experiments to measure phototaxis of cyanobacteria are typically performed on an agarose surface. Previous studies have shown that in the dark, cells remain motile but their motion is unbiased (6). In the presence of a white light source, the community of cells forms finger-like projections toward the light source (7).

In their study, Chau et al. tuned the wavelength, flux, direction, and timing of light input and characterized the finger-like projections of the bacterial community as well as the motility of cells within the community. Their findings were interesting: cells moved toward green or red light sources, not because those lights increased the speed of individual cells but because they caused motility bias. The bias was greater with higher light flux. When cells were exposed to multiple light sources, they did not simply react to the dominant one. Rather, they integrated information from multiple light inputs and had a coordinated phototactic response. For example, when two light sources were placed perpendicular to each other, the bacteria moved along the vector sum of the two light paths. When two light sources were placed in opposing directions, signals counteracted each other, resulting in a lack of phototaxis of the community. Importantly, this lack of phototaxis was not because the motility of cells was abolished (individual cells within the community maintained nonzero speed). Rather, it was because there was no bias in the motion of individual cells within the community.

Furthermore, the motility strongly depended on the wavelength of light, as blue light did not induce phototaxis. Single-cell-level measurements showed that blue light completely inhibits the motility of cells. When green light was simultaneously presented with blue light, the inhibition was relieved. When a green light was presented alone initially and turned off, the bias in the motility was lost quickly (within ~10 min) and reemerged quickly (within ~10 min) when the green light was turned back on. When the green light, rather than being switched off, was switched to blue light, the motility was lost quickly. However, when the blue light was switched back to green light, it took ~40 min for the motility to reemerge. Therefore, recovery from the loss of the motility takes significantly longer than recovery from the loss of the bias in the motility. Furthermore, the results indicated that phototaxis strongly depends on the wavelength of light, a point missed in previous studies, which frequently used a white light source.

Although this study did not directly address mechanisms of light sensing and motility regulation, its findings suggest interesting possibilities. First, the results of this study showed that when motility bias increases in a light flux-dependent manner, the speed of cells is maintained. It is thus unlikely that pilus activity increases with stronger light flux, but rather, the ratio of pulling toward versus away from the light determines the motility. Second, the intensity dependence of the competition between green light and blue light inputs suggests that none of the photoreceptors has a dominant effect. Third, phototactic responses upon a light shift suggest that timescales of photoreceptor activation/deactivation. These results can serve as constraints for mechanisms of light sensing and motility regulation, guiding future mechanistic studies.

Lastly, the ability of Synechocystis cells to “choose” the vector sum of different light directions is striking. These cells are spherical, have an ~1 µm radius, and are not much larger than the wavelength of light used for the study (the wavelength of green light is approximately 0.5 µm). How do these tiny cells detect the directions of light sources? A recent article suggested that the cells may act as spherical microlenses, which focus the light at the rear periphery of the cell, and the focused light induces cell motion in the opposite direction (8). If so, Synechocystis sp. would be the smallest organism to use optical lensing to “see” light.

Heterotrophic bacteria evolved a sophisticated strategy to navigate in complex chemical environments. The Chau et al. study clearly demonstrates that, similarly, phototactic bacteria evolved a sophisticated strategy to navigate in complex light environments. Such a phototactic strategy requires intricate sensory and regulatory mechanisms. Future studies of such mechanisms may reveal novel principles of light sensing and motility regulation by phototactic bacteria. How will these principles underlying phototaxis compare with those underlying chemotaxis? Time will tell.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 26 March 2017
    • Accepted 28 March 2017
    • Published 11 April 2017
  • For the article discussed, see https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.02330-16.

  • Copyright © 2017 Kim.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license .

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Pfeffer W
    . 1884. Locomotorische Richtungsbewegungen durch chemische Reize. Untersuch Botan Inst Tübingen1:363–482.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    1. Pfeffer W
    . 1888. Uber chemotaktische Bewegungen von Bakterien, Flagellaten und Volvocineen. Untersuch Botan Inst Tübingen2:582–663.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Berg HC
    . 1975. Chemotaxis in bacteria. Annu Rev Biophys Bioeng4:119–136. doi:10.1146/annurev.bb.04.060175.001003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    1. Chau RMW,
    2. Bhaya D,
    3. Huang KC
    . 2017. Emergent phototactic responses of cyanobacteria under complex light regimes. mBio8:e02330-16. doi:10.1128/mBio.02330-16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Kaneko T,
    2. Sato S,
    3. Kotani H,
    4. Tanaka A,
    5. Asamizu E,
    6. Nakamura Y,
    7. Miyajima N,
    8. Hirosawa M,
    9. Sugiura M,
    10. Sasamoto S,
    11. Kimura T,
    12. Hosouchi T,
    13. Matsuno A,
    14. Muraki A,
    15. Nakazaki N,
    16. Naruo K,
    17. Okumura S,
    18. Shimpo S,
    19. Takeuchi C,
    20. Wada T,
    21. Watanabe A,
    22. Yamada M,
    23. Yasuda M,
    24. Tabata S
    . 1996. Sequence analysis of the genome of the unicellular cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. strain PCC6803. II. Sequence determination of the entire genome and assignment of potential protein-coding regions. DNA Res3:109–136. doi:10.1093/dnares/3.3.109.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Chau RM W,
    2. Ursell T,
    3. Wang S,
    4. Huang KC,
    5. Bhaya D
    . 2015. Maintenance of motility bias during cyanobacterial phototaxis. Biophys J108:1623–1632. doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2015.01.042.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Ursell T,
    2. Chau RMW,
    3. Wisen S,
    4. Bhaya D,
    5. Huang KC
    . 2013. Motility enhancement through surface modification is sufficient for cyanobacterial community organization during phototaxis. PLoS Comput Biol9:e1003205. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003205.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Schuergers N,
    2. Lenn T,
    3. Kampmann R,
    4. Meissner MV,
    5. Esteves T,
    6. Temerinac-Ott M,
    7. Korvink JG,
    8. Lowe AR,
    9. Mullineaux CW,
    10. Wilde A
    . 2016. Cyanobacteria use micro-optics to sense light direction. eLife5:e12620. doi:10.7554/eLife.12620.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Phototaxis of Cyanobacteria under Complex Light Environments
Minsu Kim
mBio Apr 2017, 8 (2) e00498-17; DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00498-17

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this mBio article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Phototaxis of Cyanobacteria under Complex Light Environments
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from mBio
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in mBio.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Phototaxis of Cyanobacteria under Complex Light Environments
Minsu Kim
mBio Apr 2017, 8 (2) e00498-17; DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00498-17
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • COMMENTARY
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

phototaxis
synechocystis
cell motility
cyanobacteria
phototaxis

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About mBio
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • AAM Fellows
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Warranty
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #mBio

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Online ISSN: 2150-7511