An integrative view of cell cycle control in Escherichia coli

An integrative view of cell cycle control in Escherichia coli Abstract Bacterial proliferation depends on the cells’ capability to proceed through consecutive rounds of the cell cycle. The cell cycle consists of a series of events during which cells grow, copy their genome, partition the duplicated DNA into different cell halves and, ultimately, divide to produce two newly formed daughter cells. Cell cycle control is of the utmost importance to maintain the correct order of events and safeguard the integrity of the cell and its genomic information. This review covers insights into the regulation of individual key cell cycle events in Escherichia coli. The control of initiation of DNA replication, chromosome segregation and cell division is discussed. Furthermore, we highlight connections between these processes. Although detailed mechanistic insight into these connections is largely still emerging, it is clear that the different processes of the bacterial cell cycle are coordinated to one another. This careful coordination of events ensures that every daughter cell ends up with one complete and intact copy of the genome, which is vital for bacterial survival. cell cycle, cell cycle regulation, initiation of replication, chromosome segregation, cell division, Escherichia coli INTRODUCTION The bacterial cell cycle can generally be divided into three stages, B, C and D, during which DNA is replicated, chromosomes are segregated and cells grow and divide (Fig. 1a and b) (Cooper and Helmstetter 1968; Helmstetter and Pierucci 1976; Skarstad, Steen and Boye 1983; Michelsen et al.2003). The B phase is a gap phase that is characterized by the absence of any major cell cycle event. DNA is replicated during the C period. In the final stage of the cell cycle, the D period, bacteria split into two daughter cells that each contain a full copy of the genomic information. The initiation and termination of chromosome replication define the beginning and end of the C period, respectively. The completion of cell division marks the end of the D phase after which the cycle starts anew. The other major events of the bacterial life cycle, i.e. chromosome segregation and the onset of cell division, are not associated with phase transitions. Chromosome segregation occurs simultaneously with DNA replication but with a certain delay, meaning that it starts during C and extends into D (Nielsen et al.2006; Joshi et al.2013; Kuzminov 2013). Cell division is initiated when the divisome protein FtsZ forms a ring structure at midcell, which often occurs in the C period before replication is completed (Den Blaauwen et al.1999; Inoue, Ino and Nishimura 2009). Cell growth occurs throughout the cell cycle (Wallden et al.2016). Figure 1. View largeDownload slide The bacterial cell cycle. The bacterial cell cycle can be divided into three stages: B, C and D. (a) The B phase of the cell cycle is a gap phase. During the C period, the chromosome is duplicated. In the D period, cells divide to produce two newly formed daughter cells. When the generation time, τ, drops below 60 min, the B stage is skipped entirely and cells are born with replicating chromosomes (dotted line). (b) Schematic overview of important cell cycle events and how they are coordinated. In this example, cells double every 96 min. The B, C and D periods take 8, 54 and 34 min, respectively (Michelsen et al.2003). The cell cycle is depicted as two independent but coordinated cycles. The chromosome cycle (outer circle, blue) consists of DNA replication and chromosome segregation, which partially overlap. Replication starts upon DNA duplex unwinding at the DUE in oriC, which occurs when DnaA-ATP concentrations are high. Segregation is delayed in comparison to replication due to SeqA binding of newly replicated DNA. The division cycle (inner circle, green) is connected to the chromosome cycle by multiple mechanisms. Bulk chromosome segregation relieves nucleoid occlusion at midcell and unmasks the positive FtsZ guidance signal provided by the Ter linkage, thereby allowing Z-ring formation at midcell. During cell constriction, FtsK can speed up chromosome segregation. Additional connections between different processes exist but are not indicated in this figure. See the text for more details. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide The bacterial cell cycle. The bacterial cell cycle can be divided into three stages: B, C and D. (a) The B phase of the cell cycle is a gap phase. During the C period, the chromosome is duplicated. In the D period, cells divide to produce two newly formed daughter cells. When the generation time, τ, drops below 60 min, the B stage is skipped entirely and cells are born with replicating chromosomes (dotted line). (b) Schematic overview of important cell cycle events and how they are coordinated. In this example, cells double every 96 min. The B, C and D periods take 8, 54 and 34 min, respectively (Michelsen et al.2003). The cell cycle is depicted as two independent but coordinated cycles. The chromosome cycle (outer circle, blue) consists of DNA replication and chromosome segregation, which partially overlap. Replication starts upon DNA duplex unwinding at the DUE in oriC, which occurs when DnaA-ATP concentrations are high. Segregation is delayed in comparison to replication due to SeqA binding of newly replicated DNA. The division cycle (inner circle, green) is connected to the chromosome cycle by multiple mechanisms. Bulk chromosome segregation relieves nucleoid occlusion at midcell and unmasks the positive FtsZ guidance signal provided by the Ter linkage, thereby allowing Z-ring formation at midcell. During cell constriction, FtsK can speed up chromosome segregation. Additional connections between different processes exist but are not indicated in this figure. See the text for more details. The duration of the B, C and D periods is not fixed but varies depending on the growth rate. Especially the B period is extremely variable in length. Under fast growth conditions, the B stage is skipped entirely, whereas cells spend much time in B when they grow with generation times above 60 min (Fig. 1a) (Cooper and Helmstetter 1968; Helmstetter and Pierucci 1976; Skarstad, Steen and Boye 1983; Michelsen et al.2003). Under these slow growth conditions, the length of the C and D period increases with increasing generation time (Michelsen et al.2003). However, at generation times of 60 min or less, the length of both the C and D period is more or less constant (Cooper and Helmstetter 1968; Wallden et al.2016). The length of the C period coincides with the duration of DNA replication and, for Escherichia coli, cannot decrease below ∼40 min (Cooper and Helmstetter 1968). Nonetheless, the time between two consecutive rounds of cell division can be as short as 20 min. E. coli can divide faster than the time needed to duplicate the chromosome by performing multifork replication. During multifork replication, a new round of replication is initiated while previous rounds are still ongoing. Consequentially, replication initiation for a new cell cycle occurs before cell division of the previous cell cycle has been completed. By already initiating DNA replication in the mother or grandmother generation, the cell can decrease the interdivision time below the time needed to replicate the entire genome (Cooper and Helmstetter 1968; Khan et al.2016). This multifork mode of replication demonstrates the flexibility of the E. coli cell cycle. Cell cycle progression must be tightly controlled, since the accuracy and correct timing of constituent events is vital for cellular integrity and viability. Moreover, since most bacteria carefully maintain their size over different generations, cell growth and progression of the cell cycle must be intimately linked. Two pioneering studies from Cooper and Helmstetter (1968) and Donachie (1968) long dominated our view on cell cycle control. In the resulting model for cell cycle regulation, it was postulated that replication is initiated once cells reach a critical size per origin of replication present in the cell (Donachie 1968). It was proposed that this behavior is controlled by the growth-dependent synthesis of a ‘cellular initiator substance’ that triggers initiation of replication once it exceeds a certain threshold (Donachie 1968). After replication has started, the C and D periods were thought to be invariable in length, resulting in cell division a fixed time after initiation of replication (Cooper and Helmstetter 1968). In this early model, which consists of ‘sizer’ and ‘timer’ regulation, control of both the cell cycle and cell size is thus mainly carried out at the level of initiation of replication by a hypothesized initiator substance. Our current view of cell cycle and size control deviates somewhat from this original model. Even though initiation of replication could be controlled by the accumulation of an initiator, no such factor has been identified yet (Flatten et al.2015; Barber et al.2017; Willis and Huang 2017). Moreover, several recent studies have shown that, rather than acting as ‘sizers’ or ‘timers’, bacteria try to add a fixed size increment during their cell cycle and therefore behave as ‘adders’ (Amir 2014; Campos et al.2014; Osella, Nugent and Cosentino Lagomarsino 2014; Taheri-Araghi et al.2015). However, various reported deviations from the adder behavior suggest that this size control mechanism might not be universal and that size regulation can vary in different species and/or growth conditions (Wallden et al.2016; Willis and Huang 2017). The finding that the duration of C and D is not constant implies that cell division is not automatically triggered after a fixed delay following initiation. Replication, chromosome segregation and cell division therefore do not proceed unconditionally once initiation has occurred, but are submitted to additional levels of control. Cell division, for example, is also controlled by nutrient status. In Bacillus subtilis and Escherichia coli cell division can be delayed in a UDP glucose-dependent manner by the metabolic sensors UgtP and OpgH, respectively (Weart et al.2007; Hill et al.2013; Westfall and Levin 2017). Moreover, various studies have shown that cell cycle events do not necessarily proceed in a fixed successive and interdependent order. For example, a new round of replication can be initiated before division has taken place during multifork replication (Cooper and Helmstetter 1968) and inhibiting cell division does not influence replication or segregation (Bi and Lutkenhaus 1991). Because of this flexibility, the bacterial cell cycle can be depicted as multiple separated cycles (Fig. 1b) (Nordstrom, Bernander and Dasgupta 1991; Boye and Nordstrom 2003). It is, however, important that these cycles can communicate with each other and can influence each other's progression to ensure that one round of replication occurs per division event and that division does not jeopardize genomic integrity. Regulatory mechanisms must therefore exist to coordinate different cell cycle events. Coordination could be achieved by direct links between cell cycle events, or could proceed indirectly by coupling to cell size increase or metabolic status (Westfall and Levin 2017; Willis and Huang 2017). In this review, we focus on the main events of the bacterial cell cycle: DNA replication, chromosome segregation and cell division. We discuss how they are regulated in E. coli and how they are directly connected to each other. We argue that these direct connections, albeit often not fully characterized yet, contribute to the careful coordination of cell cycle events that is vital for bacterial survival and genomic integrity. INITIATION OF DNA REPLICATION oriC unwinding by DnaA To ensure that the bacterial chromosome is replicated exactly once every cell cycle, DNA replication must be tightly controlled. Replication is predominantly regulated at the stage of initiation, a process that is largely dependent on the widely conserved initiation protein DnaA. DnaA is an ATPase that binds to specific DNA sequences, called DnaA boxes, in the unique oriC region of the E. coli chromosome (Sekimizu, Bramhill and Kornberg 1987; Jameson and Wilkinson 2017). High-affinity DnaA boxes are bound by DnaA in both its ATP- and ADP-bound form throughout the cell cycle. At the onset of replication, occupied high-affinity boxes act as nucleation sites to initiate the cooperative assembly of DnaA oligomers onto arrays of low-affinity binding sites (Miller et al.2009; Rozgaja et al.2011). These low-affinity boxes, however, preferentially bind the active ATP-bound form of DnaA (McGarry et al.2004), which accumulates right before the onset of replication (Kurokawa et al.1999). When all binding sites are occupied, unwinding of an AT-rich region in oriC called the DNA unwinding element (DUE) is triggered and the resulting single-stranded DNA region is stabilized and stretched by DnaA filament formation (Bramhill and Kornberg 1988; Kowalski and Eddy 1989; McGarry et al.2004; Duderstadt, Chuang and Berger 2011; Richardson, Harran and Murray 2016). This process of oriC unwinding has been recently reviewed in detail (Leonard and Grimwade 2015; Jameson and Wilkinson 2017). Upon duplex DNA melting, DnaA triggers the processive recruitment of all necessary replisome components, starting with the helicase DnaB (Fang, Davey and O’Donnell 1999; Jameson and Wilkinson 2017). In conclusion, replication is initiated upon oriC unwinding, a process that requires the active form of DnaA. Factors that either control the cellular concentration of DnaA-ATP or that directly influence DUE unwinding are therefore important regulatory inputs for replication. The DnaA-ATP activity cycle The timing and synchrony of replication initiation is largely regulated by a cyclic accumulation and degradation of the active DnaA-ATP complex throughout the cell cycle. The underlying mechanisms are described below and depicted in Fig. 2. At its highest concentration, activated DnaA assembles onto oriC and initiates replication. At this time, DnaA-ATP levels reach a maximum of 80% of the total cellular DnaA (Kurokawa et al.1999). Soon after replication has started, the concentration of active DnaA decreases to its baseline level of 20% to prevent premature reinitiation (Kurokawa et al.1999). Figure 2. View largeDownload slide Control of replication initiation by the DnaA-ATP cycle. Several regulatory mechanisms work together to control the cellular levels of active DnaA-ATP in relation to replication and the bacterial cell cycle. RIDA lowers DnaA-ATP levels by triggering ATP hydrolysis during replication. The datA locus also converts DnaA-ATP to its inactive form. This process is referred to as DDAH and is only active when datA is bound to IHF. The DARS regions release the bound ADP molecule from inactive DnaA, an activity also performed by acidic phospholipids. Together with de novo DnaA synthesis, DARS regions and acidic phospholipids produce apo-DnaA that most likely binds ATP due to excess of this molecule compared to ADP. This figure is not drawn to scale. Figure 2. View largeDownload slide Control of replication initiation by the DnaA-ATP cycle. Several regulatory mechanisms work together to control the cellular levels of active DnaA-ATP in relation to replication and the bacterial cell cycle. RIDA lowers DnaA-ATP levels by triggering ATP hydrolysis during replication. The datA locus also converts DnaA-ATP to its inactive form. This process is referred to as DDAH and is only active when datA is bound to IHF. The DARS regions release the bound ADP molecule from inactive DnaA, an activity also performed by acidic phospholipids. Together with de novo DnaA synthesis, DARS regions and acidic phospholipids produce apo-DnaA that most likely binds ATP due to excess of this molecule compared to ADP. This figure is not drawn to scale. This decrease is mainly caused by the stimulation of DnaA's ATP hydrolase activity in a process termed RIDA (regulatory inactivation of DnaA). RIDA is carried out by a complex that consists of the Hda protein and the β-subunit of DNA polymerase III (Kurokawa et al.1999; Kato and Katayama 2001). When Hda is bound to ADP, this complex promotes the conversion of DnaA-ATP to its inactive ADP-bound form (Kurz et al.2004; Su’etsugu et al.2008). Importantly, RIDA is only active when the β-subunit of DNA polymerase III is loaded onto DNA (Kurokawa et al.1999). This DnaA inactivation mechanism is therefore switched on once replication has started and then decreases the cellular initiation potential. RIDA is turned off upon termination of replication, allowing DnaA-ATP to accumulate in the cell and initiate a new replication cycle. A second system that stimulates DnaA-ATP hydrolysis is dependent on the genomic datA locus and is called DDAH (datA-dependent DnaA-ATP hydrolysis) (Kasho and Katayama 2013). datA, similar to oriC, contains several DnaA boxes that bind DnaA-ATP, albeit with lower affinity (Kitagawa et al.1996). Although it was previously believed that datA prevents premature reinitiation of replication solely by titrating DnaA-ATP (Kitagawa et al.1998; Nozaki, Yamada and Ogawa 2009), it is now clear that cooperative assembly of DnaA-ATP oligomers onto the datA region also stimulates DnaA-ATP hydrolysis, rendering DnaA inactive (Kasho and Katayama 2013; Kasho et al.2017). The DDAH inactivation mechanism is not constitutively active, but is switched on by binding of the nucleoid-associated protein (NAP) IHF to datA, which occurs immediately after initiation (Nozaki, Yamada and Ogawa 2009; Kasho and Katayama 2013). DDAH therefore helps to prevent premature reinitiation of replication (Kasho and Katayama 2013). In the absence of RIDA, the amount of DnaA bound to ATP rises from 20% to 70% (Kato and Katayama 2001; Kasho and Katayama 2013). This amount further increases to 88%–97% upon deletion of datA (Kasho and Katayama 2013). Deletion of datA in the presence of a functional RIDA system has no observable effect on DnaA-ATP levels (Katayama, Fujimitsu and Ogawa 2001). Moreover, although defects in both systems are associated with over-replication, disturbance of RIDA has a more dramatic effect than disturbance of DDAH (Kato and Katayama 2001; Camara et al.2005; Nozaki, Yamada and Ogawa 2009). RIDA is therefore the most important system keeping DnaA-ATP levels at bay during the larger part of the cell cycle, aided by DDAH which might serve to further fine-tune DnaA-ATP concentrations. When the cell is ready to initiate replication, the amount of DnaA-ATP must increase again. This increase is in part caused by cell cycle-dependent de novo DnaA synthesis (Campbell and Kleckner 1990; Bogan and Helmstetter 1997). Due to an excess of cellular ATP compared to ADP, newly synthesized DnaA will most likely associate with ATP (Fujimitsu, Senriuchi and Katayama 2009). In addition, at least two reactivation pathways are able to convert inactive DnaA-ADP to its ATP-bound form (Kurokawa et al.1999). One of these pathways is mediated by two functionally distinct genomic regions located at opposite halves of the chromosome. These regions are called DARS1 and DARS2 for DnaA-reactivating sequence (Fujimitsu, Senriuchi and Katayama 2009). DARS regions contain DnaA boxes that, upon cooperative binding of DnaA-ADP, stimulate the dissociation of ADP. The resulting apo-DnaA oligomers are released from the DNA, allowing them to bind ATP (Fujimitsu, Senriuchi and Katayama 2009; Kasho et al.2014). Although the working mechanisms of both DARS sequences appear quite similar (Fujimitsu, Senriuchi and Katayama 2009; Kasho et al.2014), their activities differ greatly. DARS2 consistently has a stronger effect on initiation of chromosomal replication than DARS1 and only the former helps maintain synchrony of replication initiation (Fujimitsu, Senriuchi and Katayama 2009; Frimodt-Moller et al.2016). Moreover, whereas the activity of DARS1 appears to be constant, the activity of the more effective DARS2 sequence varies throughout the cell cycle and is dependent on growth conditions (Fujimitsu, Senriuchi and Katayama 2009; Frimodt-Moller et al.2016). This variation in DARS2 activity is mediated by IHF and another NAP called Fis. Both proteins need to bind DARS2 to allow DnaA-ATP regeneration by this genomic locus. IHF binding to DARS2 is cell cycle dependent. It dissociates from DARS2 shortly before initiation of replication and reassociates afterwards (Kasho et al.2014). Fis binding to DARS2, on the other hand, is maintained throughout the cell cycle. It is, however, dependent on growth conditions. During stationary phase, and presumably also under slow growth conditions, Fis binding to DARS2 decreases (Kasho et al.2014). Because of its dependency on IHF and Fis, DnaA-ATP is only regenerated by DARS2 under fast growth conditions and after initiation of replication has occurred. This regulatory mechanism thereby secures a fast build-up of DnaA-ATP to allow initiation of the next round of replication. A second pathway of DnaA reactivation is mediated by acidic phospholipids, such as cardiolipin and phosphatidylglycerol (Saxena et al.2013). In vitro, these phospholipids can stimulate the release of ADP from oriC-bound DnaA, which in the presence of excess ATP leads to reactivation of DnaA (Sekimizu and Kornberg 1988). Acidic phospholipids are therefore thought to stimulate initiation, a notion that is supported by the fact that cells deprived of these lipids arrest growth due to the inability to initiate replication (Xia and Dowhan 1995). However, acidic phospholipids have also been shown to block binding of DnaA to oriC, which could prevent initiation of replication (Crooke, Castuma and Kornberg 1992; Makise et al.2002). Although these effects on initiation need further clarification, an important connection between phospholipids and initiation clearly exists. Additionally, a role for lipopolysaccharides in replication initiation has also been reported (Rotman, Bratcher and Kuzminov 2009). Taken together, the cellular concentration of DnaA-ATP is decreased by RIDA and DDAH and is increased by de novo DnaA synthesis, the activity of the DARS regions and the influence of acidic phospholipids (Fig. 2). The cellular DnaA-ATP level is however not the only factor controlling initiation. In fact, a minimal DnaA-ATP concentration was previously proposed to be necessary but not sufficient for initiation (Flatten et al.2015). Rather than being controlled by the absolute levels of DnaA-ATP, initiation of replication might be dictated by the ratio of DnaA-ATP to DnaA-ADP (Donachie and Blakely 2003; Riber et al.2016) or additional signals could be needed to allow replication to initiate once DnaA-ATP reaches a threshold (Flatten et al.2015). Chromosome structure influences oriC unwinding Besides DnaA-ATP accumulation, additional signals for the regulation of the onset of replication indeed exist. Since replication starts upon open complex formation at oriC, changes in chromosome structure that facilitate or impede DNA duplex unwinding also influence initiation. In support of the role of chromosome structure in initiation, it was shown that general disturbances in chromosome organization severely and specifically impede the initiation of replication (Magnan et al.2015). More localized changes in oriC topology by transcription of neighboring genes can also influence initiation of replication under suboptimal conditions (Lies et al.2015). A well-studied effect of chromosome structure on initiation of replication is the influence of DNA-bending proteins IHF and Fis, which are directly involved in control of initiation (Fig. 3). These proteins specifically bind to distinct regions within oriC to modulate its conformation in relation to cell cycle progression. Under conditions of rapid growth, Fis is bound to oriC throughout almost the entire cell cycle (Cassler, Grimwade and Leonard 1995). This nucleoprotein complex inhibits DnaA binding to low-affinity DnaA boxes and simultaneously prevents IHF from associating with oriC (Ryan et al.2004). Right before replication initiation, Fis is displaced from oriC by accumulating DnaA-ATP levels (Ryan et al.2004). The dissociation of Fis then allows binding of IHF, which induces a sharp bend in oriC (Cassler, Grimwade and Leonard 1995; Ryan et al.2004; Kaur et al.2014). This architectural change facilitates the binding of DnaA to low-affinity sites and thereby promotes initiation (Grimwade, Ryan and Leonard 2000; Ryan et al.2002). The interplay between Fis, IHF and DnaA results in a sudden loading of DnaA onto oriC (Ryan et al.2002, 2004). Although neither Fis nor IHF is essential for viability, synchrony of replication initiation is strongly disturbed in corresponding deletion mutants (Ryan et al.2002; Flatten and Skarstad 2013), indicating that this system is particularly active in assuring simultaneous firing of all cellular oriC. This idea is further supported by the fact that under slow growth conditions, when cells only carry one oriC, Fis is no longer important for regulation of initiation (Flatten and Skarstad 2013). During slow growth, the timing of initiation is thus dependent on regulatory mechanisms other than the combined action of Fis, IHF and DnaA. Figure 3. View largeDownload slide The effect of the nucleoid-associated proteins IHF and Fis on replication initiation under fast growth conditions. At the onset of replication, IHF is bound to oriC but not to datA or DARS2. Its association with oriC stimulates DnaA binding and promotes initiation. After replication has started, Fis is bound to oriC and blocks both IHF and DnaA binding. Replication initiation is thereby prevented. At this time, IHF associates with datA to inactivate DnaA and with DARS2 which, under fast growth conditions, stimulates DnaA activation. Figure 3. View largeDownload slide The effect of the nucleoid-associated proteins IHF and Fis on replication initiation under fast growth conditions. At the onset of replication, IHF is bound to oriC but not to datA or DARS2. Its association with oriC stimulates DnaA binding and promotes initiation. After replication has started, Fis is bound to oriC and blocks both IHF and DnaA binding. Replication initiation is thereby prevented. At this time, IHF associates with datA to inactivate DnaA and with DARS2 which, under fast growth conditions, stimulates DnaA activation. The roles of IHF and Fis in replication initiation are dual as both stimulatory and inhibitory effects on initiation of replication have been reported. IHF opposes replication initiation by inactivating DnaA through association with the datA sequence (Nozaki, Yamada and Ogawa 2009; Kasho and Katayama 2013). However, IHF also promotes initiation through reactivation of DnaA by DARS2 (Kasho et al.2014) and by binding oriC (Ryan et al.2004). Fis, on the other hand, inhibits the onset of replication by its association with oriC (Ryan et al.2004), but stimulates DnaA activation through DARS2 (Kasho et al.2014). The stimulatory and inhibitory activities of IHF and Fis on initiation of replication (Fig. 3) are coordinated through their cell cycle and growth phase-dependent association with different genomic loci. At present, however, it is unclear how these association patterns are established. Control of replication initiation by DiaA Another protein that is involved in the regulation of replication initiation is the DnaA initiator-associating factor, DiaA. DiaA interacts directly with DnaA and promotes its assembly onto weak DnaA boxes in oriC (Ishida et al.2004; Keyamura et al.2007). Although DiaA activity is not essential, it significantly promotes initiation and is needed to assure synchrony of replication initiation (Ishida et al.2004; Keyamura et al.2007). Apart from this stimulatory role, DiaA also negatively influences replication initiation at a later step in the process. After DUE unwinding, DnaA recruits the helicase DnaB to the single-stranded origin and triggers further replisome assembly. DnaA does so by a direct association with DnaB (Jameson and Wilkinson 2017). The binding of DiaA to DnaA, however, masks the DnaB binding site of DnaA and thereby blocks replisome assembly (Keyamura et al.2009). This inhibitory role of DiaA is thought to prevent premature DnaB loading. Because mild overexpression of DiaA does not influence timing or synchrony of replication initiation, it is thought that DnaB binding to DnaA is not merely regulated by competition with DiaA. Rather, a specific mechanism appears to trigger dissociation of DiaA, allowing DnaB to be recruited (Flatten et al.2015). What cellular factor determines the timely dissociation of DiaA from DnaA and thereby triggers replisome assembly is currently unknown. Control of replication initiation by SeqA Finally, the SeqA protein can override all regulatory mechanisms described above by sequestration of oriC right after replication has been initiated. SeqA thereby prevents premature reinitiation as long as it remains associated with oriC. Multimeric helical SeqA filaments bind hemimethylated, and thus recently replicated, GATC sequences throughout the genome (Campbell and Kleckner 1990; Lu et al.1994; Slater et al.1995; Guarne et al.2005). These SeqA binding sites are abundantly present in oriC and several of them are located in weak DnaA boxes (Nievera et al.2006; Sanchez-Romero et al.2010). SeqA binding to oriC, which occurs immediately after replication is initiated, therefore blocks DnaA oligomerization onto its low-affinity binding sites and prevents subsequent unwinding of the DUE (Nievera et al.2006). Besides preventing duplex DNA from opening through inhibition of DnaA binding, SeqA can also affect DNA topology directly (Torheim and Skarstad 1999; Odsbu et al.2005). SeqA dimers were shown to introduce positive supercoils that could decrease the tendency of the DUE to unwind and thereby also influence replication initiation frequency (Odsbu et al.2005). SeqA filaments, on the other hand, can restrain negative supercoils (Torheim and Skarstad 1999; Odsbu et al.2005). The net result of SeqA on oriC topology in vivo therefore remains unclear at present. The period of SeqA-mediated oriC sequestration provides a time window during which the origin is refractory to reinitiation and the cellular initiation potential can be decreased below threshold levels, for example, by lowering DnaA-ATP levels through RIDA and DDAH (von Freiesleben et al.2000). Elimination of this time window by deletion of seqA results in overinitiation and asynchrony of replication initiation (Lu et al.1994; Guarne et al.2005; Rotman, Bratcher and Kuzminov 2009). Eventually, SeqA spontaneously dissociates from oriC. Free SeqA binding sites are then methylated by Dam, which blocks further SeqA binding (Campbell and Kleckner 1990; Kang et al.1999; Waldminghaus, Weigel and Skarstad 2012). These fully methylated origins are once again able to initiate a new round of replication when sufficient DnaA-ATP has accumulated and DUE unwinding takes place. CHROMOSOME SEGREGATION Mechanism and driving forces behind chromosome segregation Chromosome segregation is undoubtedly the least understood event in the bacterial cell cycle. Especially in E. coli, very little is known about this process since both the driving forces and underlying mechanisms remain unclear. In contrast to eukaryotic organisms, chromosome segregation in bacteria such as E. coli occurs while replication is ongoing, but with a certain delay. Following their replication, most duplicated chromosomal loci remain colocalized for ∼10 min before they are separated (Joshi et al.2011). However, the E. coli chromosome possesses several loci that show an extended colocalization period. These regions are oriC, ter and two ∼100–150 kb sequences on the right chromosomal arm close to oriC, called snap loci (Nielsen et al.2006; Joshi et al.2011). Extended colocalization of these regions can at least in part be explained by cohesion of sister loci through interchromosomal links (Wang, Reyes-Lamothe and Sherratt 2008; Lesterlin et al.2012). Segregation starts with the separation of duplicated oriC regions at midcell (Bates and Kleckner 2005; Fisher et al.2013; Cass et al.2016). These oriC loci are then very accurately positioned at the 1/4 and 3/4 locations, hinting at a mechanism that specifically recruits this genomic locus to future cell division sites (Nielsen et al.2006; Kuwada et al.2013; Junier, Boccard and Espeli 2014). All other replicated loci likewise split at midcell, after which they move to opposite cell halves (Cass et al.2016). How exactly duplicated chromosomal DNA segregates is currently unclear. Several reports indicate that segregation proceeds in several discrete steps. According to this stepwise segregation model, consecutive release of tethered sister loci with prolonged cohesion (i.e. oriC, snap regions and ter) corresponds to sudden and considerable increases in chromosome separation (Bates and Kleckner 2005; Joshi et al.2011; Fisher et al.2013). In contrast, other studies have shown a more progressive and continuous segregation of duplicated loci (Nielsen et al.2006; Kuwada et al.2013; Cass et al.2016). Also the driving forces behind chromosome segregation remain heavily disputed. Although scientists have long searched for active segregation machinery similar to the eukaryotic mitotic spindle apparatus, no such mechanism has been found in E. coli. Several other bacterial species, such as Caulobacter crescentus and B. subtilis, possess the so-called Par system for active segregation. This system, however, does not influence bulk chromosome partitioning, but only assists in the segregation of the chromosomal origin of replication. Moreover, deletion of the par locus often only leads to minor segregation defects, indicating that also in these organisms other important driving forces for segregation exist (Wang, Montero Llopis and Rudner 2013; Badrinarayanan, Le and Laub 2015). Based on the physical properties of bacterial chromosomes and their behavior within the confinement of the cell, it has been proposed that bacterial chromosome segregation is mostly driven by purely physical forces rather than by biological mechanisms (Jun and Wright 2010). More specifically, entropy could serve as an important driving force for chromosome partitioning (Jun and Mulder 2006; Jun and Wright 2010; Junier, Boccard and Espeli 2014). Polymer physics states that two confined polymers maximize conformational entropy by repelling one another. They thereby generate a segregational force that was shown to be sufficient to drive chromosome partitioning in a simplified polymer model of replicated bacterial chromosomes (Jun and Mulder 2006). However, it is unlikely that entropy alone is capable of driving segregation (Di Ventura et al.2013; Junier, Boccard and Espeli 2014). Additionally, it has been shown that radial confinement of the ellipsoidal nucleoid creates longitudinal forces that can push sister chromosomes apart (Fisher et al.2013). These pushing forces combined with build-up and subsequent release of mechanical stress at tethered sister loci are thought to contribute to the segregation process (Bates and Kleckner 2005; Joshi et al.2011; Fisher et al.2013; Joshi et al.2013). Finally, because of substantial directional bias in locus movement, additional and possibly active driving forces most likely exist (Kuwada et al.2013; Cass et al.2016). These (active) segregation forces remain to be identified. The role of chromosome structure in segregation The chromosome must be heavily condensed to fit into the bacterial cell. Besides macromolecular crowding (de Vries 2010) and radial confinement (Fisher et al.2013), several other factors are involved in chromosome compaction. Overall negative supercoiling of the DNA creates a more condensed chromosome (Wang, Montero Llopis and Rudner 2013; Badrinarayanan, Le and Laub 2015). Additionally, NAPs such as IHF, Fis, HU and H-NS can bend, wrap or bridge DNA and thereby compact and organize the nucleoid (Browning, Grainger and Busby 2010; Wang, Montero Llopis and Rudner 2013; Badrinarayanan, Le and Laub 2015). Likewise, the E. coli structural maintenance of chromosome (SMC) complex, MukBEF, can bind and bridge distant DNA segments and therefore acts as a condensin (Wang et al.2006; Rybenkov et al.2014). The E. coli chromosome is further organized into four ∼1 Mb macrodomains, Ori, Left, Right and Ter, and two flexible non-structured regions flanking Ori (Niki, Yamaichi and Hiraga 2000; Valens et al.2004). Macrodomain-specific structuring factors have been discovered for both Ori and Ter and were termed MaoP and MatP, respectively. These proteins bind their target DNA sequence, maoS or matS, and thereby organize their respective macrodomain (Mercier et al.2008; Valens, Thiel and Boccard 2016). No specific structuring factors for the Left and Right domains have been identified. On the contrary, it was recently suggested that the Left and Right macrodomain and both non-structured regions are defined based on their genomic location rather than by genetic determinants. More specifically, these domains appear to be determined by their distance toward oriC (Duigou and Boccard 2017). The above-described structuring of the chromosome is important for efficient segregation, since inactivation of DNA-organizing proteins, such as MaoP, MatP, MukBEF or NAPs, invariably leads to defects in nucleoid partitioning (Huisman et al.1989; Dri, Rouviere-Yaniv and Moreau 1991; Niki et al.1991; Filutowicz et al.1992; Yamanaka et al.1996; Danilova et al.2007; Espeli, Mercier and Boccard 2008; Mercier et al.2008; Junier, Boccard and Espeli 2014; Valens, Thiel and Boccard 2016). Chromosome structure is therefore thought to be an important factor in segregation. Changes in chromosome structure alter the physical properties of these macromolecules and can thus influence physical forces that drive or contribute to nucleoid partitioning. Chromosome segregation by entropic forces, for example, is predicted to proceed more efficiently for highly condensed polymers of non-trivial topology, indicating that condensed chromosomes are more readily partitioned (Jun and Mulder 2006; Jun and Wright 2010). Moreover, whereas in silico modeling revealed that homogeneous replicating nucleoids are not efficiently partitioned by entropy alone, structuring of the chromosome into macrodomains and non-structured regions greatly improved segregation (Junier, Boccard and Espeli 2014). An additional prerequisite for this demixing is to impose a fixed cellular position for oriC and ter (Junier, Boccard and Espeli 2014). As an alternative explanation for the positive role of chromosome compaction on segregation, it has been suggested that lengthwise condensation, rather than entropic repelling forces, leads to chromosome partitioning. This condensation resolution presumably starts at duplicated origins and separates sister chromosomes by folding and collecting replicated DNA into condensed nucleoids at different cellular locations (Marko 2009; Kuzminov 2013; Wang, Montero Llopis and Rudner 2013) Removal of interchromosomal links regulates segregation It has been proposed that accumulation of mechanical stress at tethered sister loci strongly promotes chromosome segregation once physical links are broken (Joshi et al.2011; Fisher et al.2013). The maintenance and release of these interchromosomal tethers can therefore serve as a point of control in the segregation process. Precatenanes, interwound replicating sister chromosomes, represent the most prevalent linkages, while occasionally chromosome dimers also prevent segregation. Removal of precatenanes The type II topoisomerase, TopoIV, is responsible for the removal of precatenanes. Its activity is essential for chromosome segregation (Wang, Reyes-Lamothe and Sherratt 2008; Joshi et al.2013) and is controlled by several factors (schematically depicted in Fig. 4). TopoIV cannot resolve precatenanes as soon as they are formed. This lag between replication and decatenation is imposed by SeqA, which binds to newly replicated, hemimethylated GATC sequences and thus tracks behind the replisome (Brendler et al.2000; Bach, Krekling and Skarstad 2003; Waldminghaus, Weigel and Skarstad 2012; Joshi et al.2013; Helgesen et al.2015). DNA-bound SeqA acts as a negative regulator of TopoIV activity and thereby prevents decatenation (Fig. 4). This results in cohesion of duplicated chromosomal loci throughout the nucleoid for ∼10 min (Joshi et al.2011). However, some regions display a much longer cohesion time (Nielsen et al.2006; Joshi et al.2011). Longer cohesion periods at oriC and the two snap loci can be explained by the fact that these regions have a much higher affinity for SeqA (Joshi et al.2013). At these genomic positions, SeqA does not merely prevent decatenation by TopoIV but also seems to promote cohesion more directly, possibly by forming protein bridges between sister chromosomes (Fossum, Crooke and Skarstad 2007; Joshi et al.2013; Helgesen et al.2015). Figure 4. View largeDownload slide Removal of precatenanes. DNA replication creates precatenanes behind the replication fork. SeqA filaments that trail the replisome prevent decatenation by blocking TopoIV activity. Upon dissociation of SeqA, TopoIV can resolve precatenanes. At oriC, TopoIV activity is promoted by specific recruitment and also possibly by direct stimulation of catalytic activity by MukBEF. Upon decatenation, MukBEF moves oriC to the cell's quarter positions. Red zones indicate chromosomal regions where segregation is prevented. Green zones represent regions where segregation is promoted. This figure is not drawn to scale. Figure 4. View largeDownload slide Removal of precatenanes. DNA replication creates precatenanes behind the replication fork. SeqA filaments that trail the replisome prevent decatenation by blocking TopoIV activity. Upon dissociation of SeqA, TopoIV can resolve precatenanes. At oriC, TopoIV activity is promoted by specific recruitment and also possibly by direct stimulation of catalytic activity by MukBEF. Upon decatenation, MukBEF moves oriC to the cell's quarter positions. Red zones indicate chromosomal regions where segregation is prevented. Green zones represent regions where segregation is promoted. This figure is not drawn to scale. Upon SeqA dissociation from the DNA, part of cellular TopoIV appears to work autonomously (Espeli et al. 2003; Zawadzki et al.2015). However, part of TopoIV activity is directed toward specific sites by the SMC complex, MukBEF, due to a direct interaction between MukB and the ParC subunit of TopoIV (Hayama and Marians 2010; Li et al.2010; Zawadzki et al.2015). MukBEF forms clusters that are predominantly associated with oriC. By recruiting TopoIV, these MukBEF clusters increase the concentration of TopoIV and thereby stimulate oriC decatenation and subsequent segregation (Fig. 4) (Danilova et al.2007; Nicolas et al.2014; Zawadzki et al.2015; Nolivos et al.2016). Moreover, MukBEF might also promote decatenation more directly since MukB was shown to modestly increase TopoIV catalytic activity in vitro (Hayama and Marians 2010; Li et al.2010; Hayama et al.2013; Nicolas et al.2014; Zawadzki et al.2015). Besides stimulating oriC decatenation, MukBEF clusters are also thought to determine the cellular location of oriC and to direct duplicated and decatenated oriC to the quarter cell positions during segregation (Badrinarayanan et al.2012; Nicolas et al.2014). Loss of mukB indeed leads to aberrant oriC positioning (Danilova et al.2007). This MukBEF function, although not understood at the molecular level, is possibly of considerable importance since targeting of the origin to a specific cellular location is a prerequisite for efficient nucleoid segregation in a polymer model of the chromosome (Junier, Boccard and Espeli 2014). Like oriC and snap loci, duplicated ter regions also remain colocalized for extended periods of time after they are replicated (Nielsen et al.2006; Joshi et al.2011). However, in contrast to oriC and snap loci, this genomic region does not have an increased affinity for the TopoIV inhibitor SeqA (Sanchez-Romero et al.2010). In fact, the dif sequence in the ter region appears to be a hotspot for TopoIV activity (Espeli et al. 2003; El Sayyed et al. 2016). Nonetheless, duplicated ter regions are kept together for prolonged periods of time. A ter-specific factor, the MatP protein, is responsible for this extended colocalization (Mercier et al.2008). MatP could increase ter colocalization by two mechanisms. First, since MatP tetramers can bridge two distant matS sites (Dupaigne et al.2012), MatP could bind matS sequences from different chromosomes and therefore keep sister chromosomes together and postpone segregation. Additionally, MatP can colocalize ter regions present on different DNA molecules by coupling both to the midcell Z-ring via the Ter linkage (see below) (Mercier et al.2008; Espeli et al.2012; Lesterlin et al.2012). MatP can therefore extend colocalization of the duplicated ter region even when precatenanes have been removed. In conclusion, removal of precatenanes by TopoIV is negatively regulated by SeqA and promoted by MukBEF (Joshi et al.2013; Zawadzki et al.2015). Additionally, duplicated ter regions can be kept together by MatP even after decatenation has occurred (Mercier et al.2008; Espeli et al.2012). The regulation of cohesion by these factors is important for efficient segregation (Joshi et al.2013). Their role in nucleoid partitioning can be explained in light of the snap model of chromosome segregation, in which tethering is important for the build-up of mechanical stress that separates chromosomes upon removal of interchromosomal links (Fisher et al.2013). Resolution of chromosome dimers If chromosome dimers are formed during replication, they need to be resolved during the final stages of segregation to allow complete separation of duplicated DNA into daughter cells. Dimer resolution of the E. coli chromosome is achieved by XerCD-mediated site-specific recombination at dif, a 28-bp sequence located at ter (Aussel et al.2002). If two dif sites reside on different monomers, they are thought to segregate before XerCD recombination occurs, thereby assuring that no dimers are created (Barre et al.2000; Aussel et al.2002; Kennedy, Chevalier and Barre 2008). If, on the other hand, both dif sites are located on the same molecule, segregation is blocked. These dimers will then be resolved by XerCD-mediated recombination, which requires a direct physical interaction between XerD and FtsK, a cell division protein that also plays a role in chromosome segregation (Aussel et al.2002; Grainge, Lesterlin and Sherratt 2011; Keller et al.2016). Moreover, FtsK can also stimulate the resolution of remaining catenanes, either by promoting XerCD-mediated decatenation (Grainge et al.2007) or by stimulating TopoIV through a direct physical interaction (Espeli, Lee and Marians 2003; Bigot and Marians 2010). CELL DIVISION Divisome formation and the FtsZ ring Cell division starts with the assembly of the divisome at midcell. The divisome is a multiprotein complex that drives cell envelope invagination and cytokinesis. It contains several proteins involved in septal cell wall synthesis, such as PBP3 (also known as FtsI) and FtsW (Fraipont et al.2011; Mohammadi et al.2011), and proteins that can coordinate cell division with chromosome segregation, such as FtsK. The most widely known divisome protein FtsZ is a tubulin homolog that assembles into a dynamic and patchy ring-like polymer structure, termed the Z-ring (Lowe and Amos 1998; Anderson, Gueiros-Filho and Erickson 2004; Fu et al.2010; Coltharp et al.2016). This Z-ring is made up of protofilaments that form through polymerization of GTP-bound FtsZ monomers (Mukherjee and Lutkenhaus 1998; Erickson, Anderson and Osawa 2010). Upon polymerization, the so-called synergy loop of one FtsZ subunit contacts the GTP-binding domain of the neighboring monomer, thereby completing its catalytic site and allowing GTP hydrolysis to occur (Scheffers et al.2002; Erickson, Anderson and Osawa 2010). GTP hydrolysis negatively affects the stability of FtsZ protofilaments (Mukherjee and Lutkenhaus 1998; Erickson, Anderson and Osawa 2010) and leads to treadmilling behavior (Loose and Mitchison 2014; Bisson-Filho et al.2017; Yang et al.2017). FtsZ protofilaments therefore move circumferentially around the division plane (Bisson-Filho et al.2017; Yang et al.2017). Moreover, FtsZ protofilaments can engage in lateral interactions (Erickson, Anderson and Osawa 2010). They can also be crosslinked by non-essential FtsZ-ring-associated proteins such as ZapA, ZapB, ZapC, ZapD and ZapE (Ebersbach et al.2008; Dajkovic et al.2010; Durand-Heredia et al.2011, 2012; Hale et al.2011; Marteyn et al.2014) or by the essential ZipA protein, which also anchors the cytoplasmic FtsZ protein to the membrane (Hale, Rhee and de Boer 2000). The other essential FtsZ membrane tether, FtsA, on the other hand, was recently identified as an antagonizer of lateral interactions between FtsZ protofilaments (Krupka et al.2017). The Z-ring serves various important functions in cell division. First, together with ZipA and FtsA, FtsZ acts as a scaffold to recruit other divisome components (Aarsman et al.2005). Second, FtsZ protofilaments are capable of constricting liposomes in vitro, and FtsZ is thought to generate a force that might contribute to constriction in vivo as well (Osawa, Anderson and Erickson 2008). However, it is highly unlikely that FtsZ polymers provide all the force necessary to divide bacterial cells (Daley, Skoglund and Soderstrom 2016). Rather, inwardly directed septal peptidoglycan synthesis significantly contributes to this process (Coltharp et al.2016). Third, treadmilling FtsZ filaments direct the movement of PBP3 and thereby dictate the location of septum synthesis (Bisson-Filho et al.2017; Yang et al.2017). FtsZ-mediated membrane constriction is therefore reinforced by localized peptidoglycan synthesis, meaning that a combination of both could generate the driving force for bacterial fission, with cell wall synthesis being the rate-limiting step (Coltharp et al.2016; Bisson-Filho et al.2017). Spatiotemporal control of Z-ring formation Cell division must be carefully controlled so that it produces two daughter cells of equal size and only occurs in nucleoid-free regions to prevent guillotining of the DNA. Division therefore takes place at midcell and is initiated after bulk chromosome segregation to assure that all DNA has moved away from the division site before septum closure. Several mechanisms work together at the level of FtsZ to achieve this goal. They accurately position FtsZ—and thus the entire divisome—at midcell depending on the status of chromosome segregation. One of these mechanisms is the MinCDE system, which inhibits Z-ring formation close to cell poles and thereby favors divisome assembly at midcell (Fig. 5). The effector of the system, MinC, is a negative regulator of FtsZ assembly. This protein employs a dual strategy to prevent Z-ring formation. First, the C-terminal domain of MinC binds the C-terminal tail of FtsZ and thereby competes for interaction with FtsA and to a lesser extent also ZipA (Dajkovic et al.2008; Shen and Lutkenhaus 2009). The interaction of FtsZ with both FtsA and ZipA is essential for cell division, explaining the inhibitory effect of the MinC C-terminus (Pichoff and Lutkenhaus 2002). Second, by interacting with the FtsZ C-terminal tail, MinC correctly positions its N-terminal domain at the FtsZ subunit interface. If GDP is present at this interface, the N-terminal MinC domain further weakens the interaction between consecutive monomers, thereby stimulating filament breakage and depolymerization (Shen and Lutkenhaus 2010; Hernandez-Rocamora et al.2013). The inhibitory action of MinC is confined to polar regions by the MinD and MinE proteins, which are responsible for the oscillatory behavior of the Min system (Hu and Lutkenhaus 1999; Raskin and de Boer 1999a,b). MinC localization is dictated by the peripheral membrane protein MinD, which recruits MinC to the membrane (Huang, Cao and Lutkenhaus 1996; Hu and Lutkenhaus 1999; Szeto et al.2002). MinCD complexes are located at each cell pole alternately where they are repeatedly swept away by MinE. The MinE protein partly colocalizes with MinCD and in addition forms a ring of high concentration that lines the polar MinCD carpet (Fu et al.2001; Hale, Meinhardt and de Boer 2001). MinE displaces MinC from MinD and also stimulates MinD membrane dissociation at high MinE-to-MinD ratios, which are found at the MinE ring (Lackner, Raskin and de Boer 2003; Vecchiarelli et al.2016). This ring moves toward the cell pole as MinCD complexes are displaced (Fu et al.2001; Hale, Meinhardt and de Boer 2001). Upon recognizing MinD, MinE itself becomes membrane bound and lingers after the removal of MinD (Park et al.2011, 2017; Vecchiarelli et al.2016). MinE can therefore most likely displace several membrane-bound MinD molecules without detaching from the membrane (Vecchiarelli et al.2016). Moreover, high concentrations of lingering MinE proteins could prevent reassociation of MinD—and by consequence MinC—at the same location (Vecchiarelli et al.2016), resulting in MinCD complexes localizing to the opposite cell pole. When membrane-associated MinE no longer encounters MinD, it eventually returns to the cytoplasm. This oscillatory system leads to a high time-averaged MinC concentration at cell poles and therefore strong inhibition of Z-ring formation at these locations. The lowest average MinC concentration is experienced at midcell, making this the preferential site for Z-ring assembly. Figure 5. View largeDownload slide Control of Z-ring formation. In newborn cells, the centrally located nucleoid and the polarly anchored Min system prevent Z-ring formation throughout the cell. The time-averaged localization of MinC is shown. As cells progress through the cell cycle, segregation of duplicated nucleoids creates an inhibition-free zone at midcell. Additionally, the Ter linkage provides a positive guidance signal for Z-ring formation in this inhibition-free zone. The Ter linkage is composed of MatP, ZapB and ZapA which are organized in multiple layers that span the region between the nucleoid and the cytoplasmic membrane. Green and red zones mark areas where Z-ring formation is promoted or inhibited, respectively. Redrawn and adapted from Wu and Errington (2011) and Buss et al. (2015). Figure 5. View largeDownload slide Control of Z-ring formation. In newborn cells, the centrally located nucleoid and the polarly anchored Min system prevent Z-ring formation throughout the cell. The time-averaged localization of MinC is shown. As cells progress through the cell cycle, segregation of duplicated nucleoids creates an inhibition-free zone at midcell. Additionally, the Ter linkage provides a positive guidance signal for Z-ring formation in this inhibition-free zone. The Ter linkage is composed of MatP, ZapB and ZapA which are organized in multiple layers that span the region between the nucleoid and the cytoplasmic membrane. Green and red zones mark areas where Z-ring formation is promoted or inhibited, respectively. Redrawn and adapted from Wu and Errington (2011) and Buss et al. (2015). To prevent chromosome fragmentation during septum closure, a negative regulatory system called nucleoid occlusion blocks the assembly of Z-rings in areas occupied by DNA. In E. coli, nucleoid occlusion is mediated at least in part by the SlmA protein (Fig. 5) (Bernhardt and de Boer 2005). Like MinC, SlmA uses a two-pronged approach to inhibit Z-ring formation. SlmA directly interacts with the C-terminal tail of FtsZ and thereby competes with other FtsZ-interacting proteins, such as ZipA (Du and Lutkenhaus 2014; Schumacher and Zeng 2016). In addition, SlmA also causes disassembly of FtsZ protofilaments and thereby blocks FtsZ polymerization (Cho et al.2011; Du and Lutkenhaus 2014; Cabre et al.2015). The SlmA protein needs to be bound to DNA to exert its inhibitory effect on Z-ring assembly (Cho et al.2011; Schumacher and Zeng 2016). SlmA binds specific DNA sequences as a dimer of dimers (Tonthat et al.2013; Schumacher and Zeng 2016). Its target sequences are located throughout the genome, but are absent from the ter region (Cho et al.2011; Tonthat et al.2011, 2013; Schumacher and Zeng 2016). Midcell Z-ring formation can therefore start once bulk chromosome segregation has occurred and ter is present at midcell (Den Blaauwen et al.1999; Bates and Kleckner 2005; Wang, Possoz and Sherratt 2005). This gives E. coli enough time to finish replication and segregation of the terminus region before a fully matured divisome completes septum closure. However, even in the absence of slmA, Z-rings usually do not form over nucleoids (Cambridge et al.2014), indicating that an SlmA-independent form of nucleoid occlusion exists. Whereas the Min system and nucleoid occlusion are negative regulators of FtsZ positioning, at least one positive regulatory system exists to guide FtsZ assembly to division sites. This system is called the Ter linkage. The Ter linkage consists of three proteins, MatP, ZapB and ZapA, that physically connect the genomic ter region to FtsZ (Fig. 5). They thereby promote divisome assembly over the chromosomal terminus (Espeli et al.2012; Bailey et al.2014). As described earlier, MatP is the Ter macrodomain structuring factor that binds to specific matS DNA sequences in ter (Mercier et al.2008). Moreover, this protein interacts with ZapB, a Z-ring associated protein that polymerizes in vitro (Ebersbach et al.2008; Espeli et al.2012). In vivo, ZapB polymer structures localize to the cytoplasmic side of the Z-ring (Galli and Gerdes 2010; Buss et al.2015). ZapA interacts with both ZapB and FtsZ and thereby bridges the gap between the Z-ring and internally located ZapB polymers (Galli and Gerdes 2010, 2012; Buss et al.2015). MatP can thus couple the ter region to the Z-ring via ZapB-ZapA structures (Bailey et al.2014; Buss et al.2017). Because the positioning of these structures at division sites precedes the localization of the Z-ring, the Ter linkage is thought to guide Z-ring formation to midcell (Bailey et al.2014; Buss et al.2017). Later, once the Z-ring is fully formed, the situation is reversed and the Ter linkage serves to anchor ter to midcell and contributes to the extended colocalization of duplicated ter regions (Espeli et al.2012; Mannik et al.2016). Taken together, these three systems display complementary activities that provide accurate spatiotemporal control over Z-ring placement (Fig. 5). The Min system works throughout the cell cycle to inhibit the formation of Z-rings close to cell poles, even in the DNA-free regions found here. It thereby favors midcell Z-ring assembly. Nucleoid occlusion, on the other hand, inhibits divisome assembly in areas occupied by DNA. This system therefore prevents the formation of a Z-ring at midcell as long as the nucleoid resides at this cellular location. However, as chromosome segregation progresses, the nucleoid occlusion zone moves away from midcell, thereby relieving its inhibition at the future cell division site. Combined with the positive guidance signal from the ter region that is now present at midcell, this leads to a very accurate positioning of the Z-ring at midcell at the right time in the cell cycle. Nonetheless, deletion of any one of these systems only has minor effects on cell division and viability. Inactivation of the Min system leads to the eponymous minicell phenotype where polar Z-rings constrict and produce anucleate cells in a minority of the population (Bailey et al.2014). Deletion of slmA or matP has no effect when cells are grown under slow growth conditions, whereas a small fraction of the ΔmatP population consists of anucleate or filamentous cells when grown in rich medium (Bernhardt and de Boer 2005; Mercier et al.2008; Mannik et al.2012). Intriguingly, even in the absence of all three known FtsZ regulatory systems, cell division still preferentially occurs at midcell, although the accuracy of Z-ring positioning is much lower (Bailey et al.2014). This observation implies that at least one additional mechanism for FtsZ localization remains to be discovered. COORDINATION BETWEEN REPLICATION AND SEGREGATION DNA replication and chromosome segregation are well separated processes in the eukaryotic cell cycle. Eukaryotic checkpoint control ensures that segregation does not start before replication has been completed (Elledge 1996). In prokaryotes, however, replication and segregation occur simultaneously. In fact, it was previously believed that replication provides the driving force for chromosome segregation and that sister loci are pushed toward opposite cell halves by stationary replisomes as soon as they are duplicated (Lemon and Grossman 2001). Later, it was shown that this is not the case and that replication and segregation are actually separated by a short time of sister locus cohesion (Nielsen et al.2006; Joshi et al.2011). Nonetheless, several factors are known to play a role in both processes. Chromosome organization and topology, for example, influence both replication initiation and chromosome segregation. Cell cycle-dependent changes in chromosome structure could therefore represent regulatory inputs into both processes simultaneously or separately, depending on the location and range of the structural change. Unfortunately, our current knowledge of chromosome structure and how it changes throughout the bacterial cell cycle is insufficient to uncover any potential links between replication and segregation that are dependent on chromosome organization. However, the above-discussed involvement of negative supercoiling and NAPs, such as IHF and Fis, in both processes suggests that such a link does exist. SeqA could act as a safety spacer to separate segregation from replication The SeqA protein is another example of a protein that is involved in both replication and nucleoid partitioning. It contributes to the timing of replication initiation by sequestration of oriC and enhances the efficiency of chromosome segregation by extending cohesion of duplicated loci (Nievera et al.2006; Joshi et al.2013). Besides functioning in each of these processes separately, SeqA has also been suggested to play a role in coordinating the progression of segregation in relation to DNA replication (Fig. 6a) (Kuzminov 2013; Rotman et al.2014). Albeit time efficient, simultaneous replication and segregation poses a threat to the cell. If segregation would catch up with the replisome, forces driving segregation could possibly compromise replication fork integrity and lead to double-stranded DNA breaks (Fig. 6b) (Rotman et al.2014). Additionally, under fast growth conditions, bacteria such as E. coli perform multifork replication to speed up their growth. If replication does not proceed optimally, cells are at risk of new replication forks catching up with old forks. This can occur, for example, when old replication forks are blocked or upon excessive overinitiation of replication (Bidnenko, Ehrlich and Michel 2002; Nordman, Skovgaard and Wright 2007). These rear-end collisions also lead to double-stranded DNA breaks and must be avoided (Bidnenko, Ehrlich and Michel 2002; Pedersen et al.2017). The cell is therefore in need of a safety spacer that separates replication from segregation and/or prevents replication fork rear-end collisions. It was previously suggested that SeqA forms a key component of this safety spacer (Kuzminov 2013; Rotman et al.2014; Pedersen et al.2017). As described above, the SeqA protein forms filaments that trail behind replisomes by preferentially binding hemimethylated, and thus newly replicated, GATC sites (Brendler et al.2000; Waldminghaus, Weigel and Skarstad 2012). These SeqA filaments could prevent rear-end collisions by hindering replication fork progression and thus preventing new replication forks from approaching old ones, or by promoting restart of old replication forks before new forks catch up (Pedersen et al.2017). Furthermore, SeqA filaments keep duplicated sister chromosomes together by protecting precatenanes from TopoIV-mediated decatenation and also possibly by bridging chromosomes directly (Fossum, Crooke and Skarstad 2007; Joshi et al.2013; Helgesen et al.2015). Replisome-tracking SeqA filaments therefore help to keep the segregation front sufficiently far away from replication forks (Fig. 6a) (Rotman et al.2014). Figure 6. View largeDownload slide A safety spacer to separate DNA replication from chromosome segregation. (a) Replication and segregation can be spatially separated by a safety spacer. The SeqA protein is suggested to be a key component of this safety spacer. (b) When no safety spacer is present, segregation can catch up with replication forks if progression of the replisome is stalled. Segregational forces can then compromise replication fork integrity and lead to double-stranded DNA breaks. Arrows indicate segregational forces. Redrawn and adapted from Rotman et al. (2014). Figure 6. View largeDownload slide A safety spacer to separate DNA replication from chromosome segregation. (a) Replication and segregation can be spatially separated by a safety spacer. The SeqA protein is suggested to be a key component of this safety spacer. (b) When no safety spacer is present, segregation can catch up with replication forks if progression of the replisome is stalled. Segregational forces can then compromise replication fork integrity and lead to double-stranded DNA breaks. Arrows indicate segregational forces. Redrawn and adapted from Rotman et al. (2014). A seqA deletion strain experiences double-stranded DNA breaks, is dependent on recombinational DNA repair for its viability, and displays increased sensitivity to DNA damage and replication fork stalling (Sutera and Lovett 2006; Rotman et al.2014; Pedersen et al.2017). The observed phenotypes could result from both rear-end collisions of consecutive replication forks and from segregation catching up with the replisome. In support of the former, the effect of a seqA deletion is exacerbated under conditions of rapid growth when more replication rounds are simultaneously active (Lu et al.1994; von Freiesleben et al.2000; Bach and Skarstad 2004; Pedersen et al.2017). However, it has been shown that double-stranded breaks in the absence of SeqA contain both parental and newly synthesized DNA. Since replication fork collisions would produce double-stranded DNA breaks that consist exclusively of newly synthesized DNA, this finding argues against the rear-end collision hypothesis (Rotman et al.2014). In a seqA deletion strain, segregation follows replication much more closely (Joshi et al.2013), indicating that SeqA indeed spatially separates these processes. However, a small delay between replication and segregation remains in the absence of SeqA. This means that, even though SeqA could be an important constituent of a safety spacer that separates replication and segregation, it is not the only factor involved (Joshi et al.2013). COORDINATION BETWEEN REPLICATION AND DIVISION The link between DNA replication and cell division is important to ensure that exactly one round of replication occurs per division event so that each daughter cell ends up with one intact copy of the genomic information. In eukaryotes and bacteria such as C. crescentus, replication initiation and cell division are closely coupled. These organisms perform one replication round at a time and only initiate a new round of replication after cell division has occurred (Diffley 2011; Collier 2012). Other bacteria such as E. coli and B. subtilis are capable of initiating new rounds of replication prior to cell division (Cooper and Helmstetter 1968; Khan et al.2016). Initiation of replication and cell division are therefore thought to be independent cell cycle processes in these organisms. Although they are coordinated to maintain one initiation event per division cycle, they are not strictly coupled to one another (Nordstrom, Bernander and Dasgupta 1991; Haeusser and Levin 2008). However, recent reports challenge this view and provide clues to an intricate link between replication and cell division, at least in some bacteria. In B. subtilis, it was shown that progressive phases of replication initiation increasingly potentiate Z-ring formation at midcell, indicating that replication initiation provides a positive guidance signal for Z-ring assembly (Harry, Rodwell and Wake 1999; Moriya et al.2010). Moreover, in this organism, extended inhibition of cell division at the level of FtsZ prevents new rounds of replication. Likewise, inhibiting an early phase of replication initiation leads to an irreversible block in Z-ring formation and therefore prevents cell division. These experiments have thus uncovered two failsafe mechanisms of the B. subtilis cell cycle that closely link replication initiation and cell division (Arjes et al.2014). In E. coli, the nature of the relation between the initiation of replication and cell division remains unclear at present. Several lines of evidence support the view that replication and division are uncoupled processes. Indeed, replication and cell division can be separated in time (Gullbrand and Nordstrom 2000) and replication initiation does not appear to dictate the timing of cell division (Bernander and Nordstrom 1990). Moreover, new rounds of replication can be initiated in the absence of cell division (Bi and Lutkenhaus 1991; Dai and Lutkenhaus 1991; Ma and Margolin 1999). The opposite is also true; when replication initiation is blocked by incubating temperature-sensitive dnaA or dnaC mutants at non-permissive temperatures, cells with one chromosome can occasionally still divide to form anucleate cells, meaning that cell division is not completely dependent on replication initiation (Mulder and Woldringh 1989; Gullbrand and Nordstrom 2000; Sun and Margolin 2001). However, these anucleate cells only occur at very low frequency, indicating that cells have problems dividing. These mutants indeed display cell division defects; at non-permissive temperatures they form filaments that can still assemble Z-rings but fail to utilize them (Mulder and Woldringh 1989; Gullbrand and Nordstrom 2000; Sun and Margolin 2001). These results indicate that in the absence of replication initiation, cell division is blocked after Z-ring assembly in most cells (Fig. 7a). Additionally, an increased initiation potential, either by deletion of the DnaA-inactivating locus datA or by overexpression of DnaA, promotes division (Morigen, Flatten and Skarstad 2014). Taken together, these data point to a positive connection between replication initiation and cell division. If and how replication and division are linked therefore remains a prominent and largely unanswered question. Figure 7. View largeDownload slide The incompletely understood connection between DNA replication initiation and cell division. (a) Although uncharacterized at present, a link between initiation of DNA replication and cell division must exist, since incubation of temperature-sensitive initiation mutants at non-permissive temperatures leads to a general block in cell division. The majority of these cells form Z-rings in nucleoid-free areas but fail to divide. Occasionally, however, anucleate cells can be formed, indicating that the block in cell division imposed by the absence of replication initiation is not absolute. (b) The expression level of GidA and MioC is dependent on the progression of DNA replication. MioC expression is switched off by DnaA binding to its promoter, which occurs in the build-up to replication initiation. The expression of GidA is prevented by association of SeqA with its promoter region after it has been replicated. In turn, GidA and MioC regulate the expression level of YmgF, a cell division protein of unknown function that localizes at division sites. GidA, MioC and YmgF thereby couple DNA replication to cell division. Redrawn and adapted from Lies et al. (2015). Figure 7. View largeDownload slide The incompletely understood connection between DNA replication initiation and cell division. (a) Although uncharacterized at present, a link between initiation of DNA replication and cell division must exist, since incubation of temperature-sensitive initiation mutants at non-permissive temperatures leads to a general block in cell division. The majority of these cells form Z-rings in nucleoid-free areas but fail to divide. Occasionally, however, anucleate cells can be formed, indicating that the block in cell division imposed by the absence of replication initiation is not absolute. (b) The expression level of GidA and MioC is dependent on the progression of DNA replication. MioC expression is switched off by DnaA binding to its promoter, which occurs in the build-up to replication initiation. The expression of GidA is prevented by association of SeqA with its promoter region after it has been replicated. In turn, GidA and MioC regulate the expression level of YmgF, a cell division protein of unknown function that localizes at division sites. GidA, MioC and YmgF thereby couple DNA replication to cell division. Redrawn and adapted from Lies et al. (2015). GidA and MioC One direct link between replication initiation and cell division has recently been discovered (Lies et al.2015). This link is provided by the GidA and MioC proteins. The GidA- and MioC-encoding genes are located on opposite sides of oriC. During the 1980s and 1990s, they received much attention since their cell cycle-regulated transcription was shown to affect replication initiation of extrachromosomal oriC-based replicons (Stuitje et al.1986; Lobner-Olesen, Atlung and Rasmussen 1987; Asai, Takanami and Imai 1990; Ogawa and Okazaki 1991; Bates et al.1997). gidA is located leftward of oriC and its transcription points away from the origin. Expression of gidA therefore introduces negative supercoils in oriC and promotes replication initiation (Asai, Takanami and Imai 1990; Ogawa and Okazaki 1991). mioC is located on the other side of the origin and its transcription proceeds toward and into oriC (Nozaki, Okazaki and Ogawa 1988). mioC expression was shown to negatively influence replication initiation, possibly by introducing positive supercoiling in oriC and thereby inhibiting DUE unwinding (Stuitje et al.1986; Lobner-Olesen, Atlung and Rasmussen 1987; Lies et al.2015). The mioC promoter contains DnaA boxes and is switched off by DnaA binding in the build-up to replication initiation (Stuitje et al.1986; Lobner-Olesen, Atlung and Rasmussen 1987; Nozaki, Okazaki and Ogawa 1988; Theisen et al.1993; Ogawa and Okazaki 1994). At this time, stimulatory gidA transcription is active and can contribute to DUE unwinding (Theisen et al.1993; Ogawa and Okazaki 1994). Following its duplication, the gidA promoter is sequestered by SeqA and is therefore inactivated (Bogan and Helmstetter 1997). The expression pattern of gidA and mioC in relation to initiation of replication is shown in Fig. 7b. Although mioC and gidA transcription have a considerable effect on the duplication of extrachromosomal oriC-based replicons, their expression has little effect on chromosome replication (Bates et al.1997). Nonetheless, their transcription is required for the overinitiation phenotype that occurs during thymineless death (Martin, Viguera and Guzman 2014). Moreover, these genes are well conserved and do influence replication under suboptimal conditions (Bates et al.1997; Lies et al.2015). It was therefore suggested that these genes constitute a primordial initiation mechanism or may be part of a failsafe system needed for replication initiation in adverse conditions (Lies et al.2015). Recently, it was shown that deletion of gidA or mioC leads to filamentation, especially in the absence of Fis. Filamentation in the absence of GidA or MioC is not caused by aberrant chromosome segregation, replication initiation or progression of replication, which all proceed normally (Lies et al.2015). Rather, GidA and MioC were shown to regulate the expression of YmgF, a cell division protein of unknown function that interacts with several divisome components and localizes to the septum (Fig. 7b) (Karimova, Robichon and Ladant 2009; Lies et al.2015). YmgF is necessary for the filamentation phenotype observed in the absence of GidA and MioC, although the underlying molecular mechanism is unknown (Lies et al.2015). Because the expression levels of GidA and MioC are regulated in relation to DNA replication and, in turn, determine YmgF transcription, this system couples replication to cytokinesis. However, it should be noted that deletion of any of these components, gidA, mioC or ymgF, only has very minor effects (Karimova, Robichon and Ladant 2009; Lies et al.2015). The link between DNA replication and division is therefore either not important for the orderly progression of the cell cycle under the tested conditions or is mediated by several redundant systems so that the deletion of one system does not result in a strong phenotype. Further research is necessary to reveal the mechanism underlying the connection between GidA, MioC and YmgF and to determine its importance in cell cycle regulation. SulA, a DNA damage checkpoint Apart from the cell's efforts to maintain one round of replication per division event, it must also ensure that each cell ends up with an intact copy of the genomic information. Much like the eukaryotic DNA damage checkpoint, bacterial cells are able to sense DNA damage and block cell division in response. In E. coli, this checkpoint function is performed by the SOS response and the SOS gene product, SulA. If DNA is damaged, RecA stimulates the autocatalytic cleavage of LexA. This transcriptional repressor is thereby inactivated and expression of the SOS regulon is induced (Janion 2008). Among the genes regulated by RecA and LexA is sulA that encodes a cell division inhibitor (Huisman and D’Ari 1981). SulA prevents Z-ring formation by sequestering FtsZ monomers and blocking their polymerization (Bi and Lutkenhaus 1993; Trusca et al.1998; Dajkovic, Mukherjee and Lutkenhaus 2008; Chen, Milam and Erickson 2012). It thereby inhibits cell division in the face of DNA damage and prevents the birth of daughter cells with damaged genomes. After the damage has been repaired, the cell division block is alleviated by Lon-mediated SulA degradation (Mizusawa and Gottesman 1983). COORDINATION BETWEEN SEGREGATION AND DIVISION As described above, the spatiotemporal regulation of cell division is closely related to chromosome segregation. Nucleoid occlusion, mediated at least in part by SlmA, prevents Z-ring assembly until after bulk chromosome segregation has occurred and the Ter linkage provides a positive guidance signal for FtsZ localization that becomes unmasked at this time (Bernhardt and de Boer 2005; Bailey et al.2014; Cambridge et al.2014). However, several additional connections between both exist. MinCDE The Min system has an obvious role in division site placement by preventing the formation of polarly localized Z-rings. However, the minCDE operon was also repeatedly suggested to play a role in chromosome segregation, since cells lacking minCDE display aberrant nucleoid partitioning (Mulder et al.1990; Akerlund, Gullbrand and Nordstrom 2002; Di Ventura et al.2013). This segregation defect is much less pronounced when only the minC gene is deleted (Di Ventura et al.2013). Since MinC is the effector that blocks Z-ring assembly, this indicates that the function of the Min system in nucleoid partitioning does not depend on the inhibition of Z-ring formation. It is unclear how the Min system contributes to chromosome segregation. It has been suggested that the polar MinD gradient could act as a membrane tether that transiently binds DNA (Di Ventura et al.2013). By consecutive binding and release, the chromosome could be pulled toward an increasing MinD concentration, which is found at the cell poles (Fig. 8). In support of this hypothesis, MinD was shown to bind DNA non-specifically and is able to couple DNA to liposomes (Di Ventura et al.2013). However, further validation of this model is warranted. Figure 8. View largeDownload slide Chromosome segregation and cell division are intimately connected. To prevent guillotining of the chromosomal terminus region by the closing septum, the divisome component FtsK can speed up segregation during constriction. MatP, on the other hand, might be able to slow down septum closure and could therefore act as a safeguard of chromosome integrity, although this remains to be tested. The Min system was suggested to assist in chromosome segregation by repeated binding and release of chromosomal DNA to the membrane-bound MinD protein. However, this hypothesis needs further validation. Figure 8. View largeDownload slide Chromosome segregation and cell division are intimately connected. To prevent guillotining of the chromosomal terminus region by the closing septum, the divisome component FtsK can speed up segregation during constriction. MatP, on the other hand, might be able to slow down septum closure and could therefore act as a safeguard of chromosome integrity, although this remains to be tested. The Min system was suggested to assist in chromosome segregation by repeated binding and release of chromosomal DNA to the membrane-bound MinD protein. However, this hypothesis needs further validation. MukBEF The chromosome-organizing protein complex MukBEF that facilitates chromosome segregation might also play a more direct role in cell division. Although this possibility has not been studied in detail, several indications for the involvement of MukB in cell division exist. A mukB deletion strain shows chromosome segregation defects at low temperatures but remains viable (Niki et al.1991). At higher temperatures, however, it can no longer form colonies because of additional defects in cell division. Under these conditions, ΔmukB cells turn into long multinucleated filaments (Niki et al.1991; Sun, Yu and Margolin 1998). Even though these filaments contain large nucleoid-free regions, division does not readily occur in these areas to produce nucleated normal size progeny. The number of anucleate cells, however, does increase (Niki et al.1991; Sun, Yu and Margolin 1998). Moreover, the D period of the cell cycle is prolonged in ΔmukB cells, again indicating that these cells have trouble dividing (Joshi et al.2013). How MukB affects cell division is unknown, although published data point toward a connection with FtsZ. ΔmukB filaments have a severely decreased number of Z-rings per cell length and a mukB deletion is synthetically lethal in a strain harboring a temperature-sensitive ftsZ allele, even at the permissive temperature (Sun, Yu and Margolin 1998). Moreover, evidence suggests that MukB and FtsZ interact (Lockhart and Kendrick-Jones 1998). Further research is necessary to validate the interaction between MukB and FtsZ in vivo and to determine whether this interaction leads to a direct effect of MukB on cell division. The safeguards of chromosome segregation In E. coli, divisome assembly starts once bulk chromosome segregation has occurred. At this time, however, the chromosomal ter region is still being replicated and has not segregated yet (Den Blaauwen et al.1999). Moreover, cell constriction often starts when the ter region is still present at midcell (Galli et al.2017). This considerable overlap between chromosome segregation and cell division is a threat to the cell, since problems during the final phase of nucleoid partitioning might lead to DNA guillotining by the closing septum. E. coli is therefore in need of mechanisms that make sure that guillotining is avoided. Two such safeguards of chromosome integrity have been described. FtsK The FtsK protein is responsible for a well-established safeguard mechanism. FtsK contains two functional domains connected by a linker region. Its N-terminal domain is essential for cell division and localizes FtsK to the divisome (Wang and Lutkenhaus 1998). The C-terminal domain functions in chromosome segregation and dimer resolution (Steiner et al.1999; Stouf, Meile and Cornet 2013). Upon cell constriction during division, the function of FtsK in chromosome segregation becomes active: either because FtsK is brought in close proximity to its DNA substrate or because its local concentration increases (Kennedy, Chevalier and Barre 2008; Mannik, Bailey and O’Neill 2017). If at this time the chromosome has not fully segregated yet, the C-terminal domain of FtsK loads onto the chromosome as hexameric rings and translocates DNA to opposite cell halves (Stouf, Meile and Cornet 2013; Galli et al.2017; Mannik, Bailey and O’Neill 2017). The directionality in DNA translocation is provided by KOPS (FtsK orienting polar sequences) sites in the left and right chromosomal arms that are divergently oriented so that FtsK translocates DNA away from midcell until dif is reached (Bigot et al.2005; Levy et al.2005). The function of FtsK in nucleoid partitioning is not essential (Yu, Weihe and Margolin 1998; Stouf, Meile and Cornet 2013). In fact, under fast growth conditions, the entire chromosome segregates even before FtsK can act upon it (Galli et al.2017). Under slow growth conditions, however, or in case of chromosome dimers, FtsK is responsible for the active segregation of a small, ∼200 kb region in the chromosomal terminus (Stouf, Meile and Cornet 2013; Galli et al.2017). If needed, FtsK can also pump larger parts of the chromosome toward opposite cell halves, but it does not appear to do so under optimal conditions (Sivanathan et al.2009; Stouf, Meile and Cornet 2013; Mannik, Bailey and O’Neill 2017). FtsK thus only transports trapped chromosomal DNA away from the division site during constriction. It thereby functions as a safeguard that speeds up segregation if the integrity of the chromosome is being threatened by the closing septum (Fig. 8). The Ter linkage The Ter linkage is mostly known because it physically couples the chromosomal terminus region to the divisome by MatP-ZapB-ZapA protein bridges (Buss et al.2015). It thereby provides spatiotemporal coordination between chromosome segregation and Z-ring assembly (Bailey et al.2014). However, this link was recently suggested to also function at a later stage of the division program by modulating the rate of cell division. Deletion of the matP gene increases the septum closure rate and speeds up constriction, indicating that the MatP protein is capable of slowing down cell division (Buss et al.2015; Coltharp et al.2016). MatP was therefore suggested to function as a braking mechanism for constriction (Coltharp et al.2016). This protein might slow down cell division by decreasing FtsZ turnover (Buss et al.2015). Since MatP is physically connected to FtsZ by ZapA and ZapB and also decreases turnover of ZapA and ZapB structures, it seems likely that the effect of MatP on FtsZ is mediated through the Ter linkage (Buss et al.2015). However, another study found that deletion of matP has no effect on Z-ring behavior (Yang et al.2017), leaving the nature of the effect of MatP on cell division an open question. Another pressing question is whether MatP needs to be bound to ter DNA to modulate the rate of septum closure. If so, MatP could modulate the division rate in response to nucleoid partitioning, in addition to its role in chromosome segregation and spatiotemporal regulation of Z-ring assembly (Mercier et al.2008; Espeli et al.2012; Bailey et al.2014; Buss et al.2015, 2017; Coltharp et al.2016). MatP and the Ter linkage could thereby act as a safeguard for chromosome segregation by postponing septum closure if segregation is incomplete (Fig. 8). This hypothesis, however, requires further investigation. GLOBAL COORDINATION BY CELL CYCLE SENTINELS As is clear from previous sections, many proteins play a role in the regulation of the E. coli cell cycle. Some of them are involved in two processes simultaneously and can therefore coordinate these processes relative to one another. Additionally, proteins that function in the regulation of all three major cell cycle events could act as cell cycle sentinels that watch over the general progression of the cell cycle and orchestrate future events accordingly. At least two E. coli proteins meet these criteria. These proteins are the small GTPases, Obg and Era, that are conserved throughout the bacterial kingdom (Verstraeten et al.2011; Kint et al.2014). Obg is essential for bacterial viability and plays an important but hitherto ill-defined role in every major cell cycle event. Obg deficiency impedes the initiation of replication by lowering cellular DnaA levels (Sikora et al.2006). Nucleoid partitioning is severely hampered upon Obg depletion, leading to the conclusion that Obg is necessary to license chromosome segregation (Kobayashi, Moriya and Wada 2001; Foti et al.2007). Finally, a mutant Obg isoform blocks cell cycle progression at the stage of cell division, thereby also implicating Obg in this stage of the cell cycle (Dewachter et al.2017). Of note, overexpression of Obg induces persistence which is associated with dormancy and cessation of cell proliferation (Verstraeten et al.2015), likewise implicating Obg in cell cycle control. Moreover, since Obg functions as a sensor of the cell's energy status by binding GTP, GDP or ppGpp (Verstraeten et al.2011; Kint et al.2014), Obg could integrate metabolic input into cell cycle control. The Era GTPase also has an important role in the regulation of the cell cycle. Depletion of Era leads to excess initiation of replication in B. subtilis (Morimoto et al.2002). A mutant form of the Era protein can suppress chromosome segregation defects caused by various genomic mutations and the same Era mutant also arrests the cell cycle at the stage of cell division (Britton et al.1997, 1998). The latter phenotype is also found upon downregulation of era expression (Britton et al.1998). Because of the involvement of Obg and Era in all major cell cycle events, it is tempting to speculate that these proteins function as master regulators of the bacterial cell cycle. Such master regulators could monitor different processes, coordinate them and couple them to each other. Additionally, several other conserved GTPases are also involved in cell cycle control (Verstraeten et al.2011). However, like Obg and Era, their cellular function is not well characterized at present. The universally conserved bacterial GTPases therefore represent an understudied research area with great potential to reveal groundbreaking insights into cell cycle regulation and coordination of different cell cycle events. CONCLUDING REMARKS Although initiation of DNA replication, chromosome segregation and cell division are often investigated separately as isolated events, they must be coordinated to each other to preserve genomic integrity and cellular viability. At present, however, it remains unclear how this coordination is achieved. In E. coli and many other bacteria, cell cycle events are much less tightly linked than is the case in eukaryotic cells. Different events show considerable overlap (Den Blaauwen et al.1999; Nielsen et al.2006) and disturbing one event does not necessarily affect other processes (Bi and Lutkenhaus 1991). It has therefore been proposed that, rather than directly regulating each other's progression, cell cycle events are indirectly linked, for example, through coupling to nutrient status (Willis and Huang 2017). Although metabolic status could be an important factor in the coordination of cell cycle events, direct connections between processes also exist and contribute to correct cell cycle progression. Several such connections have been described, although the underlying molecular mechanisms and their significance in cell cycle control often remain unknown. At present, the connection between chromosome segregation and cell division is the best characterized; chromosome segregation allows and guides the initial phases of divisome assembly (Bailey et al.2014) and the divisome protein FtsK can stimulate segregation during constriction (Stouf, Meile and Cornet 2013). These direct links thereby clearly aid in the coordination of chromosome segregation and cell division. Replication and segregation occur simultaneously and follow each other closely. An initial delay of segregation with respect to replication is necessary to separate both processes. In E. coli, this delay is for a large part mediated by SeqA (Joshi et al.2013). Moreover, in the case of replication fork stalling, the cell would benefit from a safety spacer that prevents segregation from reaching the replisome and thereby threatening genomic integrity. Whether such a safety spacer indeed has evolved and involves the SeqA protein remains to be fully established (Rotman et al.2014; Pedersen et al.2017). The connection between initiation of replication and cell division is arguably the least understood. At present, these events are considered to be completely uncoupled. However, recent evidence indicates that previously unexplored connections between both exist, at least in some bacteria. Also in E. coli, a direct connection, mediated by GidA, MioC and YmgF, has been recently uncovered (Lies et al.2015). The physiological role of this connection, however, remains elusive and requires further investigation. Finally, several conserved prokaryotic GTPases appear to be involved in all cell cycle events and therefore could act as master regulators of cell cycle progression (Verstraeten et al.2011). However, since none of them are sufficiently characterized, this remains to be experimentally validated. Further research into how cell cycle events relate to one another and how they can influence each other's timing and progression are clearly needed to deepen our understanding of the intricate regulatory network that underlies the bacterial cell cycle. Most importantly, it needs to be established whether the order and timing of cell cycle events is determined by coupling to metabolism, cell size and/or progression of other events. As we have discussed here, direct connections between individual events can contribute to cell cycle control. To gain more insight into this form of regulation, molecular mechanisms and physiological roles of already discovered connections need to be uncovered and the existence of additional links should be investigated. Resulting insights will contribute to an integrative view on cell cycle control. Moreover, improved understanding of how bacteria proliferate and which molecular mechanisms are vital for the correct progression of the cell cycle can provide a starting point to develop novel antimicrobials. Such antibacterial compounds could be aimed at disturbing normal progression of the cell cycle. Interfering with the correct sequence of events or otherwise perturbing the cell cycle program can compromise bacterial viability and/or survival. They could therefore prove to be a successful strategy in combating bacterial pathogens. FUNDING This work was supported by grants from the Fund for Scientific Research, Flanders (FWO) [G.0471.12N, G.0B25.15N, 1522214N]; KU Leuven [CREA/13/019, C16/17/006], the Interuniversity Attraction Poles-Belgian Science Policy Office IAP-BELSPO [IAP P7/28] and the Flanders Institute for Biotechnology VIB. LD received a fellowship from FWO and is supported by the Internal Funds KU Leuven. Conflict of interest. None declared. REFERENCES Aarsman ME, Piette A, Fraipont C et al.   Maturation of the Escherichia coli divisome occurs in two steps. Mol Microbiol  2005; 55: 1631– 45. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Akerlund T, Gullbrand B, Nordstrom K. Effects of the Min system on nucleoid segregation in Escherichia coli. Microbiology  2002; 148: 3213– 22. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Amir A. Cell size regulation in bacteria. Phys Rev Lett  2014; 112: 208102. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Anderson DE, Gueiros-Filho FJ, Erickson HP. Assembly dynamics of FtsZ rings in Bacillus subtilis and Escherichia coli and effects of FtsZ-regulating proteins. J Bacteriol  2004; 186: 5775– 81. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Arjes HA, Kriel A, Sorto NA et al.   Failsafe mechanisms couple division and DNA replication in bacteria. Curr Biol  2014; 24: 2149– 55. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Asai T, Takanami M, Imai M. The AT richness and gid transcription determine the left border of the replication origin of the E. coli chromosome. EMBO J  1990; 9: 4065– 72. Google Scholar PubMed  Aussel L, Barre FX, Aroyo M et al.   FtsK Is a DNA motor protein that activates chromosome dimer resolution by switching the catalytic state of the XerC and XerD recombinases. Cell  2002; 108: 195– 205. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bach T, Krekling MA, Skarstad K. Excess SeqA prolongs sequestration of oriC and delays nucleoid segregation and cell division. EMBO J  2003; 22: 315– 23. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bach T, Skarstad K. Re-replication from non-sequesterable origins generates three-nucleoid cells which divide asymmetrically. Mol Microbiol  2004; 51: 1589– 600. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Badrinarayanan A, Le TB, Laub MT. Bacterial chromosome organization and segregation. Annu Rev Cell Dev Bi  2015; 31: 171– 99. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Badrinarayanan A, Lesterlin C, Reyes-Lamothe R et al.   The Escherichia coli SMC complex, MukBEF, shapes nucleoid organization independently of DNA replication. J Bacteriol  2012; 194: 4669– 76. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bailey MW, Bisicchia P, Warren BT et al.   Evidence for divisome localization mechanisms independent of the Min system and SlmA in Escherichia coli. PLoS Genet  2014; 10: e1004504. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Barber F, Ho PY, Murray AW et al.   Details matter: noise and model structure set the relationship between cell size and cell cycle timing. Front Cell Dev Biol  2017; 5: 92. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Barre FX, Aroyo M, Colloms SD et al.   FtsK functions in the processing of a Holliday junction intermediate during bacterial chromosome segregation. Gene Dev  2000; 14: 2976– 88. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bates D, Kleckner N. Chromosome and replisome dynamics in E. coli: loss of sister cohesion triggers global chromosome movement and mediates chromosome segregation. Cell  2005; 121: 899– 911. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bates DB, Boye E, Asai T et al.   The absence of effect of gid or mioC transcription on the initiation of chromosomal replication in Escherichia coli. P Natl Acad Sci USA  1997; 94: 12497– 502. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Bernander R, Nordstrom K. Chromosome replication does not trigger cell division in E. coli. Cell  1990; 60: 365– 74. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bernhardt TG, de Boer PA. SlmA, a nucleoid-associated, FtsZ binding protein required for blocking septal ring assembly over chromosomes in E. coli. Mol Cell  2005; 18: 555– 64. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bi E, Lutkenhaus J. Cell division inhibitors SulA and MinCD prevent formation of the FtsZ ring. J Bacteriol  1993; 175: 1118– 25. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bi EF, Lutkenhaus J. FtsZ ring structure associated with division in Escherichia coli. Nature  1991; 354: 161– 4. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bidnenko V, Ehrlich SD, Michel B. Replication fork collapse at replication terminator sequences. EMBO J  2002; 21: 3898– 907. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bigot S, Marians KJ. DNA chirality-dependent stimulation of topoisomerase IV activity by the C-terminal AAA+ domain of FtsK. Nucleic Acids Res  2010; 38: 3031– 40. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bigot S, Saleh OA, Lesterlin C et al.   KOPS: DNA motifs that control E. coli chromosome segregation by orienting the FtsK translocase. EMBO J  2005; 24: 3770– 80. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bisson-Filho AW, Hsu YP, Squyres GR et al.   Treadmilling by FtsZ filaments drives peptidoglycan synthesis and bacterial cell division. Science  2017; 355: 739– 43. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bogan JA, Helmstetter CE. DNA sequestration and transcription in the oriC region of Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol  1997; 26: 889– 96. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Boye E, Nordstrom K. Coupling the cell cycle to cell growth. EMBO Rep  2003; 4: 757– 60. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bramhill D, Kornberg A. Duplex opening by DnaA protein at novel sequences in initiation of replication at the origin of the E. coli chromosome. Cell  1988; 52: 743– 55. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Brendler T, Sawitzke J, Sergueev K et al.   A case for sliding SeqA tracts at anchored replication forks during Escherichia coli chromosome replication and segregation. EMBO J  2000; 19: 6249– 58. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Britton RA, Powell BS, Court DL et al.   Characterization of mutations affecting the Escherichia coli essential GTPase era that suppress two temperature-sensitive dnaG alleles. J Bacteriol  1997; 179: 4575– 82. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Britton RA, Powell BS, Dasgupta S et al.   Cell cycle arrest in Era GTPase mutants: a potential growth rate-regulated checkpoint in Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol  1998; 27: 739– 50. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Browning DF, Grainger DC, Busby SJ. Effects of nucleoid-associated proteins on bacterial chromosome structure and gene expression. Curr Opin Microbiol  2010; 13: 773– 80. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Buss J, Coltharp C, Shtengel G et al.   A multi-layered protein network stabilizes the Escherichia coli FtsZ-ring and modulates constriction dynamics. PLoS Genet  2015; 11: e1005128. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Buss JA, Peters NT, Xiao J et al.   ZapA and ZapB form an FtsZ-independent structure at midcell. Mol Microbiol  2017; 104: 652– 63. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Cabre EJ, Monterroso B, Alfonso C et al.   The nucleoid occlusion SlmA protein accelerates the disassembly of the FtsZ protein polymers without affecting their GTPase activity. PLoS One  2015; 10: e0126434. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Camara JE, Breier AM, Brendler T et al.   Hda inactivation of DnaA is the predominant mechanism preventing hyperinitiation of Escherichia coli DNA replication. EMBO Rep  2005; 6: 736– 41. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Cambridge J, Blinkova A, Magnan D et al.   A replication-inhibited unsegregated nucleoid at mid-cell blocks Z-ring formation and cell division independently of SOS and the SlmA nucleoid occlusion protein in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol  2014; 196: 36– 49. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Campbell JL, Kleckner N. E. coli oriC and the dnaA gene promoter are sequestered from dam methyltransferase following the passage of the chromosomal replication fork. Cell  1990; 62: 967– 79. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Campos M, Surovtsev IV, Kato S et al.   A constant size extension drives bacterial cell size homeostasis. Cell  2014; 159: 1433– 46. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Cass JA, Kuwada NJ, Traxler B et al.   Escherichia coli chromosomal loci segregate from midcell with universal dynamics. Biophys J  2016; 110: 2597– 609. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Cassler MR, Grimwade JE, Leonard AC. Cell cycle-specific changes in nucleoprotein complexes at a chromosomal replication origin. EMBO J  1995; 14: 5833– 41. Google Scholar PubMed  Chen Y, Milam SL, Erickson HP. SulA inhibits assembly of FtsZ by a simple sequestration mechanism. Biochemistry  2012; 51: 3100– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Cho H, McManus HR, Dove SL et al.   Nucleoid occlusion factor SlmA is a DNA-activated FtsZ polymerization antagonist. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2011; 108: 3773– 8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Collier J. Regulation of chromosomal replication in Caulobacter crescentus. Plasmid  2012; 67: 76– 87. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Coltharp C, Buss J, Plumer TM et al.   Defining the rate-limiting processes of bacterial cytokinesis. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2016; 113: E1044– 53. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Cooper S, Helmstetter CE. Chromosome replication and the division cycle of Escherichia coli. J Mol Biol  1968; 31: 519– 40. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Crooke E, Castuma CE, Kornberg A. The chromosome origin of Escherichia coli stabilizes DnaA protein during rejuvenation by phospholipids. J Biol Chem  1992; 267: 16779– 82. Google Scholar PubMed  Dai K, Lutkenhaus J. ftsZ is an essential cell division gene in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol  1991; 173: 3500– 6. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Dajkovic A, Lan G, Sun SX et al.   MinC spatially controls bacterial cytokinesis by antagonizing the scaffolding function of FtsZ. Curr Biol  2008; 18: 235– 44. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Dajkovic A, Mukherjee A, Lutkenhaus J. Investigation of regulation of FtsZ assembly by SulA and development of a model for FtsZ polymerization. J Bacteriol  2008; 190: 2513– 26. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Dajkovic A, Pichoff S, Lutkenhaus J et al.   Cross-linking FtsZ polymers into coherent Z rings. Mol Microbiol  2010; 78: 651– 68. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Daley DO, Skoglund U, Soderstrom B. FtsZ does not initiate membrane constriction at the onset of division. Sci Rep  2016; 6: 33138. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Danilova O, Reyes-Lamothe R, Pinskaya M et al.   MukB colocalizes with the oriC region and is required for organization of the two Escherichia coli chromosome arms into separate cell halves. Mol Microbiol  2007; 65: 1485– 92. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  de Vries R. DNA condensation in bacteria: Interplay between macromolecular crowding and nucleoid proteins. Biochimie  2010; 92: 1715– 21. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Den Blaauwen T, Buddelmeijer N, Aarsman ME et al.   Timing of FtsZ assembly in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol  1999; 181: 5167– 75. Google Scholar PubMed  Dewachter L, Verstraeten N, Jennes M et al.   A mutant isoform of ObgE causes cell death by interfering with cell division. Front Microbiol  2017; 8: 1193. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Di Ventura B, Knecht B, Andreas H et al.   Chromosome segregation by the Escherichia coli Min system. Mol Syst Biol  2014; 9: 686. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Diffley JF. Quality control in the initiation of eukaryotic DNA replication. Philos T Roy Soc B Biol Sci  2011; 366: 3545– 53. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Donachie WD. Relationship between cell size and time of initiation of DNA replication. Nature  1968; 219: 1077– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Donachie WD, Blakely GW. Coupling the initiation of chromosome replication to cell size in Escherichia coli. Curr Opin Microbiol  2003; 6: 146– 50. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Dri AM, Rouviere-Yaniv J, Moreau PL. Inhibition of cell division in hupA hupB mutant bacteria lacking HU protein. J Bacteriol  1991; 173: 2852– 63. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Du S, Lutkenhaus J. SlmA antagonism of FtsZ assembly employs a two-pronged mechanism like MinCD. PLoS Genet  2014; 10: e1004460. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Duderstadt KE, Chuang K, Berger JM. DNA stretching by bacterial initiators promotes replication origin opening. Nature  2011; 478: 209– 13. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Duigou S, Boccard F. Long range chromosome organization in Escherichia coli: the position of the replication origin defines the non-structured regions and the Right and Left macrodomains. PLoS Genet  2017; 13: e1006758. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Dupaigne P, Tonthat NK, Espeli O et al.   Molecular basis for a protein-mediated dna-bridging mechanism that functions in condensation of the E. coli chromosome. Mol Cell  2012; 48: 560– 71. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Durand-Heredia J, Rivkin E, Fan G et al.   Identification of ZapD as a cell division factor that promotes the assembly of FtsZ in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol  2012; 194: 3189– 98. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Durand-Heredia JM, Yu HH, De Carlo S et al.   Identification and characterization of ZapC, a stabilizer of the FtsZ ring in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol  2011; 193: 1405– 13. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Ebersbach G, Galli E, Moller-Jensen J et al.   Novel coiled-coil cell division factor ZapB stimulates Z ring assembly and cell division. Mol Microbiol  2008; 68: 720– 35. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  El Sayyed H, Le Chat, L Lebailly E et al.   Mapping topoisomerase IV binding and activity sites on the E. coli genome. PLoS Genet  2016; 12: e1006025. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Elledge SJ. Cell cycle checkpoints: preventing an identity crisis. Science  1996; 274: 1664– 72. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Erickson HP, Anderson DE, Osawa M. FtsZ in bacterial cytokinesis: cytoskeleton and force generator all in one. Microbiol Mol Biol R  2010; 74: 504– 28. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Espeli O, Borne R, Dupaigne P et al.   A MatP-divisome interaction coordinates chromosome segregation with cell division in E. coli. EMBO J  2012; 31: 3198– 211. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Espeli O, Lee C, Marians KJ. A physical and functional interaction between Escherichia coli FtsK and topoisomerase IV. J Biol Chem  2003; 278: 44639– 44. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Espeli O, Levine C, Hassing H et al.   Temporal regulation of topoisomerase IV activity in E. coli. Mol Cell  2003; 11: 189– 201. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Espeli O, Mercier R, Boccard F. DNA dynamics vary according to macrodomain topography in the E. coli chromosome. Mol Microbiol  2008; 68: 1418– 27. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fang L, Davey MJ, O’Donnell M. Replisome assembly at oriC, the replication origin of E. coli, reveals an explanation for initiation sites outside an origin. Mol Cell  1999; 4: 541– 53. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Filutowicz M, Ross W, Wild J et al.   Involvement of Fis protein in replication of the Escherichia coli chromosome. J Bacteriol  1992; 174: 398– 407. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fisher JK, Bourniquel A, Witz G et al.   Four-dimensional imaging of E. coli nucleoid organization and dynamics in living cells. Cell  2013; 153: 882– 95. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Flatten I, Fossum-Raunehaug S, Taipale R et al.   The DnaA protein is not the limiting factor for initiation of replication in Escherichia coli. PLoS Genet  2015; 11: e1005276. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Flatten I, Skarstad K. The Fis protein has a stimulating role in initiation of replication in Escherichia coli in vivo. PLoS One  2013; 8: e83562. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fossum S, Crooke E, Skarstad K. Organization of sister origins and replisomes during multifork DNA replication in Escherichia coli. EMBO J  2007; 26: 4514– 22. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Foti JJ, Persky NS, Ferullo DJ et al.   Chromosome segregation control by Escherichia coli ObgE GTPase. Mol Microbiol  2007; 65: 569– 81. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fraipont C, Alexeeva S, Wolf B et al.   The integral membrane FtsW protein and peptidoglycan synthase PBP3 form a subcomplex in Escherichia coli. Microbiology  2011; 157: 251– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Frimodt-Moller J, Charbon G, Krogfelt KA et al.   DNA replication control is linked to genomic positioning of control regions in Escherichia coli. PLoS Genet  2016; 12: e1006286. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fu G, Huang T, Buss J et al.   In vivo structure of the E. coli FtsZ-ring revealed by photoactivated localization microscopy (PALM). PLoS One  2010; 5: e12682. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fu X, Shih YL, Zhang Y et al.   The MinE ring required for proper placement of the division site is a mobile structure that changes its cellular location during the Escherichia coli division cycle. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2001; 98: 980– 5. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Fujimitsu K, Senriuchi T, Katayama T. Specific genomic sequences of E. coli promote replicational initiation by directly reactivating ADP-DnaA. Gene Dev  2009; 23: 1221– 33. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Galli E, Gerdes K. Spatial resolution of two bacterial cell division proteins: ZapA recruits ZapB to the inner face of the Z-ring. Mol Microbiol  2010; 76: 1514– 26. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Galli E, Gerdes K. FtsZ-ZapA-ZapB interactome of Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol  2012; 194: 292– 302. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Galli E, Midonet C, Paly E et al.   Fast growth conditions uncouple the final stages of chromosome segregation and cell division in Escherichia coli. PLoS Genet  2017; 13: e1006702. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Grainge I, Bregu M, Vazquez M et al.   Unlinking chromosome catenanes in vivo by site-specific recombination. EMBO J  2007; 26: 4228– 38. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Grainge I, Lesterlin C, Sherratt DJ. Activation of XerCD-dif recombination by the FtsK DNA translocase. Nucleic Acids Res  2011; 39: 5140– 8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Grimwade JE, Ryan VT, Leonard AC. IHF redistributes bound initiator protein, DnaA, on supercoiled oriC of Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol  2000; 35: 835– 44. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Guarne A, Brendler T, Zhao Q et al.   Crystal structure of a SeqA-N filament: implications for DNA replication and chromosome organization. EMBO J  2005; 24: 1502– 11. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Gullbrand B, Nordstrom K. FtsZ ring formation without subsequent cell division after replication runout in Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol  2000; 36: 1349– 59. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Haeusser DP, Levin PA. The great divide: coordinating cell cycle events during bacterial growth and division. Curr Opin Microbiol  2008; 11: 94– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Hale CA, Meinhardt H, de Boer PA. Dynamic localization cycle of the cell division regulator MinE in Escherichia coli. EMBO J  2001; 20: 1563– 72. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Hale CA, Rhee AC, de Boer PA. ZipA-induced bundling of FtsZ polymers mediated by an interaction between C-terminal domains. J Bacteriol  2000; 182: 5153– 66. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Hale CA, Shiomi D, Liu B et al.   Identification of Escherichia coli ZapC (YcbW) as a component of the division apparatus that binds and bundles FtsZ polymers. J Bacteriol  2011; 193: 1393– 404. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Harry EJ, Rodwell J, Wake RG. Co-ordinating DNA replication with cell division in bacteria: a link between the early stages of a round of replication and mid-cell Z ring assembly. Mol Microbiol  1999; 33: 33– 40. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Hayama R, Bahng S, Karasu ME et al.   The MukB-ParC interaction affects the intramolecular, not intermolecular, activities of topoisomerase IV. J Biol Chem  2013; 288: 7653– 61. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Hayama R, Marians KJ. Physical and functional interaction between the condensin MukB and the decatenase topoisomerase IV in Escherichia coli. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2010; 107: 18826– 31. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Helgesen E, Fossum-Raunehaug S, Saetre F et al.   Dynamic Escherichia coli SeqA complexes organize the newly replicated DNA at a considerable distance from the replisome. Nucleic Acids Res  2015; 43: 2730– 43. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Helmstetter CE, Pierucci O. DNA synthesis during the division cycle of three substrains of Escherichia coli. J Mol Biol  1976; 102: 477– 86. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Hernandez-Rocamora VM, Garcia-Montanes C, Reija B et al.   MinC protein shortens FtsZ protofilaments by preferentially interacting with GDP-bound subunits. J Biol Chem  2013; 288: 24625– 35. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Hill NS, Buske PJ, Shi Y et al.   A moonlighting enzyme links Escherichia coli cell size with central metabolism. PLoS Genet  2013; 9: e1003663. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Hu Z, Lutkenhaus J. Topological regulation of cell division in Escherichia coli involves rapid pole to pole oscillation of the division inhibitor MinC under the control of MinD and MinE. Mol Microbiol  1999; 34: 82– 90. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Huang J, Cao C, Lutkenhaus J. Interaction between FtsZ and inhibitors of cell division. J Bacteriol  1996; 178: 5080– 5. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Huisman O, D’Ari R. An inducible DNA replication-cell division coupling mechanism in E. coli. Nature  1981; 290: 797– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Huisman O, Faelen M, Girard D et al.   Multiple defects in Escherichia coli mutants lacking HU protein. J Bacteriol  1989; 171: 3704– 12. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Inoue I, Ino R, Nishimura A. New model for assembly dynamics of bacterial tubulin in relation to the stages of DNA replication. Gene Cell  2009; 14: 435– 44. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Ishida T, Akimitsu N, Kashioka T et al.   DiaA, a Novel DnaA-binding protein, ensures the timely initiation of Escherichia coli chromosome replication. J Biol Chem  2004; 279: 45546– 55. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Jameson KH, Wilkinson AJ. Control of initiation of DNA replication in Bacillus subtilis and Escherichia coli. Genes  2017; 8: 22. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Janion C. Inducible SOS response system of DNA repair and mutagenesis in Escherichia coli. Int J Biol Sci  2008; 4: 338– 44. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Joshi MC, Bourniquel A, Fisher J et al.   Escherichia coli sister chromosome separation includes an abrupt global transition with concomitant release of late-splitting intersister snaps. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2011; 108: 2765– 70. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Joshi MC, Magnan D, Montminy TP et al.   Regulation of sister chromosome cohesion by the replication fork tracking protein SeqA. PLoS Genet  2013; 9: e1003673. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Jun S, Mulder B. Entropy-driven spatial organization of highly confined polymers: lessons for the bacterial chromosome. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2006; 103: 12388– 93. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Jun S, Wright A. Entropy as the driver of chromosome segregation. Nat Rev Microbiol  2010; 8: 600– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Junier I, Boccard F, Espeli O. Polymer modeling of the E. coli genome reveals the involvement of locus positioning and macrodomain structuring for the control of chromosome conformation and segregation. Nucleic Acids Res  2014; 42: 1461– 73. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kang S, Lee H, Han JS et al.   Interaction of SeqA and Dam methylase on the hemimethylated origin of Escherichia coli chromosomal DNA replication. J Biol Chem  1999; 274: 11463– 8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Karimova G, Robichon C, Ladant D. Characterization of YmgF, a 72-residue inner membrane protein that associates with the Escherichia coli cell division machinery. J Bacteriol  2009; 191: 333– 46. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kasho K, Fujimitsu K, Matoba T et al.   Timely binding of IHF and Fis to DARS2 regulates ATP-DnaA production and replication initiation. Nucleic Acids Res  2014; 42: 13134– 49. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kasho K, Katayama T. DnaA binding locus datA promotes DnaA-ATP hydrolysis to enable cell cycle-coordinated replication initiation. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2013; 110: 936– 41. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Kasho K, Tanaka H, Sakai R et al.   Cooperative DnaA binding to the negatively supercoiled datA locus stimulates DnaA-ATP Hydrolysis. J Biol Chem  2017; 292: 1251– 66. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Katayama T, Fujimitsu K, Ogawa T. Multiple pathways regulating DnaA function in Escherichia coli: distinct roles for DnaA titration by the datA locus and the regulatory inactivation of DnaA. Biochimie  2001; 83: 13– 17. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kato J, Katayama T. Hda, a novel DnaA-related protein, regulates the replication cycle in Escherichia coli. EMBO J  2001; 20: 4253– 62. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kaur G, Vora MP, Czerwonka CA et al.   Building the bacterial orisome: high-affinity DnaA recognition plays a role in setting the conformation of oriC DNA. Mol Microbiol  2014; 91: 1148– 63. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Keller AN, Xin Y, Boer S et al.   Activation of Xer-recombination at dif: structural basis of the FtsKgamma-XerD interaction. Sci Rep  2016; 6: 33357. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kennedy SP, Chevalier F, Barre FX. Delayed activation of Xer recombination at dif by FtsK during septum assembly in Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol  2008; 68: 1018– 28. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Keyamura K, Abe Y, Higashi M et al.   DiaA dynamics are coupled with changes in initial origin complexes leading to helicase loading. J Biol Chem  2009; 284: 25038– 50. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Keyamura K, Fujikawa N, Ishida T et al.   The interaction of DiaA and DnaA regulates the replication cycle in E. coli by directly promoting ATP DnaA-specific initiation complexes. Gene Dev  2007; 21: 2083– 99. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Khan SR, Mahaseth T, Kouzminova EA et al.   Static and dynamic factors limit chromosomal replication complexity in Escherichia coli, avoiding dangers of runaway overreplication. Genetics  2016; 202: 945– 60. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kint C, Verstraeten N, Hofkens J et al.   Bacterial Obg proteins: GTPases at the nexus of protein and DNA synthesis. Crit Rev Microbiol  2014; 40: 207– 24. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kitagawa R, Mitsuki H, Okazaki T et al.   A novel DnaA protein-binding site at 94.7 min on the Escherichia coli chromosome. Mol Microbiol  1996; 19: 1137– 47. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kitagawa R, Ozaki T, Moriya S et al.   Negative control of replication initiation by a novel chromosomal locus exhibiting exceptional affinity for Escherichia coli DnaA protein. Gene Dev  1998; 12: 3032– 43. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kobayashi G, Moriya S, Wada C. Deficiency of essential GTP-binding protein ObgE in Escherichia coli inhibits chromosome partition. Mol Microbiol  2001; 41: 1037– 51. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kowalski D, Eddy MJ. The DNA unwinding element: a novel, cis-acting component that facilitates opening of the Escherichia coli replication origin. EMBO J  1989; 8: 4335– 44. Google Scholar PubMed  Krupka M, Rowlett VW, Morado D et al.   Escherichia coli FtsA forms lipid-bound minirings that antagonize lateral interactions between FtsZ protofilaments. Nat Commun  2017; 8: 15957. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kurokawa K, Nishida S, Emoto A et al.   Replication cycle-coordinated change of the adenine nucleotide-bound forms of DnaA protein in Escherichia coli. EMBO J  1999; 18: 6642– 52. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kurz M, Dalrymple B, Wijffels G et al.   Interaction of the sliding clamp beta-subunit and Hda, a DnaA-related protein. J Bacteriol  2004; 186: 3508– 15. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kuwada NJ, Cheveralls KC, Traxler B et al.   Mapping the driving forces of chromosome structure and segregation in Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res  2013; 41: 7370– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kuzminov A. The chromosome cycle of prokaryotes. Mol Microbiol  2013; 90: 214– 27. Google Scholar PubMed  Lackner LL, Raskin DM, de Boer PA. ATP-dependent interactions between Escherichia coli Min proteins and the phospholipid membrane in vitro. J Bacteriol  2003; 185: 735– 49. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Lemon KP, Grossman AD. The extrusion-capture model for chromosome partitioning in bacteria. Gene Dev  2001; 15: 2031– 41. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Leonard AC, Grimwade JE. The orisome: structure and function. Front Microbiol  2015; 6: 545. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Lesterlin C, Gigant E, Boccard F et al.   Sister chromatid interactions in bacteria revealed by a site-specific recombination assay. EMBO J  2012; 31: 3468– 79. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Levy O, Ptacin JL, Pease PJ et al.   Identification of oligonucleotide sequences that direct the movement of the Escherichia coli FtsK translocase. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2005; 102: 17618– 23. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Li Y, Stewart NK, Berger AJ et al.   Escherichia coli condensin MukB stimulates topoisomerase IV activity by a direct physical interaction. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2010; 107: 18832– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Lies M, Visser BJ, Joshi MC et al.   MioC and GidA proteins promote cell division in E. coli. Front Microbiol  2015; 6: 516. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Lobner-Olesen A, Atlung T, Rasmussen KV. Stability and replication control of Escherichia coli minichromosomes. J Bacteriol  1987; 169: 2835– 42. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Lockhart A, Kendrick-Jones J. Nucleotide-dependent interaction of the N-terminal domain of MukB with microtubules. J Struct Biol  1998; 124: 303– 10. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Loose M, Mitchison TJ. The bacterial cell division proteins FtsA and FtsZ self-organize into dynamic cytoskeletal patterns. Nat Cell Biol  2014; 16: 38– 46. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Lowe J, Amos LA. Crystal structure of the bacterial cell-division protein FtsZ. Nature  1998; 391: 203– 6. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Lu M, Campbell JL, Boye E et al.   SeqA: A negative modulator of replication initiation in E. coli. Cell  1994; 77: 413– 26. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Ma X, Margolin W. Genetic and functional analyses of the conserved C-terminal core domain of Escherichia coli FtsZ. J Bacteriol  1999; 181: 7531– 44. Google Scholar PubMed  McGarry KC, Ryan VT, Grimwade JE et al.   Two discriminatory binding sites in the Escherichia coli replication origin are required for DNA strand opening by initiator DnaA-ATP. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2004; 101: 2811– 6. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Magnan D, Joshi MC, Barker AK et al.   DNA Replication initiation is blocked by a distant chromosome-membrane attachment. Curr Biol  2015; 25: 2143– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Makise M, Mima S, Katsu T et al.   Acidic phospholipids inhibit the DNA-binding activity of DnaA protein, the initiator of chromosomal DNA replication in Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol  2002; 46: 245– 56. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Mannik J, Bailey MW, O’Neill JC. Kinetics of large-scale chromosomal movement during asymmetric cell division in Escherichia coli. PLoS Genet  2017; 13: e1006638. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Mannik J, Castillo DE, Yang D et al.   The role of MatP, ZapA and ZapB in chromosomal organization and dynamics in Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res  2016; 44: 1216– 26. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Mannik J, Wu F, Hol FJ et al.   Robustness and accuracy of cell division in Escherichia coli in diverse cell shapes. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2012; 109: 6957– 62. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Marko JF. Linking topology of tethered polymer rings with applications to chromosome segregation and estimation of the knotting length. Phys Rev E  2009; 79: 051905. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Marteyn BS, Karimova G, Fenton AK et al.   ZapE is a novel cell division protein interacting with FtsZ and modulating the Z-ring dynamics. mBio  2014; 5: e00022– 14. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Martin CM, Viguera E, Guzman EC. Rifampicin suppresses thymineless death by blocking the transcription-dependent step of chromosome initiation. DNA Repair  2014; 18: 10– 17. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Mercier R, Petit MA, Schbath S et al.   The MatP/matS site-specific system organizes the terminus region of the E. coli chromosome into a macrodomain. Cell  2008; 135: 475– 85. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Michelsen O, Teixeira de Mattos MJ, Jensen PR et al.   Precise determinations of C and D periods by flow cytometry in Escherichia coli K-12 and B/r. Microbiology  2003; 149: 1001– 10. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Miller DT, Grimwade JE, Betteridge T et al.   Bacterial origin recognition complexes direct assembly of higher-order DnaA oligomeric structures. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2009; 106: 18479– 84. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Mizusawa S, Gottesman S. Protein degradation in Escherichia coli: the lon gene controls the stability of sulA protein. P Natl Acad Sci  1983; 80: 358– 62. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Mohammadi T, van Dam V, Sijbrandi R et al.   Identification of FtsW as a transporter of lipid-linked cell wall precursors across the membrane. EMBO J  2011; 30: 1425– 32. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Morigen M, Flatten I, Skarstad K. The Escherichia coli datA site promotes proper regulation of cell division. Microbiology  2014; 160: 703– 10. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Morimoto T, Loh PC, Hirai T et al.   Six GTP-binding proteins of the Era/Obg family are essential for cell growth in Bacillus subtilis. Microbiology  2002; 148: 3539– 52. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Moriya S, Rashid RA, Rodrigues CD et al.   Influence of the nucleoid and the early stages of DNA replication on positioning the division site in Bacillus subtilis. Mol Microbiol  2010; 76: 634– 47. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Mukherjee A, Lutkenhaus J. Dynamic assembly of FtsZ regulated by GTP hydrolysis. EMBO J  1998; 17: 462– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Mulder E, El’Bouhali M, Pas E et al.   The Escherichia cohi minB mutation resembles gyrB in defective nucleoid segregation and decreased negative supercoiling of plasmids. Mol Gen Genet  1990; 221: 87– 93. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Mulder E, Woldringh CL. Actively replicating nucleoids influence positioning of division sites in Escherichia coli filaments forming cells lacking DNA. J Bacteriol  1989; 171: 4303– 14. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Nicolas E, Upton AL, Uphoff S et al.   The SMC complex MukBEF recruits topoisomerase IV to the origin of replication region in live Escherichia coli. mBio  2014; 5: e01001– 13. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Nielsen HJ, Li Y, Youngren B et al.   Progressive segregation of the Escherichia coli chromosome. Mol Microbiol  2006; 61: 383– 93. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Nievera C, Torgue JJ, Grimwade JE et al.   SeqA blocking of DnaA-oriC interactions ensures staged assembly of the E. coli pre-RC. Mol Cell  2006; 24: 581– 92. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Niki H, Jaffe A, Imamura R et al.   The new gene mukB codes for a 177 kd protein with coiled-coil domains involved in chromosome partitioning of E. coli. EMBO J  1991; 10: 183– 93. Google Scholar PubMed  Niki H, Yamaichi Y, Hiraga S. Dynamic organization of chromosomal DNA in Escherichia coli. Gene Dev  2000; 14: 212– 23. Google Scholar PubMed  Nolivos S, Upton AL, Badrinarayanan A et al.   MatP regulates the coordinated action of topoisomerase IV and MukBEF in chromosome segregation. Nat Commun  2016; 7: 10466. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Nordman J, Skovgaard O, Wright A. A novel class of mutations that affect DNA replication in E. coli. Mol Microbiol  2007; 64: 125– 38. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Nordstrom K, Bernander R, Dasgupta S. The Escherichia coli cell cycle: one cycle or multiple independent processes that are co-ordinated? Mol Microbiol  1991; 5: 769– 74. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Nozaki N, Okazaki T, Ogawa T. In vitro transcription of the origin region of replication of the Escherichia coli chromosome. J Biol Chem  1988; 263: 14176– 83. Google Scholar PubMed  Nozaki S, Yamada Y, Ogawa T. Initiator titration complex formed at datA with the aid of IHF regulates replication timing in Escherichia coli. Gene Cell  2009; 14: 329– 41. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Odsbu I, Klungsoyr HK, Fossum S et al.   Specific N-terminal interactions of the Escherichia coli SeqA protein are required to form multimers that restrain negative supercoils and form foci. Gene Cell  2005; 10: 1039– 49. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Ogawa T, Okazaki T. Concurrent transcription from the gid and mioC promoters activates replication of an Escherichia coli minichromosome. Mol Gen Genet  1991; 230: 193– 200. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Ogawa T, Okazaki T. Cell cycle-dependent transcription from the gid and mioC promoters of Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol  1994; 176: 1609– 15. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Osawa M, Anderson DE, Erickson HP. Reconstitution of contractile FtsZ rings in liposomes. Science  2008; 320: 792– 4. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Osella M, Nugent E, Cosentino Lagomarsino M. Concerted control of Escherichia coli cell division. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2014; 111: 3431– 5. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Park KT, Villar MT, Artigues A et al.   MinE conformational dynamics regulate membrane binding, MinD interaction, and Min oscillation. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2017; 114: 7497– 504. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Park KT, Wu W, Battaile KP et al.   The Min oscillator uses MinD-dependent conformational changes in MinE to spatially regulate cytokinesis. Cell  2011; 146: 396– 407. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Pedersen IB, Helgesen E, Flatten I et al.   SeqA structures behind Escherichia coli replication forks affect replication elongation and restart mechanisms. Nucleic Acids Res  2017; 45: 6471– 85. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Pichoff S, Lutkenhaus J. Unique and overlapping roles for ZipA and FtsA in septal ring assembly in Escherichia coli. EMBO J  2002; 21: 685– 93. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Raskin DM, de Boer PA. MinDE-dependent pole-to-pole oscillation of division inhibitor MinC in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol  1999a; 181: 6419– 24. Raskin DM, de Boer PA. Rapid pole-to-pole oscillation of a protein required for directing division to the middle of Escherichia coli. P Natl Acad Sci USA  1999b; 96: 4971– 6. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Riber L, Frimodt-Moller J, Charbon G et al.   Multiple DNA binding proteins contribute to timing of chromosome replication in E. coli. Front Mol Biosci  2016; 3: 29. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Richardson TT, Harran O, Murray H. The bacterial DnaA-trio replication origin element specifies single-stranded DNA initiator binding. Nature  2016; 534: 412– 6. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Rotman E, Bratcher P, Kuzminov A. Reduced lipopolysaccharide phosphorylation in Escherichia coli lowers the elevated ori/ter ratio in seqA mutants. Mol Microbiol  2009; 72: 1273– 92. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Rotman E, Khan SR, Kouzminova E et al.   Replication fork inhibition in seqA mutants of E scherichia coli triggers replication fork breakage. Mol Microbiol  2014; 93: 50– 64. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Rozgaja TA, Grimwade JE, Iqbal M et al.   Two oppositely oriented arrays of low-affinity recognition sites in oriC guide progressive binding of DnaA during Escherichia coli pre-RC assembly. Mol Microbiol  2011; 82: 475– 88. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Ryan VT, Grimwade JE, Camara JE et al.   Escherichia coli prereplication complex assembly is regulated by dynamic interplay among Fis, IHF and DnaA. Mol Microbiol  2004; 51: 1347– 59. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Ryan VT, Grimwade JE, Nievera CJ et al.   IHF and HU stimulate assembly of pre-replication complexes at Escherichia coli oriC by two different mechanisms. Mol Microbiol  2002; 46: 113– 24. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Rybenkov VV, Herrera V, Petrushenko ZM et al.   MukBEF, a chromosomal organizer. J Mol Microb Biotech  2014; 24: 371– 83. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Sanchez-Romero MA, Busby SJ, Dyer NP et al.   Dynamic distribution of SeqA protein across the chromosome of Escherichia coli K-12. mBio  2010; 1: e00012-10. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Saxena R, Fingland N, Patil D et al.   Crosstalk between DnaA protein, the initiator of Escherichia coli chromosomal replication, and acidic phospholipids present in bacterial membranes. IJMS  2013; 14: 8517– 37. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Scheffers DJ, de Wit JG, den Blaauwen T et al.   GTP hydrolysis of cell division protein FtsZ: evidence that the active site is formed by the association of monomers. Biochemistry  2002; 41: 521– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Schumacher MA, Zeng W. Structures of the nucleoid occlusion protein SlmA bound to DNA and the C-terminal domain of the cytoskeletal protein FtsZ. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2016; 113: 4988– 93. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Sekimizu K, Bramhill D, Kornberg A. ATP activates DnaA protein in initiating replication of plasmids bearing the origin of the E. coli chromosome. Cell  1987; 50: 259– 65. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Sekimizu K, Kornberg A. Cardiolipin activation of dnaA protein, the initiation protein of replication in Escherichia coli. J Biol Chem  1988; 263: 7131– 5. Google Scholar PubMed  Shen B, Lutkenhaus J. The conserved C-terminal tail of FtsZ is required for the septal localization and division inhibitory activity of MinC C/MinD. Mol Microbiol  2009; 72: 410– 24. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Shen B, Lutkenhaus J. Examination of the interaction between FtsZ and MinC N in E. coli suggests how MinC disrupts Z rings. Mol Microbiol  2010; 75: 1285– 98. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Sikora AE, Zielke R, Wegrzyn A et al.   DNA replication defect in the Escherichia coli cgtA(ts) mutant arising from reduced DnaA levels. Arch Microbiol  2006; 185: 340– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Sivanathan V, Emerson JE, Pages C et al.   KOPS-guided DNA translocation by FtsK safeguards Escherichia coli chromosome segregation. Mol Microbiol  2009; 71: 1031– 42. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Skarstad K, Steen HB, Boye E. Cell cycle parameters of slowly growing Escherichia coli B/r studied by flow cytometry. J Bacteriol  1983; 154: 656– 62. Google Scholar PubMed  Slater S, Wold S, Lu M et al.   E. coli SeqA protein binds oriC in two different methyl-modulated reactions appropriate to its roles in DNA replication initiation and origin sequestration. Cell  1995; 82: 927– 36. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Steiner W, Liu G, Donachie WD et al.   The cytoplasmic domain of FtsK protein is required for resolution of chromosome dimers. Mol Microbiol  1999; 31: 579– 83. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Stouf M, Meile JC, Cornet F. FtsK actively segregates sister chromosomes in Escherichia coli. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2013; 110: 11157– 62. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Stuitje AR, de Wind N, van der Spek JC et al.   Dissection of promoter sequences involved in transcriptional activation of the Escherichia coli replication origin. Nucleic Acids Res  1986; 14: 2333– 44. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Su’etsugu M, Nakamura K, Keyamura K et al.   Hda monomerization by ADP binding promotes replicase clamp-mediated DnaA-ATP hydrolysis. J Biol Chem  2008; 283: 36118– 31. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Sun Q, Margolin W. Influence of the nucleoid on placement of FtsZ and MinE rings in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol  2001; 183: 1413– 22. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Sun Q, Yu XC, Margolin W. Assembly of the FtsZ ring at the central division site in the absence of the chromosome. Mol Microbiol  1998; 29: 491– 503. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Sutera VAJr, Lovett ST. The role of replication initiation control in promoting survival of replication fork damage. Mol Microbiol  2006; 60: 229– 39. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Szeto TH, Rowland SL, Rothfield LI et al.   Nonlinear partial differential equations and applications: Membrane localization of MinD is mediated by a C-terminal motif that is conserved across eubacteria, archaea, and chloroplasts. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2002; 99: 15693– 8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Taheri-Araghi S, Bradde S, Sauls JT et al.   Cell-size control and homeostasis in bacteria. Curr Biol  2015; 25: 385– 91. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Theisen PW, Grimwade JE, Leonard AC et al.   Correlation of gene transcription with the time of initiation of chromosome replication in Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol  1993; 10: 575– 84. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Tonthat NK, Arold ST, Pickering BF et al.   Molecular mechanism by which the nucleoid occlusion factor, SlmA, keeps cytokinesis in check. EMBO J  2011; 30: 154– 64. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Tonthat NK, Milam SL, Chinnam N et al.   SlmA forms a higher-order structure on DNA that inhibits cytokinetic Z-ring formation over the nucleoid. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2013; 110: 10586– 91. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Torheim NK, Skarstad K. Escherichia coli SeqA protein affects DNA topology and inhibits open complex formation at oriC. EMBO J  1999; 18: 4882– 8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Trusca D, Scott S, Thompson C et al.   Bacterial SOS checkpoint protein SulA inhibits polymerization of purified FtsZ cell division protein. J Bacteriol  1998; 180: 3946– 53. Google Scholar PubMed  Valens M, Penaud S, Rossignol M et al.   Macrodomain organization of the Escherichia coli chromosome. EMBO J  2004; 23: 4330– 41. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Valens M, Thiel A, Boccard F. The MaoP/maoS site-specific system organizes the Ori region of the E. coli chromosome into a macrodomain. PLoS Genet  2016; 12: e1006309. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Vecchiarelli AG, Li M, Mizuuchi M et al.   Membrane-bound MinDE complex acts as a toggle switch that drives Min oscillation coupled to cytoplasmic depletion of MinD. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2016; 113: E1479– 88. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Verstraeten N, Fauvart M, Versees W et al.   The universally conserved prokaryotic GTPases. Microbiol Mol Biol R  2011; 75: 507– 42. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Verstraeten N, Knapen WJ, Kint CI et al.   Obg and membrane depolarization are part of a microbial bet-hedging strategy that leads to antibiotic tolerance. Mol Cell  2015; 59: 9– 21. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  von Freiesleben U, Krekling MA, Hansen FG et al.   The eclipse period of Escherichia coli. EMBO J  2000; 19: 6240– 8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Waldminghaus T, Weigel C, Skarstad K. Replication fork movement and methylation govern SeqA binding to the Escherichia coli chromosome. Nucleic Acids Res  2012; 40: 5465– 76. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Wallden M, Fange D, Lundius EG et al.   The synchronization of replication and division cycles in individual E. coli cells. Cell  2016; 166: 729– 39. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Wang L, Lutkenhaus J. FtsK is an essential cell division protein that is localized to the septum and induced as part of the SOS response. Mol Microbiol  1998; 29: 731– 40. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Wang Q, Mordukhova EA, Edwards AL et al.   Chromosome condensation in the absence of the non-SMC subunits of MukBEF. J Bacteriol  2006; 188: 4431– 41. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Wang X, Montero Llopis P, Rudner DZ. Organization and segregation of bacterial chromosomes. Nat Rev Genet  2013; 14: 191– 203. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Wang X, Possoz C, Sherratt DJ. Dancing around the divisome: asymmetric chromosome segregation in Escherichia coli. Gene Dev  2005; 19: 2367– 77. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Wang X, Reyes-Lamothe R, Sherratt DJ. Modulation of Escherichia coli sister chromosome cohesion by topoisomerase IV. Gene Dev  2008; 22: 2426– 33. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Weart RB, Lee AH, Chien AC et al.   A metabolic sensor governing cell size in bacteria. Cell  2007; 130: 335– 47. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Westfall CS, Levin PA. Bacterial cell size: multifactorial and multifaceted. Annu Rev Microbiol  2017; 71: 499– 517. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Willis L, Huang KC. Sizing up the bacterial cell cycle. Nat Rev Microbiol  2017; 15: 606– 20. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Wu LJ, Errington J. Nucleoid occlusion and bacterial cell division. Nat Rev Microbiol  2011; 10: 8– 12. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Xia W, Dowhan W. In vivo evidence for the involvement of anionic phospholipids in initiation of DNA replication in Escherichia coli. P Natl Acad Sci USA  1995; 92: 783– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Yamanaka K, Ogura T, Niki H et al.   Identification of two new genes, mukE and mukF, involved in chromosome partitioning in Escherichia coli. Mol Gen Genet  1996; 250: 241– 51. Google Scholar PubMed  Yang X, Lyu Z, Miguel A et al.   GTPase activity-coupled treadmilling of the bacterial tubulin FtsZ organizes septal cell wall synthesis. Science  2017; 355: 744– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Yu XC, Weihe EK, Margolin W. Role of the C terminus of FtsK in Escherichia coli chromosome segregation. J Bacteriol  1998; 180: 6424– 8. Google Scholar PubMed  Zawadzki P, Stracy M, Ginda K et al.   The localization and action of topoisomerase IV in Escherichia coli chromosome segregation is coordinated by the SMC complex, MukBEF. Cell Rep  2015; 13: 2587– 96. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  © FEMS 2018. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png FEMS Microbiology Reviews Oxford University Press

An integrative view of cell cycle control in Escherichia coli

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/an-integrative-view-of-cell-cycle-control-in-escherichia-coli-uCxZakb167
Publisher
Blackwell
Copyright
© FEMS 2018. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
ISSN
0168-6445
eISSN
1574-6976
D.O.I.
10.1093/femsre/fuy005
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract Bacterial proliferation depends on the cells’ capability to proceed through consecutive rounds of the cell cycle. The cell cycle consists of a series of events during which cells grow, copy their genome, partition the duplicated DNA into different cell halves and, ultimately, divide to produce two newly formed daughter cells. Cell cycle control is of the utmost importance to maintain the correct order of events and safeguard the integrity of the cell and its genomic information. This review covers insights into the regulation of individual key cell cycle events in Escherichia coli. The control of initiation of DNA replication, chromosome segregation and cell division is discussed. Furthermore, we highlight connections between these processes. Although detailed mechanistic insight into these connections is largely still emerging, it is clear that the different processes of the bacterial cell cycle are coordinated to one another. This careful coordination of events ensures that every daughter cell ends up with one complete and intact copy of the genome, which is vital for bacterial survival. cell cycle, cell cycle regulation, initiation of replication, chromosome segregation, cell division, Escherichia coli INTRODUCTION The bacterial cell cycle can generally be divided into three stages, B, C and D, during which DNA is replicated, chromosomes are segregated and cells grow and divide (Fig. 1a and b) (Cooper and Helmstetter 1968; Helmstetter and Pierucci 1976; Skarstad, Steen and Boye 1983; Michelsen et al.2003). The B phase is a gap phase that is characterized by the absence of any major cell cycle event. DNA is replicated during the C period. In the final stage of the cell cycle, the D period, bacteria split into two daughter cells that each contain a full copy of the genomic information. The initiation and termination of chromosome replication define the beginning and end of the C period, respectively. The completion of cell division marks the end of the D phase after which the cycle starts anew. The other major events of the bacterial life cycle, i.e. chromosome segregation and the onset of cell division, are not associated with phase transitions. Chromosome segregation occurs simultaneously with DNA replication but with a certain delay, meaning that it starts during C and extends into D (Nielsen et al.2006; Joshi et al.2013; Kuzminov 2013). Cell division is initiated when the divisome protein FtsZ forms a ring structure at midcell, which often occurs in the C period before replication is completed (Den Blaauwen et al.1999; Inoue, Ino and Nishimura 2009). Cell growth occurs throughout the cell cycle (Wallden et al.2016). Figure 1. View largeDownload slide The bacterial cell cycle. The bacterial cell cycle can be divided into three stages: B, C and D. (a) The B phase of the cell cycle is a gap phase. During the C period, the chromosome is duplicated. In the D period, cells divide to produce two newly formed daughter cells. When the generation time, τ, drops below 60 min, the B stage is skipped entirely and cells are born with replicating chromosomes (dotted line). (b) Schematic overview of important cell cycle events and how they are coordinated. In this example, cells double every 96 min. The B, C and D periods take 8, 54 and 34 min, respectively (Michelsen et al.2003). The cell cycle is depicted as two independent but coordinated cycles. The chromosome cycle (outer circle, blue) consists of DNA replication and chromosome segregation, which partially overlap. Replication starts upon DNA duplex unwinding at the DUE in oriC, which occurs when DnaA-ATP concentrations are high. Segregation is delayed in comparison to replication due to SeqA binding of newly replicated DNA. The division cycle (inner circle, green) is connected to the chromosome cycle by multiple mechanisms. Bulk chromosome segregation relieves nucleoid occlusion at midcell and unmasks the positive FtsZ guidance signal provided by the Ter linkage, thereby allowing Z-ring formation at midcell. During cell constriction, FtsK can speed up chromosome segregation. Additional connections between different processes exist but are not indicated in this figure. See the text for more details. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide The bacterial cell cycle. The bacterial cell cycle can be divided into three stages: B, C and D. (a) The B phase of the cell cycle is a gap phase. During the C period, the chromosome is duplicated. In the D period, cells divide to produce two newly formed daughter cells. When the generation time, τ, drops below 60 min, the B stage is skipped entirely and cells are born with replicating chromosomes (dotted line). (b) Schematic overview of important cell cycle events and how they are coordinated. In this example, cells double every 96 min. The B, C and D periods take 8, 54 and 34 min, respectively (Michelsen et al.2003). The cell cycle is depicted as two independent but coordinated cycles. The chromosome cycle (outer circle, blue) consists of DNA replication and chromosome segregation, which partially overlap. Replication starts upon DNA duplex unwinding at the DUE in oriC, which occurs when DnaA-ATP concentrations are high. Segregation is delayed in comparison to replication due to SeqA binding of newly replicated DNA. The division cycle (inner circle, green) is connected to the chromosome cycle by multiple mechanisms. Bulk chromosome segregation relieves nucleoid occlusion at midcell and unmasks the positive FtsZ guidance signal provided by the Ter linkage, thereby allowing Z-ring formation at midcell. During cell constriction, FtsK can speed up chromosome segregation. Additional connections between different processes exist but are not indicated in this figure. See the text for more details. The duration of the B, C and D periods is not fixed but varies depending on the growth rate. Especially the B period is extremely variable in length. Under fast growth conditions, the B stage is skipped entirely, whereas cells spend much time in B when they grow with generation times above 60 min (Fig. 1a) (Cooper and Helmstetter 1968; Helmstetter and Pierucci 1976; Skarstad, Steen and Boye 1983; Michelsen et al.2003). Under these slow growth conditions, the length of the C and D period increases with increasing generation time (Michelsen et al.2003). However, at generation times of 60 min or less, the length of both the C and D period is more or less constant (Cooper and Helmstetter 1968; Wallden et al.2016). The length of the C period coincides with the duration of DNA replication and, for Escherichia coli, cannot decrease below ∼40 min (Cooper and Helmstetter 1968). Nonetheless, the time between two consecutive rounds of cell division can be as short as 20 min. E. coli can divide faster than the time needed to duplicate the chromosome by performing multifork replication. During multifork replication, a new round of replication is initiated while previous rounds are still ongoing. Consequentially, replication initiation for a new cell cycle occurs before cell division of the previous cell cycle has been completed. By already initiating DNA replication in the mother or grandmother generation, the cell can decrease the interdivision time below the time needed to replicate the entire genome (Cooper and Helmstetter 1968; Khan et al.2016). This multifork mode of replication demonstrates the flexibility of the E. coli cell cycle. Cell cycle progression must be tightly controlled, since the accuracy and correct timing of constituent events is vital for cellular integrity and viability. Moreover, since most bacteria carefully maintain their size over different generations, cell growth and progression of the cell cycle must be intimately linked. Two pioneering studies from Cooper and Helmstetter (1968) and Donachie (1968) long dominated our view on cell cycle control. In the resulting model for cell cycle regulation, it was postulated that replication is initiated once cells reach a critical size per origin of replication present in the cell (Donachie 1968). It was proposed that this behavior is controlled by the growth-dependent synthesis of a ‘cellular initiator substance’ that triggers initiation of replication once it exceeds a certain threshold (Donachie 1968). After replication has started, the C and D periods were thought to be invariable in length, resulting in cell division a fixed time after initiation of replication (Cooper and Helmstetter 1968). In this early model, which consists of ‘sizer’ and ‘timer’ regulation, control of both the cell cycle and cell size is thus mainly carried out at the level of initiation of replication by a hypothesized initiator substance. Our current view of cell cycle and size control deviates somewhat from this original model. Even though initiation of replication could be controlled by the accumulation of an initiator, no such factor has been identified yet (Flatten et al.2015; Barber et al.2017; Willis and Huang 2017). Moreover, several recent studies have shown that, rather than acting as ‘sizers’ or ‘timers’, bacteria try to add a fixed size increment during their cell cycle and therefore behave as ‘adders’ (Amir 2014; Campos et al.2014; Osella, Nugent and Cosentino Lagomarsino 2014; Taheri-Araghi et al.2015). However, various reported deviations from the adder behavior suggest that this size control mechanism might not be universal and that size regulation can vary in different species and/or growth conditions (Wallden et al.2016; Willis and Huang 2017). The finding that the duration of C and D is not constant implies that cell division is not automatically triggered after a fixed delay following initiation. Replication, chromosome segregation and cell division therefore do not proceed unconditionally once initiation has occurred, but are submitted to additional levels of control. Cell division, for example, is also controlled by nutrient status. In Bacillus subtilis and Escherichia coli cell division can be delayed in a UDP glucose-dependent manner by the metabolic sensors UgtP and OpgH, respectively (Weart et al.2007; Hill et al.2013; Westfall and Levin 2017). Moreover, various studies have shown that cell cycle events do not necessarily proceed in a fixed successive and interdependent order. For example, a new round of replication can be initiated before division has taken place during multifork replication (Cooper and Helmstetter 1968) and inhibiting cell division does not influence replication or segregation (Bi and Lutkenhaus 1991). Because of this flexibility, the bacterial cell cycle can be depicted as multiple separated cycles (Fig. 1b) (Nordstrom, Bernander and Dasgupta 1991; Boye and Nordstrom 2003). It is, however, important that these cycles can communicate with each other and can influence each other's progression to ensure that one round of replication occurs per division event and that division does not jeopardize genomic integrity. Regulatory mechanisms must therefore exist to coordinate different cell cycle events. Coordination could be achieved by direct links between cell cycle events, or could proceed indirectly by coupling to cell size increase or metabolic status (Westfall and Levin 2017; Willis and Huang 2017). In this review, we focus on the main events of the bacterial cell cycle: DNA replication, chromosome segregation and cell division. We discuss how they are regulated in E. coli and how they are directly connected to each other. We argue that these direct connections, albeit often not fully characterized yet, contribute to the careful coordination of cell cycle events that is vital for bacterial survival and genomic integrity. INITIATION OF DNA REPLICATION oriC unwinding by DnaA To ensure that the bacterial chromosome is replicated exactly once every cell cycle, DNA replication must be tightly controlled. Replication is predominantly regulated at the stage of initiation, a process that is largely dependent on the widely conserved initiation protein DnaA. DnaA is an ATPase that binds to specific DNA sequences, called DnaA boxes, in the unique oriC region of the E. coli chromosome (Sekimizu, Bramhill and Kornberg 1987; Jameson and Wilkinson 2017). High-affinity DnaA boxes are bound by DnaA in both its ATP- and ADP-bound form throughout the cell cycle. At the onset of replication, occupied high-affinity boxes act as nucleation sites to initiate the cooperative assembly of DnaA oligomers onto arrays of low-affinity binding sites (Miller et al.2009; Rozgaja et al.2011). These low-affinity boxes, however, preferentially bind the active ATP-bound form of DnaA (McGarry et al.2004), which accumulates right before the onset of replication (Kurokawa et al.1999). When all binding sites are occupied, unwinding of an AT-rich region in oriC called the DNA unwinding element (DUE) is triggered and the resulting single-stranded DNA region is stabilized and stretched by DnaA filament formation (Bramhill and Kornberg 1988; Kowalski and Eddy 1989; McGarry et al.2004; Duderstadt, Chuang and Berger 2011; Richardson, Harran and Murray 2016). This process of oriC unwinding has been recently reviewed in detail (Leonard and Grimwade 2015; Jameson and Wilkinson 2017). Upon duplex DNA melting, DnaA triggers the processive recruitment of all necessary replisome components, starting with the helicase DnaB (Fang, Davey and O’Donnell 1999; Jameson and Wilkinson 2017). In conclusion, replication is initiated upon oriC unwinding, a process that requires the active form of DnaA. Factors that either control the cellular concentration of DnaA-ATP or that directly influence DUE unwinding are therefore important regulatory inputs for replication. The DnaA-ATP activity cycle The timing and synchrony of replication initiation is largely regulated by a cyclic accumulation and degradation of the active DnaA-ATP complex throughout the cell cycle. The underlying mechanisms are described below and depicted in Fig. 2. At its highest concentration, activated DnaA assembles onto oriC and initiates replication. At this time, DnaA-ATP levels reach a maximum of 80% of the total cellular DnaA (Kurokawa et al.1999). Soon after replication has started, the concentration of active DnaA decreases to its baseline level of 20% to prevent premature reinitiation (Kurokawa et al.1999). Figure 2. View largeDownload slide Control of replication initiation by the DnaA-ATP cycle. Several regulatory mechanisms work together to control the cellular levels of active DnaA-ATP in relation to replication and the bacterial cell cycle. RIDA lowers DnaA-ATP levels by triggering ATP hydrolysis during replication. The datA locus also converts DnaA-ATP to its inactive form. This process is referred to as DDAH and is only active when datA is bound to IHF. The DARS regions release the bound ADP molecule from inactive DnaA, an activity also performed by acidic phospholipids. Together with de novo DnaA synthesis, DARS regions and acidic phospholipids produce apo-DnaA that most likely binds ATP due to excess of this molecule compared to ADP. This figure is not drawn to scale. Figure 2. View largeDownload slide Control of replication initiation by the DnaA-ATP cycle. Several regulatory mechanisms work together to control the cellular levels of active DnaA-ATP in relation to replication and the bacterial cell cycle. RIDA lowers DnaA-ATP levels by triggering ATP hydrolysis during replication. The datA locus also converts DnaA-ATP to its inactive form. This process is referred to as DDAH and is only active when datA is bound to IHF. The DARS regions release the bound ADP molecule from inactive DnaA, an activity also performed by acidic phospholipids. Together with de novo DnaA synthesis, DARS regions and acidic phospholipids produce apo-DnaA that most likely binds ATP due to excess of this molecule compared to ADP. This figure is not drawn to scale. This decrease is mainly caused by the stimulation of DnaA's ATP hydrolase activity in a process termed RIDA (regulatory inactivation of DnaA). RIDA is carried out by a complex that consists of the Hda protein and the β-subunit of DNA polymerase III (Kurokawa et al.1999; Kato and Katayama 2001). When Hda is bound to ADP, this complex promotes the conversion of DnaA-ATP to its inactive ADP-bound form (Kurz et al.2004; Su’etsugu et al.2008). Importantly, RIDA is only active when the β-subunit of DNA polymerase III is loaded onto DNA (Kurokawa et al.1999). This DnaA inactivation mechanism is therefore switched on once replication has started and then decreases the cellular initiation potential. RIDA is turned off upon termination of replication, allowing DnaA-ATP to accumulate in the cell and initiate a new replication cycle. A second system that stimulates DnaA-ATP hydrolysis is dependent on the genomic datA locus and is called DDAH (datA-dependent DnaA-ATP hydrolysis) (Kasho and Katayama 2013). datA, similar to oriC, contains several DnaA boxes that bind DnaA-ATP, albeit with lower affinity (Kitagawa et al.1996). Although it was previously believed that datA prevents premature reinitiation of replication solely by titrating DnaA-ATP (Kitagawa et al.1998; Nozaki, Yamada and Ogawa 2009), it is now clear that cooperative assembly of DnaA-ATP oligomers onto the datA region also stimulates DnaA-ATP hydrolysis, rendering DnaA inactive (Kasho and Katayama 2013; Kasho et al.2017). The DDAH inactivation mechanism is not constitutively active, but is switched on by binding of the nucleoid-associated protein (NAP) IHF to datA, which occurs immediately after initiation (Nozaki, Yamada and Ogawa 2009; Kasho and Katayama 2013). DDAH therefore helps to prevent premature reinitiation of replication (Kasho and Katayama 2013). In the absence of RIDA, the amount of DnaA bound to ATP rises from 20% to 70% (Kato and Katayama 2001; Kasho and Katayama 2013). This amount further increases to 88%–97% upon deletion of datA (Kasho and Katayama 2013). Deletion of datA in the presence of a functional RIDA system has no observable effect on DnaA-ATP levels (Katayama, Fujimitsu and Ogawa 2001). Moreover, although defects in both systems are associated with over-replication, disturbance of RIDA has a more dramatic effect than disturbance of DDAH (Kato and Katayama 2001; Camara et al.2005; Nozaki, Yamada and Ogawa 2009). RIDA is therefore the most important system keeping DnaA-ATP levels at bay during the larger part of the cell cycle, aided by DDAH which might serve to further fine-tune DnaA-ATP concentrations. When the cell is ready to initiate replication, the amount of DnaA-ATP must increase again. This increase is in part caused by cell cycle-dependent de novo DnaA synthesis (Campbell and Kleckner 1990; Bogan and Helmstetter 1997). Due to an excess of cellular ATP compared to ADP, newly synthesized DnaA will most likely associate with ATP (Fujimitsu, Senriuchi and Katayama 2009). In addition, at least two reactivation pathways are able to convert inactive DnaA-ADP to its ATP-bound form (Kurokawa et al.1999). One of these pathways is mediated by two functionally distinct genomic regions located at opposite halves of the chromosome. These regions are called DARS1 and DARS2 for DnaA-reactivating sequence (Fujimitsu, Senriuchi and Katayama 2009). DARS regions contain DnaA boxes that, upon cooperative binding of DnaA-ADP, stimulate the dissociation of ADP. The resulting apo-DnaA oligomers are released from the DNA, allowing them to bind ATP (Fujimitsu, Senriuchi and Katayama 2009; Kasho et al.2014). Although the working mechanisms of both DARS sequences appear quite similar (Fujimitsu, Senriuchi and Katayama 2009; Kasho et al.2014), their activities differ greatly. DARS2 consistently has a stronger effect on initiation of chromosomal replication than DARS1 and only the former helps maintain synchrony of replication initiation (Fujimitsu, Senriuchi and Katayama 2009; Frimodt-Moller et al.2016). Moreover, whereas the activity of DARS1 appears to be constant, the activity of the more effective DARS2 sequence varies throughout the cell cycle and is dependent on growth conditions (Fujimitsu, Senriuchi and Katayama 2009; Frimodt-Moller et al.2016). This variation in DARS2 activity is mediated by IHF and another NAP called Fis. Both proteins need to bind DARS2 to allow DnaA-ATP regeneration by this genomic locus. IHF binding to DARS2 is cell cycle dependent. It dissociates from DARS2 shortly before initiation of replication and reassociates afterwards (Kasho et al.2014). Fis binding to DARS2, on the other hand, is maintained throughout the cell cycle. It is, however, dependent on growth conditions. During stationary phase, and presumably also under slow growth conditions, Fis binding to DARS2 decreases (Kasho et al.2014). Because of its dependency on IHF and Fis, DnaA-ATP is only regenerated by DARS2 under fast growth conditions and after initiation of replication has occurred. This regulatory mechanism thereby secures a fast build-up of DnaA-ATP to allow initiation of the next round of replication. A second pathway of DnaA reactivation is mediated by acidic phospholipids, such as cardiolipin and phosphatidylglycerol (Saxena et al.2013). In vitro, these phospholipids can stimulate the release of ADP from oriC-bound DnaA, which in the presence of excess ATP leads to reactivation of DnaA (Sekimizu and Kornberg 1988). Acidic phospholipids are therefore thought to stimulate initiation, a notion that is supported by the fact that cells deprived of these lipids arrest growth due to the inability to initiate replication (Xia and Dowhan 1995). However, acidic phospholipids have also been shown to block binding of DnaA to oriC, which could prevent initiation of replication (Crooke, Castuma and Kornberg 1992; Makise et al.2002). Although these effects on initiation need further clarification, an important connection between phospholipids and initiation clearly exists. Additionally, a role for lipopolysaccharides in replication initiation has also been reported (Rotman, Bratcher and Kuzminov 2009). Taken together, the cellular concentration of DnaA-ATP is decreased by RIDA and DDAH and is increased by de novo DnaA synthesis, the activity of the DARS regions and the influence of acidic phospholipids (Fig. 2). The cellular DnaA-ATP level is however not the only factor controlling initiation. In fact, a minimal DnaA-ATP concentration was previously proposed to be necessary but not sufficient for initiation (Flatten et al.2015). Rather than being controlled by the absolute levels of DnaA-ATP, initiation of replication might be dictated by the ratio of DnaA-ATP to DnaA-ADP (Donachie and Blakely 2003; Riber et al.2016) or additional signals could be needed to allow replication to initiate once DnaA-ATP reaches a threshold (Flatten et al.2015). Chromosome structure influences oriC unwinding Besides DnaA-ATP accumulation, additional signals for the regulation of the onset of replication indeed exist. Since replication starts upon open complex formation at oriC, changes in chromosome structure that facilitate or impede DNA duplex unwinding also influence initiation. In support of the role of chromosome structure in initiation, it was shown that general disturbances in chromosome organization severely and specifically impede the initiation of replication (Magnan et al.2015). More localized changes in oriC topology by transcription of neighboring genes can also influence initiation of replication under suboptimal conditions (Lies et al.2015). A well-studied effect of chromosome structure on initiation of replication is the influence of DNA-bending proteins IHF and Fis, which are directly involved in control of initiation (Fig. 3). These proteins specifically bind to distinct regions within oriC to modulate its conformation in relation to cell cycle progression. Under conditions of rapid growth, Fis is bound to oriC throughout almost the entire cell cycle (Cassler, Grimwade and Leonard 1995). This nucleoprotein complex inhibits DnaA binding to low-affinity DnaA boxes and simultaneously prevents IHF from associating with oriC (Ryan et al.2004). Right before replication initiation, Fis is displaced from oriC by accumulating DnaA-ATP levels (Ryan et al.2004). The dissociation of Fis then allows binding of IHF, which induces a sharp bend in oriC (Cassler, Grimwade and Leonard 1995; Ryan et al.2004; Kaur et al.2014). This architectural change facilitates the binding of DnaA to low-affinity sites and thereby promotes initiation (Grimwade, Ryan and Leonard 2000; Ryan et al.2002). The interplay between Fis, IHF and DnaA results in a sudden loading of DnaA onto oriC (Ryan et al.2002, 2004). Although neither Fis nor IHF is essential for viability, synchrony of replication initiation is strongly disturbed in corresponding deletion mutants (Ryan et al.2002; Flatten and Skarstad 2013), indicating that this system is particularly active in assuring simultaneous firing of all cellular oriC. This idea is further supported by the fact that under slow growth conditions, when cells only carry one oriC, Fis is no longer important for regulation of initiation (Flatten and Skarstad 2013). During slow growth, the timing of initiation is thus dependent on regulatory mechanisms other than the combined action of Fis, IHF and DnaA. Figure 3. View largeDownload slide The effect of the nucleoid-associated proteins IHF and Fis on replication initiation under fast growth conditions. At the onset of replication, IHF is bound to oriC but not to datA or DARS2. Its association with oriC stimulates DnaA binding and promotes initiation. After replication has started, Fis is bound to oriC and blocks both IHF and DnaA binding. Replication initiation is thereby prevented. At this time, IHF associates with datA to inactivate DnaA and with DARS2 which, under fast growth conditions, stimulates DnaA activation. Figure 3. View largeDownload slide The effect of the nucleoid-associated proteins IHF and Fis on replication initiation under fast growth conditions. At the onset of replication, IHF is bound to oriC but not to datA or DARS2. Its association with oriC stimulates DnaA binding and promotes initiation. After replication has started, Fis is bound to oriC and blocks both IHF and DnaA binding. Replication initiation is thereby prevented. At this time, IHF associates with datA to inactivate DnaA and with DARS2 which, under fast growth conditions, stimulates DnaA activation. The roles of IHF and Fis in replication initiation are dual as both stimulatory and inhibitory effects on initiation of replication have been reported. IHF opposes replication initiation by inactivating DnaA through association with the datA sequence (Nozaki, Yamada and Ogawa 2009; Kasho and Katayama 2013). However, IHF also promotes initiation through reactivation of DnaA by DARS2 (Kasho et al.2014) and by binding oriC (Ryan et al.2004). Fis, on the other hand, inhibits the onset of replication by its association with oriC (Ryan et al.2004), but stimulates DnaA activation through DARS2 (Kasho et al.2014). The stimulatory and inhibitory activities of IHF and Fis on initiation of replication (Fig. 3) are coordinated through their cell cycle and growth phase-dependent association with different genomic loci. At present, however, it is unclear how these association patterns are established. Control of replication initiation by DiaA Another protein that is involved in the regulation of replication initiation is the DnaA initiator-associating factor, DiaA. DiaA interacts directly with DnaA and promotes its assembly onto weak DnaA boxes in oriC (Ishida et al.2004; Keyamura et al.2007). Although DiaA activity is not essential, it significantly promotes initiation and is needed to assure synchrony of replication initiation (Ishida et al.2004; Keyamura et al.2007). Apart from this stimulatory role, DiaA also negatively influences replication initiation at a later step in the process. After DUE unwinding, DnaA recruits the helicase DnaB to the single-stranded origin and triggers further replisome assembly. DnaA does so by a direct association with DnaB (Jameson and Wilkinson 2017). The binding of DiaA to DnaA, however, masks the DnaB binding site of DnaA and thereby blocks replisome assembly (Keyamura et al.2009). This inhibitory role of DiaA is thought to prevent premature DnaB loading. Because mild overexpression of DiaA does not influence timing or synchrony of replication initiation, it is thought that DnaB binding to DnaA is not merely regulated by competition with DiaA. Rather, a specific mechanism appears to trigger dissociation of DiaA, allowing DnaB to be recruited (Flatten et al.2015). What cellular factor determines the timely dissociation of DiaA from DnaA and thereby triggers replisome assembly is currently unknown. Control of replication initiation by SeqA Finally, the SeqA protein can override all regulatory mechanisms described above by sequestration of oriC right after replication has been initiated. SeqA thereby prevents premature reinitiation as long as it remains associated with oriC. Multimeric helical SeqA filaments bind hemimethylated, and thus recently replicated, GATC sequences throughout the genome (Campbell and Kleckner 1990; Lu et al.1994; Slater et al.1995; Guarne et al.2005). These SeqA binding sites are abundantly present in oriC and several of them are located in weak DnaA boxes (Nievera et al.2006; Sanchez-Romero et al.2010). SeqA binding to oriC, which occurs immediately after replication is initiated, therefore blocks DnaA oligomerization onto its low-affinity binding sites and prevents subsequent unwinding of the DUE (Nievera et al.2006). Besides preventing duplex DNA from opening through inhibition of DnaA binding, SeqA can also affect DNA topology directly (Torheim and Skarstad 1999; Odsbu et al.2005). SeqA dimers were shown to introduce positive supercoils that could decrease the tendency of the DUE to unwind and thereby also influence replication initiation frequency (Odsbu et al.2005). SeqA filaments, on the other hand, can restrain negative supercoils (Torheim and Skarstad 1999; Odsbu et al.2005). The net result of SeqA on oriC topology in vivo therefore remains unclear at present. The period of SeqA-mediated oriC sequestration provides a time window during which the origin is refractory to reinitiation and the cellular initiation potential can be decreased below threshold levels, for example, by lowering DnaA-ATP levels through RIDA and DDAH (von Freiesleben et al.2000). Elimination of this time window by deletion of seqA results in overinitiation and asynchrony of replication initiation (Lu et al.1994; Guarne et al.2005; Rotman, Bratcher and Kuzminov 2009). Eventually, SeqA spontaneously dissociates from oriC. Free SeqA binding sites are then methylated by Dam, which blocks further SeqA binding (Campbell and Kleckner 1990; Kang et al.1999; Waldminghaus, Weigel and Skarstad 2012). These fully methylated origins are once again able to initiate a new round of replication when sufficient DnaA-ATP has accumulated and DUE unwinding takes place. CHROMOSOME SEGREGATION Mechanism and driving forces behind chromosome segregation Chromosome segregation is undoubtedly the least understood event in the bacterial cell cycle. Especially in E. coli, very little is known about this process since both the driving forces and underlying mechanisms remain unclear. In contrast to eukaryotic organisms, chromosome segregation in bacteria such as E. coli occurs while replication is ongoing, but with a certain delay. Following their replication, most duplicated chromosomal loci remain colocalized for ∼10 min before they are separated (Joshi et al.2011). However, the E. coli chromosome possesses several loci that show an extended colocalization period. These regions are oriC, ter and two ∼100–150 kb sequences on the right chromosomal arm close to oriC, called snap loci (Nielsen et al.2006; Joshi et al.2011). Extended colocalization of these regions can at least in part be explained by cohesion of sister loci through interchromosomal links (Wang, Reyes-Lamothe and Sherratt 2008; Lesterlin et al.2012). Segregation starts with the separation of duplicated oriC regions at midcell (Bates and Kleckner 2005; Fisher et al.2013; Cass et al.2016). These oriC loci are then very accurately positioned at the 1/4 and 3/4 locations, hinting at a mechanism that specifically recruits this genomic locus to future cell division sites (Nielsen et al.2006; Kuwada et al.2013; Junier, Boccard and Espeli 2014). All other replicated loci likewise split at midcell, after which they move to opposite cell halves (Cass et al.2016). How exactly duplicated chromosomal DNA segregates is currently unclear. Several reports indicate that segregation proceeds in several discrete steps. According to this stepwise segregation model, consecutive release of tethered sister loci with prolonged cohesion (i.e. oriC, snap regions and ter) corresponds to sudden and considerable increases in chromosome separation (Bates and Kleckner 2005; Joshi et al.2011; Fisher et al.2013). In contrast, other studies have shown a more progressive and continuous segregation of duplicated loci (Nielsen et al.2006; Kuwada et al.2013; Cass et al.2016). Also the driving forces behind chromosome segregation remain heavily disputed. Although scientists have long searched for active segregation machinery similar to the eukaryotic mitotic spindle apparatus, no such mechanism has been found in E. coli. Several other bacterial species, such as Caulobacter crescentus and B. subtilis, possess the so-called Par system for active segregation. This system, however, does not influence bulk chromosome partitioning, but only assists in the segregation of the chromosomal origin of replication. Moreover, deletion of the par locus often only leads to minor segregation defects, indicating that also in these organisms other important driving forces for segregation exist (Wang, Montero Llopis and Rudner 2013; Badrinarayanan, Le and Laub 2015). Based on the physical properties of bacterial chromosomes and their behavior within the confinement of the cell, it has been proposed that bacterial chromosome segregation is mostly driven by purely physical forces rather than by biological mechanisms (Jun and Wright 2010). More specifically, entropy could serve as an important driving force for chromosome partitioning (Jun and Mulder 2006; Jun and Wright 2010; Junier, Boccard and Espeli 2014). Polymer physics states that two confined polymers maximize conformational entropy by repelling one another. They thereby generate a segregational force that was shown to be sufficient to drive chromosome partitioning in a simplified polymer model of replicated bacterial chromosomes (Jun and Mulder 2006). However, it is unlikely that entropy alone is capable of driving segregation (Di Ventura et al.2013; Junier, Boccard and Espeli 2014). Additionally, it has been shown that radial confinement of the ellipsoidal nucleoid creates longitudinal forces that can push sister chromosomes apart (Fisher et al.2013). These pushing forces combined with build-up and subsequent release of mechanical stress at tethered sister loci are thought to contribute to the segregation process (Bates and Kleckner 2005; Joshi et al.2011; Fisher et al.2013; Joshi et al.2013). Finally, because of substantial directional bias in locus movement, additional and possibly active driving forces most likely exist (Kuwada et al.2013; Cass et al.2016). These (active) segregation forces remain to be identified. The role of chromosome structure in segregation The chromosome must be heavily condensed to fit into the bacterial cell. Besides macromolecular crowding (de Vries 2010) and radial confinement (Fisher et al.2013), several other factors are involved in chromosome compaction. Overall negative supercoiling of the DNA creates a more condensed chromosome (Wang, Montero Llopis and Rudner 2013; Badrinarayanan, Le and Laub 2015). Additionally, NAPs such as IHF, Fis, HU and H-NS can bend, wrap or bridge DNA and thereby compact and organize the nucleoid (Browning, Grainger and Busby 2010; Wang, Montero Llopis and Rudner 2013; Badrinarayanan, Le and Laub 2015). Likewise, the E. coli structural maintenance of chromosome (SMC) complex, MukBEF, can bind and bridge distant DNA segments and therefore acts as a condensin (Wang et al.2006; Rybenkov et al.2014). The E. coli chromosome is further organized into four ∼1 Mb macrodomains, Ori, Left, Right and Ter, and two flexible non-structured regions flanking Ori (Niki, Yamaichi and Hiraga 2000; Valens et al.2004). Macrodomain-specific structuring factors have been discovered for both Ori and Ter and were termed MaoP and MatP, respectively. These proteins bind their target DNA sequence, maoS or matS, and thereby organize their respective macrodomain (Mercier et al.2008; Valens, Thiel and Boccard 2016). No specific structuring factors for the Left and Right domains have been identified. On the contrary, it was recently suggested that the Left and Right macrodomain and both non-structured regions are defined based on their genomic location rather than by genetic determinants. More specifically, these domains appear to be determined by their distance toward oriC (Duigou and Boccard 2017). The above-described structuring of the chromosome is important for efficient segregation, since inactivation of DNA-organizing proteins, such as MaoP, MatP, MukBEF or NAPs, invariably leads to defects in nucleoid partitioning (Huisman et al.1989; Dri, Rouviere-Yaniv and Moreau 1991; Niki et al.1991; Filutowicz et al.1992; Yamanaka et al.1996; Danilova et al.2007; Espeli, Mercier and Boccard 2008; Mercier et al.2008; Junier, Boccard and Espeli 2014; Valens, Thiel and Boccard 2016). Chromosome structure is therefore thought to be an important factor in segregation. Changes in chromosome structure alter the physical properties of these macromolecules and can thus influence physical forces that drive or contribute to nucleoid partitioning. Chromosome segregation by entropic forces, for example, is predicted to proceed more efficiently for highly condensed polymers of non-trivial topology, indicating that condensed chromosomes are more readily partitioned (Jun and Mulder 2006; Jun and Wright 2010). Moreover, whereas in silico modeling revealed that homogeneous replicating nucleoids are not efficiently partitioned by entropy alone, structuring of the chromosome into macrodomains and non-structured regions greatly improved segregation (Junier, Boccard and Espeli 2014). An additional prerequisite for this demixing is to impose a fixed cellular position for oriC and ter (Junier, Boccard and Espeli 2014). As an alternative explanation for the positive role of chromosome compaction on segregation, it has been suggested that lengthwise condensation, rather than entropic repelling forces, leads to chromosome partitioning. This condensation resolution presumably starts at duplicated origins and separates sister chromosomes by folding and collecting replicated DNA into condensed nucleoids at different cellular locations (Marko 2009; Kuzminov 2013; Wang, Montero Llopis and Rudner 2013) Removal of interchromosomal links regulates segregation It has been proposed that accumulation of mechanical stress at tethered sister loci strongly promotes chromosome segregation once physical links are broken (Joshi et al.2011; Fisher et al.2013). The maintenance and release of these interchromosomal tethers can therefore serve as a point of control in the segregation process. Precatenanes, interwound replicating sister chromosomes, represent the most prevalent linkages, while occasionally chromosome dimers also prevent segregation. Removal of precatenanes The type II topoisomerase, TopoIV, is responsible for the removal of precatenanes. Its activity is essential for chromosome segregation (Wang, Reyes-Lamothe and Sherratt 2008; Joshi et al.2013) and is controlled by several factors (schematically depicted in Fig. 4). TopoIV cannot resolve precatenanes as soon as they are formed. This lag between replication and decatenation is imposed by SeqA, which binds to newly replicated, hemimethylated GATC sequences and thus tracks behind the replisome (Brendler et al.2000; Bach, Krekling and Skarstad 2003; Waldminghaus, Weigel and Skarstad 2012; Joshi et al.2013; Helgesen et al.2015). DNA-bound SeqA acts as a negative regulator of TopoIV activity and thereby prevents decatenation (Fig. 4). This results in cohesion of duplicated chromosomal loci throughout the nucleoid for ∼10 min (Joshi et al.2011). However, some regions display a much longer cohesion time (Nielsen et al.2006; Joshi et al.2011). Longer cohesion periods at oriC and the two snap loci can be explained by the fact that these regions have a much higher affinity for SeqA (Joshi et al.2013). At these genomic positions, SeqA does not merely prevent decatenation by TopoIV but also seems to promote cohesion more directly, possibly by forming protein bridges between sister chromosomes (Fossum, Crooke and Skarstad 2007; Joshi et al.2013; Helgesen et al.2015). Figure 4. View largeDownload slide Removal of precatenanes. DNA replication creates precatenanes behind the replication fork. SeqA filaments that trail the replisome prevent decatenation by blocking TopoIV activity. Upon dissociation of SeqA, TopoIV can resolve precatenanes. At oriC, TopoIV activity is promoted by specific recruitment and also possibly by direct stimulation of catalytic activity by MukBEF. Upon decatenation, MukBEF moves oriC to the cell's quarter positions. Red zones indicate chromosomal regions where segregation is prevented. Green zones represent regions where segregation is promoted. This figure is not drawn to scale. Figure 4. View largeDownload slide Removal of precatenanes. DNA replication creates precatenanes behind the replication fork. SeqA filaments that trail the replisome prevent decatenation by blocking TopoIV activity. Upon dissociation of SeqA, TopoIV can resolve precatenanes. At oriC, TopoIV activity is promoted by specific recruitment and also possibly by direct stimulation of catalytic activity by MukBEF. Upon decatenation, MukBEF moves oriC to the cell's quarter positions. Red zones indicate chromosomal regions where segregation is prevented. Green zones represent regions where segregation is promoted. This figure is not drawn to scale. Upon SeqA dissociation from the DNA, part of cellular TopoIV appears to work autonomously (Espeli et al. 2003; Zawadzki et al.2015). However, part of TopoIV activity is directed toward specific sites by the SMC complex, MukBEF, due to a direct interaction between MukB and the ParC subunit of TopoIV (Hayama and Marians 2010; Li et al.2010; Zawadzki et al.2015). MukBEF forms clusters that are predominantly associated with oriC. By recruiting TopoIV, these MukBEF clusters increase the concentration of TopoIV and thereby stimulate oriC decatenation and subsequent segregation (Fig. 4) (Danilova et al.2007; Nicolas et al.2014; Zawadzki et al.2015; Nolivos et al.2016). Moreover, MukBEF might also promote decatenation more directly since MukB was shown to modestly increase TopoIV catalytic activity in vitro (Hayama and Marians 2010; Li et al.2010; Hayama et al.2013; Nicolas et al.2014; Zawadzki et al.2015). Besides stimulating oriC decatenation, MukBEF clusters are also thought to determine the cellular location of oriC and to direct duplicated and decatenated oriC to the quarter cell positions during segregation (Badrinarayanan et al.2012; Nicolas et al.2014). Loss of mukB indeed leads to aberrant oriC positioning (Danilova et al.2007). This MukBEF function, although not understood at the molecular level, is possibly of considerable importance since targeting of the origin to a specific cellular location is a prerequisite for efficient nucleoid segregation in a polymer model of the chromosome (Junier, Boccard and Espeli 2014). Like oriC and snap loci, duplicated ter regions also remain colocalized for extended periods of time after they are replicated (Nielsen et al.2006; Joshi et al.2011). However, in contrast to oriC and snap loci, this genomic region does not have an increased affinity for the TopoIV inhibitor SeqA (Sanchez-Romero et al.2010). In fact, the dif sequence in the ter region appears to be a hotspot for TopoIV activity (Espeli et al. 2003; El Sayyed et al. 2016). Nonetheless, duplicated ter regions are kept together for prolonged periods of time. A ter-specific factor, the MatP protein, is responsible for this extended colocalization (Mercier et al.2008). MatP could increase ter colocalization by two mechanisms. First, since MatP tetramers can bridge two distant matS sites (Dupaigne et al.2012), MatP could bind matS sequences from different chromosomes and therefore keep sister chromosomes together and postpone segregation. Additionally, MatP can colocalize ter regions present on different DNA molecules by coupling both to the midcell Z-ring via the Ter linkage (see below) (Mercier et al.2008; Espeli et al.2012; Lesterlin et al.2012). MatP can therefore extend colocalization of the duplicated ter region even when precatenanes have been removed. In conclusion, removal of precatenanes by TopoIV is negatively regulated by SeqA and promoted by MukBEF (Joshi et al.2013; Zawadzki et al.2015). Additionally, duplicated ter regions can be kept together by MatP even after decatenation has occurred (Mercier et al.2008; Espeli et al.2012). The regulation of cohesion by these factors is important for efficient segregation (Joshi et al.2013). Their role in nucleoid partitioning can be explained in light of the snap model of chromosome segregation, in which tethering is important for the build-up of mechanical stress that separates chromosomes upon removal of interchromosomal links (Fisher et al.2013). Resolution of chromosome dimers If chromosome dimers are formed during replication, they need to be resolved during the final stages of segregation to allow complete separation of duplicated DNA into daughter cells. Dimer resolution of the E. coli chromosome is achieved by XerCD-mediated site-specific recombination at dif, a 28-bp sequence located at ter (Aussel et al.2002). If two dif sites reside on different monomers, they are thought to segregate before XerCD recombination occurs, thereby assuring that no dimers are created (Barre et al.2000; Aussel et al.2002; Kennedy, Chevalier and Barre 2008). If, on the other hand, both dif sites are located on the same molecule, segregation is blocked. These dimers will then be resolved by XerCD-mediated recombination, which requires a direct physical interaction between XerD and FtsK, a cell division protein that also plays a role in chromosome segregation (Aussel et al.2002; Grainge, Lesterlin and Sherratt 2011; Keller et al.2016). Moreover, FtsK can also stimulate the resolution of remaining catenanes, either by promoting XerCD-mediated decatenation (Grainge et al.2007) or by stimulating TopoIV through a direct physical interaction (Espeli, Lee and Marians 2003; Bigot and Marians 2010). CELL DIVISION Divisome formation and the FtsZ ring Cell division starts with the assembly of the divisome at midcell. The divisome is a multiprotein complex that drives cell envelope invagination and cytokinesis. It contains several proteins involved in septal cell wall synthesis, such as PBP3 (also known as FtsI) and FtsW (Fraipont et al.2011; Mohammadi et al.2011), and proteins that can coordinate cell division with chromosome segregation, such as FtsK. The most widely known divisome protein FtsZ is a tubulin homolog that assembles into a dynamic and patchy ring-like polymer structure, termed the Z-ring (Lowe and Amos 1998; Anderson, Gueiros-Filho and Erickson 2004; Fu et al.2010; Coltharp et al.2016). This Z-ring is made up of protofilaments that form through polymerization of GTP-bound FtsZ monomers (Mukherjee and Lutkenhaus 1998; Erickson, Anderson and Osawa 2010). Upon polymerization, the so-called synergy loop of one FtsZ subunit contacts the GTP-binding domain of the neighboring monomer, thereby completing its catalytic site and allowing GTP hydrolysis to occur (Scheffers et al.2002; Erickson, Anderson and Osawa 2010). GTP hydrolysis negatively affects the stability of FtsZ protofilaments (Mukherjee and Lutkenhaus 1998; Erickson, Anderson and Osawa 2010) and leads to treadmilling behavior (Loose and Mitchison 2014; Bisson-Filho et al.2017; Yang et al.2017). FtsZ protofilaments therefore move circumferentially around the division plane (Bisson-Filho et al.2017; Yang et al.2017). Moreover, FtsZ protofilaments can engage in lateral interactions (Erickson, Anderson and Osawa 2010). They can also be crosslinked by non-essential FtsZ-ring-associated proteins such as ZapA, ZapB, ZapC, ZapD and ZapE (Ebersbach et al.2008; Dajkovic et al.2010; Durand-Heredia et al.2011, 2012; Hale et al.2011; Marteyn et al.2014) or by the essential ZipA protein, which also anchors the cytoplasmic FtsZ protein to the membrane (Hale, Rhee and de Boer 2000). The other essential FtsZ membrane tether, FtsA, on the other hand, was recently identified as an antagonizer of lateral interactions between FtsZ protofilaments (Krupka et al.2017). The Z-ring serves various important functions in cell division. First, together with ZipA and FtsA, FtsZ acts as a scaffold to recruit other divisome components (Aarsman et al.2005). Second, FtsZ protofilaments are capable of constricting liposomes in vitro, and FtsZ is thought to generate a force that might contribute to constriction in vivo as well (Osawa, Anderson and Erickson 2008). However, it is highly unlikely that FtsZ polymers provide all the force necessary to divide bacterial cells (Daley, Skoglund and Soderstrom 2016). Rather, inwardly directed septal peptidoglycan synthesis significantly contributes to this process (Coltharp et al.2016). Third, treadmilling FtsZ filaments direct the movement of PBP3 and thereby dictate the location of septum synthesis (Bisson-Filho et al.2017; Yang et al.2017). FtsZ-mediated membrane constriction is therefore reinforced by localized peptidoglycan synthesis, meaning that a combination of both could generate the driving force for bacterial fission, with cell wall synthesis being the rate-limiting step (Coltharp et al.2016; Bisson-Filho et al.2017). Spatiotemporal control of Z-ring formation Cell division must be carefully controlled so that it produces two daughter cells of equal size and only occurs in nucleoid-free regions to prevent guillotining of the DNA. Division therefore takes place at midcell and is initiated after bulk chromosome segregation to assure that all DNA has moved away from the division site before septum closure. Several mechanisms work together at the level of FtsZ to achieve this goal. They accurately position FtsZ—and thus the entire divisome—at midcell depending on the status of chromosome segregation. One of these mechanisms is the MinCDE system, which inhibits Z-ring formation close to cell poles and thereby favors divisome assembly at midcell (Fig. 5). The effector of the system, MinC, is a negative regulator of FtsZ assembly. This protein employs a dual strategy to prevent Z-ring formation. First, the C-terminal domain of MinC binds the C-terminal tail of FtsZ and thereby competes for interaction with FtsA and to a lesser extent also ZipA (Dajkovic et al.2008; Shen and Lutkenhaus 2009). The interaction of FtsZ with both FtsA and ZipA is essential for cell division, explaining the inhibitory effect of the MinC C-terminus (Pichoff and Lutkenhaus 2002). Second, by interacting with the FtsZ C-terminal tail, MinC correctly positions its N-terminal domain at the FtsZ subunit interface. If GDP is present at this interface, the N-terminal MinC domain further weakens the interaction between consecutive monomers, thereby stimulating filament breakage and depolymerization (Shen and Lutkenhaus 2010; Hernandez-Rocamora et al.2013). The inhibitory action of MinC is confined to polar regions by the MinD and MinE proteins, which are responsible for the oscillatory behavior of the Min system (Hu and Lutkenhaus 1999; Raskin and de Boer 1999a,b). MinC localization is dictated by the peripheral membrane protein MinD, which recruits MinC to the membrane (Huang, Cao and Lutkenhaus 1996; Hu and Lutkenhaus 1999; Szeto et al.2002). MinCD complexes are located at each cell pole alternately where they are repeatedly swept away by MinE. The MinE protein partly colocalizes with MinCD and in addition forms a ring of high concentration that lines the polar MinCD carpet (Fu et al.2001; Hale, Meinhardt and de Boer 2001). MinE displaces MinC from MinD and also stimulates MinD membrane dissociation at high MinE-to-MinD ratios, which are found at the MinE ring (Lackner, Raskin and de Boer 2003; Vecchiarelli et al.2016). This ring moves toward the cell pole as MinCD complexes are displaced (Fu et al.2001; Hale, Meinhardt and de Boer 2001). Upon recognizing MinD, MinE itself becomes membrane bound and lingers after the removal of MinD (Park et al.2011, 2017; Vecchiarelli et al.2016). MinE can therefore most likely displace several membrane-bound MinD molecules without detaching from the membrane (Vecchiarelli et al.2016). Moreover, high concentrations of lingering MinE proteins could prevent reassociation of MinD—and by consequence MinC—at the same location (Vecchiarelli et al.2016), resulting in MinCD complexes localizing to the opposite cell pole. When membrane-associated MinE no longer encounters MinD, it eventually returns to the cytoplasm. This oscillatory system leads to a high time-averaged MinC concentration at cell poles and therefore strong inhibition of Z-ring formation at these locations. The lowest average MinC concentration is experienced at midcell, making this the preferential site for Z-ring assembly. Figure 5. View largeDownload slide Control of Z-ring formation. In newborn cells, the centrally located nucleoid and the polarly anchored Min system prevent Z-ring formation throughout the cell. The time-averaged localization of MinC is shown. As cells progress through the cell cycle, segregation of duplicated nucleoids creates an inhibition-free zone at midcell. Additionally, the Ter linkage provides a positive guidance signal for Z-ring formation in this inhibition-free zone. The Ter linkage is composed of MatP, ZapB and ZapA which are organized in multiple layers that span the region between the nucleoid and the cytoplasmic membrane. Green and red zones mark areas where Z-ring formation is promoted or inhibited, respectively. Redrawn and adapted from Wu and Errington (2011) and Buss et al. (2015). Figure 5. View largeDownload slide Control of Z-ring formation. In newborn cells, the centrally located nucleoid and the polarly anchored Min system prevent Z-ring formation throughout the cell. The time-averaged localization of MinC is shown. As cells progress through the cell cycle, segregation of duplicated nucleoids creates an inhibition-free zone at midcell. Additionally, the Ter linkage provides a positive guidance signal for Z-ring formation in this inhibition-free zone. The Ter linkage is composed of MatP, ZapB and ZapA which are organized in multiple layers that span the region between the nucleoid and the cytoplasmic membrane. Green and red zones mark areas where Z-ring formation is promoted or inhibited, respectively. Redrawn and adapted from Wu and Errington (2011) and Buss et al. (2015). To prevent chromosome fragmentation during septum closure, a negative regulatory system called nucleoid occlusion blocks the assembly of Z-rings in areas occupied by DNA. In E. coli, nucleoid occlusion is mediated at least in part by the SlmA protein (Fig. 5) (Bernhardt and de Boer 2005). Like MinC, SlmA uses a two-pronged approach to inhibit Z-ring formation. SlmA directly interacts with the C-terminal tail of FtsZ and thereby competes with other FtsZ-interacting proteins, such as ZipA (Du and Lutkenhaus 2014; Schumacher and Zeng 2016). In addition, SlmA also causes disassembly of FtsZ protofilaments and thereby blocks FtsZ polymerization (Cho et al.2011; Du and Lutkenhaus 2014; Cabre et al.2015). The SlmA protein needs to be bound to DNA to exert its inhibitory effect on Z-ring assembly (Cho et al.2011; Schumacher and Zeng 2016). SlmA binds specific DNA sequences as a dimer of dimers (Tonthat et al.2013; Schumacher and Zeng 2016). Its target sequences are located throughout the genome, but are absent from the ter region (Cho et al.2011; Tonthat et al.2011, 2013; Schumacher and Zeng 2016). Midcell Z-ring formation can therefore start once bulk chromosome segregation has occurred and ter is present at midcell (Den Blaauwen et al.1999; Bates and Kleckner 2005; Wang, Possoz and Sherratt 2005). This gives E. coli enough time to finish replication and segregation of the terminus region before a fully matured divisome completes septum closure. However, even in the absence of slmA, Z-rings usually do not form over nucleoids (Cambridge et al.2014), indicating that an SlmA-independent form of nucleoid occlusion exists. Whereas the Min system and nucleoid occlusion are negative regulators of FtsZ positioning, at least one positive regulatory system exists to guide FtsZ assembly to division sites. This system is called the Ter linkage. The Ter linkage consists of three proteins, MatP, ZapB and ZapA, that physically connect the genomic ter region to FtsZ (Fig. 5). They thereby promote divisome assembly over the chromosomal terminus (Espeli et al.2012; Bailey et al.2014). As described earlier, MatP is the Ter macrodomain structuring factor that binds to specific matS DNA sequences in ter (Mercier et al.2008). Moreover, this protein interacts with ZapB, a Z-ring associated protein that polymerizes in vitro (Ebersbach et al.2008; Espeli et al.2012). In vivo, ZapB polymer structures localize to the cytoplasmic side of the Z-ring (Galli and Gerdes 2010; Buss et al.2015). ZapA interacts with both ZapB and FtsZ and thereby bridges the gap between the Z-ring and internally located ZapB polymers (Galli and Gerdes 2010, 2012; Buss et al.2015). MatP can thus couple the ter region to the Z-ring via ZapB-ZapA structures (Bailey et al.2014; Buss et al.2017). Because the positioning of these structures at division sites precedes the localization of the Z-ring, the Ter linkage is thought to guide Z-ring formation to midcell (Bailey et al.2014; Buss et al.2017). Later, once the Z-ring is fully formed, the situation is reversed and the Ter linkage serves to anchor ter to midcell and contributes to the extended colocalization of duplicated ter regions (Espeli et al.2012; Mannik et al.2016). Taken together, these three systems display complementary activities that provide accurate spatiotemporal control over Z-ring placement (Fig. 5). The Min system works throughout the cell cycle to inhibit the formation of Z-rings close to cell poles, even in the DNA-free regions found here. It thereby favors midcell Z-ring assembly. Nucleoid occlusion, on the other hand, inhibits divisome assembly in areas occupied by DNA. This system therefore prevents the formation of a Z-ring at midcell as long as the nucleoid resides at this cellular location. However, as chromosome segregation progresses, the nucleoid occlusion zone moves away from midcell, thereby relieving its inhibition at the future cell division site. Combined with the positive guidance signal from the ter region that is now present at midcell, this leads to a very accurate positioning of the Z-ring at midcell at the right time in the cell cycle. Nonetheless, deletion of any one of these systems only has minor effects on cell division and viability. Inactivation of the Min system leads to the eponymous minicell phenotype where polar Z-rings constrict and produce anucleate cells in a minority of the population (Bailey et al.2014). Deletion of slmA or matP has no effect when cells are grown under slow growth conditions, whereas a small fraction of the ΔmatP population consists of anucleate or filamentous cells when grown in rich medium (Bernhardt and de Boer 2005; Mercier et al.2008; Mannik et al.2012). Intriguingly, even in the absence of all three known FtsZ regulatory systems, cell division still preferentially occurs at midcell, although the accuracy of Z-ring positioning is much lower (Bailey et al.2014). This observation implies that at least one additional mechanism for FtsZ localization remains to be discovered. COORDINATION BETWEEN REPLICATION AND SEGREGATION DNA replication and chromosome segregation are well separated processes in the eukaryotic cell cycle. Eukaryotic checkpoint control ensures that segregation does not start before replication has been completed (Elledge 1996). In prokaryotes, however, replication and segregation occur simultaneously. In fact, it was previously believed that replication provides the driving force for chromosome segregation and that sister loci are pushed toward opposite cell halves by stationary replisomes as soon as they are duplicated (Lemon and Grossman 2001). Later, it was shown that this is not the case and that replication and segregation are actually separated by a short time of sister locus cohesion (Nielsen et al.2006; Joshi et al.2011). Nonetheless, several factors are known to play a role in both processes. Chromosome organization and topology, for example, influence both replication initiation and chromosome segregation. Cell cycle-dependent changes in chromosome structure could therefore represent regulatory inputs into both processes simultaneously or separately, depending on the location and range of the structural change. Unfortunately, our current knowledge of chromosome structure and how it changes throughout the bacterial cell cycle is insufficient to uncover any potential links between replication and segregation that are dependent on chromosome organization. However, the above-discussed involvement of negative supercoiling and NAPs, such as IHF and Fis, in both processes suggests that such a link does exist. SeqA could act as a safety spacer to separate segregation from replication The SeqA protein is another example of a protein that is involved in both replication and nucleoid partitioning. It contributes to the timing of replication initiation by sequestration of oriC and enhances the efficiency of chromosome segregation by extending cohesion of duplicated loci (Nievera et al.2006; Joshi et al.2013). Besides functioning in each of these processes separately, SeqA has also been suggested to play a role in coordinating the progression of segregation in relation to DNA replication (Fig. 6a) (Kuzminov 2013; Rotman et al.2014). Albeit time efficient, simultaneous replication and segregation poses a threat to the cell. If segregation would catch up with the replisome, forces driving segregation could possibly compromise replication fork integrity and lead to double-stranded DNA breaks (Fig. 6b) (Rotman et al.2014). Additionally, under fast growth conditions, bacteria such as E. coli perform multifork replication to speed up their growth. If replication does not proceed optimally, cells are at risk of new replication forks catching up with old forks. This can occur, for example, when old replication forks are blocked or upon excessive overinitiation of replication (Bidnenko, Ehrlich and Michel 2002; Nordman, Skovgaard and Wright 2007). These rear-end collisions also lead to double-stranded DNA breaks and must be avoided (Bidnenko, Ehrlich and Michel 2002; Pedersen et al.2017). The cell is therefore in need of a safety spacer that separates replication from segregation and/or prevents replication fork rear-end collisions. It was previously suggested that SeqA forms a key component of this safety spacer (Kuzminov 2013; Rotman et al.2014; Pedersen et al.2017). As described above, the SeqA protein forms filaments that trail behind replisomes by preferentially binding hemimethylated, and thus newly replicated, GATC sites (Brendler et al.2000; Waldminghaus, Weigel and Skarstad 2012). These SeqA filaments could prevent rear-end collisions by hindering replication fork progression and thus preventing new replication forks from approaching old ones, or by promoting restart of old replication forks before new forks catch up (Pedersen et al.2017). Furthermore, SeqA filaments keep duplicated sister chromosomes together by protecting precatenanes from TopoIV-mediated decatenation and also possibly by bridging chromosomes directly (Fossum, Crooke and Skarstad 2007; Joshi et al.2013; Helgesen et al.2015). Replisome-tracking SeqA filaments therefore help to keep the segregation front sufficiently far away from replication forks (Fig. 6a) (Rotman et al.2014). Figure 6. View largeDownload slide A safety spacer to separate DNA replication from chromosome segregation. (a) Replication and segregation can be spatially separated by a safety spacer. The SeqA protein is suggested to be a key component of this safety spacer. (b) When no safety spacer is present, segregation can catch up with replication forks if progression of the replisome is stalled. Segregational forces can then compromise replication fork integrity and lead to double-stranded DNA breaks. Arrows indicate segregational forces. Redrawn and adapted from Rotman et al. (2014). Figure 6. View largeDownload slide A safety spacer to separate DNA replication from chromosome segregation. (a) Replication and segregation can be spatially separated by a safety spacer. The SeqA protein is suggested to be a key component of this safety spacer. (b) When no safety spacer is present, segregation can catch up with replication forks if progression of the replisome is stalled. Segregational forces can then compromise replication fork integrity and lead to double-stranded DNA breaks. Arrows indicate segregational forces. Redrawn and adapted from Rotman et al. (2014). A seqA deletion strain experiences double-stranded DNA breaks, is dependent on recombinational DNA repair for its viability, and displays increased sensitivity to DNA damage and replication fork stalling (Sutera and Lovett 2006; Rotman et al.2014; Pedersen et al.2017). The observed phenotypes could result from both rear-end collisions of consecutive replication forks and from segregation catching up with the replisome. In support of the former, the effect of a seqA deletion is exacerbated under conditions of rapid growth when more replication rounds are simultaneously active (Lu et al.1994; von Freiesleben et al.2000; Bach and Skarstad 2004; Pedersen et al.2017). However, it has been shown that double-stranded breaks in the absence of SeqA contain both parental and newly synthesized DNA. Since replication fork collisions would produce double-stranded DNA breaks that consist exclusively of newly synthesized DNA, this finding argues against the rear-end collision hypothesis (Rotman et al.2014). In a seqA deletion strain, segregation follows replication much more closely (Joshi et al.2013), indicating that SeqA indeed spatially separates these processes. However, a small delay between replication and segregation remains in the absence of SeqA. This means that, even though SeqA could be an important constituent of a safety spacer that separates replication and segregation, it is not the only factor involved (Joshi et al.2013). COORDINATION BETWEEN REPLICATION AND DIVISION The link between DNA replication and cell division is important to ensure that exactly one round of replication occurs per division event so that each daughter cell ends up with one intact copy of the genomic information. In eukaryotes and bacteria such as C. crescentus, replication initiation and cell division are closely coupled. These organisms perform one replication round at a time and only initiate a new round of replication after cell division has occurred (Diffley 2011; Collier 2012). Other bacteria such as E. coli and B. subtilis are capable of initiating new rounds of replication prior to cell division (Cooper and Helmstetter 1968; Khan et al.2016). Initiation of replication and cell division are therefore thought to be independent cell cycle processes in these organisms. Although they are coordinated to maintain one initiation event per division cycle, they are not strictly coupled to one another (Nordstrom, Bernander and Dasgupta 1991; Haeusser and Levin 2008). However, recent reports challenge this view and provide clues to an intricate link between replication and cell division, at least in some bacteria. In B. subtilis, it was shown that progressive phases of replication initiation increasingly potentiate Z-ring formation at midcell, indicating that replication initiation provides a positive guidance signal for Z-ring assembly (Harry, Rodwell and Wake 1999; Moriya et al.2010). Moreover, in this organism, extended inhibition of cell division at the level of FtsZ prevents new rounds of replication. Likewise, inhibiting an early phase of replication initiation leads to an irreversible block in Z-ring formation and therefore prevents cell division. These experiments have thus uncovered two failsafe mechanisms of the B. subtilis cell cycle that closely link replication initiation and cell division (Arjes et al.2014). In E. coli, the nature of the relation between the initiation of replication and cell division remains unclear at present. Several lines of evidence support the view that replication and division are uncoupled processes. Indeed, replication and cell division can be separated in time (Gullbrand and Nordstrom 2000) and replication initiation does not appear to dictate the timing of cell division (Bernander and Nordstrom 1990). Moreover, new rounds of replication can be initiated in the absence of cell division (Bi and Lutkenhaus 1991; Dai and Lutkenhaus 1991; Ma and Margolin 1999). The opposite is also true; when replication initiation is blocked by incubating temperature-sensitive dnaA or dnaC mutants at non-permissive temperatures, cells with one chromosome can occasionally still divide to form anucleate cells, meaning that cell division is not completely dependent on replication initiation (Mulder and Woldringh 1989; Gullbrand and Nordstrom 2000; Sun and Margolin 2001). However, these anucleate cells only occur at very low frequency, indicating that cells have problems dividing. These mutants indeed display cell division defects; at non-permissive temperatures they form filaments that can still assemble Z-rings but fail to utilize them (Mulder and Woldringh 1989; Gullbrand and Nordstrom 2000; Sun and Margolin 2001). These results indicate that in the absence of replication initiation, cell division is blocked after Z-ring assembly in most cells (Fig. 7a). Additionally, an increased initiation potential, either by deletion of the DnaA-inactivating locus datA or by overexpression of DnaA, promotes division (Morigen, Flatten and Skarstad 2014). Taken together, these data point to a positive connection between replication initiation and cell division. If and how replication and division are linked therefore remains a prominent and largely unanswered question. Figure 7. View largeDownload slide The incompletely understood connection between DNA replication initiation and cell division. (a) Although uncharacterized at present, a link between initiation of DNA replication and cell division must exist, since incubation of temperature-sensitive initiation mutants at non-permissive temperatures leads to a general block in cell division. The majority of these cells form Z-rings in nucleoid-free areas but fail to divide. Occasionally, however, anucleate cells can be formed, indicating that the block in cell division imposed by the absence of replication initiation is not absolute. (b) The expression level of GidA and MioC is dependent on the progression of DNA replication. MioC expression is switched off by DnaA binding to its promoter, which occurs in the build-up to replication initiation. The expression of GidA is prevented by association of SeqA with its promoter region after it has been replicated. In turn, GidA and MioC regulate the expression level of YmgF, a cell division protein of unknown function that localizes at division sites. GidA, MioC and YmgF thereby couple DNA replication to cell division. Redrawn and adapted from Lies et al. (2015). Figure 7. View largeDownload slide The incompletely understood connection between DNA replication initiation and cell division. (a) Although uncharacterized at present, a link between initiation of DNA replication and cell division must exist, since incubation of temperature-sensitive initiation mutants at non-permissive temperatures leads to a general block in cell division. The majority of these cells form Z-rings in nucleoid-free areas but fail to divide. Occasionally, however, anucleate cells can be formed, indicating that the block in cell division imposed by the absence of replication initiation is not absolute. (b) The expression level of GidA and MioC is dependent on the progression of DNA replication. MioC expression is switched off by DnaA binding to its promoter, which occurs in the build-up to replication initiation. The expression of GidA is prevented by association of SeqA with its promoter region after it has been replicated. In turn, GidA and MioC regulate the expression level of YmgF, a cell division protein of unknown function that localizes at division sites. GidA, MioC and YmgF thereby couple DNA replication to cell division. Redrawn and adapted from Lies et al. (2015). GidA and MioC One direct link between replication initiation and cell division has recently been discovered (Lies et al.2015). This link is provided by the GidA and MioC proteins. The GidA- and MioC-encoding genes are located on opposite sides of oriC. During the 1980s and 1990s, they received much attention since their cell cycle-regulated transcription was shown to affect replication initiation of extrachromosomal oriC-based replicons (Stuitje et al.1986; Lobner-Olesen, Atlung and Rasmussen 1987; Asai, Takanami and Imai 1990; Ogawa and Okazaki 1991; Bates et al.1997). gidA is located leftward of oriC and its transcription points away from the origin. Expression of gidA therefore introduces negative supercoils in oriC and promotes replication initiation (Asai, Takanami and Imai 1990; Ogawa and Okazaki 1991). mioC is located on the other side of the origin and its transcription proceeds toward and into oriC (Nozaki, Okazaki and Ogawa 1988). mioC expression was shown to negatively influence replication initiation, possibly by introducing positive supercoiling in oriC and thereby inhibiting DUE unwinding (Stuitje et al.1986; Lobner-Olesen, Atlung and Rasmussen 1987; Lies et al.2015). The mioC promoter contains DnaA boxes and is switched off by DnaA binding in the build-up to replication initiation (Stuitje et al.1986; Lobner-Olesen, Atlung and Rasmussen 1987; Nozaki, Okazaki and Ogawa 1988; Theisen et al.1993; Ogawa and Okazaki 1994). At this time, stimulatory gidA transcription is active and can contribute to DUE unwinding (Theisen et al.1993; Ogawa and Okazaki 1994). Following its duplication, the gidA promoter is sequestered by SeqA and is therefore inactivated (Bogan and Helmstetter 1997). The expression pattern of gidA and mioC in relation to initiation of replication is shown in Fig. 7b. Although mioC and gidA transcription have a considerable effect on the duplication of extrachromosomal oriC-based replicons, their expression has little effect on chromosome replication (Bates et al.1997). Nonetheless, their transcription is required for the overinitiation phenotype that occurs during thymineless death (Martin, Viguera and Guzman 2014). Moreover, these genes are well conserved and do influence replication under suboptimal conditions (Bates et al.1997; Lies et al.2015). It was therefore suggested that these genes constitute a primordial initiation mechanism or may be part of a failsafe system needed for replication initiation in adverse conditions (Lies et al.2015). Recently, it was shown that deletion of gidA or mioC leads to filamentation, especially in the absence of Fis. Filamentation in the absence of GidA or MioC is not caused by aberrant chromosome segregation, replication initiation or progression of replication, which all proceed normally (Lies et al.2015). Rather, GidA and MioC were shown to regulate the expression of YmgF, a cell division protein of unknown function that interacts with several divisome components and localizes to the septum (Fig. 7b) (Karimova, Robichon and Ladant 2009; Lies et al.2015). YmgF is necessary for the filamentation phenotype observed in the absence of GidA and MioC, although the underlying molecular mechanism is unknown (Lies et al.2015). Because the expression levels of GidA and MioC are regulated in relation to DNA replication and, in turn, determine YmgF transcription, this system couples replication to cytokinesis. However, it should be noted that deletion of any of these components, gidA, mioC or ymgF, only has very minor effects (Karimova, Robichon and Ladant 2009; Lies et al.2015). The link between DNA replication and division is therefore either not important for the orderly progression of the cell cycle under the tested conditions or is mediated by several redundant systems so that the deletion of one system does not result in a strong phenotype. Further research is necessary to reveal the mechanism underlying the connection between GidA, MioC and YmgF and to determine its importance in cell cycle regulation. SulA, a DNA damage checkpoint Apart from the cell's efforts to maintain one round of replication per division event, it must also ensure that each cell ends up with an intact copy of the genomic information. Much like the eukaryotic DNA damage checkpoint, bacterial cells are able to sense DNA damage and block cell division in response. In E. coli, this checkpoint function is performed by the SOS response and the SOS gene product, SulA. If DNA is damaged, RecA stimulates the autocatalytic cleavage of LexA. This transcriptional repressor is thereby inactivated and expression of the SOS regulon is induced (Janion 2008). Among the genes regulated by RecA and LexA is sulA that encodes a cell division inhibitor (Huisman and D’Ari 1981). SulA prevents Z-ring formation by sequestering FtsZ monomers and blocking their polymerization (Bi and Lutkenhaus 1993; Trusca et al.1998; Dajkovic, Mukherjee and Lutkenhaus 2008; Chen, Milam and Erickson 2012). It thereby inhibits cell division in the face of DNA damage and prevents the birth of daughter cells with damaged genomes. After the damage has been repaired, the cell division block is alleviated by Lon-mediated SulA degradation (Mizusawa and Gottesman 1983). COORDINATION BETWEEN SEGREGATION AND DIVISION As described above, the spatiotemporal regulation of cell division is closely related to chromosome segregation. Nucleoid occlusion, mediated at least in part by SlmA, prevents Z-ring assembly until after bulk chromosome segregation has occurred and the Ter linkage provides a positive guidance signal for FtsZ localization that becomes unmasked at this time (Bernhardt and de Boer 2005; Bailey et al.2014; Cambridge et al.2014). However, several additional connections between both exist. MinCDE The Min system has an obvious role in division site placement by preventing the formation of polarly localized Z-rings. However, the minCDE operon was also repeatedly suggested to play a role in chromosome segregation, since cells lacking minCDE display aberrant nucleoid partitioning (Mulder et al.1990; Akerlund, Gullbrand and Nordstrom 2002; Di Ventura et al.2013). This segregation defect is much less pronounced when only the minC gene is deleted (Di Ventura et al.2013). Since MinC is the effector that blocks Z-ring assembly, this indicates that the function of the Min system in nucleoid partitioning does not depend on the inhibition of Z-ring formation. It is unclear how the Min system contributes to chromosome segregation. It has been suggested that the polar MinD gradient could act as a membrane tether that transiently binds DNA (Di Ventura et al.2013). By consecutive binding and release, the chromosome could be pulled toward an increasing MinD concentration, which is found at the cell poles (Fig. 8). In support of this hypothesis, MinD was shown to bind DNA non-specifically and is able to couple DNA to liposomes (Di Ventura et al.2013). However, further validation of this model is warranted. Figure 8. View largeDownload slide Chromosome segregation and cell division are intimately connected. To prevent guillotining of the chromosomal terminus region by the closing septum, the divisome component FtsK can speed up segregation during constriction. MatP, on the other hand, might be able to slow down septum closure and could therefore act as a safeguard of chromosome integrity, although this remains to be tested. The Min system was suggested to assist in chromosome segregation by repeated binding and release of chromosomal DNA to the membrane-bound MinD protein. However, this hypothesis needs further validation. Figure 8. View largeDownload slide Chromosome segregation and cell division are intimately connected. To prevent guillotining of the chromosomal terminus region by the closing septum, the divisome component FtsK can speed up segregation during constriction. MatP, on the other hand, might be able to slow down septum closure and could therefore act as a safeguard of chromosome integrity, although this remains to be tested. The Min system was suggested to assist in chromosome segregation by repeated binding and release of chromosomal DNA to the membrane-bound MinD protein. However, this hypothesis needs further validation. MukBEF The chromosome-organizing protein complex MukBEF that facilitates chromosome segregation might also play a more direct role in cell division. Although this possibility has not been studied in detail, several indications for the involvement of MukB in cell division exist. A mukB deletion strain shows chromosome segregation defects at low temperatures but remains viable (Niki et al.1991). At higher temperatures, however, it can no longer form colonies because of additional defects in cell division. Under these conditions, ΔmukB cells turn into long multinucleated filaments (Niki et al.1991; Sun, Yu and Margolin 1998). Even though these filaments contain large nucleoid-free regions, division does not readily occur in these areas to produce nucleated normal size progeny. The number of anucleate cells, however, does increase (Niki et al.1991; Sun, Yu and Margolin 1998). Moreover, the D period of the cell cycle is prolonged in ΔmukB cells, again indicating that these cells have trouble dividing (Joshi et al.2013). How MukB affects cell division is unknown, although published data point toward a connection with FtsZ. ΔmukB filaments have a severely decreased number of Z-rings per cell length and a mukB deletion is synthetically lethal in a strain harboring a temperature-sensitive ftsZ allele, even at the permissive temperature (Sun, Yu and Margolin 1998). Moreover, evidence suggests that MukB and FtsZ interact (Lockhart and Kendrick-Jones 1998). Further research is necessary to validate the interaction between MukB and FtsZ in vivo and to determine whether this interaction leads to a direct effect of MukB on cell division. The safeguards of chromosome segregation In E. coli, divisome assembly starts once bulk chromosome segregation has occurred. At this time, however, the chromosomal ter region is still being replicated and has not segregated yet (Den Blaauwen et al.1999). Moreover, cell constriction often starts when the ter region is still present at midcell (Galli et al.2017). This considerable overlap between chromosome segregation and cell division is a threat to the cell, since problems during the final phase of nucleoid partitioning might lead to DNA guillotining by the closing septum. E. coli is therefore in need of mechanisms that make sure that guillotining is avoided. Two such safeguards of chromosome integrity have been described. FtsK The FtsK protein is responsible for a well-established safeguard mechanism. FtsK contains two functional domains connected by a linker region. Its N-terminal domain is essential for cell division and localizes FtsK to the divisome (Wang and Lutkenhaus 1998). The C-terminal domain functions in chromosome segregation and dimer resolution (Steiner et al.1999; Stouf, Meile and Cornet 2013). Upon cell constriction during division, the function of FtsK in chromosome segregation becomes active: either because FtsK is brought in close proximity to its DNA substrate or because its local concentration increases (Kennedy, Chevalier and Barre 2008; Mannik, Bailey and O’Neill 2017). If at this time the chromosome has not fully segregated yet, the C-terminal domain of FtsK loads onto the chromosome as hexameric rings and translocates DNA to opposite cell halves (Stouf, Meile and Cornet 2013; Galli et al.2017; Mannik, Bailey and O’Neill 2017). The directionality in DNA translocation is provided by KOPS (FtsK orienting polar sequences) sites in the left and right chromosomal arms that are divergently oriented so that FtsK translocates DNA away from midcell until dif is reached (Bigot et al.2005; Levy et al.2005). The function of FtsK in nucleoid partitioning is not essential (Yu, Weihe and Margolin 1998; Stouf, Meile and Cornet 2013). In fact, under fast growth conditions, the entire chromosome segregates even before FtsK can act upon it (Galli et al.2017). Under slow growth conditions, however, or in case of chromosome dimers, FtsK is responsible for the active segregation of a small, ∼200 kb region in the chromosomal terminus (Stouf, Meile and Cornet 2013; Galli et al.2017). If needed, FtsK can also pump larger parts of the chromosome toward opposite cell halves, but it does not appear to do so under optimal conditions (Sivanathan et al.2009; Stouf, Meile and Cornet 2013; Mannik, Bailey and O’Neill 2017). FtsK thus only transports trapped chromosomal DNA away from the division site during constriction. It thereby functions as a safeguard that speeds up segregation if the integrity of the chromosome is being threatened by the closing septum (Fig. 8). The Ter linkage The Ter linkage is mostly known because it physically couples the chromosomal terminus region to the divisome by MatP-ZapB-ZapA protein bridges (Buss et al.2015). It thereby provides spatiotemporal coordination between chromosome segregation and Z-ring assembly (Bailey et al.2014). However, this link was recently suggested to also function at a later stage of the division program by modulating the rate of cell division. Deletion of the matP gene increases the septum closure rate and speeds up constriction, indicating that the MatP protein is capable of slowing down cell division (Buss et al.2015; Coltharp et al.2016). MatP was therefore suggested to function as a braking mechanism for constriction (Coltharp et al.2016). This protein might slow down cell division by decreasing FtsZ turnover (Buss et al.2015). Since MatP is physically connected to FtsZ by ZapA and ZapB and also decreases turnover of ZapA and ZapB structures, it seems likely that the effect of MatP on FtsZ is mediated through the Ter linkage (Buss et al.2015). However, another study found that deletion of matP has no effect on Z-ring behavior (Yang et al.2017), leaving the nature of the effect of MatP on cell division an open question. Another pressing question is whether MatP needs to be bound to ter DNA to modulate the rate of septum closure. If so, MatP could modulate the division rate in response to nucleoid partitioning, in addition to its role in chromosome segregation and spatiotemporal regulation of Z-ring assembly (Mercier et al.2008; Espeli et al.2012; Bailey et al.2014; Buss et al.2015, 2017; Coltharp et al.2016). MatP and the Ter linkage could thereby act as a safeguard for chromosome segregation by postponing septum closure if segregation is incomplete (Fig. 8). This hypothesis, however, requires further investigation. GLOBAL COORDINATION BY CELL CYCLE SENTINELS As is clear from previous sections, many proteins play a role in the regulation of the E. coli cell cycle. Some of them are involved in two processes simultaneously and can therefore coordinate these processes relative to one another. Additionally, proteins that function in the regulation of all three major cell cycle events could act as cell cycle sentinels that watch over the general progression of the cell cycle and orchestrate future events accordingly. At least two E. coli proteins meet these criteria. These proteins are the small GTPases, Obg and Era, that are conserved throughout the bacterial kingdom (Verstraeten et al.2011; Kint et al.2014). Obg is essential for bacterial viability and plays an important but hitherto ill-defined role in every major cell cycle event. Obg deficiency impedes the initiation of replication by lowering cellular DnaA levels (Sikora et al.2006). Nucleoid partitioning is severely hampered upon Obg depletion, leading to the conclusion that Obg is necessary to license chromosome segregation (Kobayashi, Moriya and Wada 2001; Foti et al.2007). Finally, a mutant Obg isoform blocks cell cycle progression at the stage of cell division, thereby also implicating Obg in this stage of the cell cycle (Dewachter et al.2017). Of note, overexpression of Obg induces persistence which is associated with dormancy and cessation of cell proliferation (Verstraeten et al.2015), likewise implicating Obg in cell cycle control. Moreover, since Obg functions as a sensor of the cell's energy status by binding GTP, GDP or ppGpp (Verstraeten et al.2011; Kint et al.2014), Obg could integrate metabolic input into cell cycle control. The Era GTPase also has an important role in the regulation of the cell cycle. Depletion of Era leads to excess initiation of replication in B. subtilis (Morimoto et al.2002). A mutant form of the Era protein can suppress chromosome segregation defects caused by various genomic mutations and the same Era mutant also arrests the cell cycle at the stage of cell division (Britton et al.1997, 1998). The latter phenotype is also found upon downregulation of era expression (Britton et al.1998). Because of the involvement of Obg and Era in all major cell cycle events, it is tempting to speculate that these proteins function as master regulators of the bacterial cell cycle. Such master regulators could monitor different processes, coordinate them and couple them to each other. Additionally, several other conserved GTPases are also involved in cell cycle control (Verstraeten et al.2011). However, like Obg and Era, their cellular function is not well characterized at present. The universally conserved bacterial GTPases therefore represent an understudied research area with great potential to reveal groundbreaking insights into cell cycle regulation and coordination of different cell cycle events. CONCLUDING REMARKS Although initiation of DNA replication, chromosome segregation and cell division are often investigated separately as isolated events, they must be coordinated to each other to preserve genomic integrity and cellular viability. At present, however, it remains unclear how this coordination is achieved. In E. coli and many other bacteria, cell cycle events are much less tightly linked than is the case in eukaryotic cells. Different events show considerable overlap (Den Blaauwen et al.1999; Nielsen et al.2006) and disturbing one event does not necessarily affect other processes (Bi and Lutkenhaus 1991). It has therefore been proposed that, rather than directly regulating each other's progression, cell cycle events are indirectly linked, for example, through coupling to nutrient status (Willis and Huang 2017). Although metabolic status could be an important factor in the coordination of cell cycle events, direct connections between processes also exist and contribute to correct cell cycle progression. Several such connections have been described, although the underlying molecular mechanisms and their significance in cell cycle control often remain unknown. At present, the connection between chromosome segregation and cell division is the best characterized; chromosome segregation allows and guides the initial phases of divisome assembly (Bailey et al.2014) and the divisome protein FtsK can stimulate segregation during constriction (Stouf, Meile and Cornet 2013). These direct links thereby clearly aid in the coordination of chromosome segregation and cell division. Replication and segregation occur simultaneously and follow each other closely. An initial delay of segregation with respect to replication is necessary to separate both processes. In E. coli, this delay is for a large part mediated by SeqA (Joshi et al.2013). Moreover, in the case of replication fork stalling, the cell would benefit from a safety spacer that prevents segregation from reaching the replisome and thereby threatening genomic integrity. Whether such a safety spacer indeed has evolved and involves the SeqA protein remains to be fully established (Rotman et al.2014; Pedersen et al.2017). The connection between initiation of replication and cell division is arguably the least understood. At present, these events are considered to be completely uncoupled. However, recent evidence indicates that previously unexplored connections between both exist, at least in some bacteria. Also in E. coli, a direct connection, mediated by GidA, MioC and YmgF, has been recently uncovered (Lies et al.2015). The physiological role of this connection, however, remains elusive and requires further investigation. Finally, several conserved prokaryotic GTPases appear to be involved in all cell cycle events and therefore could act as master regulators of cell cycle progression (Verstraeten et al.2011). However, since none of them are sufficiently characterized, this remains to be experimentally validated. Further research into how cell cycle events relate to one another and how they can influence each other's timing and progression are clearly needed to deepen our understanding of the intricate regulatory network that underlies the bacterial cell cycle. Most importantly, it needs to be established whether the order and timing of cell cycle events is determined by coupling to metabolism, cell size and/or progression of other events. As we have discussed here, direct connections between individual events can contribute to cell cycle control. To gain more insight into this form of regulation, molecular mechanisms and physiological roles of already discovered connections need to be uncovered and the existence of additional links should be investigated. Resulting insights will contribute to an integrative view on cell cycle control. Moreover, improved understanding of how bacteria proliferate and which molecular mechanisms are vital for the correct progression of the cell cycle can provide a starting point to develop novel antimicrobials. Such antibacterial compounds could be aimed at disturbing normal progression of the cell cycle. Interfering with the correct sequence of events or otherwise perturbing the cell cycle program can compromise bacterial viability and/or survival. They could therefore prove to be a successful strategy in combating bacterial pathogens. FUNDING This work was supported by grants from the Fund for Scientific Research, Flanders (FWO) [G.0471.12N, G.0B25.15N, 1522214N]; KU Leuven [CREA/13/019, C16/17/006], the Interuniversity Attraction Poles-Belgian Science Policy Office IAP-BELSPO [IAP P7/28] and the Flanders Institute for Biotechnology VIB. LD received a fellowship from FWO and is supported by the Internal Funds KU Leuven. Conflict of interest. None declared. REFERENCES Aarsman ME, Piette A, Fraipont C et al.   Maturation of the Escherichia coli divisome occurs in two steps. Mol Microbiol  2005; 55: 1631– 45. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Akerlund T, Gullbrand B, Nordstrom K. Effects of the Min system on nucleoid segregation in Escherichia coli. Microbiology  2002; 148: 3213– 22. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Amir A. Cell size regulation in bacteria. Phys Rev Lett  2014; 112: 208102. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Anderson DE, Gueiros-Filho FJ, Erickson HP. Assembly dynamics of FtsZ rings in Bacillus subtilis and Escherichia coli and effects of FtsZ-regulating proteins. J Bacteriol  2004; 186: 5775– 81. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Arjes HA, Kriel A, Sorto NA et al.   Failsafe mechanisms couple division and DNA replication in bacteria. Curr Biol  2014; 24: 2149– 55. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Asai T, Takanami M, Imai M. The AT richness and gid transcription determine the left border of the replication origin of the E. coli chromosome. EMBO J  1990; 9: 4065– 72. Google Scholar PubMed  Aussel L, Barre FX, Aroyo M et al.   FtsK Is a DNA motor protein that activates chromosome dimer resolution by switching the catalytic state of the XerC and XerD recombinases. Cell  2002; 108: 195– 205. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bach T, Krekling MA, Skarstad K. Excess SeqA prolongs sequestration of oriC and delays nucleoid segregation and cell division. EMBO J  2003; 22: 315– 23. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bach T, Skarstad K. Re-replication from non-sequesterable origins generates three-nucleoid cells which divide asymmetrically. Mol Microbiol  2004; 51: 1589– 600. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Badrinarayanan A, Le TB, Laub MT. Bacterial chromosome organization and segregation. Annu Rev Cell Dev Bi  2015; 31: 171– 99. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Badrinarayanan A, Lesterlin C, Reyes-Lamothe R et al.   The Escherichia coli SMC complex, MukBEF, shapes nucleoid organization independently of DNA replication. J Bacteriol  2012; 194: 4669– 76. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bailey MW, Bisicchia P, Warren BT et al.   Evidence for divisome localization mechanisms independent of the Min system and SlmA in Escherichia coli. PLoS Genet  2014; 10: e1004504. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Barber F, Ho PY, Murray AW et al.   Details matter: noise and model structure set the relationship between cell size and cell cycle timing. Front Cell Dev Biol  2017; 5: 92. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Barre FX, Aroyo M, Colloms SD et al.   FtsK functions in the processing of a Holliday junction intermediate during bacterial chromosome segregation. Gene Dev  2000; 14: 2976– 88. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bates D, Kleckner N. Chromosome and replisome dynamics in E. coli: loss of sister cohesion triggers global chromosome movement and mediates chromosome segregation. Cell  2005; 121: 899– 911. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bates DB, Boye E, Asai T et al.   The absence of effect of gid or mioC transcription on the initiation of chromosomal replication in Escherichia coli. P Natl Acad Sci USA  1997; 94: 12497– 502. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Bernander R, Nordstrom K. Chromosome replication does not trigger cell division in E. coli. Cell  1990; 60: 365– 74. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bernhardt TG, de Boer PA. SlmA, a nucleoid-associated, FtsZ binding protein required for blocking septal ring assembly over chromosomes in E. coli. Mol Cell  2005; 18: 555– 64. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bi E, Lutkenhaus J. Cell division inhibitors SulA and MinCD prevent formation of the FtsZ ring. J Bacteriol  1993; 175: 1118– 25. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bi EF, Lutkenhaus J. FtsZ ring structure associated with division in Escherichia coli. Nature  1991; 354: 161– 4. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bidnenko V, Ehrlich SD, Michel B. Replication fork collapse at replication terminator sequences. EMBO J  2002; 21: 3898– 907. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bigot S, Marians KJ. DNA chirality-dependent stimulation of topoisomerase IV activity by the C-terminal AAA+ domain of FtsK. Nucleic Acids Res  2010; 38: 3031– 40. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bigot S, Saleh OA, Lesterlin C et al.   KOPS: DNA motifs that control E. coli chromosome segregation by orienting the FtsK translocase. EMBO J  2005; 24: 3770– 80. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bisson-Filho AW, Hsu YP, Squyres GR et al.   Treadmilling by FtsZ filaments drives peptidoglycan synthesis and bacterial cell division. Science  2017; 355: 739– 43. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bogan JA, Helmstetter CE. DNA sequestration and transcription in the oriC region of Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol  1997; 26: 889– 96. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Boye E, Nordstrom K. Coupling the cell cycle to cell growth. EMBO Rep  2003; 4: 757– 60. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bramhill D, Kornberg A. Duplex opening by DnaA protein at novel sequences in initiation of replication at the origin of the E. coli chromosome. Cell  1988; 52: 743– 55. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Brendler T, Sawitzke J, Sergueev K et al.   A case for sliding SeqA tracts at anchored replication forks during Escherichia coli chromosome replication and segregation. EMBO J  2000; 19: 6249– 58. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Britton RA, Powell BS, Court DL et al.   Characterization of mutations affecting the Escherichia coli essential GTPase era that suppress two temperature-sensitive dnaG alleles. J Bacteriol  1997; 179: 4575– 82. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Britton RA, Powell BS, Dasgupta S et al.   Cell cycle arrest in Era GTPase mutants: a potential growth rate-regulated checkpoint in Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol  1998; 27: 739– 50. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Browning DF, Grainger DC, Busby SJ. Effects of nucleoid-associated proteins on bacterial chromosome structure and gene expression. Curr Opin Microbiol  2010; 13: 773– 80. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Buss J, Coltharp C, Shtengel G et al.   A multi-layered protein network stabilizes the Escherichia coli FtsZ-ring and modulates constriction dynamics. PLoS Genet  2015; 11: e1005128. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Buss JA, Peters NT, Xiao J et al.   ZapA and ZapB form an FtsZ-independent structure at midcell. Mol Microbiol  2017; 104: 652– 63. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Cabre EJ, Monterroso B, Alfonso C et al.   The nucleoid occlusion SlmA protein accelerates the disassembly of the FtsZ protein polymers without affecting their GTPase activity. PLoS One  2015; 10: e0126434. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Camara JE, Breier AM, Brendler T et al.   Hda inactivation of DnaA is the predominant mechanism preventing hyperinitiation of Escherichia coli DNA replication. EMBO Rep  2005; 6: 736– 41. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Cambridge J, Blinkova A, Magnan D et al.   A replication-inhibited unsegregated nucleoid at mid-cell blocks Z-ring formation and cell division independently of SOS and the SlmA nucleoid occlusion protein in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol  2014; 196: 36– 49. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Campbell JL, Kleckner N. E. coli oriC and the dnaA gene promoter are sequestered from dam methyltransferase following the passage of the chromosomal replication fork. Cell  1990; 62: 967– 79. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Campos M, Surovtsev IV, Kato S et al.   A constant size extension drives bacterial cell size homeostasis. Cell  2014; 159: 1433– 46. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Cass JA, Kuwada NJ, Traxler B et al.   Escherichia coli chromosomal loci segregate from midcell with universal dynamics. Biophys J  2016; 110: 2597– 609. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Cassler MR, Grimwade JE, Leonard AC. Cell cycle-specific changes in nucleoprotein complexes at a chromosomal replication origin. EMBO J  1995; 14: 5833– 41. Google Scholar PubMed  Chen Y, Milam SL, Erickson HP. SulA inhibits assembly of FtsZ by a simple sequestration mechanism. Biochemistry  2012; 51: 3100– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Cho H, McManus HR, Dove SL et al.   Nucleoid occlusion factor SlmA is a DNA-activated FtsZ polymerization antagonist. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2011; 108: 3773– 8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Collier J. Regulation of chromosomal replication in Caulobacter crescentus. Plasmid  2012; 67: 76– 87. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Coltharp C, Buss J, Plumer TM et al.   Defining the rate-limiting processes of bacterial cytokinesis. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2016; 113: E1044– 53. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Cooper S, Helmstetter CE. Chromosome replication and the division cycle of Escherichia coli. J Mol Biol  1968; 31: 519– 40. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Crooke E, Castuma CE, Kornberg A. The chromosome origin of Escherichia coli stabilizes DnaA protein during rejuvenation by phospholipids. J Biol Chem  1992; 267: 16779– 82. Google Scholar PubMed  Dai K, Lutkenhaus J. ftsZ is an essential cell division gene in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol  1991; 173: 3500– 6. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Dajkovic A, Lan G, Sun SX et al.   MinC spatially controls bacterial cytokinesis by antagonizing the scaffolding function of FtsZ. Curr Biol  2008; 18: 235– 44. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Dajkovic A, Mukherjee A, Lutkenhaus J. Investigation of regulation of FtsZ assembly by SulA and development of a model for FtsZ polymerization. J Bacteriol  2008; 190: 2513– 26. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Dajkovic A, Pichoff S, Lutkenhaus J et al.   Cross-linking FtsZ polymers into coherent Z rings. Mol Microbiol  2010; 78: 651– 68. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Daley DO, Skoglund U, Soderstrom B. FtsZ does not initiate membrane constriction at the onset of division. Sci Rep  2016; 6: 33138. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Danilova O, Reyes-Lamothe R, Pinskaya M et al.   MukB colocalizes with the oriC region and is required for organization of the two Escherichia coli chromosome arms into separate cell halves. Mol Microbiol  2007; 65: 1485– 92. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  de Vries R. DNA condensation in bacteria: Interplay between macromolecular crowding and nucleoid proteins. Biochimie  2010; 92: 1715– 21. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Den Blaauwen T, Buddelmeijer N, Aarsman ME et al.   Timing of FtsZ assembly in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol  1999; 181: 5167– 75. Google Scholar PubMed  Dewachter L, Verstraeten N, Jennes M et al.   A mutant isoform of ObgE causes cell death by interfering with cell division. Front Microbiol  2017; 8: 1193. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Di Ventura B, Knecht B, Andreas H et al.   Chromosome segregation by the Escherichia coli Min system. Mol Syst Biol  2014; 9: 686. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Diffley JF. Quality control in the initiation of eukaryotic DNA replication. Philos T Roy Soc B Biol Sci  2011; 366: 3545– 53. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Donachie WD. Relationship between cell size and time of initiation of DNA replication. Nature  1968; 219: 1077– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Donachie WD, Blakely GW. Coupling the initiation of chromosome replication to cell size in Escherichia coli. Curr Opin Microbiol  2003; 6: 146– 50. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Dri AM, Rouviere-Yaniv J, Moreau PL. Inhibition of cell division in hupA hupB mutant bacteria lacking HU protein. J Bacteriol  1991; 173: 2852– 63. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Du S, Lutkenhaus J. SlmA antagonism of FtsZ assembly employs a two-pronged mechanism like MinCD. PLoS Genet  2014; 10: e1004460. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Duderstadt KE, Chuang K, Berger JM. DNA stretching by bacterial initiators promotes replication origin opening. Nature  2011; 478: 209– 13. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Duigou S, Boccard F. Long range chromosome organization in Escherichia coli: the position of the replication origin defines the non-structured regions and the Right and Left macrodomains. PLoS Genet  2017; 13: e1006758. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Dupaigne P, Tonthat NK, Espeli O et al.   Molecular basis for a protein-mediated dna-bridging mechanism that functions in condensation of the E. coli chromosome. Mol Cell  2012; 48: 560– 71. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Durand-Heredia J, Rivkin E, Fan G et al.   Identification of ZapD as a cell division factor that promotes the assembly of FtsZ in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol  2012; 194: 3189– 98. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Durand-Heredia JM, Yu HH, De Carlo S et al.   Identification and characterization of ZapC, a stabilizer of the FtsZ ring in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol  2011; 193: 1405– 13. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Ebersbach G, Galli E, Moller-Jensen J et al.   Novel coiled-coil cell division factor ZapB stimulates Z ring assembly and cell division. Mol Microbiol  2008; 68: 720– 35. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  El Sayyed H, Le Chat, L Lebailly E et al.   Mapping topoisomerase IV binding and activity sites on the E. coli genome. PLoS Genet  2016; 12: e1006025. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Elledge SJ. Cell cycle checkpoints: preventing an identity crisis. Science  1996; 274: 1664– 72. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Erickson HP, Anderson DE, Osawa M. FtsZ in bacterial cytokinesis: cytoskeleton and force generator all in one. Microbiol Mol Biol R  2010; 74: 504– 28. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Espeli O, Borne R, Dupaigne P et al.   A MatP-divisome interaction coordinates chromosome segregation with cell division in E. coli. EMBO J  2012; 31: 3198– 211. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Espeli O, Lee C, Marians KJ. A physical and functional interaction between Escherichia coli FtsK and topoisomerase IV. J Biol Chem  2003; 278: 44639– 44. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Espeli O, Levine C, Hassing H et al.   Temporal regulation of topoisomerase IV activity in E. coli. Mol Cell  2003; 11: 189– 201. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Espeli O, Mercier R, Boccard F. DNA dynamics vary according to macrodomain topography in the E. coli chromosome. Mol Microbiol  2008; 68: 1418– 27. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fang L, Davey MJ, O’Donnell M. Replisome assembly at oriC, the replication origin of E. coli, reveals an explanation for initiation sites outside an origin. Mol Cell  1999; 4: 541– 53. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Filutowicz M, Ross W, Wild J et al.   Involvement of Fis protein in replication of the Escherichia coli chromosome. J Bacteriol  1992; 174: 398– 407. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fisher JK, Bourniquel A, Witz G et al.   Four-dimensional imaging of E. coli nucleoid organization and dynamics in living cells. Cell  2013; 153: 882– 95. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Flatten I, Fossum-Raunehaug S, Taipale R et al.   The DnaA protein is not the limiting factor for initiation of replication in Escherichia coli. PLoS Genet  2015; 11: e1005276. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Flatten I, Skarstad K. The Fis protein has a stimulating role in initiation of replication in Escherichia coli in vivo. PLoS One  2013; 8: e83562. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fossum S, Crooke E, Skarstad K. Organization of sister origins and replisomes during multifork DNA replication in Escherichia coli. EMBO J  2007; 26: 4514– 22. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Foti JJ, Persky NS, Ferullo DJ et al.   Chromosome segregation control by Escherichia coli ObgE GTPase. Mol Microbiol  2007; 65: 569– 81. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fraipont C, Alexeeva S, Wolf B et al.   The integral membrane FtsW protein and peptidoglycan synthase PBP3 form a subcomplex in Escherichia coli. Microbiology  2011; 157: 251– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Frimodt-Moller J, Charbon G, Krogfelt KA et al.   DNA replication control is linked to genomic positioning of control regions in Escherichia coli. PLoS Genet  2016; 12: e1006286. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fu G, Huang T, Buss J et al.   In vivo structure of the E. coli FtsZ-ring revealed by photoactivated localization microscopy (PALM). PLoS One  2010; 5: e12682. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fu X, Shih YL, Zhang Y et al.   The MinE ring required for proper placement of the division site is a mobile structure that changes its cellular location during the Escherichia coli division cycle. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2001; 98: 980– 5. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Fujimitsu K, Senriuchi T, Katayama T. Specific genomic sequences of E. coli promote replicational initiation by directly reactivating ADP-DnaA. Gene Dev  2009; 23: 1221– 33. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Galli E, Gerdes K. Spatial resolution of two bacterial cell division proteins: ZapA recruits ZapB to the inner face of the Z-ring. Mol Microbiol  2010; 76: 1514– 26. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Galli E, Gerdes K. FtsZ-ZapA-ZapB interactome of Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol  2012; 194: 292– 302. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Galli E, Midonet C, Paly E et al.   Fast growth conditions uncouple the final stages of chromosome segregation and cell division in Escherichia coli. PLoS Genet  2017; 13: e1006702. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Grainge I, Bregu M, Vazquez M et al.   Unlinking chromosome catenanes in vivo by site-specific recombination. EMBO J  2007; 26: 4228– 38. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Grainge I, Lesterlin C, Sherratt DJ. Activation of XerCD-dif recombination by the FtsK DNA translocase. Nucleic Acids Res  2011; 39: 5140– 8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Grimwade JE, Ryan VT, Leonard AC. IHF redistributes bound initiator protein, DnaA, on supercoiled oriC of Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol  2000; 35: 835– 44. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Guarne A, Brendler T, Zhao Q et al.   Crystal structure of a SeqA-N filament: implications for DNA replication and chromosome organization. EMBO J  2005; 24: 1502– 11. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Gullbrand B, Nordstrom K. FtsZ ring formation without subsequent cell division after replication runout in Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol  2000; 36: 1349– 59. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Haeusser DP, Levin PA. The great divide: coordinating cell cycle events during bacterial growth and division. Curr Opin Microbiol  2008; 11: 94– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Hale CA, Meinhardt H, de Boer PA. Dynamic localization cycle of the cell division regulator MinE in Escherichia coli. EMBO J  2001; 20: 1563– 72. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Hale CA, Rhee AC, de Boer PA. ZipA-induced bundling of FtsZ polymers mediated by an interaction between C-terminal domains. J Bacteriol  2000; 182: 5153– 66. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Hale CA, Shiomi D, Liu B et al.   Identification of Escherichia coli ZapC (YcbW) as a component of the division apparatus that binds and bundles FtsZ polymers. J Bacteriol  2011; 193: 1393– 404. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Harry EJ, Rodwell J, Wake RG. Co-ordinating DNA replication with cell division in bacteria: a link between the early stages of a round of replication and mid-cell Z ring assembly. Mol Microbiol  1999; 33: 33– 40. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Hayama R, Bahng S, Karasu ME et al.   The MukB-ParC interaction affects the intramolecular, not intermolecular, activities of topoisomerase IV. J Biol Chem  2013; 288: 7653– 61. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Hayama R, Marians KJ. Physical and functional interaction between the condensin MukB and the decatenase topoisomerase IV in Escherichia coli. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2010; 107: 18826– 31. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Helgesen E, Fossum-Raunehaug S, Saetre F et al.   Dynamic Escherichia coli SeqA complexes organize the newly replicated DNA at a considerable distance from the replisome. Nucleic Acids Res  2015; 43: 2730– 43. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Helmstetter CE, Pierucci O. DNA synthesis during the division cycle of three substrains of Escherichia coli. J Mol Biol  1976; 102: 477– 86. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Hernandez-Rocamora VM, Garcia-Montanes C, Reija B et al.   MinC protein shortens FtsZ protofilaments by preferentially interacting with GDP-bound subunits. J Biol Chem  2013; 288: 24625– 35. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Hill NS, Buske PJ, Shi Y et al.   A moonlighting enzyme links Escherichia coli cell size with central metabolism. PLoS Genet  2013; 9: e1003663. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Hu Z, Lutkenhaus J. Topological regulation of cell division in Escherichia coli involves rapid pole to pole oscillation of the division inhibitor MinC under the control of MinD and MinE. Mol Microbiol  1999; 34: 82– 90. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Huang J, Cao C, Lutkenhaus J. Interaction between FtsZ and inhibitors of cell division. J Bacteriol  1996; 178: 5080– 5. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Huisman O, D’Ari R. An inducible DNA replication-cell division coupling mechanism in E. coli. Nature  1981; 290: 797– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Huisman O, Faelen M, Girard D et al.   Multiple defects in Escherichia coli mutants lacking HU protein. J Bacteriol  1989; 171: 3704– 12. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Inoue I, Ino R, Nishimura A. New model for assembly dynamics of bacterial tubulin in relation to the stages of DNA replication. Gene Cell  2009; 14: 435– 44. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Ishida T, Akimitsu N, Kashioka T et al.   DiaA, a Novel DnaA-binding protein, ensures the timely initiation of Escherichia coli chromosome replication. J Biol Chem  2004; 279: 45546– 55. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Jameson KH, Wilkinson AJ. Control of initiation of DNA replication in Bacillus subtilis and Escherichia coli. Genes  2017; 8: 22. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Janion C. Inducible SOS response system of DNA repair and mutagenesis in Escherichia coli. Int J Biol Sci  2008; 4: 338– 44. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Joshi MC, Bourniquel A, Fisher J et al.   Escherichia coli sister chromosome separation includes an abrupt global transition with concomitant release of late-splitting intersister snaps. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2011; 108: 2765– 70. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Joshi MC, Magnan D, Montminy TP et al.   Regulation of sister chromosome cohesion by the replication fork tracking protein SeqA. PLoS Genet  2013; 9: e1003673. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Jun S, Mulder B. Entropy-driven spatial organization of highly confined polymers: lessons for the bacterial chromosome. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2006; 103: 12388– 93. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Jun S, Wright A. Entropy as the driver of chromosome segregation. Nat Rev Microbiol  2010; 8: 600– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Junier I, Boccard F, Espeli O. Polymer modeling of the E. coli genome reveals the involvement of locus positioning and macrodomain structuring for the control of chromosome conformation and segregation. Nucleic Acids Res  2014; 42: 1461– 73. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kang S, Lee H, Han JS et al.   Interaction of SeqA and Dam methylase on the hemimethylated origin of Escherichia coli chromosomal DNA replication. J Biol Chem  1999; 274: 11463– 8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Karimova G, Robichon C, Ladant D. Characterization of YmgF, a 72-residue inner membrane protein that associates with the Escherichia coli cell division machinery. J Bacteriol  2009; 191: 333– 46. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kasho K, Fujimitsu K, Matoba T et al.   Timely binding of IHF and Fis to DARS2 regulates ATP-DnaA production and replication initiation. Nucleic Acids Res  2014; 42: 13134– 49. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kasho K, Katayama T. DnaA binding locus datA promotes DnaA-ATP hydrolysis to enable cell cycle-coordinated replication initiation. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2013; 110: 936– 41. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Kasho K, Tanaka H, Sakai R et al.   Cooperative DnaA binding to the negatively supercoiled datA locus stimulates DnaA-ATP Hydrolysis. J Biol Chem  2017; 292: 1251– 66. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Katayama T, Fujimitsu K, Ogawa T. Multiple pathways regulating DnaA function in Escherichia coli: distinct roles for DnaA titration by the datA locus and the regulatory inactivation of DnaA. Biochimie  2001; 83: 13– 17. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kato J, Katayama T. Hda, a novel DnaA-related protein, regulates the replication cycle in Escherichia coli. EMBO J  2001; 20: 4253– 62. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kaur G, Vora MP, Czerwonka CA et al.   Building the bacterial orisome: high-affinity DnaA recognition plays a role in setting the conformation of oriC DNA. Mol Microbiol  2014; 91: 1148– 63. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Keller AN, Xin Y, Boer S et al.   Activation of Xer-recombination at dif: structural basis of the FtsKgamma-XerD interaction. Sci Rep  2016; 6: 33357. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kennedy SP, Chevalier F, Barre FX. Delayed activation of Xer recombination at dif by FtsK during septum assembly in Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol  2008; 68: 1018– 28. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Keyamura K, Abe Y, Higashi M et al.   DiaA dynamics are coupled with changes in initial origin complexes leading to helicase loading. J Biol Chem  2009; 284: 25038– 50. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Keyamura K, Fujikawa N, Ishida T et al.   The interaction of DiaA and DnaA regulates the replication cycle in E. coli by directly promoting ATP DnaA-specific initiation complexes. Gene Dev  2007; 21: 2083– 99. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Khan SR, Mahaseth T, Kouzminova EA et al.   Static and dynamic factors limit chromosomal replication complexity in Escherichia coli, avoiding dangers of runaway overreplication. Genetics  2016; 202: 945– 60. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kint C, Verstraeten N, Hofkens J et al.   Bacterial Obg proteins: GTPases at the nexus of protein and DNA synthesis. Crit Rev Microbiol  2014; 40: 207– 24. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kitagawa R, Mitsuki H, Okazaki T et al.   A novel DnaA protein-binding site at 94.7 min on the Escherichia coli chromosome. Mol Microbiol  1996; 19: 1137– 47. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kitagawa R, Ozaki T, Moriya S et al.   Negative control of replication initiation by a novel chromosomal locus exhibiting exceptional affinity for Escherichia coli DnaA protein. Gene Dev  1998; 12: 3032– 43. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kobayashi G, Moriya S, Wada C. Deficiency of essential GTP-binding protein ObgE in Escherichia coli inhibits chromosome partition. Mol Microbiol  2001; 41: 1037– 51. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kowalski D, Eddy MJ. The DNA unwinding element: a novel, cis-acting component that facilitates opening of the Escherichia coli replication origin. EMBO J  1989; 8: 4335– 44. Google Scholar PubMed  Krupka M, Rowlett VW, Morado D et al.   Escherichia coli FtsA forms lipid-bound minirings that antagonize lateral interactions between FtsZ protofilaments. Nat Commun  2017; 8: 15957. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kurokawa K, Nishida S, Emoto A et al.   Replication cycle-coordinated change of the adenine nucleotide-bound forms of DnaA protein in Escherichia coli. EMBO J  1999; 18: 6642– 52. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kurz M, Dalrymple B, Wijffels G et al.   Interaction of the sliding clamp beta-subunit and Hda, a DnaA-related protein. J Bacteriol  2004; 186: 3508– 15. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kuwada NJ, Cheveralls KC, Traxler B et al.   Mapping the driving forces of chromosome structure and segregation in Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res  2013; 41: 7370– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kuzminov A. The chromosome cycle of prokaryotes. Mol Microbiol  2013; 90: 214– 27. Google Scholar PubMed  Lackner LL, Raskin DM, de Boer PA. ATP-dependent interactions between Escherichia coli Min proteins and the phospholipid membrane in vitro. J Bacteriol  2003; 185: 735– 49. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Lemon KP, Grossman AD. The extrusion-capture model for chromosome partitioning in bacteria. Gene Dev  2001; 15: 2031– 41. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Leonard AC, Grimwade JE. The orisome: structure and function. Front Microbiol  2015; 6: 545. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Lesterlin C, Gigant E, Boccard F et al.   Sister chromatid interactions in bacteria revealed by a site-specific recombination assay. EMBO J  2012; 31: 3468– 79. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Levy O, Ptacin JL, Pease PJ et al.   Identification of oligonucleotide sequences that direct the movement of the Escherichia coli FtsK translocase. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2005; 102: 17618– 23. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Li Y, Stewart NK, Berger AJ et al.   Escherichia coli condensin MukB stimulates topoisomerase IV activity by a direct physical interaction. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2010; 107: 18832– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Lies M, Visser BJ, Joshi MC et al.   MioC and GidA proteins promote cell division in E. coli. Front Microbiol  2015; 6: 516. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Lobner-Olesen A, Atlung T, Rasmussen KV. Stability and replication control of Escherichia coli minichromosomes. J Bacteriol  1987; 169: 2835– 42. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Lockhart A, Kendrick-Jones J. Nucleotide-dependent interaction of the N-terminal domain of MukB with microtubules. J Struct Biol  1998; 124: 303– 10. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Loose M, Mitchison TJ. The bacterial cell division proteins FtsA and FtsZ self-organize into dynamic cytoskeletal patterns. Nat Cell Biol  2014; 16: 38– 46. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Lowe J, Amos LA. Crystal structure of the bacterial cell-division protein FtsZ. Nature  1998; 391: 203– 6. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Lu M, Campbell JL, Boye E et al.   SeqA: A negative modulator of replication initiation in E. coli. Cell  1994; 77: 413– 26. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Ma X, Margolin W. Genetic and functional analyses of the conserved C-terminal core domain of Escherichia coli FtsZ. J Bacteriol  1999; 181: 7531– 44. Google Scholar PubMed  McGarry KC, Ryan VT, Grimwade JE et al.   Two discriminatory binding sites in the Escherichia coli replication origin are required for DNA strand opening by initiator DnaA-ATP. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2004; 101: 2811– 6. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Magnan D, Joshi MC, Barker AK et al.   DNA Replication initiation is blocked by a distant chromosome-membrane attachment. Curr Biol  2015; 25: 2143– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Makise M, Mima S, Katsu T et al.   Acidic phospholipids inhibit the DNA-binding activity of DnaA protein, the initiator of chromosomal DNA replication in Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol  2002; 46: 245– 56. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Mannik J, Bailey MW, O’Neill JC. Kinetics of large-scale chromosomal movement during asymmetric cell division in Escherichia coli. PLoS Genet  2017; 13: e1006638. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Mannik J, Castillo DE, Yang D et al.   The role of MatP, ZapA and ZapB in chromosomal organization and dynamics in Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res  2016; 44: 1216– 26. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Mannik J, Wu F, Hol FJ et al.   Robustness and accuracy of cell division in Escherichia coli in diverse cell shapes. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2012; 109: 6957– 62. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Marko JF. Linking topology of tethered polymer rings with applications to chromosome segregation and estimation of the knotting length. Phys Rev E  2009; 79: 051905. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Marteyn BS, Karimova G, Fenton AK et al.   ZapE is a novel cell division protein interacting with FtsZ and modulating the Z-ring dynamics. mBio  2014; 5: e00022– 14. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Martin CM, Viguera E, Guzman EC. Rifampicin suppresses thymineless death by blocking the transcription-dependent step of chromosome initiation. DNA Repair  2014; 18: 10– 17. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Mercier R, Petit MA, Schbath S et al.   The MatP/matS site-specific system organizes the terminus region of the E. coli chromosome into a macrodomain. Cell  2008; 135: 475– 85. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Michelsen O, Teixeira de Mattos MJ, Jensen PR et al.   Precise determinations of C and D periods by flow cytometry in Escherichia coli K-12 and B/r. Microbiology  2003; 149: 1001– 10. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Miller DT, Grimwade JE, Betteridge T et al.   Bacterial origin recognition complexes direct assembly of higher-order DnaA oligomeric structures. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2009; 106: 18479– 84. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Mizusawa S, Gottesman S. Protein degradation in Escherichia coli: the lon gene controls the stability of sulA protein. P Natl Acad Sci  1983; 80: 358– 62. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Mohammadi T, van Dam V, Sijbrandi R et al.   Identification of FtsW as a transporter of lipid-linked cell wall precursors across the membrane. EMBO J  2011; 30: 1425– 32. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Morigen M, Flatten I, Skarstad K. The Escherichia coli datA site promotes proper regulation of cell division. Microbiology  2014; 160: 703– 10. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Morimoto T, Loh PC, Hirai T et al.   Six GTP-binding proteins of the Era/Obg family are essential for cell growth in Bacillus subtilis. Microbiology  2002; 148: 3539– 52. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Moriya S, Rashid RA, Rodrigues CD et al.   Influence of the nucleoid and the early stages of DNA replication on positioning the division site in Bacillus subtilis. Mol Microbiol  2010; 76: 634– 47. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Mukherjee A, Lutkenhaus J. Dynamic assembly of FtsZ regulated by GTP hydrolysis. EMBO J  1998; 17: 462– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Mulder E, El’Bouhali M, Pas E et al.   The Escherichia cohi minB mutation resembles gyrB in defective nucleoid segregation and decreased negative supercoiling of plasmids. Mol Gen Genet  1990; 221: 87– 93. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Mulder E, Woldringh CL. Actively replicating nucleoids influence positioning of division sites in Escherichia coli filaments forming cells lacking DNA. J Bacteriol  1989; 171: 4303– 14. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Nicolas E, Upton AL, Uphoff S et al.   The SMC complex MukBEF recruits topoisomerase IV to the origin of replication region in live Escherichia coli. mBio  2014; 5: e01001– 13. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Nielsen HJ, Li Y, Youngren B et al.   Progressive segregation of the Escherichia coli chromosome. Mol Microbiol  2006; 61: 383– 93. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Nievera C, Torgue JJ, Grimwade JE et al.   SeqA blocking of DnaA-oriC interactions ensures staged assembly of the E. coli pre-RC. Mol Cell  2006; 24: 581– 92. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Niki H, Jaffe A, Imamura R et al.   The new gene mukB codes for a 177 kd protein with coiled-coil domains involved in chromosome partitioning of E. coli. EMBO J  1991; 10: 183– 93. Google Scholar PubMed  Niki H, Yamaichi Y, Hiraga S. Dynamic organization of chromosomal DNA in Escherichia coli. Gene Dev  2000; 14: 212– 23. Google Scholar PubMed  Nolivos S, Upton AL, Badrinarayanan A et al.   MatP regulates the coordinated action of topoisomerase IV and MukBEF in chromosome segregation. Nat Commun  2016; 7: 10466. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Nordman J, Skovgaard O, Wright A. A novel class of mutations that affect DNA replication in E. coli. Mol Microbiol  2007; 64: 125– 38. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Nordstrom K, Bernander R, Dasgupta S. The Escherichia coli cell cycle: one cycle or multiple independent processes that are co-ordinated? Mol Microbiol  1991; 5: 769– 74. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Nozaki N, Okazaki T, Ogawa T. In vitro transcription of the origin region of replication of the Escherichia coli chromosome. J Biol Chem  1988; 263: 14176– 83. Google Scholar PubMed  Nozaki S, Yamada Y, Ogawa T. Initiator titration complex formed at datA with the aid of IHF regulates replication timing in Escherichia coli. Gene Cell  2009; 14: 329– 41. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Odsbu I, Klungsoyr HK, Fossum S et al.   Specific N-terminal interactions of the Escherichia coli SeqA protein are required to form multimers that restrain negative supercoils and form foci. Gene Cell  2005; 10: 1039– 49. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Ogawa T, Okazaki T. Concurrent transcription from the gid and mioC promoters activates replication of an Escherichia coli minichromosome. Mol Gen Genet  1991; 230: 193– 200. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Ogawa T, Okazaki T. Cell cycle-dependent transcription from the gid and mioC promoters of Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol  1994; 176: 1609– 15. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Osawa M, Anderson DE, Erickson HP. Reconstitution of contractile FtsZ rings in liposomes. Science  2008; 320: 792– 4. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Osella M, Nugent E, Cosentino Lagomarsino M. Concerted control of Escherichia coli cell division. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2014; 111: 3431– 5. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Park KT, Villar MT, Artigues A et al.   MinE conformational dynamics regulate membrane binding, MinD interaction, and Min oscillation. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2017; 114: 7497– 504. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Park KT, Wu W, Battaile KP et al.   The Min oscillator uses MinD-dependent conformational changes in MinE to spatially regulate cytokinesis. Cell  2011; 146: 396– 407. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Pedersen IB, Helgesen E, Flatten I et al.   SeqA structures behind Escherichia coli replication forks affect replication elongation and restart mechanisms. Nucleic Acids Res  2017; 45: 6471– 85. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Pichoff S, Lutkenhaus J. Unique and overlapping roles for ZipA and FtsA in septal ring assembly in Escherichia coli. EMBO J  2002; 21: 685– 93. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Raskin DM, de Boer PA. MinDE-dependent pole-to-pole oscillation of division inhibitor MinC in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol  1999a; 181: 6419– 24. Raskin DM, de Boer PA. Rapid pole-to-pole oscillation of a protein required for directing division to the middle of Escherichia coli. P Natl Acad Sci USA  1999b; 96: 4971– 6. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Riber L, Frimodt-Moller J, Charbon G et al.   Multiple DNA binding proteins contribute to timing of chromosome replication in E. coli. Front Mol Biosci  2016; 3: 29. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Richardson TT, Harran O, Murray H. The bacterial DnaA-trio replication origin element specifies single-stranded DNA initiator binding. Nature  2016; 534: 412– 6. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Rotman E, Bratcher P, Kuzminov A. Reduced lipopolysaccharide phosphorylation in Escherichia coli lowers the elevated ori/ter ratio in seqA mutants. Mol Microbiol  2009; 72: 1273– 92. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Rotman E, Khan SR, Kouzminova E et al.   Replication fork inhibition in seqA mutants of E scherichia coli triggers replication fork breakage. Mol Microbiol  2014; 93: 50– 64. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Rozgaja TA, Grimwade JE, Iqbal M et al.   Two oppositely oriented arrays of low-affinity recognition sites in oriC guide progressive binding of DnaA during Escherichia coli pre-RC assembly. Mol Microbiol  2011; 82: 475– 88. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Ryan VT, Grimwade JE, Camara JE et al.   Escherichia coli prereplication complex assembly is regulated by dynamic interplay among Fis, IHF and DnaA. Mol Microbiol  2004; 51: 1347– 59. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Ryan VT, Grimwade JE, Nievera CJ et al.   IHF and HU stimulate assembly of pre-replication complexes at Escherichia coli oriC by two different mechanisms. Mol Microbiol  2002; 46: 113– 24. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Rybenkov VV, Herrera V, Petrushenko ZM et al.   MukBEF, a chromosomal organizer. J Mol Microb Biotech  2014; 24: 371– 83. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Sanchez-Romero MA, Busby SJ, Dyer NP et al.   Dynamic distribution of SeqA protein across the chromosome of Escherichia coli K-12. mBio  2010; 1: e00012-10. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Saxena R, Fingland N, Patil D et al.   Crosstalk between DnaA protein, the initiator of Escherichia coli chromosomal replication, and acidic phospholipids present in bacterial membranes. IJMS  2013; 14: 8517– 37. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Scheffers DJ, de Wit JG, den Blaauwen T et al.   GTP hydrolysis of cell division protein FtsZ: evidence that the active site is formed by the association of monomers. Biochemistry  2002; 41: 521– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Schumacher MA, Zeng W. Structures of the nucleoid occlusion protein SlmA bound to DNA and the C-terminal domain of the cytoskeletal protein FtsZ. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2016; 113: 4988– 93. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Sekimizu K, Bramhill D, Kornberg A. ATP activates DnaA protein in initiating replication of plasmids bearing the origin of the E. coli chromosome. Cell  1987; 50: 259– 65. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Sekimizu K, Kornberg A. Cardiolipin activation of dnaA protein, the initiation protein of replication in Escherichia coli. J Biol Chem  1988; 263: 7131– 5. Google Scholar PubMed  Shen B, Lutkenhaus J. The conserved C-terminal tail of FtsZ is required for the septal localization and division inhibitory activity of MinC C/MinD. Mol Microbiol  2009; 72: 410– 24. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Shen B, Lutkenhaus J. Examination of the interaction between FtsZ and MinC N in E. coli suggests how MinC disrupts Z rings. Mol Microbiol  2010; 75: 1285– 98. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Sikora AE, Zielke R, Wegrzyn A et al.   DNA replication defect in the Escherichia coli cgtA(ts) mutant arising from reduced DnaA levels. Arch Microbiol  2006; 185: 340– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Sivanathan V, Emerson JE, Pages C et al.   KOPS-guided DNA translocation by FtsK safeguards Escherichia coli chromosome segregation. Mol Microbiol  2009; 71: 1031– 42. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Skarstad K, Steen HB, Boye E. Cell cycle parameters of slowly growing Escherichia coli B/r studied by flow cytometry. J Bacteriol  1983; 154: 656– 62. Google Scholar PubMed  Slater S, Wold S, Lu M et al.   E. coli SeqA protein binds oriC in two different methyl-modulated reactions appropriate to its roles in DNA replication initiation and origin sequestration. Cell  1995; 82: 927– 36. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Steiner W, Liu G, Donachie WD et al.   The cytoplasmic domain of FtsK protein is required for resolution of chromosome dimers. Mol Microbiol  1999; 31: 579– 83. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Stouf M, Meile JC, Cornet F. FtsK actively segregates sister chromosomes in Escherichia coli. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2013; 110: 11157– 62. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Stuitje AR, de Wind N, van der Spek JC et al.   Dissection of promoter sequences involved in transcriptional activation of the Escherichia coli replication origin. Nucleic Acids Res  1986; 14: 2333– 44. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Su’etsugu M, Nakamura K, Keyamura K et al.   Hda monomerization by ADP binding promotes replicase clamp-mediated DnaA-ATP hydrolysis. J Biol Chem  2008; 283: 36118– 31. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Sun Q, Margolin W. Influence of the nucleoid on placement of FtsZ and MinE rings in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol  2001; 183: 1413– 22. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Sun Q, Yu XC, Margolin W. Assembly of the FtsZ ring at the central division site in the absence of the chromosome. Mol Microbiol  1998; 29: 491– 503. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Sutera VAJr, Lovett ST. The role of replication initiation control in promoting survival of replication fork damage. Mol Microbiol  2006; 60: 229– 39. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Szeto TH, Rowland SL, Rothfield LI et al.   Nonlinear partial differential equations and applications: Membrane localization of MinD is mediated by a C-terminal motif that is conserved across eubacteria, archaea, and chloroplasts. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2002; 99: 15693– 8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Taheri-Araghi S, Bradde S, Sauls JT et al.   Cell-size control and homeostasis in bacteria. Curr Biol  2015; 25: 385– 91. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Theisen PW, Grimwade JE, Leonard AC et al.   Correlation of gene transcription with the time of initiation of chromosome replication in Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol  1993; 10: 575– 84. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Tonthat NK, Arold ST, Pickering BF et al.   Molecular mechanism by which the nucleoid occlusion factor, SlmA, keeps cytokinesis in check. EMBO J  2011; 30: 154– 64. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Tonthat NK, Milam SL, Chinnam N et al.   SlmA forms a higher-order structure on DNA that inhibits cytokinetic Z-ring formation over the nucleoid. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2013; 110: 10586– 91. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Torheim NK, Skarstad K. Escherichia coli SeqA protein affects DNA topology and inhibits open complex formation at oriC. EMBO J  1999; 18: 4882– 8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Trusca D, Scott S, Thompson C et al.   Bacterial SOS checkpoint protein SulA inhibits polymerization of purified FtsZ cell division protein. J Bacteriol  1998; 180: 3946– 53. Google Scholar PubMed  Valens M, Penaud S, Rossignol M et al.   Macrodomain organization of the Escherichia coli chromosome. EMBO J  2004; 23: 4330– 41. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Valens M, Thiel A, Boccard F. The MaoP/maoS site-specific system organizes the Ori region of the E. coli chromosome into a macrodomain. PLoS Genet  2016; 12: e1006309. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Vecchiarelli AG, Li M, Mizuuchi M et al.   Membrane-bound MinDE complex acts as a toggle switch that drives Min oscillation coupled to cytoplasmic depletion of MinD. P Natl Acad Sci USA  2016; 113: E1479– 88. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Verstraeten N, Fauvart M, Versees W et al.   The universally conserved prokaryotic GTPases. Microbiol Mol Biol R  2011; 75: 507– 42. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Verstraeten N, Knapen WJ, Kint CI et al.   Obg and membrane depolarization are part of a microbial bet-hedging strategy that leads to antibiotic tolerance. Mol Cell  2015; 59: 9– 21. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  von Freiesleben U, Krekling MA, Hansen FG et al.   The eclipse period of Escherichia coli. EMBO J  2000; 19: 6240– 8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Waldminghaus T, Weigel C, Skarstad K. Replication fork movement and methylation govern SeqA binding to the Escherichia coli chromosome. Nucleic Acids Res  2012; 40: 5465– 76. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Wallden M, Fange D, Lundius EG et al.   The synchronization of replication and division cycles in individual E. coli cells. Cell  2016; 166: 729– 39. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Wang L, Lutkenhaus J. FtsK is an essential cell division protein that is localized to the septum and induced as part of the SOS response. Mol Microbiol  1998; 29: 731– 40. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Wang Q, Mordukhova EA, Edwards AL et al.   Chromosome condensation in the absence of the non-SMC subunits of MukBEF. J Bacteriol  2006; 188: 4431– 41. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Wang X, Montero Llopis P, Rudner DZ. Organization and segregation of bacterial chromosomes. Nat Rev Genet  2013; 14: 191– 203. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Wang X, Possoz C, Sherratt DJ. Dancing around the divisome: asymmetric chromosome segregation in Escherichia coli. Gene Dev  2005; 19: 2367– 77. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Wang X, Reyes-Lamothe R, Sherratt DJ. Modulation of Escherichia coli sister chromosome cohesion by topoisomerase IV. Gene Dev  2008; 22: 2426– 33. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Weart RB, Lee AH, Chien AC et al.   A metabolic sensor governing cell size in bacteria. Cell  2007; 130: 335– 47. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Westfall CS, Levin PA. Bacterial cell size: multifactorial and multifaceted. Annu Rev Microbiol  2017; 71: 499– 517. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Willis L, Huang KC. Sizing up the bacterial cell cycle. Nat Rev Microbiol  2017; 15: 606– 20. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Wu LJ, Errington J. Nucleoid occlusion and bacterial cell division. Nat Rev Microbiol  2011; 10: 8– 12. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Xia W, Dowhan W. In vivo evidence for the involvement of anionic phospholipids in initiation of DNA replication in Escherichia coli. P Natl Acad Sci USA  1995; 92: 783– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Yamanaka K, Ogura T, Niki H et al.   Identification of two new genes, mukE and mukF, involved in chromosome partitioning in Escherichia coli. Mol Gen Genet  1996; 250: 241– 51. Google Scholar PubMed  Yang X, Lyu Z, Miguel A et al.   GTPase activity-coupled treadmilling of the bacterial tubulin FtsZ organizes septal cell wall synthesis. Science  2017; 355: 744– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Yu XC, Weihe EK, Margolin W. Role of the C terminus of FtsK in Escherichia coli chromosome segregation. J Bacteriol  1998; 180: 6424– 8. Google Scholar PubMed  Zawadzki P, Stracy M, Ginda K et al.   The localization and action of topoisomerase IV in Escherichia coli chromosome segregation is coordinated by the SMC complex, MukBEF. Cell Rep  2015; 13: 2587– 96. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  © FEMS 2018. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com

Journal

FEMS Microbiology ReviewsOxford University Press

Published: Mar 1, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off