Toxin–antitoxin systems: why so many, what for?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2010.10.006Get rights and content

Toxin–antitoxin (TA) systems are small genetic modules that are abundant in bacterial genomes. Three types have been described so far, depending on the nature and mode of action of the antitoxin component. While type II systems are surprisingly highly represented because of their capacity to move by horizontal gene transfer, type I systems appear to have evolved by gene duplication and are more constrained. Type III is represented by a unique example located on a plasmid. Type II systems promote stability of mobile genetic elements and might act at the selfish level. Conflicting hypotheses about chromosomally encoded systems, from programmed cell death and starvation-induced stasis to protection against invading DNA and stabilization of large genomic fragments have been proposed.

Introduction

Toxin–antitoxin (TA) systems are small genetic modules consisting in general of 2 components, a stable toxin and its labile antitoxin. TA systems are of 3 types, depending on the antitoxin nature and mode of action. While toxins are always proteins, antitoxins are either RNAs (type I and III) or proteins (type II) (see Box 1). Type I and II systems were discovered on plasmids in the 80s [1, 2], while type III was discovered in 2009 and is represented so far by a unique example [3••]. Plasmid-encoded TA systems participate in plasmid stabilization by a mechanism denoted as post-segregational killing [4] or addiction [5]. The molecular mechanism underlying this phenomenon relies on differential stability of the 2 components. When a plasmid copy is not transmitted to daughter bacteria, the antitoxin and toxin pool is not replenished. Since the antitoxin is labile and rapidly degraded, the toxin is released from inhibition, leading to the killing of plasmid-free cells. As a consequence at the population level, the plasmid prevalence is increased (number of plasmid containing cells/total number of cells).

Homologues of TA systems were subsequently found in chromosomes of eu- and archaea bacteria. Type II systems appear to be widespread in chromosomes and often found in multiple copies within genomes (see Table 1 for the currently known type II toxins and their characteristics) [6•, 7, 8, 9]. Type I systems appear to be less represented [10••]. The surprising abundance of these genetic entities, at least type II systems, in bacterial genomes raises interesting questions regarding their possible biological roles, their evolution and their mobility.

Section snippets

Coping with stress

Current hypotheses propose that TA systems are involved in stress management either by promoting altruistic sacrifice of a large fraction of the population (programmed cell death hypothesis, PCD) or by inducing a dormant stage that allows cells to cope with stress (stasis). These hypotheses have emerged mainly from the study of 2 E. coli K-12 type II systems (mazEF and relBE) in which toxins are mRNAs interferases and inhibit translation. The general principle for TA systems activation relies

Diversity, abundance, origin and evolution

Type II TA systems are thought to be part of the mobilome and to move from one genome to another through horizontal gene transfer [38, 39]. This certainly accounts for the surprisingly high number of type II TA systems present in most eu- and archaea-bacterial chromosomes [6•, 7, 8, 9]. In addition to the 10 current families of toxins (see Table 1), predictions revealed the existence of a dozen novel toxin and antitoxin families ([6], Geeraerts, Leplae, Hallez and Van Melderen, in preparation).

Concluding remarks

Although type II TA systems might in specific cases be hijacked by host regulatory networks such as the solitary MazF toxin from M. xanthus [46], it is tempting to speculate that they might operate at the selfish level to promote their own ‘survival’ at the expense of the host as proposed by Kobayashi for restriction-modification systems [47]. When located on mobile genetic elements, these systems appear to promote their stability as well as exclusion of competitors DNA which might be a

References and recommended reading

Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as:

  • • of special interest

  • •• of outstanding interest

Acknowledgments

I thank Didier Mazel, Damien Geeraerts and Nathalie Goeders for reviewing the manuscript as well as Manuel Saavedra De Bast, Johan Timmermans, Damien Geeraerts and Julien Guglielmini for exciting debates on the selfish gene theory. I am grateful to FNRS (FRSM-3.4530.04) for support of research in my laboratory.

References (54)

  • H.R. Ramage et al.

    Comprehensive functional analysis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis toxin–antitoxin systems: implications for pathogenesis, stress responses, and evolution

    PLoS Genet

    (2009)
  • K. Gerdes et al.

    Prokaryotic toxin–antitoxin stress response loci

    Nat Rev Microbiol

    (2005)
  • A. Jaffe et al.

    Effects of the ccd function of the F plasmid on bacterial growth

    J Bacteriol

    (1985)
  • T. Ogura et al.

    Mini-F plasmid genes that couple host cell division to plasmid proliferation

    Proc Natl Acad Sci USA

    (1983)
  • P.C. Fineran et al.

    The phage abortive infection system, ToxIN, functions as a protein-RNA toxin–antitoxin pair

    Proc Natl Acad Sci USA

    (2009)
  • K. Gerdes et al.

    Unique type of plasmid maintenance function: postsegregational killing of plasmid-free cells

    Proc Natl Acad Sci USA

    (1986)
  • M.B. Yarmolinsky

    Programmed cell death in bacterial populations

    Science

    (1995)
  • K.S. Makarova et al.

    Comprehensive comparative-genomic analysis of type 2 toxin–antitoxin systems and related mobile stress response systems in prokaryotes

    Biol Direct

    (2009)
  • D.P. Pandey et al.

    Toxin–antitoxin loci are highly abundant in free-living but lost from host-associated prokaryotes

    Nucleic Acids Res

    (2005)
  • J. Guglielmini et al.

    Automated discovery and phylogenetic analysis of new toxin–antitoxin systems

    BMC Microbiol

    (2008)
  • E.W. Sevin et al.

    RASTA-Bacteria: a web-based tool for identifying toxin–antitoxin loci in prokaryotes

    Genome Biol

    (2007)
  • E.M. Fozo et al.

    Abundance of type I toxin–antitoxin systems in bacteria: searches for new candidates and discovery of novel families

    Nucleic Acids Res

    (2010)
  • I. Kolodkin-Gal et al.

    A linear pentapeptide is a quorum-sensing factor required for mazEF-mediated cell death in Escherichia coli

    Science

    (2007)
  • E. Aizenman et al.

    An Escherichia coli chromosomal “addiction module” regulated by guanosine [corrected] 3′,5′-bispyrophosphate: a model for programmed bacterial cell death

    Proc Natl Acad Sci USA

    (1996)
  • V. Tsilibaris et al.

    What is the benefit to Escherichia coli of having multiple toxin–antitoxin systems in its genome?

    J Bacteriol

    (2007)
  • S.K. Christensen et al.

    RelE, a global inhibitor of translation, is activated during nutritional stress

    Proc Natl Acad Sci USA

    (2001)
  • P.P. Budde et al.

    Characterization of a higBA toxin–antitoxin locus in Vibrio cholerae

    J Bacteriol

    (2007)
  • P.A. Morganroth et al.

    Role of DNA replication and repair in thymineless death in Escherichia coli

    J Bacteriol

    (2006)
  • S.K. Christensen et al.

    Toxin–antitoxin loci as stress-response-elements: ChpAK/MazF and ChpBK cleave translated RNAs and are counteracted by tmRNA

    J Mol Biol

    (2003)
  • M. Christensen-Dalsgaard et al.

    Three new RelE-homologous mRNA interferases of Escherichia coli differentially induced by environmental stresses

    Mol Microbiol

    (2010)
  • A. Fiebig et al.

    Interaction specificity, toxicity and regulation of a paralogous set of ParE/RelE-family toxin–antitoxin systems

    Mol Microbiol

    (2010)
  • R. Singh et al.

    The three RelE homologs of Mycobacterium tuberculosis have individual, drug-specific effects on bacterial antibiotic tolerance

    J Bacteriol

    (2010)
  • L.A. Singletary et al.

    An SOS-regulated type 2 toxin–antitoxin system

    J Bacteriol

    (2009)
  • K. Lewis

    Persister cells

    Annu Rev Microbiol

    (2010)
  • I. Keren et al.

    Specialized persister cells and the mechanism of multidrug tolerance in Escherichia coli

    J Bacteriol

    (2004)
  • S. Hansen et al.

    Role of global regulators and nucleotide metabolism in antibiotic tolerance in Escherichia coli

    Antimicrob Agents Chemother

    (2008)
  • N. Vazquez-Laslop et al.

    Increased persistence in Escherichia coli caused by controlled expression of toxins or other unrelated proteins

    J Bacteriol

    (2006)
  • Cited by (248)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text