Retraction ATPase motors are promiscuous among type IVa pilus systems

Abstract

Bacterial surface appendages called type IVa pili (T4aP) promote diverse activities including DNA uptake, twitching motility, and virulence. These activities rely on the ability of T4aP to dynamically extend and retract from the cell surface. Dynamic extension relies on a motor ATPase commonly called PilB. Most T4aP also rely on specific motor ATPases, commonly called PilT and PilU, to dynamically and forcefully retract. Here, we systematically assess whether motor ATPases from three orthologous T4aP can functionally complement Vibrio cholerae mutants that lack their endogenous motors. We found that the PilT and PilU retraction ATPases from the three T4aP systems tested are promiscuous and promote retraction of the V. cholerae competence T4aP despite a high degree of sequence divergence. In contrast, the orthologous extension ATPases from the same T4aP systems were not able to mediate extension of the V. cholerae competence T4aP despite exhibiting a similar degree of sequence divergence. Also, we show that one of the PilT orthologs characterized does not support PilU-dependent retraction and provide some data to indicate that the C-terminus of PilT is important for PilU-dependent retraction. Together, our data suggest that retraction ATPases may have maintained a high degree of promiscuity for promoting retraction of T4aP, while extension ATPases may have evolved to become specific for their cognate systems. IMPORTANCEOne way that bacteria interact with their environments is via hair-like appendages called type IVa pili (T4aP). These appendages dynamically extend and retract from the cell surface via the action of distinct ATPase motors. T4aP are present in diverse bacterial species. Here, we demonstrate that retraction motors from three T4aP are promiscuous, and capable of promoting retraction of a heterologous T4aP system. By contrast, the extension ATPase motors from these same T4aP systems are specific and cannot promote extension of a heterologous T4aP. Thus, these results suggest that T4aP extension may be more tightly regulated compared to T4aP retraction.