Search

ABSTRACT Gram-negative bacteria have a tripartite cell envelope with the cytoplasmic membrane (CM), a stress-bearing peptidoglycan (PG) layer, and the asymmetric outer membrane (OM) containing lipopolysaccharide (LPS) in the outer leaflet. Cells must tightly coordinate the growth of their complex envelope to maintain cellular integrity and OM permeability barrier function. The biogenesis of PG and LPS relies on specialized macromolecular complexes that span the entire envelope. In this work, we show that Escherichia coli cells are capable of avoiding lysis when the transport of LPS to the OM is compromised, by utilizing LD-transpeptidases (LDTs) to generate 3-3 cross-links in the PG. This PG remodeling program relies mainly on the activities of the stress response LDT, LdtD, together with the major PG synthase PBP1B, its cognate activator LpoB, and the carboxypeptidase PBP6a. Our data support a model according to which these proteins cooperate to strengthen the PG in response to defective OM synthesis. IMPORTANCE In Gram-negative bacteria, the outer membrane protects the cell against many toxic molecules, and the peptidoglycan layer provides protection against osmotic challenges, allowing bacterial cells to survive in changing environments. Maintaining cell envelope integrity is therefore a question of life or death for a bacterial cell. Here we show that Escherichia coli cells activate the LD-transpeptidase LdtD to introduce 3-3 cross-links in the peptidoglycan layer when the integrity of the outer membrane is compromised, and this response is required to avoid cell lysis. This peptidoglycan remodeling program is a strategy to increase the overall robustness of the bacterial cell envelope in response to defects in the outer membrane.

By enabling a comparison between what is and what might have been, counterfactual thoughts amplify our emotional responses to bad outcomes. Well-known demonstrations such as the action effect (the tendency to attribute most regret to a character whose actions brought about a bad outcome) and the temporal order effect (the tendency to undo the last in a series of events leading up to a bad outcome) are often explained in this way. An important difference between these effects is that outcomes are due to decisions in the action effect, whereas in the temporal order effect outcomes are achieved by chance. In Experiment 1, we showed that imposing time pressure leads to a significant reduction in the action but not in the temporal order effect. In Experiment 2, we found that asking participants to evaluate the protagonists ("who ought to feel worse?") led to a significant reduction in the temporal order but not in the action effect. The results suggest that the action and temporal order effects require different explanations and are consistent with other work that suggests that when decisions lead to bad outcomes a comparison of decision quality is an important determinant of the emotional response attributed to the protagonists. The stimulus materials used in our experiments may be downloaded from pbr.psychonomic-journals.org/content/supplemental. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]