Spirochete Flagella and Motility

biomolecules
Review
Spirochete Flagella and Motility
Shuichi Nakamura
Department of Applied Physics, Graduate School of Engineering, Tohoku University, 6-6-05 Aoba, Aoba-ku,
Sendai, Miyagi 980-8579, Japan; [email protected]; Tel.: +81-22-795-5849

Received: 11 March 2020; Accepted: 3 April 2020; Published: 4 April 2020
Abstract: Spirochetes can be distinguished from other flagellated bacteria by their long, thin, spiral
(or wavy) cell bodies and endoflagella that reside within the periplasmic space, designated as
periplasmic flagella (PFs). Some members of the spirochetes are pathogenic, including the causative
agents of syphilis, Lyme disease, swine dysentery, and leptospirosis. Furthermore, their unique
morphologies have attracted attention of structural biologists; however, the underlying physics of
viscoelasticity-dependent spirochetal motility is a longstanding mystery. Elucidating the molecular
basis of spirochetal invasion and interaction with hosts, resulting in the appearance of symptoms or
the generation of asymptomatic reservoirs, will lead to a deeper understanding of host–pathogen
relationships and the development of antimicrobials. Moreover, the mechanism of propulsion in fluids
or on surfaces by the rotation of PFs within the narrow periplasmic space could be a designing base for
an autonomously driving micro-robot with high efficiency. This review describes diverse morphology
and motility observed among the spirochetes and further summarizes the current knowledge on their
mechanisms and relations to pathogenicity, mainly from the standpoint of experimental biophysics.
Keywords: spirochetes; periplasmic flagella; motility; chemotaxis; molecular motor
1. Introduction
Motility systems of living organisms are currently classified into 18 types [1]. Even when focusing
on bacteria only, the motility is diverse when bacterial species are concerned [2]. A major motility
form would be the flagella-dependent swimming well observed and described in Escherichia coli and
Salmonella enterica, and these species have helical flagella extending to the cell exterior. Spirochetes,
which are members of a group of gram-negative bacteria with a spiral or flat-wave cell body, also show
flagella-dependent motility, but their flagella are hidden within the periplasmic space and are thus
called periplasmic flagella (PFs). Externally flagellated bacteria are propelled by direct interaction of
flagella and fluid, whereas spirochetes swim by rolling or undulation of a cell body driven by PFs
rotation beneath the outer membrane. Physics difference results in an invalidation of applying the
canonical model obtained from external flagella to spirochetal periplasmic flagella.
This review article describes the motility of spirochetes while connecting it with the unique
structures of their cell bodies and PFs. Taxonomically, the phylum Spirochaetae is classified into
Leptospiraceae, Brachyspiraceae, Spirochaetaceae, and Brevinemataceae families, containing pathogenic
species, for example, Leptospira interrogans (leptospirosis), Brachyspira hyodysenteriae (swine dysentery),
Borrelia burgdorferi (Lyme disease), and Treponema pallidum (syphilis). As observed with other motile
pathogens, spirochete motility is an essential virulence factor. Thus, the last part of this review discusses
the involvement of motility in spirochetal pathogenicity.
2. Cell Structure
A schematic of the basic structure shared among spirochete species is shown in Figure 1a. The
protoplasmic cylinder consists of a cytoplasm, a cytoplasmic membrane, and a peptidoglycan layer,
Biomolecules 2020, 10, 550; doi:10.3390/biom10040550 www.mdpi.com/journal/biomolecules

Biomolecules 2020, 10, 550 2 of 15
2. Cell Structure
A schematic of the basic structure shared among spirochete species is shown in Figure 1a. The
protoplasmic cylinder consists of a cytoplasm, a cytoplasmic membrane, and a peptidoglycan layer,
which is covered by the outer membrane. Each PF filament connects with a basal motor called the
which is covered by the outer membrane. Each PF filament connects with a basal motor called the
flagellar motor that is embedded in the cytoplasmic membrane and the peptidoglycan layer via a
flagellar motor that is embedded in the cytoplasmic membrane and the peptidoglycan layer via a
short, bent structure corresponding to the universal joint hook in the E. coli flagellar motor (details
short, bent structure corresponding to the universal joint hook in the E. coli flagellar motor (details
are described below) [3]. The morphologies of the cell body and the PF as well as the number of PFs
are described below) [3]. The morphologies of the cell body and the PF as well as the number of PFs
greatly differ among species, and those of three representative species are summarized in Table 1. The
greatly differ among species, and those of three representative species are summarized in Table 1.
cell body of Borrelia spp. exhibits a flat-wave shape and contains 7~11 PFs long enough to overlap with
The cell body of Borrelia spp. exhibits a flat-wave shape and contains 7~11 PFs long enough to overlap
those
withextending from the
those extending other
from theend at the
other endcenter
at the of the cell
center body
of the bodyBrachyspira
cell[4–7]. spp. appear
[4–7]. Brachyspira to have
spp. appear
a to
flat-wave
have a body because
flat-wave bodyofbecause
their non-spiral, almost straight
of their non-spiral, almostconfiguration observed in
straight configuration swimming
observed in
cells [8], but no explicit evidence has been reported. Brachyspira PFs overlap at
swimming cells [8], but no explicit evidence has been reported. Brachyspira PFs overlap at the the cell center, and
cellso
docenter, of Borrelia
those and [9]. The
so do those cell morphology
of Borrelia Leptospira spp.
[9]. The cellofmorphology is distinguished
of Leptospira from the other
spp. is distinguished two
from
spirochetes
the other bytwoa small cell width
spirochetes by aand short
small cellwavelength
width and[4,10].
short The protoplasmic
wavelength [4,10].cylinder of Leptospira
The protoplasmic
(Figure 1b,c) is relatively rigid, maintaining the helix parameters even during
cylinder of Leptospira (Figure 1b and c) is relatively rigid, maintaining the helix parameters swimming, whereas
even
both ends of the cell body are frequently transformed, as described later [11–14].
during swimming, whereas both ends of the cell body are frequently transformed, as described later Unlike Borrelia and
Brachyspira, PFs of
[11–14]. Unlike Leptospira
Borrelia are too shortPFs
and Brachyspira, to overlap [15].are too short to overlap [15].
of Leptospira
Figure1.1.Spirochetal
Figure Spirochetal cell
cell structure.
structure. (a)
(a)Schematics
Schematicsofoflongitudinal
longitudinal and zoom-in
and zoom-in cross-section views
cross-section of
views
ofthe
thecell
cellstructure
structureand andthetheflagellar
flagellarmotor
motorshared
sharedby byspirochete
spirochetespecies;
species;outer
outermembrane
membrane(OM), (OM),
periplasmicflagellum
periplasmic flagellum(PF),
(PF),peptidoglycan
peptidoglycan layer
layer (PG),
(PG), inner
inner membrane
membrane (IM), (IM),cytoplasm
cytoplasm(CP),
(CP),andand
protoplasmic cylinder (PC) are shown. If readers view from the hook to the
protoplasmic cylinder (PC) are shown. If readers view from the hook to the motor, the flagellarmotor, the flagellar motor
rotates
motor in a counterclockwise
rotates (CCW)(CCW)
in a counterclockwise direction at one pole
direction of apole
at one single
of cell, whereas
a single the motorthe
cell, whereas at another
motor at
cell pole rotates in a clockwise (CW) direction. (b) Dark-field micrograph
another cell pole rotates in a clockwise (CW) direction. (b) Dark-field micrograph of Leptospira of Leptospira biflexa. (c)
biflexa.
(c)Longitudinal
Longitudinalslice
sliceimage
imageobtained
obtainedbybycryo-electron
cryo-electrontomography
tomographyofofL.L.biflexa
biflexa(adapted
(adaptedfrom
from[14]
[14]with
with
permission from the publisher). OM, IM, and PF are clearly visible, and PGs
permission from the publisher). OM, IM, and PF are clearly visible, and PGs observed in the yellowobserved in the yellow
squareare
square areindicated
indicatedby byyellow
yellowdashed
dashedlines
linesininthe
the enlarged
enlarged viewview (inset).
(inset).

Table Comparison
Table 1.
Table 1. Comparison
1. Comparison of theof
of the cell
the cell
cell structure
structure structure
and the
and the and
periplasmic flagella
periplasmic
the among
flagella (PFs)
(PFs) periplasmic
among flagella (PFs) among three
three spirochete
three spirochete
species.
Table 1. Comparison of the cell structure and the periplasmic flagella (PFs) among three spirochete
spirochete species.
species.
species.
Species Cell Body Parameters PF
Species Cell Morphology Cell Body Parameters PF Ref.
(Disease) Cell Morphology Length WidthParameters
Wavelength Shape PFOverlap Proteins Ref.
Species(Disease)
Species Cell Body Cell Body Number
Parameters PF
Cell
Cell Morphology Length Width Wavelength Number Shape
Morphology Left-
Overlap Proteins
Ref. Ref.
(Disease)(Disease)
Borrelia burgdorferi Length Width
~0.3 Wavelength Number Shape Left- Overlap Proteins
FlaA
Borrelia burgdorferi Flat wave ~20 μm ~0.3 Length~2.8 μmWidth14~22 Wavelength
handed YesNumberFlaA Shape
[4–7] Overlap Proteins
(Lyme disease) Flat wave ~20 μm μm ~2.8 μm 14~22 handed
Left- Yes FlaB [4–7]
(Lyme burgdorferi
Borrelia
Borrelia burgdorferi disease) μm
~0.3 helix FlaB
FlaA Left-handed FlaA
Flat wave ~20 μm ~20 µm~2.8 μm
Flat wave ~0.3 µm helixµm Yes14~22
14~22 ~2.8
handed [4–7] Yes [4–7]
(Lyme
(Lyme disease) disease)
Brachyspira μm Left- FlaB helix FlaB
Brachyspira ~0.3 helix
Left- FlaA [8,16–
hyodysenteriae
Brachyspira hyodysenteriae Flat wave? ~10 μm ~0.3 ~4 μm 16~18 handed Yes FlaA Left-handed
[8,16– FlaA
hyodysenteriae
Brachyspira Flat wave? ~10
Flat wave? μm μm
~10 ~4 μm ~0.3 µm16~18 handed
Left-
~4 Yes FlaB1,2,3 18]
16~18 Yes [8,16–18]
(Swine
(Swine dysentery) dysentery) ~0.3 µm
μm µm
helix FlaB1,2,3 18]
FlaA [8,16–
helix FlaB1,2,3
(Swine dysentery)
hyodysenteriae Flat wave? ~10 μm ~4 μm helix
16~18 handed Yes
Leptospira μm FlaB1,2,3 18]
FlaA1,2 [4,10, FlaA1,2
Leptospira
(Swine
Leptospira interrogansdysentery) Right-handed
Right-handed ~0.15 helix
Coiled FlaA1,2 [4,10,
Coiled [4,10,15,
interrogans Right-handed ~20 μm ~0.15 ~0.7 μm~0.15 µm22 Coiled No 2 FlaB1,2 15,19
interrogans
Leptospira helix ~20 μm ~20 μm µm~0.7 μm ~0.7
shapeµm No FlaB1,2
FlaA1,2 15,19
[4,10, No FlaB1,2
(Leptospirosis)
(Leptospirosis) helix helix
Right-handed μm
~0.15 shape
Coiled FcpA, FcpB shape
–23] 19–23]
(Leptospirosis)
interrogans ~20 μm ~0.7 μm 2 No FcpA, FcpB –23]
FlaB1,2 15,19 FcpA, FcpB
helix μm shape
(Leptospirosis) FcpA, FcpB –23]
3. Periplasmic
3. Periplasmic Flagella
Flagella
3. Periplasmic
3. Periplasmic Flagella
Flagella
3.1. Physical Properties of the PF Filament
3.1. Physical Properties of the PF Filament
3.1. Physical
The flagellarProperties
flagellar filamentof theofPF E.Filament
coli functions
functions as as aa screw
screw propeller
propeller through through interaction
interaction with with fluid
fluid [24].
[24].
The filament of E. coli
3.1. Physical
In Properties
contrast,
The flagellarspirochete of
filament PFsthe are PF
of E.thought
Filament
thought
coli functions to rotate
rotate or
as aor transform
screw propeller the cellcell body
through bodyinteraction
by intimate
intimate contact
with fluidwith with
[24].
In contrast, spirochete PFs are to transform the by contact
cell
cell membranes,
In contrast,
membranes, spirochete although
although direct
PFs direct
are observation
thought
observation to rotate ofor
of the
the PF rotation
transform
PF rotationthe has has body
cell not been
not been successful.
by intimate
successful. Another
contact
Another with
Theimportant
flagellar
important
cell membranes, rolefilament
role of although
of the PF
the PF is of
is direct
to
E.observation
to establish
establishcoliaafunctions
wavy the PF as
wavyofmorphology,
morphology, asimilar
rotation screw
similarhas to notapropeller
to a cytoskeleton,
cytoskeleton,
been successful. through
andAnother
and the PF
the PF interaction with fluid [24].
dependence
important roleof of spirochete
thePFs PF isare morphology
to establish has
ahaswavy been observed in
morphology, insimilar
the periodontal
periodontal
to a cytoskeleton, disease-associated
and the PF
In contrast, spirochete
dependence
spirochetes
of spirochete
Treponema denticola
thought
morphology
[25], B. B. burgdorferi
burgdorferi
to
been rotate
observed
[26,27],
or transform
and Leptospira
the
Leptospira
the
spp. [15,19–22].
cell body
disease-associated
[15,19–22]. For example,
example,
by intimate contact with cell
dependenceTreponema
spirochetes of spirochete denticola morphology
[25], has been observed
[26,27], and in the periodontalspp. disease-associated
For
membranes, the although
loss
spirochetes
the of
loss of the the PF
Treponema in direct
B.
PF in B.denticola observation
burgdorferi
burgdorferi straightens
[25], straightens
B. burgdorferithe of
the the
entire
[26,27],
entireand PFcell rotation
body
cellLeptospira
body [26]. [26].
spp. Inhas not
contrast,
In[15,19–22]. been
Leptospira
For example,
contrast, Leptospira successful.
PF
PF Another important
depletion
the loss ofaffectsaffects
the PFonly only
in B.the the bent morphology
burgdorferi morphology
straightensof of the
thethe cell cell
entire ends, body and[26]. the In short-pitch helix in
contrast, Leptospira in thethe
PF
role of the PF is tocylinder
depletion
protoplasmic
establish isthe
believed
a wavy
bent
to
morphology,
be maintained
maintained
cell
by aacell bacterial
similar
ends, and
actin
the to a cytoskeleton,
homolog,
short-pitch
MreB [28].
helix
[28]. Both the
and the PF dependence of
depletion affects
protoplasmic cylinder onlyis bent to
believed morphology
be of theby ends,actin
bacterial and homolog,
the short-pitch MreB helixBoth in the
spirochete cell morphology
body
protoplasmic and the
cylinder PF canhas
is be been
considered
believed to observed
be elastic
maintained in
materials,
by
cell body and the PF can be considered elastic materials, and the observed PF-dependent spirochete a theand periodontal
bacterialthe observed
actin homolog, disease-associated
PF-dependent
MreB [28].spirochete
Both the spirochetes Treponema
morphology
cell body andis istheaa consequence
consequence
PF can be considered of the
the mechanical
mechanical
elastic materials, interaction and the between
observed these two elastic
PF-dependent elastic spirochete
bodies of of
denticola morphology
[25],
different
morphology
B. burgdorferi
stiffness [29,30]. This
is a consequence This of
of
[26,27],difference
and
the mechanical in stiffness
interaction
Leptospira
stiffness between
interaction
between
spp. the cell
between
these
[15,19–22].
cellthese
bodytwo
two
andelastic
For
the PF
bodies
PF
example,
can be
bodies be
of
the loss of the PF in B.
different stiffness [29,30]. difference in between the body and the can
burgdorferi straightens
evaluated
different
evaluated by calculating
stiffness
by calculating the entire
[29,30]. the
This
the ratio
ratio cell
of
difference
of bending body
bending [26].between
moduli
in stiffness
moduli In that
(A),
(A), contrast,
that theis,
is, (A(A /A
cellCellbody
Cell
/A Leptospira
),
PF), and
PF based
based on
theonPF PFwhich
whichcan depletion
be
aa affects only the bent
theoretical
evaluated study
theoretical study
by predictedthe
calculating
predicted an A
an ACell
Cell/A
ratio /Aof PF ratio
bending
PF ratio
of ~0.15
of ~0.15
moduli for Leptospira
for Leptospira
(A), that [29]; [29];
is, (Athethe
Cell/APFPFis
PF is stiffer
), stiffer
based than than
on whichthe cell
the cella
morphology body.
theoretical
of
Another the
study
cell
model
predicted
ends,
showed an Aan
and
an ACell
/A
the
Cell/A
ratio
short-pitch
PF ratio
of ~0.15 of ~5~5 for
forfor
helix
Borrelia,[29];
Leptospira whichinthewas
the
was protoplasmic
consistent
PF isconsistent
stiffer than withthe thethe
cell
cylinder is believed to be
body. Another model showed CellA PF/A PF ratio of Borrelia, which with
maintained body. by a bacterial
experimental
experimental Another valuemodel
value obtainedobtained
showedactinby an homolog,
stiffness
A
by stiffness Cell /A measurements
ratio
measurements
PF MreB
of ~5 of
for [28].
the
Borrelia,
of the borrelialBoth
borrelialwhich cellthe
cell bodycell
body
was and
consistentbody
and thethe PF
with
PF using and the PF can be considered
using
the
optical
experimental
optical tweezers
tweezers value [30];obtained
[30]; in this
in this case,
case, the PF
by stiffness
the PF is ismeasurements
stiffer than
stiffer than the theof cell
cellthe body.
borrelial
body. The elastic
The elastic
cell body properties
and theof
properties ofPF the
the cell
using
cell
elastic materials,
body
optical
body and
and the
tweezers and
PF
the PF[30]; are
are in
thecrucial observed
this case,
crucial determinants
the PF is stiffer
determinants
PF-dependent
of species-specific
than the cell body.
of species-specific
spirochete
morphology
morphologyThe elastic and aremorphology
andproperties thought
are thought of the to be
to cell
be
is a consequence of the
mechanical related
related andto the
bodyinteraction
to the swimming
PF arebetween
theswimming mechanism
crucial
mechanismdeterminants described
these
described two later
of later [31].
elastic
species-specific
[31]. bodiesmorphology of different
and are thought stiffness to be [29,30]. This difference in
related Thetofilament
The filament
the swimming is connected
is connected mechanism to the
to the flagellar
flagellar
described motor
later via
motor via
[31]. aa hook
hook structure.
structure. The The hook hook in in E.
E. coli
coli consists
consists
stiffness of
between
of the
theThe flagellar
filament
flagellar
the hook
hook iscellprotein
connected
protein
body (FlgE) and
to the
(FlgE) and
and
the
is
flagellar
is flexible
flexible
PF
motor can
enoughvia abe
enough hook
to
evaluated
to function
function
structure. as aa universal
as
by
universal
The hook calculating
joint
in to transmit
E. coli
joint to transmit
consists the ratio of bending moduli
CellhookPFis also formed by FlgE, T. denticola FlgE features self-catalytic intersubunitACell /APF ratio of ~0.15 for
/A
the
of torque generated by thethe basal
basal motor toflexible
the filament,
filament, regardless of the
the adirection [24]. Although the
is,the
(A), that the (A
torqueflagellar
generated hook), protein
by based (FlgE) on
motorandwhich is
to the a enough
theoretical to function
regardless of as direction
study universal predictedjoint
[24]. to transmit
Although an the
spirochetal
the torque generated
spirochetal hook is also by theformedbasal motor by FlgE, to theT. filament,
denticola regardless
FlgE features of the direction
self-catalytic [24]. Although
intersubunit the
Leptospiracrosslinking
[29];
crosslinking
spirochetal the hook PFisisconserved
between
between alsostiffer
conserved formed than
lysine
lysine by and and the
FlgE, T.cell
cysteine
cysteine
body.
residues,
denticola
residues, FlgE Another
thereby
features
thereby conferring model
self-catalytic
conferring
showed
structural
structural stabilityan ACell /APF ratio of ~5 for
intersubunit
stability
[32]. The proper
crosslinking properbetween stiffness of the
conserved the hook
hook
lysine could
and be important
important
cysteine residues, for the
the interaction
thereby conferring between the PF
structural PF and
and the
stabilitythe
Borrelia, which
[32].
cell
The
body.
was consistent
stiffness of with could the be experimental for value
interaction obtained
between the by stiffness measurements of the
[32].body.
cell The proper stiffness of the hook could be important for the interaction between the PF and the
borrelial cell
cell body.body and the PF using optical tweezers [30]; in this case, the PF is stiffer than the cell
3.2. Structure
3.2. Structure of the the PF PF Filament
Filament
body. The elasticofofproperties
3.2. Structure the PF Filament
of the cell body and the PF are crucial determinants of species-specific
The E. coli flagellar
The E. coli flagellar filament filament is is formed
formed by by tens
tens of of thousands
thousands of of copies
copies of of aa single
single flagellin
flagellin protein,
protein,
morphology FliC and
[24].
The E.
FliC [24].
are
Species
coli flagellar
Species
thought
with
with more more
filament to
complicated be related
is formed
complicated flagella
by tensare
flagella ofto
are the swimming
composed
thousands
composed ofcopies
ofof multiple
multiple
mechanism
flagellins,
of aflagellins,
single for example,
flagellin
for example,
protein, described later [31].
Campylobacter
TheCampylobacter
filament
FliC [24]. Species jejuni
is
jejuni with (FlaA
connected
(FlaA more andcomplicated
and FlaB)
FlaB) toand and Caulobacter
theCaulobacter
flagellar
flagella crescentus
motor
arecrescentus
composed (FljJ,
of via
(FljJ, FljK,aFljL,
multiple
FljK, FljL,
hook FljM,structure.
flagellins,
FljM, FljN, and
forand
FljN, example,FljO)The hook in E. coli consists
FljO)
[24].
[24]. All spirochete
Campylobacter
All spirochetejejuniPFs PFs
(FlaA known
knownand FlaB) also consist
also consist
and Caulobacter of more
of more than than two
crescentus two proteins,
proteins,
(FljJ, FljK,and and
FljL, they
theyFljM, generally
FljN, and
generally contain
FljO)
contain
of the flagellar
FlaA
[24]. and
FlaA All hook
andspirochete
FlaB.
FlaB. In B.
In B.protein
PFs known(FlgE)
burgdorferi,
burgdorferi, FlaB forms
alsoforms
FlaB consist and the
the
is flexible
entire
ofentire
more PF
PF thanfilament, enough
and FlaA
two proteins,
filament, and FlaA and isto
is theyfunction
believed
believed to be
generally
to
as a universal joint to transmit
be localized
localized
contain
around
FlaA and the baseInof
FlaB. ofB.the
the filament near
burgdorferi, near forms
FlaB the basal
basal motor PF
the motor
entire [27]. The PFs
filament, PFsand of B.B.
FlaA hyodysenteriae
is believed and and
to be Leptospira
localized
the torquearoundgenerated
the base by the basal
filament themotor to the [27]. filament,
The of regardless
hyodysenteriae ofLeptospira
the direction [24]. Although the
spp.
around
spp. comprise
the base
comprise aa of core
core filament
thefilament
filamentand and sheath
nearsheath
the basal [16].
[16].motorIn B.
In B.[27].
hyodysenteriae,
The PFs of B.
hyodysenteriae, three FlaB proteins
hyodysenteriae
three FlaB proteins (FlaB1-3)
and Leptospira
(FlaB1-3)
spirochetal hook
assemble
spp. comprise
assemble to
is
to form
form also a helical
a acore formed
helical core filament
filament
core
by
filament
and sheath FlgE,
(2.4 μm
(2.4 μm T.inIn
[16].in denticola
wavelength
B. hyodysenteriae,
wavelength
FlgE
and 0.6
and 0.6 μm features
μm
three in helix
in
self-catalytic
helix proteins
FlaB diameter),
diameter), and an
(FlaB1-3)
and an intersubunit crosslinking
assemble to form a helical core filament
between conserved lysine and cysteine residues, thereby conferring structural (2.4 μm in wavelength and 0.6 μm in helix diameter), and an stability [32]. The proper
stiffness of the hook could be important for the interaction between the PF and the cell body.
3.2. Structure of the PF Filament

The E. coli flagellar filament is formed by tens of thousands of copies of a single flagellin protein,
FliC [24]. Species with more complicated flagella are composed of multiple flagellins, for example,
Campylobacter jejuni (FlaA and FlaB) and Caulobacter crescentus (FljJ, FljK, FljL, FljM, FljN, and FljO) [24].
All spirochete PFs known also consist of more than two proteins, and they generally contain FlaA
and FlaB. In B. burgdorferi, FlaB forms the entire PF filament, and FlaA is believed to be localized
around the base of the filament near the basal motor [27]. The PFs of B. hyodysenteriae and Leptospira
spp. comprise a core filament and sheath [16]. In B. hyodysenteriae, three FlaB proteins (FlaB1-3)
assemble to form a helical core filament (2.4 µm in wavelength and 0.6 µm in helix diameter), and an
FlaA protein assembles to form a straight sheath; association of the FlaB core with the FlaA sheath
determines the morphology of the fully assembled PFs (2.8 µm in wavelength and 0.9 µm in helix
diameter) [17,18]. Synthesis of the PF and swimming motility in B. hyodysenteriae are affected by
double knockout of flaB1-flaB2 but not by double knockout of flaB1-flaB3 or single knockout of flaB3,
highlighting the importance of FlaB1 and FlaB2 in the Brachyspira core filament and the possibility of
functional compensation between these two proteins [18]. In Leptospira spp., PF also consists of the
core and the sheath, and six proteins have been identified as PF components: FlaA1, FlaA2, FlaB1,
FlaB2, FcpA, and FcpB. PFs isolated from leptospiral cells exhibit a coiled shape [15], but the core
filament is straight in the absence of a sheath, indicating that the sheath is indispensable for bending the
leptospiral PF [19,21]. The PF core filament of the non-pathogenic species Leptospira biflexa is formed
by FlaB1 and FlaB2 [19]. The remaining four proteins are involved in synthesizing the sheath or in
coiling the PF through core–sheath interactions; however, their roles are not fully elucidated. Deletion
of flaA1 and flaA2 does not affect the synthesis of the sheath [20], whereas fcpA knockout mutants lack
a sheath [19,26]. Immunoprecipitations showed the interaction of FcpA with FlaB1 and FlaA2 [19].
These results suggest that FcpA is a major sheath component and plays a central role in coiling via its
interaction with the core filament. Recently, cryo-electron microscopy revealed that FcpB is a sheath
protein that is localized along the outer curve of the PF, suggesting a contribution to PF coiling [22,23].
3.3. Flagellar Motor

Spirochetes and externally flagellated species share fundamental motor parts for rotation, a
rotor and a dozen stator units (torque generators) [24], but spirochetes flagellar motor has some
spirochete-specific structures, resulting in a unique performance. Motor torque is generated by
interaction between the rotor and the stator [33]. Assuming that the force generated by a single stator
unit (FS ) is the same among species, the produced motor torque (M) depends on the radius of the rotor
ring (rR ≈ the distance between the motor axis and the rotor-stator contact point) and the number of
stator units assembled to the motor (NS ): M = FS × rR × NS [34]. Cryo-electron tomography showed
that the rotor ring in spirochete motor is larger than that in other external flagellar motors: ~31 nm
for B. burgdorferi, ~20 nm for S. enterica, ~22 nm for Vibrio fischeri, and ~27 nm for C. jejuni [34]. Thus,
the flagellar motor with a larger rotor ring allows more stators to surround the rotor. In addition
to the geometrical advantage, the number of assembled stators of externally flagellated species is
dynamically altered by changes in load against the motor and the input energy for rotation (e.g., NS is
decreased up to one near zero load) [24,35–38], whereas the maximum number of stator units could
be incorporated into motors under any conditions in spirochetes [3,39–41]. Such stable assembly of
the spirochete stators is thought to involve a spirochete-specific motor component called “P-collar”
conserved in T. primitia [39], T. pallidum [41], B. burgdorferi [3], L interrogans, and L. biflexa [40]; perhaps
the part plays a key role in stator assembly [34]. This knowledge predicts that the spirochetal motor
can produce higher torque, which is supported by motility measurements showing that Leptospira spp.
produce a stall torque of ~4000 pN nm [10], whereas the stall torque of E. coli is ~2000 pN nm [42].
4. Swimming Motility
4.1. PF-Dependent Swimming

In externally flagellated bacteria, when viewed from behind a swimming cell, a left-handed helical
flagellum rotates counterclockwise (CCW), which is balanced by the clockwise (CW) rotation of the cell
body (Figure 2a) [43]. In the case of spirochetes, the protoplasmic cylinder is believed to be rotated in
the opposite direction of the PF rotation (Figure 2b) [14]. Rotation of the PFs of Borrelia and Brachyspira
drives wave propagation along the cell body, thus providing thrust for swimming [44]. In contrast,
the swimming form of Leptospira is more complex. When viewing a swimming Leptospira cell from its
posterior side, the PF transforms both ends of the cell body into a left-handed spiral or a hook shape
and gyrates the bent ends in a CCW fashion; concurrently, the PF rotates the right-handed protoplasmic
cylinder in a CW manner (Figure 2c) [11,12]. The majority of thrust for Leptospira swimming is given
by gyration of the spiral end and rolling of the protoplasmic cylinder [10]. However, correlative speed
variation between the protoplasmic cylinder and the hook end was observed [14], suggesting that
Leptospira swimming depends on mechanical communication among the three rotating parts.
protoplasmic cylinder in a CW manner (Figure 2c) [11,12]. The majority of thrust for Leptospira
swimming is given by gyration of the spiral end and rolling of the protoplasmic cylinder [10].
However, correlative speed variation between the protoplasmic cylinder and the hook end was
observed 2020,
Biomolecules [14], 10,
suggesting
550 that Leptospira swimming depends on mechanical communication among
5 of 16
the three rotating parts.
2. Mechanical models for bacterial swimming.

Figure 2. swimming. (a) (a) Steady-state
Steady-state swimming
swimming of an externally
flagellated bacterium. Torques of the cell body
bacterium. Torques of the cell body (T (T ) and flagellum
Cell) and flagellum (T
Cell (T Flagellum) )are
Flagellum are balanced,
balanced, that
that is,
their
their sum
sum is
is zero. (b) Schematic
zero. (b) Schematic of of spirochetal
spirochetal swimming,
swimming, wherewhere the
the outer
outer membrane
membrane is is ignored.
ignored. The
The
protoplasmic
protoplasmic cylinder
cylinder(PC)
(PC)isisrotated
rotatedbybythe
thecounter
countertorque
torqueofofthe periplasmic
the periplasmic flagella (PFs)
flagella rotating
(PFs) at
rotating
both ends
at both of the
ends cellcell
of the body. (c) (c)
body. Swimming
Swimming model
model Leptospira.
for for Rotational
Leptospira. Rotationaldirections
directionsareare
indicated by
indicated
large arrows.
by large arrows.
4.2. Energy Input for Spirochete Motility

4.2. Energy Input for Spirochete Motility
The bacterial flagellar motor is fueled by the ion motive force (IMF), which is the sum of the
The bacterial flagellar motor is fueled by the ion motive force (IMF), which is the sum of the
membrane voltage (∆ψ) and the ion concentration gap between the cell exterior and interior (∆pI).
membrane voltage (Δψ) and the ion concentration gap between the cell exterior and interior (ΔpI). E.
E. coli and S. enterica use the proton motive force (PMF = ∆ψ + ∆pH) for flagellar rotation, whereas
coli and S. enterica use the proton motive force (PMF = Δψ + ΔpH) for flagellar rotation, whereas Vibrio
Vibrio cholerae uses the sodium motive force (SMF = ∆ψ + ∆pNa) [24]. The coupling ion used in torque
cholerae uses the sodium motive force (SMF = Δψ + ΔpNa) [24]. The coupling ion used in torque
generation by the flagellar motor depends on the type of stator units [45]. The MotA/MotB complex
generation by the flagellar motor depends on the type of stator units [45]. The MotA/MotB complex
present in E. coli and S. enterica is an H++ -type stator, and the PomA/PomB complex of Vibrio spp. is a
present in E. coli and S. enterica is an H -type stator, and the PomA/PomB complex of Vibrio spp. is a
Na++ -type stator. Vibrio alginolyticus uses MotA/MotB and PomA/PomB stators for the lateral flagella
Na -type stator. Vibrio alginolyticus uses MotA/MotB and PomA/PomB stators for+ the lateral flagella
and polar flagellum, respectively [46,47]. Bacillus subtilis also possesses both+ H -type MotA/MotB
and polar flagellum, respectively [46,47]. Bacillus subtilis also possesses both H -type MotA/MotB and
and+ Na+ -type MotP/MotS complexes [48,49]. Such hybrid stator systems can exchange stator units
Na -type MotP/MotS complexes [48,49]. Such hybrid stator systems can exchange stator units in
in response to changes in environmental conditions, such as pH and viscosity [50]. The coupling
response to changes in environmental conditions, such as pH and viscosity [50]. The coupling ion for
ion for spirochete motility was investigated in some species by using ionophores and Na++ inhibitors,
spirochete motility was investigated in some species by using ionophores and Na inhibitors,
showing that B. burgdorferi [51] and Spirochaeta aurantia [52] utilize H++ for swimming, because they
showing that B. burgdorferi [51] and Spirochaeta aurantia [52] utilize H for swimming, because they
are completely paralyzed by the protonophore carbonyl cyanide m-chlorophenylhydrazone (CCCP).
are completely paralyzed by the protonophore carbonyl cyanide m-chlorophenylhydrazone (CCCP).
Swimming of L. biflexa is also inhibited by CCCP in acidic to neutral pH, while some residual motility
Swimming of L. biflexa is also inhibited by CCCP in acidic to neutral pH, while some residual motility
is observed under alkaline conditions, even in the presence of CCCP [53]. Moreover, addition of Na++
is observed under alkaline conditions, even in the presence of CCCP [53]. Moreover, addition of Na
to the medium enhances leptospiral motility [53]. These results suggest the possibility that the major
to the medium enhances leptospiral motility [53]. These results suggest the possibility that the major
coupling ion for Leptospira swimming is H++ , and that Na is used secondarily in alkaline conditions.
coupling ion for Leptospira swimming is H , and that Na is used secondarily in alkaline conditions.
+
4.3. Coordinated Rotation of PFs

4.3. Coordinated Rotation of PFs
The flagellar motor rotates both CCW and CW, and a reversal of the direction of motor rotation
results in a change in the swimming direction. In E. coli, a rotational switch from CCW to CW unravels
the flagellar bundle and thus causes an instant tumbling motion, which is followed by swimming in a
randomly determined direction upon returning to CCW rotation [24,33]. Motor reversal from CCW to
CW rotation in the polarly flagellated bacterium V. alginolyticus changes the swimming direction from
forward to backward, whereas the reversal from CW to CCW causes “buckling” of the flagellum at the
hook, resulting in a 90 degree change in swimming direction [54]. These motor reversal-based changes
in swimming direction are related to bacterial chemotaxis, which may be stimulated by chemicals,
temperature, light, and other trigger mechanisms [55]. In spirochetes, rotational directions of PFs are
important for directed swimming [6,44]. According to the schematic structure shown in Figure 1a,
the flagellar motors residing at both cell ends have to rotate in opposite directions to each other; if
they rotate in the same direction, the cell body will not be rotated due to the counterbalance of torques
generated by the two motors or the inability to swim due to a twist of the cell body. This mechanical
model suggests that asymmetric rotation and synchronized motor reversal between PFs are required
for the cells to swim smoothly and change swimming direction [44].
Coordinated rotation of E. coli flagellar motors can be observed when they reside close to each other,
which was explained by diffusion of the phosphorylated chemotaxis response regulator CheY (CheY-P)
within the cytoplasm. CheY-P molecules generated in response to methylation of the methyl-accepting
chemotaxis protein (MCP) bind to a rotor protein FliM and induce a conformational change of the rotor.
As a result, the rotor switch rotation direction from CCW to CW. The delay time of reversal observed
between the two motors is consistent with the diffusion time of CheY-P (~100 ms) [56]. CheY is also
involved in spirochete chemotaxis [57–60], but whether its diffusion can manage signal transduction
between motors depends on the distance. CheY-P diffusion could be effective in E. coli cells that are
1–2 µm in length [56] but not for rapid coordination [61] of spirochete motors that are more than 10 µm
apart from each other. Using the equation giving time t for diffusing x with the diffusion constant D,
t = x2 /2D, CheY with a diffusion coefficient of D ≈ 10 µm2 /s [56,62] can be estimated to take 5 s for
diffusing 10 µm. This estimation suggests that a CheY-independent mechanism could control the rapid
swimming reversal observed in spirochetes. Furthermore, a chemotaxis-deficient B. burgdorferi mutant
(cheA knockout strain) swims straight without reversal, indicating that asymmetric rotation of PFs at
different poles of a single cell during steady-state swimming is not related to the chemotaxis system [44].
B. burgdorferi possesses two fliG homologs, fliG1 and fliG2. FliG1 plays a central role for torque
generation through interaction with stator units. FliG2 is essential for PF synthesis in B. burgdorferi [63].
Knockout of fliG1 does not affect PF synthesis, but subcellular localization studies on FliG1 tagged
with green fluorescent protein (GFP) revealed that the localization of FliG1 is asymmetric [63]. This
suggests the possibility that asymmetric PF rotation observed for B. burgdorferi can be attributed to
structural differences in flagellar motors residing at both cell ends. Furthermore, a mathematical model
predicted the importance of the interaction between PFs at the cell center. In a borrelial model with a
single PF, free swimming of the spirochete was reproduced by assuming that both ends of the PF are
anchored to the cell body (intimate interaction between PFs) but not by assuming that only one end of
the PF is anchored (no interaction between PFs). In the case of Leptospira with short PFs, given that the
leptospiral cell body is stiffer than PFs [29], torque transmission from one end to the other may occur
along the cell body instead of being mediated by direct contact between PFs.
4.4. Translation Versus Rotation

Swimming speeds differ significantly among species (Figure 3a). E. coli and Salmonella spp.
swim at 20–30 µm/s [64,65], while C. crescentus (~60 µm/s) [66], V. cholerae (~100 µm/s) [67], and
the magnetotactic marine bacterium MO-1 (~300 µm/s) [68] are examples of faster swimmers. In
comparison with externally flagellated bacteria, the swimming speed of spirochetes in liquid media
is much slower. The fastest swimmer is Leptospira spp. (~15 µm/s) [10,69], which is followed by B.
burgdorferi (~7 µm/s) [70], Brachyspira pilosicoli (~5 µm/s) [8], and Treponema pallidum (~2 µm/s) [71].
Swimming speeds are correlated with cell body rotation rates or wave frequencies (Figure 3b). Dividing
the swimming speed v by the rotation rate or the wave frequency f gives the migration distance achieved
by one revolution of the helical body, that is, v/f. The ratio of v/f to helix pitch p, (v/f )/p, is similar to
motion efficiency; for example, equal values of v/f and p, that is, (v/f )/p = 1, indicate swimming without
slip [72]. The (v/f )/p ratios of S. enterica and V. alginolyticus are ~0.1 [64] and ~0.07 [72], respectively,
meaning that these bacteria move by less than 10% of the helix pitch of their flagella by one flagellar
Dividing the swimming speed v by the rotation rate or the wave frequency f gives the migration
distance achieved by one revolution of the helical body, that is, v/f. The ratio of v/f to helix pitch p,
(v/f)/p, is similar to motion efficiency; for example, equal values of v/f and p, that is, (v/f)/p = 1, indicate
swimming
Biomolecules without
2020, 10, 550 slip [72]. The (v/f)/p ratios of S. enterica and V. alginolyticus are ~0.1 [64] and ~0.07
7 of 16
[72], respectively, meaning that these bacteria move by less than 10% of the helix pitch of their flagella
by one flagellar revolution. B pilosicoli and L. biflexa show (v/f)/p values of ~0.17 [8] and ~0.27 [73],
revolution.
respectively, B pilosicoli
showing L. biflexamore
andslightly showefficient
(v/f )/p values of ~0.17than
swimming [8] and ~0.27 [73],
external respectively,motility.
flagella-driven showing
slightly
Spirochetal (v/f)/p values increase with viscosity, leading to increased swimming speeds at values
more efficient swimming than external flagella-driven motility. Spirochetal (v/f )/p high
increase
viscosity with viscosity,
(described leading to increased swimming speeds at high viscosity (described below).
below).
Figure 3. Speeds of bacterial motility. (a) Swimming or gliding speeds of various bacterial species.
Figure 3. Speeds of bacterial motility. (a) Swimming or gliding speeds of various bacterial species.
Spirochete-derived data are enlarged in the inset. Refer to the following literature for the
Spirochete-derived data are enlarged in the inset. Refer to the following literature for the corresponding
corresponding swimming measurements: E. coli [65], S. enterica [74], B. subtilis [49], V. alginolyticus
swimming measurements: E. coli [65], S. enterica [74], B. subtilis [49], V. alginolyticus [75], V. cholerae [67],
[75], V. cholerae [67], C. crescentus [66], Helicobacter pylori [76], C. jejuni [77], Pseudomonas aeruginosa [78],
C. crescentus [66], Helicobacter pylori [76], C. jejuni [77], Pseudomonas aeruginosa [78], magnetotactic
magnetotactic bacterium MO-1 [68], B. pilosicoli [8], S. aurantia [79], B. burgdorferi [70], T. denticola [80],
bacterium MO-1 [68], B. pilosicoli [8], S. aurantia [79], B. burgdorferi [70], T. denticola [80], T. pallidum [71],
T. pallidum [71], and L. biflexa [10]. (b) Relationships between rotation rates and swimming speeds: S.
and L. biflexa [10]. (b) Relationships between rotation rates and swimming speeds: S. enterica [64], V.
enterica [64], V. alginolyticus [72], C. crescentus [81], B. pilosicoli [8], and L. biflexa [10].
alginolyticus [72], C. crescentus [81], B. pilosicoli [8], and L. biflexa [10].
4.5.Effect
4.5. EffectofofViscosity
Viscosityon
onSwimming
Swimming Motility
Motility
Althoughthe
Although theswimming
swimming ability
ability of
of spirochetes
spirochetes seems
seems toto be
be inferior
inferiortotothat
thatofofother
otherflagellated
flagellated
bacteria (Figure 3), spirochete swimming is known to be improved by increased
bacteria (Figure 3), spirochete swimming is known to be improved by increased viscosity. viscosity. KaiserKaiser
and
Doetsch reported that the swimming speed of L. biflexa monotonically increased
and Doetsch reported that the swimming speed of L. biflexa monotonically increased with viscosity with viscosity in
inmethylcellulose
methylcellulosesolutions
solutions [82].
[82].Similar
Similarphenomena
phenomena have been
have beenobserved
observed in in
B. B.
burgdorferi [83],
burgdorferi T. T.
[83],
denticola [80], and B. pilosicoli [8]. T. denticola cannot swim at all in medium without
denticola [80], and B. pilosicoli [8]. T. denticola cannot swim at all in medium without polymers, but polymers, but
smooth translation is allowed by the addition of methylcellulose to the medium (~6 μm/s in 1%
smooth translation is allowed by the addition of methylcellulose to the medium (~6 µm/s in 1%
methylcellulose 4000 solution) [80]. However, swimming motilities of these spirochetes cannot be
methylcellulose 4000 solution) [80]. However, swimming motilities of these spirochetes cannot be
improved by all types of viscous fluids but only by gel-like, heterogeneous polymer solutions, for
improved by all types of viscous fluids but only by gel-like, heterogeneous polymer solutions, for
example those containing methylcellulose, polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), or mucin [8,69,83,84]. These
example those containing methylcellulose, polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), or mucin [8,69,83,84]. These
linear polymers form a quasi-rigid network and are thus treated as viscoelastic fluids [85]. In contrast,
linear polymers form a quasi-rigid network and are thus treated as viscoelastic fluids [85]. In contrast,
the swimming speeds of B. pilosicoli [8], L. biflexa [10], and B. burgdorferi slow down in the presence of
the swimming speeds of B. pilosicoli [8], L. biflexa [10], and B. burgdorferi slow down in the presence of the
the branched polymer Ficoll that does not form a network [71]. Measurements in B. pilosicoli
branched polymer Ficoll that does not form a network [71]. Measurements in B. pilosicoli highlighted
highlighted that the v/f value of this spirochete was improved by addition of PVP but not Ficoll [8].
that the v/f value of this spirochete was improved by addition of PVP but not Ficoll [8]. Although the
Although the mechanisms by which spirochete motilities are influenced by the differences in
mechanisms
microscopicby which structure
polymer spirocheteare motilities
not fullyare influencedviscoelasticity
understood, by the differences in microscopic
is believed polymer
to be related to
structure are phenomenon.
this unique not fully understood, viscoelasticity is believed to be related to this unique phenomenon.
Leptospira are known to be attracted to higher viscosity, and the mechanism of this so-called
“viscotaxis” was explained by the viscosity-dependent increment of swimming speed [86]. However,
a recent motility study using Leptospira proposed another plausible model of taxis-like behavior,
which was based on the result that a change in viscosity affects the reversal frequency in swimming
direction [13]. When a leptospiral cell swims with the anterior spiral (S) end and the posterior hook
Leptospira are known to be attracted to higher viscosity, and the mechanism of this so-called
“viscotaxis” was explained by the viscosity-dependent increment of swimming speed [86]. However,
a recent motility study using Leptospira proposed another plausible model of taxis-like behavior,
which was based on the result that a change in viscosity affects the reversal frequency in swimming
direction
(H) end (SH [13]. When
form), thea leptospiral cell swims
transformation with the anterior
into symmetric spiral (S) end
cell morphology (SS and
or HHthe form)
posterior hook
interrupts
(H) end (SH form), the transformation into symmetric cell morphology (SS or HH
swimming transiently, although the cell keeps rotating (Figure 4a). Leptospiral swimming is restartedform) interrupts
swimming transiently, although the cell keeps rotating (Figure 4a). Leptospiral swimming is restarted
by transformation from symmetric to asymmetric forms, and the swimming direction after exhibiting
by transformation from symmetric to asymmetric forms, and the swimming direction after exhibiting
symmetric morphologies is determined by the cell forming SH or HS. The transformation process of
symmetric morphologies is determined by the cell forming SH or HS. The transformation process of
SH-SS/HH-SH causes a pause of swimming but does not change the swimming direction (stepping
SH-SS/HH-SH causes a pause of swimming but does not change the swimming direction (stepping
movement), whereas SH-SS/HH-HS turns the swimming direction by 180 degrees (reversal movement)
movement), whereas SH-SS/HH-HS turns the swimming direction by 180 degrees (reversal
(Figure 4b) [13]. Takabe et al. measured the stepping and the reversal events of individual leptospiral
movement) (Figure 4b) [13]. Takabe et al. measured the stepping and the reversal events of individual
cells in various viscous solutions containing methylcellulose, Ficoll, or the major viscous agent for
leptospiral cells in various viscous solutions containing methylcellulose, Ficoll, or the major viscous
tissue mucin, showing that the reversal frequency increased with viscosity (Figure 4c) [13]. The reversal
agent for tissue mucin, showing that the reversal frequency increased with viscosity (Figure 4c) [13].
movement returns the cell to its original position, indicating that there is no net migration. Thus,
The reversal movement returns the cell to its original position, indicating that there is no net
viscosity-dependent impairment of net
migration. Thus, viscosity-dependent migrationofoccurs
impairment due to the
net migration increment
occurs of the
due to the reversal
increment ofevent
the
that results in trapping leptospires in areas with higher viscosity, which could assist the
reversal event that results in trapping leptospires in areas with higher viscosity, which could assist accumulation
ofthe
spirochetes
accumulation in theof mucus layerininthe
spirochetes vivo (Figure
mucus 4d).
layer in vivo (Figure 4d).
Figure4.4.Effect
Figure Effect of viscosity
of viscosity on Leptospira
on Leptospira swimming.
swimming. (a) Association
(a) Association of cell morphology
of cell morphology and swimmingand
swimming in Leptospira. The spirochete can swim while displaying asymmetric
in Leptospira. The spirochete can swim while displaying asymmetric morphologies (SH or HS), morphologies (SH or
HS), with the front end pointing towards the swimming direction and usually displaying
with the front end pointing towards the swimming direction and usually displaying a spiral shape. a spiral
shape.
(b) (b) Definition
Definition of steppingof stepping and reversal
and reversal motions.motions. (c) Reversal
(c) Reversal movements
movements are enhanced
are enhanced by the
by the addition
ofaddition of methylcellulose
methylcellulose to the medium.
to the medium. (d) A plausible
(d) A plausible explanationexplanation of “viscotaxis”
of “viscotaxis” in Leptospira.
in Leptospira. Enhanced
Enhanced reversal
swimming swimming withreversal
elevatedwith elevated
viscosity viscosity net
suppresses suppresses
migrationnetofmigration
Leptospira of Leptospira
cells, cells,an
facilitating
facilitating an accumulation of spirochetes
accumulation of spirochetes in high viscosity areas.in high viscosity areas.
5.5.Chemotaxis
Chemotaxis
Early
Earlystudies
studiesonon
chemotaxis
chemotaxisusing E. coli
using coli S.
E. and andenterica showed
S. enterica that these
showed thatare attracted
these to nutritious
are attracted to
nutritious such
substrates, substrates, such
as sugars andasamino
sugarsacids,
and but
amino acids, but
are repelled byare repelled
harmful bysuch
ones, harmful ones, such
as alcohols. as
Notably,
alcohols.
not Notably,
all of the not all
attractants andofrepellants
the attractants and repellants
are related are related
to metabolism [87,88].toInmetabolism
spirochetes,[87,88]. In
S. aurantia
shows an attraction response to many sugars, such as glucose, xylose, galactose, and fructose [79],
whereas B. hyodysenteriae is attracted to serine, fucose, and lactose [89]. B. burgdorferi does not respond
to common chemicals, such as sugars and amino acids, but is attracted to rabbit serum and is repelled
by ethanol and butanol [51]. Both pathogenic and saprophyte Leptospira spp. are attracted not only to
their sole carbon sources, i.e., long-chain fatty acids, but also to sugars (e.g., glucose) that cannot be
metabolized in Leptospira [90–92]. Chemotaxis to hemoglobin was observed in the pathogenic species
L. interrogans but not in saprophytes [93].
Chemotaxis is closely related to the reversal of flagellar rotation, as described in Section 4.3.
Motor reversal in peritrichous bacteria results in an exploration of the environment by repeated
run-and-tumble movements [24,33] and causes back-and-forth movements with ~90 degree changes
in swimming direction by buckling in the case of polarly flagellated bacteria [54]. The swimming
pattern of spirochetes involves back-and-forth motions, and attractants increase the persistency of their
directed runs [91]. However, when swimming freely in liquid medium, the spirochetal back-and-forth
movement cannot result in changes in direction as large as Vibrio, because the spirochete cell body is
elastic but not too flexible to be buckled by mechanical stress. A physical study on Leptospira showed
that such a long and spiral body has a larger diffusion coefficient than a simple rod, suggesting that the
exploration of spirochetes involves passive Brownian motion in addition to active swimming [94].
6. Movement on Solid Surfaces

Pseudomonas aeruginosa not only swim with a polar flagellum but can also move on a solid
surface using pili in a process called twitching motility [2,95]. To that effect, ambivalent motility
of P. aeruginosa is realized by two distinct machineries specialized for movement in liquid and on
solid media, respectively. A major motility form of spirochetes is swimming, but Leptospira spp.
can move both in liquid and on solid surfaces. Cox and Twigg first reported leptospiral snake-like
movement on a smooth surface, which was called “crawling” [96]. For moving while attached to
surfaces, Mycoplasma mobile uses abundant leg-like protein complexes that are expressed on the cell
surface; these legs successively catch and release sialylated oligosaccharides on surfaces, thereby
propelling the cell [97]. Another gliding bacterium, Myxococcus xanthus, has a machinery that is
composed of intracellular motor proteins and an external adhesive complex (Agl-Glt) [98]. Leptospiral
swimming is a result of flagella-dependent motility, but a machinery specialized in crawling has
yet to be identified. Charon et al. observed that microbeads attached to the leptospiral cell surface
via anti-whole cell antibody freely move along the cell body, suggesting that unspecialized antigens
residing on the outer sheath are involved in crawling motility by functioning as mobile adhesins [99].
A recent study by Tahara et al. showed that crawling is completely inhibited by CCCP, indicating
that PMF-dependent PF rotation drives crawling (Figure 5a) [73]. Furthermore, it was revealed that
modification of glass surfaces with anti-lipopolysaccharide (LPS) antibody affects the crawling speed
and that anti-LPS antibody-coated microbeads move on the outer bacterial membrane. These results
suggest that LPS is responsible for crawling, serving as one of the adhesins anchoring the cell to the
surface (Figure 5b–d) [73]. Electron microscopic observation of a hamster liver infected by pathogenic
leptospires showed entry of leptospiral cells into the intercellular junction of hepatocytes [100], implying
that leptospiral pathogenicity could involve adherence of spirochetes to host cells, followed by crawling
(discussed in Section 7).
Figure5.5.Crawling
Figure Crawling motility
motility ofof Leptospira.
Leptospira. (a)
(a) Effect
Effect of
of carbonyl
carbonyl cyanide
cyanidem-chlorophenylhydrazone
m-chlorophenylhydrazone
(CCCP) on Leptospira crawling
(CCCP) on Leptospira crawling on on a glass surface.
surface. (b) Effect of anti- lipopolysaccharide(LPS)
(b) Effect of anti- lipopolysaccharide (LPS) antibody
antibody
oncrawling
on crawling speed.
speed. Open
Openbarsbarsindicate
indicatethe fractions
the of cells
fractions adhered
of cells adheredto the
to glass without
the glass crawling.
without (c)
crawling.
Movement
(c) Movement ofof
a microbead
a microbead coated
coatedwith
withanti-LPS
anti-LPSantibody
antibody ononthe
theleptospiral
leptospiralcell
cellsurface.
surface.Sequential
Sequential
framesof
frames ofaamovie
movie were
were superimposed
superimposed to show the bead bead trajectory.
trajectory. (d)(d)Schematic
Schematicexplanation
explanationofof
crawling. Adhesive
crawling. Adhesive molecules
molecules(red(redand
and purple
purplesymbols),
symbols),such as LPS,
such anchor
as LPS, the cell
anchor thetocell
a surface, and
to a surface,
PF-dependent rolling of the protoplasmic cylinder propels the
and PF-dependent rolling of the protoplasmic cylinder propels the cell. cell.
7.7.Motility
Motilityas
asA
A Virulence
Virulence Factor
Factor
InIngeneral,
general,bacterial
bacterialflagella
flagellaand andmotility
motilityare arerelated
related totovirulence,
virulence,suchsuchas as
invasion,
invasion, adhesion,
adhesion, and
others [101,102].
and others Motility
[101,102]. is an essential
Motility virulence
is an essential factor factor
virulence for pathogenic spirochetes,
for pathogenic and loss
spirochetes, andofloss
motility
of
due to a lack
motility dueof toflagellar
a lack ofgenes attenuates
flagellar with B. burgdorferi
infectionsinfections
genes attenuates [63], B. hyodysenteriae
with B. burgdorferi [103], and
[63], B. hyodysenteriae
L.[103],
interrogans
and L. [20,21].
interrogans Invasion B. burgdorferi
[20,21].ofInvasion of B. burgdorferi
via a tick bitevia ainduces
tick biteainduces
hallmark a hallmark rash,
rash, called called
erythema
erythema
migrans, at migrans,
the initialatstagethe initial
of Lyme stage of Lyme
disease. disease.
Motility Motility
analyses analyses
of B. of B.using
burgdorferi burgdorferi using
the mouse the
dermis
mouse dermis showed three distinct motilities of the spirochete, which
showed three distinct motilities of the spirochete, which were termed translocating, wriggling, and were termed translocating,
wriggling,
lunging [70].and
The lunging [70]. Thestate
translocating translocating
is similar state is similar in
to swimming to solutions,
swimmingwhereasin solutions, whereas the
the wriggling (the
wriggling
entire (the entire
cell body is fixedcellin body
place is fixed
but in place
keeps but keeps
undulation) andundulation)
the lungingand (thethe
celllunging
body is(the cell body
partially fixed
is the
on partially fixed
surface) on the
states aresurface)
observed states
onlyareinobserved
the dermis onlyorinthe
thegelatin
dermisresembling
or the gelatin theresembling the
mouse dermis.
mouse dermis. The translocation is essential for dissemination within the
The translocation is essential for dissemination within the host, and transient adhesion by wriggling host, and transient adhesion
by wriggling
and lunging isand lunging
thought to beis thought
involvedtoinbechanging
involvedthe in changing the moving
moving direction anddirection
evadingand hostevading
immune
host immune system [70]. Brachyspira spp. penetrate the epithelial mucosa
system [70]. Brachyspira spp. penetrate the epithelial mucosa with one end of the cell body moving with one end of the cell
body moving in the same direction, and this well-aligned colonization is
in the same direction, and this well-aligned colonization is called “false-brush-border”, which could called “false-brush-border”,
which could
involve directedinvolve directed
motility motility of[104].
of spirochetes spirochetes [104]. spp.,
In Leptospira In Leptospira
pathogenic spp.,strains
pathogenic strains are
are classified into
~300 serovars based on the structural difference in LPS, and the severity of the infectioninfection
classified into ~300 serovars based on the structural difference in LPS, and the severity of the outcome
outcome depends on the combination of host species and leptospiral serovars [105]. Although the
depends on the combination of host species and leptospiral serovars [105]. Although the details
details on the relationship between motility of Leptospira serovars and their host-dependent
on the relationship between motility of Leptospira serovars and their host-dependent pathogenicity
pathogenicity remain unknown, the crawling motility mediated by leptospiral LPS and other
remain unknown, the crawling motility mediated by leptospiral LPS and other adhesion molecules is
adhesion molecules is a potential key factor [73,106]. Recently, we measured adhesivity and crawling
a potential key factor [73,106]. Recently, we measured adhesivity and crawling of some leptospiral
of some leptospiral serovars on kidney cells derived from various mammalian hosts, including
serovars on kidney cells derived from various mammalian hosts, including humans, showing close
humans, showing close correlation of the measured parameters with the symptom severity of the
correlation of the measured parameters with the symptom severity of the host–serovar pairs; pairs
host–serovar pairs; pairs causing more severe symptoms, such as hemorrhage, jaundice, and
causing more severe symptoms, such as hemorrhage, jaundice, and nephritis, show high adhesivity
nephritis, show high adhesivity and persistent crawling of leptospires on the host cells [106]. This
and persistent crawling of leptospires on the host cells [106]. This knowledge is an important step
knowledge is an important step toward understanding the host–pathogen relationship to develop
toward understanding
novel antimicrobials forthe host–pathogen
targeting pathogenrelationship
dynamics. to develop novel antimicrobials for targeting
pathogen dynamics.
8. Conclusions and Perspectives
Members of the spirochetes share a basic cell structure, but their configurations, PF
compositions, and motility forms are extremely diverse. Remarkable advancements in cryo-electron
8. Conclusions and Perspectives

Members of the spirochetes share a basic cell structure, but their configurations,
PF compositions, and motility forms are extremely diverse. Remarkable advancements in cryo-electron
microscopy/tomography have unveiled many spirochete-specific structures, such as the motor scaffold
P-collar, fully assembled stator units, and a combination of multiple proteins for establishing the
unique morphology of PFs. These are important clues to discuss high torque generation by the
spirochetal flagellar motor. Motility measurements by optical microscopy showed improved efficiency
of swimming motility in gel-like fluids and viscosity-dependent enhancement of swimming reversal,
probably facilitating an accumulation of spirochetes in viscous milieus that exist abundantly within
a host body. A recent study showed the close relationship of the spirochetal movements over host
cell surfaces and the severity of the symptoms caused, giving crucial insight into the practical role of
bacterial motility as a virulence factor.
Although the knowledge summarized in this review deepened the understanding of the mechanics
of spirochete motility and its biological significance, there are still many issues remaining, such as the
interaction between spirochetes and viscoelastic fluids, signal transduction for the coordinated rotation
of PFs between both cell ends, and the molecular basis of crawling motility on the host cells. Further
studies on these subjects will advance biomimetic technology and prompt the development of novel
prevention/medication strategies.
Funding: This work was supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for
the Promotion of Science (JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 18K07100) and Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research
on Innovative Areas “Harmonized Supramolecular Motility Machinery and Its Diversity” (Grant Numbers
15H01307).
Acknowledgments: The author thank K. Takabe, Md. S. Islam, J. Xu, A. Kawamoto, N. Koizumi, and S. Kudo for
critical discussion related to research referred in this review.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Miyata, M.; Robinson, R.C.; Uyeda, T.Q.P.; Fukumori, Y.; Fukushima, S.; Haruta, S.; Homma, M.; Inaba, K.;
Ito, M.; Kaito, C.; et al. Tree of motility – A proposed history of motility systems in the tree of life. Genes Cells
2020, 25, 6–21. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Jarrell, K.F.; McBride, M.J. The surprisingly diverse ways that prokaryotes move. Nat. Rev. Micro. 2008, 6,
466–476. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Zhao, X.; Zhang, K.; Boquoi, T.; Hu, B.; Motaleb, M.A.; Miller, K.A.; James, M.E.; Charon, N.W.; Manson, M.D.;
Norris, S.J.; et al. Cryoelectron tomography reveals the sequential assembly of bacterial flagella in Borrelia
Burgdorferi. PNAS 2013, 110, 14390–14395. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Goldstein, S.F.; Buttle, K.F.; Charon, N.W. Structural analysis of the Leptospiraceae and Borrelia burgdorferi by
high-voltage electron microscopy. J. Bacteriol. 1996, 178, 6539–6545. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Charon, N.W.; Goldstein, S.F.; Marko, M.; Hsieh, C.; Gebhardt, L.L.; Motaleb, M.A.; Wolgemuth, C.W.;
Limberger, R.J.; Rowe, N. The flat-ribbon configuration of the periplasmic flagella of Borrelia burgdorferi and
its relationship to motility and morphology. J. Bacteriol. 2009, 191, 600–607. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Charon, N.W.; Cockburn, A.; Li, C.; Liu, J.; Miller, K.A.; Miller, M.R.; Motaleb, M.A.; Wolgemuth, C.W. The
unique paradigm of spirochete motility and chemotaxis. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2012, 66, 349–370. [CrossRef]
7. Goldstein, S.F.; Charon, N.W.; Kreiling, J.A. Borrelia burgdorferi swims with a planar waveform similar to that
of eukaryotic flagella. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1994, 91, 3433–3437. [CrossRef]
8. Nakamura, S.; Adachi, Y.; Goto, T.; Magariyama, Y. Improvement in motion efficiency of the spirochete
Brachyspira pilosicoli in viscous environments. Biophys. J. 2006, 90, 3019–3026. [CrossRef]
9. Tasu, C.; Nakamura, S.; Tazawa, H.; Hara, H.; Adachi, Y. Morphological properties of a human intestinal
spirochete first isolated from a patient with diarrhea in Japan. Microbiol. Immunol. 2003, 47, 989–996.
[CrossRef]
10. Nakamura, S.; Leshansky, A.; Magariyama, Y.; Namba, K.; Kudo, S. Direct measurement of helical cell motion
of the spirochete leptospira. Biophys. J. 2014, 106, 47–54. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Berg, H.C.; Bromley, D.B.; Charon, N.W. Leptospiral motility. Symp. Soc. Gen. Microbiol. 1978, 28, 285–294.
12. Goldstein, S.F.; Charon, N.W. Multiple-exposure photographic analysis of a motile spirochete. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 1990, 87, 4895–4899. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Takabe, K.; Tahara, H.; Islam, M.S.; Affroze, S.; Kudo, S.; Nakamura, S. Viscosity-dependent variations in the
cell shape and swimming manner of Leptospira. Microbiology 2017, 163, 153–160. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Takabe, K.; Kawamoto, A.; Tahara, H.; Kudo, S.; Nakamura, S. Implications of coordinated cell-body rotations
for Leptospira motility. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2017, 491, 1040–1046. [CrossRef]
15. Bromley, D.B.; Charon, N.W. Axial filament involvement in the motility of Leptospira interrogans. J. Bacteriol.
1979, 137, 1406–1412. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Li, C.; Motaleb, A.; Sal, M.; Goldstein, S.F.; Charon, N.W. Spirochete periplasmic flagella and motility. J. Mol.
Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2000, 2, 345–354.
17. Li, C.; Corum, L.; Morgan, D.; Rosey, E.L.; Stanton, T.B.; Charon, N.W. The spirochete FlaA periplasmic
flagellar sheath protein impacts flagellar helicity. J. Bacteriol. 2000, 182, 6698–6706. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Li, C.; Wolgemuth, C.W.; Marko, M.; Morgan, D.G.; Charon, N.W. Genetic analysis of spirochete flagellin
proteins and their involvement in motility, filament assembly, and flagellar morphology. J. Bacteriol. 2008,
190, 5607–5615. [CrossRef]
19. Sasaki, Y.; Kawamoto, A.; Tahara, H.; Kasuga, K.; Sato, R.; Ohnishi, M.; Nakamura, S.; Koizumi, N. Leptospiral
flagellar sheath protein FcpA interacts with FlaA2 and FlaB1 in Leptospira biflexa. PLoS ONE 2018, 13,
e0194923. [CrossRef]
20. Lambert, A.; Picardeau, M.; Haake, D.A.; Sermswan, R.W.; Srikram, A.; Adler, B.; Murray, G.A. FlaA proteins
in Leptospira interrogans are essential for motility and virulence but are not required for formation of the
flagellum sheath. Infect. Immun. 2012, 80, 2019–2025. [CrossRef]
21. Wunder, E.A.; Figueira, C.P.; Benaroudj, N.; Hu, B.; Tong, B.A.; Trajtenberg, F.; Liu, J.; Reis, M.G.; Charon, N.W.;
Buschiazzo, A.; et al. A novel flagellar sheath protein, FcpA, determines filament coiling, translational
motility and virulence for the Leptospira spirochete. Mol. Microbiol. 2016, 101, 457–470. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Wunder, E.A.J.; Slamti, L.; Suwondo, D.N.; Gibson, K.H.; Shang, Z.; Sindelar, C.V.; Trajtenberg, F.;
Buschiazzo, A.; Ko, A.I.; Picardeau, M. FcpB Is a surface filament protein of the endoflagellum required for
the motility of the spirochete Leptospira. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2018, 8. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Gibson, K.H.; Trajtenberg, F.; Wunder, E.A.; Brady, M.R.; San Martin, F.; Mechaly, A.; Shang, Z.; Liu, J.;
Picardeau, M.; Ko, A.; et al. An asymmetric sheath controls flagellar supercoiling and motility in the
leptospira spirochete. eLife 2020, 9, e53672. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Nakamura, S.; Minamino, T. Flagella-driven motility of bacteria. Biomolecules 2019, 9, 279. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
25. Ruby, J.D.; Li, H.; Kuramitsu, H.; Norris, S.J.; Goldstein, S.F.; Buttle, K.F.; Charon, N.W. Relationship of
Treponema denticola periplasmic flagella to irregular cell morphology. J. Bacteriol. 1997, 179, 1628–1635.
[CrossRef]
26. Motaleb, M.A.; Corum, L.; Bono, J.L.; Elias, A.F.; Rosa, P.; Samuels, D.S.; Charon, N.W. Borrelia burgdorferi
periplasmic flagella have both skeletal and motility functions. PNAS 2000, 97, 10899–10904. [CrossRef]
27. Sal, M.S.; Li, C.; Motalab, M.A.; Shibata, S.; Aizawa, S.; Charon, N.W. Borrelia burgdorferi uniquely regulates
its motility genes and has an intricate flagellar hook-basal body structure. J. Bacteriol. 2008, 190, 1912–1921.
[CrossRef]
28. Slamti, L.; de Pedro, M.A.; Guichet, E.; Picardeau, M. Deciphering morphological determinants of the
helix-shaped Leptospira. J. Bacteriol. 2011, 193, 6266–6275. [CrossRef]
29. Kan, W.; Wolgemuth, C.W. The shape and dynamics of the Leptospiraceae. Biophys. J. 2007, 93, 54–61.
[CrossRef]
30. Dombrowski, C.; Kan, W.; Motaleb, M.A.; Charon, N.W.; Goldstein, R.E.; Wolgemuth, C.W. The elastic basis
for the shape of Borrelia burgdorferi. Biophys. J. 2009, 96, 4409–4417. [CrossRef]
31. Vig, D.K.; Wolgemuth, C.W. Swimming dynamics of the lyme disease spirochete. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2012, 109,
218104. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Miller, M.R.; Miller, K.A.; Bian, J.; James, M.E.; Zhang, S.; Lynch, M.J.; Callery, P.S.; Hettick, J.M.; Cockburn, A.;
Liu, J.; et al. Spirochaete flagella hook proteins self-catalyse a lysinoalanine covalent crosslink for motility.
Nat. Microbiol. 2016, 1, 1–8. [CrossRef]
33. Berg, H.C. The rotary motor of bacterial flagella. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2003, 72, 19–54. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Beeby, M.; Ribardo, D.A.; Brennan, C.A.; Ruby, E.G.; Jensen, G.J.; Hendrixson, D.R. Diverse high-torque
bacterial flagellar motors assemble wider stator rings using a conserved protein scaffold. PNAS 2016, 113,
E1917–E1926. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Lele, P.P.; Hosu, B.G.; Berg, H.C. Dynamics of mechanosensing in the bacterial flagellar motor. PNAS 2013,
110, 11839–11844. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Tipping, M.J.; Delalez, N.J.; Lim, R.; Berry, R.M.; Armitage, J.P. Load-dependent assembly of the bacterial
flagellar motor. MBio 2013, 4, e00551-13. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Nord, A.L.; Gachon, E.; Perez-Carrasco, R.; Nirody, J.A.; Barducci, A.; Berry, R.M.; Pedaci, F. Catch bond
drives stator mechanosensitivity in the bacterial flagellar motor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114,
12952–12957. [CrossRef]
38. Castillo, D.J.; Nakamura, S.; Morimoto, Y.V.; Che, Y.-S.; Kami-ike, N.; Kudo, S.; Minamino, T.; Namba, K. The
C-terminal periplasmic domain of MotB is responsible for load-dependent control of the number of stators
of the bacterial flagellar motor. Biophysics 2013, 9, 173–181. [CrossRef]
39. Murphy, G.E.; Leadbetter, J.R.; Jensen, G.J. In situ structure of the complete Treponema primitia flagellar motor.
Nature 2006, 442, 1062–1064. [CrossRef]
40. Raddi, G.; Morado, D.R.; Yan, J.; Haake, D.A.; Yang, X.F.; Liu, J. Three-dimensional structures of pathogenic
and saprophytic Leptospira species revealed by cryo-electron tomography. J. Bacteriol. 2012, 194, 1299–1306.
[CrossRef]
41. Liu, J.; Howell, J.K.; Bradley, S.D.; Zheng, Y.; Zhou, Z.H.; Norris, S.J. Cellular architecture of Treponema
pallidum: Novel flagellum, periplasmic cone, and cell envelope as revealed by cryo electron tomography. J.
Mol. Biol. 2010, 403, 546–561. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Sowa, Y.; Berry, R.M. Bacterial flagellar motor. Q. Rev. Biophys. 2008, 41, 103–132. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. DiLuzio, W.R.; Turner, L.; Mayer, M.; Garstecki, P.; Weibel, D.B.; Berg, H.C.; Whitesides, G.M. Escherichia coli
swim on the right-hand side. Nature 2005, 435, 1271–1274. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Li, C.; Bakker, R.G.; Motaleb, M.A.; Sartakova, M.L.; Cabello, F.C.; Charon, N.W. Asymmetrical flagellar
rotation in Borrelia burgdorferi nonchemotactic mutants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 6169–6174.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Thormann, K.M.; Paulick, A. Tuning the flagellar motor. Microbiology 2010, 156, 1275–1283. [CrossRef]
46. Kawagishi, I.; Maekawa, Y.; Atsumi, T.; Homma, M.; Imae, Y. Isolation of the polar and lateral
flagellum-defective mutants in Vibrio alginolyticus and identification of their flagellar driving energy
sources. J. Bacteriol. 1995, 177, 5158–5160. [CrossRef]
47. Kawagishi, I.; Imagawa, M.; Imae, Y.; McCarter, L.; Homma, M. The sodium-driven polar flagellar motor
of marine Vibrio as the mechanosensor that regulates lateral flagellar expression. Mol. Microbiol. 1996, 20,
693–699. [CrossRef]
48. Ito, M.; Hicks, D.B.; Henkin, T.M.; Guffanti, A.A.; Powers, B.D.; Zvi, L.; Uematsu, K.; Krulwich, T.A. MotPS
is the stator-force generator for motility of alkaliphilic Bacillus, and its homologue is a second functional
Mot in Bacillus subtilis: Alkaliphile MotPS and its B. subtilis homologue. Mol. Microbiol. 2004, 53, 1035–1049.
[CrossRef]
49. Ito, M.; Terahara, N.; Fujinami, S.; Krulwich, T.A. Properties of motility in Bacillus subtilis powered by the
H+ -coupled MotAB flagellar stator, Na+ -coupled MotPS or hybrid stators MotAS or MotPB. J. Mol. Biol.
2005, 352, 396–408. [CrossRef]
50. Minamino, T.; Terahara, N.; Kojima, S.; Namba, K. Autonomous control mechanism of stator assembly in
the bacterial flagellar motor in response to changes in the environment. Mol. Microbiol. 2018, 109, 723–734.
[CrossRef]
51. Shi, W.; Yang, Z.; Geng, Y.; Wolinsky, L.E.; Lovett, M.A. Chemotaxis in Borrelia burgdorferi. J. Bacteriol. 1998,
180, 231–235. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Goulbourne, E.A.; Greenberg, E.P. Relationship between proton motive force and motility in Spirochaeta
aurantia. J. Bacteriol. 1980, 143, 1450–1457. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. Islam, M.S.; Morimoto, Y.V.; Kudo, S.; Nakamura, S. H+ and Na+ are involved in flagellar rotation of the
spirochete Leptospira. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2015, 466, 196–200. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54. Son, K.; Guasto, J.S.; Stocker, R. Bacteria can exploit a flagellar buckling instability to change direction. Nat.
Phys. 2013, 9, 494–498. [CrossRef]
55. Bray, D. Cell Movements: From Molecules to Motility; Garland Science: New York, NY, USA, 2000; ISBN
978-0-203-83358-2.
56. Terasawa, S.; Fukuoka, H.; Inoue, Y.; Sagawa, T.; Takahashi, H.; Ishijima, A. Coordinated reversal of flagellar
motors on a single Escherichia coli cell. Biophys. J. 2011, 100, 2193–2200. [CrossRef]
57. Li, Z.-H.; Dong, K.; Yuan, J.-P.; Hu, B.-Y.; Liu, J.-X.; Zhao, G.-P.; Guo, X.-K. Characterization of the cheY genes
from Leptospira interrogans and their effects on the behavior of Escherichia coli. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
2006, 345, 858–866. [CrossRef]
58. Novak, E.A.; Sekar, P.; Xu, H.; Moon, K.H.; Manne, A.; Wooten, R.M.; Motaleb, M.A. The Borrelia burgdorferi
CheY3 response regulator is essential for chemotaxis and completion of its natural infection cycle. Cell.
Microbiol. 2016, 18, 1782–1799. [CrossRef]
59. Motaleb, M.A.; Sultan, S.Z.; Miller, M.R.; Li, C.; Charon, N.W. CheY3 of Borrelia burgdorferi is the key response
regulator essential for chemotaxis and forms a long-lived phosphorylated intermediate. J. Bacteriol. 2011,
193, 3332–3341. [CrossRef]
60. Bellgard, M.I.; Wanchanthuek, P.; La, T.; Ryan, K.; Moolhuijzen, P.; Albertyn, Z.; Shaban, B.; Motro, Y.;
Dunn, D.S.; Schibeci, D.; et al. Genome sequence of the pathogenic intestinal spirochete Brachyspira
hyodysenteriae reveals adaptations to its lifestyle in the porcine large intestine. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e4641.
[CrossRef]
61. Charon, N.W.; Daughtry, G.R.; McCuskey, R.S.; Franz, G.N. Microcinematographic analysis of tethered
Leptospira illini. J. Bacteriol. 1984, 160, 1067–1073. [CrossRef]
62. Segall, J.E.; Ishihara, A.; Berg, H.C. Chemotactic signaling in filamentous cells of Escherichia coli. J. Bacteriol.
1985, 161, 51–59. [CrossRef]
63. Li, C.; Xu, H.; Zhang, K.; Liang, F.T. Inactivation of a putative flagellar motor switch protein FliG1 prevents
Borrelia burgdorferi from swimming in highly viscous media and blocks its infectivity. Mol. Microbiol. 2010,
75, 1563–1576. [CrossRef]
64. Magariyama, Y.; Sugiyama, S.; Kudo, S. Bacterial swimming speed and rotation rate of bundled flagella.
FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2001, 199, 125–129. [CrossRef]
65. Minamino, T.; Imae, Y.; Oosawa, F.; Kobayashi, Y.; Oosawa, K. Effect of intracellular pH on rotational speed
of bacterial flagellar motors. J. Bacteriol. 2003, 185, 1190–1194. [CrossRef]
66. Faulds-Pain, A.; Birchall, C.; Aldridge, C.; Smith, W.D.; Grimaldi, G.; Nakamura, S.; Miyata, T.; Gray, J.; Li, G.;
Tang, J.X.; et al. Flagellin redundancy in Caulobacter crescentus and its implications for flagellar filament
assembly. J. Bacteriol. 2011, 193, 2695–2707. [CrossRef]
67. Kojima, S.; Yamamoto, K.; Kawagishi, I.; Homma, M. The polar flagellar motor of Vibrio cholerae is driven by
an Na+ motive force. J. Bacteriol. 1999, 181, 1927–1930. [CrossRef]
68. Ruan, J.; Kato, T.; Santini, C.-L.; Miyata, T.; Kawamoto, A.; Zhang, W.-J.; Bernadac, A.; Wu, L.-F.; Namba, K.
Architecture of a flagellar apparatus in the fast-swimming magnetotactic bacterium MO-1. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA 2012, 109, 20643–20648. [CrossRef]
69. Takabe, K.; Nakamura, S.; Ashihara, M.; Kudo, S. Effect of osmolarity and viscosity on the motility of
pathogenic and saprophytic Leptospira. Microbiol. Immunol. 2013, 57, 236–239. [CrossRef]
70. Harman, M.W.; Dunham-Ems, S.M.; Caimano, M.J.; Belperron, A.A.; Bockenstedt, L.K.; Fu, H.C.; Radolf, J.D.;
Wolgemuth, C.W. The heterogeneous motility of the Lyme disease spirochete in gelatin mimics dissemination
through tissue. PNAS 2012, 109, 3059–3064. [CrossRef]
71. Harman, M.; Vig, D.K.; Radolf, J.D.; Wolgemuth, C.W. Viscous dynamics of Lyme disease and syphilis
spirochetes reveal flagellar torque and drag. Biophys. J. 2013, 105, 2273–2280. [CrossRef]
72. Magariyama, Y.; Sugiyama, S.; Muramoto, K.; Kawagishi, I.; Imae, Y.; Kudo, S. Simultaneous measurement
of bacterial flagellar rotation rate and swimming speed. Biophys. J. 1995, 69, 2154–2162. [CrossRef]
73. Tahara, H.; Takabe, K.; Sasaki, Y.; Kasuga, K.; Kawamoto, A.; Koizumi, N.; Nakamura, S. The mechanism
of two-phase motility in the spirochete Leptospira: Swimming and crawling. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaar7975.
[CrossRef]
74. Nakamura, S.; Morimoto, Y.V.; Kami-ike, N.; Minamino, T.; Namba, K. Role of a conserved prolyl residue
(Pro173) of MotA in the mechanochemical reaction cycle of the proton-driven flagellar motor of Salmonella. J.
Mol. Biol. 2009, 393, 300–307. [CrossRef]
75. Atsumi, T.; Maekawa, Y.; Yamada, T.; Kawagishi, I.; Imae, Y.; Homma, M. Effect of viscosity on swimming by
the lateral and polar flagella of Vibrio alginolyticus. J. Bacteriol. 1996, 178, 5024–5026. [CrossRef]
76. Celli, J.P.; Turner, B.S.; Afdhal, N.H.; Keates, S.; Ghiran, I.; Kelly, C.P.; Ewoldt, R.H.; McKinley, G.H.; So, P.;
Erramilli, S.; et al. Helicobacter pylori moves through mucus by reducing mucin viscoelasticity. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 14321–14326. [CrossRef]
77. Apel, D.; Ellermeier, J.; Pryjma, M.; DiRita, V.J.; Gaynor, E.C. Characterization of Campylobacter jejuni RacRS
reveals roles in the heat shock response, motility, and maintenance of cell length homogeneity. J. Bacteriol.
2012, 194, 2342–2354. [CrossRef]
78. Shigematsu, M.; Meno, Y.; Misumi, H.; Amako, K. The measurement of swimming velocity of Vibrio cholerae
and Pseudomonas aeruginosa using the video tracking methods. Microbiol. Immunol. 1995, 39, 741–744.
[CrossRef]
79. Greenberg, E.P.; Canale-Parola, E. Chemotaxis in Spirochaeta aurantia. J. Bacteriol. 1977, 130, 485–494.
[CrossRef]
80. Ruby, J.D.; Charon, N.W. Effect of temperature and viscosity on the motility of the spirochete Treponema
denticola. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 1998, 169, 251–254. [CrossRef]
81. Li, G.; Tang, J.X. Low flagellar motor torque and high swimming efficiency of Caulobacter crescentus swarmer
cells. Biophys. J. 2006, 91, 2726–2734. [CrossRef]
82. Kaiser, G.E.; Doetsch, R.N. Enhanced translational motion of Leptospira in viscous environments. Nature
1975, 255, 656–657. [CrossRef]
83. Kimsey, R.B.; Spielman, A. Motility of Lyme disease spirochetes in fluids as viscous as the extracellular
matrix. J. Infect. Dis. 1990, 162, 1205–1208. [CrossRef]
84. Magariyama, Y.; Kudo, S. A Mathematical explanation of an increase in bacterial swimming speed with
viscosity in linear-polymer solutions. Biophys. J. 2002, 83, 733–739. [CrossRef]
85. Berg, H.C.; Turner, L. Movement of microorganisms in viscous environments. Nature 1979, 278, 349–351.
[CrossRef]
86. Petrino, M.G.; Doetsch, R.N. “Viscotaxis”, a new behavioural response of Leptospira interrogans (biflexa) strain
B16. J. Gen. Microbiol. 1978, 109, 113–117. [CrossRef]
87. Melton, T.; Hartman, P.E.; Stratis, J.P.; Lee, T.L.; Davis, A.T. Chemotaxis of Salmonella typhimurium to Amino
Acids and Some Sugars. J. Bacteriol. 1978, 133, 708–716. [CrossRef]
88. Tso, W.-W.; Adler, J. Negative chemotaxis in Escherichia coli. J. Bacteriol. 1974, 118, 560–576. [CrossRef]
89. Kennedy, M.J.; Yancey, R.J. Motility and chemotaxis in Serpulina hyodysenteriae. Vet. Microbiol. 1996, 49, 21–30.
[CrossRef]
90. Lambert, A.; Takahashi, N.; Charon, N.W.; Picardeau, M. Chemotactic behavior of pathogenic and
nonpathogenic Leptospira species. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 8467–8469. [CrossRef]
91. Islam, M.S.; Takabe, K.; Kudo, S.; Nakamura, S. Analysis of the chemotactic behaviour of Leptospira using
microscopic agar-drop assay. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2014, 356, 39–44. [CrossRef]
92. Affroze, S.; Islam, M.S.; Takabe, K.; Kudo, S.; Nakamura, S. Characterization of leptospiral chemoreceptors
using a microscopic agar drop assay. Curr. Microbiol. 2016, 73, 202–205. [CrossRef]
93. Yuri, K.; Takamoto, Y.; Okada, M.; Hiramune, T.; Kikuchi, N.; Yanagawa, R. Chemotaxis of leptospires to
hemoglobin in relation to virulence. Infect. Immun. 1993, 61, 2270–2272. [CrossRef]
94. Butenko, A.V.; Mogilko, E.; Amitai, L.; Pokroy, B.; Sloutskin, E. Coiled to diffuse: Brownian motion of a
helical bacterium. Langmuir 2012, 28, 12941–12947. [CrossRef]
95. Wall, D.; Kaiser, D. Type IV pili and cell motility. Mol. Microbiol. 1999, 32, 1–10. [CrossRef]
96. Cox, P.J.; Twigg, G.I. Leptospiral motility. Nature 1974, 250, 260–261. [CrossRef]
97. Miyata, M. Unique centipede mechanism of Mycoplasma gliding. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2010, 64, 519–537.
[CrossRef]
98. Faure, L.M.; Fiche, J.-B.; Espinosa, L.; Ducret, A.; Anantharaman, V.; Luciano, J.; Lhospice, S.; Islam, S.T.;
Tréguier, J.; Sotes, M.; et al. The mechanism of force transmission at bacterial focal adhesion complexes.
Nature 2016, 539, 530–535. [CrossRef]
99. Charon, N.W.; Lawrence, C.W.; O’Brien, S. Movement of antibody-coated latex beads attached to the
spirochete Leptospira interrogans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1981, 78, 7166–7170. [CrossRef]
100. Miyahara, S.; Saito, M.; Kanemaru, T.; Villanueva, S.Y.A.M.; Gloriani, N.G.; Yoshida, S. Destruction of the
hepatocyte junction by intercellular invasion of Leptospira causes jaundice in a hamster model of Weil’s
disease. Int. J. Exp. Path. 2014, 95, 271–281. [CrossRef]
101. Haiko, J.; Westerlund-Wikström, B. The role of the bacterial flagellum in adhesion and virulence. Biology
2013, 2, 1242. [CrossRef]
102. Josenhans, C.; Suerbaum, S. The role of motility as a virulence factor in bacteria. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2002,
291, 605–614. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
103. Rosey, E.L.; Kennedy, M.J.; Yancey, R.J. Dual flaA1 flaB1 mutant of Serpulina hyodysenteriae expressing
periplasmic flagella is severely attenuated in a murine model of swine dysentery. Infect. Immun. 1996, 64,
104. Kraaz, W.; Pettersson, B.; Thunberg, U.; Engstrand, L.; Fellström, C. Brachyspira aalborgi infection diagnosed
by culture and 16S ribosomal DNA sequencing using human colonic biopsy specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol.
2000, 38, 3555–3560. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
105. Picardeau, M. Virulence of the zoonotic agent of leptospirosis: Still terra incognita? Nat. Rev. Micro. 2017, 15,
106. Xu, J.; Koizumi, N.; Nakamura, S. Adhesivity and motility of a zoonotic spirochete: Implications in
host-dependent pathogenicity. bioRxiv 2020. [CrossRef]
© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Spirochete Flagella and Motility

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spirochete Flagella and Motility

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spirochete Flagella and Motility

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

biomolecules

Keywords: spirochetes; periplasmic flagella; motility; chemotaxis; molecular motor

Biomolecules 2020, 10, 550; doi:10.3390/biom10040550 www.mdpi.com/journal/biomolecules

Biomolecules 2020, 10, 550 3 of 15

3.2. Structure of the PF Filament

3.3. Flagellar Motor

4.1. PF-Dependent Swimming

2. Mechanical models for bacterial swimming.

4.2. Energy Input for Spirochete Motility

4.3. Coordinated Rotation of PFs

4.4. Translation Versus Rotation

6. Movement on Solid Surfaces

8. Conclusions and Perspectives

You might also like