Repellents for Escherichia coli operate neither by changing membrane fluidity nor by being sensed by periplasmic receptors during chemotaxis.

A long-standing question in bacterial chemotaxis is whether repellents are sensed by receptors or whether they change a general membrane property such as the membrane fluidity and this change, in turn, is sensed by the chemotaxis system. This study addressed this question. The effects of common repellents on the membrane fluidity of Escherichia coli were measured by the fluorescence polarization of the probe 1,6-diphenyl-1,3,5-hexatriene in liposomes made of lipids extracted from the bacteria and in membrane vesicles. Glycerol, indole, and L-leucine had no significant effect on the membrane fluidity. NiSO4 decreased the membrane fluidity but only at concentrations much higher than those which elicit a repellent response in intact bacteria. This indicated that these repellents are not sensed by modulating the membrane fluidity. Aliphatic alcohols, on the other hand, fluidized the membrane, but the concentrations that elicited a repellent response were not equally effective in fluidizing the membrane. The response of intact bacteria to alcohols was monitored in various chemotaxis mutants and found to be missing in mutants lacking all the four methyl-accepting chemotaxis proteins (MCPs) or the cytoplasmic che gene products. The presence of any single MCP was sufficient for the expression of a repellent response. It is concluded (i) that the repellent response to aliphatic alcohols can be mediated by any MCP and (ii) that although an increase in membrane fluidity may take part in a repellent response, it is not the only mechanism by which aliphatic alcohols, or at least some of them, are effective as repellents. To determine whether any of the E. coli repellents are sensed by periplasmic receptors, the effects of repellents from various classes on periplasm-void cells were examined. The responses to all the repellents tested (sodium benzoate, indole, L-leucine, and NiSO4) were retained in these cells. In a control experiment, the response of the attractant maltose, whose receptor is periplasmic, was lost. This indicates that these repellents are not sensed by periplasmic receptors. In view of this finding and the involvement of the MCPs in repellent sensing, it is proposed that the MCPs themselves are low-affinity receptors for the repellents.