# Molecular Mimicry: a Paradigm of Host-Microbe Coevolution Illustrated by Legionella

Sonia Mondino, Silke Schmidt, Carmen Buchrieser

► To cite this version:

Sonia Mondino, Silke Schmidt, Carmen Buchrieser. Molecular Mimicry: a Paradigm of Host-Microbe Coevolution Illustrated by Legionella. mBio, 2020, 11 (5), pp.e01201-20. 10.1128/mBio.01201-20.pasteur-03065115

HAL Id: pasteur-03065115

https://pasteur.hal.science/pasteur-03065115

Submitted on 14 Dec 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Molecular Mimicry: a Paradigm of Host-Microbe Coevolution
## Illustrated by Legionella

Sonia Mondino,a,b Silke Schmidt,a,b,c Carmen Buchrieser,a,b

**ABSTRACT** Through coevolution with host cells, microorganisms have acquired mechanisms to avoid the detection by the host surveillance system and to use the cell's supplies to establish themselves. Indeed, certain pathogens have evolved proteins that imitate specific eukaryotic cell proteins, allowing them to manipulate host pathways, a phenomenon termed molecular mimicry. Bacterial "eukaryotic-like proteins" are a remarkable example of molecular mimicry. They are defined as proteins that strongly resemble eukaryotic proteins or that carry domains that are predominantly present in eukaryotes and that are generally absent from prokaryotes. The widest diversity of eukaryotic-like proteins known to date can be found in members of the bacterial genus *Legionella*, some of which cause a severe pneumonia in humans. The characterization of a number of these proteins shed light on their importance during infection. The subsequent identification of eukaryotic-like genes in the genomes of other amoeba-associated bacteria and bacterial symbionts suggested that eukaryotic-like proteins are a common means of bacterial evasion and communication, shaped by the continuous interactions between bacteria and their protozoan hosts. In this review, we discuss the concept of molecular mimicry using *Legionella* as an example and show that eukaryotic-like proteins effectively manipulate host cell pathways. The study of the function and evolution of such proteins is an exciting field of research that is leading us toward a better understanding of the complex world of bacterium-host interactions. Ultimately, this knowledge will teach us how host pathways are manipulated and how infections may possibly be tackled.

**KEYWORDS** molecular mimicry, eukaryotic-like proteins, *Legionella*, amoeba-resistant bacteria, host-pathogen interactions, *Legionella pneumophila*

During host-pathogen interactions, a continuous coevolution of the host defenses and the microbes' mechanisms of evasion take place. In some pathogens, this process led to the evolution of secreted effector proteins that imitate eukaryotic functions, so-called molecular mimics. The concept of molecular mimicry was initially described by Raymond T. Damian in 1964, and it referred to the sharing of antigenic determinants between parasite and host (1). He discussed the origin and consequences of molecular mimicry, showing that it allows the parasite to avoid recognition by the host immune system and thus to survive. However, due to the resemblance between epitopes from the microorganisms and the antigens present in the host, infections can initiate or stimulate a strong autoimmune response. Hence, it was suggested that molecular mimicry may also be involved in the development of human autoimmune diseases (2; reviewed in reference 3).

Later, the concept of molecular mimicry was expanded, referring to the display of pathogen-encoded factors that resemble structures of the host at the molecular level and that benefit the pathogen due to this resemblance. These mimics can be perfect

**Citation** Mondino S, Schmidt S, Buchrieser C. 2020. Molecular mimicry: a paradigm of host-microbe coevolution illustrated by *Legionella*. *mBio* 11:e01201-20. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01201-20.

**Editor** Danielle A. Garsin, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston

**Copyright** © 2020 Mondino et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

Address correspondence to Carmen Buchrieser, cbuch@pasteur.fr.

**Published** 6 October 2020

<footnote>ªInstitut Pasteur, Biologie des Bactéries Intracellulaires, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote>ᵇCNRS UMR 3525, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote>ᶜSorbonne Université, Collège Doctoral, Paris, France</footnote>
mimics when they co-opt host factors or imperfect when they resemble host compo-
nents and yet perform distinct functions which confer an advantage to the pathogen
(4, 5). Four different types of mimicry exist: (i) similarity in the sequences and structures
of full-length proteins or domains, (ii) structural similarity without sequence homology,
(iii) similarity in protein short linear motifs (SLiMs), also known as motif mimicry, and (iv)
similarity of binding surface architectures even without sequence homology, known as
interface mimicry (6, 7).

Molecular mimics can emerge by two main mechanisms. The first one is convergent evolution, in which nonhomologous proteins encoded by microorganisms evolve features of host proteins mainly through mutations (5, 8). These microbial proteins then mimic specific chemical groups or biophysical properties of host proteins that are relevant for protein function. However, such mimics are difficult to detect, as detailed functional and structural analyses are necessary (5, 8). Alternatively, mimics can arise from the acquisition of host cell genes through horizontal gene transfer, which can be evidenced by sequence similarity with host proteins and by phylogenetic analyses. After horizontal acquisition, genes are generally sculpted and evolve further to be efficiently processed by the bacterial transcriptional/translational machinery. This may involve the loss of introns, the acquisition of regulatory elements necessary for correct gene expression, and the acquisition of a secretion signal that will allow recognition of the acquired protein by bacterial secretion systems. As a consequence, the divergent evolution of the mimic may obscure the common origins of these genes (5). Convergent evolution and vertical acquisition of eukaryotic-like functions are not exclusive processes but can be observed even in a single bacterial protein. An interesting example is SptP, a type III secreted effector of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium with N-terminal GTPase-activating protein (GAP) activity for Rac1 and Cdc42 (9). The crystal structure of the SptP-Rac1 complex revealed that the GAP domain functionally mimics host GAPs through a combination of specific structural elements, suggesting that the GAP activity has evolved convergently from the selective pressures of host-pathogen coevolution (10). In contrast, the carboxyl-terminal part of SptP, with tyrosine-phosphatase activity, harbors sequence and structure similarity to those of their eukaryotic counterparts, suggesting that this function was acquired by horizontal gene transfer (8). Thus, horizontal gene transfer followed by fusion to a bacterial protein might be an important mechanism for the emergence of bacterial proteins with eukaryotic-like domains (11).

The increasing availability of bacterial genome data improved our knowledge of the diversity of bacterial mimics that resemble eukaryotic proteins or that harbor eukaryotic-like domains. The latter can be defined according to their distribution within the bacterial or eukaryotic genomes. In a recent study, our group has defined a eukaryotic domain as one that is found in more than 75% of eukaryotic genomes and less than 25% of prokaryotic genomes (12). While these domains tend to be widespread in eukaryotes, they are generally absent or rarely present in bacteria, except in those that closely interact with a eukaryotic host (13). Furthermore, eukaryotic-like proteins, which are bacterial proteins that are similar to eukaryotic proteins (e.g., they have at least 20% amino acid identity over more than a third of the protein length), have been identified in some bacterial genomes (12). The presence of bacterial eukaryotic-like proteins is a strong indicator that such proteins are effectors, which are generally secreted by dedicated secretion systems during infection (14, 15). Indeed, eukaryotic-like proteins and their role in infection have been described in several intracellular pathogens, such as *Legionella*, *Coxiella*, *Mycobacterium*, *Chlamydia*, and *Bacillus* (16–20). However, to our knowledge, the highest number and widest variety of eukaryotic-like proteins have been found in bacteria belonging to the genus *Legionella* (12, 21). Analyses of the *Legionella* genus genome identified proteins encoding 137 different eukaryotic-like domains and more than 200 eukaryotic-like proteins, constituting a remarkable example of molecular mimicry of host proteins by an opportunistic human pathogen (12). In this review, we take *Legionella* as a model and we discuss examples of molecular mimicry of eukaryotic domains and eukaryotic proteins in the context of
pathogenesis and symbiosis, with an emphasis on effectors for which a function has been described.

## LEGIONELLA, A BLIND COPYCAT

When our group sequenced and analyzed the *Legionella pneumophila* strain Paris genome, it was surprising to find a high number of genes coding for eukaryotic-like proteins or proteins with eukaryotic-like motifs (15). We thus hypothesized that these proteins may help the bacterium to hijack the host cell (15). *Legionella* spp. are Gram-negative, facultative, intracellular bacteria that are ubiquitously present in aquatic environments. An exception is *Legionella longbeachae*, which is isolated mainly from moist soil and potting mixes (22, 23). The bacteria are found either free-living, associated with biofilms, or parasitizing protozoan hosts, such as amoebae (24). Apart from its natural protozoan hosts, *Legionella* is also able to infect human alveolar lung macrophages. This infection can lead to a severe pneumonia called Legionnaires' disease, which can be fatal if not treated promptly (23, 25).

Infection of humans occurs through inhalation of aerosolized, contaminated water droplets generated by artificial water systems, such as air-conditioning units, shower heads, or cooling towers. The number one causative agent of Legionnaires' disease worldwide is *L. pneumophila*, causing 80 to 90% of the confirmed cases, followed by *L. longbeachae*, which is particularly prevalent in Southeast Asia, Australia, and New Zealand (23). Nearly everything that we know today about the intracellular lifestyle of *Legionella* was obtained by studying *L. pneumophila*. Starting with cell contact, *L. pneumophila* secretes into the host cytoplasm effectors that help (i) to avoid phagolysosomal degradation and (ii) to establish a dedicated replicative niche, named the *Legionella*-containing vacuole (LCV). These effectors have been shown to manipulate diverse cellular signaling and vesicular trafficking pathways to recruit endoplasmic reticulum (ER)-derived vesicles to the LCV, to redirect cellular proteins to the LCV for nutrient supply, to subvert the host cell immune response, or to suppress autophagy and apoptosis of the infected cell (26).

An astonishing number (18,000) of different effectors have recently been predicted in the genus *Legionella*, but only 8 of them are conserved in the 58 species analyzed (12). To date, *L. pneumophila* is the uncontested champion in the bacterial kingdom, with over 330 translocated effectors (representing 10% of its genome) that are delivered to the host cell cytosol through the Dot/Icm type 4B secretion system (T4SS) (27). A large body of research that sheds light on the functional roles of specific effectors encoded by *L. pneumophila* has been collected in the last several years. These studies have substantially contributed to our understanding of molecular mimicry of eukaryotic protein domains/motifs as a central survival mechanism of *Legionella* (Table 1; Fig. 1).

**Intracellular lifestyle: Legionella effectors that manipulate small GTPases and membrane trafficking.** *Legionella* critically depends on the establishment of the LCV and the hijacking of cellular pathways to efficiently replicate inside the host cell. Small GTPases of the Arf, Rho, Ras, and Rab families play a central role in eukaryotic intracellular trafficking, cell motility, and intracellular signaling events, among others (28). A hallmark of small GTPases is the switch between an active GTP-bound state and an inactive GDP-bound state. The switch between these states is mediated by guanine nucleotide exchange factors (GEFs), which induce the exchange of GDP for GTP, leading to GTPase activation, and GTPase-activating proteins (GAPs), which accelerate the hydrolysis of GTP, leading to the inactive state. Small GTPases can be activated only by GEFs when they are bound to membranes, which requires the constant cycling of small GTPases between endomembranes and the cytosol, which is regulated by solubilizing guanine dissociation inhibitors (GDIs) (28). These eukaryotic/endogenous regulators of small GTPases interact with the proteins via a shared conserved domain. Arf GEFs contain Sec7 domains and regulate protein and lipid trafficking in eukaryotic cells (29). Human regulator of chromatin condensation 1 (RCC1) contains signature RCC1 repeats and functions as a GEF for the small GTPase Ran (30).
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**TABLE 1** Eukaryotic-like effectors of *Legionella* with functions discussed herein</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Effector(s)</th><th>Domain(s)</th><th>Function(s)</th><th>Identified target(s)</th><th>Reference(s)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Legionella proteins with eukaryotic domains</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Manipulation of small GTPases and membrane trafficking</strong></td></tr><tr><td>RalF</td><td>Sec7</td><td>Acts as an Arf1 GEF</td><td>Arf1</td><td>31, 32</td></tr><tr><td>Legionella Rab GTPases</td><td>Rab GTPase-like</td><td>Unknown</td><td>Unknown</td><td>12, 85</td></tr><tr><td>MitF (LegG1)</td><td>RCC1</td><td>Activates Ran, promotes LCV and host cell motility; implicated in mitochondrial fragmentation</td><td>RanBP10</td><td>36, 37, 38, 40</td></tr><tr><td>PieG</td><td>RCC1</td><td>Activates Ran, promotes LCV and host cell motility</td><td>Ran, RanGAP1</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>PpgA</td><td>RCC1</td><td>Activates Ran, promotes LCV and host cell motility</td><td>RanGAP1</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>LseA</td><td>Qc-SNARE</td><td>Probably mediates membrane fusion events</td><td>Qa-, Qb- and R-type SNAREs</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>YlfB (LegC2), LegC3, YlfA (LegC7)</td><td>Coiled-coil motifs reminiscent of Q-SNARE</td><td>Modulate membrane fusion events</td><td>VAMP4</td><td>48, 49, 50, 51</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Manipulation of host cell transcription</strong></td></tr><tr><td>RomA</td><td>Ankyrin repeat, SET</td><td>Changes histone marks; methylates nonhistone proteins</td><td>H3K14, AROS</td><td>56, 57</td></tr><tr><td>LegAS4</td><td>Ankyrin repeat, SET</td><td>Changes histone marks</td><td>H3K4</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>AnkH</td><td>Ankyrin repeat</td><td>Interferes with transcriptional elongation by RNA polymerase II</td><td>LARP7 of the 7SK snRNP complex</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Manipulation of the ubiquitination pathway</strong></td></tr><tr><td>LubX</td><td>U-box</td><td>E3 ligase</td><td>Clk1, SidH</td><td>66, 67, 69</td></tr><tr><td>AnkB</td><td>Ankyrin repeat, F-box</td><td>Interacts with the ubiquitination machinery, supplies amino acids to the Legionella vacuole</td><td>Skp1, ParvB</td><td>72, 73, 75</td></tr><tr><td>RavN</td><td>U-box-like motif</td><td>E3 ligase</td><td>Unknown</td><td>70</td></tr><tr><td>Lpg2370</td><td>RING-type E3 ligase</td><td>E3 ligase</td><td>Unknown</td><td>70</td></tr><tr><td>MavM</td><td>RING-type E3 ligase</td><td>E3 ligase</td><td>Unknown</td><td>70</td></tr><tr><td>MavJ</td><td>HECT-type E3 ligase</td><td>E3 ligase</td><td>Unknown</td><td>70</td></tr><tr><td>LotA</td><td>Ovarian tumor (OTU) superfamily of cysteine proteases</td><td>Deubiquitinase</td><td>Ubiquitin moieties on the LCV</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>Ceg23</td><td>Ovarian tumor (OTU) superfamily of cysteine proteases</td><td>Deubiquitinase</td><td>K63-linked polyubiquitin on the LCV</td><td>83</td></tr><tr><td>RavD</td><td>OTULIN-like interaction surface, papain fold</td><td>Deubiquitinase</td><td>M1-linked linear ubiquitin on the LCV</td><td>84</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Manipulation of protein phosphorylation</strong></td></tr><tr><td>LegK1</td><td>STPK</td><td>Mimics IκB kinases, activates NF-κB signaling</td><td>IκB family of inhibitors</td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>LegK4</td><td>STPK</td><td>Inhibits host translation</td><td>Hsp70 chaperone family</td><td>89, 90</td></tr><tr><td>LegK2</td><td>STPK</td><td>Inhibits actin polymerization on the Legionella vacuole</td><td>ARPC1B and ARP3 subunits of the ARP2/3 complex</td><td>87, 91</td></tr><tr><td>LegK7</td><td>Structural homology to STPK</td><td>Mimics MST1, hijacks the Hippo signaling pathway</td><td>MOB1A</td><td>92, 93</td></tr><tr><td>SidJ</td><td>Structural homology to STPK</td><td>Pseudokinase that mediates protein polyglutamylation, activated by host calmodulin</td><td>SidE family of effectors</td><td>94, 95, 96, 97</td></tr><tr><td>Lpg2603</td><td>Atypical protein kinase structure</td><td>Active kinase in vitro, activated by host inositol hexakisphosphate</td><td>Unknown</td><td>98</td></tr><tr><td>Ceg4</td><td>HAD</td><td>Phosphotyrosine phosphatase, putative regulator of MAPK signaling</td><td>p38 MAPK</td><td>101</td></tr><tr><td>Lem4</td><td>HAD</td><td>Phosphotyrosine phosphatase</td><td>Unknown</td><td>102</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continued on following page)
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**TABLE 1 (Continued)**</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Effector(s)</th><th>Domain(s)</th><th>Function(s)</th><th>Identified target(s)</th><th>Reference(s)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Legionella SH2 domain-containing proteins</td><td>SH2</td><td>Bind to phosphotyrosines</td><td>Unknown</td><td>104</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Legionella proteins that resemble eukaryotic-like proteins</strong></td></tr><tr><td>LpSpl</td><td>Sphingosine 1-phosphate lyase</td><td>Restrains autophagy</td><td>Intracellular sphingosine</td><td>105, 106</td></tr><tr><td>LpdA</td><td>Phospholipase D</td><td>Modulates phosphatidic acid cellular levels</td><td>Lipid substrates</td><td>107, 108</td></tr><tr><td>LncP</td><td>Mitochondrial carrier family of proteins</td><td>Mediates the unidirectional transport of ATP</td><td>ATP</td><td>109</td></tr><tr><td>Lpg1905, Lpg0971</td><td>ecto-NTPDase</td><td>Unknown</td><td>Unknown</td><td>110, 112, 113</td></tr><tr><td>GamA</td><td>Amylase</td><td>Unknown</td><td>Unknown</td><td>115</td></tr><tr><td>LamB</td><td>Amylase</td><td>Unknown</td><td>Unknown</td><td>116</td></tr><tr><td>LamA</td><td>Amylase</td><td>Blocks amoeba encystation</td><td>Intracellular glycogen</td><td>117</td></tr></tbody></table>

L. pneumophila uses the molecular mimicry of all of the above-mentioned eukaryotic protein domains, resulting in the bacterial manipulation of membrane trafficking. The translocated effector RalF contains a Sec7 domain and acts as an Arf GEF in the host cell, directly activating and recruiting Arf1 to the LCV membrane (31). Indeed, structural analysis confirmed that the Sec7 domain of RalF has the same overall structure as its eukaryotic counterparts, demonstrating that the bacterial and eukaryotic proteins are structurally highly conserved (32).

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**FIG 1** Selected Legionella eukaryotic-like T4SS-dependent effectors as discussed herein. Legionella spp. translocate eukaryotic-like proteins to manipulate specific host cell processes, like membrane trafficking (A), gene expression (B), signaling pathways (C), and host metabolism (D). While many of these translocated effectors harbor eukaryotic-like domains, others resemble eukaryotic proteins themselves. The functions of the different Legionella effectors implicated in the depicted processes are further discussed in the text. Orange box, Legionella effector; pink oval, host target protein/molecule; orange oval, Legionella target protein; Me, methylation; U, ubiquitination; P, phosphorylation; G, glutamylation; CaM, calmodulin; IP6, inositol hexakisphosphate; ER, endoplasmic reticulum.</figcaption></figure>
Furthermore, *L. pneumophila* uses at least six secreted effectors (SidM [DrrA], SidD, AnkX, Lem3, LepB, and LidA), which mediate the recruitment of Rab1 and its functional modification to facilitate the fusion of ER-derived vesicles with the LCV membrane (for reviews on this topic, see references 33 and 34). Surprisingly, most of these Rab1-modulating effectors are absent in *L. longbeachae* and several other *Legionella* species (12). Notably, genome analyses identified genes encoding eukaryotic Rab GTPase domain-containing proteins in some *Legionella* species, including *L. longbeachae*, suggesting that these bacterial Rab-like proteins are able to subvert host cell trafficking (12). Although there is no evidence to date that these effectors functionally replace the Rab1-modulating proteins of *L. pneumophila* or that they use the canonical GTP/GDP cycle, they are an intriguing example of molecular mimicry in the genus *Legionella*, and further research will shed light on the specific roles of these unique bacterial Rab-like proteins in infection.

Another eukaryotic-like domain used by *L. pneumophila* is the RCC1 domain, a seven-beta-propeller fold specific for Ran GEFs, which was first identified in the secreted effector MitF (LegG1) (35). In fact, MitF (LegG1) has been shown to function as a bacterial Ran activator, promoting microtubule stabilization, LCV motility, and cell migration during infection (36, 37). In addition, it was recently shown that MitF (LegG1) is implicated in mitochondrial fragmentation, probably through WASP-Arp2/3-mediated recruitment of DNM1L. This modulation of mitochondrial dynamics by *L. pneumophila* induces a Warburg-like metabolism in the host cell that promotes bacterial replication (38). Several intracellular pathogens induce a shift in the host cell metabolism, probably supporting the bacterium's specific nutritional needs during infection (39). A recent study highlights an interesting history of divergent evolution of RCC1-containing effectors among different *L. pneumophila* strains, ultimately leading to changes of their specific cellular targets but not their Ran GEF function. The RCC1 repeat-containing proteins MitF (LegG1) and PpgA of *L. pneumophila* strain Philadelphia-1 target RanBP10 and RanGAP1, while PieG from *L. pneumophila* strain Paris activates Ran by binding to Ran itself and RanGAP1 (40). Despite their different cellular targets, all three effectors lead to Ran activation as well as increased LCV and host cell motility (40).

In addition, *L. pneumophila* secretes effectors that mimic eukaryotic soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive factor attachment protein receptors (SNAREs). SNAREs contain coiled-coil domains that consist of amphipathic alpha-helices that can wrap around each other to form helical bundles. These proteins tether membranes together to mediate membrane fusion events in the eukaryotic cell, for example in vesicular trafficking (41, 42). SNAREs are broadly classified into R- and Q-SNAREs based on the interaction of an arginine residue with three glutamine residues in the SNARE core complex. The analysis of LseA in *L. pneumophila* revealed strong sequence homology to the fungal SNARE protein syntaxin-6 (43). LseA resembles a Qc-SNARE protein by its coiled-coil domain, and it contains a C-terminal eukaryotic CAAX motif predicted to be necessary for binding to host organelles. C-terminal prenylation motifs, or CAAX boxes, harbor a conserved cysteine residue that is lipidated by host prenylation enzymes during infection (44–46). Indeed, it was shown that LseA localizes to Golgi membranes and binds multiple host SNAREs of the Qa, Qb, and R types, thus probably mediating membrane fusion events in Golgi membrane-associated pathways (43). The C-terminal CAAX prenylation motif, like nuclear localization signals (NLS) or ER retention motifs, are defined as SLiM mimicry, which allows to position effectors to specific host organelles. SLiM mimicry has recently been reviewed extensively (47).

The putative Q-SNAREs LegC3 and YIfA (LegC7) were identified by sequence-based structure prediction to contain coiled-coil domains and were shown to disrupt yeast endosomal trafficking (48, 49). Moreover, these two proteins together with YIfB (LegC2), another SNARE-like protein, were shown to mediate membrane fusion events by binding to the eukaryotic R-SNARE vesicle-associated membrane protein 4 (VAMP4), possibly promoting LCV expansion (50, 51).
Taken together, molecular mimicry of Sec7, Rab GTPase, coiled-coil, or RCC1 eukaryotic domains facilitates *L. pneumophila* intracellular replication through the modulation of proteins that are key components of eukaryotic membrane trafficking pathways.

**Targeting the control center: Legionella effectors that manipulate host cell transcription.** During infection, some of the secreted bacterial proteins, so-called nucleomodulins, ultimately hijack the cell nucleus (52, 53). Examples of eukaryotic mimics that modulate the transcriptional machinery of the host cell include bacterial proteins containing ankyrin motifs and SET [eukaryotic su(var)3-9, enhancer-of-zeste and trithorax] domains. Ankyrin repeats mediate protein-protein binding, while SET domains mediate methylation of lysine residues of histones and modify chromatin condensation as well as transcriptional activity at specific sites (54, 55). The T4SS-dependent effector RomA of the *L. pneumophila* strain Paris contains two eukaryotic-like domains: a C-terminal ankyrin repeat domain and an N-terminal SET domain. RomA methylates lysine 14 of histone H3 (H3K14), a residue usually acetylated at active promoters, to downregulate gene transcription in infected cells, including genes associated with innate immunity (56). In addition, it was recently shown that RomA also methylates nonhistone proteins in human cells, suggesting a multifaceted role for this effector during infection. RomA also targets AROS, a regulator of the human deacetylase SIRT1, although the specific role of this modification during Legionella infection remains to be investigated (57). LegAS4, the homolog of RomA in *L. pneumophila* strain Philadelphia-1, was reported to localize to the cell nucleolus, where it methylates H3K4, probably leading to increased transcription of host cell ribosomal DNA (58). However, as with infection of alveolar epithelial cells with *L. pneumophila* strain Paris, infection with *L. pneumophila* strain Philadelphia-1 leads to strong methylation of the H3K14 histone mark (59). Further structural analysis revealed that the LegAS4 SET domain is structurally similar to the eukaryotic SET domain, suggesting that this protein may have evolved from a common eukaryotic ancestor by horizontal gene transfer (60).

AnkH, an ankyrin repeat-containing protein, is the only effector known thus far for which a direct role of the ankyrin repeat has been described in *Legionella* infection. It is also one of eight core effectors common to all *Legionella* species sequenced to date (12, 21). *L. pneumophila* AnkH directly interacts with the nuclear protein La-related protein (LARP7), which is a component of the 7SK small nuclear ribonucleoprotein (snRNP) complex in human cells. The AnkH-LARP7 interaction partially impedes interaction of LARP7 with the 7SK snRNP complex components, thus interfering with transcriptional elongation by RNA polymerase II. As a consequence, AnkH-dependent global transcriptional reprogramming of the host cell promotes intracellular bacterial growth (61). The N-terminal domain of AnkH contains four ankyrin repeats with a typical structural fold of two alpha-helices, forming a helix-turn-helix motif, joined by a beta-hairpin loop. It was observed that a mutation of the third beta-hairpin loop in the ankyrin repeat domain abrogates binding of AnkH to LARP7 and leads to an intracellular growth defect of *L. pneumophila*. Taken together, these findings suggest that AnkH-mediated transcriptional reprogramming is essential for infection (61).

There is an increasing number of bacteria for which molecular mimicry of eukaryotic proteins that target the host cell nucleus has been described. Like Legionella, Chlamydia trachomatis, Bacillus anthracis, and Burkholderia thailandensis secrete SET domain-containing proteins that target host cell histones. Furthermore, Anaplasma phagocytophilum secretes an ankyrin repeat-containing protein (AnkA) that directly binds to host DNA, leading to decreased transcription, as reviewed in reference 52. Genome analyses might identify new eukaryotic mimics targeting the host nucleus among Legionella effectors, as well as in other bacterial pathogens.

**Forging ubiquitin signaling: Legionella effectors that target the cellular ubiquitination pathway.** Ubiquitination is a key posttranslational modification with functions in the degradation of proteins, vesicular trafficking, innate immune response, autophagy, and apoptosis. Protein ubiquitination involves the covalent attachment of ubiquitin to the epsilon amino group of lysine as singular chains or branched chains.
Three enzymes mediate this reaction in an ATP-dependent manner: a ubiquitin-
activating enzyme (E1), a ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme (E2), and a ubiquitin ligase (E3)
that confers target protein specificity (62). Eukaryotic E3 enzymes are broadly classified
into two classes: HECT and RING-type E3 ligases. The RING E3 enzymes are characterized
by their RING or U-box fold catalytic domain, and some multicomponent RING E3
complexes also include F-box domain-containing proteins (63). RING and U-box do-
mains share overall structural similarity; however, U-box domains do not contain central
Zinc-binding residues found in RING domain proteins (64). RING/U-box E3 ligases
function as scaffolds for transfer of ubiquitin to target proteins without the attachment
of ubiquitin to the E3 ligase itself, whereas HECT-like E3 ligases form a covalent
thioester E3-ubiquitin intermediate via a conserved cysteine in their active site before
transfer of ubiquitin to the target protein (64, 65).

Many bacterial pathogens, including *Legionella*, *Salmonella*, and *Shigella*, target the cellular ubiquitination machinery (65). Interestingly, particular amoeba-associated bacteria encode a large number of proteins that most likely interfere with the host's ubiquitination signaling, suggesting that it is crucial for bacterial replication in protozoan hosts (13). Indeed, nearly all *Legionella* genomes analyzed to date contain F-box (1 to 18 per genome)- and/or U-box (1 to 3 per genome)-encoding genes (12). The T4SS effector LubX contains two U-box domains, and it was shown to mediate polyubiquitination of the host Cdc2-like kinase 1 (Clk1); however, the consequence of this modification needs to be further elucidated (15, 66). In addition, LubX was shown to target the *Legionella* effector SidH for proteasomal degradation at late stages of infection, thus functioning as a key regulator to temporally coordinate the activity of a cognate effector (67). Thus, LubX was the first identified metaeffector, meaning effectors that target another effector during infection. Subsequently, it was found that putative metaeffectors are present in considerable numbers in the *Legionella* genomes (68). Interestingly, functional and structural analyses revealed that only the N-terminal U-box domain of LubX has E3 ligase activity and that it is the exclusive E2-interacting module within the protein (69). The second C-terminal U-box, however, seems to be necessary for the interaction of LubX with the target proteins, although the single residue that appears to be critical for binding of LubX to the cognate effector SidH was found to be located outside the U-box fold (66, 69).

Despite a lack of sequence homology to known eukaryotic E3 ligases, the crystal
structure of the N-terminal region of RavN revealed a U-box-like motif with a surface
area analogous to those of the E2 binding regions of other eukaryotic E3 ligases (70).
This suggests that RavN has been acquired by *Legionella* through horizontal gene
transfer early during evolution and structurally altered over time in order to best fulfil
its current function. Indeed, RavN was shown to function as an E3 ubiquitin ligase in
eukaryotic cells (70). Using pairwise comparison of profile hidden Markov models, three
other *Legionella* E3 ligase effectors with homology to RING-type E3 (Lpg2370 and
MavM) or to HECT-type E3 ligases (MavJ) were identified, all of which exerted ubiquiti-
nase activity in transfected cells (70).

The *L. pneumophila* genomes sequenced to date encode one to four F-box domains each (12, 15). The functionally best-described F-box protein is AnkB, which also contains a eukaryotic ankyrin domain and, in certain strains, also a CAAX motif (71). AnkB interacts with Skp1 and the host ubiquitination machinery to modulate the ubiquitination status of ParvB, a linker of cytoskeletal dynamics and cell survival (72, 73). In addition, AnkB of *L. pneumophila* strain Philadelphia-1 was shown to be prenylated by the host prenyltransferase machinery at the CAAX motif to anchor the protein in the LCV membrane (44). It was recently proposed that AnkB of *L. pneumophila* strain Paris, which does not contain a CAAX box, harbors an ER retention motif instead. This motif may allow this protein to be anchored in the LCV membrane (74). It has been suggested that AnkB mediates degradation of polyubiquitinated proteins on the LCV that are further used by *L. pneumophila* as nutrients (75).

In addition to having proteins with the eukaryotic U-box and F-box domains,
*Legionella* translocates proteins that manipulate ubiquitination signaling through non-
canonical mechanisms of ubiquitination. Members of the SidE family of effectors attach phosphoribosylated ubiquitin to a serine residue of host Rab GTPases in an NAD⁺-dependent manner. This previously unknown protein ubiquitination is mediated solely by the *Legionella* effector, independently of host E1 and E2 enzymes (76, 77). It was also shown that SidE family effectors are able to cleave the most common ubiquitin chains found in eukaryotic cells through an N-terminal deubiquitinase domain *in vitro* (78). Based on these novel functions, other deubiquitinases specific for phosphoribosylated ubiquitin were recently identified in *L. pneumophila* (79). However, as several of these proteins do not encode known eukaryotic domains, we will not discuss them in more detail here (for reviews, see references 80 and 81).

In contrast, *Legionella* encodes other proteins with distant homology to the eukaryotic ovarian tumor (OTU) superfamily of cysteine proteases that function as deubiquitinases. An example is LotA, a T4SS-dependent effector that uniquely harbors two catalytic pockets and localizes to the LCV, where it removes ubiquitin moieties. However, its specific function during infection needs to be further elucidated (82). Furthermore, the effector Ceg23 adopts an OTU-like fold despite limited sequence similarity, as revealed by structural analysis of the N-terminal region (83). Ceg23 specifically cleaves Lys63-linked ubiquitin through a Cys-His-Asp catalytic triad and prevents the accumulation of Lys63-polyubiquitin on the LCV. Interestingly, RavD adopts an interaction surface similar to that of the eukaryotic OTU deubiquitinase with linear specificity (OTULIN) when in complex with linear di-ubiquitin. RavD is a cysteine-dependent deubiquitinase with a unique papain-like fold, which uses an unusual Cys-His-Ser catalytic triad to specifically cleave Met1-linked linear ubiquitin chains. In infection, RavD prevents the accumulation of linear ubiquitin chains on the LCV, leading to a downregulation of the host proinflammatory nuclear factor kappa-light-chain enhancer of activated B cell (NF-κB) signaling (84). Taken together, *Legionella* encodes a remarkable diversity of effectors that help to modulate ubiquitin signaling in host cells.

**Rewriting and exploiting of protein phosphorylation: Legionella effectors mimicking eukaryotic kinases and phosphatases.** Protein kinases and phosphatases are key players in signal transduction in mammalian cells. Hence, their function is often hijacked by bacterial effectors during infection. While some effectors described for *Legionella* mimic serine/threonine protein kinases (STPK), others contain haloacid dehalogenase (HAD)-like domains or Src homology 2 (SH2) domains (15, 85, 86). Five different proteins in *L. pneumophila* that show primary amino acid sequence homology to eukaryotic protein kinases have been identified to date, four of which are secreted effectors that have been characterized in more detail (87).

The *L. pneumophila* eukaryotic-like STPK LegK1 impacts the host NF-κB pathway through functionally mimicking host inhibitor of nuclear factor kappa B (IκB) kinases (88). The activity of LegK1 might be independent of signaling components upstream of host IκB kinases, as it does not require the canonical activation of its kinase domain, indicating that LegK1 might be constitutively active or regulated by means other than phosphorylation of its activation loop (88). Like LegK1, LegK4 is a constitutively active eukaryotic-like STPK that does not depend on phosphorylation of its activation loop but probably on the stabilizing effect of its kinase domain dimerization (89). LegK4 phosphorylates a conserved threonine in the substrate-binding domain of the host Hsp70 chaperone family (90). Due to LegK4-mediated phosphorylation, Hsp70 has reduced ATPase activity and is impeded in its protein refolding capacity, which ultimately leads to a global translation inhibition of the host cell. Altogether, this suggests that LegK4 impacts host translation and the unfolded protein response, which might be beneficial for bacterial replication (90).

The protein kinase LegK2 was initially reported to be involved in the recruitment of ER vesicles to the LCV and in bacterial replication during infection (87). However, it was shown later that LegK2 phosphorylates the ARPC1B and ARP3 subunits of the actin nucleator ARP2/3 complex to inhibit actin polymerization on the LCV. Thereby, it hinders late endosome/lysosome association with the *Legionella* phagosome, contributing to the bacterial escape from the endocytic pathway (91).
LegK7 was recently identified as a bacterial protein kinase with folding homology to eukaryotic protein kinases such as PKAcα, based on profile hidden Markov model structure prediction (92). LegK7 was shown to hijack the conserved Hippo signaling pathway by functionally mimicking the host Hippo kinase MST1. Indeed, LegK7 phosphorylates MOB1A, which in turn leads to the degradation of the cotranscriptional regulators YAP1 and TAZ, thus triggering a signaling cascade that alters the transcriptional landscape of the host cell to promote *L. pneumophila* replication (92). A recent crystallographic study of the LegK7-MOB1A complex revealed that the N-terminal half of LegK7 is structurally similar to eukaryotic protein kinases and that MOB1A directly binds to the LegK7 kinase domain. LegK7 uses MOB1A as an allosteric activator and as a scaffold for the recruitment and phosphorylation of the downstream substrates (93).

Additionally, *L. pneumophila* encodes atypical protein kinases that are activated by host cofactors. One such example is SidJ (Lpg2155), a pseudokinase that contains a eukaryotic Ser/Thr protein kinase-like fold but which mediates polyglutamylation of translocated effectors of the SidE family (94, 95). Interestingly, SidJ function is dependent on the host cofactor calmodulin (94–97). Structural analysis of the translocated effector Lpg2603 revealed atypical kinase features. Lpg2603 is an active kinase *in vitro* that is allosterically activated by the host cofactor inositol hexakisphosphate (98). Another effector that is activated by host cofactors is LtpM, a glycosyltransferase that is activated by host phosphoinositides (99). Importantly, *Legionella* spp. also encode a large variety of kinases and phosphatases that target host phosphoinositide (PI) lipids. The roles of these PI kinases and PI phosphatases, including PI binding effectors and PI lipases, have recently been reviewed in detail and will thus not be further discussed in this review (100).

Recently, two *Legionella* effectors harboring HAD-like domains have been identified as eukaryotic-like protein phosphatases. Ceg4 is an atypical HAD-like phosphotyrosine phosphatase implicated in the regulation of host mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)-signaling pathways (101). Similarly, Lem4 was described as a protein tyrosine phosphatase with structural similarity to the murine phosphatase MDP-1 (102). However, the roles of Ceg4 and Lem4 during *Legionella* infection are open questions for future research.

Besides protein kinases and phosphatases, SH2 domains are important phosphotyrosine-binding modules that function as scaffolds for intracellular kinase signaling cascades. SH2 domains are structurally conserved and consist of an antiparallel beta-sheet surrounded by two alpha-helices (103). *L. longbeachae* was the first prokaryote reported to encode eukaryotic SH2 domains (85). Recently, using a structure-guided sequence alignment, 93 putative SH2 domains were identified in 84 *Legionella* proteins (104). SH2 domains in *Legionella* are distinct in amino acid sequence but share both the SH2 domain fold and a conserved phosphotyrosine-binding pocket with their eukaryotic counterparts (104). Interestingly, some *Legionella* SH2 domains bind to phosphotyrosine peptides with greater affinities than known mammalian SH2 domains and thus were termed phosphotyrosine superbinders by the authors of this study. Moreover, the presence of additional eukaryotic-like domains in some *Legionella* SH2-containing proteins suggests that they may be enzymes that modulate specific pathways during infection (104). Further studies are needed to unveil the functions of this diverse set of *Legionella* proteins in the modulation of host cell phosphotyrosine signaling during infection.

## AS CLOSE AS IT GETS: LEGIONELLA EFFECTORS THAT RESEMBLE EUKARYOTIC PROTEINS

In addition to revealing modular effectors with eukaryotic domains, genomic analyses of the *Legionella* genus genome revealed the presence of putative bacterial effectors that resemble eukaryotic proteins over more than a third of the protein length (12). The characterization of many of these mimics showed that these proteins encode the same enzymatic activities as their eukaryotic counterparts. Some of these enzymes
target specific metabolic pathways in the host cell, conferring an advantage to the bacteria that allows them to use the resources of their host cell to thrive during infection.

**Legionella eukaryotic-like proteins that target the host cell metabolism.** Several of the *Legionella* eukaryotic-like proteins identified to date are predicted to function in metabolic pathways of the host cell, probably to scavenge nutrients from the cell to ensure intracellular replication of the bacteria. One example is the *L. pneumophila* sphingosine 1-phosphate lyase (*LpSpl/LegS2*). This protein structurally and functionally mimics eukaryotic sphingosine 1-phosphate lyases (105, 106). Recently, it was shown that *LpSpl* reduces intracellular sphingosine levels of host cells during infection. The manipulation of the host sphingolipid metabolism restrains the autophagic response and promotes the intracellular survival of *L. pneumophila* (105). Another effector, LpdA, shows homology with eukaryotic phospholipase D enzymes (107). LpdA hydrolyses several lipid substrates, leading to a modulation of the cellular levels of phosphatidic acid and contributing to the virulence of *L. pneumophila* in mice (108). A protein shown to interfere with ATP transport is LncP. It shows high sequence homology to eukaryotic proteins of the mitochondrial carrier family (MCF) (109). LncP localizes to the mitochondrial inner membrane, from where it mediates the unidirectional transport of ATP. However, the contribution of LncP activity to *L. pneumophila* intracellular replication and survival remains to be determined (109).

Furthermore, the *L. pneumophila* genome encodes two ectonucleoside triphosphate diphosphohydrolases (ecto-NTPDases) (15). These enzymes harbor five conserved apyrase regions and catalyze the hydrolysis of nucleoside triphosphates and diphosphates to the monophosphate form (110, 111). *L. pneumophila* Lpg1905 and Lpg0971 are eukaryotic-like ecto-NTPDases required for optimal intracellular replication and virulence in a mouse model of infection, although the specific functions of these proteins have yet to be elucidated (110, 112, 113). Unlike many other *Legionella* eukaryotic-like proteins, neither of the ecto-NTPDases are translocated into the host cell by the T4SS (113). However, the presence of a putative N-terminal secretion signal and the detection of protein secretion from bacterial cells suggest that they might be localized in the LCV lumen during infection (112, 114).

Amylases are enzymes that catalyze the hydrolysis of starch and glycogen into glucose. The identification of putative amylases in *L. pneumophila*, together with the fact that these bacteria do not synthesize starch or glycogen themselves, suggests that these proteins might be relevant for infection. *L. pneumophila* GamA is a eukaryotic-like glucoamylase secreted by the T2SS, although the importance of this protein during infection needs to be further elucidated (115). In contrast, LamB is a *Legionella* amylase required for intracellular replication and virulence in a mouse model of infection (116). However, it is not yet clear if this protein is a secreted effector, as LamB does not contain a T2SS secretion signal and experimental validation of secretion by the T4SS was unsuccessful (116). Finally, LamA was recently described as a T4SS-dependent amylase that catalyzes rapid glycogenolysis in amoebae, blocking amoeba encystation and promoting *L. pneumophila* proliferation (117).

These effectors highlight the breadth of molecular mimicry exerted by several *Legionella* effectors which skew host cell pathways and facilitate bacterial infection (Table 1; Fig. 1). Given the diversity and the large number of effectors in the genus *Legionella*, exciting discoveries are ahead of us that may identify further mechanisms of host cell modulation via bacterial mimicry of eukaryotic cell processes.

## EUKARYOTIC-LIKE PROTEINS SHAPED BY BACTERIUM-PROTOZOAN INTERACTIONS

In the environment, *Legionella* are able to survive and replicate in a wide variety of protozoa, showcasing the most common mechanism of bacterial proliferation (118). The long-lasting coevolution of *Legionella* with its protozoan hosts has distinctly shaped the bacterial genome (12, 21). Many intracellular bacteria undergo genome reduction as a consequence of specialization to the intracellular lifestyle. However, this
phenomenon is not observed in amoeba-resistant bacteria like *Legionella* (119). In contrast, it seems that *Legionella* spp. undergo continuous genome expansion as a consequence of gene acquisition by horizontal gene transfer from their protozoan hosts, a phenomenon that was also corroborated by the finding that the ancestral genomes were probably smaller than they are today (12).

Comparative genomics and evolutionary analyses of nearly the entire *Legionella* genus genome revealed that all *Legionella* species have highly dynamic genomes with a diverse effector repertoire of 18,000 predicted proteins, encompassing at least 137 different eukaryotic domains and over 200 different eukaryotic proteins (12). It has already been shown that many of these predicted effectors have a modular structure and encode a combination of different eukaryotic domains (21). Furthermore, a recent study provided insightful evidence that the combined selective pressures of different amoebal hosts drive the evolution of *Legionella* species. These selective pressures ultimately shape the individual diversity of effector repertoires, which are probably related to the type of amoebae that *Legionella* organisms encounter and the frequency of the encounter (120). The origins of several of the eukaryotic-like proteins in the *Legionella* genome were corroborated by several phylogenetic analyses, which demonstrated that these proteins were acquired through horizontal gene transfer from a protist host (11, 12, 15, 85, 86, 121, 122). Thus, *Legionella* constitute one of the best-described examples of eukaryote-to-prokaryote gene transfer. A classic case constitutes the gene encoding the sphingosine 1-phosphate lyase (*spl*) of *L. pneumophila* (105). Different evolutionary analyses showed that the *spl* gene was acquired by horizontal gene transfer from a protist host, as the closest homologs are those from *Entamoeba* spp., *Tetrahymena thermophila*, and *Paramecium tetraurelia* (106, 122). Further homologs of this gene were found in 16 of the 58 *Legionella* species/subspecies analyzed. The phylogenetic analysis of these different *spl* genes showed that they have been acquired and lost several times during the evolution of the genus (122). Interestingly, *Legionella* spp. seem to acquire genes not only from their protozoan hosts but also from plants or fungi, as evidenced by the identification of eukaryotic-like proteins with pentatricopeptide repeats, allinase, or calosin domains in some *Legionella* species (12, 85). Thus, genomic exchange between *Legionella* and higher-order organisms also seems to occur (12).

These findings led to the suggestion that amoebae constitute melting pots of evolution, where gene fluxes in multiple directions may happen among amoebae, intracellular bacteria, fungi, and giant viruses, ultimately contributing to the evolution of these different organisms (119, 123). As an example, the ankyrin-containing protein Lpg2416 from *L. pneumophila* has its only homolog in the *Acanthamoeba polyphaga* mimivirus, a giant virus infecting *Acanthamoeba*, suggesting that *Legionella* may have acquired this eukaryotic-like protein from giant viruses (11). Additionally, genes can also be exchanged among different amoeba-related bacteria, as it was shown for bacteria of the orders *Legionellales*, *Chlamydiales*, and *Rickettsiales*, adding complexity to the possible evolutionary scenarios (124–126).

During the last two decades, genome analyses of different bacterium-associated amoebae showed that despite their different lifestyles and phylogenies, they share a set of eukaryotic protein domains necessary for bacterium-host interactions. Indeed, it has been shown that functional domains predominantly found in eukaryotes, such as ankyrin repeats, SEL1 repeats, leucine-rich repeats, and F-box and U-box domains were significantly enriched in the proteomes of amoeba-associated bacteria, like "Candidatus Amoebophilus asiaticus" (an obligate intracellular amoeba parasite), *Chlamydiae*, *Rickettsia bellii*, *Francisella tularensis*, and *Mycobacterium avium* (127). Furthermore, phylogenetic analyses were undertaken for some of the identified eukaryotic-like proteins in "Candidatus Amoebophilus asiaticus", suggesting that they had been acquired by horizontal gene transfer from a protozoan host (127). Taken together, these observations suggest that amoebae provide a specific environment for gene exchange between microorganisms invading them as pathogens
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**FIG 2** Eukaryotic-like proteins as mediators of pathogenesis and symbiosis. Microorganisms use eukaryotic-like proteins (ELPs) to communicate with their hosts. (A) *Legionella* spp. translocate eukaryotic-like proteins to multiply within protozoa, and this capacity enabled the bacterial transition to humans (arrow 1). The simultaneous occurrence of *Legionella* with other bacteria and giant viruses inside amoebae allows for the genetic interchange between these microorganisms and the host (arrow 2) and the acquisition of diverse functions which might confer an advantage during human infection (arrow 3). (B, C) Despite their role in pathogenicity, eukaryotic-like proteins are also used by cooperative bacterial communities to interact with their hosts. Eukaryotic-like proteins are used by prokaryotes to establish a symbiosis with marine sponges (B) and by rhizobia to form nitrogen-fixing symbioses with legumes (C). N, nucleus; ER, endoplasmic reticulum.</figcaption></figure>

or symbionts, but also that amoebae might be "active players" in these events as donors of their own DNA (Fig. 2).

It is still unknown how the eukaryotic genes are taken up and how the DNA is subsequently integrated in the bacterial genome. *Legionella* spp., for example, are able to develop competence for natural transformation, which may facilitate the genetic exchange inside amoebae (128). However, other mechanisms, like the transfer of mRNA, may be imagined, in particular as certain *Legionella* genomes contain a gene predicted to encode a group II intron reverse transcriptase (122). Despite the current lack of experimental evidence to corroborate this hypothesis, the nature of this exchange may explain the lack of introns and regulatory elements in the bacterial genes. Once integrated into the bacterial genome, these genes need to evolve to be specifically recognized by the secretion machinery and become secreted proteins. Thus, it has been proposed that a low-level, leaky delivery of these so-called proto-effectors to the host may allow for the selection of mutations to fine-tune the protein's translocation levels, in order to finally select for an efficient C-terminal translocation signal (27). Recently, it was shown that LvgA of *L. pneumophila* is an adaptor protein that recognizes effectors for secretion by the T4SS. However, not all effectors were recognized by LvgA, suggesting that the Dot/Icm-type 4B coupling protein (T4CP) complex is likely to be heterogeneous in terms of the adaptors displayed and that additional, yet to be identified adaptor proteins might exist (129).

Taken together, amoebae are key players in the evolution of amoeba-resistant bacteria like *Legionella*. Large-scale genome sequencing of different aquatic amoebae, a field only poorly studied to date, is greatly needed to improve our knowledge of the extent of interkingdom gene transfer and may provide evidence of currently unknown gene fluxes between different species of amoebae and bacteria. This knowledge will further advance our understanding of the origins of bacterial eukaryotic-like proteins and may allow us to elucidate the mechanisms by which they were acquired.
## EUKARYOTIC-LIKE PROTEINS IN THE CONTEXT OF PATHOGENESIS AND SYMBIOSIS

The observation that Legionella species are able to multiply within protozoan hosts, primarily aquatic amoebae, led to the idea that the capacity of the bacteria to replicate within human phagocytic cells may have evolved from their ability to survive within protozoa (130), a hypothesis which was later confirmed by different studies (as reviewed in reference 131). Amoebae and macrophages have similar mechanisms of phagocytosis and bacterial inactivation; both consist of degradation of the phagocytized material, further supporting the idea that resistance to amoeba is an important driving force in the evolution of human pathogens. Indeed, pathogenicity might have been an ancient microbial mechanism of defense against predators, which evolved through time to allow microbes to survive within higher organisms (132). Then, amoeba-bacterium interactions drove the selection of bacterial features necessary for life within a eukaryotic host, including the evolution of specific eukaryotic-like proteins (133–135). Legionella certainly constitute an example of such adaptations, as it has recently been shown that L. pneumophila growth in macrophages results from the cumulative selective pressures of multiple amoeba hosts, which in some cases lead to redundancy among effectors (120). This observation suggests that different Legionella species have evolved distinct virulence mechanisms, including the use of specific eukaryotic-like proteins, as a consequence of their differential adaptations to amoeba predation, which finally enabled the transition from environmental reservoirs to humans (120). However, it is important to point out that eukaryotic-like effectors or effectors with eukaryotic domains might lead to different outcomes in infections of amoeba and human alveolar macrophages. While some effectors may facilitate survival in the environmental host, they may not be beneficial for infection of human cells because they may trigger immune surveillance pathways. One such example is LamA, a translocated amylase, which degrades glycogen in the host cytosol and prevents amoeba encystation. In contrast, the activity of LamA in human macrophages induces an M1-like proinflammatory phenotype of the cells, leading to a growth restriction of the bacteria (117).

Conversely, microbes typically considered beneficial and nonpathogenic can also display features that are typically considered hallmarks of pathogens, suggesting that these gene products may also be mutualistic factors, depending on the context (136). To date, eukaryotic-like proteins have been identified in the genomes of symbiotic bacteria associated with amoebae, fungi, sponges, and plants, suggesting that disease is not the only outcome of microbial molecular mimicry. In contrast, manipulation through molecular mimicry is also beneficial for the establishment of cooperative interactions between bacterial communities and their eukaryotic hosts (13) (Fig. 2). For example, root nodule bacteria (also known as rhizobia) are free-living soil bacteria that have the ability to form nitrogen-fixing symbioses with legumes (137). A multistep analysis of 163 rhizobial genomes identified five domains of eukaryotic origin that were overrepresented in these bacteria, compared to their presence in a negative-control genome set from phylogenetically related organisms not known to be associated with plants. Within these five putative eukaryotic-like proteins, only three were predicted to be secreted, overall suggesting that these rhizobial eukaryotic-like proteins may contribute to the modulation of the plant host responses during the symbiosis establishment (137).

Over the last decade, eukaryotic-like proteins have also been identified in the symbionts of marine sponges. Metatranscriptomic analyses of the microbiomes of three different sponges, namely, *Cymbastella concentrica*, *Scopalina* sp., and *Tedania anhelens*, identified eukaryotic-like proteins in 2.3%, 1.4%, and 1.3% of all prokaryotic transcripts, respectively, demonstrating constituent expression of eukaryotic-like proteins in the sponge symbionts (138). Particular classes of eukaryotic-like proteins and domains, such as cadherin, tetratricopeptide repeats, and ankyrin repeats, were expressed differently between the microbiomes of the different sponge species. Moreover, some of them were associated or cotranscribed with translocation systems, suggesting their involve-
ment in bacterium-host interactions (138). Indeed, it has been observed that the heterologous expression of four eukaryotic-like, ankyrin-repeat proteins from a sponge symbiont allowed *Escherichia coli* to modulate phagocytosis by amoebae (139). Hence, the functions of these eukaryotic-like proteins might facilitate bacterial survival and subsequent establishment within the sponge cells. A recent metagenomic analysis showed a high number of genes encoding eukaryotic-like proteins in the microbiomes of two of the most abundant Antarctic sponges, *Myxilla* sp. and *Leucetta antarctica*, thus pointing to common molecular mechanisms mediating symbiosis with sponges across different environments, including Antarctica (140).

In summary, there is increasing evidence suggesting that modulation of host pathways by eukaryotic-like proteins may constitute a common mechanism associated with bacterial survival within protozoan, fungal, plant, and metazoan hosts. The final outcomes of these interactions are not uniform; instead, bacterial clearance, symbiosis, or disease can occur (Fig. 2).

## FINAL REMARKS

Mimicry constitutes one of the most common adaptive mechanisms in nature, and bacteria do not fall short, since this tool at the molecular level (known as molecular mimicry) represents a key element of bacterium-host interactions. *Legionella* adaptation to protozoan hosts makes these bacteria a remarkable model for the study of molecular mimicry. Indeed, the increasing characterization of *Legionella* proteins that mimic specific eukaryotic functions gives an idea of the multiplicity of host pathways that are targeted during infection. Moreover, the recent identification of eukaryotic-like proteins encoded in the genomes of other amoeba-resistant and -symbiotic bacteria highlights the importance of these eukaryotic-like mimics both in the context of infection and as a means of bacterial communication. In this regard, the identification of bacterial eukaryotic-like proteins in microbiomes is particularly exciting. Overall, eukaryotic-like proteins are powerful tools that allow bacteria to communicate with their hosts and to thrive in the environment. The study of molecular mimics highlights the complexity of bacterium-host interactions and bacterium-host coevolution, particularly important in the context of human health and disease.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

S.M., S.S., and C.B. contributed to the conception and the design of the minireview. S.M. and S.S. researched and wrote the paper. C.B. directed and contributed to the writing of the manuscript.

Work in the C.B. laboratory is financed by the Institut Pasteur, and funding has been received from the French Government (grants ANR-10-LABX-62-IBEID and ANR-15-CE17-0014-03 to C.B.) and the Fondation de la Recherche Médicale (grant EQU201903007847 to C.B.). S.S. is a scholar in the Pasteur-Paris University (PPU) international Ph.D. program and received a stipend from the Institut Pasteur.

We declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

## REFERENCES

1. Damian RT. 1964. Molecular mimicry: antigen sharing by parasite and host and its consequences. Am Nat 98:129-149. https://doi.org/10.1086/282313.

2. Zabriskie JB, Freimer EH. 1966. An immunological relationship between the group. A streptococcus and mammalian muscle. J Exp Med 124: 661-678. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.124.4.661.

3. Cusick MF, Libbey JE, Fujinami RS. 2012. Molecular mimicry as a mechanism of autoimmune disease. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 42:102-111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12016-011-8294-7.

4. Ludin P, Nilsson D, Mäser P. 2011. Genome-wide identification of molecular mimicry candidates in parasites. PLoS One 6:e17546. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017546.

5. Elde NC, Malik HS. 2009. The evolutionary conundrum of pathogen mimicry. Nat Rev Microbiol 7:787-797. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2222.

6. Guven-Maiorov E, Tsai C-J, Nussinov R. 2016. Pathogen mimicry of host protein-protein interfaces modulates immunity. Semin Cell Dev Biol 58:136-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2016.06.004.

7. Via A, Uyar B, Brun C, Zanzoni A. 2015. How pathogens use linear motifs to perturb host cell networks. Trends Biochem Sci 40:36-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2014.11.001.

8. Stebbins CE, Galan JE. 2001. Structural mimicry in bacterial virulence. Nature 412:701-705. https://doi.org/10.1038/35089000.

9. Fu Y, Galan JE. 1999. A *Salmonella* protein antagonizes Rac-1 and Cdc42 to mediate host-cell recovery after bacterial invasion. Nature 401: 293-297. https://doi.org/10.1038/45829.

10. Stebbins CE, Galan JE. 2000. Modulation of host signaling by a bacterial mimic: structure of the *Salmonella* effector SptP bound to Rac1. Mol Cell 6:1449-1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1097-2765(00)00141-6.
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

11. Lurie-Weinberger MN, Gomez-Valero L, Merault N, Glöckner G, Buchrieser C, Gophna U. 2010. The origins of eukaryotic-like proteins in *Legionella pneumophila*. *Int J Med Microbiol* 300:470–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmm.2010.04.016.

12. Gomez-Valero L, Rusniok C, Carson D, Mondino M, Pérez-Cobas AE, Rolando M, Pasricha S, Reuter S, Demirtas J, Crumbach J, Descorps-Declere S, Hartland EL, Jarraud S, Dougan G, Schroeder GN, Frankel G, Buchrieser C. 2019. More than 18,000 effectors in the *Legionella* genus genome provide multiple, independent combinations for replication in human cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 116:2265–2273. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1808016116.

13. Frank AC. 2019. Molecular host mimicry and manipulation in bacterial symbionts. FEMS Microbiol Lett 366:fnz038. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnz038.

14. Jehl M-A, Arnold R, Rattei T. 2011. Effective—a database of predicted secreted bacterial proteins. Nucleic Acids Res 39:D591–D595. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkq1154.

15. Cazalet C, Rusniok C, Brüggemann H, Zidane N, Magnier A, Ma L, Tichit M, Jarraud S, Bouchier C, Vandenesh F, Kunst F, Etienne J, Glaser P, Buchrieser C. 2004. Evidence in the *Legionella pneumophila* genome for exploitation of host-cell functions and high genome plasticity. Nat Genet 36:1165–1173. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1447.

16. Gomez-Valero L, Rusniok C, Cazalet C, Buchrieser C. 2011. Comparative and functional genomics of *Legionella* identified eukaryotic like proteins as key players in host-pathogen interactions. Front Microbiol 2:208. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2011.00208.

17. Voth DE, Beare PA, Howe D, Sharma UM, Samoilis G, Cockrell PL, Omsland A, Heinzen RA. 2011. The *Coxiella burnetii* cryptic plasmid is enriched in genes encoding type IV secretion system substrates. J Bacteriol 193:1493–1503. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.01359-10.

18. Av-Gay Y, Everett M. 2000. The eukaryotic-like Ser/Thr protein kinases of *Mycobacterium tuberculosis*. Trends Microbiol 8:238–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0966-842x(00)01734-0.

19. Pennini ME, Perrinet S, Dautry-Varsat A, Subtil A. 2010. Histone methylation by NUE, a novel nuclear effector of the intracellular pathogen *Chlamydia trachomatis*. PLoS Pathog 6:e1000995. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1000995.

20. Mujtaba S, Winer BY, Jaganathan A, Patel J, Sgboba M, Schuch R, Gupta YK, Haider S, Wang R, Fischetti VA. 2013. Anthrax SET protein: a potential virulence determinant that epigenetically represses NF-κB activation in infected macrophages. J Biol Chem 288:23458–23472. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M113.467696.

21. Burstein D, Amaro F, Zusman T, Lifshitz Z, Cohen O, Gilbert JA, Pupko T, Shuman HA, Segal G. 2016. Genomic analysis of 38 *Legionella* species identifies large and diverse effector repertoires. Nat Genet 48:167–175. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3481.

22. Newton HJ, Ang DKY, van Driel IR, Hartland EL. 2010. Molecular pathogenesis of infections caused by *Legionella pneumophila*. Clin Microbiol Rev 23:274–298. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.000502-09.

23. Mondino S, Schmidt S, Rolando M, Escoll P, Gomez-Valero L, Buchrieser C. 2020. Legionnaires' disease: state of the art knowledge of pathogenesis mechanisms of *Legionella*. Annu Rev Pathol 15:439–466. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-pathmechdis-012419-032742.

24. Taylor M, Ross K, Bentham R. 2009. *Legionella*, protozoa, and biofilms: interactions within complex microbial systems. Microb Ecol 58: 538–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-009-9514-z.

25. McDade JE, Shepard CC, Fraser DW, Tsai TR, Redus MA, Dowdle WR. 1977. Legionnaires' disease: isolation of a bacterium and demonstration of its role in other respiratory disease. N Engl J Med 297: 1197–1203. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM197712012972202.

26. Isberg RR, O'Connor TJ, Heidtman M. 2009. The *Legionella pneumophila* replication vacuole: making a cosy niche inside host cells. Nat Rev Microbiol 7:13–24. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1967.

27. Ensminger AW. 2016. *Legionella pneumophila*, armed to the hilt: justifying the largest arsenal of effectors in the bacterial world. Curr Opin Microbiol 29:74–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2015.11.002.

28. Cherfils J, Zeghouf M. 2013. Regulation of small GTPases by GEFs, GAPs, and GDIs. Physiol Rev 93:269–309. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00003.2012.

29. Jackson CL, Bouvet S. 2014. Arfs at a glance. J Cell Sci 127:4103–4109. https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.144899.

30. Bischoff FR, Ponstingl H. 1991. Catalysis of guanine nucleotide exchange on Ran by the mitotic regulator RCC1. Nature 354:80–82. https://doi.org/10.1038/354080a0.

31. Nagai H, Kagan JC, Zhu X, Kahn RA, Roy CR. 2002. A bacterial guanine nucleotide exchange factor activates ARF on *Legionella* phagosomes. Science 295:679–682. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1067025.

32. Amor JC, Swails J, Zhu X, Roy CR, Nagai H, Ingmundson A, Cheng X, Kahn RA. 2005. The structure of RalF, an ADP-ribosylation factor guanine nucleotide exchange factor from *Legionella pneumophila*, reveals the presence of a cap over the active site. J Biol Chem 280:1392–1400. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M410820200.

33. Neunuebel MR, Machner MP. 2012. The taming of a Rab GTPase by *Legionella pneumophila*. Small GTPases 3:28–33. https://doi.org/10.4161/sgtp.18704.

34. So EC, Mattheis C, Tate EW, Frankel G, Schroeder GN. 2015. Creating a customized intracellular niche: subversion of host cell signaling by *Legionella* type IV secretion system effectors. Can J Microbiol 61: 617–635. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjm-2015-0166.

35. Hadjebi O, Casas-Terradellas E, Garcia-Gonzalo FR, Rosa JL. 2008. The RCC1 superfamily: from genes, to function, to disease. Biochim Biophys Acta 1783:1467–1479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamcr.2008.03.015.

36. Rothmeier E, Pfaffinger G, Hoffmann C, Harrison CF, Grabmayr H, Repnik U, Hannemann M, Wölke S, Bausch A, Griffiths G, Müller-Taubenberger A, Itzen A, Hilbi H. 2013. Activation of Ran GTPase by a *Legionella* effector promotes microtubule polymerization, pathogen vacuole motility and infection. PLoS Pathog 9:e1003598. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1003598.

37. Simon S, Wagner MA, Rothmeier E, Müller-Taubenberger A, Hilbi H. 2014. Icm/Dot-dependent inhibition of phagocyte migration by *Legionella* is antagonized by a translocated Ran GTPase activator. Cell Microbiol 16:977–992. https://doi.org/10.1111/cmi.12258.

38. Escoll P, Song O-R, Viana F, Steiner B, Lagache T, Olivo-Marin J-C, Impens F, Brodin P, Hilbi H, Buchrieser C. 2017. *Legionella pneumophila* modulates mitochondrial dynamics to trigger metabolic repurposing of infected macrophages. Cell Host Microbe 22:302–316.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2017.07.020.

39. Escoll P, Buchrieser C. 2018. Metabolic reprogramming of host cells upon bacterial infection: why shift to a Warburg-like metabolism? FEBS J 285:2146–2160. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.14446.

40. Swart AL, Steiner B, Gomez-Valero L, Schütz S, Hannemann M, Janning P, Irmingen M, Rothmeier E, Buchrieser C, Itzen A, Panse VG, Hilbi H. 2020. Divergent evolution of *Legionella* RCC1 repeat effectors defines the range of Ran GTPase cycle targets. *Mbio* 11:e00405-20. https://doi.org/10.1128/MBio.00405-20.

41. Burkhard P, Stetefeld J, Strelkov SV. 2001. Coiled coils: a highly versatile protein folding motif. Trends Cell Biol 11:82–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0962-8924(00)01898-5.

42. Han J, Pluhackova K, Böckmann RA. 2017. The multifaceted role of SNARE proteins in membrane fusion. Front Physiol 8:5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.00005.

43. King NP, Newton P, Schuelein R, Brown DL, Petru M, Zarsky V, Dolezal P, Luo L, Bugarcic A, Stanley AC, Murray RZ, Collins BM, Teasdale RD, Hartland EL, Stow JL. 2015. Soluble NSF attachment protein receptor molecular mimicry by a *Legionella pneumophila* Dot/Icm effector. Cell Microbiol 17:767–784. https://doi.org/10.1111/cmi.12405.

44. Ivanov SS, Charron G, Hang HC, Roy CR. 2010. Lipidation by the host prenyltransferase machinery facilitates membrane localization of *Legionella pneumophila* effector proteins. J Biol Chem 285:34686–34698. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M110.170746.

45. Ivanov SS, Roy C. 2013. Host lipidation: a mechanism for spatial regulation of *Legionella* effectors. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 376:135–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/82_2013_344.

46. Price CTD, Al-Quadan T, Santic M, Jones SC, Abu Kwaik Y. 2010. Exploitation of conserved eukaryotic host cell farnesylation machinery by an F-box effector of *Legionella pneumophila*. J Exp Med 207: 1713–1726. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20100771.

47. Sámano-Sánchez H, Gibson TJ. 2020. Mimicry of short linear motifs by bacterial pathogens: a drugging opportunity. Trends Biochem Sci 45: 526–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2020.03.003.

48. Bennett TL, Kraft SM, Reaves BJ, Mima J, O'Brien KM, Starai VJ. 2013. LegC3, an effector protein from *Legionella pneumophila*, inhibits homotypic yeast vacuole fusion in vivo and in vitro. PLoS One 8:e56798. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056798.

49. O'Brien KM, Lindsay EL, Starai VJ. 2015. The *Legionella pneumophila* effector protein, LegC7, alters yeast endosomal trafficking. PLoS One 10:e0116824. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116824.

50. Campodonico EM, Roy CR, Ninio S. 2016. *Legionella pneumophila* type
IV effectors YlfA and YlfB are SNARE-like proteins that form homo- and heteromeric complexes and enhance the efficiency of vacuole remodeling. PLoS One 11:e0159698. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159698.

51. Shi X, Halder P, Yavuz H, Jahn R, Shuman HA. 2016. Direct targeting of membrane fusion by SNARE mimicry: convergent evolution of *Legionella* effectors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113:8807–8812. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1608755113.

52. Escoll P, Mondino S, Rolando M, Buchrieser C. 2016. Targeting of host organelles by pathogenic bacteria: a sophisticated subversion strategy. Nat Rev Microbiol 14:5–19. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2015.1.

53. Bierne H, Cossart P. 2012. When bacteria target the nucleus: the emerging family of nucleomodulins. Cell Microbiol 14:622–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-5822.2012.01758.x.

54. Alvarez-Venegas R. 2014. Bacterial SET domain proteins and their role in eukaryotic chromatin modification. Front Genet 5:65. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2014.00065.

55. Dillon SC, Zhang X, Trievel RC, Cheng X. 2005. The SET-domain protein superfamily: protein lysine methyltransferases. Genome Biol 6:227–210. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2005-6-8-227.

56. Rolando M, Sanulli S, Rusniok C, Gomez-Valero L, Bertholet C, Sahr T, Margueron R, Buchrieser C. 2013. *Legionella pneumophila* effector RomA uniquely modifies host chromatin to repress gene expression and promote intracellular bacterial replication. Cell Host Microbe 13: 395–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2013.03.004.

57. Schuhmacher MK, Rolando M, Bröhm A, Weirich S, Kudithipudi S, Buchrieser C, Jeltsch A. 2018. The *Legionella pneumophila* methyltransferase RomA methylates also non-histone proteins during infection. J Mol Biol 430:1912–1925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2018.04.032.

58. Li T, Lu Q, Wang G, Xu H, Huang H, Cai T, Kan B, Ge J, Shao F. 2013. SET-domain bacterial effectors target heterochromatin protein 1 to activate host rDNA transcription. EMBO Rep 14:733–740. https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2013.86.

59. Rolando M, Buchrieser C. 2014. *Legionella pneumophila* type IV effectors hijack the transcription and translation machinery of the host cell. Trends Cell Biol 24:771–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2014.06.002.

60. Son J, Jo CH, Murugan RN, Bang JK, Hwang KY, Lee WC. 2015. Crystal structure of *Legionella pneumophila* type IV secretion system effector LegAS4. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 465:817–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.08.094.

61. Dwingelo Von J, Chung IYW, Price CT, Li L, Jones S, Cygler M, Abu Kwaik Y. 2019. Interaction of the ankyrin H core effector of *Legionella* with the host LARP7 component of the 75K snRNP complex. mBio 10:e01942-19. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01942-19.

62. Varshavsky A. 2012. The ubiquitin system, an immense realm. Annu Rev Biochem 81:167–176. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biochem-051910-094049.

63. Zheng N, Shabek N. 2017. Ubiquitin ligases: structure, function, and regulation. Annu Rev Biochem 86:129–157. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biochem-060815-014922.

64. Hatakeyama S, Nakayama K-II. 2003. U-box proteins as a new family of ubiquitin ligases. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 302:635–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-291X(03)00245-6.

65. Pisano A, Albano F, Vecchio E, Renna M, Scala G, Quinto I, Fiume G. 2018. Revisiting bacterial ubiquitin ligase effectors: weapons for host exploitation. Int J Mol Sci 19:3576. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19113576.

66. Kubori T, Hyakutake A, Nagai H. 2008. *Legionella* translocates an E3 ubiquitin ligase that has multiple U-boxes with distinct functions. Mol Microbiol 67:1307–1319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2008.06124.x.

67. Kubori T, Shinzawa N, Kanuka H, Nagai H. 2010. *Legionella* metaeffector exploits host proteasome to temporally regulate cognate effector. PLoS Pathog 6:e1001216. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1001216.

68. Urbanus ML, Quaile AT, Stogios PJ, Morar M, Rao C, Di Leo R, Evdokimova E, Lam M, Oatway C, Cuff ME, Osipiuk J, Michalska K, Nocek BP, Taipale M, Savchenko A, Ensminger AW. 2016. Diverse mechanisms of metaeffector activity in an intracellular bacterial pathogen, *Legionella pneumophila*. Mol Syst Biol 12:893. https://doi.org/10.15252/msb.20167381.

69. Quaile AT, Urbanus ML, Stogios PJ, Nocek B, Skarina T, Ensminger AW, Savchenko A. 2015. Molecular characterization of LubX: functional divergence of the U-box fold by *Legionella pneumophila*. Structure 23:1459–1469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2015.05.020.

70. Lin Y-H, Lucas M, Evans TR, Abascal-Palacios G, Doms AG, Beauchene NA, Rojas AL, Hierro A, Machner MP. 2018. RavN is a member of a previously unrecognized group of *Legionella pneumophila* E3 ubiquitin

ligases. PLoS Pathog 14:e1006897. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006897.

71. Al-Khodor S, Price CT, Habyarimana F, Kalia A, Abu Kwaik Y. 2008. A Dot/lcm-translocated ankyrin protein of *Legionella pneumophila* is required for intracellular proliferation within human macrophages and protozoa. Mol Microbiol 70:908–923. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2008.06453.x.

72. Price CT, Al-Khodor S, Al-Quadan T, Santic M, Habyarimana F, Kalia A, Kwaik YA. 2009. Molecular mimicry by an F-box effector of *Legionella pneumophila* hijacks a conserved polyubiquitination machinery within macrophages and protozoa. PLoS Pathog 5:e1000704. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1000704.

73. Lomma M, Dervins-Ravault D, Rolando M, Nora T, Newton HJ, Sansom FM, Sahr T, Gomez-Valero L, Jules M, Hartland EL, Buchrieser C. 2010. The *Legionella pneumophila* F-box protein Lpp2082 (AnkB) modulates ubiquitination of the host protein parvin B and promotes intracellular replication. Cell Microbiol 12:1272–1291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-5822.2010.01467.x.

74. Perpich JD, Kalia A, Price CTD, Jones SC, Wong K, Gehring K, Kwaik YA. 2017. Divergent evolution of di-lysine ER retention vs. farnesylation motif-mediated anchoring of the AnkB virulence effector to the *Legionella*-containing vacuolar membrane. Sci Rep 7:5123–5113. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-05211-5.

75. Price CTD, Al-Quadan T, Santic M, Rosenshine I, Abu Kwaik Y. 2011. Host proteasomal degradation generates amino acids essential for intracellular bacterial growth. Science 334:1553–1557. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1212868.

76. Bhogaraju S, Kalayil S, Liu Y, Bonn F, Colby T, Matic I, Dikic I. 2016. Phosphoribosylation of ubiquitin promotes serine ubiquitination and impairs conventional ubiquitination. Cell 167:1636–1649.e13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.11.019.

77. Qiu J, Sheedlo MJ, Yu K, Tan Y, Nakayasu ES, Das C, Liu X, Luo Z-Q. 2016. Ubiquitination independent of E1 and E2 enzymes by bacterial effectors. Nature 533:120–124. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17657.

78. Sheedlo MJ, Qiu J, Tan Y, Paul LN, Luo Z-Q, Das C. 2015. Structural basis of substrate recognition by a bacterial deubiquitinase important for dynamics of phagosome ubiquitination. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112:15090–15095. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514568112.

79. Shin D, Mukherjee R, Liu Y, Gonzalez A, Bonn F, Liu Y, Rogov VV, Heinz M, Stolz A, Hummer G, Dötsch V, Luo Z-Q, Bhogaraju S, Dikic I. 2020. Regulation of phosphoribosyl-linked serine ubiquitination by deubiquitinases DupA and DupB. Mol Cell 77:164–179.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2019.10.019.

80. Qiu J, Luo Z-Q. 2017. Hijacking of the host ubiquitin network by *Legionella pneumophila*. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 7:487. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2017.00487.

81. Puvar K, Luo Z-Q, Das C. 2019. Uncovering the structural basis of a new twist in protein ubiquitination. Trends Biochem Sci 44:467–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2018.11.006.

82. Kubori T, Kitao T, Ando H, Nagai H. 2018. LotA, a *Legionella* deubiquitinase, has dual catalytic activity and contributes to intracellular growth. Cell Microbiol 20:e12840. https://doi.org/10.1111/cmi.12840.

83. Ma K, Zhen X, Zhou B, Gan N, Cao Y, Fan C, Ouyang S, Luo Z-Q, Qiu J. 2020. The bacterial deubiquitinase Ceg23 regulates the association of Lys-63-linked polyubiquitin molecules on the *Legionella* phagosome. J Biol Chem 295:1646–1657. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.RA119.011758.

84. Wan M, Wang X, Huang C, Xu D, Wang Z, Zhou Y, Zhu Y. 2019. A bacterial effector deubiquitinase specifically hydrolyses linear ubiquitin chains to inhibit host inflammatory signalling. Nat Microbiol 4:1282–1293. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-019-04541-5.

85. Cazalet C, Gomez-Valero L, Rusniok C, Lomma M, Dervins-Ravault D, Newton HJ, Sansom FM, Jarraud S, Zidane N, Ma L, Bouchier C, Etienne J, Hartland EL, Buchrieser C. 2010. Analysis of the *Legionella long-beachae* genome and transcriptome uncovers unique strategies to cause Legionnaires' disease. PLoS Genet 6:e1000851. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000851.

86. de Felipe KS, Pampou S, Jovanovic OS, Pericone CD, Ye SF, Kalachikov S, Shuman HA. 2005. Evidence for acquisition of *Legionella* type IV secretion substrates via interdomain horizontal gene transfer. J Bacteriol 187:7716–7726. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.187.22.7716-7726.2005.

87. Hervet E, Charpentier X, Vianney A, Lazzaroni J-C, Gilbert C, Atlan D, Doublet P. 2011. Protein kinase LegK2 is a type IV secretion system effector involved in endoplasmic reticulum recruitment and intracellu-
lar replication of *Legionella pneumophila*. Infect Immun 79:1936–1950. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.00805-10.

88. Ge J, Xu H, Li T, Zhou Y, Zhang Z, Li S, Liu L, Shao F. 2009. A Legionella type IV effector activates the NF-kappaB pathway by phosphorylating the IkappaB family of inhibitors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 13725–13730. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907200106.

89. Flayhan A, Bergé C, Bailo N, Doublet P, Bayliss R, Terradot L. 2015. The structure of Legionella pneumophila LegK4 type four secretion system (T4SS) effector reveals a novel dimeric eukaryotic-like kinase. Sci Rep 5:14602–14614. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14602.

90. Moss SM, Taylor IR, Ruggero D, Gestwicki JE, Shokat KM, Mukherjee S. 2019. A Legionella pneumophila kinase phosphorylates the Hsp70 chaperone family to inhibit eukaryotic protein synthesis. Cell Host Microbe 25:454–462.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2019.01.006.

91. Michard C, Sperandio D, Bailo N, Pizarro-Cerdá J, LeClaire L, Chadeau-Argaud E, Pombo-Grégoire I, Hervet E, Vianney A, Gilbert C, Faure M, Cossart P, Doublet P. 2015. The Legionella kinase LegK2 targets the ARP2/3 complex to inhibit actin nucleation on phagosomes and allow bacterial evasion of the late endocytic pathway. mBio 6:e00354-15. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00354-15.

92. Lee P-C, Machner MP. 2018. The Legionella effector kinase LegK7 hijacks the host Hippo pathway to promote infection. Cell Host Microbe 24:429–438.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2018.08.004.

93. Lee P-C, Beyrakhova K, Xu C, Boniecki MT, Lee MH, Onu CJ, Grishin AM, Machner MP, Cygler M. 2020. The Legionella kinase LegK7 exploits the Hippo pathway scaffold protein MOB1A for allostery and substrate phosphorylation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 117:14433–14443. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2000497117.

94. Black MH, Osinski A, Gradowski M, Servage KA, Pawłowski K, Tomchick DR, Tagliabracci VS. 2019. Bacterial pseudokinase catalyzes protein polyglutamylation to inhibit the SidE-family ubiquitin ligases. Science 364:787–792. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw7446.

95. Sulpizio A, Minelli ME, Wan M, Burrowes PD, Wu X, Sanford EJ, Shin J-H, Williams BC, Goldberg ML, Smolka MB, Mao Y. 2019. Protein polyglutamylation catalyzed by the bacterial calmodulin-dependent pseudokinase SidJ. Elife 8:601. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.51162.

96. Gan N, Zhen X, Liu Y, Xu X, He C, Qiu J, Liu Y, Fujimoto GM, Nakayasu ES, Zhou B, Zhao L, Puvar K, Das C, Ouyang S, Luo Z-Q. 2019. Regulation of phosphoribosyl ubiquitination by a calmodulin-dependent glutamylase. Nature 572:387–391. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1439-1.

97. Bhogaraju S, Bonn F, Mukherjee R, Adams M, Pfleiderer MM, Galej WP, Matkovic V, Lopez-Mosqueda J, Kalayil S, Shin D, Dikic I. 2019. Inhibition of bacterial ubiquitin ligases by SidJ-calmodulin catalysed glutamylation. Nature 572:382–386. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1440-8.

98. Streelatha A, Nolan C, Park BC, Pawłowski K, Tomchick DR, Tagliabracci VS. 2020. A Legionella effector kinase is activated by host inositol hexakisphosphate. J Biol Chem 295:6214–6224. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.RA120.013067.

99. Levanova N, Mattheis C, Carson D, To K-N, Jank T, Frankel G, Aktories K, Schroeder GN. 2019. The Legionella effector LtpM is a new type of phosphoinositide-activated glucosyltransferase. J Biol Chem 294: 2862–2879. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.RA118.003845.

100. Swart AL, Hilbi H. 2020. Phosphoinositides and the fate of Legionella in phagocytes. Front Immunol 11:25. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.00025.

101. Quaile AT, Stogios PJ, Egorova O, Evdokimova E, Valleau D, Nocek B, Kompella PS, Peisajovich S, Yakunin AF, Ensminger AW, Savchenko A. 2018. The Legionella pneumophila Ceg4 is a phosphorysine phosphatase that attenuates activation of eukaryotic MAPK pathways. J Biol Chem 293:3307–3320. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M117.812727.

102. Beyrakhova K, Li L, Xu C, Gagarinova A, Cygler M. 2018. Legionella pneumophila effector Lem4 is a membrane-associated protein tyrosine phosphatase. J Biol Chem 293:13044–13058. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.RA118.003845.

103. Wagner MJ, Stacey MM, Liu BA, Pawson T. 2013. Molecular mechanisms of SH2- and PTB-domain-containing proteins in receptor tyrosine kinase signaling. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 5:a008987. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a008987.

104. Kaneko T, Stogios PJ, Ruan X, Voss C, Evdokimova E, Skarina T, Chung A, Liu X, Li L, Savchenko A, Ensminger AW, Li SS-C. 2018. Identification and characterization of a large family of superbinding bacterial SH2 domains. Nat Commun 9:4549. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06943-2.

105. Rolando M, Escoll P, Nora T, Botti J, Boitez V, Bedia C, Daniels C, Abraham G, Stogios PJ, Skarina T, Christophe C, Dervins-Ravault D, Cazalet C, Hilbi H, Rupasinghe TWT, Tull D, McConville MJ, Ong SY, Hartland EL, Codogno P, Levade T, Naderer T, Savchenko A, Buchrieser C. 2016. Legionella pneumophila S1P-lyase targets host sphingolipid metabolism and restrains autophagy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113: 1901–1906. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1522067113.

106. Degtyar E, Zusman T, Ehrlich M, Segal G. 2009. A Legionella effector acquired from protozoa is involved in sphingolipids metabolism and is targeted to the host cell mitochondria. Cell Microbiol 11:1219–1235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-5822.2009.01328.x.

107. Viner R, Chetrit D, Ehrlich M, Segal G. 2012. Identification of two Legionella pneumophila effectors that manipulate host phospholipids biosynthesis. PLoS Pathog 8:e1002988. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1002988.

108. Schroeder GN, Aurass P, Oates CV, Tate EW, Hartland EL, Flieger A, Frankel G. 2015. Legionella pneumophila effector LpdA is a palmitoylated phospholipase D virulence factor. Infect Immun 83:3989–4002. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.00785-15.

109. Dolezal P, Aili M, Tong J, Jiang J-H, Marobbio CMT, Marobbio CM, Lee SF, Schuelein R, Belluzzo S, Binova E, Mousnier A, Frankel G, Giannuzzi G, Palmieri F, Gabriel K, Naderer T, Hartland EL, Lithgow T. 2012. Legionella pneumophila secretes a mitochondrial carrier protein during infection. PLoS Pathog 8:e1002459. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1002459.

110. Sansom FM, Riedmaier P, Newton HJ, Dunstone MA, Müller CE, Stephan H, Byres E, Beddoe T, Rossjohn J, Cowan PJ, d'Apice AJF, Robson SC, Hartland EL 2008. Enzymatic properties of an ecto-nucleoside triphosphate diphosphohydrolase from Legionella pneumophila: substrate specificity and requirement for virulence. J Biol Chem 283:12909–12918. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M801006200.

111. Zimmermann H, Zebisch M, Sträter N. 2012. Cellular function and molecular structure of ecto-nucleotidases. Purinergic Signal 8:437–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11302-012-9309-4.

112. Sansom FM, Newton HJ, Crikis S, Cianciotto NP, Cowan PJ, d'Apice AJF, Hartland EL. 2007. A bacterial ecto-triphosphate diphosphohydrolase similar to human CD39 is essential for intracellular multiplication of Legionella pneumophila. Cell Microbiol 9:1922–1935. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-5822.2007.00924.x.

113. Riedmaier P, Sansom FM, Sofian T, Beddoe T, Schuelein R, Newton HJ, Hartland EL. 2014. Multiple ecto-nucleoside triphosphate diphosphohydrolases facilitate intracellular replication of Legionella pneumophila. Biochem J 462:279–289. https://doi.org/10.1042/BJ20130923.

114. Galka F, Wai SN, Kusch H, Engelmann S, Hecker M, Schmeck B, Hippenstiel S, Uhlin BE, Steinert M. 2008. Proteomic characterization of the whole secretome of Legionella pneumophila and functional analysis of outer membrane vesicles. Infect Immun 76:1825–1836. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.01396-07.

115. Herrmann V, Eidner A, Rydzewski K, Blädel I, Jules M, Buchrieser C, Eisenreich W, Heuner K. 2011. Gama is a eukaryotic-like glucoamylase responsible for glycogen- and starch-degrading activity of Legionella pneumophila. Int J Med Microbiol 301:133–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmm.2010.08.016.

116. Best A, Price C, Ozanic M, Santic M, Jones S, Abu Kwaik Y. 2018. A Legionella pneumophila amylase is essential for intracellular replication in human macrophages and amoebae. Sci Rep 8:6340–6312. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24724-1.

117. Price C, Jones S, Mihelicc M, Santic M, Abu Kwaik Y. 2020. Paradoxical pro-inflammatory responses by human macrophages to an amoebae host-adapted Legionella effector. Cell Host Microbe 27:571–584.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2020.03.003.

118. Boamah DK, Zhou G, Ensminger AW, O'Connor TJ. 2017. From many hosts, one accidental pathogen: the diverse protozoan hosts of Legionella. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 7:477. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2017.00477.

119. Moliner C, Fournier P-E, Raoult D. 2010. Genome analysis of microorganisms living in amoebae reveals a melting pot of evolution. FEMS Microbiol Rev 34:281–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2010.00209.x.

120. Park JM, Ghosh S, O'Connor TJ. 2020. Combinatorial selection in amoebal hosts drives the evolution of the human pathogen Legionella pneumophila. Nat Microbiol 5:599–609. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-019-0663-7.

121. Gomez-Valero L, Rusniok C, Rolando M, Neou M, Dervins-Ravault D, Demirtas J, Rouy Z, Moore RJ, Chen H, Petty NK, Jarraud S, Etienne J, Steinert M, Heuner K, Gribaldo S, Médigue C, Glöckner G, Hartland EL, Cazalet C, Hilbi H, Rupasinghe TWT, Tull D, McConville MJ, Ong SY, Hartland EL, Codogno P, Levade T, Naderer T, Savchenko A, Buchrieser C. 2016. Legionella pneumophila S1P-lyase targets host sphingolipid metabolism and restrains autophagy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113: 1901–1906. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1522067113.
Buchrieser C. 2014. Comparative analyses of *Legionella* species identifies genetic features of strains causing Legionnaires' disease. Genome Biol 15:505. https://doi.org/10.1186/PREACCEPT-1086350395137407.

122. Gomez-Valero L, Buchrieser C. 2019. Intracellular parasitism, the driving force of evolution of *Legionella pneumophila* and the genus *Legionella*. Microbes Infect 21:230-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2019.06.012.

123. Gomez-Valero L, Buchrieser C. 2013. Genome dynamics in *Legionella*: the basis of versatility and adaptation to intracellular replication. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 3:a009993. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a009993.

124. Gimenez G, Bertelli C, Moliner C, Robert C, Raoult D, Fournier P-E, Greub G. 2011. Insight into cross-talk between intra-amoebal pathogens. BMC Genomics 12:542. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-12-542.

125. Ogata H, La Scola B, Audic S, Renesto P, Blanc G, Robert C, Fournier P-E, Claverie J-M, Raoult D. 2006. Genome sequence of *Rickettsia bellii* illuminates the role of amoebae in gene exchanges between intracellular pathogens. PLoS Genet 2:e76. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020076.

126. Wang Z, Wu M. 2017. Comparative genomic analysis of *Acanthamoeba* endosymbionts highlights the role of amoebae as a "melting pot" shaping the *Rickettsiales* evolution. Genome Biol Evol 9:3214-3224. https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evx246.

127. Schmitz-Esser S, Tischler P, Arnold R, Montanaro J, Wagner M, Rattei T, Horn M. 2010. The genome of the amoeba symbiont "Candidatus Amoebophilus asiaticus" reveals common mechanisms for host cell interaction among amoeba-associated bacteria. J Bacteriol 192: 1045-1057. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.01379-09.

128. Buchrieser C, Charpentier X. 2013. Induction of competence for natural transformation in *Legionella pneumophila* and exploitation for mutant construction. Methods Mol Biol 954:183-195. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-161-5_9.

129. Kim H, Kubori T, Yamazaki K, Kwak M-J, Park S-Y, Nagai H, Vogel JP, Oh B-H. 2020. Structural basis for effector protein recognition by the Dot/Icm type IVB coupling protein complex. Nat Commun 11: 2623-2611. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16397-0.

130. Rowbotham TJ. 1980. Preliminary report on the pathogenicity of *Legionella pneumophila* for freshwater and soil amoebae. J Clin Pathol 33:1179-1183. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.33.12.1179.

131. Escoll P, Rolando M, Gomez-Valero L, Buchrieser C. 2013. From amoeba to macrophages: exploring the molecular mechanisms of *Legionella pneumophila* infection in both hosts. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 376:1-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/82_2013_351.

132. Falkow S. 2008. I never met a microbe I didn't like. Nat Med 14: 1053-1057. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm1008-1053.

133. Balczun C, Scheid PL. 2017. Free-living amoebae as hosts for and vectors of intracellular microorganisms with public health significance. Viruses 9:65. https://doi.org/10.3390/v9040065.

134. Barker J, Brown MR. 1994. Trojan horses of the microbial world: protozoa and the survival of bacterial pathogens in the environment. Microbiology (Reading, Engl) 140:1253-1259. https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-140-6-1253.

135. Molmeret M, Horn M, Wagner M, Santic M, Abu Kwaik Y. 2005. Amoebae as training grounds for intracellular bacterial pathogens. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:20-28. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.1.20-28.2005.

136. Wiles TJ, Guillemin K. 2019. The other side of the coin: what beneficial microbes can teach us about pathogenic potential. J Mol Biol 431: 2946-2956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2019.05.001.

137. Seshadri R, Reeve WG, Ardley JK, Tennessen K, Woyke T, Kyrpides NC, Ivanova NN. 2015. Discovery of novel plant interaction determinants from the genomes of 163 root nodule bacteria. Sci Rep 5:16825-16829. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep16825.

138. Díez-Vives C, Moitinho-Silva L, Nielsen S, Reynolds D, Thomas T. 2017. Expression of eukaryotic-like protein in the microbiome of sponges. Mol Ecol 26:1432-1451. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14003.

139. Nguyen MTHD, Liu M, Thomas T. 2014. Ankyrin-repeat proteins from sponge symbionts modulate amoebal phagocytosis. Mol Ecol 23: 1635-1645. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12384.

140. Moreno-Pino M, Cristi A, Gillooly JF, Trefault N. 2020. Characterizing the microbiomes of Antarctic sponges: a functional metagenomic approach. Sci Rep 10:645-612. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-57464-2.