Inorganic polyphosphate (polyP) has been implicated in an astonishing array of biological functions, ranging from phosphorus storage to molecular chaperone activity to bacterial virulence. In bacteria, polyP is synthesized by polyphosphate kinase (PPK) enzymes, which are broadly subdivided into two families: PPK1 and PPK2. While both enzyme families are capable of catalyzing polyP synthesis, PPK1s preferentially synthesize polyP from nucleoside triphosphates, and PPK2s preferentially consume polyP to phosphorylate nucleoside mono- or diphosphates. Importantly, many pathogenic bacteria such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii encode at least one of each PPK1 and PPK2, suggesting these enzymes may be attractive targets for antibacterial drugs. Although the majority of bacterial polyP studies to date have focused on PPK1s, PPK2 enzymes have also begun to emerge as important regulators of bacterial physiology and downstream virulence. In this review, we specifically examine the contributions of PPK2s to bacterial polyP homeostasis. Beginning with a survey of the structures and functions of biochemically characterized PPK2s, we summarize the roles of PPK2s in the bacterial cell, with a particular emphasis on virulence phenotypes. Furthermore, we outline recent progress on developing drugs that inhibit PPK2 enzymes and discuss this strategy as a novel means of combatting bacterial infections.

Polyethylene (PE) is a widely used plastic known for its resistance to biodegradation, posing a significant environmental challenge. Recent advances have shed light on microorganisms and insects capable of breaking down PE and identified potential PE-degrading enzymes (PEases), hinting at the possibility of PE biorecycling. Research on enzymatic PE degradation is still in its early stages, especially compared to the progress made with polyethylene terephthalate (PET). While PET hydrolases have been extensively studied and engineered for improved performance, even the products of PEases remain mostly undefined. This Perspective analyzes the current state of enzymatic PE degradation research, highlighting obstacles in the search for bona fide PEases and suggesting areas for future exploration. A critical challenge impeding progress in this field stems from the inert nature of the C-C and C-H bonds of PE. Furthermore, breaking down PE into small molecules using only one monofunctional enzyme is theoretically impossible. Overcoming these obstacles requires identifying enzymatic pathways, which can be facilitated using emerging technologies like omics, structure-based design, and computer-assisted engineering of enzymes. Understanding the mechanisms underlying PE enzymatic biodegradation is crucial for research progress and for identifying potential solutions to the global plastic pollution crisis.

Many priority bacterial pathogens such as P. aeruginosa encode both PPK1 and PPK2 enzymes to maintain polyphosphate homeostasis. While PPK1 and PPK2 have distinct structures and catalytic mechanisms, they are both capable of synthesizing and consuming polyphosphate; thus, PPK2 enzymes can compensate for the loss of PPK1 and vice versa.

Amongst the four bases that form DNA, guanine is the most susceptible to oxidation, and its oxidation product, 7,8-dihydro-8-oxoguanine (8-oxoG) is the most prevalent base lesion found in DNA. Fortunately, throughout evolution cells have developed repair mechanisms, such as the 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylases (OGG), which recognize and excise 8-oxoG from DNA thereby preventing the accumulation of deleterious mutations. OGG are divided into three subfamilies, OGG1, OGG2 and AGOG, which are all involved in the base excision repair (BER) pathway. The published structures of OGG1 and AGOG, as well as the recent availability of OGG2 structures in both apo- and liganded forms, provide an excellent opportunity to compare the structural and functional properties of the three OGG subfamilies. Among the observed differences, the three-dimensional fold varies considerably between OGG1 and OGG2 members, as the latter lack the A-domain involved in 8-oxoG binding. In addition, all three OGG subfamilies bind 8-oxoG in a different manner even though the crucial interaction between the enzyme and the protonated N7 of 8-oxoG is conserved. Finally, the three OGG subfamilies differ with respect to DNA binding properties, helix-hairpin-helix motifs, and specificity for the opposite base.