The RuvAB and RecG Proteins of Escherichia coli

CRISPR-Cas adaptive immunity and the three Rs

In this summary, we focus on fundamental biology of Clustered Regularly Interspersed Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)-Cas (CRISPR-associated proteins) adaptive immunity in bacteria. Emphasis is placed on emerging information about functional interplay between Cas proteins and proteins that remodel DNA during homologous recombination (HR), DNA replication or DNA repair. We highlight how replication forks may act as ‘trigger points’ for CRISPR adaptation events, and the potential for cascade-interference complexes to act as precise roadblocks in DNA replication by an invader MGE (mobile genetic element), without the need for DNA double-strand breaks.

A RecG-independent nonconservative branch migration mechanism in Escherichia coli recombination

To gain insight regarding the mechanisms that extend heteroduplex joints in Escherichia coli recombination, we investigated the effect of recG and ruv genotypes on heteroduplex strand polarity in intramolecular recombination products. We also examined the cumulative effect of mutational inactivation of RecG and single-strand-specific exonucleases on recombination proficiency and the role of Chi sites in RecG-independent recombination. All four strands of the two homologs were incorporated into heteroduplex structures in wild-type cells and in ruv mutants. However, in recG mutants heteroduplexes were generated almost exclusively by pairing the invasive 3'-ending strand with its complementary strand. To explain the dependence of strand exchange reciprocity on RecG activity, we propose that alternative mechanisms may extend the heteroduplex joints after homologous pairing: a reciprocal RecG-mediated mechanism and a nonreciprocal mechanism, mediated by RecA and single-strand-specific exonucleases. The cumulative effect of recG and recJ or xonA mutations on recombination proficiency and the inhibitory effect of recJ and xonA activities on heteroduplex formation by the 5'-ending strands are consistent with this proposal.

Processing of recombination intermediates by the RuvABC proteins

The RuvA, RuvB, and RuvC proteins in Escherichia coli play important roles in the late stages of homologous genetic recombination and the recombinational repair of damaged DNA. Two proteins, RuvA and RuvB, form a complex that promotes ATP-dependent branch migration of Holliday junctions, a process that is important for the formation of heteroduplex DNA. Individual roles for each protein have been defined, with RuvA acting as a specificity factor that targets RuvB, the branch migration motor to the junction. Structural studies indicate that two RuvA tetramers sandwich the junction and hold it in an unfolded square-planar configuration. Hexameric rings of RuvB face each other across the junction and promote a novel dual helicase action that "pumps" DNA through the RuvAB complex, using the free energy provided by ATP hydrolysis. The third protein, RuvC endonuclease, resolves the Holliday junction by introducing nicks into two DNA strands. Genetic and biochemical studies indicate that branch migration and resolution are coupled by direct interactions between the three proteins, possibly by the formation of a RuvABC complex.

Interactions between RuvA and RuvC at Holliday junctions: inhibition of junction cleavage and formation of a RuvA-RuvC-DNA complex

The RuvAB and RuvC enzymes of Escherichia coli define a molecular pathway for the resolution of Holliday intermediates in recombination and DNA repair. They bind specifically to Holliday junctions, and catalyse their branch migration and cleavage, respectively. In a RuvA(B)-junction complex, the Holliday structure is held in an open (square planar) configuration on the concave surface of a 4-fold symmetrical tetramer of RuvA, whereas in a RuvC-junction complex it is folded in an alternative arrangement as part of the cleavage reaction. Genetic studies have shown that the activity of RuvC in vivo depends on RuvAB, which suggests that the two enzymes act in concert, with junction cleavage by RuvC following from branch migration by RuvAB. We have investigated how RuvC can take over a junction from RuvAB to cleave the DNA. We show that RuvA inhibits junction cleavage by RuvC, probably by sandwiching the junction between two tetramers. The extent of inhibition depends on the reaction kinetics of RuvA binding relative to RuvC binding and cleavage. The presence of RuvB and the concentration of Mg2+ both have a significant effect on cleavage in the presence of RuvA. However, a novel protein-DNA complex can be formed when junction DNA is incubated with both RuvA and RuvC. Its mobility is consistent with a RuvC dimer binding to a junction held in an open configuration on the surface of a RuvA tetramer. We suggest that this arrangement provides RuvC with the means to scan the junction during the RuvAB-mediated branch migration reaction for DNA sequences that it can cleave. We further suggest that recognition of the target may provide a trigger for dissociating RuvA, allowing the junction to be folded and cleaved by RuvC.

Role of RuvA in branch migration reactions catalyzed by the RuvA and RuvB proteins of Escherichia coli

The RuvA and RuvB proteins of Escherichia coli promote ATP-dependent branch migration of Holliday junctions during homologous genetic recombination and DNA repair. In this process, RuvA acts as a specificity factor that targets RuvB, a hexameric ring motor protein, to the junction. Because elevated concentrations of RuvB can promote branch migration in the absence of RuvA, it has been suggested that RuvA acts as a molecular matchmaker. In the studies presented here, we compared the requirements for RuvAB- and RuvB-mediated branch migration reactions and found that reactions catalyzed by RuvB alone were highly sensitive to inhibition by NaCl, temperature, ADP, and ATPgammaS. Our observations indicate that the two reactions occur by distinct mechanisms and support the notion that RuvAB-mediated branch migration is physiologically more relevant than that catalyzed by RuvB. We also show that ongoing RuvAB-mediated branch migration reactions were blocked by the addition of polyclonal antibodies raised against RuvA. The role of RuvA is therefore unlikely to be restricted to RuvB targeting; instead, it is required continually during branch migration. Competition with excess synthetic Holliday junctions, sufficient to sequester released RuvA, failed to cause an immediate block and leads us to suggest that RuvAB promote branch migration by a processive mechanism.