Trashing of Single-Stranded DNA Generated during Processing of Arrested Replication Fork in E. coli

Escherichia coli CrfC Protein, a Nucleoid Partition Factor, Localizes to Nucleoid Poles via the Activities of Specific Nucleoid-Associated Proteins

The Escherichia coli CrfC protein is an important regulator of nucleoid positioning and equipartition. Previously we revealed that CrfC homo-oligomers bind the clamp, a DNA-binding subunit of the DNA polymerase III holoenzyme, promoting colocalization of the sister replication forks, which ensures the nucleoid equipartition. In addition, CrfC localizes at the cell pole-proximal loci via an unknown mechanism. Here, we demonstrate that CrfC localizes to the distinct subnucleoid structures termed nucleoid poles (the cell pole-proximal nucleoid-edges) even in elongated cells as well as in wild-type cells. Systematic analysis of the nucleoid-associated proteins (NAPs) and related proteins revealed that HU, the most abundant NAP, and SlmA, the nucleoid occlusion factor regulating the localization of cell division apparatus, promote the specific localization of CrfC foci. When the replication initiator DnaA was inactivated, SlmA and HU were required for formation of CrfC foci. In contrast, when the replication initiation was inhibited with a specific mutant of the helicase-loader DnaC, CrfC foci were sustained independently of SlmA and HU. H-NS, which forms clusters on AT-rich DNA regions, promotes formation of CrfC foci as well as transcriptional regulation of crfC. In addition, MukB, the chromosomal structure mainetanice protein, and SeqA, a hemimethylated nascent DNA region-binding protein, moderately stimulated formation of CrfC foci. However, IHF, a structural homolog of HU, MatP, the replication terminus-binding protein, Dps, a stress-response factor, and FtsZ, an SlmA-interacting factor in cell division apparatus, little or only slightly affected CrfC foci formation and localization. Taken together, these findings suggest a novel and unique mechanism that CrfC localizes to the nucleoid poles in two steps, assembly and recruitment, dependent upon HU, MukB, SeqA, and SlmA, which is stimulated directly or indirectly by H-NS and DnaA. These factors might concordantly affect specific nucleoid substructures. Also, these nucleoid dynamics might be significant in the role for CrfC in chromosome partition.

3'-Terminated Overhangs Regulate DNA Double-Strand Break Processing in Escherichia coli

Double-strand breaks (DSBs) are lethal DNA lesions, which are repaired by homologous recombination in Escherichia coli To study DSB processing in vivo, we induced DSBs into the E. coli chromosome by γ-irradiation and measured chromosomal degradation. We show that the DNA degradation is regulated by RecA protein concentration and its rate of association with single-stranded DNA (ssDNA). RecA decreased DNA degradation in wild-type, recB, and recD strains, indicating that it is a general phenomenon in E. coli On the other hand, DNA degradation was greatly reduced and unaffected by RecA in the recB1080 mutant (which produces long overhangs) and in a strain devoid of four exonucleases that degrade a 3' tail (ssExos). 3'-5' ssExos deficiency is epistatic to RecA deficiency concerning DNA degradation, suggesting that bound RecA is shielding the 3' tail from degradation by 3'-5' ssExos. Since 3' tail preservation is common to all these situations, we infer that RecA polymerization constitutes a subset of mechanisms for preserving the integrity of 3' tails emanating from DSBs, along with 3' tail's massive length, or prevention of their degradation by inactivation of 3'-5' ssExos. Thus, we conclude that 3' overhangs are crucial in controlling the extent of DSB processing in E. coli This study suggests a regulatory mechanism for DSB processing in E. coli, wherein 3' tails impose a negative feedback loop on DSB processing reactions, specifically on helicase reloading onto dsDNA ends.

Protein splicing of a recombinase intein induced by ssDNA and DNA damage

In this study, Lennon et al. provide new insights into the role of inteins (or protein introns), which are known to autocatalytically excise themselves through protein splicing. They show that intein splicing can be stimulated by a substrate of the invaded host protein, suggesting a new form of post-translational control.

Inteins (or protein introns) autocatalytically excise themselves through protein splicing. We challenge the long-considered notion that inteins are merely molecular parasites and posit that some inteins evolved to regulate host protein function. Here we show substrate-induced and DNA damage-induced splicing, in which an archaeal recombinase RadA intein splices dramatically faster and more accurately when provided with ssDNA. This unprecedented example of intein splicing stimulation by the substrate of the invaded host protein provides compelling support in favor of inteins acting as pause buttons to arrest protein function until needed; then, an immediate activity switch is triggered, representing a new form of post-translational control.

SOS, the formidable strategy of bacteria against aggressions

The presence of an abnormal amount of single-stranded DNA in the bacterial cell constitutes a genotoxic alarm signal that induces the SOS response, a broad regulatory network found in most bacterial species to address DNA damage. The aim of this review was to point out that beyond being a repair process, SOS induction leads to a very strong but transient response to genotoxic stress, during which bacteria can rearrange and mutate their genome, induce several phenotypic changes through differential regulation of genes, and sometimes acquire characteristics that potentiate bacterial survival and adaptation to changing environments. We review here the causes and consequences of SOS induction, but also how this response can be modulated under various circumstances and how it is connected to the network of other important stress responses. In the first section, we review articles describing the induction of the SOS response at the molecular level. The second section discusses consequences of this induction in terms of DNA repair, changes in the genome and gene expression, and sharing of genomic information, with their effects on the bacteria's life and evolution. The third section is about the fine tuning of this response to fit with the bacteria's 'needs'. Finally, we discuss recent findings linking the SOS response to other stress responses. Under these perspectives, SOS can be perceived as a powerful bacterial strategy against aggressions.