lacP1 promoter with an extended -10 motif. Pleiotropic effects of cyclic AMP protein at different steps of transcription initiation

Transcription Initiation by Mix and Match Elements: Flexibility for Polymerase Binding to Bacterial Promoters

Bacterial RNA polymerase is composed of a core of subunits (β β′, α1, α2, ω), which have RNA synthesizing activity, and a specificity factor (σ), which identifies the start of transcription by recognizing and binding to sequence elements within promoter DNA. Four core promoter consensus sequences, the –10 element, the extended –10 (TGn) element, the –35 element, and the UP elements, have been known for many years; the importance of a nontemplate G at position -5 has been recognized more recently. However, the functions of these elements are not the same. The AT-rich UP elements, the –35 elements (–35TTGACA–30), and the extended –10 (15TGn–13) are recognized as double-stranded binding elements, whereas the –5 nontemplate G is recognized in the context of single-stranded DNA at the transcription bubble. Furthermore, the –10 element (–12TATAAT–7) is recognized as both double-stranded DNA for the T:A bp at position –12 and as nontemplate, single-stranded DNA from positions –11 to –7. The single-stranded sequences at positions –11 to –7 as well as the –5 contribute to later steps in transcription initiation that involve isomerization of polymerase and separation of the promoter DNA around the transcription start site. Recent work has demonstrated that the double-stranded elements may be used in various combinations to yield an effective promoter. Thus, while some minimal number of contacts is required for promoter function, polymerase allows the elements to be mixed and matched. Interestingly, which particular elements are used does not appear to fundamentally alter the transcription bubble generated in the stable complex. In this review, we discuss the multiple steps involved in forming a transcriptionally competent polymerase/promoter complex, and we examine what is known about polymerase recognition of core promoter elements. We suggest that considering promoter elements according to their involvement in early (polymerase binding) or later (polymerase isomerization) steps in transcription initiation rather than simply from their match to conventional promoter consensus sequences is a more instructive form of promoter classification.

Specific contacts of the -35 region of the galP1 promoter by RNA polymerase inhibit GalR-mediated DNA looping repression

The P1 promoter of the galactose operon in Escherichia coli is one of the best studied examples of ‘extended −10’ promoters. Recognition of the P1 promoter does not require specific contacts between RNA polymerase and its poor −35 element. To investigate whether specific recognition of the −35 element would affect the regulation of P1 by GalR, we mutagenized the −35 element of P1, isolated variants of the −35 element and studied the regulation of the mutant promoters by in vitro transcription assays and by mathematical modeling. The results show that the GalR-mediated DNA loop is less efficient in repressing P1 transcription when RNA polymerase binds to the −10 and −35 elements concomitantly. Our results suggest that promoters that lack specific −35 element recognition allow decoupling of local chromosome structure from transcription initiation.

Redefining Escherichia coli σ(70) promoter elements: -15 motif as a complement of the -10 motif

Classical elements of σ(70) bacterial promoters include the -35 element ((-35)TTGACA(-30)), the -10 element ((-12)TATAAT(-7)), and the extended -10 element ((-15)TG(-14)). Although the -35 element, the extended -10 element, and the upstream-most base in the -10 element ((-12)T) interact with σ(70) in double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) form, the downstream bases in the -10 motif ((-11)ATAAT(-7)) are responsible for σ(70)-single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) interactions. In order to directly reflect this correspondence, an extension of the extended -10 element to a so-called -15 element ((-15)TGnT(-12)) has been recently proposed. I investigated here the sequence specificity of the proposed -15 element and its relationship to other promoter elements. I found a previously undetected significant conservation of (-13)G and a high degeneracy at (-15)T. I therefore defined the -15 element as a degenerate motif, which, together with the conserved stretch of sequence between -15 and -12, allows treating this element analogously to -35 and -10 elements. Furthermore, the strength of the -15 element inversely correlates with the strengths of the -35 element and -10 element, whereas no such complementation between other promoter elements was found. Despite the direct involvement of -15 element in σ(70)-dsDNA interactions, I found a significantly stronger tendency of this element to complement weak -10 elements that are involved in σ(70)-ssDNA interactions. This finding is in contrast to the established view, according to which the -15 element provides a sufficient number of σ(70)-dsDNA interactions, and suggests that the main parameter determining a functional promoter is the overall promoter strength.

Environmental regulation operating at the promoter clearance step of bacterial transcription

In vivo transcription of the Escherichia coli argO gene, which encodes an arginine (Arg) exporter, requires the LysR-family regulator protein ArgP (previously called IciA) and is induced in the presence of Arg or its naturally occurring antimetabolite analog canavanine. Lysine (Lys) addition, on the other hand, phenocopies an argP mutation to result in the shutoff of argO expression. We now report that the ArgP dimer by itself is able to bind the argO promoter-operator region to form a binary complex, but that the formation of a ternary complex with RNA polymerase is greatly stimulated only in presence of a coeffector. Both Arg and Lys were proficient as coeffectors for ArgP-mediated recruitment of RNA polymerase to, and open complex formation at, the argO promoter, although only Arg (but not Lys) was competent to activate transcription. The two coeffectors competed for binding to ArgP, and the ternary complex that had been assembled on the argO template in the presence of Lys could be chased into a transcriptionally active state upon Arg addition. Our results support a novel mechanism of argO regulation in which Lys-bound ArgP reversibly restrains RNA polymerase at the promoter, at a step (following open complex formation) that precedes, and is common to, both abortive and productive transcription. This represents, therefore, the first example of an environmental signal regulating the final step of promoter clearance by RNA polymerase in bacterial transcription. We propose that, in E. coli cells, the ternary complex remains assembled and poised at the argO promoter at all times to respond, positively or negatively, to instantaneous changes in the ratio of intracellular Arg to Lys concentrations.

Integration of regulatory signals through involvement of multiple global regulators: control of the Escherichia coli gltBDF operon by Lrp, IHF, Crp, and ArgR

Background

The glutamate synthase operon (gltBDF) contributes to one of the two main pathways of ammonia assimilation in Escherichia coli. Of the seven most-global regulators, together affecting expression of about half of all E. coli genes, two were previously shown to exert direct, positive control on gltBDF transcription: Lrp and IHF. The involvement of Lrp is unusual in two respects: first, it is insensitive to the usual coregulator leucine, and second, Lrp binds more than 150 bp upstream of the transcription starting point. There was indirect evidence for involvement of a third global regulator, Crp. Given the physiological importance of gltBDF, and the potential opportunity to learn about integration of global regulatory signals, a combination of in vivo and in vitro approaches was used to investigate the involvement of additional regulatory proteins, and to determine their relative binding positions and potential interactions with one another and with RNA polymerase (RNAP).

Results

Crp and a more local regulator, ArgR, directly control gltBDF transcription, both acting negatively. Crp-cAMP binds a sequence centered at -65.5 relative to the transcript start. Mutation of conserved nucleotides in the Crp binding site abolishes the Crp-dependent repression. ArgR also binds to the gltBDF promoter region, upstream of the Lrp binding sites, and decreases transcription. RNAP only yields a defined DNAse I footprint under two tested conditions: in the presence of both Lrp and IHF, or in the presence of Crp-cAMP. The DNAse I footprint of RNAP in the presence of Lrp and IHF is altered by ArgR.

Conclusion

The involvement of nearly half of E. coli's most-global regulatory proteins in the control of gltBDF transcription is striking, but seems consistent with the central metabolic role of this operon. Determining the mechanisms of activation and repression for gltBDF was beyond the scope of this study. However the results are consistent with a model in which IHF bends the DNA to allow stabilizing contacts between Lrp and RNAP, ArgR interferes with such contacts, and Crp introduces an interfering bend in the DNA and/or stabilizes RNAP in a poised but inactive state.

Dual role for transactivator protein C in activation of mom promoter of bacteriophage Mu

Transactivator C protein of bacteriophage Mu activates the mom gene of the phage by an unusual mechanism. DNA binding by C to its site results in unwinding of the neighboring sequences, realigning the out-of-phase promoter elements to facilitate RNA polymerase (RNAP) binding. High level stimulation of a C-independent constitutive promoter mutant (where RNAP is already bound) by the transactivator suggested an additional mechanism of transcription activation at a step after RNAP recruitment. In this study, we have investigated the various steps of promoter-polymerase interactions during transcription initiation by using both the promoter mutant and a positive control (pc) mutant of C protein. The transactivator does not influence formation of the open complex or its stability after facilitating the RNAP binding. However, at a subsequent step, the protein exerts an important role, enhancing the promoter clearance by increasing the productive RNAP.promoter complex. The pc mutant of the transactivator C is compromised at this step, supporting the additional downstream role for C in mom transcription activation. We suggest that this unusual multistep activation of Pmom has evolved to ensure irreversibility of the switch during the late lytic cycle of the phage.

RNA polymerase structure and function at lac operon

Transcription of E. coli lac operon by RNA polymerase (RNAP) is a classic example of how the basic functions of this enzyme, specifically the ability to recognize/bind promoters, melt the DNA and initiate RNA synthesis, is positively regulated by transcription activators, such as cyclic AMP-receptor protein, CRP, and negatively regulated by lac-repressor, LacI. In this review, we discuss the recent progress in structural and biochemical studies of RNAP and its binary and ternary complexes with CRP and lac promoter. With structural information now available for RNAP and models of binary and ternary elongation complexes, the interaction between these factors and RNAP can be modeled, and possible molecular mechanisms of their action can be inferred.