RecA4142 causes SOS constitutive expression by loading onto reversed replication forks in Escherichia coli K-12

Interaction with single-stranded DNA-binding protein localizes ribonuclease HI to DNA replication forks and facilitates R-loop removal

DNA replication complexes (replisomes) routinely encounter proteins and unusual nucleic acid structures that can impede their progress. Barriers can include transcription complexes and R-loops that form when RNA hybridizes with complementary DNA templates behind RNA polymerases. Cells encode several RNA polymerase and R-loop clearance mechanisms to limit replisome exposure to these potential obstructions. One such mechanism is hydrolysis of R-loops by ribonuclease HI (RNase HI). Here, we examine the cellular role of the interaction between Escherichia coli RNase HI and the single-stranded DNA-binding protein (SSB) in this process. Interaction with SSB localizes RNase HI foci to DNA replication sites. Mutation of rnhA to encode an RNase HI variant that cannot interact with SSB but that maintains enzymatic activity (rnhAK60E) eliminates RNase HI foci. The mutation also produces a media-dependent slow-growth phenotype and an activated DNA damage response in cells lacking Rep helicase, which is an enzyme that disrupts stalled transcription complexes. RNA polymerase variants that are thought to increase or decrease R-loop accumulation enhance or suppress, respectively, the growth phenotype of rnhAK60E rep::kan strains. These results identify a cellular role for the RNase HI/SSB interaction in helping to clear R-loops that block DNA replication.

Replication fork collapse at a protein-DNA roadblock leads to fork reversal, promoted by the RecQ helicase

Proteins that bind DNA are the cause of the majority of impediments to replication fork progression and can lead to subsequent collapse of the replication fork. Failure to deal with fork collapse efficiently leads to mutation or cell death. Several models have been proposed for how a cell processes a stalled or collapsed replication fork; eukaryotes and bacteria are not dissimilar in terms of the general pathways undertaken to deal with these events. This study shows that replication fork regression, the combination of replication fork reversal leading to formation of a Holliday Junction along with exonuclease digestion, is the preferred pathway for dealing with a collapsed fork in Escherichia coli. Direct endo-nuclease activity at the replication fork was not observed. The protein that had the greatest effect on these fork processing events was the RecQ helicase, while RecG and RuvABC, which have previously been implicated in this process, were found to play a lesser role. Eukaryotic RecQ homologues, BLM and WRN, have also been implicated in processing events following replication fork collapse and may reflect a conserved mechanism. Finally, the SOS response was not induced by the protein-DNA roadblock under these conditions, so did not affect fork processing.

Suppression of the E. coli SOS response by dNTP pool changes

The Escherichia coli SOS system is a well-established model for the cellular response to DNA damage. Control of SOS depends largely on the RecA protein. When RecA is activated by single-stranded DNA in the presence of a nucleotide triphosphate cofactor, it mediates cleavage of the LexA repressor, leading to expression of the 30⁺-member SOS regulon. RecA activation generally requires the introduction of DNA damage. However, certain recA mutants, like recA730, bypass this requirement and display constitutive SOS expression as well as a spontaneous (SOS) mutator effect. Presently, we investigated the possible interaction between SOS and the cellular deoxynucleoside triphosphate (dNTP) pools. We found that dNTP pool changes caused by deficiencies in the ndk or dcd genes, encoding nucleoside diphosphate kinase and dCTP deaminase, respectively, had a strongly suppressive effect on constitutive SOS expression in recA730 strains. The suppression of the recA730 mutator effect was alleviated in a lexA-deficient background. Overall, the findings suggest a model in which the dNTP alterations in the ndk and dcd strains interfere with the activation of RecA, thereby preventing LexA cleavage and SOS induction.

Specificity in suppression of SOS expression by recA4162 and uvrD303

Detection and repair of DNA damage is essential in all organisms and depends on the ability of proteins recognizing and processing specific DNA substrates. In E. coli, the RecA protein forms a filament on single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) produced by DNA damage and induces the SOS response. Previous work has shown that one type of recA mutation (e.g., recA4162 (I298V)) and one type of uvrD mutation (e.g., uvrD303 (D403A, D404A)) can differentially decrease SOS expression depending on the type of inducing treatments (UV damage versus RecA mutants that constitutively express SOS). Here it is tested using other SOS inducing conditions if there is a general feature of ssDNA generated during these treatments that allows recA4162 and uvrD303 to decrease SOS expression. The SOS inducing conditions tested include growing cells containing temperature-sensitive DNA replication mutations (dnaE486, dnaG2903, dnaN159, dnaZ2016 (at 37°C)), a del(polA)501 mutation and induction of Double-Strand Breaks (DSBs). uvrD303 could decrease SOS expression under all conditions, while recA4162 could decrease SOS expression under all conditions except in the polA strain or when DSBs occur. It is hypothesized that recA4162 suppresses SOS expression best when the ssDNA occurs at a gap and that uvrD303 is able to decrease SOS expression when the ssDNA is either at a gap or when it is generated at a DSB (but does so better at a gap).

Genetic and biochemical assays reveal a key role for replication restart proteins in group II intron retrohoming

Mobile group II introns retrohome by an RNP-based mechanism in which the intron RNA reverse splices into a DNA site and is reverse transcribed by the associated intron-encoded protein. The resulting intron cDNA is then integrated into the genome by cellular mechanisms that have remained unclear. Here, we used an Escherichia coli genetic screen and Taqman qPCR assay that mitigate indirect effects to identify host factors that function in retrohoming. We then analyzed mutants identified in these and previous genetic screens by using a new biochemical assay that combines group II intron RNPs with cellular extracts to reconstitute the complete retrohoming reaction in vitro. The genetic and biochemical analyses indicate a retrohoming pathway involving degradation of the intron RNA template by a host RNase H and second-strand DNA synthesis by the host replicative DNA polymerase. Our results reveal ATP-dependent steps in both cDNA and second-strand synthesis and a surprising role for replication restart proteins in initiating second-strand synthesis in the absence of DNA replication. We also find an unsuspected requirement for host factors in initiating reverse transcription and a new RNA degradation pathway that suppresses retrohoming. Key features of the retrohoming mechanism may be used by human LINEs and other non-LTR-retrotransposons, which are related evolutionarily to mobile group II introns. Our findings highlight a new role for replication restart proteins, which function not only to repair DNA damage caused by mobile element insertion, but have also been co-opted to become an integral part of the group II intron retrohoming mechanism.

Mobile group II introns are bacterial retrotransposons that are evolutionarily related to introns and retroelements in higher organisms. They spread within and between genomes by a mechanism termed “retrohoming” in which the intron RNA inserts directly into a DNA site and is reverse transcribed by an intron-encoded reverse transcriptase. The resulting intron cDNA is integrated into the genome by host factors, but how it occurs has remained unclear. Here, we investigated the function of host factors in retrohoming by genetic and biochemical approaches, including a new biochemical assay that reconstitutes the complete retrohoming reaction in vitro. Our results lead to a comprehensive model for retrohoming, which includes a surprising role for replication restart proteins in recruiting the host replicative DNA polymerase to copy the intron cDNA into the genome in the absence of DNA replication. We also find an unexpected contribution of host factors to initiating reverse transcription and a new RNA degradation pathway that suppresses retrohoming. We suggest that key features of the group II intron retrohoming mechanism may be used by human LINE elements and other non-LTR-retrotransposons. Additionally, our results provide new insights into the function of replication restart proteins, which are critical for surviving DNA damage in all organisms.

Factors limiting SOS expression in log-phase cells of Escherichia coli

In Escherichia coli, RecA-single-stranded DNA (RecA-ssDNA) filaments catalyze DNA repair, recombination, and induction of the SOS response. It has been shown that, while many (15 to 25%) log-phase cells have RecA filaments, few (about 1%) are induced for SOS. It is hypothesized that RecA's ability to induce SOS expression in log-phase cells is repressed because of the potentially detrimental effects of SOS mutagenesis. To test this, mutations were sought to produce a population where the number of cells with SOS expression more closely equaled the number of RecA filaments. Here, it is shown that deleting radA (important for resolution of recombination structures) and increasing recA transcription 2- to 3-fold with a recAo1403 operator mutation act independently to minimally satisfy this condition. This allows 24% of mutant cells to have elevated levels of SOS expression, a percentage similar to that of cells with RecA-green fluorescent protein (RecA-GFP) foci. In an xthA (exonuclease III gene) mutant where there are 3-fold more RecA loading events, recX (a destabilizer of RecA filaments) must be additionally deleted to achieve a population of cells where the percentage having elevated SOS expression (91%) nearly equals the percentage with at least one RecA-GFP focus (83%). It is proposed that, in the xthA mutant, there are three independent mechanisms that repress SOS expression in log-phase cells. These are the rapid processing of RecA filaments by RadA, maintaining the concentration of RecA below a critical level, and the destabilizing of RecA filaments by RecX. Only the first two mechanisms operate independently in a wild-type cell.

Analysis of RuvABC and RecG involvement in the escherichia coli response to the covalent topoisomerase-DNA complex

Topoisomerases form a covalent enzyme-DNA intermediate after initial DNA cleavage. Trapping of the cleavage complex formed by type IIA topoisomerases initiates the bactericidal action of fluoroquinolones. It should be possible also to identify novel antibacterial lead compounds that act with a similar mechanism on type IA bacterial topoisomerases. The cellular response and repair pathways for trapped topoisomerase complexes remain to be fully elucidated. The RuvAB and RecG proteins could play a role in the conversion of the initial protein-DNA complex to double-strand breaks and also in the resolution of the Holliday junction during homologous recombination. Escherichia coli strains with ruvA and recG mutations are found to have increased sensitivity to low levels of norfloxacin treatment, but the mutations had more pronounced effects on survival following the accumulation of covalent complexes formed by mutant topoisomerase I defective in DNA religation. Covalent topoisomerase I and DNA gyrase complexes are converted into double-strand breaks for SOS induction by the RecBCD pathway. SOS induction following topoisomerase I complex accumulation is significantly lower in the ruvA and recG mutants than in the wild-type background, suggesting that RuvAB and RecG may play a role in converting the initial single-strand DNA-protein cleavage complex into a double-strand break prior to repair by homologous recombination. The use of a ruvB mutant proficient in homologous recombination but not in replication fork reversal demonstrated that the replication fork reversal function of RuvAB is required for SOS induction by the covalent complex formed by topoisomerase I.