This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ross, W.
Right arrow Articles by Gourse, R. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ross, W.
Right arrow Articles by Gourse, R. L.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Bacteriology, October 1998, p. 5375-5383, Vol. 180, No. 20
0021-9193/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Escherichia coli Promoters with UP Elements of Different Strengths: Modular Structure of Bacterial Promoters

Wilma Ross, Sarah E. Aiyar, Julia Salomon, and Richard L. Gourse*

Department of Bacteriology, University of Wisconsin---Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706

Received 3 June 1998/Accepted 17 August 1998

    ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials & Methods
Results
Discussion
References

The alpha  subunit of Escherichia coli RNA polymerase (RNAP) participates in promoter recognition through specific interactions with UP element DNA, a region upstream of the recognition hexamers for the sigma  subunit (the -10 and -35 hexamers). UP elements have been described in only a small number of promoters, including the rRNA promoter rrnB P1, where the sequence has a very large (30- to 70-fold) effect on promoter activity. Here, we analyzed the effects of upstream sequences from several additional E. coli promoters (rrnD P1, rrnB P2, lambda  pR, lac, merT, and RNA II). The relative effects of different upstream sequences were compared in the context of their own core promoters or as hybrids to the lac core promoter. Different upstream sequences had different effects, increasing transcription from 1.5- to ~90-fold, and several had the properties of UP elements: they increased transcription in vitro in the absence of accessory protein factors, and transcription stimulation required the C-terminal domain of the RNAP alpha  subunit. The effects of the upstream sequences correlated generally with their degree of similarity to an UP element consensus sequence derived previously. Protection of upstream sequences by RNAP in footprinting experiments occurred in all cases and was thus not a reliable indicator of UP element strength. These data support a modular view of bacterial promoters in which activity reflects the composite effects of RNAP interactions with appropriately spaced recognition elements (-10, -35, and UP elements), each of which contributes to activity depending on its similarity to the consensus.

    INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials & Methods
Results
Discussion
References

Promoter sequences involved in recognition by Escherichia coli RNA polymerase (RNAP) were identified from comparisons of a large number of known promoters and from mutational analyses (28, 29, 38, 62). These sequences, the -10 and -35 hexamers (5' TATAAT 3' and 5'TTGACA 3', respectively), are recognized by the sigma 70 subunit of RNAP (11). The strength of a promoter correlates generally with its degree of identity to these sequences and with the length of the spacer between them (the homology score [42]), although exceptions to this rule have been described (7, 26).

It was proposed more than 10 years ago that optimal transcription activity could be achieved by different combinations of promoter elements, including not only the -10 and -35 hexamers, but also upstream and downstream regions (7). In accord with this suggestion, RNAP protects regions both upstream and downstream of the -10 and -35 hexamers in footprints (8, 45, 47, 56), and A+T-rich sequences upstream of the -35 hexamer in several E. coli or Bacillus subtilis promoters were found to increase transcription in vitro in the absence of accessory proteins (3, 19, 31, 37, 39, 50, 54). Phased A-tracts inserted upstream of the -35 region in various promoter constructs were also shown to increase transcription (6, 12, 24).

The A+T-rich region upstream of -40 in the rRNA promoter rrnB P1, the UP element, increases transcription 30- to 70-fold by binding the RNAP alpha  subunit (13, 50, 53). A consensus UP element sequence was determined by using in vitro selection for upstream sequences that promote rapid RNAP binding to the rrnB P1 promoter, followed by in vivo screening for high promoter activity. The consensus UP element consists of alternating A- and T-tracts (13). UP elements matching the consensus increased promoter activity as much as 326-fold, about 5-fold more than the wild-type rrnB P1 UP element. UP elements were also identified in other promoters, for example, the flagellin (hag) promoter of B. subtilis (18), the PL2 promoter of phage lambda (25), and the Pe promoter of phage Mu (61), although the effects of these elements were not as large as that of rrnB P1. UP elements also function in promoters recognized by RNAP holoenzymes with alternate sigma  factors (18).

UP elements are not as highly conserved as the -10 and -35 elements and were not described in studies comparing the large sets of E. coli promoters used to define the consensus hexamers (28, 29, 38). However, A+T-rich sequences were identified as a prominent feature of a subset of E. coli promoters (the -44 motif [23]), and a recent E. coli promoter analysis (48) identified two A+T-rich regions at upstream positions corresponding to those crucial for UP element function (14). A+T-rich upstream sequences were also identified in compilations of B. subtilis and Clostridium promoters (27, 30).

We have proposed that UP elements may be a recognition feature in many bacterial promoters (13, 53), but in most promoters, the role of upstream sequences has not been evaluated experimentally. Therefore, in this paper, we have examined the role of upstream sequences from six promoters (rrnB P2, rrnD P1, RNA II, merT, lac, and lambda  pR). We find that several of the sequences function as UP elements and that their effects on promoter activity differ, correlating generally with the degree of similarity to the UP element consensus sequence. These results support the model that bacterial promoters consist of at least three modules, not just -10 and -35 elements. We also show that upstream protection in footprints is not a reliable indicator of UP element function.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials & Methods
Results
Discussion
References

Strains and plasmids. The strains and plasmids used in this study are listed in Table 1. Single-copy promoter-lacZ fusions were constructed by inserting promoters as EcoRI-HindIII fragments into either of two phage lambda lacZ fusion vectors (system I for promoters with higher activities or system II for promoters with lower activities [50]). Monolysogenic strains were identified by comparison of the beta -galactosidase activities of several independent candidates and by a PCR test (13). System I phages carrying lambda  pR promoter-lacZ fusions contain the immunity region of phage 21, introduced from lambda  i21 phages in vegetative crosses. System II phages all contain the immunity 21 region. Plasmids used for in vitro transcription were derivatives of pRLG770 (52) and contained EcoRI-HindIII promoter fragments inserted ~170 bp upstream of an rrnB T1 terminator.

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1.   Strains and plasmids used in this study

EcoRI-HindIII promoter-containing fragments were obtained by PCR from plasmid templates containing other derivatives of the same promoter, except as noted. Upstream primers for PCR contained an EcoRI site and the upstream 25 to 30 nucleotides of the promoter. The downstream primer (RLG1620) contained vector pRLG770 sequence (5'-GCGCTACGGCGTTTCACTTC-3') about 40 bp downstream of the HindIII site for insertion of the promoter fragment. rrnD P1 promoter fragments were obtained by PCR from plasmid pRLG3246 [rrnD P1 (-61 to +10)] (22). The lambda  pR (-60 to +20) promoter fragment was obtained from EcoRI and HindIII digestion of pBR80 (58) and contained about 120 bp of pBluescript vector sequence both upstream and downstream of the promoter.

Hybrid promoters containing upstream elements from different sources fused to either the lac or the lacUV5 core promoter at position -37 were constructed by PCR with plasmids pRLG1821 (50) and pRLG593 (53) as templates. Upstream primers contained an EcoRI site, the desired UP element sequence, and lac core promoter sequence from -37 to -17. The downstream primer was RLG1620 (see above). The upstream sequences of the hybrid-lac promoters are shown in Fig. 5.

Promoter activity determinations. Promoter activities were determined in vivo by measurement of beta -galactosidase activities in strains lysogenic for lambda  carrying the promoter-lacZ fusions. Cultures were grown for 4 or more generations in Luria-Bertani medium at 30°C (for system I lysogens) or at 37°C (for system II lysogens), and mid-logarithmic-phase cells were used to measure activities as described previously (41).

In vitro transcription was carried out essentially as described previously (52, 53) in reaction mixtures containing 50 ng of supercoiled plasmid DNA template, 10 mM Tris-Cl (pH 7.9), 10 mM MgCl2, 1 mM dithiothreitol, and 100 µg of bovine serum albumin per ml. Reaction mixtures also contained either 30 mM KCl (see Fig. 2B and C and 3) or 50 mM KCl (Fig. 2A) and the following nucleoside triphosphate (NTP) concentrations: Fig. 2A, 500 µM ATP, 50 µM GTP and UTP, 10 µM CTP, and [alpha -32P]CTP; Fig. 2B, 500 µM ATP, 50 µM UTP, 10 µM GTP and CTP, and [alpha -32P]GTP; Fig. 2C, 100 µM ATP, CTP, and GTP, 10 µM UTP, and [alpha -32P]UTP; Fig. 3, 400 µM ATP, 100 µM GTP and UTP, 10 µM CTP, and [alpha -32P]CTP. [alpha -32P]NTPs were from DuPont and were used at about 5 µCi per reaction.

DNase I footprinting. DNA fragments were prepared by digestion of plasmid DNAs (pRLG2227, pRLG947, pRLG946, pRLG945, pRLG943, and pRLG593 [Table 1]) with HindIII (at promoter position +40), labelling of the top (nontemplate) strand with Sequenase (Amersham) and [alpha -32P]dATP (DuPont), and further digestion with AatII (77 bp upstream of the EcoRI site at the upstream end of the promoter). Fragments were gel isolated and purified and concentrated with Elutip D columns (Schleicher & Schuell). RNAP or alpha  subunit complexes with promoter fragments (0.5 nM) were formed at 26°C in a mixture of 30 mM KCl, 40 mM Tris-acetate (pH 7.9), 10 mM MgCl2, 10% glycerol, and 100 µg of bovine serum albumin per ml and were digested with DNase I at 2 µg/ml for 30 s. Heparin (10 µg/ml) was added to RNAP-promoter complexes prior to DNAse I digestion. Processing and electrophoresis of samples were performed as described previously (52, 53).

RNAPs and alpha  subunit. Wild-type, alpha 265A, and alpha Delta 235 RNAPs were obtained from A. Ishihama (53) or were reconstituted from purified subunits as described previously (21).

    RESULTS
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials & Methods
Results
Discussion
References

We tested whether a series of promoters contained UP elements by (i) measuring the effects of their upstream sequences in vivo with promoter-lacZ fusions, (ii) determining the effects of their upstream sequences in vitro with wild-type and alpha -mutant RNAPs, and (iii) characterizing the interactions between the upstream sequences and RNAP or purified alpha  subunit in vitro by DNase I footprinting. We were particularly interested in whether the effects of different UP elements on transcription would correlate with the number of sequence matches to the recently defined UP element consensus (13) and whether footprints would be a reliable indicator of the presence or absence of an UP element.

Effects of upstream sequences on transcription in vivo. The effects of upstream sequences on promoter activity in vivo were determined for four promoters, chosen because previous in vitro data indicated that their upstream sequences might increase their activities in vivo. For two of the promoters, upstream sequences were protected by RNAP in footprints (lambda  pR and lac [8, 34]), and for the other two promoters, upstream regions stimulated promoter activity in vitro (rrnB P2 and rrnD P1 [53, 54]). Derivatives of each promoter containing either native or substituted upstream sequences (Fig. 1) were fused to lacZ, and their activities were determined by measuring beta -galactosidase levels in strains containing chromosomal copies of the fusion constructs (Table 2). For each of the promoters, the derivative with native upstream sequences had more activity than the derivative with substituted sequences, although the magnitudes of the effects were very different. The rrnD P1 upstream sequence increased transcription dramatically (approximately 90-fold), even more than the previously characterized rrnB P1 UP element (Table 2) (13, 50). The rrnB P2 upstream sequence also increased transcription, but to a much lesser extent (3.3-fold), while the lambda  pR and lac upstream sequences had only very small effects (1.7- and 1.5-fold, respectively). The lac promoter sequences responsible for the 1.5-fold effect appeared to include the region upstream of -47, since lac promoters with upstream endpoints of -40 or -47 had slightly lower activities than the -60 derivative.


View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 1.   Sequences of derivatives of four E. coli promoters, rrnD P1, rrnB P2, lambda  pR, and lac, containing either native or substituted upstream sequence. Promoters are designated by the position of the upstream-most native position (e.g., rrnD P1 -60 has native sequence to -60). Native sequences are represented by uppercase letters, and substituted sequences are represented by lowercase letters. EcoRI sites at the junction of promoter and vector sequences are italicized. The -10 and -35 hexamers are shown in boldface. Substituted sequences for rrnD P1 -41, rrnB P2 -39, lambda  pR -42, and lac -47 are from the lambda phage vector into which they were cloned for in vivo activity measurement (Table 1). For the lac -40 promoter, the substituted sequence was the SUB sequence (50). The phage vector sequences and the SUB sequence were previously characterized in the context of the rrnB P1 promoter and did not affect transcription (50, 53).

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 2.   Effect of native upstream sequences on promoter activity in vivo

Upstream sequences affect transcription directly. Upstream sequence effects on transcription in vivo could result from direct interactions with RNAP or from effects of transcription factors. To distinguish between these possibilities, upstream sequence function was characterized in vitro (Fig. 2). Transcription of the rrnD P1 promoter containing its native upstream sequence (to -60) was much stronger than that of the promoter with native sequence only to -41 (Fig. 2A, lanes 1 to 4), indicating a direct effect of the upstream region on RNAP. This effect was not seen with a mutant RNAP defective in UP element recognition (alpha R265A RNAP [21]) (Fig. 2A, lanes 5 to 8), indicating that the rrnD P1 -41 to -60 sequence functions as an UP element. This rrnD P1 upstream region corresponds to the position of the rrnB P1 UP element (50) and partially overlaps a region in rrnD P1 previously found to stimulate its function in vitro (-50 to -89 [54]). The rrnD P1 UP element had a greater effect than the rrnB P1 UP element in vitro (51), consistent with their relative effects in vivo (Table 2). Under these in vitro conditions, the effects were not as large as those observed in vivo (Table 2 and Fig. 2A) (13, 53). However, for rrnB P1, larger effects of the UP element were observed at higher-salt and lower-RNAP concentrations, and kinetic studies have revealed in vitro effects similar to those observed in vivo (13, 50). We expect that a similar situation would be true for rrnD P1.


View larger version (40K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 2.   In vitro transcription of promoters containing or lacking native upstream sequences. (A) rrnD P1 promoters with upstream endpoints of -60 or -41 (plasmid templates pRLG3266 and pRLG3267) transcribed with 0.5 nM wild-type (WT) RNAP (lanes 1 to 4) or 0.5 nM alpha R265A mutant RNAP (lanes 5 to 8). (B) lambda  pR promoters with upstream endpoints of -61 or -42 (plasmid templates pRLG2229 and pRLG936) transcribed with 1 nM wild-type RNAP. (C) RNA II promoters with upstream endpoints of -150 or -42 (plasmid templates pRLG934 and pRLG938) transcribed with 2 nM wild-type RNAP. In each experiment, transcripts were separated on a 5% acrylamide-7 M urea gel, and the promoter-specific and the vector-encoded RNA I transcripts are indicated.

The rrnB P2 upstream sequence examined above (Table 2) was previously shown to increase transcription in vitro in the absence of additional factors and to require the alpha  subunit C-terminal domain (alpha CTD) for its effect (53). Thus, we conclude that rrnB P2 has an UP element with a modest degree of function in vivo.

The lambda  pR and lac upstream sequences had very little effect on transcription in vivo. Nevertheless, we examined lambda  pR in vitro by using derivatives with native (to -61) or substituted (to -42) upstream sequences to distinguish whether possible inhibitory factors might have obscured detection of stimulatory effects in vivo (Fig. 2B). No effect of the native upstream sequence was observed. We did not examine the lac upstream sequences in vitro, since this promoter's activity in the absence of the activator protein, CRP, was too low to be quantified by this assay (see below).

An additional promoter, RNA II, which makes the primer for ColE1 plasmid replication, was also included in our study. This promoter (with native upstream sequences to -150) was not efficiently transcribed by alpha -mutant RNAP in previous transcription experiments, suggesting that it might contain an UP element (53). To further characterize its upstream sequences, we constructed an additional promoter derivative with sequences extending only to -42 and compared the activities of the two promoters in vitro (Fig. 2C). The native upstream sequences increased transcription by wild-type RNAP in the absence of other protein factors, indicating that the RNA II upstream sequence functions directly. Although the RNA II upstream sequence was not examined in the context of its own promoter in vivo, it stimulated the activity of the lac core promoter (see below). We also observed that expression of plasmid-encoded alpha subunits defective in DNA binding and UP element function reduced the maintenance of ColE1 plasmid derivatives, suggesting that the RNA II UP element does function to stimulate its promoter in vivo (21).

Relative strengths of different UP elements in the context of the same core promoter. The widely varying effects of different upstream sequences on transcription (Table 2) could reflect differences in their interactions with the alpha  subunit and/or differences in the capacity of the core promoters to respond to an UP element (i.e., core promoter mechanisms could be limited to different extents by a step or steps affected by UP elements). To compare directly the relative strengths of several upstream sequences, their effects on the same core promoter were determined with hybrid promoters. The upstream sequences from rrnB P2, RNA II, lambda  pR, and merT were fused to the lac core promoter. The merT sequence was included in the study, since it was protected by RNAP in footprinting experiments (46). The lac core promoter was used for the hybrid promoter constructs, since we showed previously that it responds to the rrnB P1 UP element in an rrnB P1-lac hybrid (50) (Table 3).

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 3.   Effect of upstream sequences from other promoters on lac core promoter activity in vivo

The activities of the hybrid promoters were compared in vivo with that of the lac promoter without an UP element (-40 lac [Table 3]). The rrnB P1 UP element had the largest effect, increasing lac transcription ~33-fold, consistent with previous observations (50). The rrnB P2, RNA II, and merT sequences increased transcription 12.8-, 4.9-, and 2.0-fold, respectively, while the lambda  pR upstream region did not increase lac promoter activity significantly.

The rrnB P1, rrnB P2, RNA II, and merT upstream sequences affected lac promoter activity directly, since the hybrid promoters had greater activity in vitro than the lac promoter without an UP element (Fig. 3A) (50). Transcription from the lac core promoter (-40 lac) and from lambda  pR-lac was not detectable (Fig. 3A, lanes 1 and 2) (51). Thus, the activities of the hybrid promoters in vitro were consistent with their relative activities in vivo: rrnB P1-lac > rrnB P2-lac > RNA II-lac > merT-lac > lambda pR-lac (Table 2 and Fig. 3A). The stimulation of lac promoter activity by the upstream sequences in vitro was dependent upon the DNA binding function of the RNAP alpha  subunit, since no transcription from the hybrid promoters was observed with RNAP lacking the alpha CTD (Delta 235 RNAP [Fig. 3B, lanes 1 to 5]), although the mutant enzyme was proficient in transcription of lacUV5 (lane 6).


View larger version (60K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 3.   In vitro transcription of lac and hybrid-lac promoters with wild-type RNAP (A) or alpha Delta 235 mutant RNAP (B). The upstream sequences of the hybrid promoters and their junction with the lac core promoter (at position -37) are shown in Fig. 5. Transcripts were separated on 5% acrylamide-7 M urea gels, and hybrid promoter, lacUV5, and vector-encoded promoter RNA I transcripts are indicated. Duplicate samples are shown in panel A. The RNAP concentrations were 2 nM (A) and 8 nM (B). Plasmid templates for transcription were as follows: lac, pRLG1821; rrnB P1-lac, pRLG1820; RNA II-lac, pRLG940; merT-lac, pRLG941; rrnB P2-lac, pRLG942; and lacUV5, pRLG593.

Interaction of upstream elements with the RNAP alpha  subunit. The experiments presented above identified a requirement for the DNA binding function of the alpha  subunit for upstream sequence function, suggesting that as with the rrnB P1 UP element, alpha CTD interacts directly with these sequences. We confirmed this conclusion by footprinting with hybrid promoters in which the upstream sequences were fused to the lacUV5 core promoter (Fig. 4). (lacUV5, a promoter with a 2-bp substitution mutation in lac that creates a consensus -10 hexamer, was used to improve promoter occupancy by RNAP; we assumed that the lacUV5 mutation did not affect the alpha  subunit-UP element interaction directly.)


View larger version (44K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 4.   DNase I footprints of hybrid-lacUV5 promoters containing various different upstream sequences (A to E) and of lacUV5 with its native upstream sequence (F). In each case, the top (nontemplate) strand was radiolabelled at position +40. A+G, sequence markers; 0, no RNAP; WT, wild-type RNAP (40 nM); Delta 235, alpha Delta 235 mutant RNAP (40 nM). The core promoter-protected regions are indicated by a thin line, and upstream regions protected by wild-type RNAP, but not by alpha Delta 235 mutant RNAP, are indicated with a thick line. Positions in the upstream regions hypersensitive to DNase I are indicated by asterisks. In panel B, rrnB P2-lacUV5 was also tested in the presence of purified alpha  subunit (2 to 8 µM, lanes 4 to 6). The region protected by the alpha  subunit is indicated with a hatched bar.

Protection of the rrnB P1 UP element when fused to the lacUV5 promoter (Fig. 4A) was comparable to its protection in the context of its own core promoter (53). The A+T-rich UP element was cleaved inefficiently by DNase I, as expected (lane 2) (53, 57), but several protected positions were detected in the presence of wild-type RNAP (lane 3). This protection was not observed with RNAP lacking the alpha CTD (lane 4).

Protection was also observed upstream of -40 in wild-type RNAP footprints of each of the other hybrid promoters and of lacUV5 with its native upstream sequence (Fig. 4B, lane 2, and C to F, lanes 3). In each case, upstream sequence protection required the alpha CTD (Fig. 4B, lane 1, and C to F, lanes 4). Protection in three of the promoters occurred in two short regions (approximately -41 to -43 and -50 to -53) that correspond to the proximal and distal positions protected against hydroxyl radical cleavage in the rrnB P1 UP element (lacUV5, RNA II-lacUV5, and rrnB P2-lacUV5) (Fig. 4B, C, and F) (13, 45). In the merT and lambda  pR upstream sequences, protection occurred in the distal region (-51 to -53), but was not as evident in the proximal region (-41 to -43). An additional partially protected region (around -60) occurred in some of the footprints (e.g., lacUV5 and lambda  pR-lacUV5). In each promoter, positions around -44 to -48 were accessible and, in some cases, were hypersensitive to DNase I (see Fig. 5 for sequences). The core region of each hybrid promoter (Fig. 4) was protected by both the wild-type and alpha Delta 235 RNAPs, and as observed previously for lacUV5 (34), contained sites in the spacer region (at -24 and -25) that were hypersensitive to DNase I cleavage.


View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 5.   Sequences of promoter upstream regions compared to the UP element consensus (from reference 13). Upstream sequences shown are those in the hybrid-lac promoters (Tables 1 and 3 [see Materials and Methods]), except for rrnD P1, which is from the rrnD -60 promoter (Fig. 1). Matches to the consensus are indicated in uppercase and boldface type. Vector-derived sequences are underlined, and native upstream sequences not matching the consensus are in lowercase type. The -35 hexamer regions are represented by open boxes. Positions accessible or hypersensitive to DNase I cleavage (Fig. 4) are indicated by arrows. The relative activities of the upstream sequences represent their function in the context of the hybrid-lac promoters (Table 3), except for rrnD P1 (indicated with an asterisk), which was determined in the context of its own core promoter (Table 2).

We also tested the binding of purified alpha  subunit to the three UP elements with moderate effects on transcription, rrnB P2, RNA II, and merT. Specific protection of the rrnB P2 UP element was observed from ~-36 to -53 (Fig. 4B, lane 6). Approximately fourfold-higher alpha  subunit concentrations (4 to 8 µM) were required for protection of the rrnB P2 UP element than for protection of the rrnB P1 UP element in the same experiment (51, 53). At higher concentrations of alpha  subunit, the rrnB P2-protected region extended further upstream, to approximately -62, similar to the boundary observed with the rrnB P1 UP element (51, 53). Protection of the merT UP element region was observed at ~8 µM alpha  subunit, while specific protection of the RNA II upstream region was not observed (51).

    DISCUSSION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials & Methods
Results
Discussion
References

UP elements of different strengths. We identified upstream sequences in several E. coli promoters that had the characteristics of UP elements: they increased transcription in vivo as well as in vitro in the absence of factors besides RNAP, and their function depended on their interaction with the alpha  subunit of RNAP. Effects of the different upstream sequences examined here varied widely, by a factor of almost 100. We arbitrarily define as UP elements only those sequences that increased transcription twofold or more in vivo. We do not define the lac and lambda  pR upstream sequences as UP elements, since they affected transcription in vivo only slightly, these effects were defined relative to the function of an arbitrary "neutral" sequence, and their effects were not observed in vitro. Although they did not significantly affect promoter function, the lac and lambda  pR sequences were protected in footprints with wild-type RNAP, and this protection was alpha CTD dependent (Fig. 4). Thus, footprint protection of an upstream sequence is not sufficient to define a functioning UP element in the absence of other evidence.

The negligible effect of the lac upstream sequence on promoter activity is consistent with previous observations on the effects of promoter substitution mutations in this region (16) and of alpha  subunit mutations on lacUV5 activity in vitro (53). Although alpha CTD interactions with lac upstream DNA are insufficient to increase transcription in the absence of CRP, they have been observed in footprinting experiments performed in the presence of RNAP and CRP (34) and appear to play a role in activator-dependent transcription by contributing to the overall stability of the activator-RNAP-promoter complex (9, 21, 59).

Similarity to consensus as a predictor of UP element function. Effects of upstream sequences on transcription correlate generally with the extent of their similarity to the consensus UP element (Fig. 5). The consensus sequence contains two conserved regions, an 11-bp distal region [5' -57 to -47, AAA(a/t)(a/t)T(a/t)TTTT] and a 4-bp proximal region (-44 to -41, AAAA) (13). Mutational analyses indicate that specific positions within the consensus sequence (-51 to -53 and -41 to -43) are most critical to function (14) and that each region can function alone, with the proximal region conferring larger effects on the rrnB P1 core promoter (>100-fold) than the distal region (~15-fold [14]).

The two strongest UP elements, rrnD P1 and rrnB P1, match the consensus exactly in one of the two regions and contain some matches in the other. The rrnD P1 UP element (~90-fold effect) matches the proximal region consensus exactly and the distal region at 7 of 11 positions (Fig. 5). It lacks the distal region T-tract, which likely accounts for its three- to fourfold-lower activity than that of the consensus UP element. The rrnB P1 element contains an exact match to the consensus in the distal region, but fewer matches in the proximal region; its somewhat smaller stimulatory effect (33-fold) may reflect the smaller effects on transcription of the distal region compared to the proximal region.

The UP elements with moderate to low activity (rrnB P2, RNA II, and merT) contain less extensive similarity to the consensus. The rrnB P2 upstream sequence contains three of four A residues found in the proximal consensus (Fig. 5) and also contains A residues at -45 and -46, an additional feature of some strong proximal sequences (14). However, it contains only 4 of 11 distal consensus positions and is not protected against DNase I cleavage upstream of -51. We therefore suggest that its function may be attributable largely to proximal region interactions. The effect of the rrnB P2 UP element on lac promoter activity (~12-fold) was similar to that observed in another study in which mutant lac promoters containing a series of A residues in the proximal upstream region conferred an alpha CTD-dependent increase in promoter activity (9).

The RNA II and merT UP elements match the consensus better in the distal than in the proximal region (Fig. 5), which may account in part for their relatively small effects on transcription. We also note that the RNA II UP element contains two recognition sites for the Dam methylase (GATC). It has been proposed previously that DNA methylation plays a role in controlling the RNA II promoter, although it is not known whether the GATC sites in the UP element, in addition to a third GATC site in the -35 region, contribute to regulation (60). The rrnD P1 UP element also contains a GATC sequence.

The two upstream sequences with negligible effects on transcription (lambda  pR and lac) have no proximal region matches to consensus and contain distal regions with either little similarity to the consensus (lac) or mismatches at critical positions (lambda  pR). A substitution mutation in lambda  pR, C to T at -51 (pRM116), that was previously reported to increase transcription threefold (17) results in a match to the consensus at eight contiguous positions.

Determinants of UP element strength. Differences in the degree of UP element function are likely to reflect several factors, including (i) the relative affinities of sequences for alpha  subunit, (ii) the exact positioning of the sites with respect to the other promoter elements (40, 44), and (iii) the extent to which a particular core promoter mechanism is rate limited at a step affected by alpha  subunit-DNA interaction. The affinities of two UP elements (rrnB P1 and rrnB P2) for purified alpha  subunit differed by about fourfold (Fig. 4) (51), and this may account for the difference in their effects on the same core promoter (hybrid-lac promoters [Table 3]). However, the relative affinities of different sequences for purified alpha  subunit must be interpreted with caution, since binding of alpha  subunit alone might not be a reliable indicator of alpha  subunit binding as part of the RNAP holoenzyme.

The lac and rrnB P1 core promoters responded similarly to the rrnB P1 UP element, as well as to phased A-tracts (1, 50). However, differences in the promoter mechanisms may explain why the rrnB P2 UP element had a greater effect on the lac core promoter than on its own core promoter (12.8-fold versus 3.3-fold, respectively [Tables 2 and 3]). Other core promoter sequences may respond less well to and, in some cases, may even be inhibited by alpha CTD-DNA interactions. For example, an upstream A-tract (presumably an alpha  subunit binding site [see below]) was reported to increase the activity of one synthetic core promoter, but to inhibit the activity of a second, clearance-limited core promoter (12). However, none of the upstream sequences analyzed in our study had negative effects on promoter activity.

A-tract sequences and alpha  subunit recognition. Existing data suggest that the proximal and distal consensus sequences may each represent an alpha CTD monomer binding site (14). Each of these sequences contains an A-tract, and although details of the alpha CTD-DNA interaction remain to be defined, the unusual structural features of A-tract DNA (reviewed in reference 63) may play a role in its recognition by alpha  subunit. The upstream sequences in our study that functioned as stronger UP elements (e.g., RNA II, rrnB P2, rrnB P1, and rrnD P1) contain an A- or T-tract at least 4 nt in length, consistent with the role of an A-tract in recognition by alpha  subunit.

We have found that the previously observed stimulatory effects of multiple phased A-tracts on transcription (24, 49) depend upon interaction with the RNAP alpha  subunit (1). Although multiple phased A-tracts result in the macroscopic curvature that confers aberrant gel electrophoretic mobility (35), this macroscopic curvature does not appear to be essential for UP element function. A single A-tract in the -40 region can have a large effect on transcription (14), and some UP elements (e.g., rrnB P1) do not display such curvature (20).

Sites of enhanced DNAse I cleavage have been observed in the footprints of proteins known to bend DNA, such as FIS and CRP (15, 34). The enhanced DNase I cleavage sites in the upstream regions of several of the promoter-RNAP complexes analyzed here (Fig. 4 and 5) and in a consensus UP element (13) suggest that DNA distortion occurs upon alpha  subunit binding. These upstream hypersensitive sites also indicate that one face of the DNA helix is accessible to other proteins (DNase I in this case) when alpha  subunit is bound and that alpha  subunit and an activator protein could interact simultaneously on different surfaces of an upstream sequence, as suggested for the Ada protein at the ada and aidB promoters (36).

UP element position and size. The upstream sequences characterized in this and previous work were located primarily between -40 and -60 (Fig. 1 and 5 and Tables 2 and 3). However, DNA sequences smaller than 20 bp in length can function as UP elements to increase transcription. For example, the proximal or distal portions of the rrnB P1 UP element confer partial UP element function (14, 44, 50). Similarly, some of the UP elements described in this paper (e.g., rrnB P2 [described above]) are likely to utilize only a limited portion of the upstream region for alpha  subunit interactions.

Sequences upstream of -60 may also interact directly with RNAP and contribute to transcription in some promoters. In the rrnB P1 promoter, sequence upstream of -60 increases activity about 1.5-fold in vivo in the absence of the activator protein FIS (13, 50), and the distal portion of the rrnB P1 UP element (the -50 region) retains full function and protection in footprints when moved one turn of the DNA helix upstream of its normal position (44). RNAP also protects DNA upstream of -60 in some promoters, for example, in the B. subtilis hag promoter (18). The alpha CTD can also affect transcription when positioned several turns upstream of its normal location in complexes formed with the activator protein CRP (4, 43, 55). This variability in positioning of alpha  subunit binding sites most likely results from the flexible linker connecting the alpha CTD to the alpha  subunit N-terminal domain (5, 32).

The downstream boundary of the UP element region is at around position -40, since sequence between -38 and -40 was not strongly conserved in the in vitro-selected UP elements (13), and substitutions at these positions had only minor effects on transcription (14). We note that the identity of the residue directly adjacent to the -35 hexamer (-37 in our numbering system [see Fig. 5]) is very important to transcription of the rrnB P1, lambda  pR, and lac promoters (2, 10, 33). The effects of this residue on rrnB P1 function are independent of the alpha CTD, suggesting that it plays a role in sigma , not alpha  subunit, interactions (2).

Modular structure of promoters. In summary, we conclude that UP elements occur in a variety of promoters, where they make different contributions to promoter strength. Thus, promoters can be considered as modular composites of a series of at least three RNAP recognition elements: the -10 and -35 hexamers and the UP element. (Our studies do not exclude the possibility of additional RNAP recognition determinants as well, e.g., in downstream regions [7].) Together these RNAP recognition elements confer appropriate basal activity for a particular promoter in the absence of transcription factors. Individual promoters need not contain significant information in all promoter modules, and many promoters have evolved to utilize transcription factors that respond to specific environmental signals in lieu of a particular interaction.

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Jeremy Fields and Robin Pietropaolo for their assistance in construction of some of the promoters used in this work and Shawn Estrem for helpful discussion.

This work was supported by NIH grant GM37048 to R.L.G.

    FOOTNOTES

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Bacteriology, University of Wisconsin---Madison, 1550 Linden Dr., Madison WI 53706. Phone: (608) 262-9813. Fax: (608) 262-9865. E-mail: rgourse{at}bact.wisc.edu.

    REFERENCES
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials & Methods
Results
Discussion
References

1.  Aiyar, S. E., R. L. Gourse, and W. Ross. Upstream A-tracts increase bacterial promoter activity through interactions with the RNA polymerase alpha  subunit. Submitted for publication.
2. Aiyar, S. E., R. L. Gourse, and W. Ross. Unpublished observations.
3. Banner, C. D., C. P. Moran, Jr., and R. Losick. 1983. Deletion analysis of a complex promoter for a developmentally regulated gene from Bacillus subtilis. J. Mol. Biol. 168:351-365[Medline].
4. Belyaeva, T. A., V. A. Rhodius, C. L. Webster, and S. J. W. Busby. 1998. Transcription activation at promoters carrying tandem DNA sites for the Escherichia coli cyclic AMP receptor protein: organisation of the RNA polymerase alpha  subunits. J. Mol. Biol. 277:789-804[Medline].
5. Blatter, E. E., W. Ross, H. Tang, R. L. Gourse, and R. H. Ebright. 1994. Domain organization of RNA polymerase alpha  subunit: C-terminal 85 amino acids constitute a domain capable of dimerization and DNA binding. Cell 78:889-896[Medline].
6. Bracco, L., D. Kotlarz, A. Kolb, S. Diekmann, and H. Buc. 1989. Synthetic curved DNA sequences can act as transcriptional activators in Escherichia coli. EMBO J. 8:4289-4296[Medline].
7. Bujard, H., M. Brenner, U. Deuschle, W. Kammerer, and R. Knaus. 1987. Structure-function relationship of Escherichia coli promoters, p. 95-103. In W. S. Reznikoff, et al. (ed.), RNA polymerase and the regulation of transcription. Elsevier, New York, N.Y.
8. Craig, M. L., W.-C. Suh, and M. T. Record, Jr. 1995. HO· and DNase I probing of Esigma 70 RNA polymerase-lambda PR promoter open complexes: Mg2+ binding and its structural consequences at the transcription start site. Biochemistry 34:15624-15632[Medline].
9. Czarniecki, D., R. J. Noel, Jr., and W. S. Reznikoff. 1997. The -45 region of the Escherichia coli lac promoter: CAP-dependent and CAP-independent transcription. J. Bacteriol. 179:423-429[Abstract/Free Full Text].
10. Dickson, R. C., J. Abelson, P. Johnson, W. S. Reznikoff, and W. M. Barnes. 1977. Nucleotide sequence changes produced by mutations in the lac promoter of Escherichia coli. J. Mol. Biol. 111:65-75[Medline].
11. Dombroski, A. J., W. A. Walter, M. T. Record, Jr., D. A. Siegele, and C. A. Gross. 1992. Polypeptides containing highly conserved regions of transcription initiation factor sigma 70 exhibit specificity of binding to promoter DNA. Cell 70:501-512[Medline].
12. Ellinger, T., D. Behnke, R. Knaus, H. Bujard, and J. D. Gralla. 1994. Context-dependent effects of upstream A-tracts. Stimulation or inhibition of Escherichia coli promoter function. J. Mol. Biol. 239:466-475[Medline].
13. Estrem, S. T., T. Gaal, W. Ross, and R. L. Gourse. 1998. Identification of an UP element consensus sequence for bacterial promoters. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95:9761-9766[Abstract/Free Full Text].
14. Estrem, S. T., W. Ross, S. Chen, T. Gaal, W. Niu, R. H. Ebright, and R. L. Gourse. Unpublished observations.
15. Finkel, S. E., and R. C. Johnson. 1992. The Fis protein: it's not just for DNA inversion anymore. Mol. Microbiol. 6:3257-3265[Medline].
16. Flatow, U., G. V. Rajendrakumar, and S. Garges. 1996. Analysis of the spacer DNA between the cyclic AMP receptor protein binding site and the lac promoter. J. Bacteriol. 178:2436-2439[Abstract/Free Full Text].
17. Fong, R. S., S. Woody, and G. N. Gussin. 1994. Direct and indirect effects of mutations in lambda PRM on open complex formation at the divergent PR promoter. J. Mol. Biol. 240:119-126[Medline].
18. Fredrick, K., T. Caramori, Y.-F. Chen, A. Galizzi, and J. D. Helmann. 1995. Promoter architecture in the flagellar regulon of Bacillus subtilis: high-level expression of flagellin by the sigma D RNA polymerase requires an upstream promoter element. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92:2582-2586[Abstract/Free Full Text].
19. Frisby, D., and P. Zuber. 1991. Analysis of the upstream activating sequence and site of carbon and nitrogen source repression in the promoter of an early-induced sporulation gene of Bacillus subtilis. J. Bacteriol. 173:7557-7564[Abstract/Free Full Text].
20. Gaal, T., L. Rao, S. T. Estrem, J. Yang, R. M. Wartell, and R. L. Gourse. 1994. Localization of the intrinsically bent DNA region upstream of the E. coli rrnB P1 promoter. Nucleic Acids Res. 22:2344-2350[Abstract/Free Full Text].
21. Gaal, T., W. Ross, E. E. Blatter, H. Tang, X. Jia, V. V. Krishnan, N. Assa-Munt, R. H. Ebright, and R. L. Gourse. 1996. DNA-binding determinants of the alpha  subunit of RNA polymerase: novel DNA-binding domain architecture. Genes Dev. 10:16-26[Abstract/Free Full Text].
22. Gaal, T., M. S. Bartlett, W. Ross, C. L. Turnbough, Jr., and R. L. Gourse. 1997. Transcription regulation by initiating NTP concentration: rRNA synthesis in bacteria. Science 278:2092-2097[Abstract/Free Full Text].
23. Galas, D. J., M. Eggert, and M. S. Waterman. 1985. Rigorous pattern-recognition methods for DNA sequences. Analysis of promoter sequences from Escherichia coli. J. Mol. Biol. 186:117-128[Medline].
24. Gartenberg, M. R., and D. M. Crothers. 1991. Synthetic DNA bending sequences increase the rate of in vitro transcription initiation at the Escherichia coli lac promoter. J. Mol. Biol. 219:217-230[Medline].
25. Giladi, H., K. Murakami, A. Ishihama, and A. B. Oppenheim. 1996. Identification of an UP element within the IHF binding site at the PL1-PL2 tandem promoter of bacteriophage lambda . J. Mol. Biol. 260:484-491[Medline].
26. Grana, D., T. Gardella, and M. M. Susskind. 1988. The effects of mutations in the ant promoter of phage P22 depend on context. Genetics 120:319-327[Abstract/Free Full Text].
27. Graves, M. C., and J. C. Rabinowitz. 1986. In vivo and in vitro transcription of the Clostridium pasteurianum ferredoxin gene. Evidence for "extended" promoter elements in gram positive organisms. J. Biol. Chem. 261:11409-11415[Abstract/Free Full Text].
28. Harley, C. B., and R. P. Reynolds. 1987. Analysis of E. coli promoter sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 15:2343-2361[Abstract/Free Full Text].
29. Hawley, D. K., and W. R. McClure. 1983. Compilation and analysis of Escherichia coli promoter DNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 11:2237-2255[Abstract/Free Full Text].
30. Helmann, J. D. 1995. Compilation and analysis of Bacillus subtilis sigma A-dependent promoter sequences: evidence for extended contact between RNA polymerase and upstream promoter DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 23:2351-2360[Abstract/Free Full Text].
31. Hsu, L. M., J. K. Giannini, T.-W. C. Leung, and J. C. Crosthwaite. 1991. Upstream sequence activation of Escherichia coli argT promoter in vivo and in vitro. Biochemistry 30:813-822[Medline].
32. Jeon, Y. H., T. Yamazaki, T. Otomo, A. Ishihama, and Y. Kyogoku. 1997. Flexible linker in the RNA polymerase alpha subunit facilitates the independent motion of the C-terminal activator contact domain. J. Mol. Biol. 267:953-962[Medline].
33. Josaitis, C. A., T. Gaal, W. Ross, and R. L. Gourse. 1990. Sequences upstream of the -35 hexamer of rrnB P1 affect promoter strength and upstream activation. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1050:307-311[Medline].
34. Kolb, A., K. Igarashi, A. Ishihama, M. Lavigne, M. Buckle, and H. Buc. 1993. E. coli RNA polymerase, deleted in the C-terminal part of its alpha -subunit, interacts differently with the cAMP-CRP complex at the lacP1 and at the galP1 promoter. Nucleic Acids Res. 21:319-326[Abstract/Free Full Text].
35. Koo, H.-S., H.-M. Wu, and D. M. Crothers. 1986. DNA bending at adenine · thymine tracts. Nature 320:501-506[Medline].
36. Landini, P., and M. R. Volkert. 1995. RNA polymerase alpha  subunit binding site in positively controlled promoters: a new model for RNA polymerase-promoter interaction and transcriptional activation in the Escherichia coli ada and aidB genes. EMBO J. 14:4329-4335[Medline].
37. Lavigne, M., M. Herbert, A. Kolb, and H. Buc. 1992. Upstream curved sequences influence the initiation of transcription at the Escherichia coli galactose operon. J. Mol. Biol. 224:293-306[Medline].
38. Lisser, S., and H. Margalit. 1993. Compilation of E. coli mRNA promoter sequences. Nucleic Acids. Res. 21:1507-1516[Abstract/Free Full Text].
39. McAllister, C. F., and E. C. Achberger. 1988. Effect of polyadenine-containing curved DNA on promoter utilization in Bacillus subtilis. J. Biol. Chem. 263:11743-11749[Abstract/Free Full Text].
40. McAllister, C. F., and E. C. Achberger. 1989. Rotational orientation of upstream curved DNA affects promoter function in Bacillus subtilis. J. Biol. Chem. 264:10451-10456[Abstract/Free Full Text].
41. Miller, J. H. 1972. Experiments in molecular genetics. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.
42. Mulligan, M. E., D. K. Hawley, R. Entriken, and W. R. McClure. 1984. Escherichia coli promoter sequences predict in vitro RNA polymerase selectivity. Nucleic Acids Res. 12:789-800.
43. Murakami, K., J. T. Owens, T. A. Belyaeva, C. F. Meares, S. J. Busby, and A. Ishihama. 1997. Positioning of two alpha subunit carboxy-terminal domains of RNA polymerase at promoters by two transcription factors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94:11274-11278[Abstract/Free Full Text].
44. Newlands, J., C. Josaitis, W. Ross, and R. L. Gourse. 1992. Both FIS-dependent and factor-independent upstream activation of the rrnB P1 promoter are face of the helix dependent. Nucleic Acids Res. 20:719-726[Abstract/Free Full Text].
45. Newlands, J. T., W. Ross, K. K. Gosink, and R. L. Gourse. 1991. Factor-independent activation of Escherichia coli rRNA transcription. II. Characterization of complexes of rrnB P1 promoters containing or lacking the upstream activator region with Escherichia coli RNA polymerase. J. Mol. Biol. 220:560-583.
46. O'Halloran, T. V., B. Frantz, M. K. Shin, D. M. Ralston, and J. G. Wright. 1989. The MerR heavy metal receptor mediates positive activation in a topologically novel transcription complex. Cell 56:119-129[Medline].
47. Ozoline, O. N., and M. A. Tsyganov. 1995. Structure of open promoter complexes with Escherichia coli RNA polymerase as revealed by the DNase I footprinting technique: compilation analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 23:4533-4541[Abstract/Free Full Text].
48. Ozoline, O. N., A. A. Deev, and M. V. Arkhipova. 1997. Non-canonical sequence elements in the promoter structure. Cluster analysis of promoters recognized by Escherichia coli RNA polymerase. Nucleic Acids Res. 25:4703-4709[Abstract/Free Full Text].
49. Perez-Martin, J., F. Rojo, and V. de Lorenzo. 1994. Promoters responsive to DNA bending: a common theme in prokaryotic gene expression. Microbiol. Rev. 58:268-290[Abstract/Free Full Text].
50. Rao, L., W. Ross, J. A. Appleman, T. Gaal, S. Leirmo, P. Schlax, M. T. Record, and R. L. Gourse. 1994. Factor independent activation of rrnB P1. An "extended" promoter with an upstream element that dramatically increases promoter strength. J. Mol. Biol. 235:1421-1435[Medline].
51. Ross, W. Unpublished observations.
52. Ross, W., J. F. Thompson, J. T. Newlands, and R. L. Gourse. 1990. E. coli Fis protein activates ribosomal RNA transcription in vitro and in vivo. EMBO J. 9:3733-3742[Medline].
53. Ross, W., K. K. Gosink, J. Salomon, K. Igarashi, C. Zou, A. Ishihama, K. Severinov, and R. L. Gourse. 1993. A third recognition element in bacterial promoters: DNA binding by the alpha subunit of RNA polymerase. Science 262:1407-1413[Abstract/Free Full Text].
54. Sander, P., W. Langert, and K. Mueller. 1993. Mechanisms of upstream activation of the rrnD promoter P1 of Escherichia coli. J. Biol. Chem. 268:16907-16916[Abstract/Free Full Text].
55. Savery, N. J., V. A. Rhodius, H. J. Wing, and S. J. W. Busby. 1995. Transcription activation at Escherichia coli promoters dependent on the cyclic AMP receptor protein: effects of binding sequences for the RNA polymerase alpha  subunit. Biochem. J. 309:77-83.
56. Schickor, P., W. Metzger, W. Werel, H. Lederer, and H. Heumann. 1990. Topography of intermediates in transcription initiation of E. coli. EMBO J. 9:2215-2220[Medline].
57. Suck, D., and C. Oefner. 1986. Structure of DNAse I at 2.0 A resolution suggests a mechanism for binding to and cutting DNA. Nature 321:620-625[Medline].
58. Suh, W.-C., W. Ross, and M. T. Record, Jr. 1993. Two open complexes and a requirement for Mg2+ to open the lambda PR transcription start site. Science 259:358-361[Abstract/Free Full Text].
59. Tang, H., K. Severinov, A. Goldfarb, D. Fenyo, B. Chait, and R. H. Ebright. 1994. Location, structure, and function of the target of a transcriptional activator protein. Genes Dev. 8:3058-3067[Abstract/Free Full Text].
60. van Putten, A. J., R. de Lang, E. Veltkamp, H. J. J. Nijkamp, P. van Solingen, and J. A. van den Berg. 1986. Methylation-dependent transcription controls plasmid replication of the CloDF13 cop-1(Ts) mutant. J. Bacteriol. 168:728-733[Abstract/Free Full Text].
61. van Ulsen, P., M. Hillebrand, M. Kainz, R. Collard, L. Zulianello, P. van de Putte, R. L. Gourse, and N. Goosen. 1997. Function of the C-terminal domain of the alpha subunit of Escherichia coli RNA polymerase in basal expression and integration host factor-mediated activation of the early promoter of bacteriophage Mu. J. Bacteriol. 179:530-537[Abstract/Free Full Text].
62. Youderian, P., S. Bouvier, and M. M. Susskind. 1982. Sequence determinants of promoter activity. Cell 30:843-853[Medline].
63. Young, M. A., J. Srinivasan, I. Goljer, S. Kumar, D. L. Beveridge, and P. H. Bolton. 1995. Structure determination and analysis of local bending in an A-tract DNA duplex: comparison of results from crystallography, nuclear magnetic resonance, and molecular dynamics simulation on d(CGCAAAAATGCG). Methods Enzymol. 261:121-144[Medline].

Journal of Bacteriology, October 1998, p. 5375-5383, Vol. 180, No. 20
0021-9193/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.


This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Singh, A. K., Pindi, P. K., Dube, S., Sundareswaran, V. R., Shivaji, S. (2009). Importance of trmE for Growth of the Psychrophile Pseudomonas syringae at Low Temperatures. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75: 4419-4426 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Collado-Vides, J., Salgado, H., Morett, E., Gama-Castro, S., Jimenez-Jacinto, V., Martinez-Flores, I., Medina-Rivera, A., Muniz-Rascado, L., Peralta-Gil, M., Santos-Zavaleta, A. (2009). Bioinformatics Resources for the Study of Gene Regulation in Bacteria. J. Bacteriol. 191: 23-31 [Full Text]  
  • Husnain, S. I., Thomas, M. S. (2008). Downregulation of the Escherichia coli guaB promoter by FIS. Microbiology 154: 1729-1738 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Husnain, S. I., Thomas, M. S. (2008). The UP Element Is Necessary but Not Sufficient for Growth Rate-Dependent Control of the Escherichia coli guaB Promoter. J. Bacteriol. 190: 2450-2457 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Kaczanowska, M., Ryden-Aulin, M. (2007). Ribosome Biogenesis and the Translation Process in Escherichia coli. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 71: 477-494 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Han, S. O., Inui, M., Yukawa, H. (2007). Expression of Corynebacterium glutamicum glycolytic genes varies with carbon source and growth phase. Microbiology 153: 2190-2202 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Quinones, M., Kimsey, H. H., Ross, W., Gourse, R. L., Waldor, M. K. (2006). LexA Represses CTX{Phi} Transcription by Blocking Access of the {alpha} C-terminal Domain of RNA Polymerase to Promoter DNA. J. Biol. Chem. 281: 39407-39412 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Muramatsu, M., Hihara, Y. (2006). Characterization of High-light-responsive Promoters of the psaAB Genes in Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803. Plant Cell Physiol 47: 878-890 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • MacLellan, S. R., MacLean, A. M., Finan, T. M. (2006). Promoter prediction in the rhizobia. Microbiology 152: 1751-1763 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Pal, D., Venkova-Canova, T., Srivastava, P., Chattoraj, D. K. (2005). Multipartite Regulation of rctB, the Replication Initiator Gene of Vibrio cholerae Chromosome II. J. Bacteriol. 187: 7167-7175 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Davis, C. A., Capp, M. W., Record, M. T. Jr, Saecker, R. M. (2005). The effects of upstream DNA on open complex formation by Escherichia coli RNA polymerase. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102: 285-290 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Ross, W., Gourse, R. L. (2005). Sequence-independent upstream DNA-{alpha}CTD interactions strongly stimulate Escherichia coli RNA polymerase-lacUV5 promoter association. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102: 291-296 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Michalowski, C. B., Short, M. D., Little, J. W. (2004). Sequence Tolerance of the Phage {lambda} PRM Promoter: Implications for Evolution of Gene Regulatory Circuitry. J. Bacteriol. 186: 7988-7999 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Tiemann, B., Depping, R., Gineikiene, E., Kaliniene, L., Nivinskas, R., Ruger, W. (2004). ModA and ModB, Two ADP-Ribosyltransferases Encoded by Bacteriophage T4: Catalytic Properties and Mutation Analysis. J. Bacteriol. 186: 7262-7272 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Liu, M., Tolstorukov, M., Zhurkin, V., Garges, S., Adhya, S. (2004). A mutant spacer sequence between -35 and -10 elements makes the Plac promoter hyperactive and cAMP receptor protein-independent. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101: 6911-6916 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Meijer, W. J. J., Salas, M. (2004). Relevance of UP elements for three strong Bacillus subtilis phage {phi}29 promoters. Nucleic Acids Res 32: 1166-1176 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Seoh, H. K., Weech, M., Zhang, N., Squires, C. L. (2003). rRNA Antitermination Functions with Heat Shock Promoters. J. Bacteriol. 185: 6486-6489 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Macchi, R., Montesissa, L., Murakami, K., Ishihama, A., de Lorenzo, V., Bertoni, G. (2003). Recruitment of {sigma}54-RNA Polymerase to the Pu Promoter of Pseudomonas putida through Integration Host Factor-mediated Positioning Switch of {alpha} Subunit Carboxyl-terminal Domain on an UP-like Element. J. Biol. Chem. 278: 27695-27702 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Ross, W., Schneider, D. A., Paul, B. J., Mertens, A., Gourse, R. L. (2003). An intersubunit contact stimulating transcription initiation by E. coli RNA polymerase: interaction of the alpha C-terminal domain and sigma region 4. Genes Dev. 17: 1293-1307 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Miller, E. S., Kutter, E., Mosig, G., Arisaka, F., Kunisawa, T., Ruger, W. (2003). Bacteriophage T4 Genome. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 67: 86-156 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Starcic, M., Zgur-Bertok, D., Jordi, B. J. A. M., Wosten, M. M. S. M., Gaastra, W., van Putten, J. P. M. (2003). The Cyclic AMP-Cyclic AMP Receptor Protein Complex Regulates Activity of the traJ Promoter of the Escherichia coli Conjugative Plasmid pRK100. J. Bacteriol. 185: 1616-1623 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Murray, H. D., Appleman, J. A., Gourse, R. L. (2003). Regulation of the Escherichia coli rrnB P2 Promoter. J. Bacteriol. 185: 28-34 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Ohtsubo, Y., Shimura, M., Delawary, M., Kimbara, K., Takagi, M., Kudo, T., Ohta, A., Nagata, Y. (2003). Novel Approach to the Improvement of Biphenyl and Polychlorinated Biphenyl Degradation Activity: Promoter Implantation by Homologous Recombination. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69: 146-153 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Anthony, L. C., Burgess, R. R. (2002). Conformational Flexibility in sigma 70 Region 2 during Transcription Initiation. J. Biol. Chem. 277: 46433-46441 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Finney, A. H., Blick, R. J., Murakami, K., Ishihama, A., Stevens, A. M. (2002). Role of the C-Terminal Domain of the Alpha Subunit of RNA Polymerase in LuxR-Dependent Transcriptional Activation of the lux Operon during Quorum Sensing. J. Bacteriol. 184: 4520-4528 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Aiyar, S. E., Gaal, T., Gourse, R. L. (2002). rRNA Promoter Activity in the Fast-Growing Bacterium Vibrio natriegens. J. Bacteriol. 184: 1349-1358 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Ozoline, O. N., Fujita, N., Ishihama, A. (2001). Mode of DNA-protein interaction between the C-terminal domain of Escherichia coli RNA polymerase {alpha} subunit and T7D promoter UP element. Nucleic Acids Res 29: 4909-4919 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Hirvonen, C. A., Ross, W., Wozniak, C. E., Marasco, E., Anthony, J. R., Aiyar, S. E., Newburn, V. H., Gourse, R. L. (2001). Contributions of UP Elements and the Transcription Factor FIS to Expression from the Seven rrn P1 Promoters in Escherichia coli. J. Bacteriol. 183: 6305-6314 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Meng, W., Belyaeva, T., Savery, N. J., Busby, S. J. W., Ross, W. E., Gaal, T., Gourse, R. L., Thomas, M. S. (2001). UP element-dependent transcription at the Escherichia coli rrnB P1 promoter: positional requirements and role of the RNA polymerase {alpha} subunit linker. Nucleic Acids Res 29: 4166-4178 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Doree, S. M., Mulks, M. H. (2001). Identification of an Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae Consensus Promoter Structure. J. Bacteriol. 183: 1983-1989 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Ross, W., Ernst, A., Gourse, R. L. (2001). Fine structure of E. coli RNA polymerase-promoter interactions: {alpha} subunit binding to the UP element minor groove. Genes Dev. 15: 491-506 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Bolshoy, A., Nevo, E. (2000). Ecologic Genomics of DNA: Upstream Bending in Prokaryotic Promoters. Genome Res 10: 1185-1193 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • O'Connell, K. P., Thomashow, M. F. (2000). Transcriptional Organization and Regulation of a Polycistronic Cold Shock Operon in Sinorhizobium meliloti RM1021 Encoding Homologs of the Escherichia coli Major Cold Shock Gene cspA and Ribosomal Protein Gene rpsU. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66: 392-400 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Strainic, M. G. Jr., Sullivan, J. J., Collado-Vides, J., deHaseth, P. L. (2000). Promoter Interference in a Bacteriophage Lambda Control Region: Effects of a Range of Interpromoter Distances. J. Bacteriol. 182: 216-220 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Rouanet, C., Nomura, K., Tsuyumu, S., Nasser, W. (1999). Regulation of pelD and pelE, Encoding Major Alkaline Pectate Lyases in Erwinia chrysanthemi: Involvement of the Main Transcriptional Factors. J. Bacteriol. 181: 5948-5957 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Estrem, S. T., Ross, W., Gaal, T., Chen, Z. W. S., Niu, W., Ebright, R. H., Gourse, R. L. (1999). Bacterial promoter architecture: subsite structure of UP elements and interactions with the carboxy-terminal domain of the RNA polymerase alpha subunit. Genes Dev. 13: 2134-2147 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Tagami, H., Aiba, H. (1999). An inactive open complex mediated by an UP element at Escherichia coli promoters. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96: 7202-7207 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Aiyar, S. E., Gourse, R. L., Ross, W. (1998). Upstream A-tracts increase bacterial promoter activity through interactions with the RNA polymerase alpha  subunit. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95: 14652-14657 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • GOURSE, R.L., GAAL, T., AIYAR, S.E., BARKER, M.M., ESTREM, S.T., HIRVONEN, C.A., ROSS, W. (1998). Strength and Regulation without Transcription Factors: Lessons from Bacterial rRNA Promoters. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 63: 131-140 [Abstract]  
  • Orsini, G., Kolb, A., Buc, H. (2001). The Escherichia coli RNA Polymerase{middle dot}Anti-sigma 70 AsiA Complex Utilizes alpha -Carboxyl-terminal Domain Upstream Promoter Contacts to Transcribe from a -10/-35 Promoter. J. Biol. Chem. 276: 19812-19819 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ross, W.
Right arrow Articles by Gourse, R. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ross, W.
Right arrow Articles by Gourse, R. L.

Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»