This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Strainic, M. G. Articles by deHaseth, P. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Strainic, M. G., Jr. Articles by deHaseth, P. L.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Bacteriology, January 2000, p. 216-220, Vol. 182, No. 1
0021-9193/0/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Promoter Interference in a Bacteriophage Lambda Control Region: Effects of a Range of Interpromoter Distances

Department of Biochemistry, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106-4935,¹ and Centro de Investigación sobre Fijación de Nitrógeno, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Cuernavaca A.P. 565-A, Morelos 62100, Mexico²

Received 19 July 1999/Accepted 6 October 1999

	ABSTRACT

Top Abstract Text References

The p_R and p_RM promoters of bacteriophage lambda direct transcription in divergent directions from start sites separated by 83 phosphodiester bonds. We had previously shown that the presence of an RNA polymerase at p_R interfered with open complex formation at p_RM and that this effect was alleviated by the deletion of 10 bp between the two promoters. Here we present a detailed characterization of the dependence of the interference on the interpromoter distance. It was found that the reduced interference between the two promoters is unique to the 10-bp deletion. The relief of interference was demonstrated to be due to the facilitation of a step subsequent to RNA polymerase binding to the p_RM promoter. A model to explain these observations is proposed. A search of known Escherichia coli promoters identified three pairs of divergent promoters with similar separations to those investigated here.

	TEXT

Top Abstract Text References

In the rightward control region of bacteriophage lambda, transcription is initiated in divergent directions from two promoters, p_R and p_RM, that have start sites separated by 83 phosphodiester bonds (pdb; we are using this designation to avoid ambiguity in the representation of the distance between start sites). These two promoters are among those responsible for implementing the decision as to whether viral development will proceed along the lytic or lysogenic pathways (27). The p_R promoter has greater similarity to the promoter consensus sequence than the p_RM promoter (27). As a consequence, open complex formation at p_R is accomplished in seconds but under the same conditions requires tens of minutes at p_RM (15, 27, 34). Therefore, for the wild-type control region, in vitro RNA polymerase (RNAP)-p_RM interactions occur almost exclusively in the context of another RNAP already bound to p_R. It has been previously shown that this p_R-bound RNAP interferes with open complex formation at p_RM (16, 17, 21, 34, 37). The effect is not exerted at the initial binding of RNAP to the promoter but rather at a subsequent step (16, 34) that is likely a conformational change in the RNAP (9). Eventually, open complexes do form at p_RM and coexist with those at p_R (16, 25). The converse of the situation described above has also been shown: when p_R has been weakened due to base substitutions, its ability to form open complexes is affected by the presence of p_RM on the same DNA fragment (11).

Only 13 pdb separate the start site-distal edges of the 35 regions of the p_R and p_RM promoters. Given such a short interpromoter distance, it was suggested that the p_R-bound RNAP was slowing open complex formation at p_RM because of steric hindrance. Consistent with this notion, deletion of 1 bp between the 35 regions was found to further reduce the rate of open complex formation at p_RM (40). However, it has also been shown that when the distance between the 35 regions of the promoters is shortened by the deletion of 10 bp (one turn of the DNA helix), unexpectedly the inhibition of open complex formation at p_RM is greatly diminished (21). In other phages where the interpromoter distance at p_R and p_RM is even shorter, such as 434 (66 pdb between start sites) and P22 (52 pdb), concurrent occupancy of the promoters is not observed (8, 41).

To further explore this phenomenon, a series of deletions between the 35 regions of p_R and p_RM was generated to examine the length dependence of inhibition at the p_RM promoter by the presence of RNAP at the p_R promoter. DNA constructs lacking 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 bp between the 35 regions of the two promoters were made (Fig. 1). The distance between the 35 regions of the p_RM and p_R promoters was deleted, starting from the edge of the 35 region proximal to p_RM. The constructs are designated as Dn, where n is the number of base pairs that have been deleted. The promoters were constructed from synthetic oligodeoxyribonucleotides and cloned into the pKK232-8 vector by using BamHI and HindIII restriction sites as described previously (21) and sequenced. The location of the strand-separated region at both promoters was checked by KMnO₄ footprinting and found not to be affected by the deletions (data not shown).

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 1.   Constructs used in this study. The sequences shown were cloned into the pKK232-8 plasmid vector for E. coli at BamHI and HindIII restriction sites. The pR promoter was inactivated by introduction of three base pair substitutions in its 10 region, which are shown in boldface type. The 10 and 35 regions are boxed. The position of the region shortened in the deletion mutants is indicated in italic letters. The deletions start from the upstream edge of the 35 of the pRM promoter and progress towards the pR promoter. Constructs are designated as Dn, with n indicating the number of base pairs deleted. For example, the sequence between the 35 regions is CACGCACGG (top strand in the figure) for the D3 mutant.

Determination of open complex formation by the electrophoretic mobility shift assay. Open complex formation at the p_RM promoter was monitored with an electrophoretic mobility shift assay carried out as described by Mita et al. (21). Approximately 1 to 2 nM ³²P-labeled promoter DNA was incubated at 37°C with RNAP (activity, 50% ± 10% [mean ± standard deviation]), at a concentration of active enzyme of 100 nM, in 20 µl of HEPES buffer (30 mM HEPES [pH 7.6], 100 mM KCl, 10 mM MgCl₂, 1 mM dithiothreitol) containing 50 µg of bovine serum albumin per ml. After the addition of 1 µl of a 1-mg/ml solution of heparin to inactivate free RNAP as well as closed complexes and incubation for an additional minute at 37°C, 2 µl of a loading solution (30% glycerol, 0.25% bromophenol blue, 0.25% xylenecyanolphenolfluorine) was added to each reaction mixture prior to loading onto a 4% polyacrylamide gel (29:1 acrylamide-bisacrylamide). The gels were run in TAE buffer (0.04 M Tris-acetate, 0.001 M EDTA) at 6 V/cm for 1.5 h and then exposed to X-ray film to detect the radioactive bands. Two complex bands were observed. On the basis of actual footprinting of the complexes (21), we were able to determine that the faster-moving band represented DNA with an open complex at p_R only and the slower one represented a complex of DNA and RNAP bound in open complexes at both p_R and p_RM (see also Results). Open complexes at both promoters are very stable (reference 28 and our unpublished results); thus, no significant dissociation or redistribution of RNAP is expected to occur during electrophoresis of the complexes.

Full saturation of the p_R promoter occurs before our first time point (taken at 2 min) and probably within seconds (21, 28). Next, the much slower process of open complex formation at p_RM takes place. Our measurements follow the rate of conversion of DNA with one open complex (at p_R) to that with two open complexes (at p_R and p_RM) and thus the rate of open complex formation at p_RM. A comparison of the pseudo-first-order rate constants (k_obs) for the binding of RNAP to the p_RM promoter in the context of the different deletions is graphically shown in Fig. 2a, and the values for k_obs for each promoter deletion mutant are given in Table 1. The D10 construct is seen to be unique in the rate with which p_RM can form an open complex with RNAP, which was enhanced greater than twofold on this construct. The rate of open complex formation at p_RM was slowest for the D8 construct.

View larger version (36K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 2.   Activity of the pRM promoter is maximal for a 10-bp deletion in the region separating pRM and pR in both electrophoretic mobility shift and runoff transcription assays. The x-axis represents the number of base pairs deleted between the 35 regions of pR and pRM. (a) Comparison of the average kobs for open complex formation at pRM for each of the promoter variants. The radioactivity in each band, as a percentage of the total in the lane, was plotted against the time of incubation with the RNAP, and the kobs for each DNA was determined by fitting the data to the equation y = Yf · {1  exp[(t) · kobs]} + Yo, where y = the percent of open complexes formed, t = time after RNAP mixing, and Yf and Yo are the limiting values for y. (b) Data from runoff transcription assays. The y-axis is the ratio of the band intensity for transcription derived for the pRM promoter compared to the total density of the lane. The empty bars represent the relative amounts of RNA transcribed after incubating the RNAP with promoter for 5 min, while the solid bars represent the relative amounts of RNA synthesized after a 30-min preincubation.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   TABLE 1.   Average kobs of the promoter deletion mutants

Run-off transcription assays. The ability of RNAP to form open complexes at p_RM for each of the constructs was also determined with a single-round runoff transcription assay. Approximately 5 nM promoter was incubated with 50 nM RNAP in HEPES buffer for either 5 or 30 min, followed by a 1-min incubation with heparin (50 µg/ml). To allow RNA synthesis, ATP, CTP, and GTP were added to 200 µM and UTP (including [³²P]UTP) was added to 2 µM. After 10 min, UTP was added to 500 µM and the reaction mixture was incubated for an additional 5 min to ensure complete elongation of all transcripts. Finally, the products were separated on a denaturing gel. Bands apparent after exposure of the gel to Kodak Biomax film were scanned, and the intensities were normalized to the sum of the intensities of the p_RM and p_R bands.

The amount of runoff product made in this assay is a reflection of the number of open complexes formed during the incubation of RNAP and the promoter, prior to the addition of heparin. The results of these experiments are shown in Fig. 2b. For all constructs, the p_RM promoter was found to be competent to initiate RNA synthesis (results not shown). Relative to the other deletion mutants, again a sharp increase is seen in the amount of RNA synthesized from the p_RM promoter on the D10 template. In this assay, but not the gel mobility shift experiments, the D6 and D7 constructs also show elevated levels of RNA synthesis, albeit not quite as high as that for D10. We do not understand the underlying cause of this difference between the two assays for these two constructs.

Dependence of k_obs on RNAP concentration for the wild type and D10 spacing between p_R and p_RM. The results described above, as well as those from our previous studies (21, 37), indicate that utilization of the p_RM promoter on the construct with the 10-bp deletion was significantly increased in comparison to that on constructs with the wild-type or other spacings between the p_RM and p_R promoters. To better understand the effect of the 10-bp deletion on open complex formation at p_RM, we determined the dependence of k_obs on RNAP concentration for two promoter mutants, D10 and p_R/p_RM. The rates of open complex formation were determined for each concentration of RNAP as described above. The dependence of k_obs on the concentration of RNAP is shown in Fig. 3; the data were fit as described in the figure legend to obtain the values of the association constant for RNAP binding to the promoter in a closed complex (K_B) and the first-order rate constant for the conversion of the closed to the open promoter complex (k_f). The values of K_B (7 × 10⁷ ± 3 × 10⁷ M¹) and k_f (0.13 ± 0.02 min¹) for the p_R/p_RM construct determined here were similar to those previously reported (16). The fact that mainly k_f is increased when p_R is inactivated (12, 16) indicates that RNAP binding to p_RM is not affected but is rather a subsequent step on the pathway to formation of an open complex. For p_RM on D10, similar values for K_B (6 × 10⁷ ± 3 × 10⁷ M¹) and k_f (0.24 ± 0.04 min¹) are obtained, indicating that on this template the formation of an open complex at p_RM takes place as if the p_R promoter were not occupied. We routinely observe a slightly greater rate of open complex formation at p_RM in the D10 than in the p_R context (reflected here by a twofold-greater k_f) (see also references 21 and 37). However, since the effect is quite small, we have not attempted to characterize it further.

View larger version (16K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 3.   Dependence of kobs on RNAP concentration for the pR/pRM and D10 constructs. The kobs were determined as a function of [RNAP], and the data were fit to the equation kobs = (KB · kf) [RNAP]/(KB[RNAP] + 1), where [RNAP] is the concentration of enzyme, KB is the association constant for RNAP binding to the promoter in a closed complex, and kf is the first-order rate constant for the conversion of the closed to the open promoter complex. The curves are the result of the fits. Symbols: , promoter with the 10-bp deletion; , wild-type DNA that has had the pR promoter inactivated by the base changes indicated in Fig. 1. The DNA concentration was kept constant (approximately 1 to 2 nM) for all concentrations of RNAP.

Involvement of the -CTD in the interference of RNAP at p_R with open complex formation at p_RM. In Fig. 4 we present a model, refined from Tang et al. (37), that takes our results into account and also draws upon recent insights into the interaction of the  subunit of RNAP with upstream DNA sequences. As first shown for the rrnB P1 promoter, the alpha C-terminal domain (-CTD) binds sequence specifically to an A+T-rich region located between 40 and 60 (the UP element), thereby greatly activating RNA synthesis in vivo and the rate of open complex formation in vitro (30). However, at other promoters, there is also evidence for interactions of the -CTD with other DNA sequences in upstream regions at similar locations, both in the presence and absence of activator protein (7, 10, 13, 29, 37). The extent of activation that can result from such interactions has not been systematically studied. Based on results with RNAP deleted for the -CTD, we estimate that at the p_R and p_RM promoters, the interactions with upstream DNA stimulate open complex formation two- to threefold (37). Without the ability of interaction with upstream sequences, RNAP always exhibited a low level of activity at p_RM, even when the p_R promoter was inactivated or the template used bore the D10 template (37). These results provide a strong indication that on the D10 template the RNAP at p_RM was able to engage in upstream interactions even in the presence of another RNAP at p_R.

View larger version (54K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 4.   RNAP at pR interferes with open complex formation at pRM for the wild-type (a and b) but not the D10 (c) interpromoter distance. The  subunits of RNAP are shown in white, with the N-terminal domains anchored to the  and ' subunits of the RNAP (gray and striped regions) and the CTDs and the flexible linkers jutting away from RNAP. The pRM promoter is on the left, and pR is on the right. The sequences of the 10 and 35 regions are indicated for the nontemplate strand of each promoter. The spacer DNAs between the 10 and the 35 regions are shown as devoid of contacts with RNAP. (a) The 35 regions of pR and pRM are separated by 13 pdb. Within seconds of the addition of RNAP, an open complex forms at the pR promoter. Proposed upstream contacts of the -CTDs of the RNAP are shown. (b) Subsequent interaction of RNAP with pRM in the presence of an RNAP at pR. The RNAP at pR obstructs upstream access by the -CTDs of the RNAP at pRM. (c) The 35 regions of pR and pRM are separated by 2 bp. This closer-in arrangement allows the spacer DNAs of pR and pRM to be contacted by the -CTDs of the RNAP at the other promoter, facilitating open complex formation at pRM despite the presence of an RNAP at pR.

In the model presented in Fig. 4, on the template with the wild-type spacing between the two promoters, the interference of p_R-bound RNAP with open complex formation at p_RM is exerted via obstruction of interactions between the -CTD and DNA in the 40 to 60 region of p_RM. This obstruction would be relieved for the D10 construct. Here the 10-bp deletion between the 35 regions of p_RM and p_R makes the spacer DNA between the 10 and 35 regions of the p_R promoter coincident with bp 44 to 60 with respect to p_RM. We envisage that the -CTD of the RNAP at p_RM would be able to reach over the RNAP at p_R and contact this region. Few if any contacts have been demonstrated between promoter-bound RNAP and the spacer DNA (1, 35), so that the -CTD of the RNAP at p_RM may well be able to interact with the spacer DNA of p_R, even when both promoters are occupied. The steep dependence of promoter activity and the rate of open complex formation on the interpromoter distance may reflect several factors. For shorter deletions (longer interpromoter distances), less of the spacer DNA but more of the 10 region of p_R is at 40 to 60 with respect to p_RM, leading to obstruction akin to that mentioned above for the wild-type spacer. Conversely, the longer deletions D11 and D12 (with shorter interpromoter distances) would keep the entire spacer DNA within the 40 to 60 region, but steric clashes between the two RNAPs would then become prohibitively severe.

We show that the putative upstream interactions lead to an increase in k_f, which is in agreement not only with the mode of p_RM activation obtained when the p_R promoter is inactivated (12, 16) but also with that observed when p_RM is provided with a genuine UP element (36, 37). Thus, the model is consistent with the available experimental evidence indicating that upstream interactions of the -CTD facilitate a step subsequent to the initial binding of RNAP to the promoter.

Divergent promoters of E. coli. Divergent promoters are fairly common in E. coli as well. In a 1988 review (3), many instances of divergently transcribed promoters in a back-to-back orientation (i.e., directing the synthesis of nonoverlapping transcripts) similar to that of p_R and p_RM of phage lambda were recognized. For our current analysis, we focused on promoter pairs that had start sites separated by 120 pdb or fewer. We chose this distance as an upper limit based on the observed 60-bp upstream extension in DNA interactions at promoters containing upstream elements (30). Thus, it is likely that start site separations beyond this distance will allow unimpeded interactions of RNAP at either promoter. Our search of the database RegulonDB (31) for known E. coli promoters satisfying the above criteria identified 13 promoter pairs, five of which were also represented in the earlier compilation (3) (Table 2). Three cases for which the separation between the start sites is in the range of 71 to 83 pdb investigated here were identified. Interestingly, all three have a separation of 78 pdb, similar to that for the D5 deletion (this work and reference 21), where the interference was found to be rather pronounced. The regulatory significance of a separation by this distance has yet to be investigated.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   TABLE 2.   Back-to-back divergent promoters in E. coli

	ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We thank Alberto Santos for updating the literature references presented in Table 2.

This research was supported by grant GM 31808 from the National Institutes of Health (to P.L.H.). The core facility at Case Western Reserve University (oligonucleotide synthesis) is supported by U.S. Public Health Service grant P30CA43703.

	FOOTNOTES

^* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Biochemistry, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH 44106-4935. Phone: (216) 368-3684. Fax: (216) 368-4544. E-mail: pld2{at}po.cwru.edu.

	REFERENCES

Top Abstract Text References

1.	Auble, D. T., T. L. Allen, and P. L. deHaseth. 1986. Promoter recognition by Escherichia coli RNA Polymerase: effects of substitutions in the spacer DNA separating the 10 and 35 regions. J. Biol. Chem. 261:11202-11206[Abstract/Free Full Text].
2.	Aufrere, R., M. Tempete, and J. P. Bohin. 1986. Regulation of expression of the gene for vitamin B12 receptor cloned on a multicopy plasmid in Escherichia coli. Mol. Gen. Genet. 205:358-365[CrossRef][Medline].
3.	Beck, C. F., and R. A. J. Warren. 1988. Divergent promoters, a common form of gene organization. Microbiol. Rev. 52:318-326[Free Full Text].
4.	Blattner, F. R., G. R. Plunkett, C. A. Bloch, N. T. Perna, V. Burland, M. Riley, J. Collado-Vides, J. D. Glasner, C. K. Rode, G. F. Mayhew, J. Gregor, N. W. Davis, H. A. Kirkpatrick, M. A. Goeden, D. J. Rose, B. Mau, and Y. Shao. 1997. The complete genome sequence of Escherichia coli K-12. Science 277:1453-1474[Abstract/Free Full Text].
5.	Brandsma, J. A., D. Bosch, M. de Ruyter, and P. van de Putte. 1985. Analysis of the regulatory region of the ssb gene of Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res. 13:5095-5109[Abstract/Free Full Text].
6.	Burton, Z. F., C. A. Gross, K. K. Watanabe, and R. R. Burgess. 1983. The operon that encodes the sigma subunit of RNA polymerase also encodes ribosomal protein S21 and DNA primase in E. coli K12. Cell. 32:335-349[CrossRef][Medline].
7.	Busby, S., and R. H. Ebright. 1994. Promoter structure, promoter recognition and transcription activation in prokaryotes. Cell 79:743-746[Medline].
8.	Bushman, F. D. 1993. The bacteriophage 434 right operator. Roles of OR1, OR2 and OR3. J. Mol. Biol. 230:28-40[CrossRef][Medline].
9.	deHaseth, P. L., M. Zupancic, and M. T. Record, Jr. 1998. RNA polymerase-promoter interaction: the comings and goings of RNA polymerase. J. Bacteriol. 180:3019-3025[Free Full Text].
10.	Dove, S. L., J. K. Joung, and A. Hochschild. 1997. Activation of prokaryotic transcription through arbitrary protein-protein contacts. Nature 386:627-630[CrossRef][Medline].
11.	Fong, R. S.-C., 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[CrossRef][Medline].
12.	Fong, R. S.-C., S. Woody, and G. N. Gussin. 1993. Modulation of PRM activity by the lambda PR promoter in both the presence and absence of repressor. J. Mol. Biol. 232:792-804[CrossRef][Medline].
13.	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 . J. Mol. Biol. 260:484-491[CrossRef][Medline].
14.	Gustafsson, C., P. H. R. Lindström, T. G. Hagervall, K. B. Esberg, and G. R. Bjork. 1991. The trmA promoter has regulatory features and sequence elements in common with the rRNA P1 promoter family of Escherichia coli. J. Bacteriol. 173:1757-1764[Abstract/Free Full Text].
15.	Hawley, D., and W. R. McClure. 1982. Mechanism of activation of transcription initiation from the lambda PRM promoter. J. Mol. Biol. 157:493-525[CrossRef][Medline].
16.	Hershberger, P. A., and P. L. deHaseth. 1991. RNA polymerase bound to the PR promoter of bacteriophage lambda inhibits open complex formation at the divergently transcribed PRM promoter: implications for an indirect mechanism of transcriptional activation by lambda repressor. J. Mol. Biol. 222:479-494[CrossRef][Medline].
17.	Hershberger, P. A., B. C. Mita, A. Tripatara, and P. L. deHaseth. 1993. Interference by PR-bound RNA polymerase with PRM function in vitro. Modulation by the bacteriophage lambda cI protein. J. Biol. Chem. 268:8943-8948[Abstract/Free Full Text].
18.	Kirby, T. W., B. R. Hindenbach, and R. C. Greene. 1986. Regulation of in vivo transcription of the Escherichia coli K-12 metJBLF gene cluster. J. Bacteriol. 165:671-677[Abstract/Free Full Text].
19.	Kolling, R., and H. Lother. 1985. AsnC: an autogenously regulated activator of asparagine synthase A transcription in Escherichia coli. J. Bacteriol. 164:310-315[Abstract/Free Full Text].
20.	Miles, J. S., and J. R. Guest. 1984. Nucleotide sequence and transcriptional start point of the phosphomannose isomerase gene (manA) of Escherichia coli. Gene 32:41-48[CrossRef][Medline].
21.	Mita, B. C., Y. Tang, and P. L. deHaseth. 1995. Interference of PR-bound RNA polymerase with open complex formation at PRM is relieved by a 10-base pair deletion between the two promoters. J. Biol. Chem. 270:30428-30433[Abstract/Free Full Text].
22.	Neuwald, A. F., and G. V. Stauffer. 1989. An Escherichia coli membrane protein with a unique signal sequence. Gene 82:219-228[CrossRef][Medline].
23.	Ohmori, H., M. Kimura, T. Nagata, and Y. Sakakibara. 1984. Structural analysis of the dnaA and dnaN genes of Escherichia coli. Gene 28:159-170[CrossRef][Medline].
24.	Otsuka, A., and J. Abelson. 1978. The regulatory region of the biotin operon in Escherichia coli. Nature 276:689-694[CrossRef][Medline].
25.	Owens, E., and G. N. Gussin. 1983. Differential binding of RNA polymerase to the PRM and PR promoters of bacteriophage lambda. Gene 23:157-166[CrossRef][Medline].
26.	Pettis, G. S., T. J. Brickman, and M. A. McIntosh. 1988. Transcriptional mapping and nucleotide sequence of the Escherichia coli fepA-fes enterobactin region. Identification of a unique iron-regulated bidirectional promoter. J. Biol. Chem. 263:18857-18863[Abstract/Free Full Text].
27.	Ptashne, M. 1986. A genetic switch. Cell Press, Cambridge, Mass.
28.	Roe, J. H., R. R. Burgess, and M. T. Record, Jr. 1984. Kinetics and mechanism of the interaction of E. coli RNA polymerase with the PR promoter. J. Mol. Biol. 176:495-521[CrossRef][Medline].
29.	Ross, W., S. E. Aiyar, J. Salomon, and R. L. Gourse. 1998. Escherichia coli promoters with UP elements of different strengths: modular structure of bacterial promoters. J. Bacteriol. 180:5375-5383[Abstract/Free Full Text].
30.	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].
31.	Salgado, H., A. Santos, U. Garza-Ramos, J. vanHelden, E. Diaz, and J. Collado-Vides. 1999. RegulonDB (version 2.0): a database on transcriptional regulation in Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res. 27:519-607.
32.	Sancar, A., G. B. Sancar, W. D. Rupp, J. W. Little, and D. W. Mount. 1982. LexA protein inhibits transcription of the E. coli uvrA gene in vitro. Nature 298:96-98[CrossRef][Medline].
33.	Schoenlein, P. V., B. B. Roa, and M. E. Winkler. 1989. Divergent transcription of pdxB and homology between the pdxB and serA gene products in Escherichia coli K-12. J. Bacteriol. 171:6084-6092[Abstract/Free Full Text].
34.	Shih, M.-C., and G. N. Gussin. 1983. Mutations affecting two different steps in transcription initiation at the phage  PRM promoter. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 80:496-500[Abstract/Free Full Text].
35.	Siebenlist, U., R. B. Simpson, and W. Gilbert. 1980. E. coli RNA polymerase interacts homologously with two different promoters. Cell 20:269-281[CrossRef][Medline].
36.	Strainic, M. G., Jr., J. J. Sullivan, A. Velevis, and P. L. deHaseth. 1998. Promoter recognition by Escherichia coli RNA polymerase: effects of the UP element on open complex formation and promoter clearance. Biochemistry 37:18074-18080[CrossRef][Medline].
37.	Tang, Y., K. Murakami, A. Ishihama, and P. L. deHaseth. 1996. Upstream interactions at the lambda PRM promoter are sequence nonspecific and activate the promoter to a lesser extent than an introduced UP element of an rRNA promoter. J. Bacteriol. 178:6945-6951[Abstract/Free Full Text].
38.	Weiss, D. L., D. I. Johnson, H. L. Weith, and R. L. Somerville. 1986. Structural analysis of the ileR locus of Escherichia coli K12. J. Biol. Chem. 261:9966-9971[Abstract/Free Full Text].
39.	Wek, R. C., and G. W. Hatfield. 1986. Nucleotide sequence and in vivo expression of the ilvY and ilvC genes in Escherichia coli K12. Transcription from divergent overlapping promoters. J. Biol. Chem. 261:2441-2450[Abstract/Free Full Text].
40.	Woody, S. T., R. S.-C. Fong, and G. N. Gussin. 1993. Effects of a single base-pair deletion in the bacteriophage lambda PRM promoter. Repression of PRM by repressor bound at OR2 and by RNA polymerase bound at PR. J. Mol. Biol. 229:37-51[CrossRef][Medline].
41.	Xu, J. 1999. The role of 434 repressor in regulating transcription initiation at bacteriophage 434 PR and PRM promoters. Ph.D. dissertation. State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Teif, V. B. (2007). General transfer matrix formalism to calculate DNA-protein-drug binding in gene regulation: application to OR operator of phage {lambda}. Nucleic Acids Res 35: e80-e80 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Ringgaard, S., Ebersbach, G., Borch, J., Gerdes, K. (2007). Regulatory Cross-talk in the Double par Locus of Plasmid pB171. J. Biol. Chem. 282: 3134-3145 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Hengen, P. N., Lyakhov, I. G., Stewart, L. E., Schneider, T. D. (2003). Molecular flip-flops formed by overlapping Fis sites. Nucleic Acids Res 31: 6663-6673 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Nieto, C., Puyet, A., Espinosa, M. (2001). MalR-mediated Regulation of the Streptococcus pneumoniae malMP Operon at Promoter PM. INFLUENCE OF A PROXIMAL DIVERGENT PROMOTER REGION AND COMPETITION BETWEEN MalR AND RNA POLYMERASE PROTEINS. J. Biol. Chem. 276: 14946-14954 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Strainic, M. G. Articles by deHaseth, P. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Strainic, M. G., Jr. Articles by deHaseth, P. L.