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 Ojangu, E.-L.
Right arrow Articles by Kivisaar, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ojangu, E.-L.
Right arrow Articles by Kivisaar, M.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Bacteriology, December 2000, p. 6707-6713, Vol. 182, No. 23
0021-9193/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Effects of Combination of Different -10 Hexamers and Downstream Sequences on Stationary-Phase-Specific Sigma Factor sigma S-Dependent Transcription in Pseudomonas putida

Eve-Ly Ojangu, Andres Tover, Riho Teras, and Maia Kivisaar*

Department of Genetics, Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, Estonian Biocentre and Tartu University, 51010 Tartu, Estonia

Received 10 July 2000/Accepted 12 September 2000


    ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results and Discussion
References

The main sigma factor activating gene expression, necessary in stationary phase and under stress conditions, is sigma S. In contrast to other minor sigma factors, RNA polymerase holoenzyme containing sigma S (Esigma S) recognizes a number of promoters which are also recognized by that containing sigma 70 (Esigma 70). We have previously shown that transposon Tn4652 can activate silent genes in starving Pseudomonas putida cells by creating fusion promoters during transposition. The sequence of the fusion promoters is similar to the sigma 70-specific promoter consensus. The -10 hexameric sequence and the sequence downstream from the -10 element differ among these promoters. We found that transcription from the fusion promoters is stationary phase specific. Based on in vivo experiments carried out with wild-type and rpoS-deficient mutant P. putida, the effect of sigma S on transcription from the fusion promoters was established only in some of these promoters. The importance of the sequence of the -10 hexamer has been pointed out in several published papers, but there is no information about whether the sequences downstream from the -10 element can affect sigma S-dependent transcription. Combination of the -10 hexameric sequences and downstream sequences of different fusion promoters revealed that sigma S-specific transcription from these promoters is not determined by the -10 hexameric sequence only. The results obtained in this study indicate that the sequence of the -10 element influences sigma S-specific transcription in concert with the sequence downstream from the -10 box.


    INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results and Discussion
References

In their natural environment, most bacteria are challenged by widely changing nutrient availability and by exposure to various forms of physical stress (temperature shock, oxidative stress, etc.). When starvation or various other stress factors cause a reduction or cessation of growth, many genes are shut down while others are induced to help the cells to survive. One way to modulate gene expression is replacement of the main sigma factor with an alternative sigma factor that recognizes a specific promoter of the stimulus response gene (reviewed in reference 19). In Escherichia coli, sigma S regulates the expression of more than 100 genes involved in cell survival in the stationary phase and in response to different stresses (reviewed in references 14 and 15). The rpoS gene encoding sigma S has been described also for nonenteric bacteria, e.g., fluorescent pseudomonads (21, 36, 37, 40). Despite clearly different physiological roles, sigma S is similar to the major sigma factor sigma 70 in terms of structure and molecular function (7, 26, 42). No clear differences between sigma 70- and sigma S-dependent promoters are apparent. A compilation of sigma S-dependent promoters deduced a -10 consensus sequence, CTATACT, that is slightly different from the typical TATAAT sequence recognized by sigma 70 (11). However, the binding patterns of Esigma S and Esigma 70 revealed by DNase I protection experiments are not completely identical (29, 41). Esigma S appears to be less dependent on contacts in the -35 region (7, 17, 41). The activity of Esigma S and Esigma 70 is differentially influenced by salt concentrations and by the degree of negative supercoiling of the DNA template (2, 10, 23). Additionally, a number of global regulators and histone-like proteins, such as H-NS, Lrp, CRP, IHF, and Fis, are involved in determination of sigma factor specificity (29; see also references 14 and 15 for a review and references cited therein).

We have previously shown the generation of constitutively expressed promoters in starving population of Pseudomonas putida cells as a result of base substitutions and deletions and insertion of Tn4652 (20, 33). These promoters, containing a sequence similar to the sigma 70-specific promoter consensus, activated the transcription of phenol degradation genes pheBA (which encode catechol 1,2-dioxygenase and phenol monooxygenase, respectively) and enabled bacteria to utilize phenol as a growth substrate. The fusion promoters were created at the junction of the sequence of the Tn4652 inverted repeats (provides a -35 hexamer) and the target DNA upstream of the phenol monooxygenase gene pheA (provides the -10 hexamer of the promoter) (20, 33) (Fig. 1). Thus, the sequences of the -10 hexamer and the downstream region of the promoters are different, depending on the site of the transposon insertion. In this study, we have shown that the level of transcription from the six different fusion promoters studied depends on the growth phase of the P. putida cells, being in all cases higher in stationary phase. The positive effect of sigma S on transcription was detected in the case of three fusion promoters. Although the importance of the sequence of the -10 hexamer has been pointed out in several reports (see references cited above), the role of the downstream sequences in sigma S-dependent transcription has not been reported. Analysis of the -10 hexameric sequence replacement mutant forms of the fusion promoters constructed in this study indicated that not only the -10 hexameric sequence but also the sequence downstream from the -10 hexamer is important for sigma S-dependent transcription.


View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 1.   Nucleotide sequences of fusion promoters PLA1, PRA1, PRA2, PRA3, PRA4, and PRA7 created at the junction of the sequence of the Tn4652 inverted repeats and the target DNA upstream of the phenol monooxygenase gene pheA (33). The -35 hexameric sequence TTGCCT (boxed) of the fusion promoters originated from either the right (PRA1 to PRA7) or the left (PLA1) inverted repeat of transposon Tn4652. The sequence of the -10 hexamer (boxed) and the downstream region of the fusion promoters is different, depending on the site of the transposon insertion. The sigma 70-specific promoter consensus sequences of the -35 and -10 hexamers are shown above the sequences of the fusion promoters.


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

Bacterial strains, plasmids, and growth conditions. The bacterial strains and plasmids used in this study are listed in Table 1. E. coli TG1 (6) was used for the DNA cloning procedures. Exponential- and stationary-phase cultures of P. putida PaW85 (3) and derivative strains PKS54 and PKSRpoS (this work) were used for enzyme assays. We incubated E. coli at 37°C and P. putida at 30°C. E. coli was transformed with plasmid DNA as described by Hanahan (13). P. putida was electrotransformed as described by Sharma and Schimke (38). Bacteria were grown on Luria-Bertani (LB) medium (30). Antibiotics were added at the following final concentrations: ampicillin at 100 µg/ml for E. coli; carbenicillin at 1,500 µg/ml, kanamycin at 50 µg/ml, and tetracycline at 10 µg/ml for P. putida.

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

Cloning of fusion promoters into a promoter probe vector and construction of promoter mutants. For amplification of DNA fragments containing fusion promoters PLA1, PRA1, PRA2, PRA3, PRA4, and PRA7 cloned into plasmid pEST1332 upstream of the phenol degradation genes pheBA (33), two oligonucleotides, PAYC32 (5'-CTCGACCTTTGAGCCAAATG-3') and AB 5'-GGTATGCTTGGCAGTCGT-3'), complementary to sequences upstream and downstream of the Ecl136II and ClaI cloning sites in plasmid pEST1332, respectively, were used. PCR amplification products were cleaved with Ecl136II and ClaI and cloned into plasmid pBluescript KS(+) restricted with SmaI and ClaI. Subsequently, the promoters were inserted with BamHI- and XhoI-generated ends into promoter probe vector pKTlacZ (18).

Mutant promoters L1-R1, L1-R2, L1-R3, L1-R4, and L1-R7 were constructed by substituting the -10 hexamer of promoter PLA1 for the -10 hexamer of promoters PRA1, PRA2, PRA3, PRA4, and PRA7, respectively. Mutant promoters R1-L1, R4-L1, and R7-L1 were constructed by replacing the -10 hexamer of promoters PRA1, PRA4, and PRA7, respectively, with the -10 hexamer of promoter PLA1. Sequences of the mutant promoters are shown in Fig. 2. For site-directed mutagenesis and amplification of the fusion promoters from pEST1332, oligonucleotide PAYC32 and oligonucleotides containing the specific substitutions were used. The mutating primers were partially complementary to the sequence at nucleotides (nt) -21 to +7 relative to the transcriptional start site of the wild-type (wt) promoters. They carried the specific changes within the -10 hexameric sequence, and the ClaI site was designed 10 to 12 nt downstream of the -10 hexamer. L1Cla was constructed as a control by designing a ClaI restriction site 12 nt downstream of the -10 hexamer of PLA1 (Fig. 2). The amplified PCR products were cleaved with Ecl136II and ClaI and cloned into pBluescript KS(+). Thereafter, the mutated sequences were inserted upstream of the lacZ reporter gene into plasmid pKTlacZ by using the BamHI- and XhoI-generated ends. All introduced base substitutions were verified by dideoxy sequencing with a Sequenase version 2.0 kit (Amersham).


View larger version (35K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 2.   Combination of -10 hexamers and downstream sequences of the fusion promoters. Mutants L1-R1, L1-R2, L1-R3, and L1-R7 were constructed by replacement of the -10 hexamer of promoter PLA1 with the -10 hexamer of promoters PRA1, PRA2, PRA3, PRA4, and PRA7, respectively. In mutants R1-L1, R4-L1, and R7-L1, the -10 hexamers of PRA1, PRA4, and PRA7, respectively, were replaced with the -10 hexamer of promoter PLA1. The -10 hexameric sequence is boxed and marked in bold. All of the mutant promoters carry the ClaI restriction site (marked in bold and italic) 10 to 12 nt downstream of the -10 hexamer for cloning of the promoter sequences into promoter probe vector pKTlacZ (19). L1Cla was constructed as a control by designing a ClaI restriction site 12 nt downstream of the -10 hexamer of PLA1.

Construction of P. putida PaW85 rpoS knockout mutant PKS54. P. putida rpoS knockout mutant PKS54 was constructed as a derivative of PaW85 by interrupting the rpoS gene with a kanamycin resistance-encoding gene (Kmr) cloned from transposon Tn903 (34) in plasmid pUC4K (46). The oligonucleotides used for amplification of the rpoS gene of P. putida PaW85 were designed on the basis of the published sequence of the rpoS gene of P. putida KT2440 (36). Two oligonucleotides, PprpoSall, (5'-AAAGCTTCCCCTTGCCGGGTGTGTAGAGGA-3') and PprpoSyll (5'-CAAGCGCTGCCAGGGAGAAA-3'), complementary to the sequence 159 nt downstream of the TAG stop codon and 68 nt upstream of the ATG initiator codon of the rpoS gene of P. putida KT2440, respectively, were used. The PCR-generated DNA fragment containing the rpoS gene was subcloned into pBluescript KS(+) cleaved with EcoRV (pBlcrpoS-I in Table 1). The EcoRI-generated ends of the DNA fragment containing the Kmr from plasmid pUC4K were filled with Klenow fragment, and the blunt-ended DNA segment was inserted into the Eco72I-cleaved rpoS gene. The resulting rpoS-Kmr sequence from pBlcrpoS-Kmr was inserted into conjugative plasmid pUTmini-Tn5 luxAB (9) by using XbaI and EcoRI sites, and pUTrpoS-Kmr was selected in E. coli CC118 lambda pir (16). The interrupted rpoS gene was inserted into the chromosome of PaW85 by homologous recombination using E. coli S17 lambda pir (31) as the recipient strain. P. putida rpoS knockout mutant PKS54 was selected at 30°C on glucose-kanamycin plates and verified with immunoblotting of P. putida RpoS (see below).

Construction of P. putida rpoS complementation strain PKS54. For construction of rpoS complementation strain PKS54, the rpoS gene was cloned from plasmid pMir61 (36) by using XhoI- and HindIII-generated ends into the vector pBRlacItac (R. Hõrak and M. Kivisaar, submitted for publication) cleaved with SalI and SmaI (pBRlacItac-rpoS in Table 1). The rpoS expression cassette Ptac-rpoS-lacIq was inserted into pUC18Not (16) using BamHI- and KpnI-generated ends. Thereafter, the hybrid sequence from pUCptac-rpoS was inserted into the NotI site of pUTmini-Tn5 luxAB (8). The resulting construct, pUTptac-rpoS, was selected in E. coli CC118 lambda pir (16). The Ptac-rpoS-lacIq cassette was inserted into the chromosome of P. putida PKS54 by random insertion using E. coli S17 lambda pir as the recipient strain. P. putida PKSRpoS was selected at 30°C on glucose-kanamycin-tetracycline plates. The expression of RpoS in PKSRpoS was verified with Western blot analysis using polyclonal antibodies against P. putida RpoS (data not shown).

Cloning, overexpression, and purification of RpoS of P. putida PaW85. For amplification and cloning of the rpoS gene of P. putida PaW85, oligonucleotides RpoSCNco (5'-TCCCATGG[NcoI]CTCTCAGTAAAGAAGTGCCC-3'; complementary to the sequence 21 nt downstream of the TAG stop codon of rpoS of P. putida KT2440) and RpoSCHind (5'-GCAAGCTT[HindIII]CTGGAACAATGACTCGCTGGT-3'; complementary to the sequence 20 nt upstream of the ATG initiator codon of rpoS of P. putida KT2440) were used. A PCR-generated DNA fragment containing the rpoS sequence was subcloned into pBluescript KS(+) cleaved with EcoRV to obtain pBlcrpoS-II. Thereafter, the DNA fragment containing the rpoS gene from pBlcrpoS-II was inserted into pET24d (Stratagene) with NcoI- and HindIII-cleaved ends to generate a His tag at the C terminus of RpoS (pET24d-rpoS in Table 1).

To obtain soluble RpoS-His protein, E. coli BL21(DE3) (39) carrying pET24d-rpoS was grown overnight at 37°C in 20 ml of M9 minimal medium (1). Subsequently, the culture was diluted into 500 ml of fresh M9 medium and the bacteria were grown at 37°C until the optical density of the culture at 590 nm reached about 0.6. For the expression of RpoS-His, the culture was incubated at 20°C for 0.5 h and then induced for 4 h at 20°C by adding isopropyl-beta -D-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG; final concentration, 0.5 mM). Cells were pelleted and sonicated in buffer A (100 mM NaH2PO4, 1 M NaCl, pH 8.0). The cell lysate was centrifuged at 5,000 × g for 10 min. Supernatant was loaded onto an Ni2+-iminodiacetic acid-activated chelating Sepharose 6B column previously equilibrated with 5 volumes of buffer A. After 4 h of incubation at 10°C, the loaded column was washed three times with 2 volumes of buffer A supplemented with 10% glycerol (pH 6.2). The purified His-RpoS was eluted three times with 2 volumes of buffer A supplemented with 10% glycerol and 1 M imidazole (pH 6.2). The imidazole and excess salt were removed by dialyzing the eluate against 1× phosphate-buffered saline, and the purified protein was stored at -20°C. The purified RpoS was used for production of mouse anti-RpoS polyclonal antibody for the immunoblotting assay.

Preparation of cell lysates and immunoblotting of P. putida RpoS. Cell lysates of P. putida PaW85, PKS54, and PKS54RpoS were prepared from 50-ml stationary-phase LB medium cultures and from 200-ml exponential-phase LB medium cultures. Cells were pelleted and sonicated in 500 µl of 100 mM phosphate buffer (87 mM Na2HPO4, 13 mM KH2PO4, pH 7.5). The protein concentration in cleared lysates was estimated as described by Bradford (5). Equal amounts (30 µg) of total protein were used for a Western immunoblotting assay. Proteins were separated by sodium dodecyl sulfate-10% polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and transferred to nitrocellulose membrane (BA85; Schleicher & Schuell). For Western blotting, the membrane was probed with mouse anti-RpoS polyclonal serum diluted 1:250, followed by alkaline phosphatase-conjugated coat anti-mouse immunoglobulin G (LabAS Ltd., Tartu, Estonia) diluted 1:5,000. The blots were developed with 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolylphosphate-nitroblue tetrazolium.

beta -Gal assay. Exponential- and stationary-phase cells of P. putida PaW85 and its derivatives harboring different fusion promoter constructs were used for a beta -galactosidase (beta -Gal) assay performed as specified by Miller (30). The protein concentration in crude lysates was measured by the method of Bradford (5). The starting density of the overnight culture for 50 ml of LB medium at 580 nm was 0.02 (~106 cells/ml). The samples for the beta -Gal assay were collected at 4, 12, 24, 36, and 48 h.


    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results and Discussion
References

Study of the effect of sigma S on transcription from fusion promoters. Promoters were created during transposition of Tn4652 in stationary-phase cells of P. putida as fusions between the -35 hexamer provided by the terminal inverted repeats of Tn4652 and the -10 hexamers in the target DNA (33). Five of the six different fusion promoters identified were generated at the junctions of the right terminus of the transposon and target DNA (promoters PRA1, PRA2, PRA3, PRA4, and PRA7), and in only one particular case (promoter PLA1) was the -35 hexamer provided by the left end of Tn4652 (33) (Fig. 1). In this study, we cloned the sequences containing different fusion promoters upstream of the reporter gene lacZ in plasmid pKTLacZ (see Materials and Methods) and studied the effect of the growth phase of bacteria on transcription from these promoters. P. putida PaW85 cells carrying lacZ transcriptional fusions were grown on LB medium, and beta -Gal activity was measured in both exponentially growing cells (sampled at 4 h) and stationary-phase cells (sampled at 12, 24, 36, and 48 h). The growth curve of bacteria is shown in Fig. 3A. Data presented in Table 2 demonstrate that the level of expression of beta -Gal activity was remarkably elevated in stationary-phase cells in all cases and it remained high in deep-stationary-phase cultures during the next 2 days studied. This indicated that the fusion promoters are certainly stationary phase specific. Previously we have shown that transcription from the fusion promoters PRA1 and PLA1, containing sequences of either the right or left end of Tn4652, respectively, is modulated by IHF and that the positive effect of IHF becomes apparent in stationary-phase cells of P. putida (43). However, the fusion promoters cloned into the pKTLacZ reporter plasmid lacked functional IHF binding sites but were still expressed at an increased level in stationary-phase cells.


View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 3.   (A) Growth curve of P. putida PaW85 cells grown in LB medium. The growth rate of strains PKS54 and PKSRpoS is similar to that of PaW85. (B) Study of the amounts of RpoS in P. putida PaW85 and PKS54 cells by Western blot analysis with P. putida anti-RpoS polyclonal antibodies. The cell lysates used were prepared from P. putida PaW85 cells sampled at h 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, and 24 (lanes 1 to 6). PKS54 cells were sampled at h 24 (lane 7). Purified RpoS-His (lane 8) served as a control. A 30-µg portion of the total protein from cell lysates and 0.6 µg of RpoS-His were loaded onto the gel. OD580, optical density at 580 nm.

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 2.   Study of the expression of fusion promoters in P. putida strain PaW85 and its sigma S-deficient derivative PKS54

The most important regulator of stationary-phase-induced genes is sigma factor sigma S, encoded by rpoS, which directs the expression of nearly 100 genes in E. coli (25, 45) and is considered the second principal sigma factor (42). The requirement of sigma S for stimulation of transcription has also been described in the case of genes originating from P. putida (27, 28, 32). The gene homologous to the rpoS gene of E. coli has been cloned from P. putida by complementation of the rpoS-deficient E. coli strain (36). In order to test whether functional sigma S would be responsible for the increased level of transcription from the fusion promoters in stationary-phase cells of P. putida, we constructed an rpoS knockout mutant of P. putida. P. putida PaW85 rpoS knockout mutant PKS54 was obtained by homologous recombination between the P. putida original chromosomal rpoS gene and the rpoS gene interrupted by a kanamycin resistance gene. P. putida sigma S was overexpressed using protein expression vector pET24d and purified to obtain polyclonal antibodies against it (for details, see Materials and Methods). The absence of sigma S in the mutant strain was verified by Western blot analysis (Fig. 3B). In E. coli, an increase in the cellular sigma S concentration during entry into stationary phase has been observed (12, 24, 42). Western blot analysis of the intracellular sigma S content of P. putida (Fig. 3B) also demonstrated that a low level of this sigma factor is detectable even in actively growing cells (h 3 and 4) and that the intracellular level of sigma S increases in bacteria sampled from the late-exponential-phase culture (h 5 and 6).

We compared the expression of the fusion promoters in wt strain PaW85 and in its sigma S-deficient derivative PKS54 (Table 2). The effect of sigma S became evident only in the case of three fusion promoters: the level of transcription from promoters PLA1, PRA4, and PRA7 was approximately three times lower in strain PKS54 than in the wt strain. The maximal difference appeared in a deep-stationary-phase culture (cells sampled at 24 h and later). At the same time, the level of transcription from fusion promoters PRA1, PRA2, and PRA3 did not depend on the presence or absence of functional sigma S in the cells. In order to test whether the full level of transcription from fusion promoters PLA1, PRA4, and PRA7 would be restored by complementation of the sigma S-deficient mutant with the functional rpoS gene, strain PKSRpoS was constructed. In this strain, the rpoS gene was introduced into the chromosome of PKS54 under control of the Ptac promoter and the lacIq repressor (Materials and Methods). As a result of complementation, the level of expression of fusion promoters PLA1, PRA4, and PRA7 in PKSRpoS was approximately the same as that estimated in the wt strain (data not shown).

As shown in Table 2, the stationary-phase-induced transcription from the fusion promoters cannot be explained as the effect of sigma S only. The sigma S-independent increase in transcription became evident with all of the fusion promoters. Gel mobility shift experiments with Tn4652 ends and crude lysate of P. putida have revealed that in addition to IHF, some other proteins form specific complexes with the ends of Tn4652 (18, 43). The amount of the protein-DNA complexes detected depends on the growth phase of the bacteria used for the preparation of cell extracts (43). It is therefore possible that a protein(s) which binds termini of Tn4652 could sequester transcription from the fusion promoters in a growth phase-dependent manner. Experiments intended to identify these factors are currently in progress.

Study of the effect of combination of the -10 hexameric sequences and downstream sequences of the fusion promoters on transcription in sigma S-deficient P. putida. Notably, the fusion promoters providing a lower level of reporter gene expression in the rpoS mutant strain differed from the others only by the -10 hexameric sequence and by the sequence downstream from that. There was only one mismatch between the right and left inverted repeat sequences, making the spacer region of the fusion promoters created from either the right or the left end of the transposon different by 1 nt (Fig. 1). Thus, our results indicated that the sequence of the -10 element could be important for sigma S-dependent transcription. The same has also been concluded in other published reports (17, 22, 41). A compilation of sigma S-dependent promoters deduced a -10 consensus sequence, CTATACT (11). Fusion promoters PLA1, PRA4, and PRA7, that were expressed at a decreased level in the rpoS-deficient background, contained -10 hexamers TATACT, TAAACT, and TATAAT, respectively, that were preceded by a C nucleotide. At the same time, the sequence of the -10 element of sigma S-independent promoter PRA1 differed in two position from the -10 hexamer of PLA1 (sequence TATCAT instead of TATACT).

To confirm whether the sigma S-dependent transcription from promoters PLA1, PRA4, and PRA7 would be influenced by the specific sequence of the -10 hexamer, the identical downstream sequence was constructed for all of the different fusion promoters studied. For that purpose, the -10 sequence of PLA1 (TATACT) was replaced with the sequences of the -10 hexamers of the other fusion promoters (Fig. 2). The sequence of PLA1 was chosen because its -10 hexamer is identical to the fic promoter -10 element (42, 44). sigma S-dependent transcription initiation from the fic promoter requires the -10 hexamer TATACT but does not need a specific sequence in the -35 region (17). The resulting PLA1 -10 substitution mutants L1-R1, L1-R2, L1-R3, L1-R4, and L1-R7 contained 12 nt of the downstream sequence of PLA1 and an artificial ClaI site for cloning of these promoters into the pKTLacZ vector. The same strategy was used to subclone PLA1 upstream of the lacZ gene to obtain L1Cla. We also replaced the -10 hexamer of promoters PRA1, PRA4, and PRA7 with the -10 sequence of PLA1 (see R1-L1, R4-L1, and R7-L1 in Fig. 2). beta -Gal activities measured in the wt strain and in its rpoS-deficient derivative PKS54 carrying different -10 substitution mutants revealed unexpected results (Table 3). Although the expression of fusion promoters PRA1 and PRA3 was not influenced by sigma S in the original location of these sequences, a two- to fourfold positive effect of sigma S was still apparent when the -10 hexameric sequence of PLA1 was replaced with -10 hexamers of PRA1 and PRA3. At the same time, only a very mild effect, if any, was observed in the case of L1-R7 despite the fact that both PLA1 and PRA7 separately exhibited decreased expression in the rpoS mutant strain. No effect of the presence of functional sigma S was detected in the case of L1-R2. A mild effect, not exceeding 1.5 times, became evident in R1-L1 and R7-L1 (the -10 hexamers of PRA1 and PRA7 were replaced with the -10 hexamer of PLA1, respectively), and an approximately twofold effect was revealed when the -10 element of PRA4 was changed to that of PLA1 (see R4-L1).

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 3.   Study of the expression of mutant fusion promoters in P. putida strain PaW85 and its sigma S-deficient derivative PKS54

To summarize the results obtained in this study, we can conclude that neither the sequence of the -10 hexamer of the fusion promoters nor the sequence downstream of the -10 element can separately affect sigma S-dependent transcription. Rather, the sequence of the -10 hexamer in concert with the sequence downstream from the -10 element influences sigma S-dependent transcription from the fusion promoters. Based on in vivo experiments carried out in this study, we cannot elucidate the exact mechanisms of interaction of the Esigma S holoenzyme with downstream sequences of promoters during transcription initiation; i.e., it is difficult to say whether the downstream sequences could somehow be involved in Esigma S-specific promoter recognition. Transcription initiation involves two major steps, formation of a closed complex which, in a second step, isomerizes to an open complex (47). Until now, in contrast to Esigma 70, only a few biochemical studies on the stationary-phase RNA polymerase have been performed. Comparative investigations have revealed that for specific DNA-protein binding, the Esigma S holoenzyme interacts with a smaller part of the promoter than Esigma 70 and recognizes the sequence in the -10 region (17, 41). Recently, the interaction of sigma S and sigma 70 in RNA polymerase-promoter open complexes was analyzed using FeBABE nuclease (4, 7, 35). The two holoenzymes revealed similar cutting patterns, but the cutting pattern of Esigma S extended toward the downstream part of the promoter, around +10 and +20 (7). Therefore, taking together the published data and the results presented in this study, we propose that the possible role of downstream sequences in sigma S-dependent transcription needs more consideration.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank M. I. Ramos-Gonzales for kindly providing plasmid pMir61 and R. Hõrak for construction of P. putida strain PKSRpoS. We also thank T. Alamäe and R. Hõrak for critically reading the manuscript.

This work was supported by grants 2323 and 4481 from the Estonian Science Foundation.


    FOOTNOTES

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Genetics, Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, Estonian Biocentre and Tartu University, 23 Riia Street, 51010 Tartu, Estonia. Phone: 372-7-375015. Fax: 372-7-420286. E-mail: maiak{at}ebc.ee.


    REFERENCES
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results and Discussion
References

1. Adams, M. H. 1959. Bacteriophages, p. 445-447. Interscience Publishers Inc., New York, N.Y.
2. Ballesteros, M., S. Kusano, A. Ishihama, and M. Vicente. 1998. The ftsQ1p gearbox promoter of Escherichia coli is a major sigma S-dependent promoter in the ddIB-ftsA region. Mol. Microbiol. 30:419-430[CrossRef][Medline].
3. Bayley, S. A., C. J. Duggleby, M. J. Worsey, P. A. Williams, K. G. Hardy, and P. Broda. 1977. Two modes of loss of the TOL function from Pseudomonas putida mt-2. Mol. Gen. Genet. 154:203-204[CrossRef][Medline].
4. Bown, J. A., J. T. Owens, C. F. Meares, N. Fujita, A. Ishihama, S. J. W. Busby, and S. D. Minchin. 1999. Organization of open complexes at Escherichia coli promoters. J. Biol. Chem. 274:2263-2270[Abstract/Free Full Text].
5. Bradford, M. M. 1976. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal. Biochem. 72:248-254[CrossRef][Medline].
6. Carter, P., H. Bedouelle, and G. Winter. 1985. Improved oligonucleotide site-directed mutagenesis using M13 vectors. Nucleic Acids Res. 13:4431-4443[Abstract/Free Full Text].
7. Colland, F., N. Fujita, D. Kotlarz, J. A. Brown, C. F. Meares, A. Ishihama, and A. Kolb. 1999. Positioning of sigma S, the stationary phase sigma  factor, in Escherichia coli RNA polymerase-promoter open complexes. EMBO J. 18:4049-4059[CrossRef][Medline].
8. de Lorenzo, V., M. Herrero, U. Jakubzik, and K. N. Timmis. 1990. Mini-Tn5 transposon derivatives for insertion mutagenesis, promoter probing, and chromosomal insertion of cloned DNA in gram-negative eubacteria. J. Bacteriol. 172:6568-6572[Abstract/Free Full Text].
9. de Lorenzo, V., and K. N. Timmis. 1994. Analysis and construction of stable phenotypes in gram-negative bacteria with Tn5- and Tn10-derived minitransposons. Methods Enzymol. 235:386-405[Medline].
10. Ding, Q., S. Kusano, M. Villarejo, and A. Ishihama. 1995. Promoter selectivity control of Escherichia coli RNA polymerase by ionic strength: differential recognition of osmoregulated promoters by Esigma D and Esigma S holoenzymes. Mol. Microbiol. 16:649-656[CrossRef][Medline].
11. Espinosa-Urgel, M., C. Chamizo, and A. Tormo. 1996. A consensus structure for sigma S-dependent promoters. Mol. Microbiol. 21:657-659[CrossRef][Medline].
12. Gentry, D. R., V. J. Hernandez, L. H. Nguyen, D. B. Jensen, and M. Cashel. 1993. Synthesis of the stationary-phase sigma factor sigma S is positively regulated by ppGpp. J. Bacteriol. 175:7982-7989[Abstract/Free Full Text].
13. Hanahan, D. 1983. Studies on the transformation of E. coli with plasmids. J. Mol. Biol. 166:577-580.
14. Hengge-Aronis, R. 1996. Regulation of gene expression during entry into stationary phase, p. 1497-1512. In F. C. Neidhardt, R. Curtiss III, J. L. Ingraham, E. C. C. Lin, K. B. Low, B. Magasanik, W. S. Reznikoff, M. Riley, M. Schaechter, and H. E. Umbarger (ed.), Escherichia coli and Salmonella: cellular and molecular biology, 2nd ed. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C.
15. Hengge-Aronis, R. 1999. Interplay of global regulators and cell physiology in the general stress response of Escherichia coli. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2:148-152[CrossRef][Medline].
16. Herrero, M., V. de Lorenzo, and K. N. Timmis. 1990. Transposon vectors containing non-antibiotic resistance selection markers for cloning and stable chromosomal insertion of foreign genes in gram-negative bacteria. J. Bacteriol. 172:6557-6567[Abstract/Free Full Text].
17. Hiratsu, K., H. Shinagawa, and K. Makino. 1995. Mode of promoter recognition by the Escherichia coli RNA polymerase holoenzyme containing the sigma S subunit: identification of the recognition sequence of the fic promoter. Mol. Microbiol. 18:841-850[CrossRef][Medline].
18. Hõrak, R., and M. Kivisaar. 1998. Expression of the transposase gene tnpA of Tn4652 is positively affected by integration host factor. J. Bacteriol. 180:2822-2829[Abstract/Free Full Text].
19. Hughes, K. T., and K. Mathee. 1998. The anti-sigma factors. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 52:231-286[CrossRef][Medline].
20. Kasak, L., R. Hõrak, and M. Kivisaar. 1997. Promoter-creating mutations in Pseudomonas putida: a model system for the study of mutation in starving bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94:3134-3139[Abstract/Free Full Text].
21. Kojic, M., G. Degrassi, and V. Venturi. 1999. Cloning and characterisation of the rpoS gene from plant growth-promoting Pseudomonas putida WCS358: RpoS is not involved in siderophore and homoserine lactone production. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1489:413-420[Medline].
22. Kolb, A., D. Kotlarz, S. Kusano, and A. Ishihama. 1995. Selectivity of the Escherichia coli RNA polymerase Esigma 38 for overlapping promoters and ability to support CRP activation. Nucleic Acids Res. 23:819-826[Abstract/Free Full Text].
23. Kusano, S., Q. Ding, N. Fujita, and A. Ishihama. 1996. Promoter selectivity of Escherichia coli RNA polymerase Esigma 70 and Esigma 38 holoenzymes. J. Biol. Chem. 271:1998-2004[Abstract/Free Full Text].
24. Lange, R., and R. Hengge-Aronis. 1994. The cellular concentration of the sigma S subunit of RNA-polymerase in Escherichia coli is controlled at the levels of transcription, translation and protein stability. Genes Dev. 8:1600-1612[Abstract/Free Full Text].
25. Loewen, P. C., and R. Hengge-Aronis. 1994. The role of the sigma factor sigma S (KatF) in bacterial global regulation. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 48:53-80[Medline].
26. Lonetto, M., M. Gribskov, and C. A. Gross. 1992. The sigma 70 family: sequence conservation and evolutionary relationships. J. Bacteriol. 174:3843-3849[Free Full Text].
27. Marques, S., M. Manzanera, M. M. Gonzalez-Perez, M. T. Gallegos, and J. L. Ramos. 1999. The XylS-dependent Pm promoter is transcribed in vivo by RNA polymerase with sigma 32 or sigma 38 depending on the growth phase. Mol. Microbiol. 31:1105-1113[CrossRef][Medline].
28. Marques, S., M. T. Gallegos, and J. L. Ramos. 1995. Role of sigma S in transcription from the positively controlled Pm promoter of the TOL plasmid of Pseudomonas putida. Mol. Microbiol. 18:851-857[CrossRef][Medline].
29. Marschall, C., V. Labrousse, M. Kreimer, D. Weichart, A. Kolb, and R. Hengge-Aronis. 1998. Molecular analysis of the regulation of csiD, a carbon starvation-inducible gene in Escherichia coli that is exclusively dependent on sigma S and requires activation by cAMP-CRP. J. Mol. Biol. 276:339-353[CrossRef][Medline].
30. Miller, J. H. 1992. A short course in bacterial genetics. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.
31. Miller, V. L., and J. J. Mekalanos. 1988. A novel suicide vector and its use in construction of insertion mutations: osmoregulation of outer membrane proteins and virulence determinants in Vibrio cholerae requires toxR. J. Bacteriol. 170:2575-2583[Abstract/Free Full Text].
32. Miura, K., S. Inouye, and A. Nakazawa. 1998. The rpoS gene regulates OP2, an operon for the lower pathway of xylene catabolism on the TOL plasmid, and the stress response in Pseudomonas putida mt-2. Mol. Gen. Genet. 259:72-78[CrossRef][Medline].
33. Nurk, A., A. Tamm, R. Hõrak, and M. Kivisaar. 1993. In-vivo-generated fusion promoters in Pseudomonas putida. Gene 127:23-29[CrossRef][Medline].
34. Oka, A., H. Sugisaki, and M. Takanami. 1981. Nucleotide sequence of the kanamycin resistance transposon Tn903. J. Mol. Biol. 147:217-226[CrossRef][Medline].
35. Owens, J. T., A. J. Chmura, K. Murakami, N. Fujita, A. Ishihama, and C. F. Meares. 1998. Mapping of the promoter DNA sites proximal to conserved regions of sigma 70 in an Escherichia coli RNA polymerase-lacUV5 open promoter complex. Biochemistry 37:7670-7675[CrossRef][Medline].
36. Ramos-Gonzales, M. I., and S. Molin. 1998. Cloning, sequencing, and phenotypic characterization of the rpoS gene from Pseudomonas putida KT2440. J. Bacteriol. 180:3421-3431[Abstract/Free Full Text].
37. Samiguet, A., J. Kraus, M. D. Henkels, A. M. Muehlchen, and J. E. Loper. 1995. The sigma factor sigmaS affects antibiotic production and biological control activity of Pseudomonas fluorescens Pf-5. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92:12255-12259[Abstract/Free Full Text].
38. Sharma, R. C., and R. T. Schimke. 1996. Preparation of electro-competent E. coli using salt-free growth medium. BioTechniques 20:42-44[Medline].
39. Studier, F. W., and B. A. Moffatt. 1986. Use of bacteriophage T7 polymerase to direct selective high-level expression of cloned genes. J. Mol. Biol. 189:113-130[CrossRef][Medline].
40. Tanaka, K., and H. Takahashi. 1994. Cloning, analysis and expression of an rpoS homologue gene from Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1. Gene 150:81-85[CrossRef][Medline].
41. Tanaka, K., S. Kusano, N. Fujita, A. Ishihama, and H. Takahashi. 1995. Promoter determinants for Escherichia coli RNA polymerase holoenzyme containing sigma 38 (the rpoS gene product). Nucleic Acids Res. 23:827-834[Abstract/Free Full Text].
42. Tanaka, K., Y. Takayanagi, N. Fujita, A. Ishihama, and H. Takahashi. 1993. Heterogeneity of the principal sigma  factor in Escherichia coli: the rpoS gene product, sigma 38, is a second principal sigma  factor of RNA polymerase in stationary-phase Escherichia coli. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 90:3511-3515[Abstract/Free Full Text].
43. Teras, R., R. Hõrak, and M. Kivisaar. 2000. Transcription from fusion promoters generated during transposition of transposon Tn4652 is positively affected by integration host factor in Pseudomonas putida. J. Bacteriol. 182:589-598[Abstract/Free Full Text].
44. Utsumi, R., S. Kusafuka, T. Nakayama, K. Tanaka, Y. Takayanagi, H. Takahashi, M. Noda, and M. Kawamukai. 1993. Stationary phase-specific expression of the fic gene in Escherichia coli K-12 is controlled by the rpoS gene product (sigma 38). FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 113:273-278[Medline].
45. Vicente, M., K. F. Chater, and V. de Lorenzo. 1999. Bacterial transcription factors involved in global regulation. Mol. Microbiol. 33:8-17[CrossRef][Medline].
46. Vieira, J., and J. Messing. 1982. The pUC plasmids, an M13mp7-derived system for insertion mutagenesis and sequencing with synthetic universal primers. Gene 19:259-268[CrossRef][Medline].
47. von Hippel, P. H., D. G. Bear, W. D. Morgan, and J. A. McSwiggen. 1984. Protein-nucleic acid interactions in transcription. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 53:389-446[Medline].


Journal of Bacteriology, December 2000, p. 6707-6713, Vol. 182, No. 23
0021-9193/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Tarassova, K., Tegova, R., Tover, A., Teras, R., Tark, M., Saumaa, S., Kivisaar, M. (2009). Elevated Mutation Frequency in Surviving Populations of Carbon-Starved rpoS-Deficient Pseudomonas putida Is Caused by Reduced Expression of Superoxide Dismutase and Catalase. J. Bacteriol. 191: 3604-3614 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Putrins, M., Tover, A., Tegova, R., Saks, U., Kivisaar, M. (2007). Study of factors which negatively affect expression of the phenol degradation operon pheBA in Pseudomonas putida. Microbiology 153: 1860-1871 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Lacour, S., Landini, P. (2004). {sigma}S-Dependent Gene Expression at the Onset of Stationary Phase in Escherichia coli: Function of {sigma}S-Dependent Genes and Identification of Their Promoter Sequences. J. Bacteriol. 186: 7186-7195 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Tegova, R., Tover, A., Tarassova, K., Tark, M., Kivisaar, M. (2004). Involvement of Error-Prone DNA Polymerase IV in Stationary-Phase Mutagenesis in Pseudomonas putida. J. Bacteriol. 186: 2735-2744 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Saumaa, S., Tover, A., Kasak, L., Kivisaar, M. (2002). Different Spectra of Stationary-Phase Mutations in Early-Arising versus Late-Arising Mutants of Pseudomonas putida: Involvement of the DNA Repair Enzyme MutY and the Stationary-Phase Sigma Factor RpoS. J. Bacteriol. 184: 6957-6965 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Ilves, H., Horak, R., Kivisaar, M. (2001). Involvement of {sigma}S in Starvation-Induced Transposition of Pseudomonas putida Transposon Tn4652. J. Bacteriol. 183: 5445-5448 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Tover, A., Ojangu, E.-L., Kivisaar, M. (2001). Growth medium composition-determined regulatory mechanisms are superimposed on CatR-mediated transcription from the pheBA and catBCA promoters in Pseudomonas putida. Microbiology 147: 2149-2156 [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 Ojangu, E.-L.
Right arrow Articles by Kivisaar, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ojangu, E.-L.
Right arrow Articles by Kivisaar, M.