Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Bacteriology, June 2008, p. 4189-4197, Vol. 190, No. 12
0021-9193/08/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/JB.00041-08
Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
,
Centro de Ciencias Genómicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apartado Postal 565-A, Cuernavaca, Morelos, México,1 Estación Experimental del Zaidín, CSIC, Granada, España2
Received 9 January 2008/ Accepted 7 April 2008
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
Evidence for the movement of pSyms among naturally occurring rhizobial populations has been inferred through phylogenetic and/or population genetics analyses of a variety of systems (45, 38). The transfer of SI, initially detected in field experiments investigating the SI of M. loti (41), was recently demonstrated for the SI of B. japonicum (16). Direct experimental evidence for lateral transfers has also been obtained, albeit such transfers have been found to occur at various rates (ranging from 10–3 to 10–9 transconjugants per receptor cell) for the SI of M. loti (42), the pSym pNGR234a of Rhizobium sp. NGR234 (20), and pRL1JI, the pSym of Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. viciae (10). Conjugational transfer in these three systems is regulated in part by quorum sensing (10, 20, 31), a common strategy used by other rhizobial nonsymbiotic plasmids, such as pTi of Agrobacterium tumefaciens (3) and pRetCFN42a of R. etli CFN42 (44). Thus, although pSym and SI transfer is widely detectable in nature, there are few examples in which mobilization and its regulation have been experimentally characterized.
R. etli CFN42 is a gram-negative bacterium capable of establishing a nitrogen-fixing symbiosis with the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). It contains six plasmids, with sizes ranging from 184 to 642 kb. One of them, pRetCFN42d (371 kb), is the pSym. A sequence analysis revealed that this plasmid also possesses a full set of genes involved in conjugation, comprising genes for a mating pair formation (Mpf) type IV secretion system (2) and a DNA transfer and replication system (Dtr) (24). The genes for the Mpf system are arranged as a virB1-to-virB11 operon with the peculiarity of possessing an additional gene, yhd0053, prior to virB1. The genes for the Dtr system include a traA gene, a functional relaxase gene (29), and a traCDG operon featuring genes for two accessory proteins (traC and traD) and a conjugative coupling protein (traG); interestingly, quorum sensing-related genes are absent from this plasmid.
Even though the automobilization of a pSym under laboratory conditions has never been detected, pSym transfer through cointegration with pRetCFN42a, a different automobilizable plasmid regulated by quorum sensing, was observed previously (44). The natural cointegration of these two plasmids occurs at a relatively high frequency and is mediated by both site-specific and homologous recombination (6).
Our previous work suggested that the pSym has an intrinsic ability for conjugal transfer, independent of pRetCFN42a, although this ability is tightly repressed (27). By various genetic strategies, two genes that participate in the regulation of the pRetCFN42d conjugational transfer were identified previously (28). The first one, named rctA (for regulation of conjugal transfer), is transcribed divergently from the virB operon, and it was determined previously by transcriptional fusion analyses to be a repressor of the virB genes. Consistent with the possible role of rctA, an in silico analysis of the predicted sequence of the corresponding protein revealed the presence of a winged-helix DNA binding domain. The second gene found, rctB, is located downstream of traA, and it appears to act as an inhibitor of the repressor activity of rctA. Functional homologues of all these genes also exist on plasmids pAtC58 of A. tumefaciens (46) and pSme1021a of S. meliloti (15), indicating that this model also applies to these organisms (28). Interestingly, this system represents a different alternative for the regulation of conjugal transfer in the Rhizobiales in which tight control is achieved by two novel regulator proteins in a quorum sensing-independent manner.
In the present study, using electrophoretic mobility shift assays (EMSA), DNase I footprinting, and transcriptional fusions, we characterized the mechanism by which rctA represses virB operon transcription. Our data demonstrate the specific binding of RctA to DNA and identify the specific sequence to which RctA binds in order to exert its repressor activity. Moreover, our work reveals the occurrence of transcriptional interference between the rctA and virB transcriptional units, a mechanism that conceivably allows the fine-tuning of conjugational activity.
|
|
|---|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 1. Strains and plasmids used in this work
|
Recombinant-DNA techniques were carried out using standard procedures (33). The primers used for PCR amplification are shown in Table 2. PCR amplifications were carried out with Pfu DNA polymerase (Altaenzymes, Alberta, Canada) in a TC-312 thermocycler (Techgene, Burlington, NJ). The DNA amplification regime consisted of 30 cycles comprising 94°C for 1 min, 1 min at variable temperatures, and 72°C for 1 min. For all PCR products cloned with the TOPO TA cloning kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA), 3' A overhangs were added. For ligations, T4 polynucleotide ligase (Amersham Biosciences, Piscataway, NJ) was used.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 2. Oligonucleotides used in this work
|
Plasmid construction. Fragment pVT, encompassing the whole regulatory region comprising the promoters of both rctA and the virB operon (see Fig. 1), was amplified using primers 38Tu and 38Tl and cloned into pCR2.1-TOPO, yielding plasmid pSSH01. The mutant virB promoters were constructed with overlapping mutagenic oligonucleotides (34) by using primer pairs 38Tu/rbml and 38Tl/rbmu for the pVT-derivative fragment pVT-RBM and 38Tu/10Ml and 38Tl/10Mu (Table 2) for the pVT-derivative fragment pVT-10m. Both fragments were cloned into pCR2.1-TOPO, generating plasmids pSSH02 and pSSH03, respectively.
![]() View larger version (63K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Specific binding of RctA to the virB promoter region. (A) Scheme of the mapped promoters of rctA and the virB operon and the regions used in EMSA and transcriptional fusions. Fragment pVT encompasses the whole regulatory region comprising the promoters of both rctA and the virB operon, while fragments pV-38, pV-29, and pV-14 are shortened derivatives of pVT (the final number in each fragment designation indicates the terminal nucleotide, with respect to the transcriptional start site of virB). (B) Results of EMSA using fragments depicted in panel A. The DNA concentration was adjusted for homogeneity with the concentration (measured as counts per minute) of the probe. –, RctA not added; +, RctA added. The DNA/RctA molar ratio was always 1/1. (C and D) Results of competitive EMSA using fragment pV-38. The probed DNA concentration in each lane was 1.5 pmol; the RctA concentration was 1.5 pmol; specific (C) and nonspecific (D) unlabeled probes were added in increasing concentrations (0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 3 pmol). –, RctA not added.
|
To generate an amino-terminally His-tagged RctA derivative, the rctA coding sequence was amplified using primers RctAl and RctAu (Table 2), which contain custom-made NdeI and BamHI sites, respectively. After digestion with the appropriate enzymes, the PCR product was ligated into pET16b (40), which was cut similarly, giving rise to plasmid pSSH04. For introduction into R. etli, pSSH04 was digested with BamHI and ligated with BamHI-restricted pRK404 (11, 36) to yield pSSH05. All constructs were verified by DNA sequencing.
Overproduction and purification of RctA in E. coli. For the overproduction of RctA, cells of E. coli BL21(DE3)/pLysS/pSSH04 were grown in 100 ml of Luria-Bertani medium at 30°C to an A620 of 0.4. At this point, 100 µM IPTG (isopropyl-β-D-thiogalactopyranoside) was added; cells were harvested 2 h later, and the cell pellet was resuspended in 5 ml of ice-cold extraction buffer (20 mM sodium phosphate, 0.5 M NaCl, pH 7.4). Cells were broken by three cycles of thawing and freezing, followed by three passages through a French press (Thermo Spectronic Instruments, Rochester, NY). The extract was centrifuged at 10°C for 10 min at 7,800 x g to obtain the cell-free fraction. To purify His-tagged RctA, a 1-ml Ni2+ affinity column (Pharmacia Biotech, Uppsala, Sweden) was equilibrated with extraction buffer containing 100 mM imidazole. Five milliliters of cell extract containing the His-tagged RctA was added to the column, the column was washed with the same buffer, and His-tagged RctA was batch eluted with extraction buffer containing 200 mM imidazole. Proteins were analyzed by sodium dodecyl sulfate-16.5% polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis as described previously (25, 35).
EMSA analyses.
DNA regions were amplified by PCR using the following oligonucleotide pairs: for R. etli CFN42 genomic DNA, 38Tu/38Tl (fragment pVT), Pv35u/38Tl (fragment pV-38), Pv10u/38Tl (fragment pV-29), and Pv1u/38Tl (fragment pV-14); for S. meliloti 1021 genomic DNA, 38SmTu/38SmTl (fragment pVT-Sm); for A. tumefaciens C58 genomic DNA, 38AtTu/38AtTl (fragment pVT-At); and for purified pSSH02 and pSSH03, 38Tu/38Tl (fragments pVT-RBM and pVT-10m, respectively). Products were electrophoresed on a 1.5% agarose gel and purified by band slicing (4). Fragments were 5' end labeled with [
-33P]ATP by using T4 polynucleotide kinase (USB Corporation, Cleveland, OH). Unincorporated ATP was removed by gel filtration using Centri-Sep spin columns (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). Labeling efficiency was measured by liquid scintillation analysis using an LS6500 counter (Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, CA).
His-tagged RctA was incubated with the desired fragments for 30 min at room temperature in binding buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl [pH 8.5], 10% glycerol, 50 mM KCl, 3 mM MgCl2, 0.5 mg of bovine serum albumin/ml). For competition assays, the unlabeled fragment was added to the binding reaction mixture and the mixture was incubated for 10 min prior to the addition of the labeled fragment. Binding reaction mixtures were electrophoresed on a 6% TB-EDTA (Tris base, 40 mM; boric acid, 40 mM; EDTA, 1 mM)-polyacrylamide gel at 60 V for 1.5 h. The gel was dried on top of a Whatman filter paper and autoradiographed.
DNase I protection assay. Fragment pVT was 32P labeled at the 5' end of the bottom strand. A probe concentration equivalent to about 100,000 cpm was preincubated at room temperature with increasing concentrations of His-tagged RctA in the same binding buffer used for EMSA analyses. After 20 min, 0.003 U of DNase I (Roche, Nutley, NJ) in dilution buffer (8 mM Tris-HCl [pH 7.9], 40 mM MgSO4, 4 mM CaCl2, 40 mM KCl, 2 mM EDTA [pH 8.0], 24% glycerol) was added to the mixture and the mixture was incubated at room temperature for 2 min. The reaction was stopped by adding 300 µl of stop solution (570 mM ammonium acetate, 80% ethanol, 50 µg of carrier tRNA ml–1). The DNA was precipitated, dried, and dissolved in 8 µl of loading buffer (45 mM Tris-borate [pH 8.0], 1 mM EDTA, 80% formamide). Samples were denatured at 85°C for 5 min and resolved by electrophoresis through an 8% polyacrylamide sequencing gel. Gels were vacuum dried and visualized with a PhosphorImager (Molecular Dynamics). Sequencing reactions were included for size markers.
|
|
|---|
RctA binds specifically to the virB operon promoter. As reported previously (28), RctA is predicted to have a winged-helix DNA binding domain (14, 32). This prediction suggests that the repressor activity of RctA may be due to direct binding to a regulatory region involved in the transcription of the virB operon. To test this hypothesis, we generated a His-tagged RctA derivative for use in EMSA (see Materials and Methods). To verify that this His-tagged derivative was functional in vivo, plasmid pSSH05 was introduced by conjugation into an R. etli rctA mutant derivative (see Materials and Methods) and the expression of both rctA and the virB operon was analyzed using the appropriate β-glucuronidase transcriptional fusions. As shown in Table 3, the His-tagged RctA derivative retained its biological activity, being able to complement an rctA mutant strain, as evidenced by the shutting off of the expression of the virB operon and the simultaneous activation of the transcription of rctA.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 3. Activities of transcriptional fusions of rctA and virB promoters in different genetic backgrounds
|
To verify if the binding of RctA to fragment pV-38 was specific, competitive EMSA (see Materials and Methods) were set up. In these assays, when the binding of RctA to pV-38 was challenged by the prior addition of increasing amounts of unlabeled fragment pV-38 as a specific competitor, the amount of the retarded complex was reduced (Fig. 1C). In contrast, when an unlabeled competitor fragment from S. meliloti (a PCR product from nucleotides 1453158 to 1453424 of S. meliloti pSymB) was used, no decrease in the amount of retarded DNA complexes was seen (Fig. 1D).
These results clearly show that (i) RctA is able to bind specifically to DNA and (ii) a region located between the –10 and –35 regions of the virB promoter is needed for specific binding.
The binding of RctA depends on a conserved nucleotide sequence. As reported previously, rctA homologues negatively control the conjugative transfer of plasmids pAtC58 of A. tumefaciens and pSymA of S. meliloti (28). These rctA homologues can functionally substitute for rctA from R. etli. Therefore, it was reasonable to expect that RctA from R. etli should recognize similar sequences in R. etli, A. tumefaciens, and S. meliloti. Aiming to identify the nucleotides recognized by RctA, we made an alignment of the putative promoters of the virB operons from these three species. This alignment revealed the presence of nine nearly invariable nucleotides between the –10 and the –35 boxes of the virB promoter (Fig. 2A).
![]() View larger version (46K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 2. The binding of RctA requires an RBM box and an active –10 region. (A) Multiple-sequence alignment of the virB promoters of three rhizobiales showing the nucleotide conservation that delineates the RBM box. Solid horizontal lines below the alignment mark the limits of regions pV-29 and pV-14 with reference to the virB promoter. (B) Results of EMSA using fragments pVT-Sm and pVT-At; the DNA concentration was 1 pmol. –, RctA not added; +, 2 pmol of RctA added. (C and D) Results of EMSA using fragments pVT-RBM and pVT-10m, respectively. The DNA concentration in each lane was 1 pmol; RctA was added in increasing concentrations (0, 2, 4, and 8 pmol). –, RctA not added; +, 2 pmol of RctA added.
|
To demonstrate the role of the conserved nine base pairs in the binding of RctA to DNA, we constructed a mutant version of fragment pVT in which these nucleotides were changed from TTT AAC TGT to GGG CCA GTG, generating fragment pVT-RBM. When EMSA was performed with this fragment, RctA from R. etli was unable to bind, even upon the addition of an eightfold molar excess of RctA versus pVT-RBM (Fig. 2C). These results demonstrate that nucleotides within a conserved 9-bp sequence, termed the rctA binding motif (RBM) box, are required for the binding of RctA to DNA.
The binding of RctA protects a zone encompassing the RBM box and the –10 region. The identification of a motif in the spacer region of the virB promoter needed for the binding of RctA is fully consistent with the proposed role of this protein as a transcriptional repressor. To ascertain if the binding of RctA obliterates the access to other transcriptional elements, we performed a DNase I protection assay of the pVT fragment in the presence of increasing amounts of RctA (Fig. 3). Our results show a well-delineated protection zone in the virB promoter upon the addition of RctA, even at the lowest protein concentration tested. This region encompassed nucleotides –26 to +5 of the virB promoter region relative to the transcription start site and, as expected, included the RBM box (nucleotides –17 to –25). Interestingly, although the –35 box (nucleotides –32 to –37) was not within the protected region, the –10 box (nucleotides –10 to –15) of the promoter was significantly protected. This result further supports the idea that the interaction of RctA with the virB promoter may impair the transcription of the virB operon.
![]() View larger version (34K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 3. DNase I protection of the virB operon regulatory region by RctA. Increasing amounts of His-tagged RctA were mixed with a 32P-end-labeled DNA fragment corresponding to fragment pVT and treated with DNase I. Samples were subjected to electrophoresis on an 8% polyacrylamide sequencing gel. The –10 and –35 promoter sequences and the RBM box are indicated on the right; they were determined by running sequencing reactions with the same fragments in parallel (data not shown). The protected regions are indicated by a vertical black bar. The black triangle above the autoradiogram represents increasing amounts of RctA. Lanes: 1 and 5, DNA alone; 2 to 4, 2, 4, and 8 pmol of RctA, respectively. –, RctA not added.
|
The binding of RctA to the virB promoter represses virB operon transcription. Since fragment pVT harbors the promoters for both the rctA gene and the virB operon, the introduction of this fragment into a promoterless uidA reporter plasmid allows an evaluation of the expression of both promoters, depending on the orientation of the insert. To explore the functional consequences of the mutation in the RBM box for the expression of virB and rctA, we constructed two transcriptional fusions with the fragment pVT-RBM, one in the direction of the rctA promoter (p53rctA-rbm::Gus) and the other in direction of the virB operon promoter (p53virB-rbm::Gus).
The introduction of fusions with wild-type promoters into an otherwise wild-type background confirmed, as previously reported (28), low-level expression from the virB promoter but high-level expression from the rctA promoter (Table 3). In contrast, when RBM mutant fusions were introduced into a wild-type background, we found that the level of expression from the virB promoter was high but that expression from the rctA promoter was diminished (Table 3). The expression patterns obtained with these mutant fusions closely matched the one found with a wild-type-promoter fusion in an rctA mutant background (Table 3). In fact, the expression pattern seen for the RBM mutant fusions (a high expression level for the virB promoter and a low expression level for the rctA promoter) was maintained in backgrounds lacking rctA or overexpressing rctB (Table 3). Given the location of the RBM sequence and the inability of RBM mutant constructs to bind RctA, these results are fully consistent with the interpretation that the binding of RctA to the virB promoter represses the transcription of this operon.
The transcription of the virB operon interferes with rctA expression. It has been reported previously (28) that mutations in rctA have the interesting effect of provoking a reduction of rctA expression (Table 3). This effect was also seen under conditions that conceivably interfered with RctA function, such as the overexpression of RctB (Table 3). These observations were explained by invoking the hypothesis of positive autoregulation for this gene (28). However, the convergent organization of the virB and rctA promoters, coupled with the presence of a single RctA binding site far from the rctA promoter, raises the alternative possibility that transcription from the virB promoter interferes with rctA expression. In this view, the loss of the repressor (as in an rctA mutant) or the blocking of its activity (as in a strain overexpressing rctB) should allow transcription from the virB promoter, which may structurally interfere with expression from the rctA promoter.
These two hypotheses (positive autoregulation and transcriptional interference) can be distinguished by studying the expression patterns of both rctA and virB genes in a mutant affected in the –10 box of the virB promoter. According to the positive-autoregulation hypothesis, the loss of virB expression should have no effect on rctA expression, which would remain high in a wild-type background or low in either an rctA mutant strain or a strain overexpressing rctB. In contrast, according to the transcriptional-interference hypothesis, the loss of transcription from the virB promoter would provoke a high level of constitutive transcription from the rctA promoter. To discern between these alternatives, we constructed two transcriptional fusions with the fragment pVT-10m, one in the direction of the rctA promoter (p53rctA-10m::Gus) and the other in the direction of the virB operon promoter (p53virB-10m::Gus). As shown in Table 3, virB expression was completely abolished when this mutant fragment was used. Notably, high-level constitutive expression of rctA from this mutant fusion was observed even in an rctA mutant and in a strain overexpressing rctB (Table 3). Interestingly, high-level constitutive expression of rctA was observed despite the fact that in the virB –10 box mutant fragment (pVT-10m), RctA binding was severely reduced (Fig. 2D). These observations are fully consistent with the expectations of the transcriptional-interference model.
To further substantiate this point, all the transcriptional fusions were introduced into genetic backgrounds lacking the pSym and, hence, both rctA and rctB (Table 3). In one of these strains, rctA was supplied on a separate plasmid under the control of the strong tryptophan promoter, while in another rctB was overexpressed (Table 3). Interestingly, the high-level constitutive expression of rctA from the virB –10 box mutant gene-rctA::Gus fusion was maintained even under circumstances in which rctA expression should have increased or decreased (Table 3) according to the positive-autoregulation hypothesis. Thus, these results clearly reveal that the expression of rctA is modulated by transcriptional interference emanating from the virB promoter.
|
|
|---|
Interestingly, although the RBM box is the main determinant for RctA binding, it is not the sole factor. As shown in Fig. 2D, the elimination of the promoter –10 box near the RBM box significantly reduced the binding of RctA. In this sense, the –10 box played an important role, albeit an ancillary one, in the binding of RctA. The requirement for a functional –10 box adjacent to the RBM box has important consequences for recognition. This requirement ensures that the binding of RctA should be targeted to active promoters. In this regard, it is germane to mention that two potential RBM boxes have been located, by sequence analysis, near the traCDG region. Only one of these boxes, the one that has a recognizable –10 box nearby, is bound by RctA (unpublished data).
A second important regulatory aspect that emerges from our data is the presence of transcriptional interference. As mentioned before, the convergent organization of the virB and rctA promoters generates the possibility of interference between them. Transcriptional interference has been defined as the suppressive influence of one transcriptional process, directly and in cis, on a second transcriptional process (37) and has been observed previously for artificially convergent promoters (21, 9) and bacteriophage promoters (7). As revealed by data from the transcriptional fusions, the rctA-virB region in R. etli shows all the hallmarks of transcriptional interference. When either RctA or the RBM box was absent, the transcription of the virB operon was activated, simultaneously reducing the transcription of the rctA promoter. Our data show that the reduction in rctA transcription was due most likely to transcriptional interference and not to autoregulation by RctA, as previously thought. Support for this conclusion comes from the fivefold increase in rctA transcriptional activity upon the elimination of transcription from the virB promoter. This effect was observed even in the absence of the whole pSym, thus ruling out any potential influence in trans as an explanation for this phenomenon.
The finding of transcriptional interference adds another level for the regulation of this system. Under conditions that limit conjugative transfer, the expression of the virB operon is repressed by the binding of RctA to the virB promoter; this binding provokes high-level expression of rctA due to the lack of transcriptional interference, thus ensuring tight repression of the system (Fig. 4A). Whenever RctA binding is diminished, virB expression is activated, thus ensuring the establishment of transcriptional interference with rctA. This last effect warrants the full expression of the conjugative system (Fig. 4B).
![]() View larger version (39K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 4. Role of transcriptional interference in the regulation of the virB operon. (A) The virB operon promoter is blocked by the binding of RctA to the RBM box, repressing the expression of the promoter and allowing rctA transcription without interference. (B) RctB blocks RctA access to the RBM box, allowing virB operon transcription, which in turn interferes with rctA expression. +, activation; –, repression or inhibition.
|
Partial financial support was provided by grant IN226802 (Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico, UNAM). E.S. was supported during the Ph.D. program (Programa de Doctorado en Ciencias Biomédicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México) by scholarships from Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (México) and Dirección General de Estudios de Posgrado (UNAM).
Published ahead of print on 18 April 2008. ![]()
Supplemental material for this article may be found at http://jb.asm.org/. ![]()
|
|
|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»