Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
    • JB Special Collection
    • JB Classic Spotlights
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JB
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Bacteriology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
    • JB Special Collection
    • JB Classic Spotlights
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JB
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
GENETICS AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

Expression of the Escherichia coli Ada Regulon in Stationary Phase: Evidence for rpoS-Dependent Negative Regulation of alkA Transcription

Paolo Landini, Stephen J. W. Busby
Paolo Landini
Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science and Technology (EAWAG), 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland, and
School of Biosciences, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen J. W. Busby
School of Biosciences, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JB.181.21.6836-6839.1999
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The Escherichia coli Ada protein activates ς70-dependent transcription at three different promoters (ada, aidB, and alkA) in response to alkylation damage of DNA. During stationary phase, however, the methylated form of Ada shuts off expression of alkA; this repression is specific for ςS-dependent transcription. Thus, at the alkA promoter, the Ada protein can act as both a positive and negative modulator of the adaptive response to alkylation damage, depending on the cell’s physiological state.

The adaptive response ofEscherichia coli to alkylating damage of DNA is regulated by the Ada protein. This response protects cells from the mutagenic and cytotoxic effects of alkylating agents present in the environment and from reactive endogenous metabolites (9, 12, 13). The Ada protein is both a DNA repair protein and a transcriptional regulator. Ada is able to transfer methyl groups from DNA to two of its own cysteine residues (10). Upon self-methylation, Ada stimulates transcription of four genes, ada,aidB, alkA, and alkB (whose transcription is directed by the ada promoter) (10, 15). The target site for Ada activation on RNA polymerase is the ς subunit. However, the determinants in both the Ada protein and RNA polymerase that are required for transcription activation at theada and aidB promoters differ from the determinants required at alkA. A negatively charged set of amino acids in ς70 is the target for Ada activation atada and aidB, while a positively charged cluster interacts with Ada at the alkA promoter (6, 7). At the ada and aidB promoters, the methylated form of Ada (meAda) is essential for transcription activation, whereas transcription from the alkA promoter is activated by both the unmethylated and methylated forms (4, 10). Finally, the C-terminal domain of Ada, which is necessary for activation at the ada and aidB promoters, is dispensable at alkA (1). Thus, the Ada protein activates different promoters by different mechanisms.

Previous work on Ada-dependent regulation had focused on exponentially growing cells in which ς70 is the major functional ς factor. We have now investigated the regulation of Ada-dependent promoters in stationary-phase cells. During stationary phase, the levels of an alternative ς factor, ςS (8), rise to about 30 to 40% of ς70 levels. In addition, several changes in the cellular environments, such as increased concentrations of glutamate and polyphosphate, a decrease of DNA superhelicity, and increased levels of Rsd, an anti-ς factor specific for ς70, contribute to preferential utilization of ςS (3). Previous in vitro studies had shown that meAda can activate ςS-dependent transcription at ada and aidB but not atalkA (5, 7, 13). To measure Ada-activated, ςS-dependent transcription in vivo, we used either anrpoS-deficient strain (MV2792 [16]) or the corresponding wild type (MV1161) transformed with derivatives of the low-copy-number plasmid pRS1274 carrying the ada,aidB, or alkA promoter regions as previously described (4, 7). The rpoS mutation does not cause detectable variations in pRS1274 copy number in stationary phase nor does it affect the in vivo expression of the Ada-independentlacUV5 promoter (data not shown). Cells were grown in LB medium, and 0.04% of the alkylating agent methyl methanesulfonate (MMS) was added at an optical density at 600 nm (OD600) of 0.04 (to study exponential phase) or 1.0 (to study stationary phase) (Fig. 1). In exponential phase, MMS clearly induces expression from the ada, aidB, and alkA promoters (Fig. 1A, C, and E). Expression from theada and alkA promoters was not affected by therpoS mutation, while aidB expression was reduced, consistent with previous observations (5, 16). It is important to note that, when added to exponentially growing cells, 0.04% MMS result in only a slight reduction in the growth rate (to about 75%), which is insufficient to cause a sharp increase inrpoS expression. However, a relatively small increase of ςS might be sufficient for full activation ofaidB transcription, due to the strong affinity of RNA polymerase containing ςS (EςS) for theaidB promoter (5).

Fig. 1.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

In vivo expression of the adaptive response genes. (A and B) ada; (C and D) aidB; (E and F)alkA. (A, C, and E) cultures in exponential phase at time 0 (OD600, 0.04); (B, D, and F) cultures in stationary phase at time 0 (OD600, 1.0). Symbols: diamonds, wild-type strain; squares, rpoS strain; open symbols, no MMS added (Ada-independent transcription); closed symbols, 0.04% MMS added at time zero. Data shown are from a typical experiment.

A more complex pattern emerged when cells were treated with MMS at the onset of stationary phase. In the absence of MMS induction, levels of Ada-independent expression were two- to threefold higher in the wild type than in rpoS strains. This effect is independent of the presence of a functional ada gene (data not shown). These results are in agreement with previous observations that EςS is able to carry out transcription from theada and aidB promoters even in the absence ofmeAda (5, 13) and suggests a similar situation for alkA. MMS treatment had very different effects on transcription at different promoters. With the aidBpromoter, clear induction that is strongly dependent on a functionalrpoS gene is observed, mirroring the behavior observed in exponential phase. With the ada promoter, induction was found in both the wild-type and rpoS strains, again similar to the situation in exponential phase. In sharp contrast, treatment with MMS failed to induce expression of alkA in the wild-type strain, while in the rpoS strain alkAexpression was increased by ca. 7.5-fold (Fig. 1F).

The negative effect of the rpoS gene on Ada-dependent transcription of alkA was surprising. Although the Ada protein is known to be unable to stimulate EςS-dependent transcription from the alkA promoter in vitro (7), we expected some induction in vivo, since Eς70 is also available. We performed in vitro transcription experiments to compare Eς70 and EςS, using the conditions described previously (7). The results summarized in Fig.2 show that EςS is more efficient than Eς70 in carrying out transcription from the alkA promoter in the absence of Ada and that the methylated form of the Ada protein represses EςS-dependent transcription approximately threefold. Confirmation that meAda acts as a specific repressor for EςS came from gel retardation experiments with Eς70 and EςS forms of RNA polymerase. The results in Fig. 3 show that no interaction between Eς70 and the alkA promoter was detected in the absence of Ada (lane 4). In contrast, incubation with EςS resulted in an almost complete retardation of the promoter fragment (Fig. 3, lane 7); several bands are detectable, possibly a consequence of partial dissociation of the binary complex during electrophoresis or formation of higher orders of EςS-alkA complexes. Addition of either form of the Ada protein stimulated binding of Eς70 toalkA (Fig. 3, lanes 5 and 6). In contrast, addition ofmeAda, but not of the unmethylated form of the protein, resulted in the dissociation of the EςS-alkAbinary complex (Fig. 3, lanes 8 and 9).

Fig. 2.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

In vitro transcription with reconstituted RNA polymerases (50 nM). Experimental conditions were as described previously (5). Values are relative to the ratio ofalkA/lacUV5 transcripts for Eς70. When necessary, the Ada protein was present at 0.2 μM. Data are an average from the results of three experiments. Standard deviation was less than 15%.

Fig. 3.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Gel retardation assays performed with reconstituted RNA polymerases. Conditions were as described previously (5) except for heparin, which was omitted from the reactions. Lanes: 1 to 3, no RNA polymerase; 4 to 6, Eς70; 7 to 9, EςS; 1, 4, and 7, no Ada protein; 2, 5, and 8, 0.2 μM unmethylated Ada; 3, 6, and 9, 0.2 μM methylated Ada protein. F indicates the unbound alkA promoter DNA; A indicates the(me)Ada-alkA complex; Eς70 and EςS indicate the different RNA polymerase-alkAcomplexes.

Our previous study (7) showed that the activation of thealkA promoter is dependent on the interaction between Ada and a positively charged cluster in ς70. The fact that this cluster is not conserved in ςS neatly explains why Ada is unable to activate transcription by EςS at thealkA promoter. Our present results show thatmeAda negatively regulates EςS-dependent transcription of alkA, and this mechanism is used byE. coli to down-regulate alkA. Since methylation of Ada is irreversible, cells have the problem of shutting off the adaptive response once alkylation damage has been removed. Two different mechanisms have already been proposed: proteolytic cleavage of meAda in the hinge region linking the N-terminal to the C-terminal domain of the protein (1), and negative regulation of the ada gene by the unmethylated form of the Ada protein (11). However, since both the N-terminal fragment of meAda and the unmethylated form of the protein can activate transcription at alkA, it was postulated that the simple dilution of the Ada protein over several growth cycles must eventually result in the return to basal levels of expression fromalkA (1, 11). The function of meAda as a negative regulator of EςS-dependent transcription suggests an alternative mechanism: alkA expression is activated as long as transcription is mostly ς70dependent. When cells reach stationary phase, concentrations of EςS increase. EςS can bind and carry out transcription from the alkA promoter (Fig. 2 and 3); however, meAda prevents EςS from binding toalkA (Fig. 3), thus reducing the amount of RNA polymerase available for alkA transcription. This results in low levels of alkA transcription in stationary phase even upon MMS treatment. Negative regulation by a functional rpoS gene has been observed for another ς70-dependent gene,uspA (2), suggesting that ς factors might indeed compete for a limiting amount of RNA polymerase during stationary phase. The need to express alkA only in the exponential phase of growth might be due to the role of the AlkA protein, whose main function is to remove 3-methyladenine from DNA. Methylation of this base is toxic because of its effects on DNA replication (9). During stationary phase, in the absence of DNA replication, the presence in E. coli of a second 3-methyladenine DNA glycosylase, encoded by the constitutively expressed tag gene (14), might be sufficient for the repair of this lesion, making high-level expression of thealkA gene no longer necessary.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Mike Volkert for the gift of strains MV1161 and MV2792 and Annette Keith for technical assistance.

Work in Birmingham, United Kingdom, was supported by a TMR Fellowship from the European Union to P.L.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 28 May 1999.
    • Accepted 30 July 1999.
  • Copyright © 1999 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Akimaru H.,
    2. Sakumi K.,
    3. Yoshikai T.,
    4. Anai M.,
    5. Sekiguchi M.
    Positive and negative regulation of transcription by a cleavage product of Ada protein.J. Mol. Biol.2161990261273
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. Farewell A.,
    2. Kvint K.,
    3. Nyström T.
    Negative regulation by RpoS: a case of sigma factor competition.Mol. Microbiol.29199810391051
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    1. Jishage M.,
    2. Ishihama A.
    A stationary phase protein in Escherichia coli with binding activity to the major ς subunit of RNA polymerase.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA95199849534958
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Landini P.,
    2. Volkert M. R.
    Transcriptional activation of the Escherichia coli adaptive response gene aidB is mediated by binding of methylated Ada protein. Evidence for a new consensus sequence for Ada-binding sites.J. Biol. Chem.270199582858289
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Landini P.,
    2. Hajec L. I.,
    3. Nguyen L. H.,
    4. Burgess R. R.,
    5. Volkert M. R.
    The leucine-responsive regulatory protein (Lrp) acts as a specific repressor for ςS-dependent transcription of the Escherichia coli aidB gene.Mol. Microbiol.201996947955
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    1. Landini P.,
    2. Brown J. A.,
    3. Volkert M. R.,
    4. Busby S. J. W.
    Ada protein-RNA polymerase ς subunit interaction and α subunit-promoter DNA interaction are necessary at different steps in transcription initiation at the Escherichia coli ada and aidB promoters.J. Biol. Chem.27319981330713312
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Landini P.,
    2. Busby S. J. W.
    The Escherichia coli Ada protein can interact with two distinct determinants in the ς70 subunit of RNA polymerase according to promoter architecture: identification of the target of Ada activation at the alkA promoter.J. Bacteriol.181199915241529
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Lange R.,
    2. Hengge-Aronis R.
    Identification of a central regulator of stationary-phase gene expression in Escherichia coli.Mol. Microbiol.519914959
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    1. Lindahl T.,
    2. Sedgwick B.,
    3. Sekiguchi M.,
    4. Nakabeppu Y.
    Regulation of the adaptive response to alkylating agents.Annu. Rev. Biochem.571988133157
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    1. Nakabeppu Y.,
    2. Sekiguchi M.
    Regulatory mechanisms for induction of synthesis of repair enzymes in response to alkylating agents: Ada acts as a transcriptional regulator.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA83198662976301
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Saget B. M.,
    2. Walker G. C.
    The Ada protein acts as both a positive and negative modulator of Escherichia coli’s response to methylating agents.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA91199497309734
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Samson L.,
    2. Cairns J.
    A new pathway for DNA repair in Escherichia coli.Nature (London)2671977281283
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    1. Taverna P.,
    2. Sedgwick B.
    Generation of an endogenous DNA-methylating agent by nitrosation in Escherichia coli.J. Bacteriol.178199651055111
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Volkert M. R.
    Adaptive response of Escherichia coli to alkylation damage.Environ. Mol. Mutagen.111988241255
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Volkert M. R.,
    2. Nguyen D. C.
    Induction of specific Escherichia coli genes by sublethal treatments with alkylating agents.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA81198441104114
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Volkert M. R.,
    2. Hajec L. I.,
    3. Matijasevic Z.,
    4. Fang F. C.,
    5. Prince R.
    Induction of the Escherichia coli aidB gene under oxygen-limiting conditions requires a functional rpoS (katF) gene.J. Bacteriol.176199476387645
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Expression of the Escherichia coli Ada Regulon in Stationary Phase: Evidence for rpoS-Dependent Negative Regulation of alkA Transcription
Paolo Landini, Stephen J. W. Busby
Journal of Bacteriology Nov 1999, 181 (21) 6836-6839; DOI: 10.1128/JB.181.21.6836-6839.1999

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Bacteriology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Expression of the Escherichia coli Ada Regulon in Stationary Phase: Evidence for rpoS-Dependent Negative Regulation of alkA Transcription
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Bacteriology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Bacteriology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Expression of the Escherichia coli Ada Regulon in Stationary Phase: Evidence for rpoS-Dependent Negative Regulation of alkA Transcription
Paolo Landini, Stephen J. W. Busby
Journal of Bacteriology Nov 1999, 181 (21) 6836-6839; DOI: 10.1128/JB.181.21.6836-6839.1999
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Bacterial Proteins
DNA Glycosylases
Escherichia coli
Escherichia coli Proteins
N-Glycosyl Hydrolases
regulon
sigma factor

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JB
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #Jbacteriology

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0021-9193; Online ISSN: 1098-5530