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
SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION

Rem, a New Transcriptional Activator of Motility and Chemotaxis in Sinorhizobium meliloti

Christine Rotter, Susanne Mühlbacher, Daniel Salamon, Rüdiger Schmitt, Birgit Scharf
Christine Rotter
1Institute of Biochemistry, Genetics, and Microbiology, University of Regensburg, D-93040 Regensburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susanne Mühlbacher
1Institute of Biochemistry, Genetics, and Microbiology, University of Regensburg, D-93040 Regensburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel Salamon
2Microbiological Research Group, National Center for Epidemiology, Pihenö ut 1, H-1529 Budapest, Hungary
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rüdiger Schmitt
1Institute of Biochemistry, Genetics, and Microbiology, University of Regensburg, D-93040 Regensburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Birgit Scharf
1Institute of Biochemistry, Genetics, and Microbiology, University of Regensburg, D-93040 Regensburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: birgit.scharf@biologie.uni-regensburg.de
DOI: 10.1128/JB.01902-05
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The expression of 51 known genes clustered in the flagellar regulon of Sinorhizobium meliloti is organized as a three-class hierarchy: class IA comprises the master regulatory genes, visN and visR; class II, controlled by VisNR, comprises flagellar assembly and motility genes; and class III comprises flagellin and chemotaxis genes requiring class II for expression. The expression of visN-visR is constitutive throughout growth, whereas that of class II and class III genes is limited to exponential growth. A new OmpR-like, 25-kDa transcription factor, Rem, whose synthesis is confined to exponential growth, was shown to positively control swimming motility. No phosphorylation of the receiver domain of Rem was required for its activity. Gene expression in tester strains with known deficiencies placed the rem gene (class IB) below visN-visR (class IA) and above class II genes in the regulatory cascade. Footprinting analysis demonstrated that the Rem protein binds to class II gene promoters as well as to its own promoter, indicating that this protein is autoregulatory. An alignment of the Rem-protected DNA sequences revealed a conserved binding motif of imperfect tandem repeats overlapping a predicted −35 promoter box by 3 bp. This new promoter was confirmed by mapping the transcription start site of a typical class II gene, flgB, 5 nucleotides downstream of the −10 promoter box. The transcription of rem is under dual control of an upstream (Rem-activated) class II-type promoter and a downstream (VisNR-activated) σ70-like promoter. The central role of Rem as the growth-dependent transcriptional activator intermediate between the master regulator, VisNR, and the flagellar and motility genes is a new distinguishing feature of the S. meliloti regulatory cascade.

More than 50 genes of the bacterial genetic reservoir are required for motility and chemotaxis. These genes are strictly regulated by a hierarchy of transcription controls that determine the temporal order of flagellar assembly, motility, and chemotaxis, as has been intensely studied in enterobacteria, such as Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium (1, 31, 56). The E. coli flagella, motility, chemotaxis, and regulatory genes map in four separate clusters referred to as the flagellar regulon. These have been assigned to three sequentially expressed classes. Class I comprises two genes, flhD and flhC, encoding the global transcriptional activator FlhD2 FlhC2. This, in turn, regulates the expression of class II genes, including determinants of the flagellar basal body, the flagellin-specific type III export, the flagellar hook, and FliA, a σ28 (σF) transcription factor for class III. This ultimate class contains the fla (flagellin), mot (proton channel), and che (signal transduction) genes.

The nitrogen-fixing plant symbiont Sinorhizobium meliloti, a member of the α subgroup of proteobacteria (38), differs from the enterobacterial γ subgroup behavioral scheme in its filament structure, the mode of flagellar rotation, and steps of signal procession (49). The rigid “complex” flagellar filaments consist of four related flagellin subunits, and interflagellin bonds lock the filaments in right-handedness (7, 20, 48). Hence, S. meliloti cells are propelled by exclusively clockwise-rotating flagella, and swimming cells respond to tactic stimuli by modulating their rotary speed (2, 47). Whereas in E. coli tactic signals are processed by a single response regulator, CheY, and a phosphatase, CheZ, signal processing in S. meliloti involves a retrophosphorylation loop with two response regulators, CheY1 and CheY2, but no phosphatase (49, 53, 54). In addition, a new periplasmic motor protein, MotC, controls flagellar rotary speed in an as yet enigmatic way (41). The arrangement of chemotaxis (che), flagellar (fla, flg, flh, and fli), motility (mot), and regulatory (visN and visR) genes differs from the enterobacterial pattern in that all 51 known genes are clustered in one contiguous 56-kb chromosomal region, the flagellar regulon (19, 55). Two genes, visN and visR (assigned class IA), encode the LuxR-type subunits of a heterodimeric (or heterotetrameric) global transcriptional activator, VisNR (52). Inactivating deletions of visN or visR were shown to result in the loss of class II (flg, flh, fli, and mot) and class III (fla and che) gene expression, suggesting that their transcription is directly controlled by the global regulator VisNR (52). However, while VisNR is synthesized throughout growth, swimming motility is restricted to exponential growth. We describe here another master regulator, Rem (regulator of exponential growth motility) (Smc03046 [19]), that actively controls the transcription of class II genes and that confines their expression to the exponential phase of bacterial growth. The monocistronic rem gene maps within the flagellar regulon (Fig. 1A) and is itself subject to autoregulation and to transcriptional control by VisNR. The rem gene was thus assigned to class IB, intermediate between class IA (visN and visR) and class II genes, acting as a determinant of motility during exponential growth.

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

(A) Portion of the flagellar regulon of S. meliloti (55) containing the rem gene (black) flanked by the mot operon (41) (white) and nine flagellar genes (19) (gray) newly assigned by sequence similarities to known E. coli orthologs (31). Gene positions and polarities are indicated by pointed boxes. (B) Polypeptide sequences of Rem from S. meliloti (AAG48153.1), HP1043 from Helicobacter pylori (NC_000915.1), and OmpR from E. coli (P03025) (GenBank accession numbers are in parentheses) aligned by the GCG multiple alignment sequence program (Wisconsin Package version 10.0). Black shading indicates identical or conserved residues. Numbering refers to amino acids in each line, and dots signify gaps. Signature aspartyl residues for response regulators are marked by filled (Rem) and open (HP1043 and OmpR) arrowheads. Proposed functional elements, namely, the three DNA-binding helices (α1, α2, and α3) and two wings (W1 and W2), as well as the α-loop are drawn at the bottom for Rem (PSIPRED) (35) in dark shading and for OmpR (32) in light shading.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Bacteria and plasmids.Derivates of E. coli K-12 and S. meliloti MV II-1 (25) and the plasmids used are listed in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1.

Bacterial strains and plasmids

Media and growth conditions. E. coli strains were grown in Luria broth (29) at 37°C. S. meliloti strains were grown in TYC (0.5% tryptone, 0.3% yeast extract, 0.13% CaCl2 · 6H2O [pH 7.0]) (41) at 30°C for 2 days. Motile cells for β-galactosidase assays were grown for 2 days in TYC, diluted in 15 ml of rhizobium phosphate buffer (RB) to an optical density at 600 nm (OD600) of 0.05, layered on Bromfield agar plates (53), and incubated on a slowly rotating platform at 30°C for 16 h to an OD600 of 0.15 to 0.25. Motile cells for growth phase-dependent β-galactosidase assays and Western blot analysis were grown in Sinorhizobium motility medium (RB, 0.2% mannitol, and 2% tryptone-yeast extract [3, 20]). Cells from a stationary-phase culture grown in Sinorhizobium motility medium were diluted in 10 ml of fresh medium to an OD600 of 0.05 and incubated at 30°C for 2 h to 64 h to a final OD600 of 0.06 to 1.2. Flasks for growing motile cells were pretreated with chrome sulfuric acid for 24 h and rinsed three times with distilled H2O to obtain highly motile cells. Swarm plates containing Bromfield medium and 0.3% Bacto agar were inoculated with 3-μl droplets of the test culture and incubated at 30°C for 3 days. Percentages of wild-type swarm diameters were determined after deduction of the 6-mm inoculum. The following antibiotics were used at the indicated final concentrations: for E. coli, kanamycin (50 mg/liter), tetracycline (10 mg/liter), and gentamicin (10 mg/liter); and for S. meliloti, streptomycin (600 mg/liter), neomycin (120 mg/liter), tetracycline (10 mg/liter), and gentamicin (40 mg/liter). For o-nitrophenyl-β-d-galactopyranoside (ONPG) tests, tetracycline was used at 3 mg/liter and gentamicin at 13 mg/liter.

DNA methods. S. meliloti DNA was isolated and purified as described previously (53). Plasmid DNA was purified with a NucleoSpin (Macherey Nagel, Düren, Germany). DNA fragments or PCR products were purified from agarose gels by use of a QiaEX DNA purification kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany). PCR amplification of chromosomal DNA and Southern blotting were carried out according to published protocols (41, 55). DNA was sequenced with an ABI 310 automatic sequencer (Applied Biosystems, Weiterstadt, Germany). Sequences were aligned and compared by using GCG sequence analysis software (11).

Gene replacement and complementation.Deletions and amino acid substitutions were generated in vitro by overlap extension PCR as described by Higuchi (21). PCR products containing the deletions or amino acid substitutions were cloned into the mobilizable suicide vector pK18mobsacB and used to transform E. coli S17-1. Clones were sequenced to ascertain the accuracy of PCR-generated portions. Filter matings of E. coli S17-1 and S. meliloti were performed according to Simon et al. (51), followed by sequential selections on neomycin and 10% sucrose, as previously described (53). Confirmation of allelic replacement and elimination of the vector was obtained by gene-specific primer PCR, Southern blotting, and DNA sequencing. Complementation with pBBR1MCS-based recombinant rem and visNR followed established protocols (26, 27).

Recombinant expression and purification of Rem.Recombinant Rem protein was overproduced from plasmid pRU2365 in E. coli ER2566 (Table 1). Cells were grown at 37°C in Luria broth containing 100 mg of ampicillin per liter to an OD600 of 0.7, and gene expression was induced by 0.3 mM isopropyl-β-d-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG). Cultivation was continued for 16 h at 16°C until harvest. Cells from 2-liter cultures were resuspended in 20 ml column buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl [pH 8.0], 500 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA) containing 10 μg/ml DNase I and lysed by two passages through a French press at 20,000 lb/in2. Cell membranes and debris were removed by centrifugation at 48,000 × g and 4°C for 30 min. The supernatant was loaded on a chitin agarose (NEBiolabs, Beverly, MA) column (2.6 by 5.0 cm) equilibrated with column buffer and washed thoroughly with 5 bed volumes of column buffer at 4°C. Intein-mediated cleavage at the intein cleavage site was elicited by equilibration of the column with 2 bed volumes of cleavage buffer (50 mM dithiothreitol in column buffer) and further incubation at 4°C for 16 h. Rem was eluted with column buffer, and pooled fractions were dialyzed against 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0), 250 mM NaCl, 1 mM dithiothreitol (DTT), 50% glycerol and concentrated by ultrafiltration on a regenerated cellulose membrane (10-kDa cutoff) to a protein concentration of 5 mg/ml. In vitro phosphorylation experiments of purified Rem with [32P]acetyl phosphate and [32P]phosphoamidate were performed according to McCleary and Stock (34) and Buckler and Stock (5), respectively.

Immunoblots.Polyclonal antibodies raised against S. meliloti flagellar filaments; recombinant MotC, MotE, FliM, and Rem; and the N-terminal receiver domain of Rem were isolated from whole serum by affinity purification using 100 μg protein by following previously described protocols (48). Whole-cell extracts were separated in 10% or 15% acrylamide gels, transferred to nitrocellulose, and probed using purified anti-S. meliloti MotC, MotE, FliM, and Rem polyclonal antibody at a 1:100 dilution and anti-S. meliloti Fla polyclonal antibody at a 1:500 dilution. CheY1 was detected by using whole serum at a 1:1,000 dilution. Antibodies were purchased from Pineda (Berlin, Germany), except for an antiserum raised against Rem by Eurogentec (Belgium) that was used for the immunoblot shown in Fig. 2B.

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

Kinetics of rem gene expression in wild-type and Δrem mutant S. meliloti during growth. (A) Averaged growth curves (OD600) (•) and rem promoter (Prem) activity (in Miller units) monitored by the Prem-lacZ reporter gene construct pRU2361 in strains RU11/001 (wild type; ▪) and RU11/555 (Δrem; □). Points represent the mean of two experiments (6% average deviation). The horizontal bar at the top marks the period of motility; the arrows at the bottom define the period of sampling for Western blot analysis shown below. (B) Samples of 4.7 × 108 cells of wild-type strain RU11/001 were taken at the intervals indicated at the bottom (in hours). Equal amounts of total cell protein were separated by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, blotted on nitrocellulose, and detected with a specific anti-Rem antibody (1:100) described in Materials and Methods.

Construction strains carrying promoter-lacZ fusions and β-galactosidase assay.For analyzing the expression of genes in the flagellar regulon, the broad-host-range vector pPHU234 and two derivates, pPHU235 and pPHU236 (Table 1), served as vehicles for translational fusions to a promoterless lacZ (23). Nine lacZ fusion plasmids (Table 1) were used to transform E. coli S17-1 and then conjugally transferred to the S. meliloti wild type and Δrem mutant by a streptomycin-tetracycline double selection, as described by Labes et al. (27). β-Galactosidase was assayed by the hydrolysis of ONPG (Sigma) as described by Miller (36).

DNase I footprint experiments.Footprinting experiments were performed essentially as described by Dickneite et al. (12). The pRU2916 (PflgB), pRU2917 (PfliF), pRU2918 (Porf38), and pRU2919 (Prem) plasmids (Table 1) containing the named promoter regions were first digested with EcoRI and then subjected to dephosphorylation by calf intestine phosphatase (Roche). Approximately 4 pmol of each plasmid was then 5′ end labeled using 5 pmol of [γ-32P]ATP (6,000 Ci/mmol; Amersham) with T4 polynucleotide kinase (New England Biolabs) and digested with HindIII. The promoter fragment was labeled at one terminus, extracted from a 4% polyacrylamide gel, and eluted in 4 ml of elution buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl [pH 8.0], 1 mM EDTA, 300 mM sodium acetate [pH 5.2], 0.2% sodium dodecyl sulfate [SDS]) at 30°C overnight. The eluted probe was extracted once with an equal volume of phenol-chloroform (1:1) and then ethanol precipitated. Approximately 150,000 cpm of the labeled probe was used in each reaction mixture for the footprinting experiment. Protein-DNA complexes were formed in 50 μl of binding buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl [pH 8.0], 100 mM NaCl, 2 mM MgCl2, 0.1 mM CaCl2, 10 mM KCl, 1 mM DTT) supplemented with glycerol to a final concentration of 20% (vol/vol) for 20 min at 25°C. DNase I digestion was carried out by the addition of 1 μl of DNase I (10 U/μl) in 1× binding buffer for 1 min at 25°C. The reaction was stopped by the addition of 140 μl of stop buffer (192 mM sodium acetate [pH 5.2], 32 mM EDTA, 0.14% SDS, 9 μg of yeast tRNA). Samples were then extracted once with an equal volume of phenol-chloroform (1:1), ethanol precipitated, and resuspended in 5 μl of sequencing loading buffer (97.5% deionized formamide, 10 mM EDTA [pH 8.0], 0.3% xylene cyanol FF, 0.3% bromophenol blue). After denaturation at 80°C for 3 min, samples were subjected to electrophoresis on 10% polyacrylamide-7 M urea gels at 1,100 V and autoradiographed. A G+A sequence reaction was performed in parallel with the labeled DNA probe and electrophoresed on the same gel (33).

Preparation of RNA.Total RNA was essentially prepared according to Delany et al. (8). Motile cells from a 400-ml culture with an OD600 of 0.19 were lysed by boiling for 5 min in 20 ml of 1% SDS, 2 mM EDTA, and 100 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.5) and immediately chilled on ice for 5 min in the presence of 80 mM KCl. After precipitated DNA was removed by centrifugation at 12,000 × g for 10 min, 1.3 g of CsCl per milliliter of supernatant was added and dissolved. RNA was sedimented by centrifugation in swing-out buckets in an SW40 rotor at 50,000 × g and 22°C for 20 h. The pellet was resuspended in 400 μl Tris-EDTA, extracted with 1 volume of phenol-chloroform, and precipitated after the addition of 1/10 volume of 3 M sodium acetate (pH 5.2) and 2 to 2.5 volumes of ethanol. RNA was sedimented by centrifugation at 16,000 × g and 4°C for 20 min, washed with 600 μl of 70% ethanol, and centrifuged at 16,000 × g and 4°C for 10 min. The RNA pellet was resuspended in 50 to 100 μl Tris-EDTA, kept for 15 min on ice, aliquoted, and stored at −80°C.

5′-RACE.Rapid amplification of 5′ cDNA ends (5′-RACE) was essentially carried out using a GeneRacer kit (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer's instructions with minor modifications. Briefly, 5′-triphosphates were converted to monophosphates by treatment of 5 μg total RNA with 0.5 U tobacco acid pyrophosphatase at 37°C for 60 min in a total reaction volume of 10 μl containing 50 mM sodium acetate (pH 6.0), 1 mM EDTA, 0.1% β-mercaptoethanol, and 0.01% Triton X-100. The reaction was stopped by phenol-chloroform extraction followed by ethanol-sodium acetate precipitation. Precipitated RNA was redissolved in water, mixed with 250 ng of GeneRacer RNA oligonucleotide (5′-CGA CUG GAG CAC GAG GAC ACU GAC AUG GAC UGA AGG AGU AGA AA-3′), heat denatured at 65°C for 5 min, and quick-chilled on ice. The GeneRacer RNA oligonucleotide was ligated at 37°C for 1 h with 5 U of T4 RNA ligase in a reaction mixture containing 33 mM Tris-acetate (pH 7.8), 66 mM potassium acetate, 10 mM magnesium acetate, 0.5 mM DTT, 1 mM ATP, and 40 U of RNaseOut. After phenol-chloroform extraction and ethanol precipitation, the RNA was reverse transcribed at 45°C for 60 min with 2 pmol of reverse transcriptase (RT) primer specific for flgB (5′-GGT CTT CAT CAA TTC CTC TTC-3′) or rem (5′-CAG CGT CGA TAT CGG AAT C-3′) and 200 U of SuperScript III reverse transcriptase according to the manufacturer's instructions. After inactivation at 70°C for 15 min, the RT reaction was treated with 2 U of RNase H at 37°C for 20 min. One microliter of the RT reaction product was used for PCR amplification with 10 pmol of PCR primer specific for flgB (5′-GCT TTC GAA GGG CTG AAC GTC TTT C-3′) or rem (5′-GGA ATC GGC GGC GGA GCT TAC-3′) and 20 pmol of the GeneRacer 5′ primer (5′-CGA CTG GAG CAC GAG GAC ACT GA-3′). The 50-μl PCR contained 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 9.0), 50 mM KCl, 2.5 mM MgCl2, 0.1% Triton X-100, 0.2 mM concentrations of each of the four deoxynucleoside triphosphates, and 2 U of Taq polymerase (Promega). Cycling conditions were as follows: 95°C for 3 min; 28 cycles of 95°C for 40 s, 68°C for 40 s, and 72°C for 1 min; 72°C for 8 min. PCR products were separated on a 2% agarose gel, and the band of interest was excised, purified with a GenElute agarose spin column (Sigma), and cloned into pCR4-TOPO vector (Invitrogen) with a TOPO TA cloning kit for sequencing (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Recombinant plasmids were purified using a QIAprep Spin Miniprep kit (QIAGEN) and sequenced using a Thermo Sequenase Primer cycle sequencing kit (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) and ALFexpress II automated DNA sequencer (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech).

RESULTS

Rem is an OmpR-like transcriptional activator.The monocistronic rem gene maps within the flagellar regulon between the mot operon (15, 41) and nine flagellar genes (19) assigned by sequence similarities to known enterobacterial orthologs (31), as diagrammed in Fig. 1A. The derived 223-residue Rem polypeptide sequence (25 kDa) is a member of the OmpR family of transcriptional regulators, as revealed by sequence alignments with HP1043 (25% identity) from Helicobacter pylori (8, 46) and the prototype OmpR (22% identity) from E. coli (32) as shown in Fig. 1B. OmpR-like response regulators are characterized by an N-terminal receiver or regulatory domain with a conserved Asp residue (Asp55 in OmpR) serving as a phosphate acceptor and a C-terminal DNA-binding domain containing the three-helix pattern of a “winged helix-turn-helix” motif (32). The good correlation between secondary structure elements in the C-terminal domain of Rem (analyzed by PSIPRED [35]) and the corresponding elements derived from the crystal structure of OmpR (32), as diagrammed in Fig. 1B, underlines the close relationship of these DNA-binding proteins. The recognition helix α3 interacts with the major groove of DNA, α2 acts as a positioning helix, and the recognition wing W1 (and probably W2) interacts with the minor groove (32). Therefore, Rem belongs to the winged helix-turn-helix proteins. Unlike OmpR and CheY-like response regulators (4) that are activated by the phosphorylation of one particular aspartate, the regulatory domains of Rem and HP1043 have substitutions at some positions in the conserved signature aspartyl residues (Fig. 1B, arrowheads), suggesting that they may exert their function in the absence of regulatory domain phosphorylation, an assumption that has been confirmed (see below).

Rem and motility have similar growth phase-dependent expression profiles.A rem knockout mutant (RU11/555) generated by allelic exchange (45) provided an initial insight into the function of the gene product Rem. The mutant cells were nonmotile on swarm plates and under phase-contrast microscopy, while electron microscopy revealed that RU11/555 cells were nonflagellated. These data suggested that Rem is required for the production of flagella.

In liquid culture, the motility of wild-type S. meliloti cells is confined to a “window” during exponential growth. The global regulator VisNR (class IA) by itself cannot account for this restriction, as it is expressed throughout exponential- and stationary-phase growth (52). Attempts to uncover a VisNR-activating transient effector have failed so far. As an alternative, we studied the expression kinetics of rem as a possible key to the growth-dependent control of motility. To this end, rem promoter (Prem) activity was monitored in growing cultures using a plasmid-borne lacZ reporter construct (pRU2361) introduced into the wild-type (RU11/001) and the Δrem mutant (RU11/555) genetic backgrounds. Figure 2A (filled squares) reveals a clear-cut dependence of wild-type Prem activity on exponential growth. Promoter activity increases rapidly at the onset of exponential growth (at 4 h) and enters a plateau at mid-exponential growth (at 9 h) that is maintained until the onset of stationary growth (at 20 h), when it suddenly drops by 75% followed by a tapering to below 10% final activity. These transcription kinetics of rem are matched by Rem concentrations present in the cell. The Western blot shown in Fig. 2B records cellular levels of Rem protein sampled throughout exponential growth of wild-type S. meliloti. The Rem protein band was first detectable shortly after the start of rem transcription (6 h), and the band intensities peaked between 9 h and 20 h and then declined rapidly parallel to transcription (Fig. 2A). This rapid decay of protein is noteworthy and suggests that Rem may be the target of a specific proteolytic degradation.

Parallel to the wild type, we determined the kinetics of Prem activity in the Rem-deficient background of strain RU11/555 (Δrem) (Fig. 2A, open squares). Compared to the wild-type kinetics, this curve shows an even steeper increase of Prem activity during an initial incline (4 to 7 h) and an early decline of activity in the progressing exponential phase (at 8 to 17 h) without an extended plateau period. These data suggest that the transcription of rem is subject to autoregulation by its wild-type product, Rem, to maintain a high level of transcription throughout exponential growth. The two transcription profiles seen in the presence and absence of Rem (Fig. 2A) are believed to result from two different promoters acting on rem gene expression, as is described further below.

Phosphorylation of signature aspartyl residues is not required for Rem activity.Rem is an orphan OmpR-like response regulator (Fig. 1B) for which no cognate histidine kinase has been identified. On the other hand, the Rem regulatory domain contains signature residues (Asp6, Asp7, Asp43, Asp45, and Asp47 [Fig. 1B]) suggestive of a CheY-like acidic pocket that accommodates Mg2+ and a phosphate group bound to a conserved aspartate for activation (4, 28, 59). Therefore, we tried to phosphorylate recombinant Rem protein in vitro with 32P-labeled acetyl phosphate and phosphor- amidate, substances known to act as small phosphoacyl donors to many response regulator proteins (5, 34). However, neither was capable of phosphorylating the Rem protein, although a CheY2 control exhibited good phosphorylation under the given conditions (not shown).

In another approach, we exchanged putative phosphorylation sites, namely, Asp43, Asp45, and Asp47, singly and in combination, for Asn. If Rem activity depends on the phosphorylation of any of these residues, an Asp-to-Asn exchange would eliminate the regulatory function of Rem and hence the swimming and swarming proficiency of the mutant cells. When assessing motile proficiency on swarm plates, mutant D43N exhibited a minute reduction of swarm diameter (95% of wild type [wt]), whereas mutants D47N (75% of wt) and D45N (50% of wt) exhibited moderate losses of their swarming potentials, but in no case was a complete loss of swarming (as seen in the Δrem control) observed (Fig. 3). Only when two (D45N/D47N) or three (D43N/D45N/D47N) substitutions were combined did swarm diameters drop to 29% or 0%, respectively, compared to the wild type (Fig. 3). The gradual loss of function caused by several charge-neutralizing substitutions introduced in the regulatory domain of Rem does not result from impaired protein stability (data not shown) but rather reflects conformational changes that affect the function of the regulatory domain. However, there is no evidence for phosphorylation of a single aspartyl residue as a requirement for function. In this, Rem differs from most other two-component regulatory proteins (40), but it is consistent with the OmpR-like response regulators HP1043 and HP1021 of H. pylori (Fig. 1B) (8, 46). Taken together, our data show that transcription control is exerted by the unphosphorylated Rem protein.

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

Histogram of relative swarm sizes of six rem mutants compared to wild-type cells. wt, wild-type S. meliloti (RU11/001); Δrem, in-frame deletion of rem (RU11/555); D43N (RU13/006), D47N (RU13/557), and D45N (RU11/007), single amino acid substitutions; and D45/47N (RU13/009) and D43/45/47N (RU13/224), double and triple substitutions. Percentages of the wild-type swarm diameter on 0.3% Bromfield agar are the means of results from five replicates.

Rem is a transcriptional activator of class II genes.Features of the Rem-deficient (Δrem) mutant, notably the total absence of flagella, led us to ask whether regulation by Rem is limited to flagellar synthesis or if it acts on the entire cluster of flagellar, motility, and chemotaxis genes. We thus tested the expression of representative basal body, motor, flagellin, and chemotaxis genes by Western blot analysis (Fig. 4) and by lacZ fusions (Table 2) in wild-type S. meliloti and in the regulatory mutant background. Polyclonal antibodies raised against recombinant FliM (C-ring protein), MotC (periplasmic motor protein), MotE (periplasmic chaperone), purified flagellar filaments (Fla), and CheY1 (response regulator) were used to probe the expression of genes representing relevant transcription units of the flagellar regulon (55). The results shown in Fig. 4 confirm the presumed role of Rem as a master regulator, since FliM, MotC, and MotE, representatives of major class II operons, were expressed at below 5% of wild type in the Δrem mutant background and flagellin and CheY1, representatives of class III operons, were expressed at below 10% of wild type in the Δrem mutant background.

FIG. 4.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG. 4.

Western blot analysis of gene expression in wild-type S. meliloti (RU11/001) and a rem deletion mutant (Δrem; RU11/555) by using polyclonal anti-FliM (α-FliM), anti-MotE (α-MotE), anti-MotC (α-MotC), anti-flagellin (α-Fla), and anti-CheY1 (α-CheY1) antibodies. Cell extracts of the wt and Δrem strains were electrophoretically separated, blotted, and analyzed with polyclonal antibodies as described in Materials and Methods.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2.

Relative promoter activities of nine motility genes determined in two regulatory mutant strains

This scheme has been confirmed and extended by probing transcription from the promoters that correspond to seven indicator genes and to genes encoding the regulators VisNR and Rem. Table 2 lists the β-galactosidase activities of the different lacZ fusions measured in Δrem and ΔvisNR tester strains expressed in proportion to the activities determined in wild-type S. meliloti RU11/001. Ideally, the ratio of mutant to wild type is 1 if the mutant allele exerts no control over the promoter tested, and it is close to 0 if the wild-type allele is needed for gene expression. Accordingly, both visNR and rem are required for the transcription of basal body (fli and flg), motor (mot), flagellin (fla), and chemotaxis (che) genes. Notably, VisNR exerts control over rem gene transcription, whereas Rem exerts no control over visNR. Moreover, when probed in the absence of Rem (strain RU11/555) during early exponential growth (as in Table 2), rem transcription exceeds that of the wild type (Rem present) by 24%, indicative of Rem autoregulation. We conclude that Rem is a transcriptional activator of class II and, indirectly, of class III genes, while its own transcription is controlled by VisNR and modulated by autoregulation.

Rem is the actual regulator of motility.The data so far indicate that two transcriptional activators, VisNR and Rem, control the motility of S. meliloti cells (Table 2). Do these regulators act in parallel, i.e., synergistically, or in a sequential order? A decision between these alternatives was reached by the following complementation experiment. The rem gene placed under the control of a constitutive lac promoter on the broad-host-range plasmid pBBR1MCS-2 (to yield plasmid pRU2818 [Table 1]) was conjugally transferred to strains RU11/555 (Δrem) and RU11/814 (ΔvisNR). Complementation by constitutive expression of the native rem allele from plasmid pRU2818 restored the swimming and swarming proficiencies of the two strains, as recorded in Table 3. Conversely, even an overexpressed visNR operon (from plasmid pRU2803) in a Δrem genetic background was incapable of restoring motility of that host, while the same plasmid could restore the motility of strain RU11/814 (ΔvisNR) (Table 3). These data provide genetic evidence that the rem gene product acts in trans and, most importantly, that it overrides the control by VisNR on motility but not vice versa. Therefore, the two master controls clearly act in a hierarchy, with VisNR at the top activating the transcription of rem, whose gene product, Rem, in turn activates the transcription of class II genes in the flagellar regulon. In the regulatory cascade determining the order of gene transcription in the flagellar regulon, we have assigned visNR to class IA (formerly class I) and rem to class IB.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3.

Motility of S. meliloti mutant strains

It may be noticed that the motility restored by complementation with a Rem-overproducing plasmid reached only 50% or 60% of the wild-type reference (Table 3). By implication, this may be a consequence of surplus Rem regulatory protein that leads to a dosage imbalance. In support of this reasoning, an immunoblot comparing the levels of Rem in the wild type and three pRU2818-bearing strains revealed threefold-elevated levels of Rem protein in the latter strains as well as a faint leading band indicating fast degradation of Rem (Fig. 5).

FIG. 5.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG. 5.

Western blot showing the levels of Rem protein in the S. meliloti wild type and different mutant strains. Strains RU11/001 (Wt), RU11/555 (Δrem), and RU11/814 (ΔvisNR) with and without plasmid pRU2818 (constitutively expressing the rem gene) were tested. Equal amounts of total cell protein were electrophoretically separated, blotted, and detected with a polyclonal anti-Rem antibody specified in Materials and Methods. Overexpressed Rem (arrow) comigrates with a faint degradation band. The slow-moving, unspecific cross-reaction band served as a loading control.

Mapping the transcription initiation sites of flgB and rem.Transcription initiation is the primary stage at which gene expression is regulated. Therefore, to better understand the molecular mechanism by which Rem activates class II genes and its own transcription, we (i) mapped the transcription initiation sites of two representative genes, flgB and rem, (ii) determined the DNA-binding sites of Rem in the promoter regions of four typical genes, and (iii) deduced possible promoter motifs from the consensus of the aligned Rem binding sites and by their relative distances to the transcription start. The 5′ ends of flgB and rem mRNAs (defining the respective transcription initiation sites) were mapped by 5′-RACE, a method based on reverse transcription of oligonucleotide-tagged mRNA and PCR amplification of the mRNA-derived cDNA (see Materials and Methods). Amplified cDNAs representing the 5′ sequences of the flgB and rem transcripts, each framed by specific 5′ and 3′ oligonucleotides, were analyzed by gel electrophoresis (Fig. 6A), cloned, and propagated in E. coli DH10B. The sequence of four individual clones each of the flgB-derived (199 bp) and rem-derived (202 bp) cDNAs yielded consistent results that are shown in Fig. 6B and C, respectively. Typically, both transcripts start with an A (+1) located 17 bp (flgB) and 25 bp (rem) upstream of the ATG start codons. Before a detailed appreciation of these findings, we will first describe footprinting experiments that revealed the DNA-binding sites of Rem.

FIG. 6.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG. 6.

5′-RACE analysis of the flgB and rem transcription start sites. (A) PCR-amplified cDNA reverse transcribed from the 5′ ends of flgB and rem mRNAs; the sizes of the standard marker bands (S) are indicated. (B) Nucleotide sequence of the flgB mRNA-derived cDNA (capital letters) including 5′ and 3′ primers (lowercase letters). The transcription start site (+1) is marked by an arrow, and the ATG start codon is shown in boldface. (C) Nucleotide sequence of the rem mRNA-derived cDNA including primer sequences. Symbols are the same as in panel B.

Rem protein binds to class II and rem gene promoter DNA.Promoter probes of three representative class II genes, flgB, fliF, and orf38, were used in DNase I footprinting experiments with purified Rem protein in the presence of excess nonspecific competitor DNA. The results shown in Fig. 7 indicate that the addition of increasing amounts of Rem resulted in the protection of nucleotides spanning 33 bp of flgB and fliF promoter DNA and 26 bp of the orf38 promoter DNA. An alignment of the three sequences protected by Rem revealed 17 of 26 conserved nucleotides forming an imperfect tandem repeat as the possible recognition motif for Rem (Fig. 8, large arrows). Two other class II genes, motA and orf20, whose upstream sequences contain the same binding motif were included in the alignment (Fig. 8). This sequence is absent from the upstream regions of all inspected class III genes, suggesting that these genes are not under the direct transcriptional control of Rem but may be indirectly linked to Rem through class II-encoded flagellar export (see Discussion).

FIG. 7.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG. 7.

DNase I footprinting of four promoter DNAs using Rem. Shown is the protection of three class II (A to C) and rem (D) promoter DNAs from DNase I by the binding of increasing amounts of Rem protein. Numbers refer to the number of micrograms of Rem protein in each sample. Bars indicate the position of Rem binding in each sequence. G+A is the sequencing ladder used to index the sites of protection. The arrow marks a DNase I-hypersensitive site in the rem regulatory sequence (D).

FIG. 8.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG. 8.

Promoter sequences aligned relative to Rem binding. The promoter regions of flgB, fliF, and orf38 examined by footprinting (Fig. 7) were aligned with those of two other class II genes (marked by asterisks) and with the rem promoter. Nucleotides protected from DNase I digestion by Rem are underlined, and the hypersensitive site in the rem sequence is marked by an arrowhead. Conserved positions are highlighted (black, 100% identity; gray, 67% identity), and the direct repeats are delineated by two horizontal arrows. The derived P1 promoter consensus (P1 con) is shown at the top of the alignment, with −35 and −10 boxes marked accordingly. The entire 5′ untranscribed region of rem is shown at the bottom to illustrate the Rem binding site, promoters P1 and P2 (highlighted in black), and the P1 transcription start (+1). The transcription start site of flgB (+1) as determined by 5′-RACE (Fig. 6) is marked by a bent arrow, putative start sites at corresponding positions below are shaded, and ATG start codons are written in boldface.

Footprinting also served to confirm the predicted autoregulatory function of Rem (Fig. 2). When using a Prem DNA probe and increasing amounts of Rem protein (Fig. 7D), a large, 47-bp sequence was protected from DNase I digestion, with one DNase I-hypersensitive site (Fig. 7D, arrow) demonstrating that Rem binds to its own promoter. Compared to the five class II promoter sequences, the aligned Prem sequence contained only 12 of the 17 conserved positions and a less perfect tandem repeat (Fig. 8). These differences correspond to the autoregulatory function of Rem, which rather than an all-or-nothing control implies fine-tuning and a partial control of rem gene transcription.

OmpR-like activator proteins usually bind immediately upstream or inside of the promoter sequences and are believed to function by directly contacting RNA polymerase (6). We therefore examined the region inside and immediately downstream of the second repeat for conserved nucleotides that might constitute the −35 and −10 sequence elements of class II and rem gene promoters. This scrutiny suggested a putative promoter consensus for class II genes and rem, as shown in Fig. 8 (top). Accordingly, the −35 box partially overlaps with the proximal repeat sequence, and it is separated by a 7- to 11-bp spacer from the −10 box. This dense arrangement of the activator and the proposed RNA polymerase binding sites is the basis for an efficient interaction of the bound proteins in transcription initiation.

The assignment of a new promoter consensus in S. meliloti was substantiated by mapping the flgB transcription initiation site at an A (Fig. 6) 5 nucleotides downstream of the −10 promoter box (Fig. 8). Purine nucleotides at corresponding positions of all aligned 5′ untranslated regions listed in Fig. 8 suggest that these A's and G's (shaded) mark the transcription starts of fliF, orf38, motA, and orf20. While we believe that the same holds for the rem gene, 5′-RACE positioned the rem transcription start 102 bp further downstream (Fig. 6). However, this unexpected result was rationalized when an almost perfect σ70-like rhizobial promoter, CCCGAT-N17-CTATAT (30), was detected 9 nucleotides upstream of the mapped transcription start (Fig. 8, bottom). Therefore, we propose that the rem gene is under dual control of a weaker upstream promoter (P1) autoregulated by Rem and a stronger, σ70-like downstream promoter (P2) that produced the signal seen by 5′-RACE. Despite various attempts to map the P1 transcription start of rem, our RT primer seems to have exclusively selected the more abundant P2 mRNA species. The activities of both P1 (on top of the control by Rem) and P2 are controlled by the global regulator VisNR (Table 2). The obvious next step is to identify VisNR binding sites upstream of P1 and P2, using standard techniques.

DISCUSSION

Swimming motility of S. meliloti depends on exponential growth. This requires an extra growth-dependent temporary control in addition to the constitutively expressed master regulatory genes, visN and visR (class IA) (52). We describe here a new regulatory gene, rem (class IB), whose OmpR-like product, Rem, acts as a transcriptional activator of flagellar assembly and motility genes (class II), which in turn exert control over flagellin and chemotaxis genes (class III). A diagram of this regulatory cascade is shown in Fig. 9. It expands a previously proposed scheme (52) by the inclusion of Rem (class IB) below the master regulator, VisNR (class IA), and above class II genes. The latter encode basal body components, like FliM and Orf38 (a potential basal body protein), and motor proteins. Class III comprises the chemotaxis operon (55) and flagellin genes (48). Their expression requires class IIA gene products (basal body and flagellar export) but not those of class IIB (Mot components of the proton channel) (52). The dependence of class III gene expression on the completion of basal body structure and flagellar export suggests a control mechanism similar to that operating in enterobacteria (1, 31). There, the σ28-dependent transcription of class III genes is blocked by the anti-sigma factor, FlgM, which is secreted into the medium as soon as the flagellar export apparatus is completed, thus releasing σ28 for the transcription of class III genes. While this mode of control provides a tenable explanation of our data, it has to be substantiated by locating the yet elusive class II-encoded factor(s) that directs class III transcription in S. meliloti.

FIG. 9.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG. 9.

Proposed scheme of the regulatory hierarchy cascade of the S. meliloti flagellar regulon. The stepwise assembly of flagella is reflected by a regulatory cascade of three classes (adapted from Sourjik et al. [52]). The new regulator, Rem, has been integrated in this scheme as a class IB gene, immediately below the global regulator VisNR (class IA). Operons are indicated as horizontal arrows and the corresponding gene products as ellipsoids. Positive transcription controls are shown as vertical black arrows and translation to gene products as open arrows. The uncovered transcription controls of rem by two promoters (P1 and P2) and two activators, VisNR and Rem (dotted arrow), are illustrated. For details, see the text.

Rem is the new player in the scheme (Fig. 9). This transcriptional activator is a member of the OmpR family of winged helix-turn-helix DNA-binding proteins (32). It is exclusively synthesized during exponential growth (Fig. 2) and is therefore the principal candidate for the growth-dependent control of motility. What confines the expression of rem to a limited period of bacterial growth? The transcription of rem is under dual control by an upstream P1 promoter positively autoregulated by Rem and a dominant downstream P2 promoter (Fig. 8). Both P1 and P2 depend on activation by the global regulator VisNR. This is borne out by mutation studies (Table 2) and the profiles of rem transcription in wild-type (Rem+) and Δrem (Rem−) backgrounds (Fig. 2A). While Rem-dependent transcription from P1 modulates and expands the expression plateau, the transcription profile in a Rem-deficient background (relying solely on P2) is more abrupt and less extended but is still restricted to the exponential phase of growth. Therefore, it is either VisNR or an additional, yet unknown factor that confines the transcription of rem to exponential growth. The visN visR operon is expressed throughout bacterial growth (52) and thus does not recommend itself as a temporal control. However, we previously considered whether VisNR might be transiently activated by the binding of an environmental effector (52). The regulatory proteins VisN and VisR, thought to form active heterodimers, are paralogs of LuxR, the transcriptional activator of luminescence in Vibrio fischeri, a regulator requiring the binding of N-acyl homoserine lactone for activity (17, 39). Quorum sensing and a wide variety of cellular functions and structures are regulated by LuxR-like factors (13, 18, 60). For example, VjbR, a LuxR-like transcriptional regulator in pathogenic Brucella melitensis, requires a C12-homoserine lactone for controlling the synthesis of a type IV secretion system and for flagellar synthesis (10). So far, our attempts to detect a potential VisNR-activating or -repressing ligand molecule in concentrated culture medium from motile or densely grown S. meliloti cells have not been successful.

While this line is further pursued, alternative mechanisms promoting the transient transcription of rem have also been considered. Growth phase-dependent transcription of the levansucrase-encoding gene, lsrA, of Rahnella aquatilis provides an example of two antagonistically acting regulatory elements, a cis-acting repressor region, lsrR, and a trans-acting activator protein, LsrS (50). Another common mechanism for posttranslational regulation is the specific proteolysis of transcriptional regulators (16, 44). In E. coli, the alternative sigma factor RpoS is the principal regulator of the stress response involving ca. 10% of all genes. The transient activity of RpoS is controlled by the stress-induced inhibition of the proteolytic RssB/ClpXP system (24). The ClpXP protease also regulates flagellar synthesis in enterobacteria by a rapid turnover of the master regulator proteins, FlhD and FlhC (57, 58). A screen of S. meliloti RU11/001(pRU2818) conducted to identify an “upstream regulatory element” of rem transcription other than VisNR by using mini-Tn5 mutagenesis (9) did not produce the desired mutant. Nor did the directed mutagenesis of rpoE and rpoH, encoding alternative sigma factors, have any effect on rem transcription (data not shown). We are pursuing this direction further by examining knockout mutants of 11 other rpo genes present in the S. meliloti genome (19).

The levels and the persistence of Rem protein in the cell must be under tight transcriptional and posttranscriptional controls. This is borne out by the poor swarming behavior of strains that contain the Rem overexpression plasmid pRU2818 (Table 3). Obviously, an elevated level of Rem leads to the overexpression of class II target genes and an imbalance of various flagellar components (data not shown). Moreover, the amount of Rem decreases shortly after transcription ceases (Fig. 2B), which suggests a tight control on protein expression. We propose that the critical concentration and duration of Rem are tuned by transcriptional autoregulation and by posttranslational processing of the protein by a specific proteolytic device. The idea of fast (and specific) in vivo proteolysis of Rem is also supported by a degradation band on an immunoblot (Fig. 5). Two quite different OmpR-like regulators of central importance, whose expression depends on growth, are HP1043 from H. pylori and CtrA from Caulobacter crescentus. In these examples, either autoregulation or targeted proteolysis has been shown to determine the protein's life span and its activity during exponential growth (43, 44).

Although various OmpR-like regulatory proteins are activated by phosphorylation (22), our results indicate that Rem functions in the nonphosphorylated form, because (i) rather than the expected loss of function, substitutions of three putative phosphorylation sites (Asp43, Asp45, and Asp47) in the regulatory domain of Rem resulted in only a moderate reduction of motility (Fig. 3); (ii) purified Rem protein resisted in vitro phosphorylation using small phosphodonors; and (iii) footprinting analysis revealed that unphosphorylated Rem binds specifically to its targets (Fig. 7). Moreover, deviations in the conserved amino acid signature thought to form the acidic pocket for phosphorylation (Fig. 1B) (59) and the lack of a cognate histidine kinase gene in the flagellar regulon argue against regulatory domain phosphorylation. Decreasing motility was observed when the three signature Asp residues were successively exchanged (Fig. 3). We presume that the charge-neutralizing substitutions of three Asp residues change the conformation of the N-terminal recognition domain structure sufficiently to prevent Rem protein from actively binding to DNA.

The specific binding sites of Rem within the class II and rem gene promoters were defined by footprinting analysis (Fig. 7). The 19-bp Rem binding motif contains an imperfect 9- or 10-bp tandem repeat separated by 3 bp. Conserved positions in the aligned sequences led us to propose a promoter consensus partially overlapping with the proximal binding repeat (Fig. 8). This assignment of a new promoter consensus, AAGRWT-N7-11-R—CRC, was validated by mapping the flgB (class II gene) transcription start at an A 5 bp downstream of the −10 box (Fig. 6). The resulting pattern of binding and promoter sites is typical of regulatory proteins involved in transcriptional activation, which bind upstream of and overlapping with the promoter elements (14). Activation by binding at these adjacent sites facilitates productive interactions between the activator, RNA polymerase, and the promoter DNA to initiate transcription (32).

Taken together, the growth dependence of motility in S. meliloti has been ascribed to transcriptional control of class II flagellar and motility genes by Rem, whose synthesis is itself under autoregulatory, VisNR-directed, and growth rate-dependent transcription controls and under posttranslational regulation by proteolysis. To elucidate the cues that signal growth rate to rem gene transcription is a challenging problem to be solved.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Paul Muschler for the construction of promoter-lacZ fusions and Dagmar Beier for expert help with the footprinting.

This study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Scha914/1-1, Scha914/1-3, and Schm68/34-1).

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 14 December 2005.
    • Accepted 18 July 2006.
  • Copyright © 2006 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Aldridge, P., and K. T. Hughes. 2002. Regulation of flagellar assembly. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 5 : 160-165.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    Attmannspacher, U., B. Scharf, and R. Schmitt. 2005. Control of speed modulation (chemokinesis) in the unidirectional rotary motor of Sinorhizobium meliloti. Mol. Microbiol. 56 : 708-718.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    Beringer, J. E. 1974. R factor transfer in Rhizobium leguminosarum. J. Gen. Microbiol. 84 : 188-198.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    Bourret, R. B., J. F. Hess, and M. I. Simon. 1990. Conserved aspartate residues and phosphorylation in signal transduction by the chemotaxis protein CheY. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87 : 41-45.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    Buckler, D. R., and A. M. Stock. 2000. Synthesis of [32P]phosphoramidate for use as a low molecular weight phosphodonor reagent. Anal. Biochem. 283 : 222-227.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Bushby, S., and R. H. Ebright. 1994. Promoter structure, promoter recognition, and transcription activation in prokaryotes. Cell 79 : 743-766.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    Cohen-Krausz, S., and S. Trachtenberg. 1998. Helical perturbations of the flagellar filament: Rhizobium lupini H13-3 at 13 Å resolution. J. Struct. Biol. 122 : 267-282.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Delany, I., G. Spohn, R. Rappuoli, and V. Scarlato. 2002. Growth phase-dependent regulation of target gene promoters for binding of the essential orphan response regulator HP1043 of Helicobacter pylori. J. Bacteriol. 184 : 4800-4810.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    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.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    Delrue, R. M., C. Deschamps, S. Leonard, C. Nijskens, I. Danese, J. M. Schaus, S. Bonnot, J. Ferooz, A. Tibor, X. De Bolle, and J. J. Letesson. 2005. A quorum-sensing regulator controls expression of both the type IV secretion system and the flagellar apparatus of Brucella melitensis. Cell. Microbiol. 7 : 1151-1161.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Devereux, J., P. Haeberli, and O. Smithies. 1984. A comprehensive set of sequence analysis programs for the VAX. Nucleic Acids Res. 12 : 387-395.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    Dickneite, C., R. Bockmann, A. Spory, W. Goebel, and Z. Sokolovic. 1998. Differential interaction of the transcription factor PrfA and the PrfA-activating factor (Paf) of Listeria monocytogenes with target sequences. Mol. Microbiol. 27 : 915-928.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    Dong, Y. H., and L. H. Zhang. 2005. Quorum sensing and quorum-quenching enzymes. J. Microbiol. 43(Spec No): 101-109.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    Eder, S., W. Liu, and F. M. Hulett. 1999. Mutational analysis of the phoD promoter in Bacillus subtilis: implications for PhoP binding and promoter activation of Pho regulon promoters. J. Bacteriol. 181 : 2017-2025.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    Eggenhofer, E., R. Rachel, M. Haslbeck, and B. Scharf. 2006. MotD of Sinorhizobium meliloti and related alpha-proteobacteria is the flagellar-hook-length regulator and therefore reassigned as FliK. J. Bacteriol. 188 : 2144-2153.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    Ehrmann, M., and T. Clausen. 2004. Proteolysis as a regulatory mechanism. Annu. Rev. Genet. 38 : 709-724.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    Fuqua, C., and E. P. Greenberg. 2002. Listening in on bacteria: acyl-homoserine lactone signalling. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 3 : 685-695.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    Fuqua, C., M. R. Parsek, and E. P. Greenberg. 2001. Regulation of gene expression by cell-to-cell communication: acyl-homoserine lactone quorum sensing. Annu. Rev. Genet. 35 : 439-468.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. 19.↵
    Galibert, F., T. M. Finan, S. R. Long, A. Puhler, P. Abola, F. Ampe, F. Barloy-Hubler, M. J. Barnett, A. Becker, P. Boistard, G. Bothe, M. Boutry, L. Bowser, J. Buhrmester, E. Cadieu, D. Capela, P. Chain, A. Cowie, R. W. Davis, S. Dreano, N. A. Federspiel, R. F. Fisher, S. Gloux, T. Godrie, A. Goffeau, B. Golding, J. Gouzy, M. Gurjal, I. Hernandez-Lucas, A. Hong, L. Huizar, R. W. Hyman, T. Jones, D. Kahn, M. L. Kahn, S. Kalman, D. H. Keating, E. Kiss, C. Komp, V. Lelaure, D. Masuy, C. Palm, M. C. Peck, T. M. Pohl, D. Portetelle, B. Purnelle, U. Ramsperger, R. Surzycki, P. Thebault, M. Vandenbol, F. J. Vorholter, S. Weidner, D. H. Wells, K. Wong, K. C. Yeh, and J. Batut. 2001. The composite genome of the legume symbiont Sinorhizobium meliloti. Science 293 : 668-672.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    Götz, R., N. Limmer, K. Ober, and R. Schmitt. 1982. Motility and chemotaxis in two strains of Rhizobium with complex flagella. J. Gen. Microbiol. 128 : 789-798.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  21. 21.↵
    Higuchi, R. 1989. Using PCR to engineer DNA, p. 61-70. In H. A. Erlich (ed.), PCR technology. Principles and applications for DNA amplification. Stockton Press, New York, N.Y.
  22. 22.↵
    Hoch, J. A., and K. I. Varughese. 2001. Keeping signals straight in phosphorelay signal transduction. J. Bacteriol. 183 : 4941-4949.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    Hübner, P., J. C. Willison, P. M. Vignais, and T. A. Bickle. 1991. Expression of regulatory nif genes in Rhodobacter capsulatus. J. Bacteriol. 173 : 2993-2999.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    Jenal, U., and R. Hengge-Aronis. 2003. Regulation by proteolysis in bacterial cells. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 6 : 163-172.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    Kamberger, W. 1979. An Ouchterlony double diffusion study on the interaction between legume lectins and rhizobial cell surface antigens. Arch. Microbiol. 121 : 83-90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    Kovach, M. E., P. H. Elzer, D. S. Hill, G. T. Robertson, M. A. Farris, R. M. Roop II, and K. M. Peterson. 1995. Four new derivatives of the broad-host-range cloning vector pBBR1MCS, carrying different antibiotic-resistance cassettes. Gene 166 : 175-176.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. 27.↵
    Labes, M., A. Pühler, and R. Simon. 1990. A new family of RSF1010-derived expression and lac-fusion broad-host-range vectors for gram-negative bacteria. Gene 89 : 37-46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. 28.↵
    Lukat, G. S., B. H. Lee, J. M. Mottonen, A. M. Stock, and J. B. Stock. 1991. Roles of the highly conserved aspartate and lysine residues in the response regulator of bacterial chemotaxis. J. Biol. Chem. 266 : 8348-8354.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    Luria, S. E., F. N. Adams, and R. C. Ting. 1960. Transduction of lactose utilizing ability among strains of E. coli and S. dysenteriae and the properties of the transducing phage particles. Virology 12 : 348-390.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. 30.↵
    MacLellan, S. R., A. M. MacLean, and T. M. Finan. 2006. Promoter prediction in the rhizobia. Microbiology 152 : 1751-1763.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. 31.↵
    Macnab, R. M. 1996. Flagella and motility, p. 123-145. 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 , 2nd ed., vol. 1. ASM Press, Washington, D.C.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    Martinez-Hackert, E., and A. M. Stock. 1997. Structural relationships in the OmpR family of winged-helix transcription factors. J. Mol. Biol. 269 : 301-312.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  33. 33.↵
    Maxam, A. M., and W. Gilbert. 1977. A new method for sequencing DNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 74 : 560-564.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    McCleary, W. R., and J. B. Stock. 1994. Acetyl phosphate and the activation of two-component response regulators. J. Biol. Chem. 269 : 31567-31572.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    McGuffin, L. J., K. Bryson, and D. T. Jones. 2000. The PSIPRED protein structure prediction server. Bioinformatics 16 : 404-405.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. 36.↵
    Miller, J. H. 1972. Experiments in molecular genetics. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.
  37. 37.
    Muschler, P. 2000. Funktionsanalyse von Rezeptoren, Elementen der Signalkette und des Effektors der Chemotaxis bei Sinorhizobium meliloti. Ph.D. thesis. University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
  38. 38.↵
    Olsen, G. J., C. R. Woese, and R. Overbeek. 1994. The winds of (evolutionary) change: breathing new life into microbiology. J. Bacteriol. 176 : 1-6.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    Pappas, K. M., C. L. Weingart, and S. C. Winans. 2004. Chemical communication in proteobacteria: biochemical and structural studies of signal synthases and receptors required for intercellular signalling. Mol. Microbiol. 53 : 755-769.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. 40.↵
    Parkinson, J. S., and E. C. Kofoid. 1992. Communication modules in bacterial signaling proteins. Annu. Rev. Genet. 26 : 71-112.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. 41.↵
    Platzer, J., W. Sterr, M. Hausmann, and R. Schmitt. 1997. Three genes of a motility operon and their role in flagellar rotary speed variation in Rhizobium meliloti. J. Bacteriol. 179 : 6391-6399.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. 42.
    Pleier, E., and R. Schmitt. 1991. Expression of two Rhizobium meliloti flagellin genes and their contribution to the complex filament structure. J. Bacteriol. 173 : 2077-2085.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    Ryan, K. R., E. M. Judd, and L. Shapiro. 2002. The CtrA response regulator essential for Caulobacter crescentus cell-cycle progression requires a bipartite degradation signal for temporally controlled proteolysis. J. Mol. Biol. 324 : 443-455.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  44. 44.↵
    Ryan, K. R., and L. Shapiro. 2003. Temporal and spatial regulation in prokaryotic cell cycle progression and development. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 72 : 367-394.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  45. 45.↵
    Schäfer, A., A. Tauch, W. Jager, J. Kalinowski, G. Thierbach, and A. Pühler. 1994. Small mobilizable multi-purpose cloning vectors derived from the Escherichia coli plasmids pK18 and pK19: selection of defined deletions in the chromosome of Corynebacterium glutamicum. Gene 145 : 69-73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  46. 46.↵
    Schär, J., A. Sickmann, and D. Beier. 2005. Phosphorylation-independent activity of atypical response regulators of Helicobacter pylori. J. Bacteriol. 187 : 3100-3109.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 47.↵
    Scharf, B. 2002. Real-time imaging of fluorescent flagellar filaments of Rhizobium lupini H13-3: flagellar rotation and pH-induced polymorphic transitions. J. Bacteriol. 184 : 5979-5986.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    Scharf, B., H. Schuster-Wolff-Bühring, R. Rachel, and R. Schmitt. 2001. Mutational analysis of Rhizobium lupini H13-3 and Sinorhizobium meliloti flagellin genes: importance of flagellin A for flagellar filament structure and transcriptional regulation. J. Bacteriol. 183 : 5334-5342.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    Schmitt, R. 2002. Sinorhizobial chemotaxis: a departure from the enterobacterial paradigm. Microbiology 148 : 627-631.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  50. 50.↵
    Seo, J. W., K. H. Jang, S. A. Kang, K. B. Song, E. K. Jang, B. S. Park, C. H. Kim, and S. K. Rhee. 2002. Molecular characterization of the growth phase-dependent expression of the lsrA gene, encoding levansucrase of Rahnella aquatilis. J. Bacteriol. 184 : 5862-5870.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 51.↵
    Simon, R., M. O'Connell, M. Labes, and A. Pühler. 1986. Plasmid vectors for the genetic analysis and manipulation of rhizobia and other gram-negative bacteria. Methods Enzymol. 118 : 640-659.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  52. 52.↵
    Sourjik, V., P. Muschler, B. Scharf, and R. Schmitt. 2000. VisN and VisR are global regulators of chemotaxis, flagellar, and motility genes in Sinorhizobium (Rhizobium) meliloti. J. Bacteriol. 182 : 782-788.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    Sourjik, V., and R. Schmitt. 1996. Different roles of CheY1 and CheY2 in the chemotaxis of Rhizobium meliloti. Mol. Microbiol. 22 : 427-436.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    Sourjik, V., and R. Schmitt. 1998. Phosphotransfer between CheA, CheY1, and CheY2 in the chemotaxis signal transduction chain of Rhizobium meliloti. Biochemistry 37 : 2327-2335.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    Sourjik, V., W. Sterr, J. Platzer, I. Bos, M. Haslbeck, and R. Schmitt. 1998. Mapping of 41 chemotaxis, flagellar and motility genes to a single region of the Sinorhizobium meliloti chromosome. Gene 223 : 283-290.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  56. 56.↵
    Soutourina, O., and P. N. Bertin. 2003. Regulation cascade of flagellar expression in Gram-negative bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 27 : 505-523.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  57. 57.↵
    Tomoyasu, T., T. Ohkishi, Y. Ukyo, A. Tokumitsu, A. Takaya, M. Suzuki, K. Sekiya, H. Matsui, K. Kutsukake, and T. Yamamoto. 2002. The ClpXP ATP-dependent protease regulates flagellum synthesis in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. J. Bacteriol. 184 : 645-653.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. 58.↵
    Tomoyasu, T., A. Takaya, E. Isogai, and T. Yamamoto. 2003. Turnover of FlhD and FlhC, master regulator proteins for Salmonella flagellum biogenesis, by the ATP-dependent ClpXP protease. Mol. Microbiol. 48 : 443-452.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    Volz, K. 1993. Structural conservation in the CheY superfamily. Biochemistry 32 : 11741-11753.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    Wisniewski-Dye, F., and J. A. Downie. 2002. Quorum-sensing in Rhizobium. Antonie Leeuwenhoek 81 : 397-407.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Rem, a New Transcriptional Activator of Motility and Chemotaxis in Sinorhizobium meliloti
Christine Rotter, Susanne Mühlbacher, Daniel Salamon, Rüdiger Schmitt, Birgit Scharf
Journal of Bacteriology Sep 2006, 188 (19) 6932-6942; DOI: 10.1128/JB.01902-05

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.
Rem, a New Transcriptional Activator of Motility and Chemotaxis in Sinorhizobium meliloti
(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
Rem, a New Transcriptional Activator of Motility and Chemotaxis in Sinorhizobium meliloti
Christine Rotter, Susanne Mühlbacher, Daniel Salamon, Rüdiger Schmitt, Birgit Scharf
Journal of Bacteriology Sep 2006, 188 (19) 6932-6942; DOI: 10.1128/JB.01902-05
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Bacterial Proteins
chemotaxis
Sinorhizobium meliloti
Trans-Activators

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