Structure and Function of the Bacterial Genome. Charles J. Dorman

Structure and Function of the Bacterial Genome - Charles J. Dorman


Скачать книгу
O157:H7 encodes a form of Hha that directs H‐NS to just a subset of the targets that are bound by H‐NS when in a complex with the chromosomally encoded Hha protein (Paytubi et al. 2013). Plasmid‐encoded H‐NS proteins, such as the one expressed by the R27 self‐transmissible plasmid in Salmonella, target genes of HGT origin in the chromosome, a task that requires the Hha helper protein when it is performed by the chromosomally encoded H‐NS protein (Baños et al. 2009).

c01f024

      Upregulation of the LEE operons occurs in minimal medium at 37°C and transcription is repressed in EPEC cells growing in LB. Two switches operate in the system to create physiological variety. In one, the PerA protein activates the bfp adherence operon on the EAF plasmid directly and the LEE genes indirectly through PerC (Figure 1.24). Positive auto‐control of perABC transcription by PerA is stochastic, creating sub‐populations of bacteria that maintain a hypervirulent (LEE+) phenotype even if inducing conditions are removed and a second population of non‐virulent (LEE) cells. Allowing the culture to reach stationary phase resets the system (Ronin et al. 2017).

      The second switch involves a competition between Ler and H‐NS for access to a nucleation site upstream of the LEE5 promoter (Leh et al. 2017) (Figure 1.24). Although Ler and H‐NS are paralogues, they create distinct nucleoprotein complexes when they bind to DNA, with the Ler complex favouring transcription and the H‐NS one causing transcriptional silencing (Leh et al. 2017). Stochastic expression of the perABC operon, with downstream effects via PerC on ler transcription, may be expected to tip the balance in the Ler/H‐NS competition back and forth, leading to LEE+ and LEE phenotypes among members of the EPEC population.

      Ler is not a general antagonist of H‐NS because it binds only to a small subset of H‐NS targets in the genome, mostly those associated with the LEE pathogenicity island. The two proteins are dissimilar in amino acid sequence at their N‐termini but share similar C‐terminal domains, including the nucleic acid‐binding domain. However, a key arginine residue, found in Ler but not H‐NS, seems to underlie the more restricted range of Ler binding in DNA. Both proteins rely on an indirect readout mechanism for binding site recognition: in the case of Ler, the introduction of its arginine residue into the minor groove of DNA is permitted at only a subset of H‐NS binding sites (Cordeiro et al. 2011). This represents an interesting example of specialisation within the large family of H‐NS‐like proteins.

      Proteins performing a foreign‐gene‐silencing function analogous to that associated with H‐NS seem to be restricted to bacteria and to fall into four classes: H‐NS itself, Rok, MvaT, and Lsr2. In contrast, other types of NAP are widely distributed among prokaryotes. When a bacterium possesses one type of xenogeneic silencer, it typically will not also have an example of a different type, indicating specialisation between each protein type and its genome (Perez‐Rueda and Ibarra 2015).

      The Rok protein was discovered in B. subtilis during an investigation of gene regulation in the competence system: Rok emerged as a transcription silencer of comK, the autoregulated master controller of competence (Hoa et al. 2002). Rok controls the expression of an extensive regulon of genes (Albano et al. 2005) and at some of its gene targets its activity is amplified by co‐binding of the DnaA protein (Seid et al. 2017). Rok binds to A+T‐rich DNA targets (Smits and Grossman 2010) and, like H‐NS, it has been implicated in the silencing of genes that have been acquired by HGT (Duan et al. 2018). Rok exhibits a higher preference for specific DNA sequences than other xenogenic silencer proteins (e.g. H‐NS) and these targets are relatively rare in the B. subtilis core genome, allowing Rok to focus on imported genes (Duan et al. 2018). Rok binds only in the DNA minor groove and uses a winged helix fold to do this. It avoids rigid poly‐A tracts with their very narrow minor grooves (Rohs et al. 2009), preferring 5′‐AACTA‐3′ and 5′‐TACTA‐3′ (both underrepresented in the core genome) and sequences that contain the flexible TpA step (Duan et al. 2018; Travers 2005).

      The 12‐kDa Lsr2 NAP has been described as


Скачать книгу