Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M209425200 on October 24, 2002
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 52, 50867-50875, December 27, 2002
Mutations of Bacterial RNA Polymerase Leading to Resistance
to Microcin J25*
Julia
Yuzenkovaabc,
Monica
Delgadocd,
Sergei
Nechaevae,
Dhruti
Savaliaa,
Vitaly
Epshteinfg,
Irina
Artsimovitchh,
Rachel A.
Mooneyi,
Robert
Landicki,
Ricardo N.
Fariasd,
Raul
Salomond, and
Konstantin
Severinovaj
From the a Department of Genetics, Waksman Institute,
Piscataway, New Jersey 08854, d Instituto Superior de
Investigaciones Biologicas (Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones y
Technicas-Universidad Nacional de Tucuman), 4000 Tucuman,
Argentina, f Public Health Research Institute, New York, New
York 10016, h Department of Microbiology, Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, and i Department of
Bacteriology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
53706
Received for publication, September 13, 2002, and in revised form, October 14, 2002
 |
ABSTRACT |
A mutation in the conserved segment of the
rpoC gene, which codes for the largest RNA polymerase
(RNAP) subunit,
', was found to make Escherichia coli
cells resistant to microcin J25 (MccJ25), a bactericidal 21-amino acid
peptide active against Gram-negative bacteria (Delgado, M. A., Rintoul, M. R., Farias, R. N., and Salomon, R. A. (2001) J. Bacteriol. 183, 4543-4550). Here, we report that mutant RNAP prepared from MccJ25-resistant cells, but not the wild-type
RNAP, is resistant to MccJ25 in vitro, thus establishing that RNAP is a true cellular target of MccJ25. We also report the
isolation of additional rpoC mutations that lead to MccJ25 resistance in vivo and in vitro. The new
mutations affect
' amino acids in evolutionarily conserved segments
G, G', and F and are exposed into the RNAP secondary channel, a narrow
opening that connects the enzyme surface with the catalytic center. We
also report that previously known rpoB (RNAP
subunit)
mutations that lead to streptolydigin resistance cause resistance to
MccJ25. We hypothesize that MccJ25 inhibits transcription by binding in RNAP secondary channel and blocking substrate access to the catalytic center.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Bacterial RNA polymerase
(RNAP)1 is the central enzyme
of gene expression and a target of genetic regulation. The
catalytically proficient core enzyme is composed of five polypeptides:
the largest subunit
', the second largest subunit
, the dimer of
identical
subunits, and a small subunit
. Upon the binding of
one of the several
specificity subunits the core is converted to a holoenzyme that can specifically initiate transcription from promoters.
RNAP is a target of several inhibitors. Interest is attached to these
low molecular weight compounds as they can be used as tools to reveal
new information about RNAP mechanism and can also be used as
antibacterial drugs. The best studied bacterial RNAP inhibitor,
rifampicin, is widely used against mycobacterial infections. Rifampicin
and its derivatives bind to the RNAP
subunit (1-4) and prevent
synthesis of RNAs longer than two-three nucleotides in length by
occluding the nascent RNA exit path (5, 6). An unrelated inhibitor,
streptolydigin (Stl), either affects the binding of incoming NTP in the
substrate binding site of RNAP or directly targets the catalysis of
phosphodiester bond formation (7-9). Mutations causing RNAP resistance
to Stl were mapped to both the rpoB and rpoC
genes, coding for the
and
' subunits, respectively (3, 10-12).
The
' site where Stl-resistant substitutions were localized overlaps
the site in eukaryal RNAP II largest subunit where substitutions
leading to resistance to
-amanitin, a peptide that specifically
inhibits PNAP II transcription, map (7, 8, 12-15). Thus, Stl and
-amanitin may inhibit transcription in their respective systems
through similar mechanisms, despite the lack of chemical similarity
between the two drugs. The third antibiotic known to target bacterial
RNAP, tagetitoxin, inhibits transcription by slowing the rate of RNAP
elongation and promoting pausing (16). The site of RNAP that
tagetitoxin interacts with is not known. Tagetitoxin also inhibits
transcription by eukaryotic RNAP III (17), indicating that the
tagetitoxin binding site may be evolutionarily conserved.
Recently, one of our groups (18) reported that Escherichia
coli cells harboring a mutation in the rpoC gene, which
codes for RNAP
', became resistant to microcin J25 (18). Microcin J25 (MccJ25) is a bactericidal peptide made of 21 amino acids (19, 20).
MccJ25-producing cells harbor a plasmid that is responsible for MccJ25
production and resistance of MccJ25-producing cells to the drug (21).
MccJ25 production increases when cells reach stationary phase and
nutrients become limiting, thus giving MccJ25-producing cells an
advantage (19, 22).
Most of spontaneous MccJ25-resistant mutants affect genes encoding
cytoplasmic membrane proteins and appear to be intake mutants (23). The
fact that a rare microcin resistance mutation resulted in altered RNAP
suggested that RNAP may be the cellular target of MccJ25. In agreement
with this idea, it has been shown that in vitro activity of
E. coli RNAP is reduced in the presence of micromolar
concentrations of MccJ25 (18).
The rpoC mutation that resulted in MccJ25 resistance caused
a substitution of an evolutionarily conserved
' Thr931
for Ile. Thr931 is part of segment G, whose sequence is
well conserved in largest (
'-like) RNAP subunits from bacteria to
man (15). In the structural model of RNAP core from thermophilic
eubacterium Thermus aquaticus a residue equivalent to
E. coli
' Thr931 is exposed on the inner
surface of RNAP secondary channel, a narrow opening that leads from
RNAP surface to the catalytic center (24). Based on structural
considerations, the secondary channel was hypothesized to direct
substrates toward the enzyme active site and to accept the
3'-end-proximal portion of the nascent RNA in transcription elongation
complexes that assumed the dead-end conformation (24-26). Thus, the
location of the residue affected by rpoC MccJ25 resistance
mutation suggests a novel mechanism of RNAP inhibition: occlusion of
RNAP secondary channel. Here, we report the isolation of several MccJ25
resistance mutations in evolutionarily conserved segments G, G', and F
of cloned E. coli rpoC. The locations of the
corresponding
' residues on the T. aquaticus RNAP
structure are exposed in the inside surface of RNAP secondary channel,
strongly supporting the idea that MccJ25 inhibits transcription by
binding to and occluding this channel.
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
Bacterial Techniques and DNA Manipulations--
Plasmids pRW308
(27) and pRL663 (12), overproducing wild-type or C-terminally
hexahistidine-tagged
' subunit, respectively, were used to obtain
MccJ25-resistant mutations. MccJ25 resistant rpoC mutants
generated by error-prone PCR were selected from plasmid banks described
by Weilbaecher et al. (27). To generate site-specific mutations in segment G, a derivative of pRW308 harboring a unique XhoI site at rpoC codon 943 was created by PCR
mutagenesis. The
' subunit encoded by the resultant plasmid,
pRW308Xho_943, was wild-type because of the degeneracy of
the genetic code. The rpoC positions 928, 929, 930, and 931 were next randomized using mutagenic oligonucleotides complementary to
rpoC codons 922-946 and incorporating a XhoI
site at codon 943. At the site of randomization, positions corresponding to the first and second bases of the codon were equimolar
mixtures of A, G, C, and T, whereas positions corresponding to the
third base of the codon was an equimolar mixture of G and C. Mutagenic
oligonucleotides were used as primers in a PCR reaction with
pRW308Xho_943 template. As a second primer, an
oligonucleotide whose sequence corresponded to rpoC
positions 2534-2555 was used. This primer anneals upstream of a unique
pRW308 SalI site located at rpoC position 2629. After amplification, PCR fragments were treated with SalI
and XhoI and ligated into appropriately treated pRW308Xho_943. Ligation mixtures were transformed in
MccJ25-sensitive DH5
E. coli host cells, and
transformants were plated on solid LB medium containing 200 µg/ml
ampicillin. After overnight growth at 37 °C, recombinant colonies
were replica-plated on LB plates containing 200 µg/ml ampicillin, 50 µg/ml MccJ25 (purified as described previously; see Ref. 20), and 1 mM IPTG to derepress the lac promoter that
drives expression of plasmid-borne rpoC. MccJ25-resistant
colonies were purified, and plasmid DNA was prepared and retransformed
into DH5
E. coli cells. Transformants were plated on
plates containing MccJ25 to confirm that resistance is plasmid-borne.
An entire SalI-XhoI rpoC fragment was
next sequenced at the Rockefeller University DNA technology center to
establish the nature of the mutational change leading to MccJ25 resistance.
To randomize rpoC codons 1136 and 1137 (evolutionarily
conserved segment G') we made use of a unique SgrAI
recognition site at rpoC position 3402 (codon 1134).
Mutagenic oligonucleotides spanned the SgrAI site, as well
as positions to be randomized. They were used as primers with pRL663
template and another primer, whose sequence was complementary to
rpoC positions 3745-3777. This primer anneals downstream of
a unique pRL663 BspEI site located at rpoC
position 3639. PCR fragments were treated with SgrAI and BspEI and ligated with appropriately treated pRL663, and
MccJ25-resistant clones were selected and confirmed as above. In
addition to the SgrAI-BspEI fragment, a portion
of rpoC coding for
' segments F and G in mutant plasmids
was also sequenced, and no changes from the published sequence were
observed. Construction of the
'
(943-1130) mutation will
be described
elsewhere.2
Preparation of Mutant RNA Polymerases and in Vitro
Transcription--
Highly pure RNAP from MccJ25-resistant E. coli SBG231cells (18) and parental MccJ25-sensitive AB259 cells
were purified as described (30). RNAP from Xanthomonas
oryzae was purified as described in Ref. 31. RNAP from
Pseudomonas aeruginosa 8882 strain (provided by Dr. A. Chakrabarty, University of Illinois College of Medicine) was purified
by standard E. coli procedure without modifications.
Bacillus subtilis RNAP was purified from B. subtilis PolHis cells harboring a genomic rpoC
genetically fused to hexahistidine tag (generously provided by Drs.
C. P. Moran and G. Schyns, Emory University School of Medicine).
RNAP was purified from cell lysates by nickel-nitrilotriacetic acid affinity chromatography followed by ion-exchange on Resource Q (Amersham Biosciences) column. Recombinant RNAP from T. aquaticus was purified from overexpressing E. coli
cells as described in Ref. 32. Yeast RNAP II and RNAP III were generous
gifts of Dr. Sergei Borukhov (SUNY Brooklyn) and George Kassavetis
(UCSD), respectively.
Mutant
'
(943-1130) RNAP was purified by chitin-affinity
chromatography and intein-mediated removal of the chitin binding domain
tag, followed by heparin affinity column chromatography, as described
elsewhere.2 To partially purify RNAP containing
'
expressed from a plasmid, E. coli 397C cells (29) were
transformed with pRW308, pRL663, or their derivatives, grown at
30 °C in 200 ml of LB medium containing 200 µg/ml ampicillin until
A600 of 0.5, induced with 1 mM IPTG for 4 h, collected, disrupted by sonication, and polymin P
fractionation was performed as described by Kashlev et al.
(28). 1 M NaCl extract of polymin P pellet containing
~10% pure RNAP was precipitated with ammonium sulfate, and
precipitate was stored at
80 °C. Before use, an aliquot of
ammonium sulfate pellet was dissolved in transcription buffer (40 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.9, 40 mM KCl, 10 mM MgCl2, 5% glycerol) to give a final protein
concentration of ~1 mg/ml, and this preparation was used in
transcription assays.
Transcription from the T7 A1 promoter-containing DNA fragment was
performed in 10-µl transcription buffer reactions containing 50 ng of
DNA, 0.5 µg of wild-type or mutant RNAP, 0.5 mM CpA
primer, 2.5 µM
-[32P]UTP (300 Ci/mmol),
and different concentrations of MccJ25. Reactions proceeded for 10 min
at 37 °C and were terminated by the addition of urea-containing
loading buffer. Products were analyzed by urea-PAGE electrophoresis (7 M urea, 20% polyacrylamide), followed by autoradiography and PhosphorImager analysis. Transcription from B. subtilis vegA promoter (32) was performed in a buffer containing
40 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.9, 10 mM
MgCl2, 0.1 mM EDTA, 0.1 mM
dithiothreitol, 5% glycerol, 25 µg/ml bovine serum albumin
using 0.5 mM UpA primer and 2.5 µM
-[32P]GTP (300 Ci/mmol) substrate.
 |
RESULTS |
RNA Polymerase from Microcin-resistant E. coli Cells Is Resistant
to MccJ25 in Vitro--
Earlier, one of our groups (18) reported that
E. coli cells harboring the sjmA1 mutation, but
not the wild-type E. coli, were able to grow on selective
medium containing MccJ25. The sjmA1 mutation was found to
correspond to a substitution of Thr931 to Ile in the
largest subunit of E. coli RNAP, the
' subunit. The
original report also established that MccJ25 partially inhibited a
steady-state in vitro transcription by the wild-type
E. coli RNAP, strongly implying that RNAP is a
direct target of MccJ25. However, RNAP harboring the T931I substitution
was not tested in these experiments. The experiment presented in Fig.
1 demonstrates that the mutant enzyme is
indeed resistant to MccJ25 in vitro. As can be seen, MccJ25
inhibited T7 A1 promoter-directed synthesis of the CpApU abortive RNA
product from the CpA dinucleotide primer and radioactively labeled UTP
by the wild-type RNAP (compare lanes 4 and 5). In
contrast, the CpApU synthesis by RNAP purified from cells harboring the
sjmA1 mutation was unaffected by the drug (compare
lanes 1 and 2). Order-of-addition experiments
established that MccJ25 inhibited abortive RNA synthesis when added
either before or after the formation of open promoter complex on the T7
A1 promoter-containing DNA fragment used as a template in this experiment (compare lanes 5 and 6). We therefore
conclude that (i) RNAP is a true cellular target of MccJ25, and (ii)
MccJ25 does not act by preventing RNAP interaction with DNA.

View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Transcription inhibition by MccJ25. The
indicated E. coli RNAP holoenzymes were combined with the T7
A1 promoter-containing DNA fragment, CpA primer, and
[ -32P]UTP in the presence and in the absence of 10 µM MccJ25. Reactions were incubated at 37 °C for 15 min, and the products were resolved by denaturing PAGE and revealed by
autoradiography. In lanes 2 and 5, MccJ25 was
added before promoter complex formation, and in lanes 3 and
6, it was added after promoter complex formation.
WT, wild-type.
|
|
Additional Substitutions in Conserved Segment G of the
' Subunit
Lead to MccJ25 Resistance--
The genetic context of the
sjmA1 mutation is shown in Fig. 3. As can be seen, the
corresponding substitution occurred in a highly conserved segment of
the E. coli
' subunit, segment G. We hypothesize that the
T931I substitution causes MccJ25 resistance by preventing MccJ25
binding to RNAP and that Thr931 is a part of MccJ25 binding
site. Given the very high level of evolutionary conservation of segment
G, the following two questions are of interest. First, can other
MccJ25-resistant mutations in segment G be obtained? Second, will
MccJ25 inhibit RNAPs from organisms other than E. coli?
To answer the first question, we obtained plasmids expressing mutant
rpoC genes, transformed these plasmids into MccJ25-sensitive E. coli cells, and checked the ability of plasmid-bearing
cells to grow on a medium containing MccJ25. In case when growth on selective medium was observed, we purified RNAPs containing mutant
'
and confirmed that mutant RNAPs were indeed resistant to MccJ25. In
cases when no in vivo resistance was observed, we considered the possibility that RNAP containing mutant
' could not support cell
growth in the presence of MccJ25, when the wild-type, chromosomally encoded RNAP was inactivated. Therefore, RNAPs containing plasmid-borne
' were also purified, and their sensitivity to MccJ25 was tested in vitro. All mutants reported below were tested this way.
Fig. 2 shows the results of in
vivo and complementary in vitro testing with some of
the mutants as an example.

View larger version (43K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
In Vivo and in vitro
MccJ25 resistance of plasmid-borne rpoC
mutants. A, serial dilutions of the DH5
E. coli cells transformed with plasmids expressing the
indicated rpoC mutants were spotted on plates in the
presence or in the absence of MccJ25. Results of overnight growth are
shown. B, RNAP harboring the indicated plasmid-borne '
mutations shown in panel A were purified and used in an
in vitro transcription assay (see legend for Fig. 1) in the
presence or in the absence of 10 µM MccJ25. Reaction
products were resolved by denaturing PAGE and revealed by
autoradiography (top panel). The residual activity in the
presence of MccJ25 was quantified using a PhosphorImager (bottom
panel). In the absence on MccJ25, the enzymes demonstrated the
following levels of specific activity (calculated as pmol of abortive
CpApU product synthesized by 1 pmol of RNAP per min of reaction):
wild-type (wt) RNAP, 0.16; RNAPT931I, 0.10;
RNAPR933H,A946T, 0.06; RNAPT934M, 0.06;
RNAPL1138T, 0.10; RNAPG1137A, 0.06;
RNAPS733P, 0.03; and RNAPS793F, 0.03.
|
|
A set of several point mutations in segment G of E. coli
rpoC cloned on an expression plasmid was recovered in two
unrelated screens, one aimed at obtaining termination-altering
rpoC mutants (27) and another site-specifically mutating
evolutionarily conserved
' positions 921 and
935,2 is presented atop of the sequence alignment
shown in Fig. 3. MccJ25-sensitive
E. coli cells were transformed with plasmids expressing
mutant rpoC genes, and the ability of plasmid-bearing cells
to grow on MccJ25-containing medium was investigated. As controls,
cells harboring plasmids expressing wild-type rpoC or MccJ25-resistant rpoCT931I allele were employed. As
expected, cells expressing wild-type rpoC were sensitive to
MccJ25, whereas cells expressing the T931I allele were
resistant (Fig. 2 and data not shown). Cells harboring expression
plasmids bearing the F935S allele were as resistant as
control cells expressing rpoCT931I, whereas
cells expressing the R933H,A946V double mutant
resulted in slow but detectable growth on MccJ25-containing medium
(Fig. 2 and data not shown). In contrast, cells expressing
Q921P, T934M, and H936Y alleles did
not grow on selective medium (Fig. 2 and data not shown).

View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
Genetic context of
rpoCT931I. The heavy bar
represents the 1407 amino acid ' subunit of E. coli RNAP.
Constrictions indicate the sites of natural splits in
homologues from chloroplasts and archaea. Hatched boxes
labeled from A to H represent segments of '
highly conserved in evolution. The amino acid sequences of E. coli ' subunit conserved segments G and G' are expanded
underneath. Mutations that conferred MccJ25 resistance
(either in vivo or in vitro) are shown
above the E. coli sequence in red.
Mutations that did not confer MccJ25 resistance either in
vivo or in vitro are shown in blue.
Homologous amino acid sequences from P. aeruginosa
(P.a.), X. oryzae (X.o.), B. subtilis (B.s.), T. aquaticus
(Taq.), Halobacterium halobium (H.h.),
and yeast RNAPs I, II, and III (YP1, YP2, and
YP3, respectively) are aligned with the E. coli
sequence. The dots symbolize identity to the E. coli sequence, and the hyphens represent gaps. The
evolutionarily variable sequence that separates segments G and G' in
' subunits from Gram-negative bacteria is shown as a white
box. Deletion (943-1130) is shown as a black line
above the ' subunit and is drawn to scale. Deletion
(1045-1098) is shown as a black line above the sequence
alignment.
|
|
The results of in vitro transcription assays correlated with
the in vivo results (Fig. 2) (data not shown). However, the
R933H,A946V double mutant, which showed low
levels of resistance in vivo, was highly resistant in
vitro, suggesting that the mutant RNAP in vivo function
is impaired. RNAP harboring the F935S substitution was found to be
resistant to the drug, whereas other mutants were sensitive. Three
RNAP harboring dominant lethal mutations in segment G, M932L, R933S,
and T934A, were also tested for MccJ25 resistance. These mutants were
obtained in the course of an independent mutagenesis effort3 and were prepared by
in vitro reconstitution.
Additional MccJ25-resistant mutants in segment G were also sought
directly. Three rpoC codons immediately to the left of
position 931 (928, 929, and 930) were randomized by site-directed PCR
mutagenesis, libraries of recombinant plasmids were transformed in
MccJ25-sensitive E. coli cells, and MccJ25-resistant clones
were selected. As a control, position 931, the site of the original
MccJ25-resistant mutation, was also randomized. MccJ25-resistant clones
were only obtained in the control mutagenesis reaction. Sequencing of
three resistant clones revealed the presence of the original mutation, T931I, as well as two new mutations, T931N and T931L. The corresponding enzymes were also resistant in vitro (data not shown). The
result thus suggests that the identity of
' amino acids 928-930 is
either not important for MccJ25 inhibition, or MccJ25-resistant
substitutions at these positions lead to lethal phenotype.
MccJ25 Effect on RNAPs Other Than E. coli--
MccJ25 is effective
against Gram-negative bacteria but has no effect on Gram-positive
bacteria (19). To determine the specificity of transcription inhibition
by MccJ25, we assembled a panel of RNAPs prepared from several
Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria and compared their ability to
perform abortive RNA synthesis in the presence or in the absence of
MccJ25 (Fig. 4). In the absence of
MccJ25, RNAPs from Gram-negative bacteria demonstrated approximately equal specific activities on the T7 A1 promoter (0.9, 0.6, 1.2, and 0.8 pmol/min of CpApU synthesized by 1 pmol of wild-type E. coli
RNAP, E. coli RNAPT931I, P. aeruginosa RNAP, and X. oryzae RNAP, respectively). In
agreement with the previously determined in vivo
specificity, MccJ25 inhibited abortive synthesis of CpApU from the T7
A1 promoter-containing DNA fragment by RNAPs prepared from three
Gram-negative bacteria, wild-type E. coli, X. oryzae, and P. aeruginosa (see Fig. 4; 10, 11, and 9%
residual activity in the presence of 25 µM MccJ25, respectively). As expected, E. coli RNAPT931I
was active in the presence of 25 µM MccJ25 (85%
activity). RNAP from T. aquaticus was assayed on the T7 A1
promoter at 60 °C and was considerably less active (0.2 pmol of
CpApU synthesized per min per pmol of enzyme). MccJ25 had no effect on
abortive synthesis by recombinant T. aquaticus RNAP at
60 °C (see Fig. 4; 100% activity in the presence of 25 µM MccJ25).

View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Effect of MccJ25 on transcription by RNAPs
from different bacteria. Results of in vitro
transcription by the indicated RNAPs in the absence of MccJ25 or in the
presence of 8 and 25 µM MccJ25 are shown. In the
top panel, abortive transcription was performed from the T7
A1 promoter-containing DNA template using CpA primer and
[ -32P]UTP to generate the CpApU product. In the
bottom panel, transcription was performed from the B. subtilis vegA promoter-containing template using UpA primer and
[ -32P]GTP to generate UpApG product. WT,
wild-type; E.c., E. coli; T. aq.,
T. aquaticus; P. aer., P. aeruginosa,
X. or., X. oryzae; B. sub., B. subtilis.
|
|
Because RNAP from B. subtilis displays only a very low level
of activity on the T7 A1 promoter (data not shown), we assayed the
effect of MccJ25 on this enzyme during the abortive synthesis of UpApG
on B. subtilis vegA promoter (32). In the absence of MccJ25,
B. subtilis RNAP, E. coli RNAP, and E. coli RNAPT931I demonstrated comparable levels of
activity on the vegA promoter (0.8, 0.3, and 0.1 pmol of
UpApG synthesized per min per pmol of RNAP, respectively). MccJ25 had
no effect on the B. subtilis enzyme (see Fig. 4; 110%
activity in the presence of 25 µM MccJ25) and E. coli RNAPT931I (see Fig. 4; 85% activity in the
presence of 25 µM MccJ25) but was active against
wild-type E. coli enzyme on this promoter (see Fig. 4; 11%
activity in the presence of 25 µM MccJ25). Additional experiments demonstrated that MccJ25 had no effect on transcription by yeast RNAPs II and III (data not shown).
Effect of Substitutions in and around Conserved Region G' on MccJ25
Resistance--
Because segment G positions affected by
MccJ25-resistant substitutions are identical in
' homologues from
Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms, the result implies that
other regions of RNAP may also contribute to MccJ25 binding. In RNAP
from Gram-negative bacteria, segment G is followed by a long stretch of
amino acid sequence that is hypervariable in evolution (33). The
hypervariable region is missing in RNAPs from Gram-positive bacteria
and eukaryal RNAPs. To test whether the presence of the evolutionarily
hypervariable region of
' contributes to the MccJ25 sensitivity of
RNAP from Gram-negative bacteria, we tested the ability of
rpoC
(943-1130) allele that lacks the entire
hypervariable region and thus resembles homologues from Gram-positive
microorganisms to confer MccJ25 resistance in vivo. The
mutant
' poorly assembles into RNAP, presumably because of its
inability to compete with chromosomally encoded wild-type
'.4 We therefore tested
the ability of MccJ25-sensitive cells harboring plasmid pIA331, which,
in the presence of IPTG, co-overexpresses wild-type rpoA
(
), rpoB (
), and
rpoC
(943-1130) and thus increases the
efficiency of the mutant enzyme assembly to grow on MccJ25-containing medium. As controls, plasmid pIA423, which co-overexpresses wild-type rpoA, rpoB, and rpoC, and
pRL663rpoC+ and pRL663rpoCT931I
plasmids, were used. As can be seen from Fig.
5A, cells harboring pIA331 and
pRL663T931I, but not cells harboring pIA423 and pRL663,
formed colonies in the presence of MccJ25 and IPTG. Colonies formed by
cells harboring pIA331 were minute as compared with colonies formed by
cells harboring pRL663rpoCT931I cells, but the efficiency of
plating was comparable. Plasmid pIA331, but not other plasmids,
significantly inhibited cell growth in the presence of IPTG only,
suggesting that RNAP
(943-1130) was defective in some
cellular function(s) unrelated to MccJ25 resistance. Be that as it may,
the results demonstrate that hypervariable region indeed contributes to
MccJ25 sensitivity and may be partially dispensable for cell viability
at our conditions, because RNAP lacking
' residues 943-1130 is
presumably the only transcriptionally active enzyme in the presence of
MccJ25.

View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
Removal of '
hypervariable region leads to low level MccJ25 resistance.
A, expression of rpoC (943-1130)
allele allows growth in the presence of MccJ25. Indicated serial
dilutions of E. coli DH5 cultures transformed with
plasmids expressing wild-type rpoC (pRL663) and
rpoCT931I (pRL663-T931I), co-overexpressing
wild-type rpoA, rpoB, and rpoC
(pIA423), or co-overexpressing wild-type rpoA,
rpoB, and rpoC (943-1130)
(pIA331) were spotted on IPTG-containing LB plates in the
presence or in the absence of MccJ25. Plates were incubated at 37 °C
and photographed after 24 h (in the absence of MccJ25) or after
48 h (in the presence of MccJ25). B, effect of MccJ25
on transcription by E. coli RNAP lacking the '
hypervariable region. RNAP (943-1030) was purified, and
transcription from the T7 A1 promoter-containing DNA template using CpA
primer and [ -32P]UTP substrate was performed at
increasing concentrations of MccJ25 (from 6.25 to 50 µM).
RNAPWT and RNAPT931I were used as controls.
Reaction products were resolved by denaturing PAGE and revealed by
autoradiography (top). Reaction products were quantified
using phosphorimagery, and transcription activity in the presence of
MccJ25 was plotted as a percent of the activity in the absence of
MccJ25 (bottom).
|
|
E. coli RNAP
(943-1130) was prepared from
cells harboring pIA331 and tested for the ability to transcribe from
the T7 A1 promoter in the presence or in the absence of MccJ25 (Fig.
5B). The results showed that the mutant was more resistant
to the drug than wild-type E. coli RNAP (26 and 3% residual
activity in the presence of 50 µM MccJ25). Because RNAPs
from Gram-positive bacteria are highly resistant to MccJ25 in
vitro, other sites in these RNAPs must contribute to MccJ25 resistance.
In the
' subunits from Gram-negative bacteria, the hypervariable
segment is followed by evolutionarily conserved segment G' (33).
Because there is no hypervariable region in homologues from
Gram-positive bacteria, segments G and G' form a continuous stretch of
evolutionary conserved sequence in the
' subunits from these
organisms (Fig. 3). Segment G residues that cause MccJ25 resistance are
part of the so-called G-loop in RNAP structures from thermophilic
bacteria of the Thermus genus (24, 34, 35). Residues of
segment G' are also part of the G-loop. In particular, Thermus RNAP residues corresponding to E. coli
' amino acids 1137 and 1138 are in direct contact with the residue
corresponding to E. coli Thr931 and are located
at the base of the G-loop. We therefore considered a possibility that
substitutions in positions 1137 and 1138 will make E. coli
RNAP MccJ25-resistant. Accordingly, codons 1137 and 1138 of
plasmid-borne rpoC were randomized, mutant plasmid libraries were transformed in MccJ25-sensitive E. coli, and
transformants were plated on selective medium containing MccJ25. No
MccJ25-resistant mutants were obtained when codon 1137 was randomized.
One clone was picked up at random and found to encode a G1137A
substitution; the corresponding RNAP was MccJ25-sensitive in
vitro. One resistant clone, coding for L1138T, was recovered from
codon 1138 mutagenesis. The corresponding RNAP was purified and found
to be MccJ25-resistant in vitro (Fig. 2). Because no changes
from the published rpoC sequence in segment G was observed
in this mutant (data not shown), we conclude that a substitution in
segment G' is indeed responsible for MccJ25 resistance. One
MccJ25-sensitive clone from the 1138 mutagenesis reaction was picked up
at random and sequenced and found to contain a mutation coding for
L1138V substitution. The corresponding RNAP was purified and found to
be MccJ25-sensitive in vitro (data not shown).
A functional deletion of
' amino acids 1145-1198 immediately to the
right of segment G' was described by us previously (33). This deletion
did not result in MccJ25 resistance in vivo and in
vitro (data not shown).
A double mutation coding for E1030K and I1134D substitutions was
isolated in an independent PCR-based screen for termination-altering rpoC mutations (27). The first substitution, of
Glu1030, occurred in the hypervariable region; the second
substitution, of Ile1134, occurred in segment G'. We tested
the ability of plasmid-borne E1030K,I1134D allele
to confer MccJ25 resistance in vivo and in vitro
and observed no resistance (data not shown). We also looked for
additional MccJ25-resistant mutations within the bank of
rpoC expression plasmids subjected to error-prone PCR at and
around segments G and G' (rpoC codons 876-1213; see Ref.
27). A triple mutation coding for I1115V, G1136D, and F1145S
substitutions was recovered in this way. Of the three residues
affected, one (
' Phe1145) is removed by MccJ25-sensitive
(1145-1198) deletion. Substitutions I1115V and/or G1136D are thus
likely responsible for MccJ25 resistance. Because I1115V is a
conservative substitution, substitution of evolutionarily conserved
Gly1136 in segment G' is the probable cause of MccJ25 resistance.
Substitutions in Evolutionarily Conserved Segment F Lead to MccJ25
Resistance--
Residues of
' segments G and G' that are important
for MccJ25 inhibition are exposed on the surface of narrow RNAP
secondary channel that opens on the downstream face of the enzyme and
leads to the catalytic site (24). In addition to
' segments G and G', conserved segment F also participates in the formation of the
secondary channel. We were therefore interested in whether MccJ25-resistant mutations in segment F can be obtained. Toward this
end, we tested two segment F mutants, F773I and S793F, that were shown
previously to cause resistance to the elongation inhibitor, streptolydigin (12). These mutants did not result in appreciable MccJ25
resistance in vivo or in vitro (Fig. 2) (data not
shown). We therefore looked for MccJ25-resistant region F mutants
directly, by incorporating an error-prone PCR-amplified rpoC
fragment coding for region F (rpoC codons 544-875) into an
rpoC expression plasmid, transforming mutant plasmids in
MccJ25-sensitive host, and selecting MccJ25-resistant colonies. Several
independent MccJ25-resistant colonies were obtained, and the
plasmid-borne nature of MccJ25 resistance was confirmed by
retransforming of rpoC expression plasmids from
MccJ25-resistant clones into sensitive host and replating on selective
medium. Four independent clones were obtained, and their sequence at
and around segments F, G, and G' was determined. No changes in segment
G/G' sequences was detected. In contrast, changes from the published
sequence leading to substitutions of segment F residues
Ser733 for Pro, Leu783 for Gln, and a double
substitution of Leu746 for Pro and Phe773 for
Ile were observed (Fig. 6). In
vitro analysis confirmed that RNAPs carrying mutations in segment
F are resistant to MccJ25 (Fig. 2) (data not shown). We conclude that
substitutions in RNAP
' segment F lead to MccJ25 resistance.

View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Mutations in '
conserved segment F result in MccJ25 resistance. Genetic context
of ' segment F. See legend for Fig. 3 for details. Mutations that
conferred MccJ25 resistance are shown above the E. coli sequence in red. Mutations that did not confer
MccJ25 resistance are shown in blue. E. coli
mutation that cause streptolydigin resistance and mutations in eukaryal
RNAPs that cause -amanitin resistance are shown above the
E. coli sequence.
|
|
Stl-resistant Mutations in the
Subunit Lead to MccJ25
Resistance--
Substitutions in
' segment F that lead to MccJ25
resistance occurred close to segment F sites that, when mutated, cause
Stl resistance (12). The main cluster of Stl-resistant mutations is
located in the
subunit, between Rif clusters I and II (3). To
further investigate the relationship between MccJ25 and Stl resistance
we tested the ability of E. coli cells expressing several MccJ25-resistant alleles to grow in the presence of Stl, and we tested
the ability of cells expressing Stl-resistant rpoB(
)
alleles to grow in the presence of MccJ25. As expected, cells
overproducing Stl-resistant
' harboring S793F substitution, as well
as cells overproducing Stl-resistant
subunit microdeletions
(540-544) and
(540L545) (3), but not cells overproducing
wild-type
' or
, grew on plates containing Stl. Also as expected,
cells overproducing partially Stl-resistant

(535-542) formed minute colonies in the presence of
Stl, whereas cells overproducing Stl-sensitive

(538-540) did not grow (3) (data not shown). None of
the segment F, segment G, or segment G' MccJ25-resistant
rpoC mutations tested allowed growth on Stl-containing
plates (data not shown).
Plating of cells expressing Stl-resistant rpoB alleles on
MccJ25 gave an unexpected result. As expected cells expressing
rpoCT931I, but not cells expressing wild-type
rpoC or Stl-resistant rpoCS793F, grew in the
presence of MccJ25 (Fig. 7). Likewise,
cells expressing wild-type rpoB and Stl-sensitive
rpoB
(538-540) did not grow in the presence of
MccJ25. In contrast, cells expressing highly Stl-resistant
(540-544) and
(540L545) grew in the presence of MccJ25,
whereas cells expressing low-level Stl resistance allele
rpoB
(535-542) formed minute colonies. The
results of the plating assay were supported by the results of in
vitro transcription experiments (data not shown). We also tested
several plasmid-borne Rifampicin-resistant rpoB mutants and
found that none of them were able to support growth in the presence of
MccJ25 (data not shown). We conclude that Stl-resistant mutations in
the rpoB gene lead to MccJ25 resistance.

View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7.
Stl-resistant rpoB mutations
cause MccJ25 resistance. E. coli DH5 cells
transformed with plasmids expressing the indicated rpoC and
rpoB alleles were streaked on plates in the presence or in
the absence of MccJ25. Results of 30-h growth at 37 °C are
shown.
|
|
 |
CONCLUSIONS |
The principal result of this work is the demonstration that
transcription by mutant RNAP purified from MccJ25-resistant E. coli cells is resistant to MccJ25, whereas transcription by RNAP purified from wild-type cells is MccJ25-sensitive. This result proves
that E. coli RNAP is the cellular target of MccJ25. In the
best understood case of Rifampicin, mutations toward resistance affect
RNAP residues that are removed from each other in primary sequence but
that cluster in the enzyme quaternary structure (1-3, 24). Structural
analysis demonstrates that Rif-resistance mutation define the
Rifampicin binding site (4). We hypothesized that the original
MccJ25-resistance mutation, that changed evolutionarily conserved amino
acid inside RNAP secondary channel, likewise defines the MccJ25 binding
site on RNAP. According to this view, MccJ25 inhibits transcription by
binding in the secondary channel and preventing the traffic of NTP
substrates to the catalytic center of the enzyme. Indeed, molecular
modeling using T. aquaticus RNAP structure and a reported
MccJ25 structure (20) shows that 21-amino acid MccJ25 can fit into RNAP
secondary channel with little or no steric clashes (data not shown).
If MccJ25 were indeed binding in the secondary channel, it should be
possible to isolate additional MccJ25-resistant mutations located in
the channel. Further, at least some of these residues must be
evolutionarily variable, to explain the observed restriction of MccJ25
action to RNAP from Gram-negative bacteria. Both of these predictions
are fulfilled. Here, we report the isolation of additional
MccJ25-resistant mutants in segment G, as well as mutations in
conserved segments G' and F. Structural analysis indicates that in
T. aquaticus RNAP core enzyme structure, residues homologous
to those affected in E. coli are exposed in the secondary channel (Fig. 8). As expected, residues
in segments G and G' are located close to the original
Thr931 and to each other, at the base of the G loop.
However, residues in segment F (magenta) are spatially
isolated from each other and are located on two opposing sides of the
secondary channel, as well as on the roof of the channel. Residues in
segments G and G' are identical in RNAPs from Gram-positive and
Gram-negative bacteria and therefore could not be responsible for
differential action of MccJ25 on these enzymes. On the other hand,
residues in segment F are different between RNAPs from Gram-negative
and Gram-positive bacteria, and these differences could account for observed specificity of MccJ25 inhibition. In addition, our data indicate that the presence of hypervariable region in
' contributes to MccJ25 sensitivity of RNAP from Gram-negative bacteria. The hypervariable region is inserted in RNAP G loop, which appears to be
flexible. In T. aquaticus core enzyme structure, G loop is
in a "closed" conformation and takes part in the formation of the secondary channel wall (Fig. 8, cyan). In the
holoenzyme structure, G loop is in an "open" conformation,
turned almost 90 degrees from its position in the core. The opening of
the G loop shortens the secondary channel and may affect MccJ25
binding. It is conceivable that the hypervariable region restricts the mobility of the G-loop and thus allows better binding of MccJ25 to RNAP
from Gram-negative bacteria.

View larger version (63K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 8.
Structural context of MccJ25 resistance
mutations. At the top left a backbone representation of
T. aquaticus RNAP core is shown. The ' subunit is
green, and other subunits are white. The
active-center Mg2+ is shown in SPACEFILL representation and
is colored blue. The boxed area is expanded at
the bottom. Amino acid corresponding to E. coli
' Thr931 the site of the original MccJ25 mutation (18)
is shown in purple and SPACEFILL. Amino acid homologous to
E. coli segment G ' Phe935 that can be
mutated to result in MccJ25 resistance is shown in yellow
and SPACEFILL. Amino acid homologous to E. coli segment G'
Leu1138 that can be altered to result in MccJ25 resistance
is shown in orange and SPACEFILL. The G-loop is shown in
cyan. The corresponding loop in RNAPs from Gram-negative
bacteria contains an insertion of more than two hundred amino acids
(see Fig. 3). Segment F amino acids whose homologues in E. coli ' can be altered to result inMccJ25 resistance are shown
in magenta. Amino acid homologous to E. coli
segment F Ser793 that can be altered to result in Stl
resistance is shown in red and SPACEFILL. A stretch of subunit amino acids whose homologues in E. coli can be
mutated toward Stl resistance mutation is colored red. The
view on the right is perpendicular to the main DNA binding
channel of the enzyme and was obtained from the left view by
~90° clockwise rotation around the vertical axis.
|
|
Earlier (12), we proposed that the presence of mutations that cause
resistance to Stl and
-amanitin in conserved segment F of bacterial
RNAP
' subunits and eukaryal RNAP II largest subunits indicated that
the two drugs may function similarly in their respective systems
despite the lack of common chemical structure. Here, we show that
mutations in
' segment F also cause resistance to MccJ25. Amino
acids that, when mutated, cause resistance to all three drugs are
exposed on the surface of the secondary channel. Analysis of a
structural model of bacterial RNAP elongation complex reveals that RNAP
secondary channel provides the only unobstructed way from the solvent
to RNAP catalytic center, because access from the main DNA binding
channel is blocked by nucleic acids (25). Therefore, it is possible
that substitutions in the secondary channel can cause resistance to
transcription elongation inhibitors whose actual mechanisms of action
are different, but all of whom have to pass through the secondary
channel to get access to the catalytic center.
Analysis of Stl-resistant rpoB revealed, unexpectedly, that
they cause MccJ25 resistance. The result appears to strengthen the idea
that MccJ25 and Stl may have a common inhibition mechanism, despite the
lack of structural similarity. On the other hand, the presence of
MccJ25-resistant mutations in
is difficult to reconcile with the
notion of MccJ25 binding in the secondary channel, because in RNAP
structure, the site of Stl-resistant mutations in the
subunit (Fig.
8, red) is located slightly upstream of the catalytic center
and should become inaccessible from the secondary channel in the
elongation complex (25). Therefore, it is possible that lesions in this
site cause MccJ25 resistance indirectly. For example, the G-loop, when
opened, may interact with the site of Stl resistance mutations in
,
and Stl resistance mutations could therefore affect the position of the
G-loop and thus cause resistance to MccJ25. Alternatively, the
Stl
site can undergo a conformational change upon transcription complex
formation that brings it closer to the secondary channel.
Obviously, further studies will be necessary to determine the site of
MccJ25 interaction with RNAP, the mechanism of transcription inhibition
by MccJ25, and its relationship, if any, to transcription inhibition by
Stl. If MccJ25 were indeed binding in the secondary channel, several
very specific predictions concerning the biochemical effects of its
interactions with transcription complex could be made. The secondary
channel is thought to conduct NTP substrates to the RNAP catalytic
center, to accept the 3'-end proximal portion of the nascent RNA in the
back-tracked, dead-end conformation of the elongation complex, and to
accept transcript cleavage factors GreA and GreB (24). MccJ25 binding
should interfere with all of these activities. Experiments aimed at
testing these predictions are currently underway.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
We are grateful to Vladimir Svetlov for the
preparation of RNAP
(943-1130).
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported in part by National
Institutes of Health Grants GM64307 and GM38660 (to K. S. and R. L.,
respectively) and by an American Society for Microbiology Arturo
Sordelli fellowship (to M. D.).The costs of publication of this
article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. The article
must therefore be hereby marked
"advertisement" in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
b
On leave from the Institute of Molecular
Genetics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia.
c
Contributed equally to this work.
e
Present address: University of California,
San Diego, La Jolla, CA.
g
Present address: Dept. of Biochemistry, NYU
Medical School, New York, NY.
j
To whom correspondence should be addressed:
Waksman Inst., 190 Frelinghuysen Rd., Piscataway, NJ 08854. Tel.:
732-445-6095; Fax: 732-445-5735; E-mail:
severik@waksman.rutgers.edu.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, October 24, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M209425200
2
I. Artsimovitch, V. Svetlov, K. Murakami,
and R. Landick, manuscript in preparation.
3
V. Epshtein, A. Mustaev, and A. Goldfarb,
submitted for publication.
4
I. Artsimovitch, personal observation.
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
RNAP, RNA
polymerase;
Stl, streptolydigin;
MccJ25, microcin J25;
IPTG, isopropyl-1-thio-
-D-galactopyranoside.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Ovchinnikov, Y. A.,
Monastyrskaya, G. S.,
Guriev, S. O.,
Kalinina, N. F.,
Sverdlov, E. D.,
Gragerov, A. I.,
Bass, I. A.,
Kiver, I. F.,
Moiseyeva, E. P.,
Igumnov, V. N.,
Mindlin, S. Z.,
Nikiforov, V. G.,
and Khesin, R. B.
(1983)
Mol. Gen. Genet.
190,
344-348[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 2.
|
Jin, D. J.,
and Gross, C. A.
(1988)
J. Mol. Biol.
202,
45-58[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 3.
|
Severinov, K.,
Soushko, M.,
Goldfarb, A.,
and Nikiforov, V.
(1993)
J. Biol. Chem.
268,
14280-14825
|
| 4.
|
Campbell, E. A.,
Korzheva, N.,
Mustaev, A.,
Murakami, K.,
Nair, S.,
Goldfarb, A.,
and Darst, S. A.
(2001)
Cell
104,
901-912[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 5.
|
McClure, W. R.,
and Cech, C. L.
(1978)
J. Biol. Chem.
253,
8949-8956[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 6.
|
Schulz, W.,
and Zillig, W.
(1981)
Nucleic Acids Res.
9,
6889-6906[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 7.
|
Cassani, G.,
Burgess, R. R.,
Goodman, H. M.,
and Gold, L.
(1971)
Nat. New Biol.
230,
197-200[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 8.
|
Helm, K. v. d.,
and Krakow, J. S.
(1972)
Nat. New Biol.
235,
82-83[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 9.
|
McClure, W. R.
(1980)
J. Biol. Chem.
255,
1610-1616[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 10.
|
Lisitsyn, N. A.,
Sverdlov, E. D.,
Moiseyeva, E. P.,
and Nikiforov, V. G.
(1985)
Bioorg. Khim.
11,
132-134[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 11.
|
Heisler, L. M.,
Suzuki, H.,
Landick, R.,
and Gross, C. A.
(1993)
J. Biol. Chem.
268,
25369-25375[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 12.
|
Severinov, K.,
Markov, D.,
Nikiforov, V.,
Severinova, E.,
Landick, R.,
Darst, S. A.,
and Goldfarb, A.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
23926-23929[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 13.
|
Bartolomei, M.,
and Corden, J.
(1987)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
7,
586-594[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 14.
|
Bartolomei, M. S.,
and Corden, J. L.
(1995)
Mol. Gen. Genet.
246,
778-782[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 15.
|
Allison, L. A.,
Moyle, M.,
Shales, M.,
and Ingles, C. J.
(1985)
Cell
42,
599-610[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 16.
|
Mathews, D. E.,
and Durbin, R. D.
(1990)
J. Biol. Chem.
265,
493-498[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 17.
|
Steinberg, T. H.,
Mathews, D. E.,
Durbin, R. D.,
and Burgess, R. R.
(1990)
J. Biol. Chem.
265,
499-505[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 18.
|
Delgado, M. A.,
Rintoul, M. R.,
Farias, R. N.,
and Salomon, R. A.
(2001)
J. Bacteriol.
183,
4543-4550[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 19.
|
Salomon, R. A.,
and Farias, R. N.
(1992)
J. Bacteriol.
174,
7428-7435[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 20.
|
Blond, A.,
Cheminant, M.,
Segalas-Milazzo, I.,
Peduzzi, J.,
Barthelemy, M.,
Goulard, C.,
Salomon, R.,
Moreno, F.,
Farias, R.,
and Rebuffat, S.
(2001)
Eur. J. Biochem.
268,
2124-2133[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 21.
|
Solbiati, J. O.,
Ciaccio, M.,
Farias, R. N.,
and Salomon, R. A.
(1996)
J. Bacteriol.
178,
3661-3663[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 22.
|
Chiuchiolo, M. J.,
Delgado, M. A.,
Farias, R. N.,
and Salomon, R. A.
(2001)
J. Bacteriol.
183,
1755-1764[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 23.
|
Salomon, R. A.,
and Farias, R. N.
(1995)
J. Bacteriol.
177,
3323-3325[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 24.
|
Zhang, G.,
Campbell, E. A.,
Minakhin, L.,
Richter, C.,
Severinov, K.,
and Darst, S. A.
(1999)
Cell
98,
811-824[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 25.
|
Korzheva, N.,
Mustaev, A.,
Kozlov, M.,
Malhotra, A.,
Nikiforov, V.,
Goldfarb, A.,
and Darst, S. A.
(2000)
Science
289,
619-625[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 26.
|
Severinov, K.
(2000)
Curr. Opin. Microbiol.
3,
118-125[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 27.
|
Weilbaecher, R.,
Hebron, C.,
Feng, G.,
and Landick, R.
(1994)
Genes Dev.
8,
2913-2927[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 28.
|
Kashlev, M.,
Nudler, E.,
Severinov, K.,
Borukhov, S.,
Komissarova, N.,
and Goldfarb, A.
(1996)
Methods Enzymol.
274,
326-334[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 29.
|
Nedea, E. C.,
Markov, D.,
Naryshkina, T.,
and Severinov, K.
(1999)
J. Bacteriol.
181,
2663-2665[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 30.
|
Polyakov, A.,
Severinova, E.,
and Darst, S. A.
(1995)
Cell
8,
365-373
|
| 31.
|
Nechaev, S.,
Yuzhenkova, Y.,
Niedziela-Majka, A.,
Heyduk, T.,
and Severinov, K.
(2002)
J. Mol. Biol.
320,
11-22[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 32.
|
Le Grice, S. F.,
Shih, C. C.,
Whipple, F.,
and Sonenshein, A. L.
(1986)
Mol. Gen. Genet.
204,
229-236[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 33.
|
Zakharova, N.,
Bass, A.,
Arsenieva, E.,
Nikiforov, V.,
and Severinov, K.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
24912-24920[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 34.
|
Vassylyev, D. G.,
Sekine, S.,
Laptenko, O.,
Lee, J.,
Vassylyeva, M. N.,
Borukhov, S.,
and Yokoyama, S.
(2002)
Nature
417,
712-719[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 35.
|
Murakami, K. S.,
Masuda, S.,
and Darst, S. A.
(2002)
Science
296,
1280-1284[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
Copyright © 2002 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles: