JBC INTERFERin siRNA transfection reagent

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M408994200 on October 13, 2004

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 279, Issue 53, 55707-55714, December 31, 2004
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
279/53/55707    most recent
M408994200v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lloyd, L. J.
Right arrow Articles by Buck, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lloyd, L. J.
Right arrow Articles by Buck, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Identification of a New Member of the Phage Shock Protein Response in Escherichia coli, the Phage Shock Protein G (PspG)*

Louise J. Lloyd{ddagger}, Susan E. Jones{ddagger}§, Goran Jovanovic{ddagger}, Prasad Gyaneshwar¶, Matthew D. Rolfe||, Arthur Thompson||, Jay C. Hinton||, and Martin Buck{ddagger}**

From the {ddagger}Department of Biological Sciences, Sir Alexander Fleming Building, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom, the Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-3102, and the ||Molecular Microbiology Group, Institute of Food Research, Norwich Research Park, Colney, Norwich NR4 7UA, United Kingdom

Received for publication, August 6, 2004 , and in revised form, October 5, 2004.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The phage shock protein operon (pspABCDE) of Escherichia coli is strongly up-regulated in response to overexpression of the filamentous phage secretin protein IV (pIV) and by many other stress conditions including defects in protein export. PspA has an established role in maintenance of the proton-motive force of the cell under stress conditions. Here we present evidence for a new member of the phage shock response in E. coli. Using transcriptional profiling, we show that the synthesis of pIV in E. coli leads to a highly restricted response limited to the up-regulation of the psp operon genes and yjbO. The psp operon and yjbO are also up-regulated in response to pIV in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. yjbO is a highly conserved gene found exclusively in bacteria that contain a psp operon but is physically unlinked to the psp operon. yjbO encodes a putative inner membrane protein that is co-controlled with the psp operon genes and is predicted to be an effector of the psp response in E. coli. We present evidence that yjbO expression is driven by {sigma}54-RNA polymerase, activated by PspF and integration host factor, and negatively regulated by PspA. PspF specifically regulates only members of the PspF regulon: pspABCDE and yjbO. We found that increased expression of YjbO results in decreased motility of bacteria. Because yjbO is co-conserved and co-regulated with the psp operon and is a member of the phage shock protein F regulon, we propose that yjbO be renamed pspG.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The phage shock protein operon (pspABCDE) was first characterized in Escherichia coli (1) and is highly conserved in many Gram-negative bacteria including several pathogens. There is good evidence that the psp genes are involved in protecting the bacterial cell during infectious processes. For example, pspC mutants of Yersinia enterocolitica are severely attenuated for virulence during infection (2) and exhibit growth defects when the type III secretion system is expressed (3). Significantly, the psp genes are among the most highly up-regulated genes in Salmonella typhimurium during macrophage infection (4). The psp operon is also up-regulated during swarming in S. typhimurium (5) and during biofilm formation in E. coli (6).

Expression of the psp operon in E. coli is induced by protein IV (pIV),1 a secretin from filamentous phage f1 (1). pIV forms a pore in the bacterial outer membrane that is required for the assembly and export of filamentous phage (7, 8). The pIV protein is the founding member of a large family of bacterial secretins, all of which form large multimeric export channels in the outer membrane. Overexpression of several secretins, often components of the type II and type III bacterial secretion systems, has also been shown to induce expression of the psp operon (e.g. Refs. 7 and 9) establishing that the response is not restricted to a phage protein. Expression of the psp operon can also be induced following overexpression of mutant forms of the outer membrane protein PhoE that are not efficiently secreted (10). PspA synthesis is switched on under conditions that block or reduce the efficiency of the export apparatus, for example, mutants in secA, secD, and secF (10) and depletion of YidC (11, 12). Mutations in components of the twin-arginine translocation pathway also leads to PspA induction under anaerobic conditions (Ref. 13 and see also Ref. 12). Other more general stresses including extreme heat shock (50 °C), hyperosmotic shock, ethanol treatment (10%), and uncouplers of proton-motive force induce psp (reviewed in Ref. 14). The common factor that may link psp-inducing stresses is their effect in dissipating proton-motive force. Indeed, it is significant that PspA, an effector protein of the phage shock response, is known to be involved in maintaining proton-motive force under stress conditions (15). In addition to Psp protein homologues in other Gram-negative bacteria, a PspA homologue (VIPP1) has been found in Synechocystis, which is thought to be important in thylakoid formation, consistent with a role of PspA in sustaining membrane function (16).

Psp proteins mediate regulation of the psp operon (17, 18). Transcription of the psp operon is driven by the {sigma}54-RNA polymerase ({sigma}54-RNAP) (17), which is activated by the enhancer binding protein PspF (19) and facilitated by integration host factor (IHF) (20). The expression of PspF is negatively autogenously controlled (21). PspA negatively regulates psp transcription by binding to the activator protein PspF (22, 23). Conversely, PspB and PspC act as positive regulators of psp operon transcription by overcoming the negative regulation imposed by PspA under specific inducing conditions (e.g. pIV) (17, 24, 25). Phenotypes of cells lacking the psp operon are very subtle and include reduced survival in stationary phase at alkaline pH and changed motility (14).

Here we have used whole genome transcriptional profiling to determine the global effect of pIV synthesis in E. coli. In the highly restricted response we have identified one new gene associated with the psp system, pspG (previously yjbO). pspG is physically unlinked with the psp operon but is co-conserved and co-regulated with the psp operon genes by {sigma}54, PspF, IHF, and PspA. Several lines of evidence suggest that PspG is an effector of the phage shock system and not a regulator of psp expression.


   EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Bacterial Strains and Plasmids—The bacterial strains and plasmids used in this study are described in Table I. MG1655{Delta}pspA, MG1655{Delta}pspBC, and MG1655{Delta}pspF were constructed as described in Ref. 12. MVA29 was constructed by transducing {Delta}pspABC::kn from J134 (17) into MG1655. MVA19 was constructed by transducing {Delta}pspABC::kn from J134 and pspF::mTn10-tet from K1527 (19) into MG1655. MVA40 was constructed by transducing pspG::kn from JWK5716_1 (Km+) into MG1655. MVA42 was constructed by transducing pspG::kn from JWK5716_1 (Km+) into MG1655{Delta}pspA. Strains were grown aerobically with shaking at 37 °C. For microarray analyses, strains were grown to mid-exponential phase in N-C-minimal media (33) supplemented with 0.4% glucose as carbon source and 10 mM NH4Cl as nitrogen source. For all other experiments, strains were grown in Luria-Bertani (LB) media (34). Antibiotics were used at the following concentrations: ampicillin (ap), 100 µgml-1; chloramphenocol (cm), 25 µg ml-1; tetracycline (tet), 10 µg ml-1; and kanamycin (kn), 30 µgml-1. IPTG was added to a final concentration of 1 mM and arabinose was added to a final concentration of 0.4% when required unless otherwise stated. Transformations and P1vir transductions were performed as described in Ref. 35.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE I
Bacterial strains and plasmids

 
Microarray Analysis—Growth of cultures was halted with 1/10 volume of 5% phenol in ethanol and RNA was extracted with hot phenol/SDS (36). RNA was treated with DNase I for 1 h at 37 °C. For the initial microarray experiments, RNA was fluorescently labeled during reverse transcription and cDNA was hybridized to E. coli PCR product microarrays according to S. Kustu and co-workers (37). Hybridization, scanning, and normalization were carried out as described (38) and genome images were prepared (37). Experiments were performed in duplicate with a dye swap. The microarray data for the pIV experiments were generated with fluorescently labeled genomic DNA as a reference channel in each experiment using E. coli and S. typhimurium PCR product microarrays printed at IFR (39-41). Experiments were performed in quadruplicate, consisting of two biological replicates and two technical replicates. Microarray slides were scanned with a Genepix 4000B scanner (Axon Instruments). Fluorescent spot and local background intensities were quantified using Genepix Pro software. For labeling, hybridization, and data analysis protocols and details of statistical filtering procedures, see the online site (ifr.bbsrc.ac.uk/Safety/Microarrays/#Protocols). Further statistical analysis was carried out using Cyber-T (visitor.ics.uci.edu/genex/cybert/).

RT-PCR—Qiagen® One-step RT-PCR kit was used according to the manufacturer' instructions to amplify pspA (20 cycles) and pspG (35 cycles) from RNA samples. For amplifying pspA the primers RT-PspA(a) (5'-CTCGCTTTGCCGACATCGTGAATG-3') and RT-PspA(b) (5'-TGCCAGTTGTTCGCTGATTGCATC-3') were used. For amplifying pspG the primers RT-PspG(a) (5'-GCTGGAACTACTTTTTGTGATTGG-3') and RT-PspG(b) (5'-CGCCAGCGGTCATAACGCTGATAT-3') were used.

Western Blotting—Western blotting was carried out as described (23) using primary antibodies to PspA (12) and pIV (a gift from Marjorie Russel). pIV antibodies were used at a 1:10,000 dilution with donkey anti-rabbit secondary antibodies (Amersham Biosciences).

{beta}-Galactosidase Assays—{beta}-Galactosidase assays were carried out as described (35).

Bioinformatics Methods—Fuzzpro (EMBOSS programs) was used to search for consensus sequences in regions of DNA by allowing small numbers of mismatches to be introduced to the search.

DNase I Footprinting Assays—DNase I footprinting reactions (10 µl) were carried out at 37 °C in STA buffer (25 mM Tris acetate, pH 8.0, 8 mM magnesium acetate, 10 mM KCl, 1 mM dithiothreitol, 3.5% (w/v) polyethylene glycol 8000) essentially as described (42). Briefly, 0-400 nM E{sigma}54 (reconstituted in situ with 1:2 molar ratio of E and {sigma}54) or 0-1 µM E. coli PspF was incubated with 15 nM pLL1 for 10 min and treated with 1.75 x 10-3 units of DNase I (Amersham Biosciences) for 2 min. The DNase I reaction was quenched by the addition of DNase I stop buffer (400 mM NaCl, 30 mM EDTA, 1% SDS) and the DNA was purified using QIAquick spin columns (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer's instructions. DNase I protected regions were identified by primer extension PCR as described (42) using 0.5 µl of 1 µM {gamma}-32P-end labeled primers pPspG1 (5'-GAACACGCGCTCAAACTGGTGGCGG-3') (for {sigma}54 binding) and pPspG2 (5'-CTGGCGCGCGGCAGTGGCGGC-3') (for PspF binding).

In Vitro Transcription Assay—In vitro transcription reactions (10 µl) were carried out as described (43) with a 1:5 ratio RNAP to {sigma}54 and with plasmids pSLE1 (pspA) or pJH2 (pspG).

Motility Assay—Motility assays were carried out using motility agar (1% tryptone, 0.5% NaCl and 0.3% agar) plus the appropriate antibiotic. 2 µl of a fully grown LB overnight culture was pipetted into the motility agar, plates were incubated at 37 °C for 6 h, and zones of motility were measured in millimeters.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
pIV Secretin Stress Results in the Up-regulation of pspABCDE and pspG—To examine the transcriptional response to pIV-induced stress in E. coli wild type MG1655 cells containing the plasmids, pPMR129 (pIV) or pGZ119EH (vector control) were grown to mid-log phase, expression from the plasmids was induced with IPTG for 1 h, and cells were harvested for RNA extraction. The synthesis of pIV reached high levels after 1 h (see Supplementary Materials and Fig. 1) indicating that it should elicit a full cellular response but did not lead to reduced growth rates, or reduced yields of cells, indicating a lack of toxicity. Microarray analyses showed increased levels of psp operon transcripts in pIV-expressing cells compared with the vector control (Fig. 1A). We correlated activation of the pspA promoter with increased levels of the PspA protein using Western blotting (data not shown). Other than the psp operon genes, only a single gene, yjbO, showed a significant and sizeable up-regulation in response to pIV secretin stress (Fig. 1A; see Supplementary Materials Tables I and III). This data indicates that large transcriptional responses of E. coli to pIV are very rare and identify a new gene involved in the phage shock response, yjbO. We propose to rename this gene pspG.



View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 1.
Whole genome expression profiles for E. coli MG1655 cells (A) and S. typhimurium LT2 (B). Cells were grown in N-C-media supplemented with 0.4% glucose and 10 mM NH4Cl to mid-log phase and pIV expression was induced with IPTG for 1 h. Extracted RNA was converted to cDNA, labeled, and hybridized to the E. coli and S. typhimurium microarrays (from J. C. H.). Gene expression in cells expressing pPMR129 (pIV) is normalized to expression in cells expressing pGZ119EH (vector control). Genes up-regulated in response to pIV stress are indicated in red, genes down-regulated in response to pIV stress are indicated in blue, and genes not changing in expression in response to pIV stress are indicated in yellow. The six genes indicated in red are pspA, pspB, pspC, pspD, pspE, and pspG.

 
To confirm that transcript levels of pspG are increased in wild type MG1655 cells expressing pIV, RT-PCR was carried out on the RNA samples used for the microarray experiments. RT-PCR clearly demonstrates that pspG transcription is up-regulated, along with pspA transcription, in pIV-expressing MG1655 cells compared with the vector control (Fig. 2A). {beta}-Galactosidase assays using a translational reporter for PspG (pLL1) confirm that PspG is produced in response to pIV in MC1061 cells (Fig. 2B).



View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 2.
pspA and pspG transcription is up-regulated in response to pIV-secretin stress. A, pspA and pspG transcripts were amplified from total RNA samples from MG1655 cells by RT-PCR as described under "Experimental Procedures." B, {beta}-galactosidase assays were carried out on MC1061 cells to detect transcription of pspA (pSJ1) and translation of pspG (pLL1). Lane 1, pspA detected in MG1655 expressing pGZ119EH (vector) for 1 h; lane 2, pspA detected in MG1655 expressing pPMR129 (pIV) for 1 h; lane 3, PspG detected in MG1655 expressing pGZ119EH for 1 h; lane 4, PspG detected in MG1655 expressing pPMR129 for 1 h.

 
To determine whether the response to pIV detected in E. coli is conserved in other bacteria that contain the psp operon, a pIV expression experiment was carried out in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium LT2. There is significant up-regulation of psp operon and pspG transcripts in the pIV-expressing S. typhimurium cells (Fig. 1B; see Supplementary Materials Tables I and III). The transcriptional response to pIV in S. typhimurium resembles that of E. coli in that the response to pIV secretin stress is highly restricted. Our comparative transcriptomic analysis of responses of E. coli and S. typhimurium to pIV shows that the common core of up-regulated genes are pspABCDE and pspG. Transcription of pspF does not show any change in response to pIV expression, consistent with control of PspF being exclusively at the level of activity (21). Such a limited and specific response to pIV stress resembles the response of E. coli cells to IPTG, a gratuitous inducer of the E. coli lac operon. We performed a microarray experiment to show that IPTG only causes significant increased expression of lac operon genes in MG1655, no other transcriptome changes occur (see Supplementary Materials Table II). As with lac promoter activity induced by IPTG, the effect of pIV inducing stimulus under our growth conditions in E. coli appears to be close to gratuitous (44).

pspG Transcription Is Regulated by psp-encoded Proteins—To examine the effect of overexpression of the psp genes on the transcriptome, transcripts from cells lacking the negative regulator PspA (MG1655{Delta}pspA) were compared with transcripts from cells lacking the positive regulator PspF (MG1655{Delta}pspF). In MG1655{Delta}pspA, the psp operon is expressed at high levels because the negative regulator of its transcription has been removed. Conversely, in MG1655{Delta}pspF, expression of the psp operon is completely absent because the activator protein required for {sigma}54-RNAP driven transcription has been removed. Levels of psp expression in the MG1655{Delta}pspA strain are therefore close to levels in wild type cells expressing pIV, but without the production of PspA. It is clear from Fig. 3 that pspBCDE is transcribed at high levels in MG1655{Delta}pspA compared with MG1655{Delta}pspF. As with the response of wild type MG1655 cells to pIV stress, there is very little transcriptional change across the whole genome in response to overexpression of psp genes in MG1655{Delta}pspA, with the clear exception of the gene pspG, which is strongly up-regulated. The level of expression from the pspA promoter and the pspG promoter was similar when we compared wild type cells expressing pIV to cells lacking PspA, the only known negative regulator of psp expression. This result establishes that pIV is a strong and effective inducing signal.



View larger version (108K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 3.
pIV secretin stress results in a highly restricted transcriptional response. E. coli microarrays (from the laboratory of S. Kustu) were probed with mixtures of cDNAs from MG1655{Delta}pspA and MG1655{Delta}pspF grown on N-C-media supplemented with 0.4% glucose and 10 mM NH4Cl to mid-log phase. Spots from fluorescence scanning of the microarrays were rearranged in genome order. The b numbers are indicated. Spots are arranged in doublets as a dye-swap experiment was carried out. Those b numbers with a red spot in the top row of the doublet and a green spot in the bottom row of the doublet are up-regulated in MG1655{Delta}pspA compared with MG1655{Delta}pspF and vice versa. For highly expressed genes, spots appear intense yellow because of image saturation. pspB, C, D, E (b1305-1308), and pspG (b4050) (highlighted) are clearly up-regulated in MG1655{Delta}pspA compared with MG1655{Delta}pspF. There is little change in gene expression across the rest of the genome.

 
We considered that the synthesis of pIV in mutants unable to mount a wild type Psp response might result in additional changes in the transcriptome to compensate for the inability of the cell to adapt to stress arising through the failure to express the psp genes. MG1655{Delta}pspA, MG1655{Delta}pspBC, and MG1655{Delta}pspF cells containing pPMR129 (pIV) and pGZ119-EH (vector control) were grown to mid-log phase and induced with IPTG. The synthesis of pIV reached high levels after 1 h (see Supplementary Materials Fig. 1), which is consistent with the observation that filamentous phage grow normally in psp mutants (1). The psp mutant strains did not show any growth defects on expression of pIV. Microarray analysis showed that synthesis of pIV in MG1655{Delta}pspA, MG1655{Delta}pspBC, and MG1655{Delta}pspF does not cause any pIV-dependent changes in the transcriptome attributable to the loss of PspA, PspBC, or PspF, respectively (see Supplementary Materials Table I). pspG was not further up-regulated in MG1655{Delta}pspA, MG1655{Delta}pspBC, or MG1655{Delta}pspF cells when expressing pIV, probably because the psp operon, and therefore pspG, were constitutively on in MG1655{Delta}pspA and always off in MG1655{Delta}pspBC and MG1655{Delta}pspF. This data shows that expression of pspG is negatively regulated by PspA and its transcription may be activated by PspF via a {sigma}54 promoter and positively regulated by PspBC.

The psp Operon and pspG Are Co-conserved and Co-regulated—pspG and pspFpspABCDE are not physically linked on the chromosome, but pspG is highly conserved among bacteria in which the psp operon is conserved. Furthermore, all bacteria containing a recognizable psp operon carry a pspG homologue, and pspG homologues are not present in bacteria lacking a psp operon. This shows that the pspG and psp loci are co-conserved. PspG is a small (~9 kDa) highly hydrophobic protein that is predicted to be an inner membrane protein (enzim.hu/hmmtop/http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/TMHMM/).

Because our experiments indicated that pspG transcription is regulated by the same elements that regulate psp operon transcription, we used a bioinformatic approach to search the pspG promoter region for the control elements that are present in the psp operon promoter, which are binding sites for {sigma}54, PspF, and IHF. Using the program fuzzpro (EMBOSS programs) and the consensus sequence WWWTCAA[N4]TTR for IHF binding (45) and sequences GGCACGCAAATTGT for {sigma}54 binding and TAGTGTAATTCGCTAACT for PspF binding (based on the {sigma}54 and PspF binding sites in the pspA promoter) (20, 46) we found potential binding sites for {sigma}54, IHF, and PspF (Fig. 4).



View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 4.
The pspG promoter region contains regions predicted to bind PspF, IHF, and {sigma}54. A, the pspA promoter region of E. coli (20, 57). B, the pspG promoter region of E. coli. Sites for PspF, IHF, and {sigma}54 in the pspG promoter region were predicted by bioinformatics (fuzzpro, EMBOSS programs). Consensus sequence for IHF binding is WWWTCAA[N4]TTR (45) and the sequences for {sigma}54 (GGCACGCAAATTGT) and PspF (TAGTGTAATTCGCTAACT) binding are present in the pspA promoter.

 
Using the translational fusion for pspG (pLL1) we found that {sigma}54-RNAP and activation by PspF are required in vivo for pIV-induced PspG expression. In the wild type strains the basal level of PspG expression is extremely low, but is up-regulated upon induction with pIV. In mutant strains for {sigma}54 and PspF, pspG expression is abolished both before and after induction (data not shown). DNase I protection assays using purified components confirmed that the pspG upstream DNA region was bound by PspF (Fig. 5A, lane 3) and by the {sigma}54-RNAP (Fig. 5B, lane 3) at the promoter sequence predicted by bioinformatics. In vitro transcription assays established that a transcript originated from the predicted pspG promoter region, dependent upon {sigma}54, PspF, and ATP (Fig. 6A). Transcripts from the pspG promoter increased with increasing concentrations of PspF (Fig. 6B) and it appears that in the absence of IHF the pspG promoter is much more sensitive to PspF concentration than the pspA promoter. Addition of IHF to the in vitro transcription assay increases the level of transcripts from the pspG promoter indicating that the predicted IHF binding site in the pspG promoter region is functional (Fig. 6C) and that the binding of IHF to the pspG promoter facilitates pspG transcription. IHF enhances psp operon transcription (20, 46) and facilitates binding of PspF to its upstream activation sequences in the psp operon regulatory region, autogenously down-regulating pspF transcription (20, 21). Consistent with this data and the increased sensitivity of the pspG promoter to PspF in comparison to the pspA promoter (Fig. 6B), PspG expression in an IHF mutant (MC1068) is increased both before and after induction by pIV in vivo (data not shown). Combined, these results provide strong evidence that pspG is tightly co-regulated with the psp operon and is a member of the PspF-dependent regulon.



View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 5.
PspF and {sigma}54-RNA polymerase bind the pspG promoter region. A, PspF (used at 400 nM) footprint on the pspG promoter between positions -76 and -109 is shown in lane 3. Control reactions that do not contain PspF are shown in lanes 1 and 2. The reaction in lane 4 was conducted with 1000 nM PspF1-275 (PspF lacking the DNA binding domain). B, E{sigma}54 (used at 200 nM) footprint on the pspG promoter between positions -8 and -30 is shown in lane 3. Control reactions that do not contain E{sigma}54 are shown in lanes 1 and 2. In A and B the lanes marked A, C, G, and T contain chain termination DNA sequencing reactions conducted with pLL1 and the chain terminating ddATP, ddCTP, ddGTP, and ddTTP, respectively. DNase I-treated (+) and -untreated (-) reactions are marked at the bottom. The DNA sequence shown on the side was predicted using bioinformatics (fuzzpro, EMBOSS programs) to bind to PspF (A) and E{sigma}54 (B). In B, the consensus promoter -12 and -24 regions of {sigma}54-dependent promoters are shown.

 



View larger version (41K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 6.
pspG transcription requires {sigma}54-RNA polymerase, PspF, and ATP and is facilitated by IHF. A, transcripts from the pspA promoter (pSLE1) (~350 bp) and the pspG promoter (pJH2) (~400 bp) are dependent on E{sigma}54 PspF and ATP. B, the addition of increasing concentrations (0-400 nM) of wild type PspF to the transcription assay in A. C, the addition of increasing concentrations (0-200 nM) of IHF to the transcription assay in A.

 
PspG Is Not a Regulator of the PspF Regulon—To test whether PspA can be induced by pIV, extreme heat shock, or ethanol shock in cells lacking PspG function, we carried out {beta}-galactosidase assays using the transcriptional reporter for pspA (pSJ1) in JWK5716_1 (Km+) ({Delta}pspG) and its parent strain, BW25113. Before induction, basal levels of PspA were equally low (~50 Miller units) in both wild type and {Delta}pspG strains. PspA can be induced by pIV stress (~10-fold), extreme heat shock (~8-fold), and ethanol shock (~5-fold) in cells that cannot produce PspG to the same level as in wild type cells. This demonstrates that PspG is not essential for psp operon transcription when the operon is induced using either a specific secretin stimulus or general membrane stress stimuli. Because psp operon transcription is not affected by the absence of PspG in the cell, then PspG is clearly not acting as a regulator of psp operon transcription. Using the translational reporter for PspG expression (pLL1), we show that PspG expression is unchanged in the {Delta}pspG strain compared with wild type both before induction (~150 Miller units) and after induction (~700 Miller units). Therefore we conclude that PspG is not involved in controlling the PspF regulon.

PspG Is an Effector of the PspF Regulon—Considering the putative membrane location of PspG, and that PspG is not involved in psp regulation per se, it is likely that this protein is an effector of the psp system. It has been shown that the psp operon is up-regulated during swarming in Salmonella (5) and psp mutants have altered motility (14) therefore we employed a motility assay to compare wild type cells to strains mutant for various psp genes to explore a possible effector function of PspG (Fig. 7). Cells lacking the negative regulator ({Delta}pspA and {Delta}psp-ABC) (therefore with increased PspG expression) show decreased motility. Note that in the presence of PspBC, motility is less decreased. As a control, strains deleted for pspBC show no change in motility. Double mutants for the activator PspF and the negative regulator PspA (therefore no PspG expression) show slightly increased motility. Cells deleted for pspG or for both pspA and pspG also show slightly increased motility. Strains mutant for the activator PspF (no PspG and no Psp operon expression) show unchanged motility. When PspG is expressed from pLL8, motility in both wild type and {Delta}pspF cells is greatly decreased (Fig. 7). Induction of PspG expression by 0.4% arabinose decreased motility to a higher extent compared with non-inducing conditions (data not shown). PspG up-regulation does not induce the PspF regulon response,2 therefore we assume that PspG can function independently of the inducing signal and the Psp response. In summary, these results establish that increased expression of PspG causes decreased motility, whereas the lack of PspG or abolished expression of PspG results in slightly increased motility implying that PspG is an effector of the psp system.



View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 7.
PspG overexpression results in decreased E. coli cell motility. Percentage change in motility of strains mutant for various psp genes, or wild type cells overexpressing PspG compared with their respective wild type controls (motility of control cells is quoted as 0). The percentage change in motility for each strain is calculated from at least three independent motility assays. Wild type (Wt), MG1655; {Delta}pspABC, MVA29; {Delta}pspA, MG1655{Delta}pspA; {Delta}pspABC pspF{Delta}HTH, MVA19; {Delta}pspG, MVA40; {Delta}pspG{Delta}pspA, MVA42; {Delta}pspF, MG1655{Delta}pspF; {Delta}BC, MG1655{Delta}pspBC; wt + PspG, MG1655/pLL8; {Delta}pspF + PspG, MG1655{Delta}pspF/pLL8.

 


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Our data show that expression of pIV in both E. coli and S. typhimurium results in the significant up-regulation of psp-ABCDE and pspG (yjbO) transcripts. Previously it has been shown that the pspABCDE operon and pspG are among the 25 most highly up-regulated genes in S. typhimurium infecting macrophages (4). Similarly high levels of expression of the psp operon and pspG are also seen in S. typhimurium infecting epithelial cells and in Shigella flexneri infecting macrophages and epithelial cells.3 Therefore, the psp response linked with pspG is observed in a range of enteric bacteria, with potentially important roles for these genes in bacterial virulence. In contrast to the response of E. coli to stresses such as nitrogen limitation (37) and specialized growth conditions (47-49), which cause substantial changes on a transcriptional level, the synthesis of pIV causes a very restricted change in gene transcription. Restricted responses in microarray experiments have been reported previously, for example, the limited transcriptional response to cell division inhibitors (50). It is possible that a range of pIV-dependent changes in the cell do occur, but only at a translational or post-translational level. Identifying gene regulators through expression profiling may well prove to be a generally challenging problem (51).

As it has been shown for the pspA promoter, both the transcriptional activator, PspF, and the {sigma}54-RNAP physically interact in vitro with the pspG promoter and activation is dependent on PspF and {sigma}54-RNAP in vivo. pspG expression is also subject to negative regulation imposed by PspA. This is in agreement with the results of Green and Darwin (52) in Y. enterocolitica. Here we have shown that the pspG promoter is more sensitive to PspF activation than the pspA promoter implying that under stress conditions and release of PspA negative regulation, pspG responds rapidly. The transcription of pspG in vitro is enhanced by IHF in a concentration-dependent manner. However, in vivo the basal level of pspG expression in IHF mutants is increased. IHF works to enhance transcriptional activation of the psp operon (20, 46) and facilitates the binding of PspF to upstream activation sequences I and II in the psp operon regulatory region. Thus IHF enhances both the activation of psp transcription and the negative autogenous control of pspF keeping the PspF concentration at a low level (20, 21). Strains lacking functional IHF will therefore under normal growth conditions have increased concentrations of the activator PspF and decreased concentrations of the negative regulator PspA. Hence, the increased level of pspG expression in IHF mutants should be because of the high sensitivity of the pspG promoter to PspF activation and diminished negative regulation by PspA. To summarize, our data show that pspG is a member of the PspF regulon in E. coli and Salmonella and is tightly regulated in concert with the psp operon. Because the expression of the activator PspF is constant under all growth conditions, the key regulatory point under normal growth conditions is strong negative regulation imposed by PspA, whereas under inducing conditions this regulation is lifted leading to the coordinated expression of the psp operon and pspG. In fact, PspF specifically regulates only pspABCDE and pspG. pspG is physically separated from the psp operon on the chromosome, but is conserved in all bacteria harboring the psp operon and there are no obvious PspG homologues in bacteria that lack a recognizable psp operon. Therefore, the co-regulated expression of the psp operon and pspG by PspF and PspA is likely to be a widely conserved and important feature of cellular adaptation to secretin-induced stress. It is striking that the psp operon and the pspG {sigma}54 promoters, which are physically unlinked, are both regulated by PspF, PspA, and IHF in exactly the same fashion. Darwin and Miller (3) suggest that in Y. enterocolitica, another genetic locus is involved in the psp response to secretin stress because a double pspF/psp operon mutant showed a more severe growth defect than the psp operon mutant alone. Further evidence to support this has been reported (52). Our data suggests that the separate genetic locus could be the Y. enterocolitica homologue of pspG.

pspG is dispensable for basal level expression and induction of the PspF regulon by pIV, ethanol shock, or extreme heat shock under normal growth conditions and so PspG is not acting to regulate the expression of psp genes. PspG was not toxic, judged by growth rates and yields. In this study we demonstrate that increased expression of PspG results in decreased motility, whereas the lack of PspG expression causes slightly increased motility. It has been shown that swarming in Salmonella induces the psp operon (5), and therefore up-regulation of PspG (this paper). PspA has been implicated in maintaining proton-motive force under stress conditions (15) and proton-motive force is proportional to cell motility (53-55). The precise function of PspG in motility is not clear from our data, but because PspA upon induction is an effector involved in proton-motive force maintenance we assume that PspG could play an additional role as an effector of the Psp response. The greatest reduction in motility is seen in strains that overproduce PspG but it is likely that under different growth conditions the reduction in motility might be because of synergistic actions of PspA and PspG. The major difference between PspA and PspG could be that PspA requires induction to switch between being a negative regulator to being an effector, whereas PspG, according to our results, is constantly in an effector state. Because PspA and the previously unknown PspF regulon member, PspG, are so tightly co-regulated, our results raise issues about previously described phenotypes attributed to PspA, in particular the contribution of PspG to these phenotypes. We propose that stimuli that induce the psp operon disrupt the integrity of the inner membrane and affect the proton-motive force of the cell. To test the role of PspG as an effector of the phage shock response it will be important in future work to study, using microarray analysis, the response of wild type, pspABCDE, and pspG mutant strains to stresses that change or uncouple the proton-motive force.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* This work was supported by The Wellcome Trust, a Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Core Strategic grant, and National Institutes of Health Grant GM38361 (to S. Kustu). The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact. Back

The on-line version of this article (available at http://www.jbc.org) contains Supplemental Tables I-III and Fig. S1. Back

§ Present address: Nature Reviews Journals, Porters South, 4 Crinan St., London N1 9XW, United Kingdom. Back

** To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 44-020-7594-5442; Fax: 44-020-7594-5419; E-mail: m.buck{at}imperial.ac.uk.

1 The abbreviations used are: pIV, protein IV; IHF, integration host factor; IPTG, isopropyl 1-thio-{beta}-D-galactopyranoside; RT, reverse transcriptase. Back

2 L. J. Lloyd, G. Jovanovic, and M. Buck, unpublished data. Back

3 J. Hinton, unpublished results. Back


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Adriane Jones (University of California, Berkeley) for advice on DNA microarrays, Simon Cutting (Royal Holloway, University of London) for raising antibodies against PspA, Hajime Niwa (Imperial College London) for the gift of full-length PspF, Michael Stumpf (Imperial College London) for statistical work on microarray data, Derek Huntley (Imperial College London) for assistance with bioinformatics work, Brett Pennell (Imperial College London) for work on motility assays, and Sydney Kustu for comments on the manuscript. We also acknowledge the gift of clones, strains, and antibodies from Hirotada Mori (Nara Institute of Science and Technology, Japan), Marjorie Russel (The Rockefeller University, New York), Jonathan Beckwith (Harvard Medical School), and Michael Chandler (IPBS, Toulouse, France).



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Brissette, J. L., Russel, M., Weiner, L., and Model, P. (1990) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 87, 862-866[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Darwin, A. J., and Miller, V. L. (1999) Mol. Microbiol. 32, 51-62[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Darwin, A. J., and Miller, V. L. (2001) Mol. Microbiol. 39, 429-444[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Eriksson, S., Lucchini, S., Thompson, A., Rhen, M., and Hinton, J. C. (2003) Mol. Microbiol. 47, 103-118[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Wang, Q., Frye, J. G., McClelland, M., and Harshey, R. M. (2004) Mol. Microbiol. 52, 169-187[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Beloin, C., Valle, J., Latour-Lambert, P., Faure, P., Kzreminski, M., Balestrino, D., Haagensen, J. A., Molin, S., Prensier, G., Arbeille, B., and Ghigo, J. M. (2004) Mol. Microbiol. 51, 659-674[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Russel, M., and Kazmierczak, B. (1993) J. Bacteriol. 175, 3998-4007[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Opalka, N., Beckmann, R., Boisset, N., Simon, M. N., Russel, M., and Darst, S. A. (2003) J. Mol. Biol. 325, 461-470[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Possot, O., d'Enfert, C., Reyss, I., and Pugsley, A. P. (1992) Mol. Microbiol. 6, 95-105[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Kleerebezem, M., and Tommassen, J. (1993) Mol. Microbiol. 7, 947-956[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. van der Laan, M., Urbanus, M. L., Ten Hagen-Jongman, C. M., Nouwen, N., Oudega, B., Harms, N., Driessen, A. J., and Luirink, J. (2003) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 100, 5801-5806[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Jones, S. E., Lloyd, L. J., Tan, K. K., and Buck, M. (2003) J. Bacteriol. 185, 6707-6711[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. DeLisa, M. P., Lee, P., Palmer, T., and Georgiou, G. (2004) J. Bacteriol. 186, 366-373[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Model, P., Jovanovic, G., and Dworkin, J. (1997) Mol. Microbiol. 24, 255-261[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  15. Kleerebezem, M., Crielaard, W., and Tommassen, J. (1996) EMBO J. 15, 162-171[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Westphal, S., Heins, L., Soll, J., and Vothknecht, U. C. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, 4243-4248[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Weiner, L., Brissette, J. L., and Model, P. (1991) Genes Dev. 5, 1912-1923[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Adams, H., Teertstra, W., Koster, M., and Tommassen, J. (2002) FEBS Lett. 518, 173-176[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  19. Jovanovic, G., Weiner, L., and Model, P. (1996) J. Bacteriol. 178, 1936-1945[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Jovanovic, G., and Model, P. (1997) Mol. Microbiol. 25, 473-481[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  21. Jovanovic, G., Dworkin, J., and Model, P. (1997) J. Bacteriol. 179, 5232-5237[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Dworkin, J., Jovanovic, G., and Model, P. (2000) J. Bacteriol. 182, 311-319[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Elderkin, S., Jones, S., Schumacher, J., Studholme, D., and Buck, M. (2002) J. Mol. Biol. 320, 23-37[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Brissette, J. L., Weiner, L., Ripmaster, T. L., and Model, P. (1991) J. Mol. Biol. 220, 35-48[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  25. Weiner, L., Brissette, J. L., Ramani, N., and Model, P. (1995) Nucleic Acids Res. 23, 2030-2036[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Datsenko, K. A., and Wanner, B. L. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97, 6640-6645[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Casadaban, M. J., and Cohen, S. N. (1980) J. Mol. Biol. 138, 179-207[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  28. Blattner, F. R., Plunkett, G., 3rd, Bloch, C. A., Perna, N. T., Burland, V., Riley, M., Collado-Vides, J., Glasner, J. D., Rode, C. K., Mayhew, G. F., Gregor, J., Davis, N. W., Kirkpatrick, H. A., Goeden, M. A., Rose, D. J., Mau, B., and Shao, Y. (1997) Science 277, 1453-1474[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. McClelland, M., Sanderson, K. E., Spieth, J., Clifton, S. W., Latreille, P., Courtney, L., Porwollik, S., Ali, J., Dante, M., Du, F., Hou, S., Layman, D., Leonard, S., Nguyen, C., Scott, K., Holmes, A., Grewal, N., Mulvaney, E., Ryan, E., Sun, H., Florea, L., Miller, W., Stoneking, T., Nhan, M., Waterston, R., and Wilson, R. K. (2001) Nature 413, 852-856[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Lessl, M., Balzer, D., Lurz, R., Waters, V. L., Guiney, D. G., and Lanka, E. (1992) J. Bacteriol. 174, 2493-2500[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Daefler, S., Russel, M., and Model, P. (1997) J. Mol. Biol. 266, 978-992[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Casadaban, M. J., Chou, J., and Cohen, S. N. (1980) J. Bacteriol. 143, 971-980[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Kustu, S., Burton, D., Garcia, E., McCarter, L., and McFarland, N. (1979) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 76, 4576-4580[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Sambrook, J., Fritsch, E., and Maniatas, T. (1989) Molecular Cloning, A Laboratory Manual, 2 Ed., Cold Spring Harbor Press Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY
  35. Miller, J. H. (1972) Experiments in Molecular Genetics, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY
  36. Lin-Chao, S., and Cohen, S. N. (1991) Cell 65, 1233-1242[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  37. Zimmer, D. P., Soupene, E., Lee, H. L., Wendisch, V. F., Khodursky, A. B., Peter, B. J., Bender, R. A., and Kustu, S. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97, 14674-14679[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Khodursky, A. B., Peter, B. J., Cozzarelli, N. R., Botstein, D., Brown, P. O., and Yanofsky, C. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97, 12170-12175[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Anjum, M. F., Lucchini, S., Thompson, A., Hinton, J. C., and Woodward, M. J. (2003) Infect. Immun. 71, 4674-4683[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Clements, M. O., Eriksson, S., Thompson, A., Lucchini, S., Hinton, J. C., Normark, S., and Rhen, M. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99, 8784-8789[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Thompson, A., Lucchini, S., and Hinton, J. C. (2001) Trends Microbiol. 9, 154-156[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  42. Burrows, P. C., Severinov, K., Ishihama, A., Buck, M., and Wigneshweraraj, S. R. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 29728-29743[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Wigneshweraraj, S. R., Nechaev, S., Bordes, P., Jones, S., Cannon, W., Severinov, K., and Buck, M. (2003) Methods Enzymol. 370, 646-657[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  44. Monod, J., and Cohn, M. (1952) Adv. Enzymol. Relat. Sub. Biochem. 13, 67-119
  45. Hales, L. M., Gumport, R. I., and Gardner, J. F. (1994) J. Bacteriol. 176, 2999-3006[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Dworkin, J., Jovanovic, G., and Model, P. (1997) J. Mol. Biol. 273, 377-388[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  47. Oh, M. K., Rohlin, L., Kao, K. C., and Liao, J. C. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 13175-13183[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Salmon, K., Hung, S. P., Mekjian, K., Baldi, P., Hatfield, G. W., and Gunsalus, R. P. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 29837-29855[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Kao, K. C., Yang, Y. L., Boscolo, R., Sabatti, C., Roychowdhury, V., and Liao, J. C. (2004) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 101, 641-646[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Arends, S. J., and Weiss, D. S. (2004) J. Bacteriol. 186, 880-884[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Martinez-Antonio, A., and Collado-Vides, J. (2003) Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 6, 482-489[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  52. Green, R. C., and Darwin, A. J. (2004) J. Bacteriol. 186, 4910-4920[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Berg, H. C. (2003) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 72, 19-54[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  54. Fung, D. C., and Berg, H. C. (1995) Nature 375, 809-812[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  55. Gabel, C. V., and Berg, H. C. (2003) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 100, 8748-8751[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  56. Elliott, T., and Geiduschek, E. P. (1984) Cell 36, 211-219[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
N. Joly, P. C. Burrows, and M. Buck
An Intramolecular Route for Coupling ATPase Activity in AAA+ Proteins for Transcription Activation
J. Biol. Chem., May 16, 2008; 283(20): 13725 - 13735.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Bacteriol.Home page
K. Vrancken, L. Van Mellaert, and J. Anne
Characterization of the Streptomyces lividans PspA Response
J. Bacteriol., May 15, 2008; 190(10): 3475 - 3481.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
N. Joly, J. Schumacher, and M. Buck
Heterogeneous Nucleotide Occupancy Stimulates Functionality of Phage Shock Protein F, an AAA+ Transcriptional Activator
J. Biol. Chem., November 17, 2006; 281(46): 34997 - 35007.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]