Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Infection and Immunity, September 2003, p. 5432-5435, Vol. 71, No. 9
0019-9567/03/$08.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/IAI.71.9.5432-5435.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Samina Akbar,
and Catherine A. Lee
Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115
Received 1 November 2002/ Returned for modification 3 February 2003/ Accepted 27 May 2003
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
It has been proposed that counteracting repressing and derepressing mechanisms regulate hilA expression. The presence of an upstream DNA sequence represses a plasmid-borne hilA promoter (23). HilC and HilD, two SPI1-encoded AraC/XylS family members, have been called derepressors and are thought to counteract the repression of hilA by binding to sites within the upstream repressing sequence (URS) (24). However, recent results appear to contradict this model and support the idea that HilD interacts with the
subunit of RNA polymerase to activate hilA transcription (4). For example, replacement of the URS with 84 bp of unrelated sequence or a precise deletion of the URS in the Salmonella serovar Typhimurium chromosome was shown to reduce, rather than increase, hilA expression (4; unpublished results). Unfortunately, we could not rescue our deletion with the intact URS and wondered if a deleterious effect of the URS deletion selects for secondary genetic changes that both reduce hilA-lacZ expression and prevent replacement of the URS allele (unpublished results). Still, it is intriguing to consider that under certain conditions HilC and HilD may be able to activate hilA expression and that under other conditions they may be able to increase hilA expression by derepressing hilA transcription. Studies showing that HilC and HilD are not required for hilA expression from a plasmid in in vitro transcription assays or in the absence of the URS suggest that HilC and HilD can derepress hilA expression, possibly by antagonizing the repressing effects of proteins bound to the URS (21, 23).
We suspected that small nucleoid-binding proteins, such as H-NS, HU, and Fis, might control hilA expression by affecting its repression and/or derepression. Small nucleoid-binding proteins have been shown to regulate gene expression in response to specific environmental conditions that also control hilA expression (1, 18, 22). H-NS can silence promoters by interacting with distal sequences (5) and has been shown to be counteracted by AraC/XylS factors (8). HU may also antagonize the effects of H-NS on gene expression (6). The small nucleoid-binding protein Hha has been reported to bind the URS and repress hilA expression (4, 11). In contrast, Fis appears to have the opposite regulatory effect, since Wilson et al. have shown that a mutation in fis reduces hilA expression (28).
Effect of H-NS on hilA expression. To test whether H-NS regulates hilA expression in Salmonella serovar Typhimurium, we examined the effect of the hns-1::kan mutation on the expression of the chromosomal hilA080::Tn5lacZY (Tetr) transcriptional fusion (2, 12). Although we routinely analyze hilA expression in Salmonella serovar Typhimurium SL1344, we found that hns mutations cause this strain to become mucoid and grow poorly. Therefore, we analyzed hilA-lacZ expression in Salmonella serovar Typhimurium LT2 (SGSC1412), which appears to better tolerate hns mutations. ß-Galactosidase assays were performed on bacterial cultures grown under inducing or repressing conditions for hilA expression, as previously described (20, 23). Although hilA regulation in LT2 might not be identical to that in SL1344, we found that, as in SL1344, aerobic conditions and low-osmolarity conditions repress hilA-lacZ expression in LT2 (Fig. 1A). Interestingly, the hns-1::kan mutation increases hilA-lacZ expression under the low-osmolarity conditions but not under the aerobic growth conditions (Fig. 1A). Due to the counteracting nature of the repressing URS and derepressing HilC and HilD proteins that directly control hilA expression, the hns-1::kan mutation may increase hilA expression under the low-osmolarity conditions (i) by decreasing its repression and/or (ii) by increasing its derepression by HilC or HilD.
![]() View larger version (27K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Effects of small nucleoid-binding proteins on hilA-lacZ expression. Salmonella serovar Typhimurium LT2 and SL1344 strains containing the hilA080::Tn5lacZY chromosomal fusion were grown under inducing (IND; white bars), repressing low-osmolarity (OSM; gray bars), or repressing aerobic (O2; black bars) conditions. ß-Galactosidase activities are reported in Miller units and are the averages (± standard deviations) of values obtained from the results of at least two independent cultures during one representative experiment. Similar results were obtained in repeated experiments. (A) Fusion strain (wild type [WT]) and its hns-1::kan (hns) derivative; (B) hilC1::cam hilD1::kan (hilCD) and hilC1::cam hilD1::kan hns-1::kan (hilCD hns) derivatives; (C) fusion strain (WT) and its hupA::kan (hupA), hupB::kan (hupB), and hupA::kan hupB::kan (hupAB) derivatives; (D) hilC1::cam hilD1::kan (hilCD) and hilC1::cam hilD1::kan hupA::kan hupB::kan (hilCD hupAB) derivatives; (E) fusion strain (WT) and its fis3::cam (fis) derivative; (F) hilD1::kan (hilD) and hilD1::kan fis3::cam (hilD fis) derivatives.
|
Our analysis of hilA-lacZ expression in the hilC hilD mutant background shows that, even in the absence of hilC and hilD, the hns-1::kan mutation increases hilA expression under low-osmolarity conditions (Fig. 1B). These results are consistent with the idea that the hns mutation decreases the repression of hilA under these conditions. These results also provide further support for the idea that HilC and HilD function as derepressors, rather than activators, of hilA transcription. The hns mutation may also influence the derepression of hilA by HilC or HilD, since its ability to increase hilA-lacZ expression is partially attenuated in the hilCD mutant background (Fig. 1B).
Effect of HU and Fis on hilA expression.
To see if HU regulates hilA expression in Salmonella serovar Typhimurium, we examined the effects of single hupA and hupB mutations on chromosomal hilA-lacZ expression in SL1344 (Fig. 1C) (16). Because hupA and hupB encode the
and ß subunits of HU, which can form active homodimers, we also examined hilA-lacZ expression in a double hupA hupB mutant strain (Fig. 1C). The Salmonella serovar Typhimurium hupA::kan hupB::kan double mutant was constructed by transducing a hupB::kan purD::Tn10 mutant with a hupA::kan P22 lysate and selecting for purine prototrophs. Because the purD gene is linked to hupA, purD+ hupA::kan hupB::kan transductants were obtained and verified by genetic linkage. As shown in Fig. 1C, chromosomal hilA-lacZ expression is dramatically reduced in the hupA::kan hupB::kan mutant grown under conditions that normally induce hilA expression. Thus, in contrast to H-NS, HU plays a positive role in hilA expression. Fahlen et al. reported that a mutation in hupB increases hilA expression (10), which is contrary to our results. However, we used a hupB::kan mutation that disrupts the hupB open reading frame, while the hupB1::Tn5 mutation used by Fahlen et al. is located 188 bp upstream of the hupB translation start site (10, 16). We speculate that the hupB1::Tn5 mutation actually increases hupB expression and HU levels, which may stimulate hilA expression.
Wilson et al. have shown that a fis::kan mutation reduces hilA expression two- to threefold (28). We found that the fis3::cam mutation reduces chromosomal hilA-lacZ expression 13-fold under our conditions, which normally induce hilA (Fig. 1E). These results suggest that, like HU, Fis is required for full induction of hilA expression in Salmonella serovar Typhimurium. Previous studies have shown that HilD, not HilC, is primarily responsible for derepression of hilA expression when Salmonella serovar Typhimurium is grown under our inducing conditions (19, 23). Thus, the hup and fis mutations may decrease hilA expression (i) by decreasing its derepression by HilD and/or (ii) by increasing its repression. In the first case, we expect that mutations in hupAB or fis would not further reduce hilA-lacZ expression in strains lacking HilD. Consistent with the idea that HU and Fis affect the derepression of hilA, our results show that hilA-lacZ expression is not significantly reduced by the hupAB or fis mutations in a hilCD or hilD mutant strain background (Fig. 1DF). HU or Fis may bind to the hilA promoter and enhance its ability to be derepressed by HilD. Alternatively, HU or Fis may influence hilA indirectly by increasing the levels and/or activity of HilD.
Effect of H-NS, HU, and Fis on hilD mRNA levels.
To examine whether H-NS, HU, or Fis affects hilD mRNA levels, we first characterized the hilD transcript by identifying the hilD transcription start site. A primer extension analysis was performed on RNA from wild-type Salmonella serovar Typhimurium grown under inducing high-osmolarity, low-oxygen conditions. An overnight culture of SL1344 was subcultured at a dilution of 1:1,000 in 100 ml of high-salt (1% NaCl) Luria-Bertani medium in a 125-ml Erlenmeyer flask and grown with shaking at 150 rpm to a final optical density at 600 nm of 0.7 to 0.8. Ten micrograms of total RNA, isolated from these cells by using the RNAqueous kit (Ambion Inc.), was annealed to 100 fmol of LS49 (5'-GTCTGACTTTTAATTTGCTGC-3'), which was previously end labeled with [
-32P]ATP and T4 polynucleotide kinase (NEN Life Science Products, Promega). The primer extension reaction was carried out by using the AMV reverse transcriptase system (Promega) and run on a 6% acrylamide-8 M urea gel; a dideoxy DNA sequencing reaction was carried out by using the fmol DNA sequencing system (Promega) and the end-labeled LS49 primer. Similar to the results of studies by Olekhnovich and Kadner (21), our results indicate that one or two hilD transcription start sites are located 34 or 35 bp upstream of the hilD translation start site and just downstream (6 or 7 bp) of a predicted
70 binding site (TTTACA-16 bp-TAGGAT) (Fig. 2A and B).
![]() View larger version (45K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 2. Effect of small nucleoid-binding proteins on hilD mRNA levels. (A) The hilD transcription start site was determined by running primer extension products (hilD) from wild-type Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strain SL1344 RNA alongside dideoxy DNA sequencing reactions (GACT). Nucleotides marked with an asterisk represent two possible hilD transcription start sites on the template strand. (B) The positions of potential -10 and -35 70 binding sites, the hilD translation start site (ATG), and the primer used in the primer extension reactions (LS49) are shown below the autoradiograph of the gel in relation to the hilD transcription start sites (+1). (C) hilD and ompA primer extension products were generated by using total RNA from wild-type (WT), hupA::kan hupB::kan (hup), fis3::cam (fis), and hns-1::kan (hns) derivatives of SL1344 or LT2, grown under inducing or low-osmolarity conditions, respectively. The autoradiographs shown are from one representative experiment.
|
Repression of hilA expression. We previously proposed that a repressor protein binds to the URS and prevents the expression of hilA under repressing growth conditions (23). Our present results suggest that hilA expression may actually be repressed by different factors under different conditions. While H-NS may directly or indirectly repress the hilA promoter under low-osmolarity conditions, our finding that hilA remains repressed in a hilCD hns mutant grown under inducing or aerobic conditions suggests that other factors may repress hilA expression under these conditions (Fig. 1B). Additional repressors of hilA may include HilE, Pag, and Hha, as strains lacking these proteins exhibit increased hilA expression under inducing conditions (4, 10, 11). Hha may also repress hilA under low-osmolarity conditions (11). To determine whether HilE, Pag, or Hha affects repression, rather than derepression, of hilA, the effect that hilE, pag, and hha mutations have on hilA expression should be examined under repressing environmental conditions in strains lacking HilC and HilD. Since mutations in hilE, pag, and hha do not abolish the repression of hilA expression in Salmonella serovar Typhimurium grown aerobically, other factors may repress hilA expression under aerobic conditions (10, 11).
There are several mechanisms by which H-NS might repress hilA under low-osmolarity conditions. H-NS might bind to the URS and directly occlude transcription initiation from the hilA promoter, as has been proposed for H-NS silencing of the bgl promoter in E. coli (5). Alternatively, H-NS, which bends DNA and affects global DNA supercoiling, may alter the DNA topology at the hilA promoter to repress hilA transcription (16, 17, 25, 26). Interestingly, expression of the SPI1 gene invA is sensitive to chemical inhibitors of DNA gyrase as well as topoisomerase mutations that change DNA supercoiling (13). Because HilA activates invA expression, alterations in DNA supercoiling may affect invA by influencing hilA expression (9).
This work was supported by NIH grant AI33444.
Present address: Infectious Disease Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Cambridge, MA 02139. ![]()
Present address: BC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4R4, Canada. ![]()
|
|
|---|
repressors relieve silencing of the Escherichia coli bgl promoter. Activation by alteration of a repressing nucleoprotein complex. J. Mol. Biol. 284:875-883.[CrossRef][Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»