Gal repressosome contains an antiparallel DNA loop

Gal repressosome assembly and repression of the gal operon in Escherichia coli occurs when two dimeric GalR proteins and the histone-like HU protein bind to cognate sites causing DNA looping. Structure-based genetic analysis defined the GalR surfaces interacting to form a stacked, V-shaped, tetrameric structure. Stereochemical models of the four possible DNA loops compatible with the GalR tetramer configuration were constructed using the sequence-dependent structural parameters of the interoperator DNA and conformation changes caused by GalR and asymmetric HU binding. Evaluation of their DNA elastic energies gave unambiguous preference to a loop structure in which the two gal operators adopt an antiparallel orientation causing undertwisting of DNA.     

Role of HU and DNA supercoiling in transcription repression: specialized nucleoprotein repression complex at gal promoters in Escherichia coli

Efficient repression of the two promoters P1 and P2 of the gal operon requires the formation of a DNA loop encompassing the promoters. In vitro, DNA looping-mediated repression involves binding of the Gal repressor (GalR) to two gal operators (OE and OI) and binding of the histone-like protein HU to a specific locus (hbs) about the midpoint between OE and OI, and supercoiled DNA. Without DNA looping, GalR binding to OE partially represses P1 and stimulates P2. We investigated the requirement for DNA supercoiling and HU in repression of the gal promoters in vivo in strains containing a fusion of a reporter gene, gusA or lacZ, to each promoter individually. While the P1 promoter was found to be repressible in the absence of DNA supercoiling and HU, the repression of P2 was entirely dependent upon DNA supercoiling in vivo. The P2 promoter was fully derepressed when supercoiling was inhibited by the addition of coumermycin in cells. P2, but not P1, was also totally derepressed by the absence of HU or the OI operator. From these results, we propose that the repression of the gal promoters in vivo is mediated by the formation of a higher order DNA-multiprotein complex containing GalR, HU and supercoiled DNA. In the absence of this complex, P1 but not P2 is still repressed by GalR binding to OE. The specific nucleoprotein complexes involving histone-like proteins, which repress promoter activity while remaining sensitive to inducing signals, as discussed, may occur more generally in bacterial nucleoids.     

Functional characterization of roles of GalR and GalS as regulators of the gal regulon.

An isorepressor of the gal regulon in Escherichia coli, GalS, has been purified to homogeneity. In vitro DNase I protection experiments indicated that among operators of the gal regulon, GalS binds most strongly to the external operator of the mgl operon, which encodes the high-affinity beta-methylgalactoside galactose transport system, and with less affinity to the operators controlling expression of the gal operon, which codes for enzymes of galactose metabolism. GalS has even less affinity for the external operator of galP, which codes for galactose permease, the major low-affinity galactose transporter in the cell. This order of affinities is the reverse of that of GalR, which binds most strongly to the operator of galP and most weakly to that of mgl. Our results also show that GalS, like its homolog, GalR, is a dimeric protein which in binding to the bipartite operators of the gal operon selectively represses its P1 promoter. Consistent with the fact that GalR is the exclusive regulator of the low-affinity galactose transporter, galactose permease, and that the major role of GalS is in regulating expression of the high-affinity galactose transporter encoded by the mgl operon, we found that the DNA binding of GalS is 15-fold more sensitive than that of GalR to galactose.     

Regulation of open complex formation at the Escherichia coli galactose operon promoters. Simultaneous interaction of RNA polymerase, gal repressor and CAP/cAMP.

The regulation of open complex formation at the Escherichia coli galactose operon promoters by galactose repressor and catabolite activator protein/cyclic AMP (CAP/cAMP) was investigated in DNA-binding and kinetic experiments performed in vitro. We found that gal repressor and CAP/cAMP bind to the gal regulatory region independently, resulting in simultaneous occupancy of the two gal operators and the CAP/cAMP binding site. Both CAP/cAMP and gal repressor altered the partitioning of RNA polymerase between the two overlapping gal promoters. Open complexes formed in the absence of added regulatory proteins were partitioned between gal P1 and P2 with occupancies of 25% and 75%, respectively. CAP/cAMP caused open complexes to be formed nearly exclusively at P1 (98% occupancy). gal repressor caused a co-ordinated, but incomplete, switch in promoter partitioning from P1 to P2 in both the absence and presence of CAP/cAMP. We measured the kinetic constants governing open complex formation and decay at the gal promoters in the absence and presence of gal repressor and CAP/cAMP. CAP/cAMP had the largest effect on the kinetics of open complex formation, resulting in a 30-fold increase in the apparent binding constant. We conclude that the regulation of open complex formation at the gal promoters does not result from competition between gal repressor, CAP/cAMP and RNA polymerase for binding at the gal operon regulatory region, but instead results from the interactions of the three proteins during the formation of a nucleoprotein complex on the gal DNA fragment. Finally, we present a kinetic model for the regulation of open complex formation at the gal operon.     

RNA polymerase and gal repressor bind simultaneously and with DNA bending to the control region of the Escherichia coli galactose operon.

The Escherichia coli galactose operon contains an unusual array of closely spaced binding sites for proteins governing the expression from the two physically overlapping gal promoters. Based on studies of two gal promoter-up mutants we have previously suggested RNA-polymerase-induced DNA bending of gal promoter DNA. Here we present new evidence confirming and extending this interpretation. It was obtained by the circular permutation assay of gel electrophoretic mobility [Wu and Crothers (1984), Nature, 308, 509-513] applied to three analogous series of circularly permuted fragments derived from wild-type and two promoter-up mutant DNAs. The same circularly permuted DNA fragments have further been used to study the binding of gal repressor to its operator sites by electrophoretic mobility shift and by DNase I footprinting techniques. The main results are: (i) complexes carrying repressor either exclusively at the upstream operator O1 or at the downstream operator O2 exhibit different electrophoretic mobilities; (ii) binding to either one of the operators results in protein-induced DNA bending by the criteria of the circular permutation mobility assay; and (iii) occupation of both gal operators by gal repressor does not prevent cAMP-CRP-independent binding of RNA polymerase to the gal promoters, as judged by DNase I protection and gel retardation assays. The latter finding imposes constraints on any attempt to model the regulation of gal expression by assumed DNA-protein and protein-protein interactions.