Identification of close contacts between the sigma N (sigma 54) protein and promoter DNA in closed promoter complexes.

The complexes forming between the alternative sigma factor protein sigma N (sigma 54), its holoenzyme and promoter DNA were analysed using the hydroxyl radical probe and by photochemical footprinting of bromouridine-substituted DNA. Close contacts between the promoter, sigma N and its holoenzyme appear to be restricted predominantly to one face of the DNA helix, extending from -31 to -5. They all appear attributable to sigma N and no extra close contacts from the core RNA polymerase subunits in the holoenzyme-promoter DNA complex were detected. We suggest that the apparent absence of close core RNA polymerase contacts in the region of the promoter DNA to be melted during open complex formation is important for maintaining the closed complex. Results of the hydroxyl radical footprinting imply that sigma N makes multiple DNA backbone contacts across and beyond the -12, -24 consensus promoter elements, and the photochemical footprints indicate that consensus thymidine residues contribute important major groove contacts to sigma N. Formation of the open complex is shown to involve a major structural transition in the DNA contacted by sigma N, establishing a direct role for sigma N in formation of the activated promoter complex.     

Differences in Contacts of RNA Polymerases from <Emphasis Type="Italic">Escherichia coli</Emphasis> and <Emphasis Type="Italic">Thermus aquaticus</Emphasis> with <Emphasis Type="Italic">lac</Emphasis>UV5 Promoter Are Determined by Core-Enzyme of RNA Polymerase

The interaction of RNA polymerases from Escherichia coli and Thermus aquaticus with lacUV5 promoter was studied at various temperatures. Using DNA-protein cross-linking induced by formaldehyde, it was demonstrated that each RNA polymerase formed a unique pattern of contacts with DNA in the open promoter complex. In the case of E. coli RNA polymerase, beta and sigma subunits were involved into formation of cross-links with the promoter, whereas in the case of T. aquaticus RNA polymerase its beta subunit formed the cross-links with the promoter. A cross-linking pattern in promoter complexes of a hybrid holoenzyme comprised of the core-enzyme of E. coli and sigma subunit of T. aquaticus was similar to that of the E. coli holoenzyme. This suggests that DNA-protein contacts in the promoter complex are primarily determined by the core-enzyme of RNA polymerase. However, temperature-dependent behavior of contact formation is determined by the sigma subunit. Results of the present study indicate that the method of formaldehyde cross-linking can be employed for elucidation of differences in the structure of promoter complexes of RNA polymerases from various bacteria.     

E. coli RNA polymerase, deleted in the C-terminal part of its alpha-subunit, interacts differently with the cAMP-CRP complex at the lacP1 and at the galP1 promoter.

A deletion of the C-terminal part of the alpha-subunit of RNA polymerase is known to affect differently promoters activated by CRP depending on the location of the CRP binding site at the promoter. When the CRP binding site is located at -61.5, as at lacP1 (a type I promoter), activation is strongly impaired while it is not significantly affected at galP1 where CRP binds 41.5 bp upstream of the start of the message (type II promoter). We have investigated the differences in the architecture of the corresponding open complexes by comparing the positioning of holoenzymes reconstituted respectively with native or with truncated alpha-subunits (containing the first 235 or 256 residues of a) at two 'up' promoter mutants of the lacP1 and galP1 promoters (respectively lacUV5 and gal9A16C). First, the affinity of wild-type RNA polymerase for both promoters is increased by the presence of CRP and cAMP. By contrast, holoenzymes reconstituted with truncated alpha-subunits, show cooperative binding at the galP1 promoter only. Second, footprinting data confirm these observations and indicate that the truncated holoenzymes are unable to recognize regions of the promoter upstream from position -40. The absence of contacts between the truncated enzymes and CRP at the lacP1 promoter can explain the deficiency in activation. At the galP1 promoter, where the CRP site is closer to the initiation site, protein-protein contacts can still occur with the truncated polymerases, showing that the C-terminal part of the alpha-subunit is not involved in activation.     

Monoclonal antibodies that inhibit activation of transcription by the Escherichia coli cyclic AMP receptor protein

The properties of the two monoclonal antibodies which were found to inhibit cyclic AMP receptor protein (CRP)-stimulated abortive initiation without affecting cAMP binding (Li, X.-M., and Krakow, J. S. (1986) J. Biol. Chem. 260, 4378-4383) have been characterized. Binding of monoclonal antibody (mAb) 66C3 to CRP is stimulated by cAMP while CRP binding by mAb 63B2 is not affected by cAMP. Binding of cAMP-CRP-mAb 63B2 to the lac P+ DNA is completely inhibited. Whereas cAMP-CRP forms a stable complex only at the CRP site 1 of the lac P+ promoter fragment, cAMP-CRP-mAb 66C3 binds to both site 1 and site 2. DNase I footprinting using a HpaII fragment carrying only the lac site 2 does not show any protection by cAMP-CRP-mAb 66C3. With the lac L8UV5 promoter, binding is not seen at either the L8 site 1 or the unaltered site 2. In the presence of 25% glycerol, cAMP-CRP-mAb 66C3 binds to both L8 site 1 and site 2. RNA polymerase is unable to bind to the cAMP-CRP-mAb 66C3-lac P+ complex. In the presence of RNA polymerase, cAMP-CRP forms a stable complex at the L8 site 1, the subsequent addition of mAb 66C3 results in the release of CRP. The CRP present in the lac P+ open promoter complex is partially resistant to subsequent incubation with mAb 66C3. The results provide further evidence regarding possible contacts between CRP and RNA polymerase involved in establishing the open promoter complex.