Eukaryotic HMGB proteins as replacements for HU in E. coli repression loop formation

DNA looping is important for gene repression and activation in Escherichia coli and is necessary for some kinds of gene regulation and recombination in eukaryotes. We are interested in sequence-nonspecific architectural DNA-binding proteins that alter the apparent flexibility of DNA by producing transient bends or kinks in DNA. The bacterial heat unstable (HU) and eukaryotic high-mobility group B (HMGB) proteins fall into this category. We have exploited a sensitive genetic assay of DNA looping in living E. coli cells to explore the extent to which HMGB proteins and derivatives can complement a DNA looping defect in E. coli lacking HU protein. Here, we show that derivatives of the yeast HMGB protein Nhp6A rescue DNA looping in E. coli lacking HU, in some cases facilitating looping to a greater extent than is observed in E. coli expressing normal levels of HU protein. Nhp6A-induced changes in the DNA length-dependence of repression efficiency suggest that Nhp6A alters DNA twist in vivo. In contrast, human HMGB2-box A derivatives did not rescue looping.     

Effects of nucleoid proteins on DNA repression loop formation in Escherichia coli

The intrinsic stiffness of DNA limits its ability to be bent and twisted over short lengths, but such deformations are required for gene regulation. One classic paradigm is DNA looping in the regulation of the Escherichia coli lac operon. Lac repressor protein binds simultaneously to two operator sequences flanking the lac promoter. Analysis of the length dependence of looping-dependent repression of the lac operon provides insight into DNA deformation energetics within cells. The apparent flexibility of DNA is greater in vivo than in vitro, possibly because of host proteins that bind DNA and induce sites of flexure. Here we test DNA looping in bacterial strains lacking the nucleoid proteins HU, IHF or H-NS. We confirm that deletion of HU inhibits looping and that quantitative modeling suggests residual looping in the induced operon. Deletion of IHF has little effect. Remarkably, DNA looping is strongly enhanced in the absence of H-NS, and an explanatory model is proposed. Chloroquine titration, psoralen crosslinking and supercoiling-sensitive reporter assays show that the effects of nucleoid proteins on looping are not correlated with their effects on either total or unrestrained supercoiling. These results suggest that host nucleoid proteins can directly facilitate or inhibit DNA looping in bacteria.     

Environmentally regulated algD promoter is responsive to the cAMP receptor protein in Escherichia coli

The environmentally activated algD promoter of Pseudomonas aeruginosa has been shown to be influenced by DNA supercoiling. It is believed that protein-induced bending or looping is required for this activation. We studied the role of Escherichia coli cAMP-CRP on algD promoter activation in E. coli and show that a functional CRP is required for this activation. We also demonstrate that the algD promoter is sensitive to glucose repression both in E. coli and P. aeruginosa. Deletion of a putative consensus CRP binding sequence upstream of the algD promoter renders the promoter non-responsive to glucose repression. The involvement of cAMP-CRP complex in the activation of the algD promoter in E. coli has been demonstrated directly through binding of a 255 base pair DNA fragment containing the putative consensus CRP binding sequence. Other fragments, upstream or downstream but without any consensus CRP binding sequence, did not show any binding with CRP. A CRP-like analogue, similar to that in Xanthomonas campestris, but capable of activating genes without forming a complex with cAMP, is believed to allow glucose repression in P. aeruginosa.     

Repression of the araBAD promoter from araO1.

DNA looping between the araO2 and araI sites holds the uninduced or basal level of expression of the araBAD genes from the pBAD promoter at a low level. Despite the presence of another and closer site potentially capable of mediating looping to araI, no repression from this site, called araO1, is observed. Here we show, using both in vivo and in vitro experiments, that the araO1 site is not normally occupied by AraC protein under repressing conditions, but that if AraC protein is overproduced and the araO2 site is absent, araO1 is then occupied and repression of pBAD can be observed.     

Mechanism of promoter repression by Lac repressor–DNA loops

The Escherichia coli lactose (lac) operon encodes the first genetic switch to be discovered, and lac remains a paradigm for studying negative and positive control of gene expression. Negative control is believed to involve competition of RNA polymerase and Lac repressor for overlapping binding sites. Contributions to the local Lac repressor concentration come from free repressor and repressor delivered to the operator from remote auxiliary operators by DNA looping. Long-standing questions persist concerning the actual role of DNA looping in the mechanism of promoter repression. Here, we use experiments in living bacteria to resolve four of these questions. We show that the distance dependence of repression enhancement is comparable for upstream and downstream auxiliary operators, confirming the hypothesis that repressor concentration increase is the principal mechanism of repression loops. We find that as few as four turns of DNA can be constrained in a stable loop by Lac repressor. We show that RNA polymerase is not trapped at repressed promoters. Finally, we show that constraining a promoter in a tight DNA loop is sufficient for repression even when promoter and operator do not overlap.     

Repression and catabolite gene activation in the araBAD operon.

Catabolite gene activation of the araBAD operon was examined by using catabolite gene activator protein (CAP) site deletion mutants. A high-affinity CAP-binding site between the divergently orientated araBAD and araC operons has been previously identified by DNase I footprinting techniques. Subsequent experiments disagreed as to whether this site is directly involved in stimulating araBAD expression. In this paper, we present data showing that deletions generated by in vitro mutagenesis of the CAP site led to a five- to sixfold reduction in single-copy araBAD promoter activity in vivo. We concluded that catabolite gene activation of araBAD involves this CAP site. The hypothesis that CAP stimulates the araBAD promoter primarily by relieving repression was then tested. The upstream operator araO2 was required for repression, but we observed that the magnitude of CAP stimulation was unaffected by the presence or absence of araO2. We concluded that CAP plays no role in relieving repression. Other experiments showed that when CAP binds it induces a bend in the ara DNA; similar bending has been reported upon CAP binding to lac DNA. This conformational change in the DNA may be essential to the mechanism of CAP activation.     

Coarse-grained modeling reveals the impact of supercoiling and loop length in DNA looping kinetics

Measurements of protein-mediated DNA looping reveal that in vivo conditions favor the formation of loops shorter than those that occur in vitro, yet the precise physical mechanisms underlying this shift remain unclear. To understand the extent to which in vivo supercoiling may explain these shifts, we develop a theoretical model based on coarse-grained molecular simulation and analytical transition state theory, enabling us to map out looping energetics and kinetics as a function of two key biophysical parameters: superhelical density and loop length. We show that loops on the scale of a persistence length respond to supercoiling over a much wider range of superhelical densities and to a larger extent than longer loops. This effect arises from a tendency for loops to be centered on the plectonemic end region, which bends progressively more tightly with superhelical density. This trend reveals a mechanism by which supercoiling favors shorter loop lengths. In addition, our model predicts a complex kinetic response to supercoiling for a given loop length, governed by a competition between an enhanced rate of looping due to torsional buckling and a reduction in looping rate due to chain straightening as the plectoneme tightens at higher superhelical densities. Together, these effects lead to a flattening of the kinetic response to supercoiling within the physiological range for all but the shortest loops. Using experimental estimates for in vivo superhelical densities, we discuss our model’s ability to explain available looping data, highlighting both the importance of supercoiling as a regulatory force in genetics and the additional complexities of looping phenomena in vivo.     

Quantitative comparison of DNA looping in vitro and in vivo: chromatin increases effective DNA flexibility at short distances

The probability that two sites on a linear DNA molecule will contact each other by looping depends on DNA flexibility. Although the flexibility of naked DNA in vitro is well characterized, looping in chromatin is poorly understood. By extending existing theory, we present a single equation that describes DNA looping over all distances. We also show that DNA looping in vitro can be measured accurately by FLP recombination between sites from 74 bp to 15 kb apart. In agreement with previous work, a persistence length of 50 nm was determined. FLP recombination of the same substrates in mammalian cells showed that chromatin increases the flexibility of DNA at short distances, giving an apparent persistence length of 27 nm.     

DNA modeling reveals an extended lac repressor conformation in classic in vitro binding assays

Protein-mediated DNA looping, such as that induced by the lactose repressor (LacI) of Escherichia coli, is a well-known gene regulation mechanism. Although researchers have given considerable attention to DNA looping by LacI, many unanswered questions about this mechanism, including the role of protein flexibility, remain. Recent single-molecule observations suggest that the two DNA-binding domains of LacI are capable of splaying open about the tetramerization domain into an extended conformation. We hypothesized that if recent experiments were able to reveal the extended conformation, it is possible that such structures occurred in previous studies as well. In this study, we tested our hypothesis by reevaluating two classic in vitro binding assays using a computational rod model of DNA. The experiments and computations evaluate the looping of both linear DNA and supercoiled DNA minicircles over a broad range of DNA interoperator lengths. The computed energetic minima align well with the experimentally observed interoperator length for optimal loop stability. Of equal importance, the model reveals that the most stable loops for linear DNA occur when LacI adopts the extended conformation. In contrast, for DNA minicircles, optimal stability may arise from either the closed or the extended protein conformation depending on the degree of supercoiling and the interoperator length.     

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.