Whole-genome phylogenies of the family Bacillaceae and expansion of the sigma factor gene family in the Bacillus cereus species-group

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The <it>Bacillus cereus </it><it>sensu lato </it>group consists of six species (<it>B. anthracis</it>, <it>B. cereus</it>, <it>B. mycoides</it>, <it>B. pseudomycoides</it>, <it>B. thuringiensis</it>, and <it>B. weihenstephanensis</it>). While classical microbial taxonomy proposed these organisms as distinct species, newer molecular phylogenies and comparative genome sequencing suggests that these organisms should be classified as a single species (thus, we will refer to these organisms collectively as the <it>Bc </it>species-group). How do we account for the underlying similarity of these phenotypically diverse microbes? It has been established for some time that the most rapidly evolving and evolutionarily flexible portions of the bacterial genome are regulatory sequences and transcriptional networks. Other studies have suggested that the sigma factor gene family of these organisms has diverged and expanded significantly relative to their ancestors; sigma factors are those portions of the bacterial transcriptional apparatus that control RNA polymerase recognition for promoter selection. Thus, examining sigma factor divergence in these organisms would concurrently examine both regulatory sequences and transcriptional networks important for divergence. We began this examination by comparison to the sigma factor gene set of <it>B. subtilis</it>.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Phylogenetic analysis of the <it>Bc </it>species-group utilizing 157 single-copy genes of the family <it>Bacillaceae </it>suggests that several taxonomic revisions of the genus <it>Bacillus </it>should be considered. Within the <it>Bc </it>species-group there is little indication that the currently recognized species form related sub-groupings, suggesting that they are members of the same species. The sigma factor gene family encoded by the <it>Bc </it>species-group appears to be the result of a dynamic gene-duplication and gene-loss process that in previous analyses underestimated the true heterogeneity of the sigma factor content in the <it>Bc </it>species-group.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Expansion of the sigma factor gene family appears to have preferentially occurred within the extracytoplasmic function (ECF) sigma factor genes, while the primary alternative (PA) sigma factor genes are, in general, highly conserved with those found in <it>B. subtilis</it>. Divergence of the sigma-controlled transcriptional regulons among various members of the <it>Bc </it>species-group likely has a major role in explaining the diversity of phenotypic characteristics seen in members of the <it>Bc </it>species-group.</p

Selection against Spurious Promoter Motifs Correlates with Translational Efficiency across Bacteria

Because binding of RNAP to misplaced sites could compromise the efficiency of transcription, natural selection for the optimization of gene expression should regulate the distribution of DNA motifs capable of RNAP-binding across the genome. Here we analyze the distribution of the −10 promoter motifs that bind the σ70 subunit of RNAP in 42 bacterial genomes. We show that selection on these motifs operates across the genome, maintaining an over-representation of −10 motifs in regulatory sequences while eliminating them from the nonfunctional and, in most cases, from the protein coding regions. In some genomes, however, −10 sites are over-represented in the coding sequences; these sites could induce pauses effecting regulatory roles throughout the length of a transcriptional unit. For nonfunctional sequences, the extent of motif under-representation varies across genomes in a manner that broadly correlates with the number of tRNA genes, a good indicator of translational speed and growth rate. This suggests that minimizing the time invested in gene transcription is an important selective pressure against spurious binding. However, selection against spurious binding is detectable in the reduced genomes of host-restricted bacteria that grow at slow rates, indicating that components of efficiency other than speed may also be important. Minimizing the number of RNAP molecules per cell required for transcription, and the corresponding energetic expense, may be most relevant in slow growers. These results indicate that genome-level properties affecting the efficiency of transcription and translation can respond in an integrated manner to optimize gene expression. The detection of selection against promoter motifs in nonfunctional regions also confirms previous results indicating that no sequence may evolve free of selective constraints, at least in the relatively small and unstructured genomes of bacteria

Transcriptional control in the prereplicative phase of T4 development

Control of transcription is crucial for correct gene expression and orderly development. For many years, bacteriophage T4 has provided a simple model system to investigate mechanisms that regulate this process. Development of T4 requires the transcription of early, middle and late RNAs. Because T4 does not encode its own RNA polymerase, it must redirect the polymerase of its host, E. coli, to the correct class of genes at the correct time. T4 accomplishes this through the action of phage-encoded factors. Here I review recent studies investigating the transcription of T4 prereplicative genes, which are expressed as early and middle transcripts. Early RNAs are generated immediately after infection from T4 promoters that contain excellent recognition sequences for host polymerase. Consequently, the early promoters compete extremely well with host promoters for the available polymerase. T4 early promoter activity is further enhanced by the action of the T4 Alt protein, a component of the phage head that is injected into E. coli along with the phage DNA. Alt modifies Arg265 on one of the two α subunits of RNA polymerase. Although work with host promoters predicts that this modification should decrease promoter activity, transcription from some T4 early promoters increases when RNA polymerase is modified by Alt. Transcription of T4 middle genes begins about 1 minute after infection and proceeds by two pathways: 1) extension of early transcripts into downstream middle genes and 2) activation of T4 middle promoters through a process called sigma appropriation. In this activation, the T4 co-activator AsiA binds to Region 4 of σ70, the specificity subunit of RNA polymerase. This binding dramatically remodels this portion of σ70, which then allows the T4 activator MotA to also interact with σ70. In addition, AsiA restructuring of σ70 prevents Region 4 from forming its normal contacts with the -35 region of promoter DNA, which in turn allows MotA to interact with its DNA binding site, a MotA box, centered at the -30 region of middle promoter DNA. T4 sigma appropriation reveals how a specific domain within RNA polymerase can be remolded and then exploited to alter promoter specificity

Promoter melting by an alternative σ, one base at a time

Housekeeping σ factors are initiation factors for the bacterial RNA polymerase at most promoters, whereas alternative σs direct focused responses to specific environmental conditions. Structural and functional analysis of an alternative σ complexed with its cognate −10 motif elucidates the mechanism for initiation of strand opening, highlighting two critical properties: why alternative σs, compared to housekeeping σs, recognize so few promoters and how their promoter-recognition strategy was diversified during evolution

Synergistic transcription activation: a dual role for CRP in the activation of an Escherichia coli promoter depending on MalT and CRP

Activation of the Escherichia coli malEp promoter relies on the formation of a higher order structure involving cooperative binding of MalT to promoter-proximal and promoter-distal sites as well as CRP binding to three sites located in between. MalT is the primary activator and one function of CRP is to facilitate cooperative binding of MalT to its cognate sites by bending the intervening DNA. It is shown here that CRP also participates directly in malEp activation. This function is carried out by the molecule of CRP bound to the CRP site centered at –139.5 (CRP site 3). This molecule of CRP recruits RNA polymerase by promoting the binding of the RNA polymerase α subunit C-terminal domain (αCTD) to DNA immediately downstream from CRP site 3, via a contact between αCTD and activating region I of CRP. The action of MalT and CRP at malEp hence provides the example of a novel and complex mechanism for transcriptional synergy in prokaryotes whereby one activator both helps the primary activator to form a productive complex with promoter DNA and interacts directly with RNA polymerase holoenzyme