Direct and indirect effects in the regulation of overlapping promoters

Optimal response to environmental stimuli often requires activation of certain genes and repression of others. Dual function regulatory proteins play a key role in the differential regulation of gene expression. While repression can be achieved by any DNA binding protein through steric occlusion of RNA polymerase in the promoter region, activation often requires a surface on the regulatory protein to contact RNAP and thus facilitate transcription initiation. RNAP itself is also a DNA binding protein, therefore it can function as a transcriptional repressor. Searching the Escherichia coli promoter database we found that ∼14% of the identified ‘forward’ promoters overlap with a promoter oriented in the opposite direction. In this article we combine a mathematical model with experimental analysis of synthetic regulatory regions to investigate interference of overlapping promoters. We find that promoter interference depends on the characteristics of overlapping promoters. The model predicts that promoter strength and interference can be regulated separately, which provides unique opportunities for regulation. Our experimental data suggest that in principle any DNA binding protein can be used for both activation and repression of promoter transcription, depending on the context. These findings can be exploited in the construction of synthetic networks

Repressor CopG prevents access of RNA polymerase to promoter and actively dissociates open complexes

Replication of the promiscuous plasmid pMV158 requires expression of the initiator repB gene, which is controlled by the repressor CopG. Genes repB and copG are co-transcribed from promoter Pcr. We have studied the interactions between RNA polymerase, CopG and the promoter to elucidate the mechanism of repression by CopG. Complexes formed at 0°C and at 37°C between RNA polymerase and Pcr differed from each other in stability and in the extent of the DNA contacted. The 37°C complex was very stable (half-life of about 3 h), and shared features with typical open complexes generated at a variety of promoters. CopG protein repressed transcription from Pcr at two different stages in the process leading to the initiation complex. First, CopG hindered binding of RNA polymerase to the promoter. Second, CopG was able to displace RNA polymerase once the enzyme has formed a stable complex with Pcr. A model for the CopG-mediated disassembly of the stable RNA polymerase–Pcr promoter complex is presented

DNA melting by RNA polymerase at the T7A1 promoter precedes the rate-limiting step at 37°C and results in the accumulation of an off-pathway intermediate

The formation of a transcriptionally active complex by RNA polymerase involves a series of short-lived structural intermediates where protein conformational changes are coupled to DNA wrapping and melting. We have used time-resolved KMnO4 and hydroxyl-radical X-ray footprinting to directly probe conformational signatures of these complexes at the T7A1 promoter. Here we demonstrate that DNA melting from m12 to m4 precedes the rate-limiting step in the pathway and takes place prior to the formation of full downstream contacts. In addition, on the wild-type promoter, we can detect the accumulation of a stable off-pathway intermediate that results from the absence of sequence-specific contacts with the melted non-consensus –10 region. Finally, the comparison of the results obtained at 37°C with those at 20°C reveals significant differences in the structure of the intermediates resulting in a different pathway for the formation of a transcriptionally active complex

A hyper-mutant of the unusual σ70-Pr promoter bypasses synergistic ppGpp/DksA co-stimulation

The activities of promoters can be temporally and conditionally regulated by mechanisms other than classical DNA-binding repressors and activators. One example is the inherently weak σ70-dependent Pr promoter that ultimately controls catabolism of phenolic compounds. The activity of Pr is up-regulated through the joint action of ppGpp and DksA that enhance the performance of RNA polymerase at this promoter. Here, we report a mutagenesis analysis that revealed substantial differences between Pr and other ppGpp/DksA co-stimulated promoters. In vitro transcription and RNA polymerase binding assays show that it is the T at the −11 position of the extremely suboptimal −10 element of Pr that underlies both poor binding of σ70-RNAP and a slow rate of open complex formation—the process that is accelerated by ppGpp and DksA. Our findings support the idea that collaborative action of ppGpp and DksA lowers the rate-limiting transition energy required for conversion between intermediates on the road to open complex formation

The core-independent promoter-specific interaction of primary sigma factor

Previous studies have led to a model in which the promoter-specific recognition of prokaryotic transcription initiation factor, sigma (σ), is core dependent. Most σ functions were studied on the basis of this tenet. Here, we provide in vitro evidence demonstrating that the intact Bacillus subtilis primary sigma, σA, by itself, is able to interact specifically with promoter deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), albeit with low sequence selectivity. The core-independent promoter-specific interaction of the σA is −10 specific. However, the promoter −10 specific interaction is unable to allow the σA to discern the optimal promoter spacing. To fulfill this goal, the σA requires assistance from core RNA polymerase (RNAP). The ability of σ, by itself, to interact specifically with promoter might introduce a critical new dimension of study in prokaryotic σ function

Antibiotics trapping transcription initiation intermediates: To melt or to bend, what's first?

Promoter DNA melting, culminating in the loading of the single-stranded DNA template into the RNA polymerase active site, is a key step in transcription initiation. Recently, the first transcription inhibitors found to block distinct steps of promoter melting were characterized. Here, the impact of these studies is discussed with respect to the current models of transcription initiation