19 research outputs found

    Co-directional replication-transcription conflicts lead to replication restart

    Get PDF
    August 24, 2011Head-on encounters between the replication and transcription machineries on the lagging DNA strand can lead to replication fork arrest and genomic instability1, 2. To avoid head-on encounters, most genes, especially essential and highly transcribed genes, are encoded on the leading strand such that transcription and replication are co-directional. Virtually all bacteria have the highly expressed ribosomal RNA genes co-directional with replication3. In bacteria, co-directional encounters seem inevitable because the rate of replication is about 10–20-fold greater than the rate of transcription. However, these encounters are generally thought to be benign2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Biochemical analyses indicate that head-on encounters10 are more deleterious than co-directional encounters8 and that in both situations, replication resumes without the need for any auxiliary restart proteins, at least in vitro. Here we show that in vivo, co-directional transcription can disrupt replication, leading to the involvement of replication restart proteins. We found that highly transcribed rRNA genes are hotspots for co-directional conflicts between replication and transcription in rapidly growing Bacillus subtilis cells. We observed a transcription-dependent increase in association of the replicative helicase and replication restart proteins where head-on and co-directional conflicts occur. Our results indicate that there are co-directional conflicts between replication and transcription in vivo. Furthermore, in contrast to the findings in vitro, the replication restart machinery is involved in vivo in resolving potentially deleterious encounters due to head-on and co-directional conflicts. These conflicts probably occur in many organisms and at many chromosomal locations and help to explain the presence of important auxiliary proteins involved in replication restart and in helping to clear a path along the DNA for the replisome.Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (Great Britain) (Grant BB/E006450/1)Wellcome Trust (London, England) (Grant 091968/Z/10/Z)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant GM41934)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Postdoctoral Fellowship GM093408)Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (Great Britain) (Sabbatical Visit

    Recombination Phenotypes of Escherichia coli greA Mutants

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The elongation factor GreA binds to RNA polymerase and modulates transcriptional pausing. Some recent research suggests that the primary role of GreA may not be to regulate gene expression, but rather, to promote the progression of replication forks which collide with RNA polymerase, and which might otherwise collapse. Replication fork collapse is known to generate dsDNA breaks, which can be recombinogenic. It follows that GreA malfunction could have consequences affecting homologous recombination.</p> <p>Results</p> <p><it>Escherichia coli </it>mutants bearing substitutions of the active site acidic residues of the transcription elongation factor GreA, D41N and E44K, were isolated as suppressors of growth inhibition by a toxic variant of the bacteriophage lambda Red-beta recombination protein. These mutants, as well as a D41A <it>greA </it>mutant and a <it>greA </it>deletion, were tested for proficiency in recombination events. The mutations were found to increase the efficiency of RecA-RecBCD-mediated and RecA-Red-mediated recombination, which are replication-independent, and to decrease the efficiency of replication-dependent Red-mediated recombination.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These observations provide new evidence for a role of GreA in resolving conflicts between replication and transcription.</p

    The Binary Protein Interactome of Treponema pallidum – The Syphilis Spirochete

    Get PDF
    Protein interaction networks shed light on the global organization of proteomes but can also place individual proteins into a functional context. If we know the function of bacterial proteins we will be able to understand how these species have adapted to diverse environments including many extreme habitats. Here we present the protein interaction network for the syphilis spirochete Treponema pallidum which encodes 1,039 proteins, 726 (or 70%) of which interact via 3,649 interactions as revealed by systematic yeast two-hybrid screens. A high-confidence subset of 991 interactions links 576 proteins. To derive further biological insights from our data, we constructed an integrated network of proteins involved in DNA metabolism. Combining our data with additional evidences, we provide improved annotations for at least 18 proteins (including TP0004, TP0050, and TP0183 which are suggested to be involved in DNA metabolism). We estimate that this “minimal” bacterium contains on the order of 3,000 protein interactions. Profiles of functional interconnections indicate that bacterial proteins interact more promiscuously than eukaryotic proteins, reflecting the non-compartmentalized structure of the bacterial cell. Using our high-confidence interactions, we also predict 417,329 homologous interactions (“interologs”) for 372 completely sequenced genomes and provide evidence that at least one third of them can be experimentally confirmed

    Stringent response of Escherichia coli: revisiting the bibliome using literature mining

    Get PDF
    Understanding the mechanisms responsible for cellular responses depends on the systematic collection and analysis of information on the main biological concepts involved. Indeed, the identification of biologically relevant concepts in free text, namely genes, tRNAs, mRNAs, gene products and small molecules, is crucial to capture the structure and functioning of different responses. Results In this work, we review literature reports on the study of the stringent response in Escherichia coli. Rather than undertaking the development of a highly specialised literature mining approach, we investigate the suitability of concept recognition and statistical analysis of concept occurrence as means to highlight the concepts that are most likely to be biologically engaged during this response. The co-occurrence analysis of core concepts in this stringent response, i.e. the (p)ppGpp nucleotides with gene products was also inspected and suggest that besides the enzymes RelA and SpoT that control the basal levels of (p)ppGpp nucleotides, many other proteins have a key role in this response. Functional enrichment analysis revealed that basic cellular processes such as metabolism, transcriptional and translational regulation are central, but other stress-associated responses might be elicited during the stringent response. In addition, the identification of less annotated concepts revealed that some (p)ppGpp-induced functional activities are still overlooked in most reviews. Conclusions In this paper we applied a literature mining approach that offers a more comprehensive analysis of the stringent response in E. coli. The compilation of relevant biological entities to this stress response and the assessment of their functional roles provided a more systematic understanding of this cellular response. Overlooked regulatory entities, such as transcriptional regulators, were found to play a role in this stress response. Moreover, the involvement of other stress-associated concepts demonstrates the complexity of this cellular response

    Co-Orientation of Replication and Transcription Preserves Genome Integrity

    Get PDF
    In many bacteria, there is a genome-wide bias towards co-orientation of replication and transcription, with essential and/or highly-expressed genes further enriched co-directionally. We previously found that reversing this bias in the bacterium Bacillus subtilis slows replication elongation, and we proposed that this effect contributes to the evolutionary pressure selecting the transcription-replication co-orientation bias. This selection might have been based purely on selection for speedy replication; alternatively, the slowed replication might actually represent an average of individual replication-disruption events, each of which is counter-selected independently because genome integrity is selected. To differentiate these possibilities and define the precise forces driving this aspect of genome organization, we generated new strains with inversions either over ∼1/4 of the chromosome or at ribosomal RNA (rRNA) operons. Applying mathematical analysis to genomic microarray snapshots, we found that replication rates vary dramatically within the inverted genome. Replication is moderately impeded throughout the inverted region, which results in a small but significant competitive disadvantage in minimal medium. Importantly, replication is strongly obstructed at inverted rRNA loci in rich medium. This obstruction results in disruption of DNA replication, activation of DNA damage responses, loss of genome integrity, and cell death. Our results strongly suggest that preservation of genome integrity drives the evolution of co-orientation of replication and transcription, a conserved feature of genome organization

    Avoiding chromosome pathology when replication forks collide

    No full text
    Chromosome duplication normally initiates via the assembly of replication fork complexes at defined origins(1,2). DNA synthesis by any one fork is thought to cease when it meets another travelling in the opposite direction, at which stage the replication machinery may simply dissociate before the nascent strands are finally ligated. But what actually happens is not clear. Here we present evidence consistent with the idea that every fork collision has the potential to threaten genomic integrity. In Escherichia coli this threat is kept at bay by RecG DNA translocase(3) and by single-strand DNA exonucleases. Without RecG, replication initiates where forks meet via a replisome assembly mechanism normally associated with fork repair, replication restart and recombination(4,5), establishing new forks with the potential to sustain cell growth and division without an active origin. This potential is realised when roadblocks to fork progression are reduced or eliminated. It relies on the chromosome being circular, reinforcing the idea that replication initiation is triggered repeatedly by fork collision. The results reported raise the question of whether replication fork collisions have pathogenic potential for organisms that exploit multiple origins to replicate each chromosome

    Effects on Growth by Changes of the Balance between GreA, GreB, and DksA Suggest Mutual Competition and Functional Redundancy in Escherichia coli

    No full text
    It is well known that ppGpp and DksA interact with bacterial RNA polymerase (RNAP) to alter promoter activity. This study suggests that GreA plays a major role and GreB plays a minor role in the ppGpp-DksA regulatory network. We present evidence that DksA and GreA/GreB are redundant and/or share similar functions: (i) on minimal medium GreA overproduction suppresses the growth defects of a dksA mutant; (ii) GreA and DksA overexpression partially suppresses the auxotrophy of a ppGpp-deficient strain; (iii) microarrays show that many genes are regulated similarly by GreA and DksA. We also find instances where GreA and DksA seem to act in opposition: (i) complete suppression of auxotrophy occurs by overexpression of GreA or DksA only in the absence of the other protein; (ii) PgadA and PgadE promoter fusions, along with many other genes, are dramatically affected in vivo by GreA overproduction only when DksA is absent; (iii) GreA and DksA show opposite regulation of a subset of genes. Mutations in key acidic residues of GreA and DksA suggest that properties seen here probably are not explained by known biochemical activities of these proteins. Our results indicate that the general pattern of gene expression and, in turn, the ability of Escherichia coli to grow under a defined condition are the result of a complex interplay between GreA, GreB, and DksA that also involves mutual control of their gene expression, competition for RNA polymerase binding, and similar or opposite action on RNA polymerase activity
    corecore