| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Review |
1 Department of Oral and Dental Science, University of Bristol, Lower Maudlin Street, Bristol BS1 2LY, UK
2 Biomedical Sciences, DSTL Porton Down, Salisbury SP4 0JQ, UK
Correspondence
Sarah E. Maddocks
sarah.maddocks{at}bristol.ac.uk
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT IntroductionThe origin and evolution...Structure and function of...LTTR transcriptional regulationA role for LTTRs...Concluding remarksREFERENCES |
|---|
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTIntroductionThe origin and evolution...Structure and function of...LTTR transcriptional regulationA role for LTTRs...Concluding remarksREFERENCES |
|---|
; Sun & Klein, 2004; Stec et al., 2006). The LTTR family was formally documented by Henikoff et al. (1988), who concluded that there were at least nine functionally similar transcriptional regulatory proteins (identified in Escherichia coli, Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium, Rhizobium spp. and Enterobacter cloacae) which on the basis of sequence similarity and DNA-binding-domain (DBD) conservation, could be distinguished as a related group of bacterial transcriptional regulators. Extensive amino acid and dot-matrix comparisons assisted in the identification of additional, putative LTTRs, expanding the family considerably. LysR, the transcriptional activator of lysA (encoding diaminopimelate decarboxylase, an enzyme that catalyses the decarboxylation of diaminopimelate to produce lysine), had been the subject of considerable study at the molecular level and was the best characterized of the group at this time, hence becoming the family namesake (Stragier et al., 1983; Stragier & Patte, 1983). Since then, numerous LTTRs have been identified, and this family of regulators is continually increasing in size. Currently it comprises the largest known family of prokaryotic DNA-binding proteins, with 800 members identified on the basis of their amino acid sequence (Schell, 1993).
Originally LTTRs were described as transcriptional activators of a single divergently transcribed gene, which exhibited negative autoregulation (Lindquist et al., 1989; Schell, 1993; Parsek et al., 1994a). Extensive research has now led to them being regarded as global transcriptional regulators, acting as either activators or repressors of single or operonic genes; they are often divergently transcribed but can be located elsewhere on the bacterial chromosome (Heroven & Dersch, 2006; Hernández-Lucas et al., 2008). Co-inducers are recognized as being important for the function of LTTRs and often appear to contribute to a feedback loop in which a product or intermediate of a given metabolic/synthesis pathway (usually activated by an LTTR) acts as the co-inducer necessary for transcriptional activation or repression (Fig. 1) (Celis, 1999; van Keulen et al., 2003; Picossi et al., 2007).
|
) (Kovacikova & Skorupski, 1999; Deghmane et al., 2000, 2002; Cao et al., 2001; Kim et al., 2004; Russell et al., 2004; Byrne et al., 2007; Lu et al., 2007; Sperandio et al., 2007). This review aims to bring together the increasing body of knowledge concerning the structure, functions and molecular genetics that is helping to unravel the paradigm of the largest group of transcriptional regulators identified within the prokaryotic kingdom.
|
|
The origin and evolution of LTTRs |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTIntroductionThe origin and evolution...Structure and function of...LTTR transcriptional regulationA role for LTTRs...Concluding remarksREFERENCES |
|---|
The helix–turn–helix (HTH) DNA-binding domain
Despite the size of the LTTR family and the diverse function of LTTR-regulated genes, important structural regions remain highly conserved. LTTRs comprise approximately 330 amino acids; at the C terminus is a co-factor-binding domain and at the N terminus is a helix–turn–helix (HTH) motif, which provides a means of binding to DNA (Fig. 2). The HTH motif is present in all LTTRs and approximately 95 % of all prokaryotic DNA-binding proteins. This far exceeds the number of other DNA-binding motifs, which include the helix–loop–helix, zinc-finger or β-sheet-anti-parallel domain, which make up the remaining 5 % (Pérez-Rueda & Collado-Vides, 2001; Huffman & Brennan, 2002; Aravind et al., 2005). The ‘ancestral’ HTH motif comprises a three-helical bundle with an open conformation. The second and third helices of the bundle interact with DNA, the third being inserted into the major groove of the DNA double helix (Brennan & Matthews, 1989; Huffman & Brennan, 2002; Aravind et al., 2005). This so-called universal common ancestor has given rise to a number of variations that still carry out the same regulatory function; these include the winged-helix variety (of which the LysR family is a member) which possesses a β-pleated sheet hairpin between the second and third helix, the ribbon helix–helix structure and the tetra-helical structure (Fig. 3).
|
|
). The LTTRs form a unique group, and have been termed dual regulators, in which the HTH is located 20–90 amino acids from the N terminus, regardless of whether the LTTR is activating or repressing the transcription of itself or the gene(s) it is regulating (Fig. 4)
|
). Whether these subgroups are likely to be ‘true’ subgroups is uncertain given the reliance upon amino acid sequence alone as a basis; the regulators associated with each of the three groups have no particular defining factor, they do not necessarily regulate the same target genes (or those with a similar function) and they do not have the same co-inducer or origin.
Horizontal transfer of LTTRs
LTTRs are found throughout the different subdivisions of proteobacteria, with the majority represented in the 
and 
subdivisions. Far fewer LTTRs have been identified for the β subdivision and the Gram-positives, and none have been identified in the 
subdivision (Schell, 1993). This is unlikely to be a true representation of the distribution of LTTRs amongst the different subdivisions and most likely reflects the extent of genetic characterization of members of these subdivisions. The genes encoding LTTRs have a characteristically high G+C content, due to the distinct Lys/Arg ratio that is common to LTTR proteins (Henikoff et al., 1988; Viale et al., 1991). A number of LTTRs are found on transmissible regions of DNA, and the distinctive G+C percentage has enabled LTTRs that have been acquired by horizontal transfer to be identified within the genomes of many bacteria.
A well-documented example in which an LTTR has been acquired by horizontal transfer relates to the genes encoding ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (RubisCO) in the non-sulphur purple photosynthetic bacteria. It has been long established that Rhodobacter spp. have two forms of RubisCO (form I and form II). Comparisons of the form I complex between Rhodobacter capsulatus and R. sphaeroides provided evidence that they were more divergent than previously anticipated (Paoli et al., 1998; Horken & Tabita, 1999). Phylogenetic studies confirmed that the form I complex of R. capsulatus was more closely related to the ‘green-type’ RubisCO group, associated with /β/ chemoautotrophic proteobacteria, and green algae, than the ‘red-type’ found in /β bacteria and the plastids of red algae. The genes encoding the form I RubisCO complex are operonic (cbbLSQ) and have a divergently transcribed LTTR (CbbR) that activates transcription in response to light intensity and CO2 concentration (Gibson & Tabita, 1993). Molecular analysis of R. capsulatus indicated that CbbR had been acquired by horizontal transfer with the cbb operon. Form II was also shown to have its own endogenous CbbR divergently transcribed from the cbbM gene. The regulators are currently referred to as CbbRI and CbbRII (Paoli et al., 1998). A classical LTTR box (TTA-N7/8-TAA) is found upstream of both cbbLSQ and cbbM. R. sphaeroides has only one CbbR, which globally regulates both form I and form II (Smith & Tabita, 2002; Dubbs & Tabita, 2003; Dubbs et al., 2004). The additional level of regulation conferred on form I of R. capsulatus allows independent regulation of the two operons; the advantage of this, and whether each regulator responds to a different environmental signal, remains to be elucidated.
This is not the only example of the co-acquisition of LTTRs and their associated genes. Numerous LTTR-regulated virulence factors and antibiotic-resistance factors have been identified as having been acquired by horizontal transfer. These include SpvR of Salmonella spp., which regulates a four-gene operon that is carried on a 90 kbp virulence plasmid. The products of the spv operon have a role in bacterial dissemination from the Peyer's patches to the liver and spleen (Caldwell & Gulig, 1991; Sheehan & Dorman, 1998). Additionally, the acquisition of antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa is reliant upon the expression of a metallo-β-lactamase, which is regulated by a divergently transcribed LTTR (Toleman et al., 2002). These LTTRs specifically regulate the genes they are transferred with and do not tend to be global transcriptional regulators.
|
Structure and function of LTTRs |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTIntroductionThe origin and evolution...Structure and function of...LTTR transcriptional regulationA role for LTTRs...Concluding remarksREFERENCES |
|---|
/β subdomains (RD1 and RD2) which are connected by two cross-over regions that form a hinge or cleft, which is likely to accommodate the co-inducer (Stec et al., 2006). Mutagenesis studies have identified a region that can span between residues 95 and 210 of the C-terminal domain, which forms a co-inducer-binding cleft (Burn et al., 1989; Cebolla et al., 1997; Jørgensen & Dandanell, 1999). This hinge-region/cleft appears to be present in the C-terminal region of all LTTRs that have been studied on a structural basis. The co-inducer-binding domain is joined to the HTH by another hinge region.
A conformational change to the tertiary structure upon co-inducer binding has been related to the differential binding ability of LTTRs. Mutagenesis studies similar to those that identified the co-inducer-binding cleft identified an approximately 70–80 amino acid region in the C-terminal domain that also plays a role in DNA binding. Amino acid substitutions between residues 225 and 290 abrogate the co-inducer-dependent state of LTTRs and have an effect on the binding capability of the protein. Studies undertaken with NahR established the co-inducer-binding domain to be in the region of 268 amino acids, with a DNA–protein interaction site at residue 169 (Huang & Schell, 1991; Schell et al., 1990). Mutation-based work with NodD, CysB, AmpR and OxyR established that the residues 95, 123, 154 (NodD); 149, 165 (CysB); 102, 135 (AmpR) and 234 (OxyR) were involved in co-inducer binding/response; mutations in these regions led to a co-inducer-independent phenotype in each case (Burn et al., 1989; McIver et al., 1989; Storz et al., 1990; Bartowsky & Normark, 1991; Renna et al., 1993; Colyer & Kredich, 1994, 1996). This co-inducer-independent state mimics LTTR-DNA binding in the absence of a co-inducer and effects the transcriptional activator/repressor properties of the LTTR.
Several crystal structures of LTTRs have been resolved; these have focused primarily on the C-terminal domain, the HTH domain being particularly difficult to crystallize due to the high degree of flexibility found in the ‘wing’ region. The first crystal structures of the C-terminal domain were resolved with the co-inducer or a substitute at the co-inducer-binding cleft, and have highlighted a likeness to the interdomain fold and cleft found in the LacI repressor family (Muraoka et al., 2003a, b).
The co-factor binding domain has been well defined for both CatM and BenM, which are paralogous LTTRs found in Acinetobacter spp. CatM was initially identified as a repressor of the catBCIJFD operon encoding proteins required to convert benzoate into tricarboxylic acid cycle intermediates (Romero-Arroyo et al., 1995; Collier et al., 1998; Clark et al., 2003). It was later reclassified as a transcriptional activator and found to be part of a more complex regulatory network involving BenM. Both CatM and BenM activate the transcription of catBCIJFD but BenM additionally regulates expression of the benABCDE operon, which encodes proteins necessary for benzoate degradation (Collier et al., 1998; Ezezika et al., 2006, 2007). A larger subgroup of LTTRs that are associated with degradation of catechols and chlorinated aromatics has emerged in which CatM and BenM are classified. The degradation of catechols results in the production of cis,cis-muconate, which is also the co-inducer for CatM and BenM. Structural studies identified the binding site for the co-inducer lying between RD1 and RD2 of both LTTRs. RD1 and RD2 were shown to be connected by two hinge-like, antiparallel β-strands which provide flexibility to the protein, enabling the two domains to rotate relative to each other. The remaining C-terminal region was found to consist of and β structures (nine -helices and nine β-strands) with Rossmann-like folds (Neidle et al., 1989). BenM has a unique feature compared to other LTTRs in that it can bind to two different co-inducers. Benzoate binds a second region in BenM that is not present in CatM. This secondary site is located in a highly hydrophobic region of RD1 and alters the conformation of BenM once the co-inducer is bound. The altered conformation still enables cis,cis-muconate to bind at the primary binding site and produces a synergistic effect resulting in very high levels of transcriptional regulation. It is thought that occupation of the secondary site alters the salt bridges formed between glutamate residues and arginine residues within the primary binding site, producing an altered protein conformation but not affecting the capacity to bind cis,cis-muconate.
The C-terminal domain of a number of other LTTRs appears to be similar in structure to those of CatM and BenM. These include DntR isolated from Burkholderia spp., which regulates the expression of enzymes that are involved in catalysing the initial steps of the oxidative degradation of 2,4-dinitrotoluene (2,4-DNT) (Lönneberg et al., 2007). The crystal structure has been resolved to 2.6 Å (acetate at the co-inducer site) and 2.3 Å (thiocyanate at the co-inducer site) (Smirnova et al., 2004). These are not the physiological co-inducers for DntR, and studies have indicated that both sodium salicylate and 2,4-DNT are more likely to be the true co-inducers. The C-terminal region includes RD1 and RD2 domains joined by hinge regions found at residues 167–170 and 270–273. The co-inducer-binding cleft resides between the RD1 and RD2 regions, with a depth of 10 Å and diameter of 7 Å.
Full-length crystal structures of LTTRs and determination of the winged-HTH (wHTH) domain
The first full-length LTTR crystal structure to be resolved was CbnR. It is divergently transcribed from the cbnABCD operon, the products of which are involved in the degradation of chlorocatechols (Ogawa et al., 1999; Muraoka et al., 2003a, b). CbnR was crystallized as a tetramer consisting of two dimers. Each dimer comprises one short-form subunit and one extended-form subunit, giving the tetrameric molecule an asymmetrical ellipsoidal shape (130 Åx70 Åx60 Å). Each subunit has two domains, a DBD (residues 1–58) and a regulatory domain (residues 88–294) joined by a linker region (residues 59–87). The subunits dimerize through an anti-parallel helix–helix interaction, and the dimers interact along a twofold axis. The resulting ellipsoid has a cavity of 30 Åx15 Åx10 Å that accommodates the co-inducer. The DBD lies in a V-shape at the base of the tetramer and consists of three -helices and two β-strands that form a winged-HTH (Muraoka et al., 2003a, b). This conformation is very closely related to ModE of E. coli and has been used to model numerous HTH regions, including that of OxyR.
OxyR was first identified as a member of the LTTR family by Christman et al. (1989). The full-length structure of OxyR has been determined using ModE as a model and has provided information about the wHTH region, which appears to be similar to that of the iron-responsive regulator, DtxR (Zaim & Kierzek, 2003). It is located in the N-terminal domain, as is the case for all other LTTRs, and is attached to a long -helical backbone. The recognition helix of the HTH appears longer than that of other HTH regions and has been described as a helix–loop–helix with the ‘winged’ portion likely to interact with the phosphate backbone or minor groove of the double helix. OxyR does not respond to a classical co-inducer, but relies upon a redox change to alter its conformation and DNA affinity. Specifically, it senses H2O2 and is activated through the formation of a transient disulphide bond. The presence or absence of the disulphide bond affects the oligomerization state of OxyR. In the reduced form OxyR appears to be dimeric, only occupying two DNA-binding regions; when oxidized it binds to four regions, corresponding to a tetrameric structure (Kullik et al., 1995a, b). The oxidation of OxyR also influences co-operative interaction with RNA polymerase at the promoter region, thus initiating transcription (Zaim & Kierzek, 2003). Determining the structure of the regulatory domain revealed two domains (corresponding to RD1 and RD2) in which the redox-active cysteines are found.
Attempts have been made to crystallize other LTTRs, but the insolubility associated with the wHTH domain has meant that often only truncated forms can be resolved. CysB and CblR are closely related LTTRs found in Klebsiella spp., E. coli and Pseudomonas spp. as regulators of sulphate starvation inducible genes (Delic-Attree et al., 1997; Verschueren et al., 2001; Jovanovic et al., 2003). CblR is part of the CysB regulon and exhibits 41 % identity at the amino acid level. Despite there being no structural data concerning the DBDs of these proteins both have been shown to be tetrameric and ellipsoidal in shape (van der Ploeg et al., 1997; Lochowska et al., 2004). Their tetrameric nature allows these proteins to span a large region of DNA, causing it to bend (Hryniewicz & Kredich, 1994). This feature is apparent in numerous LTTRs and is believed to be a result of the V-shape in which the DBD resides.
Despite limited structural information for the HTH region of LTTRs, mutational studies have highlighted a number of important, conserved residues, which appear to be required for DNA binding. If these residues are altered, the LTTR in question loses its ability to bind DNA. For OxyR the mutations that cause this phenotype are T31M and S33N; for CysB, S34R; for GcvA, S38P and for NahR, R43H (Kullik et al., 1995a, b; Lochowska et al., 2004). These observations are assisting in the prediction of complete structural data.
|
LTTR transcriptional regulation |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTIntroductionThe origin and evolution...Structure and function of...LTTR transcriptional regulationA role for LTTRs...Concluding remarksREFERENCES |
|---|
; Lochowska et al., 2001; Porrúa et al., 2007). However, binding sites as far away as –218 bp with respect to the promoter region as well as internal binding sites (+350 bp; IBS), have been identified (Wilson et al., 1995; Viswanathan et al., 2007). These distinct binding sites were identified by virtue of DNA-footprinting, DNase I-protection studies and mutagenesis.
A palindromic DNA sequence has been identified to which LTTRs are known to bind; this is often found to form part of an imperfect, dyadic region. The LTTR box was identified first in Rhizobium spp. as an interrupted palindrome with the sequence ATC-N9-GAT, between –20 and –75 bp upstream of the nod gene, and was referred to as the ‘Nod-box’ (Goethals et al., 1992). From this the generally accepted LTTR box was identified. It consists of the sequence T-N11-A, but can vary in both base pair composition and length; it is present at the RBS but not the ABS site (Parsek et al., 1994b). The apo-form and co-inducer-bound LTTR differ in their affinity for the LTTR box, which may affect preferential binding at the RBS or ABS sites; this can result in DNA bending and can affect the interaction with RNA polymerase at the promoter region as described below.
DNA bending
LTTRs are known to be functionally active as tetramers, and as such have been shown to ‘protect’ large regions of DNA (between 50 and 60 bp) by DNase I protection assay (Muraoka et al., 2003a, b). This large region of protection is consistent with the observation that LTTRs bind at multiple locations in the promoter region. The affinity of LTTR for each distinct binding region is determined by the co-inducer; the apo-form of the protein will often only bind to RBSs, the ABS sites only being occupied once the co-inducer is bound to the protein (Fig. 5) (Tropel & van der Meer, 2004).
|
The pattern of binding of LTTRs to the 15–17 bp palidromic RBS region is in keeping with the type of binding observed for dimeric proteins. The tetrameric nature of active LTTRs and their ability to protect large regions of DNA implies that DNA bending is an important contributor to LTTR-dependent transcriptional regulation and oligomerization. Transcriptional regulators that rely upon DNA bending to provide additional levels of regulation frequently enhance transcription by increasing the likelihood of regulator–RNA polymerase interactions. Some well-documented examples include Fis, H-NS, HU and IHF; regions where DNA bending occurs most readily are often A/T rich, a common motif being recognized as CA5/6T (Goosen & van de Putte, 1995; Martin & Rosner, 1997; Pérez-Martín & de Lorenzo, 1997; Huo et al., 2006).
The studies of several LTTRs have indicated that they can cause DNA to bend between 5 ° and 10 ° and that the degree of DNA bending is determined by the presence or absence of the co-inducer. Generally the presence of a co-inducer bound to an LTTR relaxes the degree of DNA bending from as little as ° to as much as 5 ° (van Keulen et al., 1998). The relaxation of DNA bending correlates with a shift in DNA protection to encompass a smaller area and appears to be paramount for transcriptional activation or repression (Fig. 5
).
The role of DNA bending in LTTR-mediated transcriptional regulation is well illustrated by studies undertaken with OccR. This regulator is found on the Ti plasmid of Agrobacterium tumefaciens and regulates genes required for octopine catabolism. DNA-footprinting has shown that when bound to DNA, OccR occupies a region spanning between –80 and –28 bp upstream of the transcriptional start site of the genes it regulates. When the co-inducer octopine is present, OccR spans a shorter region of between –80 and –38 bp (Akakura & Winans, 2002a, b). This coincides with a change in DNA bending from a high-angle bend (in the absence of co-inducer) to a low-angle bend (co-inducer dependent). DNA bending is a common feature of prokaryotic transcriptional regulation and is dependent upon the multimeric nature of transcriptional regulators. Numerous LTTRs have been shown to induce DNA bending; often the intergenic region to which an LTTR binds possesses a hypersensitive region at approximately 50–55 bp upstream of the regulated gene and is the point at which a DNA bend is induced (Hryniewicz & Kredich, 1994; Ogawa et al., 1999). Many LTTR-binding sites may be employed: for OccR five have been identified, two of which have a characteristic LTTR-box and lie on the same face of the DNA helix.
LTTR autoregulation
Much research has focused on the regulation of genes constituting a given LTTR regulon; less has been undertaken to elucidate the autoregulatory function. The RBS region of genes divergently transcribed from their LTTR has been implicated as a possible autoregulatory site. The RBS characteristically contains an LTTR-box, suggesting that this recognition sequence is necessary for autoregulation. DNA-footprinting assays imply that LTTR binding at the RBS is consistent with the pattern often observed for dimeric proteins and that the apo-form of LTTR binds the region with a greater affinity than the co-inducer-bound tetrameric form. Taken together these data suggest that as an autoregulator LTTR might function as a dimer in a co-inducer-independent manner. The tetrameric form might be necessary only for transcriptional activation of divergent genes, and dependent upon the co-inducer. The presence or absence of a co-inducer might influence the multimeric state of the LTTR, which undergoes a conformational change when co-inducer is inserted into the binding cleft. The formation of a tetramer may be dependent upon this conformational change; however, no evidence exists to date to support this assertion. Where genes are not divergently transcribed the mechanism of autoregulation is even less clear. No single LTTR of this nature has been extensively studied at the genetic level to determine whether the LTTR-box is present in the upstream intergenic region, and no footprinting assays have been undertaken to ascertain whether LTTR proteins bind upstream of any given LTTR gene.
‘Classical’ LTTR regulation – transcriptional activation and negative autoregulation
IlvY is regarded as a prototypical LTTR protein-regulated system, and has been best studied in E. coli and Salmonella spp. (Blazey & Burns, 1980; Rhee et al., 1999). It forms part of a two-gene operon with ilvC; the two genes are transcribed from overlapping divergent promoters. IlvY exhibits classical LTTR-like regulation whereby expression of ilvY is negatively autoregulated by IlvY, and expression of ilvC is activated by IlvY. IlvC is an acetohydroxy-acid isomeroreductase and the second enzyme of the parallel biosynthetic pathway for L-valine and L-isoleucine (Biel & Umbarger, 1981). The substrates for acetohydroxy-acid isomeroreductase are -acetolactate and -acetohydroxybutyrate; both of these substrates are the co-inducers for IlvY and are necessary for transcriptional activation of ilvC, thus forming a feedback loop (Blazey & Burns, 1980). This type of regulation coupled with a feedback loop is commonly observed for LTTRs and associated LTTR-regulated genes.
Classical regulation is also exhibited by LTTRs of Gram-positive bacteria. CidR has been characterized in Staphylococcus spp. and also identified in Bacillus anthracis (Yang et al., 2005; Ahn et al., 2006). It is divergently transcribed from cidABC and transcriptional activation is dependent upon acetic acid produced from the metabolism of glucose, as a co-inducer (Yang et al., 2005). Negative autoregulation of CidR is believed to be co-inducer independent.
LTTR transcriptional repressors
CcpC is a member of a novel subgroup of LTTRs that act as transcriptional repressors. It has been identified in Bacillus subtilis and is regarded as a member of the LTTR family by virtue of extensive amino acid sequence similarity; it has been shown to interact with regions of DNA possessing an LTTR-box (Jourlin-Castelli et al., 2000). It is not divergently transcribed and is a global negative regulator of the genes encoding enzymes involved in the tricarboxylic acid cycle. Two well-studied CcpC regulated genes are citB (aconitase) and citZ (citrate synthase). CcpC binds at the –66 and –27 regions to repress transcription, and in the presence of citrate as a co-inducer is seen to derepress expression of citB and citZ (Kim et al., 2002, 2003). CcpC-binding regions have been identified upstream of ccpC and are referred to as Box I and Box II. Negative autoregulation appears to depend solely upon binding to Box I, with no defined role for Box II.
Numerous other transcriptional repressors of the LTTR family exist and it is becoming apparent that the distinction between transcriptional activator and transcriptional repressor is more complex than previously thought. GltC has been regarded as a classical LTTR in B. subtilis, divergently transcribed from and activating expression of the gltAB operon (Bohannon & Sonenshein, 1989). The gltAB operon encodes the two subunits of glutamate synthase. LTTR boxes have been identified in the promoter region of gltC and gltAB and three regions have been annotated as Box I, II and III (Belitsky et al., 1995). Box I is found at –64 bp upstream of gltA and GltC bound to this site represses expression of gltC. Binding of GltC at Box I has also been shown to have a role in both activation and repression of gltAB. More specifically, transcriptional activation of gltAB requires GltC to be bound at both Box I and Box II; this is dependent upon the co-inducer -ketoglutarate (substrate for glutamate synthase). Transcriptional repression is dependent upon GltC binding to Box I and III with glutamate bound to the co-inducer site (product of glutamate synthase). Therefore GtlC acts as both a transcriptional activator and a transcriptional repressor depending upon where it binds in the promoter region and the nature of the co-inducer (Picossi et al., 2007).
Picossi et al. (2007) hypothesize that this mechanism of regulation might be common for a large number of LTTRs and have suggested that LTTRs can be classified into two distinct subgroups. Group 1 type regulators are proposed to bind to a primary site (co-inducer independent) involved in negative autoregulation, and a secondary proximal site (co-inducer dependent) to activate transcription. Group 2 are proposed to bind to the primary site (co-inducer independent) and to an additional binding site that is different from the secondary binding site for transcriptional activation, which is necessary to repress transcription. The effectors required for Group 2 type regulation are supposed to be different from the co-inducers required for Group 1 type transcriptional activation. In the case of GtlC both types of transcription are observed.
Positive autoregulation
An additional class of LTTRs that act as transcriptional repressors or activators have been identified that positively autoregulate. LrhA is an example of this type of LTTR and was first identified in E. coli. Other members of this subgroup include HexA and PecT of Erwinia spp. (Gibson & Silhavy, 1999). These three regulators control the expression of genes required for flagellation, motility and chemotaxis. They negatively regulate the expression of other transcriptional regulators that are involved in a global, complex regulatory network. The environmental stimuli for this group of regulators remains undefined and currently no co-factor has been identified. Despite the method of transcriptional regulation appearing to be quite different from that of the classical LTTRs, amino acid sequence identities place this subgroup within the LTTR family.
YtxR is another positive autoregulatory LTTR. It activates the expression of ytxAB, which is an operon found in ‘American’ strains of Yersinia enterocolitica and encodes heat-labile, ADP-ribosylating toxin. The precise regulatory mechanism of YtxR remains to be elucidated; preliminary analysis has suggested that it is a co-inducer-independent global regulator (Axler-Diperte et al., 2006).
|
A role for LTTRs in therapeutics, diagnostics and vaccine development |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTIntroductionThe origin and evolution...Structure and function of...LTTR transcriptional regulationA role for LTTRs...Concluding remarksREFERENCES |
|---|
; Ritz et al., 2008). The efficacy of the modern ‘BCG vaccine’, encompassing data for all of the different daughter strains, is thought to be between 0 and 80 % (Chen et al., 2007).
Large polymorphisms exist in the genome of BCG strains; in particular there have been four major deletion events and two duplications (Leung et al., 2008). Two of the better-documented deletions are of region of difference 1 (RD1) and RD2. The loss of RD1 appears to have been a critical event for attenuation of M. bovis given that all of the vaccine strains have this deletion (Ritz et al., 2008). Other mutations outside of RD1 include changes in the expression of certain transcriptional regulators. A point mutation in the CRP-FNR-like regulator (Mb3700) alters global gene expression and attenuates the strain. This mutation has been traced back to post-1924 and affects the HTH domain of the regulatory protein (Spreadbury et al., 2005). This mutation is likely to be present in many of the daughter derivative strains that were passaged independently by different laboratories prior to the development of a seed-stock in the 1960s.
The post-1927 deletion of RD2 also led to the loss of the two-component sensor–regulator system PhoPQ which has a significant impact on attenuation. PhoPQ is also found in S. enterica serovar Typhimurium, where it is part of a complex regulatory network. Null mutations in either phoP or phoQ result in strains that are attenuated in mice and humans, unable to survive in macrophages and show sensitivity to cationic antimicrobial peptides. Despite this attenuation phoP mutants also exhibit increased antigen presentation compared to the wild-type as a consequence of an inability to modify the LPS (Gunn & Miller, 1996; Groisman et al., 1997). This is the result of a complex regulatory network involving additional sensor–regulator proteins PmrAB, which require PhoP. Similar attenuation is observed for M. bovis, in which the RD2 region is intact but the phoPQ genes have been disrupted. Preliminary studies using guinea pigs have shown superior efficacy compared to the current BCG strains.
Transcriptomic studies involving LTTRs could help to identify bacterial strains that are attenuated in a defined genetic background with the potential for use as a vaccine candidate. Due to the diverse variety of bacterial species in which the LTTRs are found, identification of an LTTR that is attenuated and protective in a given bacterium could have wider applications for a number of other bacteria with orthologous LTTRs.
Therapeutics and diagnostics
Studies regarding the role of global regulators for therapeutic applications can be illustrated by the extensive investigations of the MarR family of global transcriptional regulators. These are wHTH-containing transcriptional regulators found throughout the prokaryotes and archaea. They regulate genes responsible for multidrug resistance in numerous bacteria, including E. coli, P. aeruginosa and B. subtilis. If it is possible to identify MarR-like transcriptional regulators within a distinct species of bacteria they could serve as indicators of multidrug-resistant strains, with applications for rapid screening of clinical isolates (Wilkinson & Grove, 2006). Some LTTRs, including CysB and AmpR, regulate genes that confer resistance to novobiocin and β-lactamases, respectively, and could similarly be used as markers for antibiotic-resistant strains.
Studies in which research has focused upon the regulon of a given transcriptional regulator in terms of identifying therapeutic or diagnostic candidates include analysis of the transcriptome of Streptococcus pyogenes during mouse soft tissue infection and in cynomolgus macaques presenting with Strep. pyogenes pharyngitis (Virtaneva et al., 2005; Graham et al., 2006). This has provided insights into clinical disease progression and has identified numerous transcriptional regulators that are affiliated with the progressing stages of GAS infection. Global comparisons with a Strep. pyogenes in which the transcriptional regulator CovR is knocked out have identified many putative virulence factors and other transcriptional regulators controlled by CovR. This has helped to ascertain whether any of the CovR-regulated genes might provide vaccine or diagnostic candidates. Given that the LTTRs are the most abundant regulator found within the genomes of bacteria (http://www.era7.com/ExtraTrain), focusing upon identifying important members of the regulons that might contribute to virulence and pathogenesis seems paramount, and could provide new insights into disease progression and vaccine development.
|
Concluding remarks |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTIntroductionThe origin and evolution...Structure and function of...LTTR transcriptional regulationA role for LTTRs...Concluding remarksREFERENCES |
|---|
. As more research into prokaryotic transcriptional regulation continues to be undertaken, there is no doubt that more LTTRs will be identified and this family will continue to grow in size. The emergence of new subgroups of the LTTR family is likely and will shed light upon the evolutionary divergence of LTTRs away from the ancestral prototypical transcriptional activator. Progress in terms of the understanding of DNA binding by LTTRs is rapid and there is much that can be built upon the information that has been gathered so far. More complete structural data combined with a broader understanding of the role of co-inducers in transcriptional regulation will help to elucidate an increasingly complex paradigm for LTTR-dependent regulation.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTIntroductionThe origin and evolution...Structure and function of...LTTR transcriptional regulationA role for LTTRs...Concluding remarksREFERENCES |
|---|
Akakura, R. & Winans, S. C. (2002a). Mutations in the occQ operator that decrease OccR-induced DNA bending do not cause constitutive promoter activity. J Biol Chem 277, 15773–15780.
Akakura, R. & Winans, S. C. (2002b). Constitutive mutations of the OccR regulatory protein affect DNA bending in response to metabolites released from plant tumors. J Biol Chem 277, 5866–5874.
Aravind, L., Anantharaman, V., Balaji, S., Babu, M. M. & Iyer, L. M. (2005). The many faces of the helix-turn-helix domain: transcription regulation and beyond. FEMS Microbiol Rev 29, 231–262.[CrossRef][Medline]
Axler-Diperte, G. L., Miller, V. L. & Darwin, A. J. (2006). YtxR, a conserved LysR-like regulator that induces expression of genes encoding a putative ADP-ribosyltransferase toxin homologue in Yersinia enterocolitica. J Bacteriol 188, 8033–8043.
Barnett, M. J., Swanson, J. A. & Long, S. R. (1998). Multiple genetic controls on Rhizobium meliloti syrA, a regulator of exopolysaccharide abundance. Genetics 148, 19–32.
Bartowsky, E. & Normark, S. (1991). Purification and mutant analysis of Citrobacter freundii AmpR, the regulator of chromosomal AmpC β-lactamase. Mol Microbiol 5, 1715–1725.[Medline]
Bartowsky, E. & Normark, S. (1993). Interactions of wild-type and mutant AmpR of Citrobacter freundii with target DNA. Mol Microbiol 10, 555–565.[Medline]
Belitsky, B. R., Janssen, P. J. & Sonenshein, A. L. (1995). Sites required for GltC-dependent regulation of Bacillus subtilis glutamate synthase expression. J Bacteriol 177, 5686–5695.
Biel, A. J. & Umbarger, H. E. (1981). Mutations in the ilvY gene of Escherichia coli K-12 that cause constitutive expression of ilvC. J Bacteriol 146, 718–724.
Blazey, D. L. & Burns, R. O. (1980). Gene ilvY of Salmonella typhimurium. J Bacteriol 142, 1015–1018.
Bohannon, D. E. & Sonenshein, A. L. (1989). Positive regulation of glutamate biosynthesis in Bacillus subtilis. J Bacteriol 171, 4718–4727.
Brennan, R. G. & Matthews, B. W. (1989). The helix-turn-helix DNA binding motif. J Biol Chem 264, 1903–1906.
Brumbley, S. M., Carney, B. F. & Denny, T. P. (1993). Phenotype conversion in Pseudomonas solanacearum due to spontaneous inactivation of PhcA, a putative LysR transcriptional regulator. J Bacteriol 175, 5477–5487.
Buggy, J. J., Sganga, M. W. & Bauer, C. E. (1994). Nucleotide sequence and characterization of the Rhodobacter capsulatus hvrB gene: HvrB is an activator of S-adenosyl-L-homocysteine hydrolase expression and is a member of the LysR family. J Bacteriol 176, 61–69.
Burn, J. E., Hamilton, W. D., Wooton, J. C. & Johnston, A. W. (1989). Single and multiple mutations affecting properties of the regulatory gene nodD of Rhizobium. Mol Microbiol 3, 1567–1577.[CrossRef][Medline]
Byrne, G. A., Russell, D. A., Chen, X. & Meijer, W. G. (2007). Transcriptional regulation of the virR operon of the intracellular pathogen Rhodococcus equi. J Bacteriol 189, 5082–5089.
Caldwell, A. L. & Gulig, P. A. (1991). The Salmonella typhimurium virulence plasmid encodes a positive regulator of a plasmid-encoded virulence gene. J Bacteriol 173, 7176–7185.
Cao, H., Krishnan, G., Goumnerov, B., Tsongalis, J., Tompkins, R. & Rahme, L. G. (2001). A quorum sensing-associated virulence gene of Pseudomonas aeruginosa encodes a LysR-like transcription regulator with a unique self-regulatory mechanism. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98, 14613–14618.
Cebolla, A., Sousa, C. & de Lorenzo, V. (1997). Effector specificity mutants of the transcriptional activator NahR of naphthalene degrading Pseudomonas define protein sites involved in binding of aromatic inducers. J Biol Chem 272, 3986–3992.
Celis, R. T. (1999). Repression and activation of arginine transport genes in Escherichia coli K 12 by the ArgP protein. J Mol Biol 294, 1087–1095.[CrossRef][Medline]
Chen, J. M., Islam, S. T., Ren, H. & Liu, J. (2007). Differential productions of lipid virulence factors among BCG vaccine strains and implications on BCG safety. Vaccine 25, 8114–8122.[Medline]
Christman, M. F., Storz, G. & Ames, B. N. (1989). OxyR, a positive regulator of hydrogen peroxide-inducible genes in Escherichia coli and Salmonella typhimurium, is homologous to a family of bacterial regulatory proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 86, 3484–3488.
Chugani, S. A., Parsek, M. R. & Chakrabarty, A. M. (1998). Transcriptional repression mediated by LysR-type regulator CatR bound at multiple binding sites. J Bacteriol 180, 2367–2372.
Clark, T., Haddad, S., Neidle, E. & Momany, C. (2003). Crystallization of the effector-binding domains of BenM and CatM, LysR-type transcriptional regulators from Acinetobacter sp. ADP1. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 60, 105–108.[CrossRef]
Coco, W. M., Rothmel, R. K., Henikoff, S. & Chakrabarty, A. M. (1993). Nucleotide sequence and initial functional characterization of the clcR gene encoding a LysR family activator of the clcABD chlorocatechol operon in Pseudomonas putida. J Bacteriol 175, 417–427.
Collier, L. S., Gaines, G. L. & Neidle, E. L. (1998). Regulation of benzoate degradation in Acinetobacter sp. strain ADP1 by BenM, a LysR-type transcriptional activator. J Bacteriol 180, 2493–2501.
Colyer, T. E. & Kredich, N. M. (1994). Residue threonine-149 of the Salmonella typhimurium CysB transcription activator: mutations causing constitutive expression of positively regulated genes of the cysteine regulon. Mol Microbiol 13, 797–805.[CrossRef][Medline]
Colyer, T. E. & Kredich, N. M. (1996). In vitro characterisation of constitutive CysB proteins from Salmonella typhimurium. Mol Microbiol 21, 247–256.[CrossRef][Medline]
Deghmane, A. E., Petit, S., Topilko, A., Pereira, Y., Giorgini, D., Larribe, M. & Taha, M. K. (2000). Intimate adhesion of Neisseria meningitidis to human epithelial cells is under the control of the crgA gene, a novel LysR-type transcriptional regulator. EMBO J 19, 1068–1078.[CrossRef][Medline]
Deghmane, A. E., Giorgini, D., Larribe, M., Alonso, J. M. & Taha, M. K. (2002). Down-regulation of pili and capsule of Neisseria meningitidis upon contact with epithelial cells is mediated by CrgA regulatory protein. Mol Microbiol 43, 1555–1564.[CrossRef][Medline]
Delic-Attree, I., Toussaint, B., Garin, J. & Vignais, P. M. (1997). Cloning, sequence and mutagenesis of the structural gene of Pseudomonas aeruginosa CysB, which can activate algD transcription. Mol Microbiol 24, 1275–1284.[CrossRef][Medline]
Dover, N. & Padan, E. (2001). Transcription of nhaA, the main Na+/H+ antiporter of Escherichia coli, is regulated by Na+ and growth phase. J Bacteriol 183, 644–653.
Dubbs, J. M. & Tabita, F. R. (2003). Interactions of the cbbII promoter-operator region with CbbR and RegA (PrrA) regulators indicate distinct mechanisms to control expression of the two cbb operons of Rhodobacter sphaeroides. J Biol Chem 278, 16443–16450.
Dubbs, P., Dubbs, J. M. & Tabita, F. R. (2004). Effector-mediated interaction of CbbRI and CbbRII regulators with target sequences in Rhodobacter capsulatus. J Bacteriol 186, 8026–8035.
Ezezika, O. C., Collier-Hyams, L. S., Dale, H. A., Burk, A. C. & Neidle, E. L. (2006). CatM regulation of the benABCDE operon: functional divergence of two LysR-type paralogs in Acinetobacter baylyi ADP1. Appl Environ Microbiol 72, 1749–1758.
Ezezika, O. C., Haddad, S., Clark, T. J., Neidle, E. L. & Momany, C. (2007). Distinct effector-binding sites enable synergistic transcriptional activation by BenM, a LysR-type regulator. J Mol Biol 367, 616–629.[CrossRef][Medline]
Farr, S. B. & Kogoma, T. (1991). Oxidative stress responses in Escherichia coli and Salmonella typhimurium. Microbiol Rev 55, 561–585.
Gibson, K. E. & Silhavy, T. J. (1999). The LysR homolog LrhA promotes RpoS degradation by modulating activity of the response regulator sprE. J Bacteriol 181, 563–571.
Gibson, J. L. & Tabita, F. R. (1993). Nucleotide sequence and functional analysis of cbbR, a positive regulator of the Calvin cycle operons of Rhodobacter sphaeroides. J Bacteriol 175, 5778–5784.
Goethals, K., Van Montagu, M. & Holsters, M. (1992). Conserved motifs in a divergent nod box of Azorhizobium caulinodans ORS571 reveal a common structure in promoters regulated by LysR-type proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 89, 1646–1650.
Goldberg, M. B., Boyko, S. A. & Calderwood, S. B. (1991). Positive transcriptional regulation of an iron-regulated virulence gene in Vibrio cholerae. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 88, 1125–1129.
Goosen, N. & van de Putte, P. (1995). The regulation of transcription initiation by integration host factor. Mol Microbiol 16, 1–7.[Medline]
Graham, M. R., Virtaneva, K., Porcella, S. F., Gardner, D. J., Long, R. D., Welty, D. M., Barry, W. T., Johnson, C. A., Parkins, L. D. & other authors (2006). Analysis of the transcriptome of group A Streptococcus in mouse soft tissue infection. Am J Pathol 169, 927–942.
Groisman, E. A., Kayser, J. & Soncini, F. C. (1997). Regulation of polymyxin resistance and adaptation to low-Mg2+ environments. J Bacteriol 179, 7040–7045.
Guillouard, I., Auger, S., Hullo, M. F., Chetouani, F., Danchin, A. & Martin-Verstraete, I. (2002). Identification of Bacillus subtilis CysL, a regulator of the cysJI operon, which encodes sulfite reductase. J Bacteriol 184, 4681–4689.
Gunn, J. S. & Miller, S. I. (1996). PhoP-PhoQ activates transcription of pmrAB, encoding a two-component regulatory system involved in Salmonella typhimurium antimicrobial peptide resistance. J Bacteriol 178, 6857–6864.
Habeeb, L. F., Wang, L. & Winans, S. C. (1991). Transcription of the octopine catabolism operon of the Agrobacterium tumor-inducing plasmid pTiA6 is activated by a LysR-type regulatory protein. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 4, 379–385.[Medline]
Henikoff, S., Haughn, G. W., Calvo, J. M. & Wallace, J. C. (1988). A large family of bacterial activator proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 85, 6602–6606.
Hernández-Lucas, I., Gallego-Hernández, A. L., Encarnación, S., Fernández-Mora, M., Martínez-Batallar, A. G., Salgado, H., Oropeza, R. & Calva, E. (2008). The LysR-type transcriptional regulator LeuO controls expression of several genes in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi. J Bacteriol 190, 1658–1670.
Heroven, A. K. & Dersch, P. (2006). RovM, a novel LysR-type regulator of the virulence activator gene rovA, controls cell invasion, virulence and motility of Yersinia pseudotuberculosis. Mol Microbiol 62, 1469–1483.[CrossRef][Medline]
Heroven, A. K., Bohme, K., Tran-Winkler, H. & Dersch, P. (2007). Regulatory elements implicated in the environmental control of invasin expression in enteropathic Yersinia. Adv Exp Med Biol 603, 156–166.[CrossRef][Medline]
Horken, K. M. & Tabita, F. R. (1999). The "green" form I ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase from the nonsulfur purple bacterium Rhodobacter capsulatus. J Bacteriol 181, 3935–3941.
Hryniewicz, M. M. & Kredich, N. M. (1994). Stoichiometry of binding of CysB to the cysJIH, cysK, and cysP promoter regions of Salmonella typhimurium. J Bacteriol 176, 3673–3682.
Huang, J. Z. & Schell, M. A. (1991). In vivo interactions of the NahR transcriptional activator with its target sequences. Inducer-mediated changes resulting in transcription activation. J Biol Chem 266, 10830–10838.
Huffman, J. L. & Brennan, R. G. (2002). Prokaryotic transcription regulators: more than just the helix-turn-helix motif. Curr Opin Struct Biol 12, 98–106.[CrossRef][Medline]
Huo, Y. X., Nan, B. Y., You, C. H., Tian, Z. X., Kolb, A. & Wang, Y. P. (2006). FIS activates glnAp2 in Escherichia coli: role of a DNA bend centered at –55, upstream of the transcription start site. FEMS Microbiol Lett 257, 99–105.[CrossRef][Medline]
Jones, R. M., Britt-Compton, B. & Williams, P. A. (2003). The naphthalene catabolic (nag) genes of Ralstonia sp. strain U2 are an operon that is regulated by NagR, a LysR-type transcriptional regulator. J Bacteriol 185, 5847–5853.
Jørgensen, C. & Dandanell, G. (1999). Isolation and characterization of mutations in the Escherichia coli regulatory protein XapR. J Bacteriol 181, 4397–4403.
Jourlin-Castelli, C., Mani, N., Nakano, M. M. & Sonenshein, A. L. (2000). CcpC, a novel regulator of the LysR family required for glucose repression of the citB gene in Bacillus subtilis. J Mol Biol 295, 865–878.[CrossRef][Medline]
Jovanovic, M., Lilic, M., Savic, J. & Jovanovic, G. (2003). The LysR-type transcriptional regulator CysB controls the repression of hslJ transcription in Escherichia coli. Microbiology 149, 3449–3459.
Keller, P. M., Böttger, E. C. & Sander, P. (2008). Tuberculosis vaccine strain Mycobacterium bovis BCG Russia is a natural recA mutant. BMC Microbiol 8, 120[CrossRef][Medline]
Kim, H. J., Jourlin-Castelli, C., Kim, S. I. & Sonenshein, A. L. (2002). Regulation of the Bacillus subtilis ccpC gene by CcpA and CcpC. Mol Microbiol 43, 399–410.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kim, S. I., Jourlin-Castelli, C., Wellington, S. R. & Sonenshein, A. L. (2003). Mechanism of repression by Bacillus subtilis CcpC, a LysR family regulator. J Mol Biol 334, 609–624.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kim, J., Kim, J. G., Kang, Y., Jang, J. Y., Jog, G. J., Lim, J. Y., Kim, S., Suga, H., Nagamatsu, T. & Hwang, I. (2004). Quorum sensing and the LysR-type transcriptional activator ToxR regulate toxoflavin biosynthesis and transport in Burkholderia glumae. Mol Microbiol 54, 921–934.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kovacikova, G. & Skorupski, K. (1999). A Vibrio cholerae LysR homolog, AphB, cooperates with AphA at the tcpPH promoter to activate expression of the ToxR virulence cascade. J Bacteriol 181, 4250–4256.
Kovaleva, G. Y. & Gelfand, M. S. (2007). Transcriptional regulation of the methionine and cysteine transport and metabolism in streptococci. FEMS Microbiol Lett 276, 207–215.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kullik, I., Toledano, M. B., Tartaglia, L. A. & Storz, G. (1995a). Mutational analysis of the redox-sensitive transcriptional regulator OxyR: regions important for oxidation and transcriptional activation. J Bacteriol 177, 1275–1284.
Kullik, I., Stevens, J., Toledano, M. B. & Storz, G. (1995b). Mutational analysis of the redox-sensitive transcriptional regulator OxyR: regions important for DNA binding and multimerization. J Bacteriol 177, 1285–1291.
Lehnen, D., Blumer, C., Polen, T., Wackwitz, B., Wendisch, V. F. & Unden, G. (2002). LrhA as a new transcriptional key regulator of flagella, motility and chemotaxis genes in Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol 45, 521–532.[CrossRef][Medline]
Leung, A. S., Tran, V., Wu, Z., Yu, X., Alexander, D. C., Gao, G. F., Zhu, B. & Liu, J. (2008). Novel genome polymorphisms in BCG vaccine strains and impact on efficacy. BMC Genomics 9, 413[CrossRef][Medline]
Lindquist, S., Lindberg, F. & Normark, S. (1989). Binding of the Citrobacter freundii AmpR regulator to a single DNA site provides both autoregulation and activation of the inducible ampC β-lactamase gene. J Bacteriol 171, 3746–3753.
Litwin, C. M. & Quackenbush, J. (2001). Characterization of a Vibrio vulnificus LysR homologue, HupR, which regulates expression of the haem uptake outer membrane protein, HupA. Microb Pathog 31, 295–307.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lochowska, A., Iwanicka-Nowicka, R., Plochocka, D. & Hryniewicz, M. M. (2001). Functional dissection of the LysR-type CysB transcriptional regulator. Regions important for DNA binding, inducer response, oligomerization and positive control. J Biol Chem 276, 2098–2107.
Lochowska, A., Iwanicka-Nowicka, R., Zaim, J., Witkowska-Zimny, M. & Hryniewicz, M. M. (2004). Identification of activating region (AR) of Escherichia coli LysR-type transcription factor CysB and CysB contact site on RNA polymerase alpha subunit at the cysP promoter. Mol Microbiol 53, 791–806.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lönneborg, R., Smirnova, I., Dian, C., Leonard, G. A. & Brzezinski, P. (2007). In vivo and in vitro investigation of transcriptional regulation by DntR. J Mol Biol 372, 571–582.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lu, Z., Takeuchi, M. & Sato, T. (2007). The LysR-type transcriptional regulator YofA controls cell division through the regulation of expression of ftsW in Bacillus subtilis. J Bacteriol 189, 5642–5651.
Malakooti, J. & Ely, B. (1994). Identification and characterization of the ilvR gene encoding a LysR-type regulator of Caulobacter crescentus. J Bacteriol 176, 1275–1281.
Martin, R. G. & Rosner, J. L. (1997). Fis, an accessorial factor for transcriptional activation of the mar (multiple antibiotic resistance) promoter of Escherichia coli in the presence of the activator MarA, SoxS, or Rob. J Bacteriol 179, 7410–7419.
McIver, J., Djordjevic, M. A., Weinman, J. J., Bender, G. L. & Rolfe, B. G. (1989). Extension of host range of Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. trifolii caused by point mutations in nodD that result in alterations in regulatory function and recognition of inducer molecules. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 2, 97–106.[Medline]
Muraoka, S., Okumura, R., Ogawa, N., Nonaka, T., Miyashita, K. & Senda, T. (2003a). Crystal structure of a full-length LysR-type transcriptional regulator, CbnR: unusual combination of two subunit forms and molecular bases for causing and changing DNA bend. J Mol Biol 328, 555–566.[CrossRef][Medline]
Muraoka, S., Okumura, R., Uragami, Y., Nonaka, T., Ogawa, N., Miyashita, K. & Senda, T. (2003b). Purification and crystallization of a LysR-type transcriptional regulator CbnR from Ralstonia eutropha NH9. Protein Pept Lett 10, 325–329.[CrossRef][Medline]
Nandineni, M. R. & Gowrishankar, J. (2004). Evidence for an arginine exporter encoded by yggA (argO) that is regulated by the LysR-type transcriptional regulator ArgP in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol 186, 3539–3546.
Neidle, E. L., Hartnett, C. & Ornston, N. (1989). Characterization of Acinetobacter calcoaceticus catM, a repressor gene homologous in sequence to transcriptional activator genes. J Bacteriol 171, 5410–5421.
Ogawa, N., McFall, S. M., Klem, T. J., Miyashita, K. & Chakrabarty, A. M. (1999). Transcriptional activation of the chlorocatechol degradative genes of Ralstonia eutropha NH9. J Bacteriol 181, 6697–6705.
Paoli, G. C., Soyer, F., Shively, J. & Tabita, F. R. (1998). Rhodobacter capsulatus genes encoding form I ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (cbbLS) and neighbouring genes were acquired by a horizontal gene transfer. Microbiology 144, 219–227.
Park, W., Jeon, C. O. & Madsen, E. L. (2002). Interaction of NahR, a LysR-type transcriptional regulator, with the alpha subunit of RNA polymerase in the naphthalene degrading bacterium, Pseudomonas putida NCIB 9816-4. FEMS Microbiol Lett 213, 159–165.[Medline]
Parsek, M. R., McFall, S. M., Shinabarger, D. L. & Chakrabarty, A. M. (1994a). Interaction of two LysR-type regulatory proteins CatR and ClcR with heterologous promoters: functional and evolutionary implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 91, 12393–12397.
Parsek, M. R., Ye, R. W., Pun, P. & Chakrabarty, A. M. (1994b). Critical nucleotides in the interaction of a LysR-type regulator with its target promoter region. catBC promoter activation by CatR. J Biol Chem 269, 11279–11284.
Peng, H. L., Shiou, S. R. & Chang, H. Y. (1999). Characterization of mdcR, a regulatory gene of the malonate catabolic system in Klebsiella pneumoniae. J Bacteriol 181, 2302–2306.
Pérez-Martín, J. & de Lorenzo, V. (1997). Clues and consequences of DNA bending in transcription. Annu Rev Microbiol 51, 593–628.[CrossRef][Medline]
Pérez-Rueda, E. & Collado-Vides, J. (2000). The repertoire of DNA-binding transcriptional regulators in Escherichia coli K-12. Nucleic Acids Res 28, 1838–1847.
Pérez-Rueda, E. & Collado-Vides, J. (2001). Common history at the origin of the position-function correlation in transcriptional regulators in archaea and bacteria. J Mol Evol 53, 172–179.[CrossRef][Medline]
Picossi, S., Belitsky, B. R. & Sonenshein, A. L. (2007). Molecular mechanism of the regulation of Bacillus subtilis gltAB expression by GltC. J Mol Biol 365, 1298–1313.[CrossRef][Medline]
Porrúa, O., García-Jaramillo, M., Santero, E. & Govantes, F. (2007). The LysR-type regulator AtzR binding site: DNA sequences involved in activation, repression and cyanuric acid-dependent repositioning. Mol Microbiol 66, 410–427.[CrossRef][Medline]
Raskin, C., Gérard, C., Donfut, S., Giannotta, E., Van Driessche, G., Van Beeumen, J. & Dusart, J. (2003). BlaB, a protein involved in the regulation of Streptomyces cacaoi β-lactamases, is a penicillin-binding protein. Cell Mol Life Sci 60, 1460–1469.[CrossRef][Medline]
Renault, P., Gaillardin, C. & Heslot, H. (1989). Product of the Lactococcus lactis gene required for malolactic fermentation is homologous to a family of positive regulators. J Bacteriol 171, 3108–3114.
Renna, M. C., Najimudin, N., Winik, L. R. & Zahler, S. A. (1993). Regulation of the Bacillus subtilis alsS, alsD, and alsR genes involved in post-exponential-phase production of acetoin. J Bacteriol 175, 3863–3875.
Rhee, K. Y., Opel, M., Ito, E., Hung, S., Arfin, S. M. & Hatfield, G. W. (1999). Transcriptional coupling between the divergent promoters of a prototypic LysR-type regulatory system, the ilvYC operon of Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96, 14294–14299.
Ritz, N., Hanekom, W. A., Robins-Browne, R., Britton, W. J. & Curtis, N. (2008). Influence of BCG vaccine strain on the immune response and protection against tuberculosis. FEMS Microbiol Rev 32, 821–841.[CrossRef][Medline]
Romero-Arroyo, C. E., Schell, M. A., Gaines, G. L. & Neidle, E. L. (1995). catM encodes a LysR-type transcriptional activator regulating catechol degradation in Acinetobacter calcoaceticus. J Bacteriol 177, 5891–5898.
Russell, D. A., Byrne, G. A., O'Connell, E. P., Boland, C. A. & Meijer, W. G. (2004). The LysR-type transcriptional regulator VirR is required for expression of the virulence gene vapA of Rhodococcus equi ATCC 33701. J Bacteriol 186, 5576–5584.
Schell, M. A. (1993). Molecular biology of the LysR family of transcriptional regulators. Annu Rev Microbiol 47, 597–626.[CrossRef][Medline]
Schell, M. A., Brown, P. H. & Raju, S. (1990). Use of saturation mutagenesis to localize probable functional domains in the NahR protein, a LysR-type transcription activator. J Biol Chem 265, 3844–3850.
Schlaman, H. R., Lugtenberg, B. J. & Okker, R. J. (1992a). The NodD protein does not bind to the promoters of inducible nodulation genes in extracts of bacteroids of Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar viciae. J Bacteriol 174, 6109–6116.
Schlaman, H. R., Okker, R. J. & Lugtenberg, B. J. (1992b). Regulation of nodulation gene expression by NodD in rhizobia. J Bacteriol 174, 5177–5182.
Sheehan, B. J. & Dorman, C. J. (1998). In vivo analysis of the interactions of the LysR-like regulator SpvR with the operator sequences of the spvA and spvR virulence genes of Salmonella typhimurium. Mol Microbiol 30, 91–105.[CrossRef][Medline]
Shelver, D., Rajagopal, L., Harris, T. O. & Rubens, C. E. (2003). MtaR, a regulator of methionine transport, is critical for survival of group B streptococcus in vivo. J Bacteriol 185, 6592–6599.
Smirnova, I. A., Dian, C., Leonard, G. A., McSweeney, S., Birse, D. & Brzezinski, P. (2004). Development of a bacterial biosensor for nitrotoluenes: the crystal structure of the transcriptional regulator DntR. J Mol Biol 340, 405–418.[CrossRef][Medline]
Smith, S. A. & Tabita, F. R. (2002). Up-regulated expression of the cbb(I) and cbb(II) operons during photoheterotrophic growth of a ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase-oxygenase deletion mutant of Rhodobacter sphaeroides. J Bacteriol 184, 6721–6724.
Sperandio, V., Li, C. C. & Kaper, J. B. (2002). Quorum-sensing Escherichia coli regulator A: a regulator of the LysR family involved in the regulation of the locus of enterocyte effacement pathogenicity island in enterohemorrhagic E. coli. Infect Immun 70, 3085–3093.
Sperandio, B., Gautier, C., McGovern, S., Ehrlich, D. S., Renault, P., Martin-Verstraete, I. & Guédon, E. (2007). Control of methionine synthesis and uptake by MetR and homocysteine in Streptococcus mutans. J Bacteriol 189, 7032–7044.
Spreadbury, C. L., Pallen, M. J., Overton, T., Behr, M. A., Mostowy, S., Spiro, S., Busby, S. J. & Cole, J. A. (2005). Point mutations in the DNA- and cNMP-binding domains of the homologue of the cAMP receptor protein (CRP) in Mycobacterium bovis BCG: implications for the inactivation of a global regulator and strain attenuation. Microbiology 151, 547–556.
Stec, E., Witkowska-Zimny, M., Hryniewicz, M. M., Neumann, P., Wilkinson, A. J., Brzozowski, A. M., Verma, C. S., Zaim, J., Wysocki, S. & Bujacz, G. D. (2006). Structural basis of the sulphate starvation response in E. coli: crystal structure and mutational analysis of the cofactor-binding domain of the Cbl transcriptional regulator. J Mol Biol 364, 309–322.[CrossRef][Medline]
Storz, G., Tartaglia, L. A. & Ames, B. N. (1990). The OxyR regulon. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 58, 157–161.[CrossRef][Medline]
Stragier, P. & Patte, J. C. (1983). Regulation of diaminopimelate decarboxylase synthesis in Escherichia coli. III. Nucleotide sequence and regulation of the lysR gene. J Mol Biol 168, 333–350.[CrossRef][Medline]
Stragier, P., Richaud, F., Borne, F. & Patte, J. C. (1983). Regulation of diaminopimelate decarboxylase synthesis in Escherichia coli. I. Identification of a lysR gene encoding an activator of the lysA gene. J Mol Biol 168, 307–320.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sun, J. & Klein, A. (2004). A LysR-type regulator is involved in the negative regulation of genes encoding selenium-free hydrogenases in the archaeon Methanococcus voltae. Mol Microbiol 52, 563–571.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sung, Y. C. & Fuchs, J. A. (1992). The Escherichia coli K-12 cyn operon is positively regulated by a member of the lysR family. J Bacteriol 174, 3645–3650.
Suzuki, K., Uchiyama, T., Suzuki, M., Nikaidou, N., Regue, M. & Watanabe, T. (2001). LysR-type transcriptional regulator ChiR is essential for production of all chitinases and a chitin-binding protein, CBP21, in Serratia marcescens 2170. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 65, 338–347.[CrossRef][Medline]
Toleman, M. A., Simm, A. M., Murphy, T. A., Gales, A. C., Biedenbach, D. J., Jones, R. N. & Walsh, T. R. (2002). Molecular characterization of SPM-1, a novel metallo-β-lactamase isolated in Latin America: report from the SENTRY antimicrobial surveillance programme. J Antimicrob Chemother 50, 673–679.
Tropel, D. & van der Meer, J. R. (2004). Bacterial transcriptional regulators for degradation of aromatic compounds. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 68, 474–500.
van der Meer, J. R., Frijters, A. C., Leveau, J. H., Eggen, R. I., Zehnder, A. J. & de Vos, W. M. (1991). Characterization of the Pseudomonas sp. strain P51 gene tcbR, a LysR-type transcriptional activator of the tcbCDEF chlorocatechol oxidative operon, and analysis of the regulatory region. J Bacteriol 173, 3700–3708.
van der Ploeg, J. R., Iwanicka-Nowicka, R., Kertesz, M. A., Leisinger, T. & Hryniewicz, M. M. (1997). Involvement of CysB and Cbl regulatory proteins in expression of the tauABCD operon and other sulfate starvation-inducible genes in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol 179, 7671–7678.
van Keulen, G., Girbal, L., van den Bergh, E. R., Dijkhuizen, L. & Meijer, W. G. (1998). The LysR-type transcriptional regulator CbbR controlling autotrophic CO2 fixation by Xanthobacter flavus is an NADPH sensor. J Bacteriol 180, 1411–1417.
van Keulen, G., Ridder, A. N., Dijkhuizen, L. & Meijer, W. G. (2003). Analysis of DNA binding and transcriptional activation by the LysR-type transcriptional regulator CbbR of Xanthobacter flavus. J Bacteriol 185, 1245–1252.
Verschueren, K. H., Addy, C., Dodson, E. J. & Wilkinson, A. J. (2001). Crystallization of full-length CysB of Klebsiella aerogenes, a LysR-type transcriptional regulator. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 57, 260–262.[CrossRef][Medline]
Viale, A. M., Kobayashi, H., Akazawa, T. & Henikoff, S. (1991). rbcR, a gene coding for a member of the LysR family of transcriptional regulators, is located upstream of the expressed set of ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase genes in the photosynthetic bacterium Chromatium vinosum. J Bacteriol 173, 5224–5229.
Virtaneva, K., Porcella, S. F., Graham, M. R., Ireland, R. M., Johnson, C. A., Ricklefs, S. M., Babar, I., Parkins, L. D., Romero, R. A. & other authors (2005). Longitudinal analysis of the group A Streptococcus transcriptome in experimental pharyngitis in cynomolgus macaques. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102, 9014–9019.
Viswanathan, P., Ueki, T., Inouye, S. & Kroos, L. (2007). Combinatorial regulation of genes essential for Myxococcus xanthus development involves a response regulator and a LysR-type regulator. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104, 7969–7974.
von Lintig, J., Kreusch, D. & Schröder, J. (1994). Opine-regulated promoters and LysR-type regulators in the nopaline (noc) and octopine (occ) catabolic regions of Ti plasmids of Agrobacterium tumefaciens. J Bacteriol 176, 495–503.
Wek, R. C. & Hatfield, G. W. (1988). Transcriptional activation at adjacent operators in the divergent-overlapping ilvY and ilvC promoters of Escherichia coli. J Mol Biol 203, 643–663.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wilkinson, S. P. & Grove, A. (2006). Ligand-responsive transcriptional regulation by members of the MarR family of winged helix proteins. Curr Issues Mol Biol 8, 51–62.[Medline]
Wilson, R. L., Urbanowski, M. L. & Stauffer, G. V. (1995). DNA binding sites of the LysR-type regulator GcvA in the gcv and gcvA control regions of Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol 177, 4940–4946.
Windhövel, U. & Bowien, B. (1991). Identification of cfxR, an activator gene of autotrophic CO2 fixation in Alcaligenes eutrophus. Mol Microbiol 5, 2695–2705.[CrossRef][Medline]
Yang, S. J., Rice, K. C., Brown, R. J., Patton, T. G., Liou, L. E., Park, Y. H. & Bayles, K. W. (2005). A LysR-type regulator, CidR, is required for induction of the Staphylococcus aureus cidABC operon. J Bacteriol 187, 5893–5900.
Zaim, J. & Kierzek, A. M. (2003). The structure of full-length LysR-type transcriptional regulators. Modeling of the full-length OxyR transcription factor dimer. Nucleic Acids Res 31, 1444–1454.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  T. Shimada, K. Yamamoto, and A. Ishihama Involvement of the Leucine Response Transcription Factor LeuO in Regulation of the Genes for Sulfa Drug Efflux J. Bacteriol., July 15, 2009; 191(14): 4562 - 4571. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Gurich and J. E. Gonzalez Role of Quorum Sensing in Sinorhizobium meliloti-Alfalfa Symbiosis J. Bacteriol., July 1, 2009; 191(13): 4372 - 4382. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Arafah, M.-L. Rosso, L. Rehaume, R. E. W. Hancock, M. Simonet, and M. Marceau An iron-regulated LysR-type element mediates antimicrobial peptide resistance and virulence in Yersinia pseudotuberculosis Microbiology, July 1, 2009; 155(7): 2168 - 2181. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| INT J SYST EVOL MICROBIOL | MICROBIOLOGY | J GEN VIROL |
| J MED MICROBIOL | ALL SGM JOURNALS | |
