![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||
Copyright © 2006, European Molecular Biology Organization Scientific Report Homeostatic regulation of supercoiling sensitivity coordinates transcription of the bacterial genome 1International University Bremen, Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany 2MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 2QH, UK aTel: +49 421 200 3143; Fax: +49 421 200 3249; E-mail: g.muskhelishvili/at/iu-bremen.de *These authors contributed equally to this work Received November 16, 2005; Revised April 10, 2006; Accepted May 9, 2006. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract Regulation of cellular growth implies spatiotemporally coordinated programmes of gene transcription. A central question, therefore, is how global transcription is coordinated in the genome. The growth of the unicellular organism Escherichia coli is associated with changes in both the global superhelicity modulated by cellular topoisomerase activity and the relative proportions of the abundant DNA-architectural chromatin proteins. Using a DNA-microarray-based approach that combines mutations in the genes of two important chromatin proteins with induced changes of DNA superhelicity, we demonstrate that genomic transcription is tightly associated with the spatial distribution of supercoiling sensitivity, which in turn depends on chromatin proteins. We further demonstrate that essential metabolic pathways involved in the maintenance of growth respond distinctly to changes of superhelicity. We infer that a homeostatic mechanism organizing the supercoiling sensitivity is coordinating the growth-phase-dependent transcription of the genome. Keywords: FIS, H-NS, supercoiling, transcription regulation, metabolism Introduction Understanding the mechanisms of concerted rearrangements of gene activities during growth and development is a fundamental problem. How is genomic expression organized in a cell and is there a common coordinating mechanism? Almost five decades ago, John von Neumann proposed that the flow of genetic information is coordinated by a specific relationship between the ‘digital' (discontinuous) properties of unique genes and ‘analog' (continuous) properties of the gene products (von Neumann, 1958). Such a relationship evidently develops during pattern formation in Drosophila embryogenesis, in which the essentially ‘analog' information provided by concentration gradients of transcription factors is converted into ‘digital' patterns of transcripts by means of differential protein interactions occurring on spatially separated transcriptional enhancers (Sauer et al, 1996). Most clearly, this fundamental principle can be demonstrated in Escherichia coli, a classical model organism that shows strict correlations between the global gene expression patterns and different growth states (Tao et al, 1999; Wei et al, 2001; Weber et al, 2005) and also enables the modulation of genomic transcription by alterations of global DNA superhelicity (Jeong et al, 2004; Peter et al, 2004; Willenbrock & Ussery, 2004; Travers & Muskhelishvili, 2005a). Such alterations are associated with both growth transitions and stress responses to environmental challenge, supporting the idea that DNA supercoiling itself might act as a principal coordinator of global gene expression (Balke & Gralla, 1987; Dorman, 1996; Tse-Dinh et al, 1997; Cheung et al, 2003; Travers & Muskhelishvili, 2005b). Nevertheless, as less than 8% of specific genes are found to respond to supercoiling in E. coli (Peter et al, 2004), the role of superhelicity in organizing the global growth-phase-dependent transcription remains obscure. Previous studies proposed that binding of abundant chromatin proteins could selectively direct the supercoiling energy to gene promoters (Travers & Muskhelishvili, 1998; Hatfield & Benham, 2002; Muskhelishvili & Travers, 2003). In this study, we investigated the transcriptional effects of two such proteins, factor for inversion stimulation (FIS) and histone-like nucleoid structuring protein (H-NS), which act as global pleiotropic regulators in E. coli. H-NS can activate transcription but is predominantly a universal repressor for the bacterial genome, whereas FIS modulates the transcription of many genes implicated in regulation of metabolism and growth (Gonzalez-Gil et al, 1996; Dorman, 2004; Kelly et al, 2004; Rimsky, 2004). Previously, it was shown that the loss of H-NS and FIS affects the superhelical density of plasmid DNA (Owen-Hughes et al, 1992; Schneider et al, 1997). By combining the effects of mutations in the fis and hns genes with experimentally induced changes of global superhelicity, we demonstrate here that the organization of global transcription is tightly coupled to distribution of supercoiling sensitivity in the genome. Results And Discussion FIS and H-NS are present in several tens of thousands of copies per cell and can both activate and repress many genes by direct binding (Dorman & Deighan, 2003). However, FIS forms a concentration gradient decreasing by two orders of magnitude on transition to the stationary phase, whereas the concentration of H-NS remains relatively constant (Ball et al, 1992; Azam & Ishihama, 1999). As both these regulators modulate supercoiling, we expected to observe both direct and indirect effects on global transcription during growth. We used a novel DNA microarray-based strategy to link the growth-phase-dependent transcription of genes with supercoiling sensitivity. In one set of experiments, we compared the growth-phase-dependent transcript profiles of the wild type with both the fis and hns mutants to distinguish between the genes expressed in the presence or absence of each regulator (Fig 1A
Supercoiling sensitivity of global transcription The results of mapping are presented on genomic wheels in Fig 1B,C Variations of supercoiling-associated transcripts Distributions of supercoiling-associated transcripts in the wild-type, fis and hns cells varied with growth. The exponentially growing fis mutant showed an increase of both the Hyp and Rel transcripts compared with those in wild type, whereas in the hns mutant the relative proportion of Hyp transcripts increased, in keeping with in the observed increase of global negative superhelicity (Fig 1D Supercoiling sensitivity is coupled to metabolic function Interestingly, the analysis of distribution of Hyp and Rel genes among the functional groups involved in essential cellular metabolism demonstrated a higher proportion of Hyp genes in the anabolic than in the catabolic pathways, which was especially remarkable in the wild-type cells (Table 1). Analysis of a pathway of exceptional importance for vitality—the citric acid cycle—demonstrated that the crucial steps producing combustible fuel in the form of reducing equivalents NADH and FADH2, which are required for generation of ATP by oxidative phosphorylation, are associated with DNA relaxation. In contrast, when we examined the glyoxalate bypass, topping up the cycle and increasing the net synthesis of carbohydrate, we found this pathway to be associated with high negative superhelicity (Fig 2A
Our mapped transcript profiles describe the distributions of supercoiling sensitivity during growth, rather than the strength of transcriptional response to superhelicity and are consistent with the proposed role of FIS and H-NS in forming topological barriers on the chromosome (Hardy & Cozzarelli, 2005; Dame, 2005). However, Hardy & Cozzarelli failed to detect any alterations of plasmid supercoiling in fis and hns mutants, most probably because they did not analyse the entire growth cycle, which is necessary to show the dynamic changes of superhelicity (supplementary Fig 2B,C online; Schneider et al, 1997). Despite substantial differences in the experimental design and assay conditions, we identified the supercoiling sensitivity of previously described genes (Peter et al, 2004). Also, the functional gene groups discovered in this study are consistent with those reported for a fis mutant of Salmonella typhimurium and hns mutant of E. coli (Hommais et al, 2001; Kelly et al, 2004). We thus infer that the coordination of growth-phase-dependent transcription involves a homeostatic mechanism that organizes the supercoiling sensitivity in the genome. As proposed in our previous work (Schneider et al, 1999, 2000), this feedback implicates chromatin proteins that constrain DNA supercoils and act as ‘optimizers' of cellular metabolism. Whereas the metabolic status determines the overall supercoiling level (van Workum et al, 1996), we show here that the genomic distributions of superhelicity can specify the patterns of transcripts during growth. Global regulation thus seems to be a genuine device converting the ‘analog' information of torsional energy distributions into ‘digital' patterns of responding genes. Our observations provide a holistic conceptual framework for analysis of global transcription and reinforce the notion of John von Neumann of coordination of information flow in the genetic system. We note that DNA supercoiling is implicated in the regulation of eukaryotic transcription (Mizutani et al, 1991; Dunaway & Ostrander, 1993; Caserta & Di Mauro, 1996; Kouzine et al, 2004). Thus, studies of regulated alterations of DNA superhelicity might be essential for understanding the coordinated gene functions in eukaryotes as well. Methods DNA microarray analysis. The E. coli K12 strains used in this study for RNA isolation are described elsewhere (Zechiedrich et al, 1997). The fis and hns mutants of LZ54 and LZ41 strains were obtained by P1 phage transduction. The transcript profiling for the LZ strains was carried out after brief (5 min) treatment of cells growing exponentially in 2 × YT medium at 30°C with moderate concentrations of norfloxacin (20 μg/ml). All other strains were grown in 2 × YT medium at 37°C. DNA microarray experiments were performed according to OciChipTM-Application Guide (http://www.ocimumbio.com) as two biological replicates with two technical replicates each (except for the transition state of CSH50fis and the stationary phase of CSH50hns strains; supplementary information online). Scanned array images were quantified and normalized using the TM4 software package. A one-class t-test was applied to replicated experiments to obtain genes with significant P-values (P<0.05). Further details are provided in the supplementary information online. Real-time PCR. QuantiTect® SYBR® Green one-step Real-Time PCR reactions (Qiagen GmbH, Hilden, Germany) were performed in triplicate, following the manual of the manufacturer and using an Mx3000P™ Real-Time cycler (Stratagene®, La Jolla, CA, USA). Supplementary information is available at EMBO reports online (http://www.emboreports.org). supplementary Information Click here to view.(545K, pdf) Acknowledgments We thank L. Steil, U. Völker and S. Wegener for help with preliminary experiments, F.-O. Glöckner and C. Würdemann for providing facilities for microarray analyses, M. Keiser for useful comments and C. Burau for excellent technical assistance. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through grant DFG-MU-2FIS to G.M. Array Express accession number: I-TABM-86. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1996 Apr 29; 351(1339):579-87.
[Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1996]J Bacteriol. 1999 Oct; 181(20):6425-40.
[J Bacteriol. 1999]J Bacteriol. 2001 Jan; 183(2):545-56.
[J Bacteriol. 2001]J Bacteriol. 2005 Mar; 187(5):1591-603.
[J Bacteriol. 2005]Genome Biol. 2004; 5(11):R86.
[Genome Biol. 2004]J Mol Biol. 1998 Jun 26; 279(5):1027-43.
[J Mol Biol. 1998]Annu Rev Genet. 2002; 36():175-203.
[Annu Rev Genet. 2002]Mol Microbiol. 1996 Oct; 22(1):21-9.
[Mol Microbiol. 1996]Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004 May; 2(5):391-400.
[Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004]Microbiology. 2004 Jul; 150(Pt 7):2037-53.
[Microbiology. 2004]J Bacteriol. 1992 Dec; 174(24):8043-56.
[J Bacteriol. 1992]J Biol Chem. 1999 Nov 12; 274(46):33105-13.
[J Biol Chem. 1999]Genes Dev. 1997 Oct 1; 11(19):2580-92.
[Genes Dev. 1997]Genes Dev. 2004 Jul 15; 18(14):1766-79.
[Genes Dev. 2004]Mol Microbiol. 2005 May; 56(4):1049-61.
[Mol Microbiol. 2005]Genome Biol. 2004; 5(11):R86.
[Genome Biol. 2004]Nat Rev Microbiol. 2005 Feb; 3(2):157-69.
[Nat Rev Microbiol. 2005]J Mol Biol. 1996 Feb 16; 256(1):66-76.
[J Mol Biol. 1996]J Bacteriol. 1992 Dec; 174(24):8043-56.
[J Bacteriol. 1992]Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004 May; 2(5):391-400.
[Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004]EMBO J. 1998 Apr 15; 17(8):2359-67.
[EMBO J. 1998]Nat Rev Microbiol. 2005 Feb; 3(2):157-69.
[Nat Rev Microbiol. 2005]Mol Microbiol. 2005 Sep; 57(6):1636-52.
[Mol Microbiol. 2005]Mol Microbiol. 2005 Sep; 57(6):1636-52.
[Mol Microbiol. 2005]Mol Microbiol. 2005 May; 56(4):858-70.
[Mol Microbiol. 2005]Mol Microbiol. 1997 Nov; 26(3):519-30.
[Mol Microbiol. 1997]Genome Biol. 2004; 5(11):R87.
[Genome Biol. 2004]Mol Microbiol. 2001 Apr; 40(1):20-36.
[Mol Microbiol. 2001]Mol Microbiol. 1999 Dec; 34(5):953-64.
[Mol Microbiol. 1999]Mol Microbiol. 2000 Oct; 38(1):167-75.
[Mol Microbiol. 2000]Mol Microbiol. 1996 Apr; 20(2):351-60.
[Mol Microbiol. 1996]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991 Feb 1; 88(3):718-22.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991]Nature. 1993 Feb 25; 361(6414):746-8.
[Nature. 1993]Genes Dev. 1997 Oct 1; 11(19):2580-92.
[Genes Dev. 1997]