![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||
Copyright © 2002, American Society for Microbiology Inversions over the Terminus Region in Salmonella and Escherichia coli: IS200s as the Sites of Homologous Recombination Inverting the Chromosome of Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhi Departments of Biological Sciences,1 Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada2 *Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr. N.W., Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada. Phone: (403) 220-6792. Fax: (403) 289-9311. E-mail: kesander/at/ucalgary.ca. Received April 25, 2002; Accepted August 19, 2002. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract Genomic rearrangements (duplications and inversions) in enteric bacteria such as Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium LT2 and Escherichia coli K12 are frequent (10−3 to 10−5) in culture, but in wild-type strains these genomic rearrangements seldom survive. However, inversions commonly survive in the terminus of replication (TER) region, where bidirectional DNA replication terminates; nucleotide sequences from S. enterica serovar Typhimurium LT2, S. enterica serovar Typhi CT18, E. coli K12, and E. coli O157:H7 revealed genomic inversions spanning the TER region. Assuming that S. enterica serovar Typhimurium LT2 represents the ancestral genome structure, we found an inversion of 556 kb in serovar Typhi CT18 between two of the 25 IS200 elements and an inversion of about 700 kb in E. coli K12 and E. coli O157:H7. In addition, there is another inversion of 500 kb in E. coli O157:H7 compared with E. coli K12. PCR analysis confirmed that all S. enterica serovar Typhi strains tested, but not strains of other Salmonella serovars, have an inversion at the exact site of the IS200 insertions. We conclude that inversions of the TER region survive because they do not significantly change replication balance or because they are part of the compensating mechanisms to regain chromosome balance after it is disrupted by insertions, deletions, or other inversions. The order of orthologous genes on the chromosomes of enteric bacteria such as Escherichia coli K12 and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium LT2 was shown by classical genetic exchange methods to be strongly conserved (24, 37), and this has now been confirmed by nucleotide sequence data (6, 30). This conservation was retained even after the genera diverged over 100 million years ago (32) and in spite of base pair divergence of orthologues, which averages about 15%. In addition, lateral genetic transfer has inserted nonorthologous genes that comprise about 30% of the total genetic structure, resulting in mosaic chromosomes. This conservation is surprising, because during growth in culture, chromosome rearrangements such as duplications occur at high frequencies (10−3 to 10−5) (3, 19) and some inversions and translocations, especially those with end points in the rrn operons, are common (36). These rearrangement types must have been selected against in evolution, because they are rarely detected in wild-type strains from nature. In contrast to this conservation within the enteric bacteria, gene order in most bacteria is not conserved during evolution (10, 21, 31), though species of Chlamydia also show striking conservation (35). However, even in the enteric bacteria, two types of genomic rearrangements are often observed. Firstly, inversions and translocations due to homologous recombination between the seven rrn operons are common in species such as Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi; among 127 wild-type strains there were 21 different genome types, based on differences in order of the fragments between the rrn operons (28). Rearrangements were also found in some other serovars, such as S. enterica serovar Pullorum and S. enterica serovar Gallinarum, which are “host specialized,” but most species, especially those that are “host generalists,” do not show these types of rearrangements (29). Secondly, some wild-type strains show inversions which cover the terminus of replication (TER) region; this was first detected by genetic analysis as an inversion between E. coli K12 and S. enterica serovar Typhimurium LT2 (11, 38). This inversion was confirmed using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE); the same technique detected inversions in the TER region involving S. enterica serovar Typhimurium, S. enterica serovar Enteritidis, and S. enterica serovar Typhi (27). In the past few years, the complete nucleotide sequences have been published for E. coli K12 (6), E. coli O157:H7 (E. coli O157:H7 strain EDL933 and E. coli O157:H7 strain Sakai-VT2) (17, 34), S. enterica serovar Typhimurium LT2 (30), and S. enterica serovar Typhi CT18 (33). Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis showed that serovar Typhi Ty2 differs from S. enterica serovar Typhimurium LT2 by an inversion over the TER region (27). We have made sequence comparisons which show that the same inversion in serovar Typhi strain CT18 is due to homologous recombination between two of the 25 IS200 elements in serovar Typhi CT18. PCR analysis of representative strains revealed that all S. enterica serovar Typhi strains tested, but no other Salmonella strains, have an inversion at that point. MATERIALS AND METHODS Bacterial strains and cultivation conditions. The strains, which are maintained in 15% glycerol at −70°C in the collection of the Salmonella Genetic Stock Center (www.ucalgary.ca/~kesander), are shown together with their sources in Table 1. Single colony isolates were used in all experiments. All strains were grown at 37°C in Luria-Bertani medium; 1.5% agar was added for solid media.
Enzymes and chemicals. Taq polymerase and deoxynucleoside triphosphates were obtained from Pharmacia Biotech. All other chemicals, including LB media and agarose, were obtained from Gibco BRL. Primers. The following primers were designed from S. enterica serovar Typhimurium LT2 sequences and synthesized by the University Core DNA Services (Health Science Centre, University of Calgary): F1 (5′ TTCTGTCTGCGGAGATGATG 3′), R1 (5′ GCC TTGTAGAAG AGCAAATAAAGC 3′), F2 (5′ CGGGCAATGAATCTGTTCTT 3′), and R2 (5′ GGTCAGGTGACCGAGCTG 3′) (see Fig. Fig.2D).2D
PCR amplification and agarose gel electrophoresis. DNA templates were prepared by boiling a small amount of cells (obtained on the tip of a toothpick from a single colony) in 250 μl of double-distilled H2O for 5 min and then rapidly cooling on ice. A total of 2 μl of the template was used for each reaction. PCR was carried out with a Techne Gene E thermal cycler according to the instructions accompanying the Taq polymerase, with 30 cycles of 1 min of denaturation (94°C), 1 min of annealing (57°C), and 1 min of extension (72°C), followed by a final extension at 72°C for 10 min. The PCR products were electrophoresed on a 1% agarose gel in 0.5× TBE buffer (1× TBE buffer contains 90 mM Tris, 90 mM boric acid, and 2 mM EDTA [pH 8.0]) with 0.5 μg of ethidium bromide per ml. Computer methods. The alignments were tested using the Gap program from GCG, ClustalX, BLAST programs (1), and the MUMmer program from TIGR (www.tigr.org/). RESULTS Examination of the genes and proteins of S. enterica serovar Typhimurium LT2 and of S. enterica serovar Typhi CT18 revealed that a segment which includes all the genes between STY1280 tnpA (at kb 1235) and STY1895 tnpA (at kb 1791) (a 556-kb segment) (Fig. (Fig.1D;1D
The chromosome segments from putA to hisC, which constitute about 20% of the chromosome and include the TER region, are shown in Fig. Fig.2;2 We used PCR to determine whether this inversion is present in other Salmonella strains. Primer pair F1 and R1 and primer pair F2 and R2, designed from the S. enterica serovar Typhimurium LT2 sequence (shown by short arrows in Fig. Fig.2D),2D
We tested the 16 strains of Salmonella reference set C (SARC) which represent the seven subspecies of S. enterica (subsp. I, II, IIIa, IIIb, IV, VI, and VII) and S. bongori (previously subsp. V). All strains yielded PCR products of about 500 bp with primers F2 and R2, indicating that they are not inverted in the chaA-kdsA region. SARC1 (S. enterica serovar Typhimurium) and SARC2 (S. enterica serovar Typhi), both members of subsp. I, gave PCR products with primers F1 and R1 and with primers F1 and F2, respectively, as expected, but all the other strains in the SARC set failed to give amplification with these primers. This suggests that there may be an insertion of DNA between these primer sites or deletion of one of the primer sites; an inversion at this site is also possible but not proven. The nucleotide sequence of E. coli K12 has an inversion relative to S. enterica serovar Typhimurium which begins to the right of icdA (b1136) (Fig. (Fig.2).2 We feel that our decision to treat S. enterica serovar Typhimurium as the uninverted state and serovar Typhi CT18 as the inverted state is justified because S. enterica serovar Typhi CT18 evolved more recently and because the inverted segment in serovar Typhi CT18 has repeated IS200s at its junctions. However, treating serovar Typhimurium LT2 as the uninverted state and the strains of E. coli as the inverted state is more arbitrary; we justify it by the fact that with this assumption, all the strains analyzed in Fig. Fig.22 DISCUSSION Some types of inversions, such as the site-specific mechanisms for flagellar phase variation in Salmonella (hin), are common in bacteria, but they invert small segments of DNA for on-off switches (23). Inversions and genome downsizing in Mycobacterium leprae result from recombination between dispersed units of repetitive elements which resemble insertion sequences (12). However, the most common large inversions in bacteria are quasisymmetrical over oriC or TER, like the inversions in Fig. Fig.2.2 Extensive analysis in E. coli K12, selecting for inversions between homologous regions (such as Tn10s) inserted into the chromosome, has shown that many inversions in regions flanking TER are deleterious or not detected; these are called nondivisible zones (15). The region close to TER, including pyrC (b1062) to pyrF (b1281) (see Fig. Fig.2C),2C However, at most sites the frequency of inversions in independent wild-type strains of Salmonella and E. coli is very low. Three reasons for failure to detect inversions are chromosome balance, gene dosage, and transcription orientation. (i) Chromosome balance. Replication of the chromosome begins at oriC and proceeds bidirectionally to TER, on the opposite side of the circular chromosome; thus, there are two replichores, replicating CW or CCW. Theoretically, oriC and TER should be exactly opposite, which leads to chromosome balance with replication in both directions reaching TER at about the same time; inversions could disrupt this balance (2, 18, 19). (ii) Gene dosage. Inversions with both endpoints within a single replichore do not alter chromosome balance but change gene dosage, because genes which are closer to oriC are present in more cellular copies during replication than those further away and hence have increased expression. Gene expression level may be adaptive, and changes may be selected against (28, 40). (iii) Transcription orientation. Genes such as those for rRNA are normally transcribed at a high level in the same direction as that in which they are replicated, which reduces collision of RNA polymerase and DNA polymerase (9). Inversions within the same replichore would be selected against in evolution, because the inversion would switch the direction of transcription with respect to replication. These models may explain the failure to detect many classes of inversions in wild-type strains, just as many classes of inversions are forbidden in experimental selections from strain LT2 (41). All the inversions described in this study (Fig. (Fig.2)2 A study of the relative positions of unique orthologous pairs of genes, in comparisons of pairs of closely related bacterial genomes from the genus Chlamydia as well as those from Mycobacterium or from Helicobacter, reveals that although most pairs of orthologous genes plotted starting from oriC are on a diagonal line with a slope of about 1 (indicating conservation of gene location), a segment comprising a surprising number of pairs of orthologous genes is on a perpendicular diagonal line with a slope of −1 that intersects the first line near the site of TER (42), indicating an inversion over TER. A similar observation was made by Eisen et al. (14) and can be tested with the MUMmer program (http://www.tigr.org/tigr-scripts/CMR2/webmum/mumplot). The interpretation of Tillier and Collins (42) is that in these genera, rearrangements in gene order occur due to recombination between sites determined by the positions of replication forks, which results in translocation of blocks of genes across the replication axis. However, our observations for Salmonella and E. coli do not reveal the same features: we saw only single reciprocal exchanges between replichores which result in inversions, whereas they observed double exchanges which translocate blocks of genes between replichores; all the exchanges we saw were close to TER, whereas they saw translocated genes over the whole replichore; and in our study of serovar Typhi CT18, the inversion was via homologous recombination between IS200 elements, while in their studies, homologous recombination had no role. The chromosome of S. enterica serovar Typhimurium LT2 has only 6 IS200 elements (25, 30, 39), but S. enterica serovar Typhi CT18 has 25 (33); only 1 of these is in the same site in both serovar Typhimurium LT2 and serovar Typhi CT18, indicating that serovar Typhi CT18 diverged from a different source than strain LT2. The transposase of IS200, tnpA, is transcribed at extremely low rates, and in addition, a hairpin which could act as a transcription terminator, located near the left-hand end of the element, might prevent transcription from external promoters (5). However, it is surprising that in these tnpA genes with low transcription rate, there is a strong tendency for transcription to be oriented in the same direction as replication in both serovar Typhimurium LT2 and serovar Typhi CT18 (Fig. (Fig.1).1 Acknowledgments This work was supported by an operating grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and a grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the NIH (AI34829) to K.E.S. and by an operating grant from NSERC to S.-L.L. REFERENCES 1. Altschul, S. F., T. L. Madden, A. A. Schaffer, J. Zhang, Z. Zhang, W. Miller, and D. J. Lipman. 1997. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 25:3389-3402. [PubMed] 2. Anderson, P., and J. Roth. 1981. Spontaneous tandem genetic duplications in Salmonella typhimurium arise by unequal recombination between rRNA (rrn) cistrons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78:3113-3117. [PubMed] 3. Anderson, R. P., and J. R. Roth. 1978. Tandem chromosomal duplications in Salmonella typhimurium: fusion of histidine genes to novel promoters. J. Mol. Biol. 119:147-166. [PubMed] 4. Beltran, P., S. A. Plock, N. H. Smith, T. S. Whittam, D. C. Old, and R. K. Selander. 1991. Reference collection of strains of the Salmonella typhimurium complex from natural populations. J. Gen. Microbiol. 137:601-606. [PubMed] 5. Beuzon, C. R., and J. Casadesus. 1997. Conserved structure of IS200 elements in Salmonella. Nucleic Acids Res. 25:1355-1361. [PubMed] 6. Blattner, F. R., G. Plunkett III, C. A. Bloch, N. T. Perna, V. Burland, M. Riley, J. Collado-Vides, J. D. Glasner, C. K. Rode, G. F. Mayhew, J. Gregor, N. W. Davis, H. A. Kirkpatrick, M. A. Goeden, D. J. Rose, B. Mau, and Y. Shao. 1997. The complete genome sequence of Escherichia coli K-12. Science 277:1453-1474. [PubMed] 7. Boyd, E. F., F.-S. Wang, P. Beltran, S. A. Plock, K. Nelson, and R. K. Selander. 1993. Salmonella reference collection B (SARB): strains of 37 serovars of subspecies I. J. Gen. Microbiol. 139:1125-1132. 8. Boyd, E. F., F. S. Wang, T. S. Whittam, and R. K. Selander. 1996. Molecular genetic relationships of the salmonellae. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 62:804-808. [PubMed] 9. Brewer, B. J. 1988. When polymerases collide: replication and the transcriptional organization of the E. coli chromosome. Cell 53:679-686. [PubMed] 10. Casjens, S. 1998. The diverse and dynamic structure of bacterial genomes. Annu. Rev. Genet. 32:339-377. [PubMed] 11. Casse, F., M. C. Pascal, and M. Chippaux. 1973. Comparison between the chromosomal maps of Escherichia coli and Salmonella typhimurium. Length of inverted segment in the trp region. Mol. Gen. Genet. 124:253-257. [PubMed] 12. Cole, S. T., P. Supply, and N. Honore. 2001. Repetitive sequences in Mycobacterium leprae and their impact on genome plasticity. Lepr. Rev. 72:449-461. [PubMed] 13. Daveran-Mingot, M. L., N. Campo, P. Ritzenthaler, and P. Le Bourgeois. 1998. A natural large chromosomal inversion in Lactococcus lactis is mediated by homologous recombination between two insertion sequences. J. Bacteriol. 180:4834-4842. [PubMed] 14. Eisen, J. A., J. F. Heidelberg, O. White, and S. L. Salzberg. 2000. Evidence for symmetric chromosomal inversions around the replication origin in bacteria. Genome Biol. 1:RESEARCH0011.1-RESEARCH0011.9. [Online.] http://www.genomebiology.com/2000/1/6/research/0011. [PubMed] 15. Francois, V., J. Louarn, J. Patte, J. E. Rebollo, and J. M. Louarn. 1990. Constraints in chromosomal inversions in Escherichia coli are not explained by replication pausing at inverted terminator-like sequences. Mol. Microbiol. 4:537-542. [PubMed] 16. Guijo, M. I., J. Patte, M. del Mar Campos, J. M. Louarn, and J. E. Rebollo. 2001. Localized remodeling of the Escherichia coli chromosome: the patchwork of segments refractory and tolerant to inversion near the replication terminus. Genetics 157:1413-1423. [PubMed] 17. Hayashi, T., K. Makino, M. Ohnishi, K. Kurokawa, K. Ishii, K. Yokoyama, C. G. Han, E. Ohtsubo, K. Nakayama, T. Murata, M. Tanaka, T. Tobe, T. Iida, H. Takami, T. Honda, C. Sasakawa, N. Ogasawara, T. Yasunaga, S. Kuhara, T. Shiba, M. Hattori, and H. Shinagawa. 2001. Complete genome sequence of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7 and genomic comparison with a laboratory strain K-12. DNA Res. 8:11-22. [PubMed] 18. Hill, C. W., and J. A. Gray. 1988. Effects of chromosomal inversion on cell fitness in Escherichia coli K-12. Genetics 119:771-778. [PubMed] 19. Hill, C. W., and B. W. Harnish. 1981. Inversions between ribosomal RNA genes of Escherichia coli. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78:7069-7072. [PubMed] 20. Hughes, D. 2000. Co-evolution of the tuf genes links gene conversion with the generation of chromosomal inversions. J. Mol. Biol. 297:355-364. [PubMed] 21. Huynen, M. A., and P. Bork. 1998. Measuring genome evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95:5849-5856. [PubMed] 22. Huynen, M. A., B. Snel, and P. Bork. 2001. Inversions and the dynamics of eukaryotic gene order. Trends Genet. 17:304-306. [PubMed] 23. Kolsto, A. B. 1997. Dynamic bacterial genome organization. Mol. Microbiol. 24:241-248. [PubMed] 24. Krawiec, S., and M. Riley. 1990. Organization of the bacterial chromosome. Microbiol. Rev. 54:502-539. [PubMed] 25. Lam, S., and J. R. Roth. 1986. Structural and functional studies of insertion element IS200. J. Mol. Biol. 187:157-167. [PubMed] 26. Liu, G.-R., A. Rahn, W.-Q. Liu, K. E. Sanderson, R. N. Johnston, and S.-L. Liu 2002. The evolving genome of Salmonella enterica serovar Pullorum. J. Bacteriol. 184:2626-2633. [PubMed] 27. Liu, S. L., and K. E. Sanderson. 1995. Genomic cleavage map of Salmonella typhi Ty2. J. Bacteriol. 177:5099-5107. [PubMed] 28. Liu, S. L., and K. E. Sanderson. 1996. Highly plastic chromosomal organization in Salmonella typhi. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:10303-10308. [PubMed] 29. Liu, S. L., and K. E. Sanderson. 1998. Homologous recombination between rrn operons rearranges the chromosome in host-specialized species of Salmonella. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 164:275-281. [PubMed] 30. McClelland, M., K. E. Sanderson, J. Spieth, S. W. Clifton, P. Latreille, L. Courtney, S. Porwollik, J. Ali, M. Dante, F. Du, S. Hou, D. Layman, S. Leonard, C. Nguyen, K. Scott, A. Holmes, N. Grewal, E. Mulvaney, E. Ryan, H. Sun, L. Florea, W. Miller, T. Stoneking, M. Nhan, R. Waterston, and R. K. Wilson. 2001. Complete genome sequence of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium LT2. Nature 413:852-856. [PubMed] 31. Mushegian, A. R., and E. V. Koonin. 1996. Gene order is not conserved in bacterial evolution. Trends Genet. 12:289-290. [PubMed] 32. Ochman, H., and A. C. Wilson. 1987. Evolution in bacteria: evidence for a universal substitution rate in cellular genomes. J. Mol. Evol. 26:74-86. [PubMed] 33. Parkhill, J., G. Dougan, K. D. James, N. R. Thomson, D. Pickard, J. Wain, C. Churcher, K. L. Mungall, S. D. Bentley, M. T. Holden, M. Sebaihia, S. Baker, D. Basham, K. Brooks, T. Chillingworth, P. Connerton, A. Cronin, P. Davis, R. M. Davies, L. Dowd, N. White, J. Farrar, T. Feltwell, N. Hamlin, A. Haque, T. T. Hien, S. Holroyd, K. Jagels, A. Krogh, T. S. Larsen, S. Leather, S. Moule, P. O'Gaora, C. Parry, M. Quail, K. Rutherford, M. Simmonds, J. Skelton, K. Stevens, S. Whitehead, and B. G. Barrell. 2001. Complete genome sequence of a multiple drug resistant Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi CT18. Nature 413:848-852. [PubMed] 34. Perna, N. T., G. Plunkett, V. Burland, B. Mau, J. D. Glasner, D. J. Rose, G. F. Mayhew, P. S. Evans, J. Gregor, H. A. Kirkpatrick, G. Posfai, J. Hackett, S. Klink, A. Boutin, Y. Shao, L. Miller, E. J. Grotbeck, N. W. Davis, A. Lim, E. T. Dimalanta, K. D. Potamousis, J. Apodaca, T. S. Anantharaman, J. Lin, G. Yen, D. C. Schwartz, R. A. Welch, and F. R. Blattner. 2001. Genome sequence of enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7. Nature 409:529-533. [PubMed] 35. Read, T. D., R. C. Brunham, C. Shen, S. R. Gill, J. F. Heidelberg, O. White, E. K. Hickey, J. Peterson, T. Utterback, K. Berry, S. Bass, K. Linher, J. Weidman, H. Khouri, B. Craven, C. Bowman, R. Dodson, M. Gwinn, W. Nelson, R. DeBoy, J. Kolonay, G. McClarty, S. L. Salzberg, J. Eisen, and C. M. Fraser. 2000. Genome sequences of Chlamydia trachomatis MoPn and Chlamydia pneumoniae AR39. Nucleic Acids Res. 28:1397-1406. [PubMed] 36. Roth, J. R., N. Benson, T. Galitski, K. Haack, J. G. Lawrence, and L. Miesel. 1996. Rearrangements of the bacterial chromosome: formation and applications, p. 2256-2276. In F. C. Neidhardt et al. (ed.), Escherichia coli and Salmonella: cellular and molecular biology. ASM Press, Washington, D.C. 37. Sanderson, K. E. 1976. Genetic relatedness in the family Enterobacteriaceae. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 30:327-349. [PubMed] 38. Sanderson, K. E., and C. A. Hall. 1970. F-prime factors of Salmonella typhimurium and an inversion between S. typhimurium and Escherichia coli. Genetics 64:215-228. [PubMed] 39. Sanderson, K. E., P. Sciore, S. L. Liu, and A. Hessel. 1993. Location of IS200 on the genomic cleavage map of Salmonella typhimurium LT2. J. Bacteriol. 175:7624-7628. [PubMed] 40. Schmid, M. B., and J. R. Roth. 1987. Gene location affects expression level in Salmonella typhimurium. J. Bacteriol. 169:2872-2875. [PubMed] 41. Segall, A., M. J. Mahan, and J. R. Roth. 1988. Rearrangement of the bacterial chromosome: forbidden inversions. Science 241:1314-1318. [PubMed] 42. Tillier, E. R., and R. A. Collins. 2000. Genome rearrangement by replication-directed translocation. Nat. Genet. 26:195-197. [PubMed] |
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||
Microbiol Rev. 1990 Dec; 54(4):502-39.
[Microbiol Rev. 1990]Annu Rev Microbiol. 1976; 30():327-49.
[Annu Rev Microbiol. 1976]Science. 1997 Sep 5; 277(5331):1453-62.
[Science. 1997]Nature. 2001 Oct 25; 413(6858):852-6.
[Nature. 2001]J Mol Evol. 1987; 26(1-2):74-86.
[J Mol Evol. 1987]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Sep 17; 93(19):10303-8.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996]FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1998 Jul 15; 164(2):275-81.
[FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1998]Mol Gen Genet. 1973 Aug 17; 124(3):253-7.
[Mol Gen Genet. 1973]Genetics. 1970 Feb; 64(2):215-28.
[Genetics. 1970]J Bacteriol. 1995 Sep; 177(17):5099-107.
[J Bacteriol. 1995]Science. 1997 Sep 5; 277(5331):1453-62.
[Science. 1997]DNA Res. 2001 Feb 28; 8(1):11-22.
[DNA Res. 2001]Nature. 2001 Jan 25; 409(6819):529-33.
[Nature. 2001]Nature. 2001 Oct 25; 413(6858):852-6.
[Nature. 2001]Nature. 2001 Oct 25; 413(6858):848-52.
[Nature. 2001]Nucleic Acids Res. 1997 Sep 1; 25(17):3389-402.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 1997]J Mol Biol. 1986 Jan 20; 187(2):157-67.
[J Mol Biol. 1986]J Bacteriol. 1993 Dec; 175(23):7624-8.
[J Bacteriol. 1993]Nucleic Acids Res. 1997 Apr 1; 25(7):1355-61.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 1997]J Gen Microbiol. 1991 Mar; 137(3):601-6.
[J Gen Microbiol. 1991]Nature. 2001 Jan 25; 409(6819):529-33.
[Nature. 2001]Mol Microbiol. 1997 Apr; 24(2):241-8.
[Mol Microbiol. 1997]Lepr Rev. 2001 Dec; 72(4):449-61.
[Lepr Rev. 2001]J Bacteriol. 1998 Sep; 180(18):4834-42.
[J Bacteriol. 1998]J Mol Biol. 2000 Mar 24; 297(2):355-64.
[J Mol Biol. 2000]Trends Genet. 2001 Jun; 17(6):304-6.
[Trends Genet. 2001]Mol Microbiol. 1990 Apr; 4(4):537-42.
[Mol Microbiol. 1990]Genetics. 2001 Apr; 157(4):1413-23.
[Genetics. 2001]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1981 May; 78(5):3113-7.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1981]Genetics. 1988 Aug; 119(4):771-8.
[Genetics. 1988]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1981 Nov; 78(11):7069-72.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1981]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Sep 17; 93(19):10303-8.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996]J Bacteriol. 1987 Jun; 169(6):2872-5.
[J Bacteriol. 1987]Cell. 1988 Jun 3; 53(5):679-86.
[Cell. 1988]Science. 1988 Sep 9; 241(4871):1314-8.
[Science. 1988]J Bacteriol. 2002 May; 184(10):2626-33.
[J Bacteriol. 2002]Nat Genet. 2000 Oct; 26(2):195-7.
[Nat Genet. 2000]Genome Biol. 2000; 1(6):RESEARCH0011.
[Genome Biol. 2000]J Mol Biol. 1986 Jan 20; 187(2):157-67.
[J Mol Biol. 1986]Nature. 2001 Oct 25; 413(6858):852-6.
[Nature. 2001]J Bacteriol. 1993 Dec; 175(23):7624-8.
[J Bacteriol. 1993]Nature. 2001 Oct 25; 413(6858):848-52.
[Nature. 2001]Nucleic Acids Res. 1997 Apr 1; 25(7):1355-61.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 1997]Nature. 2001 Oct 25; 413(6858):852-6.
[Nature. 2001]Nature. 2001 Oct 25; 413(6858):848-52.
[Nature. 2001]