![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Microbiology Contribution of Invariant Residues to the Function of Rgg Family Transcription Regulators ‡ Department of Molecular Microbiology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri 63110 *Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Molecular Microbiology, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid Ave., Box 8230, Saint Louis, MO 63110-1093. Phone: (314) 362-1485. Fax: (314) 362-3203. E-mail: caparon/at/borcim.wustl.edu. †Present address: Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid Ave., Box 8208, Saint Louis, MO 63110-1093. Received September 11, 2006; Accepted October 30, 2006. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract The Rgg family of transcription regulators is widely distributed among gram-positive bacteria, yet how these proteins control transcription is poorly understood. Using Streptococcus pyogenes RopB as a model, we demonstrated that residues invariant among Rgg-like regulators are critical for function and obtained evidence for a mechanism involving protein complex formation. The Rgg-like regulators constitute a conserved family of proteins that modulate transcription in gram-positive bacteria. This group is widely distributed, and the members occur in both pathogenic and commensal species and include Rgg of Streptococcus gordonii, which is required for extracellular glucosyltransferase expression (29, 30); GadR of Lactococcus lactis, which is required for glutamate-dependent acid tolerance (27); MutR, which is required for expression of the mutacin lantibiotic, MutA, of Streptococcus mutans (23); and the plasmid-encoded LasX protein of Lactobacillus sakei, which regulates the synthesis of and immunity to the lantibiotic lactocin S (25, 28). Additional uncharacterized Rgg-like proteins are encoded by the genomes of Streptococcus pneumoniae (31), Streptococcus agalactiae (13), Streptococcus oralis (10), Streptococcus sanguis (34), Streptococcus equi (http://www.sanger.ac.uk), and Listeria monocytogenes (12), and some genomes, like those of S. pyogenes (9), S. gordonii (15, 33), S. pneumoniae (31), and S. mutans (1), contain multiple rgg-like genes. How the members of this extensive family function to regulate gene expression is not well understood. Rgg-like proteins have a helix-turn-helix motif in the amino terminus of the polypeptide, which is a conserved DNA-binding domain found in other families of transcription regulators (17). Only recently has it been established that any Rgg-like proteins bind specifically to DNA to regulate transcription. For example, association with nucleic acid has been demonstrated for Rgg of S. gordonii (35), RopB (21), and LasX (24), but there is only a weak consensus binding site (24). The absence of a conserved regulatory motif in the promoter regions of genes regulated by Rgg-like proteins and the functional diversity of the regulated gene products suggest that Rgg-like proteins interact with additional regulatory networks to alter gene expression. Experimental data supporting this hypothesis were obtained in an analysis of the speB regulatory program in S. pyogenes, where RopB is necessary but not sufficient for activation of transcription (21) and may influence gene expression via its ability to influence the expression of other regulators (5). The integration of Rgg pathways with other regulatory pathways could also be established through protein-protein interactions. For example, RopB has been shown to associate with a negative regulator, LacD.1, which may be a mechanism for maintaining temporally controlled expression programs (16a). Although the members of the Rgg family have been adapted to individual regulatory programs, it is likely that these proteins have a common structure and mechanism of action. Thus, an understanding of how any individual member functions may provide crucial insight into the general way that members of this family function. In S. pyogenes, RopB (also referred to as Rgg) influences the production of proteins during the transition to the stationary phase (3, 6), including the production of the secreted cysteine protease, SpeB (4, 18). Protease expression is dependent on RopB transcriptional activation (4, 18), and its activity is readily detectable, providing a convenient assay for modeling Rgg family function. The present genetic and biochemical studies were undertaken to determine if amino acids that are universally conserved throughout the Rgg family contribute to the ability of RopB to regulate speB expression in S. pyogenes. The results confirmed the importance of these invariant residues and provided insight for understanding the functional domains of RopB and related transcription factors. Conserved Rgg residues are essential for RopB function. A recent influx of genomic information has revealed that the Rgg-like proteins constitute a large conserved family of regulators unique to gram-positive bacteria. To obtain insight into the common structure and mechanism of action that have been adopted by this group of proteins, the primary amino acid sequences of all predicted Rgg-like proteins for which protein sequence data were available were aligned by the Clustal W method (32). Proteins were considered candidates for this analysis if they were significantly homologous (E-value, <0.001) to the prototype protein from S. gordonii (accession number AAA26968) as determined by a BLAST analysis (8) of the GenBank database of microbial genomes (blastp; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sutils/genom_table.cgi). If sequence data were available for multiple isolates of a species, only one isolate was selected for analysis in order to avoid redundancy. This search returned 57 open reading frames, and the alignment revealed numerous highly conserved and very similar amino acids, including three amino acids that were invariable (Fig. (Fig.1A;1A
We reasoned that because these residues were the most conserved, they might make an important contribution to the structure and/or function of Rgg-like regulators. To test this hypothesis, each of the invariant residues in RopB (G4, R11, and W142) (Fig. (Fig.2)2
As noted above, RopB is required for speB expression (4, 18); therefore, a strain with a deletion in ropB produced only background levels of proteolytic activity compared to the wild-type strain (Fig. (Fig.1,1 When the relative transcript abundance of ropB and speB was determined by real-time reverse transcription-PCR performed as described elsewhere (2) using the primers listed in Table 1, we found that ropB transcription from a plasmid was increased relative to expression from the chromosome. However, the magnitudes of ropB overexpression were similar in all of the complemented RopB− strains (Fig. (Fig.2),2
Expression of nonfunctional RopB mutants inhibits native RopB function. To obtain insight into the mechanism of RopB regulation, we examined whether the various mutants were dominant negative when they were expressed in trans. The RopB expression plasmids were used to transform the wild-type strain, and SpeB activity was measured on protease indicator plates (Fig. (Fig.1B)1B Evidence for RopB dimerization in vitro. The dominant-negative phenotype indicated that there was a potential for RopB-RopB interaction. This was not surprising, as it is typical for the functional unit of DNA-binding transcriptional regulators to be a dimer (17). It has been shown previously that RopB specifically interacts with DNA in the speB promoter that contains inverted repeats (21). In addition, analysis of conserved domains in the RopB primary amino acid sequence revealed a putative DNA-binding helix-turn-helix motif at the N terminus (20). Plasmid pJL58 encoding a glutathione S-transferase (GST) fusion to the N terminus of RopB, was constructed and expressed in E. coli using the pGEX-2TK expression vector (Amersham) and the primers described in Table 1. For expression and purification of the recombinant fusion protein and GST alone we followed the recommendations of the manufacturer (Amersham). The fusion protein was used as bait for an interaction with proteins in a whole-cell extract (26) prepared from S. pyogenes expressing epitope-tagged RopB (RopB-HA). Glutathione-Sepharose beads were incubated with the GST-RopB fusion protein or GST and washed twice with phosphate-buffered saline prior to addition of streptococcal extracts. The extracts were incubated with the GST-fusion protein-coated beads and washed three times with phosphate-buffered saline, and bound proteins were eluted with reduced glutathione (10 mM) and subjected to immunoblotting with polyclonal antisera recognizing GST (1:10,000 dilution; Amersham) or HA (1:5,000 dilution; Sigma). In contrast to GST alone, the GST-RopB bound a protein which was the size of RopB-HA that reacted specifically with the anti-HA sera, indicating that there was a specific interaction between the two differentially tagged RopB derivatives (Fig. (Fig.4A).4A
Implications for the Rgg protein family. In the present report, we show that common Rgg-like sequence motifs are essential for RopB function, which may indicate a common mechanism used by members of the Rgg-like family to process regulatory signals. The mechanism of Rgg family regulation has yet to be fully elucidated, but the data indicate that it likely involves interaction with both DNA and other proteins. For example, two of the invariant residues, G4 and R11, are located within the predicted DNA-binding domain. While the role of glycine has not been well studied, structural analysis of other XRE-type helix-turn-helix domains has revealed that arginine in this position contributes to the stability of the DNA-protein complex through formation of a fold-stabilizing salt bridge with a conserved glutamic acid residue (22) or side chain contacts with phosphate groups in target DNA (11, 36-38). Invariant tryptophan residues are often involved in protein-protein interactions (19), and W142 may localize to the interface of a critical RopB-protein complex. Substitution of a nonhydrophobic residue can interfere with complex formation, resulting in an unstable protein. In this context, the decreased stability of RopBW142A is not surprising. Also consistent with this, we obtained evidence that RopB forms protein complexes in vivo through generation of dominant-negative mutant alleles and in vitro through pull-down assays with purified protein. These studies provide a foundation for investigation of the molecular mechanism of speB regulation and general insights into the specificity and functional domains of the family of Rgg-like proteins. [Supplemental material]
Acknowledgments We thank M. Neely for providing strain MNN100 (21). We also thank Travis Jewett and L. David Sibley for providing reagents and technical advice. This work was supported by Public Health Service grant AI4643303 to Michael G. Caparon. Footnotes Published ahead of print on 10 November 2006.‡Supplemental material for this article may be found at http://jb.asm.org/. REFERENCES 1. Ajdic, D., W. M. McShan, R. E. McLaughlin, G. Savic, J. Chang, M. B. Carson, C. Primeaux, R. Tian, S. Kenton, H. Jia, S. Lin, Y. Qian, S. Li, H. Zhu, F. Najar, H. Lai, J. White, B. A. Roe, and J. J. Ferretti. 2002. Genome sequence of Streptococcus mutans UA159, a carinogenic dental pathogen. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:14434-14439. [PubMed] 2. Brenot, A., K. Y. King, and M. G. Caparon. 2005. The PerR regulon in peroxide resistance and virulence of Streptococcus pyogenes. Mol. Microbiol. 55:221-234. [PubMed] 3. Chaussee, M. A., E. A. Callegari, and M. S. Chaussee. 2004. Rgg regulates growth phase-dependent expression of proteins associated with secondary metabolism and stress in Streptococcus pyogenes. J. Bacteriol. 186:7091-7099. [PubMed] 4. Chaussee, M. S., D. Ajdic, and J. J. Ferretti. 1999. The rgg gene of Streptococcus pyogenes NZ131 positively influences extracellular SPE B production. Infect. Immun. 67:1715-1722. [PubMed] 5. Chaussee, M. S., G. L. Sylva, D. E. Sturdevant, L. M. Smoot, M. R. Graham, R. O. Watson, and J. M. Musser. 2002. Rgg influences the expression of multiple regulatory loci to coregulate virulence factor expression in Streptococcus pyogenes. Infect. Immun. 70:762-770. [PubMed] 6. Chaussee, M. S., R. O. Watson, J. C. Smoot, and J. M. Musser. 2001. Identification of Rgg-regulated exoproteins of Streptococcus pyogenes. Infect. Immun. 69:822-831. [PubMed] 7. Coenye, T., and P. Vandamme. 2003. Extracting phylogenetic information from whole-genome sequencing projects: the lactic acid bacteria as a test case. Microbiology 149:3507-3517. [PubMed] 8. Cummings, L., L. Riley, L. Black, A. Souvorov, S. Resenchuk, I. Dondoshansky, and T. Tatusova. 2002. Genomic BLAST: custom-defined virtual databases for complete and unfinished genomes. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 216:133-138. [PubMed] 9. Ferretti, J. J., W. M. McShan, D. Ajdic, D. J. Savic, G. Savic, K. Lyon, C. Primeaux, S. Sezate, A. N. Suvorov, S. Kenton, H. S. Lai, S. P. Lin, Y. Qian, H. G. Jia, F. Z. Najar, Q. Ren, H. Zhu, L. Song, J. White, X. Yuan, S. W. Clifton, B. A. Roe, and R. McLaughlin. 2001. Complete genome sequence of an M1 strain of Streptococcus pyogenes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98:4658-4663. [PubMed] 10. Fujiwara, T., T. Hoshino, T. Ooshima, S. Sobue, and S. Hamada. 2000. Purification, characterization, and molecular analysis of the gene encoding glucosyltransferase from Streptococcus oralis. Infect. Immun. 68:2475-2483. [PubMed] 11. Fukumori, T., Y. Morita, E. Tamiya, and K. Yokoyama. 2003. Design of peptide that recognizes double-stranded DNA. Anal. Sci. 19:181-183. [PubMed] 12. Glaser, P., L. Frangeul, C. Buchrieser, C. Rusniok, A. Amend, F. Baquero, P. Berche, H. Bloecker, P. Brandt, T. Chakraborty, A. Charbit, F. Chetouani, E. Couve, A. de Daruvar, P. Dehoux, E. Domann, G. Dominguez-Bernal, E. Duchaud, L. Durant, O. Dussurget, K. D. Entian, H. Fsihi, F. Garcia-del Portillo, P. Garrido, L. Gautier, W. Goebel, N. Gomez-Lopez, T. Hain, J. Hauf, D. Jackson, L. M. Jones, U. Kaerst, J. Kreft, M. Kuhn, F. Kunst, G. Kurapkat, E. Madueno, A. Maitournam, J. M. Vicente, E. Ng, H. Nedjari, G. Nordsiek, S. Novella, B. de Pablos, J. C. Perez-Diaz, R. Purcell, B. Remmel, M. Rose, T. Schlueter, N. Simoes, A. Tierrez, J. A. Vazquez-Boland, H. Voss, J. Wehland, and P. Cossart. 2001. Comparative genomics of Listeria species. Science 294:849-852. [PubMed] 13. Glaser, P., C. Rusniok, C. Buchrieser, F. Chevalier, L. Frangeul, T. Msadek, M. Zouine, E. Couve, L. Lalioui, C. Poyart, P. Trieu-Cuot, and F. Kunst. 2002. Genome sequence of Streptococcus agalactiae, a pathogen causing invasive neonatal disease. Mol. Microbiol. 45:1499-1513. [PubMed] 14. Hanski, E., P. A. Horwitz, and M. G. Caparon. 1992. Expression of protein F, the fibronectin-binding protein of Streptococcus pyogenes JRS4, in heterologous streptococcal and enterococcal strains promotes their adherence to respiratory epithelial cells. Infect. Immun. 60:5119-5125. [PubMed] 15. Kili, A. O., M. C. Herzberg, M. W. Meyer, X. Zhao, and L. Tao. 1999. Streptococcal reporter gene-fusion vector for identification of in vivo expressed genes. Plasmid 42:67-72. [PubMed] 16. Loughman, J. A., and M. Caparon. 2006. Regulation of SpeB in Streptococcus pyogenes by pH and NaCl: a model for in vivo gene expression. J. Bacteriol. 188:399-408. [PubMed] 16a. Loughman, J. A., and M. Caparon. 2006. A novel adaptation of aldolase regulates virulence in Streptococcus pyogenes. EMBO J 25:5414-5422. [PubMed] 17. Luscombe, N. M., S. E. Austin, H. M. Berman, and J. M. Thornton. 2000. An overview of the structures of protein-DNA complexes. Genome Biol. 1:REVIEWS001. [PubMed] 18. Lyon, W. R., C. M. Gibson, and M. G. Caparon. 1998. A role for trigger factor and an rgg-like regulator in the transcription, secretion and processing of the cysteine proteinase of Streptococcus pyogenes. EMBO J. 17:6263-6275. [PubMed] 19. Ma, B., T. Elkayam, H. Wolfson, and R. Nussinov. 2003. Protein-protein interactions: structurally conserved residues distinguish between binding sites and exposed protein surfaces. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:5772-5777. [PubMed] 20. Marchler-Bauer, A., J. B. Anderson, P. F. Cherukuri, C. DeWeese-Scott, L. Y. Geer, M. Gwadz, S. He, D. I. Hurwitz, J. D. Jackson, Z. Ke, C. J. Lanczycki, C. A. Liebert, C. Liu, F. Lu, G. H. Marchler, M. Mullokandov, B. A. Shoemaker, V. Simonyan, J. S. Song, P. A. Thiessen, R. A. Yamashita, J. J. Yin, D. Zhang, and S. H. Bryant. 2005. CDD: a conserved domain database for protein classification. Nucleic Acids Res. 33:D192—D196. [PubMed] 21. Neely, M. N., W. R. Lyon, D. L. Runft, and M. Caparon. 2003. Role of RopB in growth phase expression of the SpeB cysteine protease of Streptococcus pyogenes. J. Bacteriol. 185:5166-5174. [PubMed] 22. Pervushin, K., M. Billeter, G. Siegal, and K. Wuthrich. 1996. Structural role of a buried salt bridge in the 434 repressor DNA-biding domain. J. Mol. Biol. 264:1002-1012. [PubMed] 23. Qi, F., P. Chen, and P. W. Caufield. 1999. Functional analyses of the promoters in the lantibiotic mutacin II biosynthetic locus in Streptococcus mutans. Appl. Environ Microbiol. 65:652-658. [PubMed] 24. Rawlinson, E. L., I. F. Nes, and M. Skaugen. 2005. Identification of the DNA-binding site of the Rgg-like regulator LasX within the lactocin S promoter region. Microbiology 151:813-823. [PubMed] 25. Rawlinson, E. L., I. F. Nes, and M. Skaugen. 2002. LasX, a transcriptional regulator of the lactocin S biosynthetic genes in Lactobacillus sakei L45, acts both as an activator and a repressor. Biochimie 84:559-567. [PubMed] 26. Rosch, J. W., and M. G. Caparon. 2005. The ExPortal: an organelle dedicated to the biogenesis of secreted proteins in Streptococcus pyogenes. Mol. Microbiol. 58:959-968. [PubMed] 27. Sanders, J. W., K. Leenhouts, J. Burghoorn, J. R. Brands, G. Venema, and J. Kok. 1998. A chloride-inducible acid resistance mechanism in Lactococcus lactis and its regulation. Mol. Microbiol. 27:299-310. [PubMed] 28. Skaugen, M., E. L. Andersen, V. H. Christie, and I. F. Nes. 2002. Identification, characterization, and expression of a second, bicistronic, operon involved in the production of lactocin S in Lactobacillus sakei L45. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68:720-727. [PubMed] 29. Sulavik, M. C., and D. B. Clewell. 1996. Rgg is a positive transcriptional regulator of the Streptococcus gordonii gtfG gene. J. Bacteriol. 178:5826-5830. [PubMed] 30. Sulavik, M. C., G. Tardif, and D. B. Clewell. 1992. Identification of a gene, rgg, which regulates expression of glucosyltransferase and influences the Spp phenotype of Streptococcus gordonii Challis. J. Bacteriol. 174:3577-3586. [PubMed] 31. Tettelin, H., K. E. Nelson, I. T. Paulsen, J. A. Eisen, T. D. Read, S. Peterson, J. Heidelberg, R. T. DeBoy, D. H. Haft, R. J. Dodson, A. S. Durkin, M. Gwinn, J. F. Kolonay, W. C. Nelson, J. D. Peterson, L. A. Umayam, O. White, S. L. Salzberg, M. R. Lewis, D. Radune, E. Holtzapple, H. Khouri, A. M. Wolf, T. R. Utterback, C. L. Hansen, L. A. McDonald, T. V. Feldblyum, S. Angiuoli, T. Dickinson, E. K. Hickey, I. E. Holt, B. J. Loftus, F. Yang, H. O. Smith, J. C. Venter, B. A. Dougherty, D. A. Morrison, S. K. Hollingshead, and C. M. Fraser. 2001. Complete genome sequence of a virulent isolate of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Science 293:498-506. [PubMed] 32. Thompson, J. D., D. G. Higgins, and T. J. Gibson. 1994. CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 22:4673-4680. [PubMed] 33. Vickerman, M. M., P. E. Minick, and N. M. Mather. 2001. Characterization of the Streptococcus gordonii chromosomal region immediately downstream of the glucosyltransferase gene. Microbiology 147:3061-3070. [PubMed] 34. Vickerman, M. M., M. C. Sulavik, and D. B. Clewell. 1995. Oral streptococci with genetic determinants similar to the glucosyltransferase regulatory gene, rgg. Infect. Immun. 63:4524-4527. [PubMed] 35. Vickerman, M. M., M. Wang, and L. J. Baker. 2003. An amino acid change near the carboxyl terminus of the Streptococcus gordonii regulatory protein Rgg affects its abilities to bind DNA and influence expression of the glucosyltransferase gene gtfG. Microbiology. 149:399-406. [PubMed] 36. Wigneshweraraj, S. R., A. Ishihama, and M. Buck. 2001. In vitro roles of invariant helix-turn-helix motif residue R383 in sigma(54) (sigma(N)). Nucleic Acids Res. 29:1163-1174. [PubMed] 37. Wray, L. V., Jr., J. M. Zalieckas, and S. H. Fisher. 2000. Purification and in vitro activities of the Bacillus subtilis TnrA transcription factor. J. Mol. Biol. 300:29-40. [PubMed] 38. Yura, K., M. Shionyu, K. Kawatani, and M. Go. 1999. Repetitive use of a phosphate-binding module in DNA polymerase beta, Oct-1 POU domain and phage repressors. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 55:472-486. [PubMed] |
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||
J Bacteriol. 1996 Oct; 178(19):5826-30.
[J Bacteriol. 1996]J Bacteriol. 1992 Jun; 174(11):3577-86.
[J Bacteriol. 1992]Mol Microbiol. 1998 Jan; 27(2):299-310.
[Mol Microbiol. 1998]Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999 Feb; 65(2):652-8.
[Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999]Biochimie. 2002 May-Jun; 84(5-6):559-67.
[Biochimie. 2002]Genome Biol. 2000; 1(1):REVIEWS001.
[Genome Biol. 2000]Microbiology. 2003 Feb; 149(Pt 2):399-406.
[Microbiology. 2003]J Bacteriol. 2003 Sep; 185(17):5166-74.
[J Bacteriol. 2003]Microbiology. 2005 Mar; 151(Pt 3):813-23.
[Microbiology. 2005]Infect Immun. 2002 Feb; 70(2):762-70.
[Infect Immun. 2002]J Bacteriol. 2004 Nov; 186(21):7091-9.
[J Bacteriol. 2004]Infect Immun. 2001 Feb; 69(2):822-31.
[Infect Immun. 2001]Infect Immun. 1999 Apr; 67(4):1715-22.
[Infect Immun. 1999]EMBO J. 1998 Nov 2; 17(21):6263-75.
[EMBO J. 1998]Nucleic Acids Res. 1994 Nov 11; 22(22):4673-80.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 1994]FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2002 Nov 5; 216(2):133-8.
[FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2002]J Bacteriol. 2006 Jan; 188(2):399-408.
[J Bacteriol. 2006]EMBO J. 1998 Nov 2; 17(21):6263-75.
[EMBO J. 1998]J Bacteriol. 2003 Sep; 185(17):5166-74.
[J Bacteriol. 2003]Infect Immun. 1992 Dec; 60(12):5119-25.
[Infect Immun. 1992]Infect Immun. 1999 Apr; 67(4):1715-22.
[Infect Immun. 1999]EMBO J. 1998 Nov 2; 17(21):6263-75.
[EMBO J. 1998]Mol Microbiol. 2005 Jan; 55(1):221-34.
[Mol Microbiol. 2005]Mol Microbiol. 2005 Nov; 58(4):959-68.
[Mol Microbiol. 2005]Microbiology. 2003 Dec; 149(Pt 12):3507-17.
[Microbiology. 2003]Genome Biol. 2000; 1(1):REVIEWS001.
[Genome Biol. 2000]J Bacteriol. 2003 Sep; 185(17):5166-74.
[J Bacteriol. 2003]Nucleic Acids Res. 2005 Jan 1; 33(Database issue):D192-6.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2005]Mol Microbiol. 2005 Nov; 58(4):959-68.
[Mol Microbiol. 2005]J Mol Biol. 1996 Dec 20; 264(5):1002-12.
[J Mol Biol. 1996]Anal Sci. 2003 Jan; 19(1):181-3.
[Anal Sci. 2003]Nucleic Acids Res. 2001 Mar 1; 29(5):1163-74.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2001]Cell Mol Life Sci. 1999 Mar; 55(3):472-86.
[Cell Mol Life Sci. 1999]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 May 13; 100(10):5772-7.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003]J Bacteriol. 2003 Sep; 185(17):5166-74.
[J Bacteriol. 2003]Mol Microbiol. 2005 Jan; 55(1):221-34.
[Mol Microbiol. 2005]