![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009, EMBO and Nature Publishing Group A single transcription factor regulates evolutionarily diverse but functionally linked metabolic pathways in response to nutrient availability 1Institute for Systems Biology, Seattle, WA, USA 2Department of Microbiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA aInstitute for Systems Biology, 1441 N 34th St., Seattle, WA 98103-8904, USA. Tel.: +1 206 732 1266; Fax: +1 206 732 1299; Email: nbaliga/at/systemsbiology.org *Present address: E-mail: tiekoide/at/gmail.com Received January 20, 2009; Accepted May 15, 2009. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. This licence does not permit commercial exploitation or the creation of derivative works without specific permission. Abstract During evolution, enzyme-coding genes are acquired and/or replaced through lateral gene transfer and compiled into metabolic pathways. Gene regulatory networks evolve to fine tune biochemical fluxes through such metabolic pathways, enabling organisms to acclimate to nutrient fluctuations in a competitive environment. Here, we demonstrate that a single TrmB family transcription factor in Halobacterium salinarum NRC-1 globally coordinates functionally linked enzymes of diverse phylogeny in response to changes in carbon source availability. Specifically, during nutritional limitation, TrmB binds a cis-regulatory element to activate or repress 113 promoters of genes encoding enzymes in diverse metabolic pathways. By this mechanism, TrmB coordinates the expression of glycolysis, TCA cycle, and amino-acid biosynthesis pathways with the biosynthesis of their cognate cofactors (e.g. purine and thiamine). Notably, the TrmB-regulated metabolic network includes enzyme-coding genes that are uniquely archaeal as well as those that are conserved across all three domains of life. Simultaneous analysis of metabolic and gene regulatory network architectures suggests an ongoing process of co-evolution in which TrmB integrates the expression of metabolic enzyme-coding genes of diverse origins. Keywords: archaea, central metabolism, ChIP-chip, transcription regulation, TrmB Introduction Archaeal genomes encode unusual metabolic enzymes with homologs in either eukarya or bacteria (Siebers and Schonheit, 2005). Several homologous gene replacement events are speculated to have an important function in evolution to integrate these enzymes into archaeal metabolic networks that are otherwise comprised of enzymes conserved across two or more domains of life (Galperin and Koonin, 1999; Siebers and Schonheit, 2005). If so, then this raises important questions regarding the evolution and the architecture(s) of gene regulatory networks (GRNs) that integrate and coordinate enzyme-coding genes within archaeal metabolic networks in the face of unique environmental challenges. GRNs evolve by internalizing environmental factor changes to coordinate the efficient uptake and usage of limited nutritional resources (Tagkopoulos et al, 2008). Not surprisingly, the activity of many transcription factors (TFs) in these GRNs reflects cellular adaptations to environmental niches. For example, greater than half of all TFs in bacteria are thought to bind small molecules to monitor changes in environmental and cellular status (Madan Babu and Teichmann, 2003). Likewise, at least 50 eukaryotic TFs coordinate central metabolic pathways in multiple cellular compartments (Herrgard et al, 2006; Reece et al, 2006). Although limited information exists on archaeal GRNs, it is known that the pre-initiation complex (PIC) is made up of orthologs of the eukaryotic general transcription factors (GTFs): transcription factor II B (TFB), a TATA-binding protein (TBP), and a eukaryotic RNA-Pol II-like polymerase (Geiduschek and Ouhammouch, 2005). In contrast, many of their sequence-specific repressors and activators of transcription share ancestry with bacterial transcription regulators (Bell, 2005). However, only 10 of these regulators have been characterized to date (Bell, 2005), and even fewer have a known function in vivo (Lie et al, 2005; Muller and DasSarma, 2005; Lee et al, 2008). Those that have a known function in vivo include transcription regulators for glycolytic/gluconeogenic, nitrogen, and lysine usage pathways (Brinkman et al, 2002; Lie et al, 2005; Kanai et al, 2007). For example, the TrmB transcription factor (thermococcus regulator of maltose binding) acts as a repressor for genes encoding glycolytic enzymes and as activator for genes encoding gluconeogenic enzymes (Kanai et al, 2007). In these systems, TrmB also binds to glucose, maltose, trehalose, maltodexterins, and sucrose molecules to differentially regulate the genes encoding corresponding sugar uptake systems in a sequence-specific manner (van de Werken et al, 2006; Lee et al, 2008). However, the regulation of all other metabolic pathways in archaea is currently unknown. The limited information on regulation of metabolism in archaea is a significant handicap in comparative analysis for understanding evolutionary similarities and differences in the architecture(s) of GRNs. Here we have characterized the TrmB regulatory network in the halophilic archaeon Halobacterium salinarum NRC-1 by integrating three disparate sources of evidence (protein–DNA interactions measured globally with ChIP-chip, transcriptional responses of genetically and environmentally perturbed strains using microarray analysis, and genome-wide distribution of a conserved TF-binding motif signature) with a metabolic reconstruction. These results demonstrate that the haloarchaeal TrmB ortholog (VNG1451C) coordinates the transcription of more than 100 central metabolic enzyme-coding genes with genes involved in de novo synthesis of their cognate cofactors. We hypothesize that this balanced regulation allows the cell to modulate redox and energy status. More importantly, we show that the TrmB-dependent metabolic network integrates the transcription of enzyme-coding genes that are uniquely archaeal with those that are conserved across all three domains of life. In sum, this study provides insight into how the architecture of a large metabolic network and an associated GRN may have co-evolved using components of diverse origins, and how this assembly may be conserved across the archaeal lineage. Results We used a combination of classical genetics, genome-wide experimental, and computational approaches to identify the TrmB ortholog and characterize the architecture of the network it specifies to control central metabolism in the archaeon H. salinarum. These approaches included (i) sequence analysis to identify a putative TrmB homolog; (ii) phenotypic characterization of a ΔtrmB deletion strain; (iii) transcriptomic analysis of the ΔtrmB strain under defined growth conditions associated with the defective phenotypes; (iv) ChIP-chip (genome-wide in vivo localization of TrmB binding); (v) genome-wide distribution of a conserved motif signature discovered de novo within experimentally mapped TrmB-binding sites; (vi) promoter: reporter fusion assays to validate TrmB targets identified by the high-throughput methods; (vii) computational integration of the results of these experiments and data from earlier studies to construct transcriptional and metabolic networks governed by TrmB. We conclude from the results of these experiments that TrmB is a bifunctional regulator that governs the transcription of genes in central metabolic pathways of diverse ancestry to manage cellular redox and energy status. Results of these experiments are described in detail below. Sequence analysis suggests that VNG1451C encodes a putative sugar-binding transcription regulator Given the central nature of sugar metabolism in cellular physiology, we searched for putative TFs that may control this process. At least seven proteins in the H. salinarum NRC-1 proteome (http://baliga.systemsbiology.net) have significant matches to protein family signatures and sequences of known sugar metabolism regulators. Among these candidate regulators, the VNG1451C amino-acid sequence (Figure 1A
Phenotypic analysis suggests that TrmB is involved in sugar metabolism and maintenance of redox balance We investigated the phenotypic consequence of deleting trmB in diverse environments. This revealed a severe growth defect in the mutant under nearly every condition tested, including standard growth in rich media, nutrient starvation in defined media, metal depletion and excess, and oxidative stress (Figure 2A
Transcriptome analysis reveals that TrmB might regulate functions in diverse metabolic pathways To characterize the TrmB regulon, genome-wide transcriptional changes were analyzed in the ΔtrmB deletion background during growth in the presence and absence of glucose (Figure 2C TrmB binds target promoters that function in diverse metabolic pathways in the absence of glucose or glycerol TF-binding location analysis with ChIP-chip To differentiate between direct and indirect regulatory influences of TrmB, its transcription-factor-binding sites (TFBS) were localized throughout the genome using ChIP-chip. This procedure localizes DNA fragments within transcription factor complexes enriched with chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) using whole genome tiling arrays (chip). We mapped TFBSs in the presence and absence of varying concentrations of glucose or glycerol (Materials and methods). TrmB bound to 113 sites throughout the chromosome in the absence of glucose or glycerol (Figure 3A
The 113 binding sites were ranked according to statistical confidence (Table I). The top seven high-confidence (P<10−6) hits reside in intergenic regions upstream of genes encoding functions in glycolysis and gluconeogenesis (functional enrichment P=1.11E−02) (Table I; Figures 3A–C
Other high-confidence targets in the list (10−3>P>10−6) also showed a strong transcriptional perturbation in the ΔtrmB background (Table I; Supplementary Table 4). Consistent with the transcriptome data, genes coding for biosynthesis of purine nucleotides, cobalamin, thiamin, and amino acids were significantly overrepresented across all 113 targets (Table I; Supplementary Table 4). We also observed binding to the intergenic region upstream of five TFs, including VNG0156C, VNG0247C, VNG0878G, putative regulators; VNG1179C, a regulator of copper homeostasis (Kaur et al, 2006); and TrmB itself (Supplementary Table 4). This could explain the differential regulation of a large number of genes whose promoters are not directly bound by TrmB. Together these data suggest that TrmB directly controls the expression of genes functioning in diverse metabolic pathways. Although TF binding in intergenic regions is generally considered as evidence for direct regulation of downstream genes, we found that ~40% (45 of 113) of TrmB-binding sites were inside coding sequences. However, given that the H. salinarum genome is ~85% coding, our sample of binding sites is actually somewhat enriched in intergenic regions (P=0.18), with 60% of these binding sites falling within 250 bp of an experimentally determined transcription start site (Koide et al, 2009). ChIP-chip studies for other bacterial TFs have found up to 70% of targets in intergenic regions (Shimada et al, 2008). Combined, these results suggest that these binding events might be functional. However, further investigation is required to elucidate the physiological function of these unusual TrmB targets, at least two of which are near loci that encode newly discovered putative noncoding RNAs (Koide et al, 2009). Identification of a cis-regulatory sequence motif To further define the TrmB-binding site, we searched for a conserved cis-regulatory sequence motif within 250 bp of its genomic binding locations identified by ChIP-chip. Locations of transcription start sites (Koide et al, 2009), translation start sites (http://baliga.systemsbiology.net)(Ng et al, 2000), and putative GTF-binding sites (Facciotti et al, 2007) were used to constrain the sequence search space (Materials and methods). We identified a conserved cis-element [TACT-N(7-8)-GAGTA (P<2 × 10−5)] (Figure 4A
In vivo validation of key TrmB-binding sites using promoter: reporter fusion assays To ensure that the TrmB-binding motif represents a physiologically relevant regulatory region, the ppsA promoter was fused to the GFP reporter and assayed in the wild type and ΔtrmB backgrounds (Figure 4C TrmB governs an integrated transcriptional and metabolic network to balance the expression of evolutionarily diverse cofactor and enzyme-coding genes TrmB is a bifunctional regulator that activates some targets and represses others To construct the H. salinarum TrmB-dependent transcriptional network, we calculated the significance of the overlap between the integrated ChIP-chip, transcriptome, and motif location data generated here. This was further integrated with genome-wide transcription start site data (Koide et al, 2009) and ChIP-chip data for seven GTFs (Facciotti et al, 2007). This enabled identification of a significant group of 37 genes (organized among 20 operons) in the overlap between integrated system-wide datasets (Figures 4A and B The mechanism by which TrmB activates and/or represses these genes was investigated further by analyzing the locations of its binding sites relative to those of seven GTFs (Facciotti et al, 2007) (Figure 5A
The combined evidence presented thus far strongly suggests that TrmB acts as both a transcriptional activator and a repressor in response to carbon source availability. Further, these results suggest that TrmB directly and coordinately controls genes significantly overrepresented for functions in central metabolism and its associated pathways in the metabolic network. Metabolic network reconstruction analysis suggests that TrmB coordinates the expression of evolutionarily diverse enzymes To gain a systems-scale perspective on the role of TrmB in metabolism, we reconstructed the metabolic network of H. salinarum in the context of the TrmB transcription regulatory network and known archaeal reactions reported in the literature (Figure 6
We also observed several instances of direct TrmB-mediated transcriptional control of metabolic enzymes with the biosynthesis of their cognate cofactors. Three examples support this assertion. (i) TrmB directly controls over 10 enzymes that require adenosine phosphates (AXP; Figure 6 In addition, among direct TrmB targets were genes encoding enzymes of uniquely archaeal lineage (Figure 6 Discussion TrmB coordinately regulates metabolic enzyme-coding genes with cofactor genes From the evidence presented in this study, we conclude that TrmB governs a sugar-responsive global metabolic regulatory network to coordinate the expression of genes with diverse evolutionary ancestry. Remarkably, TrmB coordinates the transcription of enzyme-coding genes involved in the synthesis of cofactors required for the function of these metabolic enzymes. We hypothesize that this TrmB-directed coordination may enable redox and energy balance. Specifically, our data suggest that TrmB represses the semi-phosphorylative Entner–Doudoroff (E–D) glycolytic pathway (Kanai et al, 2007; Danson et al, 2007; van der Oost and Siebers, 2007; Pfeiffer et al, 2008) (e.g. gap, pykA, VNG0442G) (Figures 5 Interestingly, our evidence points to additional regulatory mechanisms that may cooperate with the TrmB transcription network. First, TrmB does not seem to regulate the end stages of several pathways (e.g. amino acid, purine, thiamine, cobalamin biosynthesis). Second, TrmB is not only autoregulated, but also seems to directly control four other TFs (Supplementary Table 4). Third, the transcription of some genes with a direct TrmB–promoter interaction remains unchanged in the ΔtrmB strain (e.g. amino-acid biosynthesis gene asnA). Finally, in several instances TrmB regulates an entire pathway except for one gene (e.g. enolase, shikimate kinase). Together, this evidence suggests the cooperation of other regulatory mechanisms with the TrmB transcription network. This interpretation is in line with earlier metabolic regulatory network analyses in Escherichia coli, which found that the majority of central metabolic pathways are controlled by multiple TFs (Seshasayee et al, 2008). Evolutionary context for the TrmB transcription-metabolism network Among known global regulators of central metabolic genes in prokaryotes, no single transcription factor has been shown to directly control both metabolic enzyme and cognate cofactor biosynthesis genes (Grainger et al, 2005; Supplementary Table 4). For example, CRP, a global regulator of carbon and nitrogen metabolic pathways in enteric bacteria, is required for the condition-specific transcriptional induction of cobalamin biosynthesis genes (cob). However, a direct CRP–cob promoter interaction has not been established (Ailion et al, 1993; Grainger et al, 2005). Instead, the cob-specific transcription factor PocR may be a more likely candidate for direct regulation (Ailion et al, 1993). Similarly, in Bacillus subtilis, CcpA controls global targets in carbon metabolism (Sonenshein, 2007), whereas the PurR repressor is specific for purine biosynthetic genes (Saxild et al, 2001). In contrast, in other archaeal species, it is possible that TrmB or TrmB-type global transcriptional control of metabolism is operative. For example, in species in which TrmB is known to control glycolysis and gluconeogenic pathways (e.g. Pyrococcus furiosus), an unknown transcription factor upregulates genes in other metabolic pathways such as the TCA cycle and chorismate synthesis in response to maltose (Schut et al, 2003). In addition, divergent TrmB-binding sites can be detected in the vicinity of the transcription start site for some of these genes in this and other thermophilic archaeal species, although they have not been experimentally validated (van de Werken et al, 2006). It will be interesting to confirm these preliminary findings, because it suggests that the network motif of integrated control of cofactor and enzyme genes could be widespread in archaea. Therefore, the metabolic network model presented here will be useful as a structural framework for other archaeal systems and a starting point for evolutionary comparisons with other understudied representatives in other domains of life. In light of this evolutionary context, it was striking to observe that genes encoding enzymes of uniquely archaeal lineage were included among the direct TrmB targets in H. salinarum (Figure 6 Conclusion In summary, this study reveals that TrmB regulatory control is restricted primarily to central metabolism and branch points, suggesting combinatorial control between TrmB and pathway-specific regulatory mechanisms. In addition, TrmB seems to balance the expression of genes coding for metabolic enzymes with those of their cognate cofactors in a sequence-specific manner. Finally, the TrmB metabolic regulatory network is an evolutionary mosaic, controlling genes coding for uniquely archaeal enzymes with those that are more widely distributed, even within the same metabolic pathway. Materials and methods Strains, media, plasmids, and growth curve assays H. salinarum NRC-1 (ATCC700922) was grown routinely in complex medium (CM; 250 NaCl, 20 g/l MgSO4 7H2O, 3 g/l sodium citrate, 2 g/l KCl, 10 g/l peptone) or a complete defined medium (CDM) containing 19 amino acids (Supplementary Table 1). For growth in CDM, starter cultures were grown in CM to mid-logarithmic phase and washed three times in basal salts buffer (CM lacking peptone) and resuspended in CDM at OD600 ~0.1. Subsequent growth was conducted for all media conditions at 37°C with 225 r.p.m. shaking in the presence of low light intensity (24.6 μmol photons/m2 s from fluorescent lamps). For routine culturing and growth assays of the Δura3 parent and ΔVNG1451C mutant strains, CM or CDM was supplemented with 0.05 mg/ml uracil. For growth curve assays, NAD+/H assays and growth complementation experiments in the Δura3 parent and ΔVNG1451C mutant strains, CM or CDM was supplemented with various sugars (Figure 2 Gene expression arrays 10 ml of H. salinarum NRC-1 Δura3ΔVNG1451C and Δura3 parent strain sample cultures grown in CM or CDM in the presence or absence of glucose were collected at three time points throughout the growth curve (OD600~0.2, 0.6, and 1.2). Cells were immediately pelleted by room temperature centrifugation at 8820 g for 8 min at 4°C and snap-frozen on a dry-ice ethanol bath. Sample pellets were stored overnight at −80°C, followed by RNA preparation using the Absolutely-RNA kit (Stratagene, La Jolla, CA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. RNA quality was checked using the Bioanalyzer 2100 (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA) and freedom from DNA contamination was ensured by PCR amplification of 200 ng of RNA sample. 5 μg of each quality-checked RNA sample was hybridized against the H. salinarum NRC-1 reference RNA prepared under standard conditions (mid-logarithmic phase batch cultures grown at 37°C in CM). This common reference RNA has been used across all ~950 microarray experiments in the H. salinarum NRC-1 microarray data repository (Bonneau et al, 2007). Samples were hybridized to a 70-mer oligonucleotide array containing the 2400 nonredundant open reading frames (ORFs) of the H. salinarum NRC-1 genome as described in Baliga et al (2004). Each ORF was spotted on each array in quadruplicate and dye flipping was conducted (to rule out bias in dye incorporation) for all samples, yielding eight technical replicates per gene per time point. At least two independent biological replicates exist for all experimental conditions for a total of 16 replicates per gene per condition. Direct RNA or DNA (TFBS location arrays, see below) labeling, slide hybridization, and washing protocols were performed as described earlier (Facciotti et al, 2007; Schmid et al, 2007). Raw intensity signals from each slide were processed by the SBEAMS-microarray pipeline (Marzolf et al, 2006) (www.SBEAMS.org/microarray), in which resultant data were median normalized and subjected to significant analysis of microarrays (SAM) and variability and error estimates (VERA) analysis. Each data point was assigned a significance statistic, λ, using maximum likelihood (Ideker et al, 2000). Microarray data were analyzed using the TM4 MultiExperiment Viewer (MeV) application (http://www.tm4.org/) within the Gaggle data analysis environment (Shannon et al, 2006). Specifically, all 2400 genes across mutant and wild-type microarray experiments, described above, were subjected to three independent analyses: significance analysis of microarrays (SAM), KMEANS clustering, and hierarchical clustering. Resultant clusters of genes in the union of all three analyses that displayed significant differential transcription between the parent and mutant strains in the presence and/or absence of glucose were considered to be VNG1451C dependent. Biological replicates were considered independently to ensure statistical rigor. TFBS location array analysis ChIP of VNG1451C-cmyc-tagged constructs was performed as described (Ren et al, 2000; Facciotti et al, 2007) in cultures grown in the presence or absence of glucose or glycerol. Resultant TFBS location data were analyzed for statistically significant enrichment of features in the ChIP-chip sample versus the unenriched sample using MeDiChI, a regression-based deconvolution algorithm (Reiss et al, 2008). Enrichment lists from each of the five independent MeDiChI runs were combined into a density algorithm (Koide et al, 2009) to find TFBS locations overrepresented in the data. To be considered as part of the final TFBS enrichment list (Supplementary Table 4), we required that each enrichment peak from the density output be composed of at least two biological replicate peaks with a combined MeDiChI P-value <0.001 (product of replicate P-values). A peak was considered to be ‘intergenic' if it fell within 250 bp of a transcription start site or termination site (a conservative estimate of the resolution of the data from MeDiChI-derived binding sites; (Reiss et al, 2008)). Subsequently, the resultant binding sites from the combined dataset were compared with orthogonal datasets (i.e. genome-wide mRNA expression and binding motif searches, details below). To analyze the TrmB TFBS location data in the context of the GTF TFBS data (Facciotti et al, 2007), the distance of the genomic position for each high-resolution GTF-binding site (Reiss et al, 2008) to that of TrmB (GTF coordinate—TrmB coordinate=relative position) at each target promoter was calculated. The Pearson correlation between this distance and the mRNA expression data in ΔtrmB for the gene of interest was then calculated. The P-value for these correlations reported in the text were calculated based on 100 000-fold resamplings of the data. DNA-binding motif searching To find the consensus binding motif for VNG1451C, the sequence search space was limited for each putative promoter region enriched in the TFBS location data through several constraints: (i) sequence ±250 bp from the center of each MeDiChI-based peak; (ii) sequence ±20 bp from the putative transcription start site (Koide et al, 2009); (iii) annotated translation start site location (Ng et al, 2000). Resultant sequences were used as input for three independent motif-finding algorithms: (i) Bioprospector (http://ai.stanford.edu/~xsliu/BioProspector/), which finds gapped motifs in query sequences (Liu et al, 2001); (ii) MEME/MAST (http://meme.sdsc.edu/meme/) (Bailey and Gribskov, 1998; Bailey et al, 2006); and (iii) RSAT pattern finding (http://rsat.ulb.ac.be/rsat/). Only motifs represented in the intersection of all the three algorithm outputs were considered in further analysis. To generate the P-value for each motif, the three algorithms were re-run on randomized query sequences. Results were compared with algorithm outputs from original sequences using the Wilcoxon test (Frith et al, 2008). One motif had a statistically significant P-value (P=2.0 × 10−5), and the resultant consensus motif described in the text was generated using weblogo.berkeley.edu/logo.cgi. To scan the remainder of the genome for the resultant motif, we used the pattern-finding program at rsat.ulb.ac.be/rsat/ with the parameters of (i) no more than 1 bp away from the consensus motif, (ii) unbiased for genomic position (i.e. coding and noncoding sequences were searched); (iii) containing a 7 or 8 bp gap within the motif; (iv) located on the chromosome (as no TrmB hits were found on either of pNRC100 or pNRC200). GFP promoter: reporter fusion validation experiments The ppsA p1+p2 construct contains both putative TrmB-binding sites in a 115-bp fragment upstream of the translation start site of the ppsA (VNG0330G) gene (Figure 4D Data integration analysis To assess the extent of agreement between the three system-wide datasets presented in this study (gene expression, ChIP-chip, and motif search data), the hypergeometric distribution P-values were calculated, which reflect the likelihood that the intersection of any two of these three datasets are due to chance. Specifically, we calculated the significance of (i) the number of genes within 250 bp of both the ChIP-chip hits and binding motif sequences (one extra bp in motif degeneracy was allowed for a few of the genes in Figure 4A, Detailed annotation analysis of the 37 genes in the intersection of the three high-throughput datasets (Figure 4B Supplementary materials This file contains supplementary results, methods, and figures S1–3 Click here to view.(161K, pdf) Supplementary Table 1 Supplementary Table 1. Halobacterium salniarum NRC-1 complete defined synthetic medium (CDM) Click here to view.(19K, xls) Supplementary Table 2 Supplementary Table 2. High throughput growth data for VNG1451C (trmB) deletion mutant compared to parent strain(s) Click here to view.(3.3M, xls) Supplementary Table 3 Supplementary Table 3. Microarray gene expression data. Click here to view.(3.8M, xls) Supplementary Table 4 Supplementary Table 4. Direct targets of TrmB: all 113 ChIP-chip hits. Click here to view.(62K, xls) Supplementary Table 5 Supplementary Table 5. TrmB binding motifs located throughout the H. salinarum NRC-1 genome. Click here to view.(72K, xls) Supplementary Table 6 Supplementary Table 6. Details regarding metabolic reactions depicted in Figure 5. Click here to view.(63K, xls) Acknowledgments We are indebted to Ludmila Chistoserdova and Monica Orellana for their critical reading of the paper, Kenia Whitehead for useful discussions, Christopher Bare for software support, and Lee Pang and Noel Blake for assistance with the FACS analysis. This work was supported by grants from NIH (P50GM076547 and 1R01GM077398-01A2), DoE (MAGGIE: DE-FG02-07ER64327), NSF (DBI-0640950) to NSB, and from NIH (5F32GM078980-02) to AKS. Footnotes The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||
Curr Opin Microbiol. 2005 Dec; 8(6):695-705.
[Curr Opin Microbiol. 2005]Genetica. 1999; 106(1-2):159-70.
[Genetica. 1999]Science. 2008 Jun 6; 320(5881):1313-7.
[Science. 2008]Nucleic Acids Res. 2003 Feb 15; 31(4):1234-44.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2003]Genome Res. 2006 May; 16(5):627-35.
[Genome Res. 2006]Biochem Soc Symp. 2006; (73):85-96.
[Biochem Soc Symp. 2006]Mol Microbiol. 2005 Jun; 56(6):1397-407.
[Mol Microbiol. 2005]J Biol Chem. 2006 Apr 21; 281(16):10976-82.
[J Biol Chem. 2006]J Biol Chem. 2007 Nov 16; 282(46):33659-70.
[J Biol Chem. 2007]Arch Microbiol. 2008 Sep; 190(3):247-56.
[Arch Microbiol. 2008]FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2006 Jul; 260(1):69-76.
[FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2006]Nat Genet. 2000 May; 25(1):25-9.
[Nat Genet. 2000]Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jan 1; 28(1):27-30.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2000]Arch Microbiol. 2008 Sep; 190(3):247-56.
[Arch Microbiol. 2008]Genome Res. 2006 Jul; 16(7):841-54.
[Genome Res. 2006]Nucleic Acids Res. 2008 Jul; 36(12):3950-5.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2008]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Oct 24; 97(22):12176-81.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Mar 13; 104(11):4630-5.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007]FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2006 Jul; 260(1):69-76.
[FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2006]Nucleic Acids Res. 2004; 32(11):3418-26.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Mar 13; 104(11):4630-5.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Mar 13; 104(11):4630-5.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007]J Biol Chem. 2007 Nov 16; 282(46):33659-70.
[J Biol Chem. 2007]Arch Microbiol. 2008 Sep; 190(3):247-56.
[Arch Microbiol. 2008]Mol Cell. 1999 Dec; 4(6):971-82.
[Mol Cell. 1999]Extremophiles. 2008 Mar; 12(2):177-96.
[Extremophiles. 2008]Mol Biosyst. 2008 Feb; 4(2):148-59.
[Mol Biosyst. 2008]Nucleic Acids Res. 2003 Dec 1; 31(23):6748-57.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2003]Genetica. 1999; 106(1-2):159-70.
[Genetica. 1999]J Biol Chem. 2007 Nov 16; 282(46):33659-70.
[J Biol Chem. 2007]Arch Microbiol. 2008 Sep; 190(3):281-99.
[Arch Microbiol. 2008]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Dec 6; 102(49):17693-8.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005]J Bacteriol. 1993 Nov; 175(22):7200-8.
[J Bacteriol. 1993]Nat Rev Microbiol. 2007 Dec; 5(12):917-27.
[Nat Rev Microbiol. 2007]J Bacteriol. 2001 Nov; 183(21):6175-83.
[J Bacteriol. 2001]J Bacteriol. 2003 Jul; 185(13):3935-47.
[J Bacteriol. 2003]FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2006 Jul; 260(1):69-76.
[FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2006]Genetica. 1999; 106(1-2):159-70.
[Genetica. 1999]Cell. 2007 Dec 28; 131(7):1354-65.
[Cell. 2007]Genome Res. 2004 Jun; 14(6):1025-35.
[Genome Res. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Mar 13; 104(11):4630-5.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007]Genome Res. 2007 Oct; 17(10):1399-413.
[Genome Res. 2007]BMC Bioinformatics. 2006 Jun 6; 7():286.
[BMC Bioinformatics. 2006]BMC Bioinformatics. 2006 Mar 28; 7():176.
[BMC Bioinformatics. 2006]Science. 2000 Dec 22; 290(5500):2306-9.
[Science. 2000]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Mar 13; 104(11):4630-5.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007]Bioinformatics. 2008 Feb 1; 24(3):396-403.
[Bioinformatics. 2008]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Mar 13; 104(11):4630-5.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007]Bioinformatics. 2008 Feb 1; 24(3):396-403.
[Bioinformatics. 2008]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Oct 24; 97(22):12176-81.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000]Pac Symp Biocomput. 2001; ():127-38.
[Pac Symp Biocomput. 2001]Bioinformatics. 1998; 14(1):48-54.
[Bioinformatics. 1998]Nucleic Acids Res. 2006 Jul 1; 34(Web Server issue):W369-73.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2006]PLoS Comput Biol. 2008 May 9; 4(4):e1000071.
[PLoS Comput Biol. 2008]Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004 Dec; 70(12):7530-8.
[Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004]Genome Biol. 2004; 5(8):R52.
[Genome Biol. 2004]BMC Bioinformatics. 2007 Nov 19; 8():456.
[BMC Bioinformatics. 2007]Arch Microbiol. 2008 Sep; 190(3):281-99.
[Arch Microbiol. 2008]Nucleic Acids Res. 2009 Jan; 37(Database issue):D412-6.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2009]J Biol Chem. 2006 Apr 21; 281(16):10976-82.
[J Biol Chem. 2006]Bioinformatics. 2008 Feb 1; 24(3):396-403.
[Bioinformatics. 2008]PLoS Genet. 2007 Dec; 3(12):e229.
[PLoS Genet. 2007]Mol Biosyst. 2008 Feb; 4(2):148-59.
[Mol Biosyst. 2008]