Cargando…
Subtle sequence differences between two interacting σ(54)‐dependent regulators lead to different activation mechanisms
In the strictly anaerobic nitrate reducing bacterium Aromatoleum anaerobium, degradation of 1,3‐dihydroxybenzene (1,3‐DHB, resorcinol) is controlled by two bacterial enhancer‐binding proteins (bEBPs), RedR1 and RedR2, which regulate the transcription of three σ(54)‐dependent promoters controlling ex...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10084136/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35816183 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/febs.16576 |
_version_ | 1785021673071706112 |
---|---|
author | Pacheco‐Sánchez, Daniel Marín, Patricia Molina‐Fuentes, Águeda Marqués, Silvia |
author_facet | Pacheco‐Sánchez, Daniel Marín, Patricia Molina‐Fuentes, Águeda Marqués, Silvia |
author_sort | Pacheco‐Sánchez, Daniel |
collection | PubMed |
description | In the strictly anaerobic nitrate reducing bacterium Aromatoleum anaerobium, degradation of 1,3‐dihydroxybenzene (1,3‐DHB, resorcinol) is controlled by two bacterial enhancer‐binding proteins (bEBPs), RedR1 and RedR2, which regulate the transcription of three σ(54)‐dependent promoters controlling expression of the pathway. RedR1 and RedR2 are identical over their length except for their N‐terminal tail which differ in sequence and length (six and eight residues, respectively), a single change in their N‐terminal domain (NTD), and nine non‐identical residues in their C‐terminal domain (CTD). Their NTD is composed of a GAF and a PAS domain connected by a linker helix. We show that each regulator is controlled by a different mechanism: whilst RedR1 responds to the classical NTD‐mediated negative regulation that is released by the presence of its effector, RedR2 activity is constitutive and controlled through interaction with BtdS, an integral membrane subunit of hydroxyhydroquinone dehydrogenase carrying out the second step in 1,3‐DHB degradation. BtdS sequesters the RedR2 regulator to the membrane through its NTD, where a four‐Ile track in the PAS domain, interrupted by a Thr in RedR1, and the N‐terminal tail are involved. The presence of 1,3‐DHB, which is metabolized to hydroxybenzoquinone, releases RedR2 from the membrane. Most bEBPs assemble into homohexamers to activate transcription; we show that hetero‐oligomer formation between RedR1 and RedR2 is favoured over homo‐oligomers. However, either an NTD‐truncated version of RedR1 or a full‐length RedR2 are capable of promoter activation on their own, suggesting they should assemble into homohexamers in vivo. We show that promoter DNA behaves as an allosteric effector through binding the CTD to control ΔNTD‐RedR1 multimerization and activity. Overall, the regulation of the 1,3‐DHB anaerobic degradation pathway can be described as a novel mode of bEBP activation and assembly. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10084136 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100841362023-04-11 Subtle sequence differences between two interacting σ(54)‐dependent regulators lead to different activation mechanisms Pacheco‐Sánchez, Daniel Marín, Patricia Molina‐Fuentes, Águeda Marqués, Silvia FEBS J Original Articles In the strictly anaerobic nitrate reducing bacterium Aromatoleum anaerobium, degradation of 1,3‐dihydroxybenzene (1,3‐DHB, resorcinol) is controlled by two bacterial enhancer‐binding proteins (bEBPs), RedR1 and RedR2, which regulate the transcription of three σ(54)‐dependent promoters controlling expression of the pathway. RedR1 and RedR2 are identical over their length except for their N‐terminal tail which differ in sequence and length (six and eight residues, respectively), a single change in their N‐terminal domain (NTD), and nine non‐identical residues in their C‐terminal domain (CTD). Their NTD is composed of a GAF and a PAS domain connected by a linker helix. We show that each regulator is controlled by a different mechanism: whilst RedR1 responds to the classical NTD‐mediated negative regulation that is released by the presence of its effector, RedR2 activity is constitutive and controlled through interaction with BtdS, an integral membrane subunit of hydroxyhydroquinone dehydrogenase carrying out the second step in 1,3‐DHB degradation. BtdS sequesters the RedR2 regulator to the membrane through its NTD, where a four‐Ile track in the PAS domain, interrupted by a Thr in RedR1, and the N‐terminal tail are involved. The presence of 1,3‐DHB, which is metabolized to hydroxybenzoquinone, releases RedR2 from the membrane. Most bEBPs assemble into homohexamers to activate transcription; we show that hetero‐oligomer formation between RedR1 and RedR2 is favoured over homo‐oligomers. However, either an NTD‐truncated version of RedR1 or a full‐length RedR2 are capable of promoter activation on their own, suggesting they should assemble into homohexamers in vivo. We show that promoter DNA behaves as an allosteric effector through binding the CTD to control ΔNTD‐RedR1 multimerization and activity. Overall, the regulation of the 1,3‐DHB anaerobic degradation pathway can be described as a novel mode of bEBP activation and assembly. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-07-22 2022-12 /pmc/articles/PMC10084136/ /pubmed/35816183 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/febs.16576 Text en © 2022 The Authors. The FEBS Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Federation of European Biochemical Societies. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Pacheco‐Sánchez, Daniel Marín, Patricia Molina‐Fuentes, Águeda Marqués, Silvia Subtle sequence differences between two interacting σ(54)‐dependent regulators lead to different activation mechanisms |
title | Subtle sequence differences between two interacting σ(54)‐dependent regulators lead to different activation mechanisms |
title_full | Subtle sequence differences between two interacting σ(54)‐dependent regulators lead to different activation mechanisms |
title_fullStr | Subtle sequence differences between two interacting σ(54)‐dependent regulators lead to different activation mechanisms |
title_full_unstemmed | Subtle sequence differences between two interacting σ(54)‐dependent regulators lead to different activation mechanisms |
title_short | Subtle sequence differences between two interacting σ(54)‐dependent regulators lead to different activation mechanisms |
title_sort | subtle sequence differences between two interacting σ(54)‐dependent regulators lead to different activation mechanisms |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10084136/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35816183 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/febs.16576 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pachecosanchezdaniel subtlesequencedifferencesbetweentwointeractings54dependentregulatorsleadtodifferentactivationmechanisms AT marinpatricia subtlesequencedifferencesbetweentwointeractings54dependentregulatorsleadtodifferentactivationmechanisms AT molinafuentesagueda subtlesequencedifferencesbetweentwointeractings54dependentregulatorsleadtodifferentactivationmechanisms AT marquessilvia subtlesequencedifferencesbetweentwointeractings54dependentregulatorsleadtodifferentactivationmechanisms |