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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pacheco‐Sánchez, Daniel, Marín, Patricia, Molina‐Fuentes, Águeda, Marqués, Silvia
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