4.4 Article

DNA supercoiling-dependent gene regulation in Chlamydia

期刊

JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY
卷 190, 期 19, 页码 6419-6427

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JB.00431-08

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [AI 44198]
  2. NIH Independent Scientist [AI 057563]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The intracellular pathogen Chlamydia has an unusual developmental cycle marked by temporal expression patterns whose mechanisms of regulation are largely unknown. To examine if DNA topology can regulate chlamydial gene expression, we tested the in vitro activity of five chlamydial promoters at different superhelical densities. We demonstrated for the first time that individual chlamydial promoters show a differential response to changes in DNA supercoiling that correlates with the temporal expression pattern. The promoters for two midcycle genes, ompA and pgk, were responsive to alterations in supercoiling, and promoter activity could be regulated more than eightfold. In contrast, the promoters for three late transcripts, omcAB, hctA, and ltuB, were relatively insensitive to supercoiling, with promoter activity varying by no more than 2.2-fold over a range of superhelicities. To obtain a measure of how DNA supercoiling levels vary during the chlamydial developmental cycle, we recovered the cryptic chlamydial plasmid at different times after infection and assayed its superhelical density. The chlamydial plasmid was most negatively supercoiled at midcycle, with an approximate superhelical density of -0.07. At early and late times, the plasmid was more relaxed, with an approximate superhelicity of -0.03. Thus, we found a correlation between the responsiveness to supercoiling shown by the two midcycle promoters and the increased level of negative supercoiling during mid time points in the developmental cycle. Our results support a model in which the response of individual promoters to alterations in DNA supercoiling can provide a mechanism for global patterns of temporal gene expression in Chlamydia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据