In vitro transcription analysis by reconstituted cyanobacterial RNA polymerase: roles of group 1 and 2 sigma factors and a core subunit, RpoC2
2004; Wiley; Volume: 9; Issue: 12 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1111/j.1365-2443.2004.00808.x
ISSN1365-2443
AutoresS. Imamura, Munehiko Asayama, Makoto Shirai,
Tópico(s)Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
ResumoGenes to CellsVolume 9, Issue 12 p. 1175-1187 Free Access In vitro transcription analysis by reconstituted cyanobacterial RNA polymerase: roles of group 1 and 2 sigma factors and a core subunit, RpoC2 Sousuke Imamura, Sousuke Imamura Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, College of Agriculture, Ibaraki University, Ami, Inashiki, Ibaraki 300-0393, JapanSearch for more papers by this authorMunehiko Asayama, Corresponding Author Munehiko Asayama Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, College of Agriculture, Ibaraki University, Ami, Inashiki, Ibaraki 300-0393, JapanCorrespondence: E-mail: asam@mx.ibaraki.ac.jpSearch for more papers by this authorMakoto Shirai, Makoto Shirai Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, College of Agriculture, Ibaraki University, Ami, Inashiki, Ibaraki 300-0393, JapanSearch for more papers by this author Sousuke Imamura, Sousuke Imamura Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, College of Agriculture, Ibaraki University, Ami, Inashiki, Ibaraki 300-0393, JapanSearch for more papers by this authorMunehiko Asayama, Corresponding Author Munehiko Asayama Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, College of Agriculture, Ibaraki University, Ami, Inashiki, Ibaraki 300-0393, JapanCorrespondence: E-mail: asam@mx.ibaraki.ac.jpSearch for more papers by this authorMakoto Shirai, Makoto Shirai Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, College of Agriculture, Ibaraki University, Ami, Inashiki, Ibaraki 300-0393, JapanSearch for more papers by this author First published: 25 November 2004 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2443.2004.00808.xCitations: 23 Communicated by: Nobuo Shimamoto AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Abstract The RNA polymerase (RNAP) core enzyme of cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. strain PCC 6803 was reconstituted with overproduced recombinant subunits and purified with C-terminal histidine-tagged RpoA. The core enzyme with purified a sigma factor, SigA/SigD or SigB, allowed specific in vitro transcription from the light-inducible psbA2 or the dark-/heat-inducible lrtA/hspA promoters, respectively. Further analysis using a mutant psbA2 promoter revealed that the −35 hexamer of the promoter was essential for SigA but not SigD. Similar but distinct patterns of psbA2 transcription were found for two types of RNAP, cyanobacterial (α2ββ′γ) and E. coli (α2ββ′) core enzymes. Specific binding of PCC 6803 RpoC2 (β′) to E. coli core enzyme and its contribution to efficient psbA2 transcription by RNAP-SigA/D suggest that this subunit could confer an important role on the cyanobactrial RNAP. Differences in affinity and specificity among cyanobacterial sigma factors for the core enzyme and promoters were discussed. Introduction The RNA polymerase (RNAP) of eubacteria consists of a core enzyme and a sigma factor. The core enzyme is capable of transcription elongation, whereas the sigma factor is required for specific promoter recognition and transcription initiation (Ishihama 1993, 2000). So, the sigma factor plays a key role in the initial step of transcription. The RNAPs of cyanobacteria, which can perform oxygen-evolving photosynthesis, have been known to be closely related to the eubacterial RNAPs. Although most eubacterial RNA polymerase holoenzymes consist of a core enzyme with subunits of α2ββ′ and one of several species of sigma factors (Ishihama 1993), the β′ subunit is usually split into two parts in cyanobacteria, γ (RpoC1) and β′ (RpoC2), the same as in higher plant chloroplasts. Thus, the RNAP holoenzyme of cyanobacteria consists of a core enzyme with the subunit structure α2ββ′γ and one of the species of sigma factor (Schneider et al. 1987). The eubacterial β′ (RpoC) subunit, for example of Escherichia coli, possesses eight highly conserved domains, A to H (Allison et al. 1985). In cyanobacteria and also plant chloroplasts, RpoC1 and RpoC2 possess the domains A to D and E to H, respectively (Schneider & Haselkorn 1988; Bergsland & Haselkorn 1991). In a cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. strain PCC 6803, nine sigma factors (group 1, SigA; group 2, SigB to SigE; group 3, SigF to SigI) are identified and their functions have been tentatively assigned in some cases. As examples, SigB is induced under heat-shock and dark conditions in which the electron transport chain of photosynthesis is in an oxidative state. This sigma factor contributes to the transcription of heat-inducible hspA or dark-inducible lrtA genes (Imamura et al. 2003a,b). SigD is antagonistically induced under light/high-light conditions in which the electron transport chain of photosynthesis is in a reductive state. This sigma factor contributes to the transcription of photosynthesis genes encoding the D1 protein in photosystem II (PSII), psbA2 and psbA3 (Imamura et al. 2003a,b). Furthermore, SigC contributes to global gene expression, involving the nitrogen-related glnB gene, in the phase of post-exponential cell growth (Asayama et al. 2004). SigE might also contribute to the transcription of nitrogen-related genes, such as glnN (Muro-Pastor et al. 2001). In vitro transcription system with purified RNAP is an essential tool for biological characterization of the promoter selectivity of sigma factors. In cyanobacteria, RNAP core enzyme has been purified from Anabaena and Synechococcus cells, and in vitro transcription systems were established (Schneider et al. 1987; Goto-Seki et al. 1999). We also tried to purify RNAP from the Synechocystis PCC 6803 cells. Although polyethyleneimine (PEI) precipitation for RNAP purification was useful in E. coli and some cyanobacteria (Burgess & Jendrisak 1975; Schneider et al. 1987; Goto-Seki et al. 1999), the product with PEI was seriously aggregated in the case of PCC 6803. This problem has not been yet finally solved. Therefore we have used heterologous RNAP holoenzymes reconstituted with the E. coli core enzyme and PCC 6803 sigma factors for in vitro transcription analysis to date (Imamura et al. 2003b). The cyanobacterial and eubacterial (E. coli)-type core enzymes are essentially the same in molecular structure and function, however, differences in transcription have been observed between them even with the same promoter (Schneider et al. 1987; Imashimizu et al. 2003; Ito et al. 2003). Consequently, an easy purification procedure of PCC 6803 core enzyme was required for in vitro transcription system with homologous RNAP subunits. In this paper, we report the establishment of the in vitro transcription system using reconstituted RNAPs, composed of purified recombinant subunits as the first such case in photosynthesizing organisms. This in vitro system was useful for characterization of cyanobacterial promoters. Roles of cyanobacterial sigma factors and RpoC2 were also revealed. Results Purification of reconstituted PCC 6803 RNAP core enzyme To establish an in vitro transcription system, we initially tried to purify the core enzyme from PCC 6803 cells. However, this proved too difficult (see Introduction). Therefore, each RNAP core subunit was overproduced in E. coli in an attempt to reconstitute them in vitro. To avoid contamination of E. coli RNAP subunits, the recombinant PCC 6803 core subunits were recovered from inclusion bodies as an insoluble fraction. In the case of PCC 6803 RpoA, the 6xHis-tag was attached in the C-terminal region (RpoA-His). This RpoA-His was homogeneously purified by an affinity column chromatography (Ni2+-nitrilotriacetic acid (Ni-NTA)) under denaturing condition with 6 m GuHCl (guanidine hydrochloride) or 8 m urea (data not shown). On the other hand, RpoB, RpoC1 and RpoC2 possess no His-tag. Their enzymes were roughly purified to > 70% homogeneity from the inclusion bodies in the first step (see Experimental procedures). Fractions containing the four subunits were mixed together and dialysed against the reconstitution buffer. The reconstituted PCC 6803 RNAP core enzyme was again purified through the Ni-NTA column. The purified core enzyme was resolved on an SDS-PAGE gel (Fig. 1A) and its quality was verified by Western blotting with polyclonal antibodies against PCC 6803 core subunits (Imamura et al. 2003b) (Fig. 1B, upper panel). Each PCC 6803 core subunit in the purified fraction was well recognized by respective antibodies. A signal corresponding to slightly larger molecular weight of RpoA-His in the purified PCC 6803 core fraction compared with that of authentic RpoA in the PCC 6803 cell was observed. Of note, PCC 6803 RpoA and RpoB antibodies crossreacted to E. coli RpoA and RpoB subunits, respectively, in this condition. PCC 6803 SigA and E. coli RpoB antibodies also could recognize E. coli RpoD (σ70, Sigma70) and PCC 6803 RpoB, respectively (Fig. 1B, lower panel). We could finally exclude the possibility of contamination with E. coli RNAP core subunits and RpoD in the PCC 6803 core enzyme fraction (Fig. 1B, lower panel). Thus, the reconstituted PCC 6803 core enzyme was successfully prepared. This purified core enzyme and the purified His-tagged sigma factor were mixed, again reconstituted for holoenzymes, and subjected to in vitro assay. Figure 1Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Purified RNAP core enzyme. (A) Purified E. coli (lane 1) and PCC 6803 (lane 2) core enzyme. The samples were resolved by 10% SDS-PAGE (0.2 µg each). The gel is stained with Coomassie Brilliant Blue. The positions of E. coliα (RpoA, 37 kDa), β (RpoB, 151 kDa), and β′ (RpoC, 155 kDa) and PCC 6803 α-His (RpoA-His, 39 + 1 = 40 kDa), β (RpoB, 129 kDa), β′ (RpoC2, 159 kDa), and γ (RpoC1, 65 kDa) are indicated by arrowheads, respectively. (B) Confirmation of PCC 6803 core enzyme. Purified E. coli core or holoenzyme (0.2 µg or 0.01 µg), purified PCC 6803 core enzyme (0.2 µg) and PCC 6803 total cellular proteins (10 µg) prepared from a mid-log phase were resolved by 10% SDS-PAGE. Then, they were subjected to Western blotting (Imamura et al. 2003a, b) with relevant antibodies. The presence (+) and absence (–) of proteins are indicated at the top. Asterisks indicate the positions of relevant band for antibodies. Enzyme activity of RNAP and optimal conditions To test the activity for mRNA synthesis of the reconstituted RNAPs, we performed in vitro run-off transcription assays with the PCC 6803 psbA2 promoter having a canonical E. coli consensus promoter. Supercoiled plasmids (Table 1) and the reconstituted cyanobacterial RNAP holoenzymes were used in the assay. As shown in Fig. 2A, significant mRNA products were obtained with RNAPs of PCC 6803 core enzyme +SigA (lane 4) as well as E. coli core enzyme +SigA (lane 2). No product was detected using only the PCC 6803 core enzyme or the negative control fraction (lanes 3 and 5). These results clearly show that the PCC 6803 core enzyme is not contaminated with E. coli RNAP subunits, and the reconstituted PCC 6803 RNAP has enzyme activity in vitro. We also assessed the optimal conditions for transcription by the RNAP. Effective transcription was observed at a temperature, pH, and concentration of MgCl2, of 30–50 °C, 7.0–8.0, and 5 mm, respectively (Fig. 2B–D). Thus we did the run-off assay in vitro under optimal conditions with a reaction solution comprised of 50 mm Tris-HCl (pH 7.9), 5 mm MgCl2, 0.05 mm EDTA·2Na, 0.5 mm DTT, 0.1 mm each of ATP/CTP/GTP, 0.05 mm[α-32P] UTP (18.5 GBq/mmol), 25 nm RNAP core enzyme, 100 nm sigma factor, and 2.5 nm various template DNA at 30 °C. Table 1. Template DNAs and promoters Plasmid Promoter Hexamer (spacer) Sequence Product size pKK-A2 PCC 6803 psbA2 −35 & −10 (18 bp) AGCTTTACAAAACTCTCATTAATCCTTTAGACTAAGTTTa 329 nt pKK-PA PCC 6803 hspA −35 & −10 (15 bp) CCGAATCTAACCTGGAAGGGGAAATTTTAAGATAGAACCa 345 nt pKK-TA PCC 6803 lrtA −10 only GATTAGGTCTTATTCAATACATA·G·T·G·*C*TAATCTGAAGATa 502 nt pKK-IY1 K-81 psbA2 −35 & −10 (17 bp) CCCCTTTACATAACTATAAAAACCCGATAGTATTAATTCa 296 nt pKK-IY4 K-81 psbA2 −35mt & −10 CCCCAAATGTTAACTATAAAAACCCGATAGTATTAATTCa 296 nt pKK-′X′ RNA I −35 & −10 (18 bp) TTCTTGAAGTAGTGGCCCGACTACGGCTACACTAGAAGGA 107 nt Underlines, a broken line, bold characters and small characters indicate the −35 or −10 hexamers of promoter, the mutagenized −35 hexamer, the E. coli consensus promoter nucleotides, and the transcription start points, respectively. ‘·’ a TGTG motif. ‘*’ a GC motif. Figure 2Open in figure viewerPowerPoint RNAP enzyme activity and optimal condition for in vitro transcription. (A) In vitro run-off transcription analyses with pKK-A2 (PCC 6803 psbA2 promoter, Table 1) and RNAP. The presence (+) or absence (–) of the E. coli core enzyme (Fig. 1A, lane 1), purified protein as a negative control (RpoA-His +an E. coli negative fraction, see Experimental procedures), reconstituted PCC 6803 core enzyme (Fig. 1A, lane 2), and PCC 6803 SigA is indicated at the top. Arrowhead indicates the position of the product (329 nt) synthesized from the psbA2 promoter. The positions of molecular size markers, 32P-end-labelled fragments derived from pUC119B DNA digested with HinfI (Imamura et al. 2003b), are presented in nucleotides (nt) at the left. (B–D) Effects of temperature (B), pH (C), and MgCl2 (D) on transcription from the psbA2 promoter. Each reaction was done with RNAP composed of the PCC 6803 core enzyme and SigA (panel A, lane 4). The profiles of synthesized mRNA are shown as insets. Signal intensities on X-ray films from three independent experiments were quantified as previously described (see previous data: Imamura et al. 2003b) and the values are presented (n = 3, means ± Standard Deviation) as relative levels (the highest value is taken as 100%). C-terminal His-tagged SigB Previous studies in vitro showed transcription by RNAPs with PCC 6803 group 1 (SigA) and group 2 (SigB, SigC, SigD, SigE) sigma factors, which are His-tagged at the N-terminal except for SigC. However, the rate of transcription by RNAP with SigB seemed to be relatively low (Imamura et al. 2003b). This might be caused by low enzyme activities for SigB if the tag is fused at the N-terminal (His-SigB). Therefore, we again tried to construct a C-terminal His-tagged SigB (SigB-His). Although the level of SigB-His from the expression vector was very low in E. coli, compared with that of His-SigB, we eventually succeeded in purifying SigB-His (data not shown). As shown in Fig. 5, apparent mRNA products were more effectively synthesized by RNAP with SigB-His (Fig. 5A) than His-SigB (see previous data: Imamura et al. 2003b). This purified SigB-His was therefore used. Figure 5Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Similar but distinctive effects on transcription of each RNAP composed of the E. coli or PCC 6803 core enzyme. (A) In vitro run-off transcription assay with the PCC 6803 psbA2 promoter (pKK-A2). The heterologous (E. coli core +PCC 6803 Sig′X′, left panel) or homologous (PCC 6803 core +PCC 6803 Sig′X′, right panel) RNAPs were used. Others are the same as in Fig. 2A. (B) Relative levels of the transcripts. Signal intensities on X-ray films from three independent experiments were quantified the same as in Fig. 2 and the values are presented (n = 3, means ± SD) as relative levels (value for SigA as 100%). Promoter selectivity of group 1 and 2 sigma factors E. coli possesses only one group 2 sigma factor, RpoS (σS, Sigma38). Although the existence of multiple group 2 sigma factors is a characteristic of cyanobacteria, the individual promoter selectivity among them remains to be resolved. The promoter recognition specificity of the group 2 sigma factors was examined in vitro with heat-shock hspA and dark-induced lrtA promoters, which are specifically recognized in vivo by SigB under conditions of an oxidized electron transport chain of photosynthesis in PCC 6803 cells (Imamura et al. 2003a,b), under the optimal conditions. The results are shown in Fig. 3. The supercoiled DNA templates for each promoter were summarized in Table 1. The hspA promoter is the E. coli consensus-type promoter except for a short spacer length (15-bp). On the other hand, lrtA possesses only the −10 hexamer. The signal intensities from the psbA2 promoters were relatively greater than those of hspA and lrtA for each sigma factor, indicating that psbA2 has a strong promoter. Both the hspA and lrtA promoter were well recognized by SigB (Fig. 3A,B). For high-resolution analysis on hspA and lrtA transcription, we further performed primer extension following in vitro mRNA synthesis (Fig. 3D). The result was not contradict to that shown in Fig. 3A. These well support the data obtained in vivo (Imamura et al. 2003a,b). These results also show the promoter recognition specificity in vitro with redundancy among group 2 sigma factors but with differences in efficiency. The differences in specificity might depend on the promoter architecture and potential ability of each sigma factor, since no other trans-acting factor was added into the assay. We confirmed almost the same signal intensities of transcripts from the RNA I promoter in each plasmid, as a control shown in Fig. 3C. Figure 3Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Promoter selectivity of group 1 and 2 sigma factors. (A) In vitro run-off transcription assay of the PCC 6803 psbA2 (pKK-A2), hspA (pKK-PA), and lrtA (pKK-TA) promoters. The reconstituted PCC 6803 RNAPs with SigA to SigE were used. Parts of each synthesized mRNA on an X-ray film are shown. (B) Relative levels of the transcripts. Signal intensities on the X-ray films from three independent experiments were quantified the same as in Fig. 2. The values (each value of psbA2 as 100%) were presented (n = 3, means ± S.D.). (C) Relative levels of the transcripts from RNA I promoter on pKK-A2, pKK-PA and pKK-TA. The transcripts synthesized by the reconstituted PCC 6803 RNAP with SigA served as a control. A profile of the transcripts from RNA I promoter is shown as an inset. (D) High resolution analysis for hspA and lrtA transcription. The hspA and lrtA transcripts were synthesized in vitro in a mixture comprising of PCC 6803 core enzyme (2 pmol), each sigma (6 pmol) and supercoiled template DNAs (pKK-PA or pKK-TA, 0.3 pmol). Then, primer extension (Asayama et al. 2004) was done with sll1514-R (Imamura et al. 2003b) or lrtA-R4 primer (Imamura et al. 2003a), respectively. The transcription start points (−44 or −312, +1 as the initiation codon) are shown together with analysed with total RNA prepared from the PCC 6803 cells as a positive control. Effect of −35 hexamer on promoter recognition The major class of bacterial promoters is defined by two conserved elements, the −10 and −35 hexamers that are in contact with sigma factors in the RNAP holoenzyme. Amino acid sequences for promoter recognition are similar but not identical between RpoD (group 1) and RpoS (group 2) proteins in E. coli. Although the −10 hexamer was conserved in cases of both sigma factors, RpoS promoters have less conservation at the −35 hexamer (Tanaka et al. 1993; Espinosa-Urgel et al. 1996). To address the influence of the −35 hexamer sequence for group 1 and group 2 sigma factors, mRNA synthesis in vitro was examined with SigA and SigD (Fig. 4), which take part in psbA transcription in PCC 6803 cells (Imamura et al. 2003a,b). The psbA2 promoters (Table 1) in pKK-IY1 (wild-type, −35 and −10 hexamers) and pKK-IY4 (−10 hexamer only, AC→TG mutations at the −35 hexamer) were used and derived from another cyanobacterium M. aeruginosa K-81 (Ito et al. 2003), which is categorized into the same group of Synechocystis species. In promoter architecture, K-81 psbA2 and PCC 6803 psbA2 are essentially the same (Shibato et al. 1998, 2002). Results indicated that the −35 hexamer sequence is essential for SigA but not for SigD, suggesting a difference in the requirement of a conserved −35 hexamer for promoter recognition between the group 1 and group 2 sigma factors. We also confirmed equal amounts of mRNA products from the RNA I promoter on pKK-IY1 or pKK-IY4 as a control (Fig. 4B). Figure 4Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Effects of the −35 hexamer on promoter recognition. (A) In vitro run-off transcription assay with template DNAs of pKK-IY1 [WT, wild-type K-81 psbA2 (–35 & −10) and pKK–IY4 [−35mt, K-81 psbA2 promoter (−10 only)]. The reconstituted PCC 6803 RNAPs with SigA or SigD were used. Signals corresponding to the K-81 psbA2 transcripts on X-ray film are presented. (B) Relative levels of the transcripts. Signal intensities of transcripts from psbA2 or RNA I promoter on X-ray films from three independent experiments were quantified the same as in Fig. 2. The values (each value of pKK-IY1 as 100%) are presented (n = 3, means ± SD) as relative levels. Distinctive effects on transcription of each RNAP composed of the E. coli or PCC 6803 core enzyme The subunit composition of the core enzyme in photosynthesizing organisms is distinct from that in non-photosynthesizing eubacteria (Introduction). Therefore, we compared the RNAP activities between PCC 6803 core (αββ′γ) and E. coli core (αββ′) enzymes on the PCC 6803 psbA2 transcription. Similar but distinct signal patterns were observed in the gel profile even when the same sigma factor was used (Fig. 5A, left vs. right). Interestingly, the PCC 6803 RNAP holoenzyme, EσD, composed of the PCC 6803 core enzyme (E) and SigD (σD), drove the transcription more than did the RNAP with E. coli core enzyme (Ec) (lane 4). In contrast, the signal transcribed by EσC (PCC 6803 core +SigC) was significantly weaker than that transcribed by EcσC (E. coli core +SigC) on the promoter (lane 3). The psbA2 promoter is specifically recognized by light/high-light-induced SigD in PCC 6803 cells (Imamura et al. 2003a,b). The in vitro results coincide well with previous data obtained in vivo. These findings indicated that the functions of cyanobacterial and E. coli core enzymes are similar but distinct. This idea led us to perform the next experiment on the characterization of the core enzyme. Binding of RpoC1 and RpoC2 to the E. coli core enzyme and role of PCC 6803 RpoC2 in transcription E. coli-type β′ (RpoC) refers to two parts of γ (RpoC1) and β′ (RpoC2) in cyanobacterial RNAP (Fig. S1A). A phylogenetic analysis was therefore performed on RpoC1 or RpoC2 together with the corresponding segments of E. coli-type RpoC (Fig. S1B). In both cases, four groups were constituted as Gram-positive or -negative non-photosynthesizing bacteria, cyanobacteria and plants. The molecular structure of RpoC2 has devolved more extensively than RpoC1 subunits. This suggests that RpoC2 is evolutionarily a unique core subunit. We therefore investigated the contribution of cyanobacterial RpoC2 to transcription. If RpoC2 plays some unique role, a heterologous RNAP holoenzyme composed of the E. coli core enzyme and PCC 6803 sigma factor (Ecσ) will be able to enhance its ability specifically. First, we assessed the binding affinity of PCC 6803 RpoC2 for the E. coli core enzyme (Ec) in a His-tag pull-down assay. We also used PCC 6803 RpoC1 as a control. As shown in Fig. 6, the E. coli RpoA, RpoB and RpoC bands were only detected when the E. coli core was mixed with His-RpoC1 or His-RpoC2 (lanes 3, 6 and 9 in panel A and lanes 3, 12 and 15 in panel B). The band intensities of RpoA were not altered by addition of bovine serum albumin (BSA) (lane 3 vs. lanes 4–6 in panel B) or α-casein as a competitor (lane 3 vs. lanes 7–9 in panel B), indicating the specific-binding of the E. coli core enzyme to His-RpoC2. These results showed that RpoC1 and RpoC2 are capable of binding to the E. coli core enzyme complex. Second, the affinity of RpoC2 in RNAP (Ec +RpoC2) for PCC 6803 sigma factors (σA, σC and σD) was tested using PCC 6803 psbA2 transcription (Fig. 7). The signal intensities in Fig. 7A–C are summarized in Fig. 7D. It was of great interest that the transcription from psbA2 was markedly accelerated by a combination of RpoC2 and SigD (EcσD+RpoC2) (panel C, lanes 9 vs. 10 and 11) even under conditions in which the amount of SigD relative to E. coli core enzyme is saturated (lanes 2–5). Similar results by RNAP (EcσD+RpoC2) were also observed on the RNA I promoter carrying an E. coli consensus-type sequence as well as that of the psbA2 promoter (Goto-Seki et al. 1999). In contrast, no enhancement was observed on addition of RpoC1 (panel C, lane 6 vs. 7 and 8). In addition, a combination of RpoC2 and SigA in the RNAP (EcσA+RpoC2) also enhanced the transcription (panel A, lanes 4 vs. 5 and 6) but not so another RNAP (EcσC+RpoC2) containing RpoC2 and SigC (panel B, lanes 4 vs. 5 and 6). We also checked whether the amount of SigC (5 pmol) and SigA (5 pmol) is also saturated (data not shown). No enhancement by RpoC2 was observed when the PCC 6803 core enzyme was used the same as the E. coli core (data not shown). These results suggest that cyanobacterial RpoC2 plays a role in the enhancement of transcription. This is the first time that a specific enhancement of transcription by a group 2 sigma factor has been confirmed directly in vitro on a light-responsive promoter in photosynthesizing organisms. Figure 6Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Binding affinity of PCC 6803 RpoC1 and RpoC2 to E. coli core enzyme. (A) His-tag pull-down assay with PCC 6803 His-RpoC1 and E. coli core enzyme. The presence (+) and absence (–) is indicated at the top. Details are described in Experimental procedures. The specific binding of the E. coli core enzyme to PCC 6803 RpoC1 was detected by Western blotting with E. coli RpoA, RpoB, and RpoC antibodies. Asterisks indicate the positions of relevant band. (B) The assay with PCC 6803 His-RpoC2 and E. coli core enzyme. Others are the same as (A). Figure 7Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Role of RpoC2 in cyanobacterial RNAP in transcription. (A–C) In vitro run-off transcription assay was done with the template pKK-A2 (psbA2 and RNA I promoters) and SigA (A), SigC (B), or SigD (C). The amount of enzymes (pmol) is shown at the top. In the case of addition of PCC 6803 RpoC1 or RpoC2, PCC 6803 RpoC1 or RpoC2 and the E. coli core enzyme were incubated at 30 °C for 30 min the same as in Fig. 6 before the assay. The transcripts from psbA2 and RNA I promoters are indicated by arrowheads. (D) Relative ratios of the transcripts with RpoC1 or RpoC2. Signal intensities on X-ray films from three independent experiments were quantified the same as in Fig. 2 and the relative ratio (presence of RpoC1 or RpoC2 (1 pmol)/absence) is presented (n = 3, means ± SD). Discussion An in vitro transcription system using homologous reconstituted RNAP with recombinant subunits was tried for the first time in photosynthesizing organisms. The in vitro results coincide well with previous in vivo data (Imamura et al. 2003a,b), indicating that this in vitro system is useful for transcription analysis. The ineffective step of PEI precipitation was also observed in the case of M. aeruginosa K-81 RNAP (Asayama et al. 1996), suggesting that the PEI precipitation might not be useful for RNAP in Synechocystis species. Thus the approach in this study will shed light on in vitro transcription analyses for RNAPs not only of cyanobacteria but also of other photosynthesizing organisms. In addition, this in vitro assay system will be also convenient to functional analyses with mutant RNAPs even if the mutants cause to lethal cells. Of note, the C-terminal His-tagged RpoA (RpoA-His) was useful for purification of the reconstituted RNAP core enzyme in this study. The N-terminal domain of RpoA (α-NTD) is known to play a key role in assembly of the core enzyme (Igarashi et al. 1991). Tang et al. (1995) have demonstrated that E. coli RpoA-His potentially functions normally on the CAP-dependent lacP (ICAP) promoter, although the C-terminal domain of RpoA (α-CTD) is required for efficient transcription with CAP. Here, we discuss the specific promoter selectivity and roles of PCC 6803 group 1 and 2 sigma factors as follows. In the case of SigA, both the −35 and −10 hexamers are needed for efficient transcription, the same as with E. coli RpoD (3, 4, 5). The specific promoter selectivity of SigB was directly confirmed in vitro with redundancy of other sigma factors on the heat-shock hspA or dark-inducible lrtA promoter (Fig. 3). The spacer of the hspA promoter is short, and the lrtA promoter has no conserved −35 hexamer (−10 only). This suggests that SigB may be a sigma factor capable of recognizing non-consensus-type promoters. The lrtA promoter has TGTGn and GC motifs (Table 1, dots and *, respectively), which are directly recognized by region 2.5 of E. coli RpoD and RpoS, respectively (Barne et al. 1997; Burr et al. 2000; Becker & Hengge-Aronis 2001). Therefore, these motifs may have some effect on promoter recognition by SigA and SigB in PCC 6803 cells. Recent experiments revealed that Hik34, a histidine kinase protein of a two-component regulatory system, regulates hspA transcription (Marin et al. 2003), suggesting that a set of regulatory factors also participates in hspA expression in cooperation with the sigma factors. In the present study, C-terminal His-tagged SigB was used and its ability improved in vitro
Referência(s)