|
|
|
Journal of Bacteriology, February 2004, p . 1136-1146, Vol . 186, No . 4
The
Bacillus subtilis Extracytoplasmic-Function
|
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
Bacillus subtilis contains seven extracytoplasmic-function
factors that activate partially overlapping regulons . We here
identify four additional members of the
X
regulon, pbpX [penicillin-bindingprotein], ywnJ, the
dlt operon [D-alanylation of teichoic acids],
and the pss ybfM psd operon [phosphatidylethanolamine
biosynthesis].Modification of teichoic acids by esterification with
D-alanineand incorporation of
phosphatidylethanolamine into the cellmembrane have a common
consequence: in both cases positivelycharged amino groups are
introduced into the cell envelope.The resulting reduction in the net
negative charge of the cellenvelope has been previously implicated
as a resistance mechanismspecific for cationic antimicrobial
peptides . Consistent withthis notion, we find that both sigX
and dltA mutants are moresensitive to nisin than wild-type
cells . We conclude that activationof the
X
regulon serves to alter cell surface properties toprovide protection
against antimicrobial peptides.
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
Bacillus subtilis encodes seven extracytoplasmic-function [ECF]
factors . Most studies to date have focused on three:
X,
W,
and
M
[reviewed in reference 19] . sigX and its downstream
genersiX [encoding the anti-
X
factor] were originally observed tobe homologous [but not
orthologous] to Escherichia coli fecIand fecR, which
are involved in expression of ferric citratetransport genes [37] .
Although expression of sigX in E . colican complement a
fecI mutant [4], the B . subtilis sigX mutant
is not affected in any known ferri-siderophore uptake systems[20].
To understand the function of
X,
we identified several
X-regulated
genes using a consensus promoter search method [22] . In
theseinitial studies, we characterized six genes that are preceded
by promoters recognized by
X:
sigX, abh [an AbrB homolog], csbB[a
membrane-bound glucosyl transferase] [2], divIC [a
membrane-boundcell-division initiation protein], lytR [a
negative regulatorof autolysin] [30], and rapD
[a response regulator aspartatephosphatase] [43] .
These results suggested that
X
modulatesaspects of cell envelope metabolism . Interestingly, most
X-controlled
genes are also transcribed by other forms of holoenzyme . For
example, csbB has an additional
B-dependent
promoter, lytR andrapD both have additional
A-dependent
promoters, and sigX itselfis preferentially transcribed from
an upstream
A-dependent
sitein addition to the
X-dependent
autoregulatory promoter [20,22] .
Moreover, in some cases [e.g., abh and divIC] the promoter
activated by the E
X
holoenzyme can also be recognized by theE
W
holoenzyme at least in vitro [21] . Similarly, the recently
defined bcrC gene [a bacitracin resistance gene] is transcribed
from a promoter that is recognized by either
X
or
M
[7, 38].The unknown function of
many
X-controlled
genes makes it difficultto predict a phenotype for the sigX
mutant . This challenge isexacerbated by the fact that many of the
genes are expressedfrom multiple promoters or by multiple holoenzyme
forms activatingthe same promoter . The latter observation also makes
DNA microarrayapproaches difficult, since many genes that can be
activatedby
X
are also expressed by
X-independent
pathways.
In this study we have used both promoter consensus search andin
vitro runoff transcription-macroarray analysis [ROMA] [8]
to identify four additional
X-dependent
operons: dltABCDE, pssAybfM psd, pbpX, and
ywnJ . Both the dlt and the pssA operonsencode
enzymes that modulate cell surface charge [D-alanylation
of teichoic acids and biosynthesis of phosphatidylethanolamine
[PE], respectively], and PbpX is a low-molecular-weight penicillin-binding
protein of unknown function . These results lead us to propose
that one function of
X
is to regulate cell surface modificationas a defense against
cationic antimicrobial peptides.
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
Bacterial strains, plasmids, oligonucleotides, and growth conditions.
All bacterial strains, plasmids, and oligonucleotides used inthis
study are listed in Table 1 . B . subtilis and E . coli
strainswere grown at 37°C with vigorous shaking in Luria broth
[LB] medium [50] unless otherwise indicated . For E .
coli, 100µg of ampicillin/ml was used to select for Ampr,
and 200µg of spectinomycin/ml was used to select for Spcr .
ForB . subtilis, antibiotics used for selection were as
follows:100 µg of spectinomycin/ml for Spcr, 10 µg of
kanamycin/mlfor Kanr, 8 µg of neomycin/ml for Neor,
and 1 µgof erythromycin/ml and 25 µg of lincomycin/ml for
macrolide-lincomycin-streptograminB resistance [MLSr].
|
Construction of mutants. CU1065 chromosomal DNA was amplified
with primers #427 and #428.The PCR fragment was digested with SacI
and PstI and ligatedinto pGEM-cat-3Zf[+] [59]
to generate plasmid pMC57 . pMC57 wasdigested with HincII and
SnaBI and ligated with a Spcr cassette[PCR
amplified from pKF59 [5] using T3 and T7
primers] to generatepMC58 . B . subtilis CU1065 was transformed
with pMC58 [linearizedwith ScaI] with selection for Spcr
to generate HB0048 [dltA::spc].Thus, a
630-bp
internal fragment of dltA was replaced with aSpcr
cassette.
Primers #371 and #372 were used to amplify an internal fragmentof
dltA [
490
bp] . The PCR fragment was digested with EcoRI andBamHI
and cloned into pMUTIN4 [56], generating plasmid pMC59.
This plasmid was inserted into CU1065 by Campbell integration
and selection for MLSr to generate strain HB0038 [dltA::pMUTIN].
CU1065 was transformed with chromosomal DNA from SDB01 [psd::neo] [33] and SDB02 [pssA::spc] [33] to generate the psd::neo [HB4519]and pssA::spc [HB4520] mutants, respectively . The dltA pssA[HB0094] and dltA psd [HB0095] double mutants were generatedby using chromosomal DNA from SDB02 and SDB01 to transform HB0038[dltA::pMUTIN] and HB0048[dltA::spc], with selection for [MLSr plus Spcr] and [Spcr plus Neor], respectively.
Construction of promoter-cat-lacZ fusions. The
putative promoter regions were amplified and cloned intopJPM122 [51] .
The sequence of the promoter region in each plasmidwas verified by
DNA sequencing [Cornell DNA sequencing facility].The promoter
fusions were introduced into the SPßprophage by double-crossover
recombination, in which each pJPM122derivative was linearized by
digestion with ScaI and used totransform B . subtilis
ZB307A [60] with selection for Neor . SPß
lysates were prepared by heat induction and used to transduce
various recipient strains, and ß-galactosidase activitywas measured
on each sample in early stationary phase [when
X
activity is at a maximum] [21] as described by Miller [34].
Purification of RNAP and
factors. Preparation of B . subtilis core RNA polymerase [RNAP]
and
A,
D,
X,
W
and
proteins was previously described [10, 20,
21,25, 31].
ROMA. The ROMA experiment was performed as described
previously [8].A typical transcription reaction
[50 µl] contains 1.3pmol of core RNAP, 16 pmol of
X,
15 pmol of
,
and 1 µgof digested genomic DNA mixed in transcription buffer [20 mM
Tris-HCl [pH 8.0], 10 mM MgCl2, 50 mM KCl, 0.5 mM
dithiothreitol,0.1-mg/ml bovine serum albumin, 5% [vol/vol]
glycerol, and RNasinfrom Promega [10 U/reaction]] and NTP mixture
[40 nmol of ATP,GTP, CTP, and 8 nmol of [
-33P]UTP
[3,000 Ci/mmol] from NEN].The Panorama B . subtilis gene
arrays [catalog no . PRBS0002]were purchased from Sigma-Genosys
Biotechnologies, Inc.
In vitro runoff transcription assays for candidate genes. A
typical runoff reaction mixture [20 µl] contains 0.36pmol of core
RNAP, 4.5 pmol of
X,
4.2 pmol of
,
0.04 pmol ofPCR-amplified template DNA [normally the same fragments
usedfor generating promoter fusions] and NTP mixture [10 nmol of
ATP, GTP, CTP, 1 nmol of UTP, and 0.6 pmol of [
-32P]UTP
[3,000Ci/mmol]].Reactions were incubated and processed as described
for theROMA experiments [8].
Primer extension assays. RNA was either purified from in vitro runoff transcription reactionmixtures or extracted from late-log-phase B . subtilis cellsusing phenol-chloroform extraction as described previously [22].A PCR fragment containing the promoter region studied was sequencedusing the same primer to index the transcription start site.
Nisin MIC assays. Nisin was obtained from Sigma Chemical Co . and dissolved in20 mM HCl . Overnight cultures were diluted 1:100 into freshLB medium in the presence of nisin at the indicated concentration.After incubation for 6 h with shaking, the optical density at600 nm [OD600] was measured.
Autolysis test. CU1065 [wild type], sigX::spc,
dltA::spc, and dltA::pMUTIN strainswere grown
in LB or minimal medium [9] . Cells were harvested
at exponential growth phase [OD600,
0.7],
washed twice withcold Tris-HCl buffer [pH 7.1], and resuspended in
50 mM Tris-HClbuffer [pH 7.1] containing 0.05% Triton X-100 .
Incubation wasat 37°C, and autolysis was monitored by measuring the
decreaseof OD600 at 30-min intervals.
Northern blot analysis. Primers #537 and #538 were used to
amplify an internal fragment[
570
bp] of psd from CU1065 chromosomal DNA . After HindIII digestion,
the fragment was labeled with [
-32P]dATP
by the 3' fill-in methodusing a Klenow fragment of DNA polymerase
[Exo-; New EnglandBioLabs] . The probe was hybridized with
membranes containingtotal RNA from wild-type, sigX, and
rsiX strains [same RNA sampleused for primer extension; see
above] . The NorthernMax formaldehyde-basedsystem [Ambion, Inc.] was
used to perform the Northern analysis.Ten micrograms of total RNA
was denatured and loaded on 1% formaldehydeagarose gel .
Hybridization was performed at 42°C overnight.The second day, the
blot was washed twice with low-stringencybuffer [2x
SSC [1x SSC is 0.15 M NaCl plus 0.015 M
sodium citrate]]at room temperature followed by two washes with
high-stringencybuffer [0.1x SSC]
at 42°C . The blot was wrapped in plasticwrap and exposed to a
Phosphor screen [Molecular Dynamics].
| RESULTS |
|---|
Defining the
X
regulon using promoter consensus search. Previously, saturation
mutagenesis of the sigX autoregulatorypromoter was used to
identify those bases important for
X-dependent
promoter recognition . The resulting consensus was used to search
the partially sequenced B . subtilis genome [63% complete at
the time the analysis was done [22]] to identify
candidate promoters.While this approach identified several
X
target genes, otherswere subsequently found to be primarily
controlled by
W
or
M,
which recognize promoters with closely related sequences [22,
35].
The availability of the complete genome sequence [28],
togetherwith a better understanding of the rules for promoter
recognitionby
X
and its paralog
W
[21, 48], encouraged us to repeat the
consensus search procedure . Although we explored the use of
several different search patterns to identify likely candidates,one
of the most successful searches used the degenerate consensus
tgtaACtttt n12-13 CG[A,T]C to screen the SubtiList database
[36] for those sites within 250 bp of an annotated
start codon.This search pattern is based on the observation that
many identified
X-dependent
promoters contain a T-rich region in the downstreamportion of the
-35 element and the AC base pairs are highlyconserved . We allowed up
to three mismatches in this extended-35 element [in the positions in
lowercase] and none in the-10 element . By including those promoters
with -10 elementsof either CGTC or CGAC, we expected to identify
some sites alreadydefined as largely dependent on
W .
The resulting list of candidatepromoters includes one site with no
mismatches [the sigX autoregulatorysite], three with
one mismatch [preceding lytR, ywnJ, and dltA],
and four with two mismatches [divIC, ydjA, abh,
and yrhH; underlinedsites are known to be at least
partially
X
dependent in vivoor in vitro] [21,
22] . Among the 15 sites with three mismatchesin the -35 element,
we focused our attention on those precedingpssA and pbpX,
since these genes are of known function [Table2].
|
Defining the
X
regulon using ROMA. As a complementary mechanism to identify candidate
X
targetgenes, we performed in vitro ROMA analysis [8] .
The ROMA approachgenerates 33P-labeled runoff transcripts
using
X-containing
holoenzyme to transcribe total genomic DNA that has been restricted
with either EcoRI or HindIII . The resulting runoff
transcriptsare then used to probe a DNA macroarray [Sigma/GenoSys]
containing4,107 B . subtilis open reading frames . Candidates
[genes whosesignal became stronger in the presence of
X]
were chosen forfurther analysis if they had a particularly strong
signal orif they were associated with a plausible promoter site as
identifiedby the consensus search approach described above . In
additionto signals corresponding to promoters known to be recognized
by
X
[e.g., sigX, csbB, lytR, divIC, and bcrC]
[Fig . 1], theROMA experiment revealed strong
signals for the pssA and ywnJgenes and a weaker signal
for dltA . Note that in many cases,these same genes appeared
in reactions using
W
holoenzyme insteadof
X
[Fig . 1], consistent with the known overlap between the
sets of promoters recognized by these two
factors [22].
|
Confirmation of promoters for pbpX and ywnJ. We
used a reporter fusion to demonstrate that pbpX is dependent
on sigX in vivo, with a further reduction in expression in the
sigX sigW double mutant [Fig . 2A] . DNA microarray
analyses revealthat the expression of pbpX decreased 2.7-fold
in the sigX mutant[data not shown] but not in the sigW
mutant [8] . The reporterfusion for the putative
ywnJ promoter had very low activity,so in vitro transcription
was used to demonstrate that thissite could be recognized by both
the
X
and
W
holoenzymes [Fig.2B] . Transcription initiates at
the expected site, as measuredby primer extension mapping of the
resulting in vitro transcripts[Fig . 2C].
|
The dltABCDE operon is largely dependent on
X.
The B . subtilis dltABCDE operon is responsible for D-alanine
esterification of both lipoteichoic acids [LTA] and wall teichoic
acids [WTA] [44] . Transcription of the dltABCDE
operon was originallyproposed to be largely [
70%]
D
dependent, with the residualactivity perhaps due to two putative
A-dependent
promoters [Fig.3A, P1 and P4]
[44].
|
To examine the regulation of the dlt operon, we integrated two
lacZ transcriptional fusions ectopically at the SPßlocus . The
PdltA1-cat-lacZ fusion consists of a
730-bp
fragment[from -630 bp to +100 bp relative to the start codon] and
includesall four putative promoters [P1 to P4] .
The PdltA2-cat-lacZfusion
consists of a shorter fragment [from -390 bp to +100bp] and includes
P2 through P4 [Fig . 3B] . Results with
bothpromoter fusions indicate that expression is reduced by about
85% in the sigX mutant and slightly increased in the rsiX
mutant[defective in the anti-
factor that targets
X
[20]], confirmingthe existence of a
X-dependent
promoter in this region [Fig.3C] . Expression was
unaffected in the sigW and rsiW mutant strains,despite
the presence of a CGTC motif is the predicted -10 region[see
Discussion] . Under our growth conditions,
D
does not seemto play a role in dlt transcription, since the
activities fromboth fusions neither decreased in a sigD
mutant nor increasedin a flgM [anti-
D]
mutant . Moreover, the first putative
A-dependent
promoter [P1] apparently did not contribute to the dlt
transcription,since expression from PdltA1
and PdltA2 was similar . The residual
activity [
11
Miller units] in the sigX mutant might be due torecognition
of the
X-dependent
promoter by another ECF
factoror might be due to another promoter [maybe P4].
We extended these in vivo results using in vitro runoff transcription
and primer extension assays . When the long PCR fragment [PdltA1]
was incubated with RNAP core enzyme in the presence of
A,
X,
W
or
D,
appropriately sized transcripts were generated by boththe
X
and
D
holoenzymes [Fig . 4A] . Although
W
could weakly recognizethe
X-dependent
site in vitro [Fig . 4A], it did not appear toplay
a major role in vivo [Fig . 3C] . While E
D
could initiatetranscription from the
D-dependent
promoter in vitro, in vivotranscripts were detected only for the
X-dependent
promoter[Fig . 4B] . Primer extension reactions
indicate that transcriptionof dltA initiates primarily from a
G residue 11 bases downstreamof the -10 CGTC motif and secondarily
from an A residue 2 basesupstream . Both signals became stronger in
the rsiX mutant andwere greatly reduced in the sigX
mutant . No other strong startsites were visible in this region . We
conclude that dlt expressionis largely dependent on
X
in vivo.
|
The pssA ybfM psd operon is partially controlled by
X.
Our identification of a candidate
X-dependent
promoter upstreamof the pssA gene suggests a possible role
for
X
in regulatingthe phospholipid content of the membrane . The pssA
gene is partof a predicted operon including ybfM and psd .
Together, thePssA and Psd proteins catalyze the synthesis of PE .
Okada etal . [39] proposed two putative
A-dependent
promoters [P1 andP2] upstream of pssA,
and our results suggest a third
X-dependent
promoter [P3] [TGTAAC-N16-CGTCaa] [Fig.
5A].
|
To test the contribution of each promoter to pssA expression,
we constructed two lacZ fusions: one contains the complete promoter
region [P1, P2, and P3], the other
contains only P3 [Fig . 5B].
ß-Galactosidase assays demonstrate that about one-halfof the
expression derives from the
X-dependent
promoter [P3],with the other half from the region
containing P1 and P2 [Fig.5C].
Recognition of P3 by
X
holoenzyme was confirmed in vitro byrunoff transcription assays
[Fig . 6A] . A faint, larger bandwas observed in
reactions containing E
A,
probably resultingfrom one of the
A-dependent
promoters . We used primer extensionassays to localize the
transcription start site for the
X
holoenzymeto an A residue 10 bp downstream from CGTC [Fig.
6B] . A weaktranscript was detected in the wild
type [CU1065] but not inthe sigX mutant strain . The amount of
transcript increased inthe rsiX mutant, as expected for a
X-dependent
promoter.
|
To test whether pssA and psd are in one operon, we conducted
Northern blot analysis using a 32P-labeled internal fragment
of the psd gene as a probe . A large transcript [
1.9
kb] wasdetected, consistent with an mRNA extending from pssA
throughpsd . A smaller transcript [
850
bp] likely corresponds to thepsd gene and may have been
produced by RNA processing, sinceit varies in intensity with the
full-length transcript [Fig.6C] . The density of
both bands decreased about 50% in the sigXmutant and
increased in the rsiX mutant, consistent with theprevious
conclusion that
X
contributes
50%
of the expressionof PpssA.
sigX mutants are altered in autolysis and sensitivity to
cationic antimicrobial peptides. Since
X
regulates both D-alanylation of teichoic acids and PE
biosynthesis, we tested the effects of a sigX mutation on two
phenotypes previously shown to be affected by cell surface charge:
autolysis and resistance to cationic antimicrobial peptides.We
first compared the Triton X-100-induced autolysis rates [58]
of the wild type and the sigX and dltA::spc mutants .
Autolysinsare a group of positively charged cell wall hydrolytic
enzymesthat bind more avidly to the cell wall of dlt mutant
strains[58] . As expected, both the sigX
and dltA mutants have a twofoldincrease in the rate of
autolysis compared to the wild type[Fig . 7A] .
Similar results were observed with cells grown inLB or minimal
medium.
|
Cationic antimicrobial peptides [CAMPs] are a broadly distributed
family of peptides that kill bacteria . Many are thought to actby
accumulating within the cytoplasmic membrane to a critical
concentration that allows the assembly of structures that permeabilize
the cell [16-18] . To test whether
X
plays a role in resistanceto CAMPs, we measured the MICs of nisin
for the wild type andthe sigX, dltA, pssA, and
psd mutants: a positively charged[+3] peptide produced by
Lactococcus lactis [24] . As expected,the
sigX and dltA mutants were more sensitive to nisin than
the wild type [Fig . 7B] . The psd mutant had only
slightly increasedsensitivity, while the pssA mutant was
unaffected . A psd dltAdouble mutant behaved much like the
dltA single mutant . In additionto nisin, the sigX and
dltA mutants were more sensitive to severalother tested CAMPs
[S . Farmer and R . Hancock, personal communication]but not to
gramicidin, a neutral peptide . In contrast, the mutantswere
unaltered in their sensitivity to vancomycin, tunicamycin,or
lysozyme [data not shown], although dlt mutants have been
previously reported to display an increased susceptibility to
methicillin [57].
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
Using a promoter consensus search and ROMA approaches, we have
defined four additional
X-dependent
operons . Together with theresults of our previous analyses [22],
we conclude that mostmembers of the
X
regulon control processes related to the compositionor metabolism of
the cell envelope . For example, LytR is a negativeregulator of
autolysin activity [30], CsbB is a membrane-bound
glucosyl transferase likely involved in cell wall biosynthesis[2],
PbpX is a penicillin-binding protein, DltA, DltB, DltCand DltD are
responsible for D alanylation of the WTA and LTA[44],
and PssA and Psd are enzymes for PE biosynthesis [33].
We note that most of these operons are expressed from complex
promoter regions: lytR is controlled by both
A
and
X,
csbB isalso regulated by
B,
pbpX is partially regulated by
W,
and
X
and
A
each contribute to pssA ybfM psd expression . Perhaps dueto
this overlapping regulation, the sigX mutant strain doesnot
display dramatic growth defects under most tested conditions,
although some increased sensitivity to oxidative stress andheat
stress has been noted [20] . Here, we have extended the
phenotypes of the sigX mutant to include increased rates of
autolysis and increased sensitivity to cationic antimicrobial
peptides.
Promoter recognition by
X.
As noted previously,
X
recognizes -10 elements with sequenceCGaC,
W
recognizes CGTa, and both can recognize CGTC [lowercasereflects a
noncritical base for recognition] [21, 22,
48] . InTable 2 we compile the
11 promoters that are the best candidatesfor regulation by
X
in vivo . Note that some of these sites canalso be recognized by
either
W
or
M .
For example, both bcrC[7, 38]
and pbpX [Fig . 2A] seem to be under dual control in
vivo, and
W
recognizes several other sites in vitro [Table 2].
In addition, a number of other promoters previously studied[22]
can be recognized by
X
in vitro, but an in vivo role for
X
has not been documented, and it seems likely that they maybe
primarily dependent on
W
or
M
for in vivo expression [22].Indeed, in B .
subtilis W23, expression of the divIC gene ispartially
M
dependent [35].
Inspection of Table 2 allows a refinement of our previous
modelsfor promoter discrimination among ECF
factors . Specifically,we note that most of the newly characterized
promoters identifiedin this study contain a CGTC -10 motif,
previously shown tobe also recognized by
W
holoenzyme . However, all four promoters[abh, divIC,
pbpX, and ywnJ] that are also recognized by
W
sharea common extended -10 region of CGTCta . In contrast, the
otherthree [rapD, dltA, and pssA] that are
recognized only by
X
havea -10 region of "CGTCaa [Table 2] . This
is consistent with theobservation that the highly specific
autoregulatory sites forsigX and sigW contain -10
elements of "CGACaa" and "CGTAta,"respectively .
Furthermore, in a previous promoter mutagenesisstudy we found that
changing the sigX promoter [-10] regionCGACaa to CGTCaa
resulted in a site that retained high selectivityfor
X .
In contrast, when the sigW [-10] region CGTAta was changedto
CGTCta, both
X
and
W
could recognize this promoter [48].We therefore
conclude that [i] the preferred -10 consensus sequencesfor
X
[CGaCaa] and
W
[CGTata] differ in two positions [italics]rather than
one position and [ii] there is considerable overlapbetween these two
regulons.
Biological role of
X
and the
X
regulon. Distinctive aspects of the gram-positive bacterial cell
envelopeinclude the presence of a thick cell wall containing
peptidoglycan,WTA, and LTA [14] . In B .
subtilis 168 strains, the negativelycharged teichoic acids
contain an alternating glycerol phosphatecopolymer, whereas in B .
subtilis W23 strains ribitol replacesglycerol . Recent results
indicate that ribitol-based teichoicacid synthesis in W23 strains is
regulated by both
X
and
M
[29,35].
In general, the WTA and LTA polymers are highly modified by esterification on the sugar residues with sugar, amino sugar,or amino acid substituents . For B . subtilis, LTA chains contain between 24 and 33 glycerol phosphate monomers and carry, onaverage, 0.35 to 0.55 D-alanine constituents and 0.2 to 0.4 glycosyl substituents per monomer [14] . The D-Ala residues onLTA are subject to rapid turnover, both by spontaneous hydrolysisand by transesterification to WTA [14, 26] . D-Alanylation ofWTA and LTA is catalyzed by the products of the dlt operon. The dltA and dltC genes encode the D-alanine-D-alanyl carrierprotein ligase [Dcl] and the D-alanyl carrier protein [Dcp],respectively . DltB and DltD may function in transport and theactual esterification reaction [45].
The modification with D-Ala introduces free amino
groups [NH3+]into the cell envelope and
thereby reduces the net negativecharge of the surface [44] .
Genetic studies with several microorganismsindicate that dlt
mutants are pleiotropic, with phenotypes includingaltered patterns
of autolysis, increased sensitivity to CAMPs[1,
45-47], altered colonization properties [11],
altered carbohydratemetabolism [52], enhanced UV
sensitivity, and loss of acid tolerance[3] . In
addition, D-alanylation affects protein folding and
secretion [23, 54] . Our results
suggest that conditions leadingto activation of the
X
regulon will lead to enhanced expressionof the dlt operon and
thereby result in a decrease in the netnegative charge of the cell
wall . The factors that activateexpression of the
X
regulon are not well defined, but they arelikely to act through the
RsiX anti-
,
shown previously to inhibit
X
activity [20] . It has also been shown that transposon
insertionsin the yitG multidrug efflux system, the manA
gene encodingmannose-6-phosphate isomerase, the srfAB
surfactin biosynthesisgene, the ytxJ general stress protein,
the ywpH single-strandedDNA-binding protein, and the yogA
alcohol dehydrogenase locusalso lead to enhanced expression from a
X-dependent
promoter[55], although the significance of these
observations is notyet clear.
The bacterial cell membrane also contains a net negative charge
due to the abundance of anionic phospholipids . However, PE,a neutral
[zwitterionic] lipid, makes up as much as 50% of theB . subtilis
membrane [33] . The biosynthesis of PE in B . subtilis
is carried out by two membrane-localized enzymes:
CDP-diacylglycerol-dependentphosphatidylserine [PS] synthase [PssA]
and phosphatidylserinedecarboxylase [Psd] . The genes [pssA
and psd] encoding the enzymesare separated by another gene,
ybfM, on the chromosome . Allthree genes are cotranscribed
[Fig . 6C] . The psd mutant containsno PE and
accumulates PS, while the pssA mutant contains noPE or PS .
The absence of PE in B . subtilis cells does not haveany
adverse effects on cell growth, probably due to compensationfrom
increased glucosyldiacylglycerol content in the membrane[33] .
Interestingly, the E . coli psd gene has recently beenshown to
have a
E-dependent
promoter [49], suggesting that thissystem may
also be controlled, at least in part, by an ECF
factor in this organism.
In B . subtilis,
X
may serve to regulate the net charge in thecell envelope by
affecting the expression of both the dlt andpssA
operons [Fig . 8], and this, in turn, may affect sensitivity
to CAMPs . CAMPs share several common features, including broad-spectrum
antimicrobial activity and cationic charge at physiologicalpH
[16-18] . CAMPs act by an initial
electrostatic binding tothe anionic moieties on the microbial
membrane, followed bymembrane disruption [16-18] .
In eukaryotes, CAMPs [includingdefensins] are the major form of
defense against bacterial infectionand are induced by bacteria or
lipopolysaccharides [12, 17].
|
Bacteria can acquire resistance to CAMPs by modification oftheir
surface properties, although in general the underlyingregulatory
mechanisms have not been described . For example,a nisin-resistant
Listeria monocytogenes strain contains elevatedlevels of
zwitterionic PE and a reduction in phosphatidylglyceroland
cardiolipin [13] . Similarly, a nisin-resistant strain of
the rumen bacterium Streptococcus bovis has decreased negative
surface charge [32] . A recent study found that
Staphylococcusaureus achieves resistance to defensins and CAMPs
by modifyinganionic membrane lipids with L-lysine
[27] . In gram-negativebacteria, resistance often
involves modification of lipopolysaccharides.For example, CAMP
resistance in Salmonella enterica involvesaddition of
palmitate or 4-aminoarabinose to lipid A, a processregulated by the
PmrA-PmrB two-component regulatory system [53].
In this study, we demonstrate that sensitivity of B . subtilis
to CAMPs is affected by an ECF
factor that contributes to theexpression of two operons that
modulate surface charge [Fig.8] . Other
X
regulon proteins [e.g., LytR, PbpX, and CsbB] mayalso participate in
this adaptive response . In other bacteria,related cell wall
homeostasis functions may be controlled bytwo-component regulatory
systems instead of, or in additionto, ECF
factors . For example, the Streptomyces coelicolor CseC-CseB
two-component system activates expression of
E,
in responseto unknown signals, which then functions to modify cell
wallstructure [40, 41] . In
Streptococcus agalactiae, up-regulationof the dlt operon
when D-alanine incorporation into LTA is deficient
is controlled by the DltS-DltR two-component system [46] .
Ourstudies provide evidence linking ECF
factors to the biosynthesisand modification of the cell envelope and
suggest that theseregulatory proteins may participate in an
inducible defenseresponse providing resistance to CAMPs.
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
We would like to thank previous lab members who purified proteins
used in this study: Y . L . Juang [RNAP and
A],
Y . F . Chen [
D],
X . J . Huang [
X
and
W],
and F . J . Lopez de Saro [
] .
Thanks alsogo to Y . Chai for construction of the PpssA-cat-lacZ
fusions,J . Qiu for construction of the PpbpX-cat-lacZ
fusion, S . Farmerand R . Hancock for tests of CAMP sensitivity, and
K . Matsumotofor providing the original pssA and psd
mutant strains.
This work was supported by NIH grant GM-47446 [to J.D.H.].
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author . Mailing address: Department of
Microbiology, Wing Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-8101 . Phone: [607]
255-6570 . Fax: [607] 255-3904 . E-mail:
jdh9@cornell.edu .
| REFERENCES |
|---|