4.6 Article

Acyl-Homoserine Lactone Recognition and Response Hindering the Quorum-Sensing Regulator EsaR

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107687

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [MCB-0919984]
  2. Div Of Molecular and Cellular Bioscience
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [0919984] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During quorum sensing in the plant pathogen Pantoea stewartii subsp. stewartii, EsaI, an acyl-homoserine lactone (AHL) synthase, and the transcription factor EsaR coordinately control capsular polysaccharide production. The capsule is expressed only at high cell density when AHL levels are high, leading to inactivation of EsaR. In lieu of detailed structural information, the precise mechanism whereby EsaR recognizes AHL and is hindered by it, in a response opposite to that of most other LuxR homologues, remains unresolved. Hence, a random mutagenesis genetic approach was designed to isolate EsaR* variants that are immune to the effects of AHL. Error-prone PCR was used to generate the desired mutants, which were subsequently screened for their ability to repress transcription in the presence of AHL. Following sequencing, site-directed mutagenesis was used to generate all possible mutations of interest as single, rather than multiple amino acid substitutions. Eight individual amino acids playing a critical role in the AHL-insensitive phenotype have been identified. The ability of EsaR* variants to bind AHL and the effect of individual substitutions on the overall conformation of the protein were examined through in vitro assays. Six EsaR* variants had a decreased ability to bind AHL. Fluorescence anisotropy was used to examine the relative DNA binding affinity of the final two EsaR* variants, which retained some AHL binding capability but remained unresponsive to it, perhaps due to an inability of the N-terminal domain to transduce information to the C-terminal domain.

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

4.6
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