4.4 Article

Arginine operator binding by heterologous and chimeric ArgR repressors from Escherichia coli and Bacillus stearothermophilus

期刊

JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY
卷 184, 期 23, 页码 6602-6614

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JB.184.23.6602-6614.2002

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacillus stearothermophilus ArgR binds efficiently to the Escherichia coli carAB operator, whereas the E. coli repressor binds very poorly to the argCo operator of B. stearothermophilus. In order to elucidate this contradictory behavior between ArgRs, we constructed chimeric proteins by swapping N-terminal DNA-binding and C-terminal oligomerization domains or by exchanging the linker peptide. Chimeras carrying the E. coli DNA-binding domain and the B. stearothermophilus oligomerization domain showed sequence-nonspecific rather than sequence-specific interactions with arg operators. Chimeras carrying the B. stearothermophilus DNA-binding domain and E. coli oligomerization domain exhibited a high DNA-binding affinity for the B. stearothermophilus argCo and E. coli carAB operators and repressed the reporter-gene transcription from the B. stearothermophilus PargCo control region in vitro; arginine had no effect on, and indeed even decreased, their DNA-binding affinity. With the protein array method, we showed that the wild-type B. stearothermophilus ArgR and derivatives of it containing only the exchanged linker from E. coli ArgR or carrying the B. stearothermophilus DNA-binding domain along with the linker and the alphaA regions were able to bind argCo containing the single Arg box. This binding was weaker than binding to the two-box operator but was no longer arginine dependent. Several lines of observations indicate that the alpha4 helix in the oligomerization domain and the linker peptide can contribute to the recognition of single or double Arg boxes and therefore to the operator DNA-binding specificity in similar but not identical ArgR repressors from two distant bacteria.

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