Skip to main content
eLife logoLink to eLife
. 2025 Oct 3;14:e105545. doi: 10.7554/eLife.105545

Pleomorphic effects of three small-molecule inhibitors on transcription elongation by Mycobacterium tuberculosis RNA polymerase

Omar Herrera-Asmat 1,2,3,4,, Alexander B Tong 1,4,5,, Wenxia Lin 4,6, Tiantian Kong 6, Juan R Del Valle 7, Daniel G Guerra 3, Yon W Ebright 8,9, Richard H Ebright 8,9, Carlos Bustamante 1,2,4,5,10,11,12,13,
Editors: Jie Xiao14, Volker Dötsch15
PMCID: PMC12558654  PMID: 41042133

Abstract

The Mycobacterium tuberculosis RNA polymerase (MtbRNAP) is the target of the first-line anti-tuberculosis inhibitor rifampin; however, the emergence of rifampin resistance necessitates the development of new antibiotics. Here, we communicate the first single-molecule characterization of MtbRNAP elongation and its inhibition by three diverse small-molecule inhibitors: N(α)-aroyl-N-aryl-phenylalaninamide (D-IX216), streptolydigin (Stl), and pseudouridimycin (PUM) using high-resolution optical tweezers. Compared to Escherichia coli RNA polymerase (EcoRNAP), MtbRNAP transcribes more slowly, has similar mechanical robustness, and only weakly recognizes E. coli pause sequences. The three small-molecule inhibitors of MtbRNAP exhibit strikingly different effects on transcription elongation. In the presence of D-IX216, which inhibits RNAP active-center bridge-helix motions required for nucleotide addition, the enzyme exhibits transitions between slowly and super-slowly elongating inhibited states. Stl, which inhibits the RNAP trigger-loop motions also required for nucleotide addition, inhibits RNAP primarily by inducing pausing and backtracking. PUM, a nucleoside analog of UTP, in addition to acting as a competitive inhibitor, induces the formation of slowly elongating RNAP-inhibited states. Our results indicate that the three classes of small-molecule inhibitors affect the enzyme in distinct ways and show that the combination of Stl and D-IX216, which both target the RNAP bridge helix, has a strong synergistic effect on the enzyme.

Research organism: E. coli

Introduction

Tuberculosis (TB) is the second most prevalent infectious disease causing morbidity and mortality worldwide (after COVID-19). There are 10 million new cases and 1.5 million deaths yearly, which incur $12 billion in medical and economic costs (World Health Organization, 2023). Rifampin is a small-molecule inhibitor of MtbRNAP and is a first-line treatment for TB (Severinov et al., 1994; Molodtsov et al., 2017). The emergence and proliferation of rifampin resistance in M. tuberculosis have led to an effort to identify and develop new small-molecule inhibitors that effectively inhibit rifampin-resistant MtbRNAP (Xu et al., 2018; Gill and Garcia, 2011; Stefan et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2018). A thorough understanding of the activity of MtbRNAP and its interactions with these new inhibitors is critical for informing and facilitating inhibitor development against TB.

In the last three decades, single-molecule optical tweezers studies of E. coli RNAP (EcoRNAP) and eukaryotic RNAP II have provided key insights on transcription elongation (Yin et al., 1995; Wang et al., 1998), including the direct, real-time observation of single-base-pair stepping (Chakraborty et al., 2017; Abbondanzieri et al., 2005). In addition, these studies have revealed details about sequence-dependent pausing, factor-dependent pausing (Neuman et al., 2003; Gabizon et al., 2018), and backtracking (Gabizon et al., 2018; Lisica et al., 2016; Shaevitz et al., 2003; Galburt et al., 2007). However, single-molecule studies of MtbRNAP and its inhibition by small-molecule inhibitors have been scarce. Current studies have primarily been structural and bulk assays (Chen et al., 2021; Boyaci et al., 2020; Boyaci et al., 2018; Chakraborty, 1979; Lin et al., 2018; Gulten and Sacchettini, 2013; Hubin et al., 2017), with only one study by single-molecule methods addressing initiation (Vishwakarma et al., 2018).

Here, we present a study of transcription elongation by MtbRNAP and its inhibition by small-molecule inhibitors using high-resolution single-molecule optical tweezers. First, we characterize in singulo the transcription elongation of MtbRNAP alone, including its pause-free velocity and mechanical robustness. Next, we assess three small-molecule inhibitors that target the transcription elongation of MtbRNAP. These inhibitors bind to sites distinct from rifampin and remain effective despite polymerase mutations that confer resistance to rifampin. These inhibitors are D-IX216 (an N(α)-aroyl-N-aryl-phenylalaninamide) (Ebright et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2017), streptolydigin (Stl) (Rinehart et al., 1963; Kyzer et al., 2005; Temiakov et al., 2005; Arseniev et al., 2023; Zorov et al., 2014; Tuske et al., 2005), and pseudouridimycin (PUM) (Maffioli et al., 2019; Cain et al., 2022; Maffioli et al., 2017).

N(α)-aroyl-N-aryl-phenylalaninamides selectively inhibit Mycobacterial RNAPs (Lin et al., 2017) by binding to a site at the N-terminal end of the bridge helix. This site is conserved in Mycobacterial polymerases but not in other bacterial polymerases. The bound inhibitor interferes with the conformational dynamics of the bridge helix that are necessary for nucleotide addition (Ebright et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2017; Feng et al., 2015; Bae et al., 2015). In this study, we used D-IX216, we found that addition of this inhibitor results in the enzyme transitioning to different inhibition states that add nucleotides much more slowly. Stl acts as a broad-spectrum inhibitor of bacterial RNAPs (Rinehart et al., 1963; Kyzer et al., 2005; Temiakov et al., 2005; Zorov et al., 2014; Tuske et al., 2005). Stl binds to the region between the bridge helix and trigger loop, interfering with the closing of the trigger loop, which is required for nucleotide addition (Temiakov et al., 2005; Tuske et al., 2005). We find that Stl stabilizes pausing by the enzyme. PUM is another broad-spectrum inhibitor of bacterial RNAPs (Maffioli et al., 2019) and is a nucleoside analog of UTP (Maffioli et al., 2019; Cain et al., 2022; Maffioli et al., 2017; Böhringer et al., 2021; Sosio et al., 2018), competitively inhibiting the binding of UTP. Additionally, PUM also appears to have an additional inhibitory effect on the enzyme (Maffioli et al., 2017). Finally, when combined, D-IX216 and Stl exhibit synergistic inhibition of the enzyme.

Results

Biophysical and mechanochemical characterization of MtbRNAP

We studied the elongation of MtbRNAP using a high-resolution optical tweezers assay, where the RNAP and one end of the DNA template were tethered to polystyrene microspheres held in optical traps (Figure 1a, left panel). We collected single-molecule trajectories of MtbRNAP transcription across a ~3 kb template with a sequence derived from M. tuberculosis.

Figure 1. Single-molecule transcription elongation by M. tuberculosis RNA polymerase under high-resolution optical tweezers.

Figure 1.

(a) (left) The experimental optical tweezer setup is shown, which tethers and isolates the RNA polymerase (RNAP) from the laser beams through a DNA handle and template. (right) A few single-molecule transcription traces are shown, with the pauses (red) and the pause-free periods (green) highlighted. (b) A diagram of the assisting constant force mode is shown. The traps are moved apart as the RNAP transcribes to keep the force constant. (c) A diagram of the opposing constant force mode is shown. The traps are moved closer as the RNAP transcribes to keep the force constant. (d) (left) Representative trajectories of transcription by Escherichia coli RNA polymerase (EcoRNAP) (black) and Mycobacterium tuberculosis RNA polymerase (MtbRNAP) (blue) under ~18 pN assisting constant force and saturating concentration of rNTPs (~1 mM) are shown. The DNA template for MtbRNAP derives from M. tuberculosis genes rpoB and rpoC. (right) Velocity distributions of these trajectories are shown, with a fit to a sum of two Gaussians, one with mean zero (pauses) and one with positive mean (pause-free velocity). (e) The populations and rates obtained via dwell time distribution (DTD) analysis are shown for EcoRNAP and MtbRNAP on Eco and Mtb templates. Error bars are 95% CIs of fits of steps obtained from (left to right) 16, 19, 24, and 16 molecules. The traces were collected under saturating concentrations of nucleotides and 15–20 pN of assisting constant force.

Molecular trajectories were first obtained in assisting constant force mode (Figure 1b), where the upstream DNA is tethered, causing the force applied by the traps to aid the movement of the RNAP. We also obtained trajectories in opposing constant force mode (Figure 1c), where the downstream DNA is tethered, and the force hinders the enzyme’s movement. In both cases, as the RNAP moves, the length of the tether changes, and the position of the movable trap is adjusted via force feedback to maintain a constant tension on the tether.

Transcription by MtbRNAP under an assisting constant force of 18 pN comprises periods of continuous activity at a consistent velocity interspersed with long pauses, a behavior also described for EcoRNAP (Adelman et al., 2002; Mejia et al., 2008; Figure 1a, right panel). Plots of the velocity distribution of all molecular trajectories for both enzymes show a population at zero velocity corresponding to transcriptional pauses, and another corresponding to the pause-free velocity of the enzyme (Figure 1d, right panel). The pause-free velocity of MtbRNAP is measured by this method is 23.1±5.1 nt/s, approximately half that of EcoRNAP, which is 42.7±8.6 nt/s (Figure 1d, right panel).

To get a more precise characterization of the dynamics of RNAP elongation, we obtained the dwell time at each nucleotide by fitting the molecular traces to a monotonic one base-pair (bp) staircase function. We then modeled the resulting dwell time distribution (DTD) as a sum of exponentials (i=1naiekit) Janissen et al., 2022. We interpret these different exponentials as distinct states of the enzyme: ai represents the state probability (i=1nai=1), while ki indicates the kinetic rate of the ith state, such that k1 >k2 > … kn. The fastest state typically corresponds to the pause-free state, whereas the slower states reflect various dwell times associated with the paused states of the enzyme, including the relatively short elemental pauses and longer backtracking pauses.

For EcoRNAP, three exponential components effectively describe the DTD. The majority of the steps (92.4±1.3%, 95% CI), belong to the fastest state (state 1), with a rate of 38.3±1.0 nt/s (kpause-free [kpf], 95% CI), which corresponds to the average rate of completing a pause-free nucleotide addition cycle (Janissen et al., 2022). State 2, comprising 7.2±1.3% (95% CI) of steps, corresponded to a slower rate of 6.2±1.0 nt/s (kelemental-pause [kep], 95% CI), which we associate with the rate of escape by RNAP from elemental pauses (Keller and Bustamante, 2000). Finally, the remaining 0.31±0.16% (95% CI) of steps are state 3, which corresponds to an even slower rate of 0.34±0.15 nt/s (95% CI), reflecting long pauses (klp).

For MtbRNAP, we also identified three populations with a kpf of 20.7±0.4 nt/s, a kep 5.2±0.6 s–1, and a klp of 0.52 s–1 with similar population percentages to EcoRNAP (Figure 1e). The pause-free velocity values obtained from the velocity distribution (Figure 1d, right panel) and DTD (Figure 1e) coincide well. We repeated this characterization for MtbRNAP under various magnitudes of assisting constant forces, ranging from 8 pN to 18 pN, and observed that kpf slightly increases with greater force, while kel was mostly unchanged. Conversely, when conducting the experiment under opposing constant forces from 4 to 18 pN, there are no dramatic effects on kpf or kel (Figure 2a).

Figure 2. Mechanochemical characterization of the elongation by M. tuberculosis RNA polymerase under high-resolution optical tweezers.

Figure 2.

(a) The effect of magnitude and direction of applied force on the kinetic parameters obtained from dwell time distribution (DTD) analysis is shown. Positive forces are assisting constant forces, negative are opposing constant forces. Error bars are 95% CIs of fits of steps from (left to right) 4, 6, 10, 17, 14, 9, 3, 4, and 5 molecules. (b) A diagram of opposing passive mode is shown. The traps are held stationary as the RNA polymerase (RNAP) transcribes, leading to an increase in force. (c) Example opposing passive mode traces are shown. The Mycobacterium tuberculosis RNA polymerase (MtbRNAP) transcribes at near constant velocity before suddenly stalling and backtracking. (d) Force-velocity relationships for MtbRNAP and Escherichia coli RNA polymerase (EcoRNAP) obtained from passive mode experiments are shown and fit to a generalized Boltzmann relation (right). Both polymerases' velocities remain insensitive to force until they reach similar stall forces, on average 19.3 pN ± 1.2 pN for MtbRNAP, and 17.1 ± 1.1 pN for EcoRNAP. Error bars are standard deviations and come from 14 (Eco) and 22 (Mtb) molecules.

Next, we performed experiments in opposing passive mode, where the downstream DNA is tethered, as in opposing constant force mode, but the traps are not moved, leading to an increase in force as transcription progresses (Figure 2b). Opposing passive mode is used to determine the stalling behavior and stall force of the polymerase. At low forces, MtbRNAP transcription velocity exhibits minimal response to the opposing force until a maximum force (Fstall) is reached, beyond which the enzyme drastically slows, stalls, and backtracks (Figure 2b; Keller and Bustamante, 2000). On average, MtbRNAP stalled at 19.3±1.2 pN (s.e.m.) (Bustamante et al., 2004). This force-induced stalling is often accompanied by backtracking (Figure 2c). By comparison, EcoRNAP stalls at 17.1±1.1 pN (s.e.m.) and is also accompanied by backtracking, consistent with previous studies (Wang et al., 1998; Galburt et al., 2007; Kang et al., 2018). The force-velocity curves can be fit to an unrestrained Boltzmann relation v(f)=(1+A)/(1+Aexp(fδ/kT)), where the process is split into biochemical (force-independent) and mechanical (force-dependent) terms. The ratio of these rates at zero force is the parameter A, and the strength of force dependence is δ (Figure 2d, see Methods) (Abbondanzieri et al., 2005). For both Eco and Mtb RNAPs, we find that A<<1, indicating that biochemical transitions are rate-limiting at zero force in these instances, in line with prior findings for EcoRNAP (Wang et al., 1998). The value of δ is the distance to the transition state of polymerase stalling via backtracking, so we interpret this as the backtracking distance required by the RNAP to stall (Bustamante et al., 2004). For MtbRNAP, we obtain a value of 14±1 nt (95% CI) (Figure 2d), comparable to the 13±1 nt observed for EcoRNAP and findings from earlier studies on EcoRNAP (Wang et al., 1998).

MtbRNAP weakly recognizes pause sequences of EcoRNAP

We have observed that MtbRNAP tends to pause less frequently than EcoRNAP under an assisting constant force on both the Eco and Mtb templates (Figure 1e). To gain a clearer understanding of the pausing dynamics, we utilized a molecular ruler template to compare the pausing behavior in a sequence-dependent manner. A molecular ruler consists of a tandem repeat of a sequence harboring one or more strong pauses (Figure 3a; Herbert et al., 2006). Because the trajectories of the different traces obtained on our high-resolution optical tweezers instrument all display the repeating pattern of pauses, it is possible to align them and determine the precise position of the RNAP on the template with nearly single-base pair resolution (Gabizon et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2019). Without a ruler, uncertainties in position caused by bead size variations or calibration errors cause the location of RNAP on the template to be not precisely known. We previously developed a ruler for EcoRNAP featuring five pauses designated as a, b, c, d, and his. However, we discovered that this ruler was ineffective for MtbRNAP, which does not pause strongly enough at those locations, as seen in the heights of the peaks of the residence time histogram (RTH) of the repeat (Figure 3b and c). We confirmed this behavior using a gel assay, which shows different and often weaker pausing by MtbRNAP at these locations (Figure 3d). Notably, MtbRNAP demonstrates reduced recognition of the elemental pauses a, b, and d and surprisingly did not strongly recognize the strong hairpin pause sequence his from E. coli.

Figure 3. Mycobacterium tuberculosis RNA polymerase (MtbRNAP) pauses less efficiently than Escherichia coli RNA polymerase (EcoRNAP) on Eco pauses.

(a) Representation of the template containing a molecular ruler to study EcoRNAP pauses. The DNA template consists of eight repeats of five Eco elementary pauses, a, b, c, d, and his. (b) Example traces of single Eco and Mtb RNA polymerases transcribing the E. coli molecular ruler are shown. The eight repeats are denoted as vertical arrows, and the location of the pauses within each repeat are shown as horizontal colored lines. We collected the transcription activities using a cocktail of rNTPs (1 mM rUTP, 1 mM rGTP, 0.5 mM rATP, and 0.25 mM rCTP) at 15–20 pN for EcoRNAP and 18 pN for MtbRNAP. The zoom on the right shows the alignment of the trace pauses with the expected pause locations. (c) Average residence time histograms of EcoRNAP and MtbRNAP display distinctive patterns of pause strength (peak height) and location. MtbRNAP more weakly recognizes the Eco pauses. (d) Comparison of the transcription gel bands at the elemental pause sites between MtbRNAP and EcoRNAP.

Figure 3—source data 1. Original raw gels for Figure 3d.
Figure 3—source data 2. Full gel images for Figure 3d, with labels.

Figure 3.

Figure 3—figure supplement 1. The design of a molecular ruler to study pausing in Mycobacterium tuberculosis RNA polymerase (MtbRNAP) with high-resolution optical tweezers.

Figure 3—figure supplement 1.

(a) An artificial transcription bubble scheme with a 5'-FAM-labeled RNA was used for a bulk elongation assay. The stalled ternary elongation complex at position G15 (TECG15) resumes RNA polymerization activity upon adding 250 µM rNTPs, and pauses at pause c (TECA26). (b) MtbRNAP efficiently recognizes sequence derived from E. coli elemental pause c. (left) A urea PAGE gel that shows the clearance of the pause site at TEGA26 with a mean duration of ~ 27 s (inverse of the pause escape rate). (right) The quantification of the bands and their fitting to a bi-exponential decay. The extracted parameters indicate that the pause escape rate is similar in duration to the his pause of Escherichia coli RNA polymerase (EcoRNAP) (Larson et al., 2014). (c) The Mtb molecular ruler enables the analysis of sequence-dependent pausing by MtbRNAP at the single-molecule level. Example traces are shown on the left, collected at 1 mM rNTPs and 18 pN assisting constant force. Below is a zoom around the designed pause. The residence time histogram (RTH) on the right shows the strong pausing at 50 bp, and how the strength changes with the direction of the applied force (18 pN assisting constant force vs. 9 pN opposing constant force).
Figure 3—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Original raw gels for Figure 3—figure supplement 1b.
Figure 3—figure supplement 1—source data 2. Full gel images for Figure 3—figure supplement 1b, with labels.

Since MtbRNAP recognized pause c the strongest (Figure 3d), we designed a new molecular ruler based on this sequence. The Mtb molecular ruler consists of eight repeats of the elemental pause c, inserted within a fragment of the M. tuberculosis rpoB gene. MtbRNAP pauses strongly at the expected location of 50 nt into the 68 nt repeat that makes up the ruler, with minor pauses at positions 5 and 30 nt in the repeat region (Figure 3—figure supplement 1). Using this tool, we proceeded to study the effects of the inhibitors in a sequence-dependent manner.

D-IX216 inhibits elongation by MtbRNAP by switching it into interchangeable slow and super-slow inhibited states of transcription elongation

We investigated the effects of D-IX216 on the elongation activity of MtbRNAP. D-IX216 is an analog of D-AAP1 (Lin et al., 2017), having a 2-thiophenyl group in place of a phenyl group as ring A and a 5-fluoro-2-piperazin-1-yl-phenyl instead of 2-methyl-phenyl as ring C (Figure 4—figure supplement 1a). D-IX216 is ten times more potent (IC50 of 100 nM determined via bulk transcription methods) against MtbRNAP compared to D-AAP1 (IC50 of 1 µM) (Ebright et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2017), and is selective for MtbRNAP, not affecting EcoRNAP at these concentrations (Figure 4—figure supplement 1b-d).

Upon adding 70–560 nM D-IX216 to a transcribing MtbRNAP (Figure 4a) under 18 pN of assisting constant force, the elongation trajectories exhibited periods of transcription with three distinct global (i.e. including pauses) transcription velocities: one with fast, one with slow, and one with super-slow activity (Figure 4b), each lasting for at least tens of seconds (Figure 4—figure supplement 1e–f, and Figure 4—figure supplement 2a). The slow and super-slow were about 5 and 50 times slower than the fast, respectively. Additionally, the super-slow exhibited less than half the processivity (both in terms of the number of base pairs transcribed before tether break/detachment and in terms of the number of base pairs transcribed before recovery from inhibition) compared to the slow activity (Figure 4—figure supplement 2b). Interestingly, changing the direction of the applied force did not greatly alter the interconversion rate between these activities (Figure 4—figure supplement 2b, c).

Figure 4. The inhibition of Mycobacterium tuberculosis RNA polymerase (MtbRNAP) by D-IX216 involves the conversion to one of two slowly elongating inhibited states.

(a) Example traces of MtbRNAP transcribing in the absence (gray) and presence (red) of 140 nM D-IX216 are shown. (b) Traces exhibiting the three states, fast, slow, and super-slow, are shown and the regions are colored blue, orange, and red, respectively. Transcription in the absence of D-IX216 is shown in gray. The traces plotted in this figure were collected at 18 pN of assisting constant force, 1 mM rNTPs, and 140 nM D-IX216. (c) Comparison of the complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) of the dwell time distributions (DTD) of the fast, slow, and super-slow states. (d) DTD analysis of the fast, slow, and super-slow inhibited states are shown. Pf: pause-free, ep: elemental pause, lp: long pause. Error bars are 95% CIs of fits of steps obtained from 60 molecules. (e) (left) MtbRNAP traces crossing the Mtb molecular ruler are shown in varying states of inhibition. (right) The residence time histograms of these inhibited states are shown both in seconds or normalized to the median residence time.

Figure 4.

Figure 4—figure supplement 1. D-IX216 specifically slows down the Mycobacterium tuberculosis RNA polymerase (MtbRNAP) transcription.

Figure 4—figure supplement 1.

(a) The chemical representations of the Nα-aroyl-N-aryl-phenylalaninamides D-AAP1 and D-IX216 are shown. Rings A and C are modified to increase the affinity of D-IX216 for MtbRNAP (Ebright et al., 2015). (b) D-IX216 does not alter Escherichia coli RNA polymerase (EcoRNAP) activity. An example trace of a two-shunt experiment shows that 280 nM D-IX216 does not affect EcoRNAP activity. The dotted boxes denote what solution is flowing out of the shunt at what time. (c) The kinetic parameters obtained from dwell time distribution (DTD) analysis of EcoRNAP in the absence and presence of D-IX216 is shown. In this dataset, there were too few events to fit a third exponential (long pauses). Error bars are 95% CIs of fits of steps from 19 (no D-IX216) and 6 (with D-IX216) molecules. (d) This buffer exchange control experiment shows that the RNA polymerase (RNAP) quickly responds to buffer changes. When nucleotides are removed, MtbRNAP immediately pauses until the nucleotides are reintroduced. (e) D-IX216 slows down MtbRNAP rather than pausing or halting it. The trajectory of a single MtbRNAP elongating at constant 18 pN assisting constant force with 280 nM D-IX216 and saturating nucleotides (~1 mM) shows a slow state that eventually instantly recovers its velocity (~ 20 bp/s). Depending on the condition, up to ~41% of polymerases can recover their initial velocity. The dotted boxes show the start and duration of the shunt opening to supplement the inhibitor and nucleotides. The apparent association time of D-IX216 binding corresponds to the time between the shunt opening to introduce D-IX216 and the switch’s appearance. On the other hand, the apparent D-IX216 dissociation time corresponds to the slow region’s lifetime. (f) D-IX216 is still engaged during MtbRNAP elongation. We performed a buffer exchange using two shunts to remove the inhibitor from the affected polymerase. However, this did not immediately restore its global velocity. Towards the end of the trace, the polymerase might detach from the DNA template, leading to tether break events or stalls in 45% and 13% of the polymerases, respectively.
Figure 4—figure supplement 2. Interconversion between the slow and super-slow inhibited states.

Figure 4—figure supplement 2.

(a) The complementary cumulative distribution functions (CCDFs) of lifetimes of the slow and super-slow inhibited states are shown with a fitting to a single exponential decay. The lifetime was measured as the time between switching into that state, until the motor either recovered (fast) or switched into the other state (e.g. a switch from slow to super-slow). Tether-break events were not included. (b) Comparison of the processivity in terms of kb extended by the elongating polymerase before tether break (template dissociation), or in terms of kb before a switch event of the super-slow and slow inhibited states is shown as a quartile plot from 60 molecules. Outliers in this data were taken as points farther than 1.5*IQR from the upper or lower quartile, and are shown as + marks. Processivity is lower in the super-slow inhibited state than in the slow inhibited state by both definitions. The data for the bar plots were obtained from combined data of assisting and opposing constant force experiments. (c) Transition maps under assisting and opposing constant force of the different states (fast, slow, and super-slow) are shown.
Figure 4—figure supplement 3. The fast elongating state of Mycobacterium tuberculosis RNA polymerase (MtbRNAP) observed in the presence of D-IX216 corresponds to the inhibitor-free state.

Figure 4—figure supplement 3.

(a) Example fittings (colored) of the dwell times to the raw data (gray) for the inhibitor-free and the various inhibited states of MtbRNAP are shown. (b) The complementary cumulative distribution functions (CCDFs) of the dwell time distributions (DTDs) for fast elongating polymerases observed with (black and dark blue) and without D-IX216 (cyan). (c) The kinetic parameters from DTD analysis for the enzyme without D-IX216 and the enzyme in the fast state with D-IX216 are shown. No notable differences are found between the inhibitor-free and the fast state with D-IX216. Error bars are 95% CIs of fits of steps from 19 (no D-IX216) and 60 (with D-IX216) molecules.
Figure 4—figure supplement 4. Effect of different D-IX216 and nucleotide concentrations on the slow and super-slow inhibited states of Mycobacterium tuberculosis RNA polymerase (MtbRNAP).

Figure 4—figure supplement 4.

(a) The concentration of D-IX216 did not impact the kinetic parameters obtained by dwell time distribution (DTD) analysis of MtbRNAP in the slow inhibited states. This suggests that a single molecule of D-IX216 causes the conversion into the slow state. Error bars are 95% CIs of fits of steps from (left to right) 3, 60, 9, 10, and 12 molecules. (b) Measurement of the dissociation constant (KD) of D-IX216 for the elongating MtbRNAP. The association and dissociation times obtained from the duration of the fast, slow, and super-slow inhibited states in the single-molecule traces are fit to single-exponentials to obtain kon and koff. Their ratio is KD. (c) The concentration of rNTPs did not affect the kinetic parameters in the slow inhibited state of MtbRNAP induced by D-IX216. This indicates that the slowing by D-IX216 is not due to a reduction in nucleotide affinity. These experiments were done in semipassive assisting force mode, where the optical traps are moved stepwise to keep the force within a set range. In other words, the traps are held at constant position, causing the force to fall as transcription progresses, until it reaches some lower force limit (in this case, 10 pN) after which the traps move apart to raise the force to some upper force limit (in this case, 18 pN). Error bars are 95% CIs of fits of steps from (left to right) 6, 2, 8, 21, 11, and 17 molecules.

The fast activity resembled the enzyme’s behavior in the absence of D-IX216. DTD analysis of this activity yields values similar to D-IX216-free MtbRNAP, further suggesting that the fast activity corresponded to a D-IX216-free enzyme (Figure 4—figure supplement 3). Hence, we identify the fast DTD states as the pause-free, elemental pause, and the long pause states. In contrast, the slow and super-slow activities were exclusively observed with D-IX216 present, indicating that they arise from its binding to the RNAP. We shall refer to the slow and super-slow as inhibited states of the enzyme, to differentiate them from the nucleotide addition states obtained from DTD analysis mentioned earlier. When bound to D-IX216, MtbRNAP displayed a consistent slow nucleotide addition rate lasting tens of seconds (Figure 4a and b). The inhibited states persist for several steps and can interconvert with each other (Figure 4—figure supplement 2b, c). DTD analysis of these inhibited states revealed that the slow and super-slow inhibited states consist of multiple (nucleotide addition) states, each exhibiting distinct nucleotide addition rates (Figure 4c and d). We emphasize here that inhibited states refer to a persistent activity of the enzyme lasting for multiple incorporation cycles, while nucleotide addition states may change between every step. The rates of the various nucleotide addition states found for the slow and super-slow inhibited states do not match those of the pause-free, elemental pause, or long pause states (Figure 4d), so we conclude that these are states distinct from the normal ones visited by the polymerase.

When the concentration of D-IX216 was increased from 70 to 560 nM, the kinetic parameters extracted from the DTD analysis did not greatly change (Figure 4—figure supplement 4a), suggesting that the slow and super-slow inhibited states occur during the prolonged binding of a single D-IX216 molecule. This inference was supported by our washing experiments, which revealed that removing D-IX216 from the transcription medium of the affected polymerase did not immediately restore normal enzyme activity (Figure 4—figure supplement 1f). If this interpretation is correct, the conversion to the slow activity results from a binding event, while reversion to the fast activity is due to unbinding. Using the lifetimes of the fast and slow activities in the 280 nM case, we calculated a kon, koff, and KD for D-XI216, obtaining 0.133±0.006 µM–1s–1, 0.0032±0.0014 s–1, and 24.1±10.6 nM, respectively (Figure 4—figure supplement 4b). The KD so attained is consistent with the IC50 of ~100 nM. We have no explanation for what process is involved in the interconversion between the slow and the super-slow inhibited states, but we speculate that it may correspond to two distinct binding modes of the inhibitor to the enzyme, affecting its activity differently.

We also examined whether the induced slowing by D-IX216 could be due to reduced rNTP affinity by decreasing the rNTP concentration from 250 µM to 25 µM (~5 to ~0.5 x KM for the uninhibited polymerase) in the presence of D-IX216. However, the DTD behavior of the slow and super-slow inhibited states remained unchanged (Figure 4—figure supplement 4c), suggesting that rNTP binding is not rate-limiting in these inhibited states, unlike what is expected at these concentrations in the absence of the inhibitor.

Lastly, we investigated the effects of D-IX216 on transcription across the Mtb molecular ruler to determine if these effects were sequence-dependent. Our findings revealed that slow or super-slow events occurred randomly along the DNA template, consistent with our observations using the original sequence of Mtb DNA (Figure 4a). When MtbRNAP is in the slow inhibited state while crossing the repeats region, we observed that D-IX216 increases the residence time at every position (Figure 4e). We normalized the RTH values to the median residence time of each inhibited state to account for the different incorporation times associated with the fast, slow, and super-slow inhibited states (Figure 4e, middle). This normalization demonstrated that the relative strength of the designated pause increased, as indicated by the heightened RTH peak (Figure 4e, right). If pause c is an off-pathway pause, a kinetic competition should exist between forward translocation and pausing. Therefore, we attribute the increased strength of this pause to a decrease in the transcription rate caused by the inhibitor. In conclusion, we found that D-IX216 globally slows MtbRNAP translocation in a sequence-independent manner.

Streptolydigin induces backtracking in MtbRNAP

Using the Mtb molecular ruler, we added 4.5–45 µM Stl to a transcribing MtbRNAP under 18 pN of assisting constant force. We observed that Stl induced long pauses both inside and outside the repeat region (Figure 5a). The probability of entering these long pauses (lasting over 1 s) increased from 0.42% without the inhibitor to 0.76% with Stl. Of the enzymes that recovered, the long pause consists of two components; first, the RNAP pauses with an average duration of 10±1.3 s (95% CI); then, it backtracks by 7±1 nt (s.e.m.) and spends an additional 32±4 s (95% CI) paused before transcription resumes (Figure 5b). In contrast, previous studies have shown that Stl does not affect the backtracking dynamics of EcoRNAP (Arseniev et al., 2023; Zorov et al., 2014; Tuske et al., 2005).

Figure 5. Streptolydigin inhibits Mycobacterium tuberculosis RNA polymerase (MtbRNAP) by enhancing pausing and inducing backtracking during pausing.

(a) Example traces of MtbRNAP transcription in the absence (gray) and presence (green) of 15 µM Stl, with 18 pN of assisting constant force and saturating rNTP concentrations. (b) Details of a backtracking event induced by Stl are shown, exhibiting a process where there is both an initial pre-backtrack pause, a backtrack, and then recovery from that backtrack. (c) Fittings for the complementary cumulative distribution functions (CCDFs) of the pre-backtrack and recovery times of Stl-induced pauses to single exponentials are shown. (d) The comparison between the fitting of the backtrack recovery between two models is shown: a single-exponential distribution corresponding to deep backtracking and a power law distribution corresponding to shallow backtracking. (e) The kinetic parameters obtained from dwell time distribution (DTD) analysis in the presence of Stl are shown, under a constant 18 pN assisting or 4 pN opposing constant forces. Error bars are 95% CIs of fits of steps obtained from (left to right) 19, 22, 14, and 17 molecules. (f) Average residence time histograms of MtbRNAP transcribing the repeat of the molecular ruler in the absence and presence of Stl is shown. (g) Kinetic parameters extracted from DTD analysis of MtbRNAP traces under constant 5 pN of opposing force and 15 µM Stl in the absence or presence of 0.5 µM MtbGreA are shown. Error bars are 95% CIs of fits of steps obtained from 17 (-MtbGreA) and 9 (+MtbGreA) molecules.

Figure 5.

Figure 5—figure supplement 1. Streptolydigin (Stl) induces reduced post-translocated states in Mycobacterium tuberculosis RNA polymerase (MtbRNAP).

Figure 5—figure supplement 1.

(a) A bulk assay was performed to measure the translocation of RNA polymerase (RNAP) by one nucleotide using the Mtb ternary elongation complex. The technique involved real-time measurement of the fluorescent enhancement at 375 nm of a nitrogenous base analog, 2-aminopurine52. This analog was positioned on the template strand of the DNA-RNA hybrid, initially at position +2, and then moved towards position +1 due to the RNAP translocation process. The workflow included the use of a fluorescent artificial bubble to measure the effect of Stl on the translocation state of MtbRNAP. After the RNAP incorporated one rATP, the translocation state was measured by the dye’s fluorescence in the following base in the template DNA. When the base was paired, fluorescence was low due to quenching; when the base was unpaired, such as in the post-translocated state, the fluorescence was high. The assay conditions consisted of transcription buffer and 100 µM rATP, along with either 100 µM dATP, 0.25 µM MtbGreA, 7.5 µM Stl, or 0.25 µM MtbGreA / 7.5 µM Stl. (b) The comparison of different conditions of the translocation trace of the MtbRNAP in the presence of cognate nucleotide (rATP) and Stl shows that the inhibitor allows only ~20% of the MtbTEC to attain the post-translocated state (green dots). The addition of MtbGreA was used as a positive control for post-translocation.

We also conducted a real-time bulk fluorescence assay where a fluorescent adenosine analog 2-aminopurine (2AP) in the template strand changes its brightness depending on whether it is base-paired or not. In this assay, we assemble the RNAP bubble to be just in front of the 2AP, whereby translocation by the RNAP causes the 2AP to un-basepair and fluoresce more strongly. The cognate rNTP is not present in solution, so the fluorescence persists after translocation. This allows us to distinguish between the post-translocated and the other states of the enzyme (pre-translocated or otherwise, see Figure 5—figure supplement 1a). We used this assay to monitor the translocation state of RNAPs without cognate nucleotide and in the presence of 7.5 µM Stl (Malinen et al., 2014; World Health Organization & World Health Organization, 2010). These experiments were conducted without pyrophosphate to prevent the inherent editing of the enzyme in the backtracked state. In the absence of Stl, the MtbRNAP is predominantly found in the post-translocated state, while in the presence of Stl, only ~20% of RNAPs remained in the post-translocated state (Figure 5—figure supplement 1b). This reduction in the amount of post-translocated MtbRNAPs with Stl is consistent with the increase in backtracking observed in the single molecule traces (Figure 5b).

The recovery from the Stl-induced pauses before and after backtracking both exhibited single-exponential distributions (Figure 5c). A single-exponential distribution of backtrack durations is associated with deep backtracking and recovery via endonucleolysis, whereas a power law distribution (t-3/2) corresponds to diffusive recovery from more shallow backtracking (Figure 5d).

Next, we compared the effect of Stl on the DTD under assisting and opposing constant forces. We found that Stl did not affect the MtbRNAP pause-free velocity under assisting constant force (Figure 5e). However, under opposing constant force, which favors the pre-translocated state of the polymerase, Stl slightly reduced the polymerase velocity and greatly increased the occurrence and duration of long pauses compared to the enzyme without the inhibitor (Figure 5e), consistent with reports regarding Stl’s effect on EcoRNAP (Arseniev et al., 2023).

Our examination of the RTHs across the molecular ruler by MtbRNAP under assisting constant force with and without Stl revealed that this inhibitor increased the duration of the designed pause in the tandem repeat region by 30%, but did not introduce additional sequence-dependent pause sites (Figure 5f). This observation suggests that Stl binding is more favorable when the enzyme is paused (Temiakov et al., 2005). This inference is supported by the fact that we did not observe an increased residence time background in the presence of Stl (outside of repeat pauses).

A recent article noted that factors GreA and GreB enhanced Stl’s pausing effects on EcoRNAP under opposing force (Arseniev et al., 2023). However, when we assayed MtbRNAP elongation under comparable conditions using GreA (as GreB has not been found in Mtb), we observed no obvious change in long pause duration (Figure 5g). These differing results may reflect differences in the mechanism of Stl inhibition between EcoRNAP and MtbRNAP.

Pseudouridimycin converts MtbRNAP into two slowly elongating inhibited states and increases the density of pauses in EcoRNAP

When 1 µM PUM was added to a transcribing EcoRNAP, pauses lasting 5.9±1.8 s on average were observed (pause escape rate of 0.17±0.04 s–1), representing 2% of the enzyme’s steps (Figure 6a). Occasionally, we noted longer pauses lasting several hundreds of seconds. Additionally, we rarely (in less than 6% of traces) observed sections where EcoRNAPs converted to one of two states of slower nucleotide addition (slow and super-slow). These states resemble those caused by D-IX216 on MtbRNAP, so we shall also refer to them as inhibited states; however, the enzyme was not observed to recover (Figure 6b and c).

Figure 6. Pseudouridimycin (PUM) inhibits Escherichia coli RNA polymerase (EcoRNAP) by enhancing pausing and infrequently inducing slowly elongating inhibited states.

Figure 6.

(a) Single-molecule traces of EcoRNAP transcription in the absence (black) and presence (purple) of 1 µM PUM are shown. Traces were collected at 10 pN constant assisting force and 1 mM rNTPs. (b) A comparison of the fast state and the infrequent slow and super-slow inhibited states with PUM are shown. (c) Kinetics parameters attained from dwell time distribution (DTD) analysis of the three regions of EcoRNAP with PUM are shown. Pf: pause-free, ep: elemental pause, lp: long pause. Error bars are 95% CIs of fits of steps obtained from 27 molecules. (d) (left) Example traces of EcoRNAP crossing the molecular ruler in the presence of PUM are shown. (right) The average residence time histogram of EcoRNAP crossing one repeat is shown at varying ratios of PUM to 1 mM rUTP.

Using the molecular ruler method with EcoRNAP, our experiments showed that PUM increased the RTH peaks of the E. coli native pauses his and d, reduced the RTH peak of native pause c, and sporadically introduced more sequence-dependent pauses along the template, and in a concentration-dependent manner (Figure 6d). As PUM is an rUTP analog, it is reasonable to conclude that these additional sequence-dependent pauses occur at U incorporation sites, as it seems to be the case for the additional pausing around the his and d sites (Figure 6d). However, due to the ±3 bp resolution of our technique, we cannot confidently assert that all of these new peaks correspond to U incorporation sites (Shaevitz et al., 2003).

Interestingly, when 1 µM PUM was added to MtbRNAP, a higher percentage of RNAPs (16%) exhibited conversions to slow and super-slow inhibited states reminiscent of D-IX216 binding (Figure 7a). However, unlike with D-IX216, we did not observe any interconversions between the slow and super-slow inhibited states with PUM. The DTD analysis indicated that the slow inhibited states induced by PUM were composed of nucleotide addition states that were slower than wild-type (Figure 7b). Comparing the addition states from the slow inhibited states induced by D-IX216 and PUM, we found differences in both global velocity and addition states, similarly so for the super-slow inhibited states (Figure 4d, Figure 7—figure supplement 1a, b). Furthermore, in the presence of PUM, the polymerase displayed erratic behaviors, including the enzyme ‘hopping’ back and forth in 10–20 bp increments, moving steadily backward (which differs from traditional backtracking), and pausing for extended periods, sometimes for hundreds of seconds (Figure 7—figure supplement 1c, d). PUM had minimal effect on the RTH of the repeats, exhibiting only a slight increase in the strength of pause c, which we attribute to the inhibitor’s preference for binding to already paused polymerases (Figure 7c).

Figure 7. Inhibition of Mycobacterium tuberculosis RNA polymerase (MtbRNAP) by pseudouridimycin (PUM) involves induction of slowly elongating inhibited states.

(a) (left) Single-molecule MtbRNAP transcription in the absence (gray) and presence (purple) of 1 μM PUM are shown. (right) Examples of transcription in the slow inhibited state, the super-slow inhibited state, and a dynamic pause are shown. Transcription was carried out under 18 pN of assisting constant force and 1 mM rNTPs. (b) Kinetic parameters attained from dwell time distribution (DTD) analysis of the three regions of MtbRNAP with PUM are shown. Pf: pause-free, ep: elemental pause, lp: long pause. Error bars are 95% CIs of fits of steps obtained from 27 molecules. (c) The average residence time histogram of a repeat of MtbRNAP transcribing the Mtb molecular ruler in the presence and absence of 1 μM PUM is shown.

Figure 7.

Figure 7—figure supplement 1. Comparison of events found in transcription with antibiotics.

Figure 7—figure supplement 1.

(a) Example traces in the slow inhibited state caused by pseudouridimycin (PUM) and D-IX216 are shown. (b) Example traces in the super-slow inhibited state caused by PUM and D-IX216 are shown. (c) Comparison of a common pause obtained in the absence of inhibitor versus a dynamic pause caused by PUM is shown. (d) Comparison of a backtrack event observed in the presence of streptolydigin (Stl) compared to a rare non-traditional backtrack event induced by PUM is shown.

Mixing of Stl and D-IX216 shows a synergistic effect on transcription arrest

Treatment of tuberculosis usually involves a combination of antibiotics (Harshey and Ramakrishnan, 1977). Accordingly, we monitored transcription by MtbRNAP in the presence of both Stl and D-IX216. Notably, Stl and D-IX216 both bind to the bridge helix of the polymerase, in distinct pockets (Lin et al., 2017; Temiakov et al., 2005; Tuske et al., 2005; Feng et al., 2015), which suggests that they may affect each other’s binding.

When 560 nM of D-IX216 and 15 µM of Stl were added to a transcribing MtbRNAP, the enzyme displayed either long pauses or a terminal arrest following a period of slow transcription (Figure 8a and b). The average duration of these long pauses, defined as those lasting over 5 s, was 25.2±5.1 s (s.e.m.) in the presence of both inhibitors. This duration is consistent with the distribution of pause durations of MtbRNAP with 15 µM Stl alone (27.5±6.7 s, s.e.m.). This suggests that these long pauses may be attributed to Stl.

Figure 8. Inhibition of Mycobacterium tuberculosis RNA polymerase (MtbRNAP) by a combination of D-IX216 and streptolydigin (Stl).

Figure 8.

(a) Comparison of transcription elongation traces of single molecules of MtbRNAP obtained with D-IX216, Stl, or both are shown. (b) A zoom of the traces with D-IX216 and Stl just before arrest are shown. The blue dotted guide lines match the average velocity of MtbRNAP in the fast, slow, and super-slow inhibited states from left to right.

Interestingly, the arrest events following periods of slow transcription were not observed with either Stl or D-IX216 alone. The velocities during these slow sections appear to correspond to the slow and super-slow inhibited states induced by D-IX216 alone (Figure 8b). These studies appear consistent with the hypothesis that these slow transcription periods reflect the binding of D-IX216, which transitions the RNAP into the slow or super-slow inhibited state. Subsequently, the binding of Stl leads to a permanent pause (arrest).

Interestingly, while on average it takes 60 s for an Stl molecule to bind to an actively transcribing MtbRNAP at the concentration of the inhibitor used, in the presence of D-IX216, pauses arise within ~10 s after transcription slows down. This suggests that Stl binds more readily to D-IX216-bound MtbRNAP (indicating an increased kon) than to the transcribing enzyme alone. This observation aligns with previous findings that Stl prefers to bind to already paused polymerases (Temiakov et al., 2005).

In conclusion, our evidence indicates that the binding of D-IX216 can increase the kon of Stl, leading to the arrest of the enzyme. This suggests a synergistic effect between these two inhibitors, converting the lethargic nucleotide addition activity observed with D-IX216 alone into complete transcription arrests.

Discussion

Our findings indicate that the global transcription velocity of MtbRNAP is slower than that of EcoRNAP, which mirrors the trend in total transcription rates observed in vivo (Hassan et al., 2015). In addition, whereas MtbRNAP has comparable mechanical robustness to EcoRNAP, it generally pauses more weakly or less. Our molecular ruler and bulk data suggest that the consensus pause sequences of the E. coli enzyme are also recognized by MtbRNAP, but again with less strength.

Our single-molecule studies demonstrate that three small-molecule inhibitors of MtbRNAP: D-IX216, Stl, and PUM do not act as chain terminators, but instead slow transcription elongation in distinct ways.

D-IX216 inhibits transcription by inducing two distinct inhibited states that incorporate nucleotides more slowly. Our findings show that this inhibitor does not completely stop nucleotide incorporation, suggesting that it is engaged during elongation and exerts an inhibitory effect that differs from other inhibitors that target the bridge helix of the RNAP (Lin et al., 2017; Tuske et al., 2005; Feng et al., 2015; Bae et al., 2015; Malinen et al., 2015; Mazumder et al., 2020; Nedialkov et al., 2013; Miropolskaya et al., 2009; Cokol et al., 2017). The periods of recovery from transcription elongation inhibition observed in our molecular trajectories likely correspond to inhibitor dissociation. The different states (obtained from DTD), associated with different transcription rates, may reflect stochastic differences in the functional interactions between the catalytic elements of the RNAP and the inhibitor. Future research should investigate the causes of the nucleotide addition states and inhibited states.

Previous single-molecule studies have shown that Stl lengthens existing pauses in EcoRNAP, which is consistent with our observation that pause c is extended with Stl in MtbRNAP. However, in those studies, EcoRNAP was not found to backtrack after inhibition by Stl, which is an interesting difference in inhibition mechanism between these two polymerases (Arseniev et al., 2023).

PUM increases the pause density in both EcoRNAP and MtbRNAP by competing with UTP incorporation (Maffioli et al., 2017). In addition, PUM can transform the active polymerase into two distinct slowly elongating inhibited states that do not appear to interconvert. We find this result surprising, as many nucleotide analog inhibitors of polymerases just cause pausing or termination, as is the case with several inhibitors being studied for use against SARS-CoV-2 (Seifert et al., 2021; Dulin et al., 2015; Dulin et al., 2017). It is possible that the inhibited states induced by D-IX216 and PUM share similar underlying mechanisms of inhibition, but if this is the case, it is not reflected in the different effects that these inhibitors have on the rate of elongation and DTD.

Both Stl and D-IX216 bind to the bridge helix of MtbRNAP. When administered together, D-IX216 binding seems to promote the binding of Stl, resulting in more potent inhibition (or arrest) of the enzyme. Since the standard of care for the treatment of tuberculosis infection involves a combination of antibiotics, identifying inhibitors that work together effectively is particularly valuable, and is not routinely the case (Herrera-Asmat et al., 2017). The results presented here with the combination of Stl and D-IX216 provide a basis for their possible use in combination therapy.

Single-molecule studies can provide details in the mechanism of action of inhibitors (Seifert et al., 2021; Dulin et al., 2015; Dulin et al., 2017; Halma et al., 2023). For instance, this study shows that PUM, ostensibly an rUTP analog, surprisingly also can induce the RNAP into states with slow activity. In addition, we see that Stl induces the RNAP to backtrack, which is a state often difficult to detect with bulk assays (Dulin et al., 2015). Having these additional mechanistic insights will allow medicinal chemists to make more informed choices in developing ideal combinations of drugs against multidrug-resistant diseases such as tuberculosis.

Methods

A list of oligos, plasmids, and cells used are available in Supplementary file 1. A list of conditions studied in the optical tweezers assay, including numbers of traces for each, is included in Supplementary file 2.

Plasmid preparation

To make the vectors for MtbRNAP biotinylation, we performed round-the-horn site-directed mutagenesis of plasmid pET-DUET-BC Gradia et al., 2017 using long PCR to introduce an avitag or a sortase tag (sortag) sequence at the c-terminus of the rpoC gene (Gabizon et al., 2018). The resulting plasmids were named pET-DUET-BC-avitag or pET-DUET-BC-sortag, respectively. As for the vectors for expressing Mtb transcription factors, we amplified the corresponding gene from the Mtb genome and inserted it into the plasmid pET His6 TEV LIC (Addgene, # 29653) using ligation-independent cloning (Chen et al., 2011).

To make plasmids with the DNA templates for the single-molecule assays, we took pUC19 and cloned the promoter AC50, the 10 bp stalling cassette, and the transcribable region, which derived from a ~2.7 kb region of genes rpoB and C from the M. tuberculosis Erdman genome (a gift from Professor Sara Stanley). We used an additional round-the-horn site mutagenesis to remove the lac promoter. We named this plasmid pUC19-del-Lac-AC50-MtbrpoBC. We used this plasmid to create another plasmid containing a molecular ruler. First, we removed one side of the BsaI in the rpoC gene by inserting a 255 bp DNA fragment of terminator WhiB1. Second, we replaced the stalling sequence with a 20 bp CU-less cassette using round-the-horn mutagenesis. Third, we used NEBuilder HiFi DNA Assembly Master Mix (NEB E2621S) to insert a synthetic DNA fragment, an 8 x repeat of a 63 bp sequence of pause c (Genescript), into the rpoB gene. The resulting plasmid was named pSGUML1T1.

DNA template preparation

We made a single-end digoxygenin-labeled DNA template (without a ruler) using PCR by amplifying approximately 4.2 kb or 2.8 kb from plasmid pUC19-del-Lac-AC50-MtbrpoBC, depending on whether the assay is for opposing or assisting force, and utilized a dig-labeled primer.

To make the DNA template containing the molecular ruler, we linearized the plasmid pSGUML1T1 with BsaI and filled the sticky ends by using Klenow Fragment in the presence of either ddATP or ddCTP to produce the opposing or assisting force template, respectively (Gabizon et al., 2018).

In addition, DNA handles were created using PCR with a biotinylated primer along with another primer, either double-dig labeled or encoding a restriction enzyme site for generating sticky ends for later ligation.

Production of biotinylated and non-biotinylated MtbRNAP

We produced the holoenzyme of MtbRNAP with sigma factor A by co-expressing its subunits in E. coli (Gradia et al., 2017). We biotinylated the avitag-MtbRNAP by co-expressing the plasmids pACYD-DUET-AOS and pDUET-BC-avitag with the plasmid pCDF-BirA (a gift from Professor Nicola Burgess-Brown). This protein was used for the assay under opposing force with Stl and GreA. Alternatively, we biotinylated the sortag-MtbRNAP (LPETG at the c-terminal of β’) after purification using an in vitro reaction of the polymerase, the enzyme sortase A (Chen et al., 2011) and GGGL-biotin (Genscript) (Righini et al., 2018).

Production of transcription factors MtbCarD and MtbGreA

We purified the transcription factor CarD as before (Gradia et al., 2017). To obtain MtbGreA, we expressed it as a his-tagged protein in E. coli BL21(DE). We captured this protein with Histrap (Cytiva) and used a TEV protease cleavage reaction (Sidorenkov et al., 1998) to cleave its histidine tag. To remove the cleaved tag, we used reverse nickel chromatography. The final purification step was done with anion exchange chromatography (HiTrap Q, Cytiva) in a Tris-saline buffer.

In vitro transcription bulk assay

We used an artificial bubble-based transcription to assess the recognition of the elemental pause sequences by MtbRNAP using a FAM-labeled RNA (Gradia et al., 2017) and assessed transcript size via gel. Raw gels are available in the Source Data Files related to the relevant figures.

Ternary elongation complex formation

We stalled the biotinylated MtbRNAP on a cassette lacking one or two nucleotides to form the ternary elongation complex (TEC) to study elongation, as previously described (Nudler et al., 2003; Berg-Sørensen and Flyvbjerg, 2004).

Sample preparation for single-molecule optical tweezers transcription elongation assay

To create the promoter-initiated stalled MtbRNAP elongation complexes, we utilized MtbCarD. First, we pre-incubated approximately 1 µM of biotinylated-MtbRNAP with around 10 µM of MtbCarD at 37 °C for 5 min in a final volume of 2 µL. Subsequently, we diluted the biotinylated MtbRNAP in buffer TB40 (20 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.9, 40 mM KCl, 5 mM MgCl2, and 0.5 mM TCEP) to a concentration of 10 nM. We then stalled 5 nM of polymerases by incubating them with 150 µM GpG, 2 nM Mtb DNA template in stall buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.9, 3 µM rATP, 3 µM rGTP, and 3 µM rCTP) at 37 °C for 20 min. If we were to use the Eco DNA repeat, we would substitute GpG with ApU (Whitley et al., 2017).

To attach the DNA handles or stall complexes to the microbead surfaces, we used a few different methods. In the first method, we incubated a 0.1 nM stalled complex labeled with double-digoxygenin with 0.05–0.1% passivated anti-dig beads in TB40 buffer for 10 min at 22 °C. Then, we added 0.05 µg/µL heparin at 22 °C for 5 min to remove non-competent polymerases. In the second method, we incubated 0.2–0.5 nM digoxygenin-labeled DNA handle with 300 nM neutravidin and the same amount of anti-digoxigenin beads at 22 °C for 10 min, followed by the addition of heparin. In the third method, we conducted ligation-based deposition by incubating a 0.1 nM stall complex with 0.1–0.05% passivated oligo beads, 0.1 mM rATP, and 4 U/µL T4 DNA ligase in TB40 buffer at 22 °C for 45 min to facilitate the ligation reaction. This was followed by a 5 min treatment with heparin at 22 °C. In the fourth method, we attached 0.2–0.5 nM DNA handle by incubating it with passivated complementary oligo beads, 300 nM neutravidin, 0.1 mM rATP, and 4 U/µL of T4 DNA ligase in TB40 buffer for an identical prolonged incubation, followed by heparin treatment. The bead depositions were either kept on ice for immediate use, or preserved by flash freezing and stored at –80 °C.

For every 10 µL of deposited beads, we added 1000–1500 µL of degassed TB130 Buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.9, 130 mM KCl, 10 mM MgCl2, 1 mM TCEP, and 5 mM NaN3) before injecting into the fluidics chamber.

In the experiments with MtbCarD and MtbGreA, the final amount of initiating CarD contributed to the amount free in solution in elongation was as low as ~13 pM (diluted from 100 to 120 nM MtbCarD), and neither causes any effects on pausing or velocity.

High-resolution optical tweezer transcription elongation assay

In Figure 1a, there is a representation of the optical tweezers setup, and in Figures 1b, c, 2b, there are representations of assisting constant force, opposing constant force, and opposing passive mode experiments. We used a custom home-built timeshared dual-trap optical tweezers system (Whitley et al., 2017; Comstock et al., 2011). In short, the single-molecule assay to measure transcription elongation involves two beads, one coated with RNAP stalled complexes, and one coated with DNA handles with neutravidin on the free end. The two beads are caught in separate traps, and when the beads are brought in close proximity, the neutravidin on the end of the DNA handle binds to the biotin attached to the RNAP and a tether is formed. The beads are brought apart, and the DNA handle separates the RNAP from the surface of the bead to reduce photodamage. We also used an oxygen-scavenger system based on sodium azide to increase the robustness of collecting processive activity. For both EcoRNAP and MtbRNAP, the attachment to biotin is done via its β' subunit.

We injected the microbeads into a microfluidics chamber through different channels to diffuse them to a central main channel, trapped them by optical tweezers, and brought them close to each other from the tether. To resume the elongation activity, we flowed a solution containing rNTPs, transcription factors, and/or inhibitors through a shunt positioned very close to the tethered complex. We used fluidic valves to control the flow via gravity. When transcribing the Eco repeat sequence, we used a nucleotide cocktail of 1 mM rUTP, 1 mM rGTP, 0.5 mM rATP, and 0.25 mM rCTP Gabizon et al., 2018 to match previous studies.

The instrument records the trap separation and monitors the displacement of the beads from the centers of the traps, and handles force feedback for the constant force experiments (Tropea et al., 2009). Calibration from raw voltages from the instrument to distance (bead separation) and applied force is done via power spectrum calibration to the expected Brownian motion of a bead held in a trap (Whitley et al., 2017).

Analysis of single-molecule complete trajectories of transcription elongation

All analysis, including the processing of the raw instrument data to forces and bead-to-bead distances and analysis procedures is done via custom code written in MATLAB, and is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15232932.

The collected traces are first selected for their length and undergo an initial sorting step where traces with unusually high instrumental noise or those that are unfit for analysis (two RNAPs tethered at the same time, too short transcription, etc.) are removed.

For calculating velocity distributions, a Savitzky-Golay differentiating filter of degree 1, width 1 s is used to extract the velocity of the trace at every point. These velocities are binned and least-squares fit to the sum of two Gaussians, one with mean 0 bp/s.

To get the dwells of the polymerase, we fit the traces as a staircase with a 1 bp step size. The complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) of the dwell time distribution (DTD) is fit to a sum of exponentials i=1naiekit, where i represents the i-th nucleotide addition state of the RNA polymerase, ai is the state probability (i=1ai=1), and ki is the kinetic rate such that k1>k2 > … kn. The CCDF is fit to the sum of up to 6 exponentials, and the best is chosen via the Akaike information criterion.

We calculated the residence time histogram (RTH) of the polymerase transcribing the pauses repeat according to a previous publication (Gabizon et al., 2018). Briefly, the repeating pauses let us determine a scale factor and offset factor to each transcription trace based on the location of the pauses. The scale is chosen to space the pauses 68 bp apart, and the offset is chosen to place the pause at position 50 bp into the repeat. This is done by taking the RTH of the repeat, averaged across the 8 repetitions, for a range of scale factors. The one that aligns the pauses best is the one with the most peaked RTH (a poor scale factor does not align the pauses, so makes the RTH flat, a good scale factor aligns the pauses and thus it will show up as a peak). The offset factor is then chosen to place the location of the strongest peak in the best RTH at 50 bp.

For the analysis of passive mode data, individual stalling force-velocity profiles are generated and the force F and velocity V is transformed into normalized units v and f, with the velocity normalized by dividing by the maximum force Vmax and the force normalized by dividing by the stall force, which is the force at which the velocity is half of Vmax. These individual force-velocity profiles are averaged together and fit to the function v(f)=(1+A)/(1+Aexp(fδ/kT)). For a short derivation, let the nucleotide addition cycle be made up of two steps that occur sequentially, one force-independent (comprising the biochemical transitions) and force-dependent (comprising the mechanical transitions). Let the rates of these terms be kbiochemical = kb and kmechanical(F)=km*exp(-Fd/kT). For the mechanical term, the system must move some distance d against the optical tweezers’ force F to reach the transition state, so the transition state energy is raised by Fd and the rate is affected via a Boltzmann factor. The transcription velocity is then the inverse of the sum of the inverses of these two rates: V(F) = (kb–1+km–1exp(Fd/kT))–1. Let Vmax = V(0)=1/(kb–1+km–1), so the normalized velocity v(F)=V(F)/Vmax = kb–1+km–1 /(kb–1+km–1exp(Fd/kT)). Let A=kb/km and let Fd = fδ (to transform Fd (unit pN * nm) into (unit normalized force * ‘normalized distance’)) to get the stated relation, v(f)=(1+A)/(1+Aexp(fδ/kT)). A is a parameter that dictates the ratio between the biochemical (force-independent) and mechanical (force-dependent) rates, and δ is the force dependence of the mechanical term. We divide ‘normalized distance’ by Fstall to get the distance to transition state in length units since Fd = fδ and f=F/Fstall.

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend thanks to Keren Espinoza and Cristhian Cañari for their work in the early stages of this project, and Drs. S Maffioli and S Donadio of Naicons Srl for samples of PUM used in initial work. This research was funded by National Institutes of Health grants GM041376 to RHE and R01GM032543 to CB. WL was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China grant 31900883, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Shenzhen University. CB is a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator.

Funding Statement

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Contributor Information

Carlos Bustamante, Email: carlosb@berkeley.edu.

Jie Xiao, Johns Hopkins University, United States.

Volker Dötsch, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany.

Funding Information

This paper was supported by the following grants:

  • National Institutes of Health GM041376 to Richard H Ebright.

  • National Institutes of Health R01GM032543 to Carlos Bustamante.

  • National Natural Science Foundation of China 31900883 to Wenxia Lin.

  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute to Carlos Bustamante.

Additional information

Competing interests

No competing interests declared.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, Resources, Software, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing.

Resources, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing – review and editing.

Validation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Resources, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing – review and editing.

Additional files

Supplementary file 1. Tables of oligos, plasmids and cells.
elife-105545-supp1.docx (45.9KB, docx)
Supplementary file 2. Summary of traces.
elife-105545-supp2.xlsx (13.1KB, xlsx)
MDAR checklist

Data availability

All oligos/plasmids used in this study are available upon reasonable request. See Supplementary file 1 for a list of materials. Transcription traces are available from Dryad. Matlab code used for analysis is available on Zenodo.

The following dataset was generated:

Herrera-Asmat O, Tong AB, Bustamante C. 2025. Single-molecule optical tweezers data of transcription of M. tuberculosis and E. coli RNAP in the presence of single-molecule inhibitors. Dryad Digital Repository.

References

  1. Abbondanzieri EA, Greenleaf WJ, Shaevitz JW, Landick R, Block SM. Direct observation of base-pair stepping by RNA polymerase. Nature. 2005;438:460–465. doi: 10.1038/nature04268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Adelman K, La Porta A, Santangelo TJ, Lis JT, Roberts JW, Wang MD. Single molecule analysis of RNA polymerase elongation reveals uniform kinetic behavior. PNAS. 2002;99:13538–13543. doi: 10.1073/pnas.212358999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arseniev A, Panfilov M, Pobegalov G, Potyseva A, Pavlinova P, Yakunina M, Lee J, Borukhov S, Severinov K, Khodorkovskii M. Single-molecule studies reveal the off-pathway elemental pause state as a target of streptolydigin inhibition of RNA polymerase and its dramatic enhancement by gre factors. bioRxiv. 2023 doi: 10.1101/2023.06.05.542125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  4. Bae B, Nayak D, Ray A, Mustaev A, Landick R, Darst SA. CBR antimicrobials inhibit RNA polymerase via at least two bridge-helix cap-mediated effects on nucleotide addition. PNAS. 2015;112:E4178–E4187. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1502368112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Berg-Sørensen K, Flyvbjerg H. Power spectrum analysis for optical tweezers. Review of Scientific Instruments. 2004;75:594–612. doi: 10.1063/1.1645654. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Böhringer N, Patras MA, Schäberle TF. Heterologous expression of pseudouridimycin and description of the corresponding minimal biosynthetic gene cluster. Molecules. 2021;26:510. doi: 10.3390/molecules26020510. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Boyaci H, Chen J, Lilic M, Palka M, Mooney RA, Landick R, Darst SA, Campbell EA. Fidaxomicin jams Mycobacterium tuberculosis RNA polymerase motions needed for initiation via RbpA contacts. eLife. 2018;7:e34823. doi: 10.7554/eLife.34823. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Boyaci H, Saecker RM, Campbell EA. Transcription initiation in mycobacteria: a biophysical perspective. Transcription. 2020;11:53–65. doi: 10.1080/21541264.2019.1707612. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bustamante C, Chemla YR, Forde NR, Izhaky D. Mechanical processes in biochemistry. Annual Review of Biochemistry. 2004;73:705–748. doi: 10.1146/annurev.biochem.72.121801.161542. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cain CF, Scott AM, Sarnowski MP, Del Valle JR. Total synthesis and chemical stability of pseudouridimycin. Chemical Communications. 2022;58:2351–2354. doi: 10.1039/d1cc07059b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chakraborty A. Structural basis of transcription initiation. Science. 1979;337:591–595. doi: 10.1126/science.1227786. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chakraborty A, Meng CA, Block SM. Observing single RNA polymerase molecules down to base-pair resolution. Methods in Molecular Biology. 2017;1486:391–409. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-6421-5_15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chen I, Dorr BM, Liu DR. A general strategy for the evolution of bond-forming enzymes using yeast display. PNAS. 2011;108:11399–11404. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1101046108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chen Z, Gabizon R, Brown AI, Lee A, Song A, Díaz-Celis C, Kaplan CD, Koslover EF, Yao T, Bustamante C. High-resolution and high-accuracy topographic and transcriptional maps of the nucleosome barrier. eLife. 2019;8:e48281. doi: 10.7554/eLife.48281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Chen J, Boyaci H, Campbell EA. Diverse and unified mechanisms of transcription initiation in bacteria. Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 2021;19:95–109. doi: 10.1038/s41579-020-00450-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cokol M, Kuru N, Bicak E, Larkins-Ford J, Aldridge BB. Efficient measurement and factorization of high-order drug interactions in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Science Advances. 2017;3:e1701881. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1701881. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Comstock MJ, Ha T, Chemla YR. Ultrahigh-resolution optical trap with single-fluorophore sensitivity. Nature Methods. 2011;8:335–340. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1574. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Dulin D, Vilfan ID, Berghuis BA, Hage S, Bamford DH, Poranen MM, Depken M, Dekker NH. Elongation-competent pauses govern the fidelity of a viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. Cell Reports. 2015;10:983–992. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2015.01.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Dulin D, Arnold JJ, van Laar T, Oh H-S, Lee C, Perkins AL, Harki DA, Depken M, Cameron CE, Dekker NH. Signatures of nucleotide analog incorporation by an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase revealed using high-throughput magnetic tweezers. Cell Reports. 2017;21:1063–1076. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.10.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Ebright RH, Ebright YW, Mandal S, Wilde R, Li S, inventors. Antibacterial agents: n(alpha)-aroyl-n-aryl-phenylalaninamides. WO2015120320A1. United States patent. 2015 https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2015120320A1/en
  21. Feng Y, Degen D, Wang X, Gigliotti M, Liu S, Zhang Y, Das D, Michalchuk T, Ebright YW, Talaue M, Connell N, Ebright RH. Structural basis of transcription inhibition by CBR hydroxamidines and CBR pyrazoles. Structure. 2015;23:1470–1481. doi: 10.1016/j.str.2015.06.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gabizon R, Lee A, Vahedian-Movahed H, Ebright RH, Bustamante CJ. Pause sequences facilitate entry into long-lived paused states by reducing RNA polymerase transcription rates. Nature Communications. 2018;9:2930. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05344-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Galburt EA, Grill SW, Wiedmann A, Lubkowska L, Choy J, Nogales E, Kashlev M, Bustamante C. Backtracking determines the force sensitivity of RNAP II in a factor-dependent manner. Nature. 2007;446:820–823. doi: 10.1038/nature05701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gill SK, Garcia GA. Rifamycin inhibition of WT and Rif-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Escherichia coli RNA polymerases in vitro. Tuberculosis. 2011;91:361–369. doi: 10.1016/j.tube.2011.05.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gradia SD, Ishida JP, Tsai MS, Jeans C, Tainer JA, Fuss JO. MacroBac: New technologies for robust and efficient large-scale production of recombinant multiprotein complexes. Methods in Enzymology. 2017;592:1–26. doi: 10.1016/bs.mie.2017.03.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gulten G, Sacchettini JC. Structure of the Mtb CarD/RNAP β-lobes complex reveals the molecular basis of interaction and presents a distinct DNA-binding domain for Mtb CarD. Structure. 2013;21:1859–1869. doi: 10.1016/j.str.2013.08.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Halma MTJ, Tuszynski JA, Wuite GJL. Optical tweezers for drug discovery. Drug Discovery Today. 2023;28:103443. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2022.103443. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Harshey RM, Ramakrishnan T. Rate of ribonucleic acid chain growth in Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv. Journal of Bacteriology. 1977;129:616–622. doi: 10.1128/jb.129.2.616-622.1977. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hassan HM, Degen D, Jang KH, Ebright RH, Fenical W. Salinamide F, new depsipeptide antibiotic and inhibitor of bacterial RNA polymerase from a marine-derived Streptomyces sp. The Journal of Antibiotics. 2015;68:206–209. doi: 10.1038/ja.2014.122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Herbert KM, La Porta A, Wong BJ, Mooney RA, Neuman KC, Landick R, Block SM. Sequence-resolved detection of pausing by single RNA polymerase molecules. Cell. 2006;125:1083–1094. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.04.032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Herrera-Asmat O, Lubkowska L, Kashlev M, Bustamante CJ, Guerra DG, Kireeva ML. Production and characterization of a highly pure RNA polymerase holoenzyme from Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Protein Expression and Purification. 2017;134:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.pep.2017.03.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hubin EA, Lilic M, Darst SA, Campbell EA. Structural insights into the mycobacteria transcription initiation complex from analysis of X-ray crystal structures. Nature Communications. 2017;8:16072. doi: 10.1038/ncomms16072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Janissen R, Eslami-Mossallam B, Artsimovitch I, Depken M, Dekker NH. High-throughput single-molecule experiments reveal heterogeneity, state switching, and three interconnected pause states in transcription. Cell Reports. 2022;39:110749. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2022.110749. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kang JY, Mishanina TV, Bellecourt MJ, Mooney RA, Darst SA, Landick R. RNA polymerase accommodates a pause RNA hairpin by global conformational rearrangements that prolong pausing. Molecular Cell. 2018;69:802–815. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2018.01.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Keller D, Bustamante C. The mechanochemistry of molecular motors. Biophysical Journal. 2000;78:541–556. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(00)76615-X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kyzer S, Zhang J, Landick R. Inhibition of RNA polymerase by streptolydigin: no cycling allowed. Cell. 2005;122:494–496. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2005.08.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Larson MH, Mooney RA, Peters JM, Windgassen T, Nayak D, Gross CA, Block SM, Greenleaf WJ, Landick R, Weissman JS. A pause sequence enriched at translation start sites drives transcription dynamics in vivo. Science. 2014;344:1042–1047. doi: 10.1126/science.1251871. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Lin W, Mandal S, Degen D, Liu Y, Ebright YW, Li S, Feng Y, Zhang Y, Mandal S, Jiang Y, Liu S, Gigliotti M, Talaue M, Connell N, Das K, Arnold E, Ebright RH. Structural basis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis transcription and transcription inhibition. Molecular Cell. 2017;66:169–179. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2017.03.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Lin W, Das K, Degen D, Mazumder A, Duchi D, Wang D, Ebright YW, Ebright RY, Sineva E, Gigliotti M, Srivastava A, Mandal S, Jiang Y, Liu Y, Yin R, Zhang Z, Eng ET, Thomas D, Donadio S, Zhang H, Zhang C, Kapanidis AN, Ebright RH. Structural basis of transcription inhibition by Fidaxomicin (Lipiarmycin A3) Molecular Cell. 2018;70:60–71. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2018.02.026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Lisica A, Engel C, Jahnel M, Roldán É, Galburt EA, Cramer P, Grill SW. Mechanisms of backtrack recovery by RNA polymerases I and II. PNAS. 2016;113:2946–2951. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1517011113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Liu Q, Zuo T, Xu P, Jiang Q, Wu J, Gan M, Yang C, Prakash R, Zhu G, Takiff HE, Gao Q. Have compensatory mutations facilitated the current epidemic of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis? Emerging Microbes & Infections. 2018;7:1–8. doi: 10.1038/s41426-018-0101-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Maffioli SI, Zhang Y, Degen D, Carzaniga T, Del Gatto G, Serina S, Monciardini P, Mazzetti C, Guglierame P, Candiani G, Chiriac AI, Facchetti G, Kaltofen P, Sahl HG, Dehò G, Donadio S, Ebright RH. Antibacterial nucleoside-analog inhibitor of bacterial RNA polymerase. Cell. 2017;169:1240–1248. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.05.042. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Maffioli SI, Sosio M, Ebright RH, Donadio S. Discovery, properties, and biosynthesis of pseudouridimycin, an antibacterial nucleoside-analog inhibitor of bacterial RNA polymerase. Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology. 2019;46:335–343. doi: 10.1007/s10295-018-2109-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Malinen AM, Nandymazumdar M, Turtola M, Malmi H, Grocholski T, Artsimovitch I, Belogurov GA. CBR antimicrobials alter coupling between the bridge helix and the β subunit in RNA polymerase. Nature Communications. 2014;5:3408. doi: 10.1038/ncomms4408. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Malinen AM, Turtola M, Belogurov GA. Monitoring translocation of multisubunit RNA polymerase along the DNA with fluorescent base analogues. Methods in Molecular Biology. 2015;1276:31–51. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-2392-2_3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Mazumder A, Lin M, Kapanidis AN, Ebright RH. Closing and opening of the RNA polymerase trigger loop. PNAS. 2020;117:15642–15649. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1920427117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Mejia YX, Mao H, Forde NR, Bustamante C. Thermal probing of E. coli RNA polymerase off-pathway mechanisms. Journal of Molecular Biology. 2008;382:628–637. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2008.06.079. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Miropolskaya N, Artsimovitch I, Klimasauskas S, Nikiforov V, Kulbachinskiy A. Allosteric control of catalysis by the F loop of RNA polymerase. PNAS. 2009;106:18942–18947. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0905402106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Molodtsov V, Scharf NT, Stefan MA, Garcia GA, Murakami KS. Structural basis for rifamycin resistance of bacterial RNA polymerase by the three most clinically important RpoB mutations found in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Molecular Microbiology. 2017;103:1034–1045. doi: 10.1111/mmi.13606. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Nedialkov YA, Opron K, Assaf F, Artsimovitch I, Kireeva ML, Kashlev M, Cukier RI, Nudler E, Burton ZF. The RNA polymerase bridge helix YFI motif in catalysis, fidelity and translocation. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta. 2013;1829:187–198. doi: 10.1016/j.bbagrm.2012.11.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Neuman KC, Abbondanzieri EA, Landick R, Gelles J, Block SM. Ubiquitous transcriptional pausing is independent of RNA polymerase backtracking. Cell. 2003;115:437–447. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(03)00845-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Nudler E, Gusarov I, Bar-Nahum G. Methods of walking with the RNA polymerase. Methods in Enzymology. 2003;371:160–169. doi: 10.1016/S0076-6879(03)71011-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Righini M, Lee A, Cañari-Chumpitaz C, Lionberger T, Gabizon R, Coello Y, Tinoco I, Bustamante C. Full molecular trajectories of RNA polymerase at single base-pair resolution. PNAS. 2018;115:1286–1291. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1719906115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Rinehart KL, Beck JR, Epstein WW, Spicer LD. Streptolydigin. I. Streptolic Acid. Journal of the American Chemical Society. 1963;85:4035–4037. doi: 10.1021/ja00907a032. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Seifert M, Bera SC, van Nies P, Kirchdoerfer RN, Shannon A, Le TTN, Meng X, Xia H, Wood JM, Harris LD, Papini FS, Arnold JJ, Almo S, Grove TL, Shi P-Y, Xiang Y, Canard B, Depken M, Cameron CE, Dulin D. Inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 polymerase by nucleotide analogs from a single-molecule perspective. eLife. 2021;10:e70968. doi: 10.7554/eLife.70968. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Severinov K, Soushko M, Goldfarb A, Nikiforov V. RifR mutations in the beginning of the Escherichia coli rpoB gene. Molecular & General Genetics. 1994;244:120–126. doi: 10.1007/BF00283512. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Shaevitz JW, Abbondanzieri EA, Landick R, Block SM. Backtracking by single RNA polymerase molecules observed at near-base-pair resolution. Nature. 2003;426:684–687. doi: 10.1038/nature02191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Sidorenkov I, Komissarova N, Kashlev M. Crucial role of the RNA:DNA hybrid in the processivity of transcription. Molecular Cell. 1998;2:55–64. doi: 10.1016/s1097-2765(00)80113-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Sosio M, Gaspari E, Iorio M, Pessina S, Medema MH, Bernasconi A, Simone M, Maffioli SI, Ebright RH, Donadio S. Analysis of the Pseudouridimycin biosynthetic pathway provides insights into the formation of C-nucleoside Antibiotics. Cell Chemical Biology. 2018;25:540–549. doi: 10.1016/j.chembiol.2018.02.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Stefan MA, Ugur FS, Garcia GA. Source of the fitness defect in Rifamycin-Resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis RNA Polymerase and the Mechanism of Compensation by Mutations in the β’ Subunit. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2018;62:e00164-18. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00164-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Temiakov D, Zenkin N, Vassylyeva MN, Perederina A, Tahirov TH, Kashkina E, Savkina M, Zorov S, Nikiforov V, Igarashi N, Matsugaki N, Wakatsuki S, Severinov K, Vassylyev DG. Structural basis of transcription inhibition by antibiotic streptolydigin. Molecular Cell. 2005;19:655–666. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2005.07.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Tropea JE, Cherry S, Waugh DS. Expression and purification of soluble His(6)-tagged TEV protease. Methods in Molecular Biology. 2009;498:297–307. doi: 10.1007/978-1-59745-196-3_19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Tuske S, Sarafianos SG, Wang X, Hudson B, Sineva E, Mukhopadhyay J, Birktoft JJ, Leroy O, Ismail S, Clark AD, Jr, Dharia C, Napoli A, Laptenko O, Lee J, Borukhov S, Ebright RH, Arnold E. Inhibition of bacterial RNA polymerase by streptolydigin: stabilization of a straight-bridge-helix active-center conformation. Cell. 2005;122:541–552. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2005.07.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Vishwakarma RK, Cao A-M, Morichaud Z, Perumal AS, Margeat E, Brodolin K. Single-molecule analysis reveals the mechanism of transcription activation in M. tuberculosis. Science Advances. 2018;4:eaao5498. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aao5498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Wang MD, Schnitzer MJ, Yin H, Landick R, Gelles J, Block SM. Force and velocity measured for single molecules of RNA polymerase. Science. 1998;282:902–907. doi: 10.1126/science.282.5390.902. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Whitley KD, Comstock MJ, Chemla YR. High-Resolution optical tweezers combined with single-molecule confocal microscopy. Methods in Enzymology. 2017;582:137–169. doi: 10.1016/bs.mie.2016.10.036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. World Health Organization . Global Tuberculosis Report 2023. World Health Organization; 2023. [Google Scholar]
  68. World Health Organization & World Health Organization . Treatment of Tuberculosis Guidelines. World Health Organization; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  69. Xu Z, Zhou A, Wu J, Zhou A, Li J, Zhang S, Wu W, Karakousis PC, Yao YF. Transcriptional approach for decoding the mechanism of rpoC compensatory mutations for the fitness cost in Rifampicin-Resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2018;9:2895. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02895. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Yin H, Wang MD, Svoboda K, Landick R, Block SM, Gelles J. Transcription against an applied force. Science. 1995;270:1653–1657. doi: 10.1126/science.270.5242.1653. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Zorov S, Yuzenkova Y, Nikiforov V, Severinov K, Zenkin N. Antibiotic streptolydigin requires noncatalytic Mg2+ for binding to RNA polymerase. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2014;58:1420–1424. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02248-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Editor's evaluation

Jie Xiao 1

This important work used state-of-the-art optical tweezers to investigate the elongation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis RNAP (mtbRNAP) and its inhibition by three small-molecule inhibitors: N(α)-aroyl-N-aryl-phenylalaninamide (D-IX216), streptolydigin (Stl), and pseudouridimycin (PUM). The authors provide compelling evidence demonstrating a slower elongation mode of MtbRNAP compared to that of the E. coli RNAP, distinct inhibition modes of the three small molecule inhibitors, and a synergistic effect of Stl and D-IX216 on MtbRNAP. These findings clarified the differential mechanistic actions of RNA polymerase inhibitors, providing insights for the development of new, effective combination therapies against tuberculosis.

Decision letter

Editor: Jie Xiao1
Reviewed by: Richard Fishel2

In the interests of transparency, eLife publishes the most substantive revision requests and the accompanying author responses.

Decision letter after peer review:

Thank you for submitting your article "Pleomorphic effects of three small-molecule inhibitors on transcription elongation by Mycobacterium tuberculosis RNA polymerase" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by 2 peer reviewers, and the evaluation has been overseen by a Reviewing Editor and Volker Dötsch as the Senior Editor.

The reviewers have discussed their reviews with one another, and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this to help you prepare a revised submission.

Essential Revisions:

1) please provide each measurement's N value (number) of data points to allow statistical significance. When stating "significant," please explicitly describe the statistical test or analysis method used.

2) Please clarify inconsistent nomenclatures as indicated by reviewer #1.

3) Please clarify or repeat the same concentrations of D-IX216 in the individual vs. combined inhibitor treatments with Stl.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

The studies by Herrera-Asmat et al., appear to be carefully performed and the statistical analysis of the data appropriate. However, there are a number of nomenclature inconsistencies and several unsupported conclusions as well as missing primary data that are both necessary and must be addressed before publication. These additions will significantly improve presentation of the data and conclusions for the wide audience of eLife and assure the experimental reproducibility that is essential to move the field forward.

There are a number of data and editorial issues that made evaluation of the Herrera-Asmat et al., manuscript quite difficult and time consuming. In general, the data appear to be carefully collected, and the statistical evaluation well thought through. Nevertheless, the authors need to address several issues to improve both the clarity and accuracy of the manuscript. These are:

1) P.3, L.92-93: nowhere in the manuscript are the number of (individual) molecules analyzed noted. The optical tweezers setup can only observe a single RNAP molecule at a time. These observations may include multiple kinetic events from individual molecules that underpin statistical significance. However, to understand the general nature of these kinetic events, one must observe and characterize multiple individual molecules to provide power to any statistical analysis.

2) P.3, L.118-125: The authors define three kinetic states of the RNAP; pause-free (pf), elemental pause (ep) and long pause (lp). However, this abbreviated nomenclature is not used consistently throughout the manuscript, making reading and evaluation difficult at best. This is complicated by random changes in this nomenclature that include "on-pathway (for pf) and short pauses (for ef). Moreover, it was not clear to this referee whether there was a connection between pf, ef, and lp to the fast, slow and super-slow activities observed for the RNAP's in the presence of drug inhibitors. This should be explicitly considered in the text.

3) P.4, L.134: Isn't the "passive mode" functionally equivalent to the "opposing force" mode? Ultimately the authors clearly determine at which "opposing" force the polymerase stalls. This seems to be another case where consistent use of nomenclature would help the reader.

4) P.4, L.150-153: This is a rather confusing sentence. By definition backtracking must occur after a stall in forward polymerase activity. Thus, δ seems more likely to be the nucleotide distance to the transition where the opposing mechanical force equals the polymerization force?

5) P.5,L.157: Isn't it more accurate that, MtbRNAP tends to pause less frequently than EcoRNAP under "both" assisting "and opposing" force "for" both the Eco and Mtb templates?

6) P.6,L.174-175: This is a rather speculative conclusion without some genetic or mutational data and should be either eliminated or dramatically tempered.

7) P.5, L.186-189: Inconsistent (often confusing) nomenclature. The authors define the drug inhibitor D-IX216 as "AAP" in the introduction. Then inconsistently use D-IX216 and/or AAP throughout the manuscript. Either refer to AAP as the class of drugs and D-IX216 as the specific drug used in the studies, or AAP as the acronym for D-IX216, but not both or either depending on the mood.

8) P.5,L.193: The force conditions for this drug concentration analysis should be explicitly detailed.

9) P.6,L228-229 (and throughout the manuscript): The use of the word "region" does not seem appropriate. This really is a measure of polymerase "activity". There would seem to be no reason not to refer to these kinetic regions as fast, slow and super-slow (polymerase) activities.

10) P.6,L.250 and 252: Figure 4e should refer to the left and right panels, respectively, to focus on specific results.

11) P.7,L.285-290: These sentences seem repetitive and are quite confusingly written. There must be a better way to express the differences in mathematical treatment of deep backtracking and shallow backtracking mechanics, and the relative fitting that describes the results.

12) P.8,L.307-308: These are not "seemingly conflicting" results. They are just "different results".

13) P.8,L.331: Is this AAP's as a general class, or specifically D-IX216? I read it as the latter, but these continued confusing nomenclatures made simple reading of the manuscript quite difficult!

14) P.9,L.350: Two different concentrations of D-IX216 were used in the individual vs. combined inhibitor treatments with Stl. This difference makes these studies not exactly comparable and may change the results and interpretation. A repeat of these studies with comparable concentrations of drug is essential for this entire section and is a significant flaw in these studies.

15) P.9,L360: Rather than, "Therefore we propose", one might consider, "These studies appear consistent with the hypothesis …".

16) P.9,L389: "unbinding" should be replaced by "inhibitor dissociation".

17) P.10,L.397-399: There must be a much simpler way of expressing the differences and relative value of single molecule studies vs. bulk studies? There is no question that the present studies identified new kinetic processes that would be impossible by bulk analysis. But the present sentence obscures this fact with repetitive words and pretentious language.

18) P.10,L.412-415: It would seem to this referee that the final sentence could better reflect the capabilities of single molecule analysis for antibiotic mechanics in developing combined treatments for improved patient outcomes?

19) Figure 2d (right panel): Equations should be included in Supplementary Materials with terms for Boltzman relation defined (not presently included anywhere in the manuscript). This could include the actual calculations, which were not immediately obvious and required significant time to deconvolute.

20) Figure 3b (right panel): Marking pause sites (a,b,c,d,his) would visually help readers.

21) Figure 3c (right panel): Marking pause site bands (a,b,c,d,his) for MtbRNAP would visually help readers. One assumes that the MtbRNAP pause site c is the major band and ultimately made up the MtbRNAP pause site array? Why was pause site b not used as an equivalent array? Seems a strong pause at least in early time points.

22) Figure 4a (left panel): What is the concentration of D-IX216?

23) Figure 4a (right panel): The pause dwell times for the fast kinetics prior to the super-slow activity seem different that the fast or slow activities?

24) Figure 5e and 5g: The authors must use consistent nomenclature for pf, ef, and lp in these panels. Moreover, the meaning of AF (assisted force) and OP (opposing force) should be included in the legend.

25) Figure 6c: The illustration of polymerase kinetic activity and State 1,2,3 is different than Figure 4d. It would be useful if the authors stuck to a type of illustration to make comparisons of Figures easy for the reader.

26) Suppl. Figure S2c: Use pf and ep, or some consistent nomenclature!

27) Suppl. Figure S4c: Same as #26 – consistent nomenclature, please!

Methods:

1) The studies were not performed at physiological ionic strength (looks like ~70mN). One wonders if there might be significant kinetic differences.Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Referee report for "Pleomorphic effects of three small-molecule inhibitors on transcription elongation by Mycobacterium tuberculosis RNA polymerase" by Omar Herrera-Asmat et al.

In this work, the authors use their well-established single-molecule optical tweezers assay to study the activity of the RNA polymerase from Mycobacterium tuberculosis. In particular, they investigate the changes in activity in the presence of three small-molecule inhibitors: N(α)-aroyl-N-aryl-phenylalaninamide (D-IX216), streptolydigin (Stl), and pseudouridimycin (PUM). They find a diverse range of effects on the polymerase, including transitions into a very slow activity state (induced by D-IX216 and PUM), induction of pausing and backtracking. Overall, the work provides interesting insights into the activity of an important pathogen with implications for the development of new drugs. This is a timely and relevant study that I found well-presented and interesting to read. Below, are some suggestions for clarifications and further improvements.

- In several places they authors make statements like "there are no significant effects" (line 133) or "we observed an insignificant decrease" (line 307). It would be good to explicitly state what statistical test / method of analysis was used.

- Related to the last point: In many of the figures there are bar charts essentially comparing various kinetic parameters. I believe it would be useful to -at least for key parameters- indicate which differences are statistically significant and which ones are not.

- The model used in Figure 2 to describe the force-dependent transcription velocity is not well explained. There is "a parameter A" (line 146), but then there is also lower case "a", which is never defined? Also, the authors give values for the stall force, which does not appear to be a parameter in the model, but do not seem to give values for Vmax, which is used to rescale the axes. I think the model should be better explained and all parameters defined. In addition, I am wondering whether it would be clearer and more informative to show velocity vs. force for the two polymerases, rather than to normalize both axis, which makes the plots look very similar.

- I believe it would be useful to (further) compare and contrast the present findings with previously published work on how different inhibitors affect RNA polymerases, see e.g. single-molecule work on SARS-CoV-2 (Seifert et al. eLife 2021; https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70968).

eLife. 2025 Oct 3;14:e105545. doi: 10.7554/eLife.105545.sa2

Author response


Essential Revisions:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

The studies by Herrera-Asmat et al., appear to be carefully performed and the statistical analysis of the data appropriate. However, there are a number of nomenclature inconsistencies and several unsupported conclusions as well as missing primary data that are both necessary and must be addressed before publication. These additions will significantly improve presentation of the data and conclusions for the wide audience of eLife and assure the experimental reproducibility that is essential to move the field forward.

There are a number of data and editorial issues that made evaluation of the Herrera-Asmat et al., manuscript quite difficult and time consuming. In general, the data appear to be carefully collected, and the statistical evaluation well thought through. Nevertheless, the authors need to address several issues to improve both the clarity and accuracy of the manuscript. These are:

1) P.3, L.92-93: nowhere in the manuscript are the number of (individual) molecules analyzed noted. The optical tweezers setup can only observe a single RNAP molecule at a time. These observations may include multiple kinetic events from individual molecules that underpin statistical significance. However, to understand the general nature of these kinetic events, one must observe and characterize multiple individual molecules to provide power to any statistical analysis.

We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We have now tabulated the number of traces (=number of individual RNAPs) from each condition tested in this work in Supplementary File 2, and have added references to the text and methods denoting that N information can be found there. For instance, one reference in Methods reads: “A list of conditions studied in the optical tweezers assay, including numbers of traces for each, is included in Supplementary File 2”

2) P.3, L.118-125: The authors define three kinetic states of the RNAP; pause-free (pf), elemental pause (ep) and long pause (lp). However, this abbreviated nomenclature is not used consistently throughout the manuscript, making reading and evaluation difficult at best. This is complicated by random changes in this nomenclature that include "on-pathway (for pf) and short pauses (for ef). Moreover, it was not clear to this referee whether there was a connection between pf, ef, and lp to the fast, slow and super-slow activities observed for the RNAP's in the presence of drug inhibitors. This should be explicitly considered in the text.

The reviser raises a valid point. We now have unified nomenclature for these states and have explicitly defined them. To be clear, the analysis of the dwell time distributions yields kinetic states k1, k2, …. For the inhibitor-free polymerase, we relate these k1, k2, and k3 to kpf, kep, and klp, respectively, since the kinetic lifetimes of the k1/2/3 states match the lifetimes of the kpf/ep/lp states that have been previously described in other studies (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2022.110749). For the states observed under the action of D-IX216 (slow and super-slow), the analysis of the dwell time distributions also yields a k1, k2, and k3, but we do not relate those to kpf, kef, and klp. We have made this point clearer in the main text when this is discussed.

The labeling of states in Figures 1e, 2a, 4d, 5e, 6c, 7b, S2c (Figure 4 supplement 1), and S4c (Figure 4 supplement 3), have been changed to Pause-free, Elemental Pauses, and Long Pauses.

When discussing the slow and super-slow DTD analysis, we emphasize the differences between the states observed in the presence of D-IX216 and pf/ep/lp, relevant section copied here: “We emphasize here that inhibited states refer to a persistent activity of the enzyme lasting for multiple incorporation cycles, while nucleotide addition states may change between every step. The rates of the various nucleotide addition states found for the slow and super-slow inhibited states do not match those of the pause-free, elemental pause, or long pause states (Figure 4d), so we conclude that these are states distinct from the normal ones visited by the polymerase.”

3) P.4, L.134: Isn't the "passive mode" functionally equivalent to the "opposing force" mode? Ultimately the authors clearly determine at which "opposing" force the polymerase stalls. This seems to be another case where consistent use of nomenclature would help the reader.

The reviewer is correct. Passive mode is an experimental procedure where the distance between the optical traps is kept fixed and therefore, as the enzyme moves, the force opposing the molecule increases. Thus, the difference between ‘passive mode’ and ‘opposing force mode’ as currently written in the text is as to whether force feedback is applied to keep the force constant at a series of pre-set values (‘opposing force mode’), or to let the force rise (in real time) as the polymerase transcribes (‘passive mode’). We have edited the terms to be clearer: the experimental modes are now ‘opposing passive mode’, ‘opposing constant force mode’, and ‘assisting constant force mode’. The relevant portions of the text and figures have been updated.

4) P.4, L.150-153: This is a rather confusing sentence. By definition backtracking must occur after a stall in forward polymerase activity. Thus, δ seems more likely to be the nucleotide distance to the transition where the opposing mechanical force equals the polymerization force?

We agree that δ relates to the attainment of the stall state, but since that stall state is the backtracked state (as evident in visible backwards movement that occurs with stalling), we interpret it as being related to the degree of backtracking. If δ is related to the mechanical inhibition of polymerase forwards translocation (“fighting against the polymerization force”), then a value of δ close to the step size of the motor, 1bp, would have been obtained, but the experimental value of ~15bp strongly suggests that it describes a quantity related to the backward movement (backtracking) of the enzyme.

To elaborate, there is probably an intermediate stall state between forward translocation and backtracking, but since there is presumably no change in tether extension in the attainment of this state, the rate of attaining this state cannot be force-dependent. So, stalling is probably a stochastic process by which the polymerase transiently stochastically pauses, from which it can transit to a backtracking state, and the rate of going from the stochastic pause to the backtrack pause involves backward displacement and is therefore force-dependent with the opposing force promoting movement towards the backtracking direction. This process (a polymerase even in the absence of any drug first enters a short pause, from which it can enter a backtrack pause) matches proposed mechanisms for polymerase backtracking, e.g. see https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2022.110749.

We have edited the text to try to be clearer on these points and on the model itself. The main text section now reads: “The force-velocity curves can be fit to an unrestrained Boltzmann relation v(f)=(1+A)/(1+Aexp(fδ/kT)), where the process is split into mechanical (force-dependent) and biochemical (force-independent) terms. The ratio of these terms at zero force is the parameter A, and the strength of force dependence is δ (Figure 2d, see Methods). For both Eco and Mtb RNAPs, we find that A << 1, indicating that biochemical transitions are rate-limiting at zero force in these instances, in line with prior findings for EcoRNAP. The value of δ is the distance to the transition state of polymerase stalling via backtracking, so we interpret this as the backtracking distance required by the RNAP to stall. For MtbRNAP, we obtain a value of 14 ± 1 nt (95% CI) (Figure 2d), comparable to the 13 ± 1 nt observed for EcoRNAP and findings from earlier studies on EcoRNAP.” We have also added a section to Methods where this model is derived and discussed in more depth.

5) P.5,L.157: Isn't it more accurate that, MtbRNAP tends to pause less frequently than EcoRNAP under "both" assisting "and opposing" force "for" both the Eco and Mtb templates?

While the reviewer’s suggested statement would probably be true, Figure 1e does not relate to any opposing force data, and we don’t show any analysis directly comparing EcoRNAP and MtbRNAP in constant opposing force mode. So, we opt to keep the text as-is.

6) P.6,L.174-175: This is a rather speculative conclusion without some genetic or mutational data and should be either eliminated or dramatically tempered.

We agree with the reviewer on this point and have elected to remove this statement.

7) P.5, L.186-189: Inconsistent (often confusing) nomenclature. The authors define the drug inhibitor D-IX216 as "AAP" in the introduction. Then inconsistently use D-IX216 and/or AAP throughout the manuscript. Either refer to AAP as the class of drugs and D-IX216 as the specific drug used in the studies, or AAP as the acronym for D-IX216, but not both or either depending on the mood.

Our intention was to do as you suggest: to refer to the family of drugs as AAPs, while the specific one we have tested is D-IX216. The phrase in the introduction (“the N(α)-aroyl-N-aryl-phenylalaninamide (AAP) D-IX216”) is unclear, we meant to define AAP as the shortening of N(α)-aroyl-N-aryl-phenylalaninamide, separate from D-IX216. We realize we don’t have to define AAP, so we have removed this abbreviation. The sentence now reads “These inhibitors are D-IX216 (an N(α)-aroyl-N-aryl-phenylalaninamide), streptolydigin (Stl), and pseudouridimycin (PUM),” which should be clearer. We have eliminated all reference to AAP otherwise. In particular, we referred to the drug we tested as “AAP” in a few places in the text. These have been changed to D-IX216.

8) P.5,L.193: The force conditions for this drug concentration analysis should be explicitly detailed.

The experiments were performed in constant assisting force mode. We have added this information to the text, the relevant section is copied here: “Upon adding 70-560 nM D-IX216 to a transcribing MtbRNAP (Figure 4a) under 18pN of assisting constant force, …”

9) P.6,L228-229 (and throughout the manuscript): The use of the word "region" does not seem appropriate. This really is a measure of polymerase "activity". There would seem to be no reason not to refer to these kinetic regions as fast, slow and super-slow (polymerase) activities.

We had a lot of trouble thinking about nomenclature for these. We like your suggestion and have changed them to ‘fast/slow/super-slow activity’, at least until we define the term ‘inhibited state’ later on.

10) P.6,L.250 and 252: Figure 4e should refer to the left and right panels, respectively, to focus on specific results.

We agree, this has been changed.

11) P.7,L.285-290: These sentences seem repetitive and are quite confusingly written. There must be a better way to express the differences in mathematical treatment of deep backtracking and shallow backtracking mechanics, and the relative fitting that describes the results.

We think the confusion results from including the final sentence, we think it is unnecessary and causes more confusion than clarity. The section now reads: “The recovery from the Stl-induced pauses before and after backtracking both exhibited single-exponential distributions (Figure 5c). A single-exponential distribution of backtrack durations is associated with deep backtracking and recovery via endonucleolysis, whereas a power law distribution (t-3/2) corresponds to diffusive recovery from more shallow backtracking (Figure 5d).”

12) P.8,L.307-308: These are not "seemingly conflicting" results. They are just "different results".

We have changed it to your suggestion; the text now reads “These differing results may reflect differences in the mechanism of Stl inhibition between EcoRNAP and MtbRNAP.”

13) P.8,L.331: Is this AAP's as a general class, or specifically D-IX216? I read it as the latter, but these continued confusing nomenclatures made simple reading of the manuscript quite difficult!

As noted before (comment 7), this is a typo. This should read D-IX216.

14) P.9,L.350: Two different concentrations of D-IX216 were used in the individual vs. combined inhibitor treatments with Stl. This difference makes these studies not exactly comparable and may change the results and interpretation. A repeat of these studies with comparable concentrations of drug is essential for this entire section and is a significant flaw in these studies.

We have now included data of D-IX216 at 560 nM alone to make the comparison with the combined case straightforward. The changes can be seen in Figure S5a, Figure 7, and in the passages that reference those figures.

15) P.9,L360: Rather than, "Therefore we propose", one might consider, "These studies appear consistent with the hypothesis …".

We agree, we have changed the text to the suggestion.

16) P.9,L389: "unbinding" should be replaced by "inhibitor dissociation".

We agree, it has been changed accordingly.

17) P.10,L.397-399: There must be a much simpler way of expressing the differences and relative value of single molecule studies vs. bulk studies? There is no question that the present studies identified new kinetic processes that would be impossible by bulk analysis. But the present sentence obscures this fact with repetitive words and pretentious language.

Actually, our intention here was not to compare bulk vs. single-molecule, as the referenced study is also a single-molecule force spectroscopy study. We at first thought it was possible that they did not document backtracking because they could not resolve it occurring (hence the reference to ‘spatiotemporal resolution’), but we realize it is also possible that the difference comes from the species of polymerase, as they studied EcoRNAP while we used MtbRNAP. The passage now reads: “Previous single-molecule studies have shown that Stl lengthens existing pauses in EcoRNAP, which is consistent with our observation that pause c is extended with Stl in MtbRNAP. However, in those studies, EcoRNAP was not found to backtrack after inhibition by Stl, which points to a difference in the inhibition mechanism of this drug with these two polymerases.”

18) P.10,L.412-415: It would seem to this referee that the final sentence could better reflect the capabilities of single molecule analysis for antibiotic mechanics in developing combined treatments for improved patient outcomes?

Yes, we have elaborated a bit and have expanded this final sentence to a small paragraph on the benefits of single-molecule approaches in drug discovery.

19) Figure 2d (right panel): Equations should be included in Supplementary Materials with terms for Boltzman relation defined (not presently included anywhere in the manuscript). This could include the actual calculations, which were not immediately obvious and required significant time to deconvolute.

We have added to Methods more description of the model, including an explanation of the form and the terms. We have added to the text a reference to this section when Figure 2d is cited. Also, the ‘simplifications’ (the other equations) were not defined and we believe actually to be more confusing than helpful, so we have removed them. It is now just one equation.

20) Figure 3b (right panel): Marking pause sites (a,b,c,d,his) would visually help readers.

Good idea, we have added those labels to the pauses.

21) Figure 3c (right panel): Marking pause site bands (a,b,c,d,his) for MtbRNAP would visually help readers. One assumes that the MtbRNAP pause site c is the major band and ultimately made up the MtbRNAP pause site array? Why was pause site b not used as an equivalent array? Seems a strong pause at least in early time points.

We thank the reader for this comment. Pause c is notably stronger than the other pauses, so we tried that first for creating the ruler and it worked so we did not test others. It is possible that pause b could have worked, too. The band of pause b indeed is initially as dark as pause c’s, which means they have similar pausing efficiencies (percentage of RNAPs that pause at that site), but the band lasts for much longer with pause c, meaning it has a longer pause duration (length of time the RNAP spends at this pause). We want the strongest pause (high efficiency and duration) for the ruler to make the detection of the ruler pause the easiest in the single-molecule assay.

We think maybe this could have come up since the band for pauses b and c for MtbRNAP might be ambiguous, we have now marked the relevant pause band on both sides of the gels to be more precise in showing which band corresponds to which pause. It should be more obvious that pause c is the strongest, and that the band lasts for much longer than e.g. pause b.

22) Figure 4a (left panel): What is the concentration of D-IX216?

It is 140nM, and it has now been noted in the figure.

23) Figure 4a (right panel): The pause dwell times for the fast kinetics prior to the super-slow activity seem different that the fast or slow activities?

In the single-molecule assay, activity from RNAP to RNAP can vary a bit, e.g. compare Figure 1a’s differing activities from the three different molecules. We did wonder if these speed and pausing variations in the region of fast activity before switches correlated to the activity in the slow or super-slow regions, but could not find any such correlation (see Figure 4—figure supplement 3c).

24) Figure 5e and 5g: The authors must use consistent nomenclature for pf, ef, and lp in these panels. Moreover, the meaning of AF (assisted force) and OP (opposing force) should be included in the legend.

We have changed the figures and text to refer to the states of the fast polymerase as pf/ef/lp. We have added the AF/OF definitions in the legend, as suggested.

25) Figure 6c: The illustration of polymerase kinetic activity and State 1,2,3 is different than Figure 4d. It would be useful if the authors stuck to a type of illustration to make comparisons of Figures easy for the reader.

We have formatted the two graphs to be the same, like Figure 4 (grouped by fast/slow/super-slow)

26) Suppl. Figure S2c: Use pf and ep, or some consistent nomenclature!

(Handled in comment 24)

27) Suppl. Figure S4c: Same as #26 – consistent nomenclature, please!

(Handled in comment 24)

Methods:

1) The studies were not performed at physiological ionic strength (looks like ~70mN). One wonders if there might be significant kinetic differences.

The RNAP transcription experiments were performed in TB130 buffer which has 130 mM KCl and 10 mM MgCl2, which we believe to be in the physiological range. There are lower ionic strength buffers used, but those are for various preparatory steps (e.g. formation of the transcription complex is done in TB40: 40 mM KCl and 5 mM MgCl2).

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Referee report for "Pleomorphic effects of three small-molecule inhibitors on transcription elongation by Mycobacterium tuberculosis RNA polymerase" by Omar Herrera-Asmat et al.

In this work, the authors use their well-established single-molecule optical tweezers assay to study the activity of the RNA polymerase from Mycobacterium tuberculosis. In particular, they investigate the changes in activity in the presence of three small-molecule inhibitors: N(α)-aroyl-N-aryl-phenylalaninamide (D-IX216), streptolydigin (Stl), and pseudouridimycin (PUM). They find a diverse range of effects on the polymerase, including transitions into a very slow activity state (induced by D-IX216 and PUM), induction of pausing and backtracking. Overall, the work provides interesting insights into the activity of an important pathogen with implications for the development of new drugs. This is a timely and relevant study that I found well-presented and interesting to read. Below, are some suggestions for clarifications and further improvements.

- In several places they authors make statements like "there are no significant effects" (line 133) or "we observed an insignificant decrease" (line 307). It would be good to explicitly state what statistical test / method of analysis was used.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. We admit that we have been looser than we should have been with the term ‘significant’. For cases where we have not applied a significance test, we have changed language to not use that word. For example, in Line 133, we now say “no dramatic effects on kpf or kel”. Due to the nature of the high number of transitions observed for each of these states, very slight differences can come up as statistically significant (narrow confidence intervals for fitting), our goal is to guide the reader towards the meaningful changes through the text.

- Related to the last point: In many of the figures there are bar charts essentially comparing various kinetic parameters. I believe it would be useful to -at least for key parameters- indicate which differences are statistically significant and which ones are not.

[We have addressed this point in the above response]

- The model used in Figure 2 to describe the force-dependent transcription velocity is not well explained. There is "a parameter A" (line 146), but then there is also lower case "a", which is never defined? Also, the authors give values for the stall force, which does not appear to be a parameter in the model, but do not seem to give values for Vmax, which is used to rescale the axes. I think the model should be better explained and all parameters defined. In addition, I am wondering whether it would be clearer and more informative to show velocity vs. force for the two polymerases, rather than to normalize both axis, which makes the plots look very similar.

We have changed how we depict the formula, and without the simplification (small a). We believe it is more understandable now, v(f)=(1+A)/(1+Aexp(fδ/kT)). We’ve updated the text and added more discussion in the Methods, too.

Regarding the second point (velocity vs. force in unnormalized units), this graph is generated by individually normalizing to each polymerase first, so it cannot be shown in unnormalized units. This matches what we and others have done previously in characterizing RNAP stall forces, see e.g. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.282.5390.902

- I believe it would be useful to (further) compare and contrast the present findings with previously published work on how different inhibitors affect RNA polymerases, see e.g. single-molecule work on SARS-CoV-2 (Seifert et al. eLife 2021; https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70968).

We thank the reviewer for this very good suggestion. We now have added a reference to that paper when discussing the effect of PUM, as the relevance to nucleotide analogs is important.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Citations

    1. Herrera-Asmat O, Tong AB, Bustamante C. 2025. Single-molecule optical tweezers data of transcription of M. tuberculosis and E. coli RNAP in the presence of single-molecule inhibitors. Dryad Digital Repository. [DOI]

    Supplementary Materials

    Figure 3—source data 1. Original raw gels for Figure 3d.
    Figure 3—source data 2. Full gel images for Figure 3d, with labels.
    Figure 3—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Original raw gels for Figure 3—figure supplement 1b.
    Figure 3—figure supplement 1—source data 2. Full gel images for Figure 3—figure supplement 1b, with labels.
    Supplementary file 1. Tables of oligos, plasmids and cells.
    elife-105545-supp1.docx (45.9KB, docx)
    Supplementary file 2. Summary of traces.
    elife-105545-supp2.xlsx (13.1KB, xlsx)
    MDAR checklist

    Data Availability Statement

    All oligos/plasmids used in this study are available upon reasonable request. See Supplementary file 1 for a list of materials. Transcription traces are available from Dryad. Matlab code used for analysis is available on Zenodo.

    The following dataset was generated:

    Herrera-Asmat O, Tong AB, Bustamante C. 2025. Single-molecule optical tweezers data of transcription of M. tuberculosis and E. coli RNAP in the presence of single-molecule inhibitors. Dryad Digital Repository.


    Articles from eLife are provided here courtesy of eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd

    RESOURCES