Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Bacteriology logoLink to Journal of Bacteriology
. 1996 Nov;178(22):6419–6426. doi: 10.1128/jb.178.22.6419-6426.1996

Short-range and long-range context effects on coliphage T4 endonuclease II-dependent restriction.

K Carlson 1, L D Kosturko 1, A C Nyström 1
PMCID: PMC178526  PMID: 8932296

Abstract

Synthetic sites inserted into a plasmid were used to analyze the sequence requirements for in vivo DNA cleavage dependent on bacteriophage T4 endonuclease II. A 16-bp variable sequence surrounding the cleavage site was sufficient for cleavage, although context both within and around this sequence influenced cleavage efficiency. The most efficiently cleaved sites matched the sequence CGRCCGCNTTGGCNGC, in which the strongly conserved bases to the left were essential for cleavage. The less-conserved bases in the center and in the right half determined cleavage efficiency in a manner not directly correlated with the apparent base preference at each position; a sequence carrying, in each of the 16 positions, the base most preferred in natural sites in pBR322 was cleaved infrequently. This, along with the effects of substitutions at one or two of the less-conserved positions, suggests that several combinations of bases can fulfill the requirements for recognition of the right part of this sequence. The replacements that improve cleavage frequency are predicted to influence helical twist and roll, suggesting that recognition of sequence-dependent DNA structure and recognition of specific bases are both important. Upon introduction of a synthetic site, cleavage at natural sites within 800 to 1,500 bp from the synthetic site was significantly reduced. This suggests that the enzyme may engage more DNA than its cleavage site and cleaves the best site within this region. Cleavage frequency at sites which do not conform closely to the consensus is, therefore, highly context dependent. Models and possible biological implications of these findings are discussed.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (654.2 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Adzuma K., Mizuuchi K. Target immunity of Mu transposition reflects a differential distribution of Mu B protein. Cell. 1988 Apr 22;53(2):257–266. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(88)90387-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Amemura J., Ichikawa H., Ohtsubo E. Tn3 transposition immunity is conferred by the transposase-binding domain in the terminal inverted-repeat sequence of Tn3. Gene. 1990 Mar 30;88(1):21–24. doi: 10.1016/0378-1119(90)90055-v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arber W. Promotion and limitation of genetic exchange. Science. 1979 Jul 27;205(4404):361–365. doi: 10.1126/science.377489. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Arciszewska L. K., Drake D., Craig N. L. Transposon Tn7. cis-Acting sequences in transposition and transposition immunity. J Mol Biol. 1989 May 5;207(1):35–52. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(89)90439-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bernstein H., Bernstein C. Bacteriophage T4 genetic homologies with bacteria and eucaryotes. J Bacteriol. 1989 May;171(5):2265–2270. doi: 10.1128/jb.171.5.2265-2270.1989. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Carlson K., Krabbe M., Nyström A. C., Kosturko L. D. DNA determinants of restriction. Bacteriophage T4 endonuclease II-dependent cleavage of plasmid DNA in vivo. J Biol Chem. 1993 Apr 25;268(12):8908–8918. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Carlson K., Overvatn A. Bacteriophage T4 endonucleases II and IV, oppositely affected by dCMP hydroxymethylase activity, have different roles in the degradation and in the RNA polymerase-dependent replication of T4 cytosine-containing DNA. Genetics. 1986 Nov;114(3):669–685. doi: 10.1093/genetics/114.3.669. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carlson K., Wiberg J. S. In vivo cleavage of cytosine-containing bacteriophage T4 DNA to genetically distinct, discretely sized fragments. J Virol. 1983 Oct;48(1):18–30. doi: 10.1128/jvi.48.1.18-30.1983. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chang S., Cohen S. N. In vivo site-specific genetic recombination promoted by the EcoRI restriction endonuclease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1977 Nov;74(11):4811–4815. doi: 10.1073/pnas.74.11.4811. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Conrad M., Topal M. D. DNA and spermidine provide a switch mechanism to regulate the activity of restriction enzyme Nae I. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989 Dec;86(24):9707–9711. doi: 10.1073/pnas.86.24.9707. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Conrad M., Topal M. D. Modified DNA fragments activate NaeI cleavage of refractory DNA sites. Nucleic Acids Res. 1992 Oct 11;20(19):5127–5130. doi: 10.1093/nar/20.19.5127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Definitions and nomenclature of nucleic acid structure parameters. EMBO J. 1989 Jan;8(1):1–4. doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1989.tb03339.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Eddy S. R., Gold L. Artificial mobile DNA element constructed from the EcoRI endonuclease gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Mar 1;89(5):1544–1547. doi: 10.1073/pnas.89.5.1544. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Endlich B., Linn S. The DNA restriction endonuclease of Escherichia coli B. II. Further studies of the structure of DNA intermediates and products. J Biol Chem. 1985 May 10;260(9):5729–5738. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gabbara S., Bhagwat A. S. Interaction of EcoRII endonuclease with DNA substrates containing single recognition sites. J Biol Chem. 1992 Sep 15;267(26):18623–18630. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gorin A. A., Zhurkin V. B., Olson W. K. B-DNA twisting correlates with base-pair morphology. J Mol Biol. 1995 Mar 17;247(1):34–48. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1994.0120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hattman S., Gribbin C., Hutchison C. A., 3rd In vivo methylation of bacteriophage phi X174 DNA. J Virol. 1979 Dec;32(3):845–851. doi: 10.1128/jvi.32.3.845-851.1979. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hiom K., Thomas S. M., Sedgwick S. G. Different mechanisms for SOS induced alleviation of DNA restriction in Escherichia coli. Biochimie. 1991 Apr;73(4):399–405. doi: 10.1016/0300-9084(91)90106-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Jeltsch A., Alves J., Wolfes H., Maass G., Pingoud A. Pausing of the restriction endonuclease EcoRI during linear diffusion on DNA. Biochemistry. 1994 Aug 30;33(34):10215–10219. doi: 10.1021/bi00200a001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Jung G. H., Leavitt M. C., Hsieh J. C., Ito J. Bacteriophage PRD1 DNA polymerase: evolution of DNA polymerases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1987 Dec;84(23):8287–8291. doi: 10.1073/pnas.84.23.8287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kelleher J. E., Raleigh E. A. Response to UV damage by four Escherichia coli K-12 restriction systems. J Bacteriol. 1994 Oct;176(19):5888–5896. doi: 10.1128/jb.176.19.5888-5896.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Krabbe M., Carlson K. In vivo restriction. Sequence and structure of endonuclease II-dependent cleavage sites in bacteriophage T4 DNA. J Biol Chem. 1991 Dec 5;266(34):23407–23415. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Krüger D. H., Barcak G. J., Reuter M., Smith H. O. EcoRII can be activated to cleave refractory DNA recognition sites. Nucleic Acids Res. 1988 May 11;16(9):3997–4008. doi: 10.1093/nar/16.9.3997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kuspa A., Loomis W. F. Tagging developmental genes in Dictyostelium by restriction enzyme-mediated integration of plasmid DNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Sep 15;89(18):8803–8807. doi: 10.1073/pnas.89.18.8803. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kutter E. M., Wiberg J. S. Degradation of cytosin-containing bacterial and bacteriophage DNA after infection of Escherichia coli B with bacteriophage T4D wild type and with mutants defective in genes 46, 47 and 56. J Mol Biol. 1968 Dec;38(3):395–411. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(68)90394-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lesser D. R., Kurpiewski M. R., Jen-Jacobson L. The energetic basis of specificity in the Eco RI endonuclease--DNA interaction. Science. 1990 Nov 9;250(4982):776–786. doi: 10.1126/science.2237428. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lesser D. R., Kurpiewski M. R., Waters T., Connolly B. A., Jen-Jacobson L. Facilitated distortion of the DNA site enhances EcoRI endonuclease-DNA recognition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993 Aug 15;90(16):7548–7552. doi: 10.1073/pnas.90.16.7548. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Maley G. F., Maley F., Baugh C. M. Differential inhibition of host and viral thymidylate synthetases by folylpolyglutamates. J Biol Chem. 1979 Aug 25;254(16):7485–7487. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. McClelland M. Recognition sequences of type II restriction systems are constrained by the G + C content of host genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 1988 Mar 25;16(5):2283–2294. doi: 10.1093/nar/16.5.2283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Meisel A., Bickle T. A., Krüger D. H., Schroeder C. Type III restriction enzymes need two inversely oriented recognition sites for DNA cleavage. Nature. 1992 Jan 30;355(6359):467–469. doi: 10.1038/355467a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Michel F., Dujon B. Genetic exchanges between bacteriophage T4 and filamentous fungi? Cell. 1986 Aug 1;46(3):323–323. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(86)90651-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Oller A. R., Vanden Broek W., Conrad M., Topal M. D. Ability of DNA and spermidine to affect the activity of restriction endonucleases from several bacterial species. Biochemistry. 1991 Mar 5;30(9):2543–2549. doi: 10.1021/bi00223a035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Pein C. D., Reuter M., Meisel A., Cech D., Krüger D. H. Activation of restriction endonuclease EcoRII does not depend on the cleavage of stimulator DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 1991 Oct 11;19(19):5139–5142. doi: 10.1093/nar/19.19.5139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Price C., Bickle T. A. A possible role for DNA restriction in bacterial evolution. Microbiol Sci. 1986 Oct;3(10):296–299. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Radding C. M. Molecular mechanisms in genetic recombination. Annu Rev Genet. 1973;7:87–111. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ge.07.120173.000511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Repoila F., Tétart F., Bouet J. Y., Krisch H. M. Genomic polymorphism in the T-even bacteriophages. EMBO J. 1994 Sep 1;13(17):4181–4192. doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1994.tb06736.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Reuter M., Kupper D., Pein C. D., Petrusyte M., Siksnys V., Frey B., Krüger D. H. Use of specific oligonucleotide duplexes to stimulate cleavage of refractory DNA sites by restriction endonucleases. Anal Biochem. 1993 Mar;209(2):232–237. doi: 10.1006/abio.1993.1113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Schiestl R. H., Petes T. D. Integration of DNA fragments by illegitimate recombination in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991 Sep 1;88(17):7585–7589. doi: 10.1073/pnas.88.17.7585. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Schiestl R. H., Zhu J., Petes T. D. Effect of mutations in genes affecting homologous recombination on restriction enzyme-mediated and illegitimate recombination in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell Biol. 1994 Jul;14(7):4493–4500. doi: 10.1128/mcb.14.7.4493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Schneider T. D., Stormo G. D., Gold L., Ehrenfeucht A. Information content of binding sites on nucleotide sequences. J Mol Biol. 1986 Apr 5;188(3):415–431. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(86)90165-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Schäfer A., Schwarzer A., Kalinowski J., Pühler A. Cloning and characterization of a DNA region encoding a stress-sensitive restriction system from Corynebacterium glutamicum ATCC 13032 and analysis of its role in intergeneric conjugation with Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol. 1994 Dec;176(23):7309–7319. doi: 10.1128/jb.176.23.7309-7319.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Snustad D. P., Bursch C. J., Parson K. A., Hefeneider S. H. Mutants of bacteriophage T4 deficient in the ability to induce nuclear disruption: shutoff of host DNA and protein synthesis gene dosage experiments, identification of a restrictive host, and possible biological significance. J Virol. 1976 Apr;18(1):268–288. doi: 10.1128/jvi.18.1.268-288.1976. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Stahl M. M., Kobayashi I., Stahl F. W., Huntington S. K. Activation of Chi, a recombinator, by the action of an endonuclease at a distant site. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1983 Apr;80(8):2310–2313. doi: 10.1073/pnas.80.8.2310. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Takahashi H., Saito H. Mechanism of pBR322 transduction mediated by cytosine-substituting T4 bacteriophage. Mol Gen Genet. 1982;186(4):497–500. doi: 10.1007/BF00337955. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Thaler D. S., Stahl F. W. DNA double-chain breaks in recombination of phage lambda and of yeast. Annu Rev Genet. 1988;22:169–197. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ge.22.120188.001125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Thoms B., Wackernagel W. Genetic control of damage-inducible restriction alleviation in Escherichia coli K12: an SOS function not repressed by lexA. Mol Gen Genet. 1984;197(2):297–303. doi: 10.1007/BF00330977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Topal M. D., Conrad M. Changing endonuclease EcoRII Tyr308 to Phe abolishes cleavage but not recognition: possible homology with the Int-family of recombinases. Nucleic Acids Res. 1993 Jun 11;21(11):2599–2603. doi: 10.1093/nar/21.11.2599. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Topal M. D., Thresher R. J., Conrad M., Griffith J. NaeI endonuclease binding to pBR322 DNA induces looping. Biochemistry. 1991 Feb 19;30(7):2006–2010. doi: 10.1021/bi00221a038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Tsurimoto T., Stillman B. Functions of replication factor C and proliferating-cell nuclear antigen: functional similarity of DNA polymerase accessory proteins from human cells and bacteriophage T4. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Feb;87(3):1023–1027. doi: 10.1073/pnas.87.3.1023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Wiberg J. S. Mutants of bacteriophage T4 unable to cause breakdown of host DNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1966 Mar;55(3):614–621. doi: 10.1073/pnas.55.3.614. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Wilson G. G., Young K. Y., Edlin G. J., Konigsberg W. High-frequency generalised transduction by bacteriophage T4. Nature. 1979 Jul 5;280(5717):80–82. doi: 10.1038/280080a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Yang C. C., Topal M. D. Nonidentical DNA-binding sites of endonuclease NaeI recognize different families of sequences flanking the recognition site. Biochemistry. 1992 Oct 13;31(40):9657–9664. doi: 10.1021/bi00155a019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Young K. K., Edlin G. Physical and genetical analysis of bacteriophage T4 generalized transduction. Mol Gen Genet. 1983;192(1-2):241–246. doi: 10.1007/BF00327673. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Bacteriology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES