Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Bacteriology logoLink to Journal of Bacteriology
. 1979 Jun;138(3):739–747. doi: 10.1128/jb.138.3.739-747.1979

Relation of Chemotactic Response to the Amount of Receptor: Evidence for Different Efficiencies of Signal Transduction

Ahmet Koman 1, Shigeaki Harayama 1, Gerald L Hazelbauer 1
PMCID: PMC218099  PMID: 378935

Abstract

We determined the content of galactose-glucose-, maltose-, and ribose-binding proteins in cells of Escherichia coli K-12 grown in a variety of media and also measured the respective transport and chemotactic activities that depend on those binding proteins. Correlation of the level of induction of a particular binding protein with the extent of tactic activity mediated by that protein indicates that the magnitude of the tactic response to a particular stimulating compound is a direct function of the number of receptors per cell. In contrast, comparison of the magnitudes of response to substances recognized by independent receptors indicates that some stimulus-receptor complexes are more effective in eliciting tactic responses than are others. Thus, the magnitude of response to any particular stimulating compound is a function both of the number of receptors per cell and of the effectiveness of the stimulus-receptor complex. Considerations of available information about the tactic response to maltose suggest that the effectiveness of a stimulus-receptor complex is related to the transducer with which the receptor interacts. The tar product appears to be a relatively effective transducer of the signals it accepts from receptors for aspartate, α-methylaspartate, and maltose, whereas the trg product appears to be a relatively ineffective transducer of signals it accepts from receptors for galactose and ribose.

Full text

PDF
739

Images in this article

742Image
on p.742
743Image
on p.743

Selected References

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

  1. Adler J. A method for measuring chemotaxis and use of the method to determine optimum conditions for chemotaxis by Escherichia coli. J Gen Microbiol. 1973 Jan;74(1):77–91. doi: 10.1099/00221287-74-1-77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Adler J. Chemoreceptors in bacteria. Science. 1969 Dec 26;166(3913):1588–1597. doi: 10.1126/science.166.3913.1588. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Adler J. Chemotaxis in bacteria. Annu Rev Biochem. 1975;44:341–356. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bi.44.070175.002013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Adler J., Hazelbauer G. L., Dahl M. M. Chemotaxis toward sugars in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol. 1973 Sep;115(3):824–847. doi: 10.1128/jb.115.3.824-847.1973. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Aksamit R., Koshland D. E., Jr A ribose binding protein of Salmonella typhimurium. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1972 Sep 26;48(6):1348–1353. doi: 10.1016/0006-291x(72)90860-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Anraku Y. Transport of sugars and amino acids in bacteria. I. Purification and specificity of the galactose- and leucine-binding proteins. J Biol Chem. 1968 Jun 10;243(11):3116–3122. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Berg H. C., Tedesco P. M. Transient response to chemotactic stimuli in Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1975 Aug;72(8):3235–3239. doi: 10.1073/pnas.72.8.3235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Harayama S., Palva E. T., Hazelbauer G. L. Transposon-insertion mutants of Escherichia coli K12 defective in a component common to galactose and ribose chemotaxis. Mol Gen Genet. 1979 Mar 20;171(2):193–203. doi: 10.1007/BF00270005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hazelbauer G. L., Adler J. Role of the galactose binding protein in chemotaxis of Escherichia coli toward galactose. Nat New Biol. 1971 Mar 24;230(12):101–104. doi: 10.1038/newbio230101a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hazelbauer G. L., Harayama S. Mutants in transmission of chemotactic signals from two independent receptors of E. coli. Cell. 1979 Mar;16(3):617–625. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(79)90035-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hazelbauer G. L. Maltose chemoreceptor of Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol. 1975 Apr;122(1):206–214. doi: 10.1128/jb.122.1.206-214.1975. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hazelbauer G. L., Mesibov R. E., Adler J. Escherichia coli mutants defective in chemotaxis toward specific chemicals. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1969 Dec;64(4):1300–1307. doi: 10.1073/pnas.64.4.1300. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hazelbauer G. L. The binding of maltose to 'virgin' maltose-binding protein is biphasic. Eur J Biochem. 1975 Dec 15;60(2):445–449. doi: 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1975.tb21022.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hofnung M., Hatfield D., Schwartz M. malB region in Escherichia coli K-12: characterization of new mutations. J Bacteriol. 1974 Jan;117(1):40–47. doi: 10.1128/jb.117.1.40-47.1974. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kondoh H., Ball C. B., Adler J. Identification of a methyl-accepting chemotaxis protein for the ribose and galactose chemoreceptors of Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1979 Jan;76(1):260–264. doi: 10.1073/pnas.76.1.260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kort E. N., Goy M. F., Larsen S. H., Adler J. Methylation of a membrane protein involved in bacterial chemotaxis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1975 Oct;72(10):3939–3943. doi: 10.1073/pnas.72.10.3939. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. LOWRY O. H., ROSEBROUGH N. J., FARR A. L., RANDALL R. J. Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. J Biol Chem. 1951 Nov;193(1):265–275. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Macnab R. M., Koshland D. E., Jr The gradient-sensing mechanism in bacterial chemotaxis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1972 Sep;69(9):2509–2512. doi: 10.1073/pnas.69.9.2509. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Mesibov R., Adler J. Chemotaxis toward amino acids in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol. 1972 Oct;112(1):315–326. doi: 10.1128/jb.112.1.315-326.1972. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Mesibov R., Ordal G. W., Adler J. The range of attractant concentrations for bacterial chemotaxis and the threshold and size of response over this range. Weber law and related phenomena. J Gen Physiol. 1973 Aug;62(2):203–223. doi: 10.1085/jgp.62.2.203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Ordal G. W., Adler J. Properties of mutants in galactose taxis and transport. J Bacteriol. 1974 Feb;117(2):517–526. doi: 10.1128/jb.117.2.517-526.1974. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Parkinson J. S. Behavioral genetics in bacteria. Annu Rev Genet. 1977;11:397–414. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ge.11.120177.002145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Randall L. L., Hardy S. J. Synthesis of exported proteins by membrane-bound polysomes from Escherichia coli. Eur J Biochem. 1977 May 2;75(1):43–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1977.tb11502.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Robbins A. R. Regulation of the Escherichia coli methylgalactoside transport system by gene mglD. J Bacteriol. 1975 Jul;123(1):69–74. doi: 10.1128/jb.123.1.69-74.1975. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Rubik B. A., Koshland D. E., Jr Potentiation, desensitization, and inversion of response in bacterial sensing of chemical stimuli. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978 Jun;75(6):2820–2824. doi: 10.1073/pnas.75.6.2820. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Schwartz M. Expression phénotypique et localisation génétique de mutations affectant le métabolisme du maltose chez Escherichia coli K 12. Ann Inst Pasteur (Paris) 1967 Jun;112(6):673–698. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Schwartz M., Kellermann O., Szmelcman S., Hazelbauer G. L. Further studies on the binding of maltose to the maltose-binding protein of Escherichia coli. Eur J Biochem. 1976 Dec;71(1):167–170. doi: 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1976.tb11102.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Silverman M., Simon M. Chemotaxis in Escherichia coli: methylation of che gene products. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1977 Aug;74(8):3317–3321. doi: 10.1073/pnas.74.8.3317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Springer M. S., Kort E. N., Larsen S. H., Ordal G. W., Reader R. W., Adler J. Role of methionine in bacterial chemotaxis: requirement for tumbling and involvement in information processing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1975 Nov;72(11):4640–4644. doi: 10.1073/pnas.72.11.4640. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Spudich J. L., Koshland D. E., Jr Non-genetic individuality: chance in the single cell. Nature. 1976 Aug 5;262(5568):467–471. doi: 10.1038/262467a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Spudich J. L., Koshland D. E., Jr Quantitation of the sensory response in bacterial chemotaxis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1975 Feb;72(2):710–713. doi: 10.1073/pnas.72.2.710. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Strange P. G., Koshland D. E., Jr Receptor interactions in a signalling system: competition between ribose receptor and galactose receptor in the chemotaxis response. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1976 Mar;73(3):762–766. doi: 10.1073/pnas.73.3.762. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Willis R. C., Furlong C. E. Purification and properties of a ribose-binding protein from Escherichia coli. J Biol Chem. 1974 Nov 10;249(21):6926–6929. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Zukin R. S., Koshland D. E., Jr Mg2+, Ca2+-dependent adenosine triphosphatase as receptor for divalent cations in bacterial sensing. Science. 1976 Jul 30;193(4251):405–408. doi: 10.1126/science.132702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Zukin R. S., Strange P. G., Heavey R., Koshland D. E. Properties of the galactose binding protein of Salmonella typhimurium and Escherichia coli. Biochemistry. 1977 Feb 8;16(3):381–386. doi: 10.1021/bi00622a007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES