Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Nucleic Acids Research logoLink to Nucleic Acids Research
. 2008 Dec 10;37(3):672–678. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkn996

Bacterial DNA topology and infectious disease

Charles J Dorman 1,*, Colin P Corcoran 1
PMCID: PMC2647292  PMID: 19073701

Abstract

The Gram-negative bacterium Escherichia coli and its close relative Salmonella enterica have made important contributions historically to our understanding of how bacteria control DNA supercoiling and of how supercoiling influences gene expression and vice versa. Now they are contributing again by providing examples where changes in DNA supercoiling affect the expression of virulence traits that are important for infectious disease. Available examples encompass both the earliest stages of pathogen–host interactions and the more intimate relationships in which the bacteria invade and proliferate within host cells. A key insight concerns the link between the physiological state of the bacterium and the activity of DNA gyrase, with downstream effects on the expression of genes with promoters that sense changes in DNA supercoiling. Thus the expression of virulence traits by a pathogen can be interpreted partly as a response to its own changing physiology. Knowledge of the molecular connections between physiology, DNA topology and gene expression offers new opportunities to fight infection.

INTRODUCTION

DNA gyrase was discovered in Escherichia coli, a bacterium that has played an important part in the foundation of modern molecular biology (1). DNA topoisomerase I was also discovered in E. coli (2), but the gene that encodes it, topA, was first identified as a suppressor of the leu500 promoter mutation in Salmonella enterica, then called S. typhimurium (3). The genes that encode gyrase, gyrA and gyrB, have the interesting property of being up-regulated when DNA relaxes (4). In contrast, the topA gene is transcriptionally activated when DNA becomes more negatively supercoiled (5–7). This latter response is intuitively appealing: a promoter must open for transcription to begin and the energy of negative supercoiling can be used to bring about the necessary breakage of the hydrogen bonds between the paired bases (8). The molecular mechanism responsible for the DNA-relaxation-dependent activation of gyrA and gyrB has yet to be fully explained (9).

Reciprocal regulation of the transcription of the topA gene and the gyrA and gyrB genes by DNA negative supercoiling and relaxation, respectively, is consistent with the maintenance of a homeostatic balance of DNA supercoiling that benefits the cell (10–13). As DNA becomes more negatively supercoiled expression of the topA gene is enhanced, leading to a higher level of DNA topoisomerase I, a DNA relaxing enzyme. DNA relaxation has the opposite effect because it enhances the transcription of the genes coding for DNA gyrase which can then correct the supercoiled-relaxed balance to a value in keeping with the physiological needs of the cell (10–13).

This simple picture of topoisomerase gene regulation neglects a number of additional influences. For example, the Fis protein is a regulator of topA, gyrA and gyrB (14–16). This protein is the factor for inversion stimulation, hence the name ‘Fis’. It was discovered originally as an important co-factor in the operation of invertible DNA switches that are catalyzed by members of the serine invertase family of site-specific recombinases (17). Fis is now known to play many regulatory roles in the cell, affecting the operation of several important DNA transactions such as bacteriophage integration and excision, expression of components of the translation machinery, DNA replication, and transposition (17,18). Fis represses the expression of its own gene, fis, and it has a highly characteristic expression pattern. The Fis protein is expressed to its maximum level in the early stage of exponential growth. Its intracellular concentration declines sharply thereafter and it is almost undetectable when the bacterial culture approaches the stationary phase of growth (19,20). This suggests that there is a window within which Fis-dependent molecular events can occur optimally. However, a straightforward correlation between Fis concentration, growth phase and the operation of Fis-dependent systems has been difficult to obtain. The picture is made complicated by the fact that Fis is not essential for any of the processes to which it contributes and by the fact that the classic pattern of Fis protein expression can be overridden by the manipulation of growth conditions (21).

The Fis protein represses the transcription of both gyrA and gyrB and has a bi-functional relationship with topA: at high concentrations, Fis represses topA transcription and at low concentrations Fis is an activator (14–16). Fis regulates transcription positively by acting both as a conventional transcription factor that makes protein–protein contact with RNA polymerase and by creating a micro-domain of negatively supercoiled DNA in the vicinity of the target promoter (22–25). Like the genes coding for the main topoisomerases, the fis gene is regulated by changes in DNA supercoiling: increased negative DNA supercoiling stimulates the fis promoter (26). The contribution of Fis to global regulation of DNA transactions through changes in DNA supercoiling is best appreciated in the context of the impact of growth phase on DNA superhelicity. DNA is more negatively supercoiled in bacteria that are growing exponentially than in those where growth has slowed or ceased (27). Fis is thought to play a valuable role in offsetting the negative effects of DNA that is too relaxed or too negatively supercoiled by acting as a topological buffer. It creates micro-domains of DNA where the degree of DNA supercoiling is optimal for promoter function and preserves the integrity of these micro-domains regardless of changes to global supercoiling levels (28). It can perform this role throughout the genome because its DNA sequence requirements for DNA binding are non-stringent (29). Thus Fis acts in intimate association with gyrase and DNA topoisomerase I to set and reset DNA supercoiling levels in the cell.

The Fis protein is classified as a nucleoid-associated protein (NAP) and it is one of a number that belong to this group. Other abundant NAPs are HU and H-NS, two proteins that have the ability to constrain DNA supercoils (18). It is estimated that, during logarithmic growth, about half of the DNA in the bacterium is complexed with protein in ways that constrain negative supercoils (30,31). Thus the effective level of supercoiling, the portion that is available to do work in the cell and influence processes such as transcription, is only ∼50% of the total detected when DNA superhelicity is measured with nucleic acid purified free of cellular components (32).

The physiological state of the cell is strongly influenced by the environment external to the bacterium (6,8). As the chemical and physical nature of the environment changes, the metabolic pathways of the microbe respond. DNA gyrase is intimately connected to these pathways by virtue of being an enzyme that requires ATP as an energy source and one that is inhibited by ADP: the ratio of the concentrations of ATP and ADP determines the level of gyrase activity (33,34). For this reason, shocks to the cell such as changes in osmolarity, temperature, pH, oxygen level, nutrient supply, etc. all potentially have an impact ultimately on the global level of DNA supercoiling (35–41). This is especially relevant in the cases of bacteria such as E. coli or S. enterica that can inhabit a wide range of environments. Thus, DNA supercoiling can be seen as a crude regulator of gene expression. It is variable in response to environmental signals and it has the potential to act widely within the genome (6,8). This leads to a model of global regulation in which the environment alters chromosome topology via topoisomerases and genes have evolved to respond to those environmentally determined changes (6). In addition to the influences of DNA supercoiling, further regulatory refinements are imposed by the multitude of locally acting transcription factors that are possessed by bacteria such as E. coli (42).

Pathogenic bacteria possess virulence genes that their commensal counterparts lack completely or they express virulence genes that are inactive due to mutation or crypticity in the commensal. The evolution of bacterial pathogens has involved the lateral transfer of virulence genes and their integration into the regulatory regime of the bacterium (43,44). Studies in a number of pathogens have provided evidence that the expression of many virulence genes is influenced by changes in DNA supercoiling (45–48). Given the impressive correspondence between the environmental stresses that pathogens must endure during infection, and the known impact of these stresses on the degree of DNA supercoiling in bacteria, this is perhaps unsurprising.

The infection process may be regarded as a series of relationships between the pathogen and the host of ever-deepening intimacy. Preliminary contact often involves attachment to the host by bacterial surface structures called fimbriae. The genes that encode these are often subject to complex regulation that includes a role for DNA supercoiling.

The fim GENETIC SWITCH IN E. coli K-12

Type 1 fimbriae are important virulence factors in many bacterial species (49). They are expressed by most members of the Enterobacteriaceae and were the first bacterial fimbriae to be described (50,51). Type 1 fimbriae attach bacteria to mannosylated glycoproteins on a variety of eukaryotic cells. In E. coli K-12, these fimbriae are expressed phase-variably with bacterial populations containing fimbriate (phase-ON) and afimbriate (phase-OFF) members (Figure 1). Moreover, the two cell types are interchangeable. This is because the transcriptional promoter for the fim structural genes is part of an invertible DNA segment known as the fim switch, fimS (52). This 314 bp DNA segment is bounded by 9 bp perfect inverted repeats within which DNA cleavage and religation occur during the site-specific recombination reactions that invert the switch (53). Inversion is catalyzed by two tyrosine integrase site-specific recombinases that act independently and have distinct activities. FimB inverts the switch in both the ON-to-OFF and the OFF-to-ON directions with approximately equal efficiency and does this at a frequency of about 10−2 per cell per generation (54,55). The FimE protein has a marked preference for inverting the switch in the ON-to-OFF direction and its activity is dominant to the OFF-to-ON activity of FimB (53,55). Many laboratory strains of E. coli K-12 lack an active fimE gene and invert the switch using FimB alone (54). Posttranscriptional control of fimE gene expression plays a key role in controlling fimS inversion in the complete wild-type fim operon. This is because the fimS element harbours a Rho-dependent terminator in addition to the promoter for fim structural gene transcription (56,57) (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

The invertible genetic switch in the fim operon of E. coli. The structure of the complete fim operon is summarized at the top of the figure. The positions and directions of transcription of each of the nine genes are shown, together with their functions. The positions of the transcription start sites associated with the three main promoters are represented by angled arrows. The invertible genetic element, fimS, that harbours the promoters for transcription of the structural genes, is shown in an expanded form in the centre and bottom of the figure. In the ON orientation, the PfimA promoter is directed towards the fimA gene, resulting in an ON phenotype and a fimbriate bacterium. In the OFF orientation the fimS element has inverted and the PfimA promoter has been disconnected from the fimA gene. This results in an OFF phenotype and an afimbriate bacterium. The 314 bp fimS element is bounded by 9 bp inverted repeats (grey arrowheads labelled IRL and IRR) that encompass the PfimA promoter (−10 and −35 boxes and transcription start site shown) and a Rho-dependent transcription terminator, Rdt. This terminator reduces the length and stability of the fimE transcript only when fimS is in the OFF orientation. In the ON orientation, the fimE gene reads across the switch into the fimA gene (56,57).

Although the FimB integrase inverts the switch in a relatively unbiased manner, its activity becomes strongly biased in favour of the ON phase when DNA gyrase is inhibited (58). Inhibition of gyrase activity with the antibiotic novobiocin results in a clear dose-dependent preference for the ON orientation of fimS (58). This is not explained by changes in the expression of the fimB gene but is related to the quality of the FimB substrate. If the topA gene is inactivated by transposon insertion, the switch ceases to be invertible. It maintains thereafter the switch orientation (ON or OFF) that obtained at the moment that the topA gene was mutated. Again, this is not due to changes in the expression of the fimB gene or to global changes in DNA supercoiling. Instead it is due to a requirement for topoisomerase I activity in the immediate vicinity of the switch (58).

The simplest interpretation of the experimental data is that the switch becomes trapped in the ON orientation because this form of the switch is a poor substrate for FimB. This is not due to the creation of differentially supercoiled domains by the activity of the PfimA promoter that might distinguish phase-ON from phase-OFF switches; complete inactivation of this promoter has no influence on switch biasing in the wake of DNA relaxation (59). Instead the trap is composed of a nucleoprotein complex that involves the left inverted repeat, two binding sites for the leucine-responsive regulatory protein within fimS and a reference site in the flanking, invariant DNA (Figure 1). Removal of the Lrp protein or abrogation of Lrp binding to the switch eliminates the OFF-to-ON bias that accompanies DNA relaxation; in fact, the switch now acquires a strong bias in the ON-to-OFF direction (59).

What is the physiological significance of inversion-biasing? DNA relaxation accompanies cessation of growth and a shift in the [ATP]/[ADP] ratio that that is unfavourable for DNA gyrase activity (27,33,34). In addition, the Lrp protein is a barometer of the metabolic status of the cell and an indicator of nutrient depletion (60). It is tempting to speculate that by evolving sensitivities to these factors, the cell has developed a mechanism to override the stochastic DNA inversion behaviour of FimB in favour of a fimbriate phenotype. This may enhance the ability of the bacterium to participate in biofilm formation as a means to ride out physiologically unfavourable circumstances.

Type 1 fimbriae do not contribute exclusively to early phases of the host–pathogen interaction: they have been identified as important factors in the establishment of more intimate associations with the host during urinary tract infection by uropathogenic E. coli (61) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (62). Here, the fimbriae are expressed within bacterial communities living within epithelial cells of the bladder lining. The invertible fim switch in these bacteria is maintained in the ON phase, showing that DNA inversion in the ON-to-OFF direction is suppressed in this niche (63).

THE INTRACELLULAR LIFE OF S. enterica

Like E. coli K-12, S. enterica serovar Typhimurium (S. Typhimurium) uses type 1 fimbriae to interact with its host, although it controls their expression through mechanisms that are independent of DNA inversion (64). Unlike E. coli K-12, S. Typhimurium has the ability to invade mammalian epithelial cells and to survive engulfment by macrophage (Fig. 2). This is due to its possession of two separate type III secretion systems (TTSS) with separate sets of effector proteins that S. Typhimurium can use to modify the mammalian cells to its advantage (65–67). The TTSS that is encoded by the genes of the SPI1 pathogenicity island confer an invasive phenotype on the bacterium. The promoters of the SPI1 genes are up-regulated by negative DNA supercoiling (68). In this respect they resemble the TTSS genes of the dysentery bacillus Shigella flexneri (69). The TTSS that is encoded by the SPI2 pathogenicity island of S. Typhimurium is essential for the survival of the bacterium in the otherwise hostile environment of the macrophage. The effector proteins secreted via the SPI2 TTSS prevent phagolysosome fusion through modification of the macrophage vacuole that contains the engulfed bacterium (68). Interestingly, the promoters of the genes in the SPI2 island are up-regulated by DNA relaxation (70), which is the opposite of the SPI1 genes. This differential dependency on the state of DNA topology is likely to represent a key distinguishing factor between these two sets of virulence genes that ensures that each is active in the correct environment and repressed elsewhere. The lumen of the mammalian gut exposes the bacterium to a range of stresses that have been shown to shift DNA supercoiling to more negative values (48). Indeed the recommended growth conditions for the induction of SPI1 genes in the laboratory involve low aeration and growth in a high-osmolarity medium (71). In contrast, SPI2 gene activation is favoured by a low-osmolarity growth regime (72). Measurements of plasmid topoisomer distributions have shown that bacterial DNA becomes more relaxed during growth of S. Typhimurium in the vacuole of cultured macrophage, which is consistent with SPI2 gene upregulation (70). Both SPI1 and SPI2 have a requirement for the Fis protein for optimal gene expression (20,70). This is in keeping with the role of Fis as a topological buffer (28). Fis is just one of the NAPs that has been shown to influence transcription within the major pathogenicity islands of S. Typhimurium. Like Fis, the HU NAP has a positive influence on SPI1 gene expression (73). In contrast, the H-NS protein represses the transcription of the genes of both SPI1 and SPI2 and it is assisted in this process by the Hha protein, a partial paralogue of H-NS (74).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

The intracellular life of S. enterica in the mammalian gut. A summary of the main steps in invasive disease in the murine gut caused by S. enterica serovar Typhimurium is presented. In the lumen of the gut the bacterium experiences environmental stresses that are known to result in a reduction in the linking number of its DNA. This increase in negative DNA supercoiling is part of the mechanism by which the SPI1 pathogenicity island genes are up-regulated. The bacteria traverse the antigen-sampling M cells in a Salmonella-containing vacuole. Following release on the baso-lateral surface, the bacterium may be engulfed by macrophage. S. Typhimurium undergoes DNA relaxation within the macrophage and this is part of the mechanism by which the SPI2 pathogenicity genes are activated. The products of these genes prevent the macrophage from killing the microbe, which is then able to establish a systemic disease.

The SPI1 and SPI2 pathogenicity islands possess genes coding for dedicated regulators of their own structural virulence genes (75). These operate in a regulatory environment in which DNA supercoiling and the NAPs set the regulatory background, in tune with signals coming from the external environment that modulate the metabolism of the bacterium.

CONCLUSIONS

DNA supercoiling has been identified as a factor that modulates the expression of virulence genes in pathogenic bacteria at different phases of the host–pathogen relationship. This is by no means confined to the four Gram-negative pathogens discussed above; DNA supercoiling has been identified as an important factor influencing gene expression in many other bacteria (45–48). It should also be emphasized that these effects on gene expression are not relevant only to pathogens but are also involved in the physiology of bacteria pursuing commensal or symbiotic lifestyles. The model that best describes the role of DNA supercoiling in bacterial gene regulation is one that takes a hierarchical view of the gene regulatory network of the cell. DNA supercoiling has a place at or near the apex of the hierarchy due to its potential to influence the activities of so many promoters simultaneously. The NAPs also have a high position in the hierarchy, but below that occupied by DNA supercoiling. Their widespread influences on transcription arise because each governs a large regulon of genes and the memberships of the different regulons overlap in ways that are conditional on environmental conditions. This form of flexible networking provides a backdrop for the activities of the conventional transcription factors, DNA binding proteins that regulate few, or possibly just one, promoters. As we come to appreciate the subtle sophistication of bacterial gene regulation and the complexity of its networks the task of intervening in infection by targeting the gene control programmes of the pathogen can indeed appear daunting. It is to be hoped that our ever-deepening knowledge of how bacteria manage their physiology at the level of gene expression will improve our position in this struggle.

FUNDING

This work was supported by Science Foundation Ireland. Funding for open access charges: Science Foundation Ireland.

Conflict of interest statement. None declared.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Gellert M, Mizuuchi K, O'Dea MH, Nash HA. DNA gyrase: an enzyme that introduces superhelical turns into DNA. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1976;73:3872–3876. doi: 10.1073/pnas.73.11.3872. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Wang JC. Interaction between DNA and an Escherichia coli protein omega. J. Mol. Biol. 1971;55:523–533. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(71)90334-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Margolin P, Zumstein L, Sternglanz R, Wang JC. The Escherichia coli supX locus is topA, the structural gene for DNA topoisomerase I. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1985;82:5437–5441. doi: 10.1073/pnas.82.16.5437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Menzel R, Gellert M. Fusions of the Escherichia coli gyrA and gyrB control regions to the galactokinase gene are inducible by coumermycin treatment. J. Bacteriol. 1987;169:1272–1278. doi: 10.1128/jb.169.3.1272-1278.1987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Pruss GJ, Drlica K. DNA supercoiling and prokaryotic transcription. Cell. 1989;56:521–523. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(89)90574-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Dorman CJ. DNA supercoiling and bacterial gene expression. Sci. Prog. 2006;89:151–166. doi: 10.3184/003685006783238317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Blot N, Mavathur R, Geertz M, Travers A, Muskhelishvili G. Homeostatic regulation of supercoiling sensitivity coordinates transcription of the bacterial genome. EMBO Rep. 2006;7:710–715. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400729. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dorman CJ. DNA supercoiling and bacterial gene regulation. In: El-Sharoud WM, editor. Microbial Physiology – A Molecular Approach. Berlin: Springer; 2008. pp. 155–178. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Menzel R, Gellert M. Modulation of transcription by DNA supercoiling: a deletion analysis of the Escherichia coli gyrA and gyrB promoters. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1987;84:4185–4189. doi: 10.1073/pnas.84.12.4185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.DiNardo S, Voelkel KA, Sternglanz R, Reynolds AE, Wright A. Escherichia coli DNA topoisomerase I mutants have compensatory mutations in DNA gyrase genes. Cell. 1982;31:43–51. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(82)90403-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Pruss GJ, Manes SH, Drlica K. Escherichia coli DNA topoisomerase I mutants: increased supercoiling is corrected by mutations near gyrase genes. Cell. 1982;31:35–42. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(82)90402-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Menzel R, Gellert M. Regulation of the genes for E. coli DNA gyrase: homeostatic control of DNA supercoiling. Cell. 1983;34:105–113. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(83)90140-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Pruss GJ, Franco RJ, Chevalier SG, Manes SH, Drlica K. Effects of DNA gyrase inhibitors in Escherichia coli topoisomerase I mutants. J. Bacteriol. 1986;168:276–282. doi: 10.1128/jb.168.1.276-282.1986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Weinstein-Fischer D, Altuvia S. Differential regulation of Escherichia coli topoisomerase I by Fis. Mol. Microbiol. 2007;63:1131–1144. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2006.05569.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Schneider R, Travers A, Kutateladze T, Muskhelishvili G. A DNA architectural protein couples cellular physiology and DNA topology in Escherichia coli. Mol. Microbiol. 1999;34:953–964. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.1999.01656.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Keane OM, Dorman CJ. The gyr genes of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium are repressed by the factor for inversion stimulation, Fis. Mol. Genet. Genomics. 2003;270:56–65. doi: 10.1007/s00438-003-0896-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Finkel SE, Johnson RC. The Fis protein: it's not just for DNA inversion anymore. Mol. Microbiol. 1992;6:3257–3265. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.1992.tb02193.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Dorman CJ, Deighan P. Regulation of gene expression by histone-like proteins in bacteria. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 2003;13:179–184. doi: 10.1016/s0959-437x(03)00025-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bradley MD, Beach MB, de Koning AP, Pratt TS, Osuna R. Effects of Fis on Escherichia coli gene expression during different growth stages. Microbiol. 2007;153:2922–2940. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.2007/008565-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kelly A, Goldberg MD, Carroll RK, Danino V, Hinton JCD, Dorman CJ. A global role for Fis in the transcriptional control of metabolic and type III secretion genes of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Microbiology. 2004;150:2037–2053. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.27209-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ó Cróinín T, Dorman CJ. Expression of the Fis protein is sustained in late exponential and stationary phase cultures of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium grown in the absence of aeration. Mol. Microbiol. 2007;66:237–251. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2007.05916.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.McLeod SM, Aiyar SE, Gourse RL, Johnson RC. The C-terminal domains of the RNA polymerase alpha subunits: contact site with Fis and localization during co-activation with CRP at the Escherichia coli proP P2 promoter. J. Mol. Biol. 2002;316:517–529. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.2001.5391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Schneider DA, Ross W, Gourse RL. Control of rRNA expression in Escherichia coli. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2003;6:151–156. doi: 10.1016/s1369-5274(03)00038-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Auner H, Buckle M, Deufel A, Kutateladze T, Lazarus L, Mavathur R, Muskhelishvili G, Pemberton I, Schneider R, Travers A. Mechanism of transcriptional activation by FIS: role of core promoter structure and DNA topology. J. Mol. Biol. 2003;331:331–344. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2836(03)00727-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Travers A, Schneider R, Muskhelishvili G. DNA supercoiling and transcription in Escherichia coli: The FIS connection. Biochimie. 2001;83:213–217. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9084(00)01217-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Schneider R, Travers A, Muskhelishvili G. The expression of the Escherichia coli fis gene is strongly dependent on the superhelical density of DNA. Mol. Microbiol. 2000;38:167–175. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2000.02129.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bordes P, Conter A, Morales V, Bouvier J, Kolb A, Gutierrez C. DNA supercoiling contributes to disconnect sigmaS accumulation from sigmaS-dependent transcription in Escherichia coli. Mol. Microbiol. 2003;48:561–571. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2003.03461.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Rochman M, Aviv M, Glaser G, Muskhelishvili G. Promoter protection by a transcription factor acting as a local topological homeostat. EMBO Rep. 2002;3:355–360. doi: 10.1093/embo-reports/kvf067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Shao Y, Feldman-Cohen LS, Osuna R. Biochemical identification of base and phosphate contacts between Fis and a high-affinity DNA binding site. J. Mol. Biol. 2008;380:327–339. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2008.04.075. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bliska JB, Cozzarelli NR. Use of site-specific recombination as a probe of DNA structure and metabolism in vivo. J. Mol. Biol. 1987;194:205–218. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(87)90369-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sinden RR. DNA Structure and Function. San Diego: Academic Press; 1994. pp. 343–345. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Travers A, Muskhelishvili G. DNA supercoiling – a global transcriptional regulator for enterobacterial growth? Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2005;3:157–169. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro1088. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Westerhoff HV, O'Dea MH, Maxwell A, Gellert M. DNA supercoiling by DNA gyrase: A static head analysis. Cell Biophys. 1988;12:157–181. doi: 10.1007/BF02918357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Snoep JL, van der Weijden CC, Andersen HW, Westerhoff HV, Jensen PR. DNA supercoiling in Escherichia coli is under tight and subtle homeostatic control, involving gene-expression and metabolic regulation of both topoisomerase I and DNA gyrase. Eur. J. Biochem. 2002;269:1662–1669. doi: 10.1046/j.1432-1327.2002.02803.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Higgins CF, Dorman CJ, Stirling DA, Waddell L, Booth IR, May G, Bremer E. A physiological role for DNA supercoiling in the osmotic regulation of gene expression in S. Typhimurium and E. coli. Cell. 1988;52:569–584. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(88)90470-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Dorman CJ, Barr GC, Ní Bhriain N, Higgins CF. DNA supercoiling and the anaerobic and growth phase regulation of tonB gene expression. J. Bacteriol. 1988;170:2816–2826. doi: 10.1128/jb.170.6.2816-2826.1988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Yamamoto N, Droffner ML. Mechanisms determining aerobic or anaerobic growth in the facultative anaerobe Salmonella typhimurium. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1985;82:2077–2081. doi: 10.1073/pnas.82.7.2077. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Hsieh LS, Burger RM, Drlica K. Bacterial DNA supercoiling and [ATP]/[ADP]. Changes associated with a transition to anaerobic growth. J. Mol. Biol. 1991;19:443–450. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(91)90185-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hsieh LS, Rouvière-Yaniv J, Drlica K. Bacterial DNA supercoiling and [ATP]/[ADP] ratio: changes associated with salt shock. J. Bacteriol. 1991;173:3914–3917. doi: 10.1128/jb.173.12.3914-3917.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Huo YX, Rosenthal AZ, Gralla JD. General stress response signalling: unwrapping transcription complexes by DNA relaxation via the sigma38 C-terminal domain. Mol. Microbiol. 2008;70:369–378. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2008.06412.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Mojica FJ, Charbonnier F, Juez G, Rodríguez-Valera F, Forterre P. Effects of salt and temperature on plasmid topology in the halophilic archaeon Haloferax volcanii. J. Bacteriol. 1994;176:4966–4973. doi: 10.1128/jb.176.16.4966-4973.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Martínez-Antonio A, Collado-Vides J. Identifying global regulators in transcriptional regulatory networks in bacteria. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2003;6:482–489. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2003.09.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Dobrindt U, Hochhut B, Hentschel U, Hacker J. Genomic islands in pathogenic and environmental microorganisms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2004;2:414–424. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro884. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Doyle M, Fookes M, Ivens A, Mangan MW, Wain J, Dorman CJ. An H-NS-like stealth protein aids horizontal DNA transmission in bacteria. Science. 2007;315:251–252. doi: 10.1126/science.1137550. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ye F, Brauer T, Niehus E, Drlica K, Josenhans C, Suerbaum S. Flagellar and global gene regulation in Helicobacter pylori modulated by changes in DNA supercoiling. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2007;297:65–81. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmm.2006.11.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Fournier B, Klier A. Protein A gene expression is regulated by DNA supercoiling which is modified by the ArlS-ArlR two-component system of Staphylococcus aureus. Microbiology. 2004;150:3807–3819. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.27194-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Rohde JR, Luan XS, Rohde H, Fox JM, Minnich SA. The Yersinia enterocolitica pYV virulence plasmid contains multiple intrinsic DNA bends which melt at 37 degrees C. J. Bacteriol. 1999;181:4198–4204. doi: 10.1128/jb.181.14.4198-4204.1999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Dorman CJ. DNA supercoiling and environmental regulation of gene expression in pathogenic bacteria. Infect. Immun. 1991;59:745–749. doi: 10.1128/iai.59.3.745-749.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Thankavel SM, Shah AH, Cohen MS, Ikeda T, Lorenz RG, Curtiss R, III, Abraham SN. Molecular basis of the erythrocyte tropism exhibited by Salmonella typhimurium type-1 fimbriae. J. Biol. Chem. 1999;274:5797–5809. doi: 10.1074/jbc.274.9.5797. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Duguid JP, Smith IW, Dempster G, Edmunds PN. Non-flagellar filamentous appendices (fimbriae) and haemagglutinating activity in Bacterium coli. J. Pathol. Bacteriol. 1955;70:335–348. doi: 10.1002/path.1700700210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Brinton CC. Non-flagellar appendices of bacteria. Nature. 1959;183:782–786. doi: 10.1038/183782a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Abraham JM, Freitag CS, Clements JR, Eisenstein BI. An invertible element of DNA controls phase variation of type 1 fimbriae of Escherichia coli. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1985;82:5724–5727. doi: 10.1073/pnas.82.17.5724. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.McCusker MP, Turner EC, Dorman CJ. DNA sequence heterogeneity in Fim tyrosine-integrase recombinase-binding elements and functional motif asymmetries determine the directionality of the fim genetic switch in Escherichia coli K-12. Mol. Microbiol. 2008;67:171–178. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2007.06037.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Blomfield IC, McClain MS, Princ JA, Calie PJ, Eisenstein BI. Type 1 fimbriation and fimE mutants of Escherichia coli K-12. J. Bacteriol. 1991;173:5298–5230. doi: 10.1128/jb.173.17.5298-5307.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.McClain MS, Blomfield IC, Eisenstein BI. Roles of fimB and fimE in site-specific DNA inversion associated with phase variation of type 1 fimbriae in Escherichia coli. J. Bacteriol. 1991;173:5308–5314. doi: 10.1128/jb.173.17.5308-5314.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Joyce SA, Dorman CJ. A Rho-dependent phase-variable transcription terminator controls expression of the FimE recombinase in Escherichia coli. Mol. Microbiol. 2002;45:1107–1117. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2002.03081.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Hinde P, Deighan P, Dorman CJ. Characterization of the detachable Rho-dependent transcription terminator of the fimE gene in Escherichia coli K-12. J. Bacteriol. 2005;187:8256–8266. doi: 10.1128/JB.187.24.8256-8266.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Dove SL, Dorman CJ. The site-specific recombination system regulating expression of the type 1 fimbrial subunit gene of Escherichia coli is sensitive to changes in DNA supercoiling. Mol. Microbiol. 1994;14:975–988. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.1994.tb01332.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Kelly A, Conway C, O Cróinín T, Smith SG, Dorman CJ. DNA supercoiling and the Lrp protein determine the directionality of fim switch DNA inversion in Escherichia coli K-12. J. Bacteriol. 2006;188:5356–5363. doi: 10.1128/JB.00344-06. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Brinkman AB, Ettema TJG, de Vos WM, van der Oost J. The Lrp family of transcriptional regulators. Mol. Microbiol. 2003;48:287–294. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2003.03442.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Wright KJ, Seed PC, Hultgren SJ. Development of intracellular bacterial communities of uropathogenic Escherichia coli depends on type 1 pili. Cell. Microbiol. 2007;9:2230–2241. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-5822.2007.00952.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Rosen DA, Pinkner JS, Jones JM, Walker JN, Clegg S, Hultgren SJ. Utilization of an intracellular bacterial community pathway in Klebsiella pneumoniae urinary tract infection and the effects of FimK on type 1 pilus expression. Infect Immun. 2008;76:3337–3345. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00090-08. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Hannan TJ, Mysorekar IU, Chen SL, Walker JN, Jones JM, Pinkner JS, Hultgren SJ, Seed PC. LeuX tRNA-dependent and -independent mechanisms of Escherichia coli pathogenesis in acute cystitis. Mol. Microbiol. 2008;67:116–128. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2007.06025.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.McFarland KA, Lucchini S, Hinton JC, Dorman CJ. The leucine-responsive regulatory protein, Lrp, activates transcription of the fim operon in Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium via the fimZ regulatory gene. J. Bacteriol. 2008;190:602–612. doi: 10.1128/JB.01388-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Groisman EA, Ochman H. How Salmonella became a pathogen. Trends Microbiol. 1997;5:343–349. doi: 10.1016/S0966-842X(97)01099-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Hensel M. Salmonella pathogenicity island 2. Mol. Microbiol. 2002;36:1015–1023. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2000.01935.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Galán JE. Salmonella interactions with host cells: type III secretion at work. Annu. Rev. Cell. Dev. Biol. 2001;17:53–86. doi: 10.1146/annurev.cellbio.17.1.53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Galán JE, Curtiss R., III Expression of Salmonella typhimurium genes required for invasion is regulated by changes in DNA supercoiling. Infect. Immun. 1990;58:1879–1885. doi: 10.1128/iai.58.6.1879-1885.1990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Dorman CJ, Porter ME. The Shigella virulence gene regulatory cascade: a paradigm of bacterial gene control mechanisms. Mol. Microbiol. 1998;29:677–684. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.1998.00902.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Ó Cróinín T, Carroll RK, Kelly A, Dorman CJ. Roles for DNA supercoiling and the Fis protein in modulating expression of virulence genes during intracellular growth of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Mol. Microbiol. 2006;62:869–882. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2006.05416.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Lee CA, Falkow S. The ability of Salmonella to enter mammalian cells is affected by bacterial growth state. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1990;87:4304–4308. doi: 10.1073/pnas.87.11.4304. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Garmendia J, Beuzón CR, Ruiz-Albert J, Holden DW. The roles of SsrA-SsrB and OmpR-EnvZ in the regulation of genes encoding the Salmonella typhimurium SPI-2 type III secretion system. Microbiol. 2003;149:2385–2396. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.26397-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Schechter LM, Jain S, Akbar S, Lee CA. The small nucleoid-binding proteins H-NS, HU, and Fis affect hilA expression in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Infect. Immun. 2003;71:5432–5435. doi: 10.1128/IAI.71.9.5432-5435.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Vivero A, Baños RC, Mariscotti JF, Oliveros JC, García-del Portillo F, Juárez A, Madrid C. Modulation of horizontally acquired genes by the Hha-YdgT proteins in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. J. Bacteriol. 2008;190:1152–1156. doi: 10.1128/JB.01206-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Rhen M, Dorman CJ. Hierarchical gene regulators adapt Salmonella enterica to its host milieus. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2005;294:487–502. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmm.2004.11.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Nucleic Acids Research are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES