Table 2.
Characterization of Pom mutants
| Mutation in PomA | PomAB |
+GFPe |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Motilitya | Growthb | Dominancec | Complexd | Dominancec | Complexd | |
| None (wild type) | +++ | ++ | NT | ++ | NT | ++ |
| R135Q | − | − | ++ | NT | + | ++ |
| H136Y | − | + | ++ | NT | + | ++ |
| G157D | − | NT | ++ | NT | + | − |
| G176E | − | NT | ++ | NT | + | +/− |
| K203E | − | NT | − | − | − | − |
| R207E | + | − | − | ++ | − | ++ |
| R215E | − | − | + | ++ | + | ++ |
| D220K | − | − | ++ | ++ | + | ++ |
| R247C | − | +/− | + | NT | + | (++) |
| PomB-D24N | − | − | − | NT | − | ++ |
The size of the swarm ring produced by each strain was measured on VPG soft agar plates. +++, cells carrying the mutant PomA swarmed as much as did the wild-type PomA and PomB; +, cells swarmed less than half as much as did the wild type; −, cells did not swarm.
The growth inhibitions were evaluated from additional data in Fig. 5A. −, growth inhibition was not observed (strains grew like the vector control); +/−, slightly inhibited; +, significantly inhibited; ++, strongly inhibited by the wild-type PomA and PomBΔL(Δ41-120); NT, not tested.
The dominant effect of the mutant PomA or PomB against the VIO5 wild-type cells was evaluated by measuring the swarm ring size. ++, strong dominance (no swarming); +, weak dominance (smaller swarming ring); −, no dominance (swarming like the vector control); NT, not tested.
From the previous report (16) and from Fig. 4, the complex formation of PomA and PomB or PomA and GFP-PomB was evaluated. ++, normal stator complex formation was observed as in the wild-type PomA and PomB; +/−, weaker stator complex formation was observed than that with the wild type; −, no complex formation was observed; (++), the stator complex formation was detected, but the PomA protein was decreased in whole cells; NT, not tested.
GFP-PomB was expressed with PomA.