Dynamic landscape of protein occupancy across the Escherichia coli chromosome

Peter L Freddolino; Haley M Amemiya; Thomas J Goss; Saeed Tavazoie

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001306

. 2021 Jun 25;19(6):e3001306. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001306

Dynamic landscape of protein occupancy across the Escherichia coli chromosome

Peter L Freddolino ^1,^2,^*, Haley M Amemiya ^2,³, Thomas J Goss ¹, Saeed Tavazoie ^4,^5,^6,^*

Editor: Matthew K Waldor⁷

PMCID: PMC8282354 PMID: 34170902

Abstract

Free-living bacteria adapt to environmental change by reprogramming gene expression through precise interactions of hundreds of DNA-binding proteins. A predictive understanding of bacterial physiology requires us to globally monitor all such protein–DNA interactions across a range of environmental and genetic perturbations. Here, we show that such global observations are possible using an optimized version of in vivo protein occupancy display technology (in vivo protein occupancy display—high resolution, IPOD-HR) and present a pilot application to Escherichia coli. We observe that the E. coli protein–DNA interactome organizes into 2 distinct prototypic features: (1) highly dynamic condition-dependent transcription factor (TF) occupancy; and (2) robust kilobase scale occupancy by nucleoid factors, forming silencing domains analogous to eukaryotic heterochromatin. We show that occupancy dynamics across a range of conditions can rapidly reveal the global transcriptional regulatory organization of a bacterium. Beyond discovery of previously hidden regulatory logic, we show that these observations can be utilized to computationally determine sequence specificity models for the majority of active TFs. Our study demonstrates that global observations of protein occupancy combined with statistical inference can rapidly and systematically reveal the transcriptional regulatory and structural features of a bacterial genome. This capacity is particularly crucial for non-model bacteria that are not amenable to routine genetic manipulation.

This study uses a novel technology (IPOD-HR) to quantify the protein occupancy of an entire bacterial chromosomes at high-resolution; in addition to enabling the monitoring of global transcriptional regulatory dynamics, IPOD-HR reveals densely occupied silencing domains akin to eukaryotic heterochromatin.

Introduction

Transcriptional regulation plays a central role in establishing adaptive gene expression states. In bacteria, the dominant regulators are transcription factors (TFs) [1,2] and sigma factors, which direct the activity of RNA polymerase holoenzyme to a specific subset of promoters [3,4]. The phenotypic state of the bacterial cell is determined in large part by its transcriptional regulatory state, which, in turn, is dictated by the binding pattern of TFs and sigma factors across the chromosome, likely in interplay with structural factors such as the local supercoiling state [5].

At present, however, our knowledge of the complete wiring of bacterial transcriptional regulatory networks remains insufficient to fully predict or design regulatory responses to arbitrary environmental conditions. The case of Escherichia coli serves as an illustrative case study: Due to its status as a preeminent model organism and important human pathogen, the E. coli transcriptional regulatory network has been an intense subject of investigation for several decades. As a result, researchers have obtained an increasingly comprehensive and detailed map of the binding specificities and physiological roles of transcriptional regulators in this organism [6]. However, roughly one quarter of the approximately 250 TFs in E. coli have no available binding or regulatory data [7], and many more are virtual unknowns in terms of the signals that might alter their regulatory activity. Likely as a result of this knowledge gap, Larsen and colleagues recently found that despite our broad knowledge of the potential regulatory targets of E. coli TFs, our ability to predict regulatory behavior on the basis of expression levels of TFs is no better than it would be for random networks. The authors attribute this partly to the fact that even when a TF is expressed, in many cases, it will not bind its targets in the absence of additional signals [8]. Furthermore, E. coli represents a best-case scenario in terms of our knowledge state for a bacterial transcriptional regulatory network and for most bacterial species current databases lag far behind.

Expanding our capability to predict, and ultimately design, bacterial regulatory responses will be critical for controlling bacterial pathogenesis and engineering synthetic microbes in biotechnology applications. Achieving such a complete predictive understanding, however, requires substantial additional information both on the binding sites of as-yet uncharacterized TFs and the actual physical occupancy of sites for both known and uncharacterized factors across conditions. Widely used methods such as chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-seq) pose difficulties on both fronts: They demand a combinatorial explosion of experiments to study many TFs across a variety of conditions and require either an antibody against each TF of interest or genetic manipulation sufficient to add an epitope tag to each target TF.

In order to significantly advance our understanding of transcriptional network dynamics and chromosomal structure, we sought to monitor, in parallel, the occupancy states of all DNA-binding proteins across a set of genetic and environmental perturbations. We argue that such comprehensive observations are critical for defining the global modes of transcriptional regulation and determining the regulatory logic that underlies adaptive reprogramming of gene expression, particularly given the importance of combinatorial logic by many factors and sites in dictating transcriptional output [9]. In order to achieve our goal, we decided to employ the concept of in vivo protein occupancy display (IPOD) which we, in a previous proof-of-concept study, demonstrated to reveal global occupancy of protein binding sites across the E. coli chromosome [10]. However, we had to introduce critical modifications and enhancements in order to deconvolve distinct contributions from sequence-specific TFs and RNA polymerase and define binding sites at high resolution. We will refer to this second-generation IPOD technology as in vivo protein occupancy display—high resolution (IPOD-HR). IPOD-HR enables efficient coverage of a large range of physiological conditions in relatively few experiments (1 experiment per condition, rather than the 1 experiment per TF per condition that would be required for ChIP-seq). As we demonstrate below, a single IPOD-HR experiment can reveal the occupancy dynamics of dozens of known and novel active TFs genome-wide, permitting rapid profiling of global transcriptional regulatory logic across different conditions. Furthermore, the comprehensive nature of IPOD-HR profiles enables efficient statistical inference of sequence specificity models (transcription factor binding site [TFBS] motifs) for active TFs, both recapitulating well-known regulatory logic and revealing the presence and condition-dependent activities of novel regulatory elements.

Here, we characterized the dynamics of the global protein–DNA interactome of E. coli across a range of 3 physiological conditions and 3 genetic perturbations. Our observations allowed us to infer, in parallel, the activities of most annotated TFs across conditions, and provided a catalog of many additional likely regulatory sites and DNA sequence motifs for uncharacterized TFs. With the compact set of experiments, we reveal the dramatic regulatory dynamics of dozens of TFs that collectively shape the response of E. coli to changing environments. In sharp contrast, we find that at the kilobase scale, the genome is characterized by a set of relatively static structural domains, which consist of transcriptionally silent loci with dense protein occupancy that appear mostly constitutive across a range of physiological conditions. These regions, which we refer to as extended protein occupancy domains (EPODs) following the nomenclature of Vora and colleagues [10], appear to act, at least partially, to suppress prophages and mobile genetic elements.

Because our approach does not rely on prior knowledge of TFs of interest or genetic manipulation of the target organism, but rather only on essential physicochemical properties of protein–DNA complexes, we expect that it will be broadly applicable across bacterial species, even those which cannot be cultured or genetically manipulated. Our approach lays the technical and analytic foundation to rapidly characterize the regulatory and structural features of any bacterial chromosomes.

Results

Global high-resolution profiling of condition-dependent transcription factor occupancy across the E. coli chromosome

The IPOD-HR procedure is shown in schematic form in Fig 1A: Cells are grown under a physiological condition of interest, fixed using formaldehyde, and then lysed. Heavy digestion of the chromosomal DNA provides minimized DNA fragments that may be in either a protein bound or unbound state. The protein bound DNA fragments are subsequently isolated using a phenol–chloroform extraction. Under appropriate buffer conditions, the amphipathic protein–DNA complexes are depleted from the aqueous phase and partition to a robust disc at the aqueous–organic interface [10].

As we will demonstrate below, the measurements enabled by IPOD-HR can subsequently be used for a broad range of downstream analyses, such as simultaneous monitoring of the activities of characterized TFs, large-scale inference of binding motifs for previously uncharacterized DNA-binding proteins, and identification of key occupancy sites driving previously unrecognized gene regulatory logic. To accomplish these objectives, it is essential to separate out the occupancy signal of RNA polymerase from that of specific regulatory factors of interest. Otherwise, the strong occupancy signal caused by RNA polymerase could mask changes in protein occupancy that in fact provide regulatory information. To deconvolve occupancy caused by sequence-specific TFs and that of RNA polymerase, we subtract the normalized RNA polymerase ChIP-seq signal from that of the normalized raw IPOD-HR signal (see Methods for details), generating a corrected IPOD-HR profile that is a more precise representation of the cell’s dynamic regulatory state (Fig 1B). IPOD-HR is conceptually similar to the original IPOD method [10] in terms of overall workflow, but contains critical optimizations and extensions designed to permit genome-wide identification of binding by TFs and organizing factors such as nucleoid-associated proteins in a condition-specific manner. On the experimental end, IPOD-HR incorporates a more stringent washing procedure (the inclusion of a Tris base wash and an additional interphase extraction step to increase the specificity of isolation of protein–DNA complexes), as well as pretreatment of the cells with rifampin prior to cross-linking to minimize the contributions of RNA polymerase occupancy to the observed signal, and an RNA polymerase ChIP-seq experiment in parallel to allow separation of RNA polymerase occupancy from that of other proteins (more information on the interplay of RNA polymerase occupancy and that of other proteins is given in S1 Text). On the computational end, IPOD-HR makes use of a completely rewritten analysis pipeline (as detailed in Methods) that provides proper adjustment for RNA polymerase occupancy, gives an integrated workflow for calculation of total protein occupancy (including uncertainty estimates), and allows for the identification of key occupancy features such as occupancy peaks corresponding to individual binding sites, as well as large regions of high protein occupancy that act as silencing complexes on the E. coli genome.

We note in passing that, at first glance, IPOD may seem to share superficial similarities with formaldehyde-assisted isolation of regulatory elements (FAIRE, originally described in [11]). However, FAIRE experiments were designed to detect regions of nucleosome-depleted DNA in eukaryotic chromosomes. IPOD was independently developed to detect occupancy of individual factors in prokaryotic chromosomes [10], and IPOD-HR contains further optimizations and additional experimental and computational steps to improve performance in detecting both localized and large-scale protein occupancy in bacteria.

An illustrative example of the ability of IPOD-HR to identify regulatory protein occupancy, its dynamics across conditions, and the importance of factoring out the RNA polymerase signal is shown in Fig 1C. We consider the IPOD-HR occupancy profiles for the promoter region upstream of the purC gene in wild-type (WT) and ΔpurR cells during growth in rich defined medium (RDM). Based on the characterized behavior of PurR (which binds DNA in response to exogenous purine supplementation [12,13]), under this growth condition, transcription of purC should be repressed by binding of PurR to its promoter. However, if one considers only the raw IPOD-HR occupancy profiles (top panel), binding to the PurR site in this region is apparent in both WT and ΔpurR cells. The resolution to this seeming paradox becomes apparent through inclusion of the correction for RNA polymerase occupancy (middle panel), which is substantially higher in ΔpurR cells. As expected, the resulting corrected IPOD-HR occupancy profiles (bottom panel) reveal a protein occupancy peak directly on top of the annotated PurR binding site in this region in the WT cells, and no detectable occupancy in the ΔpurR cells. This demonstrates the ability of IPOD-HR to reveal condition-dependent TF occupancy dynamics even in regions that may overlap with RNA polymerase binding. In the following sections, IPOD-HR refers to the RNA polymerase–corrected occupancy signal, unless otherwise noted.

Local and large-scale protein occupancy patterns across the E. coli chromosome

To benchmark our ability to quantitatively profile protein occupancy at high spatial resolution, we performed IPOD-HR on E. coli cells from mid-exponential growth in RDM (Fig 2A). Over the length of the chromosome, we observed a large number of small peaks, presumably corresponding to protein binding events at individual regulatory sites. In addition, we observed many large-scale (>1 kb) regions of high occupancy, which we refer to as EPODs, following the nomenclature of Vora and colleagues [10]. An example of condition-dependent changes in binding of local TFs is shown in Fig 2B and 2C. Examination of an approximately 50-kb slice of the genome reveals dozens of small occupancy peaks, with a visually apparent enrichment in intergenic regions (Fig 2B). Many such peaks, which presumably correspond to individual protein binding events, coincide with known TFBSs. For example, the region upstream of argA (Fig 2C) shows strong occupancy at known ArgR binding sites and condition-appropriate occupancy dynamics including weakening of binding in arginine-poor conditions [14,15] and loss of occupancy upon deletion of the argR gene. At the same time, similar occupancy patterns can be observed at many sites lacking an annotated TFBS, as seen in Fig 2D, where a conditionally dynamic binding site is apparent between lysA and lysR and a constitutive binding site in the lysA gene body. This dynamic site between the genes likely corresponds to binding of LysR itself in our minimal media condition, as LysR is known to bind somewhere in the region just upstream of lysR to repress transcription of lysR and activate transcription of lysA [16], but the precise location of the binding site has not previously been determined to our knowledge, and thus its exact coordinates are not present in common databases such as RegulonDB [7]. To facilitate inspection of other regions of interest, we provide complete occupancy traces for the conditions studied in S1 Data. As expected, at a genome-wide scale IPOD-HR signals show both significantly higher occupancy in intergenic regions relative to coding regions and significantly higher occupancy at annotated TFBSs relative to other regions of the chromosome (Fig 2E; see also S1 Table), demonstrating a strong overlap of the observed protein occupancy with transcriptional regulatory sites. Indeed, applying peak calling to the IPOD-HR signal demonstrates an increasingly strong overlap with known TFBSs as the threshold for peak calling is increased (S1 Fig; a full listing of peak calls is given in S2 Data).

It is also apparent by inspection of the genome-wide occupancy shown in Fig 2A that many extended regions of high protein occupancy coincide with regions of relatively low transcription. For example, in Fig 2F, we show a typical approximately 300-kb region with alternating segments of high protein occupancy that have relatively low transcription, with those of low protein occupancy and relatively high transcription (also apparent in the higher-resolution plot in Fig 2G). Thus, in addition to revealing occupancy at the level of individual regulatory sites, IPOD-HR enables tracking of the behavior of large, densely protein occupied regions of the chromosome that appear to coincide with transcriptionally silent loci. We will explore both of these prototypic classes of occupancy, in more detail, below.

Transcription factor and sigma factor occupancy dynamics across genetic and environmental perturbations

Since IPOD-HR occupancy profiles show highly enriched overlaps with known TFBSs (Fig 2E), we asked whether IPOD-HR profiles can be used to reveal the occupancy dynamics for known E. coli TFs across a set of conditions. Indeed, we find that IPOD-HR reveals consistent and condition-appropriate regulatory logic at the level of individual regulons and patterns of regulatory behavior across regulons. As expected, strains with each of 3 single TF deletions (argR, lexA, and purR) show global loss of occupancy at the ensemble of annotated sites for the corresponding TFs (Fig 3A) relative to growth under equivalent conditions of WT cells (WT,rich). Analysis of condition-dependent changes in the occupancy of binding sites for single TFs likewise recapitulates expected behavior; for example, ArgR [17] and PurR [12,18] show enhanced binding to DNA in the presence of amino acid or nucleobase ligands that are supplied directly in our rich media conditions, and the IPOD-HR occupancy signal shows global loss of occupancy for binding sites of both of these TFs in nutrient-depleted conditions (minimal media) when compared with exponential growth in rich media (Fig 3A). In contrast, RutR shows increased overall occupancy in minimal media relative to rich media conditions, consistent with the known inhibition of RutR binding by thymine and uracil [19]; similar behavior is observed for the cytidine-responsive CytR [20,21]. Sites for ArcA, which becomes active under low oxygen conditions [22,23], show strong increases in occupancy in stationary phase at high culture density (Fig 3A). Taken together, these findings demonstrate that IPOD-HR provides a quantitative readout of changes in regulatory activity across a broad range of physiological and genetic perturbations.

Fig 3 — **(A)** Average (geometric mean) occupancies for all annotated binding sites of the 6 indicated TFs under each indicated condition. Error bars indicate a 95% confidence interval based on parametric bootstrapping with pessimistic assumptions; see Methods for details. The number of detectable sites used to estimate the condition-specific occupancies were 30, 10, 2, 45, 6, and 9 for ArgR, LexA, PurR, ArcA, RutR, and CytR, respectively. **(B)** Spearman correlations between all occupancy values at annotated binding sites for the indicated TFs (all TFs with at least 50 sites in the RegulonDB database) in the IPOD-HR vs. Lrp ChIP data sets. Points shown in red have a statistically significant correlation (FDR-corrected p-value < 0.05). Annotated binding sites are from RegulonDB release 9.4, prior to inclusion of the ChIP data used here, with overlapping or bookended sites for the same TF merged prior to analysis); data are from [24] (Lrp ChIP) or the present study (IPOD-HR). Data are taken from the most closely equivalent conditions (log phase growth in minimal media, log phase growth in rich media, and stationary phase in rich media), although the carbon source is different (glycerol vs. glucose). **(C)** Heat map showing the consensus clustering (co-occurrence frequencies) of the pattern of occupancy dynamics for the regulons of all considered TFs across the varied nutrient conditions in this study (see Methods for details). Consensus division into 10 clusters via agglomerative clustering is shown at right; for each cluster, representative TFs (on matrix) and regulated GO terms (right) are shown, with numbers in parentheses indicating the approximate p-value for enrichment of that GO term. A full listing of p-values is given in **S2 Table**. **(D)** Changes in occupancy and target gene transcript level for all annotated repressive binding sites of ArgR and PurR (for minimal media vs. rich media), in each case demonstrating the strong and oppositely directed changes in binding and regulatory effects across the regulons. **(E)** Correlation of promoter-level occupancy changes (measured by RNA polymerase ChIP-seq) and changes in transcript abundance, shown for the WT stationary phase condition compared with exponential phase. Shaded area shows a bootstrap-based 95% confidence interval. **(F)** IPOD-HR protein occupancy profiles in the vicinity of the *potF* promoter under the indicated conditions. Drawn TFBSs are taken from Ecocyc [25] reflecting recent updates in known TFBSs in this region. **(G)** IPOD-HR occupancy profiles upstream of *ndh* under the indicated conditions. For all rows of TFBSs except the top, all TFBSs in a given row correspond to the factor named at the beginning of that row. ChIP, chromatin immunoprecipitation; ChIP-seq, chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing; FDR, false discovery rate; GO, gene ontology; IPOD-HR, in vivo protein occupancy display—high resolution; TF, transcription factor; TFBS, transcription factor binding site; WT, wild-type.

The utility of IPOD-HR in tracking the occupancy of known binding sites extends to global regulators with large characterized regulons; for example, comparison of the occupancy at annotated Lrp binding sites observed in IPOD-HR data to the occupancy of Lrp itself at the same sites in Lrp ChIP-seq data under similar conditions shows a significantly more similar occupancy profile than is seen for other TFs with large regulons (Fig 3B), as would be expected if the IPOD-HR profile were tracking Lrp occupancy across conditions. Importantly, this concordance is maintained even in the presence of many other occupancy changes being measured for other proteins at locations throughout the genome, and potential interference from other factors binding to sites overlapping the Lrp sites.

Similar insights can be obtained across the E. coli transcriptional regulatory network by extending our analysis to all characterized TFBSs annotated in RegulonDB [7]; we show the resulting condition-dependent occupancies in panel A of S2 Fig. As is apparent from the raw occupancies, E. coli TFs differ substantially from each other in the strength of the IPOD-HR footprint that they generate (leading, for example, to the very strong signals for factors such as IdnR). Across the conditions in our study, 122 out of the 176 TFs in RegulonDB had at least 1 site with detectable occupancy (robust z-score >3), and thus we are able to provide data on the characterized binding sites for the majority of TFs in E. coli. The remaining TFs likely represent a combination of factors that are not expressed or active under the limited set of conditions that we considered and those that cannot be cross-linked efficiently to DNA by formaldehyde (e.g., Lac repressor, which was previously shown not to cross-link effectively to DNA with formaldehyde [26], and does not show substantial IPOD-HR signal) or do not partition appropriately in the phenol–chloroform extraction. For the majority of factors showing detectable occupancy, condition-dependent dynamics can be observed most clearly by normalizing the TF level occupancy by the highest occupancy condition observed for that factor (S2 Fig, panel B).

By applying an unsupervised clustering approach (see Methods for details), we identified transcriptional regulatory modules that show consistent co-regulation across the conditions in our study. We found clustering of TFs with highly similar behavior (Fig 3C) that coordinate, for example, oxidative metabolism (red), amino acid uptake and synthesis (brown), and iron homeostasis (green). We also observe several cases where related regulators or regulatory cascades are clustered together; for example, the well-known regulators of carbon metabolism Cra and CRP (blue), NtrC and its transcriptional activator Fis (purple), or the tightly intertwined acid response regulators GadE, GadW, and GadX (pink). In order to test whether the co-clustering more generally indicated a significant overlap in the regulons of factors, or merely that they respond similarly to changing conditions, we calculated the pairwise Jaccard indices (i.e., the size of the intersection of regulons between 2 TFs divided by the size of their unions, in terms of number of regulated genes) for all pairs of TFs considered in our analysis. We then compared the distribution of Jaccard indices for TFs that came from the same cluster to that of Jaccard indices for pairs of TFs that did not co-cluster in Fig 3C. TF pairs that co-clustered were almost equally likely to have a nonzero Jaccard index (and thus share at least some regulatory targets) than were TF pairs from different clusters (odds ratio 0.95, p = 0.76, Fisher exact test). Thus, co-clustering appears to reflect different TFs that have similar condition-dependent occupancy profiles, rather than factors that regulate identical targets (likely minimizing redundancy of regulatory information in favor of combinatorial regulation of a single target by factors that each sense different stimuli). We expect that substantially more insight into these patterns may be obtained in the future through application of IPOD-HR to a broader array of conditions.

We thus find that IPOD-HR occupancy profiles can provide detailed, site-level, condition-specific information on regulatory protein occupancy across the entire chromosome. By comparing changes in protein occupancy with changes in transcript levels across conditions, we can relate changes in protein occupancy to their positive or negative regulatory consequences. This can be seen for 2 nutrient-sensing transcriptional repressors with sites annotated in RegulonDB, ArgR, and PurR, across changes in nutrient conditions (Fig 3D). The changes in protein occupancy and regulatory output at these sites show that for both factors, there is a strong loss of protein occupancy at repressive ArgR and PurR sites and a corresponding increase in transcriptional output in regulated genes, when considering minimal media relative to rich media.

Since each IPOD-HR global protein occupancy data set is performed alongside an RNA polymerase ChIP-seq experiment, we can easily track promoter occupancy alongside TFBS occupancy. The use of rifampin permits transcriptional initiation, but prevents elongation past a few nucleotides [27]. Thus, these data sets are ideal for identifying regulation at the level of RNA polymerase (e.g., via different sigma factors). The differential patterns of RNA polymerase occupancy show strong correlations with transcript levels for each sigma factor’s regulon across a range of conditions. As shown in Fig 3E, when comparing logarithmic versus stationary phase conditions, the changes in transcript abundance and RNA polymerase promoter occupancy show a Spearman correlation of 0.94 (p = 0.005); an equivalent comparison for changes in occupancy versus expression for cells grown in minimal media yields similar results (Spearman correlation 0.77, p = 0.072).

In addition to revealing the occupancy of individual, well-separated TFBSs, IPOD-HR occupancy can also yield insight into TF behavior at regulatory regions bound by multiple factors. An example is shown in Fig 3F for the potF promoter, which contains closely spaced Lrp, ArcA, and ArgR binding sites. The observed occupancy profile appears decomposable into a contribution from Lrp binding (strong in minimal media and moderate in the RDM conditions), ArgR binding (strongest in rich media, moderate in stationary phase RDM and in minimal media, and absent in ΔargR cells), and ArcA binding (mainly in stationary phase). Binding of the Lrp site at the potF promoter is known to be strongest in minimal media and weaker but still present in RDM (both in exponential and stationary phase; see Fig 4A of [24]); the broad occupancy around the annotated Lrp site is likely due to weaker binding of other sites from the Lrp octamer. The inferred behaviors of ArgR and ArcA binding are likewise consistent with the overall behavior of sites for those TFs in our experiments (Fig 3A, S2 Fig). A more complex example can be seen in Fig 3G, where we show the ndh promoter containing overlapping binding sites for 6 different TFs. At such a complex promoter, deconvolution of the observed occupancy is still possible subject to consistency assumptions (that sites for a given TF will all change occupancy in the same direction in unison, even if by different amounts). Based on this assumption, the predominant contributors to binding at the ndh promoter appear likely to be IHF and PdhR in the “WT,rich” condition, IHF and NsrR in the “WT,minimal” condition, and NsrR and ArcA in the “WT,stationary” condition. However, assignments of occupancy to specific factors at such a complex promoter cannot be made with certainty on the basis of IPOD-HR data alone; combination with ChIP data under similar conditions (as invoked in the discussion above for Fig 3F) can aid in assignment, as could more formal methods for deconvolving the protein occupancy signal based on the overall distribution of sites for each factor across the genome (similar to the approach taken by CENTIPEDE for eukaryotic chromatin accessibility data [28]); development of such analysis tools is an area of active research.

Global occupancy dynamics reveals the action of new DNA-binding proteins

Despite extensive annotation efforts, at present, fewer than 1,100 of the 3,560 annotated transcriptional units present in the RegulonDB database have any annotated regulation by TFs assigned to them [7]. While several recent notable efforts have sought to expand the completeness of these regulatory annotations by studying the DNA-binding preferences of purified TFs [6,29,30], or via computational inference of likely additional regulation [31] and regulatory modules [32], none of these methods provides either direct evidence for binding in vivo or information on condition-dependent changes in occupancy. IPOD-HR, in contrast, can provide both. Furthermore, the protein occupancy signals thus obtained provide information on occupancy of both well-characterized and uncharacterized proteins. In fact, many dynamic IPOD-HR peaks occur in promoters with no previous annotation for TFBSs, as we will discuss in detail in the following section.

A representative example of an orphan occupancy peak is seen upstream of the gene sdaC (Fig 4). In our RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) data, sdaC transcript levels are nearly 20-fold higher during exponential growth in rich media (317.3 transcripts per million [TPM]) compared with either exponential growth in minimal media (17.9 TPM) or stationary phase in rich media (16.7 TPM). IPOD-HR occupancy profiles (Fig 4A) show a likely transcriptional activator binding site upstream of the sdaC core promoter, which shows strong occupancy in the WT M9/RDM/glu conditions but not the related conditions where sdaC expression is lower; in contrast, the only annotated TFBS in that region is a repressive Lrp site 200 bp downstream of the occupancy peak. To identify the TF(s) responsible for that occupancy, we used a biotinylated bait DNA matching the sequence of the sdaC promoter region to isolate proteins bound to that region from E. coli cells grown in the WT M9/RDM/glu condition (Fig 4B). Mass spectrometry on isolated bait-dependent bands revealed 2 poorly characterized TFs, UlaR and YieP, which showed highly enriched binding to the sdaC promoter (see S3 Table). While UlaR proved difficult to purify due to poor solubility and was thus excluded from further analysis, we found that purified YieP does indeed show specific shifting of the sdaC promoter in an electrophoretic mobility shift assay (Fig 4C). Consistently, recent RNA-seq data on a ΔyieP strain shows a significant drop in sdaC transcript levels (2.7-fold change, q = 7.6 * 10⁻¹⁸) relative to isogenic cells with a plasmid-born reintroduction of YieP during growth in LB media (personal communication, C. Bianco and C. Vanderpool).

YieP was recently (and independently) selected by Palsson and colleagues as a validation case to be used in their consideration of computational methods for identifying the binding sites of orphan TFs and subjected to ChIP-exo analysis on cells grown in glucose minimal media using epitope-tagged YieP [31]. Indeed, their data demonstrate both strong direct YieP occupancy, and a high confidence YieP motif match, at the precise position of the occupancy peak detected in our IPOD-HR data set (Fig 4D). Based on the relative intensity at that position across conditions, combined with the expression data noted above, we infer that YieP binds to the sdaC promoter in nutrient-replete conditions and acts as a transcriptional activator (explaining the solitary strong peak in our “WT,rich” condition), whereas in other conditions, YieP binding is weakened (but not abolished), and additional factors such as Lrp likely bind downstream of the YieP site to repress sdaC transcription.

We must emphasize that the discovery of YieP binding sites through IPOD-HR and subsequent mass spectrometry experiments (by us) occurred in parallel with the ChIP-exo experiments of Gao and colleagues, and, indeed, represent highly complementary paths for identification of the binding sites for orphan TFs, with one centered on a candidate protein and the other on candidate sites.

In order to directly assess the regulatory role of the identified YieP binding sites, we integrated a lacZ reporter at the araBAD-araC locus in both WT and ΔyieP backgrounds, driven by variants of the sdaC promoter that either match the original sequence, or have 1 or both YieP binding sites scrambled (see Methods for details). Consistent with the RNA-seq data described above, we observed that deletion of yieP leads to a significant drop in reporter activity with the WT sdaC promoter (Fig 4E, “WT sdaCp”). Interpretation of the single-site scrambles is complicated by the fact that the promoter variants appear to have substantively different effects in the WT and yieP backgrounds; however, what is clear is that removal of both YieP binding sites (Fig 4E, “Site 1/2 scramble”) leads to a drop in reporter activity in the WT background that is virtually identical to that observed with deletion of yieP, whereas in a yieP background, there is instead a significant increase in reporter activity when the sites are scrambled. The sign epistasis observed between yieP genotype and the presence of YieP sites at the sdaC promoter argues that the observed YieP binding sites are functional regulatory sites, but that YieP also acts indirectly at this promoter (either through alterations of cellular physiology in the yieP background or genetic interaction with another regulator acting at this promoter, e.g., by repressing and/or directly competing for binding with a repressor that acts here).

The example presented here of regulation of sdaC by the uncharacterized TF YieP highlights the broad potential for using IPOD-HR to rapidly identify and characterize previously cryptic regulatory connections. IPOD-HR thus complements the multitude of other approaches noted above (based on, e.g., promoter libraries or computational inference) and provides the unique benefit of directly assessing binding to DNA in vivo, at native loci, under physiological conditions of interest.

The utility of IPOD-HR in identifying the activity of previously uncharacterized TFs motivates its extension to a genome-wide scale, providing an in vivo complement to high-throughput in vitro screening methods such as genomic SELEX [6]. By applying peak calling to our IPOD-HR data sets across the 6 conditions considered in the present study, we were able to identify thousands of likely TFBSs, many of which are not identifiable based on existing databases. A comprehensive listing of peak calls across conditions and thresholds is given in S2 Data. To compare the peak sets identified from IPOD-HR data with our existing state of knowledge, we divided the peak calls obtained from IPOD-HR into a set of annotated TFBSs from RegulonDB and a set of binding sites predicted using all known PWMs available in the SwissRegulon database (see Methods for details). We find that across a range of thresholds, approximately half of the binding sites identified by IPOD-HR overlap with either known or predicted sites, whereas the other half represent novel binding sites which likely (as in the case of the YieP site described above) reflect the activity of poorly annotated or orphan TFs. Pooling the newly identified binding sites across conditions, our IPOD-HR data sets are able to provide a total of 14,271 putative TFBSs, representing 5,090 unique sites, which are occupied in vivo under at least 1 condition; we also track the dynamics of occupancy of those sites across conditions. This extensive map of chromosomal occupancy and its dynamics provide the community with a wealth of known and putative novel regulatory interactions that can be further explored and validated by follow-up experiments such as those shown in Fig 4. It is also possible to cross-reference the newly identified binding sites with high-throughput studies of potential binding locations for newly characterized TFs (e.g., ChIP or genomic SELEX data) to identify potential factors binding to a region of interest and to use the IPOD-HR occupancy maps to obtain initial estimates of the condition-dependent occupancy of any identified sites.

Global de novo discovery of sequence specificity motifs for active transcription factors

While the peak calls obtained from IPOD-HR data show strong enrichments with known TFBSs (S1 Fig), many of the called peaks do not match any known or predicted TFBSs (as detailed in Fig 5A) and likely correspond either to unknown sites for well-characterized TFs or binding sites for previously uncharacterized TFs. Given that the majority of the newly inferred binding sites appear not to correspond to known or predicted sites for annotated TFs, we hypothesized that the regulons corresponding to those motifs would likely show enrichments for poorly annotated genes, as we expect here to reveal the regulatory logic driving typically understudied pathways. We thus identified likely regulatory targets of each newly called peak, divided them between poorly annotated genes (those with UniProt annotation scores of 1 or 2 out of 5 [34]) and well-annotated genes, and then examined the proportion of poorly annotated targets for occupancy peaks matching RegulonDB binding sites compared with all other peaks. As shown in Fig 5B, peaks that do not correspond to RegulonDB-annotated binding sites are strongly enriched upstream of poorly annotated genes, whereas those matching annotated binding sites are enriched for well-annotated genes. Thus, examination of occupancy peaks derived from IPOD-HR enables identification of a large number of new putative regulatory sites, with a particular abundance of possible regulators of poorly annotated genes.

Our large-scale identification of new TFBSs also raises the important possibility that new TF binding motifs might likewise be identifiable through de novo computational motif discovery in the set of all sequences within IPOD-HR peaks. Indeed, the application of the FIRE [35] motif discovery algorithm to peak locations obtained from IPOD-HR data reveals hundreds of de novo discovered sequence motifs that are informative of strong occupancy sites, even after pruning of redundant motifs (Fig 5C). Upon cross-referencing with a database of known E. coli TFBS motifs using TOMTOM [36], we find that approximately 25% of the discovered motifs can be matched with known motifs (notably, 86/97 of the annotated motifs in the E. coli SwissRegulon database are matched by at least 1 inferred motif from the set present prior to redundancy pruning and 68/97 match at least 1 motif present in our inferred set after pruning), while, at the same time, nearly 200 novel motifs are called with similar confidence (Fig 5D). A comprehensive list of redundancy-pruned motifs called across all conditions in our study is given in S3 Data. To provide estimates of the false discovery rate (FDR) arising from our motif inference, we performed an identical motif discovery procedure for each biological condition on 20 “decoy” data sets in which the underlying E. coli genomic sequence was rotated by a random distance relative to the peak calls, thus preserving the correlation structure of both the data and sequence with respect to themselves (light bars in Fig 5C). Our decoy data sets gave rise to no more than 1 motif under any condition, giving rise to an effective FDR (across shuffles and conditions) of less than 0.5% even for our fully pruned motifs. Using only the novel motifs (i.e., motifs that did not have detectable similarity to any motifs in the SwissRegulon database) in a genome-wide search for potential binding sites using FIMO, we find that 84.8% of all IPOD occupancy peaks at a peak calling threshold of 4 can be explained by binding sites for the novel motifs, compared with 7.5% that can be explained by annotated binding sites from RegulonDB (predicted binding sites for all newly inferred motifs from the IPOD-HR data are enumerated in S4 Data). Thus, the newly inferred motifs provide a substantially expanded ability to assign the observed profile of protein binding across the chromosome.

In Fig 5E, we show 2 representative examples of discovered motifs that show strong matches with annotated motifs, demonstrating that the motifs for well-characterized transcriptional regulators such as CRP and NanR can be inferred directly from IPOD-HR data. For comparison, in Fig 5F, we show 2 newly inferred motifs that do not match any known motifs in the E. coli SwissRegulon database. Intriguingly, the pattern of binding sites across the E. coli chromosome for both of these novel motifs illustrates a potential regulatory function, with the first motif associating with a substantial fraction of the genes involved in import and metabolism of low preference carbohydrates and the second apparently involved in iron acquisition and regulation of protein catabolism. In order to provide additional insight into the potential physiological roles of the factors binding these motifs, we considered the similarity of their putative regulons to those of well-characterized TFs, making use of the Jaccard index comparing the gene sets potentially regulated by each motif with those of known TFs. For the top motif shown in Fig 5F, the best match is for CRP, with a Jaccard index of 0.19. This finding is consistent with the putative role in regulating carbon source utilization, although the regulon of the new motif is clearly distinct from those of any well-characterized factor given that the highest Jaccard index observed for it was 0.19, and the next highest hit after CRP was 0.12. Applying the same analysis to the bottom motif shown in Fig 5F shows that the strongest detectable similarity in regulons is to those of H-NS (0.12) and Fur (0.11). These matches indicate potential roles for the new motif in coordinating responses to changes in iron starvation and other stress conditions such as changing temperatures, but again, the regulon of the newly identified motif is clearly quite distinct from that of the characterized TF. In order to facilitate similar analysis of the potential functions of the other newly inferred motifs, we provide in S5 Data the Jaccard indices for all significant overlaps between the putative regulons of our newly inferred motifs and those of existing factors as annotated in RegulonDB (see caption for details). In addition, we provide an extended discussion of the overlaps between known TFBSs and predicted binding sites for the new motifs in S2 Text.

We further assessed the regulatory capacity of all newly called sequence motifs by comparing their genome-wide distribution of binding sites with annotated genes (coding regions) and promoters. We would expect that binding sites for functional transcriptional regulators would be enriched within promoters and depleted from coding regions, as was the case for overall IPOD-HR occupancy (Fig 2E). Indeed, the overlap distributions of binding sites for our newly inferred motifs are uniformly enriched for annotated promoters and depleted for open reading frame (ORFs; Fig 5G; p = 1.0 * 10⁻²⁷, Wilcoxon rank sum test), demonstrating that motifs inferred directly from IPOD-HR occupancy data occur primarily in likely regulatory regions. Equivalent results were obtained even after excluding all of the newly inferred motifs with identifiable similarity to SwissRegulon motifs (p = 2.42 * 10⁻¹⁹, Wilcoxon rank sum test). To further investigate the global regulatory potential of the newly inferred motifs, we applied iPAGE [37] to identify cases of significant mutual information between predicted binding sites for a given motif (within 100 bp of an annotated transcription start site in RegulonDB) and the corresponding gene ontology (GO) terms of genes in the potentially regulated operons. We found that out of a total of 1,732 motifs with identifiable binding sites, 1,611 have significant mutual information with genes from at least 1 GO term (notably including 163 out of the 176 nonredundant motifs that had identifiable binding sites by our criteria, and no detectable similarity to previously known motifs). These findings highlight potential pathways that may be regulatory targets of these newly inferred motifs; the resulting predicted regulatory targets are summarized in S6 Data. In the future, tracking of the occupancy of these motifs over a broader range of physiological conditions would yield additional insight into the likely stimuli sensed by them and the downstream processes that they may regulate (and might allow merging of some of the newly inferred motifs that in fact represent different sequences bound by the same factor).

Given that the majority of the newly inferred motifs appear not to correspond to annotated TFs, and our findings above regarding the enrichment of poorly annotated genes downstream of orphan binding peaks, we hypothesized that the regulons corresponding to our newly inferred motifs would likely show enrichments for poorly annotated genes, as we expect here to reveal the regulatory logic driving typically understudied pathways. We thus calculated the fractions of the hypothetical regulons of each newly inferred motif that consist of poorly annotated genes (defined as noted above). As shown in Fig 5H, we found that the regulons of the newly inferred motifs were significantly enriched for poorly annotated genes when compared with both the annotated E. coli transcriptional regulatory network in RegulonDB (p = 6.26 * 10⁻¹⁰, Wilcoxon signed rank test) and the overall average rate of poorly annotated genes throughout the chromosome (p = 3.49 * 10⁻⁵, Wilcoxon signed rank test). Pairwise comparison of the rate of poorly annotated genes between the regulon of each newly inferred motif and all genes that were not members of the corresponding regulon likewise showed a significant enrichment for poorly annotated genes (p = 9.78 * 10⁻⁶, Wilcoxon signed rank test). Taken together, we see that IPOD-HR enables inference of a large number of sequence motifs, many of which likely correspond to functional, but currently understudied, transcriptional regulators in E. coli, providing a substantial resource for ongoing investigation of this transcriptional regulatory network.

Extended protein occupancy domains define distinct and largely stable transcriptionally silent regions with unique sequence features

One of the most striking findings enabled by the original application of IPOD was the discovery of EPODs: large regions of the E. coli chromosome that show unusually dense levels of protein occupancy over kilobase or longer scales [10]. EPODs are also clearly apparent in all our IPOD-HR data sets and appear to correspond functionally to the transcriptionally silent extended protein occupancy domains (tsEPODs) of Vora and colleagues [10]. The profile of protein occupancy and EPODs, along with the accompanying impacts on transcript levels, for a representative region of the genome is shown in Fig 6A. Indeed, we found that many highly protein occupied regions measured using the original IPOD method (in particular, the highly expressed extended protein occupancy domains or heEPODs) represent RNA polymerase occupancy, whereas the EPODs now revealed by IPOD-HR consist solely of large domains of occupancy by proteins other than RNA polymerase (which typically also exclude RNA polymerase). We discuss these differences and the details of the approach used in IPOD-HR to remove contributions from RNA polymerase in S1 Text. The specific resolution of tsEPODs afforded by the IPOD-HR method and the coverage of multiple genetic and nutrient perturbations in the present data sets allow us to fully investigate the nature and condition-dependent occupancy of these chromosomal structures.

The identified EPODs show remarkable stability (Fig 6B), with approximately 200 EPODs in each physiological condition (or approximately 450 using a relaxed calling threshold; see Methods for details) and similar fractions of the genome contained in EPODs in each case. A comprehensive listing of EPODs identified across our conditions is given in S7 Data. The ΔargR strain serves as an outlier among the genetic perturbations, with modestly decreased (but still substantial) EPOD coverage, possibly due to decreased expression of H-NS in this condition (RNA polymerase occupancy of the hns promoter measured in our ChIP data set is 2-fold lower than in WT cells under equivalent conditions; it is unclear whether this reflects a regulatory or metabolic effect caused by loss of ArgR). The differing behavior of the ΔargR strain appears milder using the relaxed EPOD calling threshold, and thus the difference is at least partially just a thresholding effect (Fig 6B). The locations of individual EPODs are likewise well maintained, even across very different physiological conditions. For example, in Fig 6C, we show IPOD-HR occupancy across the same region as shown in Fig 6A, comparing exponential growth in rich versus minimal media and stationary phase cells. In contrast with the condition-dependent occupancy of individual TFs, at the approximately kilobase scale, the occupancy traces are nearly superimposable and show that most EPODs called under the various conditions overlap. Furthermore, out of the subset of EPOD calls that are present in the “WT,rich” condition but absent in the others, all are present in the “WT,minimal” condition using the relaxed EPOD calling threshold, and all but two also present in the stationary phase condition using that threshold, suggesting that many of the small differences in EPOD locations that do appear between EPOD calls under different physiological conditions are in fact due to thresholding effects. We observe the same trends genome-wide: excluding the ΔargR case, 71% to 86% of genomic locations (at the base pair level) that are called as EPODs under any one condition are likewise EPOD calls under any other condition (Fig 6D), and at least 78% (and typically much more) of the EPODs called in one condition are contained within the relaxed threshold calls under any other condition (n.b. the “relaxed” threshold used here corresponds to the original EPOD definition from [10]). It is also worth noting, in this context, that 89% of the tsEPOD-occupied locations from [10] are contained in the new “WT,rich” relaxed threshold EPOD set, in line with the observed concordance across experimental conditions in our new data sets.

Several defining characteristics of EPODs are readily apparent upon cross-referencing with other genome-wide data sets (Fig 6E): They represent regions of high AT content, which are both associated with low levels of native transcripts and decreased transcriptional propensity (i.e., expression of standardized integrated reporters [38]). Consistent with our original findings [10], EPODs also show high occupancy of H-NS, HU, and LRP; low occupancy of Fis; and are associated with high efficiency of Tn5 integration (Fig 6E). While the latter might seem surprising given that highly protein occupied regions on eukaryotic chromatin tend to exclude Tn5 (as is used to great effect in assay for transposase-accessible chromatin using sequencing [ATAC-seq] experiments [39]), we note that bacterial H-NS occupancy has previously been shown to facilitate Tn5 activity [40]. Additional characteristics of EPODs, such as reduced densities of possible Dam methylation sites (consistent with the expected blocking of Dam methylase by bound proteins, previously shown in in vivo methylase protection experiments [41]) and a characteristic pattern of DNA structural parameters including decreased minor groove width, are shown in S4 Table.

The remarkable condition invariance of the locations of EPODs outlined above, even across such dramatic changes as transition from exponential to stationary phase, suggests that EPODs predominantly represent fixed structural features of the E. coli chromosome, rather than highly dynamic regulatory structures. We thus examined the classes of genes (assessed using GO terms) most strongly enriched or depleted in EPODs. As illustrated in Fig 7A, EPODs show strong enrichments for mobile elements (GO:0006313) and prophage genes (specifically lytic pathways; GO:0019835) and are depleted for core metabolic pathways such as ribosome components (GO:0005840). Indeed, EPODs are associated with the silencing of many prophages (e.g., Fig 7B) and even smaller operons of unknown function (e.g., Fig 7C).

Fig 7 — **(A)** The genome was split into EPOD and background regions as in **Fig 6**; we then applied iPAGE [37] to identify GO terms showing significant mutual information with occupancy in EPODs. All shown GO terms were significant according to the built-in tests in iPAGE. **(B)** Multiple EPODs are associated with silencing of the CP4-57 prophage. Shown are the IPOD-HR occupancy and transcript levels in the vicinity of the prophage locus during growth in rich defined media with glucose, with EPOD locations indicated above the plots. **(C)** Association of a small EPOD with 2 genes of unknown function, *yigF* and *yigG*, along with the putative transporter *rarD/yigH*; data tracks defined as in panel B. EPOD, extended protein occupancy domain; GO, gene ontology; IPOD-HR, in vivo protein occupancy display—high resolution.

Our findings regarding EPODs, particularly the high levels of H-NS binding in EPODs and the known role of H-NS as a xenogeneic silencer [42,43], are highly consistent with prior information regarding the silencing role of H-NS. In order to determine the extent to which H-NS silenced regions and EPODs as defined here overlap, we compared the distribution of EPODs across the genome with H-NS ChIP-seq data from [44]. Using an unsupervised clustering method to divide genomic intervals into high, medium, and low levels of H-NS occupancy, we found that 72.4% of EPODs fall into the high H-NS category, compared with 5.4% of non-EPOD regions (S3 Fig, panel A). Nevertheless, when considering the average transcript levels observed as arising from the same genomic intervals, the EPODs from the low H-NS and medium H-NS categories still showed significantly lower expression than non-EPOD regions with similar H-NS levels (S3 Fig, panel B), and the small number of highly H-NS bound regions that are not part of EPODs are in fact more silent than highly H-NS bound EPODs. Taken together, we thus observe that while many EPODs represent chromosomal regions silenced by H-NS, roughly one-third to one-fourth of EPODs do not show the characteristics of highly H-NS occupied regions, but are nevertheless transcriptionally silenced by an extended stretch of high protein occupancy. The possibility of course exists that H-NS is repositioned in the conditions of our study, which differ from those of [44], to cover the remainder of the EPODs identified here. The mechanism of silencing at these non-H-NS dependent EPODs will likely be a fruitful area for future investigation.

Discussion

The study of bacterial transcriptional regulatory networks has long benefitted from bottom-up approaches such as DNase footprinting, ChIP-chip, and ChIP-seq to map the behavior of individual factors and regulons. At the same time, however, the insight provided by such approaches has been inherently limited by the need to specify a priori the target of investigation, either in terms of the regulator, regulated gene, or both. However, as we hope to have demonstrated here, a global agnostic strategy (as exemplified by IPOD-HR) provides a unique top-down complement to existing methods by permitting rapid profiling of the protein occupancy landscape of a bacterial chromosome. We have demonstrated that IPOD-HR simultaneously enables resolution of individual changes in TF binding at specific sites, inference of new regulatory motifs that likely correspond to functional but poorly characterized transcriptional regulators, and large-scale patterns of protein occupancy indicative of constitutively silenced genomic regions. IPOD-HR thus falls into the same family as methods such as DNase I hypersensitivity [45], micrococcal nuclease digestion with deep sequencing (MNase-seq) [46], and ATAC-seq [39], but was from its inception developed, tuned, and validated for the unique molecular and biophysical features of bacterial chromosomes (we note that applications of ATAC-like methods to bacteria have recently been reported in preprints [47,48] postdating the original preprint of the present manuscript [49]).

We expect that all 3 key capabilities of IPOD-HR highlighted above will prove to be of substantial utility in investigating all cultivable bacterial transcriptional regulatory networks and could potentially even be applied to environmental samples to study occupancy landscapes in uncultivable bacteria. The ability to directly track the occupancy of TFBSs for a large set of transcriptional regulators in parallel provides the missing link that has previously stymied efforts to predict the transcriptional output of E. coli across conditions, as consideration of only the expression levels of TFs to predict the behavior of their regulons has yielded mixed results [8,50]. Furthermore, the ability to identify likely regulatory sites even in the absence of prior knowledge, as shown both for isolated promoters (Fig 4) and inference of entire regulons (Fig 5), will substantially accelerate our ability to complete a wiring diagram for the E. coli transcriptional regulatory network and to rapidly approach the networks of other less well-characterized bacterial species. In the latter case, we expect that the ability of IPOD-HR to highlight the locations of TFBSs, and the demonstrated feasibility of inferring DNA-binding protein sequence motifs based on those sites, will allow the rapid identification of sites of interest for detailed follow-up studies (e.g., application of pulldowns similar to those in Fig 4 to identify the precise factor(s) occupying a particular motif). The resulting information will provide an essential set of building blocks to aid in the overall reconstruction of a transcriptional regulatory network. In addition, tracking of the occupancy of different motifs across conditions will likely assist in the identification of biological conditions pertinent to the function of the factor binding each motif, and cross-referencing with RNA polymerase occupancy will provide evidence on the sign of regulatory output associated with each site. IPOD-HR thus provides a powerful high-throughput in vivo approach tracking occupancy at native sites, complementing methods based on screening with purified proteins [29], computational inference [31], or reporter assays [30].

Our study of diverse experimental conditions across different genetic and physiological states provides a comprehensive view of the protein–DNA interactome of E. coli. As we have shown, the majority of discovered occupancy events do not correspond to previously known or annotated sites of protein–DNA interactions. We have further shown that these global occupancy profiles can be used for wholesale discovery of sequence specificity for the set of TFs active under these conditions. These occupancy maps and the corresponding DNA motifs provide the community with a rich catalog of likely regulatory events to study, targeting either particular genes or larger pathways. Indeed, our finding that the novel occupancy sites and DNA motifs are highly enriched upstream of genes that are understudied promises to discover and expand the physiological and regulatory modules of E. coli.

Our study also provides significant additional evidence for the presence of large, transcriptionally silent, high-occupancy chromosomal domains in E. coli, termed “EPODs.” Many such EPODs clearly correspond to regions of H-NS binding, which has previously been shown to form several types of filaments that silence horizontally acquired DNA [5,43,51–53]. On the other hand, we also observe a substantial fraction of EPODs that do not correspond to H-NS binding and yet are still associated with transcriptionally silent regions of the chromosome. Numerous questions regarding the nature and role of those EPODs remain for future work, including the following: What is the protein composition of non-H-NS EPODs? What rules dictate their formation on specific sites? We are also tempted to speculate that, in some contexts, non-H-NS EPODs may undergo condition-dependent changes in occupancy that drive transcriptional regulation, although no such cases could be definitively identified in the conditions studied here. Such behavior has already been observed for H-NS filaments in various enterobacteria [54,55]. Ongoing application of IPOD-HR to a broader range of physiological conditions in E. coli will provide further insight into the overall landscape of large-scale protein occupancy across conditions, allowing tracking both of occupancy associated with H-NS (and the related protein StpA) and other classes of EPODs in a single experiment.

Our IPOD-HR strategy for mapping the global dynamics of the E. coli protein–DNA interactome relies only on simple physicochemical principles for isolating protein–DNA complexes. As such, it is easily transferable to other bacterial species. The rich and comprehensive data sets that would result, and application of statistical inference during data processing as exemplified here, will provide important regulatory roadmaps in organisms with less well-studied transcriptional regulatory networks, such as non-model bacterial species of clinical and industrial importance. In the future, applications to a broader range of physiological conditions (in E. coli) and to other bacterial strains and species will provide important information on the role of large-scale nucleoprotein assemblies on gene regulation and pave the way for more comprehensive and predictive models of transcriptional regulatory logic.

Methods

Strain construction

The base strain for all experiments used here is an MG1655 stock obtained from the Tavazoie Lab (Columbia University, New York, NY), which belongs to the substrain typified by ATCC 700926 [56]. All specified gene knockouts were obtained by P1 transduction [57] of the FRT-flanked kanR marker from the corresponding knockout strain of the Keio collection [58], followed by Flp recombinase mediated excision of the marker using the pCP20 plasmid [59] to leave a small scar in place of the original ORF. Candidate isolates for each deletion were grown overnight at 42°C to drop the pCP20 plasmid and then replica plated onto appropriate selective plates to ensure loss of both the plasmid and kanamycin resistance marker. Knockouts were confirmed by PCR fragment sizing and/or sequencing across the marker scar. Note that the ΔlexA strain that we refer to is in fact ΔlexA/ΔsulA, as loss of lexA is lethal in the presence of a functional sulA gene [60,61].

For construction of the lacZ reporter strains for the experiments shown in Fig 4E, the lacZ gene from our MG1655 background strain was first removed by P1 transduction of a chloramphenicol resistance gene, yielding MG1655 lacZ::cml. An additional copy of this strain was constructed by transduction of the Keio collection yieP::kan gene and subsequent marker excision (as above) to yield MG1655 lacZ::cml yieP::scar. We then generated plasmid-born copies of a reporter gene in which the lacZ ORF was placed directly after the sdaC promoter of E. coli MG1655 (positions 2927672–2928228 on the U00096_3 reference genome). We also generated promoter variants in which either or both of the identified putative YieP binding sites in the promoter were perturbed, with Site 1 “catttcATTTGTTATATGAATgtttctt” to “catttcATAACTTATATGTTAgtttctt” containing a mutation and Site 2 containing a “cagttaATATGTCATACAATTtatgttg” to “cagttaATGACTCATACTTCAtatgttg” mutation (in each case the capitalized region is the putative YieP site; Site 2 corresponds to site highlighted in cyan in Fig 4D, with Site 1 the site further upstream of it relative to sdaC). All 4 promoter variants were generated by Gibson assembly [62] using the NEB Hifi Builder Master Mix (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA) on a plasmid next to an FRT-flanked kanamycin resistance marker, cloned into DH5α cells, and validated by Sanger sequencing of the promoter and adjacent plasmid regions. The promoter-lacZ constructs were then each integrated into a WT MG1655 strain replacing the araC-araBAD locus via λ_red recombination of a dsDNA PCR product produced using NEB Q5 polymerase (using pKD46 as a helper plasmid as above), selected on MacConkey/arabinose + kanamycin plates, and transduced into the MG1655 lacZ::cml and MG1655 lacZ::cml yieP::scar strains. The kanamycin resistance marker was removed following the standard pCP20-based marker excision protocol as above, and the final 8 strains (all pairwise combinations of 4 promoter variants and yieP+/−) were validated by PCR fragment sizing of the yieP and ara loci and Sanger sequencing of the sdaC promoter at the ara::sdaCp-lacZ locus.

Media/culture conditions

For routine cloning applications and for recovery of cryogenically preserved cells, we used LB (Lennox) media (10 g/L tryptone, 5 g/L yeast extract, and 5 g/L NaCl), with bacteriological agar (15 g/L) added as appropriate.

For physiological experiments, we made use of a variety of supplemented versions of M9 defined medium (6 g/L Na₂HPO₄, 3 g/L KH₂PO₄, 1 g/L NH₄Cl, 0.5 g/L NaCl, 1 mM MgSO₄) [56]. Our M9 minimal media condition (M9/min) additionally includes 0.2% (w/v) glucose, 0.4 mM CaCl₂, 40 μM ferric citrate, and the micronutrient mixture typically incorporated in MOPS minimal media [63]. Our M9 RDM condition (M9/rdm) instead incorporates into the M9 base 0.4% (w/v) glucose, MOPS micronutrients (as above), 4 μM CaCl₂, 40 μM ferric citrate, and 1x supplements ACGU and EZ as used in MOPS RDM [63].

Cell growth and harvest for IPOD-HR

The cells of interest were grown overnight in the media of interest after inoculation from an LB plate. In the morning, the culture was back-diluted into fresh, prewarmed media to an OD600 of 0.003. The culture was then grown to the target OD600 (0.2, except in the case of stationary phase samples, which are described below), at which point a 200-μL aliquot was removed and preserved in 1 mL of DNA/RNA Shield (Zymo Research, Irvine, CA) following the manufacturer’s instructions.

The remainder of the culture was treated with rifampin to a final concentration of 150 μg/mL and incubated for 10 minutes under the same culture conditions as the main growth to immobilize initiating RNA polymerase at active promoters and permit completion of transcripts in progress. The culture was then rapidly mixed with concentrated formaldehyde/sodium phosphate (pH 7.4) buffer sufficient to yield a final concentration of 10 mM NaPO₄ and 1% v/v formaldehyde. Cross-linking was allowed to proceed for 5 minutes at room temperature with vigorous shaking, followed by quenching with an excess of glycine (final concentration 0.333 M) for 5 minutes with shaking at room temperature. The cross-linked cells were subsequently chilled on ice and washed twice with ice-cold phosphate buffered saline, 10 mL per wash. The fully washed pellets were carefully dried, any remaining media pipetted away, and then the pellets were snap-frozen in a dry ice-ethanol bath and stored at -80 C.

In the case of our stationary phase samples, cells were grown as described above in terms of back-dilution and growth to an OD600 of 0.2, and then grown for an additional 3 hours prior to RNA harvest, rifampin treatment, and cross-linked as described above.

Cell lysis and DNA preparation

Frozen cell pellets were resuspended in 1x IPOD lysis buffer (10 mM Tris HCl, pH 8.0; 50 mM NaCl) containing 1x protease inhibitors (Roche Complete Mini, EDTA free, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany) and 52.5 kU/mL of ready-lyse (Epicentre, Madison, WI): 600 μL per pellet (stationary phase cells were diluted 10× prior to lysis, and only 1/10 of the resulting material used, due to the much higher biomass of those pellets). We incubated the resuspended pellet for 15 minutes at 30°C and then placed it on ice. We then sonicated the cells using a Branson digital sonicator at 25% power, using three 10-second bursts with 10-second pauses between bursts. The cells were maintained in a wet ice bath throughout sonication.

We then performed a calibrated DNA digestion to sub-200-bp fragments, by adding to the sonicated lysates 60 μg RNase A (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA), 6 μL DNase I (Fisher product #89835), 5.4 μL 100 mM MnCl2, and 4.5 μL 100 mM CaCl2, and then incubating on ice. While the appropriate digestion time must be calibrated for each particular sample type and batch of DNase, 30 minutes of digestion proved appropriate for all samples here. Reactions were quenched after completion by the addition of 50 μL 500 mM EDTA (pH 8.0), typically yielding 50- to 200-bp fragments.

IPOD-HR interface extraction

Prior to interface extraction, samples were clarified by centrifugation for 10 minutes at 169,000 x g at 4 C. After clarification, a 50 microliter input sample was diluted 1:9 in elution buffer (50 mM Tris, pH 8.0; 10 mM EDTA; 1% SDS) and kept on ice until the reverse cross-linking step. The remainder of the lysate was mixed with 1 volume of 100 mM Tris base and 2 volumes of 25:24:1 phenol:chloroform:isoamyl alcohol, vortexed, and then incubated for 10 minutes at room temperature. After incubation, the sample was spun at 21,130 x g for 2 minutes at room temperature, allowing formation of a white disc at the aqueous–organic interface enriched for protein–DNA complexes [10,11].

The complete aqueous phases were removed and discarded, and the remaining disc washed again with 350 microliters TE (10 mM Tris, pH 8.0; 1 mM EDTA), 350 microliters 100 mM Tris base, and 700 microliters 24:1 chloroform:isoamyl alcohol. The resulting mixture was vortexed vigorously and again centrifuged for 2 minutes at 21,130 x g. All liquid was again removed, and the wash was repeated using 700 microliters TE and 700 microliters 24:1 chloroform:isoamyl alcohol. After vortexing, centrifugation, and removal of the final wash (exactly as above), any residual liquid was removed by wicking with a laboratory wipe (if any substantial pools of liquid were present). Finally, the interface was resuspended in 500 microliters of elution buffer (described above), vortexed vigorously, and kept on ice until reverse cross-linking (no more than a few hours).

We caution the reader that the separation of the interface layer from the liquid on either side of it is crucial to success with this method. We have found it most effective to tilt the microcentrifuge tube toward while pipetting out the organic layer from beneath, at which point the interface will adhere to the tube wall and allow easy removal of the aqueous layer. We have also found that the handling characteristics of the interface vary greatly with the plasticware in use. For the work described here, we have used 2-mL microcentrifuge tubes from USA Scientific (Ocala, FL) for all interface handling, as the interfaces adhere nicely to the tube wall (other plasticware may yield variable results); at the same time, the use of low-retention pipette tips appears to reduce binding of the interface to the tip.

RNA polymerase chromatin immunoprecipitation

DNA for RNA polymerase ChIP-seq experiments was prepared as described above for IPOD-HR interface extraction up through the lysate clarification stage. Whenever possible, we used frozen pellets obtained from the same culture for matched IPOD-HR and ChIP-seq experiments, in which case the lysates were pooled and mixed immediately prior to removal of a single input sample. ChIP procedures here were modeled on those of [64].

The digested lysates were mixed 1:1 with 2x IP buffer (200 mM Tris, pH 8.0; 600 mM NaCl; 4% Triton X-100; 2x Roche Complete EDTA-free protease inhibitors) and then kept on ice for no more than a few hours prior to antibody addition. We added 10 microliters of purified anti-E. coli RNA polymerase antibody (NeoClone WP023, NeoClone, Madison, WI) and incubated overnight with rocking at 4°C. Near the end of the incubation period, we resuspended an aliquot of 50 microliters of protein G dynabeads (Invitrogen, subsidiary of Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) and equilibrated the protein G beads with 1x IP buffer lacking protease inhibitors. The bead aliquot was added to the antibody-lysate mixture and then incubated 2 hours with rocking at 4°C. The bead–antibody–target complexes were subsequently subjected to the following series of washes, with 1 mL used per wash. All washes were at room temperature and involved manual resuspension of the beads in the new wash buffer followed by immediate re-separation:

1x Wash buffer A (100 mM Tris, pH 8.0; 250 mM LiCl; 2% Triton X-100; 1 mM EDTA)
1x Wash buffer B (100 mM Tris, pH 8.0; 500 mM NaCl; 1% Triton X-100; 0.1% sodium deoxycholate; 1 mM EDTA)
1x Wash buffer C (10 mM Tris, pH 8.0; 500 mM NaCl; 1% Triton X-100; 1 mM EDTA)
1x TE (10 mM Tris, pH 8.0; 1 mM EDTA).

The antigens were subsequently eluted by adding 500 microliters of elution buffer (composition described above) and incubating 30 minutes at 65°C, with vigorous vortexing every 5 to 10 minutes.

Cross-linking reversal and recovery of DNA

The DNA from the input, IPOD-HR, and ChIP fractions described above was recovered using identical procedures: Samples diluted in elution buffer (see above) were incubated overnight (6 to 16 hours) at 65°C to reverse formaldehyde cross-links. After allowing the samples to cool to room temperature, we then added 100 μg of RNase A (Thermo Fisher Scientific), incubated 2 hours at 37°C, then added 200 μg of proteinase K (Fermentas, subsidiary of Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) and incubated an additional 2 hours at 50°C. DNA was then recovered via standard phenol–chloroform extraction and ethanol precipitation, following protocols from [57]. We used Glycoblue (Ambion, subsidiary of Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) as a coprecipitant, NaCl as a precipitating salt (due to the presence of SDS in our solution), and washed with ice-cold 95% ethanol to avoid loss of low molecular weight DNA.

Recovered DNA was quantified via fluorescent quantitation (using either the Invitrogen PicoGreen or Promega (Madison, WI) QuantIT system), and samples of sufficiently high concentration were also run on a 2% agarose gel for fragment size assessment. Typical total yields from the procedure above were on the order of 1 μg of DNA for the input samples, 100 to 200 ng for the IPOD-HR samples, and 1 to 10 ng for the ChIP samples.

Preparation of next-generation sequencing (NGS) libraries

Except as otherwise noted, all DNA samples were prepared for Illumina sequencing using the NEBNext Ultra DNA Library Prep Kit (NEB product #E7370), with either single index or dual index primers also obtained from NEB. We followed the manufacturer’s instructions except for the following variations:

Cleanups prior to the PCR step were performed using a Zymo Clean&Concentrator 5 spin column kit or Zymo Oligo Clean&Concentrator spin column kit instead of Ampure beads, in order to avoid the loss of low molecular weight DNA.
We used Ampure and Axygen PCR cleanup beads interchangeably. The final cleanup step was in some cases repeated to remove obvious populations of adapter dimers.

All libraries were sequenced on either an Illumina HiSeq or NextSeq instrument; detailed statistics on read lengths and counts are provided in S5 Table. A small number of samples were prepared for sequencing using an Illumina Truseq Nano kit or (in the case of one biological replicate) a Truseq kit instead of the NEBnext kit noted above (those samples are identified in S5 Table); we found that upon calculation of correlations between the coverages of a broad range of IPOD, input, and RNA polymerase, ChIP-seq samples prepared using various sequencing preparation kits that the Truseq Nano samples were indistinguishable from NEBNext Ultra samples upon clustering of the occupancy profiles across sample types and conditions. To avoid any possibility of bias from the single included Truseq replicate (which was for the ΔlexA genotype), we observed qualitatively equivalent results in TFBS occupancy dynamics (Fig 3A) if the Truseq replicate was removed from analysis (notably, the rank ordering of LexA occupancy across samples was preserved, and of the 6 conditions considered, only the stationary phase and ΔlexA conditions had average occupancy −log₁₀p scores less than 2).

RNA isolation and RNA-seq sample preparation

As noted above, samples for RNA isolation were preserved immediately prior to rifampin addition by dilution in a 5x excess of DNA/RNA Shield (Zymo Research); the RNA samples were then stored at −80°C until purification. RNA was isolated using a Zymo QuickRNA microprep kit following the manufacturer’s instructions, including the on-column DNase digestion. Purified RNA was quantified using RiboGreen (Invitrogen) and then ribosome-depleted using the Illumina RiboZero Gram-negative bacteria kit according to the manufacturer’s instructions, with the input RNA amount and all reaction volumes cut in half. Final recovery of the ribo-depleted RNA was accomplished using the modified Zymo spin column protocol present in the RiboZero documentation. Ribo-depleted RNA was then prepared for sequencing using the NEBNext Ultra Directional RNA kit (NEB product E7420) and sequenced as described above for the DNA samples.

Analysis of NGS data

All NGS data were preprocessed using a common pipeline, after which DNA and RNA data sets were processed separately. The reference genome in all cases was the most recent version of the E. coli MG1655 genome (GenBank U00096.3), with gene, TFBS, and transcription start site annotations from RegulonDB [7]. Data processing was automated using in-house python and bash scripts and parallelized where possible using GNU parallel [65] or the python multiprocessing library. The python and bash source code used to derive processed occupancy data from raw reads is available from https://github.com/freddolino-lab/ipod_v1_2020; we also have distributed a ready-to-use analysis environment in the form of a singularity container, as documented in the GitHub repository noted above.

Read quality control and preprocessing

All reads were subjected to adapter removal using cutadapt 1.8.1 [66] to cut the common sequence of Illumina Truseq adapters and then trimmed to remove low-quality read ends with Trimmomatic 0.33 [67], using the trimming steps “TRAILING:3 SLIDINGWINDOW:4:15 MINLEN:10.” Samples were subjected to additional manual quality checks using FastQC [68] and MultiQC [69] to identify any irregularities in terms of sequence content, quality, or duplication.

DNA sequencing and protein occupancy calling

Surviving DNA reads were aligned to the U00096.3 genome using bowtie2 version 2.1.0 with “very sensitive” end-to-end alignment presets, and dovetail alignments allowed. Only concordant paired-end reads were retained for subsequent quantitation. Read occupancies were calculated at a 5-bp resolution along the chromosome using the parsing method of Kroner and colleagues [24] and scaling the base pair–wise contribution of each read by the inverse of its length (thus, each read contributed the same total amount of occupancy signal). The resulting read densities were then quantile normalized, acting separately for the input, IPOD interface, and RNA polymerase ChIP-seq tracks of each biological condition. In order to account for the higher amount of genomic DNA present near the origin of replication relative to the terminus, we fitted a smoothing spline with 4 evenly spaced knots and periodic boundary conditions to the input sample for each condition; the smoothing spline provides a low-pass filter on abundances that accounts for large-scale variations in DNA abundance across the genome. The use of 4 knots allows inflection points at the origin, terminus, and the halfway points between them. All occupancy data sets were divided by the spline-smoothed abundances of the corresponding input data prior to further processing. After abundance normalization, all data tracks were rescaled to have matching means, and then all replicates for each sample type/biological condition combination were averaged to generate a composite occupancy track (yielding, for example, 1 input data track for the WT M9/RDM/glu condition, 1 IPOD data track for the WT M9/RDM/glu condition, etc.).

The displayed IPOD and ChIP data tracks were then obtained as log₂ ratios of the extracted (interphase or ChIP) to input samples for each condition; we refer to these tracks as the “IPOD” and “ChIP” signals below. Upon viewing the correlation between total protein occupancy and RNA polymerase occupancy, 2 protein-occupied subpopulations were apparent (S4 Fig): a linear subpopulation where total protein and RNA polymerase are well correlated and a second subpopulation of positions where the total protein occupancy is much higher than expected based on the RNA polymerase occupancy. We interpret the former set of positions as protein occupancy due directly to RNA polymerase binding and the latter as non-RNA polymerase occupancy (as schematized in Fig 1B). To obtain the fully processed IPOD-HR signal for non-RNA polymerase occupancy, we applied a modified linear model to estimate and then remove the contributions of RNA polymerase to the observed signal. To this end, we began by using only the top 2% of observed ChIP values, which are presumed to represent sites that are bound entirely by RNA polymerase in the IPOD versus ChIP signal comparison (as in S4 Fig). We then generated the line with the lowest possible slope, and zero intercept, that is sufficient to keep 95% of the high-ChIP data region below it; thus, this represents a linear transformation of the ChIP signal that is sufficient to remove the vast majority of RNA polymerase occupancy. The resulting slope of the IPOD versus ChIP data was then used to generate a prediction of the IPOD contribution attributable to RNA polymerase binding at each position based on the observed ChIP signal itself and that value subtracted from the IPOD signal. No subtraction was performed at positions where the observed RNA polymerase occupancy was negative, so that the ChIP subtraction can only lower (not raise) occupancy. We note that the choice of slope to completely eliminate all occupancy at 95% of the high-ChIP sites represents a highly conservative choice (in terms of removing virtually all occupancy from the IPOD signal that could potentially be attributed to RNA polymerase). Any choice for this parameter must necessarily reflect a balance of risks, where lower values (close to 50%, which would roughly match a direct linear fit to the IPOD versus ChIP data points) increase the odds of identifying spurious protein occupancy peaks actually attributable to RNA polymerase, and higher values (up to 100% would be conceivably justifiable) risk erasing true regulatory protein occupancy due to overzealous RNA polymerase occupancy removal.

We refer to the resulting ChIP-subtracted IPOD signal as the IPOD-HR signal; for analysis and display, we further standardize the signal by calculating robust z scores, where the robust z-score z_i at position i is defined as

z_{i} = (x_{i} ‐ m e d i a n (X)) / m a d (X)

for a IPOD-HR data vector X, and mad() indicates the median absolute deviation. In many cases a more useful signal for visualization is a p-value for enrichment at each site; log₁₀ p-values are calculated under the null hypothesis that the distribution of the robust z-scores is standard normal. To provide uncertainty estimates grounded in observed levels of biological variability across replicates, for each data point, we also constructed an interval between the lowest and highest values that could have been obtained for our occupancy statistics using any combination of biological replicates (potentially different replicates for the IPOD, ChIP, and input samples to construct the largest possible range). To calculate the error bars shown in Fig 3A, we then used parametric bootstrapping to generate confidence intervals for the parameters of interest, assuming that the log₁₀p scaled occupancy of each TFBS followed a log-normal distribution with a mean of the observed mean and standard deviation of one quarter the range between the highest and lowest replicate-wise values (thus treating the range of the pessimistic replicate-wise possible values as an interval expected to contain approximately 95% of observed points); 95% confidence intervals for the average site-wise occupancies were then calculated from 1,000 bootstrap replicates.

Feature calling

To identify peaks in the robust z-scaled IPOD-HR data, we applied continuous wavelet transform (CWT) peak calling [70] (as implemented in the scipy.signal package), with a range of widths from 25 bp to 125 bp (at 5-bp increments, reflecting the expected range of peak sizes given the fragmentation of our input DNA) used to generate the CWT matrix, and refer to peaks based on the minimum signal-to-noise ratio threshold at which they appear as peak calls (note that in the CWT method, a range of widths must be specified as part of the algorithm and gives rise only to a single peak set). To provide quantitative measures of the evidence for different peak calls, separate peak sets were generated at several signal to noise thresholds (a full listing can be observed in the set of thresholds shown in S2 Data). Each peak call was padded by 30 bp on each side to define the peak region used in subsequent analysis. We show the performance of a variety of calling thresholds in identifying known TFBSs in S1 Fig, and based on those findings, use a threshold of 4 for all other quantitative analysis presented here. However, peak sets at all thresholds are supplied in S2 Data. Comparisons were made to data from RegulonDB release 9.4 unless otherwise noted.

EPODs were called using an approach similar to that in [10]: We identified EPOD seed regions as any region at least 1,024 bp in length, over which the median of a 512-bp rolling mean exceeded the overall kth percentile of a 256-bp rolling mean across the entire chromosome (in all cases acting on the robust z-scored IPODHR data); we used k = 90 for the main EPOD calls made in the text and k = 75 for the relaxed version used in threshold analysis. In the case of overlapping seeds, only the one with the highest median was retained. Seed regions were then expanded in both directions as far as possible while maintaining the median of the 512-bp rolling mean signal over the entire EPOD call above the threshold noted above and without crossing any location with a (rolling mean) robust z-score ≤0. We note that the lower threshold (k = 75) matches the threshold used in the original EPOD definitions from [10] (albeit using a rolling median instead of mean to define the smoothed datasets), whereas the more stringent threshold is intended to highlight the most robust regions of large-scale protein occupancy; both thresholds show similar properties in terms of overlaps with gene sets and genomic features.

Transcription factor co-clustering analysis

For the TF occupancy and co-clustering data, we performed consensus clustering (inspired by [71]). For each biological condition, we assigned each TF a score given by the geometric mean of the site-level occupancies (IPOD-HR −log₁₀ p-values) for annotated binding sites of that TF in that condition (using a minimum value of 0.01 for each site-level value); the condition-wise average occupancies for each TF were then divided by the highest average occupancy for that TF across all conditions, yielding an occupancy score on the interval (0,1] for each TF condition combination. The occupancy profiles of TFs across conditions were clustered 100 times using K-means clustering at each number of clusters between 8 and 12 (inclusive); the “co-clustering frequency” κ is defined as the fraction of those 100 trials in which a given pair of TFs were assigned to the same cluster. We then used the quantity (1-κ) as a distance measure in a final hierarchical clustering, assigning the TFs to 10 clusters, to provide the cluster identities shown in Fig 3C.

RNA sequencing and differential expression calling

RNA-seq data sets were subjected to the same initial preprocessing and quality control steps as outlined above for the DNA samples, and then gene-level expression was quantified using kallisto v0.43 [72] on a version of the MG1655 (GenBank NC_000913) genome with all ribosomal RNAs removed. Gene-level TPM values from kallisto were used for all downstream analysis unless otherwise noted. To generate high-resolution occupancy plots, reads were instead aligned with bowtie2 as described above for DNA reads, and read occupancies quantified using the genomecov command of bedtools2 [73].

TFBS comparison

Binding sites identified from IPOD-HR peaks (as described above in the “Feature calling” paragraph) were cross-referenced with known and predicted TFBSs using bedtools2 [73]. “Known” sites comprise all binding sites contained in the RegulonDB release 9.4 BindingSiteSet.txt file [7]; “predicted” sites are identified by scanning the MG1655 (GenBank NC_000913) genome with FIMO [74] using all E. coli position weight matrices from SwissRegulon [75] (as distributed by the MEME project); each PWM was applied separately, and all sites with a q-value less than 0.2 were retained. Default settings were used for FIMO, except that the background was a second-order Markov model based on the NC_000913 genome, and the number of maximum stored scores was set to 10,000,000.

Motif identification

Novel sequence motifs implied by IPOD-HR data were identified using an inference pipeline built off of FIRE [35]. Occupancy peaks and associated discrete threshold scores in the IPOD-HR traces were called using the CWT-based approach described above, using a score threshold of 4; each peak was assigned a discrete score corresponding to the average IPOD-HR occupancy score within that peak, rounding down. We then generated a background distribution of unbound sequences drawn from the portion of the genome not included in peaks, matching the length distribution of the peaks but with 3 times as many locations; all such background regions were assigned a score of 0 to distinguish them from the various thresholded peak regions.

Motifs were called using FIRE with 2 separate variations: FIRE_gapped (with parameters --kungapped=6 --gap=0–10 --jn_t_gapped=4 --minr=0.5), which searches for gapped motifs typical of prokaryotic TFBSs; and FIRE_maxdeg (with parameters --jn_t=8 --minr=1.5 --maxdeg=1.8), which searches for motifs while preserving information content above a specified threshold. We applied additional empirical filters to specifically enrich for peaks corresponding to binding sites: All peaks identified via FIRE were required to have the motif significantly depleted from the background population (p < 0.01). To assess the FDR of our methods, we also generated 20 decoy peak sets by shuffling the locations of the real peaks observed in each condition, along with corresponding randomized unbound sets for each, and then applied identical peak calling procedures to each decoy set.

To avoid repeated reporting of very similar motifs which might be identified by our pipelines, we applied the matrix-clustering module of RSAT [76] (using recommended thresholds -lth cor 0.7 -lth w 5 -lth Ncor 0.4) to obtain nonredundant motif sets for downstream analysis. We compared all called motifs with previously known motifs from the SwissRegulon database using TOMTOM [36] with default parameters, requiring an E-value of 0.5 or lower for “Identified” hits. For the identification of predicted regulons associated with each motif, we applied the FIMO program [74] to identify potential binding sites on the E. coli K12 genome, with a q-value threshold of 0.2; these were referred to as “strict” motif hits. For the subset of predicted motifs that yielded no potential binding sites at this threshold, we instead report all locations that correspond to the FIMO score of the best single location found in the genome, referring to these as “loose” motif hits. For the purposes of our analysis of the potential regulatory networks of novel motifs), we marked each transcriptional unit in E. coli as being regulated by a particular motif if and only if a predicted binding site for that motif was within 100 bp of the annotated transcription start site (in RegulonDB) for that transcriptional unit.

In vitro pulldown of unidentified transcription factors

In order to identify the protein(s) binding to the sdaC promoter (as in Fig 4), we first prepared biotinylated bait DNA by cloning a fragment of the sdaC promoter (running from positions 2927790 to 2927975 in the U00096.3 genome) into a pAZ3-based cloning vector [77] and then amplifying that region of the plasmid using a primer pair where one primer contained a 5′ biotinylation. The resulting 486-bp fragment was treated with Exonuclease I (Affymetrix, subsidiary of Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions to remove unreacted primer and then purified using a Zymo Clean & Concentrate 25 kit.

The biotinylated bait DNA was then bound to equilibrated Dynabeads MyOne Streptavidin C1 beads (Invitrogen). Beads were equilibrated by washing 3 times with 1x B&W buffer (5 mM Tris Cl, pH 7.5; 0.5 mM EDTA; 1 M NaCl) and then resuspended in 5 volumes of 2x B&W buffer, using 42 μL of the original resuspended bead solution per reaction. The equilibrated beads were combined with 8 μg of biotinylated bait DNA plus an appropriate volume of water to yield a final 1x B&W solution and incubated 15 minutes at room temperature with gentle rocking to allow for bait binding. The beads were then washed 3 times with 500 μL of 1x B&W buffer, twice in 500 μL of 1x BMg/THS buffer (5 mM HEPES, pH 7.5; 5 mM MgCl2; 50 mM KCl; 31 mM NaCl; 1x cOmplete EDTA-free protease inhibitors (Roche)), and once with 500 μL of 1x BMg/THS/EP buffer (1x BMg/THS buffer supplemented with 20 mM EGTA (pH 8.0) and 10 μg/mL poly d(IC) (Sigma, St. Louis, MO)). The beads were then resuspended in 200 μL of BMg/THS/EP buffer and gently mixed by hand for 1 minute to complete equilibration.

Cell extracts were prepared by growing to an optical density (OD) at 600 nm (OD600) of 0.2 in M9/RDM/glucose media (following the same procedures as those given for IPOD-HR experiments). Once reaching the target OD, the cells were chilled 10 minutes on ice and then pelleted by spinning for 10 minutes at 5,500 x g while at 4°C. Supernatant was removed, and the cells were flash-frozen in a dry ice/ethanol bath. Cells were then lysed by resuspending the frozen pellet resulting from 82 mL of culture in 160 μL of B-PER II bacterial protein extraction reagent (Thermo Fisher Scientific). We then added 3.8 mL of 1x BMg/THS buffer and 0.8 μL of ReadyLyse lysozyme solution (Lucigen), 40 μL of 10 mg/mL RNase A, 20 μL of CaCl₂, and 200 μL of micrococcal nuclease (NEB; 2,000,000 gel units/mL). The lysis/digestion reaction was allowed to proceed for 30 minutes at room temperature and then clarified by centrifugation at 30 minutes at 16,100x g held at 4°C. The reaction was halted by the addition of 444 μL of 5 M NaCl, and then the entire volume applied to a 3 kDa MWCO spin filter (Amicon Ultra; Millipore, Burlington, MA) and centrifuged at (3,200 x g held at 4°C) until approximately 400 μL of retentate remained. We then added 3.6 mL of BMg/THS (lacking NaCl and KCl, but containing 5 mM CaCl2) and filtered to 400 μL of retentate. Retained liquid was then recovered and diluted to a final volume of 4.0 mL with addition of salt-free BMg/THS + 5 mM CaCl₂. The retained lysate was then incubated 30 minutes at room temperature to permit further activity of micrococcal nuclease on remaining DNA in the sample and then quenched with 168 μL of 500 mM EGTA. The volume of the sample was reduced to approximately 1.6 mL by ultrafiltration as above and further supplemented with 10 μg/mL of poly d(IC) and 1 mM dithiothreitol.

Probing of the lysates was then accomplished by combining the equilibrated bait-bead complexes (described above) with the lysates and incubating 30 minutes with rocking at room temperature. The supernatant was then removed, and the beads washed twice with 200 μL of BMg/THS/20 mM EGTA/10 μg/mL poly d(IC) and once with 200 μL of BMg/THS/20 mM EGTA. Proteins were then eluted from the beads through progressive washes of elution buffer (25 mM Tris HCl, pH 7.5) with 100 mM NaCl, 200 mM NaCl, 400 mM NaCl, and 1 M NaCl, with 50 μL used for each elution.

We successively probed the lysates described here with probes containing promoter sequences from lexA, purR, and finally, sdaC (each containing identical plasmid-derived flanking sequences). An approximately 25-kDa band of interest appeared in the 400 mM and 1 M NaCl sdaC eluates but not eluates from a parallel experiment performed under identical conditions with a segment of the thiC promoter; these bands were excised from a silver-stained gel. The 400 mM gel slice was then subjected to proteomic analysis at the University of Michigan Proteomics & Peptide Synthesis core facility. The gel slice was processed using a ProGest robot (DigiLab, Holliston, MA) to wash with 25 mM ammonium bicarbonate followed by acetonitrile, reduce with 10 mM dithiothreitol at 60°C followed by alkylation with 50 mM iodoacetamide at room temperature, digested with trypsin (Promega) at 37°C for 4 hours, and then quenched with formic acid. The digest was then analyzed by nano liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) with a Waters NanoAcquity HPLC system interfaced to a Thermo Fisher Q Exactive. Peptides were loaded on a trapping column and eluted over a 75-μm analytical column at 350 nL/min; both columns were packed with Jupiter Proteo resin (Phenomenex, Torrance, CA). The injection volume was 30 μL. The mass spectrometer was operated in data-dependent mode, with the Orbitrap operating at 60,000 full width at half maximum (FWHM) and 17,500 FWHM for mass spectrometry (MS) and tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS), respectively. The 15 most abundant ions were selected for MS/MS. Data were searched using a local copy of Mascot, and Mascot DAT files were parsed into the Scaffold software for validation, filtering, and to create a nonredundant list per sample. Data were filtered using 90% protein and 95% peptide probability thresholds (Prophet scores) and requiring at least 2 unique peptides per protein. The resulting mass spectrometry analysis is given in S3 Table after manual pruning by core staff of common contaminants (e.g., human keratin).

Miller assay

Cells containing the lacZ reporter controlled by sdaC promoter variants (see strain construction notes above) were grown overnight in M9 RDM media with 0.4% glucose. In the morning, cells were diluted 1:300 in fresh, prewarmed M9 RDM media with 0.4% glucose in 96-well plate. The plate was placed in a BioTek Synergy H1 (BioTek, Winooski, VT) plate reader measuring OD600 and grown until mid-exponential phase, around 6 doublings. Once the cells reached the target OD of around 0.2 (1-cm path length equivalent), 80 uL of cells were placed in a new 96-well plate and mixed with 120 uL of β-galactosidase assay mix (see below), avoiding the production of bubbles. The plate was loaded into the same Synergy H1 plate reader and incubated at 37°C, taking measurements every 2 minutes for 1 hour. Our procedure, assay, and analysis for the Miller assay are adapted from [78].

Reagents:

Z-buffer: 60 mM Na₂HPO₄, 40 mM NaH₂PO₄, 10 mM KCl, 1 mM MgSO₄
β-mercaptoethanol solution: 2.7 μl/mL β-mercaptoethanol in Z-Buffer
ONPG solution: 4 mg/mL ONPG in Z-Buffer
Lysozyme solution: 10 mg/mL lysozyme in 10 mM Tris-HCl, pH = 8.0

β-galactosidase assay mix (100 reactions):

8 mL β-me solution
3 mL ONPG solution
800 μl PopCulture Reagent (Sigma-Aldrich)
200 μl Lysozyme solution.

We then calculated the enzymatic activity in each well first by subtracting 1.7 times the OD550 value at each time point from the OD420 value (to yield the amount of enzymatic product after correcting for cell debris) and then fitting a LOESS smoothing curve to the resulting values and identifying the point of maximal slope; that slope (which is a rate of increase in product versus time) is taken as the enzymatic activity. The background activity of MG1655 lacZ::cml cells measured at the same time was then subtracted from each data point. The activities were then divided by the OD600 of the corresponding cells used in each assay to account for the differing amounts of biological starting material to yield final OD-normalized Miller units. The experiments were performed in technical duplicate on each of 4 different days.

The resulting normalized Miller values were then analyzed using a Bayesian mixed-effects model to identify the relative promoter activities in our 8 strains of interest. We assumed that the normalized Miller values followed the form

M_{c e n t} \sim t (α_{d a t e} + β_{s t r a i n} + γ_{d a t e : s t r a i n}, σ, v),

where α and β are fixed effects representing the effects of experimental date and of the yieP/promoter genotypes, respectively; the γ is a random effects term with levels for each date/strain combination, and σ and ν are the standard deviation and degrees-of-freedom parameters of the t distributed residual noise. M_cent indicates centered Miller units where the global mean of all measurements was subtracted from each value (the fitted coefficients were then decentered prior to plotting). The model was fitted using the brms [79] module of R; using a normal (0,1,000) prior on each of the fixed effects, a t (0, 500, 10) prior on the standard deviation parameter and defaults for all other parameters (the mildly informative priors used here were based on the behavior of WT MG1655 cells induced by isopropyl β-D-1-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG) in our assay). Model convergence was assessed using the Rhat metric and manual inspection of the posterior predictive distribution.

Supporting information

S1 Text. Additional information on the effects of RNA polymerase on large-scale protein occupancy.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Dr. Alison Hottes for technical assistance and suggestions on the original IPOD method and to Ms. Christine Ziegler for optimization of the Miller assay as used in Fig 4.

Abbreviations

ATAC-seq: assay for transposase-accessible chromatin using sequencing
ChIP-seq: chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing
CWT: continuous wavelet transform
EPOD: extended protein occupancy domain
FAIRE: formaldehyde-assisted isolation of regulatory elements
FDR: false discovery rate
FWHM: full width at half maximum
GO: gene ontology
heEPOD: highly expressed extended protein occupancy domain
IPOD: in vivo protein occupancy display
IPOD-HR: in vivo protein occupancy display—high resolution
LC-MS/MS: liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry
MNase-seq: micrococcal nuclease digestion with deep sequencing
MS: mass spectrometry
MS/MS: tandem mass spectrometry
NGS: next-generation sequencing
ORF: open reading frame
RDM: rich defined medium
RNA-seq: RNA sequencing
TF: transcription factor
TFBS: transcription factor binding site
TPM: transcripts per million
tsEPOD: transcriptionally silent extended protein occupancy domain
WT: wild-type

Data Availability

All sequencing data and analysis related to the manuscript have been deposited at the Gene Expression Omnibus under accession GSE142291.

Funding Statement

This sutdy was funded by HHS | National Institutes of Health (NIH): ST R01-AI077562; by HHS | National Institutes of Health (NIH): PLF R00-GM097033 and by HHS | National Institutes of Health (NIH): PLF R35-GM128637. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Browning DF, Butala M, Busby SJW. Bacterial Transcription Factors: Regulation by Pick “N” Mix. J Mol Biol. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2019.04.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Lee DJ, Minchin SD, Busby SJW. Activating transcription in bacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2012;66:125–52. doi: 10.1146/annurev-micro-092611-150012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Gruber TM, Gross CA. Multiple sigma subunits and the partitioning of bacterial transcription space. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2003;57:441–66. doi: 10.1146/annurev.micro.57.030502.090913 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Murakami KS, Darst SA. Bacterial RNA polymerases: the wholo story. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2003;13:31–9. doi: 10.1016/s0959-440x(02)00005-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Shen BA, Landick R. Transcription of Bacterial Chromatin. J Mol Biol. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2019.05.041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Ishihama A, Shimada T, Yamazaki Y. Transcription profile of Escherichia coli: genomic SELEX search for regulatory targets of transcription factors. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:2058–74. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw051 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Gama-Castro S, Salgado H, Santos-Zavaleta A, Ledezma-Tejeida D, Muñiz-Rascado L, García-Sotelo JS, et al. RegulonDB version 9.0: high-level integration of gene regulation, coexpression, motif clustering and beyond. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:D133–43. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv1156 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Larsen SJ, Röttger R, Schmidt HHHW, Baumbach J. E. coli gene regulatory networks are inconsistent with gene expression data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:85–92. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky1176 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Mejía-Almonte C, Busby SJW, Wade JT, van J, Arkin AP, Stormo GD, et al. Redefining fundamental concepts of transcription initiation in bacteria. Nat Rev Genet. 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41576-020-0254-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Vora T, Hottes AK, Tavazoie S. Protein occupancy landscape of a bacterial genome. Mol Cell. 2009;35:247–53. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2009.06.035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Giresi PG, Kim J, McDaniell RM, Iyer VR, Lieb JD. FAIRE (The Formaldehyde-Assisted Isolation of Regulatory Elements) isolates active regulatory elements from human chromatin. Genome Res. 2007;17:877–85. doi: 10.1101/gr.5533506 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Meng LM, Nygaard P. Identification of hypoxanthine and guanine as the co-repressors for the purine regulon genes of Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol. 1990;4:2187–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.1990.tb00580.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Cho B-K, Federowicz SA, Embree M, Park Y-S, Kim D, Palsson BØ. The PurR regulon in Escherichia coli K-12 MG1655. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39:6456–64. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr307 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Tian G, Lim D, Carey J, Maas WK. Binding of the arginine repressor of Escherichia coli K12 to its operator sites. J Mol Biol. 1992;226:387–97. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(92)90954-i [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Charlier D, Roovers M, Van F, Boyen A, Cunin R, Nakamura Y, et al. Arginine regulon of Escherichia coli K-12. A study of repressor-operator interactions and of in vitro binding affinities versus in vivo repression. J Mol Biol. 1992;226:367–86. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(92)90953-h [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Stragier P, Danos O, Patte JC. Regulation of diaminopimelate decarboxylase synthesis in Escherichia coli. II. Nucleotide sequence of the lysA gene and its regulatory region. J Mol Biol. 1983;168:321–31. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2836(83)80021-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Van GD, Ghosh G, Maas WK, Sigler PB. Structure of the oligomerization and L-arginine binding domain of the arginine repressor of Escherichia coli. J Mol Biol. 1996;256:377–91. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0093 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Rolfes RJ, Zalkin H. Purification of the Escherichia coli purine regulon repressor and identification of corepressors. J Bacteriol. 1990;172:5637–42. doi: 10.1128/jb.172.10.5637-5642.1990 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Shimada T, Hirao K, Kori A, Yamamoto K, Ishihama A. RutR is the uracil/thymine-sensing master regulator of a set of genes for synthesis and degradation of pyrimidines. Mol Microbiol. 2007;66:744–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2007.05954.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Pedersen H, Søgaard-Andersen L, Holst B, Valentin-Hansen P. Heterologous cooperativity in Escherichia coli. The CytR repressor both contacts DNA and the cAMP receptor protein when binding to the deoP2 promoter. J Biol Chem. 1991;266:17804–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Gerlach P, Søgaard-Andersen L, Pedersen H, Martinussen J, Valentin-Hansen P, Bremer E. The cyclic AMP (cAMP)-cAMP receptor protein complex functions both as an activator and as a corepressor at the tsx-p2 promoter of Escherichia coli K-12. J Bacteriol. 1991;173:5419–30. doi: 10.1128/jb.173.17.5419-5430.1991 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Gunsalus RP, Park SJ. Aerobic-anaerobic gene regulation in Escherichia coli: control by the ArcAB and Fnr regulons. Res Microbiol. 1994;145:437–50. doi: 10.1016/0923-2508(94)90092-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Iuchi S, Lin EC. Adaptation of Escherichia coli to redox environments by gene expression. Mol Microbiol. 1993;9:9–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.1993.tb01664.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Kroner GM, Wolfe MB, Freddolino PL. Escherichia coli Lrp regulates one-third of the genome via direct, cooperative, and indirect routes. J Bacteriol. 2018. doi: 10.1128/JB.00411-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Karp PD, Weaver D, Paley S, Fulcher C, Kubo A, Kothari A, et al. The EcoCyc Database. EcoSal Plus. 2014;6. doi: 10.1128/ecosalplus.ESP-0009-2013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Solomon MJ, Varshavsky A. Formaldehyde-mediated DNA-protein crosslinking: a probe for in vivo chromatin structures. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1985;82:6470–4. doi: 10.1073/pnas.82.19.6470 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.McClure WR, Cech CL. On the mechanism of rifampicin inhibition of RNA synthesis. J Biol Chem. 1978;253:8949–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Pique-Regi R, Degner JF, Pai AA, Gaffney DJ, Gilad Y, Pritchard JK. Accurate inference of transcription factor binding from DNA sequence and chromatin accessibility data. Genome Res. 2011;21:447–55. doi: 10.1101/gr.112623.110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Shimada T, Ogasawara H, Ishihama A. Genomic SELEX Screening of Regulatory Targets of Escherichia coli Transcription Factors. Methods Mol Biol. 2018;1837:49–69. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-8675-0_4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Belliveau NM, Barnes SL, Ireland WT, Jones DL, Sweredoski MJ, Moradian A, et al. Systematic approach for dissecting the molecular mechanisms of transcriptional regulation in bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115:E4796–805. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1722055115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Gao Y, Yurkovich JT, Seo SW, Kabimoldayev I, Dräger A, Chen K, et al. Systematic discovery of uncharacterized transcription factors in Escherichia coli K-12 MG1655. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46:10682–96. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky752 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Sastry AV, Gao Y, Szubin R, Hefner Y, Xu S, Kim D, et al. The Escherichia coli transcriptome mostly consists of independently regulated modules. Nat Commun. 2019;10:5536. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-13483-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Kass RE, Raftery AE. Bayes Factors. J Am Stat Assoc. 1995;90:773–95. [Google Scholar]
34.Wu CH, Apweiler R, Bairoch A, Natale DA, Barker WC, Boeckmann B, et al. The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt): an expanding universe of protein information. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34:D187–91. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkj161 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Elemento O, Slonim N, Tavazoie SA. Universal Framework for Regulatory Element Discovery across All Genomes and Data Types. Mol Cell. 2007:337–50. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2007.09.027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Gupta S, Stamatoyannopoulos JA, Bailey TL, Noble WS. Quantifying similarity between motifs. Genome Biol. 2007;8:R24. doi: 10.1186/gb-2007-8-2-r24 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Goodarzi H, Elemento O, Tavazoie S. Revealing global regulatory perturbations across human cancers. Mol Cell. 2009;36:900–11. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2009.11.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Scholz SA, Diao R, Wolfe MB, Fivenson EM, Lin XN, Freddolino PL. High-Resolution Mapping of the Escherichia coli Chromosome Reveals Positions of High and Low Transcription. Cell Syst. 2019;8:212, e9–25. doi: 10.1016/j.cels.2019.02.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Buenrostro JD, Wu B, Chang HY, Greenleaf WJ. ATAC-seq: A Method for Assaying Chromatin Accessibility Genome-Wide. Curr Protoc Mol Biol. 2015;109:21.29.1–9. doi: 10.1002/0471142727.mb2129s109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Whitfield CR, Wardle SJ, Haniford DB. The global bacterial regulator H-NS promotes transpososome formation and transposition in the Tn5 system. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37:309–21. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkn935 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Tavazoie S, Church GM. Quantitative whole-genome analysis of DNA-protein interactions by in vivo methylase protection in E. coli. Nat Biotechnol. 1998;16:566–71. doi: 10.1038/nbt0698-566 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Navarre WW, McClelland M, Libby SJ, Fang FC. Silencing of xenogeneic DNA by H-NS-facilitation of lateral gene transfer in bacteria by a defense system that recognizes foreign DNA. Genes Dev. 2007;21:1456–71. doi: 10.1101/gad.1543107 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Navarre WW, Porwollik S, Wang Y, McClelland M, Rosen H, Libby SJ, et al. Selective silencing of foreign DNA with low GC content by the H-NS protein in Salmonella. Science. 2006;313:236–8. doi: 10.1126/science.1128794 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Kahramanoglou C, Seshasayee ASN, Prieto AI, Ibberson D, Schmidt S, Zimmermann J, et al. Direct and indirect effects of H-NS and Fis on global gene expression control in Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011:2073–91. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq934 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Ling G, Waxman DJ, DNase I. Digestion of Isolated Nuclei for Genome-Wide Mapping of DNase Hypersensitivity Sites in Chromatin. Methods Mol Biol. 2013:21–33. doi: 10.1007/978-1-62703-284-1_3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Mieczkowski J, Cook A, Bowman SK, Mueller B, Alver BH, Kundu S, et al. MNase titration reveals differences between nucleosome occupancy and chromatin accessibility. Nat Commun. 2016;7:11485. doi: 10.1038/ncomms11485 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.Melfi MD, Lasker K, Zhou X, Shapiro L. ATAC-seq reveals megabase-scale domains of a bacterial nucleoid. bioRxiv. 2021. p. 2021.01.09.426053. doi: 10.1101/2021.01.09.426053 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
48.Al-Bassam MM, Moyne O, Chapin N, Zengler K. Nucleoid openness profiling links bacterial genome structure to phenotype. bioRxiv. 2020. p. 2020.05.07.082990. doi: 10.1101/2020.05.07.082990 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
49.Freddolino P, Goss TJ, Amemiya HM, Tavazoie S. Dynamic landscape of protein occupancy across the Escherichia coli chromosome. bioRxiv. 2020. Available from: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.29.924811v1.abstract. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Fang X, Sastry A, Mih N, Kim D, Tan J, Yurkovich JT, et al. Global transcriptional regulatory network for Escherichia coli robustly connects gene expression to transcription factor activities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114:10286–91. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1702581114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Singh SS, Singh N, Bonocora RP, Fitzgerald DM, Wade JT, Grainger DC. Widespread suppression of intragenic transcription initiation by H-NS. Genes Dev. 2014;28:214–9. doi: 10.1101/gad.234336.113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52.Kotlajich MV, Hron DR, Boudreau BA, Sun Z, Lyubchenko YL, Landick R. Bridged filaments of histone-like nucleoid structuring protein pause RNA polymerase and aid termination in bacteria. Elife. 2015;4. doi: 10.7554/eLife.04970 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53.Landick R, Wade JT, Grainger DC. H-NS and RNA polymerase: a love—hate relationship? Curr Opin Microbiol. 2015;24:53–9. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2015.01.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54.Atlung T, Ingmer H. H-NS: a modulator of environmentally regulated gene expression. Mol Microbiol. 1997;24:7–17. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.1997.3151679.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55.Ono S, Goldberg MD, Olsson T, Esposito D, Hinton JCD, Ladbury JE. H-NS is a part of a thermally controlled mechanism for bacterial gene regulation. Biochem J. 2005;391:203–13. doi: 10.1042/BJ20050453 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56.Freddolino PL, Amini S, Tavazoie S. Newly identified genetic variations in common Escherichia coli MG1655 stock cultures. J Bacteriol. 2012;194:303–6. doi: 10.1128/JB.06087-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57.Ausubel FM. Current Protocols in Molecular Biology. John Wiley & Sons; 1998. [Google Scholar]
58.Baba T, Ara T, Hasegawa M, Takai Y, Okumura Y, Baba M, et al. Construction of Escherichia coli K-12 in-frame, single-gene knockout mutants: the Keio collection. Mol Syst Biol. 2006;2 (2006):0008. doi: 10.1038/msb4100050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59.Cherepanov PP, Wackernagel W. Gene disruption in Escherichia coli: TcR and KmR cassettes with the option of Flp-catalyzed excision of the antibiotic-resistance determinant. Gene. 1995;158:9–14. doi: 10.1016/0378-1119(95)00193-a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60.Huisman O D ’Ari R. An inducible DNA replication–cell division coupling mechanism in E. coli. Nature. 1981;290:797–9. doi: 10.1038/290797a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61.Huisman O D ’Ari R, Gottesman S. Cell-division control in Escherichia coli: specific induction of the SOS function SfiA protein is sufficient to block septation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1984;81:4490–4. doi: 10.1073/pnas.81.14.4490 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62.Gibson DG, Young L, Chuang R-Y, Venter JC, Hutchison CA, Smith HO. Enzymatic assembly of DNA molecules up to several hundred kilobases. Nat Methods. 2009;6:343–5. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1318 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63.Neidhardt FC, Bloch PL, Smith DF. Culture medium for enterobacteria. J Bacteriol. 1974;119:736–47. doi: 10.1128/jb.119.3.736-747.1974 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64.Mooney RA, Davis SE, Peters JM, Rowland JL, Ansari AZ, Landick R. Regulator trafficking on bacterial transcription units in vivo. Mol Cell. 2009;33:97–108. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2008.12.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65.Tange O. Gnu parallel-the command-line power tool. The USENIX Magazine. 2011;36:42–7. [Google Scholar]
66.Martin M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J. 2011;17:10–2. [Google Scholar]
67.Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2114–20. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68.Andrews S, Others. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. Babraham Bioinformatics, Babraham Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom; 2010. [Google Scholar]
69.Ewels P, Magnusson M, Lundin S, Käller M. MultiQC: summarize analysis results for multiple tools and samples in a single report. Bioinformatics. 2016;32:3047–8. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw354 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
70.Du P, Kibbe WA, Lin SM. Improved peak detection in mass spectrum by incorporating continuous wavelet transform-based pattern matching. Bioinformatics. 2006;22:2059–65. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl355 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71.Slonim N, Atwal GS, Tkacik G, Bialek W. Information-based clustering. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:18297–302. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507432102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72.Pimentel H, Bray NL, Puente S, Melsted P, Pachter L. Differential analysis of RNA-seq incorporating quantification uncertainty. Nat Methods. 2017;14:687–90. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.4324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
73.Quinlan AR. BEDTools: the Swiss-army tool for genome feature analysis. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics. 2014;47:11–2. doi: 10.1002/0471250953.bi1112s47 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
74.Grant CE, Bailey TL, Noble WS. FIMO. scanning for occurrences of a given motif. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:1017–8. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr064 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75.Pachkov M, Balwierz PJ, Arnold P, Ozonov E, van Nimwegen E. SwissRegulon, a database of genome-wide annotations of regulatory sites: recent updates. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:D214–20. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1145 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76.Castro-Mondragon JA, Jaeger S, Thieffry D, Thomas-Chollier M. van Helden J. RSAT matrix-clustering: dynamic exploration and redundancy reduction of transcription factor binding motif collections. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:e119. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkx314 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77.Kawano M, Aravind L, Storz G. An antisense RNA controls synthesis of an SOS-induced toxin evolved from an antitoxin. Mol Microbiol. 2007;64:738–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2007.05688.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
78.Thibodeau SA, Fang R, Joung JK. High-throughput beta-galactosidase assay for bacterial cell-based reporter systems. Biotechniques. 2004;36:410–5. doi: 10.2144/04363BM07 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
79.Bürkner P-C. brms: An R Package for Bayesian Multilevel Models Using Stan. J Stat Softw. 2017;80:1–28. [Google Scholar]
80.Breunig MM, Kriegel H-P, Ng RT, Sander J. LOF: identifying density-based local outliers. Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery; 2000. pp. 93–104. [Google Scholar]
81.Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, et al. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. J Mach Learn Res. 2011;12:2825–30. [Google Scholar]
82.Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 1995;57:289–300. [Google Scholar]

PLoS Biol. 2021 Jun 25;19(6):e3001306. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001306.r001

Author response to previous submission

27 Oct 2020

Attachment

Submitted filename: 109625_1_rebuttal_1894643_qgk6bc.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(14.1KB, docx)}

PLoS Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001306.r002

Decision Letter 0

Paula Jauregui, PhD

9 Nov 2020

Dear Dr. Tavazoie,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Dynamic landscape of protein occupancy across the Escherichia coli chromosome" for consideration as a Research Article by PLOS Biology.

Your manuscript, the reviews and your revision plan have now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editorial staff, as well as by an academic editor with relevant expertise, and I'm writing to let you know that we would like to consider your manuscript further.

However, before we can send a "Major Revision" decision, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by Nov 11 2020 11:59PM.

During resubmission, you will be invited to opt-in to posting your pre-review manuscript as a bioRxiv preprint. Visit http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/preprints for full details. If you consent to posting your current manuscript as a preprint, please upload a single Preprint PDF when you re-submit.

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of routine checks. Once your manuscript has passed all checks I will be able to send you your formal decision.

Given the disruptions resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, please expect delays in the editorial process. We apologise in advance for any inconvenience caused and will do our best to minimize impact as far as possible.

Feel free to email us at plosbiology@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Paula

---

Paula Jauregui, PhD,

Associate Editor

PLOS Biology

PLoS Biol. 2021 Jun 25;19(6):e3001306. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001306.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 0

10 Nov 2020

Attachment

Submitted filename: 109625_1_rebuttal_1894643_qgk6bc.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(14.1KB, docx)}

PLoS Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001306.r004

Decision Letter 1

Paula Jauregui, PhD

11 Nov 2020

Dear Dr. Tavazoie,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Dynamic landscape of protein occupancy across the Escherichia coli chromosome" for consideration as a Methods and Resources at PLOS Biology. Your manuscript and the three Review Commons reviews has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, and by an Academic Editor with relevant expertise.

In light of the reviews (below), we will not be able to accept the current version of the manuscript, but we would welcome re-submission of a much-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments. We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent for further evaluation by the reviewers.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 3 months.

In particular, referee #1 thinks that a user-friendly accessible browser format is really needed, asks about promoters with more than one protein bound, asks whether it is possible to substract H-NS ChIP signals, and says that you should make a clear statement about what is missing. Referee #2's main concern is the source code is missing. Referee #2 also thinks that you should re-write the description of protein occupancy and peak calling in the method section for clarity and asks specific questions about it, says that the functional validation of YieP binding site is not convincing enough. Referee #3 has several suggestions regarding the integration and cross referencing of your findings with existing data, and has questions about TF and co-regulation. Taking these comments into account, we think that your plan for revision is reasonable.

Please email us (plosbiology@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns, or would like to request an extension. At this stage, your manuscript remains formally under active consideration at our journal; please notify us by email if you do not intend to submit a revision so that we may end consideration of the manuscript at PLOS Biology.

**IMPORTANT - SUBMITTING YOUR REVISION**

Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. Please submit the following files along with your revised manuscript:

1. A 'Response to Reviewers' file - this should detail your responses to the editorial requests, present a point-by-point response to all of the reviewers' comments, and indicate the changes made to the manuscript.

*NOTE: In your point by point response to the reviewers, please provide the full context of each review. Do not selectively quote paragraphs or sentences to reply to. The entire set of reviewer comments should be present in full and each specific point should be responded to individually, point by point.

You should also cite any additional relevant literature that has been published since the original submission and mention any additional citations in your response.

2. In addition to a clean copy of the manuscript, please also upload a 'track-changes' version of your manuscript that specifies the edits made. This should be uploaded as a "Related" file type.

*Re-submission Checklist*

When you are ready to resubmit your revised manuscript, please refer to this re-submission checklist: https://plos.io/Biology_Checklist

To submit a revised version of your manuscript, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' where you will find your submission record.

Please make sure to read the following important policies and guidelines while preparing your revision:

*Published Peer Review*

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*PLOS Data Policy*

Please note that as a condition of publication PLOS' data policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability) requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions arrived at in your manuscript. If you have not already done so, you must include any data used in your manuscript either in appropriate repositories, within the body of the manuscript, or as supporting information (N.B. this includes any numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.). For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5

*Blot and Gel Data Policy*

We require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare them now, if you have not already uploaded them. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive thus far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Paula

---

Paula Jauregui, PhD,

Associate Editor,

pjaureguionieva@plos.org,

PLOS Biology

*****************************************************

REVIEWS (From Review Commons):

Reviewer #1:

The paper describes a technique that produces an IPOD (in vivo protein occupancy display)

across the entire E coli chromosome. By subtracting out signals due to RNA polymerase,

this display is HR (high resolution) in the sense that the authors can see signals due to

individually bound proteins. The drawback of the method is that the signals seen in the

IPOD are anonymous, but the authors describe in some detail how the display can be

exploited. The paper is clearly written and presented, and will be accessible to students,

with some effort, and easy to grasp for those who have followed the topic, especially those

familiar with the previous 2009 Mol Cell Vora et al paper.

The key conclusions are convincing. Of course the methodology has inbuilt issues, like all

top-down methods that rely on a particular probe, and these will bias the results, but the

authors assess the pros- and cons realistically. Concerning the data, I would have liked to

see more of the IPOD in the format in Figure 2. I guess this is somewhere in the

Supplementary data, but I was unable easily to access it. What is really needed is a userfriendly accessible browser format.

The authors make a convincing case that certain 'spikes' in the IPOD correspond to

individual proteins bound. So what about promoter regions where several proteins are

bound e.g. the lac operon regulatory region where one might expect to see Lac Repressor

and CAP? Or the galETK promoter where there could be Gal Repressor, HU and CAP?

Readers might like to check their favorite promoters for themselves. At the very least, the

authors need to make a clear statement about what is missing.

For me the highlight was the observation that EPODs (extended protein occupancy

domains) don't change much according to growth conditions. This leads to a very nice view

of proteins on the E coli 'landscape' where regulatory features vary but EPODs don't (well,

not much, anyway). The non-HNS EPODS are intriguing. Is it possible to do a subtraction

of H-NS ChIP signals as was done for RNAP ChIP signals?

Significance

The opening paragraph of the discussion explains the relative merits of bottom-up versus

top-down approaches to understanding bacterial regulatory networks, and carefully

explains that IPOD-HR is an addition to the top-down told. This work is of interest to those

concerned with bacterial chromosome organisation and the regulation of bacterial gene

expression.

Reviewer #2:

The authors describe a novel approach that allows characterization of the protein-DNA

interaction dynamics at the global scale. The method is a further advance on protein

occupancy display (IPOD) developed earlier by the same authors. The crucial modification

introduced in the present work is the use of rifampicin treatment to distinguish the

contribution from sequence-specific transcription factors and RNA polymerase. The new

method is referred to as IPOD-HR (for high resolution).

They apply this method across different physiological conditions (exponential and

stationary phase, rich or minimal medium) and validate the results using a set of well

characterized transcriptional regulators (ArgR, LexA, PurR) and corresponding mutants.

They then utilize an unsupervised clustering algorithm on the protein occupancy data for

annotated transcription factors and show that transcription regulators belonging to the same

GO term tend to cluster together across the conditions.

As a large number of protein occupancy peaks obtained in this study does not correspond to

the annotated transcription factor binding sites in promoter, the authors select one such site

and use it to fish out and identify the interacting protein (YieP). They validate the

functional importance of this interaction by in vitro DNA-binding assays and RNA-Seq

data for the corresponding mutant which show a significant reduction of the regulated

transcript (sdaC) level.

Building on this result the authors examine the sequences corresponding to IPOD-HR

peaks and find that about a half of them do not match any known (or predicted)

transcription factor binding sites. They use computational motif discovery algorithm FIRE

to IPOD-HR data to find about 200 novel motifs. These account for almost a third of the

observed protein occupancy peaks. Importantly, the inferred motifs show significant

enrichment in promoter but not ORF regions.

The last part of this work explores so-called extended protein occupancy domains (EPODs)

which were first reported by the authors in the previous work and apparently correspond to

kilobase-scale regions of high level of protein occupancy. The correction for RNA

polymerase occupancy levels introduced in the present study allowed the authors to claim

that most EPODs are transcriptionally silent, akin to eukaryotic heterochromatin regions.

One striking result is that EPODs appear to be almost invariant across the range of

physiological conditions used in this study. The pathways enriched in EPODs regions

(prophage genes and mobile elements) as well as the strong overlap with H-NS ChIP-Seq

data prompt the authors to suggest that the main role of EPODs is the transcriptional

silencing of xenogenetic material. Nonetheless, a significant fraction of EPODs does not

overlap with H-NS binding and provide an intriguing opportunity for further study.

The strength of the method is that no prior knowledge of the DNA interacting protein is

required and it can be used to survey the protein occupancy of both transcription regulatory

sites and large-scale protein-bound domains of bacterial chromosome. This will be a

valuable addition to the existing toolkit of high-throughput methods and has a great

potential when applied to other organisms and physiological conditions.

However, several points need to be addressed before the work can be published.

1.My main concern is that being heavily dependent on computational analysis this study

does not provide the source code for the analysis performed, specifically protein occupancy

and feature (peak) calling and transcription factor co-clustering. While I agree that the

inclusion of code for routine steps in NGS data processing such as QC and alignment adds

little value to the reader, these are computational steps on which the entire method is built

and they should be included in the manuscript as a link to the source code.

2.The description of protein occupancy and peak calling in the method section is difficult to

parse and probably should be re-written for better clarity. Specific questions that arise

while reading this part:

- Why is spline used for smoothing abundances? The choice of smoothing function and its

parameters needs better explanation. The same goes for the choice of LOESS fit for RNA

polymerase normalization.

- Where did 1.1 scaling factor come from?

- What's the effect of data downsampling on the fit robustness?

- Similarly, the selection of parameters used in peak calling in both CWT and EPODs cases

needs to be explained. They seem arbitrary without additional clarification.

3.The functional validation of YieP binding site is not convincing enough. The transcript

level depletion in mutant RNA-Seq data might be an indirect effect. A reporter gene assay

will provide a more direct evidence that the site is indeed a functional transcriptional

regulator.

4.Perhaps outside of the scope of this study but it would be great to provide some kind of

functional validation to the novel transcription factor motifs reported here.

Reviewer #3:

**Summary:**

In this manuscript, Freddolino and collaborators introduced their improved in vivo protein

occupancy display technology (IPOD-HR) for genome-wide profiling of protein

occupancy. The IPOD-HR workflow integrates protein occupancy data and RNA

polymerase ChIP-seq data to identify all regions of a bacterial genome occupied by DNAbinding proteins. Using the IPOD-HR technology, the authors identified ~19,000 potential

TF-DNA interactions in the genome of Escherichia coli across six different

conditions/genotypes. Remarkably, protein occupancy profiles generated using IPOD-HR

recapitulated a high proportion of previously reported TF binding sites in E. coli

chromosome, identified ~90% of the known DNA binding motifs for E. coli TFs, and

discovered thousands of novel TF binding sites that await further characterization. The

authors showed that protein occupancy profiles (generated using IPOD-HR) in combination

with prior knowledge about a transcriptional regulatory network (TRN) of interest may

offer valuable information about the regulatory activity of TFs, uncharacterized gene

promoters, and binding affinity of uncharacterized putative TFs. Therefore, this new

technology may facilitate the reconstruction of condition-specific bacterial TRNs.

**Major comments:**

The authors have done an excellent job showing, with specific examples, potential

applications of their new technology. However, the manuscript would deeply benefit from a

more comprehensive analysis of the functional implications of the TF-DNA binding events

discovered using IPOD-HR. Authors should use the protein occupancy profiles they have

already generated to reconstruct the binding profiles of individual regulators across

different conditions (at least for global regulators with dozens of targets). Authors may

achieve this goal by genome-wide scanning of the de novo motifs (matched with known TF

binding motifs) in the occupied chromosomal regions or using similar approaches. This

type of analysis is necessary to assess the full potential of their technology and to uncover

the conditional partition of TF regulons, which would offer key insights about the

architecture and dynamic of E. coli TRN. Without this level of resolution, ChIP-seq

experiments would still be required to compare the binding profiles of any TF of interest

across multiple conditions, reducing the value of IPOD-HR. Finally, I encourage the

authors to compare the IPOD-HR reconstructed TF regulons with the information available

in RegulonDB.

**Specific comments**

-L141-148: the authors should clearly explain in 2-3 sentences the main changes in IPODHR with respect to IPOD (RNA polymerase occupancy correction, etc). What are the main

changes in the analytical framework? It is unclear what the authors meant.

-Fig 2E: authors should evaluate the statistical significance of IPOD-HR occupancy.

-Fig 3B: do the TF modules indicate co-regulation? In other words, do TFs that cluster

together share target genes or they only have similar average occupancy profiles?

Moreover, do the authors use any TF regulon size threshold when computing average

occupancy score? If not, how do the authors correct for overlap between regulons (i.e.

between small regulons and large regulons)?

-L331-333 & Supp. Data S1: the authors, if possible, should include information about TFs

potentially binding to the identified peaks. This information will increase the value of the

data generated in this study.

-L360-365: an important piece of information missing in the current version of the

manuscript is the recall rate for known TF regulons (i.e. how many of the known targets of

each TF was identified by IPOD-HR). This is information is important to validate your

results beyond TF motifs. Additionally, did the IPOD-HR data discover novel targets for

previously characterized TFs? If yes, the authors should describe these findings. Finally,

can the authors evaluate if the reconstructed regulons are supported by transcriptional data

(collected in this study) or publicly available data? This would clarify the function of the

putative binding events.

-L397-406: the authors should evaluate the overlap between regulons associated with newly

inferred motifs and previously characterized TF regulons. This comparison may offer

information about the potential role of the uncharacterized TFs and combinatorial

regulation.

-L530-534: It is unclear to me how you would compensate for the lack of prior information

when using the IPOD-HR technology for reconstructing TRNs of uncharacterized species?

**Minor comments:**

-L60-62: and not all binding events are functional. Especially in the case of TF overexpression commonly used in ChIP-seq experiments.

-Fig 3A: authors should indicate how many target genes were used for estimating the

occupancy of each TF.

-Fig 3C: please add the actual correlation score. Is this anti-correlation a general trend (if

you choose any random genes) or specific for the ArgR and PurR targets?

-L764: please remind the reader why rifampicin is used.

-L828: for how many conditions did the authors perform RNA polymerase ChIP-seq with

samples that were not from the same culture used for IPOD? Can the authors show that

using different samples for IPOD and RNApol ChIP-seq does not change the estimated TF

occupancy profiles?

-L1142: No access to the data (GEO requires a password)

-Table S4: not available.

The reviewer field of expertise is reconstruction of gene regulatory networks.

PLoS Biol. 2021 Jun 25;19(6):e3001306. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001306.r005

Author response to Decision Letter 1

15 Apr 2021

Attachment

Submitted filename: response_to_reviewers_final.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(37.5KB, docx)}

PLoS Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001306.r006

Decision Letter 2

Paula Jauregui, PhD

14 May 2021

Dear Dr. Tavazoie,

Thank you for submitting your revised Methods and Resources entitled "Dynamic landscape of protein occupancy across the Escherichia coli chromosome" for publication in PLOS Biology. I have now obtained advice from two of the original reviewers and have discussed their comments with the Academic Editor.

Based on the reviews, we will probably accept this manuscript for publication, provided you satisfactorily address the remaining points raised by the reviewers. Please also make sure to address the following data and other policy-related requests.

You will see that reviewer #3 would like you to add a column with the information regarding the closest gene to each motif binding site, and asks why the same genome-wide scan of motif binding sites used to generate Supplementary Data 4 cannot be applied to the non-redundant motifs that matched with known DNA binding motifs for E. coli. Please address the remaining issues from reviewer #3.

DATA POLICY:

You may be aware of the PLOS Data Policy, which requires that all data be made available without restriction: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability. For more information, please also see this editorial: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001797

Note that we do not require all raw data. Rather, we ask that all individual quantitative observations that underlie the data summarized in the figures and results of your paper be made available in one of the following forms:

1) Supplementary files (e.g., excel). Please ensure that all data files are uploaded as 'Supporting Information' and are invariably referred to (in the manuscript, figure legends, and the Description field when uploading your files) using the following format verbatim: S1 Data, S2 Data, etc. Multiple panels of a single or even several figures can be included as multiple sheets in one excel file that is saved using exactly the following convention: S1_Data.xlsx (using an underscore).

2) Deposition in a publicly available repository. Please also provide the accession code or a reviewer link so that we may view your data before publication.

Regardless of the method selected, please ensure that you provide the individual numerical values that underlie the summary data displayed in the following figure panels as they are essential for readers to assess your analysis and to reproduce it: Figures 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F, 2G, 3A, 3D, 3E, 3F, 3G, 4A, 4E, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 5G, 5H, 6B, 6E, Supplementary figures 3A, and 3B.

NOTE: the numerical data provided should include all replicates AND the way in which the plotted mean and errors were derived (it should not present only the mean/average values).

Please also ensure that figure legends in your manuscript include information on where the underlying data can be found, and ensure your supplemental data file/s has a legend.

Please ensure that your Data Statement in the submission system accurately describes where your data can be found.

BLOT AND GEL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:

We require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare and upload them now. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements. We will require this for Figure 4C.

As you address these items, please take this last chance to review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the cover letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within two weeks.

To submit your revision, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' to find your submission record. Your revised submission must include the following:

- a cover letter that should detail your responses to any editorial requests, if applicable, and whether changes have been made to the reference list

- a Response to Reviewers file that provides a detailed response to the reviewers' comments (if applicable)

- a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript.

NOTE: If Supporting Information files are included with your article, note that these are not copyedited and will be published as they are submitted. Please ensure that these files are legible and of high quality (at least 300 dpi) in an easily accessible file format. For this reason, please be aware that any references listed in an SI file will not be indexed. For more information, see our Supporting Information guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/supporting-information

*Published Peer Review History*

Please note that you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*Early Version*

Please note that an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you opted out when submitting your manuscript. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online, uncheck the box. Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article.

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Paula

---

Paula Jauregui, PhD,

Associate Editor,

pjaureguionieva@plos.org,

PLOS Biology

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer remarks:

Reviewer #2: Evgeny Nudler. Transcription Elongation and Gene Control.

Reviewer #3: Reconstruction of gene regulatory networks.

Reviewer #2: The authors did a great job addressing every point I made. I support the publication of the manuscript in its present form.

Reviewer #3: The revised manuscript describes the IPOD-HR technology for genome-wide profiling of protein occupancy. The authors comprehensively showed applications of the IPOD-HR method using E. coli as their model system. In this revised version, the authors satisfactorily addressed most of the issues I have previously raised. There are two minor analyses that could benefit the manuscript before acceptance to PLOS Biology:

1. As a method & resource article, would it be possible for authors to add a column with the information regarding the closest gene to each motif binding site listed on Supplementary Data 4? I imagine authors already compiled that information in order to perform the GO enrichment analysis shown in Supplementary Data 5.

2. I understand the authors' response about the current limitations to reconstruct individual TF regulons using a limited set of conditions. However, I still don't understand why the same genome-wide scan of motif binding sites used to generate Supplementary Data 4 cannot be applied to the non-redundant motifs that matched with known DNA binding motifs for E. coli? This could offer potential information about individual (partially characterized) TF regulons. Authors could highlight the caveats they have mentioned so readers are aware of any limitation when interpreting the data.

Minor point:

3. Fig S2 panel labels are missing. Also, authors referred to TF clusters in their response but those are not shown in the figure S2.

PLoS Biol. 2021 Jun 25;19(6):e3001306. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001306.r007

Author response to Decision Letter 2

1 Jun 2021

Attachment

Submitted filename: ipod_response_may2021.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(5.6KB, docx)}

PLoS Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001306.r008

Decision Letter 3

Paula Jauregui, PhD

2 Jun 2021

Dear Dr. Tavazoie,

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Matthew K. Waldor, I am pleased to say that we can in principle offer to publish your Methods and Resources "Dynamic landscape of protein occupancy across the Escherichia coli chromosome" in PLOS Biology, provided you address any remaining formatting and reporting issues. These will be detailed in an email that will follow this letter and that you will usually receive within 2-3 business days, during which time no action is required from you. Please note that we will not be able to formally accept your manuscript and schedule it for publication until you have made the required changes.

Please take a minute to log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process.

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with biologypress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing. We look forward to publishing your paper in PLOS Biology.

Sincerely,

Paula

---

Paula Jauregui, PhD

Associate Editor

PLOS Biology

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

S1 Text. Additional information on the effects of RNA polymerase on large-scale protein occupancy.

Data Availability Statement

All sequencing data and analysis related to the manuscript have been deposited at the Gene Expression Omnibus under accession GSE142291.

[pbio.3001306.ref001] 1.Browning DF, Butala M, Busby SJW. Bacterial Transcription Factors: Regulation by Pick “N” Mix. J Mol Biol. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2019.04.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref002] 2.Lee DJ, Minchin SD, Busby SJW. Activating transcription in bacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2012;66:125–52. doi: 10.1146/annurev-micro-092611-150012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref003] 3.Gruber TM, Gross CA. Multiple sigma subunits and the partitioning of bacterial transcription space. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2003;57:441–66. doi: 10.1146/annurev.micro.57.030502.090913 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref004] 4.Murakami KS, Darst SA. Bacterial RNA polymerases: the wholo story. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2003;13:31–9. doi: 10.1016/s0959-440x(02)00005-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref005] 5.Shen BA, Landick R. Transcription of Bacterial Chromatin. J Mol Biol. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2019.05.041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref006] 6.Ishihama A, Shimada T, Yamazaki Y. Transcription profile of Escherichia coli: genomic SELEX search for regulatory targets of transcription factors. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:2058–74. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw051 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref007] 7.Gama-Castro S, Salgado H, Santos-Zavaleta A, Ledezma-Tejeida D, Muñiz-Rascado L, García-Sotelo JS, et al. RegulonDB version 9.0: high-level integration of gene regulation, coexpression, motif clustering and beyond. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:D133–43. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv1156 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref008] 8.Larsen SJ, Röttger R, Schmidt HHHW, Baumbach J. E. coli gene regulatory networks are inconsistent with gene expression data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:85–92. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky1176 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref009] 9.Mejía-Almonte C, Busby SJW, Wade JT, van J, Arkin AP, Stormo GD, et al. Redefining fundamental concepts of transcription initiation in bacteria. Nat Rev Genet. 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41576-020-0254-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref010] 10.Vora T, Hottes AK, Tavazoie S. Protein occupancy landscape of a bacterial genome. Mol Cell. 2009;35:247–53. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2009.06.035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref011] 11.Giresi PG, Kim J, McDaniell RM, Iyer VR, Lieb JD. FAIRE (The Formaldehyde-Assisted Isolation of Regulatory Elements) isolates active regulatory elements from human chromatin. Genome Res. 2007;17:877–85. doi: 10.1101/gr.5533506 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref012] 12.Meng LM, Nygaard P. Identification of hypoxanthine and guanine as the co-repressors for the purine regulon genes of Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol. 1990;4:2187–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.1990.tb00580.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref013] 13.Cho B-K, Federowicz SA, Embree M, Park Y-S, Kim D, Palsson BØ. The PurR regulon in Escherichia coli K-12 MG1655. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39:6456–64. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr307 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref014] 14.Tian G, Lim D, Carey J, Maas WK. Binding of the arginine repressor of Escherichia coli K12 to its operator sites. J Mol Biol. 1992;226:387–97. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(92)90954-i [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref015] 15.Charlier D, Roovers M, Van F, Boyen A, Cunin R, Nakamura Y, et al. Arginine regulon of Escherichia coli K-12. A study of repressor-operator interactions and of in vitro binding affinities versus in vivo repression. J Mol Biol. 1992;226:367–86. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(92)90953-h [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref016] 16.Stragier P, Danos O, Patte JC. Regulation of diaminopimelate decarboxylase synthesis in Escherichia coli. II. Nucleotide sequence of the lysA gene and its regulatory region. J Mol Biol. 1983;168:321–31. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2836(83)80021-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref017] 17.Van GD, Ghosh G, Maas WK, Sigler PB. Structure of the oligomerization and L-arginine binding domain of the arginine repressor of Escherichia coli. J Mol Biol. 1996;256:377–91. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0093 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref018] 18.Rolfes RJ, Zalkin H. Purification of the Escherichia coli purine regulon repressor and identification of corepressors. J Bacteriol. 1990;172:5637–42. doi: 10.1128/jb.172.10.5637-5642.1990 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref019] 19.Shimada T, Hirao K, Kori A, Yamamoto K, Ishihama A. RutR is the uracil/thymine-sensing master regulator of a set of genes for synthesis and degradation of pyrimidines. Mol Microbiol. 2007;66:744–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2007.05954.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref020] 20.Pedersen H, Søgaard-Andersen L, Holst B, Valentin-Hansen P. Heterologous cooperativity in Escherichia coli. The CytR repressor both contacts DNA and the cAMP receptor protein when binding to the deoP2 promoter. J Biol Chem. 1991;266:17804–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref021] 21.Gerlach P, Søgaard-Andersen L, Pedersen H, Martinussen J, Valentin-Hansen P, Bremer E. The cyclic AMP (cAMP)-cAMP receptor protein complex functions both as an activator and as a corepressor at the tsx-p2 promoter of Escherichia coli K-12. J Bacteriol. 1991;173:5419–30. doi: 10.1128/jb.173.17.5419-5430.1991 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref022] 22.Gunsalus RP, Park SJ. Aerobic-anaerobic gene regulation in Escherichia coli: control by the ArcAB and Fnr regulons. Res Microbiol. 1994;145:437–50. doi: 10.1016/0923-2508(94)90092-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref023] 23.Iuchi S, Lin EC. Adaptation of Escherichia coli to redox environments by gene expression. Mol Microbiol. 1993;9:9–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.1993.tb01664.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref024] 24.Kroner GM, Wolfe MB, Freddolino PL. Escherichia coli Lrp regulates one-third of the genome via direct, cooperative, and indirect routes. J Bacteriol. 2018. doi: 10.1128/JB.00411-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref025] 25.Karp PD, Weaver D, Paley S, Fulcher C, Kubo A, Kothari A, et al. The EcoCyc Database. EcoSal Plus. 2014;6. doi: 10.1128/ecosalplus.ESP-0009-2013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref026] 26.Solomon MJ, Varshavsky A. Formaldehyde-mediated DNA-protein crosslinking: a probe for in vivo chromatin structures. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1985;82:6470–4. doi: 10.1073/pnas.82.19.6470 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref027] 27.McClure WR, Cech CL. On the mechanism of rifampicin inhibition of RNA synthesis. J Biol Chem. 1978;253:8949–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref028] 28.Pique-Regi R, Degner JF, Pai AA, Gaffney DJ, Gilad Y, Pritchard JK. Accurate inference of transcription factor binding from DNA sequence and chromatin accessibility data. Genome Res. 2011;21:447–55. doi: 10.1101/gr.112623.110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref029] 29.Shimada T, Ogasawara H, Ishihama A. Genomic SELEX Screening of Regulatory Targets of Escherichia coli Transcription Factors. Methods Mol Biol. 2018;1837:49–69. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-8675-0_4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref030] 30.Belliveau NM, Barnes SL, Ireland WT, Jones DL, Sweredoski MJ, Moradian A, et al. Systematic approach for dissecting the molecular mechanisms of transcriptional regulation in bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115:E4796–805. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1722055115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref031] 31.Gao Y, Yurkovich JT, Seo SW, Kabimoldayev I, Dräger A, Chen K, et al. Systematic discovery of uncharacterized transcription factors in Escherichia coli K-12 MG1655. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46:10682–96. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky752 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref032] 32.Sastry AV, Gao Y, Szubin R, Hefner Y, Xu S, Kim D, et al. The Escherichia coli transcriptome mostly consists of independently regulated modules. Nat Commun. 2019;10:5536. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-13483-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref033] 33.Kass RE, Raftery AE. Bayes Factors. J Am Stat Assoc. 1995;90:773–95. [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref034] 34.Wu CH, Apweiler R, Bairoch A, Natale DA, Barker WC, Boeckmann B, et al. The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt): an expanding universe of protein information. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34:D187–91. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkj161 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref035] 35.Elemento O, Slonim N, Tavazoie SA. Universal Framework for Regulatory Element Discovery across All Genomes and Data Types. Mol Cell. 2007:337–50. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2007.09.027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref036] 36.Gupta S, Stamatoyannopoulos JA, Bailey TL, Noble WS. Quantifying similarity between motifs. Genome Biol. 2007;8:R24. doi: 10.1186/gb-2007-8-2-r24 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref037] 37.Goodarzi H, Elemento O, Tavazoie S. Revealing global regulatory perturbations across human cancers. Mol Cell. 2009;36:900–11. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2009.11.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref038] 38.Scholz SA, Diao R, Wolfe MB, Fivenson EM, Lin XN, Freddolino PL. High-Resolution Mapping of the Escherichia coli Chromosome Reveals Positions of High and Low Transcription. Cell Syst. 2019;8:212, e9–25. doi: 10.1016/j.cels.2019.02.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref039] 39.Buenrostro JD, Wu B, Chang HY, Greenleaf WJ. ATAC-seq: A Method for Assaying Chromatin Accessibility Genome-Wide. Curr Protoc Mol Biol. 2015;109:21.29.1–9. doi: 10.1002/0471142727.mb2129s109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref040] 40.Whitfield CR, Wardle SJ, Haniford DB. The global bacterial regulator H-NS promotes transpososome formation and transposition in the Tn5 system. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37:309–21. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkn935 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref041] 41.Tavazoie S, Church GM. Quantitative whole-genome analysis of DNA-protein interactions by in vivo methylase protection in E. coli. Nat Biotechnol. 1998;16:566–71. doi: 10.1038/nbt0698-566 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref042] 42.Navarre WW, McClelland M, Libby SJ, Fang FC. Silencing of xenogeneic DNA by H-NS-facilitation of lateral gene transfer in bacteria by a defense system that recognizes foreign DNA. Genes Dev. 2007;21:1456–71. doi: 10.1101/gad.1543107 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref043] 43.Navarre WW, Porwollik S, Wang Y, McClelland M, Rosen H, Libby SJ, et al. Selective silencing of foreign DNA with low GC content by the H-NS protein in Salmonella. Science. 2006;313:236–8. doi: 10.1126/science.1128794 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref044] 44.Kahramanoglou C, Seshasayee ASN, Prieto AI, Ibberson D, Schmidt S, Zimmermann J, et al. Direct and indirect effects of H-NS and Fis on global gene expression control in Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011:2073–91. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq934 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref045] 45.Ling G, Waxman DJ, DNase I. Digestion of Isolated Nuclei for Genome-Wide Mapping of DNase Hypersensitivity Sites in Chromatin. Methods Mol Biol. 2013:21–33. doi: 10.1007/978-1-62703-284-1_3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref046] 46.Mieczkowski J, Cook A, Bowman SK, Mueller B, Alver BH, Kundu S, et al. MNase titration reveals differences between nucleosome occupancy and chromatin accessibility. Nat Commun. 2016;7:11485. doi: 10.1038/ncomms11485 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref047] 47.Melfi MD, Lasker K, Zhou X, Shapiro L. ATAC-seq reveals megabase-scale domains of a bacterial nucleoid. bioRxiv. 2021. p. 2021.01.09.426053. doi: 10.1101/2021.01.09.426053 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref048] 48.Al-Bassam MM, Moyne O, Chapin N, Zengler K. Nucleoid openness profiling links bacterial genome structure to phenotype. bioRxiv. 2020. p. 2020.05.07.082990. doi: 10.1101/2020.05.07.082990 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref049] 49.Freddolino P, Goss TJ, Amemiya HM, Tavazoie S. Dynamic landscape of protein occupancy across the Escherichia coli chromosome. bioRxiv. 2020. Available from: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.29.924811v1.abstract. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref050] 50.Fang X, Sastry A, Mih N, Kim D, Tan J, Yurkovich JT, et al. Global transcriptional regulatory network for Escherichia coli robustly connects gene expression to transcription factor activities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114:10286–91. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1702581114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref051] 51.Singh SS, Singh N, Bonocora RP, Fitzgerald DM, Wade JT, Grainger DC. Widespread suppression of intragenic transcription initiation by H-NS. Genes Dev. 2014;28:214–9. doi: 10.1101/gad.234336.113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref052] 52.Kotlajich MV, Hron DR, Boudreau BA, Sun Z, Lyubchenko YL, Landick R. Bridged filaments of histone-like nucleoid structuring protein pause RNA polymerase and aid termination in bacteria. Elife. 2015;4. doi: 10.7554/eLife.04970 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref053] 53.Landick R, Wade JT, Grainger DC. H-NS and RNA polymerase: a love—hate relationship? Curr Opin Microbiol. 2015;24:53–9. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2015.01.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref054] 54.Atlung T, Ingmer H. H-NS: a modulator of environmentally regulated gene expression. Mol Microbiol. 1997;24:7–17. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.1997.3151679.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref055] 55.Ono S, Goldberg MD, Olsson T, Esposito D, Hinton JCD, Ladbury JE. H-NS is a part of a thermally controlled mechanism for bacterial gene regulation. Biochem J. 2005;391:203–13. doi: 10.1042/BJ20050453 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref056] 56.Freddolino PL, Amini S, Tavazoie S. Newly identified genetic variations in common Escherichia coli MG1655 stock cultures. J Bacteriol. 2012;194:303–6. doi: 10.1128/JB.06087-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref057] 57.Ausubel FM. Current Protocols in Molecular Biology. John Wiley & Sons; 1998. [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref058] 58.Baba T, Ara T, Hasegawa M, Takai Y, Okumura Y, Baba M, et al. Construction of Escherichia coli K-12 in-frame, single-gene knockout mutants: the Keio collection. Mol Syst Biol. 2006;2 (2006):0008. doi: 10.1038/msb4100050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref059] 59.Cherepanov PP, Wackernagel W. Gene disruption in Escherichia coli: TcR and KmR cassettes with the option of Flp-catalyzed excision of the antibiotic-resistance determinant. Gene. 1995;158:9–14. doi: 10.1016/0378-1119(95)00193-a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref060] 60.Huisman O D ’Ari R. An inducible DNA replication–cell division coupling mechanism in E. coli. Nature. 1981;290:797–9. doi: 10.1038/290797a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref061] 61.Huisman O D ’Ari R, Gottesman S. Cell-division control in Escherichia coli: specific induction of the SOS function SfiA protein is sufficient to block septation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1984;81:4490–4. doi: 10.1073/pnas.81.14.4490 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref062] 62.Gibson DG, Young L, Chuang R-Y, Venter JC, Hutchison CA, Smith HO. Enzymatic assembly of DNA molecules up to several hundred kilobases. Nat Methods. 2009;6:343–5. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1318 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref063] 63.Neidhardt FC, Bloch PL, Smith DF. Culture medium for enterobacteria. J Bacteriol. 1974;119:736–47. doi: 10.1128/jb.119.3.736-747.1974 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref064] 64.Mooney RA, Davis SE, Peters JM, Rowland JL, Ansari AZ, Landick R. Regulator trafficking on bacterial transcription units in vivo. Mol Cell. 2009;33:97–108. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2008.12.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref065] 65.Tange O. Gnu parallel-the command-line power tool. The USENIX Magazine. 2011;36:42–7. [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref066] 66.Martin M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J. 2011;17:10–2. [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref067] 67.Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2114–20. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref068] 68.Andrews S, Others. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. Babraham Bioinformatics, Babraham Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom; 2010. [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref069] 69.Ewels P, Magnusson M, Lundin S, Käller M. MultiQC: summarize analysis results for multiple tools and samples in a single report. Bioinformatics. 2016;32:3047–8. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw354 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref070] 70.Du P, Kibbe WA, Lin SM. Improved peak detection in mass spectrum by incorporating continuous wavelet transform-based pattern matching. Bioinformatics. 2006;22:2059–65. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl355 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref071] 71.Slonim N, Atwal GS, Tkacik G, Bialek W. Information-based clustering. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:18297–302. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507432102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref072] 72.Pimentel H, Bray NL, Puente S, Melsted P, Pachter L. Differential analysis of RNA-seq incorporating quantification uncertainty. Nat Methods. 2017;14:687–90. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.4324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref073] 73.Quinlan AR. BEDTools: the Swiss-army tool for genome feature analysis. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics. 2014;47:11–2. doi: 10.1002/0471250953.bi1112s47 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref074] 74.Grant CE, Bailey TL, Noble WS. FIMO. scanning for occurrences of a given motif. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:1017–8. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr064 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref075] 75.Pachkov M, Balwierz PJ, Arnold P, Ozonov E, van Nimwegen E. SwissRegulon, a database of genome-wide annotations of regulatory sites: recent updates. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:D214–20. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1145 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref076] 76.Castro-Mondragon JA, Jaeger S, Thieffry D, Thomas-Chollier M. van Helden J. RSAT matrix-clustering: dynamic exploration and redundancy reduction of transcription factor binding motif collections. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:e119. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkx314 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref077] 77.Kawano M, Aravind L, Storz G. An antisense RNA controls synthesis of an SOS-induced toxin evolved from an antitoxin. Mol Microbiol. 2007;64:738–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2007.05688.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref078] 78.Thibodeau SA, Fang R, Joung JK. High-throughput beta-galactosidase assay for bacterial cell-based reporter systems. Biotechniques. 2004;36:410–5. doi: 10.2144/04363BM07 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref079] 79.Bürkner P-C. brms: An R Package for Bayesian Multilevel Models Using Stan. J Stat Softw. 2017;80:1–28. [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref080] 80.Breunig MM, Kriegel H-P, Ng RT, Sander J. LOF: identifying density-based local outliers. Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery; 2000. pp. 93–104. [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref081] 81.Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, et al. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. J Mach Learn Res. 2011;12:2825–30. [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3001306.ref082] 82.Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 1995;57:289–300. [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Dynamic landscape of protein occupancy across the Escherichia coli chromosome

Peter L Freddolino

Haley M Amemiya

Thomas J Goss

Saeed Tavazoie

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Results

Global high-resolution profiling of condition-dependent transcription factor occupancy across the E. coli chromosome

Fig 1. Schematic of IPOD-HR technology and detection of context-dependent binding by the TF PurR.

Local and large-scale protein occupancy patterns across the E. coli chromosome

Fig 2. IPOD-HR profiles reveal rich high-resolution occupancy dynamics and large-scale structural features across the chromosome.

Transcription factor and sigma factor occupancy dynamics across genetic and environmental perturbations

Fig 3. IPOD-HR profiles reveal global binding activity of known TFs and sigma factors.

Global occupancy dynamics reveals the action of new DNA-binding proteins

Fig 4. Experimental identification of the protein bound to a novel occupancy peak upstream of the sdaC promoter.

Global de novo discovery of sequence specificity motifs for active transcription factors

Fig 5. Genome-wide de novo discovery of sequence specificity motifs for actively bound TFs.

Extended protein occupancy domains define distinct and largely stable transcriptionally silent regions with unique sequence features

Fig 6. EPODs define stable genomic structures and are associated with many distinct features.

Fig 7. EPODs are statistically enriched for genes in specific functional categories.

Discussion

Methods

Strain construction

Media/culture conditions

Cell growth and harvest for IPOD-HR

Cell lysis and DNA preparation

IPOD-HR interface extraction

RNA polymerase chromatin immunoprecipitation

Cross-linking reversal and recovery of DNA

Preparation of next-generation sequencing (NGS) libraries

RNA isolation and RNA-seq sample preparation

Analysis of NGS data

Read quality control and preprocessing

DNA sequencing and protein occupancy calling

Feature calling

Transcription factor co-clustering analysis

RNA sequencing and differential expression calling

TFBS comparison

Motif identification

In vitro pulldown of unidentified transcription factors

Miller assay

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Author response to previous submission

Decision Letter 0

Paula Jauregui, PhD

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Paula Jauregui, PhD

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Paula Jauregui, PhD

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 2

Decision Letter 3

Paula Jauregui, PhD

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases