Sarah E. Ades

The Rcs Phosphorelay Is a Cell Envelope Stress Response Activated by Peptidoglycan Stress and Contributes to Intrinsic Antibiotic Resistance

Gram-negative bacteria possess stress responses to maintain the integrity of the cell envelope. Stress sensors monitor outer membrane permeability, envelope protein folding, and energization of the inner membrane. The systems used by gram-negative bacteria to sense and combat stress resulting from disruption of the peptidoglycan layer are not well characterized. The peptidoglycan layer is a single molecule that completely surrounds the cell and ensures its structural integrity. During cell growth, new peptidoglycan subunits are incorporated into the peptidoglycan layer by a series of enzymes called the penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs). To explore how gram-negative bacteria respond to peptidoglycan stress, global gene expression analysis was used to identify Escherichia coli stress responses activated following inhibition of specific PBPs by the beta-lactam antibiotics amdinocillin (mecillinam) and cefsulodin. Inhibition of PBPs with different roles in peptidoglycan synthesis has different consequences for cell morphology and viability, suggesting that not all perturbations to the peptidoglycan layer generate equivalent stresses. We demonstrate that inhibition of different PBPs resulted in both shared and unique stress responses. The regulation of capsular synthesis (Rcs) phosphorelay was activated by inhibition of all PBPs tested. Furthermore, we show that activation of the Rcs phosphorelay increased survival in the presence of these antibiotics, independently of capsule synthesis. Both activation of the phosphorelay and survival required signal transduction via the outer membrane lipoprotein RcsF and the response regulator RcsB. We propose that the Rcs pathway responds to peptidoglycan damage and contributes to the intrinsic resistance of E. coli to beta-lactam antibiotics.

Regulation by destruction: design of the σE envelope stress response

The signal transduction pathway governing the sigma(E)-dependent cell envelope stress response in Escherichia coli communicates information from the periplasm to sigma(E) in the cytoplasm via a regulated proteolytic cascade that results in the destruction of the membrane-bound antisigma factor, RseA, and the release of sigma(E) to direct transcription. Regulated proteolysis is used for signal transduction in all domains of life, and these pathways bear remarkable similarities in their architecture and the proteases involved. Work with the pathway governing the sigma(E) response has elucidated key design principles that ensure a rapid yet graded response that is buffered from inappropriate activation. Structural and biochemical studies of the proteases that mediate signal transduction reveal the molecular underpinnings enabling this design.

The Extracytoplasmic Stress Factor, σE, Is Required to Maintain Cell Envelope Integrity in Escherichia coli

Extracytoplasmic function or ECF sigma factors are the most abundant class of alternative sigma factors in bacteria. Members of the rpoE subclass of ECF sigma factors are implicated in sensing stress in the cell envelope of Gram-negative bacteria and are required for virulence in many pathogens. The best-studied member of this family is rpoE from Escherichia coli, encoding the σE protein. σE has been well studied for its role in combating extracytoplasmic stress, and the members of its regulon have been largely defined. σE is required for viability of E. coli, yet none of the studies to date explain why σE is essential in seemingly unstressed cells. In this work we investigate the essential role of σE in E. coli by analyzing the phenotypes associated with loss of σE activity and isolating suppressors that allow cells to live in the absence of σE. We demonstrate that when σE is inhibited, cell envelope stress increases and envelope integrity is lost. Many cells lyse and some develop blebs containing cytoplasmic material along their sides. To better understand the connection between transcription by σE and cell envelope integrity, we identified two multicopy suppressors of the essentiality of σE, ptsN and yhbW. yhbW is a gene of unknown function, while ptsN is a member of the σE regulon. Overexpression of ptsN lowers the basal level of multiple envelope stress responses, but not that of a cytoplasmic stress response. Our results are consistent with a model in which overexpression of ptsN reduces stress in the cell envelope, thereby promoting survival in the absence of σE.

PpGpp and DksA likely regulate the activity of the extracytoplasmic stress factor σE in Escherichia coli by both direct and indirect mechanisms

One of the major signalling pathways responsible for intercompartmental communication between the cell envelope and cytoplasm in Escherichia coli is mediated by the alternative sigma factor, σE. σE has been studied primarily for its role in response to the misfolding of outer membrane porins. This response is essentially reactionary; cells are stressed, porin folding is disrupted, and the response is activated. σE can also be activated following starvation for a variety of nutrients by the alarmone ppGpp. This response is proactive, as σE is activated in the absence of any obvious damage to the cell envelope sensed by the stress signalling pathway. Here we examine the mechanism of regulation of σE by ppGpp. ppGpp has been proposed to activate at least two alternative sigma factors, σN and σS, indirectly by altering the competition for core RNA polymerase between the alternative sigma factors and the housekeeping sigma factor, σ70. In vivo experiments with σE are consistent with this model. However, ppGpp and its cofactor DksA can also activate transcription by EσEin vitro, suggesting that the effects of ppGpp on σE activity are both direct and indirect.

Regulation of the Alternative Sigma Factor σE during Initiation, Adaptation, and Shutoff of the Extracytoplasmic Heat Shock Response in Escherichia coli

The alternative sigma factor sigma(E) is activated in response to stress in the extracytoplasmic compartment of Escherichia coli. Here we show that sigma(E) activity increases upon initiation of the stress response by a shift to an elevated temperature (43 degrees C) and remains at that level for the duration of the stress. When the stress is removed by a temperature downshift, sigma(E) activity is strongly repressed and then slowly returns to levels seen in unstressed cells. We provide evidence that information about the state of the cell envelope is communicated to sigma(E) primarily through the regulated proteolysis of the inner membrane anti-sigma factor RseA, as the degradation rate of RseA is correlated with the changes in sigma(E) activity throughout the stress response. However, the relationship between sigma(E) activity and the rate of degradation of RseA is complex, indicating that other factors may cooperate with RseA and serve to fine-tune the response.

Promoter Strength Properties of the Complete Sigma E Regulon of Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica

The sigma(E)-directed envelope stress response maintains outer membrane homeostasis and is an important virulence determinant upon host infection in Escherichia coli and related bacteria. sigma(E) is activated by at least two distinct mechanisms: accumulation of outer membrane porin precursors and an increase in the alarmone ppGpp upon transition to stationary phase. Expression of the sigma(E) regulon is driven from a suite of approximately 60 sigma(E)-dependent promoters. Using green fluorescent protein fusions to each of these promoters, we dissected promoter contributions to the output of the regulon under a variety of in vivo conditions. We found that the sigma(E) promoters exhibit a large dynamic range, with a few strong and many weak promoters. Interestingly, the strongest promoters control either transcriptional regulators or functions related to porin homeostasis, the very functions conserved among E. coli and its close relatives. We found that (i) the strength of most promoters is significantly affected by the presence of the upstream (-35 to -65) region of the promoter, which encompasses the UP element, a binding site for the C-terminal domain of the alpha-subunit of RNA polymerase; (ii) ppGpp generally activates sigma(E) promoters, and (iii) sigma(E) promoters are responsive to changing sigma(E) holoenzyme levels under physiological conditions, reinforcing the idea that the sigma(E) regulon is extremely dynamic, enabling cellular adaptation to a constantly changing environment.

Regulated Proteolysis: Control of the Escherichia coli σ E -Dependent Cell Envelope Stress Response

Over the past decade, regulatory proteolysis has emerged as a paradigm for transmembrane signal transduction in all organisms, from bacteria to humans. These conserved proteolytic pathways share a common design that involves the sequential proteolysis of a membrane-bound regulatory protein by two proteases. Proteolysis releases the regulator, which is inactive in its membrane-bound form, into the cytoplasm where it performs its cellular function. One of the best-characterized examples of signal transduction via regulatory proteolysis is the pathway governing the σ(E)-dependent cell envelope stress response in Escherichia coli. In unstressed cells, σ(E) is sequestered at the membrane by the transmembrane anti-sigma factor, RseA. Stresses that compromise the cell envelope and interfere with the proper folding of outer membrane proteins (OMPs) activate the proteolytic pathway. The C-terminal residues of unfolded OMPs bind to the inner membrane protease, DegS, to initiate the proteolytic cascade. DegS removes the periplasmic domain of RseA creating a substrate for the next protease in the pathway, RseP. RseP cleaves RseA in the periplasmic region in a process called regulated intramembrane proteolysis (RIP). The remaining fragment of RseA is released into the cytoplasm and fully degraded by the ATP-dependent protease, ClpXP, with the assistance of the adaptor protein, SspB, thereby freeing σ(E) to reprogram gene expression. A growing body of evidence indicates that the overall proteolytic framework that governs the σ(E) response is used to regulate similar anti-sigma factor/sigma factor pairs throughout the bacterial world and has been adapted to recognize a wide variety of signals and control systems as diverse as envelope stress responses, sporulation, virulence, and iron-siderophore uptake. In this chapter, we review the extensive physiological, biochemical, and structural studies on the σ(E) system that provide remarkable insights into the mechanistic underpinnings of this regulated proteolytic signal transduction pathway. These studies reveal design principles that are applicable to related proteases and regulatory proteolytic pathways in all domains of life.

Physiological Response to Membrane Protein Overexpression in E. coli

Overexpression represents a principal bottleneck in structural and functional studies of integral membrane proteins (IMPs). Although E. coli remains the leading organism for convenient and economical protein overexpression, many IMPs exhibit toxicity on induction in this host and give low yields of properly folded protein. Different mechanisms related to membrane biogenesis and IMP folding have been proposed to contribute to these problems, but there is limited understanding of the physical and physiological constraints on IMP overexpression and folding in vivo. Therefore, we used a variety of genetic, genomic, and microscopy techniques to characterize the physiological responses of Escherichia coli MG1655 cells to overexpression of a set of soluble proteins and IMPs, including constructs exhibiting different levels of toxicity and producing different levels of properly folded versus misfolded product on induction. Genetic marker studies coupled with transcriptomic results indicate only minor perturbations in many of the physiological systems implicated in previous studies of IMP biogenesis. Overexpression of either IMPs or soluble proteins tends to block execution of the standard stationary-phase transcriptional program, although these effects are consistently stronger for the IMPs included in our study. However, these perturbations are not an impediment to successful protein overexpression. We present evidence that, at least for the target proteins included in our study, there is no inherent obstacle to IMP overexpression in E. coli at moderate levels suitable for structural studies and that the biochemical and conformational properties of the proteins themselves are the major obstacles to success. Toxicity associated with target protein activity produces selective pressure leading to preferential growth of cells harboring expression-reducing and inactivating mutations, which can produce chemical heterogeneity in the target protein population, potentially contributing to the difficulties encountered in IMP crystallization.

Proteolysis: Adaptor, Adaptor, Catch Me a Catch

The ClpXP protease of bacteria can degrade a wide variety of proteins while maintaining remarkable substrate selectivity. New work in Escherichia coli implicates adaptor proteins in enhancing substrate selectivity and regulating the flow of substrates to cellular proteases.

Co-ordinated regulation of the extracytoplasmic stress factor, sigmaE, with other Escherichia coli sigma factors by (p)ppGpp and DksA may be achieved by specific regulation of individual holoenzymes.

The E. coli alternative sigma factor, σE, transcribes genes required to maintain the cell envelope and is activated by conditions that destabilize the envelope. σE is also activated during entry into stationary phase in the absence of envelope stress by the alarmone (p)ppGpp. (p)ppGpp controls a large regulatory network, reducing expression of σ70‐dependent genes required for rapid growth and activating σ70‐dependent and alternative sigma factor‐dependent genes required for stress survival. The DksA protein often potentiates the effects of (p)ppGpp. Here we examine regulation of σE by (p)ppGpp and DksA following starvation for nutrients. We find that (p)ppGpp is required for increased σE activity under all conditions tested, but the requirement for DksA varies. DksA is required during amino acid starvation, but is dispensable during phosphate starvation. In contrast, regulation of σS is (p)ppGpp‐ and DksA‐dependent under all conditions tested, while negative regulation of σ70 is DksA‐ but not (p)ppGpp‐dependent during phosphate starvation, yet requires both factors during amino acid starvation. These findings suggest that the mechanism of transcriptional regulation by (p)ppGpp and/or DksA cannot yet be explained by a unifying model and is specific to individual promoters, individual holoenzymes, and specific starvation conditions.