Control of the Escherichia coli rrnB P1 Promoter Strength by ppGpp

Abstract

Fusions of the rrnB P1 and P2 promoters, and of the tandem P1-P2 combination, to a wild-type lacZ gene were constructed on plasmids and recombined into the mal region of the bacterial chromosome, close to the normal location and in the normal orientation of rrnB. The upstream activator region (Fis-binding sites) was always present with the P1 promoter, and all constructs contained the box A antitermination site of rRNA genes. Using these constructs, beta-galactosidase specific activities were measured in Escherichia coli strains carrying either both ppGpp synthetases, PSI and PSII (relA+ spoT+), or only PSII (delta relA spoT+), or neither (delta relA delta spoT), using different media supporting growth rates between 0.6 and 2.8 doublings/h at 37 degrees C. The beta-galactosidase activities were used to estimate the relative strength of the rrnB P1 promoter in comparison to the isolated rrnB P2 promoter. Promoter strength (transcripts initiated per min per promoter per free RNA polymerase concentration) was distinguished from promoter activity (transcripts initiated per min per promoter). In ppGpp-synthesizing (wild-type) bacteria, the relative strength of the rrnB P1 promoter increased nearly 10-fold with increasing growth rate from 0.17 to 1.5, but in the ppGpp-less double mutants it decreased by 20% from 1.7 to 1.5. Thus, at low or zero levels of ppGpp, the P1 promoter was 1.5-1.7 times stronger than the isolated P2 promoter. These results indicate that the normal growth rate control of the rrnB P1 promoter strength requires ppGpp, and that the strength is reduced at basal levels of ppGpp found during exponential growth. No additional ppGpp-independent control of the rrnB P1 promoter strength was evident. From the beta-galactosidase data and previously determined values of rRNA gene activities, the activities of the isolated rrnB P1 and P2 promoters, and of the P2 promoter in the tandem combination, were estimated. With increasing growth rate, the activity of the isolated P2 promoter increased 6-fold from 6 to 33 initiations/min, while the activity of the isolated P1 promoter increased 24-fold from 2 to 54 initiations/min. The increasing activity of the isolated P2 promoter is assumed to reflect the increasing RNA polymerase concentration at constant promoter strength, whereas the steeper increase in P1 promoter activity reflects increases in both polymerase concentration and promoter strength. When in tandem with P1, the P2 promoter activity is inferred to decrease as the P1 promoter activity increases.