(Received for publication, August 28, 1995; and in revised form, January 5, 1996)
From the
Lrp (Leucine-responsive regulatory protein) regulates the expression of a number of operons in Escherichia coli. A recent study of DNA sequences recognized by Lrp established the consensus as a 15-bp sequence, YAGHAWATTWTDCTR (Y = C/T, H = ``not G,'' W = A/T, D =``not C,'' R = A/G) (Cui, Y., Wang, Q., Stormo, G. D., and Calvo, J. M. (1995) J. Bacteriol. 177, 4872-4880). Here we report the stoichiometry of Lrp binding (an Lrp dimer binds to a single binding site) and studies that define the minimal length of DNA required for binding. A double-stranded 15 mer having a sequence that closely matches the consensus does not show measurable binding to Lrp. One or two base pairs of DNA flanking each end are not sufficient for binding, but constructs having 3-5 additional base pairs (21 mer) show relatively strong binding. Single-stranded flanking DNA also contributes to strong binding. The extent of the contribution to binding is dependent upon whether the single strand is on the left or right of the double-stranded region and whether the polarity of the single-stranded DNA is 5` to 3` or 3` to 5`.
Lrp (Leucine-responsive regulatory protein) ()is a recently recognized global
regulator of metabolism in Escherichia coli (reviewed in (1) and (2) ). It acts negatively to reduce expression
of some operons and positively to increase expression of others. In
general, Lrp appears to stimulate expression of operons that function
in biosynthetic pathways and to repress expression of those that
function in catabolic pathways. In addition, the expression of many
Lrp-related operons is affected by L-leucine. In some cases,
leucine overcomes the effect of Lrp, in other cases it is required for
the effect, and in yet other cases it does not seem to influence the
effect of Lrp(1, 2) .
Lrp has a monomer molecular mass of 18.8 kDa, and at a concentration of 10 µM it exists as a dimer in solution(3) . It is a moderately abundant protein in E. coli grown in a minimal medium (about 3000 dimers/cell)(3) .
The binding of Lrp in vitro to DNA upstream of fimA(4) , ilvIH(5) , lysU(6, 7) , ompC-micF(8) , and pap(9) has been studied by DNase I footprinting. In each case, Lrp perturbs the structure of DNA over a region of 100 bp or more. For the case of ilvIH, Lrp binds to six distinct sites, and the binding is highly cooperative to two groups of those sites(10) . Lrp induces a bend of about 50° in binding to a single site(5) .
A preliminary consensus sequence was derived from a comparison of 12 sites to which Lrp was shown to bind in MPE footprinting experiments (11) . That consensus sequence was confirmed and extended by analyzing 63 sequences obtained using the ``Selex'' procedure of Tuerk and Gold (12, 13) . The consensus, YAGHAWATTWTDCTR (Y = C/T, H =``not G,'' W = A/T, D =``not C,'' R = A/G), is 15 bp in length and is palindromic in part. The central 5 bp are predominantly ATs, with the As distributed mostly on one strand and the Ts on the other.
Here we investigate further the requirements for Lrp interaction with a single binding site. We demonstrate that a double-stranded 15 mer having a sequence that closely matches the consensus does not bind Lrp and that flanking DNA sequences are required for strong binding. Surprisingly, single-stranded DNA in some cases provides the extra energy required for strong binding. In addition, we performed stoichiometry experiments that demonstrate that a single Lrp binding site binds one Lrp dimer.
Radioactive Lrp was prepared by in
vitro transcription and translation in the presence of
[H]leucine. Plasmid pCV225, containing the lrp gene downstream of a phage T7 promoter, was constructed as
follows. The lrp gene from plasmid pCV180 (15) was cut
out with EcoRI and BamHI and cloned between the same
sites of plasmid pYFC-0 (a derivative of pBS II SK
, in
which the lac operator was deleted)(16) . Plasmid
pCV225 was isolated from strain CV1211 (JM101/pCV225) and purified by
CsCl centrifugation(17) . Lrp was synthesized in a 50-µl
reaction mixture containing 1 µg of plasmid pCV225 DNA, 134 pmol of L-[4,5-
H]leucine (Amersham, 149
Ci/mmol), 1 µl of a solution containing a mixture of all of the
amino acids except leucine (each at 1 mM), 1 µl of a
solution containing T7 RNA polymerase, and 25 µl of rabbit
reticulocyte extract. All of the components except leucine and DNA were
from the TNT T7 coupled rabbit reticulocyte lysate system of Promega.
After 90 min at 30 °C, unincorporated leucine was removed by
passing the sample through a spin column containing 250 µl of
Sephadex G-50 swollen in TG
ED (10 mM Tris-HCl, pH
8.0, 20% glycerol, 0.1 mM EDTA, and 0.1 mM DTT). This
column was centrifuged at 850
g for 1 min, and the
flow-through volume containing Lrp was collected. The specific activity
of Lrp was calculated as the product: specific activity
[
H]Leu (dpm/pmol)
23 pmol of Leu/pmol of
Lrp. The specific activity of the leucine had to be corrected because
of the unradiolabled leucine in the rabbit reticulocyte extract. To do
this, a 25-µl sample of the reticulocyte lysate was added to 25
µl of 30% CH
OH, and after dilution to 1 ml with 20%
CH
OH, the sample was passed through an equilibrated C-18
Sep-Pak cartridge. The eluate was dried under vacuum, dissolved in 100
µl of 0.1 M of HCl, and assayed for amino acids with a
Beckman amino acid analyzer. The efficiency of the scintillation
counter for counting tritium was determined by measuring cpm for
samples of [
H]leucine (149 Ci/mmol) that had been
added to samples of polyacrylamide gel and treated with peroxide and
perchlorate as described above.
In a typical experiment to determine
stoichiometry, a 100-µl solution containing 40% glycerol, 40 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0), 20 µg of bovine serum albumin (BSA), 0.2
mM EDTA, 0.4 mM DTT, 100 mM NaCl, 20 mM MgCl, and about 1.5 pmol of end-labeled site 2 was
mixed with 100 µl of the sample containing tritiated Lrp. After 20
min at 20 °C, the sample was distributed into five wells and
fractionated by electrophoresis through a 1.5-mm 8% polyacrylamide gel
for 2.5 h at 14 V/cm. The Lrp
DNA complex in each lane identified
by autoradiography was excised in a volume of 0.35 cm
and
counted as described above using Beckman program 6. Channel 1 was used
to measure tritium counts/min after corrections were made for spillover
of
P (approximately 4% of channel 2 counts). Channel 2 was
used to measure
P with no correction for tritium spillover
necessary. Stoichiometry was determined from the following equation:
[cpm
H
specific activity of DNA
(cpm/pmol)]/[cpm
P
H
efficiency (cpm/dpm)
specific activity of Lrp (dpm/pmol)].
Following the procedure of Hager and
Burgess(19) , heterodimers were prepared by mixing 1 µl of
6XHis-Lrp (6 µg/µl), 3 µl of Lrp (1 µg/µl), and 20
µl of 8 M guanidine hydrochloride, all in
TGED, 0.1 M NaCl, and incubating at room
temperature for 1 h. The sample was diluted with 1 ml of
TG
ED, 0.1 M NaCl, and after incubation for an
additional 5 h, 1 µl was used in binding reactions. Electrophoresis
was performed through 38-cm long 8% polyacrylamide gels at 10 V/cm for
15 h at room temperature.
5`-GATCGAAGCTTGTCCCATAGCATAATATTCTCCTTACGCTCTAGACGCAT-3` (F) TAGCATAATATTCTC ATAGCATAATATTCTCC CATAGCATAATATTCTCCT CCATAGCATAATATTCTCCTT CCCATAGCATAATATTCTCCTTA TCCCATAGCATAATATTCTCCTTAC 3`-CTAGCTTCGAACAGGGTATCGTATTATAAGAGGAATGCGAGATCTGCGTA-5` (R) ATCGTATTATAAGAG TATCGTATTATAAGAGG GTATCGTATTATAAGAGGA GGTATCGTATTATAAGAGGAA GGGTATCGTATTATAAGAGGAAT AGGGTATCGTATTATAAGAGGAATG
Complementary sequences F and R comprise a double-stranded 50 mer that bound Lrp most strongly from a collection of 63 sequences that were selected in vitro for binding to Lrp (Leu-19 in (12) ). The underlined region corresponds to the 15-bp consensus sequence that was defined by a comparison of the 63 sequences(12) . All oligonucleotides were purified by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. To form duplex DNA, equimolar amounts of complementary strands were added to 100 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris (pH 8.0), 1 mM EDTA, heated to 95 °C for 5 min, and cooled slowly to room temperature.
In other experiments, DNA
samples were labeled and incubated with Lrp as described above except
that samples were separated through 8% polyacrylamide gels in the cold
to avoid denaturing short duplexes. In some cases, the amount of free
DNA and LrpDNA complex were measured over a range of Lrp
concentrations and binding constants were calculated as the
concentration of Lrp at which half of the DNA existed as complex. In
other cases, binding constants were determined relative to that for the
double-stranded 50 mer using the equation K = (C/D)
1/(P
- C), where K is the binding constant, C and D are the band intensities of the complex and free DNA,
respectively, and P
is the total protein
concentration. For these experiments, the DNA concentration was 5
nM, and the Lrp concentration was either 16.6 nM ( Fig. 6and Fig. 7) or 8.3 nM (Fig. 8).
Where relative binding strengths are reported, the binding constant for
a particular construct was divided by that for the double-stranded 50
mer construct, determined in the same experiment.
Figure 6:
Lrp binding as a function of the number of
base pairs flanking the consensus. A, schematic drawing of the
double-stranded DNA fragments used (sequences are in oligonucleotide
section of ``Materials and Methods''). The shaded area represents the base pairs that are a close match to the 15-bp
consensus. B, gel retardation experiment employing P-labeled DNA fragments identified in Panel A and
16.6 nM Lrp. C, Lrp
DNA complex; F,
free DNA. C, quantitation of results shown in Panel
B. Binding is relative to the double-stranded 50 mer. Values shown
are the average of three experiments.
Figure 7:
Binding of Lrp to constructs having
different lengths of single-stranded DNA flanking a constant 17-bp
double-stranded region. A, schematic drawing of constructs
having a 17-bp double-stranded region flanked by single-stranded DNA of
the R polarity (Fig. 3D). B, same as A, except that single-stranded DNA is of the F polarity (Fig. 3E). C, gel retardation experiments of
the type shown in Fig. 6B were performed with P-labeled fragments shown in Panels A and B and 16.6 nM Lrp. Panel C shows the quantitation
of these results. Binding is relative to the double-stranded 50 mer.
Values shown are the average of three
experiments.
Figure 8:
Effect of NaCl concentration on binding of
Lrp to constructs having flanking double- or single-stranded DNA. A, schematic drawing of constructs used in this experiment. B, gel retardation experiments of the type shown in Fig. 6B were performed with P-labeled
fragments shown in Panel A, 8.3 nM Lrp, and the
indicated concentrations of NaCl. Values shown are the average of two
experiments.
Figure 3:
Primer extension analysis of flanking DNA
length required for Lrp binding. Primer/template combinations shown in D and E (shaded regions represent consensus)
were extended with DNA polymerase in the presence of dNTPs and ddNTPs,
yielding a nested set of fragments. With the exception of the
full-length fragment, each fragment has both a single and
double-stranded region. After incubation with either 8.3 or 16.6 nM Lrp, free DNA was separated from DNA complexed to Lrp, and each
was separately analyzed on a sequencing gel. A,
primer/template as in Panel D. Lanes 1, 2, 3, and 4, primer extension products (G, A, T, C,
respectively) that serve to identify adjacent bands; lanes 6 (8.3 nM Lrp) and 8 (16.6 nM Lrp), free DNA; lanes 5 (8.3 nM Lrp) and 7 (16.6 nM Lrp), DNA complexed to Lrp. B, same as A, except
that primer/template as in Panel E. C and F,
quantitation of data from Panels A and B,
respectively. K/K
= (C
/D
)/(C
/D
)
where K
is the binding constant for the
full-length 50 mer, C
and D
are the band intensities of the complex
and free DNA for each fragment, and C
and D
are the band intensities of the complex and
free DNA for the 50 mer.
Establishing the value of n requires an estimate
of the molecular weight of the complex. This was provided by measuring
the electrophoretic mobility of LrpDNA complexes through native
acrylamide gels of different porosities (Ferguson plots)(18) . Fig. 1A shows the mobility versus percent acrylamide
concentration for each of the standards used (globular proteins of
molecular mass 14.2-132 kDa), and in Fig. 1B the
slopes of each curve are plotted against the respective molecular mass.
Lrp
DNA complexes, analyzed together with standards in the same
gels, behaved like proteins having a molecular mass of 65 kDa. This
result establishes the stoichiometry as D
P
(molecular mass =
58 kDa) rather than D
P
(molecular mass = 116 kDa). The fact that the
experimentally determined molecular mass of the complex was higher than
the calculated value (65 versus 58 kDa) may be due to
differences in shape between the standards employed (globular proteins)
and the sample (DNA-protein complex).
Figure 1:
Molecular mass estimate
of an LrpDNA complex. A, relative electrophoretic
mobility (R
) of the indicated
macromolecules as a function of the acrylamide concentration within
native gels. For chicken egg albumin and carbonic anhydrase, the major
and fastest-moving isomers, respectively, were analyzed. B,
the slope of each curve from panel A was plotted against the known
molecular mass of each protein standard. The arrow and black rectangle denote the positioning of the Lrp-site 2
complex on this standard curve, based upon its curve shown in Panel
A. The predicted molecular mass of the Lrp-site 2 complex from
this experiment is 65 kDa.
The conclusion that two Lrp
monomers bind to a single site was confirmed by employing the strategy
of Hope and Struhl(22) . An Lrp derivative having 12 extra
amino acids at the NH terminus, including 6 His residues
(6XHis-Lrp), shows DNA binding characteristics that are almost
identical to the wild type (data not shown). By performing
electrophoresis for 15 h, Lrp
DNA and 6XHis-Lrp
DNA complexes
were clearly separated (Fig. 2, lanes 1 and 2). A mixture of homo- and heterodimers was created by mixing
the wild type and 6XHis proteins, denaturing in 6 M guanidine,
and renaturing by dilution. A band shift experiment performed with this
mixture and DNA having a single Lrp binding site showed bands
corresponding to complexes of DNA with wild type homodimer, 6XHis-Lrp
homodimer, and wild type/6XHis-Lrp heterodimer (Fig. 2, lane
3). This is the expected pattern for binding of two Lrp monomers
to a single binding site(22) .
Figure 2: Evidence suggesting that two Lrp monomers bind to a single site on DNA. Wild type (lane 1) and 6XHis-Lrp (lane 2) when complexed with ilvIH site 2 DNA have different electrophoretic mobilities. A mixture of the two proteins, after denaturation, renaturation, incubation with ilvIH site 2 DNA, and electrophoresis, show complexes corresponding to Lrp homodimer, 6XHis-Lrp homodimer, and heterodimer (lane 3; note band of intermediate mobility). Because electrophoresis was performed for 15 h, the free DNA ran off the gel.
where K is the binding constant for the
full length 50 mer, C
and D
are the band intensities of the complex and free DNA for each
fragment, and C
and D
are
the band intensities of the complex and free DNA for the 50
mer(20) . The radioactivity in each band in Fig. 3, A and B, was quantified with a Betascope blot
analyzer and used to calculate values of K
/K
(Fig. 3, C and F). The results for the R and F strands used as
template were similar in the sense that good binding in both cases
required extension at least through the 15-bp consensus sequence.
Furthermore, good binding in the experiment in which the R strand was
template seemed to require 3-5 additional base pairs beyond the
consensus sequence (Fig. 3C).
A potential conclusion from these experiments is that given 15 bp or so of flanking double-stranded DNA on one side of the consensus, only a relatively few base pairs (from 0 to 3) are required on the other side of the consensus to get tight binding. However, another possibility has to be considered, namely that the single-stranded DNA portions of these primer-extended molecules affect binding to Lrp. As shown below, that turns out to be true. It makes a difference whether the single-stranded DNA is on the left or right of the double-stranded regions, and whether the polarity of the single-stranded DNA is 5` to 3` or 3` to 5`. These conclusions are derived from a comparison of the results described above with the results of additional primer extension experiments summarized in Fig. 4. In parts A and C, the 50-mer R strand served as template, and the primer was the complementary 15-mer consensus sequence. In parts B and D, the configuration was the same as for A and C, but the single-stranded tail of the template strand to the left of the consensus was not present. To facilitate a comparison of all of these results, we summarize them in Fig. 5using a simplified notation. Binding of the double-stranded 50 mer to Lrp is set at 100% (Fig. 5, line 1), and other results are relative to this. Note that, for each of the comparisons in Fig. 5, the 15-bp consensus region is double-stranded. It is clear that single-stranded DNA flanking the consensus can significantly contribute to binding (Fig. 5, compare lines 2 and 4 with line 5). Furthermore, the polarity of the single-stranded DNA to the left of the consensus affects the degree of binding (Fig. 5, compare lines 2 and 4). Finally, the positioning of double-stranded and single-stranded DNA relative to the consensus affects binding (Fig. 5, compare lines 2 and 3). Thus, the construct having double-stranded DNA to the right of the consensus and single-stranded DNA to the left shows stronger binding than the construct with the opposite configuration.
Figure 4: Evidence from primer extension analysis that flanking single-stranded DNA contributes to binding Lrp. As in Fig. 3except that double-stranded 50 mer (indicated by the arrows) was added to the binding reaction as a reference molecule.
Figure 5: Summary of Lrp binding to DNAs having flanking double and single-stranded regions. Each DNA construct has a 15-bp double-stranded sequence that closely matches the consensus (shaded region), and flanking DNA that is either double-stranded or single-stranded. In each schematic, the top strand has polarity 5` to 3`. Binding is relative to the double-stranded 50 mer that was included in each experiment.
In another set of experiments, we investigated the binding of Lrp to constructs having different lengths of single-stranded DNA flanking a constant double-stranded consensus region (Fig. 7, A and B). We chose 17 bp as the length of the double-stranded consensus region because such a minimal sequence did not bind Lrp (Fig. 6), and therefore we could expect to see an effect of single-stranded flanking DNA. In addition, a preliminary experiment showed that a 17:50 mer complex (and 19:50, 21:50, 23:50, and 25:50 complexes) bound Lrp with avidity equal to or greater than the double-stranded 50 mer (data not shown). As shown in Fig. 7C, if the flanking single-stranded DNA was of polarity F, then as little as two additional bases flanking each side of the double-stranded region contributed to increased binding and additional bases added to the strength of binding. The majority of added binding strength, however, was contributed by single-stranded DNA that was longer than 4 bases. The contribution of flanking single-stranded R strand to binding also was substantial only with a relatively long length of DNA, and was always less than that for an equivalent length of F DNA. These results are consistent with those mentioned above indicating that single-stranded DNA can contribute to Lrp binding and that the contribution of F and R single-stranded DNA is different.
The results in Fig. 6and Fig. 7demonstrating that both double- and single-stranded flanking DNA can contribute to Lrp binding were obtained in experiments employing only a single Lrp concentration. In a separate experiment employing just two of the constructs, we measured complex formation over a range of Lrp concentrations including Lrp in great excess. The apparent binding constants for Lrp binding to the double-stranded 50 mer and the 17R:50F construct were very similar (1.5 versus 1.7 nM, respectively), confirming the data for those constructs in Fig. 7.
In addition, we measured the effects of competitor DNA on binding of Lrp to the two constructs shown in Fig. 8A. The competitor DNAs were single and double-stranded forms of a 44 mer having a sequence unrelated to the Lrp binding consensus. Neither single nor double-stranded DNA competed very effectively against either of the constructs bound to Lrp: the binding constant was reduced less than two fold by competitors in 50-100-fold molar excess (data not shown).
For each of six operons thought to be directly controlled by
Lrp, DNase I footprinting studies suggest that Lrp interacts with or
affects the structure of DNA over a region of 100 bp or
more(4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) .
Lrp clearly interacts with multiple sites within these regions, and in
the cases of fim A(4) , ilvIH(5) , lysU(6) , and pap, ()those
interactions are cooperative. Here we define the stoichiometry of
interaction as two Lrp monomers binding to a single site. Lrp in
micromolar concentrations exists as a dimer in solution(3) ,
and some preliminary experiments indicate that the dimer structure of
Lrp is maintained even at concentrations well below the nanomolar
range.
Therefore, the unit of binding can be considered an
Lrp dimer.
A consensus for Lrp binding was formulated by a computer analysis of sequences associated with the Lrp regulon (23) and by a comparison of naturally occurring Lrp binding sites(11) . A more extensive analysis of 63 binding sites derived by using the Selex approach of Tuerk and Gold (13) yielded a consensus sequence 15 bp in length that was palindromic in part and that was very similar to the consensus sequences derived previously(12) . The work presented here indicates 15 bp may be sufficient for specificity, but an additional 3-5 flanking base pairs are required for tight binding. These additional flanking base pairs may contribute additional binding energy, as was proposed for the Crp/DNA interaction(20) . Alternatively, DNA ends may be disruptive to binding, and strong binding may require that these ends be displaced from the site of protein-DNA contact by several base pairs. We cannot distinguish between these two possibilities.
Lrp binds tightly to double-stranded DNA having a sequence related to the consensus, but not to that same DNA after it has been denatured (5) . Thus, Lrp does not bind tightly per se to single-stranded DNA. However, as demonstrated here, single-stranded DNA can stimulate Lrp binding when it flanks a double-stranded consensus sequence. There are at least three ways in which single-stranded flanking DNA could affect binding of Lrp. Single-stranded flanking DNA might bind to the same site on Lrp that normally binds double-stranded flanking DNA. The effects of NaCl on binding suggest that this possibility is not correct. Part of the binding of Lrp to DNA is likely driven by an increase in entropy due to the release of Na ions from the DNA(24) . Binding of Lrp to double-stranded DNA is expected to release more sodium ions than binding to an equivalent length of single-stranded DNA and thus higher sodium ion concentrations should reduce binding to double-stranded DNA more than binding to single-stranded DNA. In fact, the opposite is the case (Fig. 8B). Another possibility is that single-stranded DNA interacts with Lrp at a second site and that this binding increases the strength with which the consensus sequence interacts with its binding site on Lrp. This possibility seems ruled out by the data showing that single-stranded competitor DNA reduces rather than increases binding to Lrp. A third possibility is that Lrp interacts only weakly with single-stranded DNA at some site other than the major binding site, but that this weak interaction provides the few kilocalories of energy required for binding of Lrp in the nanomolar range to the 17R:50F construct. The results of the competition experiment are consistent with this interpretation. The fact that single-stranded competitor DNA did not compete effectively can be explained by the fact that its concentration, although high relative to the labeled DNA, is much lower than the effective concentration of tethered single-stranded DNA.
Data summarized in Fig. 5indicate that the binding strength conferred by single-stranded DNA depends upon whether that DNA is on the left or the right of the core binding sequence, and upon which of the two strands is single stranded. The difference in binding strength may reflect differences in the sequences of the single-stranded regions and/or differences in the halves of the 15-bp core binding sequence. The consensus sequence is partially palindromic (12) and for the particular sequence used here, one of the two half sites is calculated to be a better match to the consensus than the other(12) . Thus, it is likely that one of the two subunits of Lrp is bound more tightly than the other, and this might contribute to the asymmetry observed in the binding of flanking single-stranded DNA.
It is not clear that the binding of single-stranded DNA to Lrp has any biological significance. However, one can imagine possible roles for such an activity (for example, binding to single-stranded DNA produced during transcription initiation), and therefore it will be of interest to determine whether mutant Lrps having altered regulatory properties are also altered in their ability to bind single-stranded DNA.