Bacterial Protease Lon Is a Site-specific DNA-binding Protein*

(Received for publication, July 29, 1996)

Glenn K. Fu Dagger §, Michael J. Smith Dagger and David M. Markovitz Dagger par

From the Dagger  Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-0642 and the § Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2029

ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
FOOTNOTES
Acknowledgments
REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

The product of the Escherichia coli lon gene is the ATP-dependent Lon protease. Lon contributes to the regulation of several important cellular functions, including radiation resistance, cell division, filamentation, capsular polysaccharide production, lysogeny of certain bacteriophages, and proteolytic degradation of certain regulatory and abnormal proteins. Lon homologues are also found in several widely divergent bacteria, as well as in the mitochondria of yeast and humans. E. coli Lon has long been known to bind to DNA, but this interaction has not been further characterized and has generally been assumed to be nonspecific. We now demonstrate that E. coli Lon can bind to a TG-rich DNA promoter element in a sequence-specific manner. This finding is based on the results of experiments employing SouthWestern blotting, protein purification, "shift-shift" electrophoretic mobility shift assays, electrophoretic mobility shift assays using in vitro transcribed and translated Lon, and DNase footprinting. Site-specific DNA binding is likely to be an additional important biochemical characteristic of the multifaceted Lon protease.


INTRODUCTION

The product of the Escherichia coli lon gene (Lon) is an ATP-dependent protease which plays multiple regulatory roles in the organism (reviewed in Refs. 1, 2, 3). Some of these important roles include radiation resistance, cell division, filamentation, production of capsular polysaccharide, lysogeny of certain bacteriophages, and proteolytic degradation of several classes of regulatory and abnormal protein targets. Lon has also been identified as part of the heat shock response in E. coli (4, 5, 6, 7). Lon also has an associated DNA binding activity, and this property was exploited for use in its purification (8). However, the consequences of Lon binding to DNA, previously thought to be nonspecific, are not yet understood.

Purification and cloning of E. coli protease Lon has shown it to be a polypeptide with a predicted molecular mass of 87 kDa that migrates on polyacrylamide gels with an apparent molecular mass of 94 kDa (9, 10, 11). Protein degradation by Lon is dependent on ATP hydrolysis (12, 13). Lon also has a DNA-stimulated ATPase activity (14). The active protease is a tetramer composed of four identical subunits (13, 43). Lon appears to exert its regulatory function by degrading abnormal polypeptides (15, 16) and certain short-lived regulatory proteins such as the cell division inhibitor SulA and RcsA (17, 18).

The lon genes of other Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria have also been identified, cloned, and characterized (19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26). The product of the lon gene in these organisms is very similar to the E. coli Lon and in each organism is also involved in important regulatory processes. In eukaryotes, the lon gene has been cloned from yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) (27) and humans (28). Here they are encoded in the nucleus but localize to the mitochondria (29). Although yeast cells deficient in LON are respiration-deficient and have a nonfunctional mitochondrial genome (30), a role for mutant LON in human disease has not yet been characterized. The yeast and human LON genes are very similar to the E. coli lon gene. In yeast cells lacking the LON gene, complementation with the E. coli counterpart allows maintenance of the integrity of the mitochondrial genome (31). This shows remarkable functional conservation of Lon proteases from prokaryotes to eukaryotes.

In the process of cloning a eukaroytic protein that binds to the peri-ets (pets)1 site of the human immunodeficiency virus type 2 (HIV-2) enhancer (32, 33), we were surprised to note highly specific binding activity in extracts from E. coli. Purification of the binding activity from E. coli gave a polypeptide with an apparent molecular mass of 94 kDa that when subjected to N-terminal sequencing was identified as protease Lon. An antibody recognizing bacterial Lon further shifted the DNA-protein complex found in electrophoretic mobility shift assays (EMSA) using the pets site probe and whole cell bacterial extracts. In vitro transcribed and translated Lon specifically bound to the pets site in EMSA. We further demonstrated preferential binding of Lon to this specific DNA sequence using DNase footprinting. This is the first report that protease Lon can bind to DNA in a sequence-specific manner. This observation suggests that site-specific DNA binding could be another functionally important characteristic of this complex regulatory protein.


EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Bacterial Cell Extract Preparation

E. coli strain Y1089 (Promega) was grown to saturation in LB medium supplemented with 50 µg/ml ampicillin at 37 °C. The bacteria were harvested by centrifugation at 5000 × g for 5 min. The pellet was then resuspended in chromatography buffer A (20 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.9, 1 mM EDTA, 50 mM KCl, 0.01% Nonidet P-40, 10% glycerol, 0.5 mM dithiothreitol, and 0.5 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride) supplemented with 0.5 mg/ml lysozyme and incubated on ice for 15 min. The suspension was sonicated on ice with short bursts until the sample was no longer viscous. The lysate was clarified by centrifugation at 27,000 × g for 60 min at 4 °C. Post-centrifugation, the supernatant was filtered successively though a 1.6-µm glass fiber filter and a 0.45-µm membrane filter prior to column loading.

Purification of the E. coli pets Factor

All procedures were performed at 4 °C (see Fig. 2). The clarified extract was loaded onto a Q-Sepharose fast flow column (Pharmacia Biotech Inc.) at a flow rate of 3 ml/min. Following loading, the column was washed with 10 bed volumes of buffer A or until A280 reached baseline. Bound proteins were eluted with a 100 mM KCl stepwise gradient in buffer A. Fractions positive for specific binding as assayed by EMSA were pooled and dialyzed into buffer A prior to injection into a heparin-Sepharose column (Pharmacia). Bound proteins were eluted in a 50 mM to 1 M KCl linear gradient in buffer A. Positive fractions were pooled and dialyzed into buffer A before purification over a DNA affinity column prepared as described (34). Proteins bound to the DNA affinity column were washed off in two steps: a low salt (500 mM KCl) and a high salt (1 M KCl) wash in buffer A. Eluted proteins were precipitated with the addition of trichloroacetic acid to 10% concentration and resolved by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE).


Fig. 2. Purification of the E. coli pets factor was performed using a three-step liquid chromatography scheme followed by SDS-PAGE. For each chromatographic procedure, a KCl gradient was used to separate E. coli proteins into fractions. The KCl concentration of the elution buffer was adjusted by using varying volumns of a buffer A (100 mM KCl) and buffer B (1 M KCl) mixture as indicated by the percentage of buffer B used. Each fraction was then tested for pets site DNA binding activity using EMSA, and the positive fractions were pooled, dialyzed into low salt, and reapplied to the next column. The indicated molecular masses of the purified proteins were determined using Coomassie staining after SDS-PAGE.
[View Larger Version of this Image (15K GIF file)]


Analysis of DNA Binding Proteins

Oligodeoxynucleotides were synthesized with an Applied Biosystems 300B synthesizer. Oligodeoxynucleotides were annealed by boiling in 500 mM NaCl followed by slow cooling before end-labeling with 32P. DNA was quantitated using A260 = 50 µg/ml double stranded DNA. After removal of unincorporated [32P-gamma ]ATP using gel filtration through a Sephadex G-50 column, 20,000 cpm of end-labeled oligodeoxynucleotides were used in each individual reaction. The pets site oligodeoxynucleotide used for EMSA and for DNA affinity chromatography had the following sequence: 5'-GATCCAGCTATACTTGGTCAGGGCGAATTCTAACTA. The mutant pets oligodeoxynucleotide had the following sequence: 5'-GATCCAGCTATACTAGATCTGGGCGAATTCTAACTA. EMSAs were performed as described previously (32). For EMSAs using purified Lon, 1 µl of the purified Lon fraction (~50 ng as estimated by Coomassie Blue staining after SDS-PAGE) was used per individual reaction. Purified Lon (gift of Alvin Markovitz, University of Chicago) came from a 0.2 M NaCl elution off of a DEAE column (8). When a sample of this fraction is separated on SDS-PAGE and stained with Coomassie Blue, more that 95% of the protein is 94 kDa. The identity of this 94-kDa protein was further confirmed to be Lon by Western analysis (not shown). For supershift assays, 1 µl of antibody was added to the binding reaction 10 min prior to loading the gel. Polyclonal antibody to Lon was prepared as described (8) and provided by Alvin Markovitz. For Southwestern analysis, proteins were separated by SDS-PAGE on an 8% gel, electroblotted onto a polyvinylidine diflouride membrane (Millipore), denatured in buffer A supplemented with 6 M urea, and renatured in buffer A overnight at 4 °C. An end-labeled, eight-copy pets site oligodeoxynucleotide with the binding sites all in the same orientation (35) was used as the probe.

Limited N-terminal Amino Acid Sequencing

N-terminal protein sequence analysis was accomplished by automated Edman degradation using standard procedures on a pulsed liquid phase sequenator (ABI model 473). The 500 mM KCl eluate from the DNA affinity column was precipitated, separated on an 8% SDS-polyacrylamide gel, and electroblotted onto a polyvinylidine diflouride membrane. The blot was stained with Coomassie Brilliant Blue R-250 and the 94-kDa polypeptide, which corresponded to the band seen in the SouthWestern blotting (see Fig. 3), was excised and subjected to N-terminal sequence analysis by the University of Michigan protein structure facility. The identity of the sequenced protein was determined by sending a FASTA query to Genome (Eerie-Nimes, France).


Fig. 3. SouthWestern blotting to determine the molecular weights of the purified polypeptides. A, proteins from the 500 mM (lane 1) and 1 M KC1 (lane 2) eluate off the DNA affinity column were precipitated and separated by SDS-PAGE. After electroblotting the polypeptides onto a polyvinylidine diflouride membrane, the blot was screened for pets site binding using a concatemerized, radiolabeled, double-stranded pets site deoxynucleotide. Prestained protein molecular mass markers indicate the sizes of the three pets site binding proteins detected in the low salt wash: p25, p30, and p94 (lane 1), whereas the high salt wash contains only one band: p94 (lane 2). In B, highly purified E. coli Lon protease is assayed by Southwestern blotting, showing its ability to bind to the pets site.
[View Larger Version of this Image (52K GIF file)]


In Vitro Transcription and Translation

The plasmid pJMC21 (36, 37), containing the lon gene, was digested with EcoRI and EcoRV. The fragment encoding lon was purified with agarose gel electrophoresis and cloned into pGem7f- (Promega) cut with EcoRI and SmaI. Lon was made in vitro with T7 DNA polymerase using a wheat germ extract coupled transcription/translation kit (Promega). Inclusion of [35S]methionine in the transcription/translation mix labels a 94-kDa band when the in vitro synthesized Lon is separated using SDS-PAGE.

DNase I Footprinting Assay

A 32P-labeled 190-base pair fragment of the HIV-2 enhancer encompassing the pets site was generated using polymerase chain reaction with an end-labeled primer. The polymerase chain reaction product was purified using polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and sequenced before use. Footprinting was performed as described previously (32).


RESULTS

E. coli Y1089 Contain a Protein(s) That Binds Specifically to the pets Enhancer Element

The transcriptional enhancer of HIV-2 contains an element, termed pets, which mediates enhancer induction in activated T cells and monocytic cells and binds a very recently characterized 43-kDa eukaryotic protein (32, 33, 35).2 A similar site is found in the human T cell leukemia virus type 1 (38). In the process of cloning the eukaryotic pets-binding protein using a bacteriophage lambda gt11 cDNA library expressed in E. coli Y1089, we noted striking binding to the pets element in extracts from the E. coli themselves. EMSA demonstrated that this binding activity is very specific (Fig. 1). Whereas the binding could readily be eliminated by addition of unlabeled pets probe competitor (Fig. 1, lanes 3 and 4 versus lane 1), even a 1000 molar excess of a mutated version of the probe, in which the pets site had been altered, did not significantly affect binding (Fig. 1, lanes 8, 9, and 10). Similarly, the unrelated kappa B oglionucleotide failed to eliminate binding activity (Fig. 1, lanes 5-7).


Fig. 1. Analysis of the pets site-specific DNA binding activity found in E. coli using the EMSA. Competition studies were performed using Y1089 strain crude extracts. Extracts were incubated with a radiolabeled, double-stranded deoxynucleotide probe containing the HIV-2 pets site alone (lane 1) or in the presence of the indicated amounts of the unlabeled pets (lanes 2, 3, and 4), HIV-2 kappa B (lanes 5, 6, and 7), and mutant pets deoxynucleotide (lanes 8, 9, and 10).
[View Larger Version of this Image (83K GIF file)]


Purified Bacterial Lon Binds to the pets Site

The avidity and specificity of the pets binding activity in E. coli Y1089 suggested that the identity of the bacterial protein involved would be of interest. Therefore, we purified the pets binding activity from crude bacterial extracts using Q-Sepharose fast flow chromatography, followed by heparin-Sepharose chromatography and then one round of DNA affinity chromatography as described under "Experimental Procedures" (Fig. 2). This highly purified protein extract was then used to define the size of the polypeptide that binds to the pets site. Southwestern blotting using a pets site probe revealed three polypeptides, of molecular masses 25, 30, and slightly less than 97 kDa, which were detected in the low salt wash after the DNA affinity column purification (Fig. 3A, lane 1). The more stringent high salt wash gave only one band, the 94-kDa polypeptide, when the purified fraction was assayed using SouthWestern blotting (Fig. 3A, lane 2) or when separated by SDS-PAGE and stained with Coomassie Blue (not shown). Partial N-terminal sequencing of the purified polypeptides showed that the 94-kDa protein was the Lon protease (Fig. 4). Therefore, highly purified E. coli Lon was obtained and assayed by SouthWestern blotting, using a pets site probe. This experiment clearly demonstrated that highly purified bacterial Lon could bind to the pets site (Fig. 3B).


Fig. 4. The N-terminal amino acid sequences of the three purified polypeptides were obtained through automated Edman degradation on a pulsed liquid-phase sequenator (ABI model 473). A dash (-) indicates that the identity of the amino acid at the position could not be determined. Amino acid letters in parentheses indicate an alternative amino acid identity determination at the position. The identity of each protein was determined by sending a FASTA query to Genome at Eerie-Nimes.
[View Larger Version of this Image (10K GIF file)]


Lon Is the Dominant Protein Binding to the pets Site in E. coli Extracts

The above studies suggested that crude E. coli extracts and highly purified bacterial Lon are able to bind specifically to the pets site. Although a complex was formed between the pets probe and the E. coli crude cell extract (Fig. 5A, lane 1), no such complex was seen when the kappa B probe or a probe from the Encaphelon promoter were used (Fig. 5A, lanes 5 and 6), further demonstrating that a bacterial protein, presumably Lon, binds to the pets site but not to several other known eukaryotic enhancer sites. To further examine whether Lon is indeed the dominant protein recognizing this site in bacterial extracts, shift-shift EMSA ("supershift") experiments were performed. The addition of rabbit preimmune serum (Fig. 5A, lane 2) or antibodies directed against immunoglobulin (Fig. 5A, lane 3) failed to supershift the pets/bacterial protein complex. In contrast, polyclonal antibodies directed against bacterial Lon caused a marked supershift (Fig. 5A, lane 4). The polyclonal antibody directed against Lon does not cause any shift by itself when added to the probe in the absence of additional protein extracts (not shown). These data further demonstrate the specificity of the Lon-pets interaction and strengthen the observation made from the purification and sequencing studies that Lon is the dominant protein in E. coli extracts that recognizes the pets site. To further test the specificity of Lon binding to the pets site, we performed DNase footprinting assays and showed that purified Lon is able to protect the HIV-2 pets site from DNase digestion (Fig. 6, lane 3).


Fig. 5. A, E. coli Lon protease binds to the pets site. Crude bacterial extract contains a binding affinity for the pets probe (lane 1), whereas no binding to the HIV-2 kappa B site probe (lane 5) or to another nonspecific sequence in a site on the Encaphelon promoter probe (lane 6) can be detected using EMSA. Although the addition of preimmune serum (PI, lane 2) or anti-rabbit immunoglobulin (alpha -R, lane 3) does not supershift this protein-DNA complex, anti-Lon antibody (alpha -L, lane 4) forms a supershift complex and diminishes the intensity of the DNA-protein complex observed in the first three lanes. B, sequence-specific binding to the pets site by in vitro transcribed/translated Lon. Minimal binding to the pets site can be detected by EMSA when an empty vector is used to program the wheat-germ extract transcription/translation reaction (lane 1). When the vector contains a cDNA encoding Lon, a band shift can be detected following the reaction using the programmed extract (lane 2). Although this band is competed away by the inclusion of the indicated amount of unlabeled pets oligodeoxynucleotide (lane 3), an equal amount of unlabeled nonspecific oligodeoxynucleotide competitor (HIV-2 kappa B) cannot compete the band away (lane 4). Another nonspecific competitor, an oligodeoxynucleotide corresponding to the +17 to +45 region of the E. coli gal ETK operator (lane 5), also does not compete away the pets-Lon complex.
[View Larger Version of this Image (24K GIF file)]



Fig. 6. Analysis of the DNA-binding sequence specificity of E. coli Lon for the HIV-2 pets site using the DNase I footprinting assay. Lane 1 is a G + A ladder of the HIV-2 enhancer, and the position of the pets site is indicated by the bracket on the left. No protection is seen in lanes 2 and 4 where no proteins are added, but when highly purified E. coli Lon was added to the reaction mix, a DNase protection footprint can be seen (lane 3) as indicated by the bracket on the right.
[View Larger Version of this Image (33K GIF file)]


Recombinant Lon Specifically Binds to the pets Site

The above experiments demonstrated that highly purified bacterial Lon can bind to the pets site. Although the purified bacterial Lon extracts contained only one 94-kDa polypeptide when analyzed by SDS-PAGE (not shown), the possibility still existed that another protein present in the extracts and obscured by the abundance of Lon might be the actual pets site binding protein. Therefore, recombinant Lon was prepared by coupled transcription and translation in wheat germ extract and used to assay for pets site binding. Although very little binding to the pets site was seen in unprogrammed wheat-germ extract (Fig. 5B, lane 1), the extract containing in vitro transcribed and translated Lon bound avidly to the pets site (Fig. 5B, lane 2). This complex could be completely eliminated by the addition of the pets oligodeoxynucleotide (Fig. 5B, lane 3) but was only slightly diminished by the addition of either the unrelated kappa B oligodeoxynucleotide or an oligodeoxynucleotide based on an unrelated region of the E. coli gal operator (Fig. 5B, lanes 4 and 5).


DISCUSSION

In the present study, we demonstrate that bacterial protease Lon is a sequence-specific DNA binding protein. Although Lon has been known for some time to bind DNA and in fact was originally purified by exploiting its DNA binding capabilities, recognition of DNA by Lon has previously been felt to be unrelated to specific promoter sequences. We now demonstrate that Lon binds very specifically to a TG-rich sequence found in the HIV-2 enhancer. Although it is clear, of course, that bacterial Lon plays no role in regulating HIV-2 gene expression, this finding strongly suggests that bacterial Lon targets similar regulatory sites in prokaryotic promoters, thus perhaps influencing gene expression (see below). Interestingly, our initial observations concerning the binding of Lon were made in E. coli Y1089, a strain that is felt not to express lon. However, we confirmed the presence of Lon in the strain we used by Western blotting analysis and protein sequencing.

In addition to purification and Southwestern blotting data, we have shown by use of shift-shift EMSA that the complex formed when the pets site probe interacts with E. coli whole cell extracts does indeed contain protease Lon. Further, Lon prepared through in vitro transcription and translation binds specifically to the pets sequence. Highly purified Lon is also capable of protecting the pets site in a DNase footprinting assay. Two other DNA binding proteins copurified with Lon (Fig. 4). These proteins do not appear to have a specific affinity for the pets site, because they were eluted off the DNA affinity column in a low salt wash. Further, in EMSA using recombinant versions of these proteins (L2 ribosomal and S3 ribosomal), either individually or in combination with each other and with Lon, they did not bind to the pets site.2

The functional significance of site-specific DNA binding by the bacterial protease Lon remains to be determined. However, it is quite tempting to speculate that this property of Lon may be intimately involved in its ability to regulate gene expression. In particular, it has been known for some time that Lon can specifically degrade certain regulatory proteins at a rate much higher than would be expected in view of their very low abundance in E. coli. This has suggested to some investigators that Lon must have a way to be targeted to these regulatory proteins (1). The demonstration that Lon is a sequence-specific DNA binding protein suggests a mechanism by which such targeting could take place. Specifically, Lon could bind to a site immediately adjacent to where another regulatory protein binds on the same promoter. Such close physical proximity may lead to the targeted degradation of the second regulatory protein. In line with this model, some early studies have suggested that Lon might control the level of mRNA transcription from the E. coli gal operon (39, 40, 41). A more recent example is the ability of the Lon protease from Bacillus subtilis to prevent inappropriate transcription of genes under the control of the sporulation transcription factor sigma G, possibly through sigma G degradation (23). Although this model of a protease targeting an adjacent binding regulatory protein has yet to be demonstrated in prokaryotes, it is of note that a recent report suggests that protease activity can be linked to the ability of a DNA binding protein to suppress transcription in eukaryotes (42). A preadipocyte factor (termed AEBP1) has been cloned that binds to a specific DNA element in the eukaryotic aP2 gene promoter. AEBP1 can suppress transcription from the aP2 promoter and also exhibits a carboxypeptidase activity. Interestingly, the carboxypeptidase domain corresponds to the domain that mediates transcriptional repression (42). Therefore, it is possible that Lon affects gene expression in an analogous fashion. Regardless, it appears likely that sequence-specific DNA binding contributes to the complex mechanism of action of the Lon protease.


FOOTNOTES

*   This work was supported by Grants AI30924 and AI36685 from the National Institutes of Health (to D. M. M.). The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

This work is dedicated to the memory of Diane Markovitz.


   Supported in part by Cancer Biology Training Grant T32 CA09676 of the University of Michigan and a University of Michigan Rackham Dissertation Grant.
par    To whom correspondence should be addressed: 6301 MSRB III, 1150 West Medical Center Dr., Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0642. Tel.: 313-647-1786; Fax: 313-936-9220; E-mail: Dmarkov{at}umich.edu.
1    The abbreviations used are: pets, peri-ets; HIV-2, human immunodeficiency virus type 2; EMSA, electrophoretic mobility shift assay; PAGE, polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis.
2    G. K. Fu and D. M. Markovitz, unpublished observations.

Acknowledgments

We thank Phil Andrews of the University of Michigan Protein Core Facility for protein sequencing and Shekelia Taylor for manuscript preparation. We also thank Alvin Markovitz (University of Chicago) for purified Lon, antibodies to Lon, clones, and numerous helpful discussions.


REFERENCES

  1. Goldberg, A. L., Moerschell, R. P., Chung, C. H., and Maurizi, M. R. (1994) Methods Enzymol. 244, 350-375 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Goldberg, A. L. (1992) Eur. J. Biochem 203, 9-23 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Gottesman, S. (1989) Annu. Rev. Genet. 23, 163-198 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Goff, S. A., and Goldberg, A. L. (1985) Cell 41, 587-595 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Gayda, R. C., Stephens, P. E., Hewick, R., Schoemaker, J. M., Dreyer, W. J., and Markovitz, A. (1985) J. Bacteriol. 162, 271-275 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Goff, S. A., Casson, L. P., and Goldberg, A. L. (1984) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., U. S. A. 81, 6647-6651 [Abstract]
  7. Phillips, T. A., VanBogelen, R. A., and Neidhardt, F. C. (1984) J. Bacteriol. 159, 283-287 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Zehnbauer, B. A, Foley, E. C., Henderson, G. W., and Markovitz, A. (1981) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., U. S. A. 78, 2043-2047 [Abstract]
  9. Schoemaker, J. M., and Markovitz, A. (1981) J. Bacteriol. 147, 46-56 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Zehnbauer, B. A., and Markovitz, A. (1980) J Bacteriol. 143, 852-863 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Chin, D. T., Goff, S. A., Webster, T., Smith, T., and Goldberg, A. L. (1988) J. Biol. Chem. 263, 11718-11728 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Charette, M. F., Henderson, G. W., and Markovitz, A. (1981) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., U. S. A. 78, 4728-4732 [Abstract]
  13. Chung, C. H., and Goldberg, A. L. (1981) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., U. S. A. 78, 4931-4935 [Abstract]
  14. Charette, M. F., Henderson, G. W., Doane, L. L., and Markovitz, A. (1984) J. Bacteriol. 158, 195-201 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  15. Gottesman, S., and Zipser, D. (1978) J. Bacteriol. 133, 844-851 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Bukhari, A. I., and Zipser, D. (1973) Nature 243, 238-241 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Mizusawa, S., and Gottesman, S. (1983) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 80, 358-362 [Abstract]
  18. Torres-Cabassa, A. S., and Gottesman, S. (1987) J. Bacteriol. 169, 981-989 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  19. Coward, C., Le Page, R. W., and Wells, J. M. (1995) Dev. Biol. Stand. 85, 481-486 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Ito, K., Udaka, S., and Yamagata, H. (1992) J. Bacteriol. 174, 2281-2287 [Abstract]
  21. Eastgate, J. A., Taylor, N., Coleman, M. J., Healy, B., Thompson, L., and Roberts, I. S. (1995) J. Bacteriol. 177, 932-937 [Abstract]
  22. Downs, D., Waxman, L., Goldberg, A. L., and Roth, J. (1986) J. Bacteriol. 165, 193-197 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. Schmidt, R., Decatur, A. L., Rather, P. N., Moran, C. P., Jr., and Losick, R. (1994) J. Bacteriol. 176, 6528-6573 [Abstract]
  24. Riethdorf, S., Volker, U., Gerth, U., Winkler, A., Engelmann, S., and Hecker, M. (1994) J. Bacteriol. 176, 6518-6527 [Abstract]
  25. Tojo, N., Inouye, S., and Komano, T. (1993) J. Bacteriol. 175, 4545-4549 [Abstract]
  26. Tojo, N., Inouye, S., and Komano, T. (1993) J. Bacteriol. 175, 2271-2277 [Abstract]
  27. Suzuki, C. K., Kutejova, E., and Suda, K. (1995) Methods Enzymol. 260, 486-494 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  28. Wang, N., Gottesman, S., Willingham, M. C., Gottesman, M. M., and Maurizi, M. R. (1993) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 90, 11247-11251 [Abstract]
  29. Wang, N., Maurizi, M. R., Emmert-Buck, L., and Gottesman, M. M. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 29308-29313 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Suzuki, C. K., Suda, K., Wang, N., and Schatz, G. (1994) Science 264, 273-276 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Teichmann, U., van Dyck, L., Guiard, B., Fischer, H., Glockshuber, R., Neupert, W., and Langer, T. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 10137-10142 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Markovitz, D. M., Smith, M., Hilfinger, J., Hannibal, M. C., Petryniak, B., and Nabel, G. J. (1992) J. Virol. 66, 5479-5484 [Abstract]
  33. Hilfinger, J., Clark, N., Smith, M., Robinson, K., and Markovitz, D. M. (1993) J. Virol. 67, 4448-4453 [Abstract]
  34. Kadonaga, J. T., and Tjian, R. (1986) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 83, 5889-5893 [Abstract]
  35. Fu, G. K., and Markovitz, D. M. (1996) J. Biol Chem. 271, 19599-19605 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Storts, D. R., and Markovitz, A. (1988) J. Bacteriol. 170, 1541-1547 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  37. Schoemaker, J. M., and Markovitz, A. (1981) J. Bacteriol. 147, 46-56 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. Clark, N. M., Smith, M., Hilfinger, J., and Markovitz, D. M. (1993) J. Virol. 67, 5522-5528 [Abstract]
  39. Buchanan, C. E., Hua, S.-S., Avni, H., and Markovitz, A. (1973) J. Bacteriol. 114, 891-893 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  40. Hua, S., and Markovitz, A. (1974) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 71, 507-511 [Abstract]
  41. Mackie, G., and Wilson, D. B. (1972) J. Biol. Chem. 247, 2973-2978 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. He, G.-P., Muise, A., Li, A. W., and Ro, H-S. (1995) Nature 378, 92-96 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  43. Charette, M. F., Henderson, G. W., Kezdy, F. J., and Markovitz, A. (1982) J. Mol. Biol. 162, 503-510 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

©1997 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.