Cell
Volume 52, Issue 4, 26 February 1988, Pages 551-557
Journal home page for Cell

Article
Mini-P1 plasmid replication: The autoregulation-sequestration paradox

https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(88)90468-0Get rights and content

Abstract

It has been proposed that the initiator protein RepA is rate limiting for mini-P1 plasmid replication, and that the role of the plasmid copy number control locus is to sequester the initiator and thus reduce replication. This proposal appears inconsistent with the observation that RepA is autoregulated, since the protein lost by sequestration should be replenished. A resolution of this autoregulation-sequestration paradox is possible if the sequestered RepA, unavailable for replication, is still available for promoter repression. We demonstrate that RepA binds to the control locus and to the promoter region simultaneously, causing the intervening DNA to loop. DNA looping could provide the requisite mechanism by which RepA bound to the control locus might exert repression.

References (32)

  • D.D. Womble et al.

    Regulation of mini-F plasmid DNA replication. A quantitative model for control of plasmid mini-F replication in the bacterial cell division cycle

    J. Mol. Biol.

    (1987)
  • F. Bex et al.

    Mini-F E protein: the carboxy-terminal end is essential for E gene repression and mini-F copy number control

    J. Mol. Biol.

    (1986)
  • D.K. Chattoraj et al.

    Plasmid P1 replication: negative control by repeated DNA sequences

  • D.K. Chattoraj et al.

    An autoregulatory protein is required for P1 plasmid replication

  • D.K. Chattoraj et al.

    P1 plasmid replication. Multiple functions of RepA protein at the origin

  • M. Filutowicz et al.

    Autorepressor properties of the π-initiation protein encoded by plasmid R6K

    Nucl. Acids Res.

    (1985)
  • Cited by (78)

    • Novel broad-host-range vehicles for cloning and shuffling of gene cassettes

      2012, Journal of Microbiological Methods
      Citation Excerpt :

      Some of the plasmids have evolved highly complicated so called “global” regulatory networks to simultaneously control the expression of several modules or even coordinate the expression of the whole genome (Delver and Belogurov, 1997; Fernandez-Lopez et al., 2006; Macartney et al., 1997; Pansegrau et al., 1994; Zatyka et al., 1994). Others seem to rely on simple autoregulatory mechanisms (partition cassettes, TA-toxin-antidote operons) or autoregulatory mechanisms enhanced by additional regulatory circuits, but still encompassed within the boundaries of the functional module (replication cassettes) (Chattoraj et al., 1988; del Solar et al., 1998; Dunham et al., 2009; Friedman and Austin, 1988; Hirano et al., 1998; Kulinska et al., 2011; Magnuson et al., 1996; Mukhopadhyay and Chattoraj, 2000; Ruiz-Echevarría et al., 1991). Growing knowledge of the interplay between the modules and understanding of their gene expression control makes more realistic the perspective of linking functional modules of different origin into a new entity, so called “synthetic plasmid”.

    • Centromere pairing by a plasmid-encoded type I ParB protein

      2007, Journal of Biological Chemistry
      Citation Excerpt :

      To pursue this further, we employed a DNA ligation frequency assay. If ParB pairs parC-DNA, then the proximity of the DNA ends in the presence of ParB will increase the frequency by which T4 DNA ligase ligates parC-encoding fragments into dimers (due to the end-labeling method used, only dimers can form in this assay) (12, 27). In the assay we used two fragments of different length that were labeled at their ends with Cy5 (long fragment) or Cy3 (short fragment), respectively (Fig. 3).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text