Residues that influence in vivo and in vitro CbbR function in Rhodobacter sphaeroides and identification of a specific region critical for co‐inducer recognition

• Published in: Molecular microbiology 2005-09, Vol.57 (5), p.1397-1414
• Main Authors: Dangel, Andrew W., Gibson, Janet L., Janssen, Anita P., Tabita, F. Robert
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Amino Acid Substitution; Bacteria; Bacterial Proteins - chemistry; Bacterial Proteins - genetics; Bacterial Proteins - metabolism; Bacteriology; beta-Galactosidase - analysis; beta-Galactosidase - genetics; Binding Sites - genetics; Biological and medical sciences; DNA-Binding Proteins - chemistry; DNA-Binding Proteins - genetics; DNA-Binding Proteins - metabolism; Drug Resistance - genetics; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Gene Expression Regulation, Bacterial; Genes; Genes, Reporter - genetics; Microbiology; Miscellaneous; Mutation; Operon - genetics; Promoter Regions, Genetic; Protein Structure, Tertiary; Proteins; Rhodobacter sphaeroides - genetics; Rhodobacter sphaeroides - metabolism; Ribulosephosphates - pharmacology; Transcription Factors - chemistry; Transcription Factors - genetics; Transcription Factors - metabolism; Transcription, Genetic
• ISSN: 0950-382X; 1365-2958
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2005.04783.x

Summary CbbR is a LysR‐type transcriptional regulator (LTTR) that is required to activate transcription of the cbb operons, responsible for CO2 fixation, in Rhodobacter sphaeroides. LTTR proteins often require a co‐inducer to regulate transcription. Previous studies suggested that ribulose 1,5‐bisphosphate (RuBP) is a positive effector for CbbR function in this organism. In the current study, RuBP was found to increase the electrophoretic mobility of the CbbR/cbbI promoter complex. To define and analyse the co‐inducer recognition region of CbbR, constitutively active mutant CbbR proteins were isolated. Under growth conditions that normally maintain transcriptionally inactive cbb operons, the mutant CbbR proteins activated transcription. Fourteen of the constitutively active mutants resulted from a single amino acid substitution. One mutant was derived from amino acid substitutions at two separate residues that appeared to act synergistically. Different mutant proteins showed both sensitivity and insensitivity to RuBP and residues that conferred constitutive transcriptional activity could be highlighted on a three‐dimensional model, with several residues unique to CbbR shown to be at locations critical to LTTR function. Many of the constitutive residues clustered in or near two specific loops in the LTTR tertiary structure, corresponding to a proposed site of co‐inducer binding.