Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
Transcript of Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
-
5/24/2018 Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
1/23
Regulation of AlternativeSigma Factor Use
Sofia Osterberg, Teresa del Peso-Santos,and Victoria Shingler
Department of Molecular Biology, Umea University, 901 87 Umea, Sweden;email: [email protected]
Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2011. 65:3755
First published online as a Review in Advance onMay 31, 2011
TheAnnual Review of Microbiologyis online atmicro.annualreviews.org
This articles doi:10.1146/annurev.micro.112408.134219
Copyright c2011 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved
0066-4227/11/1013-0037$20.00
Keywordstranscription, antisigma factors, ppGpp, DksA, Crl
Abstract
Alternative bacterial sigma factors bind the catalytic core RNA
merase to confer promoter selectivity on the holoenzyme. The difholoenzymes are thus programmed to recognize the distinct pro
classes in the genome to allow coordinated activation of discretof genes needed for adaptive responses. To form the holoenzyme
different sigma factors must be available to compete for their comsubstrate (core RNA polymerase). This review highlights (a) the
of antisigma factors in controlling the availability of alternative factors and (b) the involvement of diverse regulatory molecule
promote the use of alternative sigma factors through subversion domineering housekeeping 70. The latter include the nucleotide
mone ppGpp and small proteins (DksA, Rsd, and Crl), which di
target the transcriptional machinery to mediate their effects.
37
Annu.Rev.Microbiol.2011.65:37-55.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org
byUniversidad
eFederaldeVicosaon03/10/14.Forpersonaluseonly.
Click here for quick links to
Annual Reviews content online,
including:
Other articles in this volume
Top cited articles
Top downloaded articles
Our comprehensive search
FurtherANNUAL
REVIEWS
-
5/24/2018 Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
2/23
Core RNApolymerase(core-RNAP): themultisubunit catalyticmachinery of bacterialRNA synthesis
Sigma factor (): adissociable subunit ofbacterial RNAP that
binds with 1:1stoichiometry to core-RNAPs and is essentialfor initiation oftranscription frompromoters by theresulting RNAPholoenzyme
Contents
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38THE TRANSCRIPTION CYCLE
AND DEPLOYMENT OF SIGMAFACTOR DOMAINS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
The Sigma Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
The 70 Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39The 54 Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
ANTISIGMA FACTORS AND
THEIR ANTAGONISTS . . . . . . . . . 41Counteracting Physicochemical
Assaults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Responses to Iron Limitation. . . . . . . 42
Partner Switching and Sigma FactorMimicry Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Checkpoint Coupling to Organelle
Biogenesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
PROMOTION OF ALTERNATIVESIGMA FACTOR ACTIVITYTHROUGH SUBVERSION
OF 70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Alternative Sigma Factors Are Not
Created Equal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46The Bacterial Alarmone ppGpp and
Its Cohort DksA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46ppGpp and Sigma Factor
Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Modulation of Sigma Factor Usage
Through Diversion of70 . . . . . . . 48CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
INTRODUCTION
The temporal and conditional control of tran-scription initiation is a primary access point
for regulating gene expression in all domainsof life. In eubacteria, the evolutionarily con-
served 380-kDa catalytic core RNA poly-merase (core-RNAP; subunit composition con-
sists of2) canaccurately synthesize RNAand terminate transcription at appropriate sites.
However, promoter DNA recognition and ini-tiation of transcription is dependent on a dis-
sociable sixth subunit, namely a sigma factor
(). Association of a given sigma factor with
core-RNAP dictates the DNA-binding spe
ficity of the resulting holoenzyme (-RNAby providing the majority of determinants
recognition of promoter DNA motifs. All bterial species have a housekeeping sigma fac
responsible for transcription from the majity of promoters, and most encode additio
alternative sigmas used to redirect RNAPsets of genes required for adaptive respon(30, 37). Thus, the trademark ability of m
bacteria to adapt to changing ecological coditions is underpinned by highly regulated
namic changes in the functional pools of different-RNAPs that dictate when, and
what extent, the different promoter classesthe genome can be occupied.
Because promoter-binding by a givenRNAP holoenzyme is a prerequisite for c
rect transcriptional initiation, the compositof the holoenzyme pool provides the ba
ground against which other promoter-out
modulating factors must act. These incluclassical DNA-binding transcriptional regu
tors (repressors and activators) and regulatmolecules such as the nucleotide guanos
tetraphosphate (ppGpp) and proteins suchDksA that directly target the active site of
RNAP to modulate its performance at promers (reviewed in Reference 33).
The repertoire of alternative sigma factused to globally alter and coordinate transcr
tional responses to changing cellular dema
varies widely between different species and gerally reflects the lifestyle of the bacterium. F
example, dedicated intracellular pathogens tthrive in a relatively constant environment f
quently possess only a single sigma factor (e
Mycoplasma genitalium). The gut commen
Escherichia colihas 7 sigmas, whereas soil awater bacteria, which are exposed to a pleth
of fluctuating physicochemical and nutritiostresses in their natural environments, poss
many morereaching an excess of a rema
able 60 alternative sigma factors inStreptomycoelicolor (30). The roles of alternative sig
factors in counteracting stress, during biogesis of extracellular appendages, and in devel
mental programs such as spore formation
38 Osterberg del Peso-Santos Shingler
Annu.Rev.Microbio
l.2011.65:37-55.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org
byUniversidad
eFederaldeVicosaon03/10/14.Forpersonaluseonly.
-
5/24/2018 Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
3/23
-RNAP:holoenzyme Rpolymerase
RNAP: RNApolymerase
Guanosinetetraphosphat(ppGpp): the molecule of thstringent respoused here to alencompass ppp
most familiar from studies of the model or-
ganisms E. coli and Bacillus subtilis. However,these represent just a limited subset of the myr-
iad physiological processes controlled by alter-native sigma factors, which extend to pivotal
roles in other development programs, e.g., pro-duction of aerial hyphae byS. coelicolor, regula-
tion of photosynthesis and circadian rhythmsin cyanobacteria, and control of transcrip-tion by bacteria-like RNAP in plant plastids
(30, 37).The ability of sigma factors to capture core-
RNAP to form a holoenzyme is determined bytheir free concentrations and affinity for core-
RNAP. To accommodate the intermittent andenvironment-specific requirement for alterna-
tive sigma factors, bacteria have evolved so-phisticated regulatory systems to control their
production, activity, and availability. In thisreview we first provide a brief overview of the
interactions of sigma factors with core-RNAP
and promoters as a preface to highlighting howthese critical interfaces are exploited by anti-
sigma factors. Second, we focus on mechanismsby which targeting of the housekeeping sigma
and/or its holoenzyme by regulatory moleculescan provide a more general strategy to promote
the use of many alternative sigma factors.
THE TRANSCRIPTION CYCLEAND DEPLOYMENT OF SIGMAFACTOR DOMAINS
The Sigma Cycle
Within the holoenzyme, the sigma factor makes
multiple and extensive contacts with core-RNAP and plays an active role in initial pro-
moter engagement to form a closed promotercomplex and in subsequent steps of DNA melt-
ing to form the open promoter complex re-quired for transcriptional initiation (Figure 1).
Tight-core-RNAP association is sequentiallybroken prior to promoter escape of RNAP into
the elongation mode (66). However, complete
detachment of the sigma is not a prerequi-site for transcriptional elongation per se, and
a partially attached sigma can cause elongation
Initiation Elongation
a
Stochastic release
Co
Promoterengagement
Sigma binding
Termina
Competition
b
R+P RPc RPi RPo
NTPs
RPinit
NTPs
RPE
Figure 1
The sigma cycle allows reprogramming of core RNA polymerase(core-RNAP). (a) Schematic illustration of the transcription cycle in whsigma factors compete for association with core-RNAP to direct theholoenzyme to engage promoters. (b) Simplified schematic of the multireversible steps of transcriptional initiation: -RNAP (R) binds promot(P) to form the initial closed complex (RPc), which, through sigma-assiformation of a number of unstable intermediate complexes (RPi), evenleads to the open complex (RPo), which is competent to initiate transcrNote that reversible steps of initiation end as the elongation complex (R
escapes the promoter.
stalling by binding promoter-element mim-ics within DNA. Nevertheless, the majority of
sigma factors are rapidly, albeit stochastically,released during elongation (65, 74) to join the
pool of free sigma for competitive associationwith core-RNAP. The release of sigma during
each round of transcription provides the cen-
tral mechanism for reprogramming the levelsof the alternative -RNAP holoenzyme pools
and thus cognate promoter occupancy.
The70 Family
With the exception of homologs of E. coli
54 (see below), all alternative sigmas belong
to the extensive 70 family, named after the
www.annualreviews.org Control of Sigma Factor Use 39
Annu.Rev.Microbio
l.2011.65:37-55.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org
byUniversidad
eFederaldeVicosaon03/10/14.Forpersonaluseonly.
-
5/24/2018 Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
4/23
54
70
a
b
4 3 2 1.1
3.2
DNAmelting
Corebinding
DNA-bindinginhibition
3.2 loop
Core binding bEBPinteractions
DNA interactions
24 12
NCR
UP element 35 Ext. 10 10 Discriminator
RpoN box
TTGACA TGn TATAAT GGGnnn
4.2
4.1
3.1
3.0
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
1.2
C N
C N1.1
IIIRegion III
TTGGCACG TTGC
Figure 2
Sigma factor domains and their functions. (a) For 70 proteins, roles of theconserved subregions within the 2, 3, and 4globular domains as describedin the text are highlighted. NCR indicates the location of a nonconservedregion. Consensus for the 35 hexamer (35 to 30), the extended 10element (Ext.; 15 to 13), the 10 hexamer (12 to 7), and discriminatorDNA (6 to 1, with an optimal GGG6 to 4), relative to thetranscriptional+1 start, are taken from References 33 and 56. (b) For 54
proteins, consensus for the 24 (27 to 20) and 12 (15 to 12) elements,which encompass almost invariant GG and GC recognition motifs(underlined), are taken from Reference 78. Abbreviation: bEBP, bacterialenhancer-binding protein.
Antisigma factor:any agonist that
through binding to asigma factor inhibitsits ability to associatewith core-RNAP
ECF:extracytoplasmicfunction
housekeeping70 ofE. coli(also known as D;
A inB. subtilisand many other species). A dual
(or sometimes triple) naming system for E. colisigmas is prevalent in the current literature;
therefore, after their first introduction we useonly numerical or gene name superscripting for
E. colisigmas.Extensive biochemical, genetic, and struc-
tural analysis has underscored the roles ofdifferent domains of housekeeping sigmas
in providing four of the five known inter-actions that occur with the promoter DNA
(Figure 2a). At some promoters, a fifth
interaction is provided by the -subunitsof core-RNAP at an AT-rich UP-element
DNA (reviewed in Reference 33). The most
conspicuous 70-promoter recognition e
ments are the 35 and 10 hexamers that contacted by the 4 and 2 domains of respectively (17, 66). Subregion 1.2 within
2domain can also provide promoter conta
through the discriminator DNA downstre
of the 10 element (34). At extended
promoters, which frequently lack a discerna35 element, additional promoter contacts provided by interaction between the3dom
and DNA just upstream of the 10 elemennonconserved region of highly variable len
intersperses the 2 domain of some houkeeping sigmas. ForE. coli70, this region
been implicated in assisting dissociation of sigma factor to alleviate pausing during
early stages of elongation (54).
The 70 family of proteins is divided i
subgroups based on phylogenic relations adifferential possessionof thefour conservedmains (2, 3, 4, and region 1.1) (Figure
(reviewed in References 30 and 68). Groucomprises housekeeping sigmas that possess
four domains, including the group-specific gion 1.1, which is involved in autoinhibition
DNA binding by free sigmas. Group 2 sigmrepresented by theE. colistationary/stress f
tor 38/S, are related most closely to Groubut are dispensable for growth. Group 3 s
mas, which are more distantly related to Gro
1 (e.g., E. coli 28/F/FliA and 32/H; B. sub
F), also possess all three globular domains a
usually control regulons in response to devopmental checkpoints or heat shock. The
domains of E. coli 28 and 32 interact wcomposite extended10/10 elements that
count for the unusually long consensus recnition elements of their cognate promoters (
51). The final and most divergent group of smas is Group 4the extracytoplasmic funct
(ECF) subfamily, so named because most spond to signals arising from the extracytopl
mic environment (e.g., E. coli24/E and F
Group 4 represents the most stripped-doversion of sigmas, possessing the only two
sigma domains (2and 4) that are structurconserved even among the most divergent fa
ily members.
40 Osterberg del Peso-Santos Shingler
Annu.Rev.Microbiol.2011.65:37-55.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org
byUniversidad
eFederaldeVicosaon03/10/14.Forpersonaluseonly.
-
5/24/2018 Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
5/23
The54 Family
This second class of sigma factors is uniquely
represented by orthologs ofE. coli54/N, whichdirects recognition of distinct promoter motifs
located at positions 24 and 12 relative tothe transcriptional start (Figure 2b). Although
initially identified for their role in nitrogen
assimilation, 54 proteins are widely distributedin bacteria and are utilized in coordinatingmany different physiological processes ranging
from utilization of alternative carbon sources,through assembly of motility organs, to pro-
duction of extracellular alginate. Although 54
proteins need to perform many of the same
functions as other sigmas, they bear no primary
sequence similarity to70 proteins and regulatetranscription by a different mechanism. A key
feature of 54-RNAP that contrasts other
holoenzymes is its complete inability to spon-taneously isomerize (melt) DNA to form openpromoter complexes. This step strictly re-
quires assistance from mechanotranscriptionalactivators (also known as bacterial enhancer
binding proteins, or bEBPs) that utilize ATPhydrolysis to drive conformational changes for
this transition (reviewed in Reference 78).Genetic and biochemical data on the roles
of the three main subregions of 54 (regions
I to III, Figure 2b) have recently been aug-
mented by structural analysis and cryoelectronmicroscopy reconstructions (12, 42). Region Imediates weak contact with the 12 promoter
element and with core-RNAP such that itoccludes loading of promoter DNA into the
active site. The varying region II links regions Iand III, which makes the main contacts with the
24and12 promoter elements andwith core-RNAP (Figure 2b). Activation by an obligatory
activator serves two functions. First, relocating
region I from an inhibitory conformation al-
lows entrance of the DNA. Second, facilitatingcorrect promoter DNA-54 alignment allowsfor open complex formation (12). Because of
the unique properties imparted by54 (e.g., un-usual promoter recognition, the ability to bind
DNA in the absence of core-RNAP, and the ne-cessity for ATP-utilizing mechanoactivators),
54-dependent transcription is considered a
second paradigm of bacterial transcription.Although the 54 and the 70 family members
lack sequence identity, they do bind overlap-ping surfaces of core-RNAP, and performance
of 54-RNAP is affected by the same mobile
modules of the core-RNAP - and -subunits
that influence 70
-dependent transcription,albeit with different regulatory outcomes (21,88). Hence, 54 is not exempt from funda-
mental regulatory mechanisms that involvecompetitive association with core-RNAP.
ANTISIGMA FACTORS ANDTHEIR ANTAGONISTS
Modulating the levels and/or activities of differ-
ent sigma factors, and consequently the levels
of cognate RNAP holoenzymes, provides a sim-ple yet versatile means to control the basal-line
occupancy of distinct promoter classes. Mech-anisms known to modulate the activities of sig-
mas are diverse and include phosphorylation-activated binding to a partner protein that
tags the sigma for destruction (e.g., interac-tion between the E. coli response regulator
RssB and 38) (89), proteolytic cleavage ofinactive prosigmas to remove inhibitory N-
terminal extensions (e.g.,B. subtilisproE and
proK) (41), and signal-cued use of alterna-tive start codons to generate high-molecular-
weight variants that are vulnerable to rapidproteolytic turnover (e.g., S. coelicolorR and
itsMycobacteriumortholog) (49). For some sig-mas, protein levels are controlled at all steps of
gene expressionfrom transcription initiation,through mRNA stability and control of transla-
tional efficiency by small noncoding RNAs, tosignal-responsive proteolytic degradation (e.g.,
E. coli38 and32) (31, 38). In many other cases,
however, the primary level of control involvessequestering by antisigma factors to preventtheir association with core-RNAP. The follow-
ing sections providean overview of selected sig-
mas that illustrate different systems that controlthe release of sigma factor activities when they
are needed.
www.annualreviews.org Control of Sigma Factor Use 41
Annu.Rev.Microbio
l.2011.65:37-55.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org
byUniversidad
eFederaldeVicosaon03/10/14.Forpersonaluseonly.
-
5/24/2018 Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
6/23
Coantisigma factor:a factor that acts inconcert with a partnerto bind and sequester asigma factor andthereby prevent
association withcore-RNAP
Counteracting PhysicochemicalAssaults
The Group 4 ECF sigmas encompass 60% ofall sigma factors in bacteria (15) and are chiefly
associatedwith counteracting physical or chem-
ical stresses or communicating the availabilityof iron. A common feature of most ECFs is
that their activity is regulated by stoichiomet-ric association with an antisigma factor, which
is usually coexpressed through transcriptionalcoupling of the genes within an operon. This is
the case forE. coliECF 24, which controls re-sponses to membrane stress and represents one
of the rare exceptions to the dispensable natureof alternative sigma factors (23).
The 24 gene (rpoE) is cotranscribed
with those of its antisigma factor RseA andits coantisigma factor RseB, which tightly
tether 24 to the membrane in an inactive state(Figure 3a). Themolecular details of the three-
compartment proteolytic cascade that governs
24 availability have previously been extensively
reviewed(4,14,36),soonlyanoverviewisgivenhere. The DegS serine protease is both the
molecular sensor of stress-induced misfoldedproteins within the periplasm and the initiator
of the RIP (regulated intramembrane proteol-ysis) cascade that releases 24. Activation of the
proteolytic activity of DegS results in cleavage
of the antisigma RseA within its periplasmicregion (site 1 cleavage), rendering it as a
substrate for the metalloprotease RseP, whichin turn processes RseA within its inner mem-
brane spanning region (site 2 cleavage). Thereleased cytoplamsic RseA/24 subcomplex still
sequesters 24 but has an exposed tag for recog-nition by the adaptor protein SspB that directs
the complex to ClpXP for final processing tofree 24 for association with core-RNAP.
Similar RIP cascades likely control the avail-
ability of gram-negative 24
orthologs andother ECFs such as AlgU, which is involved
in the production of alginate byPseudomonasaeruginosa with devastating consequences for
cystic fibrosis patients (reviewed in Reference36). Likewise, although gram-positive bacte-
ria lack a periplasm and the mechanistic details
differ, a conceptually similar RIP cascade co
trols the stress responses mediated byB. s
tilisW that is cotranscribed with its antisig
RsiW (36). Sequestering of a sigma to the mebrane is an efficient means to couple availab
ity to extracellular signals or those that resin alterations within the periplasmic compa
ment. A few ECFs, however, govern responto intracellular stress and are consequently ctrolled by cytoplasmic antisigma factors. T
is the case for theS. coelicolorR/RsrA (48) atheRhodobacter sphaeroidesE/ChrR (6) syste
that control responses to damaging oxygspecies.
Irrespective of the cellular location, efficisequestering requires the sigma/antisigma
teractions to be tight and mask portionskey interfaces usually involved in interact
with core-RNAP (19). The cytoplasmic ption ofE. coliRseA has been estimated to b
E with 300-fold-higher affinity than co
RNAP. Structural analysis has shown that questering involves the N-terminal domain
RseA, which sterically occludes the criticaland 4domains of this ECF (18). Despite li
primary sequence homology, an analogous main with a common fold within ChrR likew
exploits the same interfaces in its interactiowith E of R. sphaeroides (15). Bioinform
searches indicate that the common domainRseA and ChrR (ASD, antisigma domain
fused to diverse signaling domains in >30%
all ECFs (i.e.,20% of all annotated sigma ftor genes). Thus, manipulation of the geome
ofthecritical2and4domains likely undersequestering and release by cognate antisig
factors in many systems.
Responses to Iron Limitation
In addition to stress responses, ECFs are a
frequently involved in processes that ensa sufficiency of iron, which is often in li
ited environmental supply. For example,
Pseudomonas putida, 13 of its 19 ECFs apear to be dedicated to this essential elem
(61). This subgroup of ECFs is usually transcribed with a cognate antisigma factor
42 Osterberg del Peso-Santos Shingler
Annu.Rev.Microbiol.2011.65:37-55.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org
byUniversidad
eFederaldeVicosaon03/10/14.Forpersonaluseonly.
-
5/24/2018 Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
7/23
Sequestered
P
P
P
a
b c
Cytoplasm
Innernnermembraneembrane
Inner
membrane
Periplasm
Outerutermembraneembrane
Outermembrane
Stress
DegS
OmpC RseBRseB
RseA
24/E
RseP
OmpC*
SspB
ClpXP
Available
PhyR
NepR
EcfG1
Sequestered
Stress
Available
Basal body
FlgM
Sequestered
28/FliA
Available
Hook
mimicdomain
1
2
3
Figure 3
Control of sigma factor availability by antisigma factors. (a) Schematic illustration of DegS/RseP RIP(regulated intramembrane proteolysis) protease cascade (allblue elements) that releases 24/E fromsequestration at the membrane by its antisigma factor RseA and coantisigma factor RseB. Activity of the RIPcascade is triggered by stress that elicits misfolded proteins in the periplasm (such as OmpC ) to eventuallyrelease a RseA/24 subcomplex that is guided to the cytosolic ClpXP protease by SspB for final trimming torelease 24 to compete for core RNA polymerase (core-RNAP). The sequential cleavage sites (1 to 3) withinRseA are indicated. (b) The antisigma factor NepR sequesters ECfG1 within the cytoplasm until stresssignals result in the phosphorylation of the receiver domain of the anti-antisigma factor PhyR.Phosphorylation of PhyR exposes a sigma mimic domain of PhyR that recruits and sequesters the antisigma(NepR), thus leaving ECfG1 free to associate with core-RNAP. (c) The antisigma factor FlgM likewisesequestersFliAwithin the cytosol. However, in this instance, completion of the flagella basal body allowsexport of partially unstructured FlgM, resulting in a pool of available 28 ready for holoenzyme formation.
control expression of genes involved in theuptake of iron-scavenging siderophoresfirst
through an outer membrane siderophore trans-porter and then from the periplasm to the cy-
tosol via an ABC-type transporter. The mostextensively studied siderophore signaling path-
way is that of the Fec system for ferric citrate
uptake inE. coli, which represents a paradigmsystem for responses to a signal that can only
enter the cell through transport.Signaling involves communication from
the cell surface siderophore transporter (FecA)to the inner-membrane-anchored antisigma
factor (FecR), which sequesters FecI to the
www.annualreviews.org Control of Sigma Factor Use 43
Annu.Rev.Microbiol.2011.65:37-55.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org
byUniversidad
eFederaldeVicosaon03/10/14.Forpersonaluseonly.
-
5/24/2018 Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
8/23
Anti-antisigmafactor: a factor thatantagonizes orcounteracts the activityof an antisigma factor
cytoplasmic side of the inner membrane. Cell
surface binding of ferric citrate to the FecAtransporter triggers structural changes that
facilitate interaction between the N-proximalportion of FecA and the C-terminal portion
of the antisigma FecR within the periplasm.FecR then transmits the signal across the inner
membrane to its N-terminal portion to relieveinhibition of FecI activity in the cytoplasmcompartment. The regions of FecA that are
involved in transducing signals arising fromsiderophore transport are comparatively well
understood; however, the details of the mecha-nisms that underlie thepropagation of the ferric
citrate-binding signal to the C-terminalportionof FecR, and from there through FecR to affect
FecI activity, remain an open question (14).In some Fec-like systems the antisigma fac-
tor only has a negative effect on sigma activ-ity and, upon receiving the activating signal,
may well simply release the sigma for asso-
ciation with core-RNAP, as is typical of an-tisigma factors. However, for FecI/FecR and
some other related systems, activation throughthe FecA transporter converts the antisigma
factor from a negative to a positive regulatorthat stimulates the activity of the cognate sigma
factor (63 and references therein). In thesecases, the antisigma likely remains bound to the
sigma to achieve this outcome. Genetic analysiswith truncates and point mutations ofFecI has
demonstrated that FecR sequesters FecI only
via interaction with its 4domain, and that thisinteraction is required for FecI to function as
a sigma factor (60). Sequestering solely via the
4 domain may be a reflection of the relative
unimportance of the 35 element (that is usu-ally bound by a 4domain) for FecI-dependent
transcription (5). Rather than FecI release, sig-naling to the cytoplasmic N terminus of FecR
stimulates FecI association with the -subunitof RNAP (59). Because portions of FecR, FecI,
and stably interact simultaneously (59), andactivation via FecR also promotes novel pro-
moter interactions with DNA at +13 fromthe transcriptional start site (5), the activation
model that emerges is one in which FecR re-
mains a functional part of the transcriptional
initiation complex. Tethering to the in
membrane via FecR would not necessarily ipose a hindrance to transcriptional elongat
because the sigma factor is released duringshortly after) transcriptional initiation. Ho
ever, it does pose the interesting conundrof how the FecI-RNAP holoenzyme locate
target promoter from its restricted location
Partner Switching and Sigma FactorMimicry Mechanisms
Bacillus species provide prime examplescascade production and compartmentalizat
of sigma factors, as well as other paradigof how the activities of alternative sigm
can be controlled. Both the F forespdevelopmental program and the expression
the B stress regulon ofB. subtilisare governby analogous phosphorylation-depend
partner switch mechanisms (reviewed
References 35 and 41). In these systeswitching between alternative binding partn
of the antisigma factorfrom the sigma facto an anti-antisigma factoris the crit
step that releases the sigma to performfunction. The activity of F is regulated
the serine kinase antisigma factor SpoIIAB athe anti-antisigma factor SpoIIAA, which
cotranscribed with the F gene (sigF) in
spoIIAoperon. Structural determinations h
highlighted the importance of the3domain
F for sequestration by its antisigma (SpoIIA(16). Dimeric SpoIIAB binds asymmetrica
to a single molecule ofF and occludes itsdomain from interaction with core-RNA
As a result of the asymmetric binding, onethe SpoIIAB protomers is more accessible
binding to the anti-antisigma factor (SpoIIAthat, upon docking to SpoIIAB, displaces
to leave it free to associate with core-RNASpoIIAB then phosphorylates its new part
SpoIIAA in a reaction that dissociates ADP-bound form of SpoIIAB, which in t
associates with any unphosphorylated SpoIIto form a complex that inhibits both the kin
and antisigma activity of SpoIIAB (41, 62, a
references therein).
44 Osterberg del Peso-Santos Shingler
Annu.Rev.Microbiol.2011.65:37-55.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org
byUniversidad
eFederaldeVicosaon03/10/14.Forpersonaluseonly.
-
5/24/2018 Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
9/23
Binding partner switching is also an in-
tegral component of the general stress re-sponse in Alphaproteobacteria that lack an
E. coli38 or B. subtilisB ortholog. However, inthese organisms, control involves the unusual
anti-antisigma PhyR, which has a C-terminalresponse-regulator (RR) domain coupled to
an ECF-like domain. Upon phosphorylation,Methylobacterium extorquensPhyR binds NepR,an antisigma factor that normally sequesters
the ECF EcfG1 (Figure 3b) (26). Although theECF-like domain of PhyR shares high homol-
ogy with EcfG1, it lacks critical residues thatwould be involved in DNA binding (82) and
thus appears to serve as a pure mimic to en-tice NepR away to free EcfG1 to serve its du-
ties. A recent structure of Caulobacter crescen-
tusPhyR in its unphosphorylated state shows
predictable structures for its component parts.However, extensive interactions between the
RR domain and the ECF domain (2linked to
4) force the 2and 4modules into a compactconformation that presumably prevents recog-
nition by NepR until PhyR is phosphorylated(40). Based on the distinct structural compo-
nents, and the fact that the ECF domain alonecan act as an anti-antisigma, the authors pro-
pose that the RR domain can be considered asan antianti-antisigma factor. The counterpart
sensor kinase(s) (or anti-antianti-antisigma fac-tor) that would serve to phosphorylate PhyR,
and thus initiate the whole cascade, remains to
be identified. However, a variety of candidateperiplasmic or cytoplasmic sensor kinases are
encoded in the vicinity ofphyRgenes in differ-ent organisms (81).
Checkpoint Couplingto Organelle Biogenesis
Flagella are characteristically assembled ina stepwise manner through temporally con-
trolled expression of their component parts.The hierarchical expression of flagella genes
can be achieved by diverse mechanisms but usu-ally involves a master regulator that initiates the
cascade and coupling of late flagella gene ex-
pression to completion of the hook basal body
structure to form a developmental checkpoint
(79). In most flagellated bacteria, the key play-ers in this developmental checkpoint are an an-
tisigma factor (FlgM) and a specific sigma fac-tor (E. coliFliA,B. subtilisD) that is required
for transcription of genes encoding the flagellafilament subunits and proteins involved in bac-
terial taxis. Upon completion of the hook basalbody structure, FlgM can be secreted throughthe type III system housed within the basal
body, thus releasing FliA for association withcore-RNAP (Figure 3c). Hence, this mecha-
nism uses secretion as a signal that cues com-pletion of a functionalactive structure to ensure
that filament and taxis proteins are expressedonly when appropriate (43).
NMR studies have established that FlgMis intrinsically partially disordered, with only
the C-terminal half structured when in associ-ation with FliA and under molecular crowding
conditions that would prevail in vivo (22, 24).
The naturally unfolded state of FlgM (com-plete or partial) has been suggested to facili-
tate secretion of FlgM through thenarrowhookbasal body structure (22). Biochemical and ge-
netic evidence that implicates multiple regionsofFliA in its sequestration by the C-terminal
of FlgM hasbeen reinforced by crystallographicdata from theAquifex aeolicusFliA/FlgM com-
plex, which shows a highly compact conforma-tionofthe2,3,and4 domainsofFliA,which
masks its DNA-binding and core-RNAP asso-
ciation determinants (80).The FlgM and FliA genes are not encoded
within an operon, rather the levels of FlgMare frequently under complex regulation that
includes (a) dual promoter control of theflgMgene, in which one promoter isFliA dependent
and thus provides an autorepressing feedbackcircuitry; and (b) translational modulation of
FlgM protein levels, which adjusts the relativeFlgM:FliA ratios within the cell (reviewed in
Reference 79). Recently, mathematic modelingand experimental rewiring of the flgM and
fliA gene promoters have provided strongsupport for a previously proposed model
in which FlgM secretion, in addition to
enforcing the developmental checkpoint,
www.annualreviews.org Control of Sigma Factor Use 45
Annu.Rev.Microbiol.2011.65:37-55.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org
byUniversidad
eFederaldeVicosaon03/10/14.Forpersonaluseonly.
-
5/24/2018 Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
10/23
functions as a proxy-measuring system that
continually fine-tunes FlgM and FliA levelsto provide a sensing mechanism that may also
control flagella numbers (77).
PROMOTION OF ALTERNATIVESIGMA FACTOR ACTIVITY
THROUGH SUBVERSION OF70
Alternative Sigma Factors Are NotCreated Equal
As highlighted in Figure 1, active transcrip-tion and the sigma cycle provide the means
for reconstituting alternative -RNAP holoen-zymes. However, as exemplified by the find-
ings inE. coli, alternative sigmas generally havelower affinity for core-RNAP than the house-
keeping 70, with the poorest (38) estimatedto be approximately 10-fold lower (57). More-
over, even when presented with conditions that
maximize the levels of active alternative sig-mas, the cellular concentrations of alternative
sigmas are greatly exceeded by those of 70
(29, 72, 75). The levels ofE. coli70 and core-
RNAP are relatively constant over the growthcurve and under different growth conditions.
Although absolute values differ somewhat, thenumber of70 molecules is consistently esti-
mated to exceed that of core-RNAP by approx-imately threefold (29, 72, 75). Because much of
the core-RNAP is employed in catalyzing RNA
synthesis, competition betweensigmafactors toform a holoenzyme with the limited free core-
RNAP will be fierce.Many approaches, including artificial ma-
nipulations of sigma factor levels and the useof sigma factor mutants that are altered in
their affinity, and thus their competitiveness,for core-RNAP, have clearly established that
sigma factor competition for core-RNAP lim-its output from promoters dependent on al-
ternative sigmas such as 38, 32, and 54 (46,53). This is likely the case for all alternative
sigmas, which raises the question of how low-level and/or weak-affinity alternative sigma fac-
tors gain sufficient access to core-RNAP to
drive transcription from promoters under their
control. The following sections present e
dence that global regulatory subversion of household 70 to concomitantly enhance f
mation of alternative-RNAPsprovidesatlea partial solution to the problem.
The Bacterial Alarmone ppGpp
and Its Cohort DksA
The nucleotide ppGpp (also known as ma
spot) is the primary mediator of the stringresponse to amino acid starvation, wh
translational capacity is balanced to redudemand through downregulation of transcr
tion from tRNA and rRNA operon promot(stringent70 promoters). In addition to am
acid starvation, iron, carbon, and nitrolimitations, as well as many environmen
physicochemical stresses that reduce growrate, cause induction of the intracellular lev
of ppGpp (73). The rapid elevation of ppG
levels during the hungry phase (just prior totransition between exponential and station
growth in rich media), or through artifimanipulation of ppGpp levels under norm
nonpermissive conditions, markedly enhanoutput from many promoters dependent
alternative sigmas (e.g.,E. coli38, 32, 24, a
54) (20, 28, 46, 53, 84). It is now evident t
ppGpp is the mediator of a far greater netwthat holistically redirects the global transcr
tional capacity of the cell from genes for grow
toward those for adaptive survival respon(32, 73).
Targeting of the -RNAP by ppGpp speically alters its performance at susceptible p
moters to either decrease (e.g., stringentpromoters) or increase (e.g., some 70 p
moters involved in amino acid transport orvirulence, and some specific 24- and F
dependent promoters) their activities (2, 47, 67, 70, 71). The exact location and l
anding residues for ppGpp within the tive site cleft of core-RNAP remain elus
(86). Nevertheless, it appears clear that ppGbinding to RNAP lowers the energy requi
for transition between intermediates in
pathway leading to open-complex formati
46 Osterberg del Peso-Santos Shingler
Annu.Rev.Microbiol.2011.65:37-55.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org
byUniversidad
eFederaldeVicosaon03/10/14.Forpersonaluseonly.
-
5/24/2018 Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
11/23
Depending on the rate-limiting step and rel-
ative stabilities of consecutive intermediates,lowering the energy required for conversion
from one intermediate to the next would fa-vor either the reverse or forward reactions in
Figure 1b, leading to promoter-specific nega-tive or positive outcomes (reviewed in Refer-
ence 33).The in vivo and in vitro effects of ppGpp atpromoters are frequently amplified by DksA
a member of a family of regulators that bindsRNAP and accesses the active site through the
secondary channel. DksA mediates long-rangestructural changes within RNAP that alter in-
teraction with the 6 to +6 region at70 pro-moters (11, 55, 76). Although it remains to be
experimentally tested in most cases, there is noreason why DksA could not also affect the per-
formance of any-RNAP, although the con-sequences might differ. DksA and ppGpp can
have mutually independent and sometimes op-
posing effects (1, 3, 75, and references therein);however, DksA sensitizes RNAP to the cellular
levels of ppGpp to account for their commoncoaction (70). InE. coliandP. putida, DksA lev-
els are relatively constant (9, 75); therefore, itis the changing levels of ppGppthe herald
of stressthat instigate proactive promoter-specific and global transcriptional responses
that allow the cell to prepare for tough timesahead.
ppGpp and Sigma Factor Competition
As a global regulator, ppGpp by definition haspleiotropic effects in vivo, and thus many dif-
ferent mechanisms frequently converge to ulti-mately account for the total effect of ppGpp on
output from a given promoter. These includepromoter-specific effects on the performance of
holoenzymes at kinetically susceptible promot-ers (see above), which in turn can initiate ad-
ditional regulatory cascades through the geneproducts they encode. However, these regula-
tory consequences cannot account for the full
effect of ppGpp in vivo. For example, ppGppaids stability ofS through production of anti-
adaptors to result in higher cellular levels ofS
under stress conditions (reviewed in Reference
8). Nevertheless, aS promoter that is not de-pendent directly on ppGpp still requires ppGpp
for activity in vivo even when reduced S lev-els are compensated for by ectopic expression
(46, 52). Likewise, although the levels of54
are constant irrespective of the presence or ab-
sence of ppGpp and/or DksA, the activities of54 promoters that are not enhanced directly byeither factor in vitro are still greatly stimulated
bythepresenceofthesemoleculesinvivo(9,10,53, 84). These findings demand an alternative
explanation for the action of ppGpp.In E. coli, elevated intracellular levels of
ppGpp result in decreased association of 70
and core-RNAP (but not decreased 70 lev-
els per se), so that less 70-RNAP is avail-able to occupy cognate 70 promoters (32, 39).
In addition, a proteomic approach has shownthat underproduction of70-RNAP essentially
mimics the stringent response (58). Separa-
tion and immunological detection of free andcore-RNAP-associated sigma has been used to
demonstrate that elevated ppGpp, which de-creases70-RNAP levels, concomitantly results
in increased38-RNAP and32-RNAP holoen-zyme levels (46). Although not experimentally
tested, this would be anticipated to also bethe case for other -RNAPs. These data, to-
gether with the finding that the requirementfor ppGpp to achieve efficient 38- and 54-
dependent transcription can be simplybypassed
using 70 mutants that are defective in theirability to compete for binding to core-RNAP
(10, 46, 53, 84), make a convincing case forthe idea that ppGpp plays a determining role
in the outcome of sigma factor competition tofavor holoenzyme formation with alternative
sigmas.Whereas the importance of ppGpp in vivo
is clear, it remains to be resolved if ppGppand/or DksA can actively alter sigma factor
competition, or if their effects occur indirectly(passively) through 70-dependent transcrip-
tion. An active role has been suggested basedon the observation that ppGpp enhanced tran-
scription from a 32-dependent promoter only
under conditions of competition with 70 in
www.annualreviews.org Control of Sigma Factor Use 47
Annu.Rev.Microbiol.2011.65:37-55.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org
byUniversidad
eFederaldeVicosaon03/10/14.Forpersonaluseonly.
-
5/24/2018 Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
12/23
vitro (46). However, such stimulation was not
found in similar experiments with54 in com-petition with 70, neither in the presence nor
in the absence of ppGpp and/or DksA (10, 53,83). In addition to altering sigma factor compe-
tition, 70- and core-RNAP - and -bypassmutants also functionally mimic the action of
ppGpp and DksA by further destabilizing thenotoriously unstable open complexes of rRNAoperon promoters (7, 83). The latter property
suggests a passive mechanism by which theseregulatory molecules could alter sigma factor
competition.A unifying model has been proposed that
would explain the properties of bypass mutantsand enhanced performance by any alternative
sigma in the presence of ppGpp (10, 83). Thismodel, like many before it, invokes passive
regulation through the consequences of thenegative action of ppGpp and DksA at the
seven powerful stringent 70-rRNA operon
promoters. InE. coli, the activities of these70
promoters sequester approximately 60%70%
of the transcriptional machinery during rapidgrowth in rich media (13). Under these con-
ditions, where ppGpp levels are low, much ofthe core-RNAP is occupied in catalysis of the
transcripts from these powerful promoters,leaving little available for association with any
sigma factor. This would lead to low levelsof alternative holoenzymes and consequent
low occupancy and output from promoters
under their control. Under slow growth and/orstress conditions that elicit high levels of
ppGpp, however, the potent downregulationof transcription from the 70-rRNA operon
promoters would lead to increased levels ofcore-RNAP available for holoenzyme forma-
tion. As a consequence, alternative -RNAPlevels would increase even in the absence of
a change in sigma levels, leading to enhancedpromoter output from cognate promoters.
Within this model, decreased 70 availabilityand 70-RNAP mutants would mimic high lev-
elsofppGppbyreducingtranscriptionfromthepowerful stringent70-rRNA operon promot-
ers and by altering core-RNAP to sigma factor
association to favor alternative holoenzyme
formation. A prediction from this model is t
low-affinity promoters that have holoenzybinding as a rate-limiting step would be m
susceptible to loss of these regulatory molecuthan high-affinity counterpartsa predict
that has been experimentally verified to be case for 54-dependent transcription (9, 10)
Modulation of Sigma Factor UsageThrough Diversion of70
The model outlined above does not exclu
nor is it incompatible with, the possible extence of unknown factor(s) that may additi
ally contribute to the in vivo requirement ppGpp and DksA. Analogous to the discov
of the role of DksA in ppGpp-mediated rulation, it cannot be ruled out that some ot
protein(s) may facilitate ppGpp-mediated relation of alternative-RNAPs or aid their f
mation in vivo. On the contrary, the ppG
triggered reduction of 70-RNAP levels (not those of 70 itself) demands that 70
diverted to prevent its association with coRNAP. The answer to how this is achieve
not currently fully understood. However, asscribed below, the Rsd (regulator of sigma
protein is likely a major contributor, and ftors such as the Crl protein are also potentia
involved.Rsd was initially identified through a sea
for factors that might allow alternative sig
factors to compete for limiting core-RNAPE. coli(45). By forming 1:1 complexes with Rsd specifically sequesters free 70 and can aactively remove 70 from 70-RNAP in vi
(44, 87). Biochemical and genetic studies of Rand its AlgQ homolog have shown that th
proteins sequester 70 primarily through teractions with the4 domain (which conta
35 elements), although other contact poiwith 70-RNAP are also involved (25, 4
Structural studies of Rsd in complex withof70 have revealed that Rsd binding occlu
residues critical for 4/core-RNA interacti(69). By binding 70 and occluding associat
with core-RNAP, Rsd falls under the definit
of an antisigma factor. However, this definit
48 Osterberg del Peso-Santos Shingler
Annu.Rev.Microbiol.2011.65:37-55.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org
byUniversidad
eFederaldeVicosaon03/10/14.Forpersonaluseonly.
-
5/24/2018 Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
13/23
seems inappropriate because Rsd can be vastly
overexpressed without compromising growth.Transcription of the Rsd gene is directed
by the activities of two promoters, and is par-tially under ppGpp control, leading to ele-
vated levels of Rsd when competition for core-RNAP would be at its highest (45, 72). The idea
that Rsd might facilitate formation of alterna-tive holoenzymes via reducing the availabilityof 70 has been spurred by the findings that
overexpression of Rsd results in increased out-put from some 54-, 38-, and 32-dependent
promoters (46, 53, 64), and because additionof Rsd can facilitate sigma factor exchange in
vitro (L. Holmfeld & V. Shingler, unpublisheddata). Consistent with the idea that Rsd could
facilitate access of alternative sigmas to core-RNAP, the naturally elevated levels of Rsd in
stationary-phaseE. colisequester a significantportion (25%) of70 (72). However, it should
be emphasized that Rsd null mutants have min-
imal effects on 38- and 54-dependent pro-moter outputs that are enhanced by overexpres-
sion of Rsd (9, 64), suggesting that Rsd doesnot act alone to bring about these regulatory
events. An intriguing finding from structuralstudies of the Rsd/4 complex is that a network
of interactions connects the binding interfacewith other potential binding cavities located on
the surface of Rsd. Although some of these in-teractions may be involved in recognition of
70-RNAP, this observation raises the possibil-
ity of functional coupling of Rsd/70 bindingwith binding of some as yet unknown protein
and/or small regulatory molecule (69). If this isindeed the case, identification of such an entity
would surely further our understanding of thephysiological role of Rsd.
TheE. coliCrl protein binds 38 and pref-erentially favors 38 in competition with 70
for core-RNAP, presumably by facilitating38-RNAP holoenzyme formation (27, 85). The Crl
protein is restricted in its genome distributionand the global regulatory effect of Crl is lim-
ited to promoters of the 38 regulon (85). Thismakes it unlikely that Crl has any significant
effects on the levels of other -RNAP holoen-
zymes. Nevertheless, it does pose an alternative
scenario to specific 70 sequestration to at least
partially account for reciprocal alterations in
70-RNAP versus alternative-RNAP holoen-
zyme levels. Given the large number of genes ofunknown function inE. coliand other bacteria,
it is certainly plausible that analogous facilita-
tors of other alternative holoenzymes exist but
have eluded detection.
CONCLUSIONS
Regulation of alternative sigma factor activity is
usually complex, with multiple tiers of controlto regulate both their expressionlevelsandtheir
activities. One major mechanism is sequester-ing by an antisigma factor, which provides sys-
tems for signal-specific control of sigma fac-tor availability and thus the activity of promot-
ers they regulate. Where known in any depth,these systems areexquisitely attuned to both the
typeofsignal(i.e.,thecompartmentfromwhich
thesignalarises)and the constraints imposed bythe nature of the signal (e.g., the need for iron
transport into the cell). However, for many al-ternative sigmas, particularly those of the ex-
tensive ECF Group 4 family, only a few havebeen studiedin any detail. In many cases neither
the signal nor the factor(s) that controls theiractivity is known, which severely curtails un-
derstanding their role in microbial physiology.Given the novel mechanisms that have recently
been identified by studying new members of
this familysuch as the use of alternative startcodons to generate proteolytically vulnerable
variants of S. coelicolor R (49) and molecu-lar mimicry of EcfG1 in Alphaproteobacteria
(26)it is not unreasonable to expect the reper-toire of mechanisms that can control sigma fac-
tor availability to continue to expand.Sequestering by an antisigma factor both
protects the sigma factor from proteolytic at-tack and provides immediate availability upon
demand. Genetic and structural studies ofsigma/antisigma interactions have identified
repeated themes within sequestering mecha-
nisms, namely manipulation of the geometryof the key globular sigma domains (2, 3,
and/or4) to mask critical regions involved in
www.annualreviews.org Control of Sigma Factor Use 49
Annu.Rev.Microbiol.2011.65:37-55.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org
byUniversidad
eFederaldeVicosaon03/10/14.Forpersonaluseonly.
-
5/24/2018 Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
14/23
interaction with core-RNAP and promoter
DNA. Likewise, similar studies have alsostarted to unravel and test models of how
antisigma/anti-antisigma interactions breakthese interactions to free sigmas to perform
their function.In addition to dedicated signaling pathways,
the activities of manyE. colialternative sigmafactors can be coordinately stimulated by theglobal regulator ppGpp, and this is likely to also
be the case in other organisms. The adoption
of ppGpp to stimulate the activities of alter
tive sigmas is perhaps not surprising becastresses that elicit ppGpp synthesis over
greatly with those that cue the need for altnative sigmas. Much evidence has accumula
that this stimulatory effect occursthrough a r
of ppGpp in determining the outcome of sig
factor competition for limiting core-RNto holistically favor association of alternatsigmas over 70. However, much remains to
learned about how this is brought about.
SUMMARY POINTS
1. The transcription cycle provides the means to rapidly strip off the sigma factor to gen-
erate naked core-RNAP ready for reprogramming by any available sigma. However, theactivities and availability of most sigma factors are intricately controlled.
2. Antisigma factors manipulate the geometry of key regions of sigma factors to preventtheir interaction with core-RNAP. Cognate dedicated signal transduction pathways that
release the activities of sigma factors present a dazzling array of mechanismsfromsophisticated protease cascades, through sigma factor mimicry and partner switching, to
the conceptually simple but elegant solution of secretion of an antisigma factor to linkactivity to organelle biogenesis.
3. When free to interact with core-RNAP, all alternative sigma factors must competefiercely with 70 (and each other) for a limited amount of core-RNAP in order to direct
transcription from the promoters they control.
4. Alternative sigma factors are aided in their battle against70 by the alarmone ppGpp
through mechanisms that divert 70
or otherwise counteract its association withcore-RNAP.
FUTURE ISSUES
1. Has the repertoire of mechanisms that can control the availability of alternative sigma
factors reached its limit, or are there future surprises ahead?
2. Do ppGpp and DksA affect transcription mediated by all -RNAP holoenzymes?
3. Does the effect of ppGpp and DksA on sigma factor competition operate purely passively,
or is there an active component involved?
4. How is the dominating 70 subdued to allow alternative sigma factors sufficient access tolimitedcore-RNAP?IsRsdtheonlyanswer,ordoother 70 sequestersexist?DoesRsdact
in concert with a coregulator and/or with Crl-like facilitators of alternative holoenzymeformation?
50 Osterberg del Peso-Santos Shingler
Annu.Rev.Microbiol.2011.65:37-55.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org
byUniversidad
eFederaldeVicosaon03/10/14.Forpersonaluseonly.
-
5/24/2018 Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
15/23
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that
might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Apologies are due to all researchers whose original contributions could not be cited due to space
limitations. Our work is supported by the Swedish Research Council (grant number 621-2008-3557 to V.S.) and the European Molecular Biology Organization through a Long Term Research
Fellowship (grant number 540-2009 to T. del P.-S.).
LITERATURE CITED
1. Aberg A, Fernandez-Vazquez J, Cabrer-Panes JD, Sanchez A, Balsalobre C. 2009. Similar and divergent
effects of ppGpp and DksA deficiencies on transcription inEscherichia coli.J. Bacteriol.191:322636
2. Aberg A, Shingler V, Balsalobre C. 2006. (p)ppGpp regulates type 1 fimbriation of Escherichia coliby
modulating the expression of the site-specific recombinase FimB. Mol. Microbiol.60:152033
3. Aberg A, Shingler V, Balsalobre C. 2008. Regulation of thefimB promoter: a case of differential regulation
by ppGpp and DksA in vivo. Mol. Microbiol.67:122341
4. Ades SE.2008. Regulation by destruction:design of theE envelope stress response. Curr. Opin. Microbiol.11:53540
5. Angerer A, Enz S, Ochs M, Braun V. 1995. Transcriptional regulation of ferric citrate transport in
Escherichia coliK-12. Fecl belongs to a new subfamily of sigma 70-type factors that respond to extracyto-
plasmic stimuli.Mol. Microbiol.18:16374
6. Anthony JR, Newman JD, Donohue TJ. 2004. Interactions between theRhodobacter sphaeroidesECFsigma
factor, E, and its anti-sigma factor, ChrR.J. Mol. Biol.341:34560
7. Barker MM, Gaal T, Gourse RL. 2001. Mechanism of regulation of transcription initiation by ppGpp.
II. Models for positive control based on properties of RNAP mutants and competition for RNAP. J. Mol.
Biol.305:689702
8. Battesti A, Majdalani N, Gottesman S. 2011. The RpoS-mediated general stress response inEscherichia
coli.Annu. Rev. Microbiol.65:189213
9. Bernardo LM,Johansson LU,Skarfstad E, Shingler V. 2009.54-Promoter discrimination and regulationby ppGpp and DksA.J. Biol. Chem.284:82838
10. Bernardo LM, Johansson LU, Solera D, Skarfstad E, Shingler V. 2006. The guanosine tetraphosphate
(ppGpp) alarmone, DksA and promoter affinity for RNA polymerase in regulation of54-dependent
transcription.Mol. Microbiol.60:74964
11. Blankschien MD, Lee JH, Grace ED, Lennon CW, Halliday JA, et al. 2009. Super DksAs: substitutions
in DksA enhancing its effects on transcription initiation.EMBO J.28:172031
12. Bose D, Pape T, Burrows PC, Rappas M, Wigneshweraraj SR, et al. 2008. Organization of an activator-
bound RNA polymerase holoenzyme.Mol. Cell32:33746
13. Bremer H, Dennis PP. 1996. Modulation of chemical composition and other parameters of the cell by
growth rate. In Escherichia coli andSalmonella: Cellular and Molecular Biology, ed. FC Neidhardt, RI
Curtis, JL Ingraham, ECC Lin, KB Low, et al., 2:155369. Washington, DC: ASM Press
14. Brooks BE, Buchanan SK. 2008. Signaling mechanisms for activation of extracytoplasmic function (ECF)sigma factors.Biochim. Biophys. Acta1778:193045
15. Campbell EA, Greenwell R, Anthony JR, Wang S, Lim L, et al. 2007. A conserved structural module
regulates transcriptional responses to diverse stress signals in bacteria.Mol. Cell27:793805
16. Campbell EA, Masuda S, Sun JL, Muzzin O, Olson CA, et al. 2002. Crystal structure of the Bacillus
stearothermophilusanti-sigma factor SpoIIAB with the sporulation sigma factor F.Cell108:795807
17. Campbell EA, Muzzin O, Chlenov M, Sun JL, Olson CA, et al. 2002. Structure of the bacterial RNA
polymerase promoter specificity subunit.Mol. Cell9:52739
www.annualreviews.org Control of Sigma Factor Use 51
Annu.Rev.Microbiol.2011.65:37-55.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org
byUniversidad
eFederaldeVicosaon03/10/14.Forpersonaluseonly.
-
5/24/2018 Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
16/23
18. Campbell EA, Tupy JL, Gruber TM, Wang S, Sharp MM, et al. 2003. Crystal structure ofEscherichia
E with the cytoplasmic domain of its anti-sigma RseA.Mol. Cell11:106778
19. Brings together and
highlights the structural
means by which
antisigmas operate to
mask key determinants
of sigmas.
19. Campbell EA, Westblade LF, Darst SA. 2008. Regulation of bacterial RNA polymerase fac
activity: a structural perspective. Curr. Opin. Microbiol.11:12127
20. Costanzo A, Nicoloff H, Barchinger SE, Banta AB, Gourse RL, Ades SE. 2008. ppGpp and DksA lik
regulate the activity of the extracytoplasmic stress factor E inEscherichia coliby both direct and indi
mechanisms.Mol. Microbiol.67:61932
21. Datwyler SA, Meares CF. 2000. Protein-protein interactions mapped by artificial proteases: where sig
factors bind to RNA polymerase.Trends Biochem. Sci.25:4081422. Daughdrill GW, Chadsey MS, Karlinsey JE, Hughes KT, Dahlquist FW. 1997. The C-terminal ha
the anti-sigma factor, FlgM, becomes structured when bound to its target, 28.Nat. Struct. Biol.4:285
23. De Las Penas A, Connolly L, Gross CA. 1997.E is an essential sigma factor inEscherichia coli.J. Bacte
179:686264
24. Dedmon MM, Patel CN, Young GB, Pielak GJ. 2002. FlgM gains structure in living cells. Proc. N
Acad. Sci. USA99:1268184
25. Dove SL, Hochschild A. 2001. Bacterial two-hybrid analysis of interactions between region 4 of the
subunit of RNA polymerase and the transcriptional regulators Rsd from Escherichia coliand AlgQ fr
Pseudomonas aeruginosa.J. Bacteriol.183:641321
26. A conceptually new
way to entice an
antisigma from itstarget sigma.
26. Francez-Charlot A, Frunzke J, Reichen C, Ebneter JZ, Gourion B, Vorholt JA. 2009. Sigma fac
mimicry involved in regulation of general stress response. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA106:3467
27. Gaal T, MandelMJ, Silhavy TJ,Gourse RL.2006. Crlfacilitates RNA polymerase holoenzyme formatJ. Bacteriol. 188:796670
28. Gentry DR, Hernandez VJ, Nguyen LH, Jensen DB, Cashel M. 1993. Synthesis of the stationary-ph
sigma factor S is positively regulated by ppGpp.J. Bacteriol.175:798289
29. Grigorova IL, Phleger NJ, Mutalik VK, Gross CA. 2006. Insights into transcriptional regulation
sigma competition from an equilibrium model of RNA polymerase binding to DNA.Proc. Natl. Acad.
USA103:533237
30. Gruber TM, Gross CA. 2003. Multiple sigma subunits and the partitioning of bacterial transcript
space.Annu. Rev. Microbiol.57:44166
31. Guisbert E, Yura T, Rhodius VA, Gross CA. 2008. Convergence of molecular, modeling, and syste
approaches for an understanding of the Escherichia coli heat shock response. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. R
72:54554
32. An elegant approachto address the difficult
problem of determining
the relative proportions
of free versus
DNA-bound -RNAP.
32. Gummesson B, Magnusson LU, Lovmar M, Kvint K, Persson O, et al. 2009. Increased RNpolymerase availability directs resources towards growth at the expense of maintenance. EM
J.28:220919
33. Haugen SP, Ross W, Gourse RL. 2008. Advances in bacterial promoter recognition and its control
factors that do not bind DNA.Nat. Rev. Microbiol.6:50719
34. Clarifies the identity
of a previously
unappreciated promoter
recognition element
that can be exploited to
regulate promoter
output.
34. Haugen SP, Ross W, Manrique M, Gourse RL. 2008. Fine structure of the promoter- reg
1.2 interaction.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA105:329297
35. Hecker M, Pane-Farre J, Volker U. 2007. SigB-dependent general stress response inBacillus subtilis
related Gram-positive bacteria.Annu. Rev. Microbiol.61:21536
36. Heinrich J, Wiegert T. 2009. Regulated intramembrane proteolysis in the control of extracytoplas
function sigma factors.Res. Microbiol.160:696703
37. Helmann JD. 2002. The extracytoplasmic function (ECF) sigma factors.Adv. Microb. Physiol.46:47
38. Hengge R. 2009. Proteolysis ofS (RpoS) and the general stress response inEscherichia coli.Res. Micro160:66776
39. Hernandez VJ, Cashel M. 1995. Changes in conserved region 3 ofEscherichia coli70 mediate ppG
dependent functions in vivo.J. Mol. Biol.252:53649
40. Herrou J, Foreman R, Fiebig A, Crosson S. 2010. A structural model of anti-anti-sigma inhibition b
two-component receiver domain: the PhyR stress response regulator.Mol. Microbiol.78:290304
41. Hilbert DW, Piggot PJ. 2004. Compartmentalization of gene expression during Bacillus subtilissp
formation.Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.68:23462
52 Osterberg del Peso-Santos Shingler
Annu.Rev.Microbiol.2011.65:37-55.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org
byUniversidad
eFederaldeVicosaon03/10/14.Forpersonaluseonly.
-
5/24/2018 Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
17/23
42. Hong E, Doucleff M, Wemmer DE. 2009. Structure of the RNA polymerase core-binding domain of54
reveals a likely conformational fracture point. J. Mol. Biol.390:7082
43. Hughes KT, Gillen KL, Semon MJ, Karlinsey JE. 1993. Sensing structural intermediates in bacterial
flagellar assembly by export of a negative regulator. Science262:127780
44. Ilag LL, Westblade LF, Deshayes C, Kolb A, Busby SJ, Robinson CV. 2004. Mass spectrometry of
Escherichia coliRNA polymerase: interactions of the core enzyme with 70 and Rsd protein. Structure
12:26975
45. Jishage M, Ishihama A. 1998. A stationary phase protein in Escherichia coliwith binding activity to the
major sigma subunit of RNA polymerase.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95:49535846. First extens
compilation of e
that ppGpp play
determining ro
favor holoenzym
formation with
alternatives (s
Reference 53).
46. Jishage M, Kvint K, Shingler V, Nystrom T. 2002. Regulation of sigma factor competition by the
alarmone ppGpp.Genes Dev.16:126070
47. Johansson LUM, Solera D, Bernardo LB, Moscoso JA, Shingler V. 2008. 54-RNA polymerase controls
70-dependent transcription from a non-overlapping divergent promoter.Mol. Microbiol.70:70923
48. Kang JG, Paget MS, Seok YJ, Hahn MY, Bae JB, et al. 1999. RsrA, an anti-sigma factor regulated by
redox change.EMBO J.18:429298
49. A conceptua
way to control s
factor activity, winsights into reg
system dynamic
49. Kim MS, Hahn MY, Cho Y, Cho SN, Roe JH. 2009. Positive and negative feedback regulatory
loops of thiol-oxidative stress response mediated by an unstable isoform ofR in actinomycetes.
Mol. Microbiol.73:81525
50. Koo BM, Rhodius VA, Campbell EA, Gross CA. 2009. Dissection of recognition determinants ofEs-
cherichia coli32 suggests a composite 10 region with an extended 10 motif and a core 10 element.
Mol. Microbiol.72:81529
51. Koo BM, Rhodius VA, Campbell EA, Gross CA. 2009. Mutational analysis ofEscherichia coli28 and its
target promoters reveals recognition of a composite 10 region, comprised of an extended 10 motif
and a core 10 element.Mol. Microbiol.72:83043
52. Kvint K, Farewell A, Nystrom T. 2000. RpoS-dependent promoters require guanosine tetraphosphate
for induction even in the presence of high levels ofS.J. Biol. Chem.275:1479598
53. First extens
compilation of e
that ppGpp play
determining ro
favor holoenzym
formation with
alternative sigmalso Reference
53. Laurie AD, Bernardo LM, Sze CC, Skarfstad E, Szalewska-Palasz A, et al. 2003. The role of the
alarmone (p)ppGpp in54 competition for core RNA polymerase.J. Biol. Chem.278:1494503
54. Leibman M, Hochschild A. 2007. A-core interaction of the RNA polymerase holoenzyme that enhances
promoter escape.EMBO J.26:157990
55. Lennon CW, Gaal T, Ross W, Gourse RL. 2009. Escherichia coliDksA binds to free RNA polymerase
with higher affinity than to RNA polymerase in an open complex.J. Bacteriol.191:58545856. Lisser S, Margalit H. 1993. Compilation ofE. colimRNA promoter sequences.Nucleic Acids Res.21:1507
16
57. Maeda H, Fujita N, Ishihama A. 2000. Competition among sevenEscherichia colisigma subunits: relative
binding affinities to the core RNA polymerase. Nucleic Acids Res.28:3497503
58. Magnusson LU, Nystrom T, Farewell A. 2003. Underproduction of70 mimics a stringent response. A
proteome approach.J. Biol. Chem.278:96873
59. Mahren S, Braun V. 2003. The FecI extracytoplasmic-function sigma factor ofEscherichia coliinteracts
with the subunit of RNA polymerase.J. Bacteriol. 185:1796802
60. Mahren S, Enz S, Braun V. 2002. Functional interaction of region 4 of the extracytoplasmic function
sigma factor FecI with the cytoplasmic portion of the FecR transmembrane protein of the Escherichia coli
ferric citrate transport system.J. Bacteriol.184:370411
61. Martinez-Bueno MA, Tobes R, Rey M, Ramos JL. 2002. Detection of multiple extracytoplasmic function(ECF) sigma factors in the genome ofPseudomonas putidaKT2440 and their counterparts inPseudomonas
aeruginosaPA01.Environ. Microbiol.4:84255
62. Masuda S, Murakami KS, Wang S, Anders Olson C, Donigian J, et al. 2004.Crystal structures of the ADP
and ATP bound forms of the Bacillusanti- factor SpoIIAB in complex with the anti-anti- SpoIIAA.
J. Mol. Biol.340:94156
63. Mettrick KA, Lamont IL. 2009. Different roles for anti-sigma factors in siderophore signalling pathways
ofPseudomonas aeruginosa.Mol. Microbiol.74:125771
www.annualreviews.org Control of Sigma Factor Use 53
Annu.Rev.Microbiol.2011.65:37-55.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org
byUniversidad
eFederaldeVicosaon03/10/14.Forpersonaluseonly.
-
5/24/2018 Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
18/23
64. Mitchell JE, Oshima T, Piper SE, Webster CL, Westblade LF, et al. 2007. TheEscherichia coliregul
of sigma 70 protein, Rsd, can up-regulate some stress-dependent promoters by sequestering sigma
J. Bacteriol. 189:348995
65. MooneyRA, Darst SA, Landick R. 2005. Sigma andRNA polymerase: an on-again, off-again relationsh
Mol. Cell20:33545
66. Murakami KS, Darst SA. 2003. Bacterial RNA polymerases: the wholo story. Curr. Opin. Struct. B
13:3139
67. Osterberg S, Skarfstad E, Shingler V. 2010. The sigma-factor FliA, ppGpp and DksA coordinate tr
scriptional control of theaer2gene ofPseudomonas putida.Environ. Microbiol.12:14395168. Paget MS, Helmann JD. 2003. The sigma70 family of sigma factors.Genome Biol.4:203
69. Patikoglou GA, Westblade LF, Campbell EA, Lamour V, Lane WJ, Darst SA. 2007. Crystal structur
theEscherichia coliregulator of70, Rsd, in complex with 70 domain 4.J. Mol. Biol. 372:64959
70. The advent of
understanding the role
of DksA, especially its
role in ppGpp-mediated
regulation.
70. Paul BJ, Barker MM, Ross W, Schneider DA, Webb C, et al. 2004. DksA: a critical compon
of the transcription initiation machinery that potentiates the regulation of rRNA promoters
ppGpp and the initiating NTP. Cell118:31122
71. Paul BJ, Berkmen MB, Gourse RL. 2005. DksA potentiates direct activation of amino acid promoter
ppGpp.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102:782328
72. Piper SE, Mitchell JE, Lee DJ, Busby SJ. 2009. A global view ofEscherichia coliRsd protein and
interactions.Mol. Biosyst. 5:194347
73. Potrykus K, Cashel M. 2008. (p)ppGpp: still magical?Annu. Rev. Microbiol.62:3551
74. Raffaelle M, Kanin EI, Vogt J, Burgess RR, AnsariAZ. 2005. Holoenzyme switching andstochastic releof sigma factors from RNA polymerase in vivo.Mol. Cell20:35766
75. Rutherford ST, Lemke JJ, Vrentas CE, Gaal T, Ross W, Gourse RL. 2007. Effects of DksA, Gr
and GreB on transcription initiation: insights into the mechanisms of factors that bind in the second
channel of RNA polymerase.J. Mol. Biol.366:124357
76. Rutherford ST, Villers CL, Lee JH, Ross W, Gourse RL. 2009. Allosteric control ofEscherichia colirR
promoter complexes by DksA.Genes Dev.23:23648
77. Saini S, Floess E, Aldridge C, Brown J, Aldridge PD, Rao CV. 2011. Continuous control of flagellar g
expression by the 28-FlgM regulatory circuit inSalmonella enterica.Mol. Microbiol.79:26478
78. Shingler V. 2010. Signal sensory systems that impact54-dependent transcription.FEMS Microbiol. R
35:42540
79. Smith TG, Hoover TR. 2009. Deciphering bacterial flagellar gene regulatory networks in the geno
era.Adv. Appl. Microbiol.67:2579580. Sorenson MK, Ray SS, Darst SA. 2004. Crystal structure of the flagellar /anti- complex28/Fl
reveals an intact factor in an inactive conformation.Mol. Cell14:12738
81. StaronA, Mascher T. 2010. General stressresponsein-proteobacteria: PhyRand beyond.Mol. Micro
78:27177
82. Staron A, Sofia HJ, Dietrich S, Ulrich LE, Liesegang H, Mascher T. 2009. The third pillar of bacte
signal transduction: classification of the extracytoplasmic function (ECF) sigma factor protein family.M
Microbiol.74:55781
83. Szalewska-Palasz A, Johansson LU, Bernardo LM, Skarfstad E, Stec E, et al. 2007. Properties of R
polymerase bypass mutants: implications for the role of ppGpp and its co-factor DksA in controll
transcription dependent on 54.J. Biol. Chem.282:1804656
84. Sze CC, Shingler V. 1999. The alarmone (p)ppGpp mediates physiological-responsive control at
54-dependent Po promoter.Mol. Microbiol.31:12172885. Typas A, Barembruch C, Possling A, Hengge R. 2007. Stationary phase reorganisation of theEscheri
colitranscription machinery by Crl protein, a fine-tuner ofS activity and levels.EMBO J.26:15697
86. Vrentas CE,GaalT, Berkmen MB,RutherfordST, HaugenSP, etal. 2008. Still looking forthe magic s
the crystallographically defined binding site for ppGpp on RNA polymerase is unlikely to be responsi
for rRNA transcription regulation.J. Mol. Biol.377:55164
87. Westblade LF, Ilag LL, Powell AK, Kolb A, Robinson CV, Busby SJ. 2004. Studies of theEscherichia
Rsd-sigma70 complex.J. Mol. Biol.335:68592
54 Osterberg del Peso-Santos Shingler
Annu.Rev.Microbiol.2011.65:37-55.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org
byUniversidad
eFederaldeVicosaon03/10/14.Forpersonaluseonly.
-
5/24/2018 Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
19/23
88. Wigneshweraraj SR, Fujita N, Ishihama A, Buck M. 2000. Conservation of sigma-core RNA polymerase
proximityrelationships between the enhancer-independent and enhancer-dependent sigmaclasses.EMBO
J.19:303848
89. Zhou Y, Gottesman S, Hoskins JR, Maurizi MR, Wickner S. 2001. The RssB response regulator directly
targets S for degradation by ClpXP. Genes Dev.15:62737
www.annualreviews.org Control of Sigma Factor Use 55
Annu.Rev.Microbiol.2011.65:37-55.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org
byUniversidad
eFederaldeVicosaon03/10/14.Forpersonaluseonly.
-
5/24/2018 Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
20/23
Annual Review of
Microbiology
Volume 65, 2011 Contents
To the Happy Few
Hiroshi Nikaido
Regulation of DnaA Assembly and Activity: Taking Directions from
the Genome
Alan C. Leonard and Julia E. Grimwade
Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factor Use
Sofia Osterberg, Teresa del Peso-Santos, and Victoria Shingler
Fungal Protein Production: Design and Production
of Chimeric Proteins
Peter J. Punt, Anthony Levasseur, Hans Visser, Jan Wery, and Eric Record
Structure and Function of MARTX Toxins and Other Large
Repetitive RTX Proteins
Karla J.F. Satchell
Eukaryotic Picoplankton in Surface Oceans
Ramon Massana
Life on the Outside: The Rescue ofCoxiella burnetiifrom Its Host CellAnders Omsland and Robert A. Heinzen 1
Molecular Mechanisms ofStaphylococcus aureusIron Acquisition
Neal D. Hammer and Eric P. Skaar 1
Protein Quality Control in the Bacterial Periplasm
Melisa Merdanovic, Tim Clausen, Markus Kaiser, Robert Huber,
and Michael Ehrmann 1
Prospects for the Future Using Genomics and Proteomics
in Clinical Microbiology
Pierre-Edouard Fournier and Didier Raoult
1
The RpoS-Mediated General Stress Response inEscherichia coli
Aurelia Battesti, Nadim Majdalani, and Susan Gottesman 1
Bacterial Osmoregulation: A Paradigm for the Study
of Cellular Homeostasis
Janet M. Wood 2
vi
Annu.Rev.Microbiol.2011.65:37-55.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org
byUniversidad
eFederaldeVicosaon03/10/14.Forpersonaluseonly.
-
5/24/2018 Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
21/23
Lipoprotein Sorting in Bacteria
Suguru Okuda and Hajime Tokuda 239
Ligand-Binding PAS Domains in a Genomic, Cellular,
and Structural Context
Jonathan T. Henry and Sean Crosson 261
How Viruses and Toxins Disassemble to Enter Host Cells
Takamasa Inoue, Paul Moore, and Billy Tsai
287
Turning Hepatitis C into a Real Virus
Catherine L. Murray and Charles M. Rice 307
Recombination and DNA Repair inHelicobacter pylori
Marion S. Dorer, Tate H. Sessler, and Nina R. Salama 329
Kin Discrimination and Cooperation in Microbes
Joan E. Strassmann, Owen M. Gilbert, and David C. Queller 349
Dinoflagellate Genome Evolution
Jennifer H. Wisecaver and Jeremiah D. Hackett
369Motility and Chemotaxis in CampylobacterandHelicobacter
Paphavee Lertsethtakarn, Karen M. Ottemann, and David R. Hendrixson 389
The Human Gut Microbiome: Ecology and Recent
Evolutionary Changes
Jens Walter and Ruth Ley 411
Approaches to Capturing and Designing Biologically Active Small
Molecules Produced by Uncultured Microbes
Jorn Piel 431
Epidemiological Expansion, Structural Studies, and Clinical
Challenges of New-Lactamases from Gram-Negative Bacteria
Karen Bush and Jed F. Fisher 455
Gene Regulation inBorrelia burgdorferi
D. Scott Samuels 479
Biology ofClostridium difficile:Implications for Epidemiology
and Diagnosis
Karen C. Carroll and John G. Bartlett 501
Interactions of the Human PathogenicBrucellaSpecies
with Their Hosts
Vidya L. Atluri, Mariana N. Xavier, Maarten F. de Jong,
Andreas B. den Hartigh, and Renee M. Tsolis 523
Contents v ii
Annu.Rev.Microbiol.2011.65:37-55.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org
byUniversidad
eFederaldeVicosaon03/10/14.Forpersonaluseonly.
-
5/24/2018 Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
22/23
Metabolic Pathways Required for the Intracellular Survival
ofLeishmania
Malcolm J. McConville and Thomas Naderer 5
Capsules ofStreptococcus pneumoniaeand Other Bacteria: Paradigms for
Polysaccharide Biosynthesis and Regulation
Janet Yother 5
Synthetic Poliovirus and Other Designer Viruses: What Have WeLearned from Them?
Eckard Wimmer and Aniko V. Paul 5
Regulation of Antigenic Variation inGiardia lamblia
Cesar G. Prucca, Fernando D. Rivero, and Hugo D. Lujan 6
Alternative Pathways of Carbon Dioxide Fixation: Insights into the
Early Evolution of Life?
Georg Fuchs 6
Index
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 6165 6
Errata
An online log of corrections toAnnual Review of Microbiology articles may be found
http://micro.annualreviews.org/
v ii i Contents
Annu.Rev.Microbiol.2011.65:37-55.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org
byUniversidad
eFederaldeVicosaon03/10/14.Forpersonaluseonly.
-
5/24/2018 Regulation of Alternative Sigma Factors
23/23
ANNUAL REVIEWSIts about time. Your time. Its time well spent.
ANNUAL REVIEWS |Connect With Our ExpertsTel: 800.523.8635 (US/CAN)| Tel: 650.493.4400 | Fax: 650.424.0910 | Email: [email protected]
New From Annual Reviews:
Annual Review of Statistics and Its ApplicationVolume 1 Online January 2014 http://statistics.annualreviews.org
Editor: Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University
Associate Editors: Nancy Reid, University of Toronto
Stephen M. Stigler, University of Chicago
TheAnnual Review of Statistics and Its Applicationaims to inform statisticians and quantitative methodologi
well as all scientists and users of statistics about major methodological advances and the computational too
allow for their implementation. It will include developments in the eld of statistics, including theoretical stati
underpinnings of new methodology, as well as developments in specic application domains such as biostat
and bioinformatics, economics, machine learning, psychology, sociology, and aspects of the physical scienc
Complimentary online access to the frst volume will be available until January 2015.
TABLEOFCONTENTS:
What Is Statistics? Stephen E. Fienberg
A Systematic Statistical Approach to Evaluating Evidence
from Observational Studies, David Madigan, Paul E. Stang,
Jesse A. Berlin, Martijn Schuemie, J. Marc Overhage,
Marc A. Suchard, Bill Dumouchel, Abraham G. Hartzema,
Patrick B. Ryan
The Role of Statistics in the Discovery of a Higgs Boson,
David A. van Dyk
Brain Imaging Analysis, F. DuBois Bowman Statistics and Climate, Peter Guttorp
Climate Simulators and Climate Projections,
Jonathan Rougier, Michael Goldstein
Probabilistic Forecasting, Tilmann Gneiting,
Matthias Katzfuss
Bayesian Computational Tools, Christian P. Robert
Bayesian Computation Via Markov Chain Monte Carlo,
Radu V. Craiu, Jerey S. Rosenthal
Build, Compute, Critique, Repeat: Data Analysis with Latent
Variable Models, David M. Blei
Structured Regularizers for High-Dimensional Problems:Statistical and Computational Issues, Martin J. Wainwright
High-Dimensional Statistics with a View Toward Appli
in Biology, Peter Bhlmann, Markus Kalisch, Lukas M
Next-Generation Statistical Genetics: Modeling, Pena
and Optimization in High-Dimensional Data, Kenneth
Jeanette C. Papp, Janet S. Sinsheimer, Eric M. Sobe
Breaking Bad: Two Decades of Life-Course Data Ana
in Criminology, Developmental Psychology, and Beyo
Elena A. Erosheva, Ross L. Matsueda, Donatello Tele
Event History Analysis, Niels Keiding
Statistical Evaluation of Forensic DNA Prole Evidenc
Christopher D. Steele, David J. Balding
Using League Table Rankings in Public Policy Format
Statistical Issues, Harvey Goldstein
Statistical Ecology, Ruth King
Estimating the Number of Species in Microbial Divers
Studies, John Bunge, Amy Willis, Fiona Walsh
Dynamic Treatment Regimes, Bibhas Chakraborty,
Susan A. Murphy
Statistics and Related Topics in Single-Molecule Biop
Hong Qian, S.C. Kou Statistics and Quantitative Risk Management for Bank
and Insurance, Paul Embrechts, Marius Hofert
Access this and all other Annual Reviews journals via your institution at www.annualreviews.
Annu.Rev.Microbiol.
2011.65:37-55.Downloadedfromwww
.annualreviews.org
byUniversidadeFederaldeVicosaon03/10/14.Forpersonaluseonly.