Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

ChIP-Seq Analysis of the σE Regulon of Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium Reveals New Genes Implicated in Heat Shock and Oxidative Stress Response

  • Jie Li,

    Affiliation Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America

  • Christopher C. Overall,

    Affiliation Biological Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, United States of America

  • Rudd C. Johnson,

    Affiliation Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America

  • Marcus B. Jones,

    Current address: Human Longevity, Inc., San Diego, California, United States of America

    Affiliation Department of Infectious Diseases, J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, Maryland, United States of America

  • Jason E. McDermott,

    Affiliation Biological Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, United States of America

  • Fred Heffron,

    Affiliation Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America

  • Joshua N. Adkins,

    Affiliation Biological Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, United States of America

  • Eric D. Cambronne

    cambronn@ohsu.edu

    Affiliation Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America

Abstract

The alternative sigma factor σE functions to maintain bacterial homeostasis and membrane integrity in response to extracytoplasmic stress by regulating thousands of genes both directly and indirectly. The transcriptional regulatory network governed by σE in Salmonella and E. coli has been examined using microarray, however a genome-wide analysis of σE–binding sites in Salmonella has not yet been reported. We infected macrophages with Salmonella Typhimurium over a select time course. Using chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by high-throughput DNA sequencing (ChIP-seq), 31 σE–binding sites were identified. Seventeen sites were new, which included outer membrane proteins, a quorum-sensing protein, a cell division factor, and a signal transduction modulator. The consensus sequence identified for σE in vivo binding was similar to the one previously reported, except for a conserved G and A between the -35 and -10 regions. One third of the σE–binding sites did not contain the consensus sequence, suggesting there may be alternative mechanisms by which σE modulates transcription. By dissecting direct and indirect modes of σE-mediated regulation, we found that σE activates gene expression through recognition of both canonical and reversed consensus sequence. New σE regulated genes (greA, luxS, ompA and ompX) are shown to be involved in heat shock and oxidative stress responses.

Introduction

Where household sigma factor σ70 is responsible for promoting transcription of a large number of genes in a bacterial cell, alternative sigma factors are produced or activated when cells undergo particular physiological stresses [1] [2]. The alternative sigma factor E (σE) responds to extracytoplasmic cues generated by temperature, osmotic, or oxidative stress, which releases σE from sequestration at the inner membrane through a series of protein cleavage events. Free σE in the cytoplasm binds core RNA polymerase and initiates transcription at σE-dependent promoters, resulting in a specific response to promote restoration of homeostasis in the cell [3] [4]. In Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium (referred to as STM or Salmonella hereafter), deletion of σE (ΔrpoE) is lethal for intracellular survival in macrophages; the strongest phenotype among regulator deletion strains examined [5].

The transcriptional regulatory network controlled by σE has been investigated in previous studies [6] [7] [8] [9]. Recent findings from our group indicated that approximately 58% of the entire Salmonella genome was regulated by σE, an effect most likely produced by modulation of the expression of multiple general regulators [10]. Aided by sample-matched global proteomic and transcriptomic analyses, we found that σE regulated Salmonella gene expression not only at the transcriptional level, but also by a post-transcriptional mechanism, which was partially dependent on the RNA-binding protein Hfq [11]. The above studies suggested that the majority of transcriptional regulation mediated by σE occurred indirectly, driven by a small number of genes that were directly regulated by σE. Therefore, it is essential to identify σE-binding sites globally to understand the intricacies of σE-mediated gene regulation.

Chromatin-immunoprecipitation followed by high-throughput DNA sequencing (ChIP-seq) has been successfully used in the identification of chromosomal binding sites of various regulators in bacteria [12] [13] [14]. It offers higher resolution, lower noise, and greater coverage than its array-based predecessor ChIP-chip [15]. We selected ChIP-seq as a method for genome-wide profiling of σE–binding sites in STM. Our results indicated some σE–binding sites resided 5’ to divergent flanking genes, and raised the question whether σE regulated these genes equally. Moreover, a previous study from the Gross group mentioned the possibility that a reversed consensus sequence of σE might be involved in repressing gene expression, exemplified by ompX [8]. We elucidated the above questions by constructing consensus sequence substituted strains, and dissecting direct from indirect regulatory effects of σE.

In this study we identified 31 σE–binding sites on the STM genome during in vivo infection of Raw264.7 macrophages with STM and determined a consensus sequence for σE-binding. However, this consensus sequence was not the only mechanism utilized by σE in transcriptional regulation. Moreover, σE did not regulate its flanking genes equally when the σE-binding site resided between bi-directional promoters. σE activated gene expression through binding the consensus or reversed consensus sequence. Finally, we found that new targets directly regulated by σE were involved in response to heat shock and oxidative stress.

Materials and Methods

Bacterial strains and growth conditions

Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium ATCC 14028s was used as the parent strain in this study. The rpoE-deletion strain (ΔrpoE) was constructed using λ red recombination system as described [5]. The consensus sequence substituted mutants were constructed by replacing the σE–binding motif of greA, ompX, ompA, luxS and rpoE with a substitutive consensus sequence consisting of nucleotides with the least prevalence at the corresponding positions in the σE consensus sequence (ATTTGCGGGAACATGCGAAGACTGACTG). The substitutive consensus sequence was synthesized with SacI and AvrII restriction sites at two ends, and ligated into pKD13 modified plasmid [16], resulting in a new plasmid pKD13-RpoE1. λ red recombination was used to construct the consensus sequence substituted mutants with pKD13-RpoE1 plasmid similar to the ΔrpoE strain. All substitutions were validated by DNA sequencing. Primers used for construction of the above mutants are shown in S1 Table.

For in vitro study, the bacteria were grown overnight in Luria-Bertani (LB) medium, washed twice in pH 5.8, low phosphate, low magnesium-containing medium (LPM), and resuspended in LPM at 1:10 dilution for an additional 4 h, 8 h or 20 h [17]. All bacterial cultures were grown in triplicate.

Anti-σE antibody generation

The anti-σE antibody (Ab) was generated as previously described [10]. Briefly, the rpoE gene of STM was cloned into the plasmid pET200/D-TOPO (Invitrogen) and transformed into BL21 (DE3) E. coli strain (Invitrogen). Transformed bacteria were induced using Isopropyl β-D-1-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG), lysed and sonicated for purification of recombinant σE using HisPurTM Cobalt resin (Pierce). The eluted protein was separated on SDS-PAGE, and stained with Coomassie blue. The single gel bands at the size of recombinant RpoE (His tagged) were excised and sent to Pacific Immunology Corp. (Ramona, CA) for polyclonal antisera production. The σE antisera generated in rabbits were purified by affinity chromatography. CH Sepharose 4B (GE Healthcare) was coupled with recombinant σE, then σE antisera was loaded in a chromatography column (Bio-Rad). After washes, the column was eluted with 200 mM glycine pH 2.0, then adjusted to pH 7.0 with 5 N NaOH. Fractions containing purified anti-σE Ab as judged by SDS-PAGE were frozen at -20°C. Protein concentration determination was performed according to modified Lowry method using bovine serum albumin (BSA) as reference protein [18].

Immunoblot analysis

The WT and ΔrpoE strains were cultured in LB for 4 h. Cells were washed and approximately 5 x 107 colony-forming units were pelleted and re-suspended in Laemmli sample buffer, boiled for 5 min, and then separated on SDS-PAGE. Proteins on the gel were next transferred to polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) membrane (Millipore). After blocking in Tris-buffered saline (TBS) plus 5% nonfat dry milk for 1 h, membranes were probed with anti-σE Ab or anti-GFP Ab at 1:1000, 1:3000, and 1:5000 dilutions. The flow-through of rabbit immune sera during affinity chromatography purification of anti-σE Ab was also used to probe the membrane as control. Membranes were washed and probed with secondary antibody (anti-rabbit IgG conjugated with peroxidase) (Cell Signaling Technology). The immune complexes were detected via chemiluminescence using Western LightningTM (PerkinElmer), and then exposed to XAR Biofilm (Kodak).

Salmonella infection

The Raw264.7 macrophage cell line was purchased from ATCC and grown in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM) containing 10% fetal calf serum in 6- well plates until reaching confluency of 80–90%. STM grown overnight in LB was washed and diluted with PBS to an appropriate concentration. Raw264.7 cells were infected with STM at MOI = 100 for 4, 8, or 18 h. Infections were initiated by centrifuging the bacteria onto the cell monolayers at 1,000 × g for 5 min and plates were incubated at 37°C with 5% CO2 for 1 h. To remove extracellular bacteria after internalization, cells were washed with PBS and incubated in DMEM containing 10% fetal calf serum and gentamicin (100 μg/ml) for 1 h. The cells were then washed with PBS and overlaid with DMEM containing 10% fetal calf serum and 20 μg/ml gentamicin for the remainder of the experiment.

Chromatin Immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing (ChIP-seq)

After 4, 8, or 18 h infection with STM, Raw264.7 cells were washed with PBS and scraped off the plates. The cells were collected and cross-linked by 1% formaldehyde at room temperature for 25 min with shaking, then quenched using 125 mM glycine for an additional 5 min of incubation at room temperature. Chromatin Immunoprecipitation assay was performed as described [10]. Cells were lysed and sonicated, and the supernatant was split into two samples. One was mixed with affinity purified rabbit anti-σE Ab to immunoprecipitate σE–DNA complex, and the other sample was mixed with rabbit monoclonal Ab to GFP as control. After overnight incubation at 4°C, 50 μl of the Dynabead M-280 sheep anti-rabbit IgG (Invitrogen) was added into the mixture and further incubated at 4°C for 6 h. Beads were washed and resuspended in elution buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl at pH 8.0, 10 mM EDTA, and 1% SDS) and incubated at 65°C overnight to reverse the cross-linking. Protein and RNA were removed from the samples and DNA was purified with a PCR purification kit (QIAGEN). Gene-specific quantitative PCR was carried out using the DNA samples (primers in S2 Table).

The DNA was then combined with 5x Sequenase buffer and Random 9-Ns primer and cycled to 94°C for 2 min then cooled to 10°C. A mix of 5x Sequenase buffer, dNTP mix, BSA, DTT, and Sequenase was added to the DNA and ramped up from 10°C to 37°C at 0.1°C/s, held at 37°C for 8 min, heated to 94°C for 2 min and then cooled to 10°C. Sequenase dilution buffer and Sequenase enzyme were added and the sample was ramped up from 10°C to 37°C at 0.1°C/s, held at 37°C for 8 min and then cooled to 4°C. Samples were diluted and combined with a mix of pfu buffer, dNTP mix, Rand universal primer, and pfu polymerase. The DNA was cycled to 94°C for 30 s, 40°C for 30 s, 50°C for 30 s, and 72°C for 2 min for 25 cycles. The amplified DNA was purified using the Qiagen PCR purification kit according to protocol. The purified DNA was precipitated using 3M sodium acetate and ethanol overnight. Samples were centrifuged at 4°C for 1 h and subsequently washed with 70% ethanol, dried and resuspended in water.

Libraries for sequence analysis on the Illumina HiSeq 2000 using V3 chemistry were generated per the Illumina TruSeq standard protocol.

Peak calling

HiSeq fastq files were generated and loaded into the CLC Genomics Workbench 7 software (CLCBio, Boston MA) for ChIP peak identification. Imported reads were mapped to the reference genome retrieved from NCBI. Default mismatch rates were applied, with length and similarity fractions both at 90%. All experimental samples were compared to the reference controls to identify binding events of interest. The most statistically significant peak calls at each time point were then visually verified using the GenomeView genome browser [19].

Quantitative RT-PCR analysis

Total RNA was isolated by RNeasy mini kit, combined with RNA-free DNase for on-column DNase digestion (Qiagen) according to manufacturer’s instructions. cDNA was synthesized using the iScript cDNA synthesis kit (Bio Rad). The amount of cDNA corresponding to 10 ng of input RNA was used as template for real-time reaction containing Power SYBR green (Applied Biosystems) and gene-specific primers. The primers were designed with Primer Express 3.0 software and tested for amplification efficiencies (S2 Table). The gyrB gene, encoding for the B subunit of the DNA gyrase, was utilized as endogenous control. The RT-PCR reactions were carried out at 95°C for 10 min, 95°C for 15 s and 60°C for 1 min for 40 cycles (ABI 7700, Applied Biosystems). The expression ratio of each gene was the average from three independent RNA samples and was normalized to the level of gyrB.

Results

Identification of σE-binding sites using ChIP-seq

We recently characterized the set of genes affected by σE in STM 14028s by microarray and identified 2533 genes exhibiting σE-dependent transcription during growth in nutrient-rich and acidic minimal media. However, only 81 genes (3%) were regulated by σE in all of the growth conditions examined, suggesting genes regulated by σE were tuned by growth conditions that activated σE via different environmental cues [10]. In order to study the genomic binding sites of σE under conditions approximating the phagosomal environment, we infected murine macrophage Raw264.7 with STM and performed ChIP-seq on intracellular bacteria to identify genes directly bound by σE on the STM genome. To avoid the possible influence of epitope tagging on protein function, we generated primary anti-σE Ab, purified with affinity chromatography, and assessed its specificity by Western blot before applying it to ChIP. A single band at the correct size of σE (22 kDa) was detected in the cell lysate of the WT strain and absent in the ΔrpoE using anti-σE Ab (S1 Fig). When diluted 1:5000, the anti-σE Ab yielded a single reactive band. This evidence indicated that the generated anti-σE Ab was highly specific and had strong affinity. The monoclonal anti-GFP Ab, which did not show any cross reaction with STM, was used as negative control in the ChIP-seq experiments (S1 Fig).

After peaks were called, the most statistically significant from each time point were visually verified. To pass this step, the read counts composing a peak were required to be substantially higher than background and also needed to be distributed evenly on both sides of the transcript (Fig 1). The peaks were ambiguous for the in vivo 4 h infection. We believe that the signal at this early time was not strong enough to provide robust results, so we excluded it from the analysis. A total of 31 ChIP-enriched peaks were identified for the 8 h and 18 h infections. Fourteen of the peak-associated genes were previously shown to be directly regulated by σE [8,9], supporting the effectiveness of the ChIP-seq procedure (Table 1). The remaining 17 genes represented new targets of varying function; encoding outer membrane proteins (ompA, ompF, and ompN), a quorum sensing protein (luxS) [20], a cell division factor (minD/minE) [21], a signal transduction modulator (sixA) [22], and hypothetical proteins (stm14_1163, stm14_1514, stm14_1018, stm14_2321, stm14_2952).

thumbnail
Fig 1. Visualization of the candidate binding sites (peak calls) upstream of rpoE and rseA.

The peak calls for each replicate 8 h and 18 h are shown. The peaks in the blue box correspond to the binding site of σE to 5’ region of the gene rpoE, while those in the orange box correspond to the binding site 5’ to the gene rseA.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138466.g001

Validation of in vivo σE-binding sites

To validate σE-binding, we performed ChIP-qPCR on target genomic loci and determined their fold enrichment in pulldowns using anti-σE Ab versus anti-GFP Ab (control). A known σE–binding site, rpoE promoter 3, was pulled down in our ChIP-seq assay and used as positive control, and a non-target site, the promoter region of hns, was chosen as negative control [10]. For the 8 h infection, except for the binding site upstream of spf, all the ChIP-seq peaks exhibited more than 2-fold enrichment when compared to control samples, and were therefore considered authentic σE-binding sites (Fig 2). For the 18 h infection, all of the ChIP-seq peaks were validated. For both conditions, binding sites upstream of luxS, stm14_1018, ompX, stm14_2321, and yhjJ exhibited enrichment as high as the positive control (rpoE, 64-fold), hence were considered high-affinity binding sites for σE (Fig 2).

thumbnail
Fig 2. Validation of σE binding sites obtained with ChIP-seq.

Raw264.7 cells were infected with WT bacteria for 8 h or 18 h, crosslinked, lysed, and sonicated for immunoprecipitation with anti-σE Ab (sample) or anti-GFP Ab (control). After protein and RNA were removed, DNA was extracted as template for qPCR to determine the fold enrichment of the genomic binding loci of σE in pulldowns with anti-σE Ab versus anti-GFP Ab. The promoter 3 region of rpoE was used as positive control, and the promoter region of hns was chosen as negative control. Shown are the fold changes displayed in a logarithmic scale. The mean and S.D. values were obtained from independent biological triplicates.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138466.g002

Identification of the consensus sequence of σE-binding in vivo

The sequences of the 31 binding regions determined by our ChIP-seq experiments were analyzed with the MEME suite tool to identify a consensus sequence for σE-binding [23]. For 20 of these peak regions, a consensus motif was identified (p-value < 0.0001). This A-T rich σE consensus sequence is largely similar to the one that was identified previously for STM [9], except that the nucleotides between the -35 and -10 regions appeared to contain conserved G and A in our in vivo σE–binding consensus sequence. Except for the six genes (rpoE, rpoH, fkpA, htrA, yfiO, and ygiM) that were previously identified to contain σE-dependent promoters [9], the σE consensus sequence was also found upstream of genes encoding outer membrane proteins (ompA, ompF, ompN, and ompX), putative permease (perM), putative cytoplasmic protein (ybhP) [24], transcription elongation factor (greA) [25], and quorum sensing autoinducer 2 synthase (luxS) [20] (Fig 3).

thumbnail
Fig 3. Consensus sequence of STM σE during in vivo infection.

The top represents the sequence logos reflecting the prevalence of each symbol by height. Beneath is the nucleotide alignment of the ChIP-seq pulldowns that contain the consensus sequence (boxed).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138466.g003

There were 11 σE-binding sites (cspE, galF, minD, rpoD, sixA, spf, stm14_2321, stm14_2952, surA, yggN, yhjJ) validated in our study that did not contain any recognizable consensus sequence. However, some of these sites exhibited high σE-binding capacity, such as stm14_2321, ybjJ (> 64-fold enrichment), and stm14_1514, surA, sixA, stm14_2952, galF, minD (> 16-fold enrichment) (Fig 2). This observation suggested that, besides the major regulatory mechanism of using the canonical consensus sequence, σE may utilize additional complementary mechanisms to regulate gene transcription.

Establishing in vitro condition to mimic the in vivo σE-binding

The transcriptional profile of σE for STM intracellular infection is elusive because the rpoE mutation is so deleterious that the mutant can survive for no more than 30 min post-infection [5]. Therefore, we sought an in vitro method that could reproduce in vivo σE-binding conditions. STM grown in LPM was used for mimicking in vivo infection [26], here the bacteria were cultured in LPM for 4, 8, and 18 h and then subjected to ChIP-qPCR as performed on in vivo samples. σE-binding was evaluated on 15 sites selected from the in vivo ChIP-seq results (Fig 4). None of the three in vitro conditions could achieve similar binding capacity of σE on these sites as was seen in the in vivo conditions. However the LPM 4 h condition produced the most favorable result among them, where except for htrA, remaining binding sites were detected at levels higher than the 2-fold threshold. Hence, we used the LPM 4 h condition to study σE-mediated gene regulation in an effort to approximate in vivo binding conditions.

thumbnail
Fig 4. Comparison of σE-binding sites between in vitro cultured conditions and in vivo infection.

WT bacteria were cultured in acidic minimal medium (LPM) for 4 h, 8 h, or 20 h. ChIP and qPCR followed the same procedures as described in Fig 2. The fold enrichment of σE-binding sites was determined in pulldowns with anti-σE Ab (sample) versus anti-GFP Ab (control). The in vivo infection results were imported from Fig 2.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138466.g004

Dissecting direct versus indirect regulation mediated by σE

Although 31 σE-binding sites were recognized as directly regulated by σE during in vivo infection (Table 1, Fig 2), microarray was not sufficient to evaluate the regulatory effects of σE on these genes through comparing WT and ΔrpoE because this comparison measured total regulation mediated by σE. Indirect regulation mediated by σE, largely through controlled expression of multiple general regulators, accounted for the majority of the total regulation observed [10]. To dissect direct from indirect σE–mediated regulation for greA, ompX, ompA, luxS, and rpoE, we replaced the authentic consensus sequence upstream of these genes with a scrambled consensus sequence, which resulted in 5 mutants designated greA-RpoE1, ompX-RpoE1, ompA-RpoE1, luxS-RpoE1, and rpoE-RpoE1. Mutant strains were cultured in LPM for 4 h and the σE binding capacity on 5 designated binding sites (greA, ompX, ompA, luxS, and rpoE promoter region) was examined using ChIP-qPCR (Fig 5). As expected, mutation of the σE-binding motif upstream of each gene only eliminated (greA, ompA, luxS) or decreased (ompX) σE binding of each mutant to its corresponding sites, while leaving the other sites intact for σE-binding. These results further confirmed the direct occupation of σE on these selected σE-binding motifs.

thumbnail
Fig 5. Scrambled σE consensus sequence decreases/eliminates σE binding.

The substitutive consensus sequence consisted of nucleotides with the least prevalence at the corresponding positions in the consensus sequence. The σE consensus sequences upstream greA, ompX, ompA, luxS, and rpoE genes were replaced by the substitutive sequence (RpoE1), and the resulting mutants were named greA-RpoE1, ompX-RpoE1, ompA-RpoE1, luxS-RpoE1, and rpoE-RpoE1 respectively. These mutants and WT bacteria were grown in LPM for 4 h, crosslinked, sonicated, and immunoprecipitated with anti-σE Ab (sample) or anti-GFP Ab (control). qPCR was used to determine the binding of σE at each original site. The mean and S.D. values were obtained from independent biological triplicates.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138466.g005

Of the 31 σE-binding sites identified, 16 of them were located between bi-directional promoter elements (Table 1). Since the σE-binding site was 5’ to genes in both directions, we further investigated if σE regulated these genes equally. Two σE-binding sites were chosen, one located between dacB and greA, with a second between ompX and ybiF (Fig 6A). WT, ΔrpoE, and consensus sequence substituted mutants (greA-RpoE1 or ompX-RpoE1) were cultivated in LPM for 4 h, and expression of the genes in question was measured using qRT-PCR with gyrB serving as the internal control. The total regulatory effects of σE on a particular gene was calculated by comparing its expression ratio in WT versus ΔrpoE. The direct contribution of σE was measured by the expression ratio in WT versus the consensus sequence substituted mutant, and the indirect contribution of σE was measured by the expression ratio in ΔrpoE versus the consensus sequence substituted mutant. We found that based on total regulation, it was apparent that σE regulated dacB instead of greA. However the indirect regulation of σE on greA was much higher than that on dacB, leading to the net regulation directly mediated by σE significant on greA, but not dacB (Fig 6B). Similarly, dissecting σE regulation indicated that σE activated ompX instead of ybiF (Fig 6C). Three more σE-binding sites (5’ to ompA, luxS, and rpoE) were examined. σE activated each locus through direct occupation of their σE consensus sequence (Fig 6D). Moreover, the direct effect of σE in regulating its own expression (rpoE) was much lower than the total and the indirect contributions of σE. The dissection of σE-mediated regulation clarified that σE activated gene expression by binding to the consensus sequence (such as greA) or reverse consensus sequence (such as ompX). The previous findings of σE repressing gene expression by comparing the level of expression in WT and ΔrpoE was therefore misleading, in that indirect regulation of σE expression itself played a large role in defining activation versus repression. When the indirect regulation of σE is subtracted from the total regulation mediated by σE, the resulting direct regulation of σE is activation of gene expression. Together, our results clearly elucidated σE-mediated regulation by dissecting direct versus indirect regulation.

thumbnail
Fig 6. Dissection of the direct versus indirect regulatory effects of σE on gene expression.

The total regulatory effect of σE on gene expression (σE total) was calculated by comparing the expression ratio of certain gene in WT versus ΔrpoE background (log2WT/ΔrpoE). The effect of σE as a result of direct binding to the 5’ element of a particular gene (σE direct) was calculated by comparing the expression ratio of the gene in WT versus its σE consensus sequence substituted mutant. The indirect regulatory effect of σEE indirect) was calculated by comparing the expression ratio of the gene in ΔrpoE versus its σE consensus sequence substituted mutant. (A) Diagram of σE consensus sequence (red) in relation to bi-directional flanking genes (greA versus dacB; ybiF versus ompX). The black rectangle represents σE–binding site identified by ChIP-seq. (B) σE-binding in between dacB and greA genes directly activated greA instead of dacB. (C) σE-binding in between ompX and ybiF genes directly activated ompX instead of ybiF. (D) σE directly activated ompA, luxS, and rpoE expression.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138466.g006

Genes regulated by σE are involved in heat shock and oxidative stress response

The alternative sigma factor σE is activated under extracytoplasmic stress such as heat shock, ethanol, osmotic stress, immune response etc. [4]. By regulating gene expression at both the transcriptional and post-transcriptional levels [11], σE functions to maintain the integrity and homeostasis of the cell. We further investigated if newly identified targets of σE-binding served to fulfill this purpose. The WT and consensus sequence substituted mutants (greA-RpoE1, ompX-RpoE1, ompA-RpoE1, luxS-RpoE1, and rpoE-RpoE1) were challenged by heat shock and oxidative stress (Fig 7). Compared to WT, the susceptibility of all mutants to heat shock was significantly altered at 90 min post-challenge. Except for greA-RpoE1, all other mutants exhibited lower resistance to heat shock. At the 3 h time point, the greA-RpoE1 strain recovered to WT levels, whereas the remaining mutants were significantly hyper-sensitive to heat shock when compared to WT (Fig 7A). Under oxidative stress, the mutant strains exhibited higher (greA-RpoE1) or lower (rpoE-RpoE1 and ompX-RpoE1) susceptibility than WT at 60 min post-challenge. At the 2 h time point, all mutant strains showed significantly altered sensitivity to oxidative stress compared to WT (Fig 7B). These results suggested the genes regulated by σE (greA, luxS, ompA, and ompX) were involved in heat shock and oxidative stress response.

thumbnail
Fig 7. Heat shock and oxidative stress susceptibility.

WT and mutant strains with substituted σE consensus sequences (refer to Fig 5. for details) were cultured in LB broth overnight, washed with and re-suspended in M9 minimal medium before challenging with heat shock (48°C) (A) or oxidative stress (5 mM H2O2) (B) The mean and S.D. values were obtained from three independent experiments.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138466.g007

Discussion

The transcriptional profile of σE has been studied using microarray by comparing WT to ΔrpoE strain or by comparing WT to rpoE-overexpressed strain [10] [8]. Since microarray cannot distinguish direct from indirect regulation, a large amount of genes were found to be regulated by σE, and the number of genes activated by σE was similar to those repressed [10]. Although the Salmonella σE-regulon associated with direct binding has been studied using an E. coli two-plasmid screening system [9], the genome-wide identification of σE-binding sites during Salmonella in vivo infection has not been investigated. The in vivo σE-binding sites are likely different from in vitro because the signals perceived by σE from these two environments are different. Thirty-one σE-binding sites were identified during Salmonella in vivo infection in this study, and when compared with in vitro culture on fifteen of these sites, the binding capacity of σE in LPM 4, 8, and 20 h culture was lower on the majority of the sites measured (Fig 4). How σE selectively binds to some sites but not other potential sites under certain conditions is not known. However, other general regulators such as H-NS, IHF, and Fis might play a role in affecting the direct binding of σE to these sites [14]. Out of the thirty-one in vivo σE-binding sites, sixteen were located upstream of bi-directional promoter elements (Table 1). We found that those flanking genes were not equally regulated by σE under the conditions examined (Fig 6).

The σE consensus sequence predicted here during Salmonella infection was similar to the consensus sequence identified by the E. coli two-plasmid system [9], and also comparable to the consensus sequence identified in E. coli [8], suggesting conservation of sequence features related to σE-binding. Both this and previous studies found that the σE consensus sequence located upstream of ompX was reversed, and the microarray data indicated that σE represses ompX expression [8] [10]. Since ompX was found to be directly regulated by σE, the repression effect of σE on outer membrane proteins was hypothesized as a conserved feature [8]. We constructed a consensus sequence substituted strain and by comparing with WT and ΔrpoE strains, successfully dissected the direct versus indirect contribution of σE. The results clearly demonstrated that σE directly activated ompX expression through the reversed consensus sequence. The perception of σE-mediated repression was due to the high-level of indirect effects of σE. Except for ompX, other genes encoding outer membrane proteins (ompA, ompF, and ompN) were additionally directly regulated by σE. Similar to ompX, the total effect of σE on the expression of these genes is not activation [10], likely mediated by σE–dependent small RNAs that accelerate global omp mRNA decay upon membrane stress [27].

We found that a considerable amount of σE-binding sites were associated with genes involved in transcriptional circuitry (rpoE, rpoH, rpoD, rseA, greA, and sixA) [25] [22], protein folding (fkpA, surA, and htrA) [28] [29] [30], protein biosynthesis (pth) [31] and assembly (yfiO) [32], stress adaptation (cspE, galF, and luxS) [33] [34,35], cell division (minD/minE) [21], and lipid A biosynthesis (ddg) [36]. Upon activation of σE, a positive feedback on itself ensures sufficient σE is produced to accelerate the protein synthesis required for regaining homeostasis. As a strategy to avoid imbalances, σE also regulates the anti-sigma factor rseA, which dampens the σE response as a negative feedback loop [8]. Other alternative factors are also activated by σE, not only because some of the stresses they respond to are overlapping, but also to expand the protection to other stresses the bacteria may encounter in later stages [37]. A previous study identified a cell division protein FtsZ is regulated by σE in eight organisms closely related to E. coli [8]. Here, we found σE regulates other cell division factors (minD/minE), further suggesting that σE may orchestrate factors associated with cell division. Both outer membrane proteins (OmpA, OmpF, OmpN, and OmpX) and proteins promoting OMP assembly (FkpA, HtrA, and YfiO) are regulated by σE, hence facilitating the proper assembly and insertion of the newly synthesized OMPs into the outer membrane of Salmonella.

Activation of σE is thought to maintain bacterial homeostasis under extracytoplasmic stresses. Five σE-binding sites (greA, ompX, ompA, luxS, and rpoE) were tested for the fulfillment of this purpose using heat shock and oxidative stress challenges (Fig 7). All of them exhibited significantly altered susceptibility to these stresses, consistent with the traditional role of σE. Moreover, this finding supported the observation that the transcription elongation factor GreA has functional chaperone activity [38], which is likely regulated by σE. Why the quorum sensing protein LuxS is involved in extracytoplasmic stress response needs to be further investigated. The σE regulatory system is flexible and efficient, hence playing a significant role for Salmonella to survive in various environments.

Supporting Information

S1 Fig. The quality of antibodies for ChIP experiments.

The rabbit Ab to σE and monoclonal Ab to GFP were tested for specificity by western blot. Cell lysates from WT or ΔrpoE strains were loaded on the gel, and different Abs were used to develop the membrane. Lane 1, the flow through of rabbit immune sera during affinity chromatography purification of anti-σE Ab. Lane 2–4, Ab to σE diluted at 1:1000, 1:3000, and 1:5000 respectively. Lane 5–7, monoclonal Ab to GFP diluted at 1:1000, 1:3000, and 1:5000 respectively.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138466.s001

(TIF)

S1 Table. List of primers used for mutant construction.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138466.s002

(XLSX)

S2 Table. List of quantitative PCR primers used in this study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138466.s003

(XLSX)

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: FH JNA JL. Performed the experiments: JL RCJ MBJ. Analyzed the data: CCO JL. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: JEM EDC. Wrote the paper: JL EDC.

References

  1. 1. Gruber TM, Gross CA (2003) Multiple sigma subunits and the partitioning of bacterial transcription space. Annu Rev Microbiol 57: 441–466. pmid:14527287
  2. 2. Kazmierczak MJ, Wiedmann M, Boor KJ (2005) Alternative sigma factors and their roles in bacterial virulence. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 69: 527–543. pmid:16339734
  3. 3. Rowley G, Spector M, Kormanec J, Roberts M (2006) Pushing the envelope: extracytoplasmic stress responses in bacterial pathogens. Nat Rev Microbiol 4: 383–394. pmid:16715050
  4. 4. Osterberg S, del Peso-Santos T, Shingler V (2011) Regulation of alternative sigma factor use. Annu Rev Microbiol 65: 37–55.
  5. 5. Yoon H, McDermott JE, Porwollik S, McClelland M, Heffron F (2009) Coordinated regulation of virulence during systemic infection of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. PLoS Pathog 5: e1000306. pmid:19229334
  6. 6. Dartigalongue C, Missiakas D, Raina S (2001) Characterization of the Escherichia coli sigma E regulon. J Biol Chem 276: 20866–20875. pmid:11274153
  7. 7. Rezuchova B, Miticka H, Homerova D, Roberts M, Kormanec J (2003) New members of the Escherichia coli sigmaE regulon identified by a two-plasmid system. FEMS Microbiol Lett 225: 1–7. pmid:12900013
  8. 8. Rhodius VA, Suh WC, Nonaka G, West J, Gross CA (2006) Conserved and variable functions of the sigmaE stress response in related genomes. PLoS Biol 4: e2. pmid:16336047
  9. 9. Skovierova H, Rowley G, Rezuchova B, Homerova D, Lewis C, Roberts M, et al. (2006) Identification of the sigmaE regulon of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Microbiology 152: 1347–1359. pmid:16622052
  10. 10. Li J, Overall CC, Nakayasu ES, Kidwai AS, Jones MB, Johnson RC, et al. (2015) Analysis of the Salmonella regulatory network suggests involvement of SsrB and H-NS in sigma(E)-regulated SPI-2 gene expression. Front Microbiol 6: 27. pmid:25713562
  11. 11. Li J, Nakayasu ES, Overall CC, Johnson RC, Kidwai AS, McDermott JE, et al. (2015) Global analysis of Salmonella alternative sigma factor E on protein translation. J Proteome Res 14: 1716–1726. pmid:25686268
  12. 12. Perkins TT, Davies MR, Klemm EJ, Rowley G, Wileman T, James K, et al. (2013) ChIP-seq and transcriptome analysis of the OmpR regulon of Salmonella enterica serovars Typhi and Typhimurium reveals accessory genes implicated in host colonization. Mol Microbiol 87: 526–538. pmid:23190111
  13. 13. Davies BW, Bogard RW, Mekalanos JJ (2011) Mapping the regulon of Vibrio cholerae ferric uptake regulator expands its known network of gene regulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108: 12467–12472. pmid:21750152
  14. 14. Dong TG, Mekalanos JJ (2012) Characterization of the RpoN regulon reveals differential regulation of T6SS and new flagellar operons in Vibrio cholerae O37 strain V52. Nucleic Acids Res 40: 7766–7775. pmid:22723378
  15. 15. Park PJ (2009) ChIP-seq: advantages and challenges of a maturing technology. Nat Rev Genet 10: 669–680. pmid:19736561
  16. 16. Yoon H, Gros P, Heffron F (2011) Quantitative PCR-based competitive index for high-throughput screening of Salmonella virulence factors. Infect Immun 79: 360–368. pmid:21041489
  17. 17. Niemann GS, Brown RN, Gustin JK, Stufkens A, Shaikh-Kidwai AS, Li J, et al. (2011) Discovery of novel secreted virulence factors from Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium by proteomic analysis of culture supernatants. Infect Immun 79: 33–43. pmid:20974834
  18. 18. Sandermann HJ, Strominger JL (1972) Purification and properties of C 55-isoprenoid alcohol phosphokinase from Staphylococcus aureus. J Biol Chem 247: 5123–5131. pmid:5057461
  19. 19. Abeel T, Van Parys T, Saeys Y, Galagan J, Van de Peer Y (2012) GenomeView: a next-generation genome browser. Nucleic Acids Res 40: e12. pmid:22102585
  20. 20. Taga ME, Miller ST, Bassler BL (2003) Lsr-mediated transport and processing of AI-2 in Salmonella typhimurium. Mol Microbiol 50: 1411–1427. pmid:14622426
  21. 21. Bisicchia P, Arumugam S, Schwille P, Sherratt D (2013) MinC, MinD, and MinE drive counter-oscillation of early-cell-division proteins prior to Escherichia coli septum formation. MBio 4: e00856–e00813. pmid:24327341
  22. 22. Matsubara M, Mizuno T (2000) The SixA phospho-histidine phosphatase modulates the ArcB phosphorelay signal transduction in Escherichia coli. FEBS Lett 470: 118–124. pmid:10734219
  23. 23. Bailey TL, Elkan C (1994) Fitting a mixture model by expectation maximization to discover motifs in biopolymers. Proc Int Conf Intell Syst Mol Biol 2: 28–36. pmid:7584402
  24. 24. Harvey PC, Watson M, Hulme S, Jones MA, Lovell M, Berchieri A Jr, et al. (2011) Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium colonizing the lumen of the chicken intestine grows slowly and upregulates a unique set of virulence and metabolism genes. Infect Immun 79: 4105–4121. pmid:21768276
  25. 25. Erie DA, Hajiseyedjavadi O, Young MC, von Hippel PH (1993) Multiple RNA polymerase conformations and GreA: control of the fidelity of transcription. Science 262: 867–873. pmid:8235608
  26. 26. Brown RN, Sanford JA, Park JH, Deatherage BL, Champion BL, Smith RD, et al. (2012) A Comprehensive Subcellular Proteomic Survey of Salmonella Grown under Phagosome-Mimicking versus Standard Laboratory Conditions. Int J Proteomics 2012: 123076. pmid:22900174
  27. 27. Papenfort K, Pfeiffer V, Mika F, Lucchini S, Hinton JC, Vogel J (2006) SigmaE-dependent small RNAs of Salmonella respond to membrane stress by accelerating global omp mRNA decay. Mol Microbiol 62: 1674–1688. pmid:17427289
  28. 28. Sydenham M, Douce G, Bowe F, Ahmed S, Chatfield S, Dougan G (2000) Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium surA mutants are attenuated and effective live oral vaccines. Infect Immun 68: 1109–1115. pmid:10678914
  29. 29. Johnson K, Charles I, Dougan G, Pickard D, O’Gaora P, Costa G, et al. (1991) The role of a stress-response protein in Salmonella typhimurium virulence. Mol Microbiol 5: 401–407. pmid:1645840
  30. 30. Clausen T, Southan C, Ehrmann M (2002) The HtrA family of proteases: implications for protein composition and cell fate. Mol Cell 10: 443–455. pmid:12408815
  31. 31. Das G, Varshney U (2006) Peptidyl-tRNA hydrolase and its critical role in protein biosynthesis. Microbiology 152: 2191–2195. pmid:16849786
  32. 32. Malinverni JC, Werner J, Kim S, Sklar JG, Kahne D, Misra R, et al. (2006) YfiO stabilizes the YaeT complex and is essential for outer membrane protein assembly in Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol 61: 151–164. pmid:16824102
  33. 33. Phadtare S, Inouye M (2001) Role of CspC and CspE in regulation of expression of RpoS and UspA, the stress response proteins in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol 183: 1205–1214. pmid:11157932
  34. 34. Marolda CL, Valvano MA (1996) The GalF protein of Escherichia coli is not a UDP-glucose pyrophosphorylase but interacts with the GalU protein possibly to regulate cellular levels of UDP-glucose. Mol Microbiol 22: 827–840. pmid:8971705
  35. 35. Siller M, Janapatla RP, Pirzada ZA, Hassler C, Zinkl D, Charpentier E (2008) Functional analysis of the group A streptococcal luxS/AI-2 system in metabolism, adaptation to stress and interaction with host cells. BMC Microbiol 8: 188. pmid:18973658
  36. 36. Gruzdev N, McClelland M, Porwollik S, Ofaim S, Pinto R, Saldinger-Sela S (2012) Global transcriptional analysis of dehydrated Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Appl Environ Microbiol 78: 7866–7875. pmid:22941081
  37. 37. Battesti A, Majdalani N, Gottesman S (2011) The RpoS-mediated general stress response in Escherichia coli. Annu Rev Microbiol 65: 189–213. pmid:21639793
  38. 38. Li K, Jiang T, Yu B, Wang L, Gao C, Ma C, et al. (2012) Transcription elongation factor GreA has functional chaperone activity. PLoS One 7: e47521. pmid:23251328