Koudelka G B, Lam C Y
Department of Biological Sciences, State University of New York at Buffalo 14260.
J Biol Chem. 1993 Nov 15;268(32):23812-7.
The developmental decisions of bacteriophage 434 depend on the ability of 434 repressor and Cro to bind OR1 and OR3 with different relative affinities; repressor binds OR1 tighter than OR3, whereas Cro slightly prefers OR3 over OR1. Studies with operator mutants show that repressor's lower relative affinity for OR3 results from a deviation in the sequence of OR3 from consensus; an A-->G change at position 4 in one half-site (OR1: A-C-A-A-A-C-T-T-T-C-T-T-G-T; OR3: A-C-A-G-T-T-T-T-T-C-T-T-G-T). Similar experiments show that Cro binds operators containing either A.T or G.C bases pairs at position 4 equally well, but cannot bind operators containing C.G or T.A base pairs at this position. A Gln33-->Ala mutation in 434 repressor diminishes, but does not eliminate, its ability to distinguish between purines at position 4. This shows that a glutamine at amino acid 33 is not the sole determinant of repressor's position 4 specificity. Changing Gln33-->Leu, the amino acid at the homologous position in Cro, does not confer "Cro-like" position 4 base specificity on repressor. Similarly, a Cro protein bearing Gln at this position does not exhibit repressor's position 4 base preferences. The residual specificities of these mutant proteins indicates that in each protein, more than 1 amino acid is responsible for recognizing bases at position 4. These were identified by analyzing the binding specificities of multiply mutated repressors, in vitro. The types of substitutions made were guided by sequence homologies between 434 repressor and Cro. At least three mutations are needed to eliminate repressor's position 4 base specificity; Gln33-->Ala, Glu32-->Gln, and Thr27-->Lys, although no set of amino acid substitutions in repressor was able to confer Cro-like position 4 specificity to repressor. These results indicate that at least the amino acids at these positions are involved in recognition of the position 4 base. Other evidence suggests that Cro and repressor use identical amino acids present at homologous positions in the DNA recognition helix in different ways.
噬菌体434的发育决策取决于434阻遏蛋白和Cro以不同相对亲和力结合OR1和OR3的能力;阻遏蛋白与OR1的结合比与OR3更紧密,而Cro对OR3的偏好略高于OR1。对操纵子突变体的研究表明,阻遏蛋白对OR3相对较低的亲和力是由于OR3序列与共有序列存在偏差;一个半位点(OR1:A-C-A-A-A-C-T-T-T-C-T-T-G-T;OR3:A-C-A-G-T-T-T-T-T-C-T-T-G-T)中第4位的A→G变化。类似实验表明,Cro与第4位含有A·T或G·C碱基对的操纵子结合能力相同,但不能与该位置含有C·G或T·A碱基对的操纵子结合。434阻遏蛋白中的Gln33→Ala突变降低了但并未消除其区分第4位嘌呤的能力。这表明33位的谷氨酰胺不是阻遏蛋白第4位特异性的唯一决定因素。将Cro中同源位置的氨基酸Gln33→Leu,并不会赋予阻遏蛋白“Cro样”的第4位碱基特异性。同样,在该位置带有Gln的Cro蛋白也不会表现出阻遏蛋白的第4位碱基偏好。这些突变蛋白的残余特异性表明,在每种蛋白中,不止一个氨基酸负责识别第4位的碱基。通过在体外分析多重突变阻遏蛋白的结合特异性来确定这些氨基酸。所进行的取代类型是由434阻遏蛋白和Cro之间的序列同源性指导的。至少需要三个突变来消除阻遏蛋白的第4位碱基特异性;Gln33→Ala、Glu32→Gln和Thr27→Lys,尽管阻遏蛋白中的任何一组氨基酸取代都无法赋予其Cro样的第4位特异性。这些结果表明,至少这些位置的氨基酸参与了对第位4碱基的识别。其他证据表明,Cro和阻遏蛋白以不同方式使用DNA识别螺旋中同源位置上相同的氨基酸。