Our data are generally consistent with those derived from transcr

Our data are generally consistent with those derived from transcriptomic analysis. The strongest of the analyzed promoters, P dsbA1 , which was down-regulated in iron starvation conditions, was not identified in comparative transcriptomic experiments conducted by Holmes et al., although that work revealed P dsbA2dsbBastA iron dependence

[6]. Such inconsistency of experimental data might be Luminespib datasheet due to limited sensitivity of the transcriptomic strategy previously used. The transcription level of dsbA1 is only slightly affected by iron concentration, whereas the transcription level from P dsbA2dsbBastA decreases about 10-fold in response to iron deficiency. The dsb gene promoters are antagonistically regulated by iron availability, at least under conditions used in this study. Thus, abundance of both periplasmic oxidoreductases, DsbA1 and DsbA2, decreases when iron becomes restricted, while DsbB and Citarinostat molecular weight DsbI membrane oxidoreductases are synthesized constitutively, in different extracellular iron concentrations. This might suggest that iron-storage proteins or non-essential iron-using proteins might be direct or indirect targets of the Dsb oxidative pathway involving activity of DsbA1/DsbB or DsbA2/DsbB redox pairs. In some microorganisms,

positive regulation by Fur and iron is provided by action of sRNAs which are themselves regulated by iron-complexed Fur – these sRNAs pair with their target mRNAs and promote their degradation (reviewed in [46]). However, P dsbA2dsbBastA and P dsbA1 promoters are

not regulated that way, since the level of β-galactosidase in iron-sufficient see more medium is comparable in wild-type and fur mutated cells. This observation proved that these promoters are not induced by iron-bound Fur, as the level of β-galactosidase expressed from these two fusions is higher in response to iron limitation in the fur mutant than in the wild type cells. The most probable explanation of these results is that iron-free Fur is capable of repressing their transcription. Palyada et al. [40] performed in silico analysis aimed at Campylobacter Fur box identification. They inspected 16 DNA fragments located upstream of iron and Fur repressed genes, which allowed them to establish the potential Fur box sequence motif. However, only eleven of the analyzed promoters Staurosporine manufacturer included this element [40]. So far C. jejuni’s potential Fur box for apo-Fur repressed genes remains undetermined. In the present study the EMSA assays confirmed that although all the analyzed promoters were members of the Fur regulon, each of them was regulated by a different mechanism. We showed that both iron-free and iron-complexed Fur can act as a repressor. The observed potential dual regulation of the P dsbA2dsbBastA promoter, dependent on Fur concentration, still remains unclear. An explanation for this phenomenon requires deeper understanding of the C. jejuni fur gene expression. In contrast to E. coli, the C.

Comments are closed.