The best characterized Dsb oxidative system, that of E. coli K-12, consists of two oxidoreductases, periplasmic DsbA and inner membrane DsbB, that are involved in disulfide bond formation de novo in the bacterial periplasm. Genes encoding these proteins are located in different chromosomal sites and are transcribed as monocistronic units.
The
Campylobacter jejuni Dsb oxidative pathway is more complex. In the present study we initiated analysis of
C. jejuni dsb gene organization and regulation. Our results document organization of these genes in two operons, one comprised of
dba and
dsbI, and another of
dsbA2, dsbB and
astA. The
dsbA1 gene constitutes a separate monocistronic transcriptional unit. Predictions based on
in silico analysis by Petersen
et al. [
44] of the
C. jejuni NCTC 11168 genome nucleotide sequence stated that the
dba and
dsbI genes are cotranscribed. They also indicated that
cj0864 (a truncated version of
dsbA2) and
cj0865 (
dsbB) potentially form an operon. The first T base of the TATA box was predicted to be located 199 bp upstream from the ATG start codon for the
dba-dsbI operon and 66 bp from the ATG start codon for the
dsbA2-dsbB-astA operon [
44].
Global comparative
C. jejuni transcriptome or proteome analysis revealed that transcription levels of
dsbA2, dsbB and
astA increase in strains isolated from a chicken cecum compared with strains grown
in vitro [
5] and they are down-regulated under iron-restricted conditions
in vitro [
6]. Stinzi
et al. found that
dsb gene transcription was not dependent on the temperature of
in vitro growth (37
vs 42°C) [
45]. So far only one transcriptomic study has documented that
dba and
dsbI transcript abundance is iron-dependent. Interestingly, the authors stated that the transcription of
dba and
dsbI was antagonistically regulated by iron accessibility, depending on the experimental conditions, i. e. iron-activated shortly after iron addition into the medium and iron-repressed in the mid-log phase of growth [
40]. All cited transcriptomic experiments were conducted on mRNA derived from
C. jejuni NCTC 11168, a strain which has the shorter, non-functional
dsbA2 version.
Our experiments, conducted on
C. jejuni 480 wild type expressing β-galactosidase from different
dsb gene promoters of
C. jejuni 81-176, demonstrated that they are all regulated in response to iron availability. 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 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 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 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 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. jejuni fur gene expression is not autoregulated, and additionally, the iron-responsive Fur regulator of
C. jejuni is expressed from two separate promoters [
47]. Our findings further indicate that transcription under iron-starvation can be controlled by Fur indirectly, as was observed for the
dsbA1 gene. The sophisticated mechanism regulating
dsb gene transcription in response to iron availability may be responsible for subtle changes in the abundance and/or activity of various substrates in the Dsb system. We demonstrated that activity of
C. jejuni 81-176 AstA, which is a direct target of Dsb system, is dependent on iron level in the medium. However, as AstA level is dependent on the activities of both DsbA1 and DsbA2 (unpublished results), details of the process remain unclear.
Recently performed comparative
Helicobacter pylori and
Neisseria gonorrhoeae transcriptomic analysis also indicated that genes included in the Fur regulon can be positively or negatively regulated in response to iron availability [
38,
48]. Like
C. jejuni Fur,
H. pylori Fur also binds to some promoters in its iron-free form to repress their expression [
38,
49-
51].
C. jejuni Fur reveals a relatively high degree of amino acid identity with
H. pylori Fur. Nonetheless it is not able to complement apo-Fur regulation in an
H. pylori fur mutant when delivered
in trans [
52]. Such unexpected results might be due to subtle differences in conformation of both proteins. Additional experiments, such as solving the three dimensional structure of
C. jejuni Fur, are required to clarify the functional differences between Fur proteins of these closely related species. Although both species have AT-rich genomes and some of their promoters have similar structure, it can not be excluded that the
C. jejuni apo-Fur binding nucleotide sequences are not identical as those determined for
H. pylori apo-Fur. Also two
H. pylori promoters, the
pfr and
sod gene promoters that are repressed by apo-Fur, exhibited low sequence similarity and revealed different affinities for apo-Fur [
38,
50].
The second part of our research was aimed at understanding the relationship between
dba and
dsbI expression. Experiments employing point mutated
dba provided evidence for strong translational coupling of the
dba and
dsbI genes. Inhibition or premature termination of
dba mRNA translation resulted in the lack of DsbI. This defect was not complemented by the intact chromosomal
dba gene in
C. jejuni 81-176
dsbI::cat. Translational coupling has already been described and is common among functionally related bacterial genes. It was documented that in many cases it involves operons containing overlapping genes as well as genes constituting an operon and divided by short intergenic region [
53,
54].
C. jejuni 81-176
dba and
dsbI do not overlap, but are separated by a relatively short intergenic region (11 bp). Experiments employing a recombinant plasmid that expressed only DsbI verified the importance of the
dba-dsbI mRNA secondary structure for its translation. Preliminary prediction of the secondary structure for the mRNA region spanning the entire
dba gene and the 5' end of the
dsbI gene, indicated that the
dsbI RBS is located within a stem-loop structure formed by a sequence fragment upstream of the RBS (including the 3' part of the
dba gene) as well as one downstream of the RBS and spanning the initiator codon of the
dsbI gene. This suggests that mRNA translation of the
dsbI gene may be blocked due to the occlusion of the RBS, and that translation of the
dba mRNA may make the RBS of the
dsbI gene accessible and hence enable the translation of the
dsbI gene as well. Verification of this hypothesis requires further analysis.
This coupling mechanism may facilitate interaction between two proteins expressed from the same operon. Data obtained in our study showed that in the absence of Dba, DsbI is intensively degraded in
E. coli cells. Also in
C. jejuni Δdba-dsbI::cat cells harboring a recombinant plasmid enabling expression of only DsbI, this protein migrates on SDS-PAGE slightly faster than DsbI produced by wild type cells. It was suggested by
in silico analysis that the N-terminal domain of DsbI contains five transmembrane helixes and its C-terminal domain achieve a β-propeller structure and localize in the periplasm [
18]. DsbI localization in the inner-membrane was documented by a cell fractionation experiment (data not shown).
In silico prediction also localizes Dba in the IM. Although the specific mechanism of Dba and DsbI interplay is yet unknown, we hypothesize that Dba can act as a periplasmic or transmembrane chaperone, providing the proper folding of the DsbI C-terminal domain, which might be a prerequisite for recruiting other proteins to form an active protein complex.