Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Research Article

Noncontiguous operon is a genetic organization for coordinating bacterial gene expression

S. Sáenz-Lahoya, N. Bitarte, B. García, S. Burgui, M. Vergara-Irigaray, J. Valle, View ORCID ProfileC. Solano, View ORCID ProfileA. Toledo-Arana, and View ORCID ProfileI. Lasa
  1. aLaboratory of Microbial Pathogenesis, Navarrabiomed, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra-Universidad Pública de Navarra (UPNA), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra (IDISNA), 31008 Pamplona, Spain;
  2. bInstituto de Agrobiotecnología (IDAB), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC)-UPNA-Gobierno de Navarra, 31192 Mutilva, Navarra, Spain

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS January 29, 2019 116 (5) 1733-1738; first published January 11, 2019; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1812746116
S. Sáenz-Lahoya
aLaboratory of Microbial Pathogenesis, Navarrabiomed, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra-Universidad Pública de Navarra (UPNA), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra (IDISNA), 31008 Pamplona, Spain;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
N. Bitarte
aLaboratory of Microbial Pathogenesis, Navarrabiomed, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra-Universidad Pública de Navarra (UPNA), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra (IDISNA), 31008 Pamplona, Spain;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
B. García
aLaboratory of Microbial Pathogenesis, Navarrabiomed, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra-Universidad Pública de Navarra (UPNA), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra (IDISNA), 31008 Pamplona, Spain;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S. Burgui
aLaboratory of Microbial Pathogenesis, Navarrabiomed, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra-Universidad Pública de Navarra (UPNA), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra (IDISNA), 31008 Pamplona, Spain;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. Vergara-Irigaray
aLaboratory of Microbial Pathogenesis, Navarrabiomed, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra-Universidad Pública de Navarra (UPNA), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra (IDISNA), 31008 Pamplona, Spain;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. Valle
aLaboratory of Microbial Pathogenesis, Navarrabiomed, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra-Universidad Pública de Navarra (UPNA), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra (IDISNA), 31008 Pamplona, Spain;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
C. Solano
aLaboratory of Microbial Pathogenesis, Navarrabiomed, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra-Universidad Pública de Navarra (UPNA), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra (IDISNA), 31008 Pamplona, Spain;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for C. Solano
A. Toledo-Arana
bInstituto de Agrobiotecnología (IDAB), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC)-UPNA-Gobierno de Navarra, 31192 Mutilva, Navarra, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for A. Toledo-Arana
I. Lasa
aLaboratory of Microbial Pathogenesis, Navarrabiomed, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra-Universidad Pública de Navarra (UPNA), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra (IDISNA), 31008 Pamplona, Spain;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for I. Lasa
  • For correspondence: ilasa@unavarra.es
  1. Edited by Richard P. Novick, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, and approved December 11, 2018 (received for review July 26, 2018)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Significance

In bacteria, functionally related genes are often cotranscribed in a single mRNA molecule under the same upstream promoter, forming a polycistronic operon unit. With this strategy, bacteria guarantee that production of all proteins related to a specific cellular process is simultaneously switched on or off. Here, we report the identification of a transcriptional organization consisting in operons that contain a gene(s) that is transcribed in the opposite direction to the rest of the genes of the operon. As a consequence, the resulting mRNA is fully complementary to the operon transcript. This genetic arrangement leads to mutual regulation of the overlapping transcripts expression and, thus, provides an additional strategy for coordinating the expression of functionally related genes within an operon.

Abstract

Bacterial genes are typically grouped into operons defined as clusters of adjacent genes encoding for proteins that fill related roles and are transcribed into a single polycistronic mRNA molecule. This simple organization provides an efficient mechanism to coordinate the expression of neighboring genes and is at the basis of gene regulation in bacteria. Here, we report the existence of a higher level of organization in operon structure that we named noncontiguous operon and consists in an operon containing a gene(s) that is transcribed in the opposite direction to the rest of the operon. This transcriptional architecture is exemplified by the genes menE-menC-MW1733-ytkD-MW1731 involved in menaquinone synthesis in the major human pathogen Staphylococcus aureus. We show that menE-menC-ytkD-MW1731 genes are transcribed as a single transcription unit, whereas the MW1733 gene, located between menC and ytkD, is transcribed in the opposite direction. This genomic organization generates overlapping transcripts whose expression is mutually regulated by transcriptional interference and RNase III processing at the overlapping region. In light of our results, the canonical view of operon structure should be revisited by including this operon arrangement in which cotranscription and overlapping transcription are combined to coordinate functionally related gene expression.

  • operon
  • antisense transcription
  • overlapping transcription
  • RNase III
  • menaquinone

The term operon was first proposed by Jacob and Monod (1) as a functional genomic DNA unit containing a group of genes that are transcribed together under the control of a single promoter. This concept served to explain a revolutionary model of bacterial gene regulation, in which expression of a cluster of genes was negatively controlled by a repressor acting at a single operator that coordinated the process. Over time, it has been shown that operon gene regulation is much more complex than originally expected, with operons that can be positively and/or negatively regulated at different levels other than transcription initiation (2⇓–4). The overall simplicity of operon organization for coordinating gene expression explains why a substantial fraction of functionally related bacterial genes are organized into operons (5, 6).

The list of operons in a specific genome can be predicted with reasonable accuracy based on features such as the distance between each adjacent gene, the likelihood of a pair of genes to be neighbors in a group of reference genomes, and the phylogenetic distance (7⇓–9). However, these features are predisposed by the classical operon concept, and, consequently, the identification of variations in genetic organization inside operon structure through bioinformatic predictions has been very limited. The development of RNA deep sequencing technologies is helping to elucidate “operons” in their full complexities by precisely defining the beginning and the end of mRNA molecules and revealing the changes in the structure of statically predicted operons under different experimental conditions (4, 10⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–17). An unexpected finding unraveled by the precise determination of transcript boundaries is that very often convergent operons overlap at their 3′ end (tail to tail) and divergent operons overlap at their 5′ end (head to head). In these situations, the mRNA contributes to the expression of operon genes, and at the same time, a region of the mRNA acts as an antisense transcript, affecting the expression of the contiguous operon. The simultaneous sense and antisense functions for transcript boundaries were reported under the term excludon in Listeria monocytogenes (18). This genomic organization allows the establishment of a regulatory relationship that results in the “exclusive” expression of only one of both coding regions. The mechanisms for excludon-mediated regulation are multifaceted and it can include transcription interference, transcription attenuation, degradation of the double-stranded overlapping RNAs, or stabilization of the RNAs after cleavage (19, 20).

In a previous work, and through a genome-wide transcriptome profiling of the pathogen Staphylococcus aureus (21), we identified several examples of groups of genes that were apparently transcribed together despite that they were separated by gene(s) transcribed in the opposite direction. This transcriptional organization is an extreme example of an excludon, since the mRNA encoded on the opposite strand of DNA to the operon would serve as a canonical mRNA that encodes for a protein while acting as an antisense RNA, base-pairing all along its length with an internal untranslated region of the polycistronic mRNA. Here, we report the existence of this transcriptional organization in an operon involved in the synthesis of menaquinone in S. aureus. Our results demonstrate that the expression of both overlapping transcripts is mutually regulated by transcriptional interference and endoribonuclease-mediated digestion. The existence of this genetic arrangement, which we named noncontiguous operon, confirms overlapping transcription as a specific mechanism for regulating gene expression within an operon. In addition, it underlines the relevance of reviewing operon structures in bacterial genomes to identify all protein partners whose expression is coordinated in a particular cellular process.

Results

Identification of “Noncontiguous Operons” in the S. aureus Genome.

We screened genome-wide the transcriptome data obtained from the clinical isolates S. aureus 15981 (21) and S. aureus MW2 to identify genes cotranscribed together despite being separated by a gene transcribed in the opposite direction. We found six examples that fit the predicted model (Fig. 1 and SI Appendix, Figs. S1 and S2). RNA sequencing data of published results from different laboratories (rnamaps.unavarra.es/) confirmed the existence of identical transcriptional organizations in five other genetically unrelated S. aureus strains (Fig. 1 and SI Appendix, Figs. S1 and S2). The function of most of the proteins encoded by such operons is unknown. CoaD, which is part of the CoA biosynthesis pathway, MenADB and MenEC, required for menaquinone synthesis, and MoaABCED, required for molybdate transport, are among the proteins with known functions.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Analysis of the noncontiguous operon architecture. JBrowser software images showing RNA-seq or TSS-seq mapped reads distribution in the region comprising menE-menC-MW1733-ytkD-MW1731 genes of seven unrelated S. aureus strains. The scale (log2 or ×103) indicates the number of mapped reads per nucleotide position. A schematic representation of the structure under study is shown in the middle of the scheme. ORFs are represented as orange arrows for the genes that constitute the menE-menC-ytkD-MW1731 operon and as a blue arrow for the MW1733 gene. Promoters are shown as green triangles and transcriptional terminators as red rectangles. The transcript generated from the menE-menC-ytkD-MW1731 operon is represented as a dashed orange arrow, while the transcript generated from MW1733 is presented as a dashed blue arrow. The top line denotes the position in base pairs of the S. aureus MW2 genome. All genetic information about the start and the end of transcription was obtained from a previous study (21). RNA-seq data were obtained from 15981 (21), MW2 (this study), UAMS-1 (41), HG001 (42), WCH-SK2 (43), Homeland (24), and USA300-P23 (44).

To explore the significance of this transcriptional organization, we chose the region comprising menE, menC, MW1733, ytkD, and MW1731 genes based on the size of the transcripts and the relevance of menaquinone synthesis during S. aureus infections (22) (Fig. 1). menE-menC and ytkD-MW1731 are listed as two independent operons in the prokaryotic operons database (csbl.bmb.uga.edu/DOOR/) (23). However, transcriptome data indicated that both operons are transcribed as a single transcriptional unit (Fig. 1). These results agreed with published results obtained by mapping of transcriptional start sites (TSS) by differential RNA-seq that revealed a unique TSS upstream the menE gene (24) (Fig. 1). To experimentally confirm the transcriptome results and because the environmental conditions controlling the expression of menE remain unknown, we first generated two derivatives of the wild-type strain in which the promoter region upstream the menE gene was deleted (ΔPmen strain) or replaced by the constitutive blaZ promoter (PblaZ-men strain) (SI Appendix, Fig. S3). For each of these strains, we generated derivatives in which the chromosomal copy of either menC or MW1731 genes was tagged with the 3xFLAG sequence (SI Appendix, Fig. S3) and then examined MenC and MW1731 protein levels by Western blotting. Consistent with the transcriptome results, the ΔPmen mutation correlated with inhibition of both MenC and MW1731 proteins expression. Note that the ΔPmen deletion did not completely abolish protein production. On the contrary, the strains containing the constitutive blaZ promoter produced considerably higher levels of MenC and MW1731 compared with the wild-type strain (Fig. 2A). Thus, these findings suggested that expression of ytkD-MW1731 depends on the promoter region upstream the menE gene.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Experimental evidence showing that the region comprising menE-menC-MW1733-ytkD-MW1731 genes exhibits an architecture characteristic of a noncontiguous operon. (A) Western blots showing MenC, MW1731, or MW1733 protein levels in the WT and the following derivative strains: ΔPmen, PblaZ-men, ΔPMW1733, and PblaZ-MW1733. The 3xFLAG-tagged proteins were detected with commercial anti-3xFLAG antibodies. Coomassie stained or stain-free gel portions are shown as a loading control. (B) Northern blot analysis of RNA harvested from the strains described in A. Blots were probed with specific riboprobes for menEC, ytkD-MW1731, and MW1733 regions. The positions of RNA standards are indicated. Lower shows 16S and 23S ribosome bands stained with ethidium bromide as loading control. The strains used in this figure are depicted in SI Appendix, Fig. S3.

To further validate the cotranscription of menE-menC-ytkD-MW1731 genes, we performed Northern blot analysis using strand-specific riboprobes corresponding to menE-menC (probe A) and ytkD-MW1731 (probe B) coding regions with total RNA from exponentially growing cells of the wild-type strain, and its two isogenic derivatives, ΔPmen and PblaZ-men. Results showed that the mRNA expression levels are very low in the wild-type strain, because neither probe was able to detect the mRNA (Fig. 2B). In contrast, both probe A and B hybridizations with PblaZ-men RNA revealed an increased accumulation of a fuzzy band of ∼4 kb that was compatible with cotranscription of menE-menC with the downstream genes ytkD-MW1731 (Fig. 2B). Note that probe B also clearly detects an additional processing band (∼1.2 kb). Together, these results strongly suggest that menE-menC and ytkD-MW1731 expression depends on the promoter located upstream menE, which is consistent with transcriptome data indicating that menE-menC-ytkD-MW1731 genes comprise a single transcriptional unit.

Transcriptome data also indicated that the MW1733 gene (258 bp long) is transcribed at high levels with a short 5′ UTR of 26 nucleotides and a 3′ UTR of 60 nucleotides that overlaps the 3′ end of the menC coding sequence. To confirm transcriptome data, we generated two additional strains in which 27 nucleotides of the promoter region upstream the MW1733 gene were deleted (ΔPMW1733 strain) or replaced by the constitutive blaZ promoter (PblaZ-MW1733 strain) (SI Appendix, Fig. S3). For each of these strains, we generated a derivative in which the chromosomal copy of the MW1733 gene was tagged with the 3xFLAG sequence (SI Appendix, Fig. S3). As expected, analysis of MW1733 protein levels revealed that ΔPMW1733 mutation correlated with inhibition of MW1733 protein production whereas transcription from the constitutive blaZ promoter led to higher levels of MW1733 compared with those in the wild-type strain (Fig. 2A). Finally, we performed a Northern blot analysis using a strand-specific riboprobe corresponding to the MW1733 coding region (probe C) with total RNA from exponentially growing cells of the wild-type, ΔPMW1733 and PblaZ-MW1733 strains. Results showed the presence of a discrete band of ∼350 nucleotides in the wild-type strain (Fig. 2B). Hybridization with ΔPMW1733 and PblaZ-MW1733 RNA revealed a decreased and increased accumulation of the RNA product, respectively.

Overall, these results describe an operon organization that is different in the sense that all of the genes of the operon are not contiguous and, therefore, we refer to it as noncontiguous operon. The first two genes are followed by a gene transcribed from the opposite strand, and this gene is then followed by two other genes cotranscribed with the first two. In this spatial transcriptional organization, the noncoding region of the tetracistronic transcript completely overlaps the monocistronic unit.

The Expression of the menE-menC-ytkD-MW1731 Operon and the MW1733 Gene Is Reciprocally Regulated.

To determine whether transcriptional levels of menE-menC-ytkD-MW1731 have an effect on the amount of MW1733 mRNA, we compared by Northern blot the transcript levels of MW1733 in the wild-type, ΔPmen and PblaZ-men strains using probe C to detect MW1733 mRNA. Results showed that MW1733 transcript levels slightly increased when transcription of the operon was inhibited and, on the other hand, markedly decreased in PblaZ-men strain, which is under the presence of an excess of the overlapping tetracistronic transcript (Fig. 3A). To confirm the regulation of MW1733 expression at a protein level, we constructed derivatives of ΔPmen and PblaZ-men containing the chromosomal copy of the MW1733 gene tagged with a 3xFLAG epitope at the C terminus (SI Appendix, Fig. S4). Consistent with Northern blot results, MW1733 protein levels significantly decreased in PblaZ-men compared with those in the wild-type strain (Fig. 3A).

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Mutual regulation of overlapping transcripts expression within the noncontiguous operon. (A, Upper) Northern blot showing MW1733 mRNA levels in the WT, ΔPmen, and PblaZ-men strains. A specific riboprobe (probe C) for MW1733 was used; Western blot showing MW1733 protein levels in the same strains producing a 3xFLAG-tagged MW1733 protein (A, Lower). (B, Upper) Northern blot showing menE-menC mRNA levels in the WT, ΔPMW1733, and PblaZ-MW1733 strains. A specific riboprobe (probe A) for menEC was used; Western blot showing MenC protein levels in the same strains producing a 3xFLAG-tagged MenC protein (B, Lower). (C, Upper) Northern blot showing ytkD-MW1731 mRNA levels in the strains described in B. A specific riboprobe (probe B) for ytkD-MW1731 was used; Western blot showing MW1731 protein levels in the same strains producing a 3xFLAG-tagged MW1731 protein (C, Lower). The positions of RNA standards are indicated and16S and 23S ribosome bands stained with ethidium bromide are shown as loading controls. The 3xFLAG-tagged proteins were detected with commercial anti-3xFLAG antibodies. Coomassie stained or stain-free gel portions are shown as a loading control. The strains used in this figure are depicted in SI Appendix, Fig. S4.

Next, we investigated the possibility of a reciprocal effect of MW1733 mRNA levels on the expression of the tetracistronic operon. To do so, we first analyzed by Northern blot, and with the use of probe A, menE-menC-ytkD-MW1731 mRNA levels in the wild-type, ΔPMW1733, and PblaZ-MW1733 strains. In agreement with the low level of expression of the tetracistronic mRNA in the wild-type strain (Fig. 2B), we could not find a significant difference in menE-menC-ytkD-MW1731 mRNA levels between strains when probe A was used (Fig. 3B). Thus, we repeated the Northern blot assay with the use of probe B, specific for ytkD-MW1731. Again, the ytkD-MW1731 transcript was undetectable in the wild-type and ΔPMW1733 strains. However, when MW1733 was overexpressed, a specific processing transcript was detected. The size of the discrete band (∼1.5 kb) is consistent with a transcript including ytkD-MW1731 that might be obtained upon processing of the menE-menC-ytkD-MW1731 mRNA (Fig. 3C). Next, we constructed derivatives of ΔPMW1733 and PblaZ-MW1733 harboring a chromosomal copy of either menC or MW1731 tagged with the 3xFLAG epitope in the carboxyl-terminal domain (SI Appendix, Fig. S4). Notably, constitutive expression of MW1733 caused a clear reduction in the levels of the MenC protein (Fig. 3B) and a significant accumulation of MW1731 protein levels in PblaZ-MW1733 compared with the wild-type strain (Fig. 3C).

Collectively, these results support the notion that in the noncontiguous operon, transcriptional units generated from opposite strands regulate each other’s expression. Thus, in the noncontiguous operon under study, an increase in tetracistronic operon transcription negatively regulates the expression of the interspersed MW1733 gene. Reciprocally, an increase in MW1733 mRNA discoordinates expression within the overlapped operon, by strongly elevating ytkD-MW1731 mRNA levels while reducing menE-menC expression.

Analysis of the Mechanisms Underlying the Regulation of Noncontiguous Operons Expression.

RNase III endoribonuclease is responsible for processing overlapping sense/antisense transcripts genome-wide in bacteria (21, 25, 26). Thus, we examined the importance of RNase III activity in the reduction of MW1733 transcript levels when an excess of menE-menC-ytkD-MW1731 is transcribed. Deletion of RNase III both in the wild-type strain and in the strain overproducing the tetracistronic operon (PblaZ-men) (SI Appendix, Fig. S5) caused a slight increase in the amount of MW1733 mRNA (Fig. 4A). Consequently, MW1733 protein levels only moderately increased in rnc mutants compared with those in the respective RNase III producing strains (Fig. 4A). However, we studied the involvement of RNase III in menE-menC-ytkD-MW1731 mRNA processing when MW1733 is overexpressed. A Northern blot, using probe A, with RNA from cells of the wild type, PblaZ-MW1733, and their corresponding rnc mutants showed no significant differences between strains, given the low detectability of menE-menC-ytkD-MW1731 mRNA (Fig. 4B). Second, we carried out a similar Northern blot, but with the use of probe B, specific to detect ytkD-MW1731 mRNA. Results revealed that processing of the tetracistronic mRNA when an excess of MW1733 is transcribed still occurred in the absence of RNase III. However, in this case, the processing pattern of the operon changed, leading to a significant decrease in the amount of the discrete 1.5-kb transcript and to the appearance of two additional larger mRNA fragments (Fig. 4C). Accordingly, MW1731 protein levels decreased in rnc mutants of the wild-type and PblaZ-MW1733 strains compared with those in their respective RNase III producing strains (Fig. 4C and SI Appendix, Fig. S5). Overall, these results indicated that RNase III explains, only to a certain extent, the MW1733-mediated cleavage of menE-menC-ytkD-MW1731 mRNA, suggesting that additional ribonuclease(s) might also be responsible for this processing.

Fig. 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

RNase III processing at the overlapping region and transcriptional interference are involved in reciprocal regulation of the overlapping transcripts generated from the noncontiguous operon. (A, Upper) Northern blot showing MW1733 mRNA levels in the WT, ΔPMW1733, Δrnc, PblaZ-men, and PblaZ-men Δrnc. A specific riboprobe (probe C) for MW1733 was used; Western blot showing MW1733 protein levels in the same strains producing a 3xFLAG-tagged MW1733 protein (A, Lower). (B, Upper) Northern blot showing menE-menC mRNA levels in the WT, Δrnc, PblaZ-MW1733, and PblaZ-MW1733 Δrnc. A specific riboprobe (probe A) for menE-menC was used; Western blot showing MenC protein levels in the same strains producing a 3xFLAG-tagged MenC protein (B, Lower). (C, Upper) Northern blot showing ytkD-MW1731 mRNA levels in the strains described in B. A specific riboprobe (probe B) for ytkD-MW1731 was used; (C, Lower) Western blot showing MW1731 protein levels in the same strains producing a 3xFLAG-tagged MW1731 protein. (D, Upper) Northern blot showing MW1733 mRNA levels in the WT, PblaZ-men, ΔPMW1733, ΔPMW1733 MW1733 trans and ΔPMW1733 PblaZ-men MW1733 trans. A specific riboprobe (probe C) for MW1733 was used; Western blot showing MW1733 protein levels in the same strains producing a 3xFLAG-tagged MW1733 protein (D, Lower). (E) Western blots showing MenC (Upper) and MW1733 (Lower) protein levels in the WT, WT pCN40, PblaZ-MW1733, and WT pCN40::MW1733-3xFLAG. Strains contained a chromosomal copy of either menC or MW1731 tagged with the 3xFLAG epitope. The positions of RNA standards are indicated, and 16S and 23S ribosome bands stained with ethidium bromide are shown as loading controls. The 3xFLAG-tagged proteins were detected with commercial anti-3xFLAG antibodies. Coomassie stained or stain-free gel portions are shown as a loading control. The strains used in this figure are depicted in SI Appendix, Fig. S5 for A–C and in SI Appendix, Fig. S6 for D and E.

Besides processing by RNase III, another possible explanation for the reciprocal regulation of overlapping transcripts described above might be transcriptional interference (27), defined as the suppressive influence that the convergent RNA synthesis machinery from one DNA strand causes in cis on the transcription of the neighboring gene. Thus, we next sought to determine whether the observed antisense regulation of menE-menC-ytkD-MW1731 over MW1733 occurred when the MW1733 gene was expressed in another location of the chromosome. To do so, we inserted a 3xFLAG-tagged MW1733 gene under its own promoter next to the innocuous attB site of the lipase gene in both ΔPMW1733 and ΔPMW1733 PblaZ-men genetic backgrounds (SI Appendix, Fig. S6). Importantly, and contrary to what happens when MW1733 is located in its natural location, Northern blot analysis of MW1733 transcript levels showed that these were only slightly reduced in the presence of an excess of menE-menC-ytkD-MW1731 mRNA when the MW1733 gene was placed and expressed in trans (Fig. 4D). Note that there is a marked difference in the size and abundance of MW1733 mRNA when it is ectopically expressed from the attB chromosomal location. Consistent with Northern blot results, Western blot analysis showed that MW1733 protein levels were unaffected in the ΔPMW1733 PblaZ-men MW1733 trans strain compared with those in the wild-type strain (Fig. 4D). These results indicated that menE-menC-ytkD-MW1731–mediated suppressive influence on MW1733 expression requires cis localization of both transcripts. Lastly, to reinforce these results, we overexpressed a 3xFLAG-tagged MW1733 gene ectopically from a plasmid in the wild-type strain harboring a chromosomal copy of either menC or MW1731 tagged with the 3xFLAG epitope (SI Appendix, Fig. S6) and analyzed MenC and MW1731 levels by Western blot. Overexpression of MW1733 in trans did not have any impact on MenC or MW1731 production, showing that MW1733 effect in discoordinating menE-menC-YtkD-MW1731 operon expression also requires cis localization of both transcripts (Fig. 4E). Overall, the above results indicate the existence of a transcriptional interference mechanism of gene regulation between the machinery that synthesizes the noncontiguous operon mRNA and the one synthesizing the mRNA of the interspersed gene.

High Transcriptional Levels of the MW1733 Gene Can Lead to the Appearance of Small Colony Variants.

The experiments shown above demonstrated that overexpression of MW1733 mRNA leads to reduced MenC protein levels (Fig. 3B). In S. aureus, the inhibition of the synthesis of menaquinone has been associated with a slowed growth phenotype, known as small colony variants (SCVs) (28). SCVs are frequently isolated from clinical samples obtained from patients experiencing chronic infections by S. aureus. We observed that the ΔPmen strain constructed in this work, which still shows some residual production of the MenC protein (Fig. 2A), produces colonies whose size are smaller than the ones corresponding to the wild-type strain although they are not as small as the SCVs generated by deletion of menE-menC genes (ΔmenEC) (SI Appendix, Fig. S7A). Therefore, we wondered whether constitutive expression of MW1733 might be followed by the appearance of SCVs phenotypic hallmarks. To test this hypothesis, the promoter of MW1733 was replaced by the constitutive blaZ promoter in ΔPmen strain (SI Appendix, Fig. S8). The resulting strain produced colonies significantly smaller than the ΔPmen strain and exhibited several characteristics associated to S. aureus SCVs such as decreased pigmentation and increased resistance to aminoglycosides (tobramycin, streptomycin, gentamycin, and amikacin) than the wild-type strain (29) (SI Appendix, Fig. S7 B and C). These results suggest that overexpression of MW1733 suppresses the expression of its convergent menE-menC genes, which, in turn, leads to suppressed menaquinone synthesis and the appearance of a SCV phenotype.

To confirm that appearance of SCVs by MW1733 overexpression in ΔPmen strain exclusively happened when MW1733 and menE-menC-ytkD-MW1731 mRNAs were expressed in cis, we overexpressed the MW1733 gene ectopically from a plasmid in ΔPmen strain and analyzed colony size on TSA plates. The resulting strain, ΔPmen pCN40::MW1733 (SI Appendix, Figs. S7A and S8), showed the same phenotype as the ΔPmen strain. Thus, we conclude that this noncontiguous operon transcriptional organization constitutes an effective mechanism for regulating gene expression and ultimately for controlling cell growth.

Discussion

The novelty introduced by the noncontiguous operon concept is that genes within an operon can be interspersed with genes divergently transcribed and that, consequently, they do not necessarily need to be contiguous in the genome. This transcriptional arrangement does not fit within the classical operon paradigm, explaining why it has passed previously unnoticed. It is important to note that in all of the examples of noncontiguous operons in the S. aureus genome, coding sequences of the operon never overlap the coding region of the interspersed gene. Thus, it appears that the noncontiguous operon transcriptional architecture may be a result of evolutionary pressure to minimize genome size and provide an additional strategy for coupling the expression of functionally related polypeptides. Our results provide evidence of two mechanisms by which the noncontiguous operon arrangement can coordinate gene expression. The first mechanism is related with the generation of double-stranded templates between complementary overlapping RNAs that can modify mRNA stability or translation (30, 31). We showed that RNase III digestion of the mRNA duplexes is partially responsible for both the repression of MW1733 expression and also for the cleavage of the tetracistronic mRNA into two independent transcripts. The resulting two halves might be translated into proteins at a similar or different rate than before the cleavage. Our results indicate that transcriptional induction of the MW1733 gene leads on one hand to a reduction in MenE protein levels, and on the other, to the stabilization of the ytkD-MW1731 half and, thus, to the accumulation of higher levels of MW1731 protein compared with the wild-type strain. Specific RNase III cleavage at intercistronic regions with alternative outcomes for the resulting mRNAs has been previously reported in Escherichia coli (32). Opdyke et al. showed that binding of the cis noncoding RNA gadY to the intercistronic region of gadXW mRNA resulted in RNase III cleavage and monocistronic transcripts accumulation, probably due to increased stability of single transcripts. Similarly, binding of a cis-encoded noncoding RNA to the cII-O mRNA of λ phage has been shown to be responsible for an RNase III processing event that is followed by degradation of the upstream cII fragment while the downstream O mRNA remains stable. Because the sRNA partially overlaps the cII coding sequence at its 3′ end, it was concluded that degradation of the cII transcript is due to RNase III processing occurring at that region (33). Regarding the mechanisms underlying the stabilization process, it is possible that cleavage might alter the secondary structure of the transcripts so that they are less susceptible to degradation. RNase III is not the only endonuclease involved in MW1733-dependent processing of the menE-menC-ytkD-MW1731 operon because discrete RNA fragments from the tetracistronic operon are still detected in the absence of RNase III when MW1733 is overexpressed. An important direction for future studies should be to identify such additional endoribonuclease(s).

The second mechanism that contributes to coordinating mRNA expression within the noncontiguous operon is transcriptional interference. Because the distance between promoters of the tetracistronic operon and the MW1733 gene is longer than 200 nucleotides, the most obvious explanation for transcriptional interference is the collision between the RNA synthesis machinery from one DNA strand with the transcription machinery from the other strand (34, 35). A major finding consistent with the existence of transcriptional interference is that tetracistronic operon overexpression did not cause any effect on MW1733 mRNA levels when this was expressed in trans from a separate genomic location. Similarly, the expression of menC and MW1731 was unaffected when MW1733 was overexpressed in trans from a plasmid. Pairing between complementary transcripts can occur regardless of whether they are expressed in cis or trans, and therefore, digestion of overlapping transcripts by RNase III and additional endoribonucleases should take place when MW1733 is produced in trans. Thus, we currently do not understand why MW1733 overexpression in trans does not affect menC and MW1731 expression. One possibility is that pairing and processing of the overlapping transcripts is less efficient when both complementary transcripts are produced from separate genomic locations.

What are the benefits of the noncontiguous operon organization compared with regular operons? The exact functions of overlapping transcription are still a matter of debate, and several authors defend that overlapping transcription are mainly the product of transcriptional noise, arising at spurious promoters throughout the genome (36). The existence and maintenance of noncontiguous operon transcriptional architecture is strong evidence that overlapping transcription represents a specific strategy for gene regulation. We can imagine a number of ways the noncontiguous operon may create higher-level organizational features that are adaptive compared with a regular operon. First, it enables a discoordinated expression within the genes of the operon upstream and downstream the overlapping gene, diminishing gene expression noise and ensuring a more precise stoichiometry. Second, it allows endoribonuclease-dependent removal of transcripts that escape the regular transcription repression process. Third, it allows down-regulation (exclusion) of the overlapping gene expression by transcript-independent transcriptional interference. Finally, it saves space and decreases the genetic load associated with selecting for a regulatory given motif. All these theoretical benefits require future studies to fully explore the fitness advantages that this transcriptional organization provides to bacteria.

The menE-menC-MW1733-ytkD-MW1731 genetic arrangement is conserved across the Staphylococcus genus, a fact that suggests high functional relevance (SI Appendix, Fig. S9). We have found an example of the regulatory possibilities of this transcriptional arrangement in the emergence of an SCVs phenotype associated to menaquinone synthesis deficiency in S. aureus (37). Many efforts have been made to identify auxotrophic mutations that result in the appearance of SCVs (28, 38). However, when examining S. aureus clinical and tissue-cultured induced SCVs, only around 20% can be assigned to a defined auxotrophy, implying that other pathways underlying SCVs formation probably exist (37). Here, we have seen that an increase in the transcription of MW1733 can account for the induction of SCVs under low polycistronic operon transcription levels without the need to generate a mutation. The generation of SCVs through this mechanism has the advantage of producing variants able to rapidly switch and revert to the fast-growing wild-type phenotype at the earliest opportunity to generate and infection, without the fitness costs associated with the generation of mutations and revertant mutations. In this way, the formation and stability of SCVs would be modulated by environmental conditions affecting transcriptional levels of both the menE-menC-ytkD-MW1731 operon and the MW1733 gene and also by factors affecting the binding between overlapping transcripts and the RNase III processing rate. Further work is needed to identify environmental stimuli able to trigger SCVs through this mechanism.

Overall, our results add a further degree of complexity to the initial model of operon gene regulation described by F. Jacob and J. Monod and highlight the functional relevance of overlapping transcription as a mechanism to coordinate the expression levels of bacterial neighboring genes.

Materials and Methods

S. aureus strain 15981 was used as the genetic background for all genetic manipulations. A summary of strains used is provided in SI Appendix, Table S1. Mutant strains, 3xFLAG-tagged strains, strains harboring the PblaZ promoter instead of native promoters, and strains containing a 3xFLAG-tagged MW1733 gene under its own promoter next to the attB site of the lipase gene were generated via allelic replacement using the pMAD vector (39) as described (40). For inactivation of rnc (RNaseIII encoding gene), the previously described pMAD Δrnc::cat86 plasmid (21) was used. Detailed materials and methods are described in SI Appendix, Materials and Methods.

Acknowledgments

We thank Jose R. Penadés for critical reading of the paper. This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness Grants BIO2014-53530-R and BIO2017-83035-R (Agencia Española de Investigación/Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional, European Union). A.T.-A. is supported by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme Grant Agreement 646869.

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: ilasa{at}unavarra.es.
  • Author contributions: A.T.-A. and I.L. conceived the idea; I.L. designed research; S.S.-L., N.B., B.G., S.B., and M.V.-I. performed research; J.V., C.S., A.T.-A., and I.L. analyzed data; and I.L. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

  • This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1812746116/-/DCSupplemental.

Published under the PNAS license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Jacob F,
    2. Monod J
    (1961) Genetic regulatory mechanisms in the synthesis of proteins. J Mol Biol 3:318–356.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Mattheakis LC,
    2. Nomura M
    (1988) Feedback regulation of the spc operon in Escherichia coli: Translational coupling and mRNA processing. J Bacteriol 170:4484–4492.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Lim HN,
    2. Lee Y,
    3. Hussein R
    (2011) Fundamental relationship between operon organization and gene expression. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:10626–10631.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Conway T, et al.
    (2014) Unprecedented high-resolution view of bacterial operon architecture revealed by RNA sequencing. MBio 5:e01442-e14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Okuda S, et al.
    (2007) Characterization of relationships between transcriptional units and operon structures in Bacillus subtilis and Escherichia coli. BMC Genomics 8:48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Rocha EPC
    (2008) The organization of the bacterial genome. Annu Rev Genet 42:211–233.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Zheng Y,
    2. Szustakowski JD,
    3. Fortnow L,
    4. Roberts RJ,
    5. Kasif S
    (2002) Computational identification of operons in microbial genomes. Genome Res 12:1221–1230.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Mao X, et al.
    (2014) DOOR 2.0: Presenting operons and their functions through dynamic and integrated views. Nucleic Acids Res 42:D654–D659.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Pertea M,
    2. Ayanbule K,
    3. Smedinghoff M,
    4. Salzberg SL
    (2009) OperonDB: A comprehensive database of predicted operons in microbial genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 37:D479–D482.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Toledo-Arana A, et al.
    (2009) The Listeria transcriptional landscape from saprophytism to virulence. Nature 459:950–956.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Cho B-K, et al.
    (2009) The transcription unit architecture of the Escherichia coli genome. Nat Biotechnol 27:1043–1049.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Güell M, et al.
    (2009) Transcriptome complexity in a genome-reduced bacterium. Science 326:1268–1271.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Wurtzel O, et al.
    (2010) A single-base resolution map of an archaeal transcriptome. Genome Res 20:133–141.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Beaume M, et al.
    (2010) Cartography of methicillin-resistant S. aureus transcripts: Detection, orientation and temporal expression during growth phase and stress conditions. PLoS One 5:e10725.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Georg J, et al.
    (2009) Evidence for a major role of antisense RNAs in cyanobacterial gene regulation. Mol Syst Biol 5:305.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Dornenburg JE,
    2. DeVita AM,
    3. Palumbo MJ,
    4. Wade JT
    (2010) Widespread antisense transcription in Escherichia coli. MBio 1:e00024-10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Ruiz de los Mozos I, et al.
    (2013) Base pairing interaction between 5′- and 3′-UTRs controls icaR mRNA translation in Staphylococcus aureus. PLoS Genet 9:e1004001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Sesto N,
    2. Wurtzel O,
    3. Archambaud C,
    4. Sorek R,
    5. Cossart P
    (2013) The excludon: A new concept in bacterial antisense RNA-mediated gene regulation. Nat Rev Microbiol 11:75–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Thomason MK,
    2. Storz G
    (2010) Bacterial antisense RNAs: How many are there, and what are they doing? Annu Rev Genet 44:167–188.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Georg J,
    2. Hess WR
    (2011) cis-antisense RNA, another level of gene regulation in bacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 75:286–300.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Lasa I, et al.
    (2011) Genome-wide antisense transcription drives mRNA processing in bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:20172–20177.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Dean MA,
    2. Olsen RJ,
    3. Long SW,
    4. Rosato AE,
    5. Musser JM
    (2014) Identification of point mutations in clinical Staphylococcus aureus strains that produce small-colony variants auxotrophic for menadione. Infect Immun 82:1600–1605.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Mao F,
    2. Dam P,
    3. Chou J,
    4. Olman V,
    5. Xu Y
    (2009) DOOR: A database for prokaryotic operons. Nucleic Acids Res 37:D459–D463.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Koch G, et al.
    (2014) Evolution of resistance to a last-resort antibiotic in Staphylococcus aureus via bacterial competition. Cell 158:1060–1071.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Lioliou E, et al.
    (2012) Global regulatory functions of the Staphylococcus aureus endoribonuclease III in gene expression. PLoS Genet 8:e1002782.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Lybecker M,
    2. Zimmermann B,
    3. Bilusic I,
    4. Tukhtubaeva N,
    5. Schroeder R
    (2014) The double-stranded transcriptome of Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:3134–3139.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Shearwin KE,
    2. Callen BP,
    3. Egan JB
    (2005) Transcriptional interference–A crash course. Trends Genet 21:339–345.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Proctor RA, et al.
    (2006) Small colony variants: A pathogenic form of bacteria that facilitates persistent and recurrent infections. Nat Rev Microbiol 4:295–305.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Sendi P,
    2. Proctor RA
    (2009) Staphylococcus aureus as an intracellular pathogen: The role of small colony variants. Trends Microbiol 17:54–58.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Brantl S
    (2007) Regulatory mechanisms employed by cis-encoded antisense RNAs. Curr Opin Microbiol 10:102–109.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Lasa I,
    2. Toledo-Arana A,
    3. Gingeras TR
    (2012) An effort to make sense of antisense transcription in bacteria. RNA Biol 9:1039–1044.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Opdyke JA,
    2. Fozo EM,
    3. Hemm MR,
    4. Storz G
    (2011) RNase III participates in GadY-dependent cleavage of the gadX-gadW mRNA. J Mol Biol 406:29–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Krinke L,
    2. Wulff DL
    (1990) RNase III-dependent hydrolysis of lambda cII-O gene mRNA mediated by lambda OOP antisense RNA. Genes Dev 4:2223–2233.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Prescott EM,
    2. Proudfoot NJ
    (2002) Transcriptional collision between convergent genes in budding yeast. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:8796–8801.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Crampton N,
    2. Bonass WA,
    3. Kirkham J,
    4. Rivetti C,
    5. Thomson NH
    (2006) Collision events between RNA polymerases in convergent transcription studied by atomic force microscopy. Nucleic Acids Res 34:5416–5425.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Lloréns-Rico V, et al.
    (2016) Bacterial antisense RNAs are mainly the product of transcriptional noise. Sci Adv 2:e1501363.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Proctor RA, et al.
    (2014) Staphylococcus aureus small colony variants (SCVs): A road map for the metabolic pathways involved in persistent infections. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 4:99.
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Johns BE,
    2. Purdy KJ,
    3. Tucker NP,
    4. Maddocks SE
    (2015) Phenotypic and genotypic characteristics of small colony variants and their role in chronic Infection. Microbiol Insights 8:15–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. ↵
    1. Arnaud M,
    2. Chastanet A,
    3. Débarbouillé M
    (2004) New vector for efficient allelic replacement in naturally nontransformable, low-GC-content, gram-positive bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:6887–6891.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Valle J, et al.
    (2003) SarA and not sigmaB is essential for biofilm development by Staphylococcus aureus. Mol Microbiol 48:1075–1087.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. King AN, et al.
    (2018) Guanine limitation results in CodY-dependent and -independent alteration of Staphylococcus aureus physiology and gene expression. J Bacteriol doi:10.1128/JB.00136-18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Poupel O,
    2. Proux C,
    3. Jagla B,
    4. Msadek T,
    5. Dubrac S
    (2018) SpdC, a novel virulence factor, controls histidine kinase activity in Staphylococcus aureus. PLoS Pathog 14:e1006917–e1006932.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. ↵
    1. Bui LMG,
    2. Hoffmann P,
    3. Turnidge JD,
    4. Zilm PS,
    5. Kidd SP
    (2015) Prolonged growth of a clinical Staphylococcus aureus strain selects for a stable small-colony-variant cell type. Infect Immun 83:470–481.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. ↵
    1. Yeo W-S, et al.
    (2018) The FDA-approved anti-cancer drugs, streptozotocin and floxuridine, reduce the virulence of Staphylococcus aureus. Sci Rep 8:2521.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Noncontiguous operon is a genetic organization for coordinating bacterial gene expression
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Noncontiguous operon is a genetic organization for coordinating bacterial gene expression
S. Sáenz-Lahoya, N. Bitarte, B. García, S. Burgui, M. Vergara-Irigaray, J. Valle, C. Solano, A. Toledo-Arana, I. Lasa
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jan 2019, 116 (5) 1733-1738; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1812746116

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Noncontiguous operon is a genetic organization for coordinating bacterial gene expression
S. Sáenz-Lahoya, N. Bitarte, B. García, S. Burgui, M. Vergara-Irigaray, J. Valle, C. Solano, A. Toledo-Arana, I. Lasa
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jan 2019, 116 (5) 1733-1738; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1812746116
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Article Classifications

  • Biological Sciences
  • Microbiology
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 116 (5)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Materials and Methods
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Setting sun over a sun-baked dirt landscape
Core Concept: Popular integrated assessment climate policy models have key caveats
Better explicating the strengths and shortcomings of these models will help refine projections and improve transparency in the years ahead.
Image credit: Witsawat.S.
Model of the Amazon forest
News Feature: A sea in the Amazon
Did the Caribbean sweep into the western Amazon millions of years ago, shaping the region’s rich biodiversity?
Image credit: Tacio Cordeiro Bicudo (University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil), Victor Sacek (University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil), and Lucy Reading-Ikkanda (artist).
Syrian archaeological site
Journal Club: In Mesopotamia, early cities may have faltered before climate-driven collapse
Settlements 4,200 years ago may have suffered from overpopulation before drought and lower temperatures ultimately made them unsustainable.
Image credit: Andrea Ricci.
Steamboat Geyser eruption.
Eruption of Steamboat Geyser
Mara Reed and Michael Manga explore why Yellowstone's Steamboat Geyser resumed erupting in 2018.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Birds nestling on tree branches
Parent–offspring conflict in songbird fledging
Some songbird parents might improve their own fitness by manipulating their offspring into leaving the nest early, at the cost of fledgling survival, a study finds.
Image credit: Gil Eckrich (photographer).

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490