CyAbrB2 is a nucleoid-associated protein in Synechocystis controlling hydrogenase expression during fermentation
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife assessment
The authors provide solid data on a functional investigation of potential nucleoid-associated proteins and the modulation of chromosomal conformation in a model cyanobacterium. While the experiments presented are convincing, the manuscript could benefit from restructuring towards the precise findings; alternatively, additional data buttressing the claims made would significantly enhance the study. These valuable findings will be of interest to the chromosome and microbiology fields.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
- Microbiology and Infectious Disease (eLife)
Abstract
The hox operon in Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803, encoding bidirectional hydrogenase responsible for H 2 production, is transcriptionally upregulated under microoxic conditions. Although several regulators for hox transcription have been identified, their dynamics and higher-order DNA structure of hox region in microoxic conditions remain elusive. We focused on key regulators for the hox operon: cyAbrB2, a conserved regulator in cyanobacteria, and SigE, an alternative sigma factor. Chromatin immunoprecipitation-sequencing revealed that cyAbrB2 binds to the hox promoter region under aerobic conditions, with its binding being flattened in microoxic conditions. Concurrently, SigE exhibited increased localization to the hox promoter under microoxic conditions. Genome-wide analysis revealed that cyAbrB2 binds broadly to AT-rich genome regions and represses gene expression. Moreover, we demonstrated the physical interactions of the hox promoter region with its distal genomic loci. Both the transition to microoxic conditions and the absence of cyAbrB2 influenced the chromosomal interaction. From these results, we propose that cyAbrB2 is a cyanobacterial nucleoid-associated protein (NAP), modulating chromosomal conformation, which blocks RNA polymerase from the hox promoter in aerobic conditions. We further infer that cyAbrB2, with altered localization pattern upon microoxic conditions, modifies chromosomal conformation in microoxic conditions, which allows SigE-containing RNA polymerase to access the hox promoter. The coordinated actions of this NAP and the alternative sigma factor are crucial for the proper hox expression in microoxic conditions. Our results highlight the impact of cyanobacterial chromosome conformation and NAPs on transcription, which have been insufficiently investigated.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
-
eLife assessment
The authors provide solid data on a functional investigation of potential nucleoid-associated proteins and the modulation of chromosomal conformation in a model cyanobacterium. While the experiments presented are convincing, the manuscript could benefit from restructuring towards the precise findings; alternatively, additional data buttressing the claims made would significantly enhance the study. These valuable findings will be of interest to the chromosome and microbiology fields.
-
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Strength:
At first glance, I had a very positive impression of the overall manuscript. The experiments were well done, the data presentation looks very structured, and the text reads well in principle.Weakness:
Having a closer look, the red line of the manuscript is somewhat blurry. Reading the abstract, the introduction, and parts of the discussion, it is not really clear what the authors exactly aim to target. Is it the regulation of fermentation in cyanobacteria because it is under-investigated? Is it to bring light to the transcriptional regulation of hydrogenase genes? The regulation by SigE? Or is it to get insight into the real function of cyAbrB2 in cyanobacteria? All of this would be good of course. But it appears that the authors try to integrate all these aspects, which in the end is a little bit …Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Strength:
At first glance, I had a very positive impression of the overall manuscript. The experiments were well done, the data presentation looks very structured, and the text reads well in principle.Weakness:
Having a closer look, the red line of the manuscript is somewhat blurry. Reading the abstract, the introduction, and parts of the discussion, it is not really clear what the authors exactly aim to target. Is it the regulation of fermentation in cyanobacteria because it is under-investigated? Is it to bring light to the transcriptional regulation of hydrogenase genes? The regulation by SigE? Or is it to get insight into the real function of cyAbrB2 in cyanobacteria? All of this would be good of course. But it appears that the authors try to integrate all these aspects, which in the end is a little bit counterintuitive and in some places even confusing. From my point of view, the major story is a functional investigation of the presumable transcriptional regulator cyAbrB2, which turned out to be a potential NAP. To demonstrate/prove this, the hox genes have been chosen as an example due to the fact that a regulatory role of cyAbrB2 has already been described. In my eyes, it would be good to restructure or streamline the introduction according to this major outcome.Points to consider:
The authors suggest that the microoxic condition is the reason for the downregulation of e.g. photosynthesis (l.112-114). But of course, they also switched off the light to achieve a microoxic environment, which presumably is the trigger signal for photosynthesis-related genes. I suggest avoiding making causal conclusions exclusively related to oxygen and recommend rephrasing (for example, "were downregulated under the conditions applied").The authors hypothesized that cyAbrB2 modulates chromosomal conformation and conducted a 3C analysis. But if I read the data in Figure 5B & C correctly, there is a lot of interaction in a range of 1650 and 1700 kb, not only at marked positions c and j. Positions c and j have been picked because it appears that cyAbrB2 deletion impacts this particular interaction. But is it really significant? In the case of position j the variation between the replicates seems quite high, in the case of position c the mean difference is not that high. Moreover, does all this correlate with cyAbrB2 binding, i.e. with positions of gray bars in panel A? If this was the case, the data obtained for the cyabrB2 mutant should look totally different but they are quite similar to WT. That's why the sentence "By contrast, the interaction frequency in Δcyabrb2 mutant were low and unchanged in the aerobic and microoxic conditions" does not fit to the data shown. But I have to mention that I am not an expert in these kinds of assays. Nevertheless, if there is a biological function that shall be revealed by an experiment, the data must be crystal clear on that. At least the descriptions of the 3C data and the corresponding conclusions need to be improved. For me, it is hard to follow the authors' thoughts in this context.
The figures are nicely prepared, albeit quite complex and in some cases not really supportive of the understanding of the results description. Moreover, they show a rather loose organization that sometimes does not fit the red line of the results section. For example, Figure 1D is not mentioned in the paragraph that refers to several other panels of the same figure (see lines110-128). Panel 1D is mentioned later in the discussion. Does 1D really fit into Figure 1 then? Are all the panels indeed required to be shown in the main document? As some elements are only briefly mentioned, the authors might also consider moving some into the supplement (e.g. left part of Figure 1C, Figure 2A, Figure 3B ...) or at least try to distribute some panels into more figures. This would reduce complexity and increase comprehensibility for future readers. Also, Figure 3 is a way too complex. Panel G could be an alone-standing figure. The latter would also allow for an increase in font sizes or to show ChIP data of both conditions (L+O2 and D-O2) separately. Moreover, a figure legend typically introduces the content as a whole by one phrase but here only the different panels are described, which fits to the impression that all the different panels are not well connected. Of course, it is the decision of the authors what to present and how but may they consider restructuring and simplifying.
The authors assume a physiological significance of transient upregulation of e.g. hox genes under microoxic conditions. But does the hydrogenase indeed produce hydrogen under the conditions investigated and is this even required? Moreover, the authors use the term "fermentative gene". But is hydrogen indeed a fermentation product, i.e. are protons the terminal electron acceptor to achieve catabolic electron balance? Then huge amounts of hydrogen should be released. Comment should be made on this.
The authors also mention a reverse TCA cycle. But is its existence an assumption or indeed active in cyanobacteria, i.e. is it experimentally proven? The authors are a little bit vague in this regard (see lines 241-246).
-
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
This work probes the control of the hox operon in the cyanobacterium Synechocystis, where this operon directs the synthesis of a bidirectional hydrogenase that functions to produce hydrogen. In assessing the control of the hox system, the authors focused on the relative contributions of cyAbrB2, alongside SigE (and to a lesser extent, SigA and cyAbrB1) under both aerobic and microoxic conditions. In mapping the binding sites of these different proteins, they discovered that cyAbrB2 bound many sites throughout the chromosome repressed many of its target genes, and preferentially bound regions that were (relatively) rich in AT-residues. These characteristics led the authors to consider that cyAbrB2 may function as a nucleoid-associated protein (NAP) in Synechocystis, given its functional similarities with …
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
This work probes the control of the hox operon in the cyanobacterium Synechocystis, where this operon directs the synthesis of a bidirectional hydrogenase that functions to produce hydrogen. In assessing the control of the hox system, the authors focused on the relative contributions of cyAbrB2, alongside SigE (and to a lesser extent, SigA and cyAbrB1) under both aerobic and microoxic conditions. In mapping the binding sites of these different proteins, they discovered that cyAbrB2 bound many sites throughout the chromosome repressed many of its target genes, and preferentially bound regions that were (relatively) rich in AT-residues. These characteristics led the authors to consider that cyAbrB2 may function as a nucleoid-associated protein (NAP) in Synechocystis, given its functional similarities with other NAPs like H-NS. They assessed the local chromosome conformation in both wild-type and cyabrB2 mutant strains at multiple sites within a 40 kb window on either side of the hox locus, using a region within the hox operon as bait. They concluded that cyAbrB2 functions as a nucleoid-associated protein that influences the activity of SigE through its modulation of chromosome architecture.
The authors approached their experiments carefully, and the data were generally very clearly presented and described.
Based on the data presented, the authors make a strong case for cyAbrB2 as a nucleoid-associated protein, given the multiple ways in which it seems to function similarly to the well-studied Escherichia coli H-NS protein. It would be helpful to provide some additional commentary within the discussion around the similarities and differences of cyAbrB2 to other nucleoid-associated proteins, and possible mechanisms of cyAbrB2 control (post-translational modification; protein-protein interactions; etc.). The manuscript would also be strengthened with the inclusion of biochemical experiments probing the binding of cyAbrB2, particularly focussing on its oligomerization and DNA polymerization/bridging potential.
Previous work had revealed a role for SigE in the control of hox cluster expression, which nicely justified its inclusion (and focus) in this study. However, the results of the SigA studies here suggested that SigA both strongly associated with the hox promoter, and its binding sites were shared more frequently than SigE with cyAbrB2. The focus on cyAbrB2 is also well-justified, given previous reports of its control of hox expression; however, it shares binding sites with an essential homologue cyAbrB1. Interestingly, while the B1 protein appears to bind similar sites, instead of repressing hox expression, it is known as an activator of this operon. It seems important to consider how cyAbrB1 activity might influence the results described here.
-
-
-
-