Host factors

Transposition activity is frequently modulated by various host factors. These effects are generally specific for each element. A non-exhaustive list of such factors includes the DNA chaperones (or histone-like proteins), IHF, HU, HNS, and FIS, the replication initiator DnaA, the protein chaperone/proteases ClpX, P, and A, the SOS control protein LexA, and the Dam DNA methylase. In addition, proteins which govern DNA supercoiling in the cell can also influence transposition.

IHF, HU, HNS, and FIS

DNA chaperones may play roles in assuring the correct three dimensional architecture in the evolution of various nucleoprotein complexes necessary for productive transposition. They may also be involved in regulating Tpase expression. IHF, HU, HNS, and FIS have all been variously implicated in the case of bacteriophage Mu, in the control of Mu gene expression or directly in the transposition process (see (Chaconas et al., 1996)for review).

Several elements carry specific binding sites for IHF within, or close to, their terminal IRs. These can lie within (e.g. IS1: (Gamas et al., 1985); IS903: see (Grindley & Joyce, 1980) or close to (IS10: (Kleckner, et al., 1996)) the Tpase promoter. IHF appears to influence the nature of IS10 transposition products by binding to a site 43 bp from one end (Signon & Kleckner, 1995), (Chalmers, et al., 1998), (Sakai, et al., 1995).IHF also stimulates Tpase binding to the ends of the Tn3 family member, Tn1000 or γδ (Wiater & Grindley, 1988). Ironically, although IS1 was the first element in which IHF sites were identified (one within each IR), conditions have not yet been found in which IHF shows a clear effect on transposition or gene expression (D. Zerbib and M.C. unpublished results). The multiple roles of several of these proteins in both the IS10 and Tn5 (IS50) systems and the dynamics of their involvement has been determined in detail (Ward, et al., 2007, Singh, et al., 2008, Wardle, et al., 2009, Whitfield, et al., 2009, Haniford & Ellis, 2015)(Liu, et al., 2005)(Chalmers, et al., 1998, Crellin & Chalmers, 2001, Sewitz, et al., 2003, Crellin, et al., 2004)

The histone-like nucleoid structuring protein H-NS, a global transcriptional regulator, has also been implicated in the regulation of bacterial transposition systems, including Tn10 (Wardle, et al., 2005, Ward, et al., 2007, Wardle, et al., 2009). It appears to promote transposition by binding directly to the transposition complex (or transpososome).

DnaA

In the case of IS50, an element of the same family as IS10, both the protein Fis and the replication initiator protein DnaA have been reported to intervene in transposition (see(Reznikoff, 1993). Finally another "histone-like" protein, HNS, has been reported to stimulate transposition of IS1 in certain circumstances (Shiga, et al., 1999).

Although their mode of action is at present unknown, several other host proteins with otherwise entirely different functions have been implicated in transposition.

Accessory proteins: Acyl carrier protein (ACP), ribosomal protein L29, PepA and ArgR

Acyl carrier protein (ACP) was independently shown to stimulate 3' end cleavage of Tn3 by its cognate Tpase (Maekawa, et al., 1996) and, together with ribosomal protein L29, to greatly increase binding of TnsD (a protein involved in Tn7 target selection) to the chromosomal insertion site, attTn7 (Sharpe & Craig, 1998). Moreover ACP and L29 moderately stimulate Tn7 transposition in vitro while L29 alone has a significant stimulatory effect in vivo (Sharpe & Craig, 1998). The mode of action of these proteins may be similar to that of the accessory proteins PepA and ArgR which modify the architecture of the synaptic complex in certain XerC/XerD-mediated site-specific recombination reactions (Hallet & Sherratt, 1997)

ClpX, ClpP, and Lon

Certain factors involved in protein "management" such as ClpX, ClpP, and Lon have been implicated in transposition. ClpX is essential for Mu growth (Mhammedi-Alaoui, et al., 1994) where it is required for disassembling the transposase-DNA complex or the transpososome strand transfer complex in preparation for the assembly of a replication complex (Kruklitis, et al., 1996), (Levchenko, et al., 1995). Recognition of Mu transposase, pA, by ClpX requires the terminal 10 amino acids of pA (Levchenko, et al., 1997). Together with ClpP, ClpX also plays a role in proteolysis of the Mu repressor (Laachouch, et al., 1996), (Welty, et al., 1997). The Lon protease is implicated in proteolysis of the IS903 transposase (Derbyshire, et al., 1990, Derbyshire & Grindley, 1996).

At present the involvement of these proteins in the transposition of other elements has not been well documented.

SOS system, RecA, RecBC

The third class of host factor includes host cell systems which act to limit DNA damage and maintain chromosome integrity. Studies with IS10 (see (Kleckner, et al., 1996) and IS1 (Lane, et al., 1994) have demonstrated that high levels of Tpase in the presence of suitable terminal IRs lead to induction of the host SOS system. As discussed previously (Mahillon & Chandler, 1998), some controversy still exists concerning the role of RecA in Tn5 (IS50) transposition (Kuan, et al., 1991, Kuan & Tessman, 1991), (Weinreich, et al., 1991). Reznikoff and colleagues have provided genetic evidence that transposition is inhibited by induction of the SOS system in a manner which does not require the proteolytic activity of RecA (Weinreich, et al., 1991). On the other hand, Tessman and collaborators (Kuan, et al., 1991, Kuan & Tessman, 1991, Kuan & Tessman, 1992) using a different transposition assay have found that constitutive SOS conditions actually enhance Tn5 transposition. Moreover, using yet another assay system, Ahmed (Ahmed, 1986) has concluded that intermolecular transposition of Tn5 is stimulated by RecA. Further investigation is clearly required to understand these apparently incompatible results.

Ahmed has also concluded that intermolecular transposition of the IS1-based transposon, Tn9, behaves in a similar way to that of Tn5 with respect to the recA allele (Ahmed, 1986). In contrast, however, the frequency of adjacent deletions mediated by IS1 was significantly increased in the absence of RecA. This has received some independent support using a physical assay where it was shown that deletion products accumulate in a recA but not in a wildtype host. Moreover, like IS1 induction of the SOS system, accumulation of such adjacent deletions was dependent on recBC (Zablweska et al., unpublished observations). The recBC genes are also implicated in the behavior of transposons such as Tn10 and Tn5 (Ahmed, 1986), (Lundblad, et al., 1984) where they affect precise and imprecise excision in a process independent of transposition per se. This is more pronounced with composite transposons in which the component insertion sequences IS10 and IS50 are present as inverted repeats, and is stimulated when the transposon is carried by a transfer-proficient conjugative plasmid. It seems probable that such excisions occur by a process involving replication fork slippage (see (Galas & Chandler, 1989),(Nagel & Chan, 2000), (Reddy & Gowrishankar, 2000) for further discussion).

PolI and gyrase

Both DNA polymerase I (Sasakawa, et al., 1981), (Syvanen, et al., 1982) and DNA gyrase (Isberg & Syvanen, 1982), (Sternglanz, et al., 1981) are implicated in the transposition of Tn5. While the effect of gyrase may reflect a requirement for optimal levels of supercoiling, the role of PolI remains a matter of speculation. It may be involved in DNA synthesis necessary to repair the single strand gaps resulting from staggered cleavage of the target and which gives rise to the DRs. DNA gyrase has also been shown to be important in transposition of bacteriophage Mu (Pato, et al., 1995, Pato & Banerjee, 1996).

Dam methylase

Another host function, the Dam DNA methylase can be important in modulating both Tpase expression and activity. IS10, IS50 and IS903 all carry methylation sites (GATC) in the transposase promoter regions and in each case, promoter activity is increased in a dam- host (Roberts, et al., 1985), (Yin, et al., 1988). Additional evidence has been presented that the methylation status of GATC sites within the terminal inverted repeats also modulates the activity of these ends (Roberts, et al., 1985). For IS50, this can now be understood in terms of steric interference in the transposase active site, as recently revealed by the determination of the crystal structure of a synpatic complex including its Tpase and a pair of precleaved transposon ends (Davies, et al., 1999). Similar methylation sites have been previously observed in IS3, IS4, and IS5. A survey of the elements included in the data base has shown that most groups or families contain members which have GATC sites within the first 50 bp of one or both extremities. The IS3, IS5 and IS256 families include the most members carrying such sites. Except for IS3 itself where strong stimulation of transposition has been observed in a dam-host, in most of these cases the biological relevance of these sites is unknown. Moreover, it should be pointed out that the probability that any 100 bp DNA sequence carries the GATC tetranucleotide is about 40%. The role of Dam methylation in IS10 and IS50 transposition is described in detail in the appropriate sections dealing with these elements.

Metabolic control elements

In a screen of over 20,000 independent insertion mutants for host factors that influence IS903 transposition the Derbyshire lab isolated more than 100 mutants that increased or decreased transposition and also altered its timing during colony growth (Twiss, et al., 2005). These included independent mutations in a gene required for fermentative metabolism during anaerobic growth resulting in "early" transposition during colony growth and was suppressed by addition of fumarate, and other mutations in genes associated with DNA metabolism, intermediary metabolism, transport, cellular redox, protein folding and proteolysis. Other mutations were isolated in pur genes involved in purine biosynthesis. Further analysis suggested that this phenotype was due to a requirement for GTP in IS903 transposition (Coros, et al., 2005). It should be noted that some of these mutants also affected transposition of IS10 and of Tn552.

Hfq

Finally, the RNA chaperone Hfq has also been implicated in the regulation of Tn10 transposition by promoting RNA_out interaction with transposase mRNA (Ross, et al., 2013, Ellis, et al., 2015, Ellis, et al., 2015).

References :

• Ahmed A (1986) Evidence for replicative transposition of Tn5 and Tn9. J.Mol.Biol. 191: 75-84.
• Chaconas G, Lavoie BD & Watson MA (1996) DNA transposition: jumping gene machine, some assembly required. Curr.Biol. 6: 817-820.
• Chalmers R, Guhathakurta A, Benjamin H & Kleckner N (1998) IHF modulation of Tn10 transposition: sensory transduction of supercoiling status via a proposed protein/DNA molecular spring. Cell 93: 897-908.
• Coros AM, Twiss E, Tavakoli NP & Derbyshire KM (2005) Genetic evidence that GTP is required for transposition of IS903 and Tn552 in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol 187: 4598-4606.
• Crellin P & Chalmers R (2001) Protein-DNA contacts and conformational changes in the Tn10 transpososome during assembly and activation for cleavage. EMBO J. 20: 3882-3891.
• Crellin P, Sewitz S & Chalmers R (2004) DNA looping and catalysis; the IHF-folded arm of Tn10 promotes conformational changes and hairpin resolution. Mol Cell 13: 537-547.
• Davies DR, Braam LM, Reznikoff WS & Rayment I (1999) The three-dimensional structure of a Tn5 transposase-related protein determined to 2.9-A resolution. J.Biol.Chem. 274: 11904-11913.
• Derbyshire KM & Grindley ND (1996) Cis preference of the IS903 transposase is mediated by a combination of transposase instability and inefficient translation. Mol Microbiol 21: 1261-1272.
• Derbyshire KM, Kramer M & Grindley ND (1990) Role of instability in the cis action of the insertion sequence IS903 transposase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 87: 4048-4052.
• Ellis MJ, Trussler RS & Haniford DB (2015) Hfq binds directly to the ribosome-binding site of IS10 transposase mRNA to inhibit translation. Mol Microbiol 96: 633-650.
• Ellis MJ, Trussler RS, Ross JA & Haniford DB (2015) Probing Hfq:RNA interactions with hydroxyl radical and RNase footprinting. Methods Mol Biol 1259: 403-415.
• Galas DJ & Chandler M (1989) Bacterial insertion sequences. Mobile DNA,(Berg D & Howe M, eds.), pp. 109-162. American Society for Microbiology, Washington D.C.
• Gamas P, Galas D & Chandler M (1985) DNA sequence at the end of IS1 required for transposition. Nature 317: 458-460.
• Grindley ND & Joyce CM (1980) Genetic and DNA sequence analysis of the kanamycin resistance transposon Tn903. Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A. 77: 7176-7180.
• Hallet B & Sherratt DJ (1997) Transposition and site-specific recombination: adapting DNA cut- and- paste mechanisms to a variety of genetic rearrangements. FEMS Microbiol.Rev. 21: 157-178.
• Haniford DB & Ellis MJ (2015) Transposons Tn10 and Tn5. Microbiol Spectr 3: MDNA3-0002-2014.
• Isberg RR & Syvanen M (1982) DNA gyrase is a host factor required for transposition of Tn5. Cell 30: 9-18.
• Kleckner N, Chalmers RM, Kwon D, Sakai J & Bolland S (1996) Tn10 and IS10 Transposition and Chromosome Rearrangements: Mechanisms and Regulation in Vivo and In Vitro. Transposable elements,(Saedler H & Gierl A, eds.), pp. 49-82. Springer, Heidelberg.
• Kruklitis R, Welty DJ & Nakai H (1996) ClpX protein of Escherichia coli activates bacteriophage Mu transposase in the strand transfer complex for initiation of Mu DNA synthesis. EMBO J. 15: 935-944.
• Kuan CT & Tessman I (1991) LexA protein of Escherichia coli represses expression of the Tn5 transposase gene. J.Bacteriol. 173: 6406-6410.
• Kuan CT & Tessman I (1992) Further evidence that transposition of Tn5 in Escherichia coli is strongly enhanced by constitutively activated RecA proteins. J.Bacteriol. 174: 6872-6877.
• Kuan CT, Liu SK & Tessman I (1991) Excision and transposition of Tn5 as an SOS activity in Escherichia coli. Genetics 128: 45-57.
• Laachouch JE, Desmet L, Geuskens V, Grimaud R & Toussaint A (1996) Bacteriophage Mu reppressor as a target for the Escherichia coli ATP- dependent Clp Protease. EMBO J. 15: 437-444.
• Lane D, Cavaille J & Chandler M (1994) Induction of the SOS response by IS1 transposase. J Mol Biol 242: 339-350.
• Levchenko I, Luo L & Baker TA (1995) Disassembly of the Mu transposase tetramer by the ClpX chaperone. Genes Dev 9: 2399-2408.
• Levchenko I, Yamauchi M & Baker TA (1997) ClpX and MuB interact with overlapping regions of Mu transposase: implications for control of the transposition pathway. Genes Dev 11: 1561-1572.
• Liu D, Crellin P & Chalmers R (2005) Cyclic changes in the affinity of protein-DNA interactions drive the progression and regulate the outcome of the Tn10 transposition reaction. Nucleic Acids Res 33: 1982-1992.
• Lundblad V, Taylor AF, Smith GR & Kleckner N (1984) Unusual alleles of recB and recC stimulate excision of inverted repeat transposons Tn10 and Tn5. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 81: 824-828.
• Maekawa T, Yanagihara K & Ohtsubo E (1996) Specific nicking at the 3' ends of the terminal inverted repeat sequences in transposon Tn3 by transposase and an E. coli protein ACP. Genes Cells 1: 1017-1030.
• Mahillon J & Chandler M (1998) Insertion sequences. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 62: 725-774.
• Mhammedi-Alaoui A, Pato M, Gama MJ & Toussaint A (1994) A new component of bacteriophage Mu replicative transposition machinery: the Escherichia coli ClpX protein. Mol.Microbiol. 11: 1109-1116.
• Nagel R & Chan A (2000) Enhanced Tn10 and mini-Tn10 precise excision in DNA replication mutants of Escherichia coli K12. Mutat.Res. 459: 275-284.
• Pato ML & Banerjee M (1996) The Mu strong gyrase-binding site promotes efficient synapsis of the prophage termini. Mol.Microbiol. 22: 283-292.
• Pato ML, Karlok M, Wall C & Higgins NP (1995) Characterization of Mu prophage lacking the central strong gyrase binding site: localization of the block in replication. J.Bacteriol. 177: 5937-5942.
• Reddy M & Gowrishankar J (2000) Characterization of the uup locus and its role in transposon excisions and tandem repeat deletions in Escherichia coli. J.Bacteriol. 182: 1978-1986.
• Reznikoff WS (1993) The Tn5 transposon. Annu.Rev.Microbiol. 47: 945-963.
• Roberts D, Hoopes BC, McClure WR & Kleckner N (1985) IS10 transposition is regulated by DNA adenine methylation. Cell 43: 117-130.
• Ross JA, Ellis MJ, Hossain S & Haniford DB (2013) Hfq restructures RNA-IN and RNA-OUT and facilitates antisense pairing in the Tn10/IS10 system. RNA 19: 670-684.
• Sakai J, Chalmers RM & Kleckner N (1995) Identification and characterization of a pre-cleavage synaptic complex that is an early intermediate in Tn10 transposition. EMBO J 14: 4374-4383.
• Sasakawa C, Uno Y & Yoshikawa M (1981) The requirement for both DNA polymerase and 5' to 3' exonuclease activities of DNA polymerase I during Tn5 transposition. Mol.Gen.Genet. 182: 19-24.
• Sewitz S, Crellin P & Chalmers R (2003) The positive and negative regulation of Tn10 transposition by IHF is mediated by structurally asymmetric transposon arms. Nucleic Acids Res 31: 5868-5876.
• Sharpe PL & Craig NL (1998) Host proteins can stimulate Tn7 transposition: a novel role for the ribosomal protein L29 and the acyl carrier protein. EMBO J. 17: 5822-5831.
• Shiga Y, Sekine Y & Ohtsubo E (1999) Transposition of IS1 circles. Genes Cells 4: 551-561.
• Signon L & Kleckner N (1995) Negative and positive regulation of Tn10/IS10-promoted recombination by IHF: two distinguishable processes inhibit transposition off of multicopy plasmid replicons and activate chromosomal events that favor evolution of new transposons. Genes Dev 9: 1123-1136.
• Singh RK, Liburd J, Wardle SJ & Haniford DB (2008) The nucleoid binding protein H-NS acts as an anti-channeling factor to favor intermolecular Tn10 transposition and dissemination. J Mol Biol 376: 950-962.
• Sternglanz R, DiNardo S, Voelkel KA, et al. (1981) Mutations in the gene coding for Escherichia coli DNA topoisomerase I affect transcription and transposition. Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A. 78: 2747-2751.
• Syvanen M, Hopkins JD & Clements M (1982) A new class of mutants in DNA polymerase I that affects gene transposition. J.Mol.Biol. 158: 203-212.
• Twiss E, Coros AM, Tavakoli NP & Derbyshire KM (2005) Transposition is modulated by a diverse set of host factors in Escherichia coli and is stimulated by nutritional stress. Mol Microbiol 57: 1593-1607.
• Ward CM, Wardle SJ, Singh RK & Haniford DB (2007) The global regulator H-NS binds to two distinct classes of sites within the Tn10 transpososome to promote transposition. Mol Microbiol 64: 1000-1013.
• Wardle SJ, Chan A & Haniford DB (2009) H-NS binds with high affinity to the Tn10 transpososome and promotes transpososome stabilization. Nucleic Acids Res 37: 6148-6160.
• Wardle SJ, O'Carroll M, Derbyshire KM & Haniford DB (2005) The global regulator H-NS acts directly on the transpososome to promote Tn10 transposition. Genes Dev 19: 2224-2235.
• Weinreich MD, Makris JC & Reznikoff WS (1991) Induction of the SOS response in Escherichia coli inhibits Tn5 and IS50 transposition. J Bacteriol. 173: 6910-6918.
• Welty DJ, Jones JM & Nakai H (1997) Communication of ClpXP Protease Hypersensitivity to Bacteriophage Mu Repressor Isoforms. J.Mol.Biol. 272: 31-41.
• Whitfield CR, Wardle SJ & Haniford DB (2009) The global bacterial regulator H-NS promotes transpososome formation and transposition in the Tn5 system 10.1093/nar/gkn935. Nucl. Acids Res. 37: 309-321.

• Wiater LA & Grindley ND (1988) Gamma delta transposase and integration host factor bind cooperatively at both ends of gamma delta. EMBO J 7: 1907-1911.
• Yin JC, Krebs MP & Reznikoff WS (1988) Effect of dam methylation on Tn5 transposition. J Mol Biol 199: 35-45.