SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • Dam;
  • CcrM;
  • pathogenic bacteria;
  • transcription;
  • posttranscriptional regulation

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Dam methylation
  5. CcrM methylation
  6. Roles of DNA adenine methylation in host–pathogen interactions
  7. Posttranscriptional regulation by DNA adenine methylation: facts
  8. Posttranscriptional regulation by DNA adenine methylation: hypotheses
  9. Practical uses of DNA adenine methylation: vaccines and DNA adenine methylase inhibitors
  10. Acknowledgements
  11. References

The DNA adenine methyltransferase (Dam methylase) of Gammaproteobacteria and the cell cycle-regulated methyltransferase (CcrM) methylase of Alphaproteobacteria catalyze an identical reaction (methylation of adenosine moieties using S-adenosyl-methionine as a methyl donor) at similar DNA targets (GATC and GANTC, respectively). Dam and CcrM are of independent evolutionary origin. Each may have evolved from an ancestral restriction-modification system that lost its restriction component, leaving an ‘orphan’ methylase devoted solely to epigenetic genome modification. The formation of 6-methyladenine reduces the thermodynamic stability of DNA and changes DNA curvature. As a consequence, the methylation state of specific adenosine moieties can affect DNA–protein interactions. Well-known examples include binding of the replication initiation complex to the methylated oriC, recognition of hemimethylated GATCs in newly replicated DNA by the MutHLS mismatch repair complex, and discrimination of methylation states in promoters and regulatory DNA motifs by RNA polymerase and transcription factors. In recent years, Dam and CcrM have been shown to play roles in host–pathogen interactions. These roles are diverse and have only partially been understood. Especially intriguing is the evidence that Dam methylation regulates virulence genes in Escherichia coli, Salmonella, and Yersinia at the posttranscriptional level.


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Dam methylation
  5. CcrM methylation
  6. Roles of DNA adenine methylation in host–pathogen interactions
  7. Posttranscriptional regulation by DNA adenine methylation: facts
  8. Posttranscriptional regulation by DNA adenine methylation: hypotheses
  9. Practical uses of DNA adenine methylation: vaccines and DNA adenine methylase inhibitors
  10. Acknowledgements
  11. References

Postreplicative DNA methylation superimposes on the primary DNA sequence secondary information that has significance for DNA transactions such as transcription, transposition, initiation of chromosome replication, and prevention of mutations by DNA repair (reviewed in Løbner-Olesen et al., 2005; Casadesus & Low, 2006; Wion & Casadesus, 2006; Low & Casadesus, 2008). The most common postreplicative base methylations are N6-methyladenine (6-meA) and 5-methylcytosine, which are found in both prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and N4-methylcytosine, which is restricted to bacteria. The chromosomes of the model Gammaproteobacteria Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium (S. enterica hereafter) contain about 20 000 6-meA residues that are the products of two distinct methyltransferases. Most adenine methylations occur in the sequence GATC catalyzed by the enzyme DNA adenine methyltransferase (Dam). In E. coli, about 600 6-meA residues are due to the action of M.EcoK, part of a classical type I restriction/modification system. A third adenine methyltransferase, YhdJ, is not produced under normal laboratory conditions, and its role in cellular metabolism remains unknown (Broadbent et al., 2007). The adenine methyltransferases discussed in this article are not part of a restriction/modification system and are often referred to as orphan or solitary methyltransferases. An exception, however, is the modification subunit of a type III DNA restriction system that regulates gene expression in Haemophilus influenzae (Fox et al., 2007).

Another model organism that has been used to study the physiological roles of DNA adenine methylation is Caulobacter crescentus, a member of the alpha branch of Proteobacteria. In C. crescentus, the cell cycle-regulated methyltransferase (CcrM) recognizes and methylates the sequence GANTC, and has a role in cell cycle-regulated events (Marczynski & Shapiro, 2002). CcrM methylation in C. crescentus and a few other members of the Alphaproteobacteria are included in this review.

The Dam enzyme is encoded by the dam gene, and much of our knowledge about the cellular functions of Dam came from studying dam mutants in E. coli and S. enterica. The properties of these mutants showed that the most-affected DNA transactions are Dam-directed mismatch repair, initiation of chromosome replication, and regulation of gene expression. As discussed below, altered gene expression patterns in dam mutants impair host–pathogen interactions. In addition to the known examples of transcriptional regulation, there are hints that Dam methylation may also influence gene expression by posttranscriptional mechanisms. We list the instances of posttranscriptional regulation and speculative models to explain them. This article is a companion to other recently published reviews (Løbner-Olesen et al., 2005; Casadesus & Low, 2006; Wion & Casadesus, 2006; Heusipp et al., 2007; Low & Casadesus, 2008).

Dam methylation

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Dam methylation
  5. CcrM methylation
  6. Roles of DNA adenine methylation in host–pathogen interactions
  7. Posttranscriptional regulation by DNA adenine methylation: facts
  8. Posttranscriptional regulation by DNA adenine methylation: hypotheses
  9. Practical uses of DNA adenine methylation: vaccines and DNA adenine methylase inhibitors
  10. Acknowledgements
  11. References

The Dam methyltransferase

The E. coli Dam enzyme, which is a monomer in solution, catalyzes the transfer of the methyl group from S-adenosyl-l-methionine (SAM) to the N6 position of the adenine residue in GATC sequences, using base flipping to position the base in the enzyme's catalytic site. The natural substrate for the enzyme is hemimethylated DNA, where one strand is methylated and the other is not. This is the configuration of DNA immediately behind the replication fork. Double-stranded DNA is a better methyl acceptor than denatured DNA, and there is little difference in the rate of methylation between unmethylated and hemimethylated DNA (Herman & Modrich, 1982). The enzyme appears to have two SAM-binding sites; one is the catalytic site and the other increases specific binding to DNA, probably through an allosteric transformation (Bergerat et al., 1991). Dam is thought to bind the template and to slide processively along the DNA, methylating about 55 GATC sites per binding event (Urig et al., 2002). The atomic structure of Dam complexed with DNA has been solved to 1.89 Å resolution in the presence of S-adenosyl-homocysteine (a product of the Dam reaction) (Horton et al., 2006). The structure shows both nonspecific backbone contacts and specific contacts with the GATC bases. Importantly, the aromatic ring of Y119 intercalates into the DNA between GA and TC, thereby flipping the adenine into the enzyme's active site. The unpaired T residue can adopt an intrahelical or an extrahelical position. Four other important contacts are made: K9 to G, L122 and P134 to C, and R124 to T. These and flanking phosphate contacts by conserved residues (R95, N126, N132, and R137) position Dam on the DNA duplex.

There are about 130 molecules of Dam per E. coli cell, and this level is optimal to allow a period of time between synthesis of the extending nucleotide chains and methylation of the GATC sequences within them (Boye et al., 1992). The actual time between synthesis and methylation can be rapid for plasmid molecules (2–4 s) (Stancheva et al., 1999) or about 1 min for chromosomal DNA in slow-growing cells with a doubling time of about 100 min (Campbell & Kleckner, 1988). Increases or decreases in the number of Dam molecules can profoundly alter the physiological properties of the cell. Adenine methylation reduces the thermodynamical stability of DNA and alters DNA curvature, thereby affecting DNA–protein interactions at certain GATC-containing DNA motifs (Wion & Casadesus, 2006). Steric hindrance of protein binding by the methyl group is also conceivable (Wion & Casadesus, 2006).

The cellular level of Dam is regulated mainly by transcription. The dam gene transcripts arise from five distinct promoters. The major dam promoter (P2) is located 3 kb upstream of the gene (Løbner-Olesen et al., 1992), and is regulated by the growth rate: the faster the growth rate, the greater the level of transcript. This makes sense for Dam as fast-growing cells, which contain multiple replication origins, are expected to require a greater concentration of the enzyme than slow-growing ones, which contain few replication origins. Dam is a substrate for the Lon protease, and there might be regulation of the enzyme level by this mechanism (Calmann & Marinus, 2003).

Dam competes with two other proteins, MutH and SeqA, for hemimethylated GATC substrate sites. These two proteins act before Dam to participate in the removal of replication errors (MutH) and to form the compacted and properly supercoiled chromosome structure for the nucleoid (SeqA). Increasing the cellular level of Dam causes a decrease in the amount of hemimethylated DNA, and prevents these two proteins from carrying out their functions, leading to an increased mutation rate and a change in supercoiling of the chromosome, respectively (Herman & Modrich, 1981; Marinus et al., 1984; Løbner-Olesen et al., 2003).

Although Dam methylase is a highly processive enzyme, it may become less processive at GATC sites flanked by specific DNA sequences (Peterson & Reich, 2006). Reduced processivity may allow competition between Dam and specific DNA-binding proteins, thus permitting the formation of nonmethylated GATCs. For instance, the E. coli chromosome contains about 36 specific, unmethylated dam sites (Ringquist & Smith, 1992; Wang & Church, 1992; Hale et al., 1994; Tavazoie & Church, 1998). The number of unmethylated sites in the chromosome varies depending on the growth phase and the growth rate, suggesting that the proteins that bind to them could be involved in gene expression or in the maintenance of chromosome structure. The unmethylated dam sites appear to be mostly (Ringquist & Smith, 1992) or completely (Palmer & Marinus, 1994) modified in strains overproducing Dam, suggesting that the enzyme competes with other DNA-binding proteins at these specific sites. Evidence for competition between Dam and other DNA-binding proteins at several unmethylated sites has been obtained, as discussed in more detail below (see Regulation of gene expression). Alternatively, or in addition, some GATC sites in DNA structures [e.g. non-B-form DNA such as H-DNA (Parniewski et al., 1990)] are relatively resistant to methylation at the normal cellular level of the enzyme. Palindromic structures containing GATCs are also relatively resistant to Dam methylation (Allers & Leach, 1995) (Fig. 1).

image

Figure 1.  States of GATC site methylation in Gammaproteobacteria. DNA replication generates hemimethylated GATC sites, usually short-lived, because Dam methylation occurs shortly after synthesis of the daughter DNA strand. At certain GATC sites, however, the default methylation–hemimethylation cycle associated with DNA replication can be skewed by binding of proteins that prevent DNA methylase activity. Such binding can merely delay methylation or prevent it beyond cell division, thereby permitting daughter cells to inherit the hemimethylated state if methylation hindrance persists. Replication of hemimethylated GATC sites produces unmethylated DNA, generating DNA methylation patterns like those occurring in eukaryotic cells.

Download figure to PowerPoint

In addition to the unmethylated GATC sites discussed above, persistent hemimethylated sequences have been detected in the chromosome (Ogden et al., 1988; Campbell & Kleckner, 1990). These are distinct from the transiently hemimethylated GATC sites that occur immediately behind the replication fork due to the time lag between DNA replication and Dam methylation. The persistent hemimethylated sites are discussed in more detail below (see Initiation of chromosome replication).

Dam-directed mismatch repair

Errors that arise from DNA replication need to be removed from the newly synthesized DNA strand, and not from the parental strand. In E. coli and S. enterica, this discrimination is achieved by virtue of the hemimethylated state of DNA behind the replication fork: the newly synthesized DNA is not methylated, but the parental strand is methylated (Pukkila et al., 1983). The base mismatch formed by a replication error (e.g. G–T) is recognized and bound by the MutS protein, which recruits the MutL protein (a molecular matchmaker) to form a ternary complex with MutH. The latent endonuclease activity of MutH is unmasked by the complex, and the enzyme cleaves the unmethylated strand 5′ to the G at a nearby GATC site. MutH is then displaced from the complex by the UvrD helicase. UvrD unwinds DNA and the exposed single strand is degraded by exonucleases until the mismatch is removed. The resultant gap is filled in by the DNA polymerase III holoenzyme, and the nick is sealed by DNA ligase. Finally, the hemimethylated GATC is symmetrically methylated by Dam (reviewed in Iyer et al., 2006). Because MutH is active on hemimethylated, but not on fully methylated DNA, mismatch repair action is confined to the hemimethylated region behind the replication fork.

Among the evidence supporting the above model is that both the lack of Dam methylation and the overproduction of Dam lead to the same result: an increase in the spontaneous mutation frequency (Marinus & Morris, 1974; Herman & Modrich, 1981). Overproduction of Dam leads to premature methylation of new DNA, thereby preventing MutH action if a mismatch is present. In turn, lack of Dam results in the loss of strand discrimination, leading to the use of the parental strand as a template for mismatch repair with a inline image probability.

Single- and double-strand breaks have been detected in the chromosome of dam mutants as a consequence of mismatch repair (Marinus & Morris, 1974; Wang & Smith, 1986). Homologous recombination is required to repair the double-strand breaks, and this explains why mutations inactivating homologous recombination are synthetically lethal in a dam mutant background (Marinus, 2000).

Initiation of chromosome replication

As mentioned above, persistent hemimethylated sites have been detected at the origin of chromosome replication, oriC, and the region surrounding it (Campbell & Kleckner, 1990). This region includes the dnaA gene, which is located 43 kb from oriC. DnaA initiates chromosome replication by binding to oriC and facilitating duplex opening to load DnaB helicase and DNA polymerase III holoenzyme. The persistence of the hemimethylated state is due to the high density of GATC sequences in oriC (11 in 245 bp) and in the promoter region of dnaA (8 in 219 bp), providing multiple binding sites for the SeqA protein. The SeqA-induced hemimethylated state in this region of the chromosome lasts for about one-third of the cell cycle (sequestration), but the mechanism by which it is relieved is not known. The purpose of sequestration is to prevent reinitiation from oriC from occurring more than once per cell cycle. For initiation to occur most efficiently, oriC and the dnaA promoter region must be fully methylated. This also contributes to ensuring that initiation occurs only once per cell cycle (Braun et al., 1985; Yamaki et al., 1988). In S. enterica, SeqA may play replication-related roles similar to those described in E. coli (Prieto et al., 2007). In Vibrio cholerae, both Dam methylation and SeqA are essential (Julio et al., 2001; Saint-Dic et al., 2008), and SeqA overproduction causes DNA replication arrest (Saint-Dic et al., 2008).

In fast-growing E. coli or S. enterica cells, the time required for chromosome replication exceeds the doubling time. Under such conditions, E. coli and S. enterica cells contain multiple copies of oriC due to initiations that occurred two or three generations ago. These origins fire simultaneously during the cell cycle, leading to synchronous initiation, which is thought to be due to the immediate release of DnaA from an origin after initiation (reviewed in Nielsen & Løbner-Olesen, 2008). This release will temporarily increase the DnaA/oriC ratio in wild-type cells for the remaining fully methylated origins. After initiation, other mechanisms ensure that DnaA is not in the proper conformation for initiation. Among these mechanisms is a reduction in the transcription of the dnaA gene. Sequestration by SeqA after initiation keeps the dnaA promoter region in a hemimethylated state, which reduces transcription initiation because the dnaA promoter GATC sequences need to be fully methylated for maximal expression (Braun et al., 1985).

In E. coli dam cells, there is no sequestration by SeqA; consequently, DnaA can immediately rebind origins after the first initiation event, and initiate a second time when the concentration of the active form of DnaA is high enough. Transcription from the dnaA gene continues throughout the cell cycle although at a reduced level. Dam methylation, therefore, is not essential for replication initiation; rather, the cell uses methylation to discriminate between old and new origins.

Regulation of gene expression

Because the state of GATC sites (methylated, unmethylated, and hemimethylated) can affect specific binding of DpnI (cuts methylated DNA), DpnII (cuts unmethylated DNA), Dam, SeqA, and MutH, it is not surprising that the presence of this tetranucleotide in the promoter or the regulatory sequences can affect gene expression by regulating binding of RNA polymerase or transcriptional regulators (Fig. 2, Table 1). The promoter region of the dnaA gene discussed above, for example, is maximally active in the fully methylated state, consistent with its biological role. In contrast, there is evidence that specific protein binding yields about 36 unmethylated GATCs in the E. coli chromosome (reviewed in detail by Casadesus & Low, 2006). Nine such GATCs are in the cyclic AMP-binding protein (CAP)-binding sites preceding the mtlA, cdd, flhD, gcd, ycdZ, yffE, ppiA, and proP operons (Wang & Church, 1992), suggesting that gene expression might be modulated by Dam methylation through differential CAP binding. Other genes with GATCs that overlap with protein-binding sites are hrsA, kdgT (Fnr), pspA, yjdG (IHF), fep (Fur), carA (CarP, IHF), agn43 (flu) (OxyR), ppiA (Lrp, CAP), and yhiP (Lrp) (Hale et al., 1994; Tavazoie & Church, 1998). Data supporting specific binding of a regulatory protein either in vivo or in vitro are only available for a fraction of the genes listed. Additional unmethylated GATC sites were found in the noncoding regions of rspA, ydjL, yahM, bhsA, yjdD, yhiP, yiaK, yidX, and yihU/V genes (Hale et al., 1994; Tavazoie & Church, 1998), although their significance is not known.

image

Figure 2.  Overview of the roles of 6-meA in enteric bacteria. When known, the methylation-sensitive DNA-binding proteins involved in each process are also indicated.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Table 1.   Examples of transcriptional regulation by Dam methylation
GeneLocation of regulatory GATC(s)*Protein(s) involvedActive state
  • *

    ‘Operator’ is used in the classical Jacob & Monod sense, to describe a regulatory sequence for repressor binding.

  • UAS, upstream activating sequence.

agn43OperatorSeqA, OxyRMethylated
dnaAPromoterSeqA, DnaAMethylated
finPUnknownH-NSMethylated
IS10PromoterRNA polymeraseHemimethylated
momUASOxyRHemimethylated
papUASLrp, PapIMethylated/unmethylated pattern
stdUASSeqA, HdfRUnmethylated
traJUASLrpHemimethylated

Studies on the pap operon have provided the most detailed evidence that unmethylated GATCs are involved in transcriptional control (reviewed in Casadesus & Low, 2006). Pyelonephritis-associated pilus (Pap) expression is regulated by a phase variation mechanism in which individual cells either express pili (phase-on) or not (phase-off). When Pap pilus gene expression is in the phase-off state, GATC1028 is fully methylated and GATC1130 is unmethylated. Conversely, in the phase-on state, the methylation state at these two sites is reversed. In a strain overproducing Dam, the transition from phase-off to phase-on is prevented, whereas in a dam mutant, the opposite transition does not occur. The mechanism of phase variation involves competition between Dam and the transcriptional activators Lrp and PapI. Lrp is required for methylation protection of GATC1130, and both Lrp and PapI are required for protection of GATC1028 (Casadesus & Low, 2006). Other pilus systems also appear to be under Dam control, but they have not been analyzed as deeply as pap (Casadesus & Low, 2006). Formation of Dam methylation patterns also regulates the agn43 gene of E. coli, which encodes a nonfimbrial adhesin (Henderson & Owen, 1999; Waldron et al., 2002; Wallecha et al., 2002).

In addition to unmethylated sites, there is also evidence that hemimethylated GATCs can control gene expression. Transposition of Tn10 is regulated by the methylation state of two specific GATC sites in IS10 right (Roberts et al., 1985). Overproduction of Dam decreases transposition, whereas it is increased in a dam mutant. One of the GATC sites overlaps the −10 region of the transposase (tnp) promoter, while the other is near the inner end of IS10 in the target area for transposase action. In DNA that is not being replicated, these sites are methylated and inert for transposition. Upon replication, these sites become hemimethylated, but only one of the hemimethylated species is activated for transposition. In a wild-type strain, the transposase promoter is only active in the IS10 species that presents methylation of the transposase-coding strand and unmethylation of the noncoding strand. Coupling of transposase synthesis and activity to hemimethylation implies that transposition is repressed for most of the cell cycle, and can only be induced when the element is replicated. The asymmetry imposed at the replication fork means that only one of the two copies of the element can transpose. Hence, one copy can remain in place while the other finds an alternative location. Coupling transposition to replication may help to prevent the potentially deleterious effects of excessive transposition (Roberts et al., 1985). Other transposons such as Tn5 and Tn903 and the insertion element IS3 also use Dam methylation to control transposition (Curcio & Derbyshire, 2003).

Another case of transcriptional activation by strand-specific hemimethylation has been described in the traJ gene of the S. enterica virulence plasmid, albeit with the difference that the regulatory GATC is not located in the promoter itself, but in an upstream binding site for the transcriptional activator Lrp (Camacho & Casadesus, 2002). Another difference is that the active configuration is opposite to that of IS10: methylation of the traJ noncoding strand permits Lrp binding and subsequent traJ transcription, but methylation of the coding strand does not (Camacho & Casadesus, 2005).

Several E. coli promoters have GATC sites in their −10 or −35 regions. These include promoter regions for the sulA, trpS, trpR, tyrR, and glnS genes, and expression of these genes is increased in dam mutants (reviewed by Plumbridge, 1987; Barras & Marinus, 1989; Marinus, 1996). It is not known whether expression of these genes is increased in a hemimethylated configuration, but even if it were, the physiological role for coupling their transcription to replication is not obvious.

In the finP gene of the Salmonella virulence plasmid, which encodes a small regulatory RNA, Dam methylation prevents repression by the nucleoid protein H-NS (Camacho et al., 2005). In contrast, the overlapping traJ gene is also repressed by H-NS, but in a Dam-independent manner. Protection from H-NS repression is still observed when a GATC that overlaps the −10 module of the finP promoter is eliminated by site-directed mutagenesis (Camacho et al., 2005). This observation suggests that the effect of Dam methylation on finP transcription is not local, but global, perhaps reflecting, among several possibilities, the existence of structural differences between dam+ and dam nucleoids.

Global gene expression analysis comparing wild-type and dam mutants using microarrays has been performed in E. coli and S. enterica (Oshima et al., 2002; Løbner-Olesen et al., 2003; Robbins-Manke et al., 2005; Balbontin et al., 2006). The results are difficult to compare, given the differences in the strain backgrounds, media, arrays, and other experimental conditions, as well as in the goals of the experiments. However, upregulation of SOS gene expression in the dam background was detected in each case, and decreased motility in two out of three studies.

Dam methylation also occurs in many bacteriophages that infect enterobacteria. The regulation of phage genes by Dam and the role of Dam methylation in P1 development have been reviewed elsewhere (Marinus, 1996; Wion & Casadesus, 2006).

CcrM methylation

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Dam methylation
  5. CcrM methylation
  6. Roles of DNA adenine methylation in host–pathogen interactions
  7. Posttranscriptional regulation by DNA adenine methylation: facts
  8. Posttranscriptional regulation by DNA adenine methylation: hypotheses
  9. Practical uses of DNA adenine methylation: vaccines and DNA adenine methylase inhibitors
  10. Acknowledgements
  11. References

Caulobacter

Caulobacter crescentus, a member of the Alphaproteobacteria, has defined morphological stages in its life cycle. The DNA methyltransferase in this organism is CcrM, which methylates adenine moieties in the sequence GANTC (Marczynski & Shapiro, 2002). Although the DNA methylation target of CcrM is similar to that of Dam, CcrM belongs to a different family of methyltransferases. In contrast to Dam, CcrM is more active on hemimethylated than unmethylated DNA. However, like Dam, CcrM is highly processive. Unlike Dam in E. coli or S. enterica, CcrM is an essential function in Caulobacter, and is not present at all stages of the life cycle. Both Dam and CcrM are substrates for the Lon protease (Reisenauer et al., 1999).

The life cycle of Caulobacter involves differentiation into two cell types: stalked cells and swarmers. Chromosome replication occurs only in stalked cells, and involves the sequential action of three key unstable regulators: DnaA, GcrA, and CtrA (Collier et al., 2007). The genes for these regulators are located sequentially on the chromosome, with dnaA closer to the origin of replication (Cori) and ctrA at the most distal location. The action of these regulators, acting as a transcriptional cascade, is determined by the state of methylation of chromosomal DNA. DnaA initiates chromosome replication at the fully methylated Cori in a manner similar to that described in E. coli. Because CcrM is not present at this stage, replication produces two hemimethylated daughter DNA molecules during fork progression. As in E. coli, expression of the dnaA gene, which lies near Cori, is attenuated on hemimethylated DNA, thereby reducing the possibility of premature initiation. DnaA also activates transcription of the gcrA gene, whose product controls transcription of replication genes encoding DNA polymerase III holoenzyme, DNA helicase, and primase. GcrA in turn activates transcription of the ctrA gene, which contains two GANTC sequences in the upstream regulatory region of the promoter and one close to the −35 hexamer (Collier et al., 2006). Again, this promoter is active only when hemimethylated; expression of the gene is, therefore, coordinated with the cell cycle (Reisenauer & Shapiro, 2002). CtrA binds Cori to prevent premature initiation. In addition, CtrA activates transcription of the ftsZ and ccrM genes, and represses transcription of gcrA. FtsZ is a key cell division protein and its CtrA-controlled production can couple chromosome replication and cell division. Transcription of the ccrM gene occurs only in the hemimethylated state, and is activated by CtrA binding to the upstream regulatory region of ccrM (Collier et al., 2007). This arrangement ensures that the concentration of CcrM increases toward the end of the replication cycle. The ccrM promoter also contains two GANTC sequences, presumably ensuring autoregulation of the gene (Reisenauer et al., 1999). The production of CcrM is followed by methylation of the daughter chromosomes, which silences the ctrA and ccrM genes and activates transcription of dnaA. CcrM also prepares Cori for replication initiation by fully methylating it (Table 2).

Table 2.   Examples of transcriptional regulation by CcrM methylation
GeneLocation of regulatory GANTC(s)Protein(s) involvedActive state
dnaAPromoterUnknownMethylated
ctrAPromoterGcrAHemimethylated
ccrMLeaderCtrAHemimethylated

After cell division, the DNA of both cell types is fully methylated (Marczynski & Shapiro, 2002). In the swarmer cell, CtrA remains bound to Cori and the CcrM protein is degraded, preventing further methylation and thereby ensuring that the origin is hemimethylated and inert for further initiation. In the stalked cell, however, CtrA is destroyed by proteolysis, allowing initiation to proceed on the fully methylated Cori (Marczynski & Shapiro, 2002).

Other bacteria

At least 20 other members of the alpha subdivision of Proteobacteria contain CcrM homologs (Reisenauer et al., 1999). In Agrobacterium tumefaciens, Sinorhizobium (Rhizobium) meliloti, and Brucella abortus, the ccrM gene is indeed essential for viability (Wright et al., 1997; Robertson et al., 2000; Kahng & Shapiro, 2001), and the ccrM genes from S. meliloti and C. crescentus are functionally interchangeable (Wright et al., 1997). When overproduced in any of these organisms, CcrM causes defects in cell division, cell morphology, and initiation of DNA replication. All the above data suggest that the physiological functions of CcrM in Caulobacter might be conserved in these other species.

Roles of DNA adenine methylation in host–pathogen interactions

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Dam methylation
  5. CcrM methylation
  6. Roles of DNA adenine methylation in host–pathogen interactions
  7. Posttranscriptional regulation by DNA adenine methylation: facts
  8. Posttranscriptional regulation by DNA adenine methylation: hypotheses
  9. Practical uses of DNA adenine methylation: vaccines and DNA adenine methylase inhibitors
  10. Acknowledgements
  11. References

Evidence for a relationship between Dam methylation and bacterial virulence was first provided by the regulation of adhesin-encoding genes such as the pap operon of E. coli and others (Casadesus & Low, 2006). However, the role of Dam methylation in the infection of model animals was first investigated in S. enterica, and later in other pathogens (Heusipp et al., 2007) (Fig. 3). A simple genetic approach was to compare the lethal dose 50% (LD50) of a dam mutant with that of the wild type. Additional details about the infection process were provided by examination of animal organs and in vitro studies using cell cultures. In bacterial species where DNA adenine methylation is essential, an alternative strategy was to examine the effects of Dam and CcrM methylase overproduction. Although not known to occur in nature, Dam methylase overproduction provides a useful laboratory tool, both to overcome viability problems and to detect cases in which undermethylation is a critical factor for gene expression. However, Dam overproduction in E. coli leads to a seqA phenotype (Løbner-Olesen et al., 2003). If this is also the case in other organisms, certain phenotypic effects observed on Dam overproduction might be the result of SeqA deficiency.

image

Figure 3.  Cell functions under Dam methylation control in bacterial pathogens.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Salmonella enterica

Dam methylation is an essential factor in Salmonella virulence, and its absence causes severe attenuation in the mouse model: the LD50 of a dam mutant is 10 000-fold higher than that of the wild type by the oral route, and 1000-fold higher intraperitoneally (Garcia-del Portillo et al., 1999; Heithoff et al., 1999). Lack of SeqA causes a more modest decrease in Salmonella virulence, and attenuation is only observed by the oral route (Prieto et al., 2007). In the last few years, a combination of genetic screens, transcriptomic and proteomic analyses, cell culture studies, and organ analysis upon mouse infection have provided insights into the causes underlying the extreme attenuation of Salmonella dam mutants. To date, the following virulence-related defects have been described:

(1) Salmonella dam cells show a reduced capacity to interact with the intestinal epithelium, due to impaired epithelial cell invasion (Garcia-del Portillo et al., 1999). The main cause of this defect seems to be inefficient activation of genes in S. enterica pathogenicity island I (SPI-1) (Balbontin et al., 2006). Inefficient SPI-1 expression in dam mutants reflects the existence of lowered levels of the main SPI-1 transcriptional activator, HilD. However, Dam-dependent regulation of hilD appears to be posttranscriptional, and therefore indirect (J. López-Garrido & J. Casadesus, unpublished data).

(2) Reduced motility, another relevant defect of Salmonella dam mutants, may also contribute to inefficient invasion. Transcriptome analysis has shown that dam mutants have multiple alterations in the expression of flagellar genes in a pattern too complex to be readily deciphered or even modeled (Balbontin et al., 2006).

(3) Lack of Dam methylation causes envelope instability, with the release of outer membrane vesicles and leakage of proteins (Pucciarelli et al., 2002). Vesicle release has been tentatively associated with impaired binding of Tol and PAL envelope proteins to peptidoglycan. Protein leakage may also be a side effect of envelope fragility. One factor contributing to envelope instability in dam mutants may be reduced transcription of the lppB gene, which encodes Braun lipoprotein (Balbontin et al., 2006).

(4) The std fimbrial operon, which is tightly repressed under laboratory conditions, undergoes derepression in dam mutants, and the StdA fimbrial protein becomes one of the most abundant proteins detected in cell extracts (Alonso et al., 2005). Ectopic production of Std fimbriae contributes to virulence attenuation in S. enterica dam mutants, as indicated by the observation that an stdA dam strain outcompetes a dam strain during mouse infection (Jakomin et al., 2008). It is possible that massive expression of Std fimbriae in dam mutants may interfere with signal exchange between the host and the pathogen, and may additionally overalert the host immune system. Dam methylation probably controls binding of transcriptional regulators to the std upstream activating sequence, which contains a cluster of three GATC sites. Genetic screens for std regulators have identified the GATC-binding protein SeqA and RosE, a homolog of the arginine repressor ArgR, as repressors of std expression (Chessa et al., 2008; Jakomin et al., 2008). In turn, the poorly known HdfR protein, a LysR relative, is an activator of std expression in dam and seqA mutants. Interestingly, derepression of the std operon by dam and seqA mutations occurs in only a fraction of the bacterial culture, suggesting the occurrence of either bistable expression or phase variation (Jakomin et al., 2008).

(5) Salmonella dam mutants are extremely sensitive to bile salts, a defect that may compromise their survival in the hepatobiliary tract (Heithoff et al., 2001; Pucciarelli et al., 2002). The main extracellular niche for Salmonella in persistent infections and during chronic carriage is the gall bladder, which contains high concentrations of bile. Because of their envelope defects, dam mutants are more sensitive to the detergent activity of bile salts. In addition, lack of DNA strand discrimination for mismatch repair makes dam mutants more sensitive to the DNA-damaging activity of bile salts (Prieto et al., 2004). The relevance of bile-induced DNA damage during animal infection is illustrated by the ample repertoire of Salmonella DNA repair functions required to cope with bile-induced DNA lesions: besides Dam-directed mismatch repair, bile resistance also requires base excision repair, SOS translesion synthesis, and RecB-mediated recombinational repair (Prieto et al., 2006). Although bile salts are weak mutagens, long exposure to high concentrations of bile (e.g. in persistent and chronic infections) might increase genetic polymorphism in Salmonella populations. This view is consistent with the high frequency of chromosome rearrangements known to occur in Salmonella typhi (Echeita & Usera, 1998) and other host-adapted serovars (Liu & Sanderson, 1995; Liu & Sanderson, 1998) (Table 3).

Table 3.   Virulence-related defects of Salmonella dam mutants
Stage of infectionVirulence defectTentative cause
IntestinalBile sensitivityEnvelope instability
MutHLS-induced DNA breakage
Deficient invasion of epithelial cellsReduced SPI-1 expression
Reduced colonization of the caecumEctopic synthesis of Std fimbriae
SystemicSensitivity to hydrogen peroxideMutHLS-induced DNA breakage
Reduced colonization of lymph nodes, liver, and spleenImpaired expression of spv operon products
Reduced spleen colonizationEctopic synthesis of Std fimbriae

Enterohemorrhagic E. coli OH157:O7

A critical step during colonization and pathogenesis by enterohemorrhagic E. coli is the formation of ‘pedestals’ that result from the accumulation of actin filaments beneath adherent bacteria, elevating them above the surrounding cell surfaces (Hayward et al., 2006). Wild-type E. coli O157:H7 show relatively poor pedestal formation on cultured mammalian cell lines, while deletion of the dam gene results in a dramatic increase in both adherence and actin pedestal formation (Campellone et al., 2007). Increases in adherence and pedestal formation in vitro correlate with elevated protein levels of intimin, Tir, and another secreted protein, EspFU.

Dam methylation plays an additional role in enterohemorrhagic E. coli by controlling the production of a virulence factor, Shiga toxin 2 (Stx2) (Murphy et al., 2008). This toxin is encoded by a lambdoid prophage that has a relatively low threshold for induction. During infection, prophage induction may occur in a fraction of the bacterial population, thereby permitting Stx2 release.

Haemophilus influenzae

Certain strains of H. influenzae, a causative agent of respiratory tract infections, require Dam methylation for efficient invasion of both endothelial and epithelial cell lines (Watson et al., 2004). In other strains, however, dam mutants are fully invasive. The cause of these strain-specific differences is not known (Watson et al., 2004).

In addition to Dam, H. influenzae possesses a DNA methyltransferase (Mod) that is part of a type III restriction-modification system and undergoes phase-variation expression due to DNA repeat instability. Mod has been shown to regulate a number of H. influenzae genes, some positively and others negatively (Srikhanta et al., 2005). Phase variation of Mod expression may cause random switching of genes such as dnaK, potentially involved in cell adhesion, hbpA, which encodes a heme transport protein, and several genes for surface proteins of unknown function. Phase variation of Mod may thus provide a mechanism for the generation of diversity in H. influenzae populations by controlling a phase-variable regulon or ‘phasevarion’ (Srikhanta et al., 2005; Fox et al., 2007). Systems of this kind might exist in other bacterial pathogens as Helicobacter pylori and Neisseria meningitidis.

Pasteurella multocida

In the bovine respiratory pathogen P. multocida, overproduction of Dam methylase causes attenuation in the mouse model, suggesting that Dam methylation may control the expression of virulence genes (Chen et al., 2003). It is not known whether the Pasteurella Dam methylase, which is closely related to that of H. influenzae, is essential or dispensable.

Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans

Synthesis and secretion of leukotoxin, a potential virulence factor related to RTX pore-forming hemolysins, is exacerbated in dam mutants of the periodontal disease agent A. actinomycetemcomitans. Furthermore, A. actinomycetemcomitans dam mutants show reduced invasion of epithelial cells (Wu et al., 2006).

Klebsiella pneumoniae

In K. pneumoniae, an opportunistic pathogen causing respiratory and urinary tract infections, lack of Dam methylation causes partial attenuation upon intranasal or intraperitoneal inoculation of mice (Mehling et al., 2007). The mild attenuation of Klebsiella dam mutants has not been hitherto correlated with altered expression of known virulence genes.

Campylobacter jejuni

Knockout of a putative DNA methyltransferase gene (cj1461) in the intestinal pathogen C. jejuni causes reduced motility, aberrant flagellar appearance, and hyperadherence to epithelial cells, accompanied by reduced invasion (Kim et al., 2008). Some of these traits are reminiscent of virulence-associated defects described previously in Salmonella dam mutants. However, the putative Cj1461 protein shows little homology with Dam methylase, and neither its DNA methylation activity nor its DNA target have been determined so far.

Yersinia enterocolitica

Dam methylation is essential in certain strains of Yersinia, and dispensable in others (Julio et al., 2001; Robinson et al., 2005). In Yersinia strains in which Dam methylation is essential, Dam methylase overproduction does not impair growth (Julio et al., 2001). However, Dam-overproducing strains are attenuated in the mouse model, and their avirulent phenotype is pleiotropic (Julio et al., 2001, 2002). A relevant defect of Y. enterocolitica Dam overproducers is enhanced invasion capacity, probably associated with transcriptional alterations in invasin genes inv and ail, and with changes in the composition of lipopolysaccharide O-antigen (Fälker et al., 2007). The latter phenotype may involve posttranscriptional control. Furthermore, Y. enterocolitica Dam-overproducing strains show impaired secretion of Yop effector proteins, which become insensitive to Ca2+-mediated control (Julio et al., 2002). The latter defect is associated with enhanced degradation of LcrG, which in turn reflects increased transcription of the gene encoding ClpP protease (Fälker et al., 2005). An additional trait that may contribute to attenuation in Dam-overproducing strains is enhanced bacterial motility (Fälker et al., 2007). Some such defects have also been described in viable dam mutants of the related species Yersinia pseudotuberculosis and Yersinia pestis (Robinson et al., 2005; Taylor et al., 2005).

Vibrio cholerae

Vibrio cholerae mutants lacking Dam methylase are not viable. However, as described above for Y. enterocolitica, Dam overproduction does not impair bacterial growth. Vibrio cholerae overproducers of Dam methylase are attenuated in the suckling mouse model, but the causes of attenuation remain to be established (Julio et al., 2001).

Aeromonas hydrophila

Aeromonas, a promiscuous pathogen of humans and animals, requires Dam methylase for viability. However, as in similar cases reported above, investigators have been able to examine the involvement of Dam methylation in pathogenesis by constructing Dam methylase-overproducing strains (Erova et al., 2006a, b). Attenuation was observed upon intraperitoneal infection of mice with a Dam overproducer, and several virulence defects were identified in vitro: (1) reduced cytotoxicity associated with type III secretion; (2) reduced motility; and (3) enhanced cytotoxic and hemolytic activities associated with the Act enterotoxin, which is secreted by a type II secretion system. All virulence-related alterations associated with Dam methylase overproduction disappeared when critical amino acids within its DNA methylation motif were eliminated, thereby confirming that DNA adenine methylation is involved in A. hydrophila pathogenesis (Erova et al., 2006a, b).

Brucella abortus

Overproduction of CcrM methylase decreases the proliferation of B. abortus inside murine macrophages, suggesting that CcrM methylation may play a role in intracellular replication, which is a hallmark of Brucella infections (Robertson et al., 2000). Because CcrM is essential in this species, inhibitors of the enzyme have been sought and considered as potential antimicrobials (Benkovic et al., 2005).

Posttranscriptional regulation by DNA adenine methylation: facts

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Dam methylation
  5. CcrM methylation
  6. Roles of DNA adenine methylation in host–pathogen interactions
  7. Posttranscriptional regulation by DNA adenine methylation: facts
  8. Posttranscriptional regulation by DNA adenine methylation: hypotheses
  9. Practical uses of DNA adenine methylation: vaccines and DNA adenine methylase inhibitors
  10. Acknowledgements
  11. References

Very short patch (VSP) repair in E. coli

A system that altered the frequency of recombinants by correcting T–G mismatches with repair tracts shorter than 20 bp was discovered during a study of homologous recombination in bacteriophage lambda, and was termed VSP repair (Lieb, 1983). A hotspot for C to T transitions in the lambda cI gene turned out to be located in a DNA cytosine methyltransferase (Dcm) recognition sequence, CCAGG, altering it to CTAGG (Coulondre et al., 1978). Deamination of 5-methylcytosine (5-meC) yields thymine, and thus creates a T–G mismatch. Mutations due to 5-meC deamination occur in the stationary phase, but not in exponentially growing bacteria, and the role of VSP repair is to prevent the resulting mutagenic event by restoring C–G pairs before DNA replication (Lieb & Bhagwat, 1996; Lieb & Rehmat, 1997). T–G mismatches are recognized and cleaved 5′ to the T by the Vsr endonuclease (Hennecke et al., 1991); conventional base excision repair involving DNA polymerase I and DNA ligase then follows (Lieb & Bhagwat, 1996). There is also a requirement for the MutS and MutL proteins of Dam-directed mismatch repair, but their role is uncertain (Bhagwat & Lieb, 2002). The level of Vsr in the wild type is low in logarithmic-phase cells, and high in stationary-phase cells, as expected from the biological rationale for VSP (Macintyre et al., 1999).

The E. coli vsr gene is in a transcriptional unit with the dcm gene. The 3′ end of the dcm gene is overlapped by the first six codons of the vsr gene, which is in a +1 register relative to dcm (Dar & Bhagwat, 1993). Such an overlap is uncommon in E. coli, and in this case may serve to couple the expression of these genes. Both dcm and vsr appear to be transcribed into a single mRNA, and translation of vsr appears to be dependent on translation of the upstream dcm-coding sequence (Dar & Bhagwat, 1993). However, Western analysis showed that the Vsr level varies with the growth rate, while the level of Dcm does not change during the exponential and stationary phases of growth. The mechanism by which this is achieved is not known. The location of the promoter and its mode of regulation are also unknown.

Surprisingly, VSP repair is reduced in E. coli dam mutants as measured by an increase in the mutation frequency of CCAGG to CTAGG (Bell & Cupples, 2001). Western blotting indicated that, unlike the wild type, there was no increase in the Vsr level upon entry into the stationary phase in dam cultures. However, the level of Dcm remained unaltered. Because the vsr and dcm genes are cotranscribed, it was concluded that regulation of Vsr in a dam mutant is probably achieved by a posttranslational mechanism (Bell & Cupples, 2001). Because the vsr mRNA levels in dam+ and dam strains were not determined, an effect on mRNA stability cannot be excluded.

Pedestal formation in enterohemorrhagic E. coli O157:H7

As described in the host–pathogen interactions section above, dam mutants of enterohemorrhagic E. coli show increased adherence and pedestal formation in vitro, which is correlated with elevated protein levels of three effector proteins: intimin, Tir, and EspFU. However, the increased levels of effectors did not result from an increase in mRNA levels as measured by microarrays, Northerns, and reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR, suggesting a posttranscriptional mechanism of regulation (Campellone et al., 2007). To further investigate the basis of this observation, an E. coli O157:H7 hfq mutant was constructed, and pedestal formation was as robust as in a dam mutant (M. Brady, J.M. Leong & M.G. Marinus, unpublished data). The hfq mutant contains an elevated level of Tir (A. Fenton & M.G. Marinus, unpublished data).

Lipopolysaccharide composition in Y. enterocolitica

Dam overproduction in Y. enterocolitica causes numerous metabolic alterations, including a change in the composition of lipopolysaccharide O-antigen, which contains increased amounts of lipid A core without O-antigen subunits (Fälker et al., 2007; Heusipp et al., 2007). The O-antigen gene cluster consists of two transcriptional units, but the transcript levels in the Dam overproducer, as measured by RT-PCR, of representative genes in each cluster (ddhA, gne, and rosA) were unchanged relative to the wild type. Thus, the modulation of lipopolysaccharide structure seems to involve an unknown posttranscriptional mechanism (Fälker et al., 2007).

Transcription of SPI-1

As described in the host–pathogen interactions section above, pathogenicity island SPI-1 is essential for virulence of S. enterica. Transcriptomic analyses of S. enterica model strain SL1344 and dam derivatives showed that transcription of invasion genes in pathogenicity island SPI-1 was decreased in the absence of Dam methylation (Balbontin et al., 2006). In agreement, using a lac transcriptional fusion to one of the SPI-1 genes (sipC), β-galactosidase activity was found to increase when a culture of the wild type entered the stationary phase. In contrast, dam mutants showed a low level of expression both in the exponential phase and in the stationary phase (Balbontin et al., 2006). Transcriptional data were recapitulated at the protein level: more SipC was found in the wild type than in the dam mutants. A similar effect of Dam methylation was found for other representative SPI-1 genes, suggesting that the whole island might be under Dam control.

Transcriptional control of pathogenicity island SPI-1 is complex and multilayered (reviewed by Jones, 2005). Transcription of the hilA gene in SPI-1 appears to be central for the expression of the other genes on the island. Expression of hilA is activated by RtsA, HilC, and HilD, the latter being more important. HilD is a member of the AraC/XylS family of transcriptional activators. Expression of hilD is in turn modulated by the products of the csrA and csrB genes, which have opposite effects on transcript levels. CsrA destabilizes specific mRNA molecules by interactions at the ribosome-binding site. The csrB gene encodes an untranslated RNA that binds CsrA to prevent mRNA degradation. While deletion of the csrB gene has only a mild effect on hilA transcription and none on invasion, deletion of csrA or overexpression of CsrA both reduce hilA transcription about 10-fold, and invasion of epithelial cells about 100-fold. CsrA, therefore, appears to have both positive and negative regulatory effects on SPI-1 gene expression.

Posttranscriptional regulation by DNA adenine methylation: hypotheses

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Dam methylation
  5. CcrM methylation
  6. Roles of DNA adenine methylation in host–pathogen interactions
  7. Posttranscriptional regulation by DNA adenine methylation: facts
  8. Posttranscriptional regulation by DNA adenine methylation: hypotheses
  9. Practical uses of DNA adenine methylation: vaccines and DNA adenine methylase inhibitors
  10. Acknowledgements
  11. References

Proteolysis

Posttranscriptional regulation can occur at the level of the message and/or at the protein level. There are many examples of ‘unstable’ regulatory proteins whose concentration is determined by the balance between synthesis and degradation by specific proteases. For example, one model for E. coli VSP repair could be that proteolysis is more active on Vsr during logarithmic growth than in the stationary phase. This would imply that a specific protease activity is decreased in cells approaching the stationary phase of growth. In dam mutants, this decrease would not occur, leading to continued proteolysis. Similar arguments can be made for the other systems described above. Whatever the mechanism of posttranscriptional regulation turns out to be, the key proteins will be subject to proteolysis, even though this may not be the primary regulatory mechanism. For further discussion, however, we will assume that proteolysis is not the primary mechanism of posttranscriptional control.

mRNA translation

For some of the examples of posttranscriptional regulation listed above (e.g. VSP repair in E. coli), mRNA levels have not been determined, leaving open the possibility that mRNA stability is altered in dam mutants. In the other examples above, the steady-state mRNA levels have been measured and are unchanged. An appealing model for such situations is to invoke translational regulation through the involvement of a small RNA molecule, either an antisense RNA or a small noncoding RNA (sRNA). An example of Dam-mediated regulation was described in the synthesis of FinP, an antisense RNA acting on the traJ transcript (Torreblanca et al., 1999; Camacho et al., 2005). Transcription of finP is decreased in dam mutants (Camacho et al., 2005). In addition to this example, microarray analysis indicates that many noncoding regions of the E. coli chromosome show either increased or decreased transcript levels in a dam mutant vs. a wild type (Campellone et al., 2007). For each example of posttranslational regulation discussed below, we offer a hypothesis invoking small RNA molecules.

The vsr transcript also includes, and is preceded by, the dcm-coding sequence. While the Dcm protein is present at the same steady-state level in both the exponential and the stationary phases, the Vsr protein is induced in the stationary phase (Bell & Cupples, 2001). An sRNA could be induced upon entry into the stationary phase, allowing translation of the vsr gene, but not affecting the upstream dcm sequence. The sRNA could, for instance, unmask a readthrough region of the transcript or stabilize the 3′ end. This hypothesis fits with the observation that many sRNAs are induced as cells enter the stationary phase (Majdalani et al., 2005). In dam mutants, transcription of the particular sRNA might be downregulated, thereby preventing vsr translation.

The EHEC tir transcript also encodes the gene (eae) encoding intimin, but not that for EspFU. Because there are examples of an sRNA molecule binding to two separate messengers, coregulation of translation of espFU and tir is possible. In this case, an sRNA might bind constitutively to the mRNAs to prevent translation (negative regulation). Alternatively, some structural feature of the mRNA might prevent translation, and the sRNA might modify it to allow translation (positive regulation). By a signal currently unknown, transcription of the sRNA gene might be altered when the organism finds itself at the right place in the alimentary tract, allowing translation of the messages. In a dam mutant, synthesis of the sRNA would be altered, allowing constitutive translation of the effector messages.

A similar type of model can be proposed for lipopolysaccharide composition changes in Yersinia. Overexpression of Dam is known to alter transcription profiles such that genes that are not normally expressed are activated, and these could include loci for small regulatory RNAs and/or antisense RNAs. Such changes in sRNA or antisense RNA levels might be due to Dam preventing SeqA from accessing its substrate sites. Hence, it would be interesting to analyze lipopolysaccharide composition in a Yersinia seqA mutant.

For pathogenicity island SPI-1, a role for sRNA or antisense RNA could also be invoked for one of the many regulators known to activate transcription of the island. As mentioned above, one of these regulators is a small RNA, csrB. Increased csrB transcription in a dam mutant could affect the level of CsrA, which in turn activates SPI-1 gene expression through HilD. However, preliminary evidence suggests that neither csrA nor csrB are under Dam methylation control (J. López-Garrido & J. Casadesus, unpublished data).

Most sRNA molecules require Hfq for binding to their cognate mRNAs. If the above models require sRNAs, then the effects of dam methylation should be mirrored in an hfq mutant. A positive correlation would support the model while a negative one would exclude Hfq-dependent sRNAs, but not antisense RNAs.

Practical uses of DNA adenine methylation: vaccines and DNA adenine methylase inhibitors

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Dam methylation
  5. CcrM methylation
  6. Roles of DNA adenine methylation in host–pathogen interactions
  7. Posttranscriptional regulation by DNA adenine methylation: facts
  8. Posttranscriptional regulation by DNA adenine methylation: hypotheses
  9. Practical uses of DNA adenine methylation: vaccines and DNA adenine methylase inhibitors
  10. Acknowledgements
  11. References

The strong attenuation of dam mutants, combined with their capacity to persist at low levels in animal organs (causing an almost asymptomatic infection), makes Salmonella dam strains appropriate for use as live vaccines. In fact, dam mutants of S. enterica have been shown to elicit immune responses in chickens and calves with paramount efficiency (Dueger et al., 2001, 2003; Heithoff et al., 2001). An oral, live dam vaccine has also been described in H. influenzae (Watson et al., 2004). Interestingly, a viable dam mutant of Y. pseudotuberculosis was found to protect mice against infection by the wild type, and also to cross-protect against plague (Robinson et al., 2005). An alternative and efficient strategy for the design of live vaccines against Y. pseudotuberculosis is Dam overproduction (Julio et al., 2002).

A negative trait that may hamper the use of dam mutants as live vaccines for humans is hypermutation, caused by the lack of DNA strand discrimination for mismatch repair. In Salmonella, lack of Dam methylation gives rise to a 10–15-fold increase in spontaneous mutation rates (Torreblanca & Casadesus, 1996). Dam overproduction does not provide a solution to overcome this problem: early studies in E. coli dam mutants showed that Dam overproduction increases mutation rates well above Dam absence (Marinus et al., 1984). Similar observations have been made in Salmonella: expression of Dam methylase from a multicopy plasmid increases the spontaneous mutation rate over 400-fold (Torreblanca & Casadesus, 1996). Increased mutation rates might, however, allow the use of dam vaccines in livestock animals, if animal health regulations permit.

Attenuation of dam strains in a variety of human pathogens has also raised the possibility of using Dam or CcrM methylase inhibitors as antibacterial drugs (Benkovic et al., 2005; Mashhoon et al., 2006). In Alphaproteobacteria, such drugs would be bactericidal. In Salmonella and other pathogens in which Dam methylation is not essential, Dam inhibitors could be expected to attenuate virulence by transforming wild-type bacteria into phenocopies of dam mutants. Because Dam methylation is a dispensable function in enteric bacteria, inhibitors specifically targeted at Dam methylase should be harmless for the normal intestinal flora. A drug of this kind should also be harmless for the host, because adenine methylation is rare, if not absent, in mammalian cells (Ratel et al., 2006).

Whatever the fate of Dam-based vaccines and Dam inhibitors in Salmonella and other pathogens, neither strategy can be envisaged as universally valid. Enterohemorrhagic E. coli dam mutants show increased production of both actin pedestals and Stx (Campellone et al., 2007; Murphy et al., 2008). They are, therefore, potentially more virulent, and useless as live vaccines. In turn, administration of a Dam-inhibiting drug to infected animals might increase enterohemorrhagic E. coli virulence. An additional potential problem is that a Dam inhibitor might increase the spontaneous mutation rate in the intestinal flora.

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Dam methylation
  5. CcrM methylation
  6. Roles of DNA adenine methylation in host–pathogen interactions
  7. Posttranscriptional regulation by DNA adenine methylation: facts
  8. Posttranscriptional regulation by DNA adenine methylation: hypotheses
  9. Practical uses of DNA adenine methylation: vaccines and DNA adenine methylase inhibitors
  10. Acknowledgements
  11. References

Work in our laboratories is supported by grants GM63790 from the National Institutes of Health (to M.G.M.), BIO2007-67457-CO2-02 and CSD2008-00013 from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation and the European Regional Fund, and 2005-CVI-613 from the Regional Government of Andalusia (to J.C.).

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Dam methylation
  5. CcrM methylation
  6. Roles of DNA adenine methylation in host–pathogen interactions
  7. Posttranscriptional regulation by DNA adenine methylation: facts
  8. Posttranscriptional regulation by DNA adenine methylation: hypotheses
  9. Practical uses of DNA adenine methylation: vaccines and DNA adenine methylase inhibitors
  10. Acknowledgements
  11. References
  • Allers T & Leach DR (1995) DNA palindromes adopt a methylation-resistant conformation that is consistent with DNA cruciform or hairpin formation in vivo. J Mol Biol 252: 7085.
  • Alonso A, Pucciarelli MG, Figueroa-Bossi N & García-del-Portillo F (2005) Increased excision of the Salmonella prophage ST64B caused by a deficiency in Dam methylase. J Bacteriol 187: 79017911.
  • Balbontin R, Rowley G, Pucciarelli MG et al. (2006) DNA adenine methylation regulates virulence gene expression in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. J Bacteriol 188: 81608168.
  • Barras F & Marinus MG (1989) The great GATC: DNA methylation in E. coli. Trends Genet 5: 139143.
  • Bell DC & Cupples CG (2001) Very-short-patch repair in Escherichia coli requires the dam adenine methylase. J Bacteriol 183: 36313635.
  • Benkovic SJ, Baker SJ, Alley MR et al. (2005) Identification of borinic esters as inhibitors of bacterial cell growth and bacterial methyltransferases, CcrM and MenH. J Med Chem 48: 74687476.
  • Bergerat A, Guschlbauer W & Fazakerley GV (1991) Allosteric and catalytic binding of S-adenosylmethionine to Escherichia coli DNA adenine methyltransferase monitored by 3H NMR. P Natl Acad Sci USA 88: 63946397.
  • Bhagwat AS & Lieb M (2002) Cooperation and competition in mismatch repair: very short-patch repair and methyl-directed mismatch repair in Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol 44: 14211428.
  • Boye E, Marinus MG & Løbner-Olesen A (1992) Quantitation of Dam methyltransferase in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol 174: 16821685.
  • Braun RE, O'Day K & Wright A (1985) Autoregulation of the DNA replication gene dnaA in E. coli K-12. Cell 40: 159169.
  • Broadbent SE, Balbontin R, Casadesus J, Marinus MG & Van Der Woude M (2007) YhdJ, a nonessential CcrM-like DNA methyltransferase of Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica. J Bacteriol 189: 43254327.
  • Calmann MA & Marinus MG (2003) Regulated expression of the Escherichia coli dam gene. J Bacteriol 185: 50125014.
  • Camacho EM & Casadesus J (2002) Conjugal transfer of the virulence plasmid of Salmonella enterica is regulated by the leucine-responsive regulatory protein and DNA adenine methylation. Mol Microbiol 44: 15891598.
  • Camacho EM & Casadesus J (2005) Regulation of traJ transcription in the Salmonella virulence plasmid by strand-specific DNA adenine hemimethylation. Mol Microbiol 57: 17001718.
  • Camacho EM, Serna A, Madrid C et al. (2005) Regulation of finP transcription by DNA adenine methylation in the virulence plasmid of Salmonella enterica. J Bacteriol 187: 56915699.
  • Campbell JL & Kleckner N (1988) The rate of Dam-mediated DNA adenine methylation in Escherichia coli. Gene 74: 189190.
  • Campbell JL & Kleckner N (1990) E. coli oriC and the dnaA gene promoter are sequestered from dam methyltransferase following the passage of the chromosomal replication fork. Cell 62: 967979.
  • Campellone KG, Roe AJ, Løbner-Olesen A et al. (2007) Increased adherence and actin pedestal formation by dam-deficient enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7. Mol Microbiol 63: 14681481.
  • Casadesus J & Low D (2006) Epigenetic gene regulation in the bacterial world. Microbiol Mol Biol R 70: 830856.
  • Chen L, Paulsen DB, Scruggs DW, Banes MM, Reeks BY & Lawrence ML (2003) Alteration of DNA adenine methylase (Dam) activity in Pasteurella multocida causes increased spontaneous mutation frequency and attenuation in mice. Microbiology 149: 22832290.
  • Chessa D, Winter MG, Nuccio SP, Tukel C & Bäumler AJ (2008) RosE represses Std fimbrial expression in Salmonella enterica serotype Typhimurium. Mol Microbiol 68: 573587.
  • Collier J, Murray SR & Shapiro L (2006) DnaA couples DNA replication and the expression of two cell cycle master regulators. EMBO J 25: 346356.
  • Collier J, McAdams HH & Shapiro L (2007) A DNA methylation ratchet governs progression through a bacterial cell cycle. P Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 1711117116.
  • Coulondre C, Miller JH, Farabaugh PJ & Gilbert W (1978) Molecular basis of base substitution hotspots in Escherichia coli. Nature 274: 775780.
  • Curcio MJ & Derbyshire KM (2003) The outs and ins of transposition: from mu to kangaroo. Nat Rev Mol Cell Bio 4: 865877.
  • Dar ME & Bhagwat AS (1993) Mechanism of expression of DNA repair gene vsr, an Escherichia coli gene that overlaps the DNA cytosine methylase gene, dcm. Mol Microbiol 9: 823833.
  • Dueger EL, House JK, Heithoff DM & Mahan MJ (2001) Salmonella DNA adenine methylase mutants elicit protective immune responses to homologous and heterologous serovars in chickens. Infect Immun 69: 79507954.
  • Dueger EL, House JK, Heithoff DM & Mahan MJ (2003) Salmonella DNA adenine methylase mutants elicit early and late onset protective immune responses in calves. Vaccine 21: 32493258.
  • Echeita MA & Usera MA (1998) Chromosomal rearrangements in Salmonella enterica serotype typhi affecting molecular typing in outbreak investigations. J Clin Microbiol 36: 21232126.
  • Erova TE, Fadl AA, Sha J, Khajanchi BK, Pillai LL, Kozlova EV & Chopra AK (2006a) Mutations within the catalytic motif of DNA adenine methyltransferase (Dam) of Aeromonas hydrophila cause the virulence of the Dam-overproducing strain to revert to that of the wild-type phenotype. Infect Immun 74: 57635772.
  • Erova TE, Pillai L, Fadl AA, Sha J, Wang S, Galindo CL & Chopra AK (2006b) DNA adenine methyltransferase influences the virulence of Aeromonas hydrophila. Infect Immun 74: 410424.
  • Fälker S, Schmidt MA & Heusipp G (2005) DNA methylation in Yersinia enterocolitica: role of the DNA adenine methyltransferase in mismatch repair and regulation of virulence factors. Microbiology 151: 22912299.
  • Fälker S, Schilling J, Schmidt MA & Heusipp G (2007) Overproduction of DNA adenine methyltransferase alters motility, invasion, and the lipopolysaccharide O-antigen composition of Yersinia enterocolitica. Infect Immun 75: 49904997.
  • Fox KL, Dowideit SJ, Erwin AL, Srikhanta YN, Smith AL & Jennings MP (2007) Haemophilus influenzae phasevarions have evolved from type III DNA restriction systems into epigenetic regulators of gene expression. Nucleic Acids Res 35: 52425252.
  • Garcia-del Portillo F, Pucciarelli MG & Casadesus J (1999) DNA adenine methylase mutants of Salmonella typhimurium show defects in protein secretion, cell invasion, and M cell cytotoxicity. P Natl Acad Sci USA 96: 1157811583.
  • Hale WB, Van Der Woude MW & Low DA (1994) Analysis of nonmethylated GATC sites in the Escherichia coli chromosome and identification of sites that are differentially methylated in response to environmental stimuli. J Bacteriol 176: 34383441.
  • Hayward RD, Leong JM, Koronakis V & Campellone KG (2006) Exploiting pathogenic Escherichia coli to model transmembrane receptor signalling. Nat Rev Microbiol 4: 358370.
  • Heithoff DM, Sinsheimer RL, Low DA & Mahan MJ (1999) An essential role for DNA adenine methylation in bacterial virulence. Science 284: 967970.
  • Heithoff DM, Enioutina EI, Daynes RA, Sinsheimer RL, Low DA & Mahan MJ (2001) Salmonella DNA adenine methylase mutants confer cross-protective immunity. Infect Immun 69: 67256730.
  • Henderson LR & Owen P (1999) The major phase-variable outer membrane protein of Escherichia coli structurally resembles the immunoglobulin A1 protease class of exported protein and is regulated by a novel mechanism involving Dam and OxyR. J Bacteriol 181: 21322141.
  • Hennecke F, Kolmar H, Brundl K & Fritz HJ (1991) The vsr gene product of E. coli K-12 is a strand- and sequence-specific DNA mismatch endonuclease. Nature 353: 776778.
  • Herman GE & Modrich P (1981) Escherichia coli K-12 clones that overproduce dam methylase are hypermutable. J Bacteriol 145: 644646.
  • Herman GE & Modrich P (1982) Escherichia coli dam methylase. Physical and catalytic properties of the homogeneous enzyme. J Biol Chem 257: 26052612.
  • Heusipp G, Fälker S & Schmidt MA (2007) DNA adenine methylation and bacterial pathogenesis. Int J Med Microbiol 297: 17.
  • Horton JR, Liebert K, Bekes M, Jeltsch A & Cheng X (2006) Structure and substrate recognition of the Escherichia coli DNA adenine methyltransferase. J Mol Biol 358: 559570.
  • Iyer RR, Pluciennik A, Burdett V & Modrich PL (2006) DNA mismatch repair: functions and mechanisms. Chem Rev 106: 302323.
  • Jakomin M, Chessa D, Bäumler AJ & Casadesus J (2008) Regulation of the Salmonella enterica std fimbrial operon by DNA adenine methylation, SeqA and HdfR. J Bacteriol 190: 74067413.
  • Jones BD (2005) Salmonella invasion gene regulation: a story of environmental awareness. J Microbiol 43: 110117.
  • Julio SM, Heithoff DM, Provenzano D, Klose KE, Sinsheimer RL, Low DA & Mahan MJ (2001) DNA adenine methylase is essential for viability and plays a role in the pathogenesis of Yersinia pseudotuberculosis and Vibrio cholerae. Infect Immun 69: 76107615.
  • Julio SM, Heithoff DM, Sinsheimer RL, Low DA & Mahan MJ (2002) DNA adenine methylase overproduction in Yersinia pseudotuberculosis alters YopE expression and secretion and host immune responses to infection. Infect Immun 70: 10061009.
  • Kahng LS & Shapiro L (2001) The CcrM DNA methyltransferase of Agrobacterium tumefaciens is essential, and its activity is cell-cycle regulated. J Bacteriol 183: 30653075.
  • Kim JS, Li J, Barnes IH et al. (2008) Role of the Campylobacter jejuni Cj1461 DNA methyltransferase in regulating virulence characteristics. J Bacteriol 190: 65246529.
  • Lieb M (1983) Specific mismatch correction in bacteriophage lambda crosses by very short patch repair. Mol Gen Genet 191: 118125.
  • Lieb M & Bhagwat AS (1996) Very short patch repair: reducing the cost of cytosine methylation. Mol Microbiol 20: 467473.
  • Lieb M & Rehmat S (1997) 5-Methylcytosine is not a mutation hot spot in nondividing Escherichia coli. P Natl Acad Sci USA 94: 940945.
  • Liu SL & Sanderson KE (1995) The chromosome of Salmonella paratyphi A is inverted by recombination between rrnH and rrnG. J Bacteriol 177: 65856592.
  • Liu SL & Sanderson KE (1998) Homologous recombination between rrn operons rearranges the chromosome in host-specialized species of Salmonella. FEMS Microbiol Lett 164: 275281.
  • Løbner-Olesen A, Boye E & Marinus MG (1992) Expression of the Escherichia coli dam gene. Mol Microbiol 6: 18411851.
  • Løbner-Olesen A, Marinus MG & Hanssen FG (2003) Role of SeqA and Dam in Escherichia coli gene expression: a global/microarray analysis. P Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 46724677.
  • Løbner-Olesen A, Skovgaard O & Marinus MG (2005) Dam methylation: coordinating cellular processes. Curr Opin Microbiol 8: 154160.
  • Low DA & Casadesus J (2008) Clocks and switches: bacterial gene regulation by DNA adenine methylation. Curr Opin Microbiol 11: 106112.
  • Macintyre G, Pitsikas P & Cupples CG (1999) Growth phase-dependent regulation of Vsr endonuclease may contribute to 5-methylcytosine mutational hot spots in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol 181: 44354436.
  • Majdalani N, Vanderpool CK & Gottesman S (2005) Bacterial small RNA regulators. Crit Rev Biochem Mol 40: 93113.
  • Marczynski GT & Shapiro L (2002) Control of chromosome replication in Caulobacter crescentus. Annu Rev Microbiol 56: 625656.
  • Marinus MG (1996) Methylation of DNA. Escherichia coli and Salmonella: Cellular and Molecular Biology (NeidhardtFC, CurtissR & IngrahamJL et al., eds), pp. 782791. ASM Press, Washington, DC.
  • Marinus MG (2000) Recombination is essential for viability of an Escherichia coli dam (DNA adenine methyltransferase) mutant. J Bacteriol 182: 463468.
  • Marinus MG & Morris NR (1974) Biological function for 6-methyladenine residues in the DNA of Escherichia coli K12. J Mol Biol 85: 309322.
  • Marinus MG, Poteete A & Arraj JA (1984) Correlation of DNA adenine methylase activity with spontaneous mutability in Escherichia coli K-12. Gene 28: 123125.
  • Mashhoon N, Pruss C, Carroll M, Johnson PH & Reich NO (2006) Selective inhibitors of bacterial DNA adenine methyltransferases. J Biomol Screen 11: 497510.
  • Mehling JS, Lavender H & Clegg S (2007) A Dam methylation mutant of Klebsiella pneumoniae is partially attenuated. FEMS Microbiol Lett 268: 187193.
  • Murphy KC, Ritchie JM, Waldor MK, Løbner-Olesen A & Marinus MG (2008) Dam methyltransferase is required for stable lysogeny of the Shiga toxin (Stx2)-encoding bacteriophage 933W of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7. J Bacteriol 190: 438441.
  • Nielsen O & Løbner-Olesen A (2008) Once in a lifetime: strategies for preventing re-replication in prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. EMBO Rep 9: 151156.
  • Ogden GB, Pratt MJ & Schaechter M (1988) The replicative origin of the E. coli chromosome binds to cell membranes only when hemimethylated. Cell 54: 127135.
  • Oshima T, Wada C, Kawagoe Y et al. (2002) Genome-wide analysis of deoxyadenosine methyltransferase-mediated control of gene expression in Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol 45: 673695.
  • Palmer BR & Marinus MG (1994) The dam and dcm strains of Escherichia coli– a review. Gene 143: 112.
  • Parniewski P, Kwinkowski M, Wilk A & Klysik J (1990) Dam methyltransferase sites located within the loop region of the oligopurine-oligopyrimidine sequences capable of forming H-DNA are undermethylated in vivo. Nucleic Acids Res 18: 605611.
  • Peterson SN & Reich NO (2006) GATC flanking sequences regulate Dam activity: evidence for how Dam specificity may influence pap expression. J Mol Biol 355: 459472.
  • Plumbridge J (1987) The role of dam methylation in controlling gene expression. Biochimie 69: 439443.
  • Prieto AI, Ramos-Morales F & Casadesus J (2004) Bile-induced DNA damage in Salmonella enterica. Genetics 168: 17871794.
  • Prieto AI, Ramos-Morales F & Casadesus J (2006) Repair of DNA damage induced by bile salts in Salmonella enterica. Genetics 174: 575584.
  • Prieto AI, Jakomin M, Segura I, Pucciarelli MG, Ramos-Morales F, García del Portillo F & Casadesus J (2007) The GATC-binding protein SeqA is required for bile resistance and virulence in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. J Bacteriol 189: 84968502.
  • Pucciarelli MG, Prieto AI, Casadesus J & Garcia-del Portillo F (2002) Envelope instability in DNA adenine methylase mutants of Salmonella enterica. Microbiology 148: 11711182.
  • Pukkila PJ, Peterson J, Herman G, Modrich P & Meselson M (1983) Effects of high levels of DNA adenine methylation on methyl-directed mismatch repair in Escherichia coli. Genetics 104: 571582.
  • Ratel D, Ravanat JL, Charles MP et al. (2006) Undetectable levels of N6-methyl adenine in mouse DNA: cloning and analysis of PRED28, a gene coding for a putative mammalian DNA adenine methyltransferase. FEBS Lett 580: 31793184.
  • Reisenauer A & Shapiro L (2002) DNA methylation affects the cell cycle transcription of the CtrA global regulator in Caulobacter. EMBO J 21: 49694977.
  • Reisenauer A, Kahng LS, McCollum S & Shapiro L (1999) Bacterial DNA methylation: a cell cycle regulator? J Bacteriol 181: 51355139.
  • Ringquist S & Smith CL (1992) The Escherichia coli chromosome contains specific, unmethylated dam and dcm sites. P Natl Acad Sci USA 89: 45394543.
  • Robbins-Manke JL, Zdraveski ZZ, Marinus M & Essigmann JM (2005) Analysis of global gene expression and double-strand-break formation in DNA adenine methyltransferase- and mismatch repair-deficient Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol 187: 70277037.
  • Roberts D, Hoopes BC, McClure WR & Kleckner N (1985) IS10 transposition is regulated by DNA adenine methylation. Cell 43: 117130.
  • Robertson GT, Reisenauer A, Wright R, Jensen RB, Jensen A, Shapiro L & Roop II RM (2000) The Brucella abortus CcrM DNA methyltransferase is essential for viability, and its overexpression attenuates intracellular replication in murine macrophages. J Bacteriol 182: 34823489.
  • Robinson VL, Oyston PC & Titball RW (2005) A dam mutant of Yersinia pestis is attenuated and induces protection against plague. FEMS Microbiol Lett 252: 251256.
  • Saint-Dic D, Kehrl J, Frushour B & Kahng LS (2008) Excess SeqA leads to replication arrest and a cell division defect in Vibrio cholerae. J Bacteriol 190: 58705878.
  • Srikhanta YN, Maguire TL, Stacey KJ, Grimmond SM & Jennings MP (2005) The phasevarion: a genetic system controlling coordinated, random switching of expression of multiple genes. P Natl Acad Sci USA 102: 55475551.
  • Stancheva I, Koller T & Sogo JM (1999) Asymmetry of Dam remethylation on the leading and lagging arms of plasmid replicative intermediates. EMBO J 18: 65426551.
  • Tavazoie S & Church GM (1998) Quantitative whole-genome analysis of DNA-protein interactions by in vivo methylase protection in E. coli. Nat Biotechnol 16: 566571.
  • Taylor VL, Titball RW & Oyston PC (2005) Oral immunization with a dam mutant of Yersinia pseudotuberculosis protects against plague. Microbiology 151: 19191926.
  • Torreblanca J & Casadesus J (1996) DNA adenine methylase mutants of Salmonella typhimurium and a novel Dam-regulated locus. Genetics 144: 1526.
  • Torreblanca J, Marques S & Casadesus J (1999) Synthesis of FinP RNA by plasmids F and pSLT is regulated by DNA adenine methylation. Genetics 152: 3145.
  • Urig S, Gowher H, Hermann A, Beck C, Fatemi M, Humeny A & Jeltsch A (2002) The Escherichia coli dam DNA methyltransferase modifies DNA in a highly processive reaction. J Mol Biol 319: 10851096.
  • Waldron DE, Owen P & Dorman CJ (2002) Competitive interaction of the OxyR DNA-binding protein and the Dam methylase at the antigen 43 gene regulatory region in Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol 44: 509520.
  • Wallecha A, Munster V, Correnti J, Chan T & Van Der Woude M (2002) Dam- and OxyR-dependent phase variation of agn43: essential elements and evidence for a new role of DNA methylation. J Bacteriol 184: 33383347.
  • Wang MX & Church GM (1992) A whole genome approach to in vivo DNA-protein interactions in E. coli. Nature 360: 606610.
  • Wang TC & Smith KC (1986) Inviability of dam recA and dam recB cells of Escherichia coli is correlated with their inability to repair DNA double-strand breaks produced by mismatch repair. J Bacteriol 165: 10231025.
  • Watson Jr ME, Jarisch J & Smith AL (2004) Inactivation of deoxyadenosine methyltransferase (dam) attenuates Haemophilus influenzae virulence. Mol Microbiol 53: 651664.
  • Wion D & Casadesus J (2006) N6-methyl-adenine: an epigenetic signal for DNA-protein interactions. Nat Rev Microbiol 4: 183192.
  • Wright R, Stephens C & Shapiro L (1997) The CcrM DNA methyltransferase is widespread in the alpha subdivision of Proteobacteria, and its essential functions are conserved in Rhizobium meliloti and Caulobacter crescentus. J Bacteriol 179: 58695877.
  • Wu H, Lippmann JE, Oza JP, Zeng M, Fives-Taylor P & Reich NO (2006) Inactivation of DNA adenine methyltransferase alters virulence factors in Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans. Oral Microbiol Immun 21: 238244.
  • Yamaki H, Ohtsubo E, Nagai K & Maeda Y (1988) The oriC unwinding by dam methylation in Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res 16: 50675073.