Nucleoprotein complexes present challenges to genome stability by acting as potent blocks to replication. One attractive model of how such conflicts are resolved is direct targeting of blocked forks by helicases with the ability to displace the blocking protein-DNA complex. We show that Rep and UvrD each promote movement of E. coli replisomes blocked by nucleoprotein complexes in vitro, that such an activity is required to clear protein blocks (primarily transcription complexes) in vivo, and that a polarity of translocation opposite that of the replicative helicase is critical for this activity. However, these two helicases are not equivalent. Rep but not UvrD interacts physically and functionally with the replicative helicase. In contrast, UvrD likely provides a general means of protein-DNA complex turnover during replication, repair, and recombination. Rep and UvrD therefore provide two contrasting solutions as to how organisms may promote replication of protein-bound DNA.

All organisms require mechanisms that resuscitate replication forks when they break down, reflecting the complex intracellular environments within which DNA replication occurs. Here we show that as few as three lac repressor-operator complexes block Escherichia coli replication forks in vitro regardless of the topological state of the DNA. Blockage with tandem repressor-operator complexes was also observed in vivo, demonstrating that replisomes have a limited ability to translocate through high affinity protein–DNA complexes. However, cells could tolerate tandem repressor-bound operators within the chromosome that were sufficient to block all forks in vitro. This discrepancy between in vitro and in vivo observations was at least partly explained by the ability of RecA, RecBCD and RecG to abrogate the effects of repressor-operator complexes on cell viability. However, neither RuvABC nor RecF were needed for normal cell growth in the face of such complexes. Holliday junction resolution by RuvABC and facilitated loading of RecA by RecF were not therefore critical for tolerance of protein–DNA blocks. We conclude that there is a trade-off between efficient genome duplication and other aspects of DNA metabolism such as transcriptional control, and that recombination enzymes, either directly or indirectly, provide the means to tolerate such conflicts.