In this chapter, we describe in vivo methods for the analysis of interactions between an sRNA and its target mRNA in B. subtilis. All these methods have been either established or significantly improved in our group and successfully employed to characterize a number of sRNA/target mRNA systems in Bacillus subtilis. Whereas in Chap. 8, we describe a combination of in vitro methods, e.g., EMSA and RNA secondary structure probing, we focus here on the investigation of RNA-RNA interactions in vivo using compatible plasmids or chromosomal insertions and deletions, the elucidation of the mechanisms of action of regulatory sRNAs employing transcriptional and translational reporter gene fusions, as well as the determination of expression profiles, half-lives of sRNA and mRNA, and their intracellular concentrations, and, finally, the investigation of RNA chaperones that promote the sRNA/mRNA interaction. For an in-depth analysis of sRNA-mRNA interactions in B. subtilis, a combination of in vivo and in vitro methods should be applied.

So far, in Bacillus subtilis, only four trans-encoded and 11 cis-encoded sRNAs and their targets have been investigated in detail, the majority of them in our group (rev. in 1, 2). Here, we describe in vitro methods for the analysis of sRNA/mRNA interactions. All these methods have been either elaborated or significantly improved in our group and successfully applied to characterize a number of sRNA/target mRNA systems in Bacillus subtilis for which we provide examples from our own work. The in vitro methods comprise the synthesis and purification of labeled and unlabeled RNA, the analysis of sRNA/mRNA interactions in electrophoretic mobility shift assays (EMSAs) including the calculation of their apparent binding rate constants (kapp) and equilibrium dissociation constants (Kd), the localization of minimal regulatory regions of an sRNA, the determination of the secondary structures of both interacting RNAs and their complex as well as the analysis of RNA chaperones that may promote the sRNA/mRNA interaction.

Here, we employ coelution experiments and far‐western blotting to identify stable interactions between the main components of the B. subtilis degradosome and the small proteins SR1P and SR7P. Our data indicate that B. subtilis has a degradosome comprising at least RNases Y and PnpA, enolase, phosphofructokinase, glycerol‐3‐phosphate dehydrogenase GapA, and helicase CshA that can be co‐purified without cross‐linking . All interactions were corroborated by far‐western blotting with proteins purified from E. coli . Previously, we discovered that stress‐induced SR7P binds enolase to enhance its interaction with and activity of enolase‐bound RNase Y (RnY), while SR1P transcribed under gluconeogenic conditions interacts with GapA to stimulate its interaction with and the activity of RnjA (RnjA). We show that SR1P can directly bind RnjA, RnY, and PnpA independently of GapA, whereas SR7P only interacts with enolase. Northern blotting suggests that the degradation of individual RNAs in B. subtilis under gluconeogenic or stress conditions depends on either RnjA or RnY alone or on RnjA‐SR1P, RnY‐SR1P, or RnY‐Eno. In vitro degradation assays with RnY or RnjA substrates corroborate the in vivo role of SR1P. Currently, it is unknown which substrate property is decisive for the utilization of one of the complexes.

Here, we describe SR7, a dual-function antisense RNA encoded on the Bacillus subtilis chromosome. This RNA was earlier described as SigB-dependent regulatory RNA S1136 and reported to reduce the amount of the small ribosomal subunit under ethanol stress. We found that the 5ʹ portion of SR7 encodes a small protein composed of 39 amino acids which we designated SR7P. It is translated from a 185 nt SigB-dependent mRNA under five different stress conditions and a longer SigB-independent RNA constitutively. About three-fold higher amounts of SR7P were detected in B. subtilis cells exposed to salt, ethanol, acid or heat stress. Co-elution experiments with SR7PC-FLAG and Far-Western blotting demonstrated that SR7P interacts with the glycolytic enzyme enolase. Enolase is a scaffolding component of the B. subtilis degradosome where it interacts with RNase Y and phosphofructokinase PfkA. We found that SR7P increases the amount of RNase Y bound to enolase without affecting PfkA. RNA does not bridge the SR7P-enolase-RNase Y interaction. In vitro-degradation assays with the known RNase Y substrates yitJ and rpsO mRNA revealed enhanced enzymatic activity of enolase-bound RNase Y in the presence of SR7P. Northern blots showed a major effect of enolase and a minor effect of SR7P on the half-life of rpsO mRNA indicating a fine-tuning role of SR7P in RNA degradation.

SR1 is a dual-function sRNA from Bacillus subtilis. It inhibits translation initiation of ahrC mRNA encoding the transcription activator of the arginine catabolic operons. Base-pairing is promoted by the RNA chaperone CsrA, which induces a slight structural change in the ahrC mRNA to facilitate SR1 binding. Additionally, SR1 encodes the small protein SR1P that interacts with glyceraldehyde-3P dehydrogenase A to promote binding to RNase J1 and enhancing J1 activity. Here, we describe a new target of SR1, kinA mRNA encoding the major histidine kinase of the sporulation phosphorelay. SR1 and kinA mRNA share 7 complementary regions. Base-pairing between SR1 and kinA mRNA decreases kinA translation without affecting kinA mRNA stability and represses transcription of the KinA/Spo0A downstream targets spoIIE, spoIIGA and cotA. The initial interaction between SR1 and kinA mRNA occurs 10 nt downstream of the kinA start codon and is decisive for inhibition. The sr1 encoded peptide SR1P is dispensable for kinA regulation. Deletion of sr1 accelerates sporulation resulting in low quality spores with reduced stress resistance and altered coat protein composition which can be compensated by sr1 overexpression. Neither CsrA nor Hfq influence sporulation or spore properties.

Small regulatory RNAs (sRNAs) that act by base-pairing are the most abundant posttranscriptional regulators in all three kingdoms of life. Over the past 20 years, a variety of approaches have been employed to discover chromosome-encoded sRNAs in a multitude of bacterial species. However, although largely improved bioinformatics tools are available to predict potential targets of base-pairing sRNAs, it is still challenging to confirm these targets experimentally and to elucidate the mechanisms as well as the physiological role of their sRNA-mediated regulation. Here, we provide an overview of currently known cis- and trans-encoded sRNAs from B. subtilis with known targets and defined regulatory mechanisms and on the potential role of RNA chaperones that are or might be required to facilitate sRNA regulation in this important Gram-positive model organism.

In bacterial cells we find a variety of interacting macromolecules, among them RNAs and proteins. Not only small regulatory RNAs (sRNAs), but also small proteins have been increasingly recognized as regulators of bacterial gene expression. An average bacterial genome encodes between 200 and 300 sRNAs, but an unknown number of small proteins. sRNAs can becis- ortrans-encoded. Whereascis-encoded sRNAs interact only with their single completely complementary mRNA target transcribed from the opposite DNA strand,trans-encoded sRNAs are only partially complementary to their numerous mRNA targets, resulting in huge regulatory networks. In addition to sRNAs, uncharged tRNAs can interact with mRNAs in T-box attenuation mechanisms. For a number of sRNA-mRNA interactions, the stability of sRNAs or translatability of mRNAs, RNA chaperones are required. In Gram-negative bacteria, the well-studied abundant RNA-chaperone Hfq fulfils this role, and recently another chaperone, ProQ, has been discovered and analyzed in this respect. By contrast, evidence for RNA chaperones or their role in Gram-positive bacteria is still scarce, but CsrA might be such a candidate. Other RNA-protein interactions involve tmRNA/SmpB, 6S RNA/RNA polymerase, the dual-function aconitase and protein-bound transcriptional terminators and antiterminators. Furthermore, small proteins, often missed in genome annotations and long ignored as potential regulators, can interact with individual regulatory proteins, large protein complexes, RNA or the membrane. Here, we review recent advances on biological role and regulatory principles of the currently known sRNA-mRNA interactions, sRNA-protein interactions and small protein-protein interactions in the Gram-positive model organismBacillus subtilis. We do not discuss RNases, ribosomal proteins, RNA helicases or riboswitches.

CsrA is a widely conserved, abundant small RNA binding protein that has been found in E. coli and other Gram-negative bacteria where it is involved in the regulation of carbon metabolism, biofilm formation and virulence. CsrA binds to single-stranded GGA motifs around the SD sequence of target mRNAs where it inhibits or activates translation or influences RNA processing. Small RNAs like CsrB or CsrC containing 13-22 GGA motifs can sequester CsrA, thereby abrogating the effect of CsrA on its target mRNAs. In B. subtilis, CsrA has so far only been found to regulate one target, hag mRNA and to be sequestered by a protein (FliW) and not by an sRNA. Here, we employ a combination of in vitro and in vivo methods to investigate the effect of CsrA on the small regulatory RNA SR1 from B. subtilis, its primary target ahrC mRNA and its downstream targets, the rocABC and rocDEF operons. We demonstrate that CsrA can promote the base-pairing interactions between SR1 and ahrC mRNA, a function that has so far only been found for Hfq or ProQ. Abbreviations: aa, amino acid; bp, basepair; nt, nucleotide; PAA, polyacrylamide; SD, Shine Dalgarno.

Toxin–antitoxin (TA) systems were originally discovered as plasmid maintenance systems in a multitude of free-living bacteria, but were afterwards found to also be widespread in bacterial chromosomes. TA loci comprise two genes, one coding for a stable toxin whose overexpression kills the cell or causes growth stasis, and the other coding for an unstable antitoxin that counteracts toxin action. Of the currently known six types of TA systems, in Bacillus subtilis, so far only type I and type II TA systems were found, all encoded on the chromosome. Here, we review our present knowledge of these systems, the mechanisms of antitoxin and toxin action, and the regulation of their expression, and we discuss their evolution and possible physiological role.

Glutamate is the major donor of nitrogen for anabolic reactions. The Gram-positive soil bacterium Bacillus subtilis either utilizes exogenously provided glutamate or synthesizes it using the gltAB-encoded glutamate synthase (GOGAT). In the absence of glutamate, the transcription factor GltC activates expression of the GOGAT genes for glutamate production. Consequently, a gltC mutant strain is auxotrophic for glutamate. Using a genetic selection and screening system, we could isolate and differentiate between gltC suppressor mutants in one step. All mutants had acquired the ability to synthesize glutamate, independent of GltC. We identified (i) gain-of-function mutations in the gltR gene, encoding the transcription factor GltR, (ii) mutations in the promoter of the gltAB operon and (iii) massive amplification of the genomic locus containing the gltAB operon. The mutants belonging to the first two classes constitutively expressed the gltAB genes and produced sufficient glutamate for growth. By contrast, mutants that belong to the third class appeared most frequently and solved glutamate limitation by increasing the copy number of the poorly expressed gltAB genes. Thus, glutamate auxotrophy of a B. subtilis gltC mutant can be relieved in multiple ways. Moreover, recombination-dependent amplification of the gltAB genes is the predominant mutational event indicating a hierarchy of mutations.

The threonine dehydratase IlvA is part of the isoleucine biosynthesis pathway in the Gram-positive model bacterium Bacillus subtilis. Consequently, deletion of ilvA causes isoleucine auxotrophy. It has been reported that ilvA pseudo-revertants having a derepressed hom-thrCB operon appear in the presence of threonine. Here we have characterized two classes of ilvA pseudo-revertants. In the first class the hom-thrCB operon was derepressed unmasking the threonine dehydratase activity of the threonine synthase ThrC. In the second class of mutants, threonine biosynthesis was more broadly affected. The first class of ilvA pseudo-revertants had a mutation in the Phom promoter (P*hom ), resulting in constitutive expression of the hom-thrCB operon. In the second class of ilvA pseudo-revertants, the thrR gene encoding a putative DNA-binding protein was inactivated, also resulting in constitutive expression of the hom-thrCB operon. Here we demonstrate that ThrR is indeed a DNA-binding transcription factor that regulates the hom-thrCB operon and the thrD aspartokinase gene. DNA binding assays uncovered the DNA-binding site of ThrR and revealed that the repressor competes with the RNA polymerase for DNA binding. This study also revealed that ThrR orthologs are ubiquitous in genomes from the Gram-positive phylum Firmicutes and in some Gram-negative bacteria.

bsrE/SR5 is a type I TA system from prophage-like element P6 of the B. subtilis chromosome. The 256 nt bsrE RNA encodes a 30 aa toxin. The antitoxin SR5 is a 163 nt antisense RNA. Both genes overlap at their 3' ends. Overexpression of bsrE causes cell lysis on agar plates, which can be neutralized by sr5 overexpression, whereas deletion of the chromosomal sr5 copy has no effect. SR5 is short-lived with a half-life of approximate to 7 min, whereas bsrE RNA is stable with a half-life of >80 min. The sr5 promoter is 10-fold stronger than the bsrE promoter. SR5 interacts with the 3' UTR of bsrE RNA, thereby promoting its degradation by recruiting RNase III. RNase J1 is the main RNase responsible for SR5 and bsrE RNA degradation, and PnpA processes an SR5 precursor to the mature RNA. Hfq stabilizes SR5, but is not required for its inhibitory function. While bsrE RNA is affected by temperature shock and alkaline stress, the amount of SR5 is significantly influenced by various stresses, among them pH, anoxia and iron limitation. Only the latter one is dependent on sigB. Both RNAs are extremely unstable upon ethanol stress due to rapid degradation by RNase Y.