ArticleJournal of bacteriology2006
Evidence that the promoter can influence assembly of antitermination complexes at downstream RNA sites.
Article in Journal of bacteriology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanisms of physiological regulation of RNA synthesis in bacteria: new discoveries breaking old schemes.Journal of applied genetics · 2007Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The N protein of phage lambda acts with Escherichia coli Nus proteins at RNA sites, NUT, to modify RNA polymerase (RNAP) to a form that overrides transcription terminators. These interactions have been thought to be the primary determinants of the effectiveness of N-mediated antitermination. We present evidence that the associated promoter, in this case the lambda early P(R) promoter, can influence N-mediated modification of RNAP even though modification occurs at a site (NUTR) located downstream of the intervening cro gene. As predicted by genetic analysis and confirmed by in vivo transcription studies, a combination of two mutations in P(R), at positions -14 and -45 (yielding P(R-GA)), reduces effectiveness of N modification, while an additional mutation at position -30 (yielding P(R-GCA)) suppresses this effect. In vivo, the level of P(R-GA)-directed transcription was twice as great as the wild-type level, while transcription directed by P(R-GCA) was the same as that directed by the wild-type promoter. However, the rate of open complex formation at P(R-GA) in vitro was roughly one-third the rate for wild-type P(R). We ascribe this apparent discrepancy to an effect of the mutations in P(R-GCA) on promoter clearance. Based on the in vivo experiments, one plausible explanation for our results is that increased transcription can lead to a failure to form active antitermination complexes with NUT RNA, which, in turn, causes failure to read through downstream termination sites. By blocking antitermination and thus expression of late functions, the effect of increased transcription through nut sites could be physiologically important in maintaining proper regulation of gene expression early in phage development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.