DNA damage response coregulator ddrR affects many cellular pathways and processes in Acinetobacter baumannii 17978.

Introduction: Acinetobacter baumannii strain 17978 is an opportunistic pathogen possessing a DNA damage response (DDR) in which multiple error-prone polymerase genes are co-repressed by a UmuD homolog, UmuDAb, and the small Acinetobacter-specific protein DdrR. Additionally, these regulators coactivate nine other genes. We identified the DNA damage-inducible transcriptome for wildtype, umuDAb, and recA strains, and later established the ddrR DDR transcriptome. However, the ATCC 17978 reference genome had several assembly errors and lacked the 44 kb virulence locus, AbaAL44, that is present in the strain 17978 UN. Methods: For this project, we combined our earlier single-end read RNAseq data with the ddrR paired-end reads and aligned these data to the improved 17978 UN genome assembly that resembled our laboratory strain, 17978 JH. Results: New DESeq2 analyses verified previous differentially expressed genes (DEGs) but also found 339 genes in 17978 JH that were not annotated or physically present in the older genome assembly. Sixty-three were differentially expressed after DNA damage, and 182 had differential basal expression when comparing umuDAb, ddrR, or recA strains to wildtype, with 94 genes' expression unchanged. This work identified and characterized the 55 gene DNA damage-repressible transcriptome, 98% of which required either umuDAb or ddrR for repression. Two-thirds of these DEGs required both regulators. We also identified 110 genes repressed only in the ddrR strain, ~50% of which were due to increased basal expression levels. Basal gene expression in the ddrR mutant was further dysregulated independent of the DDR. Over 800 genes were upregulated, and over 1200 genes were downregulated compared to wildtype expression. Half of A. baumannii's essential genes were upregulated in the ddrR strain, including cell division genes, and two-thirds of these were downregulated in the umuDAb strain. Discussion: The ddrR mutant upregulated genes enriched in translation, RNA metabolism, protein metabolism, AA/FA/cell-structure synthesis, and transport, while downregulating genes enriched in quorum sensing, biofilm production, secretion systems, pilus production, cell adhesion, and aromatics and chlorine degradation. Our data underscore the need for accurate and appropriately matched genome assemblies and indicate that ddrR affects approximately 60% of the genome, rendering it a potential target for Acinetobacter baumannii infection treatment.

The DdrR Coregulator of the Acinetobacter baumannii Mutagenic DNA Damage Response Potentiates UmuDAb Repression of Error-Prone Polymerases.

Acinetobacter baumannii strain 17978 is an opportunistic pathogen with a unique DNA damage repair response that lacks the LexA repressor but induces ~150 genes after DNA damage. It uses the UmuD homolog UmuDAb and the small protein DdrR, unique to Acinetobacter, to repress multiple horizontally acquired umuDC error-prone polymerase genes through an unknown mechanism. We used reverse transcription-quantitative PCR and immunoblotting to elucidate UmuDAb regulatory requirements and DdrR contributions to the corepression of this specialized regulon. Mutations in the putative UmuDAb helix-turn-helix (HTH) domain could not repress the expression of the UmuDAb/DdrR regulon. A ddrR insertion mutation in these HTH mutant backgrounds produced even greater derepression of the regulon, suggesting that DdrR exerts an additional level of control over this mutagenic response. These ddrR HTH mutant A. baumannii cells overexpressed UmuDAb, cleaving it after treatment with the DNA-damaging agent mitomycin C. This showed that DdrR was not required for UmuDAb self-cleavage and that UmuDAb repression and self-cleavage actions were independent. An uncleavable umuDAb mutant with an A-to-Y change at position 83 (A83Y) could neither induce the UmuDAb/DdrR regulon nor conduct SOS mutagenesis. However, a prophage-encoded umuDrumB operon was still partially induced after DNA damage in this mutant. Surprisingly, that prophage's putative repressor was dispensable for prophage-encoded umuDrumB induction, implying another repressor's involvement. This study revealed that UmuDAb behaves like LexA, requiring an N-terminal HTH motif for repression and C-terminal self-cleavage for gene induction and subsequent SOS mutagenesis, and DdrR cooperates with it to exert an additional level of repressive control on this pathogen's mutagenic response to DNA damage. IMPORTANCE Acinetobacter baumannii is a nosocomial pathogen that acquires antibiotic resistance genes through conjugative transfer and carries out a robust mutagenic DNA damage response. After exposure to conditions typically encountered in health care settings, such as antibiotics, UV light, and desiccation, this species induces error-prone UmuD'2C polymerases. This mutagenic capability increases A. baumannii survival and virulence and is regulated by the UmuDAb/DdrR corepressor system unique to the Acinetobacter genus. Our study has revealed that the DdrR protein provides an additional layer of control in preventing mutagenic polymerase expression by enhancing UmuDAb repression actions. Understanding these repressors could lead to new drug targets, as multidrug resistance in hospital-acquired infections has decreased treatment options, with limited new drugs being developed.

A corepressor participates in LexA-independent regulation of error-prone polymerases in Acinetobacter.

The DNA damage response of the multidrug-resistant pathogen Acinetobacter baumannii, which induces mutagenic UmuD'2C error-prone polymerases, differs from that of many bacteria. Acinetobacter species lack a LexA repressor, but induce gene transcription after DNA damage. One regulator, UmuDAb, binds to and represses the promoters of the multiple A. baumannii ATCC 17978 umuDC alleles and the divergently transcribed umuDAb and ddrR genes. ddrR is unique to the genus Acinetobacter and of unknown function. 5' RACE (rapid amplification of cDNA ends) PCR mapping of the umuDAb and ddrR transcriptional start sites revealed that their -35 promoter elements overlapped the UmuDAb binding site, suggesting that UmuDAb simultaneously repressed expression of both genes by blocking polymerase access. This coordinated control of ddrR and umuDAb suggested that ddrR might also regulate DNA damage-inducible gene transcription. RNA-sequencing experiments in 17 978 ddrR- cells showed that ddrR regulated approximately 25 % (n=39) of the mitomycin C-induced regulon, with umuDAb coregulating 17 of these ddrR-regulated genes. Eight genes (the umuDC polymerases, umuDAb and ddrR) were de-repressed in the absence of DNA damage, and nine genes were uninduced in the presence of DNA damage, in both ddrR and umuDAb mutant strains. These data suggest ddrR has multiple roles, both as a co-repressor and as a positive regulator of DNA damage-inducible gene transcription. Additionally, 57 genes were induced by mitomycin C in the ddrR mutant but not in wild-type cells. This regulon contained multiple genes for DNA replication, recombination and repair, transcriptional regulators, RND efflux, and transport. This study uncovered another regulator of the atypical DNA damage response of this genus, to help describe how this pathogen acquires drug resistance through its expression of the error-prone polymerases under DdrR and UmuDAb control.

UmuDAb: An Error-Prone Polymerase Accessory Homolog Whose N-Terminal Domain Is Required for Repression of DNA Damage Inducible Gene Expression in Acinetobacter baylyi.

In many bacteria, the DNA damage response induces genes (SOS genes) that were repressed by LexA. LexA represses transcription by binding to SOS promoters via a helix-turn-helix motif in its N-terminal domain (NTD). Upon DNA damage, LexA cleaves itself and allows induction of transcription. In Acinetobacter baumannii and Acinetobacter baylyi, multiple genes are induced by DNA damage, and although the Acinetobacter genus lacks LexA, a homolog of the error-prone polymerase subunit UmuD, called UmuDAb, regulates some DNA damage-induced genes. The mechanism of UmuDAb regulation has not been determined. We constructed UmuDAb mutant strains of A. baylyi to test whether UmuDAb mediates gene regulation through LexA-like repressor actions consisting of relief of repression through self-cleavage after DNA damage. Real-time quantitative PCR experiments in both a null umuDAb mutant and an NTD mutant showed that the DNA damage-inducible, UmuDAb-regulated gene ddrR was highly expressed even in the absence of DNA damage. Protein modeling identified a potential LexA-like helix-turn-helix structure in the UmuDAb NTD, which when disrupted, also relieved ddrR and umuDAb repression under non-inducing conditions. Mutations in a putative SOS box in the shared umuDAb-ddrR promoter region similarly relieved these genes' repression under non-inducing conditions. Conversely, cells possessing a cleavage-deficient UmuDAb were unable to induce gene expression after MMC-mediated DNA damage. This evidence of a UmuDAb repressor mechanism was contrasted with the failure of umuDAb to complement an Escherichia coli umuD mutant for UmuD error-prone DNA replication activity. Similarly, A. baumannii null umuDAb mutant cells did not have a reduced UmuD'2UmuC-mediated mutation rate after DNA damage, suggesting that although this UmuDAb protein may have evolved from a umuDC operon in this genus, it now performs a LexA-like repressor function for a sub-set of DNA damage-induced genes.

Prophage induction and differential RecA and UmuDAb transcriptome regulation in the DNA damage responses of Acinetobacter baumannii and Acinetobacter baylyi.

The SOS response to DNA damage that induces up to 10% of the prokaryotic genome requires RecA action to relieve LexA transcriptional repression. In Acinetobacter species, which lack LexA, the error-prone polymerase accessory UmuDAb is instead required for ddrR induction after DNA damage, suggesting it might be a LexA analog. RNA-Seq experiments defined the DNA damage transcriptome (mitomycin C-induced) of wild type, recA and umuDAb mutant strains of both A. baylyi ADP1 and A. baumannii ATCC 17978. Of the typical SOS response genes, few were differentially regulated in these species; many were repressed or absent. A striking 38.4% of all ADP1 genes, and 11.4% of all 17978 genes, were repressed under these conditions. In A. baylyi ADP1, 66 genes (2.0% of the genome), including a CRISPR/Cas system, were DNA damage-induced, and belonged to four regulons defined by differential use of recA and umuDAb. In A. baumannii ATCC 17978, however, induction of 99% of the 152 mitomycin C-induced genes depended on recA, and only 28 of these genes required umuDAb for their induction. 90% of the induced A. baumannii genes were clustered in three prophage regions, and bacteriophage particles were observed after mitomycin C treatment. These prophages encoded esvI, esvK1, and esvK2, ethanol-stimulated virulence genes previously identified in a Caenorhabditis elegans model, as well as error-prone polymerase alleles. The induction of all 17978 error-prone polymerase alleles, whether prophage-encoded or not, was recA dependent, but only these DNA polymerase V-related genes were de-repressed in the umuDAb mutant in the absence of DNA damage. These results suggest that both species possess a robust and complex DNA damage response involving both recA-dependent and recA-independent regulons, and further demonstrates that although umuDAb has a specialized role in repressing error-prone polymerases, additional regulators likely participate in these species' transcriptional response to DNA damage.

The Acinetobacter regulatory UmuDAb protein cleaves in response to DNA damage with chimeric LexA/UmuD characteristics.

In the DNA damage response of most bacteria, UmuD forms part of the error-prone (UmuD'(2) )C polymerase V and is activated for this function by self-cleavage after DNA damage. However, the umuD homolog (umuDAb) present throughout the Acinetobacter genus encodes an extra N-terminal region, and in Acinetobacter baylyi, regulates transcription of DNA damage-induced genes. UmuDAb expressed in cells was correspondingly larger (24 kDa) than the Escherichia coli UmuD (15 kDa). DNA damage from mitomycin C or UV exposure caused UmuDAb cleavage in both E. coli wild-type and ΔumuD cells on a timescale resembling UmuD, but did not require UmuD. Like the self-cleaving serine proteases LexA and UmuD, UmuDAb required RecA for cleavage. This cleavage produced a UmuDAb' fragment of a size consistent with the predicted cleavage site of Ala83-Gly84. Site-directed mutations at Ala83 abolished cleavage, as did mutations at either the Ser119 or Lys156 predicted enzymatic residues. Co-expression of the cleavage site mutant and an enzymatic mutant did not allow cleavage, demonstrating a strictly intramolecular mechanism of cleavage that more closely resembles the LexA-type repressors than UmuD. These data show that UmuDAb undergoes a post-translational, LexA-like cleavage event after DNA damage, possibly to achieve its regulatory action.

Diverse responses to UV light exposure in Acinetobacter include the capacity for DNA damage-induced mutagenesis in the opportunistic pathogens Acinetobacter baumannii and Acinetobacter ursingii.

Error-prone and error-free DNA damage repair responses that are induced in most bacteria after exposure to various chemicals, antibiotics or radiation sources were surveyed across the genus Acinetobacter. The error-prone SOS mutagenesis response occurs when DNA damage induces a cell's umuDC- or dinP-encoded error-prone polymerases. The model strain Acinetobacter baylyi ADP1 possesses an unusual, regulatory umuD allele (umuDAb) with an extended 5' region and only incomplete fragments of umuC. Diverse Acinetobacter species were investigated for the presence of umuDC and their ability to conduct UV-induced mutagenesis. Unlike ADP1, most Acinetobacter strains possessed multiple umuDC loci containing either umuDAb or a umuD allele resembling that of Escherichia coli. The nearly omnipresent umuDAb allele was the ancestral umuD in Acinetobacter, with horizontal gene transfer accounting for over half of the umuDC operons. Despite multiple umuD(Ab)C operons in many strains, only three species conducted UV-induced mutagenesis: Acinetobacter baumannii, Acinetobacter ursingii and Acinetobacter beijerinckii. The type of umuDC locus or mutagenesis phenotype a strain possessed was not correlated with its error-free response of survival after UV exposure, but similar diversity was apparent. The survival of 30 Acinetobacter strains after UV treatment ranged over five orders of magnitude, with the Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-A. baumannii (Acb) complex and haemolytic strains having lower survival than non-Acb or non-haemolytic strains. These observations demonstrate that a genus can possess a range of DNA damage response mechanisms, and suggest that DNA damage-induced mutation could be an important part of the evolution of the emerging pathogens A. baumannii and A. ursingii.

A constitutively expressed, truncated umuDC operon regulates the recA-dependent DNA damage induction of a gene in Acinetobacter baylyi strain ADP1.

In response to environmentally caused DNA damage, SOS genes are up-regulated due to RecA-mediated relief of LexA repression. In Escherichia coli, the SOS umuDC operon is required for DNA damage checkpoint functions and for replicating damaged DNA in the error-prone process called SOS mutagenesis. In the model soil bacterium Acinetobacter baylyi strain ADP1, however, the content, regulation, and function of the umuDC operon are unusual. The umuC gene is incomplete, and a remnant of an ISEhe3-like transposase has replaced the middle 57% of the umuC coding region. The umuD open reading frame is intact, but it is 1.5 times the size of other umuD genes and has an extra 5' region that lacks homology to known umuD genes. Analysis of a umuD::lacZ fusion showed that umuD was expressed at very high levels in both the absence and presence of mitomycin C and that this expression was not affected in a recA-deficient background. The umuD mutation did not affect the growth rate or survival after UV-induced DNA damage. However, the UmuD-like protein found in ADP1 (UmuDAb) was required for induction of an adjacent DNA damage-inducible gene, ddrR. The umuD mutation specifically reduced the DNA damage induction of the RecA-dependent DNA damage-inducible ddrR locus by 83% (from 12.9-fold to 2.3-fold induction), but it did not affect the 33.9-fold induction of benA, an unrelated benzoate degradation gene. These data suggest that the response of the ADP1 umuDC operon to DNA damage is unusual and that UmuDAb specifically regulates the expression of at least one DNA damage-inducible gene.

Dissecting the PhoP regulatory network of Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica.

Genetic and genomic approaches have been successfully used to assign genes to distinct regulatory networks. However, the present challenge of distinguishing differentially regulated genes within a network is particularly hard because members of a given network tend to have similar regulatory features. We have addressed this challenge by developing a method, termed Gene Promoter Scan, that discriminates coregulated promoters by simultaneously considering both multiple cis promoter features and gene expression. Here, we apply this method to probe the regulatory networks governed by the PhoP/PhoQ two-component system in the enteric bacteria Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica. Our analysis uncovered members of the PhoP regulon and interactions with other regulatory systems that were not discovered in previous approaches. The predictions made by Gene Promoter Scan were experimentally validated to establish that the PhoP protein uses multiple mechanisms to control gene transcription, regulates acid resistance determinants, and is a central element in a highly connected network.