Search for: All records

Bacillus subtilis is a widely studied Gram-positive bacterium that serves as an important model for understanding processes critical for several areas of biology including biotechnology and human health. B. subtilis has several advantages as a model organism: it is easily grown under laboratory conditions, it has a rapid doubling time, it is relatively inexpensive to maintain, and it is nonpathogenic. Over the last 50 years, advancements in genetic engineering have continued to make B. subtilis a genetic workhorse in scientific discovery. In this chapter, we describe methods for traditional gene disruptions, use of gene deletion libraries from the Bacillus Genetic Stock Center, allelic exchange, CRISPRi, and CRISPR/Cas9. Additionally, we provide general materials and equipment needed, strengths and limitations, time considerations, and troubleshooting notes to perform each method. Use of the methods outlined in this chapter will allow researchers to create gene insertions, deletions, substitutions, and RNA interference strains through a variety of methods custom to each application. 

Abstract The genomes of organisms from all three domains of life harbor endogenous base modifications in the form of DNA methylation. In bacterial genomes, methylation occurs on adenosine and cytidine residues to include N6-methyladenine (m6A), 5-methylcytosine (m5C), and N4-methylcytosine (m4C). Bacterial DNA methylation has been well characterized in the context of restriction-modification (RM) systems, where methylation regulates DNA incision by the cognate restriction endonuclease. Relative to RM systems less is known about how m6A contributes to the epigenetic regulation of cellular functions in Gram-positive bacteria. Here, we characterize site-specific m6A modifications in the non-palindromic sequence GACGmAG within the genomes of Bacillus subtilis strains. We demonstrate that the yeeA gene is a methyltransferase responsible for the presence of m6A modifications. We show that methylation from YeeA does not function to limit DNA uptake during natural transformation. Instead, we identify a subset of promoters that contain the methylation consensus sequence and show that loss of methylation within promoter regions causes a decrease in reporter expression. Further, we identify a transcriptional repressor that preferentially binds an unmethylated promoter used in the reporter assays. With these results we suggest that m6A modifications in B. subtilis function to promote gene expression. 

RNA‐DNA hybrids form throughout the chromosome during normal growth and under stress conditions. When left unresolved, RNA‐DNA hybrids can slow replication fork progression, cause DNA breaks, and increase mutagenesis. To remove hybrids, all organisms use ribonuclease H (RNase H) to specifically degrade the RNA portion. Here we show that, in addition to chromosomally encoded RNase HII and RNase HIII,Bacillus subtilisNCIB 3610 encodes a previously uncharacterized RNase HI protein, RnhP, on the endogenous plasmid pBS32. Like other RNase HI enzymes, RnhP incises Okazaki fragments, ribopatches, and a complementary RNA‐DNA hybrid. We show that while chromosomally encoded RNase HIII is required for pBS32 hyper‐replication, RnhP compensates for the loss of RNase HIII activity on the chromosome. Consequently, loss of RnhP and RNase HIII impairs bacterial growth. We show that the decreased growth rate can be explained by laggard replication fork progression near the terminus region of the right replichore, resulting in SOS induction and inhibition of cell division. We conclude that all three functional RNase H enzymes are present inB. subtilisNCIB 3610 and that the plasmid‐encoded RNase HI contributes to chromosome stability, while the chromosomally encoded RNase HIII is important for chromosome stability and plasmid hyper‐replication.

 

Bacteria coordinate DNA replication and cell division, ensuring a complete set of genetic material is passed onto the next generation. When bacteria encounter DNA damage, a cell cycle checkpoint is activated by expressing a cell division inhibitor. The prevailing model is that activation of the DNA damage response and protease‐mediated degradation of the inhibitor is sufficient to regulate the checkpoint process. Our recent genome‐wide screens identified the geneddcAas critical for surviving exposure to DNA damage. Similar to the checkpoint recovery proteases, the DNA damage sensitivity resulting fromddcAdeletion depends on the checkpoint enforcement protein YneA. Using several genetic approaches, we show that DdcA function is distinct from the checkpoint recovery process. Deletion ofddcAresulted in sensitivity toyneAoverexpression independent of YneA protein levels and stability, further supporting the conclusion that DdcA regulates YneA independent of proteolysis. Using a functional GFP‐YneA fusion we found that DdcA prevents YneA‐dependent cell elongation independent of YneA localization. Together, our results suggest that DdcA acts by helping to set a threshold of YneA required to establish the cell cycle checkpoint, uncovering a new regulatory step controlling activation of the DNA damage checkpoint inBacillus subtilis.