Molecular mechanism by which the Escherichia coli nucleoid occlusion factor, SlmA, keeps cytokinesis in check

Cell division or cytokinesis is one of the most fundamental processes in biology and is essential for the propagation of all living species. In Escherichia coli, cell division occurs by ingrowth of the membrane envelope at the cell center and is orchestrated by the FtsZ protein. FtsZ self-assembles into linear protofilaments in a GTP dependent manner to form a cytoskeletal scaffold called the Z-ring. The Z-ring provides the framework for the assembly of the division apparatus and determines the site of cytokinesis. The total amount of FtsZ molecules in a cell significantly exceeds the concentration required for Z-ring formation. Hence, Z-ring formation must be highly regulated, both temporally and spatially. In particular, the assembly of Z-rings at the cell poles and over chromosomal DNA must be prevented. These inhibitory roles are played by two key regulatory systems called the Min and nucleoid occlusion (NO) systems. In E. coli, Min proteins oscillate from pole to pole; the net result of this oscillatory process is the formation of a zone of FtsZ inhibition at the cell poles. However, the replicated nucleoid DNA near the midcell must also be protected from bisection by the Z-ring which is ensured by NO. A protein called SlmA was shown to be the effector of NO in E. coli. SlmA was identified in a screen designed to isolate mutations that were lethal in the absence of Min, hence the name SlmA (synthetic lethal with a defective Min system). Furthers SlmA was shown to bind DNA and localize to the nucleoid fraction of the cell. Additionally, light scattering experiments suggested that SlmA interacts with FtsZ-GTP and alters its polymerization properties. Here we describe studies that reveal the molecular mechanism by which SlmA mediates NO in E. coli. Specifically, we determined the crystal structure of SlmA, identified its DNA binding site specificity, and mapped its binding sites on the E. coli chromosome by chromatin immuno-precipitation experiments. We went on to determine the SlmA-FtsZ structure by small angle X-ray scattering and examined the effect of SlmA-DNA on FtsZ polymerization by electron microscopy. Our combined data show how SlmA is able to disrupt Z-ring formation through its interaction with FtsZ in a specific temporal and spatial manner and hence prevent nucleoid guillotining during cell division.

Molecular mechanism by which the nucleoid occlusion factor, SlmA, keeps cytokinesis in check.

In Escherichia coli, cytokinesis is orchestrated by FtsZ, which forms a Z-ring to drive septation. Spatial and temporal control of Z-ring formation is achieved by the Min and nucleoid occlusion (NO) systems. Unlike the well-studied Min system, less is known about the anti-DNA guillotining NO process. Here, we describe studies addressing the molecular mechanism of SlmA (synthetic lethal with a defective Min system)-mediated NO. SlmA contains a TetR-like DNA-binding fold, and chromatin immunoprecipitation analyses show that SlmA-binding sites are dispersed on the chromosome except the Ter region, which segregates immediately before septation. SlmA binds DNA and FtsZ simultaneously, and the SlmA-FtsZ structure reveals that two FtsZ molecules sandwich a SlmA dimer. In this complex, FtsZ can still bind GTP and form protofilaments, but the separated protofilaments are forced into an anti-parallel arrangement. This suggests that SlmA may alter FtsZ polymer assembly. Indeed, electron microscopy data, showing that SlmA-DNA disrupts the formation of normal FtsZ polymers and induces distinct spiral structures, supports this. Thus, the combined data reveal how SlmA derails Z-ring formation at the correct place and time to effect NO.

Proton therapy versus intensity modulated x-ray therapy in the treatment of prostate cancer: Estimating secondary cancer risks

External beam radiation therapy is used to treat nearly half of the more than 200,000 new cases of prostate cancer diagnosed in the United States each year. During a radiation therapy treatment, healthy tissues in the path of the therapeutic beam are exposed to high doses. In addition, the whole body is exposed to a low-dose bath of unwanted scatter radiation from the pelvis and leakage radiation from the treatment unit. As a result, survivors of radiation therapy for prostate cancer face an elevated risk of developing a radiogenic second cancer. Recently, proton therapy has been shown to reduce the dose delivered by the therapeutic beam to normal tissues during treatment compared to intensity modulated x-ray therapy (IMXT, the current standard of care). However, the magnitude of stray radiation doses from proton therapy, and their impact on this incidence of radiogenic second cancers, was not known. ^ The risk of a radiogenic second cancer following proton therapy for prostate cancer relative to IMXT was determined for 3 patients of large, median, and small anatomical stature. Doses delivered to healthy tissues from the therapeutic beam were obtained from treatment planning system calculations. Stray doses from IMXT were taken from the literature, while stray doses from proton therapy were simulated using a Monte Carlo model of a passive scattering treatment unit and an anthropomorphic phantom. Baseline risk models were taken from the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII report. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to characterize the uncertainty of risk calculations to uncertainties in the risk model, the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of neutrons for carcinogenesis, and inter-patient anatomical variations. ^ The risk projections revealed that proton therapy carries a lower risk for radiogenic second cancer incidence following prostate irradiation compared to IMXT. The sensitivity analysis revealed that the results of the risk analysis depended only weakly on uncertainties in the risk model and inter-patient variations. Second cancer risks were sensitive to changes in the RBE of neutrons. However, the findings of the study were qualitatively consistent for all patient sizes and risk models considered, and for all neutron RBE values less than 100. ^