Each promoter has a control lane (-) that contains no protein, a binding reaction that contains either Ma or Mth MsvR (200 nM) in the absence of DTT (non-reduced, +), and a binding reaction that contains either Ma or Mth MsvR (200 nM) in the presence of 5 mM DTT (reduced, R). (c) EMSA assay (10 nM Ma P msvR DNA) with decreasing concentrations of reduced MaMsvR (5 mM DTT) [monomer] 1 μM, 500 nM, 250 nM, 125 nM, 62.5 nM, 31.3 nM, 15.6

nM, 7.8 nM, and 3.9 nM. (d) EMSA assay (10 nM Mth P msvR/fpaA DNA) with decreasing concentrations of reduced MaMsvR (5 mM DTT) [monomer] 1 μM, 500 nM, 250 nM, 125 nM, 62.5 nM, 31.3 nM, 15.6 nM, 7.8 nM, and 3.9 nM. (e) EMSA assay (10 nM VS-4718 Mth P msvR/fpaA DNA) with decreasing concentrations of reduced MthMsvR (5 mM DTT) [monomer] 1 μM, 500 nM, 250 nM, 125 nM, 62.5 nM, 31.3 nM, 15.6 nM, 7.8 nM, and 3.9 nM. The observed promoter binding behavior of MaMsvR is consistent with the hypothesis that MaMsvR acts as a transcription repressor of Ma P msvR under reducing conditions. An oxidizing environment inhibits Ma P msvR binding, likely leading to derepression. A mechanism for MthMsvR is less clear. Under reducing conditions, GDC-0994 concentration MthMsvR functions

as a transcription repressor in vitro, yet MthMsvR binds the promoter under both reducing and non-reducing conditions. To reconcile this apparent discrepancy, it has been proposed that MthMsvR follows a mechanism reminiscent of the well-characterized redox regulator, OxyR, which binds DNA irrespective 17-DMAG (Alvespimycin) HCl of redox status but has different effects on transcription under varying redox conditions [9, 26]. These effects would likely be regulated by conformational changes in MthMsvR between the oxidized and reduced states. However, addressing this experimentally has been problematic because of

both the limitations of the M. thermautotrophicus in vitro transcription system, which requires reducing conditions, and the complexity of the divergent promoter structure within Mth P msvR/fpaA . MaMsvR exhibits different DNA binding patterns than MthMsvR MaMsvR appears to produce higher molecular weight complexes on Mth P msvR/fpaA as movement of the DNA is further retarded in the gel compared to the shifted complex seen on Ma P msvR (Dinaciclib supplier Figure 2a, c, and d). Consistent with previously published data, MthMsvR binding to Mth P msvR/fpaA produced two distinct multiple shifted complexes, suggesting that varying stoichiometries of MthMsvR bound to Mth P msvR/fpaA (Figure 2b) [9]. In contrast, only one shifted complex was seen with MaMsvR (Figure 2a, c, and d). To determine if MaMsvR was capable of producing complexes of varying stoichiometry, increasing concentrations of MaMsvR were incubated with Ma P msvR (Figure 2c) or Mth P msvR/fpaA (Figure 2d). Even at concentrations of one hundred-fold excess MaMsvR over DNA, only a single shifted complex was observed for either promoter.