, 2012). Loss of the dcm gene then leads to increased expression of rpoS and rpoS-dependent genes. The model was supported by increased expression of rpoS in the absence of the dcm gene in microarray, qPCR, and Western blot experiments (Kahramanoglou et al., 2012). To determine whether this model could apply to sugE, we determined whether the sugE gene is under control of RpoS itself by measuring sugE RNA levels via qPCR in an rpoS knockout strain. In the rpoS knockout strain, sugE RNA levels were c. 14-fold lower at logarithmic phase and c. 25-fold selleck compound lower at stationary phase (Table 2C, P < 0.05). Thus, a simple model is that Dcm normally represses rpoS expression, which is required for robust sugE expression.

In the absence of the dcm gene, sugE is expressed at a higher level in an rpoS-dependent manner. This model does not preclude Dcm directly influencing sugE expression via methylation of 5′CCWGG3′ sites. Determining

the precise mechanism by which Dcm influences rpoS expression will be a high priority. Kahramanoglou et al. have identified 5′CCWGG3′ sites that could be required for direct Dcm-mediated repression of rpoS expression (Kahramanoglou et al., 2012). 5′CCWGG3′ sites are found in the gene body, and 5′ flanking region that harbors multiple promoters (Fig. S1B). Next, we were interested in determining whether Dcm influences sensitivity to antibacterial compounds via increased expression of sugE. We characterized the sensitivity Verteporfin purchase of the wild-type strain, dcm knockout strain, and sugE knockout strain to several antibacterial compounds using disk diffusion assays (Table 3) and MIC assays (Table 4). The compounds were chosen based Selleck Roxadustat on potential SugE substrates

that are QACs (BZA, CTAB, CPC, DAB), Lip. Cat. Cmpds (ETBR, TPPC), and antibiotics that have not been associated with SugE-mediated resistance in most reports (chloramphenicol, gentamicin, kanamycin, tetracycline) (Nishino & Yamaguchi, 2001; Chung & Saier, 2002; He et al., 2011; Cruz et al., 2013). Significant differences were not observed for the majority of compounds including QACs. It should be noted that in E. coli, SugE-mediated resistance to QACs such as CTAB in previous studies was generated by overexpression from high copy number plasmids (e.g. pUC series) (Chung & Saier, 2002). SugE knockout cells may not have the reverse phenotype of sugE overexpressing cells as the levels of SugE protein in overexpressing cells may be extremely high. However, there was a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) in ETBR sensitivity in the disk diffusion assays, and the same differences were found in the MIC assays. In these assays, the sugE knockout strain was more sensitive to ETBR indicating that SugE normally protects the cell against this compound. The simplest model is that SugE is able to pump ETBR out of the cell, as SugE has been shown previously to bind to ETBR (Sikora & Turner, 2005).